Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding woman in Rhode Island, Sister Mary Mercia Moran, R.S.M., who is celebrating her 50th year as a Religious Sister of Mercy. Originally from New York City, Sister Mary Mercia entered the Religious Sisters of Mercy in Providence on September 8, 1948. She made her Final Profession on August 15, 1954. Sister Mary Mercia has dedicated her life to educating the children of the Diocese of Providence. Since 1951, she has taught at several schools including: St. Patrick in Providence, St. Matthew in Cranston, St. Mary in Pawtucket and St. Brendan in East Providence. Since 1967, Sister Mary Mercia has been teaching Second Grade at Sacred Heart School in East Providence. I was fortunate enough to be her student at St. Matthew's School. She was, and is, an inspiring, demanding, and nurturing teacher. Generations of Rhode Island children have prospered because of her faithful dedication. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Sister Mary Mercia for her many contributions to the children of Rhode Island and selfless dedication to helping others.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Feingold for yielding the time, and I both thank and commend Senator Feingold and Senator McCain for their leadership on this very critical issue. They have been fighting a very lonely--at times lonely--but a very extraordinary battle for not only the reforming of our campaign system but, many suspect, the continued viability of our political system. We have a campaign finance system in place, but that system has literally collapsed. The exceptions, the loopholes, the ingenious ways around, have in fact devoured the rules and we no longer really have a system of campaign finance. What we have is an all-out race for dollars, constantly, incessantly, and then an all-out escalation of spending and political campaigns which has left our constituents amazed and at times disgusted. We have a responsibility and an obligation to change this system today, with the opportunity to vote for very modest reform which will begin to, once again, make elections about ideas and policies, and not auctions to the highest bidder. The McCain-Feingold compromise seeks to accomplish two basic goals: First, to ban the unlimited, unregulated gifts by corporations, wealthy individuals and labor unions to political organizations, the so-called soft money; second, to regulate the so-called issue advertisements which impact on campaigns and which are growing in frequency and in their emphasis impact on campaigns. By ending soft money contributions, we will do what we persistently have said we want to do, and that is to prevent corporations from participating directly in elections. This is not radical reform, this is commonsense consistent reform that we thought we accomplished back in 1973 and 1974 with the original campaign finance reform system. Second, this legislation would attempt to provide a modicum of control over the new phenomenon of the issue ads. They would require the disclosure of the contributions by these individuals and also indicate who is sponsoring these advertisements, or where they are getting their money. We have seen, over the last several years, an amazing phenomenon--candidates are in a race and they are discussing the issues and, suddenly, out of nowhere, comes a mysterious advertisement on television attacking one or praising another. And they both claim that they had nothing to do with it. It is no longer their campaign. They are, in a sense, bystanders on issue advertisements and issue campaigns of which they themselves, many times, disclaim having any knowledge. All of this takes out of the hands of the candidates and, ultimately, the hands of the electorate, what should be at the heart of every election--a vigorous debate between individual candidates about their vision of the future of this country. So we have to do these things. We have to ensure that our campaigns are not tainted by soft money and not overwhelmed by these issue advertisements. This is a problem that plagues both of our Houses. As Senator McCain pointed out, it is not just a situation with the Democrats or just with the Republicans; both sides are locked into this inexorable, it seems, race for dollars. In doing that, we have created a situation where the American people, in many cases, are increasingly disenchanted; they are voting less and less and are getting to the point of being contemptuous of the best political system the world has created to date. We have to do this modest reform today. Frankly, this is just modest reform. There are many things that we could and should do that we are not even talking about today on the floor of the Senate. The States-- the so-called laboratories of reform--are doing things today that we should be at least contemplating. In my own State of Rhode Island, we implemented voluntary spending limits with limited public financing. The States of Maine and New Jersey have done the same thing. The State of Vermont has implemented strict limits on candidate spending-- legislation which directly challenges the Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which I believe incorrectly equates money with speech. In fact, I have introduced similar legislation in this body which would legislatively put limits on and legislatively force the Court to reevaluate Buckley v. Valeo. These are very aggressive steps that we should take. These are things we should do to ensure that our system is entirely resistant to the ravages of money that is affecting it today. But at least today we can stand up with Senators McCain and Feingold and say that we must stop the influence of soft money. We must at least have the disclosure rule behind these issue advertisements. This is the first step toward long-term campaign finance reform that will not only make races about ideas, but will, in fact, I believe, restore the faith of the American people in their system of government and what we do for them. I yield back my time. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to use such time as I may consume with respect to bankruptcy reform.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we have voted to move to consideration of the Bankruptcy Act. One of the sad but true causes of so many bankruptcies of families throughout this country is the fact that they are overwhelmed by medical bills. Now, this is obvious when it comes to those people without insurance, because for those people, getting sick in America not only means being ill, it also very often means going broke. But one of the other aspects that is startling to so many is that many families with insurance, particularly health maintenance organization insurance, find themselves in similar situations where the insurance they paid for, they thought they bargained for, evaporates when they actually have a health care crisis. That is why it is so very, very important to engage in a thorough debate and legislative action with respect to the Patients' Bill of Rights. I join all of my colleagues in issuing a challenge to the leadership of this body to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights so we can debate it, we can consider it, and hopefully we can pass it. Indeed, we should be here tonight debating this worthy measure, or the minimum wage, as my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has suggested, because that is truly the people's business. When I go back to Rhode Island, people are concerned about many things, but they are most concerned about the status of the health care and about whether or not working families in my State and across this country can provide for themselves. The Patients' Bill of Rights, the legislation that we should be debating tonight, is about applying fair rules of the game to health care. When it comes to health care, consumers should get the health care they pay for and they should get it when they need it. But sadly, this is not always the case. In many cases, it is the exception to the rule. It is time for this Congress to accept the President's challenge and pass legislation to enact guarantees for quality health care in this country and important consumer protections. The Patients' Bill of Rights introduced by Democratic leader Daschle, protects patients' rights, while the opposing version introduced by Senator Lott and Senator Nickles leaves too many loopholes and does not provide adequate protections for consumers. By addressing only self- funded, non-ERISA plans, the Lott-Nickles bill excludes 113 million Americans from the protections that are necessary, and, indeed, if you follow the logic of their bill, if a portion of Americans need protection in their health care plan, if a portion of Americans need these protections from insurance companies that are too much oriented toward the bottom line and not quality health care, why should all Americans in private health care plans not have these protections? That is what the Daschle bill does. It would provide coverage for all 161 million Americans who aren't privately insured. This bill submitted by Leader Daschle provides full protection to patients, including, for example, access to specialists, pediatric specialists for children, coverage for emergency services, an internal and an independent external appeals process, and allowing patients to hold health plans accountable in court. All of these protections are important to the health and well-being of all Americans. And all of these protections deserve full debate and consideration on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now, an offer of a single vote on the bill with an extremely limited opportunity for amendments is not the full, vigorous debate that this issue requires-- in fact, that this issue demands. The health care of the American people is too important to try to squeeze in between other issues here on the floor of the Senate. I think we should move today to bring up this legislation, debate it vigorously, pass it and send it forward. Our colleagues in the other body have done so. Now the challenge is with this body to move forward deliberately and purposefully to pass protections that will ensure quality health care and access to all Americans. There is a particular aspect of this debate that I am extremely interested in, which is ensuring that there are adequate protections in managed care plans for children. Too often, children are ignored in the preparation of these plans. Too often, pediatric illnesses are relegated to just another variation of adult illnesses. Too often, children are just seen through these lenses as smaller adults when, in fact, pediatric care is a very specialized part of the health care delivery system. And too often, parents discover that what they bargain for and what they thought they had in terms of protections evaporate when their child is ill. Earlier this year I introduced my own legislation that would ensure that children are not left out of this great debate about managed care, that children would, in fact, be the focal point of very specific procedures within managed care plans, that there would be access to pediatric specialists. A family could choose a pediatrician as a primary care provider, and pediatric specialists would evaluate outcomes relative to children. In working with the pediatric hospitals and with the American Academy of Pediatrics, I have come to understand the very specialized care that is necessary to deliver such care to children. Without such care, illnesses that may have been treated successfully and cheaply in children become traumatic and complicated illnesses that are more expensive and more threatening to the health of this child and later to that adult. My words are less compelling than the words of the people in my home State of Rhode Island who have dealt with this health care morass. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to share a podium with Dr. Karen LaMorge. She detailed the problems she had in getting adequate health care for her father and the fact that the insurance company would not provide a second opinion, and they would not make easy referrals to specialists. One of the great ironies of her story is that Dr. LaMorge is a podiatrist and, in fact, a member of the professional panels of this particular HMO. Now, she, a skilled professional, a provider herself, cannot easily and quickly get adequate care for her father. What happens to the average citizen who confronts this morass of regulations and rules and consents and approvals and daily calls and tracking down people to give the right approval? It becomes a daunting experience. Many, many Americans simply get exhausted trying to get basic health care for their families and themselves. Some give up. Others press on, enduring huge costs in time, efforts and energy. That is not the way our health care system should operate. With the Patients' Bill of Rights, we will go a long way toward ensuring that it doesn't operate that way, that there is an opportunity for high-quality care that is accessible and, indeed, also affordable, because, frankly, there is a lot of money being spent by these health care plans on administrators and bureaucrats. Maybe more could be directed to health care and to the American citizens. There is a particular aspect of this which I find particularly compelling, and I mentioned it before; that is, the aspect of pediatric health care. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Hassenfeld Children's Cancer Center at New York University Hospital in New York City. There I saw the care they are giving to dying children. I heard from the frontline professionals, the social workers, nurses, doctors, about the daily frustrations they face and endure in trying to get adequate care for these children from HMOs. The idea that they would spend days trying to get hospice care for a child who is dying, the idea that they would have to get daily approval and reapprovals for a course of treatment that is clear and obvious and has been prescribed is just an example of the state of this system, which is, in many respects, a crisis for so many families in this country. We can do better. We must do better. But we can only do that if we have the will. We must bring this legislation to the floor. We must bring this legislation to this floor promptly. There are few days left, but in those days it is our obligation to serve the interests of the American people. At the top of their list is a more rational, more appropriate health care system. We are within striking distance of that, if we just act. As I mentioned before, the other body has acted. It is our responsibility, our turn to step up to the plate and to get a greater hit than even Mark McGwire, because this hit will ensure that every family in America has good access to health care and will help that process to continue along. We should stay here tonight and every night and not simply make speeches with respect to this underlying bankruptcy bill, but actively debating and actively voting on, in a robust, wide- open debate, HMO protections for the people of America. As Senator Kennedy suggested, we should also take up the minimum wage because that, too, is a way to address the real problems that face America. I hope that our resolution tonight would be to take up these measures, debate them fairly and honestly, and to vote and give the American people what they so desperately want and deserve--a health care system that works for them, and for those low-income working Americans a decent wage which will lift them out of poverty. I hope we do that. Certainly I think I and my colleagues will continue to urge that action on this Senate, and hopefully these words will take heart and take hold. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation at the request of Rhode Island's jewelry box manufacturers to require a permanent country of origin marking on imported jewelry boxes. This bill is similar to another piece of legislation I am introducing today to require a permanent country of origin label on imported fashion jewelry items, and it is my hope that this jewelry box bill will be considered in tandem with that legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the record I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to require permanent country of origin markings on most imported fashion or ``costume'' jewelry products. I am joined in this effort by Senator D'Amato, who founded the Senate Jewelry Task Force with me, as well as Senators Inouye, Kerry, Torricelli, and Dodd, who I would like to thank for their strong support of the 16,200 Americans employed by our nation's fashion jewelry manufacturers. Like many sectors of our nation's economy, domestic fashion jewelry manufacturers are all too familiar with the pressures of the new global economy. And, for many years, little attention was paid to the industry by our trade negotiators and other officials. Today, that is changing: The Commerce Department is working with our fashion jewelry makers and has undertaken a competitiveness study of the industry, and our trade negotiators now recognize the needs of America's jewelry manufacturers when they sit down with our trading partners. Yet, the industry still faces an uphill battle against low-wage importers, who do not have to abide by appropriate environmental standards and other important U.S. laws. For that reason, we are introducing this legislation to require a permanent country of origin label on imported fashion jewelry products so American consumers know where it was made. This is the same labeling requirement we see on thousands of imported products from televisions to tennis shoes. Unfortunately, the current marking requirement for jewelry imports is a hanging tag or sticker, which can be removed, fall-off, or be obscured by price tags. Consumers deserve better, and this legislation allows them to make an informed choice, in light of the $524 million worth of fashion jewelry imported in 1995 alone. Our bill is modeled on the current permanent marking requirement for imported Native American style jewelry products, and it is endorsed by the nation's largest jewelry trade organizations such as the Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths of America and the Jewelers of America. Mr. President, imported jewelry is a fact of our international economy, but consumers have a right to know where a product is made and hard working American jewelry makers have a right to a level playing field. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation at the request of Rhode Island's jewelry box manufacturers to require a permanent country of origin marking on imported jewelry boxes. This bill is similar to another piece of legislation I am introducing today to require a permanent country of origin label on imported fashion jewelry items, and it is my hope that this jewelry box bill will be considered in tandem with that legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the record I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to require permanent country of origin markings on most imported fashion or ``costume'' jewelry products. I am joined in this effort by Senator D'Amato, who founded the Senate Jewelry Task Force with me, as well as Senators Inouye, Kerry, Torricelli, and Dodd, who I would like to thank for their strong support of the 16,200 Americans employed by our nation's fashion jewelry manufacturers. Like many sectors of our nation's economy, domestic fashion jewelry manufacturers are all too familiar with the pressures of the new global economy. And, for many years, little attention was paid to the industry by our trade negotiators and other officials. Today, that is changing: The Commerce Department is working with our fashion jewelry makers and has undertaken a competitiveness study of the industry, and our trade negotiators now recognize the needs of America's jewelry manufacturers when they sit down with our trading partners. Yet, the industry still faces an uphill battle against low-wage importers, who do not have to abide by appropriate environmental standards and other important U.S. laws. For that reason, we are introducing this legislation to require a permanent country of origin label on imported fashion jewelry products so American consumers know where it was made. This is the same labeling requirement we see on thousands of imported products from televisions to tennis shoes. Unfortunately, the current marking requirement for jewelry imports is a hanging tag or sticker, which can be removed, fall-off, or be obscured by price tags. Consumers deserve better, and this legislation allows them to make an informed choice, in light of the $524 million worth of fashion jewelry imported in 1995 alone. Our bill is modeled on the current permanent marking requirement for imported Native American style jewelry products, and it is endorsed by the nation's largest jewelry trade organizations such as the Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths of America and the Jewelers of America. Mr. President, imported jewelry is a fact of our international economy, but consumers have a right to know where a product is made and hard working American jewelry makers have a right to a level playing field. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1385, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. In a world where economic activity knows no national boundaries, it is crucial we ensure that we have the most knowledgeable and best trained workers in the world. As a member of the Conference Committee on H.R. 1385, I am pleased that the Conference Agreement before us today will help us reach this goal by streamlining and reforming job training, adult education, and vocational rehabilitation programs, while enhancing federal support and investment in these critical areas. The Conference Agreement will help states implement a more coherent, performance-driven system to ensure that Americans receive the training and education they need throughout their lives. The Conference Agreement will streamline services by establishing a one-stop delivery system; enhance accountability by requiring states, local boards, and training providers to meet higher performance measures; provide more reliable information on local career opportunities and training programs and providers; empower individuals to use individual training accounts to choose their own training programs and providers; and increase flexibility to allow states and local areas to implement innovative job training programs. I am also particularly pleased that