Joseph Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, ``Dear Ellie and James. This is a moment that you will read about in your history books. ``Today I will vote to impeach the President of the United States. ``I want you to know why. He broke our laws. He threatened our security. He abused the highest, most sacred office in our land. ``I want you to know that it does not feel good. I can't stop thinking about the cost to our country. Not just the impeachable offenses, but the collateral damage of a President who uses power like a weapon against his own people, erodes our decency, degrades our dignity. ``I don't yet know how they will tell the story of this era, but I want to tell you the story of this day. Let the record show that today justice won, that we did our job, that we kept our word, that we stood our sacred ground. ``Let the record show that we did not let you down. ``I love you. Listen to Mom. Be home soon.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the designee of my esteemed colleague Sheila Jackson Lee from Houston to offer this amendment. She was unavoidably detained at the Judiciary Committee to consider Articles of Impeachment against our President. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the Jackson Lee amendment to the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Prices Now Act. Let me also express my gratitude to the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction for their hard work in crafting this important legislation: Chairman Pallone of Energy and Commerce, Chairman Neal of Ways and Means, and Chairman Scott of Education and Labor. The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Prices Now Act levels the playing field for American patients and taxpayers by: One, giving Medicare the power to negotiate directly with the drug companies and creating powerful new tools to force drug companies to the table to agree to real price reductions, while ensuring seniors never lose access to the prescriptions they need; Two, making the lower drug prices negotiated by Medicare available to Americans with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries; Three, stopping drug companies from ripping off Americans while charging other countries less for the same drugs and limiting the maximum price for any negotiated drug to be in line with the average price in countries like ours; Four, creating a new, $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries; Five, reinvesting in the most transformational improvement to Medicare since its creation--delivering vision, dental, and hearing benefits--and turbocharging the search for new cures. High drug prices are harmful. Medical costs and out-of-pocket expenses result in high rates of bankruptcies, and 10 to 25 percent of patients either delay, abandon, or compromise treatments because of financial constraints. Survival is also compromised. For example, in chronic myeloid leukemia, the 8- to 10-year survival rate is 80 percent in Europe where treatment is universally affordable, but the 5-year survival rate is only 60 percent in the United States. The high out-of-pocket expenses discourages patients from seeking care or purchasing drugs. In a recent survey, one-third of insured persons in Ms. Jackson Lee's home State of Texas delayed or did not pursue care because of high out-of-pocket expenses. The Jackson Lee amendment is simple and straightforward. The Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill by expressing the sense of Congress regarding the harmful impact of the high cost of prescription drugs on communities of color and persons living in rural or sparsely populated areas of the United States. According to the Center for American Progress, the negotiation authority provided in H.R. 3 could save some diabetics more than $700 on an annual supply of certain types of insulin. Moreover, negotiations could bring down the net price for other types of drugs that are particularly needed in minority and poor communities--including expensive treatments for cancer and multiple sclerosis--by thousands every month. Reform is desperately needed, and nearly one in four Americans currently taking prescription drugs find them difficult to afford. Some people struggling to afford medication for chronic illnesses even turn to drug rationing in desperation, which can be lethal. In fact, a recent study found that one in four patients with diabetes rations their insulin in response to rising prices. The American public overwhelmingly agrees that it is time to allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies: 85 percent of Americans support this tactic to reduce prices for Medicare and private insurance. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee amendment. I urge our colleagues to agree to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ms. Jackson Lee, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by stating a couple of things. First, to my friend, the chairman from Texas, the intent of this amendment is not directed at any one individual. It is directed at an intent, which I think we do share, to ensure the integrity of a position and an office that is focused on the well-being of every American. Second, nobody here wants to do anything that is somehow going to hinder anyone's cure or the potential for a new cure to come to market. We do, however, have to wrestle with the fact that 26 percent of the patients across this country in need of insulin ration it. We have to reconcile the fact that 55 percent of the counties in this country do not have a single practicing psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker. We have to wrestle with the fact that one-third of the donations on GoFundMe are for healthcare costs. The existing system that we have is failing American families day in and day out. They are asking for this for a reason, and we are delivering it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell.)