Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am prepared to speak. I would be willing to defer if there are any other procedural announcements at this time. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment before us today. For many decades, Congress found it easier to debate a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution than to actually balance the budget. Support for the balanced budget amendment was a convenient badge of fiscal austerity at a time when many Members were voting for tax policies and spending proposals that saw our annual deficit and our cumulative national debt explode. After so many years, it is no wonder that the balanced budget amendment has become a talisman which its supporters clutch, suggesting that it has extraordinary powers to translate the difficult choices that this body must face into some type of simple constitutional formula which will miraculously erase the deficit. But, as the last few years have indicated, there is no magical constitutional language that will make the choices or the policies of budget balancing easier. Mr. President, in 1993, the Clinton administration began a process of deficit reduction which has helped to create a strong economy, cut the deficit by 63 percent, brought the deficit when measured as a percentage of the gross domestic product to its lowest level since 1974, and given us the lowest deficit of any major industrialized nation. It took difficult choices, not constitutional gimmicks; choices that Republicans refused to support. Whether or not this amendment passes, and I hope it does not, we will still be confronted by these choices. However, if this amendment does pass, for the first time in our history we will either surrender our role in shaping the budget and the social and economic policies which it defines to the courts, or simply surrender any decision to an adamant minority which could invoke the provision to block necessary action. Mr. President, the amendment before us today is flawed in many ways. It is the wrong answer to a real problem. It is the wrong way to manage the economy. It disrupts our tradition of majority rule. It needlessly jeopardizes essential programs and it needlessly enhances the role of the courts in budgetary and tax policy. The balanced budget is the wrong way to manage the economy. Over 1,100 noted American economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, voiced their opposition to this balanced budget amendment on the grounds that it would hurt our economy and graft improper fiscal policy onto the Constitution. They said, ``It is unsound and unnecessary.'' They added, ``It mandates perverse actions in the face of recessions.'' They went on to say it ``would prevent Federal borrowing to finance expenditures for infrastructure, education, research and development, environmental protection, and other investment vital to the Nation's future well-being,'' and that it ``is not needed to balance the budget.'' They also ``condemn'' the amendment and suggest it could place our economy ``in an economic straitjacket.'' One Nobel laureate, Prof. William Vickery, developed an analysis of 15 issues with respect to balancing the budget, reducing the deficit and providing for economic growth, and in this analysis he has a compelling and noteworthy passage: If General Motors, AT&T, and individual households had been required to balance their budgets in the manner being applied to the federal government, there would be no corporate bonds, no mortgages, no bank loans, and many fewer automobiles, telephones and houses. But this balanced budget amendment suggests that the Government do exactly the opposite of what the most sophisticated private industries do, and I think that is a mistake. While the majority may find it appropriate and even desirable to insert economic formulas into the Constitution, I would urge caution. For example, we all believe and we will say time and time again that we should have a full employment economy and that every able bodied American work. However, if I were to introduce a full employment constitutional amendment, I predict that the very same supporters of this balanced budget amendment would rush to this floor and condemn that approach, invoking the terminology that we should not enshrine economic ideas or formulas into the Constitution of the United States. The same thing would happen if we talked about an anti-inflation amendment. The point, I think, should be very clear. It is our responsibility, together with other institutions, outside the scope of the Constitution to rationally ameliorate the surges and downswings of the economy. This is what we should do. Some people might try to say, well, no, look at the States. They provide for a balanced budget. That certainly misses the point. State governments do not manage national economies. They do not issue and support currencies. They do not deal in foreign trade. And most of them, if not all of them, with balanced budget requirements have the good sense to separate capital spending from operational spending. So that logic does not suffice to support this balanced budget amendment. I also suggest that economically we are not immune from the difficulties of the business cycle. We have been enjoying over the last several years good, substantial economic growth, but we know that in past periods our economy has faltered. If it does falter, this balanced budget amendment could be a straitjacket, confining and constraining us in our response to these economic recessions. When the economy shrinks, revenue shrinks, throwing off our revenue estimates, throwing off our whole plan to get to the balanced budget, and we will be hamstrung by this amendment's proposals in terms of what we can do to address a recession. For example, the CBO has talked about the impact of recession on the deficit. Their estimates indicate that a 1 percent drop in the gross domestic product would increase the deficit by $32 billion. A 1-percent increase in unemployment would add $61 billion to the deficit. These are staggering figures with which we would have to contend in the context of a very narrowly drawn balanced budget amendment. These are not just statistics. These are real people's lives. We have all lived long enough to have endured economic recessions and have seen the cost in human lives. We have to, as a Government, to such situations. We cannot, I think, plead, at that moment of need, we would like to help you, but the Constitution prevents us from doing sensible, appropriate things to put people back to work in this country. One of the aspects of the balanced budget amendment that would severely constrain our response to recessions is the fact that it would suppress the automatic stabilizers contained in our economic policy today, things like unemployment compensation and other entitlement programs which exist to meet the needs of people who have fallen on hard times during a recession. As the Congressional Research Service cautioned when it examined the economic impacts of this proposal: In sum, the balanced budget constitutional amendment could require action to neutralize the automatic stabilizers in the budget that expand outlays and reduce tax collections in economic slowdowns and recessions. In this case, the budget would no longer serve to moderate business cycles. And, under this amendment, we would lose a valuable tool in aiding the working men and women of America. There is more than just constitutionally historic interest involved in the question of this amendment's supermajority requirements because this amendment requires not a majority vote, in many cases, but much more than a majority vote. This provision holds the real potential for constraining effective action at the time we need Government to move decisively and purposefully. For example, in times of economic crisis, there would be no automatic stabilizers if a small minority of Senators or Representatives objected. Different regions of the Nation experiencing economic hardship could find no comfort in Washington because they could not muster the number of Senators and Representatives to deal with their region's particular problems. Frankly, over the last several years, we have seen economic situations in which the country overall appears to be doing fine, but when you go to the Northeast, to California, or to other parts of the country, you find regional recessions that need the help of this Government. Regrettably, in that situation there may not be sufficient will or political support to do what we must do, which would be extremely detrimental to the citizens who live in these areas. There is another aspect of this supermajority