Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Vermont for his very effective advocacy for his constituents, and also the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] for his very effective advocacy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I know of no objections to this legislation. House Joint Resolution 78 seeks congressional approval for additional powers conferred on the Bi-State Development Agency of Missouri and Illinois by those two State legislatures. These additional powers involve the jurisdiction of various local police officers to make arrests on the light-rail system and the agency's efforts to prosecute fare evaders. Mr. Speaker, I urge speedy passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I rise in support of this legislation. I know of no objections to this legislation. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has explained, H.R. 2064 amends the Chattahoochee compact between the States of Alabama and Georgia to change the method for filling vacancies on the Historic Chattahoochee Commission. The bill was introduced by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett], along with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard]. Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage and I am glad that I can participate in this historic event. 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. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation in the wake of the recent attack by the Cuban Air Force on two unarmed civilian aircraft. This outrageous, unprovoked act resulted in the tragic loss of four American lives. I, like most Americans, believe the United States must strongly condemn this act and work to promote a democratic Cuba. Unfortunately, I do not believe that H.R. 927 will accomplish this goal. This attack clearly illustrates the breakdown of the Cuban Government and the desperation that Fidel Castro faces in trying to hold onto power. The question we must answer is: how best to hasten the end of the Castro regime? Regrettably, the bill before us is not the answer. Isolation has not been successful in bringing down Castro. It is contrary to the policy we pursued in ending the cold war, and, indeed, it was not the course of action which resulted in the peaceful transition to democracy and market economies in Eastern Europe. H.R. 927 will also worsen conditions in Cuba and result in greater suffering by the Cuban people who remain hostages of Castro's government. By increasing the hardships of the Cuban people, we are running the risk of increased violence in this already volatile nation, as well as the potential outflow of refugees. In addition, this legislation would allow United States citizens to sue foreign companies which traffic in property confiscated in Cuba. I believe such a provision will swamp already overburdened U.S. courts, and I submit for the record an article from the Washington Post which further details the adverse effects of this measure. The Cuban Government's action which resulted in the deaths of United States citizens cannot be justified, and I believe it is necessary to put pressure on the Cuban Government to recognize this serious breach of international law, to pay reparations, and to punish those responsible for this heinous act. The President took the necessary initial steps in response. However, H.R. 927 is contrary to our ultimate foreign policy goals. By tightening the embargo, this legislation will only succeed in further isolating the Cuban people, raising tensions, and endangering a peaceful transition to democracy. I voted against the bill last September, I will do so again today. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 927. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 3, 1996] The Great Cuban Embargo Scam--A Little-Known Loophole Will Allow the Richest Exiles to Cash In (By Louis F. Desloge) Virtually everyone agrees that President Clinton should retaliate forcefully against Cuba's tragic and murderous downing of two civilian aircraft last weekend. But the least effective and most counterproductive punishment is Clinton's acquiescence to the Helms-Burton bill to tighten the U.S. embargo of Cuba. This legislation, which the White House endorsed last week, albeit with reservations, will only play into Castro's hands by creating an expansive loophole for property claimants, especially wealthy Cuban Americans, to circumvent the embargo. Jesse Helms and Dan Burton, conservatives whom I admire, are no doubt sincere in their motivation to subvert Castro's rule by applying economic pressure on his regime. However, they may very well achieve just the opposite of what they seek by buttressing, not undermining, Castro's support at home and weakening, not strengthening, the embargo's prohibition on trade with Cuba. The Helms-Burton bill is a slick stratagem. Its stated purpose is to tighten the embargo by allowing Cuban Americans to have the unprecedented right to sue, in U.S. federal courts, foreign companies doing business on land once owned by these exiles. The idea is to discourage foreign business investment in Cuba, thus undermining the island's financial recovery which, the bill's supporters naively hope, will result in a collapse of the Castro regime. The bill's practical consequences are a different story. A little-noticed