Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have come to the floor today to join my colleagues in addressing the serious issues of the Republican budget and the draconian cuts to education. The American public understands the importance of education. They understand now more than ever that we have to prepare the best educated young people for the challenges ahead. They want overwhelmingly to invest more resources, both Federal resources, local resources, in good, solid education for their youngsters and for the whole community. Unfortunately, this budget takes exactly the opposite track. It disinvests in good, solid, well-established, innovative education programs. Last Congress, we tried to move forward with an agenda of education reform and support that would truly represent a sound investment in the future of this country, particularly at a time when the old industrial age is yielding to the new information age. Years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, it would not be unreasonable for a young person to think that with a high school education he or she could leave that high school, find an adequate job, make a living to support a family, and, in fact, spend a whole career with those skills learned in high school. Today, every American understands that this is not the case, that today, in order to be an effective worker in almost every level of endeavor, you have to have postsecondary skills, either college or some technical training. The thrust and the consequence of this Republican budget is that those opportunities for higher education will be diminished. We also understand, and the American people understand, that we have to have a solid basis in order to start our young people off on a solid path to educational achievement. That is why last year we spent a great deal of time on a bipartisan basis in developing the Goals 2000 program. Goals 2000 is an attempt, I think a very worthy attempt, to act as a catalyst from the Federal level for school reform at the local level, to provide the kind of resources, the directions and the standards that would be very necessary to move our elementary and secondary education system forward. We also in the last Congress understood that in too many schools the education process is sacrificed to a climate of violence and intimidation, a climate that is too often indicated by pervasive drug use, and, as a result, we passed a Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. These legislative measures at the elementary and secondary level were important steps forward, but sadly, too, [[Page H 13775]] because of this budget, those initiatives will not receive the resources that are necessary to carry on that important work. At the level of higher education, understanding, as the American people understand, the need for advanced skills, we sought to strengthen those existing programs, like the Pell grant and the Stafford loan program to make access to higher education something that would be available and affordable for all of our citizens. It makes sense, particularly as we move from this industrial age to the new information age which demands higher skills for everyone in our society. Again, sadly, the thrust of this Republican budget is to undercut significantly the resources that will be available for higher education. This budget would cut student loan programs by more than $5 billion going forward for those young people that want to go on to higher education, postsecondary education. This is going to be a tremendous burden on their lives and the lives of their families, because one of the persistent complaints, one of the persistent concerns that I hear from my constituents in Rhode Island, those working people which we all claim to represent, those working families, is that they have one or two youngsters in college and the cost of college is outrageous, and without adequate Federal assistance, they cannot send their children to the schools they want. In some cases, they cannot send them to school at all or, in other cases, they have to make the very difficult choice of which child will be favored with a college education and which will be told, well, you have to fend for yourself in the job market without that education. That is a very, very cruel choice which I thought that we had basically prevented in the last 30 years by providing a strong Federal commitment to higher education. But, sadly, we seem to be going back to a point in time when those cruel choices were all too common. All of this impacts mightily in the localities, the districts and the States that we represent. In my State alone, in Rhode Island, we estimate that next year we will lose about $14 million in resources for education, and that over the next several years, the next 7 years of this budget, we will lose more than $90 million. Where will these cuts go to? First, I mentioned the Goals 2000 program. This is really the only money for reform and restructuring of our educational system that is available in my home State. It has been eagerly embraced by the commissioner of elementary and secondary education in my State, by all of the districts. There is an active process, an exciting process of change that is being sponsored by this program; and, sadly, we will lose about $1.4 million roughly all of the money that has been committed. This will affect as many as 71 schools who are participating directly as schools in the program. This is going to set back reform which is necessary and which every American citizen recognizes is necessary. It will set it back perhaps fatally. In terms of student loans, the budget cuts would raise the cost of a college education by more than $2,000 for over 36,000 college students and more than $9,400 for over 5,000 graduate students in Rhode Island. Pell grants. Changes in the Pell grant program will reduce support to students in Rhode Island by nearly $2 million. An estimated 1,600 students in 1996 alone will be denied Pell grants as a result of this cut. Title I program, another program very important to elementary and secondary education that provides compensatory education for low-income American. Under this budget, the funds would be cut by a total of about $3.5 million, and this has a real impact, not only again in the lives of these students but in the tax rolls in local communities. Because as the city of Providence and the city of Central Falls and the city of Pawtucket copes with these cuts, they have to turn, once again, to their very, very strained tax rolls to make up the difference, if they can make it up at all. So this is not just a problem for the beneficiaries of the program. It is a problem for the fiscal health of our cities and towns in Rhode Island. I mentioned before the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act which so important