Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] for her leadership on this issue and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart]. But, Mr. Chairman, I want us to stop for a moment and not pat ourselves so much on the back because we are about to pass this amendment. Let us recall what created this problem in the first place. Let us recall that it was a discriminatory welfare reform bill that cut $24 billion out of legal immigrants' assistance, $24 billion that the legal immigrants of this country pay taxes for, far in excess of what they ever get back in human and social services, and yet this Congress felt there was no distinction to be made between illegal aliens and legal residents. They felt that the immigrants were such a dirty word amongst the American public that we could bash immigrants and scapegoat immigrants all the way through the last Congress, and that is exactly what the bill, that the welfare reform bill that passed last Congress, did. It made no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. Let me remind my colleagues that 24,000 legal immigrants serve in our Nation's military. Imagine them on duty in Bosnia today without us passing this bill. In essence, we are going to pass a supplemental bill to fund Bosnia, but we are not going to pass a bill that would allow-- --

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr, Chairman, we are so glad to have the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] finally acknowledging that these are legal immigrants who should not be cut off assistance. We are so glad that he has finally come around and supported this bill. Mr. Chairman, in August 3,500 of the most vulnerable residents of my State of Rhode Island will be expelled from the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] program. Mr. Chairman, these are not able bodied adults with no desire to work--these are elderly and severely disabled legal immigrants who will never be able to work. In fact, most came to the United States desiring to work hard and achieve the ``American dream'' like most citizens. Unfortunately however, they have gotten old and become ill and can no longer contribute to the economy as they once had. Mr. Chairman, without SSI, many of these elderly and disabled individuals will have no means of survival. Many live in nursing homes and will be put out once their assistance ceases. Many have no family members with the financial ability to care for someone in their condition. These people are not getting rich off the system--they are barely getting by. This is precisely why the Diaz-Balart, Meek, Shaw, Ros-Lehtinen, Kennedy amendment to extend the SSI program until the beginning of the 1998 fiscal year is so important. An extension of the SSI cutoff date would allow Congress and the Clinton administration to finalize their agreement to restore some benefits to legal immigrants. Many of these individuals who are facing termination will qualify to continue receiving SSI under the budget agreement. The 2 month gap between the cutoff date and the beginning of the 1998 fiscal year will create enormous difficulties for the Social Security Administration, health care providers, and hundreds of thousands of new Americans who will have no means of support for 2 months. An extension of the program would avert this trainwreck and maintain a decent standard of living for thousands of deserving individuals. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and support the rights of all Americans--not just those who are native-born.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Reclaiming my time, their parents, their cousins, what is the gentleman from Florida saying; that their aunt, and let us say they are over in Bosnia, that their mother or father, or their uncle or aunt who is back in the United States is not going to get cut off? Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] to respond to that question. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is it is absolutely a shame the gentleman has asked me that question when he was the author of last year's bill and yet he knows full well what we are talking about here, and that bill, Mr. Chairman----

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, instead of preventing a government shutdown, actually shuts down the democratic process. Basically, what it says is the majority can choose to pass those appropriations bills, those programs that they want to make sure are passed and they can let the others wither on the vine. The minority will not be represented under this process, make no mistake about it. Because those programs that do not have the constituency, that do not have the majority support, it is easy to let them slide when we do not have to take the vote, when we do not have to be accountable to that minority point of view. I think this is a terrible policy. I think it is much like us giving up our responsibility to our constituents. We were sent here by our constituents to represent them. If we vote for this amendment, what we are really saying is take my vote and throw it away because it will not count anything for what the people sent me to do because this vote will be a throw-away when it comes to the programs that make a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on this issue. I have to say at the outset how dismayed I have been with the votes that we have just had. I would say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that we might as well scrap the whole juvenile justice system, we might as well do that, because picking away at this a little bit at a time really makes no sense at all. If the gentleman thinks that kids should not be distinguished from adults with respect to their crimes, just be honest with everybody and tell them what the gentleman is really doing, and that is just scrapping the whole juvenile justice system. This stuff about 13-year- olds and 14-year-olds is just out of hand. I think the Scott amendment is just the way we need to go. We know the facts are that prevention works. I will give my colleagues a few statistics that I wish that the gentleman's bill had recognized. In Salt Lake City a gang prevention program led to a 30 percent reduction in gang related crimes. In Washington State, gang prevention programs reduced violence, reduced violence, that is less victims, less victims by 80 percent. The gentleman's bill puts $102,000 per cell, it costs to construct those cells, $102,000. Imagine how far that could go in putting that money behind prevention programs that work.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the base bill, the McCollum bill, is a joke. Anybody in juvenile corrections knows it is a joke. It ignores the facts. The facts are these: When we put kids in adult prison, guess what? They do not serve as much time because the judges do not have the heart to sentence a kid for as long as an adult. Second, if the kid is in jail, we are lucky they do not end up murdered or committing suicide, as my former colleague just said. Third, if they stay there long enough, they come out meaner and harder than you sent them in to begin with. Now this bill is a joke because it ignores these facts, and what is more, it ignores the fundamental truth that prevention works. And if my colleagues need to talk to States attorneys and local people, probation officers, and the like, they will tell them prevention works. Now are my colleagues serious about reducing crime or do my colleagues just want to play politics with this issue? It seems to me they just want to play politics because only 12 States will receive money on their side of the bill whereas all the States will be eligible for money with the Democratic substitute. Vote for the Democratic substitute for real solutions to this problem.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Now we have it, folks, now we have it. Remember we were just hearing a few moments ago about these particularly heinous crimes that we needed to lock these kids up for good, wave them into the adult system because the system needed to be corrected. Remember all that rhetoric. Now we are talking about what they are really after: putting conspirators, kids, 14 years old, 8th grade, in Federal court. I mean, just now, can we understand where they are going? They are playing politics with kids. It is wrong. We need to pass this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican rule and the McCollum bill. There is no question that we have to get tough on juvenile crime. Everyone in today's Chamber agrees on that issue. The debate is, how are we going to do that, and how serious are we going to be about stopping juvenile crime. The rule that we have before us prevents the true debate from ever taking place, the true debate that must take place on how to get juvenile justice. With this closed rule, the Republicans prove that they do not want to hear the truth about this issue. They do not want to hear the facts. Here are the facts. The facts show that kids sentenced to adult facilities have higher recidivism rates than kids punished in the juvenile system. Listen to that. What the Republicans want to do is seek a solution that worsens the problem and does not improve the situation. Fact two: Facts show that kids face shorter, I repeat, shorter and easier sentences in the adult system than they would under the juvenile court judges. It makes perfect sense. You have a teenager in front of you versus a hardened criminal 30 years, 40 years old. If you are the judge and you have overcrowding, who are you going to sentence? The fact of the matter is and the statistics, let me repeat, the statistics prove this, that the kids that are violent criminals get less time, which I do not think is what the gentleman wants to do, but which he ends up advocating for in supporting the Republican bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to get beyond the myths of this and we need to get to the facts. That is what we are not going to get to under this Republican closed rule because it will not give us the adequate time to debate this issue. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say how disturbed I am that we are not even going to include a child lock safety device with the purchase of firearms. It is, to me, shameful in this country, when we have 16 kids getting killed every day, that the Republican bill has no provision for a child safety lock to be sold with guns. That is another reason to vote against this rule.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me the time. I would like to also add from the outset that my State is among those 38 States that cannot even begin to access any of the funds under this bill. I might add it just shows how this bill is not a serious bill, because if it was serious in trying to change the effect of juvenile crime, it would certainly address the fact that it ignores 38 States of these United States from having access to the funds in this bill to do the kinds of things that our States feel make a difference in reducing crime. I just want to make one statement, a simple statement about this bill, and that is it does nothing, nothing to solve the problems that we are facing in juvenile crime and, in fact, it makes the problems worse. The facts show that we have a problem here. The facts show that kids sentenced to adult facilities have a higher recidivism rate than those sentenced to juvenile detention centers. Guess what this bill wants to do? It wants to send more of them to adult facilities. In essence, this bill is ignoring the facts. Second, the facts are that these kids will face shorter sentences. Because as I said earlier, judges, when faced with a teenager versus a hardened criminal, guess what the judge is going to do? They will not give them nearly the sentence they would otherwise get in the juvenile court. Guess what this bill does? Ignores the facts and sends the kids to adult jails where they will not be given the harsh sentences where those kids might need it. Third fact. These kids, if they are sent to the adult facilities, and as I said the sentences are shorter, they will come out meaner than we ever could have imagined them ever ending up if we had sent them to a juvenile center. And anybody listening to this program tonight on C- SPAN will understand me when I tell them that sending teenagers to adult correctional systems as the means to reduce recidivism, when we know the recidivism rates are higher amongst kids that go to the adult correction systems, give me a break. I want to add one more thing. It is scandalous. I say it is scandalous that we have minorities, African-Americans, that constitute 15 percent of our population, and guess what? They constitute 72 percent, I say to the gentleman from Florida, 72 percent in our juvenile system. What does the gentleman's bill do about that? We passed a law in this Congress in the early seventies that dealt with it. It was called the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. And one of the mandates of that legislation was to say this country ought to address the problem that 15 percent of our population is being incarcerated at the rate of 72 percent. It is scandalous. It is scandalous. And the gentleman's bill does nothing, I repeat, nothing, but exacerbate that problem. This Congress, with statistics like that, should turn the other way and think again before we adopt a bill that, as I said, ignores these fundamental facts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully missed rollcall vote No. 99, on May 1, 1997. If I had been present for that vote I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. We all know what is going on here. We should know what is going on here. It is nothing different from the welfare bashing that we saw in the last Congress. My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said it really well. They are playing upon a perception here. They are bashing poor people just as they bashed immigrants. Make no mistake, if the immigrants had been Irish overstays, there would not have been half the impetus to pass that bill and go after immigrants. It was the perception of Hispanic-Americans coming across the southwestern border of this country, the anecdotal mythology about legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. They did not even want to make the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is they are going to pass a policy here that says make the poor pay, because we know what the poor are. We are talking minorities here. Make the poor pay. OK? What they should be doing, if they really thought that people, the Federal Government, ought to be getting a little bit of return on its investment, which is what they are trying to cloak this argument as, then why not apply it to every other Federal contract and Federal program that is out there? They and I know why they are not doing it to defense contractors. They and I know why they are not doing it to farmers. They and I know, because that is not the same. Excuse me, it is not the same? They are receiving taxpayers' money. Why are they not volunteering? Because they know and I know what we are talking about. They are talking about a perception out there of the poor being minorities, and they are thinking, they ought to go out and work, because my taxpayers back home are sick and tired of this welfare state. It was the same mistake they made with the immigrant, the legal immigrants, because they did not want to make the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, because they figure they are all immigrants, OK? And we do not want to make the distinction because it would hurt our political cause to be true to what the reality is, because we are playing politics here. That is what we are doing. We are playing politics, which is a dangerous thing. It is playing politics with prejudice and playing politics in the kind of divide-and- conquer way that these people have been so good at playing politics in the last Congress, and they are continuing to play that same brand of politics in this Congress. I want to say that I want to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]. I think he is absolutely correct in what he is fighting for here. If we are really caring about having everyone sort of volunteer if they are going to be given some Federal program, then we ought to have it apply to a lot more programs than the ones that they are trying to target here. That is poor people in Federal housing. I think it is just a clear case of scapegoating, as my friend, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] said earlier.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today we in Congress are solemnly observing the tragedy of the Armenian genocide. We honor the bravery and courage of those who survived and we honor the memory of those who perished. We speak out so that future generations of Americans will know the story of the first genocide of this century. Over 6 million people of Armenian descent live in this country. Many of them can still recount the persecution they faced during the Ottoman Empire and the stories of the night of April 24, 1915. That night must be remembered, not only for the atrocities which took place, but because we must never forget our duty to fight against human rights abuses, ethnic cleansings, genocides, and other atrocities. Unfortunately, we see the atrocities of the past being replayed today. In the former Yugoslavia, the terrors of the past have recently been replayed. By observing the Armenian genocide we make a strong statement. A statement that the atrocities of the past are not acceptable. They were not acceptable then and they are not acceptable today. It has been said many times that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Let us never repeat this history. We must all work to always remember and never forget the genocide, to cherish and preserve the Armenian culture, and to fight for human rights in this region. We owe that to those we honor today and to our Nation's Armenian- Americans. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that trust and confidence in the American Government could very well have reached a low point. No one can dispute that citizen trust is vital to the health and well-being of our country and our way of life. We especially need the trust of the men and women of the U.S. military, those who have served, those who serve today and those who will serve in the future. The men and women in our Armed Forces are willing to risk their lives in defense of our national security interests, therefore we must continually work to ensure the bonds of trust endure in peace and in war time. Unfortunately, it appears that this trust has been called into question. One need merely read newspaper articles surrounding the Persian Gulf war to see what I mean: On February 28, the New York Times ran an article entitled: ``Pentagon Reveals It Lost Most Logs on Chemical Arms: Missing From Two Sites: Gulf War Veterans Now Raise Questions of Cover-Up or Criminal Incompetence.'' Allegations of cover-up and criminal incompetence indicate to me that we have our work cut out for us if we intend to earn back that trust. Just 3 days earlier, a New York Times headline read: ``Army Warned Early of Chemical Exposure in Gulf.'' The article stated that the CIA gave the Army information more than 5 years ago that some American troops may have been exposed to nerve gas from the destruction of an Iraqi ammunition depot following the Persian Gulf war. The article further stated that these CIA reports discredit the Pentagon's continued assertion that it became aware of the potential exposure only last year. And in today's Washington Post the headline of the lead article read: ``CIA Knew In '84 of Iraq Poison Gas: Agency Official Apologizes To Persian Gulf War GIs.'' Unfortunately, what we have here are glaring examples of why some of our troops and veterans may question the veracity of information provided by their own Government. It appears that this situation goes hand in hand with another major cause of mistrust: the unsolved mysteries of gulf war syndrome. Far too many of our troops who deployed to the gulf are suffering from undiagnosed illnesses that neither they nor their doctor can explain. I commend the President for his efforts aimed at finding answers and restoring this trust. He directed the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses to investigate and search for a cause of the symptoms experienced by so many gulf war veterans; he convened a White House Panel; and he appointed Bernard D. Rostker, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, to lead the DOD's investigation into possible chemical agent exposure during the war. More can and must be done, however, to rebuild trust, to avoid repeating past mistakes, and to prevent future health consequences similar to those experienced during and after the gulf war. Our troops must be assured that when we send them into battle, they will be protected by the best military technology, the best leaders, and the best medicine. Protection also means proper education and training, as well as provision of critical information, including information about investigational new drugs that may be administered to our troops for their protection against chemical and biological threats. Unfortunately, for our troops, the threat of chemical and biological weapons have become an increasing reality. During Operation Desert Storm, the DOD sought to utilize two investigational vaccines, Pyridostigmine Bromide [PB] and Botulinum Toxoid [BT], to protect troops against chemical weapons. The FDA deemed these drugs investigational because they were not originally approved for the purpose DOD intended to use them. Under FDA regulations, use of such Investigational New Drugs [INDs] required informed consent by recipients, except where not feasible. Concerned with its inability to obtain informed consent during the exigencies of war, the DOD sought an exception from the FDA of its informed consent requirement. In response, the FDA established an interim regulation defining ``combat exigency'' as one instance where informed consent could be waived. The DOD subsequently applied for the exception and the FDA granted it, subject to certain conditions, including: 1. Each BT vaccine was to be recorded in the individual's permanent immunization record. 2. The DOD had to maintain a roster of all individuals receiving the investigational vaccines. 3. Recipients were to report adverse reactions to the vaccines. 4. Most importantly, the DOD had to provide individuals receiving the vaccines accurate, fair, and balanced information about the vaccines. The information was contained in leaflets produced by the FDA. Approximately 8,000 troops received the BT vaccine, while at least 250,000 received PB. However, the DOD believes that only 40 percent, and that is on the high end of the scale, only 40 percent of those services members actually received information about the vaccines administered to them. This is unacceptable. Prior to Desert Storm, it was agreed that PB and BT constituted the best available preventative therapy against chemical agents our troops might face in the Persian Gulf. Even though the use of these investigational drugs could not have been avoided, failure to inform the troops about the drugs could and should have been avoided. The men and women who served in the Gulf War had a right to know that the vaccines administered to them were investigational. The same service members had a right to know about the side effects of the investigational drugs. Let me give you an example of the importance of this information to our troops. PB is known to cause gastrointestinal problems, cramps, and headaches; but these symptoms disappear after the drug is taken for a certain period of time. Some service members stopped taking PB once they experienced these symptoms, making them dangerously susceptible to chemical agents. Had they known about PB's symptoms and that these symptoms eventually would disappear, they may not have stopped using the drug and would not have put their lives in further jeopardy. In addition, some of our veterans who did not receive the information about the nature and side effects of the INDs may wonder today what lingering impact the drugs have on their health. With no information, a person has nothing to refute either misinformation or worst case scenarios. All of our military personnel have a right to know about the investigational inoculations they receive from the DOD. Today I rise to introduce legislation to ensure that this gulf war situation is not repeated, to ensure that in the future our troops are informed of investigational drugs, and to help ensure that our service members can and will trust their government. The legislation will require the DOD to inform service members about the use of experimental drugs. Specifically, the bill requires that the DOD inform individuals prior to, or no later than 30 days after administration. 1. That the drug being administered is investigational; 2. The reasons why the drug is being administered; 3. The potential side effects of the drug, including side effects resulting from interactions of the drug with other drugs or treatments being administered to the individual. While information about investigational drugs will not prevent possible side effects, the information will ensure our troops know that the Government is not intentionally misleading them or seeking to hide information from them. They will know that we value their service to our country and that we too are doing our best to protect them. Through sharing of this information can we contribute to the process of rebuilding the bonds of trust.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I am very concerned about conditions in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor. Particularly, I believe I bring a unique perspective to the debate because I am one of the few Members of Congress to have visited the good people of East Timor. As a legislator, I have been privy to the debate in Congress over the responsibility of the United States to fight for human rights world wide. Up until 21 years ago, East Timor was a colony of Portugal. In 1975, the small, emerging nation of East Timor was brutally invaded by the nation of Indonesia. Over the past 21 years, the people of East Timor have been subjected to some of the worst abuses of human rights in the world. The Indonesian government has been a cruel and repressive dictatorship. More than 200,000 East Timorese--almost one-third of the population-- have been killed or have died from starvation after being forced from their villages. All attempts at peaceful protest have been met with violent oppression. This attack cannot be countenanced and this violence must end. Abduction, torture, suppression of dissent, and disappearances are common occurrences under the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Suppression of the East Timorese independence movement includes arbitrary detention, use of secret detention facilities, rape, torture frequently resulting in death. These abuses occur in large part due to the free hand given to the military to suppress the independence movement. In December of last year, I visited the Indonesian-occupied land of East Timor. One of the greatest honors of my life was attending Christmas midnight mass celebrated by Bishop Belo, one of the two 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winners, and spending Christmas Day with him. My visit there has made me truly redouble my efforts on behalf of the people of East Timor and Indonesia. There is no question that the attacks and abuses are escalating throughout Indonesia. Since Christmas Eve, there have been numerous roundups by security forces. A recent New York Times editorial cited the effects of this crack down on nongovernmental organizations. This latest instance of violence against the people of East Timor and Indonesia requires an immediate response from the U.S. Government. As a former Portuguese colony, the concerns of the Portuguese- Americans for the human rights situation in East Timor have been great. Indeed, as I travel across the country, it is primarily in the Portuguese communities, and of course the large Portuguese communities in Rhode Island, that I hear concerns over the plight of these people half way around the globe. Senator Pell and former Representative Ron Machtley both raised my awareness of this issue. Unfortunately, things have not changed. What was true then was true now, human rights in East Timor have not improved. This year's U.S. Department of State human rights report clearly classifies the country of Indonesia as one of the worst violators of human rights. The report highlights those actions based on authoritarian efforts to suppress dissent, enforce cohesion and restrict opposition groups and nongovernmental organizations. The report has over 30 pages dedicated to the intolerable human rights situation in Indonesia. The bill that I am introducing today, the Indonesian Military Assistance Accountability Act, will attempt to confirm a commitment from Indonesia to cease the human rights violations throughout the country. The bill imposes military sanctions on the country of Indonesia if its human rights record fails to improve. I have worked closely with numerous human rights groups, and nongovernmental organizations, to establish the most effective way to protect the people of East Timor and other parts of Indonesia, such as Aryan Jaya, where human rights atrocities are being committed. Specifically, the bill conditions United States arms sales and transfers on a few achievable policy reforms by the Government of Indonesia in the areas of free and fair elections, labor rights, protection of nongovernmental organizations, including human rights, environmental, and religious foundations, rights and protections for the people of East Timor, release of political prisoners, and fair trials for such persons. Indonesia repeatedly denies that there is a problem. If this is true, the Indonesians have nothing to fear by a close investigation of their human rights practices. Unfortunately, they do have much to fear and they have been very vocal about any possible legislation that I or other congressional Members may introduce. The bill I am introducing is clearly for military sanctions only. But it will send a message to Indonesia and it will take away the $26 million in military assistance that it receives every year if it does not change its ways. We have waited too long for change and it will not come without a law on the books to impose change on Indonesia. I look to the rest of my congressional colleagues to support this legislation, in order that we send a clear and unmistakable message to Indonesia-- that they must cease violating the human rights of the people of Indonesia, particularly in East Timor.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day in Greece's history for we are once again celebrating the independence of Greece, one of our Nation's closest allies. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida, for assembling this special order and for organizing the congressional caucus on Hellenic issues. I am pleased to be part of an organized and concerted effort to speak out on those issues which are important to Greece, Cyprus, and our constituents of Hellenic descent. It is time to celebrate the beginning of Greece's struggle for independence from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire. The people of Greece began their struggle for freedom on March 25, 1821. The colonists of America offered an example to Greece in the struggle against oppression, and, also, Athenian democracy was an inspiration to our revolutionary heroes. Today, we honor the ties between these two countries. Each day that we meet is a celebration of the debt America owes to Greece for founding the idea of democracy. We pay homage to this every day when we meet and debate and vote and freely share ideas. Furthermore, there is much to be attributed to the hard work of the sons and daughters of Greece who have come to the United States have made a tremendous impact on their communities. In my State of Rhode Island, there are incredibly strong and productive Greek communities. Since the turn of the century, Greek immigrants have settled in Providence, Pawtucket, and Newport, RI. There they built businesses, neighborhoods, churches, schools, and raised families. Rhode Island is richer because of all they have given. Today, we celebrate what Ancient Greece gave to the founding of our Nation, the success of the Greek Independence movement, and what Greek- Americans have devoted to the development of the United States. I thank my colleagues for all of their hard work in making this special order possible and look forward to further work with the Hellenic caucus.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Sportsmanship Day, March 4, 1997. This day, in its celebration of sportsmanship, brings together student athletes from across the United States and 74 countries world-wide in an effort to promote the importance of fair play, integrity, character, and ethics. Teamwork, respect and cooperation, values that are integral for success in society, business, and sports alike, are the themes of the activities for the young people who take part in this day. Established by the Institute for International Sport located at the University of Rhode Island, National Sportsmanship Day is just one element of the institute's efforts to establish a greater awareness in the area of physical fitness. Other year-round components of the institute's efforts are the Student-Athlete Outreach Program, where student-athletes from high schools and colleges visit local elementary and middle schools to serve as positive role models and promote good sportsmanship, and the World Scholar-Athlete Games. I am proud to offer my support to programs like this that provide students of all ages the opportunity to develop the skills that will help promote success and achievement throughout their lifetime. I would like to acknowledge the parents, teachers, coaches, participants, and especially those individuals who have committed their time and efforts to broaden participation in the arena of friendly competition and sportsmanship.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Mr. Jose Ramos- Horta's visit to Washington, DC, the week of February 24, 1997, I ask permission to include in the Record the Nobel Lecture of Jose Ramos- Horta before the Norwegian Nobel Committee on December 10, 1996. The Nobel Lecture Given by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1996 Jose Ramos-Horta My deepest appreciation goes to the Nobel Committee for having chosen us for the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize. Your generosity in thinking of the wretched of the earth, and your courage in standing up to the might of States, the cynicism and indifference of too many, betrayal by some, tells also a lot about the soul and history of courage of this great country of yours that fought bravely during World War II. In recent years Norway has played a central role in fostering dialogue and peace among historical enemies. In the Middle East and Central America, your discreet nature, determination and creativity have proven that some of the world's seemingly intractable conflicts can be resolved when there is an honest mediator and when the parties in the conflict are willing to end the war. Small countries like Norway, Costa Rica and Portugal, and others, can succeed in mediating conflicts when mighty powers failed. Diplomacy and mediation are not prerogatives of the major powers. The small and medium-size countries without ambitions to a neo-imperial role and whose strength is there moral integrity are best placed to open dialogue among the parties in a conflict. the east timorese church The real winner of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize is our spiritual leader, Dom Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo. He is the embodiment of the East Timorese people's resilience, moral rectitude, dignity and identity, and its long quest for peace and freedom. In Dom Carlos the people of East Timor have found spiritual comfort and some sense of security from the daily threats to their very existence. The people of East Timor owe almost everything to their Church. Hence, the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize is a tribute to the whole church, the courageous priests, nuns and lay workers and the people of East Timor. My share of the Nobel Peace Prize will go entirely to a foundation to be called Peace and Democracy Dom Martinho da Costa Lopes. I know this is too small a tribute to this great man who gave his life to his church and people. the solidarity movement I would like also to express my gratitude to three organizations that in the past honoured my people with less well-known awards but with equal importance for our people. To Professor Thorof Rafto Human Rights Foundation from Bergen, Gleitsman Foundation, from California, and the Un- Represented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO) based in The Hague, goes my profound gratitude. With the men, women and children in many parts of the world who have given us so many years of their lives I wish to share this moment of joy. Without the generous solidarity movement we would be even poorer and alone. Some of our good friends have passed away from this Earth. Denis Freney, Michelle Turner, Michel Robert, Carlos Vilares, the little and beautiful Sarah Taylor whom God took away at age 15. We will remember them for ever. angola, cape verde, guinea-bissau, mozambique, sao tome and principe My special greetings of friendship and eternal gratitude to my good friend, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique, for having taken the trouble to fly to Oslo to be with us. You have been with us in our most lonely years when the rest of the world pretended we did not exist or offered us advice on how best to surrender. From this noble rostrum I bow to your late predecessor, Samora Moises Machel, one of the greatest men Africa has known. My special greetings and deepest gratitude to Presidents Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola, Mascarenhas Monteiro of Cape Verde, Nino Vieira of Guinea-Bissau, and Miguel Trovoada of Sao Tome and Principe for their friendship and generosity. Your peoples and countries have been with us through our lonely years and I believe that you will be with us still in the years to come. To the people of Angola who have suffered beyond imagination and are still in a painful process of national reconciliation, I extend our solidarity and friendship. Angola paid a heavy price for the liberation of Namibia and South Africa. Yet there has not been enough recognition of the enormous contribution that the two lusophone countries. Angola and Mozambique, gave to the liberation of Southern Africa. portugal I wish to state from this august rostrum the eternal gratitude of the people of East Timor and my own to the people of Portugal, the President, our good friend Dr. Jorge Sampaio and his predecessor, Dr. Mario Soares, a man of principles and compassion. Through Your Excellency, Mr. President, I humbly ask you to convey to your wonderful and generous people, members of Parliament and government, past and present, our most heartfelt appreciation for your gallant efforts in support of our struggle. For many years you fought a lonely battle in the European Union against the indifference and even hostility of some of your partners. You have shown not only to us the East Timorese but to other smaller nations in the world that principles and morality have not been taken over completely by mercantile interests. brazil I recently visited Brazil and was warmly welcomed by everyone. I humbly ask President Jose Sarney to convey to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and through him to all the people of Brazil our admiration and affection for your great country and people. My warmest greetings to Betinho, Dom Paulo Evaristo and Dom Helder Camara, the conscience of the poor of Brazil and the world. Your Majesties: This speech belongs to someone else who should be here today. He is an outstanding man of courage, tolerance and statesmanship. Yet, this man is in prison for no crime other than his ideas and vision of peace, freedom and dignity of his people. Xanana Gusmao, leader of the people of East Timor, remains incommunicado in a prison thousands of miles away from his country. His trial in 1993 was universally condemned as a charade and was no more valid than the Dutch imprisonment and trial of the late President Sukarno, founding father of the Indonesian Republic. I bow to Xanana and through him to my good friend Nino Konis Santana, David Alex, Tahur Matan Ruak, Fernando Araujo and all East Timorese prisoners of conscience in jails in East Timor and Indonesia, to the thousands of victims of torture, widows and orphans. I bow to the memory of Sabalae and the thousands of our dead. Through Xanana, I bow to my people with profound respect, loyalty and humility because they are the martyrs, the real heroes and peace-makers. the new order regime and the indonesian people The East Timorese are not the exclusive victims of the Indonesian New Order regime installed in 1965. For more than 30 years, the Indonesian people have known massacres, imprisonment, torture, ban on writers, journalists, academics and labour leaders. Moslems, Catholics, Buddhists and Hindus have all known their share of repression. The only non-discriminatory policy of the New Order regime is when it comes to repression. I pay tribute to the many tens of thousands of Indonesians who died in their own struggle for freedom and democracy, who languished in the jails of the New Order, or were forced into exile in China, Albania, USSR and Western Europe. I met many of them over the years and shared long hours of conversation about our two people's suffering and dreams. the lessons of the jewish holocaust In 1939, a few months before the out-break of World War II, Harry Truman read a passionate message from President Roosevelt to the ``National Meeting for Moral Rearmament'' held in Washington. The same time as the conference delegates were listening and applauding President Roosevelt's moral speech, 900 Jewish refugees on a boat from Germany anchored off Florida were waiting for a decision from Washington as to whether they should find sanctuary in the US or be sent back. Finally, word came that their application for refugee status had been denied. The desperate refugees did not convince the morally courageous delegates to the ``National Meeting for Moral Rearmament'' that they had a valid fear of persecution. The 900 men, women and children were sent back to Germany. Many ended up in Hitler's death camps. More than half a century after the Jewish holocaust and centuries after the genocide of the indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas, the same attitude that has allowed these crimes to take place persist today. Opinion-makers and leaders, academics, writers and journalists who pretend to be objective and neutral in the face of racism and discrimination, the rape of a small nation by a larger power, the persecution of a weaker people by a ruthless army must share the guilt. No amount of intellectual arguments will suffice to erase their responsibility. Synagogues are still being desecrated. Gypsies are still discriminated. Indigenous peoples continue to see their ancestral land taken over by developers, their culture and beliefs, and their very existence reduced to a tourist commodity. Like the Jews and Armenians in the past, like the Kurdish, Gypsies, Tibetans, Aborigines of Australia, Maoris of Aotearoa (New Zealand), Kanakis of New Caledonia, the people of Western Sahara, and the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, the East Timorese are a mere footnote of history, an expendable people. Cold War footnote The conflict in East Timor can be traced back to the political context of the Cold War. You might recall a picture that made headlines in the spring of 1975. I refer to the picture of an American helicopter landing on the rooftop of the US Embassy in Saigon to rescue remaining diplomats, CIA operatives and few privileged South Vietnamese stooges as Saigon fell to the Vietcong. Cambodia and Laos followed. This picture illustrated better than a thousand words the ignominious American retreat from Indochina. In another continent, in the horn of Africa, the longest reigning US ally, emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, had been overthrown a year earlier by radical army officers. Further South, the Portuguese empire had collapsed. These events seemed to confirm Lyndon B. Johnson's domino theory which was the rationale for US intervention in Indochina. It was in this geopolitical context that President Gerald Ford and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, visited Jakarta in early December 1975 as part of an Asian tour to reassure leaders of the region that the US would continue to honour its security commitments in Asia. The invasion of East Timor which took place within hours of Ford's departure from Jakarta was a mere footnote in the Cold War events of 1975. Thousands of East Timorese who died in the days, weeks, months and years that followed were mere footnotes to the post-Vietnam and Cold Wars. Inviolability of colonial boundaries One and a half year before these events, in June 1974, I visited Jakarta in my capacity as secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Timorese Social Democratic Association, that had just been created less than a month earlier. I had the privilege of meeting with the then Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Mr. Adam Malik. After our third round of talks, Mr. Malik addressed me a letter which read in part: The independence of every country is the right of every nation, with no exception for the people of (East) Timor; * * * Whoever will govern in Timor in the future after independence can be assured that the government of Indonesia will always strive to maintain good relations, friendship and co-operation for the benefit of both countries. The following year, in April 1975, I again visited Indonesia and met with President Suharto's senior adviser, Gen. Ali Murtopo, to whom I reiterated our collective desire to develop friendly relations with Indonesia. Gen. Murtopo reassured me that Indonesia harboured no territorial ambitions over East Timor. However, we soon learned that the word of an Indonesian general or diplomat can be broken as easily as it is spoken. Some simple but fundamental issues need to be addressed. Does Indonesia have a valid historical claim to East Timor? The current boundary of the Republic of Indonesia is a product of the Dutch East Indies administration. West New Guinea was absorbed by the Republic not because of a reasonable historical, cultural, ethnic kinship or geographic continuity. The only link that justified the annexation was West New Guinea's brief colonisation by the Dutch. The arbitrary carving up of Africa at the Berlin Conference can be blamed for some of Africa's problems today but respect for the colonial boundaries, as unfair as most might be, has provided some peace and stability and kept most of Africa, Latin America and Asia from disintegrating. Saddam Hussein of Iraq attempted to redraw the map and rectify what he perceived to be an unfair colonial legacy by invading Kuwait. Iran has longstanding claims over Bahrain. In Latin America there are some interstate territorial disputes as a result of perceived unfair border delimitation. The right of peoples to self-determination From the Chittagon Hill Tracts in Bangladesh to Bougainville, Kurdistan, Sri Lanka, India, Tibet, Chechnya, Ogoni, West Papua, millions of peoples seek to assert their most fundamental rights and if we attempt to find a common denominator for the problems I have just listed there is one: the right of peoples to self-determination. In most cases the demands are not for secession. They are about their survival as a people with a language and a culture, with their land and environment protected from rapacious multinationals. Only when these basic demands are not met there has been recourse to other forms of struggle with an escalation in their demands. While self-determination in the de-colonisation process of the non-self-governing territories almost always led to independence, this is not the case in most of the conflicts of today. The cases of Western Sahara and East Timor are the two most salient failures of decolonisation. In the case of Western Sahara, the United Nations has allowed itself to be a pawn in the machinations of a minor regional power. However, the preservation of the territorial integrity of a country can be achieved only if those in power are sensitive to the basic demands and aspirations of the many indigenous peoples and nationalities that make up the country. Brute force might silence and keep dormant the dreams and aspirations of a people but the anger simmering for decades will inevitably resurface and break up the country. the right of the people of east timor to self-determination The right of the people of East Timor to self-determination is widely recognised. Apart from the former Spanish territory of Western Sahara, East Timor is the largest non-self- governing territory in the UN GA decolonization list which dates back to 1960. The UN General Assembly and Security Council have adopted a total of 10 resolutions on the question of East Timor all reaffirming this right. In its ruling of 30 June 1995 on the Case Concerning East Timor, Portugal Versus Australia, the International Court of Justice stated that the right of self-determination has an erga omnes character and that the people of East Timor are entitled to it. dialogue without pre-conditions and the CNRM peace plan The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and South Africa's transition to democracy give us renewed hope in that they demonstrate that seemingly intractable problems can be resolved if there is political will and vision by all involved. In this room today there are East Timorese leaders of every persuasion, some have come all the way from East Timor, Portugal and Australia, and I can speak for all when I say that we are ready to enter into a process of dialogue with the Indonesian