that is built into this constitutional amendment which should cause us all great concern, and that is in order to raise the debt ceiling a vote of three-fifths would be required. We have just in the last Congress seen the difficulty of securing approval of a change in the debt ceiling with a simple majority requirement. If we would require a three-fifths vote, we really would be putting our Nation at severe risk. As Secretary Rubin has pointed out with respect to the issue of raising the debt ceiling and consequently avoiding default on Government debt: The possibility of default should never be on the table. Our creditworthiness is an invaluable national asset that should not be subject to question. Default on payment of our debt would undermine our credibility with respect to meeting financial commitments, and that, in turn, would have adverse effects for decades to come, especially when our reputation is most important, that is, when the national economy is not healthy. Moreover, a failure to pay interest on our debt could raise the cost of borrowing not only for the Government but for private borrowers as well. This super majority provision would affect the Government's ability to deal rationally and prudently with the debt ceiling, and that is another reason, a very strong reason, why this proposed constitutional amendment is inappropriate. It is bad economics; 1,100 economists would condemn it, but it is also very poor budgeting. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the majority's proposal turns the Congress and the President into fortune tellers who must somehow predict and balance outlays and receipts exactly or find the supermajority needed to waive the amendment. This appears to be an impossible task, because each year the CBO seems to revise its projected deficit and revenue totals on a regular basis. We should not delude ourselves into thinking we can accurately predict the future, and we should definitely not add this dubious proposition to the Constitution. In addition to the fact that this amendment's success is predicated on frail human predictions, there are other reasons to oppose this amendment. While the majority claims that States have managed to survive balanced budget amendment requirements, they fail to acknowledge, as I previously indicated, that States do so rationally by creating separate operating and capital budgets. I have supported a balanced budget amendment which recognizes this rational policy. But that proposal is not before us today and we are debating a proposal that does not recognize--in fact some scholars have indicated it would constitutionally preclude--the development of a capital budget by the Federal Government. Time and time again, the advocates of the amendment have rejected the idea of a capital budget for the Federal Government. I believe, in a sense, not only are we rejecting sound constitutional policy and sound administrative policy, but we are also undercutting this Nation's need to build up our capital infrastructure. So, this amendment, as proposed, is both bad economics and bad budgeting, and finally it is an abrupt departure from the constitutional balance that we have observed through the course of our history. It raises a number of fundamental questions about our Constitution, our tradition of majority rule, and the power of the judicial branch in the United States. One of the lessons I learned in law school was, where there is a wrong, particularly a constitutional wrong, there must be a remedy. Yet this constitutional amendment makes no mention of how it will be enforced and who has the legal standing to question those issues which arise under the constitutional amendment. This is an invitation to litigate rather than legislate on budgetary matters. If a future Congress finds it too difficult to take the painful steps needed to eliminate the deficit, then we may expect any number of possible claimants, from Governors upset about Medicaid payments to senior citizens upset about their Social Security checks, all of them urging the courts to step in and take action. Moreover, by placing the requirements that receipts and outlays be reconciled in the Constitution itself, the amendment effectively calls on the Supreme Court to ensure that this mandate is met. While the amendment may leave open the question of how the legislature reaches its positions and what items will be considered outlays and revenues, the Supreme Court will always have an obligation to uphold the Constitution. Once we declare constitutionally that revenues and outlays must be reconciled, the Court will have no inhibition, and, in fact an obligation, to step in and make this reconciliation if Congress fails. Likewise, under this amendment the President could be forced to impound funds, to cut off checks, to do many things because of a perceived constitutional mandate. I would think long and hard, and I urge my colleagues to think long and hard, whether or not we want to surrender what is traditionally the authority of the Congress over both the courts and the President to manage the public purse. These issues are all very difficult ones, raising profound questions of constitutional law. One other aspect of the proposal which is disturbing is the departure from a tradition in this country of majority rule. I have mentioned before the supermajorities which would be required to raise the debt limit and to do other things which today only require a majority vote of the Members of the House and the Senate. Indeed, the balanced budget amendment would create new supermajorities in many different areas. When the founders developed the Constitution, they recognized that only majority rule would work for a nation founded on the principles of liberty and opportunity. James Madison argued in Federalist 58 that if more than a majority were required for legislative decision, then: . . . in all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principles of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. And, indeed, that is what this amendment would do inexorably. There is a final and significant issue which must be discussed with respect to this balanced budget amendment proposal. I believe it jeopardizes the integrity of the Social Security system and raises the specter of encroachments on the system, not to support seniors but to pay for the reckless spending of the 1980's. My State has the Nation's third highest percentage population of senior citizens. These are the men and women who fought in World War II and who made our country an economic power. Their sacrifices have made our Nation what it is today. They deserve our support and they rightly demand our assistance to maintain a dignified retirement. The hallmark of our commitment to these seniors has been the Social Security system. However, this amendment makes no provision to protect this essential program from the choices necessary to achieve a balanced budget. The amendment fails to recognize that Social Security is not just like every other program. It is directly funded through a dedicated payroll tax, and numerous acts of Congress have sought to protect it from improper manipulation or precipitous reductions in benefits. Yet the majority refuses to protect Social Security and, instead, wants to use the Social Security trust fund to mask the deficit. Mr. President, recently the Congressional Research Service produced a report regarding the impact of the balanced budget amendment on Social Security, which contained a shocking revelation. The report found that the Social Security Administration, even though it has accumulated a very healthy surplus, would not be able to pay benefits in certain years, due to the amendment's requirements that total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year. In other words, Social Security could only pay as much in benefits as it receives from payroll taxes in any given year, even if the trust fund was running a multibillion- dollar surplus from previous years. This is a grave matter that deserves more analysis and could jeopardize the 1983 Social Security reform law as well as future reform efforts. But it would be a consequence of this balanced budget amendment if adopted today or in the future. Some would argue that no legislator would touch the Social Security system, but a constitutional imperative may provide a shield which would allow legislators to break that sacred commitment between ourselves and those seniors who have contributed so much to this country. I urge my colleagues to reject this balanced budget amendment. The Constitution establishes the durable rights and responsibilities which are the heritage of our past and the best guarantee of our future. We should not let the Constitution fall prey to a proposal that reflects transient economic policy at best, and would erode both majority rule and the principle that the people's representatives, not judges, must be responsible for the public purse. Mr. President, before I yield, I would like to thank Senator Feingold for his graciousness in delaying consideration of his amendment in order to permit me to go forward with my statement. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and I yield my time. Amendment No. 13

