Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us will impose severe cuts on educational assistance, and it will deny millions of Americans the chance to go to college, and this is an opportunity that is increasingly elusive for middle-income Americans, and I would like to illustrate the effect of these cuts by introducing my colleagues to a young lady. Her name is Jenifer. She is from Hockum, WA. She is one of eight children, the first in her family to go to college. Jenifer lives on her own. She supports herself, and indeed she helps her family with their expenses. Her father is a logger, and he makes about $28,000 a year. She has to pay a tuition of about $11,600 a year. She commutes 60 miles a day to school. She works 30 hours a week in her hometown, and she works an additional 15 to 20 hours at her college, and when she graduates she wants to become a teacher. Jenifer currently receives Federal financial assistance in the form of Pell grants, Perkins loans, State student senate grants, all of which are reduced or eliminated under this legislation. Under this bill she would most likely loose her SSIG grant and her Pell grant, and the amount of her Perkins loan would either be reduced, at best, or eliminated. This adds up for her education to an additional $2,000 to $3,000 in added costs, and I ask my Republican colleagues where is she going to get this money? She cannot possibly work any longer. She already commutes 60 miles a day to school, but I tell my colleagues what I think is likely to happen. She very well might be forced to drop out and to compromise her chance for a college education. She represents exactly the type of young person we should support, but instead this legislation is taking away that support. We must continue to support higher education through these programs. We must continue to provide people a chance to achieve the American dream. Let us not take that dream away by passing this legislation. Let us reinforce and reinvent the future of this country.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, the American people believe that Federal support for education represents the most valuable investment we can make in our Nation's future. Yet, throughout this Congress, Republicans have repeatedly targeted programs that help our students reach their full potential. The Labor-HHS bill cuts an unprecedented $4 billion from education funding, taking Federal investment in education to its lowest level since 1989. And, where have the Republicans begun their assault on education? They have begun the assault on our youngest, most vulnerable children. To benefit fully from schooling, all children need to come to school ready to learn. Perhaps more than any other program, Head Start is about our future. This legislation would deny 180,000 children access to Head Start over the next 7 years. This legislation also targets poor and disadvantaged students who need help the most to improve their academic performance. I find it ironic that Republicans want to withdraw support for title I at the same time that they are attempting to abandon affirmative action programs. Democracy is conditioned on fairness and equal opportunity. Enacted in 1965, title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was part of a powerful demand that American society live up to its ideals by extending equal opportunity to all. This program sends money to more than 1 million disadvantaged students who need help to achieve in school. If equal opportunity does not begin here, then were does it begin? Today, this program represents the largest Federal investment in elementary and secondary education and enables millions of children to receive the extra help they need in reading and math. Learning is difficult in schools where students fear for their safety or drug use is widespread. I was proud to be a part of the last Congress that took a strong stand on violence in our public schools. The Safe-and-Drug Free Schools Program helps every one of Rhode Island's 37 school districts to create a safe learning environment. Nationally, this program has enabled 39 million students feel a little bit more secure as they walk the halls of their schools. Republicans claim that they stand for an American where every individual has the opportunity to compete. This is not the America that the Republicans have shaped in this bill, however. If education is the springboard to opportunity, then this bill causes our Nation to fall farther and farther behind. This bill slams shut the door of opportunity on our youth and our future. As Secretary of Education Riley has stated, ``The American people do not support efforts to close the budget deficit by widening the education deficit''. I urge my colleagues to reject this short-sighted bill. Let us not turn our back on our future. The cuts contained in this bill will devastate millions of children and families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Today, the House of Representatives considers legislation to lift the arms embargo governing Bosnia. This proposal is a product of months of frustration and outrage as the killing goes on in Bosnia, as we witness scenes of calculated cruelty which we thought had been banished with the defeat of the Nazi tyranny 50 years ago, and as we observe the western powers and the United Nations fitfully grapple with the violence that has engulfed the former Yugoslavia. But, frustration and outrage, as sincerely and keenly felt as they may be, should not be the rationale or measure of our policies. Rather, we must look to the consequences of our actions; the consequences for ourselves as well as for the people of the former Yugoslavia. By lifting this embargo, we will guarantee only one thing: The level of violence in the former Yugoslavia will increase. Passage of this proposal will initiate a powerful and compelling dynamic among the combatants. For the Bosnian Serbs, the logic is quite clear; strike as quickly as you can with as much force as you can muster before the Bosnian Government can increase its military capabilities. For the Bosnian Government, the logic is equally clear; do not negotiate, continue to resist, and prepare through local offensives for the time when a reequipped Bosnian Army can mount a general offensive to reclaim territory lost to the Serbs. By lifting the embargo, we will precipitate the withdrawal of the U.N. mission and terminate the commitment of our European allies to maintain their troops in the former Yugoslavia. Having visited U.N. forces in the former Yugoslavia, I am acutely