this Conference Agreement includes provisions which will benefit my home state of Rhode Island, such as preserving the state's successful service delivery area structure. In addition to job training reform, the Conference Agreement also improves the accessibility and quality of adult literacy and education programs. Indeed, more aggressive adult literacy programs are essential if we are to ensure that everyone in the workforce has an ability to read. Lastly, the Conference Agreement reauthorizes the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In doing so, it links vocational rehabilitation to the new workforce system, while maintaining a separate funding stream for vocational rehabilitation. This will provide improved training and employment services to individuals with disabilities. I want to thank Chairman Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, and Senator Wellstone, and their staffs, for their efforts on this important legislation and for working with me to address issues affecting Rhode Island. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Shelby amendment to create a small bank exception to the Community Reinvestment Act. Mr. President, the Community Reinvestment Act requires financial institutions to meet the credit needs of local communities--including low and moderate income areas--consistent with safe and sound lending practices. Unfortunately, many proponents of the Shelby amendment have argued that this obligation is tantamount to government mandated credit allocation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither the Act nor the regulations specify the number of loans, the type of loans, or the parties to CRA loans. To the contrary, CRA relies on market forces and private sector ingenuity to promote community development lending. This is evidenced by the tremendous flexibility that financial institutions have in satisfying CRA. For example, loans to nonprofits serving primarily low- and moderate-income housing needs; loans to financial intermediaries such as Community Development Financial Institutions; and loans to local, state, and tribal governments may qualify for CRA coverage. Moreover, loans to finance environmental clean-up or redevelop industrial sites in low- and moderate-income areas also qualify as CRA loans. In addition to lending, CRA is satisfied through investments by financial institutions in organizations engaged in affordable housing rehabilitation, and facilities that promote community development such as child care centers, homeless centers, and soup kitchens. These all qualify for CRA coverage. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has weighed in on this issue, arguing: The essential purpose of the CRA is to try to encourage institutions who are not involved in areas where their own self-interest in involved, in doing so. If you are indicating to an institution that there is a foregone business opportunity in an area X or loan product Y, that is not credit allocation. That, indeed, is enhancing the market. As illustrated by these examples and Chairman Greenspan's comments, it is clear that CRA is a far cry from government mandated credit allocation. To be sure, CRA is predicated on two simple assumptions that should be shared by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: (1) that a public charter for a bank or savings institution conveys numerous benefits, including deposit insurance, and it is fair for the public to ask something in return, and (2) government cannot and should not provide more than a limited part of the capital required for local housing and economic development needs; financial institutions in our free economic system must play the leading role. In the words of former Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig, ``CRA is in many respects a model statute. It requires no public subsidy, no private subsidy, and no massive Washington bureaucracy.'' These simple concepts, which are the embodiment of CRA, are perhaps most responsible for the significant democratization of credit that we have seen over the last 20 years. Since its enactment in 1977, CRA has resulted in more than $397 billion in loan commitments for low- and moderate-income borrowers. In my state of Rhode Island, it has been estimated that CRA has resulted in over $61 million in commitments for community development lending since 1977. Mr. President, I fear that the Shelby amendment will significantly undermine these advances. This amendment will exempt 86 percent of all banks from CRA, thereby doing irreparable harm to our communities that are in dire need of investment and opportunity. The adverse impact on community lending will be particularly severe in states such as Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, where 95 percent of all banks are small and would be exempt from CRA. If communities in these states are not able to turn to their financial institutions for rural and community development lending, to whom will they turn? Mr. President, this amendment is unnecessary. In response to concerns about regulatory burdens voiced by small banks, CRA was revised in 1995 to provide regulatory relief. The new regulations provide a streamlined examination process for independent banks and thrifts with assets under $250 million. In addition, under the new regulations, the smallest banks have been exempted from all reporting requirements, and are no longer subject to process-based documentation requirements. Moreover, the actual time spent in the smallest banks on CRA examinations has dropped by 30 percent. Following promulgation of the revised CRA regulations, many small bankers were effusive in their praise of the reforms. For example, Richard Mount of the Independent Bankers Association of America, which represents small banks, indicated, We commend the regulators for instituting a meaningful, streamlined, tiered examination system that recognizes the differences between community banks and their large regional and multinational brethren. The new rules should eliminate the paperwork nightmare of CRA for community banks and allow them to concentrate on what they do best--reinvest in their communities. Finally, Mr. President, this amendment will significantly weaken one of our most important tools in preventing lending discrimination. Perhaps because of its success, many have forgotten the embarrassing state of lending in many urban communities prior to CRA's enactment. In a Senate Banking Committee hearing in 1977, a study of six banks was presented which showed that these banks, which held $144 million in deposits from low-income and minority communities, returned an embarrassing one-half cent on the dollar in home loans. Throughout hearings on CRA, witnesses from around the country recounted similar stories of lending discrimination. While certainly we have come a long way since 1977, lending discrimination, unfortunately, persists. In a study published earlier this year by the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, it was revealed that Washington area lenders discriminate against two out of five African American and Hispanic mortgage applicants. In one incident cited in the study, a Rockville lender advised a black tester that the lender did not make loans to first-time home buyers. The same lender later met with a white tester, also posing as a first-time home buyer, giving the tester an appointment and encouraging him to apply for a mortgage loan. Lending studies by other organizations reveal similar findings. These studies have shown that minority borrowers receive fewer bank loans even when their financial status is the same as or better than white borrowers. By encouraging lenders to extend credit to all communities, CRA has been an important weapon in fighting lending discrimination. Because the Shelby amendment would exempt 86 percent of all banks from its coverage, lenders could find it easier to discriminate in the provision of credit. Mr. President, I do not think we want to return to the dark days before CRA, where access to credit and investment in our urban and rural communities was limited for all the wrong reasons. Instead, with the movement of assets out of the banking system and with increasing industry consolidation, we should be seeking ways to expand community investment, not limit it. For this reason, I will strongly oppose the Shelby amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my views on credit union commercial lending, as well as my support for the motion to table the Hagel amendment. Mr. President, I generally support the ability of credit unions to engage in commercial lending. Indeed, I am aware that for many members, credit union loans are the only available sources of capital for business investment. Also, when considering banking industry consolidation and the potentially adverse implications to small business lending, I believe that commercial lending by credit unions has an important role. However, Mr. President, commercial lending can significantly increase the risk profile of credit unions. This is evidenced by recent National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) data which illustrates that the delinquency rate on credit union business loans--3.1 percent--is more than three times the delinquency rate on credit unions' overall loan portfolio--0.97 percent. More importantly, in 1991, my home state of Rhode Island experienced a credit union crisis that resulted from the failure of a state- chartered private deposit insurance corporation. This crisis affected one in five citizens and was predicated in part on excessive and risky commercial lending by privately-insured credit unions. Indeed, 13 of the state's credit unions were permanently closed, and the state had to seek federal assistance to repay depositors. In view of these facts, I was pleased that the Banking Committee adopted an amendment to limit commercial lending by credit unions to 12.25 percent of outstanding loans. However, Mr. President, as reflected in my additional views to the Committee Report to H.R. 1151, I do not think this cap goes far enough. Specifically, I have argued that the cap is inadequate because it is significantly higher than the level of commercial lending that credit unions are currently engaged in--0.75 percent of outstanding loans. I have also argued that because loans under $50,000 are counted toward the 12.25 percent cap, credit unions could engage in commercial lending to a much greater extent than the limit imposed in the bill. In response to concerns over commercial lending, Senators Hagel and Bennett have introduced this amendment to limit commercial lending to seven percent of outstanding loans. In addition, the amendment would count loans under $50,000 toward the cap and codify NCUA requirements that loan officers have at least two years of commercial lending experience. I would like to commend Senators Hagel and Bennett for their recognition of this issue and their attempt to address commercial lending concerns. However, I believe the Hagel amendment goes too far. My specific concern is that it both significantly reduces the commercial lending cap, while also eliminating the $50,000 exemption. Taken together, these provisions could impose undue burdens on credit unions with outstanding commercial loans. Because loans