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the distinguished Senator, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I rise today to speak about an issue that is critical to our country and critical to our future, and that issue is education. Education has always been crucial to our country. Indeed, one of the greatest triumphs of our Nation has been the creation of public education through high school and in the postwar years the expansion of access to higher education. Our ancestors grasped a fundamental truth. Education is the engine that powers our economy, and it is the force that sustains our over 200-year experiment in democracy. ``Yankee ingenuity,'' groomed in the schoolrooms of New England and transported across the continent, spurred an era of invention that catapulted America to economic leadership. But education is more than just economic progress. Education has allowed us to keep faith with the basic tenet of our country. At the core of American experience is the commitment to equal opportunity, and education is the greatest source of opportunity in a free society. It can transcend the circumstances of income, region, race, and gender to reaffirm the enduring belief that an individual through effort can achieve his or her fullest potential in America. Throughout our history, education has always been an important part of the American experience. Today, it is rapidly becoming the essential component of our national life. The combination of extraordinary progress in technology, particularly information technology, and the unprecedented growth of international commerce has made education the key to our leadership in the world and our prosperity here at home. As we pass from the industrial age to the information age, the work of the future demands skills which only can be obtained through lifetime learning. And as we move into an era of global competition, we find ourselves pitted against workers and students around the world. What might have been adequate for America in the age of the Model T in a more insular world is plainly inadequate in the age of the Pentium processor and in a world in which the boundaries of business seldom conform to the boundaries of nations. As Norman Augustine, vice chairman and CEO of Lockheed-Martin, said, ``More and more, we see that competition in the international market place is in reality a battle of the classrooms.'' The American people recognize that we can and we must do much more to improve the quality of education. Studies comparing American students with their foreign contemporaries in the ``battle of the classrooms,'' as referred to by Mr. Augustine, show that American students are not first in the world. In fact, they are only about average. The third international mathematics and science study, TIMSS for short, the largest international science and math study ever undertaken, was released last fall. The study found that U.S. eighth graders scored barely above the world average in science and below the world average in mathematics. Being ``average'' will not sustain the United States in a world where technology and trade demand excellence. Just last month, Education Week, in collaboration with the Pew Charitable Trust, released a report card on the condition of public schools in the 50 States. The report characterized public education in the United States as ``riddled with excellence but rife with mediocrity.'' With respect to the bottom line, student performance, the conclusion of the report is sobering. ``We did not give States a letter grade. If we had, all would have failed. Nationally, only 28 percent of 4th graders tested in 1994 were able to read at or above the proficient level and only 21 percent of 8th graders tested in 1992 were proficient or better in math.'' The American people recognize these shortcomings and the compelling need to enhance education in the United States. They also want the Federal Government to play an appropriate role in this process of educational reform. Last month, a survey was released by the Coalition for America's Children, and it found that 76 percent of those polled favored increases in Federal spending for education. However, spending alone will not reinvigorate education in the United States. At every level of Government--Federal, State, and local-- calling on parents, teachers, business and community leaders, the great civic core of America, we must all work together to make education come alive in the lives of our children. Our task is twofold: To improve the quality of public education and to enhance access to higher education. Now, when we consider elementary and secondary education, we immediately must recognize the central role played by the States. Historically, States have been the leaders in public education from grades K through 12. And when we boast of the extraordinary success of public education in the United States throughout our history, we are paying tribute to the foresight and wisdom of State and local leaders who invested in education. But it is not without some irony that today, as we talk about devolution of more and more social programs and policies to the States, we at the same time point to the disturbing signs of educational malaise. The ``devolutionists'' frequently prescribe the States as the all-purpose remedy for every social problem, forgetting that the States like the Feds are political institutions awash in conflicting interests and afflicted with lapses of political will. That is not to suggest that the role of education in the States has been overtaken. It should suggest, however, that States alone have not and cannot cut through the tangle of financial difficulties, political interests and emerging problems that beset public education as we approach the next century. There is a real opportunity and need for Federal leadership as a catalyst for reform. In confronting the challenge of public education, we cannot confine ourselves to just the schools. We must reach out beyond the schools to the children. The first goal of Goals 2000 is that all children will start school ready to learn. And as we discover more and more about childhood development, this goal becomes increasingly more important. It also becomes increasingly more obvious that our efforts must encompass the youngest children as well as those children just ready to enter school. Scientific evidence points to the critical years from birth to age 3 in the development of intellectual and emotional abilities. As such, child care is an essential part of any strategy for the long-term improvement of education. Good prenatal care, pediatric health care, and quality day care are all components of educational reform. In fact, an emphasis on early intervention may save scarce educational dollars in the long run. Research indicates that children who attend quality child care programs are less likely to be placed in special education or to be retained in grade. It is here in the area of child care that the Federal Government has long played an important roll. With the creation of the Head Start program in 1965, the Federal Government embarked on an ambitious attempt to reach low-income children. Over the past several decades, Head Start has gained widespread and bipartisan support. But despite this support, the program still only serves one out of three eligible children. More must be done to reach a larger population of eligible children. Moreover, we must consciously develop programs that involve very young children. If we are serious about having all children ready to learn when they enter school, then we must commit ourselves to ensuring that every child has affordable access to quality health care and day care. We cannot and should not usurp the role of parents. As such, our strategies should be just as much about enabling parents to be better parents, with the time and income to do their part, as it is to reach out and teach the children. While we summon the will and the resources to prepare children for school, we cannot ignore the urgent need to reform our schools. The recent study by Education Week revealed that on average less than