provision in the Helms-Burton measure will enable a small group of Cuban Americans to profit from the economic activity occurring in Cuba. To understand this provision, one must first know who helped write it. As the Baltimore Sun reported last May, the bill was drafted with the advice of Nick Gutierrez, an attorney who represents the National Association of Sugar Mill Owners of Cuba and the Cuban Association for the Tobacco Industry. Gutierrez acknowledges his involvement, as does Ignacio Sanchez, an attorney whose firm represents the Bacardi rum company. Sanchez told the Sun that he worked on the bill in his capacity as a member of the American Bar Association's Cuban Property Rights Task Force and not as a representative of the rum company. It is not hard to surmise what these former sugar, tobacco and rum interests will do if and when the law takes effect; sue their competitors who are now doing business in Cuba. Gutierrez told the Miami Herald last fall as saying that he (and his clients) are eyeing a Kentucky subsidiary of British-American Tobacco (B.A.T.) that produces Lucky Strike cigarettes. B.A.T. has a Cuban joint venture with the Brazilian firm Souza Cruz to produce tobacco on land confiscated from his clients, Gutierrez claims. Bacardi would be able to sue Pernod Ricard, the French spirits distributor, currently marketing Havana Club rum worldwide. Bacardi claims that Pernod Ricard's rum is being produced in the old Bacardi distillery in the city of Santiago de Cuba. Here is how this vexatious scheme will work if Helms-Burton becomes law. The former landowner of a tobacco farm files a suit in federal court against British-American Tobacco and seeks damages. If both sides want to avoid prolonged litigation they can reach an out-of-court settlement whereby the former tobacco grower can now share in the profits of the ongoing B.A.T.-Brazilian joint venture in Cuba. Likewise, Bacardi could reach a settlement to get a share of Pernod Ricard's profits from sales of Havana Club internationally. These agreements do not need the blessing of the U.S. Government. This is the million dollar loophole in Helms- Burton. The bill states: ``an action [lawsuit] . . . may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without the necessity of obtaining any license or permission from any agency of the United States.'' What will be the practical result? Foreign companies like Pernod Ricard and British-American Tobacco are unlikely to abandon viable operations in Cuba because of a lawsuit. More likely, these foreign businessmen will agree, reluctantly, to pay off Cuban exiles suing under Helms-Burton. Given the choice of forfeiting millions of dollars invested in Cuba or their financial interests in the United States, the practical business solution might be to give the exiles a cut of the action. Far better to have 90 percent of something than 100 percent of nothing, these businessmen will reason. Allowing Cuban Americans a share of their profits will just be factored in as another cost of doing business. Indeed, Helms-Burton gives the Cuban exile community a strong financial stake in Castro's Cuba. If the foreign businesses simply withdrew in the face of Helms-Burton, the exiled tobacco, sugar and rum interests would get nothing. But if British-American Tobacco or Pernod Ricard or any other foreign firm now doing business with the Castro regime offers an out-of-court settlement to Cuban American exiles, who is going to turn them down? Given the option, at least some people are going to choose personal enrichment over the principle of not doing business with Fidel. After all, Fidel has been in power for 37 years, and the exiles are not getting any younger. The Clinton White House is not unaware of the scam at the heart of the bill. Before the shooting down of the plane, the President had objected to the provisions allowing U.S. nationals to sue companies doing business in Cuba. During last week's conference with Congress, the President's men surrendered and asked for a face-saving compromise: a provision giving the President the right to block such deals later on if they do not advance the cause of democracy in Cuba. But how likely is Clinton to block Cuban Americans in Florida, a key election state, from suing Castro's foreign collaborators later in the final months of an election year? Not very. The bottom line is that Clinton, in the name of getting tough with Castro, has endorsed a bill that allows the embargo to be evaded and protects Cuban Americans who want to legally cut deals to exploit their former properties in Cuba while the rest of the American business community must watch from the sidelines. In fact, the legislation could encourage a massive influx of new foreign investment in Cuba. Armed with the extortionist powers conferred by the legislation, former property holders could shop around the world for prospective investors in Cuba and offer them a full release on their property claim in exchange for a ``sweetheart'' lawsuit settlement entitling them to a piece of the economic action. Thus, the embargo is legally bypassed and everyone laughs all the way to the bank. Actually, not everyone would benefit. The Clinton-endorsed version of Helms-Burton only exempts the wealthiest cabal of Cuba's former elites from the embargo's restraints. The bill will only allow those