last Congress, which directed resources to a problem that is gnawing at the heart not only of our educational system but of our society as a whole. That, too, is going to lose funds. These budget cuts result in about a $1 million loss in these funds, which are helping to keep programs going, to show young people that drugs are not anything but the path to destruction and that we have to choose another path. I would also mention one other program which touches upon the issue of education and opportunities so importantly, and that is the national service program. Americorps in Rhode Island is a shining example of a program that is inspired perhaps by legislation but embraced by the business community and the local community as a whole. The director of Americorps in our State, Larry Fish, is the chairman of one of our largest financial institutions. We are very lucky to have every category of Americorps activity funded in Rhode Island. We have a City-Year program, which young people are spending a year helping out all through the community. We have programs that are helping through the Children's Crusade to mentor young people in schools to help them get through school and get on into college. A wonderful program, but, once again, even though this is supported strongly with corporate contributions and corporate leadership in Rhode Island, this program, too, is being affected mightily, basically almost zeroed out, if not entirely. It would deny 450,000 young people in Rhode Island the chance to serve. This program is so useful, too, because it embodies in my view the ethic that we should all have as Americans: serving our country, and by that serving getting a chance to go to school and educate yourself so that you can be better prepared as a citizen, as a worker, as an American. Sadly, again this program is being jeopardized by this budget. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this budget and we look at the reality of the world, something is sadly wrong. At a time when we have to invest in education, at a time when our economic future is at stake and education will be the key to our success as an economy, as a society, as a world power, and as a source of opportunity for all of our citizens, we are turning our back on funding education. This is a sad mistake which I hope we can rectify in the days ahead.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit for the record a letter I have sent to Secretary of State Christopher on behalf of the Hmong refugees in Thailand. Incidents of human rights abuses, forced repatriation, and retaliation upon their return to Laos continue to be reported. The Hmong community in Rhode Island remains very concerned about this situation, and I believe it is time we work to resolve it. I will be certain to submit for the record any response I receive from the State Department on this urgent matter: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 28, 1995. Secretary Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to express my concern about the status of Hmong combat veterans and refugees in Thailand. You may recall that I wrote last year regarding the plight of the Hmong refugees. At that time, I was assured that additional resources had been committed to UNHCR to provide assistance to and monitor the safety of Hmong refugees, and that the State Department was working with the Thai government to resolve the question of repatriation to non- communist third countries. Thus, I have supported efforts to maintain a fair and responsible U.S. refugee policy that would prevent further persecution of Hmong refugees. However, I am distressed that this situation has not yet been resolved. The Hmong people were our loyal allies and have been a great asset to our nation. Yet, thousands of Hmong remain in Thailand in refugee camps and continue to be persecuted because of their relationship with the U.S. While I recognize the difficulties in administering a refugee program, cases of forced repatriation, disappearances, and human rights abuses continue to be reported. I would sincerely appreciate an update on the current status of the Hmong refugees. Specifically, I would like to know: what progress has been made to resettle the remaining Hmong combat veterans and refugees in safe, third countries; what efforts are being made to assist and monitor the safety and welfare of those refugees who have been voluntarily repatriated; have all means of forced repatriation ceased; are there currently immigration slots available for these refugees to come to the United States; is the Thai government cooperating with these efforts; and if not, what action will the State Department take to help the remaining Hmong refugees and ensure that they are not forcibly repatriated? This issue is of great importance to the Hmong community in Rhode Island. Thank you in advance for your attention to this urgent issue, and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Jack Reed, Member of Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today, the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 2564, legislation that will make long-overdue lobbying reforms. By approving this measure, the House will make real changes in the lobbying process, and take an important step toward restoring the American people's faith in their government. Too often in the past, Congress has failed to effectively address the problems plaguing the lobbying process. Last year, for example, the House worked in a bipartisan manner to approve meaningful lobbying reform legislation, only to see the maneuvers of a few Republicans in the Senate block its enactment. Throughout this year, Democrats have called upon the Republican majority to move forward with similarly meaningful lobbying reform legislation. By bringing H.R. 2564 to the floor, the Republicans have at last heard and answered this call. This bill would require professional lobbyists to identify their clients and disclose how much they are paid for their efforts. It would also guarantee the American people full access to this information. Earlier this month, the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, recognized the importance of real lobbying reform and unanimously approved H.R. 2564. This impressive, bipartisan support offers great promise for today's debate on the measure. Two weeks ago, the House demonstrated its commitment to reform by approving tough, new gift rules. Today, the House can take another step on the path toward needed reform and restored public faith in Government. I urge my colleagues to choose this path by passing real lobbying reform. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2564.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment. The most charitable thing I can say about this amendment is that it is ill-timed. Mr. Speaker, today we are hosting the peace negotiators from the various factions in the United States. Because of diplomatic activities, and these peace negotiations, we have seen the level of violence in the former Yugoslavia decrease immensely. Now is not the time to derail that process or to take up these issues. Now, there are significant issues to be debated prior to the commitment of American forces in the former Yugoslavia. I have visited Yugoslavia, Sarajevo, the Krajina, Macedonia. There are difficult issues we must address. The first issue is whether any agreement that is reached in Dayton is worthy of enforcement. We will not know that until the details have been hammered out and announced. The second issue is whether or not our participation with NATO requires the commitment of American ground forces. Is there some other significant contribution we can make that will aid NATO without committing ground forces? These are all legitimate questions. These are questions that should be debated, but now is not the time nor is this resolution the appropriate vehicle to do that. Mr. Speaker, we have to, I think, give the negotiators a chance to reach an agreement and then consider our participation.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the most critical aspect of this vote today is that it would derail that process, because the interpretation of the negotiators would be not that there will be fair consideration of our involvement, but that this Congress peremptorily shut down the negotiations. I think that would be wrong.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, when I was a young cadet at West Point, I read the remarks of an officer describing an operation in Vietnam. He said ``we had to destroy the village to save it.'' Looking back, that mind set left many destroyed villages but not a lot of salvation. I fear this Republican leadership has the same mind set. They seem eager to destroy the Government to save it. This policy is clearly destructive and will not in any way serve the interests of the American people. There is no need for this continued shutdown of the Government. It has resulted from the inability of the Congress to do its job in passing appropriations bills in a timely fashion. It continues because the Republican leadership persists in holding hostage the operation of the Government to its extreme budget plans. However, it is incumbent that all parties, including the President, come to the table and make the good faith effort required to resolve the current shutdown. This situation is both unnecessary and unwise. Getting the Government back to work will not prejudice the Republicans from considering and, over my objections, passing their current reconciliation legislation. But, getting the Government back to work will aid seniors seeking to apply for Social Security, veterans needing assistance from the Veterans Administration, Americans needing to travel overseas on urgent business or family emergencies; in sum, all the people we were elected to serve. It is time to end this gridlock.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget represents a set of values and priorities that are extreme, short-sighted, and out of touch with the direction in which Rhode Islanders and the American people want our country to move. medicare/medicaid Perhaps the most glaring examples of the extreme provisions in this bill are the massive cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This bill represents nothing less than a reversal of a generation of guaranteed health care for our most vulnerable citizens. For more than 30 years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have exemplified our national commitment to care for seniors, disabled Americans, and low- income Americans. In essence, it is the tangible evidence that, in the most affluent and productive country in the world, we would not let millions of Americans suffer because they were too old, too poor, or too ill to fend for themselves. The cuts to the Medicare program represent the most sweeping changes to the program since its establishment in 1965. And what makes these cuts so objectionable is that they are not about reforming Medicare, they are about providing tax cuts for the rich. These cuts are three times what is needed to keep Medicare solvent. Republicans claim that this budget enables Medicare to grow at a healthy rate. The truth is that this bill reduces Medicare growth by 33 percent below that of private sector health-spending growth. What kind of health care can the elderly purchase at these below-market rates when we all know that their health needs are much greater than those of the working-age population? This bill also eliminates Medicaid. No longer will the 18 million children who currently qualify for Medicaid be guaranteed health care coverage. No longer will seniors who have entered nursing homes and exhausted their resources be guaranteed that they will be able to remain there. Republicans have substituted this guarantee with a block grant to States that cuts Federal spending by an average of 18 percent over the next 7 years. The State of Rhode Island will be faced with attempting to continue access to vital health care services with a 37- percent reduction in Federal Medicaid dollars--clearly a daunting, if not impossible, task. education/direct lending This bill also represents another example of accounting gimmicks used by Republicans to deliver on their promise of reaching their arbitrary budget targets. Republicans have created a special budget scoring rule for direct student loans. It is no wonder that the public has become so disenchanted with Congress--only Congress could change accounting rules so that a program that saved money last year is miraculously deemed to ``cost'' money this year. The proposal to cap the direct loan program at 10 percent of total loan volume was not chosen because the program is not working; this program has achieved high grades from students, parents, and participating colleges and universities. Students and parents should know that the Republicans have chosen to reward banks instead of supporting the direct loan program which offers better service and more flexible repayment terms for students, simplified administration for schools, and greater accountability for taxpayers. The proposal to cap direct loans at 10 percent of total loan volume eliminates the current choice that colleges and universities have between participation in the direct student loan program or the guaranteed student loan program. This year, 40 percent of student loans are direct loans--with 1,350 schools and approximately 2.5 million students participating in the program. In Rhode Island alone, there are 8 direct lending schools and 17,855 direct loans have been made. We must be clear--under this package, many colleges and universities that prefer the direct loan program would no longer be able to offer it to their students. It has been estimated that, as a result of this proposal, over 13,000 direct loans would be lost in Rhode Island. This cap denies colleges and universities the right to choose what is best for their students and undercuts free competition. welfare President Clinton and a majority of Democrats, including myself, have indicated a willingness to support meaningful welfare reform. But instead, Republicans have opted for a welfare reform plan that is just plain mean to women and children. I supported a welfare reform bill that was tough on work and fair to children. I supported a welfare reform bill that has work at its heart and did not shred the safety net for children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill so that we may continue to work toward a balanced budget that reflects the priorities and values of the American people.