one- third of fourth graders were proficient in reading and less than one- third of eighth graders were proficient in math. In a comparison of cut-off points on employer tests to student scores on national standardized exams, researchers, Richard Murnane and Frank Levy, found that ``close to half of all 17-year-olds cannot read or do math at the level needed to get a job in a modern automobile plant.'' And consistent with these findings, the TIMSS report revealed that American students were not leading the world but were about average in a world economy that increasingly demands excellence, not mediocrity. In evaluating this lackluster performance, the TIMSS report surprisingly did not blame the usual suspects--too much TV, not enough class time, not enough homework. It turns out that American eighth graders spend more hours per year in math and science classes than their Japanese and German counterparts. American teachers assign more homework and spend more class time discussing it than teachers in Germany and Japan. And, it turns out that heavy TV watching is as common among Japanese eighth graders as it is among American eighth graders. What then is the problem? The TIMSS report strongly suggests that American students receive a ``less-advanced curriculum, which is also less focused.'' At the heart of this disappointing performance is the content and rigor of what is taught and the techniques used to teach it. In short, content and instructional standards are not adequate. We will not materially improve public education in the United States until we adopt challenging standards, assess the performance of children with regard to these standards, and hold schools accountable for these standards. Standards, assessment, accountability: the keys to reinvigorating public education. A few years back, there was a popular book entitled All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. I guess I was a little slow because I'm tempted to say I learned a great deal in the Army and that was many years after kindergarten. One of the great lessons of my Army experience is the transforming power of high quality standards, realistic assessments, and accountability. In the wake of the Vietnam war, a demoralized and publicly scorned military began to reinvent itself and, over the last 2 decades, has become one of the most effective institutions in the country. Many factors can be cited: the development of an all volunteer force, the leadership of an extraordinary group of professionals who served in Vietnam and went on to senior positions in the Pentagon. But, a critical, and sometimes overlooked, factor was the development of training doctrine that rested on detailed standards and realistic assessments. As a company grade officer, I saw the transition from unimaginative field manuals couched in general terms to materials that broke down missions into constituent tasks, stressed the mastery of these tasks, and, then, the careful merging of individual tasks into group effort. At every stage, clear standards of performance were identified and evaluated. Complementing these doctrinal changes was a renewed emphasis on ``training the trainer''. Professional development was stressed not only for officers but throughout the ranks, particularly non- commissioned officers who are the backbone of the military. Finally, accountability, always a hallmark of the military service, could be refocused from the mundane, ``did the troops look good'', to the critical, could the unit accomplish its mission in the most realistic circumstances. American education, today, seems to be at a similar crossroads as the post-Vietnam military. And, the lesson of standards, assessments, and accountability seems equally compelling, for education today. American students are graded from the moment they enter school. They repeatedly take tests. But, seldom are they measured against agreed upon content standards. As such, school is less about understanding a core body of knowledge and using that knowledge than it is about attendance. For too many students, the only ``standard'' that counts is showing up frequently enough to get a high school diploma. Thus, it is no surprise that half of high school graduates would have a difficult time getting a job in a modern automobile plant. In a recent survey by a national non-profit group, Public Agenda, reported in the Washington Post, high school students expressed their criticism of school. At the top of their list was the observation that their classes are not challenging enough. A typical response from a student is revealing. `` 'I didn't do one piece of homework last year in math' he said. 'I just took the tests . I'd get A's on the tests, not do the homework, and I got a B in class. There's just lots of ways to get around it.''' This subering comment was found throughout this discussion in the report, but, the researchers were encouraged to find ``strong support among students for having tougher standards in class. Three-fourths of them said they believed they would learn more, and school would seem more meaningful, if they were pushed harder by better teachers.'' As Deborah Wadsworth, the executive director of Public Agenda, declared, ``The students seem to be crying out for the adults in their lives to take a stand and inspire them to do more.'' Standards are about excellence, but they are also about equality of opportunity. Diane Ravitch, a professor at Columbia and a former official in President Bush's education department, wrote, ``[n]ations that establish national standards do so to insure equality of education as well as higher achievement . . . they make explicit what they expect children to learn to insure that all children have access to the same educational opportunities.'' Until we establish effective standards and evaluate children according to those standards, we will continue to ignore disparities in the educational experience of children throughout the United States. In keeping with the critical role of standards as benchmarks for excellence and equality of opportunity, it is exciting to note President Clinton's proposal to develop voluntary national assessments for reading at the fourth grade and math at the eighth grade. These assessments could truly be the bridge between standards and accountability; the bridge to a renewal of public education, in the United States. Recognizing the critical role that standards can play in the reformation of public education, Congress in 1994 adopted the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Goals 2000 sought to place voluntary national standards at the center of national debate about educational reform. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee in the other body, I was an active participant in the drafting of Goals 2000. I vigorously pressed to ensure that standards were a key component of the strategy for educational reform, and that there would be accountability for these standards. One of the persistent failures of educational reform is the failure to follow through. We all are aware of repeated studies that chronicle the problems of public education and propose credible reforms, but never seemed to go anylace. All of these studies seem to languish, gathering dust on the shelves. Even if the diagnosis is right, no mechanism is put in place to translate plans into results. As such, I thought that, along with standards, the Goals 2000 process should require the state and local educational authorities to answer a fundamental question: what will you do when a school or a school system fails to meet the standards established for its students? Failure to answer this question and to act accordingly will doom meaningful educational reform. I was pleased that a provision encompassing this question was included as a requirement of the state plan pursuant to Goals 2000. In the spirit of the voluntary nature of Goals 2000, the Federal Government did not mandate any particular approach to failing schools, but, in the process of developing standards-based reform, it would prompt states to ask this fundamental question. This provision is still on the books. However, the overall importance of the state plan has been diminished. Tucked into the budget signed by President Clinton in April of 1996 is language that removes the requirement for these State plans to be submitted to the Secretary of Education. This unraveling of the minimal requirements of Goals 2000 does not bode well for ultimately tackling the tough issues of reform at the local level. Without the ``seriousness'' engendered by preparing a submission for Secretarial review, these plans might become another specimen on the dusty shelf of accumulated plans for educational reform. Moreover, despite the protests of many local elected leaders, many local educational leaders will concede that requirements in Washington frequently help them to cut through the tangle of local interests that impede effective local reform. Nevertheless, Goals 2000 is a milestone in emphasizing voluntary national standards and hopefully will continue to serve as a springboard for educational reform. Standards are critical, but without good teaching these standards will also languish.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and pay tribute to two distinguished individuals who have dedicated their lives to protecting Rhode Islanders against crime and violence. Today, Detectives Frank DellaVentura and Freddy Rocha of the Police Department in Providence, RI, will receive Top Cops Awards for their outstanding service in protecting our Nation's communities. The Top Cops Award is the only national award for officers nominated by their peers in law enforcement. Across our country, drug abuse is a root cause of the crime and violence that plague our neighborhoods. In recent years, we have made important strides to stop drug-related crime. Law enforcement has been a vital part of this effort, and Detectives Rocha and DellaVentura have been instrumental in this fight. For example, in 1994, Detective Rocha went undercover to investigate a group of criminals who were identifying themselves as law enforcement agents and stealing drugs and money from drug dealers. Risking his life by posing as a major cocaine dealer, Detective Rocha gathered evidence against this group, which was also linked to organized crime. Winning the group's confidence, he arranged a meeting at which its members expected to receive drugs and money, but instead were apprehended by the Providence SWAT team. The criminals are now serving prison sentences. Detective DellaVentura has also played a critical role in Rhode Island's fight against drugs. He organized several of the undercover operations in which Detective Rocha has served. In addition, Detective DellaVentura's detailed research, careful surveillance, and thorough knowledge of the requirements of federal law have been essential to these operations' success. The work of Detectives DellaVentura and Rocha has been nothing short of exceptional. I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in saluting these Top Cops for their efforts to make the streets of Rhode Island safer for law-abiding citizens.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support measures in their States to designate the Sunday before the Memorial Day Weekend each year as ``Neighbor Day.'' The neighborhoods we once knew as places of peace and harmony are now engaged in the fight against a rising tide of crime and violence. One of the saddest results of this increasing crime is that neighbors fear for their safety and become alienated from one another. Four years ago, my constituents in Westerly, RI, came up with the idea of celebrating ``Neighbor Day'' as a way to reach out to one another, introduce themselves to new neighbors and renew old friendships. With parties and open house gatherings, Neighbor Day in Westerly gave people a sense of neighborhood pride and positive community spirit. Two years ago, the entire State celebrated this spirit of good will. I believe that by celebrating ``Neighbor Day'' nationally, we can bring people closer together and overcome the atmosphere of fear and mistrust found too often in our neighborhoods. This effort is not solely confined to Rhode Island. Indeed, Boys Nation passed a resolution in July 1994 to make the Sunday before Memorial Day weekend each year ``National Neighbor Day.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in this unique endeavor by supporting measures to create ``Neighbor Day'' in their States.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and reclaiming my time once again, I do want to commend him for his leadership on the committee and to commend all of my colleagues on the committee, both the members of the minority and majority parties and the staffs who have done an excellent job. I, too, second the chairman's determination that this has been a committee I think marked by collegiality and cooperation, and at times when we did disagree it was done based upon principle, in a very civil and constructive manner, and I thank the chairman for that atmosphere that he has created. I have no more speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I would reserve the balance of my time pending other comments by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could, to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] in a colloquy, and in doing so I would like to take a moment to address a concern that was recently brought to my attention by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. She wanted to make clear that this bill does not authorize an agency or any other employer to require its employees to submit to binding arbitration as a condition of employment, or to relinquish rights they may have under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other statute. I want to assure her that she has no reason to worry about this bill and that the decision to engage in binding arbitration must be voluntary by all parties, as provided in sections styled 72(a) and (c) of the ADR act, and in fact would like if the gentleman could confirm that understanding.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. GEKAS, for his hard work on this legislation. It was a pleasure working with him and his staff, and I commend him on the excellent job he has done this year as chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. I thank him for his kind words and his accurate assessment of my intelligence. The original House version of this legislation, H.R. 2977, passed the House by voice vote on June 4 of this year. The bill before us today is identical to the conference report on H.R. 2977 minus a controversial procurement reform provision added by the Senate. That provision would have repealed Federal district court jurisdiction over bid protests otherwise known as the Scanwell jurisdiction, as has been explained by Chairman GEKAS. Removing this provision will give the House the opportunity to hold hearings on this issue and examine it more closely. In particular, close scrutiny should be given to the impact on small contractors of this provision. The remaining provisions of this legislation permanently authorize the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. Mr. Speaker, I include my full statement for the Record: First, I want thank Chairman Gekas for his hard work on this legislation. It was a pleasure working with him and his staff and I commend him on the excellent job he has done this year as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The original House version of this legislation, H.R. 2977, passed the House by voice vote on June 4 of this year. The bill before us today is identical to the conference report on H.R. 2977, minus a controversial procurement reform provision added by the Senate. That provision would have repealed Federal district court jurisdiction over bid protests, otherwise known as Scanwell jurisdiction. Removing this provision will give the House the opportunity to hold hearings on this issue and examine it more closely. In particular, close scrutiny should be given to the impact on small contractors. The remaining provisions of this legislation permanently reauthorize the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. When the ADR Act was first enacted in 1990, the Federal Government lagged well behind the private sector and the courts in using alternative dispute resolution. Since then, almost every agency has experimented with consensus based dispute resolution techniques. Now, the Federal Government has the opportunity to become a leader in making dispute resolution easier, cheaper, and more effective. H.R. 4194 makes several changes to the existing ADR Act: It removes a procedural impediment to the use of binding arbitration by Government agencies while at the same time imposing safeguards to ensure binding arbitration is used only where appropriate. It expands the range of cases that can be referred to ADR by eliminating the exemptions for certain types of workplace related disputes so they may, with the consent of the employee, be referred to ADR. The general provisions of section 572(b), which establish criteria for identifying cases where ADR is not appropriate, would still apply. I would like to take a moment to address a concern that was recently brought to my attention by the gentlelady from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. She wanted to make clear that this bill does not authorize an agency or any other employer to require its employees to submit to binding arbitration as a condition of employment or to require employees to relinquish rights they may have under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other statute. I wanted to assure her that she has no reason to worry about this bill. The decision to engage in binding arbitration must be voluntary by all parties, as provided by sections 572 (a) and (c) of the ADR Act. Also, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9)(A) makes it a prohibited personnel practice to take any action against an employee because of the ``exercise of any appeal, complaint or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation.'' A party cannot be required to enter into binding arbitration as a condition of initial or continued employment. I wanted to make sure that point is absolutely clear. We have been assured of this by the Department of Justice, the EEOC, and OPM. Both the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, and I signed the conference report with this understanding and would not have signed it otherwise, nor would we be supporting this legislation today. H.R. 4194 makes ADR easier for agencies to use by streaming the acquisition process for neutrals. H.R. 4104 also enhances the confidentially provisions of the ADR statute. The bill provides that a document generated by a neutral and provided to all parties is exempt from discovery under section 574(b)(7), as well as from disclosure pursuant to FOIA. This change will facilitate the use of early neutral evaluation and similar ADR processes that provide an outcome prediction to both sides. Parties are understandably reluctant to subject themselves to the risk of the neutral's opinion, which is not based on full discovery, being used against them at trial later. This is a change from the House passed version of H.R. 2977. Another change from the House passed version of H.R. 2977 concerns the interaction between the confidentiality protections in the ADR Act and the Freedom of Information Act. As passed by the House, H.R. 2977 provided that the memoranda, notes, or work product of the neutral would be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. According to the testimony of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the lack of a FOIA exemption has served as an incentive to hire private neutrals who are not subject to FOIA, rather than Government neutrals. This is a particular problem for Government agencies, like FMCS, that furnish employees as neutrals for proceedings involving other Federal agencies, since their neutrals' notes, unlike the notes of private sector neutrals, may be subject to FOIA disclosure. The conference was reluctant to go as far as the Senate bill and exempt all ADR communication from FOIA. Under prevailing law, documents exchanged by the Government and its litigation adversaries in the course of settlement are not withholdable under FOIA, and key documents have been made public that shed light on why the Government settled important enforcement actions. But the House conferees were persuaded to go slightly farther than the original House proposal to cover the situation where a neutral asks an agency to prepare a statement outlying the strengths and weakness of its case. Under the House passed H.R. 2977, such a document in the hands of the mediator would be protected against disclosure pursuant to FOIA, yet that same document in the hands of an agency party would not be, unless it fit one of the existing FOIA exemptions. The overall purpose of the confidentiality provision is to encourage a candid exchange between a party and the neutral to the end of facilitating an agreement. Thus, the conference agreed that dispute resolution communications between a party and a neutral are to be protected against disclosure under FOIA. It is not the intent of the conferees, as is made clear by the statement of managers, that this provision be read to permit parties to evade FOIA by passing documents through the neutral to another party. It only exempts a document generated by an agency during a dispute resolution proceeding that is provided to the neutral alone. If a party provides a document to the neutral and the neutral provides it to another party, that document would be regarded as being exchanged between the parties, and hence outside the revised section 474(j). It would therefore, be subject to FOIA. In fact, under ADRA section 574(b)(7), if the document is provided to or available to all parties, it is also not protected against disclosure through discovery. H.R. 4194 also narrows the definition of documents accorded confidentiality. They are limited to communications prepared for a dispute resolution proceeding. Preexisting documents are not protected. Section 574(f) already states that the ADR Act does not prevent the discovery or admissibility of any evidence that is otherwise discoverable. When the Department of Justice drops antitrust charges against a software company pursuant to a settlement agreement or the FDIC settles a case with the directors of a failed savings and loan, the public should be able to find out why the Government acted as it did. The public interest in disclosure does not disappear simply because of a shift in venue from a trial court or an unassisted settlement setting to an alternative dispute resolution proceeding. At the same time, ADR is qualitatively different from unassisted settlement negotiations and litigation. Working with a neutral, participants share information and concede weaknesses that otherwise would be more advantageous to withhold. Exempting from FOIA disclosure documents shared with the neutral, along with the work product of the neutral, will encourage ADR without sacrificing accountability and openness. The conference report also permanently reauthorizes the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act was passed in 1990 to provide an alternative to traditional notice and comment rulemaking. Instead, of formulating a rule on its own, publishing it, and waiting for interested parties to comment, under negotiated rulemaking an agency brings together representatives of the parties that will be affected by the rule to develop that rule by consensus. Our subcommittee held a very informative hearing this year where we heard from the participants of a negotiated rulemaking involving OSHA, the construction industry, and labor, that succeeded where a decade of traditional rulemaking had failed. Agencies have used negotiated rulemaking in a variety of circumstances, from fall protection in the steel industry to headlight aiming. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review encouraged its use, citing the reduction in compliance costs, greater ease in implementation, and more cooperative relationships between the agency and regulated parties that result. President Clinton by Executive order has required executive departments and selected agencies to do at least one negotiated rulemaking this year. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act would expire at the end of November. This conference report would permanently reauthorize it, and make some primarily technical improvements. For example, the process for acquiring neutrals and facilitators is streamlined. Likewise, OMB is directed to expedite the procedures for forming a negotiated rulemaking committee. H.R. 4194 also authorizes the President to designate an agency or interagency panel to coordinate and facilitate agency use of ADR and negotiated rulemaking, to make up for the loss of ACUS, the Administrative Conference of the United States, which lost its funding last year. Finally, I insert into the Record a copy of the statement of managers as part of the legislative history of this bill. It is important that we reauthorize both the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. This bill has the support of the administration and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4194. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of the statement of managers as part of the legislative history of the bill: The conferees incorporate by reference in this Statement of Managers the legislative history reflected in both House Report 104-597 and Senate Report 104-245. To the extent not otherwise inconsistent with the conference agreement, those reports give expression to the intent of the conferees. Section 3--House recedes to Senate amendment with modifications. This section clarifies that, under 5 U.S.C. section 574, a dispute resolution communication between a party and a neutral or a neutral and a party that meets the requirements for confidentiality in section 574 is also exempt from disclosure under FOIA. In addition, a dispute resolution communication originating from a neutral and provided to all of the parties, such as Early Neutral Evaluation, is protected from discovery under 574(b)(7) and from disclosure under FOIA. A dispute resolution communication originating from a party to a party or parties is not protected from disclosure by the ADR Act. The Managers recognize that the intent of the Conference Agreement not to exempt from disclosure under FOIA a dispute resolution communication given by one party to another party could be easily thwarted if a neutral in receipt of a dispute resolution communication agrees with a party to in turn pass the communication on to another party. It is the intent of the Managers that if the neutral attempts to circumvent the prohibitions of the ADR Act in this manner, the exemption from FOIA would not apply. As with all other FOIA exemptions, the exemption created by section 574(j) is to be construed narrowly. The Managers would not expect the parties to use the new exemption as a mere sham to exempt information from FOIA. Thus, for example, we would not expect litigants to resort to ADR principally as a means of taking advantage of the new exemption. In such a case the new exemption would not apply. Section 7--Senate recedes to House with a modification. This section requires the President to designate an agency or to designate or establish an interagency committee to facilitate and encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution. The Managers encourage the President to designate the same entity under this provision as is designated under section 11 (regarding Negotiated Rulemaking). This would promote the coordination of policies, enhance institutional memory on the relevant issues, and make more efficient the use of ADR and Negotiated Rulemaking. Section 8--House recedes to Senate amendment with modifications. This section permits the use of binding arbitration under certain conditions, and clarifies that an agency cannot exceed its otherwise applicable settlement authority in alternative dispute resolution proceedings. The head of an agency that is a party to an arbitration proceeding will no longer have the authority to terminate the proceeding or vacate any award under 5 U.S.C. section 580. However, it is the Managers' intent that an arbitrator shall not grant an award that is inconsistent with law. In addition, prior to the use of binding arbitration, the head of each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, must issue guidelines on the use and limitations of binding arbitration. Section 11--House recedes to Senate amendment with modifications. This section permanently reauthorizes the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. The President is required to designate an agency or interagency committee to facilitate and encourage the use of negotiated rulemaking. In addition, this section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to take action to expedite the establishment of negotiated rulemaking committees and committees to resolve disputes under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. It is the understanding of the Managers that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) applies to proceedings under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, but does not apply to proceedings under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The Director also is required to submit recommendations to Congress for any necessary legislative changes within one year after enactment. The Managers deleted language in paragraph (b)(1)(B) determining that property accepted under this section shall be considered a gift to the United States for federal tax purposes because the Managers determined that the language merely repeated current law. Section 12--House recedes to Senate amendment with modifications. This section consolidates federal court jurisdiction for procurement protest cases in the Court of Federal Claims. Previously, in addition to the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Federal Claims, certain procurement protest cases were subject to review in the federal district courts. The grant of exclusive federal court jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims does not affect in any way the authority of the Comptroller General to review procurement protests pursuant to Chapter 35 of Title 31, U.S. Code. This section also applies the Administrative Procedure Act Standard of review previously applied by the district courts (5 U.S.C. sec. 706) to all procurement protest cases in the Court of Federal Claims. It is the intention of the Managers to give the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over the full range of procurement protest cases previously subject to review in the federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims. This section is not intended to affect the jurisdiction or standards applied by the Court of Federal Claims in any other area of the law. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we reauthorize both the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. This bill has the support of the administration and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4194. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything that we should know. I believe that the staffs have been in communication and that there is an understanding that the language of the report will substantiate our mutual understanding of the legislation. Consequently, I do not at this juncture anticipate any problems.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have made progress with respect to the report language and it is adequate. We have made progress with the report language. I believe at this juncture, it is adequate to substantiate our understanding of the legislation and provide guidance to interpretation of the legislation.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, there has been growing international concern over the plight of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor, especially since November 12, 1991, when Indonesian troops killed more than 250 defenseless people and wounded hundreds more at Santa Cruz Cemetery in the East Timorese capital of Dili. Thousands of East Timorese had gathered at the cemetery for a memorial service that turned into a demonstration. In an unprovoked attack, Indonesian forces opened fire on the crowd. A British television journalist filmed part of this tragic event, attracting the attention and indignation of the global community. Nearly 5 years later, the situation in East Timor remains extremely tense. While the Indonesian officers and soldiers who were responsible for the Santa Cruz massacre received light punishment, when they received any punishment at all, the East Timorese accused of organizing the demonstration received long sentences, ranging from 9 years to life in prison. So far as is known, all of the Indonesian perpetrators have long ago been freed, in contrast to the East Timorese, all of whom were charged with nonviolent activities, but none of whom have been released. As we near the fifth anniversary of the massacre, it would be fitting for the Indonesian Government to release all those charged with nonviolent activities in connection with the event. In July 1996, Amnesty International presented a summary analysis of the human rights situation in East Timor to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization. I now ask that this important documemt, which underscores the need for concrete action, be placed in the Congressional Record: Indonesia: Human Rights Deteriorate in East Timor as UN Talks Go On Another year of talks and vague promises of greater openness by the Indonesian government has brought no relief to the people of East Timor, Amnesty International said today at the United Nations (UN) Special Commission on Decolonization in New York. Despite the recent completion of the eighth round of talks between the governments of Indonesia and Portugal, and a visit to Indonesia and East Timor by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the root causes of human rights violations in East Timor remain unaddressed. Reports of arbitrary arrests, torture, ``disappearance'', extrajudicial killings, the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, and unfair trials have continued. There is particular concern that the authorities may be using disturbances in the territory as a pretext to arrest people involved in peaceful pro-independence activities. ``Instead of committing itself to taking concrete measures to address gross violations by its security forces, the Indonesian government responds to criticism with cosmetic measures aimed at appeasing international and domestic critics,'' Amnesty International said. In 1995, for example, the government agreed to a visit by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to Indonesia and East Timor. During the visit the authorities said they were prepared to cooperate further with the mechanisms of UN human rights bodies, but gave no indication of how or when this would be done. ``The international community should not be fooled into thinking this constitutes real progress on human rights in East Timor. Limited concessions as such have not alleviated the deteriorating situation on the ground,'' Amnesty International said. Concrete action is urgently required to curb arbitrary use of power by the security forces, end the impunity and remove legislation which allows for the detention of prisoners of conscience. The international community should also fulfill its responsibility to the people of East Timor by holding the Indonesian government accountable for violations whenever they occur. ``The time for talking is over. The Indonesian government must now demonstrate a genuine commitment to human rights in East Timor--and the international community must hold that government to such a commitment,'' Amnesty International said.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleagues Mr. Schumer of New York, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, and Mr. Miller of California, President Clinton's Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996. Our Nation's environmental quality is among the best in the world, in part thanks to laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act that we have passed here in Congress. Over the last 25 years, these laws have worked to make our air cleaner, our water safe to drink, our lakes and rivers safe to swim in. But these laws are only pieces of paper. Effective enforcement of these laws is needed to protect public health and environmental quality. The Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act will provide new tools to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. For example, the bill adds an attempt provision to environmental statutes so that environmental crimes can be prosecuted even when law enforcement agents come upon and stop a crime in progress. Under current law, if agents conducting surveillance of a hazardous waste transporter stop the transporter from illegally dumping the hazardous waste, the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted for illegal dumping because no crime has occurred. Only if the agents were to allow the dumpers to complete their crime, and possibly cause damage to the environment and risk to public health, could the perpetrators be prosecuted. With an attempt provision, illegal dumpers can be stopped before causing environmental damage and still be held responsible for their actions. Also, an attempt provision will allow Federal agents to use benign substitutes for hazardous wastes in undercover operations. The act would also extend the statute of limitations where the violator has concealed the environmental crime. In one typical incident, a waste hauler buried 55-gallon drums of toxic waste in a vacant lot rather than disposing of them properly. The concealed drums deteriorated and leaked, causing environmental contamination. Because the drums were not discovered within the short statute of limitations, no criminal charges could be brought against the hauler. This provision will ensure that polluters cannot escape justice by hiding their wrongdoing. The bill would enhance penalties where a criminal violation of environmental law causes a death or serious injury. Police officers, fire fighters, and members of the public can suffer serious injury or death from toxic chemicals or other hazardous materials--it is appropriate to make the punishment fit the crime in these cases. The bill will also enable Federal courts to ensure that those charged with environmental crimes do not shield or dispose of assets needed to pay for restitution. In my home State of Rhode Island, the U.S. attorney, the EPA, the State attorney general, and the State Department of Environmental Management have formed a taskforce to target and prioritize environmental enforcement issues. This taskforce is accompanied by a citizen's advisory group that suggests priorities for enforcement. In a State like Rhode Island, where tourism and economic growth depend upon a clean and healthy environment, this type of cooperation is essential. The Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act will enhance such partnerships between Federal law enforcement and State, local, and tribal governments. As Attorney General Janet Reno said when announcing this proposal, ``The American people want, and have a right to expect, strong environmental protection. This bill will provide us with better tools'' to achieve those goals.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have no objection but I would like an explanation.

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of women to the financial services industry and to honor an organization that makes this success possible: Financial Women International. Women have made a major impact in the realm of financial services, leading to the industry's growth and flourishment. For 75 years, Financial Women International has advanced these goals by helping women in the financial services industry to expand their personal and professional capabilities. When the group was founded in 1921, it claimed 59 members who held high positions in their banks. Today, Financial Women International counts more then 10,000 members from all 50 States and several foreign countries. These individuals come from all facets of the rapidly expanding world of financial services. Financial Women International's impressive record stems from its emphasis on education. The group appreciates the importance of continual learning. For this reason, it offers seminars and many other programs that teach women in the financial services industry the skills they need to become and remain competitive. In addition, Financial Women International advances the interests of working women by promoting pay equity and through its contributions to the efforts of the Glass Ceiling Commission. I am pleased to honor Financial Women International. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this organization and the many hard- working women of the financial services industry.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take this opportunity to congratulate and recognize the distinguished career of Wallace Kido, the manager of the Providence district of the U.S. Postal Service. In that capacity, Mr. Kido is responsible for serving postal customers throughout the State of Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts, a region generating revenues in excess of $440 million. Sadly, after 32 years of exemplary public service, Mr. Kido has announced that he will be retiring early next year. During his tenure with the Rhode Island office, Mr. Kido has been a good friend and an effective representative of the U.S. Postal Service. His career with the U.S. Postal Service began back in 1964, when he started as a clerk in San Francisco. Since then, Mr. Kido has taken on a series of increasingly higher positions and assignments, including director of the Office of Human Resources at Postal Service headquarters. Mr. Kido joined the Providence Postal Service in 1986 as general manager-postmaster. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Kido earned a master's degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he represented the Postal Service in the Alfred P. Sloan Fellows Program. Mr. Kido's duties as Providence district postmaster include managing 195 post offices, 3 processing and distribution plants, and almost 9,000 employees. His remarkable energy and commitment to the task makes what he does seem effortless. During his 10 years as manager in Providence, Mr. Kido has brought a degree of excellence, and more importantly, a sense of pride, to the challenging task of coordinating the processing of 1 billion pieces of mail each year. In fact, average overnight delivery service in Rhode Island has exceeded the national average over the last seven quarters. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Kido's exemplary service. He will be greatly missed as the Providence district manager, and I wish him all the best as he embarks upon a new phase of endeavors.