Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 2679, as amended by the Senate. By clearing this measure for President Clinton's signature, Congress is taking an important step toward protecting the environmental treasures of Rhode Island. H.R. 2679 expands the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge to include the vulnerable coastal wetlands that have been identified as vital habitat for a range of species. For example, our State's declining black duck population relies heavily on these areas. H.R. 2679 also illustrates the great potential of cooperation between government and private citizens. Among the lands that this bill adds to the refuge are 100 acres known as Foddering Farms. The owners of this property are interested in donating a portion of its value to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, helping Congress to advance critical environmental interests at a reasonable cost. In addition, H.R. 2679 allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the refuge as other important habitats become available. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and send it to President Clinton, who is committed to preserving our environment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the superb performance of the Ponaganset Wind Ensemble at the 1996 International Youth and Music Festival in Vienna, Austria. The Ponaganset Wind Ensemble, instructed by Mr. Nedo Pandolfi of Ponaganset High School in Rhode Island's Foster/Glocester Regional School District, met all expectations by taking first place in the festival's band competition--a feat never before achieved by an ensemble from the Ocean State. Chosen as one of only three bands to represent the United States, Ponaganset, which placed third at the 1982 Vienna Festival, showed the world how countless hours of practice and dedication can produce brilliance. So impressive was Ponaganset's performance that the student's were awarded the Cup of Vienna, an accolade not given every year and awarded only when the festival panel recognizes exemplary musical performance. The Ensemble's 46 young musicians, ages 14 to 18, not only successfully competed on an international stage, but also found boundless opportunities to receive a priceless musical education. The Wind Ensemble performed for numerous crowds at local fairs and open air arenas throughout Vienna's historical downtown area, and also visited the memorials to some of the world's most legendary composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Strauss. Mr. Pandolfi established the Ponaganset Wind Ensemble program in 1960, the same year that Ponaganset High School was founded. Thirty-six years later, both the instructor and the pupils should be praised for their momentous achievement, which is an experience whose memories will last a lifetime. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the following members of the Ponaganset Wind Ensemble, who have clearly illustrated what we can achieve when we follow our dreams. Their accomplishments are indicative of the perseverance and effort necessary to achieve success: Monique Barrett, Foster; Jesse Poulin, Foster; Josh Bedard, Foster; Katie Bedard, Foster; Andrew Fast, Foster; Aletha Holmes, Foster; Hilary McElroy, Foster; Richard Muldoon, Foster; Jennifer Sherblum, Foster; Diane Shippee, Foster; Dyani Tait, Foster; Diana Walden, Foster; Colin Walsh, Foster. Melissa Alberg, Glocester; Tom Alberg, Glocester; Kim Angarella, Glocester; Roger Bissell, Glocester; Daniel Boucher, Glocester; Katie Broccoli, Glocester; Brooke Brown, Glocester; Courtney Brown, Glocester; Peter Carpenter, Glocester; Scott Carpenter, Glocester; Brendan Carroll, Glocester; Jesse Chace, Glocester; Nick Collins, Glocester; Sarah Colwell, Glocester; Stephanie Darigan, Glocester; Matthew Dube, Glocester; Christopher Fellow, Glocester; Tara Foley, Glocester; Beth Hammond, Glocester; Danielle Lavendier, Glocester; Bethany Lyford, Glocester; Megan Mason, Glocester; Nathan Mason, Glocester; Nicholas Pinder, Glocester; Jane Ragno, Glocester; Michael Roberto, Glocester; Pamela Roberto, Glocester; Rebecca Ruge, Glocester; Sarah Stevenson, Glocester; James Teeter, Glocester; Adam Tillinghast, Glocester; Elizabeth Tucker, Glocester; Rachel Zanella, Glocester.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rhode Island's Western Cranston Little League team, winners of the Little League National Championship. Western Cranston was comprised of 14 players: Lucas Ashton, Jacob Bazirgan, Brett Bell, Lewis Colby, Evan DiZoglio, Christopher Gallo, Matt Lovejoy, Michael Luke, Tom Michael, Jonathan Sparling, Peter Spinelli, Craig Stinson, Ricky Stoddard, and Paul Tavarozzi. Under the guidance of coaches Mike Varrato, Nick DiNezza, Larry Lapore, and Benny Marandola, these 14 young men quickly transformed into a championship team. On July 24, the Western Cranston Little Leaguers were among 7,000 teams playing in 83 countries on 6 continents, beginning a quest for the Little League World Series. On August 25, 3 cities, 16 games, and 1 Little League National Championship later, Western Cranston returned home to a hero's welcome, when over 7,000 Rhode Islanders packed Cranston Stadium to congratulate them. That this Nation's smallest State could produce its best Little League team is a tribute to the spirit of Rhode Islanders, as well as the teamwork and never-say-die attitude of these 14 young men. With the help of their families and coaches and the support of Rhode Island, Western Cranston traveled to Williamsport, PA and achieved what was unthinkable just a month before. They inspired a nation and brought immeasurable pride and joy to their State. Today, I am indeed proud to say that my home town of Cranston is the home of the Little League National Champions. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the Western Cranston Little League team.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of passing meaningful and essential health care reform today. The conference agreement on H.R. 3103 is a positive first step to expanding access to health insurance for Rhode Islanders and Americans across the nation. This legislation prohibits insurance companies from dropping coverage when an individual changes jobs or denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition. In addition, this bill increases the tax deduction for the self-employed from 30 percent to 80 percent by 2006. Enactment of this common-sense health reform legislation has been delayed several months due to the insistence by the Republican Majority to attach many controversial provisions, including Medical Savings Accounts (MSA's), to the bill. The conference agreement contains a compromise that would make MSA's available to a limited population for four years. While I am concerned about the potential impact of this provision on our health care system, I am pleased that Congress must pass new legislation to continue or expand this MSA demonstration project. I am also disappointed that the conference agreement does not contain the Domenici-Wellstone amendment adopted during Senate consideration of this legislation. This amendment would have required insurers and health plans to provide coverage for mental illness equal to that provided for physical health conditions. It is my hope that future Congresses will address this essential issue. The steps to correct our health care system in H.R. 3103 is minimal, but needed reform which will alleviate the anxiety and suffering of many hard working families. However, more needs to be done to make health coverage affordable and available to more Americans. I remain committed to enacting comprehensive, systemic health care reforms in order to slow cost increases in health care services and ensure that all Americans have access to the quality health care they need.