May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6685 

Urban base reuse is generally easier than 

rural base reuse given a city’s economic diversification and demand for the real estate 

and services that a redeveloped base might 

provide. As an example, the transformation 

of McCoy Air Force Base in Orlando into an 

air cargo transport hub brought about the 

employment of 6,000 people, easily compensating for the loss of 395 jobs. 

Rural base reuse can also be successful 

given the proper planning. Presque Isle, 

closed in 1961, was located in an isolated 

rural location. However, the local leadership 

was able to transform the base into an economically diverse center by planning strategically, inviting outside companies to the 

site and prorating rent to the number of new 

jobs created. 1,302 jobs were created with new 

industrial tenants including Indian Head 

Plywood, Arrostook Shoe Company, International Paper, Converse Rubber Company, 

Northeast Publishing and a vocational training school. 

Industrial parks are a popular option for 

base reuse. However, communities should be 

conscious of the wide variety of other possible projects. Air Force bases and naval air 

stations remain clear candidates for new municipal or regional airports and air cargo 

hubs. Redevelopment of former bases as 

schools has been a successful model with 47 

bases closed in the 1960s and 1970s now having schools on them. And while using bases 

for low-income and homeless housing does 

not raise money through sale, it does achieve 

other important national objectives while allowing local governments to acquire the 

property at little or no cost. Other government uses are also possible, including administrative facilities, hospitals, postal distributions centers and offices, rehabilitation centers and prisons. Often, bases are large 

enough to accommodate public services and 

private developments under a ‘‘mixed-use’’

strategy. 

INGREDIENTS OF SUCCESSFUL BASE CONVERSION

(1) Advance Planning; Communities should 

take full advantage of the protection provided by the law as well as the assistance 

provided by the Office of Economic Adjustment in the Defense Department to plan for 

base reuse before a closure occurs. They 

must evaluate the comparative advantages 

of alternative civilian purposes and the 

means of linking these economic development strategies with retraining options. 

(2) The programs responsible for funding 

advance planning, economic development 

and retraining must all be funded sufficiently to provide adequate resources to support the base closure process. 

(3) These programs, spread out over the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Labor, 

must be coordinated so that they can deliver 

comprehensive services efficiently. 

(4) Cleanup funding should come from the 

DoD budget to discourage further pollution. 

The Federal Facilities Compliance Act and the 

federal agreements signed by the DoD, the 

EPA and State governments give State officials authority to enforce hazardous waste 

laws by levying fines and exacting other penalties on the Federal Government for lack of 

compliance with environmental regulations. 

Governor Pete Wilson of California recognized this right in a recent letter to Defense 

Secretary Perry stating, ‘‘California expects 

DOD to comply with the federal/state cleanup agreements it has signed at California 

military bases. DOD is contractually obligated to seek sufficient funding to permit 

environmental work to proceed according to 

the schedule contained in those agreements. 

California will not hesitate to assert its 

right under those agreements to seek fines, 

penalties and judicial orders compelling DOD 

to conduct required environmental work.’’

(5) There are many stakeholders in base 

reuse development. Local, state and federal 

government officials, private developers, 

universities, and local citizens and citizens 

groups all have a valuable role to play. No 

single party should be excluded or allowed to 

dominate the process. An active government 

role is essential to ensure that in instances 

where reuse is feasible, conversion plans 

carefully weigh the interests of private developers and the community’s social and economic needs. 

Since the bases are government property, 

the opportunity to use these former bases for 

public purposes should not be overlooked. A 

concreted planning effort, informed by an 

understanding of the differences among 

bases, is essential. With federal leadership 

and local activism, the downsizing of the 

military base structure could produce a host 

of assets to spur new economic development 

in communities across the nation. 

f 

IS AMERICA GOING TO LEAD? 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is 

an important question hanging over us 

like Damocles’ sword today. It will 

loom over us as we consider the budget. 

It will confront us directly as we debate the reorganization of our foreign 

affairs agencies. The question is, Is 

America going to lead? 

This is not a question that keeps people awake at night anymore. After all, 

people ask, we won the cold war, did we 

not? There is no longer any real threat 

to America’s security, is there? 

Mr. President, there have been few 

times in history when the United 

States can less afford to be complacent. The world today is anything but 

a predictable, peaceful place. While we 

are fortunate that the military threat 

to our security has receded, it is more 

true today than ever that American 

prosperity is linked to conditions in 

the rest of the world. 

Millions of American jobs depend 

upon persuading other countries to 

open their borders of U.S. exports, and 

helping them raise their incomes so 

they can afford to buy our exports. Ensuring that we have clean air and clean 

water depends upon international action to protect the environment. Keeping Americans healthy depends on 

joint action to fight the spread of infectious diseases in other countries. 

Imagine if we are unable to contain the 

recent outbreak of a deadly virus in 

Zaire—very quickly you would see Senators clamoring for more aid to stop it 

from reaching our shores. 

Stemming the flow of illegal immigrants and refugees to the United 

States depends on promoting democracy and economic development in the 

countries from which the refugees are 

fleeing. These are just a few examples 

of why we continue to have an enormous stake in what happens in the rest 

of the world. 

Fortunately, the United States, the 

only remaining superpower with the 

largest economy and the most powerful 

military, can influence what happens 

in the rest of the world. 

But influence is not automatic. It requires effort. And it costs money. 

Perhaps most important, the United 

States needs to maintain its leadership 

in and its financial contributions to 

the international organizations that 

make critical contributions to promoting peace, trade, and economic development. Organizations like the 

United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary 

Fund, and the World Bank, to name a 

few. These organizations are the glue 

that holds our international system together. They may not always act in 

precisely the way we would like, but 

they are dedicated to spreading the 

values that Americans hold dear—freedom, democracy, free enterprise, and 

competition. 

The American people also want to 

help alleviate the suffering of people 

facing starvation or other calamities, 

like refugees fleeing genocide in Rwanda, or the hundreds of thousands of victims of landmines. 

Finally Mr. President, the polls show 

that most Americans believe we should 

help developing countries and countries making the transition from communism to democracy and market 

economies. It is through this aid that 

we fight poverty, that we stabilize population growth, that we educate people 

who have never known anything except 

tyranny in the basics of representative 

government, and that we encourage 

countries to open their economies to 

trade and competition. 

We do these things because it is in 

our national interest. Yet, in the rush 

to reduce Federal spending some are 

dismissing spending on international 

affairs as a luxury we cannot afford, or 

even a waste. 

The United States cannot pay these 

costs alone, but no one is asking us to. 

The United States now ranks 21st 

among donors in the percentage of national income that it devotes to development assistance. Twenty-first. Right 

behind Ireland. We aren’t even the 

largest donor in terms of dollar 

amount anymore. Japan, which has a 

keen sense of what is in its national interest, has passed us. 

Six years ago, when I became chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the foreign operations 

budget was $14.6 billion. We cut that 

budget by 6.5 percent, not even taking 

into account inflation—while the remainder of the discretionary spending 

in the Federal budget increased by 4.8 

percent. Those cuts were a calculated 

response to the end of the cold war. 

Foreign aid today is substantially less 

than it was during the Reagan and 

Bush administrations. Our entire foreign aid program, including funding for 

the Exim Bank and foreign military financing and other activities that have 

as much to do with promoting U.S. exports as with helping other countries, 

today accounts for less than 1 percent 

of the total Federal budget. 

We must recognize that there is a 

limit to how far we can cut our budget 

for international affairs, and still 

maintain our leadership position in the 

world. Just when many people thought 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

U.S. influence was reaching new 

heights, we are seeing the ability of the 

United States to influence world events 

eroding. 

This budget proposal amounts to a 

classic example of penny-wise and 

pound-foolish. Our allies are scratching 

their heads, wondering why the United 

States, with the opportunity to exercise influence in the world more cheaply than ever before, is turning its back 

and walking away. We are inviting 

whoever else wants to—friend or foe—

to step into the vacuum and pursue 

their interests at our expense. 

Mr. President, the United States 

stands as a beacon of liberty and hope 

for people throughout the world. But 

we should be more than a beacon. A 

beacon is passive. We should be 

proactive, reaching out to defend our 

interests, and to help our less-fortunate neighbors. We should continue to 

invest in the world. We should continue 

to lead. 

Mr. President, I want to say a few 

words about Republican proposals to 

reform the U.S. foreign affairs agencies. Senator HELMS, the chairman of 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has launched a broad proposal 

to reform foreign policymaking in the 

Federal Government. This proposal includes provisions for completely restructuring the way we administer our 

foreign aid programs. Senator HELMS

asserts that U.S. foreign policymaking 

has become so decentralized that it no 

longer serves the national interest. He 

proposes to merge most foreign affairs 

functions into the Department of 

State. 

As the former chairman and now 

ranking Democrat on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have had 

some opportunity to be involved in the 

U.S. Government’s conduct of foreign 

policy, and I have some thoughts about 

Senator HELMS’ proposal. 

While I have long advocated better 

coordination among the executive 

branch agencies in foreign policymaking, I believe Senator HELMS’ proposal would result in U.S. national interests being less well, not better, 

served. 

Why is the Foreign Agricultural 

Service administered by the Department of Agriculture and not by the 

State Department? Because farmers 

know they can count on USDA to represent their interests better than the 

Department of State and all experiences have proven that. 

Why, 15 years ago, did we take the 

commercial function away from the 

State Department and create a Foreign 

Commercial Service in the Department 

of Commerce? It was because State had 

for years neglected export promotion, 

sacrificed export interests to its foreign policy priorities, and treated its 

commercial officers as second-class 

employees. It was because the American business community was clamoring for something better. 

The reason we have separate foreign 

service bureaucracies is that many of 

our foreign policy interests are actually domestic policy interests that are 

best pursued abroad by technical experts from domestic policy agencies, 

not by foreign policy generalists from 

the State Department. I do not know 

about North Carolina farmers, but I 

can tell you that Vermont farmers are 

not at all anxious to see the State Department expand its influence over 

U.S. foreign agricultural policy. They 

fear that shifting power from domestic 

agencies to the State Department will 

not strengthen representation of 

United States interests in United 

States policy but rather will strengthen representation of French interests 

and Argentine interests and Russian 

interests. 

Let me focus on the specific question 

of restructuring America’s foreign assistance program. I have been advocating reform of our foreign aid program ever since the fall of the Berlin 

Wall, so I welcome this opportunity for 

discussion of this issue. 

Senator HELMS says that our foreign 

aid program should further our national interests. I absolutely agree. 

But I do not agree with his definition 

of the problem. The problem is not that 

the Agency for International Development is ignoring America’s national interests. The problem is that since 1961 

when the Foreign Assistance Act was 

enacted, much of our foreign aid was 

allocated to winning allies in the fight 

against communism. Billions went to 

right-wing dictatorships with little or 

no commitment to democracy or improving the living conditions of their 

people, or even allowing business competition. Much of that aid failed by the 

standards we apply today. But it is unfair and disingenuous to judge AID’s effectiveness today against the failures 

of the past, when our goals were fundamentally different. 

AID needs a new legislative mandate. 

We need to get rid of cold war priorities and replace them with priorities 

for the 21st century. 

The Secretary of State has full authority under statute to give policy direction to AID, and the State Department influences AID’s activities every 

day. If AID’s projects deviate from 

State Department policy, it is not because AID is out of control, it is because the people at State are not paying enough attention to what AID is 

proposing to do. 

Senator HELMS also does not give sufficient credit to the Clinton administration for its efforts to improve AID 

performance. Over the the past 2 years, 

we have seen dramatic progress at the 

Agency for International Development 

and the Treasury and State Departments in redefining our foreign aid priorities and focusing resources where 

they can achieve the most in advancing 

U.S. interests abroad, in spite of the 

constraints of an obsolete Foreign Assistance Act. 

AID Administrator Brian Atwood has 

made extensive changes at AID. He initiated an agency-wide streamlining effort that has resulted in the closure of 

27 missions and a reduction of 1,200 

staff. He is installing state-of-the-art 

data processing systems that link 

headquarters in Washington with 

project officers in the field in real 

time. This will ensure that information 

available at one end of the management pipeline is also available at the 

other, increasing efficiency and improving decisionmaking. 

Mr. Atwood has decentralized decisionmaking so that people closest to 

problems have a full opportunity to design solutions. AID is improving its 

performance because, for the first time 

since the mid-1980’s, it has hands-on 

leadership that is committed to making our foreign aid programs effective. 

Can AID improve its management 

performance further? Yes. But would 

the State Department do better? I 

doubt it. I believe that abolishing AID 

and asking regional Assistant Secretaries at the State Department to manage its functions would be a serious 

mistake. These Assistant Secretaries 

are chosen for their expertise in broad 

foreign policy. Many do not have experience managing money and programs. 

And they are overworked now trying to 

deal with the daily emergencies and 

complexities of our political relationships with countries in their regions. 

Even former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, a Republican, expressed doubt about this proposal in 

his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on March 23. ‘‘The 

State Department is not well suited, 

either by historical experience or current bureaucratic culture, to assume 

many of these new responsibilities,’’

Secretary Eagleburger said. And he 

was trying to be supportive of the 

Helms proposal. 

I would put the matter a little less 

delicately: The State Department’s 

specialty is making policy; it has never 

and probably never will manage programs well. Secretary Eagleburger offered the hope that, with very careful 

selection of Under Secretaries, it 

might do better. I am reluctant to 

trade a bureaucracy that is doing reasonably well and getting better at delivering foreign aid for one that has no 

competence on the outside chance that 

it might get better. If we disperse responsibility for foreign aid among Assistant Secretaries of State, I bet that 

we will start hearing more stories 

about misguided and failed projects, 

not fewer, and more questions about 

why we have foreign aid, not fewer. 

AID today is performing a wide array 

of tasks that enjoy overwhelming support among the American people. 

Every year, AID manages programs 

worth $1 billion aimed at protecting 

the Earth’s environment. Does protecting the Earth’s forests, oceans, and 

atmosphere matter to us? Does it further our foreign policy interests? A 

century from now we are not going to 

have any foreign policy if we do not 

join with 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6687 

other countries today to protect the 

environment. 

Every year, AID manages hundreds of 

millions of dollars in international 

health programs. Is this money wasted? We might as well ask whether 

AIDS and tuberculosis are infectious. 

Every year, AID commits a large 

part of its budget to promoting free 

markets and democratic development 

in countries where the United States 

has important interests. This is not diplomacy. It is hands-on assistance that 

requires people with special expertise 

on the ground who can get the job 

done. Working with foreign governments and private organizations on the 

nuts and bolts of solving real problems. 

That is what AID does. 

Mr. President, we have a strong need 

to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act 

to redefine the framework for foreign 

aid. AID can continue to downsize and 

improve its efficiency. But we should 

not abolish an agency that is aggressively adapting itself to the changed 

world we live in and to the shrinking 

foreign aid budget. 

f 

OREGON RECIPIENTS OF OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AWARDS 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as 

Congress begins the difficult task of 

confronting our Federal deficit and addressing the needs of our less-developed 

communities, we must focus on innovative ideas to meet these needs. Bureaucracy has often failed to provide 

successful solutions, making the formation of public-private partnerships 

necessary to jointly aid neighborhoods. 

Successful community development 

must be locally specialized. Attempts 

by Congress to write a Federal prescription for our Nation’s underdeveloped communities will not succeed unless these strategies are sensitive to the diverse needs of those localities. 

One organization is making a difference in developing communities by 

providing localized, market-guided assistance. The Social Compact is a coalition of hundreds of leaders from the 

financial services and community development industries who have combined their forces to strengthen America’s at-risk neighborhoods, both urban 

and rural. Firmly grounded in John 

Locke’s thesis of a covenant between 

members of society and the community 

from which one has prospered, emphasizing commonalities rather than accentuating differences, the Social Compact advocates a voluntary call to action, mobilizing institutions to invest 

their unique capabilities in neighborhood self-empowerment partnerships. 

The Social Compact each year recognizes participating partnerships for 

their achievements in community development. I am pleased to announce 

that two partnerships in Oregon, the 

Portland Community Reinvestment 

Initiatives partnered with the U.S. 

Bank of Oregon, and the Northeast 

Community Development Corp. 

partnered with First Interstate Bank 

of Oregon, each received the Social 

Compact’s 1995 Outstanding Community Investment Award. 

Portland Community Reinvestment 

Initiatives and U.S. Bank of Oregon 

were recognized for their efforts in reclaiming 350 properties located in some 

of Portland’s most vulnerable areas. 

This pioneering response to an unprecedented affordable housing crisis in 

northeast Portland has given residents 

the opportunity to become homeowners 

and improve the supply of quality, affordable rental properties as a permanent community asset. Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives was 

created by the city of Portland in an 

effort to provide a long-term remedy 

for large scale foreclosures facing 

northeast Portland. U.S. Bank of Oregon stepped forward with a pioneering 

financing solution. The outcome of this 

teamwork resulted in one-third of the 

homes being purchased by lower-income families and the remaining units 

are being rehabilitated into affordable 

rentals. 

The Northeast Community Development Corp. and First Interstate Bank 

of Oregon were recognized for developing a comprehensive program to provide the opportunity for homeownership for 250 Portland families, reclaiming 4 vulnerable inner northeast Portland neighborhoods. Initially funded by 

a Federal Nehemiah Housing Opportunity grant, the Northeast Community Development Corp. original aim 

was to construct and renovate 250 single-family homes that would later provide first-time home ownership opportunities for lower and moderate-income families. 

First Interstate took the lead in the 

project by providing construction financing, grant funding, and a line of 

credit for the development of the first 

five demonstration homes. First Interstate provided additional assistance by 

organizing a consortium of six local 

leaders to commit $1.9 million in construction financing and first-time 

homebuyer programs for potential borrowers. As a result of this private-public teamwork, property values are rising in targeted areas, crime is decreasing, and residents have a renewed sense 

of pride in their neighborhood. 

The ethic of civic responsibility and 

the spirit of community are fundamental principles which have guided 

our country’s evolution. The award recipients from Oregon are stellar examples of these virtues in our modern 

times. They should serve as reminders 

of what can be accomplished when government acts locally in a creative alliance with the private sector. 

f 

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 

Messages from the President of the 

United States were communicated to 

the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his 

secretaries. 

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED 

As in executive session the Presiding 

Officer laid before the Senate messages 

from the President of the United 

States submitting sundry nominations 

which were referred to the appropriate 

committees. 

(The nominations received today are 

printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.) 

f 

MEASURES PLACED ON THE 

CALENDAR 

The following measures were read the 

second time and placed on the calendar: 

S. 761. A bill to improve the ability of the 

United States to respond to the international terrorist threat. 

S. 790. A bill to provide for the modification or elimination of Federal reporting requirements. 

f 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 

The following reports of committees 

were submitted: 

By Mr. PRESSLER, from the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

without amendment: 

S. 625. A bill to amend the Land Remote 

Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Rept. No. 104–81). 

By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on 

the Budget, without amendment: 

S. Con. Res. 13. An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for the 

fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 

and 2002 (Rept. No. 104

f 

–82). 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first 

and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: 

By Mr. COCHRAN: 

S. 800. A bill to provide for hearing care 

services by audiologists to Federal civilian 

employees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. 

By Mr. HELMS: 

S. 801. A bill to extend the deadline under 

the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of two hydroelectric projects in 

North Carolina, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

By Mr. HOLLINGS: 

S. 802. A bill to authorize the Secretary of 

Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement 

for the vessel ROYAL AFFAIRE; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

By Mr. MCCAIN: 

S. 803. A bill to amend the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 in order 

to revise the process for disposal of property 

located at installations closed under that 

Act pursuant to the 1995 base closure round; 

to the Committee on Armed Services. 

By Mr. BRADLEY: 

S. 804. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the excise taxes 

on tobacco products, and to use a portion of 

the resulting revenues to fund a trust fund 

for tobacco diversification, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS