Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is with truly mixed emotions that I today will vote in support of this conference report. There is much in this report that is good, and for the most part of those measures which prompted me to support the bill when it was on the House floor remain. This bill continues our historic and important commitment to advancing peace in the Middle East. Israel is our strongest ally and is the only democracy in an unstable, volatile, and important region. The American people have been partners with Israel in difficult days, and today as the prospects for peace appear more promising, we must continue to be a steadfast ally. This bill also makes important refinements in the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, toughening standards that apply to actions by the PLO. As well, this bill includes several provisions which continue our commitment to support the people of Armenia. I applaud the inclusion of the earmark for Armenia, the cap on aid to Turkey, and the inclusion of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Relief Act. These are good provisions. The United States must be beside the people of Armenia in their struggle against aggressors. Unfortunately, the conference ignored the will of the House on section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. After two and a half hours of debate, on June 29 the House voted to maintain a strong Freedom Support Act and says to Azerbaijan, that we will not give you aid until you end your unjust blockade of Armenia. This was right then. And it is right today. What is wrong, in fact unconscionable, is to have Conferees turn their back on the expressed will of the House. Democracy is based upon the simple idea that votes matter, that when people freely express what they believe, and the majority speaks, that they will be heard. By ripping the heart out of the Freedom Support Act, the conference report cavalierly said that votes do not stand for anything. This back room deal is beneath this Congress. As people in struggling democracies look to us to set an example, it is tragic that we set such a poor example in the very bill that defines how we relate to the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill. I support much that is in it, but deplore what has been added and how that was done. Those of us--and I remind you that it is the majority of us--who believe in a strong Freedom Support Act, will take our fight to another day. We will not give up.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, today the race to the bottom begins, and soon what it means to be an American will change. We have before us a plan from the other side of the aisle for balancing the budget. Why do we want a balanced budget? What is intrinsically good about a balanced budget per se? It is important to note that there was a year when the budget was balanced. The year was 1930, and it marked the greatest depression this country has ever known. So balancing the budget for the sake of balancing the budget is not the goal. We want a balanced budget because of what we hope it will do for us in terms of spurring our economy, growing our prosperity, and servicing the people rather than servicing the debt. The approach that this balanced budget reconciliation act takes will send the country into the opposite direction from where a balanced budget should take the country. Instead of growing the economy and serving the people, the abrupt and vicious nature of this budget threatens these goals. The scope of these cuts are so dramatic and the timetable so short, it begs the question of whether we want the positive results which we expect a balanced budget to bring us, or are we just happy with the politics of saying we have a balanced budget? Just take one of many examples of where the reality of this so-called balanced budget belies their stated intent. They say they want to balance the budget in order to ease the interest payments that young people pay on the national debt, but to do so they propose to raise the interest payments on student loans so that the same young people will have to pay more to open the doors of opportunity. When you look at where the cuts are coming from, there is nothing balanced about this budget. In fact, the poorest fifth of American families will shoulder half of the total cuts in benefit programs, and would receive no tax cut. We face serious choices over what should be our priorities when we set out to bring our budget into balance. Are we going to take a path that looks after the most vulnerable in society, that keeps promises, that invests in our future, that calls for shared sacrifice, and does not provide favors to people who already amply enjoy the rewards of this great country? Or are we going to take a path that ignores the needs of senior citizens, children, and working families, that calls for sacrifice from the vulnerable while handing out tax cuts we can't afford to people who don't need them, that cripples our ability to prepare for tomorrow, that threatens the environment through underhanded deals, that takes the tax dollars of immigrants we have welcomed but denies them the very benefits their tax dollars have gone to support, and walks away from promises made to the American people? This is a debate about numbers--cuts, slowed growth, caps, tax cuts, subsidies, and every other way we have to count money--but more important than any numbers are the principles at stake. American values should be reflected in the budget. But with the haste to only count cost in numerical terms, we've lost how to measure the cost on our society in human terms. And that is where this bill fails. It fails seniors. It fails working families. It fails children. It fails the disabled. It fails the working poor. It fails students. It fails the environment. It fails our constituents. It fails to prepare America for tomorrow. We have spoken about and debated the impact the Medicare provisions will have on senior citizens, and last week this Chamber voted to take a devastating $270 billion out of the Medicare Program, double premiums on seniors, and shred a program that has kept millions of seniors healthy and out of poverty since its inception in 1965. Today we have before us the other half of their assault on health care. Faster than you can say block grant, the Republicans have killed a program that takes care of children when they are most vulnerable and seniors when they are most in need. Now with their plan, all of the decisions and all of the responsibility will be handed over to the States without enough money to do the job. My own State of Rhode Island will suffer grievous harm under the Medicaid proposal. Over the next 7 years, Rhode Island will receive $1.6 billion less to take care of its poor children, mothers, and senior citizens. In the year 2002, Rhode Island will receive 42 percent less Medicaid assistance than it would under current law. Only two other States stand to be hit harder than Rhode Island. Let's remember what Medicaid is all about and why it was created as a national program. Medicaid simply told people: You are citizens of the United States and have a common right to basic health care that you share with your fellow citizens. Now that common ground is lost. Soon it will not matter that you are an American. It will matter more what side of the State line you live on. Will you get preventive care? Will your nursing home require well-trained staff and forbid the use of restraints and drugging patients? Will your disabled child get the care to live a fulfilling life? These decisions will be made in 50 different States in 50 different ways. In the DisUnited States created by this proposal, it will not matter that you are an American. We have taken an entitlement to basic care and replaced it with a lottery system. Well, everyone who plays the lottery knows--most people end up losing. The 127,306 Rhode Islanders on Medicaid will lose under this lottery. It is possible that almost 22,000 Rhode Island children will lose coverage. More than 7,000, or three-quarters of the more than 9,300 elderly Rhode Islanders in nursing homes, rely on the Medicaid Program to pay for their care. Rhode Island nursing homes will lose more than $400 million over the next 7 years under this plan. This cannot be made up by my State, which already is experiencing financial difficulties. This is not a hole that seniors can fill. And to look to the next generation, as the Republicans propose through their repeal of the adult child exclusion, is to cut off our hope for the future before it has even begun to take shape. The opposition likes to say this bill is about the future. But a look at the fine print shows that it will produce an America of less opportunity and less promise. This bill will put an empty plate in front of school children at breakfast and lunch. We all know students can not learn if they are hungry, if they are distracted by wondering where their next decent meal is coming from. Our children are a national resource. But with this bill we wash our hands of our commitment to feeding hungry children, tell States to pick up the slack, and don't give them enough money for even one more glass of milk when new poor children show up at the classroom door each morning too hungry to learn. Students who make it to college are having the rug pulled out from under them. Due to more than $10 billion in student loan cuts, undergraduate students will see their loan payments increase as much as $700, and costs for graduate students will jump by as much as $2,500. This will construct an insurmountable barrier for thousands of Rhode Island students who will have to give up on their dream of attending one of the fine institutions of higher education in Rhode Island. Higher education will sadly become a privilege only enjoyed by the very few. Borrowers in the Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students will face a $5,000 increase in loan repayments. In Rhode Island as many as 1,600 students will lose some or all of their Pell Grant benefits due to the cutbacks. The 6-month interest exemption grace period for all borrowers of student loans is ended. And from the people who often trumpet the fact that this bill will lower interest rates, there is a hike on interest rates on student loans. Is this how you help the next generation? Is this a budget about tomorrow? No. It is all about paying for $245 billion in tax breaks today, tax breaks that will overwhelmingly benefit those who are already doing very well. Fifty-two percent of the benefits of the tax cut in this bill go to families making $100,000 or more. The top 1 percent, those earning $350,000 and over, will get a tax break of almost $20,000. This injustice, this blatant favoritism of the fortunate few, is compounded by the fact that those at the bottom will actually see their taxes rise. Almost 37,000 working poor Rhode Islanders will see their taxes go up. They will shoulder the burden of a $5.1 million tax increase on working families in my State. Nothing reveals the motives of those who have crafted this budget more clearly than the war they have waged on the earned income tax credit. Mr. Chairman, the damage caused by this bill is so great one hardly knows where to begin. I have highlighted some of the most egregious measures. But as I said before, this vote is not about numbers. It is about who we are as a nation. And that is why I am so dismayed.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today the Republicans are starting the second civil war. The second civil war between the States and States rights. What the Republicans are proposing in their block grant approach is a race to the bottom between the States. It is going to be a race between the States on how unfriendly the States can be to the poor, the disabled, and our elderly. By taking away the entitlement program for our senior citizens and poor children and the disabled, they are starting a war between the States on who can cut the elderly more than the next States in order to save money. Make no mistake about it, I came from a State legislature. I know what it is like being in a State house and trying to make ends meet. With the Federal Government abandoning the most neediest of our citizens in our society, they are setting up a divided country in this Nation, and I think that this is something that we have got to stand up against. Let us reject the civil war the Republicans are trying to wage. Mr. Speaker, today we begin a race for the bottom. Faster than you can say block grant, the leaders on the other side of the aisle have dismantled a program that said to children when they were most vulnerable and to seniors then they were most in need: If you are an American, you share a common right to basic health care. Today, when we discard Medicaid, we throw out that entitlement and replace it with a lottery. Well, as any one who plays the lottery can tell you--most people lose. Children, poor mothers, and impoverished seniors will lose under this plan that throws all the decisions to the States without the money to do the job right. We all know, States will not compete for who can do the most, but for who can do the least. After today, it will not matter that you are an American. What will matter is what side of the State line you live on. We will 50 different answers to what it is to be an American. I call upon my colleagues to remember that we are nation of United States and reject this plan that marches us down the road to a disunited States.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This measure addresses the fundamental concerns of seniors--fear for their economic and physical safety. The right of seniors to continue to live in their own neighborhoods, and their right to live in peace, will be enhanced by this legislation. That is why I was working on a legislative response to the problem of ensuring safety in senior housing and I welcome today's response to this thorny issue. That is why I became the first original cosponsor of my colleague from New York's renewal and expansion of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program that has been incorporated into this bill. Rhode Island has a special interest in the survival of this program. Three-hundred and sixty-three Rhode Islanders have benefited from the conversion program since its inception in 1989, giving us one of the top five participation rates in the country. The typical conversion participant in Rhode island is 72 years old, with an annual income of $13,000. The conversion program is ideally suited to the needs of Rhode Island's senior population. Sixty-two percent of older Rhode Islanders own their own homes. In 1989, the median income of households for persons over 65 was only $16,403. This program targets those in need with help tailored to their particular circumstances. This bill could not have come at a better time, because after what was approved last week and what stands to be enacted later this week, seniors are going to need to mortgage their homes more than ever. More seniors will need to mortgage their homes to pay medical bills. More seniors will need to mortgage their homes to pay heating bills. More seniors will need to mortgage their homes to pay basic daily expenses. This bill will provide comfort to some, but nothing compared to the harm caused by the cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and housing programs. It will provide little comfort to seniors who know that promises made to them are being broken. It will provide little comfort to a senior whose Medicare premiums will double over the next 7 years. It will provide little comfort to a senior whose public housing rent will go up at the same time the quality of that housing will decline. It will provide little comfort to a senior who will have to say goodbye to the doctor who took care of them for years as they are hustled into managed care. It will provide little comfort to a senior whose spouse is in a nursing home where restraints, inadequate staffing, drugging patients, and people sitting in their own waste are once again common practice. But this bill will provide comfort to politicians looking for cover. Those who today vote to protect seniors, are doing seniors no service if last week and this Thursday they vote to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. These are conflicts that cannot be reconciled. The safety offered to seniors in this bill is real and laudable, but let's be honest: it pales in comparison to the safety seniors are losing in almost every other measure considered in this Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today is the day, today is the day that the Republican majority will pass historic cuts to the Medicare Program. Today is the day that they will cut $270 billion out of the Medicare Program. Today is the day that they will begin to raise premiums and deductibles for people, like Herb McCulloch, who lives on $240 a month and they are going to ask him to come up with an additional $100 a month in out-of-pocket expenses. Why are they doing this? Because they want to pass a $245 billion tax cut. Better than 52 percent of that tax cut is going to go to individuals and families earning $100,000 or more. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, their solution is to put elderly into managed care programs, managed care. You know what it means. It means managed to deny care to the very senior citizens they propose to protect. It is not fair. It is not right. As Democrats, we are going to say ``no.'' Today Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1606, a bill that will designate the main post office in Providence, RI, as the ``Harry Kizirian Post Office.'' Harry Kizirian is a shining example of someone who has fully realized the American Dream. A dedicated individual, Harry grew up in my own neighborhood of Mount Pleasant in Providence and worked hard to support his widowed mother. As a high school graduate, Harry enlisted in the Marine Corps and served in the South Pacific, where he would lead a Marine fire team to victory despite sustaining multiple gunshot wounds. For this selfless heroism, Harry was awarded the Navy Cross, the Bronze Star with a device for Valor, the Purple Heart with a Gold Star, and the Rhode Island Cross. Harry's service to our country did not end with the Allied Victory in World War II. For the next 35 years, Harry would demonstrate the same commitment to duty and service at the Post Office in Providence as he did during his days in Okinawa. In 1961, the honor and respect that Harry had earned from, not only his colleagues, but also the people of Rhode Island, reached a pinnacle as Harry was confirmed by the Senate as Postmaster. During his tenure as Postmaster, Harry went well beyond his required duties and served many important social causes. As a leading member of the Big Brothers of Rhode Island, the Providence Human Relations Commission and the Providence Heritage Commission, Harry demonstrated his high regard for his friends and citizens of his community. Perhaps Harry's greatest achievement is shared with his wife Hazel as they have successfully raised five children, who now have several children of their own, Shakay and Richard. When asked about all his achievements, Harry humbly responded: ``I'm just an ordinary American boy who loves dealing with people from all walks of life.'' In my opinion, Harry Kizirian is anything but ordinary. Raised with a strong Armenian heritage, Harry is a living tribute to his family, his friends, and his country. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand with my colleague, Jack Reed, to offer this bill which will honor Harry Kizirian's commitment and generosity for generations to come.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker I rise today in opposition to what I believe is a critical flaw in HR 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Research Authorization Bill. Title IV of HR 2405 relates to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In my view this entire section is abusive to our Nation's need for a comprehensive understanding of our oceans, air, and coastal environments. Title IV does not take into account the economic as well as environmental implications of such massive cuts. In many cases fall well below the funding levels that have already been appropriated for NOAA in 1996. During debate on this section I will be supporting several amendments that seek to restore the integrity of NOAA and many of the programs for which it is responsible. Specifically, I would like to address two issues that have, in my view, fallen prey to the worst of intentions: the Global and Climate Change and Sea Grant Programs. This bill recommends that the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program be reduced to $53 million which represents an $18 million or 27% reduction in spending from the FY 1995 budget. This cut-back is short sighted. It ignores the potential savings we could realize from being prepared for severe weather. Rarely do we find a clearer illustration of the old saying ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' Weather prediction is by no means an exact science. NOAA, however, is working to remove much of the guess work by developing the ability to anticipate short term climate variations. Improving our climate prediction capabilities would enable communities to prepare changing weather conditions. This bill will cripple our ability to see the clouds on the horizon and prepare for the oncoming storm. The NOAA Climate and Global Change Program is equally important for our long term economic well-being. NOAA has designed a research program to better understand long term changes in weather patterns that will have profound effects on our economy in the 21st century. NOAA is studying the roles of atmospheric gases in global warming. In this area ignorance will be costly and dangerous. The value of reducing climate-related uncertainty in the implementation of policies stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to be $100 billion for the U.S. between now and 2020. NOAA is also seeking to understand longer-term climate variations, like those that give rise to persistent drought or recurring flooding over several years. Improving these climate predictions for the long term will enable resource managers in climate sensitive areas such as agriculture, water management, and energy supply to alter strategies and reduce economic vulnerability. Preliminary economic studies estimate potential savings in the U.S. of as mush as $2.7 billion annually in the agriculture sector alone. In my state of Rhode Island, improved understanding of climate and global change is critical to of our economy. Right now 10% of Rhode Island's Gross Domestic Product is marine related. Much of this business, like commercial fishing, marina and boating activities, oceanographic research, and tourism, is directly effected by atmospheric and oceanographic conditions. Clearly, as we look to reduce unnecessary federal spending, we should not deny ourselves the opportunity to reduce costs in the long run by taking preventative measures. A perfect example of this in New England was the winter of 1992-93. During that year many municipalities were caught unprepared for an unusually harsh winter and had inadequate supplies of salt or sand for roads, and insufficient fuel and provisions for acquiring additional electricity. The total cost of just one storm in March of that year was over $1.6 billion for New England because we were unprepared. [[Page E 1941]] The following year many counties prepared for a similar winter and stocked up on the provisions that were in demand the previous year. As we all remember, last winter was unusually mild and these resources went to waste. This kind of waste must end. We need to end our nation's reactionary policy toward global climate change. Rather than passively suffer the effects of changing weather patterns, we should prepare for them through advanced scientific research. Just think about the funds and resources we will save if we know 6 months ahead of time that a winter in the North East will be mild, if the Gulf States will encounter an El Nino, or if we can expect flooding in the Midwest. The second major flaw in this bill occurred with the Sea Grant College Program. HR 2405 essentially destroys the concept of Sea Grant as the bridge between universities and users in coastal communities, industry, government, and non profit organizations. The Sea Grant Program is a network of over 300 universities and affiliated institutions in 30 states which conduct research, education and advisory services for our coastal communities. Modeled after the Land Grant concept, Sea Grant uses high quality, competitive, merit reviewed science to address critical marine resource issues. Sea Grant is highly successful as almost half of the total program cost is derived from nonfederal sources. Unfortunately, while both the Resources and Science Committees have reported out HR 1175, a Sea Grant reauthorization bill, which I cosponsor and enjoys broad bi-partisan support, the Science Committee has chosen to disregard this mandate and abandon the work that has already been accomplished. Make no mistake, the Science Committee's original version of HR 2405 nullifies the Sea Grant Program. Provisions in the bill remove the education and outreach components which is what makes Sea Grant so successful in the first place. Sea Grant, which was founded by my colleague Senator Pell from Rhode Island, was designed to create new economic opportunities for the private sector by helping our Nation to utilize more fully its vast publicly-owned marine and coastal resources, which are vital to the lives of America's rapidly growing coastal population. In fact, with over 50% of our nation's population living in coastal environments, these important functions are more critical than ever. We simply cannot abandon this important mission. I want to commend the actions of several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their dedicated work on this issue and their efforts to raise the authorization levels for Sea Grant. Moreover, I am encouraged by the agreement reached in the Committee of the Whole to bring HR 1175 to the floor under its own authorization. Only then will the true mission of Sea Grant be realized. In closing, I ask my colleagues to oppose Title IV of HR 2045. Despite the changes to Sea Grant, I cannot support this Title or this bill as it undermines the effectiveness of NOAA and many important programs like Climate and Global Change.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Viola M. Berard of Woonsocket. Viola M. Berard has become the first citizen in the history of Woonsocket, RI, to win the major honors of Autumnfest Grand Marshal and Senior Citizen of the Year in the same year. Mrs. Berard is an outstanding recipient of these prestigious awards, which recognize four decades of commitment to the city of Woonsocket, beginning with her four terms of service on the school committee from 1957 to 1965, including a term as chairwoman, and continuing with her current dedication as the coordinator of the Volunteers in Action human resources committee for northern Rhode Island. Her greatest achievement in bettering the lives of thousands of greater Woonsocket residents comes in her work as an incorporator of the Northern Rhode Island Community Mental health Center nearly three decades ago, and her leadership to the center as its former president, staff member and in her continuing role as a volunteer, prompting the center to be named in her honor. Mrs. Berard has been active in many other good causes in Woonsocket, from her active current involvement with the Quota Club, Connecting for Children and Families and the American Red Cross, and her past involvement with Tri-Hab House, Catholic Family Services, and the Visiting Nurses Association. She was honored at a grand marshal reception sponsored by the Autumnfest Steering Committee on October 3, 1995, at Fleet Bank in Woonsocket, led the Autumnfest Parade on October 9, 1995, and then will be honored again by the Woonsocket Senior Citizens Center Advisory Committee at a banquet in her honor on October 19, 1995, at the Woonsocket Senior Citizens Center.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Madam Speaker, today in Washington with me is a constituent of mine, Frank DiPalo, Jr. Frank DiPalo will be testifying later this afternoon about the impact of the cuts on Medicare and Medicaid. Frank remembers the days when his parents could not retire because they could not afford to. Frank DiPalo remembers the days when senior citizens were drugged in nursing homes because they did not have adequate staff to maintain those nursing homes. What the Republicans are calling for is lifting the standards in these nursing homes that keep them home with dignity. Frank is going to speak out about what it is like for senior citizens with regard to out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceutical drugs and the like, and Frank is going to say it is unjust for the Republicans to give a $245 billion tax cut, over 52 percent of which is going to go to families earning $100,000 or more, all while 85 percent of Medicare recipients get less than $25,000 and spend more than a quarter of that income on their health care expenses.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act is a euphemism. It perverts the notion that labor and management are on the same team, when only the management gets to call the plays. In my State of Rhode Island, we would call this bill the Waybosset bill. If anybody has even been to Providence, RI, and driven down Waybosset Street, they would know that I mean. it is a one-way street. That is what we are calling for in this bill, the TEAM Act. It is saying management can choose who they are going to bargain with. That does not sound fair to me. That perverts the whole idea of bargaining. How is labor going to have representation at the table if they cannot even choose their own representatives? This bill says that management is going to decide who represents labor. My colleagues, just think of what we have already done this session. The Republicans have dismantled OSHA. They have also said that when it comes to worker health and safety, that is voluntary. That is like saying stoplights should be voluntary. How often do you think a manager is going to go into their own workplace and say ``This is unsafe for the workers,'' when in essence they would be criticizing themselves? Managers do not even have to keep track of or records now of their own inspections. Mr. Speaker, no one should be fooled by the rhetoric here. This TEAM Act is a euphemism. It is nothing more than a one-way street for management to call the plays and expect labor to run their own plays. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the TEAM Act.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a clear statement that the American people stand arm in arm with the people of Cuba in their struggle against a repressive dictator, and that we will not back away from being partners in our common fight for freedom. We won the cold war because we never gave in to communism. By standing firm we brought down the Iron Curtain and saw communism collapse in Europe. The conditions which existed when President Kennedy implemented our embargo have not changed. Now is not the time to offer relief to the Castro regime, especially relief at the expense of American citizens who have had their property seized by Castro. Castro wants to use American property to lure foreign investors to Cuba who will provide cover for his dictatorship and cash to his treasury. This bill prevents the Castro regime and foreign investors from profiting off the confiscated property of Americans. It says, quite simply, theft is wrong. The Libertad bill allows Americans, whose property Castro has seized, to pursue legal redress if an international corporation or investor purchases that land for profit-making. [[Page H 9398]] This is government-sanctioned theft. The bill also states that we will not allow those who traffic in this stolen property to enter the United States. Why should we welcome those who profit from property stolen from our citizens, from our constituents, and who are exploiting the hopes, dreams, and labor of the Cuban people? Let us be clear, foreign investment in Cuba means one thing--it is a lifeline to the Castro regime. It will legitimize an illegitimate government. It will offer protection to a man who must be brought down just like the Communist dictators of Eastern Europe. It will postpone the day that the people of Cuba will live in freedom and democracy. A vote for this bill is a vote in support of those trying to build democracy in a land that desperately wants freedom. This bill will help that day of liberty come sooner. This is our duty as Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bateman-Edwards proposal in conference and its efforts to restore funding to the Impact Aid Program. Today we are faced with an $83 million gap in one of our countries most vital functions: the ability to educate our children and ensure our Nation's prosperity for generations to come. For the past 45 years the Federal Government recognized its obligation to compensate school districts for the costs of educating children whose parents live or work on federally owned land. I ask my colleagues today, what has happened to that obligation? Has the Federal Government become so single-minded in its attempt to reduce the deficit that it has become blind to the needs of our Nation's children? Many of these children are those of the men and women who serve in our Nation's armed services. Is cutting their children's education how we choose to pay back the people who faithfully serve our country? In my opinion it's a crime to tell the children of military impacted communities that they have to receive a substandard education because the Federal Government does not want to pay its fair share. Many schools have had to close due to cutbacks in the Impact Aid Program. Many more have had to incur huge deficits just to keep operating. From Nebraska and South Dakota to New Jersey and New York schools of all sizes have had major difficulty keeping their doors open. But the necessity of impact aid goes far beyond the 1.8 million children who are eligible under the program. Terminating the program will also have a significant impact on the 20 million students who attend schools that are dependent on impact aid funding. In my own district, thousands of children in the Middletown, Newport, and Portsmouth school districts are largely effected by the Impact Aid Program. What will happen to these children if this program goes unfunded? Where will they go if their school closes down? Impact aid is about more than education, it is also about the strength of our communities. The people of Middletown, RI, tell me they are particularly proud of their community, their schools, and their military population. For over 200 years these same people have extended themselves to the military and have achieved an excellent reputation that is passed from generation to generation of servicemen and women at the naval base on Aquidneck Island. But there are limits to these relationships. It is unreasonable to expect local taxpayers to increasingly subsidize the education of military students. Even with full funding of impact aid, Middletown Public Schools still experience over a $4 million loss in tax revenue from land occupied by the Navy instead of private housing or businesses. With this year's reductions, a bad situation will become undoubtedly worse. Mr. Speaker, the choice is ours. We can fund the future of America's students today or be prepared to pay the costs of uneducated and unskilled work force tomorrow.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the agreement on Impact Aid that has been struck this evening, and I applaud Mr. Bateman, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Porter's commitment to ensure adequate funding be provided to the Impact Aid Program when the House and Senate conference on this legislation. The reason this agreement is so critical is because today we are faced with an $83 million gap in one of our countries most vital functions: the ability to educate our children and ensure our Nation's prosperity for generations to come. For the past 45 years the Federal Government recognized its obligation to compensate school districts for the costs of educating children whose patents live or work on federally owned land. I ask my colleagues today, what has happened to that obligation? Has the Federal Government become so single-mined in its attempt to reduce the deficit that it has become blind to the needs of our Nation's children. Many of these children are those of the men and women who serve in our Nation's armed services. Is cutting their children's education how we choose to pay back the people who faithfully serve our country? In my opinion it's a crime to tell the children of military impacted communities that they have to receive a substandard education because the Federal Government does not want to pay it's fair share. Many schools have had to close due to cutbacks in the Impact Aid Program. Many more have had to incur huge deficits just to keep operating. From Nebraska and South Dakota to New Jersey and New York schools of all sizes have had major difficulty keeping their doors open. But the necessity of Impact Aid goes far beyond the 1.8 million children who are eligible under the program. Terminating the program will also have a significant impact on the 20 million students who attend schools that are dependent on Impact Aid funding. In my own district, thousands of children in the Middletown, Newport, and Portsmouth school districts are largely effect by the Impact Aid Program. What will happen to these children if this program goes unfunded? Where will they go if their school closes down? Impact Aid is about more than education, it is also about the strength of communities. The people of Middletown, RI tell me they are particularly proud of the community, their schools, and their military population. For over 200 years these same people have extended themselves to the military and have achieved an excellent reputation that is passed from generation to generation of servicemen and women at the Naval base on Aquidneck Island. But there are limits to these relationships. It is unreasonable to expect local taxpayers to increasingly subsidize the education of military students. Even with full funding of Impact Aid, Middletown Public Schools still experience over a $4 million loss in tax revenue from land occupied by the Navy instead of private housing or businesses. If the proposed reductions go into effect, a bad situation will become undoubtedly worse. Mr. Speaker, the choice is ours and the choice is clear. We can choose to fund the future of America's students today or be prepared to pay the costs of an uneducated and unskilled work force tomorrow. I am gratified the leadership of this body has made the right choice and has committed itself to providing for our children's future.