authorities, under the auspices of the United Nations, without pre-conditions, to explore all possible ideas towards a comprehensive settlement of the conflict. In 1992, after thorough consultation with our people in the country, Xanana Gusmao gave his seal of authority to what is now known as the CNRM Peace Plan which was formally presented to a meeting of the European Parliament in Brussels on 22 April 1992. The CNRM proposal remains valid as a modest contribution towards finding a solution to the conflict. Phase one--humanitarian phase This phase which should take up to two years to be fully implemented, would involve all three parties working with the UN to implement a wide range of ``confidence building measures'', (CBMs) but would not deal with the core of the problem which is the issue of self-determination. These CBMs must include release of all prisoners, end of torture and summary executions and a drastic reduction in Indonesia troop presence in the territory. These are some of the ideas which I believe could be implemented immediately without loss of face for Indonesia. Its international standing would improve significantly and its presence in the territory would be less resented, thus relieving a very tense situation. In view of the time constraints, the full text of this plan is attached to this speech. Phase two--autonomy, 5 years Phase two, lasting between five to ten years, would be a period of genuine political autonomy based on ample powers vested in a local, democratically elected Territorial People's Assembly. At the end of the second phase, the autonomous status of the territory could be extended by mutual accord. The East Timorese people, having enjoyed a period of peace and freedom without the presence of the most hated symbol of the occupation, the army, might accept to continue this form of association. Conversely, the changing generation, attitudes and perception in Indonesia might result in Indonesia accepting as natural that East Timor becomes independent. Phase three--self-determination If all parties agree that Phase Three should enter into effect immediately, then the UN begins to prepare a referendum on self-determination to determine the final status of the territory. If God willing, East Timor becomes independent, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to share with you, our vision for our country's future and role in the region. our vision for the future East Timor is at the cross-roads of three major cultures: Melanesian which binds us to our brothers and sisters of the South Pacific region; Malay-Polynesian binding us to Southeast Asia; and the Latin Catholic influence, a legacy of almost 500 years of Portuguese colonisation. This rich historical and cultural existence places us in a unique position to build bridges of dialogue and co-operation between the peoples of the region. portugal East Timor will maintain close ties with Portugal, a country which colonised us for almost half a millennium has shown an abiding commitment to our right to self- determination. Portugal and East Timor will be most valuable partners for ASEAN in its relations with the EU, Africa and Latin America. australia and the south pacific The majority of the East Timorese residents outside the country are in Australia. In spite of our sadness over Australia's role on East Timor I wish to state here our deepest appreciation to Australia for the shelter, hospitality and generosity shown to our thousands of refugees on Australian soil. We appreciate the many representations the previous and current governments of Australia have made to impress upon the government of Indonesia regarding the human rights situation in East Timor. No other Western country has been more persistent in this regard. We fought together during World War II and many East Timorese gave their lives for our common cause. Now and in the future we look up to Australia for help. An independent East Timor will seek close relations with Australia and membership in the South-Pacific Forum. asean and apec We are conscious of our geography which compels us to co- exist with our neighbours in that part of the world. We will seek membership in ASEAN and APEC within days of our independence. a zone of peace We will not have a standing army. For our external security, we will rely on a Treaty of Neutrality to be guaranteed by the permanent members of the Security Council. We will endeavour with the UN and our neighbours to declare our region and the seas surrounding East Timor a Zone of Peace and Development. rule of law We will endeavour to build a strong democratic state based on the rule of law which must emanate from the will of the people expressed through free and democratic elections. human rights and international obligations All international human rights treaties will be submitted to the Parliament for ratification. We believe that human rights transcend boundaries and must prevail over state sovereignty. We will introduce into the school curriculum at an early stage starting in the kinder gardens the subject of human rights. We will actively work with like-minded countries, NGOs and the media to strengthen the UN human rights machinery. amnesty and national reconciliation East Timorese now serving in the Indonesian administration in East Timor, the security forces and police, should not fear an independent East Timor. They will be invited to stay on. Their full and active involvement in running the country will be necessary to ensure a smooth transition. Our society will not be based on revenge. Because of its credibility and standing, the Catholic Church will be expected to play a major role in the healing process of our society. In August 1975 too many East Timorese died in a brief but violent civil strife. Many more died even after the invasion because some in the leadership of the movement I belonged took upon themselves the role of judges and executioners. national reconstruction and development East Timor is a relatively small country. But with an area of 18,899 km2 and a total population of 700,000 (1974 figures), it is at least equal to, if not larger, in size and population, than some 40 independent states. It is potentially self-sufficient in most agricultural goods, meat and fish. It has large reserves of oil, natural gas, marble and manganese. The invasion up-rooted thousands of people. Properties were abandoned, destroyed or sold at unfair prices. This situation will be redressed. A voluntary resettlement plan will be effected to allow the many tens of thousands of displaced East Timorese to return to their ancestral lands. We believe in free education and health care for our people. The money saved from not having a standing army will be well used in these areas. With the cooperation of WHO we will seek to eradicate malaria, tuberculosis and other preventable diseases within a decade. indonesian migrants It is estimated that over 100,000 Indonesians are now living in East Timor. Most are poor Indonesians who came to our country looking for a better life. Indonesian migrants in East Timor will be welcome to stay. the suharto regime, its achievements and what it should do No one can honestly suggest that the 30-year regime of Gen. Suharto has not done good for Indonesia. The record of the past 20 years has been impressive. The Suharto regime lifted the Indonesian economy from extreme poverty to the status of an economic tiger. Living standards, literacy, health care and food production increased to impressive levels. President Suharto can show leadership by releasing all prisoners, meeting Indonesia's greatest living author, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Megawati Sukarnopultri, leader of the PDI, daughter of Indonesia's founding father, the late Bung Karno, Muchtar Pakpahan, Indonesia's Lech Walesa, Sri Bintang, George Aditjondro, Indonesia's most decorated environmentalist. Suharto should talk and listen to the wise and most respected Moslem scholar Abdurramanh Wahid who is here today with us in Oslo. The leaders and militants of the PRD are among the best children of Indonesia. Instead of hunting them he should invite them to his palace for dialogue about the future. fostering a democratic and peaceful transition in indonesia No country, no matter how rich and endowed with natural resources, is an island into itself. In an increasingly smaller world and competitive age, where modern electronic communications break the barriers of silence erected by dictators, Indonesia cannot continue to flout the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and the rule of law in Indonesia. The next two to three years will witness a transition in Indonesia. Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada and the EU can encourage a peaceful, evolutionary transition with a discreet yet firm policy of pushing for democratic reforms and rule of law in Indonesia and for a genuine act of self- determination in East Timor. The role of the international community We are as determined as we are optimistic about our future. To Indonesia and our other neighbours in the ASEAN we are offering a hand of friendship and appealing to them to help us bring peace and freedom to East Timor. The EU, working with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Indonesia's partners in ASEAN, can accelerate the on-going dialogue under the auspices of the UN secretary-general, give it some impetus and real substance. The US Administration is the only major power that has adopted some concrete measures to encourage changes in Indonesia and East Timor. I express here our sincere appreciation to President Clinton for his actions on East Timor and I appeal to him to lend his youthful energy and compassion towards a permanent resolution of the conflict which he once described as ``unconscionable''. The West and arms sales We are not asking that Indonesia be punished with comprehensive economic sanctions. We believe that economic engagement with a country can at times foster positive changes through the development of a democratically conscious class. However, we find it repulsive that the Western countries that more loudly make rhetorical speeches about human rights are the ones that manufacture most weapons that have killed more than 20 million people in the developing world since World War II. Land mines, torture equipment, cluster bombs, chemical weapons are weapons designed to inflict pain and death on human beings. Most victims are civilians, women and children. How can arms manufacturers, weapons designers, plant managers, politicians, who have families of their own whom they love, are so insensitive when it comes to the suffering of other human beings? human rights and ``asian values'' The peoples of Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, and the democracy movements in China and Indonesia are telling the rest of the world that democracy and human rights are not an invention of the West. The thousands of Asians who died in the streets of Manila, Bangkok, Jakarta, Rangoon, Beijing, did not die for a so- called ``Asian value'' that denies the people of Asia the basic and fundamental freedoms enjoyed in Europe, Latin America and in an increasing number of countries in Africa. south korea The brave people of Korea who endured decades of dictatorship and occupation won the struggle for democracy not with guns but with their tenacity in fighting the troops in the streets of Seoul and Kwangju. The South Korean people can also show greater courage by being magnanimous and forgive those who have done wrong. Sometimes in history individuals in power are driven to commit wanton crimes but those who survive and are in power today should resist the temptation to exact revenge in the name of justice. The death sentence must be abolished and the brave people of Korea should set the example by commuting the death sentence on former President Chun Do Hwan. From here I appeal to my Korean friends not to exact revenge against those who have been defeated. In victory be magnanimous. burma I extend our most heartfelt solidarity to the people of Burma and their elected leader, Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, in their struggle for democracy, rule of law and human rights. At a time when some ASEAN rulers are conniving with the SLORC regime to deny the people of Burma their democratic victory, we must all stand up and redouble our efforts to restore democracy to Burma. The US and the EU must be commended for their leadership in support of the restoration of democracy in Burma but they must escalate the pressure with additional diplomatic and economic sanctions against the SLORC. I also fully endorse the recommendations on Burma adopted by the Forum of Democratic Leaders in the Asia Pacific led by Kim Dae Jung and Cory Aquino in their recent meeting in Manila. China, Taiwan, Tibet When the UN SC debated the issue of East Timor in 1975 and 1976 China was our closest ally and I worked closely with very able Chinese diplomats. In spite of the indifference of the other four permanent members, China, along with other non-permanent members, succeeded in pushing the SC to adopt two resolutions on East Timor. It is with this feeling of gratitude and admiration for China that I appeal to the Chinese leaders to listen to their own people's opinions and desires for a more open society, based on the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech. These are after all rights that are granted to each Chinese citizen by their own Constitution. Wei Jing Zhen is one of China's best children. He is being wasted away when his talents could best be used in the service of his fellow Chinese people and country. The people of Taiwan have shown great maturity, responsibility and commitment to peace and democracy. While there is no dispute that Taiwan is part of China, as long as there is no progress on the issue of peaceful reunification of the two countries, I believe that the cause of dialogue and peace can best be served if Taiwan is granted observer status in the UN as was the case in the past with South and North Korea, South and North Vietnam. After all, China has not objected to Taiwan and Hong King joining the APEC. China should listen to the voice of peace and moderation of the Tibetan people. For many years the Tibetan spiritual leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has offered a moderate peace proposal to the Chinese authorities to settle the Tibetan conflict. Cyprus Cyprus, a shining example of democracy and tolerance, remains divided and occupied by a NATO ally whose history of aggression and violence is well-known. Recently I received a letter signed by the students of Classes C11 and C22 of Kykko B Lyceum in Nicosia who wrote: Your homeland is an occupied country at the far end of the ocean. Our homeland lies partly occupied at the far end of the Mediterranean. We live in a divided city and we cannot cross the dividing line * * * To the students of Kykko B Lyceum I can only say that like the ancient Armenia you too will recover your lost land.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4134 on behalf of a generation of children who will be left to twist in the wind because they have been denied an elementary education. I agree that measures should be taken to discourage and prevent undocumented individuals from entering our country. I will not support, however, any mean spirited, punitive attempts to secure our borders that will devastate numbers of children because of the sins of their parents. Are we, as a body, going to reduce ourselves to mistreating little children because we are angry that their parents have not complied with our laws? The obvious recourse would be to punish their parents or proactively prevent them from immigrating here unlawfully. What good will it do to ban their children from attending public school? In the long run, it is the children of American citizens that will also be punished, because they will be forced to deal with the tragedy of a population of uneducated immigrants. It sickens me to think of the discrimination that will inevitably result as parents will be forced to prove that their children are indeed legal. Unfortunately, those children who look foreign will be forced to prove that they are, in fact, Americans. Be assured that the children whose ancestors are Irish, or British or Dutch or French won't be asked to prove their legality--they can easily pass a American. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was implemented, we have made enormous strides in our quest for an eqalitarian society. This bill will only take us back to a dark period in our Nation--one in which those who looked different from the majority were treated as second- class citizens. What good will it do us to leave a generation of children--most of whom were born here and are American citizens--uneducated, unskilled, and downright hopeless? In an era when we are intent on reducing crime, cutting Government spending, and helping American families strive for a better living standard, relegating thousands of children to a lifetime of virtual poverty as a consequence of their lack of education is morally reprehensible, politically irresponsible, and fiscally imprudent. Need I remind my colleagues of the numbers of organizations, including every major law enforcement organization in the United States are opposed to this measure. They recognize that putting thousands of kids on the streets will not decrease illegal immigration but only promote crime, gangs and drugs, and place enormous strains on the cities and counties that will be forced to deal with these problems. I ask my colleagues, will you feed, clothe, house, and offer work to this generation of uneducated adults? Certainly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not fully ingested the ramification of this potentially devastating legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4134.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to offer my full support for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor which is being reauthorized by the House. The legislation today expands the size and scope of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor to four new communities which share the historical and environmental history of the 20 cities and towns already located within the existing corridor boundaries. The reason for this expansion is simple. The program is extremely successful and will bring economic revitalization, as well as expand a growing sense of pride, to thousands of people in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The new areas also add to the wholeness of the valley, encompassing critical watershed lands and historical connections, like Burrillville's well-preserved mill villages and Smithfield's apple orchards. Authorized as a National Heritage area in 1986, the corridor has successfully served as a national model for economic revitalization through historic preservation. The program took on national significance because of its unique ability to capture and preserve many of the 18th and19th century industrial innovations which have developed along the Blackstone River. In fact, it was along this river that the widespread industrial use of water power in the United States was first developed at Samuel Slater's Mill in Pawtucket in 1790. The mil, which still stands today, has become an icon of the American Industrial Revolution and a main point of attraction for visitors to the Blackstone Valley. To be sure, it was in the Blackstone River Valley that America began its transformation from an agrarian to industrialized nation. Unfortunately, with many of the manufacturing mills long gone, the region has had to readjust its economic focus. The establishment of the Heritage Corridor has served as a primary force behind the redevelopment of a region faced with hard economic times. By building on the historic qualities and vast natural resources of the Blackstone Valley, the National Heritage Corridor has inspired the growth of many industries like recreation and tourism. In my own State of Rhode Island, the Blackstone Valley generates about 10 percent of our $1.47 billion tourism industry through projects like park improvements, riverboating, nature preserves, and the visitation of historical sites. This figure becomes even more profound when we consider that the tourism in the valley is growing at 11 percent a year, making travel and tourism the second fastest growing industry in Rhode Island. The successes of the Heritage Corridor, however, are not limited to just tourism. The rebirth of the region has reduced unemployment in 1982 from 14 percent to just over 6 percent in 1995. This has been a direct result of the role that small business have played. In response to many of the economic development projects along the corridor, Main Street businesses are retooling, and other ventures, like hotels and restaurants, have become a part of the economic rebirth in the Blackstone Valley. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the National Heritage Corridor can be traced to a successful public-private relationship. Through the help of the Blackstone Corridor Commission, a partnership between Federal, State and local agencies, along with the private sector, has worked together to fund a variety of projects in the corridor. In many cases every Federal dollar spent is matched by one or more dollars of privately raised funds. Of particular note is the Blackstone Valley Explorer, a 49-passenger riverboat which was constructed in 1993 with funds raised from local corporations, communities, private citizens and the National Park Service. To date, the Explorer has shown the recover of the valley to more than 43,000 passengers and had a direct economic impact of more than $1 million. That represents a 28- to-1 return on the Federal Government's investment. In all, the corridor, which covers 46 miles of land from Worcester, MA, to Providence, RI, is a prime example of what a federally sponsored program should represent. The additional funds that we are requesting will be used to reauthorize the Corridor Commission for an additional 10 years and expand the park's boundaries from 250,000 to 400,000 acres. All of these funds will be matched by non-federal dollars. I want to thank all the members of the House Resources for their commitment to our national heritage areas and their hard work on this bill. It has also been may honor to work with the members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee who demonstrated their support for the Blackstone during this years appropriations process.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for yielding time to me, and I want to say that this conference bill does add money and increases the number of Pell grants available our young people, and that is a laudable section of this bill, given the fact that Senator Claiborne Pell comes from my State. Mr. Speaker, I do want to take everyone's attention to section 320 of the Interior appropriations of this bill, which contains a prohibition on Indian gaming in Rhode Island that singles out one tribe, the Narragansett Tribe, and says that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not apply to them and therefore they cannot engage in any type of gaming activities. By singling out this one tribe among 558 tribes in this Nation and removing them from the scope of IGRA, we are setting a terrible and dangerous precedent and, not only that, we are once again breaking our word to the native Americans. I want to just say that IGRA provides that for any Native American tribe seeking the authority to game that they can game insofar as the State in which they reside allows for that gaming. And our State, we allow for quite a bit of gaming, over $558 million a year. Roughly 90 million a year goes to provide for our citizens in the State of Rhode Island, and yet we are engaging in a double standard with our Narragansett Tribe. They are the only tribe in this conference report that is singled out like this. We had no hearings on this issue in the Committee on Resources. I think it is a really discriminatory measure for us to say it is all right for us to game, provide for our people, but at the same time say no, Native Americans, we are not going to allow you to do what we are doing ourselves. I think it is a double standard and unfortunately it marks one more in a repeated list of issues where this Congress has come down against the sovereignty of the Native Americans, and I think it is a sorry thing that it is in this CR. I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to a provision regarding the Narragansett Indian Tribe which was included in the Omnibus Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1997. Although I will be voting in support of the overall legislation, I want to make it clear that I feel that section 330 of the bill is a direct violation of the civil and sovereign right of the Narragansett Tribe in Rhode Island. In 1978, the Narragansetts signed a legitimate compact with the Federal Government and the State of Rhode Island in exchange for a portion of land that they could call their home and maintain their heritage. The Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act was a fair attempt to rectify years of culture anonymity and I am happy to say is still in place today. In 1983, the Narragansetts became a Federally recognized tribe with all the rights and privileges that accompany it, provided that they are consistent with the 1978 treaty. That year, the Narragansett's became a sovereign nation and fully earned the right to be treated on a government to government basis with other entities. The Tribe pledged to care for its people in much the same way the State of Rhode Island cares for her citizens. Education, housing, health care, to name but a few, are the concerns of the tribe just as they are the concerns of the Ocean State, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall held many years ago, in the case of Worcester v. Georgia, that ``Indian nations had always been considered as distinct independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of their soil.'' It is my belief as well that the Federal Government made a compact with Native Americans in exchange for a great deal of their land and resources. That deal was to respect the treaties that were made, and to recognize tribes on a government to government basis. In recent years, the Supreme Court has held that gaming is consistent with a Federally recognized tribe's sovereign rights. Understanding the sensitive nature of gaming, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988 to codify U.S. law regarding the sovereign right to Tribes to engage in gaming on their lands. I believe that IGRA is fair legislation which was enacted on a bipartisan basis to balance the rights of tribes and interests of States and local communities. The agreed purpose of IGRA was not to provide a method by which tribes could become rich. As the law clearly states, the revenue generated from gaming goes directly to essential tribal needs such as the health care, education, and security of the tribe. I am sure that if the public truly knew about the challenge that most Native Americans face, they would embrace IGRA as I have: as a mechanism for fair economic development. While the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act allows the State to share some jurisdiction over the Tribe's settlement lands, it gives the State no authority at all respect to gaming. Under existing law, the State has no authority to dictate to the Narragansetts how they may conduct gaming, other than by making gaming illegal for everyone in the State. If the State did that, then IGRA would not allow the Narragansetts to do gaming. But if the State allows bingo in any form, then the Tribe has a right under IGRA to have a bingo hall. Section 330, violates this concept and would fundamentally alter the balances that were struck in IGRA. Advocates of the provision have said that all they are trying to accomplish is to force the Narragansetts to be treated just like any other entity in the State of Rhode Island. It is clear, however, that by virtue of their treaties, and by the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeals, the Narragansetts are not simply any other entity, and should be afforded all the rights and privileges that are consistent with their existing agreements. In the end, I believe that this issue has become a fight to protect the civil and sovereign rights of a single Native American tribe. Unfortunately, because the Omnibus Continuing Resolution will not be amendable, I will not have an opportunity to strike this callous language from an otherwise fairly sound piece of legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote earlier today on the first two votes in the string of votes that have just been taken. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 3852, rollcall vote No. 434, and on H.R. 4137, rollcall vote No. 435.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Resources Committee I would like to take this opportunity to voice my support for the continued economic progress of Puerto Rico. While I believe that it was necessary to do away with wasteful corporate welfare programs like section 936, it is crucial that we continue the progress toward economic stability on the island. With almost 4 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Congress must remain committed to helping Puerto Rico create a sound economic climate in which all citizens can prosper. It is important to remember that unemployment and other economic factors in Puerto Rico still remain far below the national average. I believe we began building the foundation of an economic incentives program for the island in the new section 30A, which provides a targeted wage credit to companies currently doing business in Puerto Rico. Section 30A is certainly a move in the right direction but there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done in order to ensure the economic solvency of the island in the next century. In the next Congress I am looking forward to working with Puerto Rican Governor Pedro Rossello, and my colleagues in the House to expand section 30A into a dynamic and effective job creation incentive that promotes new high paying jobs to Puerto Rico.