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, recent days the new House majority has shown a distinct lack of bipartisanship. However, today, the Republicans are waking up to the need for reform and are offering legislation to ban gifts to Members of Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting both House Resolution 250 and the Gingrich amendment which will send a strong signal to our constituents that we don't want gifts, we don't need them, and, most importantly, that this House is not for sale. Regrettably, there are those in this House who do not want reform. They want to continue the practices of the past. The want all Members to be tainted by their need to get free travel and lodging at golf, tennis, and sking charity events. They would have us believe that Members of Congress somehow deserve different treatment than the average American--this is just plain wrong--and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Today's vote is long overdue, but there are other reform efforts that need to be acted upon, particularly campaign finance reform. Last year, I voted for a campaign finance reform bill, supported by Common Cause, which would have set spending limits and reduced the influence of special interests in political campaigns. This bill never made it to the President, but I am hopeful that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to develop a fair campaign finance reform plan this year. We need campaign finance reform if we truly care about changing the nature of politics and encouraging Americans to stay involved in the system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support true gift ban legislation, and I look forward to passing a campaign finance reform bill. Thank you.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I call today on the Republican leadership and my President to resolve the current shutdown of the Federal Government. The livelihood of many Americans and the stability of our Nation's political system demand as much. I have heard from many Rhode Islanders who are upset and confused. They may all have different concerns, but they all share a common question--why did this happen? Rhode Islanders realize that the current impasse did not have to occur. They understand that the House is behind in its work. They know that instead of passing appropriations bills in a timely, responsible manner, this House has been playing politics. Each year this House has the duty to establish priorities and appropriate the funds to meet them. There are 13 such bills and they are supposed to be sent to the President before the start of the fiscal year. Regrettably, this House, and, in particular, this new Republican leadership failed in this task. Instead of seeking bipartisan support for a fair, balanced budget, the Speaker crafted an extreme plan that included unnecessary cuts in essential programs like Medicare and education. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, this failure shut down the Government. Balancing the budget is important, but there can be no progress in this environment of hostility. The majority has failed to get the appropriations bills to the President. Now, they must be responsible and end the shutdown. A clean continuing resolution is the best and only solution. Moreover, it would provide the only real framework for the bipartisan solution the American people want. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to do the right thing and end this game.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall votes 788 and 789 due to mechanical problems with my flight to Washington. Mr. Speaker, had I not been detained, I would have voted ``No'' on rollcall vote 788 and ``Yes'' on rollcall vote 789.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote Nos. 788 and 789 due to mechanical problems with my flight to Washington. Mr. Speaker, had I not been detained, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 788 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 789.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, on July 26, 1994, Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister and Defense Minister of the State of Israel, addressed the United States Congress. These are his words on that day: Each year, on Memorial Day, for the Fallen of Israel's war, I go to the cemetery of Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, facing me are the graves, headstones, the colorful flowers blooming on them, and thousands of pairs of weeping eyes. I stand there, in front of that large, silent crowd, and read in their eyes the words of, ``The Young Dead Soldiers,'' as a famous American poet, Archibald MacLeish, entitled the poem from which I take these lines: They say; Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace and a new hope, we cannot say; it is you who must say this. Today Yitzhak Rabin is among the fallen on Mount Herzl. He has given us his life; we must give it meaning. We must labor and live so that his life and death stands for peace and a new hope. Prime Minister Rabin closed his remarks with an ancient blessing and a continuing plea for peace. Again, in his words: Blessed are you, oh, Lord, who has preserved us and sustained us and enabled us to reach this time. God bless the peace.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget reconciliation before us today. At the very time in our history when we need to invest more in education, this bill takes a step backwards. It goes after important programs that will help improve our education, like setting higher standards for our schools, providing for safe and drug-free schools, providing technology for our schools. These are devastating cuts to education. When you look at the reality and get beyond the rhetoric, for working families in Rhode Island, this is even worse than the educational cuts. When you look at the Medicare proposals and the Medicaid proposals, you will see working families in Rhode Island have the cruel choice of saving more money to take care of aging parents or saving money to invest in their young children, indeed probably choosing between which fortunate child will go to college and which will be forced into the world, a complex world, without benefit of higher education. We can and must do better to ensure all of our citizens, all of our citizens have access to quality education. Indeed, this whole proposal rests on very, very shallow grounds. The direct loan program is an example of a program that works for America, that saves money for taxpayers, is universally accepted and applauded by students and colleges alike, yet targeted for extinction. Why? Because it works too well, because it displaces bank-subsidized loans rather than providing direct loans to American students. This gimmick was employed in this new bill by changing the budget rules so we could make this efficient program look more expensive rather than more efficient as it in reality is. These types of gimmicks underscore the cruel cuts imposed on this bill. We have to invest in education. Our economic prowess today is a result of consistent Federal policies, beginning with the GI bill, stretching through Pell grants, all of them aimed to improve human capital, the ability of our citizens to be the most educated, the most productive in the world. Yet we turn our back on that proud history and condemn our Nation to ignorance. I reject this measure.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents who have no voice but who have a very large stake in the outcome of the debate over the GOP buget--the children of Rhode Island. The Republican budget will eliminate Medicaid coverage for almost 40,000 children in Rhode Island, many whom are disabled. The Republican budget will cut nutrition assistance for almost 50,000 children in Rhode Island. The Republican budget jeopardizes immunizations for children in Rhode Island. The Republican budget will deny 14,000 children in Rhode Island child care assistance. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. I say to my Republican colleagues--we must work toward a balanced budget for our children, not balance the budget on the backs of our children. When it comes to public investment in children's health and education, denying a dollar today actually costs more in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this short-sighted and mean spirited budget reconciliation bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 117, the Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995. All too often, I have spoken with residents of my State's senior housing complexes who are concerned about their safety and quality of life. For too many, expectations of a quiet, all-elderly environment have gone unfulfilled because of a few drug abusing neighbors who are so disruptive that seniors are afraid to leave their apartments. Instead of enjoying the golden years of life with their contemporaries, our older citizens have been unable to live in the type of peaceful environment that was promised to them. This legislation will clarify the current discrepancy in the mixed population language for section 8 housing. H.R. 117 will allow public housing officials to deny admission to persons whose use and abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs causes a severe threat to the security and well-being of our senior citizens. It establishes specific terms and conditions for leases with respect to termination of tenancy. The bill also provides for an expedited grievance hearing process before local public housing authorities, allowing these potential problems to be solved much quicker. I believe that this legislation is an important step toward resolving this issue. For many, public or subsidized housing is the only opportunity for decent, affordable housing. We must continue to expand the supply of such housing for all Americans. Indeed, the root of the mixed-population issue is really the lack of affordable housing options in many of our communities. The final solution to this problem will come when we are able to provide adequate, decent, safe, and affordable housing for Americans of all ages. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and make our senior housing complexes safe again.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Violent attacks are the No. 1 health threat to women in this country. In fact, women are at greater risk of injury from violent attacks than they are from cancer or heart attacks; or auto accidents, plane crashes, AIDS, or drowning. Since coming to Congress, I have actively supported legislation to prevent violence against women. Unfortunately, the strides we made in the last Congress through passage of the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] are being threatened by legislation this Congress which decreases levels of funding for essential programs. My home State of Rhode Island is fortunate to have excellent resources for women who are victims of violence. I have had the opportunity to work with many of the people who have dedicated their lives to helping these victims, and I am well aware of the important and necessary work that they are doing. But we must continue to support these efforts. Much more remains to be done. Last year in Rhode Island more than 4,100 people asked the district and family courts for protection from abuse; 14,120 calls for help were answered on our State's seven domestic abuse hotlines; 854 abused women and children found safety and support in Rhode Island's six domestic violence shelters; 8,752 clients received advocacy and assistance from Rhode Island's domestic violence shelters and advocacy programs; and at least 12 people died in Rhode Island as a result of domestic violence, more than twice the number in 1993. These numbers clearly illustrate the need for funding VAWA programs and strong laws to curb and prevent domestic violence. I will continue to work to strengthen laws, support legislation, and ensure Federal support for programs aimed at combating violence against women. I urge my colleagues to continue to raise awareness of this issue, and to support legislation aimed at solving this national crisis.