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the cost of prescription drugs, especially for senior citizens in my State of Rhode Island, is prohibitively high. I am sure each one of us, if we went back to our districts and asked our senior citizens what they are concerned about, among other things on the top three of their list would be the cost of prescription drugs. This amendment says that when the taxpayers foot the bill for research, they should not have to pay for it again at the prescription counter. Prescription drugs are the lifeline for so many Americans. They are also the key to the bottom line for some of our largest companies. During the 1980's, drug prices rose 152 percent. Profits also reached new heights. By 1990, the drug industry was the Nation's most profitable, with an annual profit, annual, on average of 13.6 percent. This is more than three times the profits of the Fortune 500 companies, so do not say there is not enough money for R&D in the drug companies' budgets. The United States is the only industrialized Nation that does not regulate prices or profits on drug companies. We pay a price for that. In this country we spend 25 to 40 times the cost of prescription drugs in this country than they do in other countries around the world. In light of these facts, the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is a pretty tame amendment. It basically says drugs developed by the taxpayers cannot be sold back to the taxpayers at excessive prices. Without a reasonable pricing clause, the taxpayers pay first to develop these drugs through the NIH budget. Then they pay again when they try to pay for them, when they go to the hospital. The Members know what we are talking about. It is up to the NIH to make this reasonable clause thing stick, and say: We are going to work with the drug companies, but we are not going to use taxpayer monies to come up with these drugs, and then allow these drug companies to run away with the R&D that we financed, so they can profit and send these exorbitant profits that these drug companies are making back on the stock market. Make no mistake about it, these drug companies are making three times what the average Fortune 500 company is making, so I do not want to hear a lot about how we are going to gouge the drug companies if we do not permit them to use the taxpayer money, to use it for R&D.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I believe when 17 Rhode Islanders died on the job in 1992, that we are not doing enough to protect worker safety; but the Republicans in this bill are saying that we are doing enough. In fact, they are saying that we are doing too much to protect workers. Just think about this for a moment, Mr. Chairman. When 6,000 workers die every year, and there is one worker-related fatality every 5 seconds in this country, the Republicans in this bill we say are spending too much money on worker safety. This is madness. Since worker safety protections were put in place in order to address trenching fatalities, the number of workers killed has declined by 35 percent, and hundreds of trenching accidents have been prevented. In one instance, an OSHA inspector in a Cleveland construction site said that the workers had to wear fall protection gear while working on a scaffolding 70 feet above the ground. Four days later that scaffolding collapsed, 4 days later, while none of the workers were injured, because they were all wearing the protective gear that OSHA told them they should wear. This is the reason we need to protect it. Mr. Chairman, since the agency was charged with protecting worker safety, and since it was put in place, overall workplace fatalities have declined 57 percent, so why is this bill cutting its budget by 33 percent? Obviously, as the Member just said, to save money. That is obvious. The question is, save money for what? Save money and lose jobs? Save money and lose lives? Save money so that the richest 1 percent of this country can get a $20,000 tax break? To me, that is deplorable, and we should not allow it.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, we know where the money is coming from. We know where the money is coming from that the Republicans are talking about in this proposal. The money is coming out of the paychecks of the hard-working transit workers. Make no mistake about it. By eliminating 13(c), in essence what my colleagues are doing is eliminating the workers' right to collective bargain. So while they are talking all about how they are standing up for hard-working people by eliminating the hard-working people's ability to collective bargain and their ability to stand up for themselves and earn a living wage, that is where they are getting their money and it is not right. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on Wolf and a ``yes'' vote on the Coleman and Ney amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am including in the Record following rollcall votes 517 through 525 an indication of how I would have voted had I been present, to be followed with statements submitted for the Record. I was away from Washington at work back in my district today. However, had I been here I would have responded in the following manner for the rollcall votes on House Resolution 1977, Interior Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996. Roll call No. 517, Schaefer amendment, ``aye; roll call No. 518, Chabot amendment, ``nay''; roll call No. 519, Parker amendment, ``nay''; roll call No. 520, Zimmer amendment, ``nay''; roll call No. 521, Klug amendment, ``aye''; roll call No. 522, Kennedy (MA), ``aye''; roll call No. 523, on passage, ``nay''; roll call No. 524, ordering the [[Page H 7158]] previous question, ``nay''; and roll call No. 525, agreeing to the resolution, ``aye''.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the Gilchrest amendment. Let me just state from the outset that we have seen the devolution of authority go back to the States with respect to a number of programs, one of the most critical of which is protecting our environment. To show the absurdity of the Republican effort to protect the environment, they say ``Let all thee States do it. Let us have a State by State approach.'' It really makes no sense, when you are trying to clean up the air, because you cannot draw State lines around our air quality. We cannot draw State lines around our water quality. Now, with the amendment being proposed, they want to draw private property rights around migratory bird patterns. They want to draw property rights around fish species, like the fish only go to some person's property as opposed to someone else's. They want to say, ``Listen, if we want to put the power back into the locals' hands,'' that is what the big Republican mantra is, give it back to the locals; yet with the amendment being proposed, and hopefully we will support Gilchrest that would remedy it, they want to take the local initiative out of environmental protection. I think this is the critical issue why we need to support the Gilchrest amendment, because we have seen the bumper stickers, ``Think globally, act locally.'' How can we expect people to take the initiative on the local level if we say to them, ``We are not going to allow you to participate in protecting your own backyard?'' In my State, people are passionate about conserving and protecting their environment. Yet, this proposal by the Republicans on the floor today would say volunteers cannot go out and try to protect their own environment. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this House adopts the Gilchrest amendment and strikes the language that would bar volunteers from participating in protecting their own environments.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, here in Congress when we debate Medicare we talk in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. When my constituent Herb McCullough looks at Medicare cuts he thinks in terms of hundreds of dollars. Herb lives on $640 a month from Social Security and a union pension. His Medicare and Medigap expenses are more than $80 a month. Thanks to subsidized housing, rent is $164 a month. After other expenses--food, clothing, phone--Herb will be lucky to have $87 left each month. Recently Herb had to buy two new hearing aids. He took $500 from his pension but still has to pay $100 a month. How would Herb get by if he had a prescription drug bill like his neighbor--$164 a month? I urge my colleagues to think of people like Herb when voting to raise Medicare copayments to $110 a month.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was just struck in listening to the gentleman who just spoke about his moral outrage at the cut of basic science. Now, I share his concern that basic science can be a producer of jobs in the future, but to come on this floor and express the moral outrage that he expressed in this Congress' cutting basic science, I wish I could have heard him express the moral outrage when we cut in this House, based upon the Republican rescissions package, money for women and infants and childrens programs, money that goes to help pregnant women deliver healthy babies, and you are talking about making an investment in this country's future. I will tell you where the Democrats make their investment. The Democrats make their investment in people, because we know in this country we are not going to be a strong country if we produce babies that are sick babies, who do not have the nutrition they need, but the Republicans did not express that moral outrage when it came to cutting the WIC program. The Republicans did not express the moral outrage when it came to cutting the Meals on Wheels Program or cutting the programs that help our senior citizens. And this morning when we were in the well of the House speaking on the 1 minutes, I kept hearing how the Democrats refused to reform health care; the Republicans are stuck with cutting $280 billion from Medicare over the next 7 years, and when I spoke, I [[Page H 6852]] spoke about Herb McCollock in my district who is going to be spending on average 100----

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No, I will not yield. On average----

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I was among those who voted against it when it came to the floor last time, and I want to correct something that my colleague was talking about in terms of leaving it up to the States. Maybe it was good for North Dakota, and I am sure my colleague, when he was an insurance commissioner, looked out for the consumers, but I can tell you the problem with having 50 different select plans, 50 different select plans regulated by 50 different States. It means that seniors in one State, like in my State of Rhode Island, if they have their Medicare Select MediGap plan and they go over to Massachusetts, it is a different plan. That, to me, does not sound like the proper approach to take to this when we are talking about needing comprehensive savings. In addition, I just want to talk a little bit about this so-called increased choice. Under the guise of giving seniors increased choice, Congress is about to pass legislation that will in fact box them in. Yes, one more plan will now be available, but it is a narrow one and it is difficult, leaving many seniors in a potentially very risky situation. More choice do not simply mean better choices. For seniors who are considering the Medicare select policy, keep one thing in mind: This plan could be hazardous to your health. When Medicare select came before us the last time, I supported an alternative that addressed the serious flaws in Medicare select. This amendment would have ended the problems with price rising with age, lowered the barriers that make it difficult and risky and dangerous for seniors to switch, and would have limited the extension until we know that this is a really good idea, because the jury is still out. Let me just add, what this does it, it puts it into the insurance companies' hands and allows them to come up with the rating system. I have seen these Medicare select plans, because in my State I represent the fourth most elderly district in this country, and the senior citizens in my State are worried about this because they know better than we do what is coming down the road. It means that they are going to be able to age-rate you. What does that mean? That means when you get older, they are going to be able to jack up the premiums, and because you are locked into this plan now, you are locked in for life. You try to switch, and guess what: You are going to be paying all those preexisting condition prices, because another insurance company is not going to want to pick up because you may have had asthma, you may have had some kind of visiting nurse care you might have needed, and new plans are not going to want to touch you. Why? Because they are not going to make money off of you. Because if you are sick, insurance companies do not want to cover you. That is why we have Government, because Government is going to regulate the private sector when it comes to insurance, to make sure that the private sector does not run roughshod over the senior citizens and take advantage of them. Believe me, if you do not think they are going to do it, you have got another think coming, because these HMO plans are all about making money, and they do not make money off people who are sick. They do not make money off senior citizens. Be careful, Members. Be careful when you vote for the select plan, because the Republicans did not allow enough time for us to do a proper study of this and now they want to open it up to all the States under the guise of new choice. What is that new choice? It is a bait-and-switch routine. It says new choice. We do not want to face the tough choices, so we will let this private marketplace reduce your benefits. That is what we are saying. We are squeezing the Medicare budget. We are seeing it on the floor of this House. We are squeezing Medicaid. We are cutting the senior citizens Medicare Program. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, says we are not, that we are only reducing the rate of growth, but make no mistake about it, there is going to be less money in Medicare. What is going to happen? There is not going to be enough money to go around, so the MediGap select policies, that is, the supplemental insurance that allows senior citizens to cover what Medicare will not cover, if Medicare does not have as much money as they had before, you better believe they are going to have to have more in the way of supplemental insurance to bridge the gap. Congress is passing this Medicare select because the Republicans are just about to pass all these cuts to Medicare. Mr. Speaker, this idea that this is going to save you money, this is really tricky. If you join the HMO plan, you are not paying as much, so who would not want to buy into that? But let me warn you, in policies that have already been issued under this Medicare select policy, once you are in the plan, it does not bar them from jacking the rates up on you. Now you are stuck because you are in the plan. You have signed your rights away as a consumer. And guess what? Let's say your doctor leaves the plan and you want to go back to your doctor. Forget it. Under Medicare select you cannot do that, because if your doctor is not on the list of approved doctors, you are not going to get that doctor. Let's say you want to switch and follow your doctor. You cannot do that. Then as far as the prices, initially you have got a lower price, but like I said earlier, they will jack the price up on you once you get older. Once you get older, they are going to be able to age-rate you. Mr. Speaker, insurance commissioners in the various States may be able to look after the senior citizens, but I just think it is a really terrible approach. It is the kind of approach we have been taking to everything, give it back to the States, but on health care I think we are making a big mistake when we are trying to have a patchwork quilt. It is going to be a spot, State-by-State approach to this problem, and I do not think it is the right way to go. We need comprehensive health care reform that regulates the insurance companies on the national level, because in a small State like mine in Rhode Island, these insurance companies are going to be able to run roughshod over us and we are not going to have a leg to stand on. My State is a million people. Do you think we are going to be able to stand up to those insurance companies and say, ``Hey, what you're doing is wrong''? Forget it. We cannot do it. We have got insurance companies in our State who are already threatening to say, ``We're not going to write your automobile insurance anymore.'' I do not want that to happen to health care and it should not happen to health care.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a supporter and a true believer in the International Military Education and Training program. But I am compelled, like my colleagues who have just spoken, by the overwhelming evidence to support this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. This is a good program, but this is the wrong time and the wrong place for IMET. For 3 years, Congress has denied IMET to Indonesia. A careful look at the record shows that this is no time to shift this policy. When Congress, at the urging of my predecessor, Ron Machtley, revoked Indonesian participation in IMET, a clear and unmistakable message was sent. We will no longer tolerate an intolerable situation. The human rights abuses in East Timor must end. Simply put, the abuses have not ended. IMET should not be restored. This amendment is most appropriate, considering recent assessments of human rights conditions in Indonesia. To quote from the State Department's 1994 human rights report, The Indonesian government continued to commit serious human rights abuses and in some areas, notably freedom of expression, it became markedly more repressive. The most serious abuse included the continuing inability of the people to change their government and harsh repression of the East Timorese dissidents. Restoring IMET at this time would run counter to these findings and would undermine the moral force of these findings. We have in Indonesia a situation where the benefits of IMET would be lost. The corruption is too deep. The violence is too extreme. And the repression is too severe for us to hold any hope that it can be tempered through education and training. IMET is designed to support democracy and military professionalism, and we cannot support what does not already exist. U.S. aid cannot fill this vacuum. IMET is a powerful and effective tool. It must be used in the right way at the right time. This is not the time. Only through continued pressure will we be able to have the opportunity for an improvement in East Timor. Now is not the time for the United States to send conflicting messages on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Lowey amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Thank you. I would like to thank my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] for allowing me to be here for this special order. And as I rise to discuss with him OSHA in terms of the problems that have been solved, the lives that have been saved, and the injuries that have been prevented by making the workplace a safe place. And that has been because of OSHA. The record of success is now at risk because some want to crush OSHA's ability as an agency to function, leaving today's workers vulnerable and exposed, 40 stories above the ground on today's job site. I want us to ask ourselves a few questions. Do we not as a Nation need to protect workers from the safety and health hazards that they are exposed to on the workplace? Do we not want the Federal Government to take action against employees who would jeopardize the well-being of their workers? Do we not believe that this is important to determine what is killing and injuring people in America's work force? The answer is, of course, yes. The answer should be yes. But what I am hearing from my colleagues from the committee, the Republicans have said, no. Every day workers are asked to gamble their lives and take unnecessary risks because someone wants to cut corners. Today, while it is usually the contractor, today it seems like it is the Congress that wants to cut corners. They want to cut corners when it comes to worker's safety. Many want to argue that today's rules in OSHA are too restrictive and excessively infringe on a company's right to do business. What is so excessive about ensuring a safe workplace? What is so excessive about ensuring that thousands of workers are no longer buried alive in trench cave-ins, as was the case before OSHA strengthened its protections of these workers in 1990? Since then, trenching fatalities have declined by 35 percent, and hundreds of trenching accidents have been prevented. In one instance, OSHA inspected a Cleveland construction site in 1994 and insisted that the workers wear protection gear while working on a scaffold 70 feet above the ground. Four days later the scaffold collapsed, but not one worker was killed because each one was wearing the new protective equipment. How does this protective gear infringe on a company's right to do business? Because it costs money. That is why. It costs money. OSHA made the difference. We are here today to tell our colleagues that we are drawing the line. We will not stand for budget cuts that destroy an agency that is charged with protecting American workers. Remember, we are protecting American workers. This is America, not a third-rate nation, and we will be acting like a third-rate nation if we treat our workers as if they were workers in a third-rate nation. That is why I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] for working on this issue, and my colleagues that are standing up for workers in this House, to make sure that we have a safe workplace, that has the dignity that we would want and the safety that we would demand for our workers in this country. I do not think we should accept anything less than a safe workplace. I commend the gentleman from Illinois for his work, and thank him for allowing me to be here this evening.