under $50,000 are not considered ``commercial" under current regulations, the NCUA does not keep data on these loans. As a result, we simply do not know what percentage of outstanding loans would be characterized as ``commercial'' under the Hagel amendment. Thus it is possible, and likely, that the percentage of commercial loans could increase dramatically if this amendment were passed, which could put many credit unions that would otherwise satisfy a seven percent cap in violation of the amendment, forcing them to withdraw from commercial lending. As I indicated in our Committee's report, I believe the cap should bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of commercial lending that credit unions are currently engaged in. To the extent that the Hagel amendment creates uncertainty regarding existing commercial lending, we must be careful not to establish an overly-restrictive cap. While I expressed concerns about the $50,000 exemption in my additional views, those concerns were tied to the higher lending cap of 12.25 percent. Mr. President, a preferred approach to the Hagel amendment would be to reduce the aggregate lending cap, while retaining the $50,000 exemption. This approach would eliminate the uncertainty associated with the Hagel amendment, while establishing a meaningful limit on the future expansion of commercial lending. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for including an extension of Temporary Protected Status for Liberians until September 30, 1999 in the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. The histories of Liberia and the United States have been intertwined since 1847 when our nation's founding fathers helped freed American slaves found the sovereign state of Liberia. The first Liberians adopted the U.S. Constitution as a model and named the capital of the new country Monrovia, after President James Madison. Diplomatic, military and trade relations flourished between the two countries until the late 1980's. Then, in December 1989, Liberia was engulfed by a civil war that would last for seven years and continue to boil below the surface. Over 150,000 people died and more than one-half of the population fled the country or was internally displaced. During the conflict, food production was halted and the country's infrastructure was destroyed. Several thousand Liberians who were forced from their homes because of the civil war sought refuge in the United States. In 1991, the Attorney General determined that Liberia was experiencing an ongoing armed conflict which prevented Liberian nationals from safely returning home. She granted Liberians who were present in the United States on March 27, 1991 temporary protected status (TPS), which provides temporary relief from deportation. Because the conflict in Liberia continued to rage, the Attorney General extended TPS each year for the next six years. Furthermore, conditions in Liberia deteriorated to such an extent in 1996, that the Attorney General ``redesignated'' TPS for Liberians who arrived after March 27, 1991 but were living in the United States on June 1, 1996. Never before in history had the Attorney General been compelled to redesignate a state for TPS. Recently, however, the Attorney General declared that TPS would end for all Liberians on September 28, 1998. It is true that on July 19, 1997, Liberians elected former warlord Charles Taylor president and 300 international observers deemed the election free and fair. It is also true that this new government has pledged to rebuild the economy and reconcile the ethnic factions. However, there are signs which indicate that Liberia is not as safe and stable as many would like to believe. In early December 1997, a prominent opposition leader was assassinated. Furthermore, a newspaper and two radio stations were temporarily shut down by the government. A pastor of a church in my home state of Rhode Island had a conversation just yesterday with an individual who just returned from Liberia who stated that people in Liberia are afraid to criticize the government in any way. The secret police sweep neighborhoods at night, people disappear and bodies mingle with garbage under a bridge in Monrovia. I would also like to relay the comments of Bishop Arthur Kulah to my colleagues who may wish to know why TPS is still needed. Bishop Kulah is a United Methodist leader who lost his parents and two brothers in the civil war. He recently spoke with Liberians living in Rhode Island and when they asked if it would be safe to return when TPS was terminated, he replied, ``People who have been fighting for ten years will not suddenly change. It may be quiet and then flare up overnight. The disarmament was not complete. People still have guns.'' This weekend the Liberian community in Rhode Island will celebrate the 151st anniversary of Liberia's independence. They will celebrate the history and culture of their country and look forward to the day when they can safely go home. But that time is not now, Mr. President. They came to this country seeking peace and security. We have an obligation to offer them refuge until it is truly safe to go back.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes of the time allocated to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak briefly on the nomination of Mr. James Hormel to be the United States Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel has a distinguished record as a businessperson, as a lawyer, as a former dean of the University of Chicago Law School, and as a philanthropist. His family owns one of the largest agriculture companies in our country. He has, throughout his distinguished career, been a contributor and supporter of many worthy organizations. His philanthropy is well known throughout the United States. He has contributed significantly to the Catholic Youth Organization, to the United Negro College Fund, Swarthmore College, Breast Cancer Action, and to many, many other associations. He has also served as the alternate representative to the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of our country, the United States of America. Mr. Hormel's nomination was favorably reported out by the Committee on Foreign Relations and is widely supported here in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, hundreds of distinguished Americans have favorably commented on his nomination, and they have stated that Mr. Hormel has the ability and skills to successfully represent the United States in Luxembourg. Now, there are many who are watching this proceeding who would ask, given all these qualifications, why would Mr. Hormel be denied a vote on his nomination to be Ambassador to Luxembourg? The simple answer comes down to the fact of Mr. Hormel's sexual orientation. There are many--the vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of Senators--who feel that this is irrelevant to the duties that he will perform as Ambassador to Luxembourg, and we should look not to his sexual orientation, but to his record of achievement and to his ability and to his responsibilities throughout his career in terms of advancing not his personal agenda, but in fact serving well both the institutions he represented, such as the University of Chicago, and many, many philanthropic activities which he has been involved in. But there are some in this Chamber who I fear would rather not have an Ambassador, but would rather have a political issue. My preference is to have an Ambassador serving the United States with distinction in Luxembourg. And I believe Mr. Hormel will do that. Mr. President, the Providence Journal newspaper in my home State of Rhode Island put it best when they headlined the editorial by simply saying ``Vote on Hormel.'' Mr. Hormel does not want this ambassadorship as a pulpit to advance any agenda. What he wants to do is represent our country with distinction and great diligence. I believe he will do that. In his own words, in a letter to Senator Gordon Smith, our colleague, he said: I will not use, nor do I think it appropriate to use, the office of ambassador to advocate any personal views I may hold on any issue. . . . I assure you that my public positions will be those of the U.S. Government. I believe that however one feels about Mr. Hormel's qualifications, this institution deserves to give him a vote, to give him an opportunity to have his case decided openly here on the floor of this Chamber, allowing individual Senators to make whatever point they may choose to make about his qualifications, about his potential to serve. But to deny him his vote, I think, is to deny not only one individual but this country the opportunity to make a decision about his qualifications to serve. I hope that we can quickly bring his nomination to the floor for a vote and then let the will of the majority prevail. I believe it is wrong and unfortunate that we retain this nomination and not allow it to come to the floor for the vote. I hope in the days ahead we will vote on Mr. Hormel and we will vote favorably. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Japan- America Society of Rhode Island for its efforts in organizing this weekend's 15th annual Black Ships Festival of Rhode Island. The Black Ships Festival takes its name from the Japanese word Kurofune (Black Ships) which the residents of Shimoda, Japan used to describe the tar covered American ships which sailed into Shimoda harbor under the command of Rhode Island native Commodore Matthew Perry in 1854. As you know, Commodore Perry and officials in the Edo Period Shogunate negotiated the Treaty of Kanagawa, the first treaty between United States and Japan, which opened Japan to trade with the West and marked the beginning of the relationship between our two great countries. Each summer, Newport, Rhode Island and Shimoda, her sister city, hold Black Ships Festivals to celebrate the friendship which began in 1854. Since its inception 15 years ago, the Black Ships Festival of Rhode Island has grown bigger and better every year, becoming a fixture on Newport's summer schedule and an event that the entire state eagerly awaits. The Festival truly is one of Rhode Island's treasures. It provides residents and visitors to the Ocean State a unique and inexpensive opportunity to learn about and celebrate Japan's traditions and culture. As a result, I can honestly say that our state has gained a better awareness than most of Japanese culture. The success of the Black Ships Festival of Rhode Island is now recognized far beyond the borders of the Ocean State. On July 1, the Japan-America Society of Rhode Island was selected to receive the prestigious Japanese ``Minister of Foreign Affairs' Citation'', which recognizes individuals and organizations that have contributed to friendship and understanding between Japan and other countries. Of the 9 organizations receiving this award in 1998, the Japan-America Society is the only one that is not Japanese. Mr. President, as the Co-Chair of this year's Black Ships Festival of Rhode Island, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Japan America Society of Rhode Island for its tremendous efforts in organizing the Festival and strengthening the bond friendship between the United States and Japan.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REED. That is in Massachusetts.