Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that AID, like every agency of Government, needs to be fiscally responsible. We have a huge national debt, we have huge deficits, and this House and the Senate are trying our dead level best to get control of runaway Government spending. Here is an agency that has wasted money. I was a senior Republican on Africa for 10 years. I can tell my colleagues they wasted money in many countries over there. Some of the projects were good, but much of the money was wasted, and here we have, as I said before, a memo going out by the leadership in that agency saying that we have to spend money as fast as we possibly can because we are two-thirds of the way through our fiscal year and we have only spent one-third of our budget. We need to send a message to AID. We cut back Congress by a third as far as our staffs were concerned. They can stand a 20- to 25-percent cut. This is a good amendment which will save the taxpayers $65 million, and once again I would like to say I am very sorry that this was incorporated into this debate that is taking place right now on Bosnia. That should be a separate debate at a separate time. Unfortunately this is not the case. So, I hope my colleagues, when we get to this first degree amendment which will be voted on separately later on, will see fit to support it because it is going to save the taxpayers $65 million, it is going to downsize one of the biggest bureaucracies in Washington, and it would not hurt our foreign aid program one whit, and with that I would like to add also that there have been all kinds of atrocities in India that AID has seen fit to continue to support through our developmental assistance over there even though the Congress in the past has voted to cut that money off. AID, 2 years ago we were going to cut $4 million in developmental assistance to India. AID overruled the elected Members of Congress and went ahead and sent that money, and that is another reason they need to receive a very strong message.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This is going to be a very confusing period as we discuss and debate the chairman's mark because we are going to be talking about several different issues, and I would just like to point out that the gentleman's amendment is likely to pass. I voted for it, I believe, the last time. I think it will pass this time. Unfortunately this issue was not brought before the committee. Otherwise it probably would have been a part of the [[Page H5715]] entire debate, and it probably would have passed anyhow, and so I am just a little disappointed that this could not have been brought up as a separate issue. I do not have the time to yield, but I just say, I wish this wasn't in the mix right now because it is going to confuse a lot of people who are paying attention to the debate. I had an amendment which was a freestanding amendment which is now part of the chairman's mark which will be voted on separately, which is confusing, which would cut the AID operating expenses. And AID last year got $517.5 million to run its operation. This year it was increased to $529 million. The chairman's mark reduced that down to $465 or $466 million, and what my amendment does is reduce it further, down to about $400 million. Now the reason that I propose this amendment is because $400 million is more than enough money for the operating expenses of AID. We cut our staff here in the Congress by a third. What we are asking with my amendment is for AID to cut their staffs and their operating expenses by less than a fourth, and we think that is reasonable thing to do. If we can do it by a third, they can sure do it by less than a fourth. Now I would also like to point out that AID has adopted the practice in my view of wasting money. I want to quote to my colleagues, and I hope they will pay particular attention to this if I might have everybody's attention. This is a memo that was sent out by the leadership of AID to many of their offices around the world. And I quote, I want to quote from, this interoffice memo which went around the world to many AID offices, and this is a quote from Sally Shelton, senior staffer at AID. She said: Larry Burn, assistant administrator from management at AID, announced that AID was 62 percent through the fiscal year and we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed. We need to do, and that means spend, we need to do $1.9 billion in the next 5 months. Burn also said, ``There are large pockets of money in the field, so let's get moving.'' So here was AID two-thirds of the way through their year saying they had only spent one-third of their budget so let us get on with spending more money so we can ask for more in the coming year. This is a perfect example of bureaucrats trying to spend money as fast as they possibly can, even more than they should, so they can ask for more money in the next fiscal year. In addition to that, there are some other items of waste that I would like to point out where AID is concerned: In El Salvador, AID-sponsored economists helped organize a socialistic land reform program in the early 1980s that nationalized land holdings, banks and private export companies. After the U.S. had spent billions in El Salvador, former President Alfredo Cristiani commented that millions more would be needed ``just to correct the damage done by U.S. assistance in nationalizing the economy.'' So what AID did, the President down there said, was something that hurt them rather than help, and they spent millions and millions of dollars to do that. After the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, more than $1 billion in direct and indirect U.S. aid flooded Nicaragua. Hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars were lost bailing out a corrupt banking system largely controlled by Sandinista bureaucrats and loan officers. Even today, this fiasco threatens Nicaragua's democracy. In Burundi they spent $7 million to buy a 1,000-acre farm to raise improved corn seed variety. This farm cost the American taxpayer $7,000 an acre, and I want to tell my colleagues, in Burundi you can get it for practically nothing, which is an outrageously expensive price to pay for an acre of farmland on which you are growing corn. The project turned out to be a complete disaster because AID located the farm near the President of Burundi's home village even though this was an area of the country with the worst soil. They were simply trying to placate the President's whimsical desire to have a fancy foreign aid project in his home village. Then it turned out after this $7 million investment that there were no improved varieties of corn seed to be grown in Burundi because the ag research had never been done and I can go on and on and on.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have a first degree amendment, and I ask for a division of the question on the last part of Mr. Gilman's amendment regarding AID and O&E cuts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I want to make the point that we on the Committee on International Operations agreed to give the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] a freestanding hearing next week on his bill, which probably would have passed and been brought to the floor and passed.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have a number of amendments that are pending, but I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be concerned about the time disbursement and the time other people are going to need to discuss other parts of the bill. I will not object, but I hope we do not see that go on any further. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, let me just say that I am happy to see that the gentleman is moving in the right direction, and I hope, when we get to the appropriations bills later this year, that he will continue to be fiscally conservative.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. [[Page H5645]] Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my good friend from California that God loves a repentant sinner, and I remember in the Bible when Paul is on the road to Damascus, then called Saul, and Christ appeared to him,and he had a miraculous conversion and became, instead of a zealot against Christ, he became a supporter and became one of the greatest apostles of all, and the gentleman from California has been, at least to my recollection, one of the bigger spenders in the body, and apparently he has some new found fiscal conservatism, and I just like to say, I really appreciate that conversion, and I hope that conversion continues when we get to the appropriations bills later in the year, because later in the year we'll have the opportunity to make some major cuts in spending, and since this new found conservatism has risen in this gentleman's psyche, I hope it continues, and I would congratulate him on becoming a fiscal conservative.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the human rights situation in India. As we have reached the half-way point in our debate on the foreign aid authorization bill, this is a very appropriate time to raise this issue. Tuesday night, the House approved my amendment to deny development aid to any nation that votes against the United States more than 75 percent of the time at the United Nations. One of the countries that votes against us at the U.N. 80 to 90 percent of the time every year is India. It is no coincidence that India is also one of the world's worst human rights abusers. For years, I have criticized the atrocities committed by Indian security forces against Sikhs in Punjab, Muslims in Kashmir, and Christians in Nagaland. My strong feelings about this issue is one of the main reasons I offered my amendment. Any country that consistently votes against us at the U.N. and systematically violates the human rights of innocent civilians should not be receiving foreign aid from us. Indian security forces in Punjab and Kashmir routinely torture political prisoners, gang rape women, and abduct innocent people to demand ransoms from their families. In Kashmir, the army just this month burned to the ground a centuries old mosque during a Muslim holiday. They routinely burn down entire neighborhoods and villages. In Punjab, torture and murder victims are thrown into canals, usually with their hands and feet still tied. Dozens of bodies are found every time a canal is drained for repairs. Mr. Speaker, we must demand that India respect the human rights of all people, and grant them freedom, democracy, and basic human rights. Until India stops the abuses and begins to vote with us, even occasionally, at the United Nations, we should not be giving that country our foreign aid. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record at this point a summary of human rights abuses in India prepared by my office, and a summary prepared by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh of the Council of Khalistan, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Sikh people.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made one salient point in his comments. He said during the Reagan administration, in which he served, that the felt the President should have this latitude, because of the critical time problems that the President should not have to mess around with Congress for 3 or 4 weeks when he might have to make a quick decision. What makes the gentleman think that will not happen at some point in the future with some future President?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Let me just end up by saying that we have asked time and time again that there be a stronger voice by the Congress in the conducting of foreign policy, and the Administration has found that they do not want that to be accomplished. They wanted to keep that power in the executive branch, and I understand that. And we have not been successful in making those changes. In this particular case, I think the President's arguments are well founded, and I, as a Republican, find myself once again in a difficult position, but I am supporting the President in this particular case.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Not Pakistan. India.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I disagree simply because the President of the United States has the ability right now to put pressure on those countries by not allowing arms sales to them. As a matter of act, the President has exercised that authority already in a number of countries. If you followed what has been going on in the past several years, you will find there are a number of countries that even purchased equipment from the United States and the President has not allowed those purchases to go forward. So he does have some latitude. It is a Democrat President. He is asking for this authority to be maintained. Whether it is a Republican or Democrat, I would support it. The fact of the matter is there is an inconsistency as far as our foreign policy is concerned. There are many pieces of legislation which I have sponsored, regarding human rights abuses in India, for instance, that have not passed this House because the minority now, then the majority, would not support them. So I find it kind of interesting that here is the President of the United States wanting to protect his ability to conduct foreign policy and, because of human rights issues, his party is trying to stop it, while at other times in our history when we were fighting for human rights abuses to be removed on other pieces of legislation, we could not get that support.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a kind of an uncomfortable position because I do not particularly like some of the ways that the President has conducted [[Page H5521]] foreign policy, and I did not particularly like the invasion of Haiti or the way he conducted our operations in Somalia and lost a bunch of American lives, but here is one case where I do agree with the President. The President has to have some leverage and be able to conduct foreign policy, and many times his ability to negotiate with countries that are buying U.S. arms is one way that he can get the job done. So the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, is against this particular amendment. In this particular case, I concur with him because I think it hamstrings him in one respect, as far as his ability to conduct foreign policy is concerned. But, in addition to that, there is another economic issue that needs to be taken into consideration. If anybody believes that a country that wants to buy weaponry is going to not buy it simply because they cannot buy them from the United States, they are just barking up the wrong tree. France sells weapons, Great Britain sells weapons, a number of countries sell sophisticated weaponry. If they do not buy them from the United States of America, then certainly they are going to buy them from some place else. It will have an adverse economic impact on many segments of our society. If you go out to California and take a look at the aircraft industry, it is in a depressed state. It is starting to come out of it now because of the commercial sales. The fact of the matter is if you put these kinds of constraints on the sales of these kinds of materials, you are going to have an impact on industry in this country, and there are going to be a lot of people lose their jobs and those jobs will go overseas to manufacturers of this equipment in foreign countries.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just end up by saying that there is an anti-illegal-immigration attitude in America today with justification. We have millions of people coming across the Mexican-American border for economic reasons, and that has caused a real problem with our economy in many States. But the fact of the matter is there are still people in this world who are fleeing Communist dictatorships, and to send them back to death or worse is a horrible thought. It is analogous to taking people who came across the Berlin Wall. It is a wrong-headed move. I hope my colleagues will support the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just end real briefly by saying this. If there is any doubt about these people being sent back to possible death, or worse, at the hands of the Vietnamese Communists, then we should err on the side of safety. That is the reasonable and humanitarian thing to do.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the remarks made by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida. I do not believe anybody in this Chamber is racist, but I do believe there are problems in Africa that should be addressed. We are trying our best to do that. We are sending $629 million there this year, and $614 million next year. This amendment would, over a 2-year period, increase by $360 million the amount of money that is going over there. I notice we have a lot of young people visiting with us today. Many of them applauded. Many of us in this Chamber are very concerned about their futures, because we know if we do not get control of Government spending in this country, that at one point, some point in the future, we are going to have a debt so great that the interest on the debt alone is going to gobble up a lot of our tax dollars, and their quality of life will start to deteriorate. We have to get control of Federal spending, so we have to make hard choices.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The school lunch program was increased 4 percent per year. We are just sending it back in block grants, we are not cutting it. We are cutting the rate of growth. However, that is another subject. The fact of the matter is we have to control spending. That means we have to make hard choices. I am very concerned about the people in the Sudan. My colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], has been down here on the floor talking about that. We have met with some of the people from the Sudan about the horrible atrocities that are taking place, and the people starving to death over there. We worked very hard to get food aid in there. We did the same thing in Somalia. However, we cannot cut the defense budget to take care of those problems. The fact of the matter is the defense budget has been used in large part for a lot of the new military forays and objectives in Somalia and in Haiti, and we have used an awful lot of our military money in those areas. The budget is so strapped in that area that we have a lot of people who are in the military whose quality of life is already suffering. We all know that. In fact, some of those people have been on food stamps, people in our own military. We have to be careful when we start talking about cutting the defense of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, let me just get back to the case at hand. We need to set priorities. Make no mistake about it, Africa is a priority. Maybe it should be a higher priority, but as my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, said a while ago, let us find the money someplace else. If we can find it someplace else and we can do it, then I do not have any problem with doing that in conference committee. The fact of the matter is that at this point, $629 million, plus $5 million for the Africa regional peacekeeping force, $1.1 million for the Organization of African Unity, $10 million for Angola, or $5 million, and some other funds from other areas of government, is about all we can afford. I would just like to say to my colleagues, we are doing what we can. This is a lean, mean foreign affairs budget, foreign aid package, but it is one that I think is realistic and one that deals with the problem. I would like to end up by saying one other thing. I think the last speaker that spoke on the Democrat side alluded to the fact that Angola in a few short years could take care of the whole continent. There are a number of countries in Africa that are mineral-rich. They have large resources. They have diamond mines, all kinds of minerals. As a matter of fact, during the cold war, 11 minerals that we had to have to survive as a Nation only came from two sources, the Soviet Union, and the southern part of Africa. Yet, because of the wars and because of lack of democracy over there and because of the problems, those minerals and those things that would make them self-sufficient have not been mined. Therefore, rather than just throwing money at the problem, we as a Nation need to be working with those governments to bring about the democracy that my colleagues have talked about, so they can start taking care of themselves, so we can wean them away from the United States foreign aid program. We cannot take care of the entire world indefinitely. We are the only superpower left, we do have responsibilities, but the amount of money we have in this budget is realistic. I think this amendment, therefore, should be defeated.