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about change. Today we begin the move from a status quo that no one approves of to a reformed and improved welfare system. Our current welfare system traps too many families in a cycle of dependency and does little to encourage or help such individuals find employment. Both welfare recipients and taxpayers lose if the status quo is maintained. I have repeatedly stated that meaningful welfare reform should move recipients to work and protect children. Just 2 weeks ago, I supported a bipartisan welfare plan, authored by Republican Representative Michael Castle and Democratic Representative John Tanner, which I believe met these goals. The conference agreement on H.R. 3734 is not perfect, but it is a good first step into an era of necessary welfare reform. This legislation contains many useful and necessary improvements over the previous welfare proposals put forth by the Republican majority. In fact, this legislation has moved several steps closer to the Castle- Tanner bill. The agreement ensures that low-income mothers and children retain their Medicaid eligibility; provides increased child care funding; removes the optional food stamp block grant; removes the adoption and foster care block grant; and allows States to use a portion of their Federal funding to provide assistance to children whose families have been cut off welfare because of the 5-year time limit. While this legislation attempts to protect children from the shortcomings and failures of their parents, it does not fulfill all of my goals for welfare reform. I am concerned that H.R. 3734 fails to provide adequate Federal resources for States to implement work programs, nor does it contain adequate resources for States and individuals in the event of a severe recession. In addition, the legislation makes cuts in food stamps for unemployed individuals willing to work and contains legal immigrant provisions that will deny access by legal immigrant children to SSI, food stamps, and other benefits. These concerns should be rectified by this and subsequent Congresses. I am committed to realizing this goal, and therefore, I am pleased that the President plans to propose legislation to repeal many of these provisions. Furthermore, several States are currently working on plans to reform their welfare reform systems. We must ensure that these efforts are accommodated by this legislation. This is the first Republican proposal which adequately acknowledges the need to protect children, while emphasizing work. Rhode Island, through the work of a coalition of State officials, business leaders, and advocacy groups, has crafted a welfare reform plan that also accomplishes these goals. Should H.R. 3734 prove detrimental to Rhode Island or the children of Rhode Island, I will work to make necessary changes to further strengthen the Nation's welfare reform efforts.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, this bill is another example of a good idea gone bad in the hands of the Majority, and that is why I will vote against it. I support workers choosing compensatory time off instead of overtime. Moreover, I recognize the need to give employees greater flexibility, particularly in light of the number of families in which both parents must work. And, I also support giving workers the opportunity to take care of family issues, and that is why I fought for the Family and Medical Leave Act. While the legislation before us today may sound like it embraces these concepts, it fails to expand employee options. Indeed, the bill, for all its efforts, would be a false promise to millions of hard- pressed workers, who want time off in lieu of overtime. First, the bill does not establish universal access to comp time. It would be up to an employer to determine which workers are eligible for compensatory time off. In fact, an unscrupulous manager could deny comp time to an employee on any basis, while offering comp time to another worker performing the same job. Contrary to the protestations of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, an employee in this situation would have no choice, no resource, and no chance at comp time. Second, an employee would not sufficiently control the use of their comp time. Unlike overtime, an employee would not have comp time in hand. Instead, an employee would have to ask an employer when they could use their compensation. And, an employer can simply buy this comp time back. Third, the amount of compensatory time that can be earned or banked is so great that it lessens the likelihood of an employer offering vacation. Currently, there is no law mandating vacation. However, this bill would provide yet another disincentive for paid leave, by allowing managers to tell their employees to earn comp time if they want vacation time. Obviously, an employee would lose out on both vacation and overtime under this scenario. Finally, this bill fails to address the unique circumstances of certain workers. For example, a carpenter, a temporary employee, or a garmentmaker who works overtime is currently paid time-and-a-half. That is the law, but, under this legislation, if these workers accept comp time, they may never get to use it because of the nature of their industry. Indeed, these kind of workers often move from employer to employer, and I am skeptical if their future employers would honor a previous employers comp time. The same question arises if an employer goes bankrupt. Simply put, H.R. 2391 is not universal, does not provide choice, jeopardizes existing leave policies, and fails to address the unique circumstances of certain workers. Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. The President has proposed a sensible alternative to this poor second cousin, and I support the President's plan. Mr. Chairman, America's hard working families deserve the choice between overtime and comp time. Regrettably, H.R. 2391 fails to deliver it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address one of the most important issues facing our Nation: reforming the electoral process. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for real campaign finance reform. At present, too many Americans believe that our Government is for sale. Watching millions spent on political campaigns, our Nation's citizens see a system that is reserved for the wealthy and dominated by special interests. These perceptions promote cynicism about government and undermine public faith in Congress. To win back the American people's trust, campaign spending must be brought under control and the influence that money wields in our Nation's electoral process must be reduced. Controlling runaway campaign costs will allow candidates to spend less time raising funds and more time discussing issues with voters. It will also level the playing field for our Nation's ordinary citizens, who now often feel that unless they are wealthy, they cannot realistically compete for public office. Unfortunately, these goals are nowhere to be found in this Republican bill, which is opposed by nearly every group committed to government reform. United We Stand America has denounced this bill. The League of Women Voters calls it a fraud. Common Cause calls it a total phony and states, ``Any Member who votes for this bill