Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am very sympathetic to the human rights issue being raised here. This is a very, very complex world. It is a dangerous world. Even though the so-called cold war is over, we still have to have a foreign policy that will allow us to be able to deal with friends to make sure that they have the ability to defend themselves. I might add one more time, if we do not sell them these weapons, we will make sure that they will buy them someplace else. Let us allow that the President of the United States will be able to make these determinations where necessary and at the same time protect American jobs by not letting them go overseas.

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

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I appreciate the gentleman's contribution. In a perfect world we might have a consistent foreign policy worldwide. But as the gentleman well knows, we do not have a perfect world; we have an inconsistency in foreign policy. That is why the President, whether Republican or Democrat, has to have latitude in conducting that foreign policy that includes the ability to stop arms sales or allow those arms sales to go forward. I am very sympathetic to the human rights abuses issue being raised here.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what is even worse is to send them back to possible death and torture at the hands of the Communist Vietnamese Government. Some of those people have been disappearing. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the whole 5 minutes. I would just like to put some facts on the table. Right now under the Export Control Act, the Congress of the United States can stop sales. In the past when the President, any President, has started to go ahead with arms sales and he found opposition was rising under the Export Control Act that was passed by the Congress of the United States, they have pulled in their horns and they have renegotiated those sales deals with these foreign countries. So we already have the authority in law to do what is being talked about today. The only difference is we are turning the process around. That hamstrings the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy. That is a mistake Ten years ago, the United States controlled only 15 percent of the arms sales. My colleagues who spoke on the other side are absolutely right; we do control a large part of arms sales today, but that is because the Soviet Union has disintegrated. Ten years ago, they controlled 50 percent of the arms sales worldwide, and they sold to countries like Iraq, Iran, and Libya. We are not selling to those pariah countries, but they did. Now that they have fallen apart, our percentage of the market has gone up, but we are still below, way below, where we were 10 years ago. So while our percentage is higher, our actual sales are lower. So the bottom line is this. Simply put, we have the control in the Congress to stop any arms sales that we want to under the Export Control Act. We do not need this legislation. Second, we should not hamstring the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy. And third, the economic concerns that I talked about awhile ago are real, because there are other countries who will sell this equipment to foreign governments if we do not. Along with those sales will go American jobs. I think those points should be considered by my colleagues. We have the authority to deal with this problem already. We do not need this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that concerns the American people more than anything else is waste in government. They believe that government is inefficient, and in many, many cases it is. In fact in some cases it is downright horribly wasteful. The AID agency that deals with developmental assistance and other foreign aid around the world is responsible for spending an awful lot of our foreign aid money. I want to read to my colleagues a memo that came out of a meeting that was held by the director of AID and his assistant director and several people in leadership. This memo was sent around the world to AID agency heads in many, many countries. When you read this, it makes you downright angry if you are a taxpayer. Here is the part that I think is the most interesting. Larry B., the assistant director of AID said, ``We are 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''--that means spend--``$1.9 billion in the next 5 months.'' He goes on to say, ``LAC, AF, BHR are doing okay. There are large pockets of money in the field and about $570 million in Global and ENI each. So let's get moving.'' In other words, they are two-thirds through the year and they have only spent about one-third of their budget so they want to get spending so they can ask for more money in the next biennium or the next fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the kind of thing that the American people hear and when they hear it, they just get downright angry. That is why I think the bill of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, is headed in the right direction when they are talking about merging these agencies. In another part of this, when they are talking about the merger, which is going to save the taxpayers a lot of money, let me read to you what they say in that part. They say, ``Jill Buckley reports that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff was relatively uncooperative in discussions yesterday and somewhat surprisingly the House International Relations Committee staff was cooperative. The strategy''--and this is their strategy--``is delay, postpone, obfuscate and derail. If we derail, we can kill the merger.'' ``If we derail, we can kill the merger'' between these agencies that are going to be put under the State Department to save taxpayers' money. I think this is reprehensible that the leadership of AID met, tried to derail the will of the Congress of the United States, and in the same memo said, ``We've got to spend a heck of a lot of money by the end of this year. We're two-thirds of the way through, we've only spent about one-third of our budget. If we don't get on the ball and spend this money, we can't come back and ask for more money.'' That is something that cannot be tolerated. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I will be proposing my amendment today to cut the staff of AID by 25 percent. The chairman's mark cuts it by 10 percent. I believe we can go further. If we can cut the congressional staff here in Washington, our committee staff, by 33 percent, we can sure cut AID by 25 percent. They have got almost 10,000 employees. They want to spend taxpayers' money wastefully. We need to send them a message.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the cut originally proposed is $1.5 billion, and this [[Page H5453]] takes us close to $2 billion, so it was not $2 billion initially, and this takes us to $477 million more.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of real brief points. We are going to be spending $17\1/2\ billion, that is $17.5 billion, in foreign assistance. Sure, we are cutting $2 billion, but we are still sending $17\1/2\ billion of taxpayers' money overseas. That is a lot of money. For my colleagues who know we are under severe budgetary constraints, to say we are not doing enough for the rest of the world, they need to start telling us where they think we ought to cut. We have not had many suggestions from the other side on where to cut spending. Every time we bring a bill to the floor that cuts spending to get us on a trend line to a balanced budget, everybody starts complaining and says, oh my gosh, you are going to hurt these people, and this group and this group. The fact of the matter is the people who are getting hurt the most in the country are the American taxpayers, because the deficit continues to go up and up and up and the interest on the debt goes up and we have to do something about it. So, the $2 billion out of the $19.5 billion we are sending overseas, a $2 billion cut is justifiable. We are not relinquishing our position in the world as the world leader, we are still helping wherever we can. We are going to be helping starving children, we are going to be helping countries rebuild, we are going to be helping countries do a lot of things, but at the same time we are doing it in a much more responsible way, we are watching taxpayers' money and spending taxpayers' dollar wisely, and that is the thing we should be doing. So when my good friends on the other side of the aisle start complaining about where we are making these cuts, I hope everybody will remember the cuts have to be made. Otherwise we are going to have a fiscal disaster in the country in about the next 6 or 7 years. We have to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. We in the Republican leadership are heading in that direction, and this is one step that must be taken.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me end up by saying when the budget resolution was passed, it was passed about the same time we were working on this bill. We are $477 million short of what the budget resolution requires, so it is really important that we pass this amendment. It is going to take the overall foreign aid cuts down by about $2 billion, but at a time when the American people are being asked to bite the bullet as far as spending is concerned, it is only reasonable to say that we ought to cut foreign spending as well, so the cut of $2 billion and this additional cut of $477 million is in order. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I hate to rise and oppose my good friend and colleague from Indiana, but I think there are some things that should be pointed out. He said in his very eloquent speech just a moment ago that this bill is going to hurt our security and hurt the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. The President just got back from Moscow. When he went to Moscow he was going to say something to the Russian President, Mr. Yeltsin, about selling nuclear technology to Iran. And he was also going to talk about the atrocities that are taking place in Chechnya at the hands of Russian troops and try to get that stopped. Neither of those policies were reversed by the Russian Government. [[Page H5408]] The Russian leaders said in a joint press conference, in effect, keep your nose out of our business, just keep the foreign aid coming. And they are going to go ahead and sell nuclear technology to the Iranians who want to build an international ballistic missile system or at least short-range missile systems to enhance their power in that part of the world. They want to have the nuclear technology so they can build nuclear warheads, and we are allowing them to be sold. Our President was not able to stop that. Now, how are we hurting national security when our leader goes over there and cannot get the job done? The way we deal with it is for Congress to send a message. The Congress is sending a message in this bill. We are saying to the Soviets, you sell that technology to