Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my position on an issue that I know is of great concern to my constituents in Rhode Island and the Nation at large. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently proposed regulations which would impact the lives of thousands of Rhode Islanders suffering from respiratory problems such as asthma and cystic fibrosis. These new regulations would begin to phase out metered dose inhalers, which are used as the primary delivery apparatus of medication to over 14 million citizens with respiratory ailments. This action is being taken to help the United States implement the Montreal Protocol Treaty in which 49 countries have agreed to work toward eliminating substances that deplete the ozone layer and contribute to the effect known as global warming. As an environmentalist, I strongly support the work of the Montreal Protocol and its goal to improve the quality of our lives by protecting our environment. Over the last 10 years, this international initiative has greatly contributed to reducing dangerous diseases like cataracts and skin cancer which are directly associated with ozone layer depletion. Scientists have identified that chloroflurocarbons are one of the elements which cause global warming and ozone layer depletion. In accordance with the Montreal Protocol, the United States has worked to greatly reduce the presence of chloroflurocarbons in many of our daily life products such as aerosol containers and air conditioners. Unfortunately, the FDA's proposal concerning metered dose inhalers creates a Catch-22. Some 30 million Americans, particularly children and elderly, are faced with respiratory disease which requires the use of inhalers. These medications are proven to be safe and effective by the FDA. Moreover, they are cost effective, providing many citizens, especially those in low-income situations, access to prescription medication. Asthma, in particular, is getting the best of many of our citizens. More than 20,000 children in Rhode Island live with asthma and it is the No. 1 reason for school absences. Over 5,000 people die each year from asthma complications. As an asthmatic, I can definitively say that this is a serious public health threat. The FDA's preliminary proposal may have a dramatic effect on the availability of affordable asthma medication. Restricting metered dose inhalers may create a situation which will decrease the ability of those with asthma and cystic fibrosis to obtain the medication that they need so desperately. As a result, the new method of medication for asthma has the potential, because of existing market forces, to be far more expensive in the next few years. My asthma medication costs exceed $100 per month, which I am fortunate to have the ability to pay. But the families of thousands of children, as well as the elderly, are struggling to meet their prescription needs. Ironically, the FDA may be inadvertently driving up the cost of asthma medication in its attempt to implement what is essentially an excellent international treaty with noble purposes. While I applaud the efforts and innovations of certain companies to create new forms of respiratory medication, there is a potential cost factor associated with these innovations when they first reach the market. This immediate change in potential cost, which impacts millions of working-class families, is of great concern to me. I want to strongly encourage the private sector and the FDA to keep pushing the envelope to bring our Nation in alignment with the Montreal Protocol. But to potentially limit an approved medical product before the new ones are universally accessible and affordable is simply premature. If the price for asthma medication rises and more children and elderly are unable to get their medication, we will have a public health crisis on our hands. The bottom line must be the protection of public health. I would hope we can reduce chlorofluorocarbons without restricting metered dose inhaler use, which are responsible for less than 1 percent of all atmospheric chlorine in the Earth's ozone layer. Clearly, there must be another alternative to reduce global warming and chlorofluorocarbon production without harming the people we are ironically trying to protect through improved environmental quality. The Montreal Protocol has specifically authorized essential use allowances until the year 2005 for certain products like metered dose inhalers because they are so important. In my view, metered dose inhalers are categorically essential because so many people depend on them. That is the bottom line that we must commit to, and that is a line we should not cross until we are sure that everyone who suffers from asthma and other respiratory ailments have full access to any new products that come to the marketplace. The Montreal Protocol is a step in the right direction. The United States should make every effort to comply with this beneficial treaty. We should also, if proven necessary, move toward a new form of respiratory medication that does not contain a chlorofluorocarbon- producing element. Yet in our zeal, we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Until the new methods are proven in the marketplace, our first national responsibility must be to the millions of Americans whose lives depend on the metered dose inhalers that are available and accessible today.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, because of a delay in transportation, I was regrettably absent for rollcall vote No. 369, concerning the Blunt amendment. If I had been present for that vote I would have voted ``no.'' personnal explanation

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I hate that label because you know what, we are having to tax in 1993 to pay for all the deficit spending. What the gentleman's party is all about is borrow and spend.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the reason I am going to be voting against this tax cut is that I do not think it is good public policy for this country. I came in in the 104th Congress and I heard a lot from my Republican colleagues how they wanted to balance the budget, reduce deficit spending, preserve prosperity for the future of this country. Guess what? Two years into the leadership, guess what they do? They go back to the voodoo economics that got us into this deficit dilemma to begin with. Just understand what this rule is saying. It puts in order a tax bill that will basically lock in a tax cut to the tune of $290 billion over 10 years. As the gentleman before me from my side of the aisle, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] said repeatedly, four times, the top 20 percent of the income filers get four times the tax benefit as the bottom 60 percent. So it locks this tax cut in. Guess what else it locks in? It locks in spending reductions, we are not hearing about that, Mr. Speaker, spending reductions like a 23- percent cut in the Social Security Administration. Guess what that means? Elderly citizens in my district who are trying to arbitrate to get their Social Security check, who are already waiting 3 months right now, are going to have to wait an additional year. Why are they going to have to wait an additional year to get their measly $435 a month? Because we want to give a $16,000-a-year tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. Does that sound fair to the Members? I do not think it does. But do Members know what this rule does? It shoves this tax bill down the throats of the American people, because they do not know what is in it. They do not know what is in it. If we had enough time to debate this issue, which our majority is not giving us, if we had enough time to debate this, I could make sure my constituents in Rhode Island know what the true facts are about the distribution tables in this tax cut. But we are going to rush this thing through because we have to get out on vacation. We have to wrap business up by tomorrow, because we have to get out of town. Everyone loves this tax break, because in the words of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Deborah Pryce], there is something in this for everybody. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? This is going to cost us. When future Congresses which have to pay for these tax cuts want to cut Social Security, want to cut veterans affairs, want to cut Medicare $115 billion, guess what, they are not going to do it. Guess what is going to happen? We are going to end up borrowing again. So the same crowd that told us that they were all anxious about deficit spending, guess what, not so. If we need proof of it, read this tax bill. It is Ronald Reagan trickle-down economics all over again. They give $500 to a middle-income family. Mr. Speaker, $500 for a middle-class family, while they give $16,000 tax cuts to the richest 1 percent, can Members answer that, is that fair?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing along with Chairman Jim Leach, the international criminal court resolution. The resolution establishes the sense of the U.S. Congress that our Nation should continue to support and fully participate in negotiations at the United Nations to establish a permanent international criminal court. It also states that we should provide any assistance necessary to expedite such establishment. The resolution is the product of the consultation and input of numerous groups and experts on war crimes, and international human rights, including the Holocaust Museum Committee on Conscience, the U.S. Department of State, and the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court. I have been interested in the subject of war crimes for both of my terms in Congress. In particular, my interest was heightened when I visited the Hague last year and had an opportunity to meet with Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald at that time. The work of that tribunal cannot be overestimated or overvalued. What I saw at the Hague was the dedication and hard work of several principled judicial representatives aiming to bring justice and a sense of peace back to a troubled region of the world. We have seen major developments recently at the tribunal, including: its first verdict and sentencing of a 20-year prison term. The first war crimes proceeding against a commanding officer, since the end of World War II and the first NATO operation to arrest Bosnians accused of war crimes conducted by British troops with United States support. Despite these actions and successes, the problem of war crimes is not dissipating. The recent atrocities committed in Rwanda, Zaire, Bosnia, and Cambodia are examples of why this court establishment is necessary now. We must never forget that international crimes such as genocide, and crimes against humanity are antithetical to peace and security. The incident of such crimes have a destructive and harmful effect on our efforts to establish world peace. The failure to prosecute individuals suspected of these offenses reduces our opportunity, and more importantly, our responsibility, to protect the human rights of all individuals. A permanent ICC with jurisdiction to try the most serious international crimes is an effective device to bring us closer to ending human rights abuses. The court will ensure that the law is applied in a fair and consistent manner and will act as a deterrent for future war crimes. The United Nations is already ahead of us in this effort. A preparatory committee has been established and has met to discuss the details of a draft treaty to be considered at a diplomatic conference next year. More than 120 nations are represented on this committee, including the United States. President Clinton voiced his support 2 years ago. I am pleased to announce that the resolution is endorsed by the Clinton administration and that it has the support of both the Department of Defense and Department of State. It is now time for Congress to make its support known also and I look forward to working with my colleagues for the passage of this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member, for yielding me this time, and I can tell my colleagues, having been chairman of the Committee on Rules in my State legislature in Rhode Island, I know martial law when I see it, I know a bad rule when I see it, and this is a terrible rule. When we consider the monumental bill that we have before us, that does so many huge things to this country, to think that we are going to have a debate about it for less than an hour and a half to me is just outrageous. First of all, think about this budget. This budget is not going to be balanced when we consider that we are going to front-load the tax cuts to the tune of $95 billion, and we are going to call on the spending cuts to be done in future congresses, spending cuts like the former gentleman from Oregon mentioned, up to one-third of the Social Security Administration spending cuts. I can tell my colleagues now this Congress is not going to keep the promise to cut Social Security administrative costs by 23 percent. Veterans benefits and services; it is going to cut 19 percent. Justice Department; it is going to be cut 18 percent. Now just tell me that the next Congress is going to make these cuts? I can guarantee that the tax cuts are not going to be tampered with. The tax cuts are going to be locked in, and we are not going to make the necessary cuts on the spending side because this