whose former property is worth a minimum value of $50,000 (sans interest) to file suits. And you had to be very rich to have owned anything of that value in Cuba in 1959. If you were a Cuban butcher, baker or candlestick maker, too bad. This bill is not for you. What could be more useful to Castro in his efforts to shore up his standing with the Cuban people? The spectacle of the U.S. Congress kowtowing to these Batista-era plantation owners and distillers provides Fidel his most effective propaganda weapon since the Bay of Pigs debacle. Castro surely knows that the overwhelming majority of the Cuban people--60 percent of whom were born after 1959--would deeply resent what can be characterized, not unfairly, as an attempt to confiscate their properties and revert control over Cuba's economy to people who symbolize the corrupt rule of the 1950s. Rather than undermining Castro's rule, this bill would drive the people into his camp. Where is the logic in denying the vast majority of the American people the right to become economically engaged in Cuba if it is extended to only a select, wealthy few? Is the concept of ``equal protection under the law'' served if non- Cuban Americans are now relegated to the status of second- class citizens? Or is the real intent of this bill to allow rich Cuban exiles the opportunity to get a jump start and thereby head off the ``gringo'' business invasion certain to follow the demise of the embargo and the inevitable passing of Castro. Let us put an end to this special interest subterfuge. Whatever obligation the United States had to my fellow Cuban Americans has been more than fulfilled by providing us safe haven and the opportunity to prosper and flourish in a free society. Providing us, once again, another special exemption which makes a mockery of the American Constitution, laws and courts, not to mention making a farce of U.S.-Cuba policy, is an insult to both the American and Cuban people. If we are going to lift the embargo for a few wealthy exiles then, fine, let us lift it for all Americans. To be fair and consistent, why not liberate the entire American community to bring the full weight if its influence to bear upon Cuban people? Implementing an aggressive engagement policy to transmit our values to the Cuban people and to accelerate the burgeoning process of reform occurring on the island has a far better chance of ending Castro's rule than the machinations of Helms-Burton.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of National Sportsmanship Day, which is being observed today in the United States and throughout the world. Since its inception in 1991, over 7,000 schools in all 50 States and 48 countries have joined in the National Sportsmanship Day festivities. National Sportsmanship Day was conceived by the Institute for International Sport, located in my congressional district at the University of Rhode Island. This year's slogan, ``Dare to Play Fair,'' challenges athletes, coaches, administrators, and parents to reflect on the true meaning of competition and to discuss the importance of ethics and fair play in sport, the classroom, and everyday life. The institute has enlisted the help of several Sports Ethics Fellows, including two time Boston Marathon winner and Olympic gold medalist Joan Benoit Samuelson, to promote this event. These men and women are wonderful role models who can be admired for more than just their athletic prowess. They have consistently demonstrated an interest in furthering the principles of honesty and integrity in sport and society. Indeed, the Sports Ethics Fellows are helping to teach the important lessons of National Sportsmanship Day by writing articles relating to sportsmanship and assisting in the development of programs for National Sportsmanship Day. Through competition, young athletes can learn that while winning is a goal worth working for, honor, discipline, and hard work are more important. These values will guide them in all aspects of everyday life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and the Rhode Island congressional delegation in recognizing this day and the principles it embodies.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit for the Record a letter from Wendy Sherman, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the State Department, in response to my concerns regarding Hmong refugees in Thailand. I am pleased that the State Department has made progress with the Royal Thai Government in gaining access to Hmong refugees. On behalf of the Hmong community in Rhode Island, I will continue to monitor this important issue. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Washington, DC, January 22, 1996. Hon. Jack Reed, House of Representatives Dear Mr. Reed: Thank you for your letter of November 28, 1995 regarding your concerns for Hmong refugees in Thailand. First, let me assure you that we share your concern for this special population. Since 1975, we have resettled approximately 249,000 Lao refugees (mostly Hmong) out of Thailand. We have provided a large share of the support that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has received to maintain refugee camps and we and non-governmental organizations assist programs in Laos for refugees who have elected to return home. With only some 6,000 Lao refugees remaining in camps in Thailand we are committed to these same two solutions: voluntary repatriation and third country resettlement. As you state in your letter, we have for some time requested permission of the Royal Thai Government to be allowed to interview those remaining Hmong and other Lao refugees in camps in Thailand who may wish to resettle in the United States. In November, a team of officers led by Department of State Deputy Assistant Secretary Charles Sykes went to Bangkok specifically to discuss this issue. I am pleased to report that we reached an agreement in principle with the Royal Thai Government for U.S. access to Hmong and other Lao in the first asylum camps in Thailand. We are now working to finalize the agreement and hope to begin processing this population in early January. Within the FY 1996 refugee admissions ceiling there are sufficient numbers available for approved Laotian cases to be admitted to the U.S. this fiscal year. We would also like to assure you that, contrary to reports, to date, no asylum seekers or refugees have been forced to return to Laos. Approxiamtely 23,000 Lao (mostly Hmong) have returned voluntarily to Laos since 1980. From all reprots, including nongovernmental organizations working in Laos and from U.N. officials, there is no persecution of returnees. The United States and other governments contribute to reintegra- tion programs which assist returnees to resettle in Laos. UNHCR has Hmong- and Lao-speaking monitors who travel throughout the country to assist returnees and to monitor their situation. These monitors have reported no persecution of returnees. We hope that the above information addresses your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact this office again if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Wendy Sherman, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative Patrick Kennedy, in an effort to protect Rhode Island's precious coastline from the environmental devastation of oil spills. Tragically, on January 19, the tug boat Scandia caught fire in severe weather off the coast of my congressional district. The tug's crew could not control the fire and abandoned both the tug and the barge's cargo of 4 million gallons of oil to the high winds and seas. While the tug crew was swiftly pulled from the sea by brave members of the Coast Guard, the same cannot be said for the unmanned barge which spilled 1 million gallons of oil off the Rhode Island coast. The environmental and economic destruction of the spill is, at the present time, incalculable. Indeed, no one can estimate the damage to the fishery's long-term health, the wildlife, or my State's tourism industry. But what has become clear in articles from the Providence Journal and my own experience as a member of the now defunct Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, is that Congress must address the growing reliance of this Nation on towing vessels to transport hazardous materials like oil. It may surprise some of my colleagues that a tug boat which pulls 4 million gallons of oil and has a crew of 6 is not required to be inspected by the Coast Guard. That's correct, the tug boat that pulled thousands of barrels of oil off the coast of my district and the estimated 2 to 4 barges that ply the waters of Narragansett Bay each day do not even get inspected once a year like an automobile. Moreover, even though the Scandia's pilot had a master's license, no license is actually required to pilot these vessels. And, perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that tug boats are not required to have some of the most basic navigational and safety equipment on board. This body has tried to address this situation in previous years, only to have efforts to improve tug safety sink in the other body. However, I would urge my colleagues, especially those from our Nation's coastal States, to consider joining me and Congressman Kennedy in supporting legislation that tries to prevent avoidable accidents in the future. The Towing Vessel Safety Act of 1996 takes a better safe than sorry approach to protecting our Nation's environment and the hard-working families who make their living on the water. This legislation will require tugs that pull hazardous materials to be inspected once a year, just like the cars of my constituents. It will also establish licensing standards for the pilot and crew of tug boats towing hazardous materials, just like truckers who have a license to carry these items. The bill would also ask the Coast Guard and Secretary of Transportation to ensure that tug boats carry basic navigational items like a radar system, a compass, and up-to-date charts as well as adequate fire fighting equipment, just as oil tankers must do. The legislation protects crew members who report safety violations from wrongful discharge, like other employees who handle volatile cargo. These common sense, preventative measures are a responsible first- step in addressing the increase in oil barge traffic off our Nation's pristine beaches. Indeed, the National Transportation Safety Board has made similar recommendations in the past. At the same time, we need to take other steps to ensure that the barges pulled by these tugs are safe, and in the weeks to come we will be examining legislation to accomplish this aim. The Coast Guard recognizes that there is a need to improve tug and barge safety, and it has proposed some new safety measures. And, the towing industry plans to have a self-inspection regime ready in 2 years. However, I believe we need to take direct, reasonable steps to prevent environmental and economic catastrophes like the spill off Rhode Island. Prevention is not without cost, but as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. At the present time, questions remain as to the cause of the accident and whether the accident could have been prevented, but concerns remain that this disaster was preventable. It is in this spirit that we are introducing the Towing Vessel Safety Act. Mr. Speaker, my State has seen the results of an oil spill once, and I hope this legislation can reduce the chances of it happening again.