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Neal, and Chairman Scott for their extraordinary leadership on this legislation and for helping bring this historic reform of our prescription drug system to the floor today. In the last few years, President Trump has demonstrated how quickly the revolving door between industry lobbyists and high-ranking government officials and offices can spin. It is a practice that may not have started when he entered office, but it is certainly one that he has perfected. Even after promising to drain the swamp, President Trump has appointed more former industry lobbyists to his cabinet in under 3 years than both President Obama and President Bush did in their entire time in office. With those appointments, conflicts of interest run rampant, and corruption has not been hard to find. That is what this amendment attempts to address. It is about good, clean, ethical governance. If we are giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate drug prices, which we absolutely should, we must ensure that those negotiations cannot be tainted by past business relationships or potential personal financial gain, because it is not fair for a secretary to be put into a position where his or her motives may be questioned. And it is certainly not fair to the public to be forced to question the intentions of that secretary. Put simply, a secretary who was previously responsible for price increases on insulin and numerous other drugs while working for a Big Pharma company may be inclined to choose profits of that former employer over the patients he now serves. That same secretary may choose to increase those prices higher or negotiate in something other than good faith based on inside knowledge, past relationships, or a potential future return to that same job after his government service has ended. That would give patients rightful doubt that their interests will guide the negotiations taking place on their behalf. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill and his unwavering commitment to both his home State and our environment. Madam Chair, this legislation isn't just about protecting our land and natural resources for generations to come. It isn't just about ensuring the water rights for the Havasupai Tribe and indigenous people our country has long abused and ignored. It is not just about the tourism industry that could crumble and threaten the local economies that depend on it. It isn't even just about the health of our environment, our air, our water, and our children. It is about the choices that we make and the priorities that we share. It is about finally choosing people over profits. It is about finally choosing the long-term health of our planet and our children over the short-term reward of stripping our resources and leaving devastation and destruction behind. By passing the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, we will show the people of Arizona, and countless other Americans who have been sidelined by powerful special interests, that they are still heard, that they are still seen, and that they will not be dismissed by their government.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, ``At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.'' That was what President Trump promised us on the day he was inaugurated. Over the past few months, our President has broken that promise. He has lied. He has corrupted. He has obstructed. Our President threatened the security of an ally under attack unless they were willing to investigate a fellow American citizen, a political opponent, to benefit his reelection campaign. And he used your taxpayer dollars to do it. His Chief of Staff has confirmed it. The Ambassador of Ukraine confirmed it. A Purple Heart recipient confirmed it. The President admitted it himself. So now, we have to decide if the lies, the corruption, the coverups, and the abuse of power should be allowed by this President or any man or woman who will hold office after him. That choice should be clear.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a good friend, a leader in business and a titan of philanthropy, Don Rodman. Growing up in a single parent household in Dorchester during the Great Depression, Don knew struggle and he knew sacrifice. He understood the power of empathy for a neighbor in need and he felt deeply that you are judged not by what you create or build, but what you give back to your community and your neighbors. A love of automobiles led Don to drop out of high school and enlist in the U.S. Army as a mechanic. Upon completion of his service, he married the love of his life, Marilyn, and began a career in the auto industry. His talents, intuition and vision didn't go unnoticed for long, as Ford offered him a small dealership in Foxboro, Massachusetts. Working closely with his brother Gerry on this new business, he didn't let that dealership stay small for long and quickly grew it to one of the largest in our Commonwealth. But if you asked him what he cared about most in life beyond his family, he wouldn't have given it a second thought: it was always philanthropy and giving back. As he often said, ``You can give your time. You can give your shoulder. You can give your heart.'' And that's exactly what Don has done for decades. After supporting the Robert F. Kennedy Children's Action Corps, he founded the Rodman Ride for Kids which has raised nearly $150 million for at-risk children. Even on the day he passed away, 150 kids were enjoying an all-expenses paid trip to Disney World sponsored by his charitable organizations. You didn't have to know Don to know the impact he had on our Commonwealth and our country, but knowing him was simply inspiring and I was lucky to have grown close to him over the years. To Don's five sons, Brett, Gene, Bart, Curtis and Craig, I thank them for sharing their dad with us for all of these years. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a dear friend, inspiring public servant and brilliant writer, George Mitrovich. A native, proud San Diegan, his fingerprints can be found across the city he loved dearly. Even when careers and callings drew him across the country to the East Coast, George's heart never strayed from home. And one of those jobs that pulled him away was the presidential campaign of my grandfather, Robert F. Kennedy. He was a devoted member of the press team, and his friendship with my family never waned. As the years turned into decades, George was always there. His enthusiasm as infectious as ever as he rattled through stories of politics and baseball, and the pity he felt for anyone silly enough to live anywhere but San Diego. In the years that followed, George worked for politicians on both sides of the aisle and became a trusted advisor and close friend for countless Members of Congress and Senators. After his work in Washington came to an end, he returned home to found The City Club of San Diego in 1975 to leverage his greatest skill, building relationships and creating connections. Over nearly five decades, George brought presidents, senators, authors, athletes, journalists and friends to The City Club to tell stories, confront challenges and strengthen friendships. But through it all, his greatest love never strayed far from his heart or mind, baseball. It was that love that helped him as he shepherded Petco Park into San Diego. And in the months before his passing, he was known to travel with his 2018 Red Sox World Series ring and share it with anyone he came across. George was a man whose spotlight exposed the greatest traits of every person he met. He will be dearly missed. As we mourn his loss, my thoughts and prayers are with his wife, La Verle, and his children, Carolyn, Mark and Tim.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, today much of our country's attention is focused on the hearing happening across the street from where we stand. For weeks, pundits have been speculating: What else would the special counsel reveal? Where is that smoking gun or the viral moment? These questions are understandable, but they also obscure a powerful tool already at this body's disposal as we consider whether or not to hold the President accountable: what we already know. And for that, we turn to the special counsel's report. Volume I details a ``sweeping and systematic'' attack by the Russian Government on our democracy, an attack that our President still refuses to acknowledge. Volume II describes 11 different occasions--11--where the actions of the President may have obstructed justice. The legal framework is pretty straightforward. In criminal cases, an individual must meet the so-called elements of an offense, essentially, a checklist of actions, which, if each is proven, means that a crime was committed. What follows in the special counsel's report is an exhaustive detailing of facts uncovered and a thorough analysis as to whether the elements of obstruction of justice were met in those 11 instances. The special counsel instructs, on page 9 of Volume II, that ``three basic elements are common to the most relevant obstruction statutes: one, an obstructive act; two, a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and three, a corrupt intent.'' In a few of the occasions investigated, the special counsel indicates that the evidence is not sufficient to reach that standard. In several others, however, his analysis is crystal clear. On page 84, the report begins to detail how the President directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to remove the special counsel. ``Mueller has to go.'' ``Call me back when you do it.'' The special counsel then applies the law: One, an obstructive act: page 88, ``Substantial evidence supports a conclusion that the President . . . directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the special counsel removed.'' Two, a nexus: page 89, ``Substantial evidence indicates that . . . the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a Federal prosecutor.'' In fact, the President had tweeted about it. Three, corrupt intent: page 89, ``Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the special counsel were linked . . . most immediately to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.'' Substantial evidence to show that all three elements of the offense are met; substantial evidence that the President obstructed justice; substantial evidence that the President of the United States committed a crime. There are countless other troubling facts which the special counsel indicates may meet the obstruction threshold. Page 91, just days after pressuring McGahn, President Trump directs his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Mueller investigation to future election interference alone. Page 92, the President follows up with Lewandowski with the same request a month later. Page 96, the President writes Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, ``Did you get it?''--referring to Sessions' resignation. ``Are you working on it?''--which leads Mr. Mueller to conclude, on page 97, that ``taken together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into his campaign.'' And, the same page, that ``substantial evidence indicates that the President's efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation . . . was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.'' These are the findings of the report, the facts as they were uncovered and applied to the relevant statutes of our criminal law. This is the information already in our hands today. Summed up by Mr. Mueller's devastating conclusion: ``Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.'' The special counsel has done his job. We must do ours.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for her extraordinary leadership on this issue for years, for the effort that she led on getting this passed in Congress several years ago, and her entire staff, the staff on both sides of the aisle when this bill was initially passed. I also want to thank Congresswoman Stevens for her incredible enthusiasm and dedication to workers across Michigan, across her district, but for never losing sight of what manufacturing means for this country, what this country was built on, and the men and women who make it all possible. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, when I introduced the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act, it was guided by one thing: the people in my district. They were workers from Fall River to Taunton, to Milford, to Newton, who built more than just products on factory floors. They built entire companies; they built communities; and they built families. Those same workers have made this legislation, this national manufacturing network, successful over the past 5 years because they have brought their ideas, their determination, and their passion and pushed our manufacturing industry forward. They have refused to leave anyone behind. Centers like the Advanced Functional Fabrics of America, based at MIT, the research now is focused on defense and health but has consequences in a broad variety of additional innovations, has over 100 members from various States across this country pioneering new technologies that will make their way into American homes and make our soldiers and troops safer along the way. By collaborating with local academia, especially with community colleges and vocational-technical schools, those workers are passing their skills, their expertise and experiences to a new generation of men and women who will follow in their footsteps. As the roots of these institutes continue to expand deep into communities, from Cambridge to Youngstown to Detroit and San Jose, American workers will build new companies, stronger communities, and secure families from the abundant resources that we produce together. Above all else, the workers who lift our economy to great heights on factory floors deserve an economy that works just as hard for them as they do for our Nation. I urge all my colleagues to support this reauthorization. I congratulate Ms. Stevens for work well done, and I thank the chairwoman again.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just say, in closing, that I appreciate the gentleman's words and the work that they did with us to get the report language into the version last year. I would point out that much of the intent behind this legislation and this amendment is directly related to what the gentleman indicated around an ongoing threat assessment from Russia, China, and Iran. The issue isn't so much, has that threat been identified? It is, what has the Intelligence Committee done to ensure the sanctity and the purity of those elections? I think this amendment speaks for itself. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, I begin by thanking the chairman of the committee and his staff for their dedication to getting this amendment here today and for their long and strong defense of our electoral system from foreign interference. Madam Chair, a few weeks ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller stood before the American people and issued a stern warning and an ominous challenge. In what he referred to as the central allegation of his 2- year-long investigation, he told us that there were ``multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.'' Our democracy was attacked, our government undermined, and our election system weakened. We were manipulated. A foreign adversary exposed many of our worst impulses as they hacked, prodded, forged, stole, lied, and exploited in a coordinated and sustained effort to change the trajectory of this country. We cannot change what happened in 2016, but we can learn from it because our adversaries certainly did. They watched as politicians were all too eager to use hacked material. They took notes as social media networks were used to inflame racial, geographic, and demographic divisions. According to the ``Worldwide Threat Assessment'' by the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, Russia, China, and Iran already have their eyes trained on 2020. That is why we must proactively create a foreign threat response center tasked with identifying and rejecting any attempts by any adversary to influence our political process because we cannot hold ourselves up as a beacon of democracy if we are not willing to defend the institutions upon which our democratic system rests. By removing politics from this response and coordinating it under one roof within the intelligence community, we can rebuild that faith in our system. In this body, we have no greater responsibility than to protect the sanctity of our elections, to protect the trust of our citizens, and to protect our faith in government. That is what this amendment codifies. Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, I wish to speak on behalf of the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her passionate work on this issue. The President's transgender military ban doesn't just ignore science, expert testimony, military experience, and the advice of all five military chiefs of staff, it ignores the men and women who are willing to die in defense of our freedom. So I ask my colleagues one simple question: Are you willing to look into the eyes of a trans servicemember and tell them that they are not qualified to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces simply because of who they are, that our country won't allow them their most basic freedom while expecting them to die for our own? If our Nation's fundamental promise that we are all created equal doesn't apply to all, then what are we asking them to defend in the first place?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, this administration continues to tell us that our economic recovery is chugging along, that it has even been hypercharged under President Trump. They say there is well over 7.5 million unfilled jobs and 6 million people looking for work, that wages are beginning to pick up. The stock market has reached record highs and the unemployment rate, record lows. So why aren't our constituents celebrating, saving, and spending at equally historic rates? Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber knows what I am talking about. They can feel it. Why does it all seem so fragile, like this country is walking on economic eggshells? Because that is how it feels to American families every single day. Because in today's America, you can work a 12-hour shift, 7 days a week, year after year--get in one car accident on your way home from work and end up bankrupt. Because the cost of a college education is leaving a generation of graduates with a high-interest mortgage without the house. Because the cost of childcare is becoming even more unaffordable than that college degree. Because the cost of a two-bedroom apartment swallows up the income of a full-time minimum wage worker in every single neighborhood in our country. Because nearly 40 percent of Americans can't afford an unexpected $400 medical bill, and skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs are forcing families to open GoFundMe pages to keep their kids alive. Just over a decade after hitting rock bottom, our economy is still sick for a very simple reason: We haven't correctly diagnosed the cause of that illness. We are comforted by the improvement of external symptoms, like stock prices and unemployment rates; meanwhile, our economy's heart is in dire straits. Small businesses are shuttered, factories are fleeing, family farms are closing, and once-prosperous American towns are barely scraping by. To blame for this chronic illness is a system that has whittled away protection, opportunity, justice, and dignity for the American worker. Our workers rise like their parents before them--early. They work hard to provide for their family for well into the night; they skip lunch breaks; they defer vacation; they trade with coworkers to take an overtime shift--all to care for the ones they love. And yet the jobs that they hold won't even allow for that. The whole point of a job is to earn a living and make a life, to contribute to something purposeful, to be able to provide for your loved ones in return. If American jobs can't meet the needs of Americans, then what is the point? How will the greatest economy in the world possibly endure if its people can't keep up. Mr. Speaker, I read a story a few weeks ago about a few local Home Depot employees who built a walker for a little boy whose parents were not certain that insurance would cover a proper one. And just yesterday, news sites blasted a story of a 9-year-old little boy in California who used his own allowance to pay off the lunch debts of his classmates. The goodness of those workers, of those children is incredible, and thank God we have people like them among us. But a moral, a just, a fair, an accountable, and a decent economy wouldn't call those stories heartwarming but heartbreaking, a damning indictment of a system that bars countless Americans of basic necessity, particularly in their moments of deepest need. A moral capitalism would put quality on the same page as quantity. It wouldn't just ask for integrity and decency from the public and private sectors running our economic show, it would demand it, with laws that work in tandem to guarantee that when our kids get sick, we can take care of them; when our roof falls, we can repair it; when our stomachs ache, we can fill them; and when we tire, we can rest. Mr. Speaker, that shouldn't be too much for anyone to ask.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for moving this critical piece of legislation forward and for shepherding it to the House floor today. I thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Keating, for his advocacy on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which calls both of our districts home. Nearly four centuries ago, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe opened their homes and their lands to the Pilgrims who sailed to our shores. That same welcoming spirit survives in their ancestors who live in Massachusetts today. That is why I am proud to have the Wampanoag people call my district their home. They have planted their roots deeply in Massachusetts, and they see a future of self-determination and prosperity in the city of Taunton. But I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated them in the 398 years since they shared their precious resources with those strangers, not to mention the generations before them that called the region home for nearly 12,000 years. I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated many Native people throughout our history and how we have taken their land, silenced their voices, poisoned their water, and disrupted their culture. We have dismissed their very humanity. It is that shame that leaves us here today with a decision to make. Today, as this House debates this bill, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is on the verge of dissolution. An unjust Supreme Court decision, followed by a reversal by the Department of the Interior to take the Tribe's land into trust, has left the Tribe with no other options. They are without access to critical Federal funds to support their public services, including health centers and schools. The question today is, do we allow this to become a closing chapter in the story of an indigenous people who put their faith and trust into strangers? Do we allow a legal loophole to define American citizens out of existence? Or do we begin to right the wrongs of our past? Do we begin to march down a path of justice and equality and hope for the Native people whose dreams for this country outlive our very democracy? To me, that choice is simple. It is a matter of right and wrong, of correcting a historical injustice that has perpetrated for far too long. It would simply put the Mashpee Tribe on equal footing with all other federally recognized Native American Tribes. I want to take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to rebut some of the arguments made by our colleagues. One, that this is an off-reservation development: There is no reservation. There is nothing to be off-reservation. I cannot imagine that the argument actually is that, for a Tribe that called thousands of acres home, you are going to say they can only represent one small portion of that and not have two facilities. That can't possibly be how the U.S. Government is dictating what Tribal lands can be today of an area they called home for 12,000 years. Two, my colleagues argued that this overrules a court decision. The last time I checked, that is what Congress does. We write laws. The courts interpret them. They strike down laws all the time. We write them again. That is in the Constitution. That is inherent in our responsibilities, in our obligation. The actual court decision, if you read it, indicates that Congress has the inherent power to do exactly what we are doing, 100 percent. Three, our colleagues referenced the Gun Lake decision and the Gun Lake legislation. Gun Lake was a response to a decision by the Supreme Court as well, 100 percent. We have heard allegations of lobbyists. The lobbyist for our colleagues in Rhode Island for their casinos is married to a communications official in the White House. You can't possibly be saying that there is some issue here with Federal lobbying that is not directly and 100 percent in line with lining their own pockets for the opposition to this bill. They said that the Tribe is about to go bankrupt. The Tribe is about to go bankrupt, but all of a sudden, the Tribe doesn't owe the financiers money. Which one is it? Next, Federal benefits, they are saying that all the Federal benefits will remain. That ignores the Federal benefits that come with Federal recognition of reservations: the Indian Business Development Program, Financial Assistance and Social Services, employment assistance for adult Indians, vocational training for adult Indians, educational contracts under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, food distribution programs on the Indian reservation, Tribal transportation programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Tribal justice system grants, treatment as a State under the Clean Water Act, treatment as a State under the Clean Air Act, exercise of Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction. All of those are contingent on this bill today. A dangerous precedent is going to be set. The dangerous precedent that is going to be set is that Massachusetts residents legalized gambling. The Tribe went through a compact with the State that was approved. They went through a referendum with the people of Taunton that was approved nearly 60-40 that townspeople in Taunton want this bill. They want this development. It is a billion dollars for a working-class community. The folks who don't are, yes, a few residents of that community whose lawsuit has been financed by a rival casino developer to end this project so they can build a different one down the road. They say that this is too close to the Rhode Island border. There is an existing casino in Rhode Island that recently started 500 yards from the Massachusetts border. You cannot be serious about this. There is no argument, other than greed, that comes back to why anyone should vote against this bill. This is about the recognition of a sovereign nation that welcomed strangers to their land 400 years ago and helped us celebrate our first Thanksgiving, and the ability of our Federal Government to recognize them for who they are. If nothing else, this Tribe deserves that.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his assistance, for his leadership on this important issue, and for the time. Mr. Speaker, this debate has been 10 years in the making for Indian Country. A decade ago, a Supreme Court ruling created unnecessary confusion in the interpretation and application of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This bill, H.R. 375, would clarify the ensuing confusion. Among other things, it would ensure the IRA applies to all Native American Tribes recognized by the Federal Government, regardless of their date of recognition. For the last 10 years, the unnecessary confusion has caused uncertainty for Tribes seeking recognition and recognized lands, has halted economic development projects on Tribal lands, and has resulted in costly and protracted litigation. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle deserve significant recognition for getting us to where we are today. But, in particular, Chairman Grijalva, Representative McCollum, and Representative Cole have been extraordinary. I thank them for their incredible leadership on Tribal issues, and their perseverance in pursuing a clean Carcieri fix. I am honored to have the opportunity to speak on this. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join Myrtle Baptist Church, the Newton community, and the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts in mourning the loss of Reverend Howard Haywood. A little over a year ago, I walked into Myrtle Baptist with my family, and Reverend Haywood welcomed us with a warm embrace that few could match. It was that physical, emotional embrace that countless congregants and visitors will never forget. With eight generations of his family calling Newton home, the reverend liked to talk about how the city shaped him. If anything, our city stands kinder, stronger, and more just because of him. A journeyman bricklayer and construction worker for five decades, he literally built Massachusetts into what it is today. Yet he still felt like he had more to offer, so he spent the little free time he found fighting for affordable housing and civil rights for his fellow citizens. To his wife, Katy; his daughter, Kristen; his son, Howard, Jr.; and the entire Haywood family, please know how grateful we are that you shared this magnificent man with all of us.