Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, how is watercraft to be defined?

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of conducting a colloquy with my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], and I would ask the gentleman if he would answer a question.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. The goal of chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings is to give the debtor a fresh start by discharging his or her debts, either after liquidation of assets and payments to creditors in chapter 7 or after a 3- to 5-year consumer reorganization repayment period in chapter 13. However, certain debts, such as alimony and child support, are nondischargeable. The bankruptcy code already prohibits the discharge of debt arising from the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and there have been three reported cases interpreting this section of the bankruptcy code. Two have held that the motor boat falls within the meaning of motor vehicle; one held the opposite. This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], would add watercraft and aircraft to the phrase motor vehicle in section 523(a)(9). This addition would clarify and emphasize that current law already prohibits the discharge of debts incurred through the drunken operation of boats and aircraft, as well as cars. H.R. 234 would eliminate further confusion in the courts about the intended scope of this statute. I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] for his interest in this issue. My home State of Rhode Island is known as the Ocean State. We have thousands of people operating all types of watercraft off our shores. Regrettably, in the next few weeks we will probably have tragic incidents in which people are injured and perhaps killed by someone who irresponsibly drank and piloted a boat. One of the witnesses at the subcommittee hearing on this issue testified that 25 percent of the reported boating accidents in Maryland involved people with elevated blood alcohol levels. Clearly, this type of dangerous and irresponsible behavior is something we must try to discourage by all means at our disposal, and using the bankruptcy code to do so I think is appropriate. This clarification is indeed a very useful clarification of the code. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say how pleased I was to be able to work on this legislation with the subcommittee chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I commend the chairman for his fine work here today. The legislation before us today will permanently reauthorize the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. We are all concerned with reducing litigation. The use of alternative dispute resolution techniques--techniques designed to resolve conflicts consensually, generally with the assistance of a neutral third party-- can lower the tremendous costs and ease the delays of Government litigation. This benefits the Government, as well as business and private parties. The original ADR Act got agencies started on the road of using mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and other methods to resolve disputes. We heard excellent testimony at our hearing on the benefits and savings that accrue from the use of alternative dispute resolution. For example, Joseph McDade, a deputy dispute resolution specialist from the Air Force testified before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law that the Air Force had used ADR to resolve more than 1,000 civilian personnel disputes, with a settlement rate close to 80 percent. Likewise, 53 Air Force contracting cases have gone through ADR, and all have been resolved. The Air Force has begun adding ADR clauses to contracts, to ensure that disputes do not drive up acquisition costs. According to a report of the Administrative Conference of the United States, the Department of Labor used mediation to resolve violations of labor or workplace standards in the Philadelphia region. Eighty-one percent of the cases were settled, usually in a single session, with a cost savings of 7 to 11 percent per case. The cases were resolved months faster than they would have been otherwise. The FDIC and RTC have mediated disputes among failed financial institutions and saved millions in legal fees--over $13 million in estimated legal costs for the FDIC, and over $115 million for the RTC. The Departments of Health and Human Services and Education have used ADR in grant audits and disputes. ADR is being used increasingly in enforcement disputes. The Attorney General recently directed all civil litigation components within the Department of Justice to develop ADR case selection criteria and is requiring ADR training for all civil litigation attorneys. While agencies inherently have the authority to use ADR techniques, testimony received by the subcommittee indicate that the expiration of the ADR Act has caused confusion and disruption in the field. The act provides a necessary framework for governmentwide ADR, as well as important incentives for promoting its use. The ADR Act sets uniform governmentwide standards for the use of ADR, provides the confidentiality protections that are necessary for a full and candid exchange between the parties, and provides the authority to hire neutrals as well as to use donated neutrals and space for ADR. This legislation permanently reauthorizes the act and makes several important improvements: It expands the range of cases that can be referred to ADR by eliminating the exemptions for certain types of workplace related disputes so employee grievances and discrimination cases under civil rights