Name: Sen. Jack Reed
Age: 50
Position: United States Senator
Background: Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Reed, a Democrat, succeeded U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell. Reed previously served three terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Rhode Island’s 2nd Congressional District. He is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee; Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Education: Bachelor of Science, United States Military Academy at West Point (1971). Masters in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. An Army Ranger and paratrooper, he returned to West Point in 1978 as an associate professor in the Department of Social Sciences.
Residence: Cranston
SEN. JACK REED: ‘I don’t think we’ve heard from someone (about Quonset) that all sides agree is reputable…I wish we had done that two years ago.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
PBN: You have been an outspoken proponent of the Third Rail proposal at Quonset Point/Davisville. Why don’t you bring us up to date on that project?
REED: It became clear to me in 1990 and 1991, that if we did not move aggressively to improve the freight rail system out of Quonset Point, the anticipated development of the Amtrak fast passenger service would basically isolate the whole facility. You couldn’t do freight improvements after you spent so many dollars revamping the passenger line. So we worked closely at that time with the Sundlun Administration and my colleagues in Congress and we started funding freight improvements. We’re at the point now where we have funded $38 million. It has been a battle every year to make sure we have the money. We have already approached the Administration this year to put in the final increment of funding. We would love to be able to get somewhere in the area of $17 million, which would essentially finish the federal share – the 50/50 match. The state is putting its money up – and in fact, is in the process of doing some of the engineering. This is one where I hope in a year or two we will have a first class freight system to service Quonset Point. One of the other reasons we are doing this — besides the high-speed rail improvements on the passenger side — is because the companies already down there depend on freight service. You’ve got Toray and BB&S Treated Lumber – they reached a point of saying; ‘If you can’t get this freight line down here than we’ve got to go.’ So we’re saving jobs there.
So you’re saying the Third Rail is important on its own, regardless of any plan to build a shipping facility at Quonset Point/Davisville?
Absolutely. It’s important because existing businesses – not only Toray and BB&S – but NORAD, the car operation down there, are trying to expand. Frankly, they were part of a group that came and said; ‘If we can’t get double and triple-stacked cars through here, we’re going to lose this business to southern ports. This is a business that has been good for the state, moving automobiles in and out of Quonset. It (the auto shipment business) could have been lost. Independent of whatever is done in the future, we are creating a first-class freight rail system.
What is your sense of the proposal to build a port at Quonset Point/Davisville? Since the deal with Quonset Point Partners fell apart, there seems to be little talk coming out of the State House.
We’re drifting. We’re just drifting along. My sense is there are legitimate environmental concerns. The best way to address those concerns is to identify the critical issues – the three or four or five most critical issues. And then go out and get analysis from reputable experts. Let them come back and say; ‘You can’t do this because it will cause irrefutable harm or you can do it if you mitigate or it’s not really a problem at all.’ Once you have the information, you can make a judgment about whether the investment is worth it, and if it is, go forward and do it. I have never sensed that we have gotten definitive answers to those questions. And there has always been the question of the proponents, the people with a financial interest. Are they going to give a subjective analysis? It would be a wise investment by the state to determine whether from an environmental perspective this is a feasible proposal. But the first set of questions – both the substantive and political – are about whether environmentally this project can work. I don’t think we’ve heard from someone that all sides agree is reputable and who has given us a thorough scientific analysis. I wish we had done that two years ago. We might have avoided a lot of controversy.
Are we as a state further along with the development of Quonset Point/Davisville than we have been in the past?
My sense is that — and this is more anecdotal than analytical — when the Navy pulled out in the 1970s we were really concerned and you could feel it. There were people who had worked there for years, starting in 1940 with the defense build-up. People were losing jobs. I had classmates in high school that had to move to North Carolina so their parents could finish up a commitment and retire. It was very disruptive. And then Electric Boat came in and it kind of took the pressure off. It looked like for the rest of our lives, in a Cold War, we would be building three or four submarines a year. That was a good run through the 1970s and into the 1980s. Until the end of the 1980s, when the Cold War ended, mercifully and thankfully. The defense contracts were cut back and we started to say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have to do something more with this facility.’ That helped to refocus attention on Quonset. From a structural standpoint, the Third Rail is a key part of any development. Highway improvements are important also. But the real key now is coming up with a plan and a consensus that cuts across all the uses of Narragansett Bay. We were picking up that kind of momentum, but my sense now is that we have lost that momentum. It’s just fizzled out.
There is no bigger issue for Rhode Island’s business community than rising health insurance premiums. I visited the owner of the Providence Watch Hospital. His premiums are up 60 percent – for the exact same coverage he had a year ago. He called his local representatives, state officials, and Congressmen – he probably called here. But he didn’t get anywhere. What do you tell people like him?
It is difficult. It is a situation where, because of competition during the past five or six years, rates were very stable. It was not a primary concern of most businesses. The costs were controlled. But now we’re back into the cycle of rate increases. That does several things that have a systemic result. First, people drop out and become uninsured. But they will still get care. So the businesses of Rhode Island are paying for those people, in addition to the people they employ. The other factor is that as these rates go up, the business climate is impacted. For a while there, if you were looking at the Rhode Island economy, you would see a great workforce, stable healthy insurance rates, and workers’ compensation reform. This was a good climate and those were among the contributing factors. If this (health insurance) becomes a problem it becomes frustrating. It would be a disservice to give someone a simplistic answer like; ‘We’ll just freeze costs.’ That doesn’t work.
In December you held a roundtable discussion with leaders in health care, including Ron Battista from Blue Cross & Blue Shield, John Hynes, from Care New England, and Tom Schumpert, from the state DBR. What did you learn?
It’s an incredibly complicated set of structures. It’s a situation where you have a very expensive system, and no one appears to be making money. It almost defies logic. We’re spending billions of dollars and yet when you talk to the different entities; the hospitals are complaining that they are losing their shirts; the insurance companieslook at Harvard Pilgrim, it collapsed. Small business is paying more. The system is on the verge of a severe crisis. It can’t stand any more shocks. The Harvard Pilgrim receivership should be a wake-up call. We have to start looking very closely, and monitoring closely what is going on within the health care industry in Rhode Island and nationally. We have a system that over the last several years tried to introduce competition as a way to control costs and maintain quality. That competition led in some respects to the demise of Harvard Pilgrim – they were under-pricing their product in an effort to get market share. They failed. You have to start to wonder if the purely competitive model will really work in health care. Health care is different than anything else. No one is going to let anyone lie in the street in front of a hospital and say, ‘Well, they just can’t afford to get in.’ They are going to get health care, and thank God that’s the kind of country we live in. That’s what makes this issue a little different than luxury boxes at Foxborough
You were instrumental in the creation of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. What impact do you expect it to have on the small business community?
What you are going to find is that financial institutions are going to start integrating all of their services. You’ll be able to go into a financial institution for insurance, mortgage finance, small business loans. We’re talking about sophisticated products that large institutions could always avail themselves ofnow small businesses can move money into overnight funds and move it out again. Things that big business – the GMs of the world – could always do, are now available to every range of business. With every advantage, comes the other side. One growing concern is the issue of privacy. As all these companies integrate their information and databases, there is a growing concern about how to use this information. The industry has to be very sensitive to this issue. They have to be very careful because the American public will demand protection. If they don’t get it through the marketplace, they’ll come to Congress and they will have to do something. In the last days of debate we did include some privacy language, but we’ll probably have to do more. The other point critical to passage of the Act was maintaining the Community Reinvestment Act. It is something that has served us well for several decades. It tells these financial institutions that they too have a stake in every neighborhood, in every community. They can’t just be in the posh suburbs, they have to make commitments and be active in every community.
Why was it so critical to re-emphasize the importance of the CRA?
The program was in dire straits. Frankly, the Republicans, if they could have, would have eliminated the program. It was the final issue we discussed. It was about 2 a.m. and we had 50 or 60 people in a room about this size – speaking as to why this was so important. And not just important from a financial bottom line, but important for the message it sends out to every American. We’re not going to create financial structures as a convenience for the wealthy. They have to be there to serve everybody.
Vice President Al Gore versus former Senator Bill Bradley. Two people you know and respect, but you’re backing Vice President Gore.
I respect and admire both of them. Both of them have been helpful to me, personally. We are fortunate that we have two talented candidates.
Vice President Gore seems to have been a little slow getting out of the block. What is your sense of the situation?
I’m sure there are 100 different analyses of why he is where he is today. My view is that first of all, he suffers – as George Bush did – from being the Vice President. You’re the number two guy. You’re the other guy for six-and-a-half years. That always hinders a candidate. Further complicating Vice President Gore’s situation, frankly, is the political turmoil of the last year with President Clinton. It has not been helpful to Vice President Gore. So you’ve got those issues. And also, in my observation, the Vice-President is like one of those pitchers – an all-star pitcher if you can get past the second inning. He’s got to throw a few pitches to get into the groove, but once he’s in the groove he’s going to strike everybody out. On the other side, I always felt that Senator Bradley would be a credible opponent. He was a celebrity before he ever entered political life. He’s been able to tap into a feeling of; ‘You know, I like Al Gore, but we should really at least look at someone else before we just automatically give out the nomination.’ That accounts for some of the support Senator Bradley is getting. He is also thoughtful on issues, which does not surprise me. We’ve got a real race between two credible candidates. I don’t think there is anybody out there that doesn’t believe either one of these individuals would be an effective President.
And you are supporting the Vice President?
My personal belief is that the Vice President is the best qualified by intellect, temperament and experience to be President – more so than anyone who has run for the office in the last several decades. Much of the success of this administration — in economic policy and foreign policy – has been a result of his participation.