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to pay tribute to the young woman who is nearing the end of her tenure as Miss Rhode Island. Elizabeth Reilly not only displays the poise, grace, and character that are often associated with participants in the Miss America contest, she has also made a significant contribution to the welfare of Rhode Island's children. Elizabeth is a second grade teacher at West Broadway School in Providence. Her father is a teacher, and Elizabeth has long known that she, too, wanted to enter this critical field, in which she could work to help our youngest citizens. Three years ago, while teaching at Sackett Street School in Providence, Elizabeth saw that many of her students did not have adequate clothing. This serious problem distracted the children and prevented them from focusing their energy on learning. To address this troubling situation, Elizabeth established a clothing bank that collected donations of clothing and distributed them to children in need. Elizabeth's selection as Miss Rhode Island attracted additional attention and donations for the clothing bank, helping her to expand this vital service. Although Elizabeth's tenure as Miss Rhode Island is nearing its end, the clothing bank that she has created will continue to benefit Rhode Island children for many years to come. On this floor, we often state that our Nation's citizens must reach out to each other in order to address the problems confronting our communities. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Elizabeth Reilly, whose work exemplifies the true spirit of community. I know the future holds a great deal more for Elizabeth Reilly, and I wish her all the best.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a distinguished group of young men from Rhode Island who have attained the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America. The young men recognized for their noteworthy achievement include: Dennis L. Arnold, Steven Bailey, John James Joseph Banks, J. Nicholas Betley, Roger Alan Bonin, Brian T. Breguet, Benjamin T. Brillat, Jeremy S. Brown, James Adrian Butler, Benjamin Caito, Frank Caliri, Christopher J. Cardillo, Christopher J. Cawley, Joseph A. Chappelle, Kenneth C. Collins, Edward A. Darragh, Frank A. Denette IV, Christopher Joseph DiMase, Daniel J. Dorson, Erik Fields, Todd Michael Fisher, Vincent A. Fusaro, Michael Alfred Henry, Michael J. Hogan, Scott E. Hopkins, Vincenzo R. Iacobucci, Douglas Everett Jameson, Peter Eli Jetty, Michael R. Kachanis, Kevin A. Kazlauskas, Kurt J. Kazlauskas, Patrick Keenan, Brian Lafaille, David W. Lowell, Christopher Mark Lundsten, Frederick William Lumb, Luke A. Magnus, Anthony Mangiarelli, Nicholas Marsella, Andrew Paul McGuirl, Steven Barry Mendall Jr., Nathan E. Moreau, Eric Oldford, Keith E. Piehler, John H. Potvin, Andrew Qualls, Kent D. Rutter, Kevin Schwendiman, Mark N. Schwendiman, Craig E. Scorpio, Colin M. Segovis, Guy Scott Shaffer, Kevin A. Silva, Jeremy P. Skaling, James M.R. Sloan, Stanley Sosnowski, Jason E. Soules, Russell Wallis, Jonathan Watterson, Aaron Michael Wilbur, Robert Allen Wilcox, Mark S. Wong, and Rory W. Wood. Not every young American who joins the Boy Scouts earns the prestigious Eagle Scout Award. In fact, only 2.5 percent of all Boy Scouts receive this honor. To earn the award, a Boy Scout must fulfill requirements in the areas of leadership, service, and outdoor skills. He must earn 21 merit badges, 11 of which must be from areas such as citizenship in the community, citizenship in the Nation, citizenship in the world, safety, environmental science, and first aid. As he progresses through the Boy Scout ranks, a Scout must participate in increasingly more responsible service projects. He must also demonstrate leadership skills by holding one or more specific youth leadership positions in his patrol and/or troop. The young men now earning the rank of Eagle Scout have distinguished themselves in accordance with these criteria. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting thee Eagle Scouts. In turn, we must duly recognize the Boy Scouts of America for establishing the Eagle Scout Award and the strenuous criteria its aspirants must meet. Through its 85 years, this program has honed and enhanced the leadership skills and commitment to public service of many outstanding Americans. It is my sincere belief that these young men will continue their public service, and, in so doing, will further distinguish themselves and better their communities.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], the chairman, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] for their graciousness in bringing this to the floor tonight. Mr. Speaker, I say to all of my colleagues this is an entirely suitable honor for an extraordinary gentleman. Not only was he a postmaster and a postal worker for 25 years, but at the age of 17, he left high school, joined the Marine Corps, and won the Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism on Okinawa. Mr. Speaker, his whole life is about serving others and it is a suitable recognition for his life and his achievements. I thank all of the Members that made this possible this evening. Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh]. (Mr. McHUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the other body is right, enough is enough. For 19 days much of the Federal Government has been closed through the failure and intransigence of the new House leadership. Federal workers and their families are the most obvious victims of this hostage mentality. They are not the only ones suffering. At Rhode Island's VA medical center employees are already working with either half or no pay, and now the veterans' benefits are threatened because the VA continuing resolution expires today. Moreover, by the end of the week Rhode Island will have no funds left to administer its unemployment compensation insurance program, which could mean that no more unemployment compensation would be paid in Rhode Island. Senior citizens could also expect to be hit hard by this Republican brinksmanship. Indeed, nationally 600,000 seniors will not get Meals on Wheels if Republicans do not bring a continuing resolution to the floor by Friday. Environmental cleanup has stopped at Superfund sites, small business loans go unprocessed, American business people cannot go overseas without passport renewals, our national parks remain closed, and the list unfortunately continues. Mr. Speaker, it is time for some Members of this House to act like they want to take responsibility.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, we continue to resist a Republican budget with deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, a Republican budget which has already been repudiated by a broad cross-section of the American public. And, as we continue to debate the Federal budget, I would like to remind my Republican colleagues that they should not lose sight of the budgets of thousands of senior citizens in their districts. Today the elderly pay more out-of-pocket than ever before for Medicare coverage and supplemental insurance. In Rhode Island, they pay this with an average income of approximately $16,000. Yesterday the New York Times reported that MediGap premiums for over 3 million seniors will increase an average of 30 percent next year. MediGap is the supplemental insurance which is necessary to cover nonhospital medical expenses. In Rhode Island, the average premium increase will be 35 percent. These higher premiums would come on top of the proposed increases to beneficiaries in the Republicans budget. The Republican budget will raise annual Medicare premiums by $264 for an elderly couple in 1996 and nearly double premiums by 2002. And on top of these significant increases, the Republicans also propose to eliminate the Medicaid entitlement which serves as a critical safety net for thousands of seniors in Rhode Island. I urge we repudiate these massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some callously suggest that if you shut down the Government no one would notice. Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In my home State of Rhode Island, 27 Almacs supermarket stores have gone out of business during the holiday season. Normally, these 2,000 workers from Almacs would be eligible for emergency assistance from the Labor Department. But, with the shutdown, there is no one to process the State's application for assistance, and as a result, there will be no help for the families of Almacs workers during the holidays. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a shame. The Speaker could have prevented the shutdown and responded to last year's call for an end to gridlock. Because right now gridlock is back. The Republicans have a 7-year budget plan that is just too extreme, and they know it. I am glad the President did the right thing to protect the education, health care, and the environment. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to end the politics and start serious negotiations.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hamilton resolution, and in opposition to H.R. 2770 and H. Res. 302. I, like most Americans, still have concerns about the deployment of United States troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I believe that we need to support our troops. I visited the former Yugoslavia in 1993. That visit alerted me to the dangers of American involvement in the conflict that has consumed the former Yugoslavia for the last 4 years. The animosities are profound, the terrain is difficult, and the underlying problems are political rather than simply military. Nevertheless, the Dayton Agreement is the last chance for a peaceful resolution of this war, and that Agreement rests on the participation of NATO as the implementation force. As a member of NATO, the United States is faced with a choice