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to a distinguished Rhode Islander who is being honored for his outstanding contributions as the Chief of the Division of Parks and Recreation in the State Department of Environmental Management. Throughout his long and distinguished career, William J. Hawkins, Jr., has contributed greatly to the quality of life in our State. Rhode Island is proud to boast of many natural resources and public facilities which afford residents and visitors wonderful recreational opportunities. Bill Hawkins has been with the division for more than two decades. Under his leadership and vision, those resources have been protected, promoted, and enhanced for the benefit of all. Bill Hawkins is a Marine Corps veteran and has been a volunteer fireman in his hometown of Smithfield for over 25 years. In addition to his professional contributions, Bill and his wife, Anne, are the proud parents of six children, and their lives have been blessed with six wonderful grandchildren. He is a man whose family is truly his pride and joy. He is a man of great purpose and integrity who has earned the admiration, affection, and respect of many. I would ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing an individual who has made a significant difference to the enhancement of out Nation's recreational resources.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican proposal. For more than 30 years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have exemplified our national commitment to care for seniors, disabled Americans, and low-income Americans. In essence, it is the tangible evidence that, in the most affluent and productive country in the world, we would not let millions of Americans suffer because they were too old, too poor, or too ill to fend for themselves, Because of our investments in Medicare and Medicaid, we have also created the most sophisticated and highest quality health care system in the world. But today, Republicans will begin their all-out assault on these programs by cutting the Medicare program by $270 billion. These cuts represent the most sweeping changes in the Medicare program since its establishment in 1965. And let me be clear, these cuts are not about reforming the Medicare program--it is about tax cuts for wealthy Americans and an arbitrary march to a seven year deficit reduction target. These cuts are three times more than any estimate of what is necessary to make Medicare solvent. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, managing trustee of the Medicare Trust Fund, has recently stated that ``no member of Congress should vote for the $270 billion in cuts believing that reductions of this size have been recommended by the Medicare trustees or that such reductions are needed now to prevent an imminent funding crisis. That would be factually incorrect''. Here is why the Republican cuts in Medicare are not about reforming the system and are about paying for a tax cut for the rich and a forced march to deficit reduction. The Medicare Part A Trust Fund is not faced with an unprecedented and immediate crisis. The trustees are required by law to report each year on the status of the Part A Trust. The trustees have on eight previous occasions warned that the Trust Fund would be insolvent within seven years. On each of these occasions, the Congress and the president--without alarmist predictions of collapse-- took appropriate action to protect the fund. Republican proposals go far beyond the Part A Trust Fund and also reach into the Part B Trust Fund. Their plan calls for about $170 billion in cuts to Part A of Medicare, which funds hospitalization, and about $100 billion in cuts to Part B, which pays for doctor visits and ancillary services. The Part A Trust is financed by employer and employee contributions, and ``savings'' will be retained by the Trust. However, since the federal deficit is calculated by including the surplus of the Part A Trust, these savings will be used to fund the tax cut and mask deficits in other public accounts. Part B is funded by premiums paid by the elderly and the Treasury. Savings here will directly rebound to tax cuts and deficit reduction. And the cuts we will vote on today are not only about senior citizens paying more for less health care; the cuts are also about straining the intergenerational benefit of the Medicare program. When Congress passed the Medicare program in 1965, we assured working families that they would not have to choose between investing in their children and caring for their elderly parents when they became old and frail. I have heard from many middle-aged working parents in my district who are afraid of what these Medicare cuts will mean for their families--How will they find the means to ensure that their parents receive quality health care in their old age? How will they choose between their parents and their children? Surely this is not reform. This bill also repeals the current prohibition against physician self-referral. These laws provide vital protections for consumers. It has been well documented that physician self-referral leads to excessive utilization, fraud and abuse, and drives up the cost of health care. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these changes to the physician self-referral laws will cost Medicare an additional $400 million over the next 7 years--$400 million in patient abuse in over-testing and over-referring! Republicans claim that this bill will give seniors more choices. However, the real truth is that the Republicans will squeeze down so hard on payments to health plans that beneficiaries are likely to pay higher premiums to get the same or fewer benefits. That is not what I would characterize as more choices. This bill also represents the possible dismantling of my state's medical education infrastructure. As a result of the proposed cuts in the Medicare program, Rhode Island alone will lose $20 million (10%) of its medical education budget each year. This bill does nothing to rationalize the graduate medication education system financed through Medicare; rather, it simply guts GME which will translate into a reduction in the quality of health care and reduced access for many citizens as teaching hospitals close and downsize. The Republican proposal that this House will vote on today will increase costs for health coverage for seniors, reduce quality and access, and burden working parents. But most importantly, this bill represents nothing less than a betrayal of the trust of the people of this country and a reversal of a generation of guaranteed health care for the elderly.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Chairman McHugh and the ranking member, Representative Collins of the Subcommittee on Postal Service and Chairman Clinger of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee for helping me bring this bill to the floor. I would also like to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy, who cosponsored this bill with me, and Senators Chafee and Pell, who have introduced an identical bill in the Senate. This bill would designate the main U.S. Post Office in Providence, RI, as the ``Harry Kizirian Post Office.'' Because some of you may not know Harry, I would like to tell you a little about this outstanding Rhode Island citizen. Harry Kizirian is the most decorated living veteran in Rhode Island. On Okinawa, he was severely wounded while leading an infantry assault. For his extraordinary heroism, Harry was awarded the Navy Cross, the Bronze Star with V Device for Valor, the Purple Heart with a Gold Star, and the Rhode Island Cross. When Harry returned to the United States, he immediately went to work at the main post office in Providence where he had worked during high school to support his widowed mother. Displaying the same commitment and teamwork he showed on the frontlines at Okinawa, he worked his way up to an appointment as the Postmaster. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1961, and held the position of Postmaster for 25 years. Throughout his career with the Postal Service, Harry also devoted much of his time to the community, serving on numerous boards and committees. Harry served on the board of directors for Butler Hospital, Big Brothers of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Blue Cross, the Rhode Island Heart and Lung Associations, and numerous others. Harry and his wife, Hazel, also successfully raised a wonderful family. [[Page H 10094]] They have five children: JoAnne, Thomas, Janice, Shakay, and Richard; four grandchildren: Rebecca, Thomas, Joseph, and Janice; and three step-grandsons: Dylan, Collin, and Matthew. Harry has served his country in every capacity: in the military, as a civil servant, as a devoted husband and father, and as a loyal American. Harry Kizirian is a source of inspiration for the young and old, and he is a particularly cherished member of Rhode Island's proud and vibrant Armenian community. This bill would commemorate his generosity and valor for future generations, and it would pay tribute to a remarkable gentleman who has given so much to his Nation, his community, and his family. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Harry Kizirian by supporting this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Harold L. Salisbury of East Greenwich, RI. Mr. Salisbury was a volunteer firefighter who lost his life in the line of duty earlier this year. Harold was a man who truly exemplified what volunteer services in this country is all about. Mr. Salisbury dedicated 31 years to the East Greenwich Fire District. He was called upon day and night to be at accidents, to respond to alarms, and to put out fires. He represented the East Greenwich Fire Department with pride and an unending commitment to protecting people from harm. In addition to his distinguished service as a firefighter, he worked as a service manager for the Mac Truck Co. in Rhode Island. Harold Salisbury is survived by his wife Carole V. Salisbury and three children; Tracy, Todd, and Peter. On October 15, 1995, the USFS will hold the 14th Annual Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, MD, to remember and honor those men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for others. Regrettably, more than 100 career and volunteer firefighters from 35 States have lost their lives this year. Our country is proudly served by just over 1 million firefighters operating out of more than 30,000 fire departments. All of these men and women risk their lives daily to protect the well-being of our Nation. These courageous workers are constantly on call defending their neighbors and property from harm. In fact, public fire departments responded to over 2 million fires in 1994. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of appreciative citizens from Rhode Island and all over the country, I respectfully ask that my colleagues join me in saluting all of the firefighters like Mr. Salisbury, who have fallen in the line of duty. We owe all of these men and women a sincere debt of gratitude for making our country a safer place to live.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Educational and Economic Opportunities, I voted to report H.R. 1617 for a number of reasons, including the need to cut back and consolidate job training programs. I did so with the understanding that this legislation was a bipartisan work in progress. To a good extent this has been true with one noted exception--vocational rehabilitation for our Nation's disabled citizens. Regrettably, this bill, which does so much to consolidate programs and transfer responsibility to the States, would eliminate the current vocational rehab block grant which already works. The job training system needs fixing, but the same does not hold true for the vocational rehabilitation system, and that is why the Senate did not tamper with the vocational rehabilitation system in its job training bill. The other body realizes that the current system already gives the States flexibility to meet the vocational rehabilitation needs of their citizens. That is also why the National Governors Association supports the amendment to maintain the current vocational rehabilitation system offered by Mr. Green. The Governors understand the axion; ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some would argue we need to increase competition between public and private rehabilitation providers, but the only problem is that in 21 States there are no private providers and in my State of Rhode Island there is only one. Others argue that the General Accounting Office has criticized the current system. However, the GAO found that for every $1 invested in the vocational rehabilitation system reduced disability payments and increased revenues by $18. In addition, the earnings of participants were four times greater than nonparticipants. Moreover, while the costs of the program have remained the same, success has increased even with more enrollees who have severe disabilities. I am also concerned that the system proposed in H.R. 1617 would jeopardize the prospects of individuals with low-incidence disabilities, like blindness, who need very specialized services in order to enter the work force. Therefore, I am pleased that my colleagues joined me in voting to protect our Nation's disabled citizens by supporting Mr. Green's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that H.R. 1617's goal of consolidation and rationalization is worthy of support, and I look forward to further improvements to this bill when it reaches conference.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the serious difficulties that face our National Park System, including the deterioration of our public lands and the impact of likely budget cuts. Like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe that we must address these challenges. However, I do not believe that H.R. 260 is the best way to do so. Two bills intended to reform the National Park Service have been introduced to the House of Representatives this year. Both of these measures, H.R. 260 and H.R. 2181, recognize the need for efforts to improve the management of our national parks, but they adopt very different approaches toward this important goal. H.R. 2181 would generate the revenue that our National Park Service needs to improve its visitor services and repair roads and trails in parks across the country. This bill would require individuals who sell concessions in our national parks to provide a fair return to our Nation's citizens for the first time in decades. H.R. 2181 would also make modest modifications in the fees charged for the use of our national parks and would direct the added revenue toward the needs of the National Park System. H.R. 260 would require the Interior Department to develop a comprehensive plan for the future of the National Park System. This bill, however, would also create a closure commission to recommend which of our nation's park units should be closed or privatized. Among the likely targets of such a commission would be hundreds of small, but important parks across the country. One such park is the Roger Williams National Memorial in Providence, RI. This park is very small, both in its area and its demands on Federal funding, but it meets a large need of many Rhode Islanders. Each year, nearly 150,000 people visit the park, which, like its namesake, represents the best of our country. Roger Williams, who founded my home State, remains a proud example of our Nation's commitment to religious freedom. The park bearing his name honors his contribution to our Nation's history and provides Rhode Islanders with a needed recreational and environmentally preserved area in our State's capital city. The status of the Roger Williams National Memorial and the hundreds of parks like it nationwide is a critical issue that deserves full and open debate. However, by bringing H.R. 260 to the floor under suspension of the rules, the Republican majority prevents open debate on this issue. Today, the House will not even consider H.R. 2181, despite the fact that this well-crafted measure is sponsored by distinguished members of both parties. I urge my colleagues to stand for open debate on the future of our national parks. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 260.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan deficit lockbox legislation, H.R. 1162. However, it is unfortunate that H.R. 1162 was not brought before the House of Representatives prior to consideration of this year's spending bills. Regrettably, this means that many of the cuts I voted for this year are not guaranteed to help reduce the deficit. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1162 is all about the truth. When Members vote to cut an unworthy project and do not redirect those scarce resources elsewhere, our constituents expect that money to go toward reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, that is not the way the system works now, but with the passage of H.R. 1162 that will change. Now when the project [[Page H 8845]] is cut, those savings will lower the total sum of funds available and the deficit should be reduced by a commensurate amount. I am pleased to support this truth in budgeting legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for H.R. 1162. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a remarkable man made an important announcement in my home State of Rhode Island and on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Rhode Island's senior Senator, Senator Claiborne Pell, announced to the people of Rhode Island and to his Senate colleagues that he intends to retire at the end of his current term in the Senate. The retirement of Senator Claiborne Pell marks the close of a career in the U.S. Senate that has spanned three and a half decades and witnessed rapid change in America and the world. Throughout these turbulent years, Senator Pell never wavered from his commitment to the search for world peace or the creation of educational opportunities for all Americans. Senator Pell's legacy of public service began well before he was elected to the Senate in 1960. One month before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Claiborne Pell enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard where he served as a ship's cook and able seaman. After America entered the war, Senator Pell's family connections could have secured him an immediate officer's commission in the Navy, but he chose instead to remain in the Coast Guard and serve on the dangerous North Atlantic convoy runs between the United States and England in the early years of the war. After the war, Claiborne Pell and his wife, Nuala, went abroad where Pell worked as a Foreign Service officer for the U.S. State Department. During these postwar Foreign Service years, Claiborne Pell worked in and around the capitals of Eastern Europe, where he witnessed first- hand the emergence of communist domination. Despite this experience, Pell always knew that communism was doomed to failure and predicted the ultimate death of communism long before the Berlin Wall came crashing down. Following his Foreign Service career and a brief stint in business, Pell declared himself a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Pell ran on a platform of ``Peace and Opportunity for Rhode Island'' and despite the lack of an endorsement by the Democratic party, Pell won the Democratic primary and was elected to the Senate in 1960. At that time, one of Pell's closest friends in New England politics was Senator John F. Kennedy and it was a special delight for Pell to be going to Washington with his good friend. During his time in the Senate, Claiborne Pell gained a reputation for serving the cause of peace and creating educational opportunities for all Americans. He has been instrumental in the passage of several arms control treaties and protocols over the years, including a treaty banning nuclear weapons in space and on the floor of the sea. Senator Pell will also always be known for creating the Pell grant, the most universally utilized higher education grant available in America today. Senator Pell's favorite motto, ``Translate ideas into actions that help people,'' is a philosophy that has guided all of his work in the Senate, whether it was supporting civil rights legislation during the 1960's or drafting education reform legislation in the 1990's Senator Pell is also known for his energy and unflagging devotion to his job. Despite the long hours, late night Senate sessions, and weekends working back home in Rhode Island, Rhode Island's senior Senator has never wavered in his dogged determination to make life better for all Americans. I know that he will bring the same energy and compassion to whatever task he turns to next. It has been a privilege for me to serve with Claiborne Pell. I wish the Senator and his wife, Nuala, good health and happiness in the years ahead.