aware of their organizational shortcomings and, just as importantly, the lack of a clear and consistent policy objective to focus the use of military power. Nevertheless, UNPROFOR, for all its shortcomings, has limited the violence in Bosnia and prevented the expansion of violence into other regions of the former Yugoslavia. That is the conclusion of Gen. John R. Galvin, former NATO commander, one of the most distinguished military leaders of our generation and now the dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. In testimony before Congress in June, General Galvin stated that a ``key aspect for an understanding of the situation in Bosnia is our concept of the value of UNPROFOR. * * * They deserve more credit than we have been willing to give them.'' He went on to add in regard to UNPROFOR ``their multinational troops have given the world outstanding service. Moreover, any conceivable solution to the conflict will require some kind of international presence. We should keep the U.N. forces in Bosnia and not take action that would confound their efforts.'' Lifting the arms embargo will accelerate the departure of UNPROFOR for several reasons. First, intensified fighting will further threaten the very survival of UNPROFOR forces which are scattered throughout the former Yugoslavia and are not organized for sustained and determined combat operations. Second, and arguably most critically, it will give our allies and the United Nations the political justification to cut their losses and withdraw. No longer would they be accused of abandoning their mission. Rather they could point to the unilateral action of the United States in frustrating the strategy of the world community. And as we consider this measure today, we should be acutely aware that the departure of the United Nations will trigger our announced policy of committing U.S. ground forces to assist in the evacuation of our allies. As such, if this proposal passes, we are taking a step closer to the introduction of American forces into the killing fields of the former Yugoslavia. Ironically then, today's vote may draw us into the battle and not, as some may argue, give us an easy way to remain aloof from the struggle. Lifting the arms embargo will not provide the Bosnian Government with the timely and decisive edge that it needs to counter the Bosnian Serbs. Individual weapons already are in plentiful supply in Bosnia. What is lacking are crew-served weapons such as artillery and tanks. The simple presence of these weapons is not sufficient for their effective use. Extensive training must be undertaken on many levels. On the technical level, crews must train to obtain basic proficiency. On the tactical level, units must be trained to integrate these weapons into effective combined arms teams. All of this takes time as well as outside expertise. Without training and external support, these arms are ineffective. Thus, today's vote is more about symbolism than practical and timely assistance to the Bosnian Government. Although lifting the arms embargo may assuage the sensibilities of the proponents, it will not resolve the conflict in Bosnia. Moreover, the escalation of combat resulting from this policy could spill over into other parts of the former Yugoslavia; particularly if other ethnic groups claim that they should be the beneficiaries of this policy of unrestricted access to the international arms bazaar. There are no easy solutions to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Lifting the arms embargo is easy, but it will not resolve this crisis. Indeed, there is the very real possibility that it will escalate the fighting, precipitate the withdrawal of international forces, expand the fighting to other regions and draw United States ground forces into the deadly morass of Bosnia. What should we do? In the words of Gen. John Galvin ``stay with peacekeeping * * * recognize that a crisis such as this can be long and difficult * * * hold to our purpose [and] remember that permanent peace can come only if the combatants will it so.'' I urge rejection of this bill. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was allowed to speak out of order.) In Memoriam: Thomas E. ``Doc'' Morgan

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the 104th Congress, the American people have listened to Democrats and Republicans debate national priorities. The priorities of the Republican Party are crystal clear. They support a contract with the wealthy over our historic contract with older Americans. Under the Republican budget resolution, the wealthiest 1.1 million Americans will receive a $20,000 tax break. In return, 37 million seniors will see their Medicare benefits cut by over $1,000 a year by the year 2002. Let me remind my Republican colleagues that Medicare is not a welfare program, it is not a luxurious giveaway like the Republican tax cuts, and it is not a fiscal candy jar. It is an insurance program that has enabled 37 million seniors to live lives of independence and dignity. Let us not make seniors pawns in the Republican budget game--raiding Medicare to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy is completely unacceptable.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, it is with great concern for veterans, seniors, the poor and our environment that I rise in opposition to the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriation bill for fiscal year 1996. This bill before us is an ill-conceived, mean-spirited attack on the most vulnerable citizens in America. While those may sound like harsh words, here are the harsh figures; a 50-percent reduction in funding to fight homelessness, $400 million less for section 8 operating costs and a $1.2 billion cut in modernization funds for public housing. For veterans, there is $250 million less than what the VA said is necessary to maintain the current service level and quality for medical care and $500 million less in administrative and construction costs. The EPA budget is cut by a third, resulting in no new cleanups and no funding for the safe drinking water loan fund. Under this bill, Rhode Island would lose $7.7 million in rehabilitation and repair funds and $2 million that maintains 10,401 public housing units. In addition, our State, which last year assisted 4,910 people who came to emergency and domestic violence shelters, will lose nearly $2.6 million needed to assist these people. Ironically, if this bill passes, more people will be homeless and need this type of help. I am also afraid that the news for Rhode Island's veterans