Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side, proponents and opponents of the bill.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be extended by an additional 10 minutes equally divided on each side.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we are not going to be allowing children to starve if we pass this amendment. The authorizing committee came up with a reasonable amount of money to deal with the problems of the world. The problem is the authorizing committee came up with a figure and now we are going above that with the Appropriations Committee of $24 million. We do not need to be spending that money at a time when we are having fiscal problems. I want to read what one of the Chief of Staffs of AID said, Larry Byrne. He said that AID was 62 percent through the fiscal year and they had only spent 38 percent of their dollar volume. They needed to spend a $1.9 billion in the next 5 months. Now, get that. They were two-thirds through the year and they had only spent one- third of their money so they had to speed up the spending process, to blow American taxpayers' dollars, so they could ask for more money. They don't need more money. We don't need to be spending this $24 million. I say to my colleagues who are fiscally responsible, vote for this amendment. It takes it back to the authorizing level, which was a reasonable figure. We do not need to be going above authorized levels if we are really concerned about balancing the budget.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have, I think, 2 or 3 speakers on this side that have served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs/International Relations who feel very strongly about this amendment. We would like to have a minute or two for us to express our feelings. I would ask unanimous consent instead of 3 minutes that we have 7 minutes so we can split it 3\1/2\ minutes on each side.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Alabama, that when you call a bureaucracy like AID, with which I have worked for 12 years, and ask them if they need more money for closing down, we must expect they are going to say ``We need more money for closing down.'' I have worked with this agency, like I said, for 12 years. I can tell the Members, no matter how much money we say they are going to cut, they say they need more. I am not saying my colleagues are naive because they are very intelligent people, but I do not think we should rely on people from AID.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, is the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] planning to give the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 3 minutes?

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This is amendment No. 14, Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I talked to the gentleman's staffers in the Committee on Appropriations and asked them where they got the information. They told me they got the information the gentleman just quoted from AID officials.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when we had the markup in the Committee on International Relations on AID, I became very concerned because I thought that the cut in the operational budget was not sufficient. The chairman's mark cut the overhead for AID by about 10 percent. I wanted to increase that cut to about 20 to 25 percent. I wanted to reduce the spending by $65 million. I brought an amendment to the floor of the House when the bill reached the House floor, trying to cut that $65 million, and my position did not prevail because it was agreed by the majority of the House that we should stick with the chairman's mark of $465 million. I have talked to my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and I was under the impression that they agreed with the chairman's mark on the foreign aid authorization bill as far as the operational costs were concerned or the overhead was concerned. Now I find that the chairman of the subcommittee has agreed to increase above the chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations the figure by $29.9 million. In my view, this is an excessive amount of money, and it is a waste of taxpayers money. We here in the Congress of the United States have cut our staffs by 30 percent. I felt like we should be able to cut the AID staffs by 20 to 25 percent, but we did not. We only cut them by 10 percent. Now we find that they are increasing in the foreign aid appropriations bill by $29 million the operational account. I think that is a mistake. Let me just point out some of the reasons why I think that is a mistake. I have here before me a message that alludes to what the ambassador in Chad thinks about the AID program over there. And the ambassador in Chad, according to this memo, said that this was expensive, an expensive development program in Chad since the 1979 and 1981 wars, and that it had little impact. This involves, I understand, $2- to $300 million. And if you read further in this memo, you find that the AID officer over there said, and I quote: With the exception of one other officer who leaves June 15, the remaining personnel will be occupied with the administration of the closeout. And listen to this, this is very important, our parting gift of $4 million for Government officials' salaries in Chad will have been paid out to officials by the end of the May. They were giving them a goodbye gift of $4 million. This is the AID administration. This is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. I also have in my possession an amendment or a document that I read several times before. This document was sent out by Sally Shelton, the senior staffer at the AID office. And this went through their inner office memo system throughout the world. She said, Larry Byrne, the assistant administrator for management at AID, announced that AID was two-thirds or 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, that means spend $1.9 billion, in the next 5 months. Byrne also said there are large pockets of money in the field, so let's get moving. What he was saying in essence was, we want to spend this money before the end of the fiscal year. Now, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues what AID has been spending some of their money on. This is what is called a gender analysis tool kit. A gender analysis tool kit, it costs $175,000. Nobody in this place really knows what that thing is for. AID has no business dealing with gender analysis tool kits. They are supposed to help developing countries with AID programs. And one of the subtitles, one of the booklets in this gender analysis tool kit says, sex and gender; what is the difference? A tool for examining the sociocultural context of sex differences. I would like to say to my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, what in the world is AID doing coming up with this kind of a program? So finally, I would like to say that the chairman's mark, although I did not agree with it in the Committee on International Relations, did make a minor cut of 10 percent in the operational budget of AID. That is not enough. But most certainly, most certainly we should not be increasing by almost $30 million the $465 million that was in the chairman's mark at a time when we are trying to cut expenses. My colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations are going to come back and say, we are cutting the appropriations by $400 million. That may be the case. But here is 30 more million you can add to it because it is not needed. We certainly do not need to be spending this money. I submit to my colleagues that we should stick with the chairman's mark. It is a reasonable amount of money. It will deal with the AID expenses adequately. It will take care of their personnel and any people who are going to be cut or laid off because it has figured into it the amount of money it is going to take to close out those people in some of these offices around the world. So, I submit to my colleagues, support my amendment. Cut AID by $29 million, go back to the Committee on International Relations chairman's mark. It is a reasonable figure. I urge the support of my amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice a specific and direct concern, and a demand for action from our State Department, over the inexcusable delay in the final resolution of the $43.4 million commercial claim of Gibbs & Hill against the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This claim is the last remaining unpaid claim under the special claims process established by the Congress in 1992 in recognition of a pattern of commercial abuse by the Kingdom towards the American companies working there during the period of the late 1970's and early 1980's. Gibbs & Hill's story is not unlike that of all of the other American companies whose claims were satisfactorily resolved by Saudi Ambassador Bandar under the special claims process. Gibbs & Hill provided services to the Kingdom and was not paid for the services provided. The claim was notified to the Saudi Government for resolution under Ambassador Bandar's mandate to resolve these claims' and Ambassador Bandar pledged to spare no efforts in so doing fairly and expeditiously. This was more than 2 years ago. Since that time, a message on behalf of none other than the King has been provided to our country's representative in Riyadh that the claim was soon to be paid. Yet the claim still has not been paid. We have included legislation in the fiscal year 1996 American Overseas Interest Act to further the policy of our country that the claim be favorable resolved for the company, as has been repeatedly committed to by the Saudis to our Government and the company. This is only the first of such steps the Congress can take to ensure that the wrongful acts of the Kingdom against Gibbs & Hill are rectified. What is needed, and what is expected from our State Department, is its immediate and unrelenting effort to bring this matter to a successful conclusion, through the full and prompt payment of the claim, so as to conclude successfully the claims issue. Nothing short of this will be tolerated, nor is acceptable. The importance of the successful conclusion of this singular issue to our bilateral relationship cannot be overemphasized. Until it is resolved, it will continue to fester and threaten to undermine our relationship with the Kingdom.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge the administration and my colleagues in Congress to support important efforts which are underway to establish a just peace in the friendly Central American Republic of Guatemala. This country has suffered through 34 years of a prolonged terrorist campaign, conducted by elements of the communist URNG, which has provoked violent military responses to its attacks and assassinations. Approximately 100,000 Guatemalans have been killed by both sides during this period. Even a former U.S. Ambassador, Gordon Mein, and a number of United States and other foreign embassy personnel have been assassinated by terrorists groups. The disappearance of the U.S.S.R., the electoral demise of the Sandinistas and the impoverishment of Castro have left the guerrillas with little financial support other than Norway and a lame cause which has never commanded a popular following in Guatemala. The URNG has agreed to negotiations with the Government following its signing of a Comprehensive Human Rights Accord in 1994. Considerable progress has been made, and Guatemala's respected former Human Rights Ombudsman, Ramiro Leon Carpio, has become the nation's President, with a strong commitment to peace. He has sustained the peace talks and signed six agreements with the URNG since January 1994. These have included agreements on the protection of human rights, the establishment of a historical clarification commission to address past human rights abuses by both sides once the peace has been finalized, as well as agreements to protect Guatemala's Indian people, refugees and other displaced persons who have been victims of this bloody and protracted conflict. To prove good faith, the Guatemalan Government has implemented its Human Rights Agreement and has agreed to the presence of a United Nations Peace Mission to Guatemala. I know of no other nation which has been so forthcoming about improving its human rights situation absent a peace agreement and in the face of on-going URNG provocation--police assassinated, numerous kidnapings. As a society, Guatemala still suffers from residual violence and societal problems which prolonged conflict and unequitable wealth distribution have sustained since colonial times. Nevertheless, as a country, I believe that Guatemala has come farther, from a semi-feudal, conflict-torn and institutionally violent land, ruled by the military in the 1970's and 1980's, to a strong sustained effort toward democratic status. Against all expectations, Guatemala has sustained two democratic elections, which included transfers of power between political parties in 1986 and 1990, and elections of a fully empowered, multiparty legislative branch. The largest remaining and unresolved Guatemalan problem remains the need for a better legal and police system. Impunity or corruption of the legal branch and untrained and susceptible police, has restrained the advancement of complete democratic process in Guatemala. Yet, in spite of the progress which I have only been to sketch out for you here, Guatemala now faces substantial threats including one from the United States. The source of this extraordinary problem is an American woman who has become the public affairs front for the URNG. Jennifer Harbury, the widow of URNG Commandante Bamaca, has blitzed the United States for the URNG against Guatemala and has pilloried it in the court of media opinion, over the torture and death of her spouse who appears to have been killed in 1992. Now Harbury and a growing chorus of former supporters of the Sandinistas, and the El Salvadorean FMLN, are clamoring for a cut off of United States aid. What makes this implausible situation even worse is the fact that the terrorist URNG controls no territory, has fewer than 500 men under arms, and lives on war taxes extorted from kidnappings and intercepting local farmers and persons on busses going to market. Harbury has so focussed world opinion on past violent measures used by the Guatemalan armed forces in the face of terrorist assault, that the URNG has continued on its violent course today, with apparent impunity. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will join me in calling for the United States to refrain from the short-sighted actions called for by those seeking to cut off assistance to Guatemala at this pivotal time in its history. They would have us break with the Guatemalan armed forces, thereby aligning ourselves with the terrorist URNG in the peace process. The United States must assist Guatemala in the development of civilian controlled and staffed alternatives to the armed forces for law enforcement, and in the reform of a residually corrupt and discredited legal system. These are small items in the balance of a 34 year struggle, and of the Guatemalan people's wish for democracy and freedom from violence. The United States can offer Guatemala invaluable and inexpensive assistance and constructive criticism, but the media driven opposition to needed democratization-related aid, and demonization of the country and of its government are driven by Harbury's effective campaign. The fact speak for themselves and loudly in favor of the peace process and the restraint of Guatemala's government. I hope the special treatment accorded to Harbury can be postponed until the peace accord has been signed, and all of the victims or casualties of this horrible episode can be accounted for. We must do what can to encourage a just and lasting peace in Guatemala. This will enable that government to complete its remarkable transition to full democracy, implementing needed internal reforms necessary to create a system of justice that will bring criminals to justice.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week I offered an amendment to the foreign aid bill to cut the Agency for International Development's operating expenses by $69 million from the Committee on International Relations recommendation of $465 million. The committee cut the administration's request by just 10 percent. My amendment would have cut the administration's request by 23 percent from what AID received in 1995. Unbelievably, that amendment was defeated. Those who opposed it said AID would not be able to economize and prioritize under such a reduced budget and would have to close down. That is just hogwash, Mr. Speaker. If congressional committees can reduce their staffs by 30 percent and the General Accounting Office can reduce its staff by 15 percent, then AID, the most notorious abuser of taxpayers' dollars, can cut its operating expenses by 23 percent. Since 1985, AID's program costs have gone down by 23 percent, yet their operating expenses, even though they have had their program costs go down, their operating expenses have increased by 41 percent. AID should have to tighten its belt just like everybody else in this country and Government. Listen to what Sally Shelton, a senior staffer at AID, said in a message she sent to the AID's field offices: Larry Byrne, the Assistant Director of AID, announced that AID was 62 percent through this fiscal year, and we have only spent 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed. We need to do $1.9 billion in additional spending in the next five months. There are large pockets of money in the field, so let's get moving. In essence what they are saying is they want to blow $1.9 billion as quickly as possible because they are two-thirds of the way through the year and they have only spent one-third of the money. AID is on a spending orgy. It needs to be stopped and I call on my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to do the right thing and make deeper cuts in AID.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, June 3, marked the 11th anniversary of a very dark day in India's history--the Indian Army's assault on the Sikhs' Golden Temple in Amritsar. On that date in 1984, the Golden Temple in Amristar, the holiest shrine of the Sikh nation, was brutally attacked by 15,000 Indian troops. The brutal assault on the temple was timed to occur on a Sikh holiday. Simultaneously, 38 other Sikh temples throughout Punjab were attacked. Over 20,000 Sikhs, mostly civilians, were killed during the month of June. At the Golen Temple, hundreds of people were herded into tiny rooms, where many died of asphyxiation. Many Sikh women were raped and then murdered. One hundred Sikh students between the ages of 8 to 12 were lined up in front of the temple's sacred pool and asked one by one to denounce the movement for an independent Sikh nation named Khalistan. One by one the children refused to do so and were shot in the head. These types of horrible atrocities have become routine in Punjab, in Kashmir, and in other areas under India's control. India has over a half-a-million troops in Punjab and another half-a-million in Kashmir who are brutalizing those people--raping women, torturing prisoners, murdering civilians. Countless thousands of Sikhs, Moslems, and Christians have been murdered by Indian soldiers and paramilitary forces. This brutality has led the Sikhs of Punjab to seek independence so that they can enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Indian Government should understand that its brutal campaign of terror will not wipe out this movement, it will only add fuel to the fire. The Indian Government must be called to account for its crimes and human rights violations. It has become notorious for its disrespect for sacred religious sites. In 1992, Hindu mobs sacked the Mosque at Ayodhya. Just last month, Indian forces in Kashmir gutted the ancient Moslem shrine at Charar-e-Sharies on a Moslem holiday. The democracies of the world must not turn a blind eye on these heinous acts. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in making the 11th anniversary of the attack on the Golden Temple by calling on India to begin to respect the human rights of all people.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield further, the fact of the matter is if you vote against it after the amendment passes, you have not accomplished a thing, whereas if you waited and brought the bill up as a freestanding bill, it would pass.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What is the purpose of the debate?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to real briefly ask one question: If the Bosnia amendment passes, as I believe it will, will the gentleman from Michigan vote for the bill?

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