S6302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

revenue from Medicare. This plan would hit

them like a wrecking ball.

Now, it may well be that we need to make

changes in the Medicare program. We must

be realistic.

The answer is not, however, to simply approach Medicare reform as a budget cutting

exercise. Because we are talking about preserving essential health services for 125,000

senior citizens in Montana and thirty million seniors across America.

We are talking about good, middle class

Americans like the Jacksons.

And above all, we must not use Medicare

as a piggy bank. Don’t take money that buys

health care for senior citizens and use it for

a tax break for rich individuals and big corporations. That is disgraceful.

Perhaps some changes lie ahead. But if

they do, they should be made for the single

purpose of keeping Medicare services for senior citizens and people with disabilities. It is

an issue of good faith on the part of the government, and basic, essential health services

for Americans.

RETIREMENT OF GEORGE K.

fARTHUR

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President,

yesterday’s Buffalo News reported the

forthcoming retirement of Buffalo, NY,

Common Council President George K.

Arthur, after four decades of public

service. Mr. Arthur, who has been Common Council President since 1983, is a

distinguished public servant who has

given much to the people of Buffalo. I

know I speak for the people of Buffalo

in offering George Arthur great thanks

and congratulations. He will indeed be

missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the article from

the Buffalo News be printed in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

[From the Buffalo News, May 8, 1995]

POLITICAL LEADERS PRAISE ARTHUR’S

ENDURING LEGACY

(By Anthony Cardinale)

Geroge K. Arthur will leave a legacy of

lasting achievement as Common Council

president when he steps down on Dec. 31, several political observers said Sunday.

Never mind the decade of Common Council

friction with then-Mayor James D. Griffin,

who reserved his most stinging invective for

the Council president and took particular delight in defeating Arthur’s challenge for the

mayor’s office 10 years ago.

Arthur’s proudest hour as a politician was

when he beat the Democratic incumbent for

the Democratic Party’s endorsement in 1985,

these observers agreed. And he would have

ousted Griffin from City Hall, they added, if

it weren’t for the votes siphoned off by Nicholas Costantino as an independent candidate.

Arthur, 62, who announced over the weekend that he won’t seek re-election, was first

elected to the former Erie County Board of

Supervisors in 1963. He was elected Ellicott

District Council member in 1969, then Council member at large, and he has been Council

president since 1983.

‘‘I believe it’s probably the longest political career of anybody in our area,’’ said Vincent J. Sorrentino, Erie County Democratic

chairman.

‘‘He was part of the emergence of the black

community into the mainstream of the political process in our community—he and

(Council President) Delmar Mitchell a little

before him,’’ said Joseph F. Crangel,

Sorrentino’s predecessor at the party helm.

‘‘His leadership was instrumental in helping much of the rebirth of Buffalo,’’ said Arthur O. Eve, deputy Assembly speaker, who

pointed to measures to improve Buffalo’s

housing stock and quality of life.

Accolades for Arthur even came from

Council Member Alfred T. Coppola of the

Delaware District, who has often clashed

with him—and who now wants to succeed

him as Council president.

‘‘We’ve disagreed on various projects, but

we’ve also agreed on some,’’ said Coppola,

who has asked Sorrentino for his backing.

‘‘George has always been a unique person,’’

Coppola went on. ‘‘He’s always been a gentleman. There were times when George

pulled us together. He’d say, ‘Let’s sit

around a breakfast table and let it all hang

out on a Saturday morning.’ Those were terrific meetings.’’

Arthur’s ability to bring together dissenting parties was the common theme Sunday

of those who have worked with him over the

years.

‘‘George did an excellent job in helping to

forge together a very diverse group of men

and women into a fairly cohesive body,’’ Eve

said. ‘‘That takes a lot of talent, patience

and compassion,.’’

Eve said he will work to help Council Majority Leader James W. Pitts become the

next Council president.

‘‘We certainly will miss (Arthur) as the

Council president,’’ Eve said, ‘‘but I’m in

hopes that Jim Pitts will emerge as his replacement and the tradition that George Arthur started will continue and hopefully will

grow.’’

Sorrentino, who reportedly supports Pitts,

also credited Arthur as a consensus builder.

‘‘He had a great quality of being able to

bring consensus into very hostile situations

—especially during the Griffin years,’’ he

said. ‘‘His leadership will be missed at these

difficult times.’’

Sorrentino said he recently had breakfast

with Arthur and learned then that he had all

but decided to retire after this year.

‘‘And I said, ‘if you do, we certainly expect

you to play a role in the campaign.’ While

he’d be retiring as president of the Common

Council, he’s not retiring from politics.’’

All four observers rejected the notion that

Arthur had slowed down in recent years, no

longer the civil rights firebrand who once

joined the plaintiffs in the school desegregation suit and supported two other discrimination suits against the city’s fire and police

force.

‘‘Very often with age comes wisdom—

you’re more prudent how you express

things,’’ said Crangle. ‘‘You put things in

more perspective and focus than you did

when you first started out.’’

Crangle said he greatly admires Arthur for

standing up against Griffin.

‘‘He was one of the towering strengths of

the Democratic Party in City Hall,’’ he said.

‘‘He did not get intimidated; he didn’t in any

way yield. And many times it was very lonely.’’

Coppola said that was when Arthur’s ‘‘professionalism’’ shined brightest.

‘‘There were moments when George was

the acting mayor in some of the tougher

years when Jimmy Griffin was really playing

hardball,’’ Coppola said. ‘‘And George never

took advantage of the situation, especially

when the mayor was out of town.’’

The former mayor was asked Sunday for

his comment on Arthur’s decision to retire.

‘‘I wish him luck,’’ Griffin said. ‘‘I wish

him and his family the best.’’

THE MOSCOW SUMMIT

Mr. PELL. Madam President, today

President Clinton is joining President

Mitterrand, Prime Minister Major,

Chancellor Kohl, and President Yeltsin

in Moscow to commemorate the 50th

anniversary of the end of World War II.

That is as it should be. Together, after

all, the United States, France, Britain,

and the Soviet Union rid the world of

the Nazi menace.

The anniversary of Allied triumph

over the Nazis carries great significance for us all. For the Russian people, who lost more than 20 million of

their fellow citizens during the war,

this commemoration is particularly

meaningful.

Now that the cold war is over, the allies have the opportunity to stand together again—this time to build a new

Europe—democratic, whole, and free.

The gathering of the five leaders in

Moscow today should be seen as a commitment to that goal.

We have an enormous stake in Russia. United States engagement with

Russia since the breakup of the Soviet

Union has yielded significant results—

particularly with regard to the reduction of weapons of mass destruction

and the withdrawal of Russian troops

from Europe. It is in the U.S. national

interest to see that this process proceeds. Russian reformers offer the best

prospect for continued progress on the

issues that really count for the United

States. Accordingly, we should be

doing what we can to bolster Russia’s

democrats.

President Clinton has come under

fire for going to Moscow at a time

when Russia is pursuing some policies

to which the United States is opposed.

I believe this criticism is short-sighted

and for the most part, politically motivated. Some of the same people who

are criticizing the President for going

to Moscow are also demanding that the

administration deliver a tough message

to Moscow about its behavior in

Chechnya, its proposed sale of a nuclear reactor to Iran, and its views

about NATO expansion. What better

way to deliver the message than to go

to Moscow and do it personally?

By going to Moscow, President Clinton is demonstrating to Russian leaders the benefits of continued engagement with the West. If he had decided

to cancel his trip, President Clinton

would be missing an opportunity to tell

President Yeltsin and other Russian

leaders—face to face—where he believes Russian policy is on the wrong

track.

That being said, we should not have

any illusions about our ability to

change Russian policy overnight. We

must be realistic. Russian leaders, like

their counterparts worldwide are political creatures. With parliamentary

elections looming at the end of this

year, and Presidential elections scheduled for 1996, few Russian politicians

want to be perceived as buckling to

Western pressure. Russian nationalists,

whose influence is regrettably on the
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6303

rise, would be quick to brand them

traitors.

It is therefore highly unlikely that

President Clinton will return to Washington with a long list of Russian concessions. Those who are demanding—or

even predicting—that he will do so are

setting up the administration for failure. We can and should expect, however, President Clinton to discuss our

differences candidly and constructively, and to lay the ground work for

United States-Russian accommodation

on key issues like arms control, the

Iran nuclear deal, Chechnya, and European security.

The hallmark of a successful summit

is not to solve all of the world’s problems or even to resolve all of the bilateral issues between two countries.

President Clinton’s trip to Moscow is

part of an ongoing process between

Russia and the United States. We

should be realistic about our expectations.

TRIBUTE TO DR. WAYNE TEAGUE,

FORMER ALABAMA SUPERfINTENDENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, Dr.

Wayne Teague served as Alabama’s Superintendent of Education for almost

20 years, from October 1975 through

March 31 of this year. During his tenure as Alabama’s top educator, public

education in Alabama has prospered.

His many years of public service are a

hallmark of exceptional commitment

and dedication to public education and

to the children of Alabama.

There has been a great deal of

progress in Alabama education since

Wayne Teague took over as superintendent in 1975. His many contributions have made tremendous improvements in the State’s public school system. His many successes and vast

knowledge were once recognized by the

British Council of Great Britain, when

he was one of only three chief State

school officers invited to participate in

the American Education Policy-Makers’ Study Trip to Northern Ireland in

1990.

Of Dr. Teauge’s many wonderful personal attributes, the one that probably

served him best while he was superintendent was his unique leadership

style. He was able to master the art of

cooperation with a myriad of groups

for the benefit of the public schools.

Government officials, parents, teachers, students, administrators, and business, civic, and educational leaders all

gained admiration and respect for him

over the course of his career as they

observed his many accomplishments

for Alabama’s school children and for

education overall.

Wayne Teague received his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees

all from Auburn University. Prior to

becoming State superintendent, he was

a local superintendent, college professor, principal, and teacher. Since then,

he has become widely known throughout the State and country not only as

a superb superintendent, but also as an

authority on State and Federal legislative relations, a civic and community

activist, a public speaker, and author.

He has participated in several international activities and received numerous honors and awards for his service

in education.

Dr. Wayne Teague certainly emerged

as one of the giants of education while

he was superintendent. He possesses all

the skills, experience, and professional

attitudes that make an outstanding

leader. As much as he will be missed, I

salute and congratulate him for a job

well done, and offer my best wishes for

his long, healthy, and fulfilling retirement.

fAID

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I

rise this morning as a member of the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

to discuss the content of a recent interoffice electronic memo from Sally

Shelton, the Assistant Administrator

for the Bureau of Global Programs, Bill

Support and Research at the Agency

for International Development [AID]

regarding congressional plans to merge

AID into the State Department and to

cut the somewhat bloated foreign assistance budget. For the benefit of my

colleagues who may not have seen the

memo, dated May 3, let me quote it

here:

The Administrator spoke to InterAction

yesterday * * *. The Administrator would

prefer that InterAction stay out of the merger issue and there is indeed no consensus on

their Board as to what position to take. But

some want to be involved—the Administrator reminded us of Dean Acheson’s comment ‘‘Don’t just do something, sit there!’’

Tony Lake is addressing InterAction tomorrow—he is pushing the phrase ‘‘backdoor

isolationist’’ to tar the anti-150 account Congressmen with * * *. Shalikashvili and Wm.

Perry had a good mtg with the Speaker on

the 150 account * * * though the news from

the Senate is not so good * * * Sen. Domenici is pushing for bigger cuts than had been

anticipated earlier.

Jill Buckly reports that the Senate For.

Rels. Comm. staff was relatively uncooperative in discussions yesterday and somewhat

surprisingly the HIRC [House International

Relations Committee] staff was cooperative.

The strategy is ‘‘delay, postpone, obfuscate,

derail’’—if we derail, we can kill the merger.

Larry Byrne met with Sen. Robb and got his

support on the merger though Robb is not

committed, yet, to defend the 150 account

budget levels. Official word is we don’t care

if there is a State authorization bill this

year.

Larry B. announces that we are 62 percent

through this fiscal year and we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed; we need to do $1.9 billion in

the next 5 months * * *. There are large

pockets of money in the field and about $570

million in Global and ENI each. So let’s get

moving * * *. Jim Bond called Larry

Byrne * * * then yelled at him about our obligation rate, said it imperils our ability to

argue we need more money * * *.

Madam President, I am incensed by

this memo and by the mind-set it

manifests at AID. It seems clear to me

that instead of looking for ways to

work with Members of Congress to

streamline its operations, cut waste

and bloating, and accept the same kind

of downsizing that the American people

expect of every other agency of the

Federal Government, AID has taken on

as its first priority saving its own skin.

There is nothing back-door isolationist about a desire to down-size AID and

get rid of functions it carries out which

are duplicative of those carried out by

other agencies; it’s a move that Secretary of State Christopher himself

supported until recently overruled by

the Vice President. At a time when we

don’t have enough money to take care

of our own citizens and are consequently forced to rethink the funding

levels in our domestic budget, to argue

that we can’t make similarly difficult

cuts in our foreign aid budget is both

disingenuous and unrealistic.

While I am certainly not in favor of

a full-scale gutting of foreign aid, there

is no bureaucracy in this Government

that in my estimation couldn’t stand a

healthy cut in its budget—AID among

them. For those who might doubt that

assertion, the following information is

instructive. AID has requested $16 million in aid to Jordan so that it could

‘‘attract more tourists to come to Jordan, enjoy their experience, and recommend Jordan to others.’’ AID wants

to pay $528,000 to Vietnamese contractors who were not paid as a result of

the Vietnam War, while at the same

time hundreds of American contractors

remain unpaid. AID has proposed giving the AFL–CIO $5 million to make

home improvement loans to Sandanista labor union members in Nicaragua. AID has proposed giving $900,000

to the lobbying firm TransAfrica to develop linkages with South Africa. The

grant would enable TransAfrica to buy

a TV, VCR, camcorder and computers

for its Washington, DC, lobbying office.

These proposals are just some of the

highly questionable ways in which AID

allocates its funds.

While speaking about funding, let me

note that I am outraged by the suggestion in the memo that as the fiscal

year draws to a close and AID has only

‘‘38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed,’’ that employees would be encouraged to get out

there and spend, spend, spend so that

their ability to argue we need more

money is not imperiled. Statements

such as that are a perfect example of

bureaucratic thinking run amok, and

illustrate to me precisely why their

budget is in need of some substantial

trimming.

Madam President, policy statements

coming from AID which note that they

intend to work to delay and derail the

legitimate work of this Congress for

their own selfish needs strike me—and,

I am sure, other Members—as blatantly

improper. As a result of this memo,

you can be sure that I will view anything AID has to say on reorganization

or budget matters in the next few

weeks with a very jaundiced eye, to put

it very mildly.