laws may, with the consent of the employee, be referred to ADR. The general provisions of section 572(b), which establishes criteria for identifying cases where ADR is not appropriate, would still apply. It makes the procedure more user friendly by streamlining the acquisition process for hiring mediators. It enhances the confidentiality provisions. Currently, section 574 of the act prohibits third-party neutrals and parties to the dispute from disclosing communications during an ADR proceeding, with limited exceptions. These communications are not necessarily exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In particular, the lack of an FOIA exemption may serve as an incentive to hire private neutrals who are not subject to FOIA, rather than Government neutrals. According to the testimony of the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service, 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 committee bill provides that the memoranda, notes, or work product of the neutral, are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Exempting these communications from FOIA does not diminish the amount of information that would otherwise be available to the public if a neutral were not employed. A careful balance must be struck between the need for confidentiality in the ADR process and the basic purpose underlying FOIA, that openness in Government is essential to accountability. The committee was reluctant to expand the exemption from ADR Act should not be used as a shield to hide documents that otherwise would be available to the public. The principles of Government openness and accountability underlying FOIA are vital to the functioning of a democratic society. 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 resolutions. 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must vote against H.R. 2406, the Housing Act of 1995. While I support the provisions which reduce burdensome regulations for public housing authorities and consolidate numerous programs, I do not support the provisions which will limit housing options for our Nation's most vulnerable residents and families. During House debate, I spoke in favor of Representative Frank's amendment to retain the Brooke amendment, an amendment which would have ensured that residents in public housing do not pay more than 30 percent of their limited income toward rent. Although the House was successful in retaining this important provision for our Nation's elderly and disabled, and those with incomes below 30 percent of the area median, H.R. 2406 still contains language which will effectively shut out low-income working Americans from affordable, decent housing. I have long held that we need meaningful welfare reform and that there ought to be a safety net for those Americans trying to get their feet back on the ground. Repealing the Brooke amendment will severely hurt our Nation's low-income, working residents who are struggling to afford a home, food, clothing, and medicine. In addition to repealing the Brooke amendment, the House bill also changes regulations regarding income targeting. I commend Chairman Lazio for his efforts on compromise language with Representative Kennedy from Massachusetts to reserve more public and assisted housing for the very poor. I also share the goal of integrating a broader range of incomes for people in public housing, but I remain concerned that many low-income Americans will still be cut off from housing assistance while housing authorities seek to attract people with higher incomes. It is my hope that the House-Senate conference will result in an agreement to ensure that those who are in dire need of housing are able to receive assistance. Mr. Speaker, I heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who expressed serious concerns about this bill and the repeal of the Brooke amendment. At a time when Americans are already coping with drastic budget cuts, it does not make sense to disadvantage working residents and families by placing affordable, decent housing out of their reach. Mr. Speaker, everyone needs a place to live, and, as such, housing legislation should be a bipartisan effort. The Senate has taken this to heart and passed bipartisan legislation which preserves the Brooke amendment. It is my hope that the final bill will be more like the Senate version, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure safe, decent, affordable housing for all Americans.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank amendment. I have heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who are concerned about the repeal of the Brooke amendment. While I commend Chairman Lazio's amendment which aims to improve his original provision regarding rent payments, I believe that we need to do more to protect those Americans who relay on public and assisted housing. Our Nation's low-income residents are already coping with drastic cuts in funding for many important programs. Rhode Island's seniors, disabled, and low-income families are already forced to make many choices between the bare necessities of life that Members of Congress do not face. The Frank amendment will allow these people to live in decent, affordable housing and still provide for their food, clothing, and medicine. Simply put, increasing rents for our Nation's most vulnerable will not achieve the goal of ``empowering'' our citizens. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to provide real help to our Nation's elderly, disabled persons, children, and low-income residents. Support the Frank amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank amendment. I have heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who are concerned about the repeal of the Brooke amendment. While I commend Chairman Lazio's amendment which aims to improve his original provision regarding rent payments, I believe that we need to do more to protect those Americans who rely on public and assisted housing. We need to ensure reasonable rents for our Nation's seniors, disabled persons, and low-income families so that they can live in safe decent and affordable housing. Our Nation's low-income residents are already coping with drastic cuts in funding for many important programs, and now we are contemplating penalizing those who may find themselves in need of public housing in the future whose incomes fall below 50 percent of the median income level. Rhode Island's seniors and disabled are already forced to make many choices between the bare necessities of life that Members of Congress do not face. The Brooke amendment has allowed these people to live in decent, affordable housing and still provide for their food, clothing, and medicine. Simply put, increasing rents for our Nation's most vulnerable will not achieve the goal of ``empowering'' our citizens. Rather, it could force many of these people deeper into poverty. In Rhode Island, the Brooke amendment matters. In Rhode Island, 25,100 households fall under the Brooke amendment, and not all of them live in public housing. The Brooke amendment matters because 11,400 of these households including children that need to be fed, clothed, and educated. The Brooke amendment matters because the Providence housing market lost some 1,100 units of affordable housing from 1988 to 1992. Regrettably, the bill we are now considering will only exacerbate the problems of those struggling and older Rhode Islanders who desperately need the Brooke amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to provide real help to our Nation's elderly, disabled persons, children, and low-income residents. Support the Frank amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an outstanding Rhode Islander, Justice Florence Kerins Murray, who is celebrating the 40th anniversary of her appointment to the bench. Justice Murray was educated in the Newport, RI public school system and graduated from Syracuse University with a bachelor of arts degree. Following a brief teaching career at the Prudence Island School, she attained her L.L.B. from Boston University Law School and was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar. During World War II, Justice Murray enlisted in the Women's Army Corps and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1942. She served in various capacities and left the corps as a lieutenant colonel, but was later recalled for a special duty assignment in 1947. Justice Murray returned to Rhode Island to practice law and raise a son with her beloved late husband, Paul. In 1948, she began her career in public service, serving with distinction on the Newport School Committee and in the Rhode Island State Senate concurrently until 1956. During this time, she displayed keen understanding of government policy and the legislative process and specialized in issues involving the welfare of children and the needs of the elderly. She served as master in the superior court and as chair of a special commission that led to the establishment in Rhode Island of the Nation's first family court. In 1956, Gov. Dennis J. Roberts appointed Florence Murray as an associate judge of the Rhode Island Superior Court, the first women justice in the history of our State. Twenty-two years later, she was named the first female presiding justice of that court, and in 1979, she was elected to her present position on the Rhode Island Supreme Court, one of the first women to serve on a State supreme court. The career of Justice Murray is an exemplary one, and she is renowned throughout the country as an outstanding jurist. She is a recipient of nine honorary doctorates and of the coveted Herbert Harley Award from the American Judicature Society. She is respected for her leadership, personal integrity, love of the law, sense of justice, and for her unselfish contribution to the welfare of the community. She has been a champion of professionalism in the courts and an inspiration to furthering the careers of women in the field of the law. Her intelligence, reason, compassion, and sense of fairness have been an enduring presence in the Rhode Island court system. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Justice Murray. She is a remarkable woman of impeccable character and reputation who honors all of us with her service. I urge you to recognize Justice Murray for her significant contribution to our legal system. This milestone is significant, and I am delighted to join in this most fitting tribute.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an individual with a longstanding commitment to native American heritage in the State of Rhode Island. Joseph McKinley Hazard of the Silver Cloud Senior Citizens, Inc., of the Narragansett Indian Tribe exemplifies strength and dedication to tribal and cultural tradition. Born in 1901 to Charles Frederick and Hannah Mariah Hazard, Joseph is the oldest known active member of the Narragansett Indians who meet at the Narragansett Indian longhouse in Charlestown, RI. In 1920, he married Nancy Ellen Hubbard in Norwich, CT, and then settled back in Charlestown, raising four children: Joseph, Jr., Raymond Atwood, Nancy, and Dorrance. After his wife, Nancy Ellen, passed away in 1965, Joseph remarried, to Ruth Brown Michaels in 1970. Joseph is now the only surviving member of his family. Throughout his long and fruitful life, Joseph has been a member of the Narragansett Tribal Council. He also sits on the board of the Narragansett Indian Church and was a dedicated Boy Scout leader. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Joseph M. Hazard for his constant and dutiful commitment to the preservation of the Narragansett Indian Tribe's way of life. It is my sincere belief that outstanding individual embodies the spirit of history and tradition of native Americans in the Ocean State and throughout our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that on April 18, 1996, the House voting system did not record my vote on rollcall vote 125, final passage of the rule governing debate on the antiterrorism bill. At the time the vote was held, I was on the floor of the House, having just voted against ordering the previous question. It was my intent to vote for passage of the rule. Unfortunately, my vote was not properly recorded. I would ask the Record to reflect my presence in the Chamber and my intent to vote for passage of the rule.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an accomplished businessman and civic activist. After 38 years of leadership at the Washington Trust Co. of Westerly, RI, Mr. Potter has chosen to retire. I would like to recognize him for his dedicated service and commend him as a model businessman: Dedicated to company, community, and family. Joe joined the ``home-town bank'' of South County in 1958 and has presided over the bank's tremendous growth and profitability. While tending to the heavy demands of a successfully growing business, Joe also found the time to become active in both the business community and as a civic leader. Joe has served as executive vice president and president of The Rhode Island Bankers Association, as well having served as a member of the board of directors of Washington Bancorp, Inc. The Westerly community also benefited greatly from his generous contributions. In a town proud of its Italian heritage, Joe currently serves as the president of the Permanent Columbus Day Committee, working diligently to make the Columbus Day Parade Westerly's finest processional each year. Additionally, Joe serves as a member of the Board of Governors of Rhode Island Junior Achievement and the Board of Governors for Community Health of Westerly. From 1968 to 1974 Joe served the community through the State legislature, serving in the Rhode Island House of Representatives. As a public servant, Joe was instrumental in drafting the State Civil Defense Preparedness Act of 1974. He also received the coveted Department of Defense Award, one of the highest awards bestowed upon civilians. As the Congressman representing Rhode Island's Second District, I am proud to acknowledge an individual who exemplifies true humanitarianism, citizenship, a strong work ethic, and sense of commitment. Joe, your contributions to the State of Rhode Island and the town of Westerly are an inspiration to all residents of the Ocean State. Congratualtions on the culmination of a wonderful career with the Washington Trust Co. Please accept my best wishes for all your future endeavors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 81st anniversary of the Armenian Holocaust. On this date in 1915, the Ottoman Empire and the successor Turkish nationalist regime began a brutal policy of deportation and slaughter. Over the next 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians would be ruthlessly massacred at the hands of the Turks, and another 500,000 would have their property confiscated and be driver from their homeland. Engrossed in its own problems at the time, the world did little as a population was devastated. As these memories stay eternally fresh in their minds and hearts, the people of the Armenian Republic continue to suffer. In recent years, attempting to establish their independence from the former Soviet Union, Armenia has suffered a series of setbacks, including an earthquake in 1988 and a Turkish-led economic blockade that has prevented humanitarian aid from entering the country. Despite these tragic circumstances, the Armenian people continue to be an inspiration to people around the world. Indeed, last July's democratic elections and new Constitution are evidence of the Armenian devotion to democracy. At the same time, the Armenian community in the United States and in my home state of Rhode Island continues to enrich our society and culture. They have brought with them their unconquerable spirit, patriotism, and valor. Furthermore, they remind us that we must never forget those who perished 81 years ago. Along with the lives that were lost, the Armenian genocide resulted in the destruction of a society and a culture. It is the memory of those whose perished that we remember today, but it is also those who have carried on, that we must honor. We know too well that history can repeat itself, and that the problems of far-off nations are often overlooked in the face of larger global issues. While nothing can undo the crime of the Armenian genocide, we can do our best to establish a new future. I urge my colleagues to join me in this commemoration to remember the victims of this holocaust, pray for those who continue to suffer, and honor the truly inspirational spirit of the Armenian people. We must continue to stand side by side with the Republic of Armenia in her quest for democracy while ensuring that tragedies like the genocide never happen again.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1995, and in particular, the manager's substitute, which has incorporated an important provision on aquaculture. Also I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for their support of this important provision. This provision was originally part of H.R. 2046, a bill I introduced this year to authorize States to formulate, administer, and implement strategic plans for marine aquaculture. Indeed, H.R. 2046 was based on previous legislation sponsored in the last Congress by myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. This provision will foster economic growth and create jobs by encouraging aquaculture development in our lakes and coastal areas. Aquaculture represents a promising economic development opportunity for the State of Rhode Island. At the turn of the century, Rhode Island's shellfishermen harvested so much shellfish from Narragansett Bay that this harvest would be worth almost $1 billion in today's dollars. This provision would enable States like Rhode Island that have no comprehensive plan for aquaculture development to get started in the process of creating jobs and economic development through aquaculture. It is important to recognize that development of a marine aquaculture industry will not be easy. Difficult issues such as private use of public resources, conflicts with other coastal user groups, and the development of streamlined regulatory and permitting requirements will have to be addressed. However, other nations around the world have already recognized the potential of aquaculture and the important role government can play in developing this industry. The Governments of Japan, Norway, and Chile are supporting aquaculture development programs and giving their citizens the opportunity to reap the accompanying economic rewards. In fact, these countries are exporting their aquaculture harvests of fish and shellfish to America. Mr. Speaker, this provision will go a long way in helping States like Rhode Island become competitive in this growing global industry. Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for his strong support of this provision, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the passage of this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of the issues that the House of Representatives is addressing today as it considers H.R. 3121. However, I must object to certain provisions of H.R. 3121 and the manner in which it has been brought before the House. This measure authorizes enhanced International Military and Education Training [IMET] for Indonesia, which is committing flagrant human rights abuses against the people of East Timor. More than 20 years ago, Indonesian troops invaded the small country of East Timor, beginning a storm of violent occupation and repression that continues today. I believe that we must stand with the East Timorese against these unconscionable acts, and I am concerned that by providing enhanced IMET to Indonesia, we may send a dangerous message to the leaders of that nation. In addition, by bringing H.R. 3121 to the floor under suspension of the rules, we will not have a full and open debate on IMET and Indonesia's aggression against the East Timorese. The suspension calendar should be reserved for non-controversial legislation. In my opinion, H.R. 3121 does not meet this test. I regret that this afternoon, the House is not giving these issues the attention they deserve. In the months to come, I will continue to work to assist the long-suffering people of East Timor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican effort to sabotage realistic and meaningful health care this year. Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum have sponsored health insurance reform legislation that is a positive first step to removing the barriers for coverage for thousands of Rhode Islanders and millions of Americans. I am cosponsor of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. It will be offered as a Democratic substitute, and this bill would prohibit insurance companies from dropping coverage when a person changes jobs or preventing coverage if a person has a preexisting condition. In addition, this bill would increase the tax deduction for the self-employed from 30 percent to 80 percent by the year 2002. It is also estimated that this bill would help 25 million Americans each year, with minimal impact on individual premiums or the federal budget. In Rhode Island this would be terribly helpful for thousands of Almacs workers who were recently laid off when the store closed, a supermarket chain. These are individuals that need this type of coverage. Regrettably, House Republicans decided against taking up this bipartisan bill. House Republicans chose instead to cater to special interests and consider a bill with controversial and costly provisions. This Republican plan will doom the prospect of meaningful health care reform this year in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this measure.