can only be called a Protector of Corruption.'' Why has the Republican bill attracted uniform opposition? Because it ignores the American people's desire for meaningful campaign finance reform that controls the cost of campaigns. The Republican bill does nothing to limit campaign spending in congressional elections. It does nothing to limit the role of wealthy individuals or increase that of our Nation's working families in elections. It does nothing to limit the excessive spending by political parties that the Supreme Court promoted in its Colorado Republican Party versus FEC decision. It does nothing to close the soft money loophole, which lets special interests pour millions of dollars into campaigns with no accountability. The American people deserve better than this sham. Today the House should have an open debate on campaign finance reform to find the best answer to this critical issue. However, the Republican majority opposes such full consideration and refuses to allow the Smith-Shays-Meehan bill to reach the House floor. Since coming to Congress, I have worked for real campaign finance reform. I have supported legislation to place voluntary spending limits on congressional campaigns, cap contributions from special interests and wealthy individuals, and close the soft money loophole. This year, I proudly sign the discharge petition to allow consideration of the Smith-Shays-Meehan bill, and I cosponsored House Joint Resolution 114, which would specifically allow Congress to place reasonable limits on campaign spending. We need real campaign finance reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican bill and answer the American people's call to reduce the role of money in our Nation's elections.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], for his leadership in organizing this special order, and for his leadership on all of these vital issues of importance, not only to our country but to the country of Greece and to the country of Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the 22nd anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. July 20, 1996, marks 22 long years of Turkish military presence in Cyprus. This anniversary serves as a reminder that continued efforts on the part of the United States are essential in trying to establish a lasting, peaceful solution to the Cyprus dispute. On July 20, 1974, 6,000 Turkish troops launched the invasion of Cyprus, an invasion that would ultimately conclude with the occupation of 40 percent of the island and its 660,000 inhabitants. Moreover, the installation of Turkish troops on Cyprus wrote an end to centuries of peaceful cohabitation between the Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. Since then thousands of Cypriots have lost their lives over the years as a result of horrific acts imposed upon them by the Turkish military. Today Turkey maintains more than 35,000 troops in northern Cyprus, further straining the unstable and tumultuous environment of the region. I commend President Clinton for designating 1996 as the year of Cyprus. Indeed, I wrote to the President earlier this year urging him to seek a permanent, peaceful settlement of the Cyprus dispute. I am encouraged by the recent developments as a result of the administration's efforts in Cyprus last week. The recent visit of U.S. presidential envoy Richard Beattie and Ambassador Albright was a positive one. Discussions aimed at reducing military tensions between the parties are expected to begin in the near future. It is extremely important that the administration continue to work with the parties to reduce tensions and move the peace process forward. The 22nd anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus comes at a time when other formerly embattled nations are at last finding common ground upon which to reach a lasting peace. The U.S. has the ability to play a critical role in helping the people of Cyprus and stabilizing relations in the eastern Mediterranean. Mr. Speaker, the settlement of the Cyprus dispute should be the highest priority for the United States. I urge the support of my colleagues in moving this important initiative forward, and once again commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], for his leadership, his endurance, and his great commitment to the cause of peace, both here and in Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from President Clinton regarding U.S. efforts towards peace in Cyprus: The letter referred to is as follows: The White House, Washington, DC, July 17, 1996. Hon. Jack Reed, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Jack: Thank you for your letter concerning our Cyprus initiative. I value your expressions of support for our efforts to end the division of that island. We have long appreciated the adverse effect that the Cyprus problem has on relations between Greece and Turkey. A negotiated solution would remove a serious source of tensions between the two countries. We made this point to Presidents Demirel and Stephanopoulos, Prime Minister Simitis and Foreign Minister Gonensay during their recent visits to Washington. We solicited and received their support for our planned efforts to work toward an eventual negotiated settlement. I completed my series of personal consultations with regional leaders when I hosted President Clerides at the White House on June 17. I reaffirmed to him my commitment to assist in the search for a Cyprus solution. After meeting President Clerides, I announced that I would send my Special Emissary, Richard Beattie, to the region this month to begin discussions on the key issues involved in a comprehensive settlement, with special emphasis on security. I expect cooperation from all the parties when Mr. Beattie and his delegation arrive in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus. As we undertake our efforts to advance a solution, you can be assured of my commitment to continued U.S. leadership on what I consider one of our highest priorities in Europe. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam Chairman, I believe it is vital that we pass a meaningful welfare reform bill. Meaningful welfare reform should move individuals to work and instill individual responsibility, while ensuring that children are protected. The Republican bill debated today, just like the one vetoed by the President last year, does not pass these essential tests. In fact, the Republican bill fails to provide sufficient funding to move welfare recipients to work; does not provide adequate resources for States and individuals in the event of a severe recession; and unduly and unnecessarily harms children. The Republican bill can be summed up as weak on work and tough on children. I support the Castle-Tanner alternative which is a tough, balanced, and bipartisan welfare reform bill that can be signed into law if the Republicans would let it reach the President's desk. Castle-Tanner contains the funding States need to put people to work according to the Congressional Budget Office. In addition, Castle-Tanner contains time limits for welfare benefits, guarantees protections for children, requires State accountability in operating welfare programs, and improves the response to economic downturns. In my State of Rhode Island, a coalition of State officials, business leaders, and anti-poverty groups are currently working out the final details of a compromise welfare reform package. Unlike the Republican bill which would jeopardize this Rhode Island welfare reform effort, Castle-Tanner compliments it by providing the necessary resources and flexibility to move Rhode Island welfare recipients into work. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute. Castle- Tanner is the only bill offered today that will provide the funding, flexibility, and protections necessary to create a reformed welfare system that promotes work. Castle-Tanner is responsible and meaningful welfare reform and it is a better bill for both Rhode Island and America.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. This bill includes an important provision: H.R. 3280, the Water Quality Right-To-Know Act of 1996, of which I am a cosponsor. I am pleased that the House will pass this bipartisan piece of legislation, which will continue to protect our Nation's drinking water. While I remain concerned about the last-minute inclusion of projects which threaten to diminish the State revolving fund [SRF], overall I believe this is a good bill. It is my hope that this issue will be resolved in the House-Senate conference. This bill takes many important steps to improve the Safe Drinking Water Act. It authorizes the SRF, which is essential to our communities in providing safe drinking water; it gives the EPA more flexibility in issuing regulations; it requires that standards be set for arsenic and radon; and it requires the EPA to conduct studies on sulfates. One of the most important provisions would require water systems to public information annually on the status of drinking water and notify consumers of any contaminants. While the United States has one of the safest drinking water supplies in the world, there have, unfortunately, been incidents of contamination. I have heard from many constituents who expressed support for this provision because Americans have a right to know what is in their drinking water. I agree with them, and that is why I am a cosponsor of this provision. I commend my colleagues who kept negotiations on this bill open and involved all interested parties to produce a sound piece of legislation that will establish good public policy. It is a relief to support a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will ensure that Americans have clean, safe drinking water. This bill will allow our communities to meet the goals of the act cost effectively and responsibly without sacrificing the quality of our drinking water. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to work in the House-Senate conference to ensure that funding for the SRF is not cut, and I look forward to passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, the issue of most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China comes at a time when we are seeking to define the future of our relationship. While we are searching for ways to further a mutually beneficial relationship to inspire a more open China, we are also becoming increasingly more anxious. Like many of my colleagues and constituents, I have become increasingly disturbed with China's contentious conduct. Nuclear proliferation, expropriation of our intellectual property, smuggling of assault weapons, and China's huge trade surplus with the United States are reasons for serious concern and contemplation about our future relations with this nation. However, revoking MFN would not directly address these issues. Rather, it would result in the exclusion of American companies and workers from this rapidly growing market, sour our economic relationship with China, and severely diminish our ability to work for reform in other areas. Thus, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 182, which express disapproval of MFN status for China. We must initially recognize that MFN is a misnomer. MFN status is not a gift we bestow upon our most illustrious friends and neighbors. It is the normal trading status that is accorded to most other nations. So when we talk about extending MFN to China, it is the same status that we extend to a host of other regimes including Iran and Iraq. Thus, MFN is not a great favor from the United States that we reserve for only our traditional allies. Consequently, revocation is not a truly effective tool when trying to balance United States interests against those of China. And make no mistake about it, substantial U.S. interests are at stake. In order to make the trade balance with China more equitable, we need to break down barriers and start producing and selling in China, and renewal of MFN is the best way to achieve this goal. United States exports to China have grown from $2 billion in 1978 to nearly $60 billion in 1995. This is not to say that we can tolerate the illicit trade and commercial activity that China perpetrates. There is no excuse for ripping off our businesses' copyrights, and we need to take proper retaliatory action. I supported the President's proposal to increase tariffs on 2 billion dollars' worth of goods, as well as the recent accord that was reached with China. China must play by the rules of our other trading partners. The United States also needs to counter proliferation issues with the procedures that are readily available. I wrote to the President months ago urging him to invoke sanctions under the nonproliferation treaty. I was sadly disappointed the administration chose to accept the excuse that China's actions were not sanctioned by the state, and, therefore the United States could not invoke these sanctions. The administration should press much harder and put the burden of proof on the Chinese Government. I am no apologist for China's abysmal human rights record--it must be improved. Yet, experience has shown that this issue is a tricky point of leverage. Revoking MFN status for China is not an effective way of persuading the Chinese Government to improve its record in this area. A better way is to unleash free markets in China. We need to stay engaged with China and not only make it more open to our markets but also our ideas and principles. The power of ideals and symbols should never be underestimated. That is what happened in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: people reached a point where they could communicate their common desire for freedom, and the old, authoritative regime had no more legitimacy. We must recognize that remaining engaged in China will help us address issues of mutual concern, such as fighting proliferation. We have found that a policy of engagement with other nations works. Indeed, the collapse of the Soviet Union was not a result of disengagement. I believe that we must refocus our efforts in addressing the above issues with China, not by taking the pressure off but by picking our shots. We should move beyond the debate of MFN status. There may be more potential leverage in the issue of China's admittance into the World Trade Organization [WTO]. China is pressing hard to get into the WTO and they are trying to agitate for special exceptions as a developing country. This would be unacceptable. While China might argue that it is a Third World country and it has a lower standard of living, there are not many Third World countries that have a $30 billion trade surplus with us, persistently rip off United States products, and threaten our friends in the area with nuclear weapons. The United States must continue to pressure China to meet the standards that the international community expects of a mature, regional power of the first order. We must draw a line with China, but MFN is not that line. Revocation of MFN would only hinder our ability to influence China on issues of concern, and possibly undermine the progress we have made with China. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose House Joint Resolution 182.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Arthur B. Campbell of Wakefield, RI for his 31 years of dedicated service to the South Kingstown Public School System. As a teacher and as superintendent for the past 12 years, Mr. Campbell has been an outstanding educational leader. In 1965, Mr. Campbell began his career in the South Kingstown Public Schools as a junior high instructor. While serving in this capacity, Mr. Campbell also became president of the local teachers' union, leading the first strike in the town's history. He was instrumental in forming the Rhode Island National Education Association's first political action group. Mr. Campbell was promoted to director of instruction in 1972, and then to the post of superintendent of schools in 1984. During his tensure in this position, he guided the district through an unprecedented period of population growth. With his vision and professionalism, the district met this challenge without compromising student safety or academic integrity. His leadership made possible the emergence of modern educational facilities with dynamic and capable faculty, and students who rank among our State and our Nation's best and brightest. In addition, known for his expertise and leadership in the school budget process, Mr. Campbell has ensured the efficient operation of school department finances, providing a healthy educational future for all South Kingstown schools. In today's increasingly competitive job market, a quality education is absolutely necessary for success and advancement. Mr. Campbell's proactive approach toward achieving educational excellence has made these opportunities available to our young people. His accomplishments clearly demonstrate that an investment in education is indeed an investment in the future. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Arthur Campbell's retirement, I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating this outstanding administrator and educator.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler amendment to eliminate the AmeriCorps Program. AmeriCorps has provided an opportunity for more than 40,000 young people to earn their way through college by giving something back to their communities and our Nation. AmeriCorps members perform many vital functions, including tutoring children, helping seniors, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, preventing crime, and protecting the environment. This past Sunday, I attended the City Year Rhode Island Graduation, in which 55 individuals were honored for their year of service in Providence and Central Falls, RI. City Year participants make a difference in the lives of Rhode Islanders by tutoring children and cleaning up communities. Next year, City Year Rhode Island, which receives a majority of its funding from the Corporation for National Service, expects to provide service opportunities to additional participants who will serve throughout the State. AmeriCorps is making a positive impact in our communities and in the lives of the participants. One recent City Year Rhode Island participant was a high school dropout working in jobs which gave her little chance of advancement. Her involvement in City Year provided an opportunity to assist others in need, which in turn renewed her belief in the value of hard work and inspired her to return to and finish high school. She is now attending Brown University where she is studying medicine, turning a nearly destroyed dream of becoming a doctor into a reality. Today the critics of AmeriCorps will attempt to disparage AmeriCorps with claims of financial mismanagement and wasteful spending. In recent months, however, the Corporation for National Service has addressed these and other concerns by reducing costs, increasing private-sector support, improving financial management, and eliminating grants to other Federal agencies, in order to harness the full potential of national service. Furthermore, four independent studies have concluded that AmeriCorps is a cost-effective investment that yields more in benefits than the program costs. As the Providence Journal-Bulletin recently noted, we should be increasing funding for this worthy program, not eliminating it. AmeriCorps enjoys widespread support among participants, governors, and businessmen and women in Rhode island, and across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject the Hostettler amendment and other anti-AmeriCorps amendments offered today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3662, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I would like to thank Chairman Regula and Representative Yates for their work, which has been all the more difficult because of misguided Republican budget priorities. I realize that this measure has many serious shortcomings. H.R. 3662 makes excessive cuts in important energy initiatives. In addition, the bill's allocation for our national parks falls short of meeting the increasing demand for visitor services, park maintenance, and resource protection. I am disappointed that the Republican majority created these problems by insisting on budget plans that fail to recognize the importance of our parks. However, this debate has substantially improved this legislation. By approving the Dicks amendment, the House preserved the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. By adopting the Sanders amendment, the House restored needed funds for the low-income home weatherization program, which conserves energy and provides vital assistance to low-income Americans. Furthermore, this measure helps to preserve a vital part of our Nation's heritage. H.R. 3662 renews the Federal commitment to the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, the birthplace of the American industrial revolution. Drawing on the hard work and ingenuity of the region's people, this affiliated area of the National Park System is a model partnership between the private and public sectors that deserves our strong support. I take pride in the great strides that we are making in the Blackstone Valley, and I will vote to preserve the Federal commitment to these endeavors. I look forward to working with Chairman Regula, Representative Yates, and our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the final version of this legislation more effectively protects all of our Nation's environmental resources.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3525, the Church Arson Prevention Act, I am pleased that the House is considering this important legislation. The legislation before us is straightforward. It will help law enforcement officials capture those responsible for these heinous crimes. Unfortunately, the motivation of those committing these acts is also straightforward--hate, ignorance and disrespect. More than 30 fires have occurred at churches throughout the South, leaving in their wake a fear that the demons of the past have risen again. This time they are not content to spew their slogans of hatred. Instead, their hate is at such a fever pitch that these brutes attack one of the most powerful symbols of community and love--places of worship. In the 1960's our Nation witnessed a dramatic struggle for racial equality. Efforts to give African-Americans equal opportunity were often met with violent protest, and America lost a number of brilliant young leaders to racial hatred and bigotry, including religious men like the Reverend Martin Luther King. In the end, the American ideal of equality won, and hate lost. Now, those who would tear our Nation apart have returned. We must collectively respond to this hatred. We cannot tolerate these deplorable acts against African-Americans and our places of worship. Indeed, the combination of this racial and religious intolerance is immoral and must be countered at every turn. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House will pass this legislation to fight these despicable acts, and the Senate should follow suit. In addition, I would urge the President and Assistant Attorney General Patrick to continue their efforts to bring the perpetrators of these hateful acts to justice--America's citizens of all races and religions deserve no less.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, on June 11, 1996, I voted in favor of H.R. 3540, the foreign operations appropriations bill. While I still have some concerns about this legislation, including the continued restrictions on international family planning and funding of expanded- IMET for Indonesia, overall I believe this legislation includes several important provisions which deserve the support of the House. First, this bill provides crucial funding for our allies in the Middle East. H.R. 3540 recognizes our ongoing commitments to Israel and Egypt, providing $3 billion and $2.1 billion respectively in economic and military aid. As our Democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel has been a leader in the effort to bring peace to this region of the world. The peace process is under tremendous pressure and we need to continue to show our strong support as Israel and its neighbors continue to seek peace. It is crucial that we maintain this funding and continue our efforts on behalf of the peace process in the Middle East. H.R. 3540 also takes important steps to strengthen the Humanitarian Corridor Act. As a cosponsor of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, I was extremely troubled with the President's waiver of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act for Turkey on May 16, 1996. I am pleased that the House overwhelming approved Mr. Visclosky's amendment which cut economic aid to Turkey by $25 million until it lifts its blockade of U.S. humanitarian relief to Armenia. This amendment will send a strong message to Turkey that the United States will not condone its continued illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus and the internationally condemned blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Armenia. We should not allow humanitarian assistance to be used as a political weapon while innocent victims are deprived of food, fuel, and medical supplies, whether it be in the wake of a natural disaster or armed aggression. I also supported Mr. Radanovich's amendment to withhold a small portion of aid to Turkey until the government acknowledges the Armenian genocide. We cannot ignore the atrocities that the Armenian people suffered between 1925 and 1923 or the continued denial of this horrible chapter in history. The victims of this holocaust, as well as the survivors and their families, deserve the recognition of this crime against humanity. As I stated earlier, I remain concerned about several provisions in the bill. I offered an amendment with my colleague, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, to prohibit funding of E-IMET for Indonesia. The Indonesian Government continues to commit egregious human rights abuses against the people of east Timor, and, indeed, incidents of abuse by the Indonesia military increased over the past year, according to the State Department. While I am disappointed that this amendment did not pass, I urge my colleagues to continue to pressure the Indonesian government to adhere to international human rights standards and to hold Indonesia accountable for its human rights record. Overall, this bill provides $11.9 billion for foreign aid operations, a cut of $460 million from last year's level of funding. I believe it is in the best interest of the U.S. to maintain a strong presence abroad. This legislation supports our commitment to the international community while addressing the fiscal realities we face here at home. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, kids deserve a chance to succeed. An environment free of crime--and the gun violence that claims the lives of thousands of our Nation's children every year--provides this opportunity. Recent events are a painful reminder of the devastation that firearms cause for children in every part of our country. Last month, 4-year-old Marimal Colon was playing in front of her house in my home State of Rhode Island. As she prepared to accompany her siblings to a candy store, she was hit in the back by a stray bullet, fired in an exchange between two cars passing her home. Since coming to Congress, I have worked hard to stop this violence by enacting tough new laws, like the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban, that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. These laws are making an impact, but we must do more to stop the plague of gun violence. We must stop criminals from obtaining their weapons of choice: junk guns. These firearms, also known as Saturday night specials, are cheap, small, easily concealable, made of cheap materials, and lack adequate safety devices. Junk guns are not hunting weapons, but they are 3.4 times as likely to be used in crime as are other firearms. Indeed, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reports that 8 of the 10 firearms most frequently traced at crime scenes in 1995 were junk guns. The Junk Gun Violence Protection Act that I am introducing today takes a stand against junk guns. This bill and Senator Boxer's companion legislation ban the junk guns that criminals prefer. In the past, Congress has recognized the danger of junk guns, and taken bipartisan action to combat the abuse of these weapons. In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act to prohibit the importation of junk guns. This measure unintentionally led to the creation of a vast domestic junk gun industry. In 1972, the Senate passed a bill to apply the import standards to domestically produced guns by a vote of 68 to 25. The Reed-Boxer bill is modeled after this impressive example. The measure, which at last closes the deadly loophole that protects domestic junk guns, is an important step toward safe communities. I look forward to working with Senator Boxer, our colleagues, and the millions of Americans committed to reducing the toll of gun violence to ensure that this critical goal becomes a reality.