[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation, as I 
understand it, is that we are on H.R. 4426, the foreign ops bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The pending question is the 
committee amendment on page 2, line 12 of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that this was reported by a 
unanimous vote of the Appropriations Committee on June 16, and I note 
that this was done in less time than in any other year I can recall.
  A great deal of the credit goes to the ranking Republican, Senator 
McConnell, who has worked with us in providing the bipartisan support 
to get it not only through the subcommittee in record time--at least a 
record in my 20 years here--but through the full committee, too.
  The bill before the Senate totals $13.684 billion in fiscal year 1995 
budget authority.
  This is approximately $111 million below our allocation. It is, 
incidentally, $30 million below the President's request.
  There are difficult problems scoring and otherwise in this bill. 
Senator Byrd, the chairman of the full committee, worked closely with 
us, as did the ranking member, Senator Hatfield, and we were able to 
get the bill before us because of this. Had it not been for significant 
and timely help by Senator Byrd, we would not have the bill on the 
floor today.
  I know that the leadership has worked hard to get it before us, and I 
thank them.
  Let me note a few of the important provisions in this bill. They have 
aid to the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. President 
Clinton has made clear that funding this program of aid to the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union is his number one 
priority in the foreign aid program. I think his priorities are 
correct.
  Senator McConnell and I have agreed that the NIS program is of 
immense importance to the United States. I feel there is no task that 
is more urgent in supporting the transition to democracy and free 
market reforms in Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere in the former Soviet 
Union. It is one of those rare instances where if we in the West are 
successful in this not only do we enhance our economic situation 
because of the new markets that will be developed, but it should be 
obvious to everybody, of course, that we significantly enhance our 
national security.
  But we are faced with extreme budget pressures and problems with 
management implementation of this program. Notwithstanding that, we 
provided $839 million for the NIS Program. It is $61 million less than 
the President's request. It is $36 million below the House level.
  I would like to just take a moment to explain why such cuts. It is 
intended to convey to the administration that while we continue to 
strongly support the NIS Program we are going to see rapid, visible 
improvements in the way it is managed, also improvements in the results 
it produces.
  I am not expecting miracles. That is a new program. It involves a lot 
of countries, a lot of different countries, countries that themselves 
are groping for what they want to do. Of course, there are going to be 
problems. We never quite had a situation like this.
  So we have to take some risks, and you know there are going to be 
some mistakes. But I would like to see some convincing evidence that 
AID and the State Department are learning from these mistakes as they 
go along.
  We have also earmarked funds for Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. I 
would note that I was impressed and convinced by the report that my 
Republican colleague, Senator McConnell, brought back from the Ukraine 
in his own visit in this regard. I know the House bill does not contain 
earmarks, and we are going to have some debate on this in conference as 
we fully expect, and I would hope that we can conduct that debate in a 
way that continues the strong feelings of a bipartisan majority in our 
committee that these countries need help. In fact, the administration 
plans to provide substantial aid to these countries in 1995, and I 
think the earmarks are a reflection of the U.S. Senate's interest in 
these countries.
  It was not easy funding the overall program. By funding it, we have 
had to not fully fund other important programs like our contribution to 
the U.N. voluntary agencies or to multilateral banks, and I might 
mention these are contributions that we are committed to make, where as 
a result we are hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears to the World 
Bank and the other MDB's. At the same time we are in arrears to them, 
we are pressing them to make important reforms. We want them to 
shoulder more of the burden of economic development throughout the 
world.
  We are basically saying to them, look, we are not able to pay our 
arrears to these MDB's, but please do what we want you to do even if we 
are not going to pay our bills and that is going to come into better 
balance. We are not going to get the reforms without paying our bills.
  We were not able to increase funding above the request level for 
refugees or disaster assistance. You do not have to be an expert in 
refugee or disaster assistance programs to know there are tremendous 
needs and that we are not carrying out the responsibilities actually 
that most Americans would want us to do. All you have to do is turn on 
the television at night and see the refugees out of Rwanda and see what 
happens with floods in other places where the United States has 
historically and traditionally been able to help.
  We were able to increase slightly aid to Africa as we face 
extraordinary needs, although we still only deal with a handful of 
dollars per person there even though again we have national security 
interests and even though this is an area where we have great economic 
interests, if they improve their lot. It is one of the places where our 
export programs work best and where American jobs are created.
  We have also increased funding for family planning, a priority of the 
administration and Congress, and increased funding for development 
assistance.
  In recognition of the great risk taken by Israel in its historic 
opening for peace with the Palestinians, aid for Israel and Egypt is 
earmarked at the requested levels. We note that with or without the 
earmark the administration is committed to aid these levels and would 
go forward with it. But I hope that this renewed demonstration of 
commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East will encourage all 
parties to continue to pursue the dramatic possibility for a 
settlement.
  I would hope that the strong leadership of the State of Israel and 
the strong leadership of the Palestinian people would not be deterred 
by extremists on either side. There are extremists on both sides who 
would like nothing better than to see the peace process derailed.
  That does not help the people of the region. It does not help the 
world. It does not help our foreign policy. And as I have many times 
before, I praise the leadership involved for their help.
  We have also increased aid to the Palestinians. The bill recommends 
$80 million for the West Bank and Gaza Programs, including $20 million 
to support loans and grants to small- and medium-sized businesses 
there. It is imperative that the Palestinians see rapid, tangible 
evidence that peace with Israel will result in improvements in their 
standard of living.
  I believe the vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis would agree 
that now having taken these steps for peace that the life of the 
Palestinians must improve and as they go into the ability to govern 
themselves and to set some of their own economic agendas that their 
must be examples of improvement. Otherwise, I do not know how Prime 
Minister Rabin or Chairman Arafat are able to hold together the people 
within their own governments necessary to move forward in peace.
  Mr. President, we know that foreign aid is not a program of 
resounding popularity throughout the country. But I believe the reason 
for that has more to do with some of the wasteful programs we have seen 
over the years, when foreign aid was used to prop up corrupt dictators 
or squandered on grandiose projects that ended up falling into 
disrepair.
  In the past few years we have made progress toward making the foreign 
aid program more effective and at the same time more reflective of the 
American people. The American people do have a long and proud history 
of helping people around the world who are less fortunate--for example, 
like the refugees fleeing genocide in Rwanda, and incidentally that is 
genocide. This bill aims to do that.
  This bill is also designed to help Americans directly, by providing 
close to $1 billion to promote U.S. exports, which is the fastest-
growing part of our economy and that part of the economy that is 
creating American jobs here inside the United States. It also contains 
hundreds of millions of dollars to protect the environment, knowing 
that our own life and health are affected by the worldwide environment.
  I could go on, of course. But I say this just to note that in many 
ways foreign aid, the word foreign aid is a misnomer. This bill should 
be designed to do several things, designed to help protect our national 
security and you go down through the bill and find many places where it 
is doing precisely that, protecting the national security of all of us 
Americans.
  It should be, second, designed in part to help our economic security. 
As we create exports markets around the world, that creates tens of 
thousands, even hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United 
States, that is part of our security.

  And then, with 4 or 5 percent of the world's population, we are using 
close to half of the world's resources. In a nation with the largest 
economy in the world, we have--each one of us as individuals has--
certain humanitarian responsibilities, and it reflects those.
  So I think we have to understand, as the only superpower left in the 
world, that what we do and what the rest of the world does irrevocably 
links, and this bill I think is important to that.
  Let me finish with one point. I understand that there are dozens and 
dozens of amendments that may come up. If my past experience is any 
guide, a lot of these amendments will have nothing to do with this 
bill. This is an appropriations bill. I hope it can stay as an 
appropriations bill.
  I suggest to those who have authorizing amendments or have amendments 
that are best placed on other types of bills, that they may be able to 
resist the temptation to do it. I understand sometimes some of us are 
able to resist temptation better than others. I speak of the 
parliamentary type of temptation. Obviously, Senators can resist all 
other types of temptations just by our nature.
  But I have canceled any flight plans I might have had for Saturday. I 
realize it is not an easy weekend to get new reservations. I hope it 
turns out I did that not needing to. I know the press, for example, 
gets very concerned if we are gone for a long weekend and they would 
rather be here covering this. I am sure most others would, and they may 
have to be, but I hope not.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Before I yield to Senator McConnell, I ask unanimous consent for 
floor privileges for Neil McGaraghan, Elizabeth Murtha, and Michele 
Hasenstaub.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the chairman 
for moving this legislation forward so quickly. It is unusual for the 
Senate to be considering the foreign operations bill this early in the 
session. We not only moved quickly but with great care in allocating 
the scarce resources available to the subcommittee.
  There are a number of important provisions and changes made this year 
which I would like to take a moment to review for my colleagues. First, 
the subcommittee included a number of earmarks for countries and 
programs of high priority. While I will discuss some of them in detail, 
I want to point out the reason for the earmarking.
  With the arrival of a new administration, we anticipated reform 
authorization legislation which would reflect the dramatically changing 
world in which we live. Most of the members of the subcommittee shared 
the view that we should minimize earmarks to maximize the 
administration's flexibility in meeting emerging requirements. Nowhere 
was this flexibility more needed than in our relations with the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union. Governments, policies, 
and priorities were literally shifting day by day.
  To put this in context, let me point out that a few years ago, the 
foreign operations bill included 89 earmarks. Last year, the bill was 
signed into law with seven, including the four related to the Camp 
David Accords, which are increasingly not controversial.
  In reducing legislative earmarks, both the Senate and House agreed 
that our expectations and priorities would be identified in report 
language which was to be observed unless and until the administration 
consulted with the subcommittee. Unfortunately, this understanding and 
obligation was not respected by the administration.
  In a random survey I conducted of 14 requirements included by the 
Senate in report language last year, the administration had not 
complied with 12. Let me add, the 14 projects or programs reflected 
Members' interests on both sides of the aisle. They ranged from child 
survival activities to assistance for Burmese exiles.
  As a result of our experience over the past year, many of the 
subcommittee's members--and I include myself in that group--felt it was 
necessary to earmark resources to assure funding for high-priority 
items. Here again, there was bipartisan support for directing the 
resource commitments in this bill.

  Let me now turn, Mr. President, to some of those earmarks. As with 
last year's bill, there was strong, unanimous support for sustaining 
the levels of economic and military assistance to Israel and to Egypt. 
In addition, several of my Democratic colleagues cosponsored my 
amendment to dedicate resources to support refugees, primarily from the 
New Independent States, settling in Israel. This grant has been 
essential in helping young and old alike establish new, productive 
lives free from the fear of persecution.
  Mr. President, I also offered three earmarks within the INS account. 
I continue to believe the administration has not programmed sufficient 
funds for republics other than Russia. In a mid-year report reviewing 
planned commitments for fiscal year 1994, Russia tops the list with 
$1.6 billion in obligations, or 66 percent of the budget. Ukraine 
squeaks in next in line with 7 percent.

  I understand Russia is the administration's highest priority and 
hardly any of us would argue with that. We share the range of concerns 
from strengthening democracy to denuclearization. However, I believe we 
can fulfill those aims as we balance the proportionate share of 
assistance we provide other nations.
  I also have major reservations about how that sizable commitment to 
Russia is being invested, what is happening to the commitment to 
Russia. Generally, I am worried that we are doing very little to 
contribute to addressing very visible problems, particularly crime and 
law enforcement. While I agree with the administration that we need to 
contribute to a framework in which we help Russians help themselves, we 
need to weigh that approach in the context of urgent socioeconomic 
needs.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee knows, I plan to address some of 
these specific issues in earmarks. But I do not think the Committee can 
resolve all the program problems with legislation and earmarking. One 
such problem seems to be a basic institutional reluctance to work with 
the U.S. private sector.
  The Washington Post recently described one such venture, pointing out 
that it was an example of success in the making. A very talented 
American grocery store owner was setting up shop in Siberia leveraging 
private resources and ingenuity with seed capital from AID. It is an 
innovative approach which seems to be working. The irony, or should I 
say tragedy, is the administration has tried to restrict and terminate 
funding for the project. I expect the subcommittee will continue to 
battle bureaucrats to sustain exactly that kind of activity.
  Similarly, the administration recently tried to end the Hospital 
Partnership Program, which is leveraging $3 from the private sector for 
every $1 AID contributes. This is a remarkable program which is 
dramatically improving the quality of life and care provided throughout 
the NIS--yet AID wants to end it. It makes no sense. For the moment the 
subcommittee has prevailed upon the administration to issue a stay of 
execution.
  I do not want to dwell on the problems which have afflicted the NIS 
program. But I do want to emphasize the reason we earmarked funds for 
Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia was in direct response to the 
administration's approach. Many people feel there is a lack of 
commitment to their democratic and economic future.
  I am particularly disappointed with the situation in Ukraine. I 
believe the administration has missed a number of opportunities to 
encourage economic reform and improve prospects for stability in 
Ukraine. NSC advisers now acknowledge that they realized last October 
that holding U.S. assistance hostage to resolution of the nuclear issue 
was a mistake and failure. Yet, instead of correcting course and 
crafting a program unique to the difficulties and conditions in 
Ukraine, we are replicating the mass privatization program which we are 
still hoping will work in Russia. Serializing Russian programs is a 
mistake and an unfortunate result of running all NIS activities out of 
Moscow. It seems to me the time has come for country specific programs 
and effective strategies.
  After a brief year's experience with the foreign operations bill, I 
find myself in an unusual position. Fundamentally, I support our 
foreign aid program. But our aid program must be linked to a coherent 
policy which advances American interests.
  Unfortunately, what we hear is platitudes not policy. The 
Administration talks about the need to advance our economic security 
through export promotion, yet OPIC, an agency key to insuring and 
guaranteeing those American investments, has now run out of money.
  We hear what a high priority advancing democracy is, yet successful 
programs which support parliamentary training and election monitoring 
scrape by with minimal support from AID.
  The Secretary of State has declared our national security interests 
will not be subcontracted to any nation or organization, yet a United 
Nations bureaucrat can literally stop a U.S. plane in a mid-bombing 
run.
  Half way through the Clinton administration, I do not see an emerging 
foreign policy strategy which clearly and effectively links our 
priorities with our assistance programs. There may be anecdotal 
evidence of success--a clinic or a children's feeding problem which 
survives impossible odds. But I am talking about the bigger picture, 
about the lack of direction and momentum.
  A year ago, during our hearings on the foreign operations bill, both 
the chairman and I expressed concern about the muddled message 
communicated to friends and foe alike. Unfortunately, that situation 
has not improved. The administration continues to limp--then lurch--
then limp along in defining America's role in the post-cold-war world. 
Given the circumstances, there are clear implications for foreign 
assistance. Where there is a policy vacuum, Members of Congress will 
want to be heard.
  Frankly, as I have said on more than one occasion, I think 
congressionally directed foreign policy risks our national interests 
being pulled in 535 different directions. But I must say, short of the 
President fully engaging, lacking a clear sense of purpose, missing a 
consistent plan of action, and absent a national security team that 
works together, Congress will step into the vacuum.
  And, the time has long since passed when George Bush can be blamed.
  I hope the Administration will capitalize on the resolve and sense of 
purpose which characterized the President's D-day speeches. I want to 
believe rhetoric and the reality of our aid programs and foreign policy 
will at some point meet and merge.
  That will take a serious, sustained commitment by the 
administration--an effort that is not yet in evidence. Nonetheless, I 
want the administration to understand that I will continue to hold out 
hope for meaningful improvements and offer my support and commitment to 
work with the chairman and our colleagues to assure there is adequate 
funding to secure our national interests where and as they are defined.
  Mr. President, having made that opening statement I send to the 
desk----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator be willing to withhold 
just for a moment? We have not made the usual--


 Amendment No. 2103 to the First Committee Amendment On Page 2, Line 12

  Mr. McCONNELL. No, Mr. President. I believe I have the floor. And I 
send to the desk an amendment to the first committee amendment and ask 
its immediate consideration. I send this on behalf----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I send this on behalf of Senator Dole and Mr. 
Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will first report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] for Mr. Dole, for 
     himself and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2103 to the first reported amendment.

  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection to dispensing with 
the reading? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On line 21 of the first committee amendment strike the word 
     ``states'', and insert the following:

     ``states


                 ``bosnia and herzegovina self-defense

       ``Sec. 17. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as 
     the ``Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of 1994''.
       ``(b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) For the reasons stated in section 520 of the Foreign 
     Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 
     (Public Law 103-236), the Congress has found that continued 
     application of an international arms embargo to the 
     Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina contravenes that 
     Government's inherent right of individual or collective self-
     defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and 
     therefore is inconsistent with international law.
       ``(2) the United States has not formally sought 
     multilateral support for terminating the arms embargo against 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina either within the United Nations 
     Security Council or within the North Atlantic Council since 
     the enactment of section 520 of Public Law 103-236, Senate 
     passage of S. 2042 of the One Hundred Third Congress, and 
     House passage of sections 1401-1404 of H.R. 4301 of the One 
     Hundred Third Congress.
       ``(c) Termination of Arms Embargo.--
       ``(1) Termination.--The President shall terminate the 
     United States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government of a request 
     for assistance in exercising its right of self-defense under 
     Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will shortly ask unanimous consent--I 
want to make sure I present this correctly--I am going to ask for 25 
minutes as in morning business for the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Grassley], and 10 minutes as in morning business for the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. I will ask that 
be done in such a way--and I will make this request after about a 
minute or so of comment on something else--I will ask it be done in 
such a way that it not remove the parliamentary situation we found 
ourselves in at the time I had suggested the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Parliamentary inquiry. The pending business is the 
Dole-Lieberman amendment to the first committee amendment, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the McConnell 
amendment for Mr. Dole and Mr. Lieberman.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will make my unanimous-consent request in 
just a moment.
  I will note 14 pieces of the report language referred to by the 
ranking member were recommendations and not requirements. They were not 
completely funded, that is true. But they were funded in large measure, 
with a couple of exceptions. Just to be fair to AID--I stood on this 
floor and criticized them when I thought they deserved criticism, but 
to be fair to them, had AID fully carried out all the recommendations 
in the report, out of necessity they would have had to borrow money 
because we did not give them the money to carry out all the 
recommendations that were in the report.
  In the past 3 years, we cut AID's development assistance budget by 
$400 million. So we cannot blame them for not fully carrying out 
recommendations for which we do not give them money. I think they did 
do a good job on most of the recommendations. In a couple of cases, 
they did fall short and with that I am disappointed. Because of that, 
we have contained $71 million more in development assistance in the 
House bill to help carry that out.


                  the agency for american development?

  Mr. President, over the past year I have made several statements on 
the need for the Agency for International Development to redefine its 
goals now that the cold war is behind us. No longer is the threat of 
communism our primary security threat and motivation for providing 
foreign assistance. With the end of the cold war, the most serious 
problems facing us today are unchecked population growth, widespread 
poverty, ethnic and regional conflicts, degradation of the Earth's 
environment, and the proliferation of conventional and, still, nuclear 
arms.
  Under the strong leadership of Brian Atwood, AID has begun to 
redefine its mission and address some of the management problems that 
have plagued it for years. Administrator Atwood has tackled not only 
the bureaucratic morass that has impeded AID's effectiveness, he has 
refocused the agency's efforts on promoting sustainable economic 
growth, supporting democratic institutions and building foreign markets 
for American exports, and addressing basic humanitarian needs facing 
vulnerable groups like children and refugees.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I 
know that foreign aid is not popular. But I have never believed that is 
because the American people are not generous. There is ample evidence 
that they are. Rather, it is due to foreign aid being used to prop up 
corrupt dictators or wasted on grandiose projects that fall into 
disrepair after a few years. None of us want to see that, and 
Administrator Atwood is determined to see that it does not happen.
  But while it is always easy to criticize, and there are grounds to do 
so, too little attention has been given to AID's accomplishments. 
Foreign aid not only helps people around the world who are less 
fortunate than we are, it also promotes American exports and it can 
even contain lessons for people here at home.
  Recently AID cosponsored a conference in Baltimore entitled, 
``Lessons Without Borders: Local Problems, Global Solutions.'' The 
conference focused on issues like family health and economic 
entrepreneurship, and how we can apply lessons learned through our 
foreign aid programs to problems here in the United States. Vice 
President Gore was the keynote speaker. Senator Sarbanes, 
Representative Mfume, and Mayor Kurt Schmoke also took part in what has 
become a partnership between AID and the city of Baltimore, a 
partnership AID hopes to duplicate with other American cities.
  The theory behind these partnerships is that some lessons are 
universal. In areas like agriculture, health and small-business 
development, America can learn from its foreign assistance programs. In 
fact, AID has been working closely with community leaders nationwide in 
an effort to find solutions to problems which know no borders.
  An example of this interactive sharing between cities in the United 
States and abroad is a program in Sarasota, FL, called School Year 
2000. It as sponsored by Florida State University, funded through an 
AID grant, and directed toward a change in the school system in South 
Korea. The project created a new model for public education centered 
around the learner, based on competency and supported by technology. 
Originally started to reduce costs, the focus has expanded to improving 
the quality of education. The results of the program were so impressive 
that Florida legislators and organizations have used it to justify 
further investment in educational reform in their own State.
  In Baltimore, research has been carried out to combat diarrheal 
disease, which kills millions of children each year. As many as 600 
children in the United States die each year from this desease which, 
left untreated, can cause dehydration, while thousands of others are 
hospitalized. A solution of oral rehydration salts, developed through 
AID-funded research in Bangladesh, is being used to reduce these common 
ailments inexpensively.
  The lesson here is that many of Baltimore's citizens are not aware of 
the availability of this low-cost remedy. An astonishing 150,000 of 
Baltimore's 730,000 inhabitants are functionally illiterate, and unable 
to read the signs that were meant to inform them of programs to protect 
their childrens' health. AID, which routinely works in countries with 
high illiteracy rates, has years of experience in innovative 
communication techniques for getting the message out about child 
health, family planning, and other programs. These same methods are now 
being used to educate needy people in Baltimore.
  These are just two examples of how what we are accomplishing with our 
foreign aid dollars abroad can be used for our own benefit here at 
home.
  The Florida State Interactive Program and the Baltimore conference 
show how AID is taking seriously its role in the global community. The 
focus is on solving problems that do not pay attention to State, 
national, or international borders. The ``Lessons Without Borders'' 
conference demonstrates how our foreign aid programs can help us find 
solutions to current American problems, and to current foreign problems 
which may become future problems in our own country. I applaud the 
Agency for International Development's efforts. While I do not suggest 
that it should change its name to the Agency for American Development, 
American taxpayers should be encouraged that it is putting these 
lessons to good use here at home as well as abroad.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from this 
Sunday's New York Times about ``Lessons Without Borders'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 26, 1994]

            Foreign-Aid Agency Shifts to Problems Back Home

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       Baltimore.--It is hard to know whether this a good news 
     story or a bad news story, but here it is: The Agency for 
     International Development, which spent the cold war fighting 
     Communism with foreign aid and helping poor countries like 
     Bangladesh immunize children, has found a new customer for 
     its services: America's inner cities.
       The good news is that A.I.D. has something to offer. The 
     bad news is that parts of Los Angeles, Boston and Baltimore 
     now need it as much as Bangladesh.
       Over the years A.I.D. developed a reputation in Washington 
     as a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy. But the Clinton 
     Administration has been engaged in a major overhaul of A.I.D. 
     The Clinton team is trying to shed what agency did worst, 
     supporting anti-Communist dictators, and focus on what it did 
     best--fostering cheap, low-tech methods for accelerating 
     immunization, literacy and agricultural development and for 
     nurturing small businesses.
       The agency's shift in focus from Bangladesh to Baltimore 
     was an accident waiting to happen. With no cold war, it was 
     eager to justify its usefulness to taxpayers dubious of 
     foreign aid, and it discovered American mayors so beleaguered 
     by the problems of their inner cities that they were ready to 
     take help from anywhere, even if it meant comparisons between 
     their inner cities and the third world.
       While A.I.D.'s charter prohibits it from actually financing 
     programs money in the United States, nothing prevents the 
     agency from sharing its expertise.
       While talking this past spring with Marian Wright Edelman, 
     the longtime head of the Children's Defense Fund, about the 
     health problems faced by American children, the agency's 
     director, J. Brian Atwood, was struck by the similarities 
     with the problems his agency was fighting in Mali and Egypt, 
     he recalled on Tuesday in an interview.
       Ms. Edelman, he said, was struck by how in some respects 
     Mali and Egypt seemed to be doing much better than the United 
     States.
       In particular, Mr. Atwood recounted, they noted that 
     measles vaccination rates among inner-city children under age 
     2 were averaging around 40 percent in the United States. Yet, 
     Governments in Egypt, the Philippines, India, Sri Lanka and 
     Indonesia, using some of their own programs and some financed 
     and planned by A.I.D., had achieved childhood immunization 
     rates in the high 70 percent range, according to the Unicef 
     Progress of Nations report.
       During an interview on C-span a few days later, Mr. Atwood 
     mentioned this discussion and mentioned that his agency hoped 
     to become more involved in sharing ideas with American 
     cities.
       An aide to Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke of Baltimore happened to 
     be watching, and the city immediately contacted Mr. Atwood 
     and volunteered Baltimore for the first test case. Other 
     cities followed.
       Mr. Atwood, recognizing a new market for his agency's 
     expertise, ordered aides to come up with a program, 
     eventually christened ``Lessons Without Borders.'' On June 6, 
     a team of the agency's senior health and development experts 
     held a day-long seminar with their Baltimore counterparts at 
     Morgan State University, discussing A.I.D. programs that had 
     worked or, often just as important, had not worked.
       Another conference is now planned for Boston this fall, and 
     the agency is laying out a two-year schedule for other cities 
     that have asked for advice.
       Still, it was not an easy thing for Mayor Schmoke. The 
     headline in The Baltimore Sun the day of the conference read: 
     ``Baltimore to Try Third World Remedies.'' In fairness to 
     Baltimore, it is one of the most thriving cities on the East 
     Coast, with its rebuilt inner harbor, National Aquarium and 
     downtown stadium of Camden Yards, anchoring a real urban 
     renaissance.
       But that renaissance is a work in progress. Just a few 
     miles from the inner harbor, areas of Baltimore's inner city 
     are rife with AIDS, illiteracy, family breakdown, joblessness 
     and drugs.


                       like a third world country

       ``We have to let everybody know that we are not suggesting 
     that our entire city has the same problems as a third world 
     country,'' said Mayor Schmoke. ``But we ought to recognize 
     that there are sections of the city that are similar to the 
     problems of less-developed countries.''
       Baltimore officials say they learned a number of things 
     from their A.I.D. visitors. Although Baltimore has well-
     financed social programs, many people do not come in to use 
     them. One reason is that 150,000 out of Baltimore's 
     population of 730,000 are functionally illiterate.
       ``We found that people could not read the signs,'' said Mr. 
     Tawney. A.I.D. operates in so many countries where illiteracy 
     is taken for granted, and at the conference A.I.D. officials 
     discussed many of the techniques they have developed for 
     getting around illiteracy and promoting immunization, 
     population control and other remedies. These ranged from 
     using soap opera characters to entice people into clinics, to 
     cartoons, to jingles, to having beer truck drivers distribute 
     condoms as they drop off beer kegs at pubs in Jamaica. They 
     also discussed A.I.D.'s ``barefoot doctor'' program of paying 
     local villagers to go out and recruit people to come to 
     clinics.
       ``You want to know what the real irony is?'' asked Dr. 
     Peter Beilenson, Baltimore's Commissioner of Health. ``The 
     company that develops these communications programs for 
     A.I.D. is from Baltimore. Its office is about three blocks 
     from here.''


                         a small grant goes far

       Another big issue discussed was job creation. Twenty years 
     ago, the biggest employer in Baltimore was Bethlehem Steel, 
     with about 35,000 employees. Today, the biggest employer in 
     Baltimore is Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. Twenty 
     years ago, a high school dropout was able to get a job at the 
     steel plant, and buy a house and raise a family. Today, even 
     a college degree would not guarantee a job at Johns Hopkins. 
     This has left many inner city youth in Baltimore stranded, 
     but one of the things discussed by A.I.D. and the 
     Baltimorians, was trying to fill the void with a program 
     A.I.D. has fostered with third world governments, called 
     microenterprise development.
       In Bolivia, for instance, the Banco Sol, partially 
     supported by A.I.D. has been giving tiny loans, sometimes 
     only $10 or $20, to men, and particularly women, who are 
     working out of their homes and who, with just a little, 
     capital might not only be able to sustain their own business 
     but employ others as well. Sometimes the money goes for a 
     sewing machine, sometimes it goes for teaching book keeping 
     or commercial laws.
       Michael A. Gaines Sr., head of Baltimore's Council for 
     Economic and Business Opportunity, said what he learned from 
     the AID seminar was that ``Third world governments did not 
     provide a social security net, but their policies 
     increasingly allow for free flowing microentrepreneurship. We 
     provide a social security net, but it comes with policies, 
     restrictions and guidelines that preclude entrepreneurship.''
       Mr. Gaines is now running a pilot project in Baltimore 
     intended to show how microentrepreneurs--the mother who does 
     hair styling out of her home or the mechanic who works out of 
     his garage--can grow with a small loan and a business plan.
       Mr. Gaines said he would like not only A.I.D.'s advice, but 
     also a slice of its $7 billion budget. Indeed, there is such 
     a hunger for its expertise, and money, that it may justify 
     itself right out of existence or be asked to be come A.A.D.--
     ``Agency for American Development.''
       Mr. Gaines said: ``If you were able to fold some of those 
     AID resources and knowledge, with the Housing and Urban 
     Development agency and the Commerce Department, and start 
     working in a coordinated way in this country, oh man, the 
     potential would be tremendous.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] be recognized as in morning business 
for 15 minutes; the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] then be 
recognized as in morning business for 10 minutes; and that we then go 
back on the bill in the situation in which the bill is now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, is recognized for 15 minutes as in 
morning business.

                          ____________________