S5928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

many already do: with embarrassment when

they haven’t lived up to what they know to

be right and with pride when they know

they’ve done it right.

That’s why I remember that beaming clerk

in Tupelo 28 years ago. And, by the way, I

don’t recall the faintest indication that her

black colleague found it demeaning to have

been hired for what may have been the best

job of her life.

∑Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently,

THE WRONG TARGET

fBob Herbert, a columnist for the New

York Times, had a column about affirmative action and how the politics

of meanness is in the ascent.

My colleagues have heard me address

this question before. Affirmative action is basically an excellent thing

that has helped to make opportunity

available to many people who otherwise would not have it. Has it been

abused occasionally? Yes, like any

good thing is abused, just as religion

and education are abused.

In this column, he concludes ‘‘All of

this will pass. Eventually we’ll find our

higher selves.’’

I hope he is right.

But there is both the beast and the

noble in all of us, and unless our leaders appeal to the noble in us, instead of

the beast—instead of hatred and fear—

the better instincts in our people will

not come forward. That is true, not

only in the United States but in any

country.

It is important for politicians, journalists, members of the clergy, business leaders, labor leaders, and people

of every walk of life to call upon us to

reach out and do what is noble.

‘‘One nation, under God, indivisible’’

should be more than a phrase in our

country.

At that point, I ask that the Bob Herbert article be printed in the RECORD.

The article follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 5, 1995]

THE WRONG TARGET

(By Bob Herbert)

One of the many important issues to

emerge battered and distorted from the insidious cavern of political demagoguery is

affirmative action. If you listen to the latest

crop of compulsively deceitful politicians, or

tune into the howling degradation of talk

radio, you might become convinced that the

biggest problem of discrimination in the

United States today is bias against white

men.

The complaint is that legions of AfricanAmericans, women and assorted others are

taking jobs, promotions, classroom slots,

theater tickets and the best seats on the bus

from the folks who really deserve them—

white guys.

The arguments against affirmative action

are almost always crafted in racial terms because the demagogues know that race is the

way to get the emotional flames roaring. In

fact, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative

action are women. If all parties would lower

their voices and try to communicate in good

faith, it could be pointed out that while

there are problems with affirmative action—

including some serious problems of fairness—the negative impact on white men has

not been great, and the problems are correctable.

What you do not want to do, in a country

where there are still prodigious amounts of

race and sex discrimination, is abandon a

long and honorable fight for justice in the

face of political hysteria.

The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission recently reported that 95 percent of top corporate management positions in the United

States are held by white men. Throughout

corporate America, women, blacks and

Latinos are paid less than white men for

doing the same work. And if you believe

there is a bias against white males in hiring,

just pair up a white guy with a black guy

and send them off in search of the same job.

Racism against blacks and sexism against

women abound. And yet the outrage we hear

today is about discrimination against white

men.

A report on discrimination in employment

commissioned by the Labor Department

found very little evidence of employment

discrimination against white men. The report was prepared by Alfred W. Blumrosen, a

law professor at Rutgers University. It found

that a ‘‘high proportion’’ of the so-called

‘‘reverse discrimination’’ claims brought by

white men were without merit.

The politicians will tell you that the attack on affirmative action is a cry for racial

justice. That is not so. It is an expression of

the anger and frustration felt by large numbers of overwrought and underemployed

white men. Their anxiety is understandable,

but affirmative action is not their enemy.

Downsized to the point of despair, their

wages stagnant or falling, their prospects

dim, these men are caught up in the treacherous world of technological innovation, economic globalization and unrestrained corporate greed. Buffeted by forces that seem

beyond their control (forces that are affecting everybody, not just white men), they listen to the demagogues. It’s the blacks doing it

to you. It’s the women. They’re getting your

piece of the pie. Otherwise you’d be O.K.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ISN’T ANTI-WHITE

The Clinton Administration, under pressure, is reviewing Federal affirmative action

programs. Fine. Let whatever abuses exist

come to light. Scrap whatever programs are

unnecessary or unfair. Where affirmative action is being used to help the disadvantaged,

remove the racial or ethnic requirements.

There are white kids all over the country

who are economically and educationally deprived. Give them a hand.

But neither Bill Clinton nor anybody else

should back off from the commitment to

fight what is still an enormous and debilitating problem—discrimination against blacks,

other ethnic minorities and women. Where

affirmative action is needed to counter the

effects of discrimination, let it be.

The United States is going through a period in which the politics of meanness is in

the ascent. In many circles, it is

unfashionable to be compassionate. Putting

down others is the dominant mode of political expression, preferably with a vicious remark accompanied by cruel laughter.

All of this will pass. Eventually we’ll find

our higher selves and chase the dogs of bigotry and fear and ignorance from the yard. I

am convinced this will happen. We are Americans, after all. We are better than we have

been behaving lately.

f∑

DR. HENRY FOSTER SHOULD BE

CONFIRMED

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I had the

privilege of serving in the House of

Representatives with Congressman

Paul Findley, who is now retired and

writes a Sunday column for the Jacksonville Journal-Courier in Illinois.

My friend, Gene Callahan, who once

served as administrative assistant for

Senator Alan Dixon, still get the Jacksonville newspaper, and he sent me

Paul Findley’s commonsense reaction

to the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster.

I ask that it be printed in the

RECORD.

The column follows:

DR. HENRY FOSTER SHOULD BE CONFIRMED

(By Paul Findley)

During a discussion at a meeting of the

Pittsfield Rotary Club, a member asked if I

favor the confirmation of Henry Foster,

M.D., President Bill Clinton’s nominee to be

surgeon general of the United States.

My answer was affirmative. Based on what

I believe to be factual about Foster’s career,

he should be confirmed. The president is entitled to have a surgeon general of his own

choosing, barring the disclosure of some important flaw in character or record.

A casual reader glancing at headlines and

picking up snippets from televised news reports might easily reach the erroneous conclusion that Foster’s record is badly flawed,

that he is a back-alley disgrace to the medical profession who has spent a long career

performing abortions.

It was a curious happenstance that the

question was raised in Pike County, once the

family home of a physician who fit that

dreary description and gained a reputation

as one of Chicago’s preeminent abortionists.

This was a half-century ago when abortion

was illegal, not job in Illinois but throughout the nation. Never indicted, the doctor in

question made abortion his career, performing the surgery clandestinely in various

parts of Chicagoland. It was his specialty. So

far as I know, he did nothing else. He catered

mainly to people who could not afford to

travel to Sweden for the desired surgery.

Legend had it that he periodically hauled

bags of money back to Pike County.

By contrast, the president’s nominee is not

an abortionist. In the years since abortion

has been made lawful by ruling of the U.S.

Supreme Court, Foster, by his own account,

performed 39 abortions, all of them to save

the life of the mother or to end pregnancies

caused by rape or incest. He has delivered

several thousand babies and declares that he

abhors abortion.

Some years ago, like many other physicians, he performed procedures that sterilized institutionalized women who were determined to be severely mentally retarded.

At the time, that procedure was legal and

broadly accepted by the medical profession.

Both law and medical policy have since

changed. Under existing law, sterilization

can be performed only through court order.

Abortion, of course, has been legal for

many years in the United States and is widely practiced. In fact, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education now requires that programs to train doctors in obstetrics must include abortion skills. About

a million abortions are performed here each

year, notwithstanding widespread controversy that sometimes becomes violent

and even fatal. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, although anti-abortion, wisely advises

his Republican colleagues in the Senate,

where the confirmation vote will occur, not

to focus on Fosters, abortion record.

Although, like thousands of other U.S.

physicians,, Foster has performed a few abortions since the procedure became legal, it

has never been more than a minor part of

this 38-year practice. To his credit, he has

been candid on all points.
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