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional officer of the U.S. Marines in Maj. Scott Buran. This week, Major Buran completes a highly successful tour as the Marine Corps' assistant liaison officer to this body over the past 4 years. It is truly a pleasure for me to recognize a few of his many outstanding achievements. A native of Vestal, NY, Major Buran became dedicated to the service of this country by following the fine example of his father, Lt. Col. Frank Buran. A retired Marine officer with his own impressive achievements, the elder Buran led marines during the amphibious assault on Iwo Jima during World War II and later during the Korean war. Following in his father's footsteps, Major Buran was commissioned in the Marine Corps on May 15, 1982, upon his graduation from the State University of New York via the Platoon Leaders Course Program. Upon completion of The Basic School in Quantico, VA, Second Lieutenant Buran attended the Artillery Officer Basic Course at Fort Sill, OK, before reporting for duty with the First Battalion, Eleventh Marines at Camp Pendleton, CA, in August 1983. With 1/11, he served successively at a forward observer, adjutant, and battery executive officer. In July 1985, First Lieutenant Buran joined Marine Barracks Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines, for duty as a platoon commander and guard officer. Completing a successful 14 months in the Philippines, he returned stateside in the winter of 1986 for his new assignment at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA. Here, newly promoted Captain Buran contributed immeasurably to the process of making marines while serving successively as a platoon, series, and company commander, and finally as the S-3 training officer. After a 6-month return to school at Fort Sill for the artillery officers advanced course, Captain Buran returned to the Fleet Marine Force in November 1989. Just 4 months later, Scott deployed with 3rd Battalion, 10th Marines as an artillery battery commander for duty in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Serving with distinction, Captain Buran participated in the liberation of Kuwait City. Captain Buran arrived at the Capitol in August 1992 for duty as the Marine Corps assistant congressional liaison officer. Soon thereafter, he was advanced to the grade of major. In this capacity he has been instrumental in providing Congress with a working knowledge of the Marine Corps. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, Maj. Scott Buran has come to epitomize those qualities that we as a nation have come to expect from our marines--impeccable integrity, moral character, and absolute professionalism. I had the privilege of traveling with Major Buran to Somalia and to the former Yugoslavia. His superb professionalism, mature judgment, and tireless effort and enthusiasm made this trip not only possible, but extraordinarily useful as a means of informing the Congress of the situation in these troubled lands. Major Buran consistently exceeds the very high expectations of an officer of the Marines. Major Buran's personal awards include the Combat Action Ribbon, the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal with two gold stars in lieu of second and third awards, and the Meritorious Service Medal. Mr. Speaker, Maj. Scott Buran has served this Nation with distinction in war and in peace for the last 14 years. As he continues to do so, I call upon my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to wish him, his lovely wife Ann, and their three beautiful children, Elizabeth, Sydney, and Samuel, every success as well as fair winds and following seas.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I respect a great deal both the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett] and their comments. Mr. Chairman, this is not an amendment attempting to undercut the very important goals of IMET. I spent 12 years in the U.S. Army, and I had the opportunity to actually train with and serve with foreign officers who were brought into this country through the IMET program. It is a very valuable program and a very worthwhile program. And it does, as the gentleman from Virginia indicated, give our country an opportunity to impress upon foreign officers our values, both our democratic values and our professional standards. But the other side of that equation is that this program gives, in many respects, an imprimatur to the military forces that participate in the program, and I think we have to ask very serious questions at this juncture, given the record in Indonesia, whether we want to give the imprimatur to the armed forces of Indonesia. There have been indications that progress is being made. But progress in human rights in East Timor is in the eye of the beholder. And I would refer to the letter I made reference to before from the Catholic Conference from Father Drew Christiansen: ``Rather than improvements in human rights, there have been over the past year numerous reports from authoritative sources of continued harassment and arrests of many, especially young people, seeking to express in a nonviolent fashion their disagreement with the status quo. There continue to be vicious attacks by gangs of paramiliataries and a climate of fear created by the security forces that at times amounts to a reign of terror.'' And so I would argue, based upon the observations of Father Christiansen and his colleagues in the Catholic Conference, that our IMET training has not achieved success yet and, in fact, what it does is provide a symbolic approval of these operations in East Timor by Indonesian security forces. And also it has not yet moved forward the Government of Indonesia together with other world leaders in the world community to recognize their occupation, their illegal occupation of East Timor, and to give justice to the East Timor and to its people. And I think in that regard we have again invoked the leverage of withdrawing IMET from the armed forces of Indonesia. Now, the gentleman from Nebraska talked about the strategic value of Indonesia. I believe there is strategic value there. But I would point out that in the period from 1992 until about a year or so ago, when we restored expanded IMET, the Government of Indonesia did not turn away from the United States, did not seek to ally itself with other regional powers. And I would suspect that if once again we revoked IMET, they would not turn away from us, turn away from their own self-interest, which is a relationship with the United States in the world community. We are not at all seeking to undercut the economic ties that we are developing with the Government of Indonesia. Those ties, I think, also are based upon mutual self-interest, but what we are doing is trying to establish very clearly that the Government of Indonesia and its armed forces must act with more sensitivity, more consideration of the people of East Timor, and if they cannot do that, they then would not be allowed to participate in this expanded IMET. And for all of the above reasons, I would urge that this measure be adopted and the amendment be accepted by the committee.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which is offered by myself and my colleagues, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. It would prohibit all military education and training funds for Indonesia, IMET funds. Currently, Indonesia receives expended IMET. Unfortunately, the Indonesian military has not made progress in improving its human rights record. The record is very clear. Indeed, the Department of State's ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995'' states that the Indonesian Government continues to commit serious human rights violations in East Timor. The report further states: The armed forces continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights abuses. On East Timor, no progress was made in accounting for missing persons following the 1991 Dili incident or the 10 other Timorese that disappeared in 1995. And finally, ``The armed forces used excessive force in making arrests following anti-integration rioting in Dili in October.'' Mr. Chairman, our IMET resources are designed to provide training for other military forces around the world. It is not designed to encourage or in any way aid or abet in such human rights abuses. And, in fact, one would hope that these resources and the training that is involved with them would be a strong barrier against such abuses of human