is equally discouraging. While some programs nationwide have been increased, veterans in southeastern Rhode Island will again wait for needed improvements. In 1990 the VA bought a building to consolidate VA services in Rhode Island. Now, that building is unoccupied and our vets are waiting for the promised consolidation. Unfortunately, because this consolidation is not funded, the Government will continue to pay rent [[Page E 1555]] in downtown Providence, instead of cutting costs and consolidating the VA offices as planned. Lastly, I am disappointed with what this bill does to our environment. This bill contains language that would limit the EPA's authority to enforce major environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Act. With the inclusion of this language, the Republican leadership has essentially gutted the last 25 years of environmental progress. It will become harder for organizations in my State to continue the job of cleaning up our environment and protecting our health when virtually all funding to do so will be diminished. In fact, Rhode Island would lose $2.4 million compared to the President's proposal to finance wastewater projects, $9 million for loans to provide safe drinking water, and $674,000 to address polluted runoff. The loss of crucial funding to financing clean water infrastructure threatens both the protection of public health in Rhode Island and industries like shellfishing, boating, and tourism that are dependent on clean water. While I understand the need to reduce the deficit, I do not believe we should place a disproportionate share on the backs of those who can least afford it. Unfortunately, that is what the Republicans have done in this bill. And this is not the first time. Just 4 months ago, the rescission bill attacked low income and elderly people by cutting money for section 8, rental assistance and homeownership initiatives. H.R. 2009 marks the second time this year that our poor, elderly, and disabled have been asked to make sacrifices in the name of deficit reduction. These sacrifices seem much higher than what other people have been asked to contribute. I would like my colleagues to ask themselves why these cuts are so severe. Why have we decided to continue to invest less and less for those who have no roof over their head? Well, my colleagues, one answer is the space station. Some may argue that housing programs need reform, and therefore, they should be cut. But Mr. Chairman, if the same logic holds, why should we spend billions on a space station with innumerable design changes, cost increases, and failures? Mr. Speaker, this bill's priorities are wrong and I see no reason to support it. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this misguided legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes- Boehlert amendment. These riders are an all-out assault on environmental law. It is not to be considered simply reform, but rather, in toto, these would eviscerate environmental enforcement throughout the United States. It is also an abuse of the legislative process. In my Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are beginning to consider one of the provisions contained herein, and that is recognizing State environmental audit legislation. We have not proceeded to any conclusion. We have more questions and comments. In fact, the only consistent element we have found in considering this environmental audit language is the opposition, almost a total opposition, of law enforcement officers throughout the United States. The National District Attorneys Association is against it, the attorney generals of New Mexico, Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, Arizona, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, the New Jersey State Attorney General, the New York District Attorneys Association, all these law enforcement officials condemn a rider which is included in this legislation. This is not the way to reform environmental laws in the United States. This is the way to destroy environmental laws in the United States.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers- LaFalce amendment to restore funding for the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration. The Office of Advocacy successfully served as an independent voice for small business in testifying before Congress and in representing the small business sector before Federal departments and agencies. The Office of Advocacy has been one of the parts of the SBA that has consistently received strong small business support over the years. Indeed, the delegates to the recent White House Conference on Small Business affirmed their support for the Office of Advocacy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and other small business advocacy groups wholeheartedly endorse the Office of Advocacy and support this amendment. Efforts to make the SBA more effective and efficient should continue to be explored, as they should be in programs throughout our Government. But to eliminate the Office of Advocacy makes no sense. I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and to support the Meyers/LaFalce amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. In light of the expected obligation of fiscal year 1995 funds and the Governor's request, does the chairman believe this is an issue that may be considered during conference with other body provided that Chamber endorses the Governor's recent request?

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, recently the Governor of Rhode Island announced that he has all of the matching funds and that the State expects to commence preliminary work prior to the end of fiscal year 1995. In addition, the Governor has requested a Federal contribution of $1 million in fiscal year 1996 to continue this work. It is my understanding that the subcommittee continues to believe that this project is worthy of Federal support. Is this also the chairman's understanding?

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

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I would seek to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a coloquy, if he would be so amendable. Mr. Chairman, as we know, the administration requested $10 billion for the Rhode Island Freight Rail Development initiative in the fiscal year 1996, to be matched dollar for dollar by the State of Rhode Island. This funding was to be combined with $5 million in fiscal year 1995 funds. Regrettably, the bill does not contain this request. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee?

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and his staff for his assistance and consideration. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and his staff for their attention to this matter.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1976, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, represents a serious effort to cut Federal spending on agriculture programs. I am pleased that this bill cuts funding from current levels by nine percent. But we can go even farther. This bill preserves a number of agricultural subsidies that I believe should be reviewed in light of our desire to move toward reducing our deficit. Although this bill preserves Federal subsidies for several agricultural programs which I believe should be cut or eliminated, I am encouraged by the assurances from Chairman Roberts of the Agriculture Committee that he will ensure votes on these subsidy programs during consideration of the farm bill later this year. This bill recognizes the importance of child nutrition programs funded through the Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that the Republican leadership recognized the shortsightedness of their initial proposal to reduce funding for school lunch and breakfast programs. H.R. 1976 provides $8 billion in funding for school lunch and breakfast programs, an increase of $501 million over fiscal year 1995, and $32 million more than the President's request. This bill was also improved when an amendment offered by Representative Hall was accepted to remove the cap on the number of participants in the nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]. WIC is a cost-effective program which has significantly reduced rates of infant mortality, low birthweight, and anemia. If food cost inflation is lower than previous years, or if a State manages the program efficiently, the cap would have prohibited the state from enrolling additional eligible women, infants and children. I do, however, remain concerned about the removal of the competitive bidding requirement included in this bill. If history serves as a guide, this will translate into higher costs for infant formula and fewer infants being served under the program. Prior to enactment of the competitive bidding requirement in 1989, only half of State WIC programs used competitive bidding. The other half used industry-favored cost containment systems that saved 35 percent less than competitive bidding. For this reason, Congress passed the competitive bidding requirement in 1989 with bipartisan support and with support from the Bush White House. Competitive bidding works. Competitive bidding saved the WIC program $1.1 billion last year. Nearly 25 percent of women, infants and children served by WIC last year were served with savings from competitive bidding. In my home State of Rhode Island, the competitive bidding requirement has enabled the program to serve an additional 5,000 infants. If we are searching for deep cuts across programs, surely it makes sense to support an incentive for states to utilize competitive bidding, given the documented costs savings that result. The Bush administration supported the competitive bidding requirement in 1989 because it utilizes the free market to secure the lowest prices for infant formula, thereby making the most efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars and stretching WIC funds to serve more participants. In States that do not use competitive bidding the losers will be vulnerable infants, pregnant women, and children. We should not sell out to large infant formula companies at the expense of infants, and I will urge my colleagues in the Senate to retain competitive bidding. Finally, this legislation does not contain funding for the Coastal Institute at the University of Rhode Island. I am hopeful that through my continued effort and through the effort of the Senate, funding for this worthwhile project will be included in the conference report. The State of Rhode Island is enthusiastic about this project and voters have already approved a bond referendum for $7 million. Bonding authority and other approved matching sources are at the $12.56 level in support of this project. The Institute will focus on the major sources of estuarine pollution, including urban development, agriculture, and deep water activities. The Institute's mission has important implications for both these activities and for the world's fisheries. In addition, the Coastal Institute will contribute to the economic well-being of the region through the training and research that will be conducted.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Aquaculture Employment Investment Act. This bill is based upon legislation I sponsored last Congress with my colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Studds. Aquaculture represents a promising economic development opportunity for the State of Rhode Island. At the turn of the century, Rhode Island shellfishermen harvested so much shellfish from Narragansett Bay that this harvest would be worth almost $1 billion at today's prices. The bill I am introducing today attempts to foster economic growth and create jobs by encouraging aquaculture development in our [[Page E 1450]] lakes and coastal areas. The Aquaculture Employment Act amends the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] to authorize grants to States to formulate, administer, and implement strategic plans for marine aquaculture. This provision would enable States like Rhode Island that have no comprehensive plan for aquaculture development to get started in the process of creating jobs and economic development through aquaculture. The legislation also creates a grant program modeled after a shellfish seeding program operating in Nantucket. Under this program, funds would be made available to States to expand ongoing projects relating to aquaculture, such as the State quahog transplant operations. By transplanting clams from high bacteria areas of Narragansett Bay to clean areas of the Bay, the clams are given the opportunity to clean themselves and eventually be ready for harvest. This is not to say that development of a marine aquaculture industry will be easy. Difficult issues such as private use of public resources, conflicts with other coastal user groups, and the development of streamlined regulatory and permitting requirements will have to be addressed. Other nations around the world have already recognized the potential of aquaculture and the important role that government can play in developing this industry. The governments of Japan, Norway, and Chile are supporting aquaculture development programs, and giving their citizens the opportunity to reap the accompanying economic rewards. In fact, these countries are exporting their aquaculture harvests of fish and shellfish to America. This bill calls for a modest commitment of Federal resources, but it does not take a large Federal investment to join marine aquaculture and economic development. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My respect for the flag and reverence for the flag stems from many, many years of service as an Army officer, a graduate of West Point. Indeed, this is not just rhetorical reverence, it is reverence born by experience. I am offended when the flag is abused, deeply offended. But today we are considering a constitutional amendment which I think, although attempting to preserve the symbol of our freedom, encroaches substantially on the substance of our freedom. I cannot describe that phenomenon any better than the words of James Warner, a former marine flier in Vietnam who was a POW. He wrote an opinion letter back in 1989, when this was being debated before. Mr. Warner was captured by the Vietnamese. He was being tortured. In fact, at one point the Vietnamese officer showed him a picture of American protesters burning a flag and the interrogator said, ``People in your country protest against your cause. That proves you are wrong.'' Mr. Warner replied, ``No, that proves I am right. In my country, we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.'' I do not think we should be afraid of freedom. I think we should in fact support freedom. If we were to pursue a constitutional approach to preserving the flag, it cannot be this approach, because just on technical merits, this fails miserably. As my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], indicated, physical destruction or desecration of the flag is something that encompasses a range of things. Is underwear in the shape of the flag a physical desecration? I believe in many, many cases, it is disrespectful, but is it constitutionally desecration? More than that, some States could say it is; some States could say no. We would be living in a situation where if you were wearing an American flag tie in one State and crossed the border, you could be arrested. We must reject this amendment. Indeed, we must support the substance of our freedoms.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for their leadership in proposing this amendment. Indeed, I attempted to offer a similar amendment to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Aid Authorization bill, but as my colleague from New Jersey explained, because of this construction of the rule, I was effectively prevented from doing this. In 1992, my former colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Machtley, offered successfully an amendment to cut training for funding for the training of Indonesia military in response to flagrant abuses of human rights in East Timor. When Congress cut this money, it send two strong messages: First, to the Government of Indonesia that the U.S. will not tolerate any more human rights abuses by the military in East Timor, and, second, to the East Timorese, who were finally given hope that someone had listened to their call for help and provided them a voice in the face of oppression. Today we are debating a bill which effectively restores this money. That might be appropriate if the conditions in East Timor had improved, but in fact they have not. I would like to emphasize that this amendment is not about the efficacy of American military training and the value of exposing foreign military personnel to our professional military instruction. No, this is about sending a strong signal concerning the abuse of human rights in East Timor. In June and July of last year, Indonesian troops committed acts of sacrilege against the East Timorese [[Page H 6363]] church and clergy. The courts are still sentencing people to long prison terms for speaking to journalists or sending information critical of the government. On January 12 of this year, Indonesian soldiers killed six men outside Dili. These six civilians were shot in retaliation for a guerrilla attack the day before, but sources present indicate that the six were never involved in the attack. At a joint hearing before the International Relations Subcommittee 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 have been especially severe, and have worsened dramatically since the APEC summit meeting in Djakarta last November.'' When we are cutting aid to Africa and are cutting many, many worthy programs, it seems incongruous we would be giving money in the face of these human rights abuses. I would urge my colleagues to accept the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. I would urge them to send a strong signal to the Government of Indonesia that we will not tolerate further human rights abuses in East Timor. A headline in the New York Times in November of last year stated, ``Timorese worry world will now forget them.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to forget them, to stick to the precedent we have now established. We have taken a stand. We can make a difference. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Wolf amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, during the week of June 12, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. Although this bill is not perfect, I voted in favor of this legislation because it includes several important provisions which I have historically supported. humanitarian assistance H.R. 1561 included language from the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act which restricts U.S. aid to any country that prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. I strongly believe that we should not allow humanitarian assistance to be used as a political weapon while innocent victims are deprived of food, fuel, and medical supplies. streamlining government The consolidation of USAID, ACDA, and USIA into the State Department in H.R. 1561 was one of the most contentious issues during debate. While I support the work of these agencies, I also believe that we must remain committed to streamlining government. Secretary of State Christopher proposed a similar consolidation earlier this year. The Department of Defense is now more efficient and productive due in part to the consolidation. I supported Representative Ackerman's amendment which would have required the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to the implementation of this bill. Regrettably, this failed. Congress has been considering cutbacks and elimination of virtually every Federal agency, and, as such, none should be immune from efforts to reduce Government spending. commitment to israel and egypt H.R. 1561 also recognizes the United States' ongoing commitments to Egypt and Israel and maintains critical funding for the Middle East. As our steadfast ally in the Middle East, Israel has served as a leader in the efforts to bring stability to the region. We are sending a strong message of support to this region, but we are also acting in our own national self-interest to support a strong and democratic Israel. This region was once considered to have the potential to initiate a major world war. Today, we are witnessing the development of a lasting peace. To withdraw our moral and practical support at this point in the peace process would preempt what we have accomplished thus far. the u.s. role in the united nations H.R. 1561 also attempts to redefine our Nation role in the United Nations. This is not to say we should abandon the basic principles of the United Nation, but this bill would make the United Nation more accountable for its programs and practices. By extending current law, H.R. 1561 ensures that the United States maintains a voice in the U.N. budget process by allowing the President to withhold up to 20 percent of appropriated funds for the United Nation if it fails to effect consensus-based decisions. The bill will also give greater authority to the inspector general [IG] of the United Nation. H.R. 1561 withholds 20 percent of the U.N. budget and 50 percent of the peacekeeping budget until the President certifies that the United Nation has increased the powers of the IG, and has given the IG access and sufficient resources to conduct investigations and protect the identity of whistleblowers. Having witnessed firsthand peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Haiti, I believe we must reevaluate the position of the United States within the United Nations, and define the role in which the United States can best serve not only the interests of the United Nations but also those of the American people. east timor There are provisions in this bill which I do not support. H.R. 1561 authorizes the resumption of International Military and Education Training [IMET] for Indonesia. The IMET Program was eliminated for Indonesia in 1992 due to flagrant human rights abuses by the military in East Timor. This bill authorizes funding for this program, yet there has been no significant improvement in cases of human rights violations. I had planned to introduce an amendment to H.R. 1561 which would have eliminated the authorization of United States funding for military training in Indonesia. This issue is not about the efficacy of American military training and the value of exposing foreign military personnel to the professional and ethical standard of the American Armed Services. Rather, it is whether we will ignore continuous human rights abuses and use our dollars to pay for this training. Unfortunately, time constraints prevented me from bringing my amendment to the floor. I believe that American taxpayers should not be asked to pay for this. We should not tolerate human rights abuses by the military in East Timor and I will continue to work in the appropriations process to help the people of East Timor. bosnia I voted against lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia-Herzegovina because I believe it would have a detrimental effect in the absence of a larger, more coherent strategy. Although the intent is to strengthen the Bosnian Moslems' position in the field, I am concerned that if the embargo is lifted, a large scale offensive would be initiated by the Bosnian Serbs against highly populated urban centers. The health and safety of civilians, as well as U.N. peacekeeping forces, would be put in greater risk. Ending the arms embargo could also force the evacuation of U.N. forces. Both the administration and the House Republican leadership have stated that this would require a commitment of U.S. troops. I believe we need to pursue a more comprehensive strategy to address the situation in Bosnia and reach a negotiated and enduring peace. Implementing only one aspect of an inherently complicated plan will only result in further suffering of the Bosnian people. africa and latin american Finally, I hope two issues will be addressed during the appropriations process as well as when the Senate considers its version of the reauthorization. H.R. 1561 cut assistance to Africa and Latin America far below the administration's request. I voted in favor of two amendments to increase funding for the Development Fund for Africa by $173 million and to increase assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean by $9 million. While both amendments failed, an engaged debate brought to light the concerns over drastic cuts to these regions which are certain to be addressed again during the appropriations process. conclusion I anticipate many changes to this legislation as it progresses to the conference report. I hope that the conference report represents a continuing commitment by the United States to play a leadership role in the world while recognizing the profound changes in the world and the many demands, both at home and abroad, on our resources.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. It is regrettable because this is the first time I plan to vote against passage of the defense authorization bill, which establishes our military policies and priorities. While I support the Congress' desire to bring attention to the importance of military readiness as well as many of their initiatives, I must oppose this supposed prodefense bill because it fails to clearly support the Navy's top priority--the third Seawolf submarine. This bill adds billions for items not requested by the Department of Defense, but [[Page H6017]] fails to clearly support the third Seawolf as requested by the Navy and outlined in the Joint Chiefs of Staff force requirements. This bill provides some resources aimed at preserving our submarine industrial base, and Chairmen Spence and Hunter have attempted to craft a plan that seeks to maintain two nuclear submarine capable shipyards. However, in authorizing a level of funding that is close to the Navy's request for the third Seawolf, this bill would not direct completion of a new submarine. Instead, the bill would go back and retrofit the second Seawolf with a design that is not even yet designed. In addition, the proposed next class of attack submarines, now known as the new attack submarine, in the bill would be a technology demonstrator or R&D submarine, rather than a militarily capable submarine that meets the Navy's needs. Moreover, the Navy's new attack sub design and mission underwent an intensive Congressional review last year. It was also subjected to evaluation by an independent group as well as standard Navy and DOD review. But, again the committee bill with good intentions has dramatically altered the Navy's well-thought-out plan. There is a better submarine plan that unlike many in Washington is uncomplicated and cost-effective--complete the third Seawolf and capitalize on the almost $1 billion already invested in the third Seawolf. This option preserves the submarine industrial base. This option uses designs that are completed. This is the option endorsed by the Navy, the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs force requirements, the Bottom-Up Review, an independent review commission, the Rand Corp., President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, and Majority Leader Dole. There are also a number of items in this bill that concern me that are not related to submarines. These include the bill's excessive emphasis on a national missile defense or star wars system; the gutting of the bipartisan Nunn-Lugar plan which reduces the nuclear threat by dismantling the weapons of our former Soviet enemies; the prohibition on choice for female soldiers, and the majority's decision to abrogate the ABM Treaty. In addition, there are some items in this bill that are worthy of support, such as Navy undersea warfare research and procurement. But in the final analysis. the failure to endorse the Navy's attack submarine plan compels me to oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge the leadership of the House National Security Committee to reconsider its stance on the Navy's plan for the third Seawolf when House and Senate negotiators meet in the coming months. Until this bill reflects the Navy's plan or endorse a more reasonable submarine procurement plan that provides for continued construction at all components of the industrial base, I will be hard pressed to support it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a gentleman who has dedicated his life to one of our Nation's most honorable and arduous professions: teaching. Mr. William K. Waters has been a social studies teacher at Park View Junior High School in Cranston, RI, for his entire 31 year tenure with the Cranston public school system. At the end of this school year, Mr. Waters will retire after his many years of teaching. Mr. Waters first went to Park View as a student teacher while studying at Rhode Island College in 1963. The following year, he returned to Park View as a full-time social studies teacher. He quickly became immersed in this dynamic school, and soon his duties extended far beyond the classroom. Mr. Waters has worked tirelessly with students on Park View's award winning yearbook for over 20 years. As the ninth grade class advisor for 28 years, Mr. Waters' encouragement and guidance instilled qualities of responsibility and leadership. However, Mr. Waters' legacy to Park View will be most remembered as advisor to the student council, a position he has held for 29 years. Park View's student council has long been the envy of junior high schools throughout Rhode Island. The council's many longstanding traditions and services have benefited students, teachers, and the community. Students chosen by their peers to represent their class on the student council have managed school stores, a student handbook, all-school dances, the ninth grade dance, and fundraisers. Overseen by the always attentive and dedicated Mr. Waters, these were not merely student activities, they fostered a cooperative and active student body within the Park View community. And for the students fortunate enough to serve on the council, it served as a life-long lesson. Someone believed that at their age they could be trusted with money, to carry out responsibilities, and to deliver results. Leadership and commitment are not easily learned, but Mr. Waters not only encouraged these, he expected them. The student council's organizational skills and resources also benefited the local community. The Meeting Street Center, the Heart Association, the R.I. Lung Association, and Rhode Island's senior citizens have all come to recognize that Park View is not just another junior high school. At the same time, students were able to learn about life beyond the confines of classes, teachers, and friends. Of course, none of this would have been possible had someone not taken on the enormous responsibility of going beyond the afternoon school bell. Junior high school teachers [[Page E1108]] are a rate commodity. They face challenges in the classroom that go far beyond textbooks, homework, and grades, Mr. Waters is a dedicated professional who went beyond the call of duty and always bestowed any credit to his students. Mr. Waters has gotten to know many generations of young adults growing up in eastern Cranston. His guidance and devotion is demonstrated by the caliber of students who have graduated. Prepared academically when they graduated to high school, these young adults were also prepared to be role models and leaders for other students. Mr. Waters is an institution, and will always be fondly recalled by his students, their parents, and his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Waters' service to Park View Junior High School and commend him as a teacher, an advisor, and a person. Mr. Waters is truly a role model for future teachers and students, and I would like to wish him continued success in retirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean Water Act has been instrumental in cleaning up our waters and protecting our environment. H.R. 961, if enacted, would devastate Rhode Island, both its environment and, just as importantly, its economy. We depend upon a clean Narragansett Bay to support not only environmental activities, but also our economy. In 1989, $42 million was generated by our commercial fishing industry. $11 million was generated by our shellfishing industry. If we lose the Clean Water Act, we will lose a lot of these profits and a lot of the jobs associated with them. We depend on tourism: $146 million in 1989 for marine recreation activities; $637 million in 1989 for the marine industry in general. Without the Clean Water Act, we will not be able to realize this type of economic activity. We have to support a strong Clean Water Act. This bill does not do that. We also have to provide the States the resources through the revolving fund to provide cleanup until Rhode Island and elsewhere. Again, this act does not do this. Mr. Chairman, we should reject this provision and support a Clean Water Act.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today. Most of us agree that the Clean Water Act has been instrumental in cleaning up our nation's waters, yet we are debating a bill that, if enacted, would move us backwards and undercut the progress that we have made to ensure that our nation's waters are drinkable, swimmable, and fishable. If enacted, H.R. 961 would devastate Rhode Island. Rhode Island's 420 miles of coastline, beaches, and water have long been a destination for tourists. Indeed, Narragansett Bay has played an integral role in my state's historical, social, and financial development. In 1989 alone, commercial fishing revenues generated over $42 million, marine recreation generated $146 million, the marine industry generated $637 million, and in 1992, the shellfishing industry yielded a harvest worth $11 million. Total revenues associated with Narragansett Bay exceeded $1 billion for the State of Rhode Island in 1989. This sort of economic stability is predicated on clean water. However, there is still more work to be done. Beaches are monitored but periodically exceed safe water quality tests. And bans against shellfishing in Rhode Island still occur all too frequently. In December of 1992, 2,800 acres of prime winter shellfish harvesting areas were closed, causing a loss of $1 million in revenues. The state was able to begin to address this environmental and economic disaster because of the support provided under the Clean Water Act's coastal nonpoint source management program, the National Estuary Program, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In 1994, the state was able to re-open part of the shellfish harvesting area. However, 40 percent of the shellfish beds are still periodically closed due to coastal nonpoint source pollution, stormwater runoff, and combined sewer overflows. Rhode Island's share of our nation's total quahog landings was nearly 50 percent in 1986. In 1993, it had dropped to 13 percent. Seventy percent of this drop was due to a decrease in water quality. What this means is that every time it rains, shellfishermen in Rhode Island are reminded that the problem has not been fixed yet. Rhode Islanders also recognize the importance of a clean bay. A 1992 poll by the state Department of Environmental Management and the Narragansett Bay Project found that 98 percent of those surveyed believed that Narragansett Bay is important to Rhode Island, and 93 percent said that it is important to take steps to reduce pollution in Narragansett Bay. And today we are debating a bill, which, if enacted, would repeal the Clean Water Act's coastal nonpoint source management program. It does not contain any of the language of the DeLauro-Lowey Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act. And, it eliminates the storm water permit program. Our water resources are already being pushed to their limits. Population in coastal areas continues to increase. In fact, by the year 2010, Rhode Island's population is expected to grow by 10 percent, with 47 percent of this growth occurring in coastal areas. This increase in population, along with development and pollution, puts more strain on our natural resources, particularly estuaries. And 75 percent of the fish caught by sportsmen and fishermen are estuarine-dependent. The Clean Water Act has meant jobs, increased revenues for my state, and an increased quality of life for the residents of Rhode Island, as well as many other coastal states. The Clean Water Act provides states with the tools they need to combat the problems that still pollute our waterways. We should increase funding for the State Revolving Funds, but we need to do it in a meaningful way. Now is not the time to rollback regulations that have improved our nation's economy, environmental resources, and health. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce legislation today, along with my colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy, to designate the main U.S. Post Office in Providence, RI, as the ``Harry Kizirian Post Office.'' Harry Kizirian is a truly remarkable individual. The most decorated living veteran in Rhode Island, Harry displayed qualities of leadership and courage at a very young age. At the age of 15, Harry had to go to work to support his widowed mother, but he continued to maintain his excellent academic record at Mt. Pleasant High School in Providence. Upon graduation, Harry enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and was sent to Okinawa. On Okinawa, Harry fought with tenacity and courage, while engaged continuously in fierce combat. Harry 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. Upon Harry's return, he immediately went to work at the main post office in Providence where he had worked during high school. At work, Harry displayed the same commitment and teamwork he showed on the frontlines at Okinawa, and was eventually appointed as the Postmaster. He was confirmed by the United States 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 RI, RI Blue Cross, the RI Heart and Lung Associations, and numerous others. One of Harry's greatest accomplishments was raising a wonderful family. He and his wife, Hazel, raised five children and have three grandchildren. 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, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and salute Al Gunther, a distinguished individual from Rhode Island who is being honored for his outstanding contributions to the Boy Scouts of America on the occasion of his retirement from his position as Ranger of Camp Yawgoog. He first came to Camp Yawgoog in 1959 with his wife Diane and for the past 36 years he has devoted his time and talents to providing young people with the rewarding experiences of camping. His leadership of Yawgoog was also enhanced by a unique blend of management skill and a special affection for his fellow man. The Boy Scouts of Rhode Island owe a debt of gratitude to Al Gunther for his dedication and commitment. During his stewardship, Camp Yawgoog has prevailed through fires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, blizzards, and other adversities. His efforts have ensured that the camp has not only survived but flourished. Over a quarter of a million boys and campers have benefited from Al Gunther's hard work and from the humanitarian spirit which has prevailed at Camp Yawgoog. saluting Albert R. Gunther and recognizing his contributions to generations of young people, and toward the betterment of our community.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1361, the fiscal year 1996 Coast Guard Authorization bill. In particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee for including a number of Rhode Island specific amendments in the bipartisan en bloc amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is vital to the safety of our Nation's commercial fisherman, pleasure boaters, and merchant mariners. Each year, Coast Guardsmen and women save thousands of Americans from death at sea. In addition, these brave men and women help prevent many more tragedies through education and prevention programs, including efforts to curb boating under the influence. H.R. 1361 aims to continue this tradition of vigilance, and it has my full support. This legislation will also provide specific relief to several vessel owners in Rhode Island, who currently cannot engage in the coast-wise trade because of the Jones Act. By providing Jones Act waivers for the Isabelle and three Harbor Marine barges and a fisheries waiver for the Aboriginal, the House will ensure that the owners of these vessels will be able use their boats as intended. The Isabelle, an historic ketch built in Scotland in 1924, will be used as a charter boat. Harbor Marine Corporation's barges will have clear titles. Last, the Aboriginal's owner, a disabled firefighter and Vietnam veteran, will finally be able to start his charter fishing business. In addition, the chairman's en bloc amendment will permit the transfer of un-used Coast Guard property on Block Island, RI to the town of New Shoreham. The people of Block Island have leased this property for a number of years for education, police activities, harbor safety efforts, and environmental protection. In addition, the town has made over $60,000 in repairs and alterations to the buildings on the property, including new wiring, heating, windows, and a roof. It is my understanding that the Coast Guard supports this transfer, and I thank the chairman and Mr. Traficant for including this provision in the en bloc amendment. While I believe this legislation contains many important initiatives, I am concerned that H.R. 1361 would allow the Coast Guard to close a number of important small boat stations. These stations, many of which have been in existence for decades, are usually located in areas where a high visibility Coast Guard presence sends a signal of reassurance and deterrence. Such is the case with the Point Judith Station in Narragansett, RI. Point Judith is the home to my State's fishing fleet. It is also a focal point for the State's pleasure boaters and fishing charter boats. The same can be said of the summer station on Block Island. Although I have met with the Coast Guard to discuss their proposals, I must agree with the Town of Narragansett and others in Rhode Island that these stations should not be closed. Therefore, I will support the Traficant amendment which prohibits the closure of small boat stations and ensures rapid, local response to emergency calls, unless the Secretary of Transportation finds that maritime safety will not be diminished. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1361, and I thank the subcommittee for the concern it has shown for Rhode Island's needs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian holocaust. One and a half million Armenians were ruthlessly slaughtered at the hands of the Turks, a people were scattered throughout the world, a culture was defiled and churches were demolished while their stones were used to build shelter for the oppressors. We can never forget this infamous and despicable chapter in history. As Americans, we have witnessed the eternal courage and strength of the Armenian people here in their adopted land, where they have displayed great patriotism and valor. And we have seen this strength in the Armenian Republic, where its people struggle to maintain freedom and to prosper in a dangerous world. However, these brave people cannot stand alone. Our two great countries, the United States and the Republic of Armenia, must stand as one. As we commemorate the suffering of the Armenian people, we honor the spirit of the Armenian people. This spirit has endured the unendurable. It has transformed the horror of this holocaust into a lasting commitment to honor those whose lives were lost and those who continue to fight for freedom. We must pledge that the Republic of Armenia shall never stand alone, that America will always stand with her and together, we will stand for democracy, decency, and the dignity of all people.