May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5929

He is former dean and acting president of

Meharry Medical College in Nashville, widely praised for bringing new vitality to the

school. He has initiated a successful program

to discourage teen-age pregnancies called ‘‘I

Have a Future.’’

His nomination is praised by Dr. Louis Sullivan, a former Secretary of Health and

Human Services under President Bush and

himself a medical school president.

The White House bungled the Foster nomination process by failing to get the facts

straight about his background in abortions

and related matters, but that is no discredit

to the nominee. Certainly, the president

could have found a less controversial nominee. (He could have chosen a dermatologist,

for example).

But the important fact is that Foster is

the nominee. He is the president’s choice. He

has a significant record of leadership in the

medical profession. There is not the slightest

hint of unethical or illegal conduct. Unless

some shocking revelation comes to light, he

deserves confirmation by a strong bipartisan

vote.

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in catchPEACEKEEPING SAVES LIVES

∑

fing up on my reading, I came across an

op-ed piece in the Washington Post by

Brian Urquhart, who has contributed

to U.N. peacekeeping efforts throughout the world in a significant way,

until his retirement from the United

Nations.

In his op-ed piece, he makes the point

that John Foster Dulles said that a

peacekeeping force was desirable and

that compared to what we do in general, expenditure on arms is an economically way to bring stability to the

world.

How right he is.

If we were to even suggest that we

spend 1 percent of our defense budget

on U.N. peacekeeping, it would be a

significant and helpful shift for the

United States, as well as for the world.

At this point, I ask that the op-ed

piece by Brian Urquhart be printed in

the RECORD.

The opinion piece follows:

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 16, 1995]

PEACE-KEEPING SAVES LIVES

(By Brian Urquhart)

‘‘As you know the United States . . . has a

strong interest in the early establishment of

standby arrangements for a United Nations

Peace Force. The interest of the American

people in this concept is further demonstrated by the fact that during the past

year resolutions were adopted by both the

House of Representatives and the Senate

calling for the establishment of a United Nations force.’’

These words, written by an American secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, to a U.N.

secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold, are a

good measure of how different the climate in

Washington is these days toward the idea of

U.N. peacekeeping operations.

‘‘I want to assure you that the United

States is prepared to assist you in every feasible manner in strengthening the capacity

of the United Nations to discharge its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, a task to which

you have already contributed so much,’’ Dulles wrote in that 1958 letter.

Hammarskjold responded cautiously. At

that high point in the Cold War he feared

that a standing U.N. force, actively opposed

by the Soviet Union, would become a political football between East and West, destroying the fragile innovation of peace-keeping

which he had pioneered during the Suez crisis of 1956 and the Lebanon crisis of 1958.

President Eisenhower and Dulles, on the

other hand, evidently saw a standby U.N.

peace-keeping capacity as being greatly in

the interest of the United States. In fact,

just 18 months later Eisenhower, pressed by

the new prime minister of the Congo for U.S.

intervention there, adroitly referred him to

the United Nations. The resulting peacekeeping operation was widely regarded as an extraordinary success in dealing with the

chaos there.

Since that time the United Nations has undertaken some 25 such assignments of varying sizes in different parts of the world.

Given the desperate origins of most of these

operations, it is scarcely surprising that not

all have achieved all their objectives. But it

is worth noting that in the present controversy over peace-keeping, the successful

operations—which constitute the majority—

are seldom mentioned.

In recent months, for example, there has

been much discussion of placing U.S. troops

in the Golan Heights as part of the Middle

East peace process, but little mention of the

U.N. Disengagement Observer Force, which

has successfully presided over peace on the

Golan Heights since 1974. Somalia and

Bosnia are constantly invoked, but the Nobel

Peace Price of 1988 and later successes in Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador and Mozambique are routinely forgotten.

The prevailing attitude in Washington toward U.N. peace-keeping these days seems to

be a radical reversal of the earlier U.S. attitude. The impression is often given now that

past U.S. support of these efforts was an aberration, a charitable—and largely unwise—

gesture of condescension. But in fact, from

Suez in 1956 to the present time, U.N. peacekeeping has far more often been a vital element of U.N. foreign policy.

During the Cold War, it was vital to maintaining international peace and security, because, among other things, it kept regional

conflicts out of the U.S.–Soviet orbit and

lessened the potential of such conflicts for

provoking nuclear East-West confrontation.

In the post-Cold War world, that motivation for supporting peace-keeping no longer

exists. The United Nations’ new involvements are for the most part in massive civil

and ethnic conflicts where human, not international, security is involved, although such

disasters often cause major destabilization

in neighboring states as well as strong emotional reactions worldwide. It is this change

in the basic character of conflict that has led

the more vocal opponents of U.N. peacekeeping to argue that there is little or no

U.S. national interest in it.

But as Charles William Maynes has pointed

out in testimony before the House International Relations Committee, today’s great

powers are ‘‘like the most successful members of any community. They have a stake in

the general health of the community. They

cannot and should not be the world’s policeman.’’

Great powers have major economic and

other interests in global stability, but they

find it increasingly unwise to intervene on

their own in regional conflicts. It was considerations such as these that underlay the

enthusiasm of Dulles and Eisenhower for

building up the peace-keeping capacity of

the United Nations. Even the United Nations’ most criticized operations such as

UNPROFOR in ex-Yugoslavia often serve as

a useful pretext for avoiding more intensive

U.S. involvement and a screen for differences

with allies. Imperfect though they are, they

also save thousands of lives.

U.N. peace-keeping can be, and will continue to be, an invaluable—even an indispensable—instrument of peace. Its capacity and

effectiveness need to be strengthened, not diminished. To be sure, new forms, rules and

methods, including a training system, need

to be developed. But the cost of peace-keeping—contrary to widespread belief—is small

by comparison with the cost of massive military involvement, which timely peace-keeping often succeeds in making unnecessary.

John Foster Dulles got it right.

f∑

DIRECT LOANS BENEFIT

STUDENTS

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we are

going to hear a lot about direct lending

during the coming months.

It is a success for everyone but the

people who profit from the present system. I want banks in America to be

successful, but if we are going to subsidize banks, we ought to do it openly

and not do it in the name of aiding students.

The Daily Illini, which is the student

newspaper of the University of Illinois,

had an editorial recently about direct

lending. The University of Illinois is

one of the schools that is now on the

direct lending program.

I think my colleagues would be interested in what the student editorial

says. I ask that it be printed in the

RECORD.

The editorial follows:

[From the Daily Illini, Jan. 31, 1995]

DIRECT LOANS BENEFIT STUDENTS

Students love direct lending. College administrators love direct lending. So why are

the House Republicans thinking of limiting

the program?

William Goodling, House Economic and

Educational Opportunities Committee chairperson, wants to cap the number of new student loans under direct lending at 40 percent,

which is how large the program is expected

to grow in the next academic year. The original legislation called for a 60 percent growth

in the program by the 1998–99 academic year.

Goodling’s reasoning is not clear yet, but

there are already plenty of reasons why direct lending should be expanded, not curtailed.

The old system of going through the Student Loan Marketing Association, or Sallie

Mae, doesn’t work well. Students have to negotiate a long process involving complicated

forms. And the overhead has been huge. Besides Sallie Mae, the federal government operates a system of more than 35 ‘‘guarantee

agencies’’ to collect payments and repay on

defaulted loans.

By contrast, the year-old direct lending

program delivers loans fast and without hassle. As a result, the University has seen

fewer students encumbered during registration for the spring semester and fewer student deferring payments or needing emergency loans, according to Orlo Austin, director of the office of student financial aid.

His office has also benefited from having

control at the local level. Direct lending is

less complex than the federal guaranteedloan system because schools do not have to

cut through a massive bureaucracy to get

ahold of students’ payments, he said.

And Austin isn’t the only administrator

happy with the program. ‘‘(Direct lending)

makes those of us in financial aid more sophisticated and user-friendly in helping to
S5930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

serve students. We can’t do anything but do

our jobs better,’’ said an official at the University of San Francisco in the Jan. 20

Chronicle of Higher Education.

In fact, the only people who seem to prefer

the guaranteed-loan system are the bankers

and guarantee agencies who direct lending

will put out of work. That’s not enough support for limiting the scope of this new program.

ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL CHESS

∑

CHAMPIONS

f∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would

like to commend the Orr High School

chess team in Chicago, IL, for their

outstanding participation in the State

chess competition.

Orr High School’s chess team is

among the best in Illinois even though

it represents one of the city’s most

troubled areas. The team is the other

side of the story, the story beyond the

statistic. It is ordinary people—parents, grandparents, big brothers and

sisters and a math teacher joining together to save their children with

rooks and knights and a lot of prayer.

It all began in room 207, the detention room at Orr where punishments

are served. It also became a room

where dreams are made: the chess team

practices there. Team members start

filing into 207 early every morning because that is where the coach, Thomas

Larson, spends his days. Mr. Larson is

a math teacher, and is also in charge of

the in-school suspension or detention

room where unruly and angry students

are sent to cool off.

Nearly 75 percent of Orr’s students

come from low-income families. Students enter Orr, if they are lucky, with

sixth and seventh grade math skills. In

1986, Mr. Larson started using chess

and other games in his prealgebra class

to help students with their analytical

skills. Soon he began holding chess

competitions in class and started a

team. Chess was foreign to most of the

students at Orr. It was a game that

they thought was just ‘‘for smart

kids.’’

The first year Orr played in the public school chess league, they came in

fourth of six teams in their division;

they placed 14th out of 16 teams in the

citywide playoffs. A few weeks ago, Orr

was crowned the city champions and

was one of the top five schools statewide.

Congratulations to the Orr High

School chess team on their outstanding

performance in their State and local

competitions.

RAY CARROLL: ONE OF ILLINOIS’

fFINEST

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would

like to acknowledge the retirement of

one of my constituents, Mr. Ray Carroll. Ray is the Director of Engineering

at the Office of the Architect of the

Capitol. Mr. Carroll’s retirement became effective April 30, 1995.

Ray Carroll joined the Architect’s office in 1975 as Director of Engineering,

and in the ensuring years he was placed

in charge of all engineering matters relating to new building design and renovations. Ray’s duties also involved

the oversight of modifications to existing buildings and facilities, as well as

the operation and maintenance of mechanical and electronic equipment.

Ray’s expertise in the various engineering disciplines has made him a

vital part of the Architect of the Capitol’s office during the last 20 years.

Ray holds a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from

the University of Illinois. He is involved in a variety of social activities

and has been the recipient to a number

of awards.

We in Illinois are proud of Ray and

the many contributions he has made

not only to the running of Congress,

but to the larger Washington community as well.

To Ray Carroll and his wife Dar, I

want to like extend my gratitude for

his years of service, and our best wishes and continued success and health as

he returns to Illinois.

f∑

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, MAY 2,

1995

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it

stand in recess until the hour of 10 a.m.

on Tuesday, May 2, 1995; that following

the prayer, the Journal of proceedings

be deemed approved to date, the time

for the two leaders be reserved for their

use later in the day, and that the Senate then resume consideration of the

pending product liability bill; further,

that there be an hour for debate, to be

equally divided between the two managers or their designees, prior to the

stacked votes, which are scheduled to

occur at 11 a.m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I further

ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours

of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. in order for

the weekly party luncheons to occur.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, for the

information of all members, there will

be a series of stacked rollcall votes beginning at 11 a.m. on Tuesday.

RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

fMr. DEWINE. Mr. President, if there

is no further business to come before

the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess

under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate,

at 7:50 p.m., recessed until Tuesday,

May 2, 1995, at 10 a.m.