Congress, because it will be listening to the people, will not make those cuts. This is bad for Medicare. It cuts $115 billion out of Medicare. Remember, we shut the Government down 2 years ago because of cuts that rivaled this for Medicare, yet no one is going to think twice about cutting $115 billion out of Medicare. Furthermore, they put 190,000 senior citizens in medical savings accounts. Anybody who knows this knows this is the beginning of the end of Medicare because they are going to take the healthiest and wealthiest of our senior citizens and they are going to take them out of the Medicare system, thereby ruining the system because all they are going to leave are the people who cannot pay and who are sick. So they are going to terrorize the Medicare System by not only cutting $115 billion, but they are going to, through this Medicare select and privatization of Medicare, lead to its eventual undoing. Remember the Speaker's dying on the vine that he attributed to Medicare? This is the beginning of it right now, and this is going to be in the bill that everyone is going to vote for this afternoon. And, finally, this is bad not only for the budget, as I talked about, because it front-loads the taxes and does not allow for spending cuts to be made until future congresses, bad for Medicare, but it is also bad for fairness. Do my colleagues realize that the top 5 percent of the income earners in this country are going to get four times; let me repeat this, the top 5 percent get four times what the bottom 60 percent get in this tax bill. Undisputed, my colleagues cannot deny me on that. That is fact. Get it, people? Top 5 percent in this country get 60 percent of the benefits, four times what the bottom 60 percent get. That is fact. So whatever people talk about this being a fair bill is bogus. This is not a fair bill. And, my colleagues, know what? Finally this, the Republican side, and I might add many of my colleagues on the Democratic side, will not even bring out the income distribution charts. They will not want to tell us where this deal, so to speak, really who it benefits. The reason is because we are not going to have enough time on the floor today to debate this. What we are considering right now is called a martial law. What that means is we better be thankful we even have a right to vote. Mr. Speaker, this is a dictatorship that what we are talking about here under martial law. It says, ``OK, read the newspaper, everybody, because you're not going to be able to read the agreement, because it's not going to be available to the Members of this Congress.'' I want to know as a Member of Rhode Island's delegation whether I am going to be able to go home and ask my constituents what they feel about this agreement when they know what is in this agreement. They do not know what is in this agreement. I say to my colleagues today they do not know what is in this agreement, they do not know how this is going to gut Medicare, they do not know this is going to destroy veterans and the like, and I can tell my colleagues they are leaving it to future congresses to do the dirty work. That is what this budget agreement is all about, it is promises that are not going to be kept in future congresses.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is this is a monumental agreement. The gentleman would agree with me on that?

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying that the top 5 percent get four times the tax cut as the bottom 60 percent?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. It effects $95 billion in tax cuts, 395,000 seniors going into Medicare Select, MSA's, all the cuts that are going to ensue, 15 percent in goals cuts, veterans, Social Security Administration, all that is to come down the road. All I am saying to the gentleman is under martial law, we have an hour and a half to debate that. The gentleman points out, rightfully so, that there are a lot of good Members on my side of the aisle who signed onto this. But that does not excuse the fact that we will not have adequate time to debate something that I might add, if the gentleman would yield further for a second, that I might add would consume months of debate in future Congresses. The decision we are going to make today and tomorrow is going to impact enormously on the future of this country. Yet we have an hour and a half to decide something so huge. Yet we are going to dilly-dally and spend months and months debating appropriations bills in future Congresses over just finite parts of this budget deal in the future.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my home State of Rhode Island today and missed the following votes: On rollcall No. 286, the Mink amendment to H.R. 1853 Vocational- Technical Education Act, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 287, the Kennedy of Massachusetts amendment, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 288, Mrs. Mink's motion to recommit H.R. 1853 with instructions, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 289, final passage on H.R. 1853, I would have voted ``yea''; and on rollcall No. 290, H.R. 765 the Shakelford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for organizing this special order acknowledging the 23d anniversary of the Turkish occupation of the island of Cyprus. It is imperative that we correct Cyprus' situation as a divided state. The people of Cyprus are divided into two states ruled by two governments. The Greek Cypriots in the south are ruled by the Republic of Cyprus, erected in 1960 when independence was granted. The north has been occupied by the Turkish since 1975, when they illegally invaded the island. The divided Cyprus is a story of two nations; one a well balanced democracy with three thriving parties, the other a militarily occupied area. The economic disparity in the divided Cyprus is even more pronounced. The south's economy is booming as the result of their low trade barriers and free market economies. Their GNP has risen at a record-breaking rate as unemployment falls. Meanwhile, the economy of the north has stagnated and inflation run rampant at 70 percent as the Turkish close it off from the rest of the world. For there ever to be peace and prosperity on the island of Cyprus, a unified independent government protecting all of Cyprus must be created. A critical part of such an event will be the withdrawal of Turkish troops from northern Cyprus. Only then will Cyprus become the thriving member of the European trade community it has the potential to become. In my State of Rhode Island we have a strong Greek and Cypriot community, which has brought the plight of Cyprus to my attention. 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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it is a good point the gentleman is making. The fact is, we hear a lot about this questioning of scientific data on this issue. The fact is, we can talk to any pulmonary physician, any doctor that takes care of people with asthma, emphysema, any kind of pulmonary disorder, and they will tell us, when any region of the country is in noncompliance they see a correlation between that region of the country being in noncompliance and a higher rate of incidence of asthma and hospitalizations due to pulmonary disorders. So there is not a lot of confusion. There should not be any confusion on this floor about the health effects of air pollution, and most particularly on a day like today, when we are seeing a red alert here in the District of Columbia and in my region in New England. We are seeing higher hospitalizations as a result of this poor air quality. Woe be on us if we do not do something to improve the air quality by moving forward with these EPA recommended standards.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Istook-Visclosky amendment is simply disgraceful. It is disgraceful because it demonstrates the ignorance of this U.S. House of Representatives when it comes to the fundamental issues of native American sovereignty. Proponents of this legislation just do not get it. They are building on the callous history of this Nation towards our native Americans. When 40 percent of our native Americans are unemployed, when thousands are sick and dying, when Indian children live in substandard housing and get insufficient moneys for education, the lowest per capita health care and education spending of any group in this country are native Americans. When Indians have four times the suicide rate of other groups in this country, the proponents of this legislation would like us to believe that it is the States that are getting a raw deal. Excuse me. This amendment states that it is States who are getting the raw deal. Guess what? We are the ones who took away the native American land to begin with. Everyone is talking, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is talking about the native Americans are trying to put all this land in trust. Do I need to remind my colleague that we have taken over 90 million acres to States and local governments since 1887, and yet there are only 9 million acres given to native Americans in the form of trust lands? Boy, that sounds to me like a real power grab. This rider claims that Indians are fortunate because they have sovereignty. Let me say that sovereignty is all that these native Americans have left. Sure, let us get behind the simple idea of subordinating native American governments and all native Americans to pull the poverty stricken status they are already in. The truth of the amendment is that it gives States the upper hand. By eliminating the ability to take lands into trust or by giving local governments absolute veto power over new trust lands, we forsake the government-to-government relationship, as my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], said, which is the Constitution of these United States. Read the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8, clause 2, regarding native American lands. They treat them as States. They are sovereignties. And yet the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] would not like to have us believe they are other people. Well, what are Rhode Islanders in my State? Are they other people because we pay different sales taxes than my colleague might have in his State? No, they do not because they are a separate sovereignty. And that is no different from native American lands, and it is an elementary fact to this whole debate. Of course, the great concept here is that we break treaty obligations and violate this Constitution because the States are getting a raw deal. Let us be clear. This amendment's goal is to give some county executives veto power over the president or governor of a native American nation and violate the trust responsibility that our Constitution gives native Americans. Istook-Visclosky incorrectly assumes that there is no process for protecting State and local government interests when lands are being considered for transfer into trust. As my colleagues have stated over and over again, that is not the case. Many States are currently in the process of working this out so that nonmembers of native American tribes are taxed and those taxes are reverted to the States. But the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] would preempt and preclude any State from being able to work out a negotiation with their native American tribe for that State to be able to work out an arrangement where they revert the taxes back to the State. We are talking about a discriminatory measure here. And that is what this legislation does, it furthers the intolerance towards native Americans by calling them tax evaders. That is shameful, saying native Americans are tax evaders. My God, does my colleague not understand the situation that sovereignty is all about?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to second the Parliamentarian's request that we review this amendment and concur with the gentleman from Arizona that this amendment is not in proper order.

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. This amendment treats native Americans as if they are criminals, and it is dead wrong. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the Visclosky-Istook amendment and upholding the Constitution of the United States, which we were sworn to uphold in article I, section 8, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Would the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] like to put in an amendment, bill commissaries at our military bases? Because it seems to me they are unfair competition, too. Commissaries in my district are charging well under the market price for goods that they sell to our enlisted people. Would the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] put in an amendment that would say that is unfair competition? No, he would not.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for engaging in this colloquy with me regarding the heritage areas, an initiative that I know he and the members of the committee have long supported and supported very strongly. I would like to speak particularly of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in my State of Rhode Island as well as the bordering State of Massachusetts. This is one of the real examples of State partnership between Massachusetts and Rhode Island that we have. I also want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] as well for their long work on this issue.