rights. We are not at this juncture criticizing the IMET program. The IMET program, as it is practiced around the world, is a valuable source of American foreign policy and military preparedness and national security strength for our country and our allies. But we cannot, I think, sit idly by, watching these abuses in East Timor against a people who were the victims of an invasion 20 years ago and continue to fund this type of military support for their regime, their military, those people who have been identified by our State Department as being the perpetrators of these types of human rights abuses. In 1992, Congress, in a sense of shock and outrage, cut off IMET funds to East Timor. In 1991, on film, the British Broadcasting Corp. filmed the massacre of 250 East Timor residents by the forces of the Indonesian Armed Forces. That was such a shocking revolting incident that we acted properly and cut off those funds. We restored those moneys, but we restored those moneys with the idea that the Indonesian military had learned their lesson; that they would not continue these practices of human rights abuses. Sadly, sadly, Mr. Chairman, that lesson has not been learned. It is incumbent upon us today to once again reiterate our strong opposition to these abuses and to do it in a palpable, tangible way, to do it by eliminating IMET funds for the Government of Indonesia and their armed forces. This is a position which, I think, has strong support in many different quarters. Mr. Chairman, I will at the appropriate time introduce a letter in the extension of remarks from the Catholic Conference in support of this amendment, and included in that letter is the following language: ``Curtailing IMET funding to Indonesia constitutes a small but symbolically important expression by our government of the need for Indonesia to show greater will in resolving these problems.'' We cannot allow another 20 years of abuses to continue in East Timor. I would also say for the record, which I think is important, Mr. Chairman, we have spent our the last several days debating this bill, in different guises, talking about Desert Storm and over valiant efforts to liberate Kuwait from the unprovoked aggression of Iraq in 1991. Well, the similarities in this situation are ironic but associate, but in this situation it was the Government of Indonesia that struck a defenseless country, overran it without any justification under international law, and today not only do we not condemn that invasion vigorously but we continue to assist the Indonesian military. It would be as if we had stood by idly and passively in the gulf and now today continued to assist the Iraqi Armed Forces. So, Mr. Chairman, I think justice and human rights and sound policy is on the side of this amendment and I hope it passes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican effort to bypass the normal 30 day comment period and approval process for the Wisconsin welfare reform plan and eliminate the ability of the people of Wisconsin to officially and publicly express their views on the plan. I am a strong supporter of welfare reform and workfare. I am also a strong supporter of a truly bipartisan effort to fix the problems of the current welfare system. However, I am not a supporter of purely political exercises on the House floor when we should be in committee working on a bipartisan welfare bill for the Nation, not just Wisconsin. The Wisconsin welfare plan, known as Wisconsin Works [W-2], requires waivers of 88 provisions of Federal law and regulation in order to be implemented. However, the legislation before us does not enumerate or provide any information on these waivers. Indeed, I have received no letter from Governor Thompson of Wisconsin requesting that I or any other Member of Congress should approve these waivers--that letter went to the President where it should have gone. In fact, this is only a political exercise which will not be considered in the Senate. It will, however, have real ramifications for the welfare reform effort in my State of Rhode Island. Rhode Island is currently debating two competing plans, one offered by Governor Almond and the other by a coalition of business people and antipoverty groups, to reform the State's welfare system. These plans have many provisions in common, including requiring work in order to receive assistance and providing expanded child care opportunities. Both of these plans, however, are miles apart from the Wisconsin plan. The goal of welfare reform should be to instill individual responsibility and move people from welfare to work. However, a reformed system should continue to provide a safety net for those individuals who are unable to work, and most important, a reformed welfare system should protect children, who have little control over their parents' behavior. With the information I have been able to find on this proposal, it appear that the Wisconsin plan does not meet these goals. Under W-2, no family would be entitled to benefits, child care, or other services. Families would receive help when parents are participating in work activities, but there is no assurance that there will be sufficient job placements available for all those in need of assistance. W-2 also places children and families at risk by ending the guarantee of health coverage through the Medicaid Program. Mr. Speaker, I will oppose this legislation because I am concerned it moves us away from real bipartisan welfare reform in Rhode Island and the Nation. However, I will continue my efforts in support of flexibility, work requirements, and protecting children when the majority brings a real welfare reform proposal to the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Visclosky's amendment. As a cosponsor of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, I was very pleased with the passage of this legislation last year. However, I was extremely troubled with the President's waiver of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act on May 16. I joined many of my colleagues in expressing our disappointment with his decision to waive the statutory restrictions on assistance to the Republic of Turkey, and I am urging my colleagues to support this amendment to strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act prohibits U.S. assistance to any country that prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to other countries. We should not allow humanitarian assistance to be used as a political weapon while innocent victims are deprived of food, fuel, and medical supplies, whether it be in the wake of a natural disaster or armed aggression. Unfortunately, countries are still hampering the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to those in need. Turkey continues its illegal blockade of American humanitarian relief to needy population in Armenia and it continues to deny the existence of the Armenian Genocide of 1915. This amendment would limit the scope of the executive waiver under the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This amendment would limit the President's waiver authority to only U.S. military aid--economic assistance would be withheld from any country that impedes the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. This amendment continues to protect U.S. national security interests, but it will send a strong message to nations that blocking humanitarian assistance to those in need is unacceptable. I commend the members of the committee who have worked on behalf of this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment.