Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the gentlewoman's attention to page 725 and page 726 of title II of the U.S. Code. It is right there in black and white. I will be happy to bring it over to the gentlewoman and let her read it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me say first of all, one of the things that has not been discussed is the amount of jobs that would be lost. For each $1 billion in sales, these are big ticket items, these things cost 25, 30, 100 million a copy. For each $1 billion in sales that are lost, we lose 16,000 jobs. I wish the gentlewoman would listen to this, the gentlewoman who has been involved in this discussion. For each $1 billion in sales that are lost, we lost 16,000 jobs. If we put a pencil to it, for each 1 percent of unemployment, it costs the Treasury about $42 billion for each 1 percent of unemployment. So one of the things that needs to be factored into the equation is the number of jobs that are lost and what kind of an impact that has on the national unemployment rate which also has a bearing on the deficit that we face every year in the Treasury. So there are other things that need to be factored in. Let me read something out of statutes. There has been some misunderstanding, I believe, on whether or not we can sell these products and of the recoupment provision being employed outside of NATO. Let me read what the law says. The law says: The President may reduce or waive the charge or charges which would otherwise be considered appropriate under paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) for particular sales that would, if made, significantly advance the United States Government interests in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization standardization, standardization with the armed forces of other countries, Japan, Australia or New Zealand and in furtherance of the mutual defense treaties between the United States and those countries or foreign procurement in the United States under coproduction arrangements. Even now, when the gentleman from California a while ago was talking about Israel, I believe that is as a direct result of a coproduction arrangement on weapons systems that we did sell and the recoupment feature was employed, because of that coproduction. But there are many countries, many countries, that we may sell products to that do not fall into any of these categories. If that is the case, then there is no latitude in the law for the recoupment provisions to be waived. This may involve billions of dollars of sales to countries that are not NATO, that are not part of an agreement that we have for a mutual defense treaty, or a country under which there was a coproduction arrangement. So the fact of the matter is there are limitations for the recoupment procedures to be employed outside of the countries I just mentioned. Now, let us say that there is a large number of these countries that do want to buy products from the United States, but the French, for instance, are trying to sell us a French Mirage and we are trying to sell them an F-16 fighter plane. The French would have a distinct advantage if this recoupment provision was not able to be removed, and under current law, the way I read it, it cannot be removed. So the fact of the matter is this legislation which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been talking about is necessary to make us competitive, not just with our NATO allies, not just with those that have a mutual defense treaty, and not with those where we have a coproduction agreement, but with the rest of the world. Some of these bids, as I understand it, are time-sensitive. The French may say, ``Hey, we want to sell you a French Mirage,'' and we may want to sell them an F-16, and there is a time frame under which they have to make an agreement in a fairly rapid manner. There is no provision in the law for the recoupment provision to be employed, so that sale by default would go to the French. And along with it would go American jobs, and along with those American jobs would be a higher rate of unemployment, which would translate into additional expenditures from the Treasury, which would exacerbate the deficit. So the fact of the matter is my good friends, for whom I have the highest respect, are only telling half of the story. The other half is that the law needs to be changed in order to make us competitive worldwide.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is really for informational purposes. Has any country outside of a NATO country benefited from the recoupment provision we are talking about? I know the gentleman is saying it is not limited just to NATO. What I would like to know is, has any other country really benefited because our own Government waived that provision?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the recoupment provision is waived only for our NATO ally countries, and the rest of the world it is not waived for, is that correct?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I think that if you check, you would find that I did not make any direct reference to the President.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would ask for you to read the Record then and show me the obvious reference.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I did not make any reference to the President, I do not believe, did I?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I stand corrected. But I would just like to ask the question, why is there this double standard? This double standard should not occur. People who are held to a high standard in one body of this government should not be singled out when people in other areas of our Government are able to get away with these things, or at least not be allowed, the people who accuse them, to have their day in court or have hearings on the alleged improprieties. The media in this country in my opinion should show some balance. No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties, and yet it is obvious to me, and I think to other Members of this body, that a double standard does exist. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate incident occurred this past week. A distinguished Member of the other body resigned from the Congress of the United States because of alleged sexual improprieties and advances toward members of the staff of the Congress of the United States. I think people who watched what happened in the news media over the past year to 2 years agree that that was the right thing for him to do, to resign. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is that other cases of this kind have occurred in the past and nothing has been done about them. For instance, a former Governor of the State of Arkansas allegedly had a young State employee come up to his hotel room and not only made sexual advances, but they were very, very overt sexual advances. That gentleman has now advanced to a very high office in this land, and there has been almost no investigation. The lady in question has asked that her case be taken to court and because of this gentleman's position in our Government, she cannot even get a court case. That is not the only instance that happened with this individual. So I would just like to say to my friends in the media, and I think they probably know to whom I am referring, Mr. Packwood resigned, he should have resigned, he did something that should not have been done, obviously. But why, I ask, are we excusing or ignoring similar behavior? announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a double standard and it should be reviewed.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has not been mentioned on the floor today is that the Democrats do not have a plan to deal with the Medicare crisis. The President's Commission on Medicare said that Medicare is going to go bankrupt in 7 years and they do not have a plan. Now our plan will handle the crisis, increase Medicare spending, but not at the rate of growth we have had. Medicare has been growing at up to 16 percent a year, and that is intolerable. We cannot sustain that kind of growth rate. So the bottom line is we are going to fix the Medicare problem. We are going to make sure that Medicare is there for seniors in the future. The Democrats do not have a plan. We are working on a plan right now. It is fiscally responsible. There is going to be more benefits, over the long term 40-percent growth in Medicare benefits for the next 7 years, but we are going to cut the rate of growth so we can balance the Medicare budget without having it having to go bankrupt, and that is one of the things that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ought to pay attention to. We have a plan, we are working on it, we are going to solve it. They are not even trying.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, once again the Indian Government has shown its blatant disrespect for basic human rights. On September 6, 1995, Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra, the general secretary of the Human Rights Wing [Shiromani Akali Dal] was washing his car in front of his house in Amritsar, Punjab, when he was taken away by police in a van. The police have refused to reveal Mr. Khalra's whereabouts. He has not been brought before a magistrate. Amnesty International has expressed fear that he may be tortured. Mr. Khalra had been instrumental in exposing the fact that 25,000 Sikhs have been cremated in Punjab, Khalistan, and then listed as unidentified while their families continue to await any word about them. Some of my colleagues and I have brought these cremations to the attention of this House previously. They are being done to destroy evidence of a campaign of extrajudicial killings in Punjab. The superintendent of police in the Tarn Taran district of Punjab, Khalistan, has been quoted as saying ``We have made 25,000 disappear. It is easy to make one more disappear.'' According to Amnesty International, this threat was made shortly after Mr. Khalra filed a petition in court on behalf of the cremated Sikhs. This is not an idle threat. The Indian regime is quite capable of making Mr. Khalra disappear without a trace. Mr. Khalra's ``disappearance'' appears to be part of a pattern of increased repression instituted by the Indian Government in the wake of the assassination of Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh. According to newspaper reports and Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann, who has himself been a victim of the regime's repression, both the central government and the state government of Punjab have resorted to mass arrests in the wake of the assassination. But Mr. Mann warned that this repression will be counterproductive, and he is correct. Another wave of massive human rights violations against the Sikh people will only produce more suffering and more hatred. Amnesty International has issued an urgent action bulletin seeking an independent and impartial inquiry to establish Mr. Khalra's whereabouts and assurances that, if in police custody, he be allowed immediate access to lawyers and relatives and be promptly brought before a magistrate. If India is the democracy it claims to be, these actions are the least the regime can do. Since 1984, the Indian regime has reportedly killed more than 120,000 Sikhs. In addition, the regime has killed over 150,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 43,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, tens of thousands of Assamese, Manipuris, and others, and thousands of Dalits, or black untouchables. The State Department reported in its country report for 1994 that between 1991 and 1993, the regime paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. Mr. Khalra's disappearance is part of a pattern of repression that belies India's claim to be a democracy. In the face of this kind of repression, leaders of the Sikh Nation declared independence on October 7, 1987, claiming a separate, sovereign country of Khalistan. India's brutal occupation of Khalistan has only led to continued bloodshed and repression. That serves nobody's interest. Mr. Khalra's disappearance demonstrates yet again that the Indian Government has not done anything to bring the human rights abuses to a stop. Only when the repression and bloodshed end can peace, prosperity, and stability be restored to the Indian subcontinent. I urge the Indian regime to release Jaswant Singh Khalra and all other political prisoners.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have cleared this amendment with both the majority and minority leaders on the committee. My amendment saves taxpayers' dollars, supports open and fair competition and codifies existing law. It is noncontroversial.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, will you let me answer? Do not ask me a question if----

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No. I said no. Did the gentleman hear me?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman vote for an amendment to your bill to limit campaign contributions from PACs to $1,000? Because I am going to introduce it, and I want to see if the gentleman will vote for it because you are getting all these $5,000 contributions.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Of course.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Of course.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The fact of the matter is, will the gentleman vote to limit your campaign contributions to $1,000?