the Iranians and there is a penalty that is going to be incurred. The security of the world is at risk because we have a bunch of nuts over there in Iran running that country. We know about their terrorist activities. Now regarding the requirement in the bill that says that, if you do not vote with the United States at least 25 percent of the time, get that, 25 percent of the time in the United Nations, we are not going to give you foreign assistance. Does that sound unreasonable? Is it unreasonable for the American taxpayers' dollars not going to a country that only votes with us 25 percent of the time? I mean, if you ask anybody in this country, do you think your tax dollars should go to a country that votes against us over 75 percent of the time in the United Nations every time we have a major issue, they would say, heck no. They ought to vote with us at least 50 percent of the time. This bill only says 25 percent of the time. There are countries that will be penalized because they vote against us all the time, and they are getting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. That is wrong. This bill is a good bill, it is well balanced. It sends a very strong signal around the world and to the administration as well: Be strong in foreign policy and we are going to be strong.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this time to me. First of all, I think this is a fair rule. Ten hours should be a sufficient amount of time to debate this issue, but I want to talk about something else today of very, very great importance. I remember a few years ago when the Berlin Wall was up, and we saw an East German soldier running through barbed wire with his weapon hanging in his hand to freedom, and everybody in the world applauded. It was on the front of, I think, Life magazine and a bunch of other magazines showing this man in his great dash for freedom from Communist oppression, and we all applauded that, and just 2 or 3 years ago from Cuba we had captain in the Cuban Air Force fly his jet to freedom in Miami, and he told about the repression of that government, and everybody applauded that, and then just last year I believe a man, a Cuban American, took a small aircraft, and flew under the radar screen into Communist Cuba, landed on a small street, a dirt road, and picked up his family, and flew them to freedom in Marathon, FL, and everybody in the world applauded. Here was a man fleeing Communist oppression. The State Department has declared the dictatorship of Fidel Castro a brutal dictatorship. Just last July 13, the March 13 tugboat containing 85 women, and children, and men was trying to get to freedom, fleeing Communist oppression in Castro's dictatorship. The Cuban Navy came up alongside and with power hoses were washing people off of the deck. Women were holding their babies up, showing the Cuban Navy there were children on board, and they kept the power hoses on them. The woman went down into the bowels of the tugboat to protect the kids. The Cuban Navy pulled up alongside and, using the orders directly from Fidel Castro, they pointed the hoses into the hold and sunk the ship, drowning those women and children like rats. That is the kind of dictatorship we have in Communist Cuba today. That is the kind of dictatorship we had in East Germany under the Communists, and in the old Soviet Union. People did not want to live in that kind of hell. If you read Armando Valladares' book ``Against All Hope,'' you know of the horrible oppression and torture that goes on in the Communist gulags, the prisons, in Castro's Cuba. Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern and dismay that the American people see today that the Clinton administration is equating illegal aliens coming across the Mexican border by the millions with the few thousand people fleeing Communist oppression in Castro's horrible dictatorship in Cuba. Janet Reno said these people were illegal immigrants, and there were only about twelve or thirteen thousand in the last year that tried to flee Castro's dictatorship. The reason this is being done is because Castro forced people down to the shores, telling them they were going to go to prison if they did not leave that country, when he sent 30,000 people over here for political purposes. Let me just say the policies of this administration are wrong headed regarding Cuba. It is still a Communist dictatorship. Sending people back to Cuba today is like throwing people seeking freedom back over the Berlin Wall. It is a terrible mistake, Mr. President.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment just brings into accord with the rest of the bill the requirement that countries getting developmental assistance from the United States should vote with the United States in the United Nations at least 25 percent of the time. We think it is a good amendment, it is consistent with the bill, and we urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just end by saying we are concerned about Federal employees. We have some great people working for the Federal Government. But we have great people working in the private sector, too. When General Motors and Chrysler and other major companies across this country start feeling the financial pinch, they have to downsize and economize in order to keep their companies afloat. The difference is the Federal Government does not have to answer to anybody because we can deficit spend. As we deficit spend, we create a terrible problem for the future generations of this country. So just like the private sector, Government has to downsize. For the State Department to cut 5 percent is not too much to ask.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Once again, we hear these prophets of doom because we are making a draconian cut in a department, the State Department. This is a 5 percent cut, \1/20\th of their budget. We cut the congressional staffs here by a third, 33 percent. For people to tell the American taxpayers that we cannot cut this agency by 5 percent I think is giving them the wrong information. There is not any Government agency in the United States that cannot be cut at least 5 percent, including the State Department. When you are talking about making hard choices to get to a balanced budget, it seems to me that the State Department can take their share of the burden as well as any agency in the government. A 5-percent cut is certainly not draconian.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again speak about the human rights situation in India, which is deplorable. I want to speak about two issues today. The first is the destruction of a centuries-old mosque in Kashmir. The second is the continued imprisonment of Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann. The half-a-million Indian security forces in the valley of Kashmir have for years run rampant over the civilian population there. They have gang-raped women. They have tortured and murdered political prisoners. They have shot indiscriminately into civilian crowds, and they have burned entire villages into the ground. Just last week, in the town of Charar-e-Sharies, the Indian military, with no regard for the safety of civilians, launched an attack that resulted in the burning of hundreds of homes and the gutting of a centuries-old walnut-wood mosque, one of the most famous religious sites in Kashmir. The Indian Government, time and time again, has shown absolute disregard for basic standards of human rights in Kashmir, Punjab, and other areas. India must be held to account for the crimes that have been committed against the Muslims of Kashmir, including the destruction of the sacred shrine of Charar-e-Sharies. The Indian Government's utter disregard for Moslem mosques and other holy places is shocking and must not be swept under the rug. The Indian Government must also be held to account for the horrible human rights abuses committed against the Sikhs in Punjab and the Christians of Nagaland. Few people know about what is happening in those areas because the government will not allow the media or human rights groups into those areas. Indian paramilitary forces in Punjab are responsible for thousands of cases of well-documented disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Thousands of Sikhs are held in prisons throughout Punjab, and human rights groups have reported that virtually all Sikhs held in prison are routinely tortured. Four months ago, I came to the House floor to talk about the detention of Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann. Mr. Mann is a former member of Parliament and probably the most prominent of all the Sikh leaders. He has been a forceful, but peaceful, advocate of independence for a Sikh homeland called Khalistan. Mr. Mann was arrested in January after addressing a gathering of thousands and speaking out the most recent of dozens of times Mr. Mann has been arrested for peacefully expressing his political views. He was arrested and held without trial for 5 years in 1984. He was the target of an assassination attempt in 1993. He has been a victim of constant harassment by the Indian Government, and is once again a political prisoner who has been in detention in a windowless cell for the last 4 months. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the Indian Government release Mr. Mann immediately and allow him to return to his family. The government has no right to put people in prison because it doesn't like their political views. I am enclosing for the record a chronology of the instances in which this distinguished man has been imprisoned and harassed by the Indian Government. The government of India must stop the harassment of people with whom it disagrees. It must stop the lawless activities of its security forces in Punjab and Kashmir. The abuses that the Indian security forces are committing will not snuff out the movement for an independent Khalistan among the Sikhs. They will only add fuel to the fire. India must improve its human rights record if it truly wants to be recognized as a lawful and democratic nation. Arrest Record of Simranjit Singh Mann Name: Simranjit Singh Mann. Father's Name: Sarda Joginder Singh Mann. Status: Former President of the Shiromani Akali Dai (Sikh Political Party). Ex-Member of Parliament. Present Member of Ad-hoc Committee, Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar). 1. Nov. 29, 1984, arrested at Jogbani (Bihar State). 2. Dec. 4, 1984, sent to Bharatpur jail (Rajasthan) under different charges. 3. Dec. 10, 1984, released and rearrested by Maharasthra police. 4. Nov 24, 1989, arrested in Chandigarh. 5. Feb. 26, 1990, arrested in Bathinda, Punjab. 6. March 7, 1990, arrested in Nathu Ke Burj (District Amritsar). 7. Mar. 11, 1990, detained in Amritsar. 8. Jan. 26, 1990, detained in Jammu and Kashmir. 9. Mar. 6, 1991, detained in Usma village (District Amritsar). 10. Mar. 7, 1991, detained in Amritsar. 11. Mar. 11, 1991, detained in Jalandhar. 12. Jun 2, 1991 detained at Taran Taran (District Amritsar). 13. Jun 6, 1991, detained at Gurdwara Manji Sahib (District Amritsar). 14. June 26, 1991, detained at Sanga Village (District Amritsar). 15. Nov. 1991, arrested at Gaziabad, detained in Fatehgarh (Uttar Pradesh). 16. Jan. 28, 1992, detained near Moga (District Faridkot). 17. Jan. 30, 1992 detained at Rajpura (District Patiala). 18. Feb. 1992, arrested and kept in Nidampur Sub jail (District Sangrur). 19. Apr. 22, 1992, arrested in New Delhi. 20. Jun 25, 1992, arrested in Behla (District Amritsar). 21. Aug. 5, 1992, arrested in Tarn Taran (District Amritsar). 22. Aug. 16, 1993, detained in Amloh (District Patiala). 23. Aug. 27, 1992, arrested in Ludhiana. 24. Sep. 11, 1992, arrested in Chhapar District Ludhiana 25. Oct. 18, 1992, detained in Amritsar. 26. Dec. 17, 1992, detained at Quilla S. Harnam Singh (District Fatehgarh Sahib). 27. Jan. 6, 1993, arrested in Kaunke (District Ludhiana). 28. No. 1, 1993, arrested in Amritsar. 29. Dec. 15, 1993, arrested at Gurdwara Pariwar Vichhora Sahib (District Ropar). 30. Jan. 5, 1995, arrested at village Bassi Pathana (Dist. Fatehgarh Sahib).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishment of Miss Janice Bankert, a high school junior in my district who won the Veterans of Foreign Wars ``Voice of Democracy'' State competition. Miss Bankert has a lofty and noble vision for American democracy. One that, I might add, we should all strive to achieve--quoting Miss Bankert, ``the barriers that are to be conquered are but foothills to a mountain if we are unified.'' Indeed, if we ``put away prejudices and stubbornness'' we can restore belief and faith in the ``judgment of (the) government'' again. I salute Miss Bankert and submit the text of her script to be printed in the Record. ``My Vision for America'' I have a vision for America that in my lifetime there will be a revolution of new thoughts which will sweep over this nation and produce in the heart of our society a stronger desire for democracy than ever before. My vision is that the dreary attitudes of leaving the decisions up to Washington will dissipate into the inclination to rise and to speak forth about the laws and principles that shape this country into what it is, and into what it will become. My vision is that on the evening news, instead of an overwhelmingly negative report about the goings-on in the White House, there will be loud acclamation and approval . . . because the people will feel that they are being heard. Instead of just voting, people will write letters, gather petitions, and communicate with the politicians from their districts and regions about what they need, and what they would like to see happen in their government. Ladies and gentlemen, my vision is that democracy will thrive in this nation by once again being planted and nurtured by the citizens. For my fantasy to become reality the people for which this nation was first built must build it again with their own hands. Like the ``amber waves of grain'' is the power and greatness of this country. This nation is a harvest that has already been planted, and now needs cared for every moment, to be gathered with thankfulness and satisfaction. It is a fruit so fertile and awesome that it will take the unity of a nation to reap it . . . and enjoy its bounty. To do this, every person must invest time and effort. We all must work to change what is adverse to our common goal, an America we can take pride in, and like farmers in a field, weed out our enemies: hate, discord, indifference, and defacement of hope. The task that faces us is not an impossible one if we are unified. The barriers that are to be conquered are but foothills to a mountain if we are unified. Our victory is not invisible if we are unified. Unified . . . each of us putting away prejudices and stubbornness, ignoring petty issues, believing in the judgment of our government, and having faith in the banner that has long been the embodiment of our allegiance to the democracy that began over two-hundred years ago, and continues today . . . My vision for America is one that is common, but will only live if we, as citizens of the United States of America, actively birth it from our hearts, and allow it to suffocate no longer. My vision for America is for each individual to feel as part of a union and to proudly, joyously say, ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Jeff Katz, a radio talk-show host in my district. Jeff's wonderful insights blasted the Indianapolis-area airwaves during the evening drive-time slot on WIBC. Jeff's program played a very integral role in the recent Republican revolution. You see, Jeff is one of the gaggle of conservative talk-radio hosts who helped spread the word before last fall's telling elections. Their courage and ability to bring moral, social, and political issues into the publics' eye had a very positive impact on helping the Republicans gain control of the Congress last November. Jeff continues his good work even today. Jeff Katz has been a good friend of mine, and unlike some in the mainstream media, he covers issues fairly and honestly. Jeff is moving to the Sacramento, CA, area to another radio station. I wish him well and will miss him. While central Indiana is losing one of the finest talk-radio hosts in the country, the people of northern California will be gaining a very talented and capable radio personality. Jeff, thank you for all of your hard work, and best of luck.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I wish to have the Record reflect, immediately after rollcall vote No. 296 on H.R. 889, that I would have voted ``aye'' had I been here. I was across the hall.