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it is with reluctance that I will vote in favor of this bill before us today. For almost 6 months, this Nation's good faith and credit has been questioned due to the failure of the Republican majority to complete its budgetary responsibilities. Apparently, my Republican colleagues have come to their senses and will end their last minute, stop gap extensions of the Government's ability to meet its obligations to bond holders and Social Security recipients. However, while my colleagues are acting to prevent default they have attached a number of controversial provisions to this must-pass legislation--namely, some of the bill's regulatory reform language as well as line-item veto authority for the President. Let me be clear, while I am concerned with some of the regulatory reform provisions included in this bill, I support regulatory reform. I am pleased that legislation to provide judicial review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is finally on its way to becoming law. Small businesses have been working to pass this legislation for years, and it will give real teeth to the small business protections in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. My subcommittee marked up this legislation last year, and this will be the second time a version of this legislation has passed the House. However, there are other regulatory reform-related provisions in the debt ceiling bill that were never considered by the Judiciary Committee, nor any other House committee. These provisions were not in H.R. 3136 as introduced. Instead, these items were slipped into a manager's amendment that was adopted by passage of the rule. Moreover, they are not identical to the provisions that passed the Senate as part of Senator Bond's bill, S. 942. For example, one of the non-Senate provisions requires the chief counsel of the SBA to select individuals representative of affected small entities who would review a proposed rule before it is available to the public at large and lobby for changes. These individuals could be campaign contributors of special interest representatives. This provision has been limited to OSHA and EPA rules, since apparently the majority realized what havoc it would wreak if certain politically connected individuals were able to preview IRS, SEC, and other rules-- and were thus able to restructure their financial transactions, for example. Many of the regulatory reform provisions in the bill are meritorious and are based on S. 942. However, that is no reason to circumvent the deliberative legislative process. We ought to review these provisions in committee and work on a bipartisan basis to evaluate and improve upon them instead of slipping them in to must pass legislation. If my colleagues are not concerned with some of the provisions of the regulatory reform language in H.R. 3136, I would urge them to consider the implications of the line-item veto section of this bill. I am concerned with wasteful spending, and I have voted to cut a multitude of unneeded programs like the superconducting supercollider and the advanced liquid rocket motor. However, I am opposed to the line-item veto because it would disrupt the checks and balances of the Constitution. Currently, the President has the power to veto any legislation and Congress can attempt to override this veto. A line-item veto would severely inhibit the legislative branch's say in the spending priorities of this Nation. The line-item veto sounds innocuous enough, but the people of a small State like Rhode Island know full well what giving the President the authority to pick and choose budget items means. Indeed, Rhode Island has experienced a Presidential effort through existing executive branch authority to eliminate an essential program. In 1992, President Bush tried to rescind funding for the Seawolf submarine program which is vital to our Nation's defense and is the livelihood of thousands of working Rhode Islanders. Fortunately, Democrats beat back this attempt, but I am concerned that the line-item provision before us would make future battles closer to a Sisyphean battle than a fair fight. For example, a President--of any political party--could use the line-item veto to eliminate other programs that are important to Rhode Island without fear because a small State like mine only has four votes in Congress. I would argue that it was this fear of retribution which motivated the Founding Fathers to give the legislative branch the power of the purse and restrict the President's veto powers. Regrettably, the line-item veto before us today, would grossly distort the Constitution's delicate balance of power and tilt it to the President, and I cannot support such a shift with the interests of my State in mind. Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, I will support this bill because it is imperative that we prevent the Government from defaulting on obligations made many years ago. In addition, I will also vote for this legislation because it contains provisions that would increase the amount of income that Social Security recipients can earn without losing any benefits. Under current law, Social Security recipients between the ages of 65 and 69 can earn up to $11,520 in 1996 without having their benefits reduced. Each $3 in wages earned in excess of this limit results in a deduction of $1 in Social Security benefits. This legislation gradually increases the amount seniors under age 70 can earn without losing any benefits to $30,000 by the year 2002. I support increasing the Social Security earnings test and voted in favor of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, which included this increase. The House overwhelmingly passed this bill on December 5, 1995 by a vote of 411 to 4. Approximately 1 million of the 42 million Social Security recipients are expected to benefit from this increase in the earnings limit. Increasing the earnings test will help improve the overall economic situation of low and middle income seniors in Rhode Island who work out of necessity, not by choice. For example, a Rhode Island senior currently making $12,500 loses almost $330 in Social Security benefits. With the increase included in the legislation before us, that senior would not lose any benefits. Our seniors have the skills, expertise, and enthusiasm that employers value, and they should be encouraged to work and contribute, not penalized for it. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe I have a duty to prevent the default of the U.S. Government and I will support H.R. 3136, but I would urge my Republican colleagues to stop using important budget legislation as a vehicle for pet causes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to let my colleagues know about the outstanding work of the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross during the terrible winter of 1995-96. Even though spring is now officially here, it will be a long time before Rhode Islanders forget this past winter. The harsh weather shattered all previous records for Rhode Island winters. We had the heaviest cumulative snowfall in recorded Rhode Island history, 93.2 inches; 75.6 inches was the previous record. Starting with last November 13, Rhode Island had 37 days of snowfall, with 11 major snowstorms rolling through our State. In addition to the harsh weather, this past winter has also brought terrible environmental and human tragedy to Rhode Island. On January 19, the oil barge North Cape ran aground on a southern Rhode Island beach, spilling over 800,000 gallons of home heating oil into our State's pristine coastal environment. Once this disaster began, it set into motion an emergency response and cleanup process that lasted days and involved over 1,000 Federal, State and local officials, private contractors, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel. In terms of human tragedy, this past winter has been a season of terrible home fires in Rhode Island. According to the office of Rhode Island's Fire Marshal, the winter of 1995-96 was a time when the loss of life and destruction of property in Rhode Island due to fire showed a marked increase over previous years. The one constant throughout all of Rhode Island's winter hardship was the hard work of the staff and volunteers of the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross. The Red Cross was there during all the winter storms. When a snow plow hit an electrical transformer, knocking out power to a Bristol nursing home, the Red Cross helped evacuate the nursing home residents. When Pawtucket snow removal crews working round-the-clock needed cots to rest on before going back out on the road, the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross got it done. The Red Cross was also there during the North Cape oilspill. Throughout the cleanup, 110 Rhode Island Red Cross Chapter volunteers were on the scene providing over 8,500 meals, enabling work crews to stay at their jobs from sunup to sundown. And the Red Cross was there for all of Rhode Island's tragic winter fires. From last November until the end of winter, the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross helped an estimated 400 Rhode Islanders get back on their feet after a total of 125 fires. It is in the aftermath of a fire that Rhode Island's Red Cross Chapter provides perhaps its most valuable ongoing service to our State. Last year, 26 Rhode Islanders died as a result of fire. When this tragedy does occur, the Red Cross is there with counseling for survivors and for emergency response crews. The volunteers and staff of the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross also provide food, shelter, and clothing--often in the middle of the night--for Rhode Islanders whose homes have been destroyed by fire. The Rhode Island Chapter of American Red Cross performs all these tasks, with a small staff, a very limited budget and an army of dedicated volunteers. I commend the chairman of the board of the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross, Richard Moore, its executive director, Barbara G. DeCesare, and the entire staff of the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Red Cross, for all their hard work. Most of all, I would like to thank all of Rhode Island's Red Cross volunteers, for helping our State make it through a difficult winter.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I do so as someone who believes strongly in immigration reform. In fact, I was one of three Democrats who voted in support of H.R. 2202 when it was considered by the Judiciary Committee. However, I believe the House should address the very different issues of legal and illegal immigration in separate legislation. I support reasonable restrictions on legal immigration: the United States has the right and responsibility to ensure that only those who are likely to become productive citizens may immigrate to our shores. I would not support this amendment if I thought it was an effort to derail these initiatives. But the issues of legal immigration should not be considered in the context of the emotionally charged debate on illegal immigration. Addressing illegal immigration involves criminal laws, border enforcement, deportation issues, and workplace enforcement. The policy decisions to be made regarding legal immigration are completely different and by being thrown in with what is essentially a law enforcement debate have been, I believe, distorted. For example, the House ought to consider more carefully the impact of redefining `family member' for immigration purposes in a way that excludes parents of U.S. citizens, as well as most children over age 21. Most Americans do not believe that any of their children, regardless of how old they are, are distant family members. The bill arbitrarily denies millions of U.S. citizens who have played by the rules and waited in line, in many cases for as long as a decade after having paid fees and gotten applications approved, the opportunity to sponsor and reunite with an overseas family member. Again, I am not an opponent of reducing the levels of immigration or of ensuring that immigrants who are admitted are able to support themselves. But Mr. Chairman, legal immigrants pay their taxes and abide by our laws. They are integral parts of our communities. We should give them the respect they deserve and treat the issues of legal and illegal immigration separately.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, as one of the three Democrats who voted for H.R. 2202 in the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment which would eliminate the cap on refugee admissions to the United States. The United States has historically played an important role in addressing the needs of persons from other countries with a well-founded fear of persecution and I believe the United States should remain sensitive to levels of international refugee migration. This is not to say that this policy should be open- ended. The current process for setting refugee admissions, determined annually by the President in consultation with the Congress, is restrictive yet flexible. It allows for the President and Congress to adjust to international conditions that are continuously changing. The United States has been a leader in humanitarian and foreign policy, and legislating a cap on refugee admissions would send the wrong message to nations that share the responsibility for the world's refugees. I believe the current process in which the Congress has an opportunity to participate is the most responsible and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 175th anniversary of Greek Independence Day, which falls on March 25. On this historic day, the Greek people broke from the Ottoman Empire after more than 400 years of foreign domination, clearly demonstrating their long- standing and continuing love of freedom. Greece's democratic ideals and institutions continue to inspire people and nations around the world, and they have enabled the United States and Greece to enjoy a strong relationship. The contributions that Greek-Americans have made in our society are especially evident in my home State of Rhode Island, where the oldest Greek settlement dates back to the late 1890's. Many of the early Greek immigrants to the State worked as mill workers, foundrymen, fishermen, or merchant seamen. Today, the descendants of these hard-working people form a proud and prosperous Greek-American community, which continues to enrich Rhode Island and our Nation. While we are here today to celebrate Greek history and its contributions, it is also important to recognize the continuing struggles of the Greek people. For more than 20 years, military occupation and human rights abuses by Turkey continue to hamper efforts to bring about a resolution to the situation in Cyprus. The time has come to end the strife and violence that have racked Cyprus since the Turkish invasion. I am a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 42 which calls for the demilitarization of Cyprus and I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors. The United States can and must play a role to help the people of Cyprus and stabilize relations between Greece and Turkey. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, the spiritual leader for over 250 million Greek Orthodox Christians, is located in Turkey and continues to be the victim of harassment and terrorist attacks. I am also a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 50, which calls for the United States to insist that Turkey protect the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all Orthodox Christians residing in Turkey and I would urge my colleagues to sign onto this important legislation. The relationship between the United States and Greece continues to be of political, economical, and social importance. It is my hope we will continue to strengthen the bond between the United States and Greece, and to promote peace and stability in this region of the world. I would like to commend my colleagues, Representatives Bilirakis and Maloney, for forming the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issue. As a member of this caucus, I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues to heighten awareness of issues of concern to the Greek- American community and to further our mutually beneficial relationship with Greece. In closing, I am proud to participate in the celebration of Greek Independence Day. I wish to extend my congratulations and best wishes on this day to the millions of Greek-Americans and all the citizens of Greece.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for an explanation of his request.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the joint resolution. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 129 would grant congressional consent to an interstate compact between Vermont and New Hampshire. Congressional approval is required before the towns involved can apply for Federal funds to upgrade a joint water-treatment plant. The compact will also permit future joint water-supply facilities of the New Hampshire-Vermont border. Compacts between Vermont and New Hampshire are not new. In fact, there is already one relating to sewer systems. The towns are hoping to begin construction once the weather turns warm enough to break ground, so I urge speedy passage of this noncontroversial legislation. Identical legislation has already been passed the Senate by voice vote on December 18, 1995. This measure was urged before the committee very eloquently by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass], and I would hope that we would all join them in supporting this very worthy measure.