between making peace work or letting the contending forces slip inexorably back into the abyss of war. I believe that the vast majority of Americans want us to choose peace. But they also want us to ensure that our involvement is limited in scope, complementary to the efforts of our European allies and not a substitute for their involvement, militarily prudent, and consistent with our national security interests. Over the past few weeks, I have expressed these concerns to the administration. In particular, I have stressed the need for a more detailed exit strategy for disengagement of our forces, the need to ensure that we do not shoulder a disproportionate burden, the need to clearly identify our interests in the region and, most importantly, the need to take every reasonable precaution to protect our forces. The administration has responded with a more focused and compelling discussion of their plans. They have laid out a more detailed exit strategy. They have made a more convincing case that the scale of American involvement is justified by the mission and by the comparative strengths of United States Military Forces versus those of our allies. Although I remain skeptical of claims that our national interest is implicated because our prestige is on the line or the survival of NATO is at stake, I do feel that a resumption of fighting could precipitate an expansion of the conflict. Such a development, with its very real potential to involve Greece and Turkey, would pose a significant threat to our national interest. The administration and our military leaders have made repeated assertions that the forces are well trained, the mission is well defined, the rules of engagement are clear and permissive of preemptory action, and that more than adequate resources are available for our forces. Moreover, they have stressed that the primary mission of our forces is self-protection. These factors, and particularly the testimony of professional military officers, strengthens the claim that we have taken all reasonable precautions to protect our forces. Nevertheless, given the nature of this mission and the hostile environment of the former Yugoslavia, no one can rule out the possibility of casualties. Although the foregoing efforts by the administration to justify the deployment of American ground forces have allayed opposition to the commitment of American forces, significant concerns remain. It will be incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that the limited scope and definite duration of the mission is maintained. It will be incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that our forces are continuously protected. These concerns will persist beyond this vote until our forces are withdrawn from Bosnia. The Hamilton resolution clearly expresses our support for our forces while signaling our concerns. It is the right message to send to our forces and to those in the former Yugoslavia that may wish them harm. It stands in stark contrast to H.R. 2770 which would cut off all funding for United States Forces in Bosnia. This measure would put our forces already in Bosnia at risk. It would end any chance of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It is a reckless and politically expedient measure unworthy of the American soldiers who are ready to do their duty. The Hamilton resolution is also in contrast to H. Res. 302 which opposes the President's policy while purporting to support the troops. Serious and sincere opposition to a policy requiring the deployment of American forces is incompatible with wishing them well on their mission. Rather, it represents a political straddle. Finally, it is important to note that today's vote is not about authorizing the commencement of offensive operations by United States Forces. It is about peacekeeping. Our forces are entering a dangerous arena, but one in which the parties have already initiated a peace agreement. The President's constitutional authority to order our forces into Bosnia has not been seriously challenged. Thus, this vote is about our support of peacekeeping and our support of our forces. I believe that both are worthy of our support and, in the days ahead, our hard and unyielding scrutiny to ensure that neither the peace nor our soldiers are sacrificed needlessly.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 1975, Indonesia invaded the small country of East Timor and began two decades of violent occupation and repression. More than 200,000 East Timorese have been killed or have died of starvation since the invasion of the Indonesian Government. Portugal continues to protest Indonesia's invasion, and the United Nations has never recognized Indonesia's claim on East Timor. Both the Security Council and the General Assembly have issued numerous resolutions reaffirming East Timor's right to self-determination. However, these actions have been ineffective. Tragically, we are still witnessing the harsh reality of this invasion. Massacres, disappearances, suppression of free speech, and human rights abuses have consistently been reported since the invasion. In November 1991, the world was outraged by the Santa Cruz massacre where Indonesian soldiers opened fire into an unarmed crowd, killing more than 250 people; in June of 1994, Indonesian troops committed acts of sacrilege against the East Timorese Church and clergy; in July 1994, a clash between East Timorese students and Indonesian troops in response to this incident left 18 students injured; and in January of this year, Indonesian soldiers kidnapped, tortured, and murdered six civilians. At a joint hearing before the International Relations Subcommittees on Asia and the Pacific and International Operations and Human Rights on March 16, the Director of the Human Rights Watch stated: ``In East Timor, violations of fundamental rights has been especially severe, and have worsened dramatically since the APEC summit meeting in Jakarta last November.'' Congress has acted on behalf of the people of East Timor, but I believe we must do more. The United States must not tolerate continued human rights abuses by the military in East Timor. We must not turn our backs on the East Timorese, who, against great odds, have resisted the Indonesian invasion for 20 years. The U.S. should not let another 20 years of human rights abuses and oppression pass. I commend my colleagues Representatives Kennedy and Lowey for their efforts to recognize this anniversary on behalf of the people of East Timor, and for introducing the East Timor Human Rights Accountability Act of 1995. I urge my colleagues to continue to condemn acts of violence by the Indonesian Government against the people of East Timor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995. As a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine in the 102d and 103d Congresses, I was actively involved in several maritime reform efforts. While that committee no longer exists, I am glad that we are making another attempt to ensure our status as a maritime power. H.R. 1350 would support a fleet of militarily useful U.S.-flagged commercial vessels and American merchant marines for future needs. It would prevent foreign shipping interests from controlling all U.S. maritime trade. It would reduce the costs of the operating assistance program and eliminate burdensome administrative requirements. H.R. 1350 would also help our Nation's shipyards by encouraging the construction of new vessels here in America. Throughout my tenure in the House of Representatives, I have been proud to come to the floor and vote in favor of several bills to ensure a vibrant American merchant marine and maritime industry. Such legislation is good for our economy and our national security. Unfortunately, maritime reform and revitalization efforts failed to get the support of the other Chamber. I would urge my colleagues in the other body to get on board and support our Nation's maritime industry.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and salute La Salle Academy, an outstanding educational institution in Rhode Island that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. Following in the tradition of the 17th century religious educator, John Baptist de La Salle, Rev. Michael Tierney established an institution in Providence, RI that espoused Catholic ideals and principles. In 1871, he invited the de La Salle Christian Brothers to teach at this parish school, and the Brothers' School was renamed La Salle Academy in 1876. Over the years, many generations of young men, and for the past decade, women, have attended La Salle Academy. In addition to receiving a quality education, these young people have been inspired to make a commitment to others as part of their education. Today, La Salle alumni have gone on to make significant contributions to nearly every walk of life in Rhode Island and throughout the Nation. Many have made significant contributions to our community as leaders in medicine, business, law, politics, religion, and education. Others have chosen to work directly with the poor and underprivileged. Many distinguished Rhode Islanders have graduated from La Salle, including two beloved Governors, Gov. J. Joseph Garrahy and the late Dennis J. Roberts, as well as two former Members of the U.S. Congress, Representative John E. Fogarty, class of 1930 and Representative Robert O. Tiernan, class of 1948. I am especially proud and honored to offer these words as a 1967 graduate of La Salle Academy. I would respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this Rhode Island academic institution as it celebrates 125 years of commitment to education and to our community.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who has been a strong supporter of my State and has been very helpful, and I know he will take this into consideration and make the right judgment in the months ahead.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on this point of order.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, my amendment is a straightforward cut of 5 percent in Amtrak's administrative funds. I am concerned that, while this bill asks for many sacrifices on the part of blue-collar Amtrak workers, it may not make the same demands on Amtrak management. With this need for shared sacrifice in mind, I would urge my colleagues to support the cutting of Amtrak's administrative account by a very small 5 percent, which is approximately $9 million in fiscal year 1995. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is fair. It does not ask Amtrak management to do anything beyond what Amtrak's management has asked of its workers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.