Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say that the gentlewoman who has worked so hard on the Mexican issue is to be commended, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], subcommittee chairman, should be commended, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for putting language in here that at least gives the Congress an opportunity to get information on the Mexican bailout. But as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, we still are not going to have a vote on the ultimate $52 billion that is going to go to Mexico, $52,000 million that is going to Mexico without a vote by the people's House on their tax dollars. So far it was reported in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that of the first $5 billion, $5,000 million, that was sent to Mexico, $4 billion, $4,000 million, was used to pay off American insurance companies, mutual fund investors, Wall Street brokerage houses, Mexican banks, and the richest of Mexico's rich, these people that bought their tesobonos, their bonds, down there, and that is not what we were sending the money down there for in the first place. It is really a tragedy our tax dollars are being used to pay off these people who invested in Mexico knowing the risks. We are bailing out the big investors who took the risks, and now they are being repaid even though they should have taken the loss like anybody else that invests in financial instruments. Now, this legislation does head in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction. The President is going to have to certify to the Congress what this money is being spent for, where it is going. They do not particularly like that at the White House, but, nevertheless, they are going to have to do it, otherwise additional tranches of money are not going to go to Mexico. That still begs the issue. Should we be sending this money down there in the first place? Anyone who is following the financial markets knows the dollar has been dropping like a rock. It is at the lowest levels against the Japanese yen in decades, and in large part, if you talk to many economists, you will find that is due to the Mexican bailout that has been taking place unilaterally by the executive branch of Government. This Congress was going to vote on it. We had a proposal that would protect the American taxpayer. We could not get Mexico to go along with the provisions. We could not get the White House to go along with the provisions. They decided to use the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which has never been used for that purpose before to my knowledge. There are some people that question the legality of it. As a result, the peso has continued to drop. It finally stabilized at half of what it was worth. The dollar continues to drop. We are responsible for the taxpayers' dollar. Even though the Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for at least putting this language in the legislation, it does not go far enough. We ultimately need an up-or-down vote on whether we should continue to send billions of United States taxpayers' dollars, billions of United States taxpayers' dollars to Mexico without any guarantees it is going to be repaid. That money right now is going down a rat hole. Of the first $12 billion that has gone down there, $11 billion of it is gone. They have only increased their reserves by $1 billion. We still need an up-or-down vote on this entire issue.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think the gentleman the chairman is correct with one possible exception. I want to make sure this is well understood. After the President signs the bill, the time starts. Then the requirement starts. Not after we pass it here in the House. It is after the President signs it, I believe, which could be as late as the 24th or 25th of this month.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Regarding the certification, it said the funds stop unless and until the President submits the appropriate documents. Until we get the certification, the money is cut off, so it would be around the 24th or 25th of this month.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me reclaim my time once again.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may reclaim my time, the gentleman is saying, generally they are asked of juniors and seniors in high school, but that is not exclusively the case. Many times they are asked of children in primary and secondary education, way down below the senior high school level.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But those questions are asked of children in the schools in the education system.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Centers for Disease Control. In addition to that, we all know there is Federal aid in the way of block grants and other ways, and that money then goes down to the school districts and school corporations through various distribution formulas and they do use Federal moneys. We do not believe Federal moneys should be used for these kinds of questionnaires.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Indirectly.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. They were?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I believe, indirectly.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for recognizing me. I think the problem is not that the last amendment was not a good amendment. I supported that. It was a step in the right direction. But I believe we need to go further. Listen to some of the things that are being asked of kids right now. Should we be involving these things in the curriculum or in the educational system? They are asking political affiliations or beliefs. What right does an educational system have to ask that question? They ask about mental or psychological problems. They ask about sexual behavior and attitudes, they ask about illegal, antisocial and self-incriminating behavior, they ask about appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor had a family relationship or a family-type relationship. They ask about relationships that are legally recognized as privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and members of the clergy. They ask about religious affiliations and religious beliefs. I do not believe those questions have any business in the educational system. Let me give you a couple of questions that were actually on a questionnaire put out by a school district. I do not remember the school district. I believe it was in Virginia here. It says in question number 11, ``Have you ever been in a physical fight in which we you were hurt and had to be treated by a doctor? Yes or no.'' Then it says that sometimes people feel so sad and unhappy that they may think about attempting suicide or killing themselves. The next three questions ask about attempted suicide. That puts thoughts in kids' minds that should not be there, in my view. Here is another question, question number 34: The next four questions ask about sexual intercourse. Have you ever had sexual intercourse? How old were you the first time this occurred? What business does the educational system have in asking these questions of young people? And it makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot understand why Federal tax dollars should directly or indirectly be involved in these types of questions. I believe that the amendment that just passed that said parents have to give parental consent before they can give or ask these questions is a step in the right direction. However, many people are very busy, many parents do not pay attention to all the things being put in front of their kids. They have confidence in the educational system, so they do not really look into them as thoroughly as they should. So I believe many of these questionnaires will be approved by parents when the parents really would rather those children not participate in answering those types of questions. systems of this country do not infringe upon the rights of individual parents and families, do not stick their noses into areas where they should not, is to make absolutely sure that they cannot do it by not allowing Federal funding for these kinds of projects.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may recall my time, we are talking about more than just the Grassley amendment. Does the gentleman from California have any more comments he would like to make?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me read once again, since the gentleman said that this was mostly high school seniors, these were middle school students, we are talking about children in the 10, 11, 12-year-old age range. Listen to this question. It is very important: This is of 10, 11, 12- year-old kids: How old were you when you first had sexual intercourse for the first time? Many of these kids are still in puberty, and you are asking them when they had their first sexual experience. And the answers are ``Never had sexual intercourse.'' ``I was 9 years old.'' Or younger. Do you believe that they have a right to ask that kind of a question in that kind of a situation in school? And many of the parents are working parents and they will not read these questionnaires.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I think that the minority has a point and this will be corrected, I believe, in the tax law before this session is over. That is my view. But let me just say that we are not nervous. We are in the majority for the first time in 40 years and we are not nervous. What I think the Democrats are nervous about is that they really do not have any program as an alternative to the Contract With America. I have heard all this day this class warfare theology that you espouse all the time, and that is that the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer because of the disparity in our tax proposals. Let me point out a couple of things. We have a to cut spending to deal with that. But in addition, we have to bring more revenue to the Treasury. How do you do that without a tax increase? John F. Kennedy, when he was President, proposed and got passed through the Democratic Congress a capital gains tax cut. This is John F. Kennedy. And you know what happened after they cut the capital gains, the tax revenues went up because of the tax cut. We had another capital gains tax cut during the Ronald Reagan years. You know what happened? Tax revenues went up over 30 percent, and because we stimulate growth by a capital gains tax we are advocating, if you use a dynamic model, it will increase tax revenues and help reduce the deficit. So let us cut this class warfare stuff. If we cut capital gains, regardless of who gets a benefit, the low income, middle income, or high income, it is going to stimulate more capital investment, $2 to $3 trillion in new capital investment once assets are sold and recycled, and it is going to create economic growth and more tax revenues. So let us cut the baloney about tax warfare. It just will not wash with the American people.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I listen to the Democrats, and it sounds like to me they have a corner on the market as far as poverty is concerned. Believe it or not, some of the Republicans grew up in very difficult situations. I myself did. You do not believe that. Listen to this. My mother was a waitress for 18 years and I shined shoes at a place called J.D. Rushton's Barber Shop and we did not get welfare back in those days. They did not have it. You had to go to the township trustees. But one of the great things we had going for us was we lived in America and we were a land of opportunity, and we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and move out of the white ghetto and make something of ourselves. As a result, my brother, my sister, and I have succeeded to a degree. Now let me just tell you this. The dependency that has been created by the Great Society back in the 1960's has led us to the condition we are in today where the vast majority of the people on welfare are in a cycle of dependency and they cannot get out. That was why the people of this country changed the way Congress was made up last November. They want that cycle of dependency broken, and we are trying to do it. You keep telling the people of this country we are trying to take money and food out of the mouths of hungry children. That is insane. We are spending 4\1/2\ percent more on the Children's Lunch Program than we were before. we are giving more, but we are taking it away from the bureaucrats and giving it to the Governors so they can handle it within block grants. We want to break the cycle of dependency and you do not. You want to keep the people of this country dependent on you so you can get reelected and reelected and reelected. The times have changed. The times have changed.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the rules have been established for debate, and we have already on one occasion extended the debate time on a previous bill, and it seems to me that we should object to this. And if the gentlewoman will not, I will.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, each and every one of us was shocked by the deaths of the two American consular officers in Pakistan. I am sure that every Member in the House of Representatives would like to send their deepest condolences to the families of these two Americans. Immediately following this tragedy, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sent a letter of condolence to the White House and vowed to bring to justice those responsible for this crime. I would like to commend this action. Over the past year, Pakistan has been the recipient of many unsubstantiated statements in the House regarding its role in world terrorism. In fact, there now exists a coordinated campaign in the House to brand Pakistan as a terrorist state. In that regard, I would call my colleague's attention to a March 10, editorial in the Wall Street Journal which says ``the murders should not become an excuse for the United States to turn away from Pakistan, a moderate Moslem nation.'' As the United States continues to work toward improved relations with this valuable ally, we should value not only what Pakistan did for the United States during the cold war, but what a modern Pakistan will mean to us in the future. Pakistan should be looked upon as a progressive, modern, and democratic bridge to 1 billion Moslems strategically located around the Earth. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 10, 1995] Death in Pakistan Americans are not killed very often in Pakistan, but when political killers do get U.S. citizens in their sights, the assaults tend to be spectacularly brutal. After a Pakistani mob stormed and torched the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad in 1979, staffers hiding in a vault were saved only at the last moment from mass suffocation. Ambassador Arnold Raphael died in the still unexplained C-130 crash that killed President Zia ul Haq near Bahawalpur in 1988. On Tuesday, an unknown number of gunmen opened up on a U.S. consular van in Karachi, killing two junior diplomats and wounding a third. After the Zia crash, the American embassy, for still unexplained reasons, refused to let FBI experts join the Pakistani team investigating suspected sabotage. This time, Bill Clinton has vowed to pursue the killers, and G-men have been dispatched to join the search. With the help of the experienced Pakistanis, they may actually find out who pulled the triggers. But Jackie Van Landingham and Gary Durell were not picked out as targets because of some widespread anti- Americanism. The bullets that killed them were aimed at Pakistan itself. Theories about traffickers angered by U.S. drug-fighting efforts, or about Islamists bent on revenge for the recent extradition of an alleged terrorist from Pakistan to New York miss the point. The killings come on the eve of a visit to Washington by Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She goes in search of a restoration of U.S. aid and greater economic ties, and will now arrive in a country that sees Pakistan through a glass even more darkly than before. The radicals may hope that the American companies that have signed mega- deals for energy projects will now get cold feet and that Pakistan will become a no-go zone for foreigners in general, with all their sorely needed capital. Sound familiar? Perhaps like Egypt, where antigovernment Islamists have systematically targeted the tourist industry? Or like Bangladesh, where power-hungry opposition forces have used the hapless feminist writer Taslima Nasrin to get Muslim mobs on the streets? Despite their proven ability to whip up crowds, Pakistan's radical Islamic parties are political failures. They have stood for election and been rejected by a solid majority of Pakistani voters. Now they, or some other frustrated power-seekers, may be going for the cheap option of destabilization. The murders should not become an excuse for the U.S. to turn away from Pakistan, a moderate Muslim nation with which relations have lately been rocky. Given Karachi's recent history of random sniping and bloodshed, it's alarming that U.S. government vehicles are not adequately bulletproofed--if also testimony to the safety that Americans feel there. And Pakistan should certainly re-think the yellow license-plating of all diplomatic cars with numbers that identify each car by country. On Tuesday, that big American 64 was an easy bull's- eye. And Americans everywhere should prepare for at least one nasty aftershock. When Ambassador Raphael died with Zia, the 100% of Pakistanis who are conspiracy theorists seriously entertained the notion that the plane was brought down by the CIA. Sooner or later, some will want to blame the U.S. for the Karachi shooting as well. But letting this tragedy sour the overdue rapprochement between Pakistan and the U.S., once allies in winning the cold war, would only hand a victory to Pakistan's radical fringe. And as bad, it would lend one more brick to those in the U.S. who want to build an isolation wall against a world that still needs American leadership and friendship.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about something positive that we are working on right now. There are 600,000 children in foster care in this country, 30,000 to 35,000 of these kids are up for adoption or available for adoption right now. There are problems with getting them adopted. It costs about $10,000 for a prospective adoptive parent to adopt a child, and because of that, there are a lot of kids that are not adopted that would be. to foster home and they lose hope, they become full of despair, and many of them turn to crime as they get older. So we need to do something to provide incentive for people to adopt. In the tax bill that is coming up before this body in about 2 weeks, there is going to be a $5,000 tax credit for parents that adopt children who are in foster care. Now it costs $15,000 to $20,000 for each child that is in foster care. If we get them out of foster care into loving homes by using this tax credit we are going to save $15,000 the first year, $20,000 a year each year after that, the taxpayers are paying to keep those kids in foster care, that is a positive. In addition, there is an amendment in the bill right now we are talking about which I have sponsored which provides additional incentives to adoptive parents to adopt children who are handicapped, who are having problems being adopted. It provides all kinds of methods for the States to employ incentives to get these children out of the foster care system and in loving homes. In addition to that we are also going to provide a computerized network if we can get the States to work with us by adopting this amendment I am proposing. And children will be able to be in that computerized system where prospective parents can see their faces, find out a little bit about these kids and decide whether they would like to have them in their homes. There may be a prospective parent in California who cannot find a child they would like to have, an adoptive child that may be handicapped, and through this computerized national system they will be able to find a child in Massachusetts or New York. So there are some very positive things in the legislation that we have been working on and we should look at the positive and not just negatives.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of the great political leaders in the history of the City of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana is a gentleman named L. Keith Bulen. Keith was my mentor, and in addition to having a tremendous impact on my life, was in a large part responsible for me making it to the Congress of the United States. On January 27th of this year, there was a dinner in Indianapolis honoring Keith for his many contributions to the State of Indiana and the Nation. Unfortunately, due to our schedule here in Washington, I was unable to attend; however, I was able to read some of the remarks made by my friend and mentor, L. Keith Bulen, which I found very en- lightening and thought-provoking. Following are a few of the comments Keith made which I feel my Republican colleagues would be well advised to read: At this point in life, reminiscing our past political activities over our many years together brings me great enjoyment. And I'm so doing. However, the greatest joy is when I contemplate the opportunities and potential that the immediate future affords our party to contribute to making our community, State, Nation and world a better place for our children and their children. This contemporary popular political phenomenon we are experiencing as a result of November 8, and the apparent rediscovery of the tenth amendment of our Bill of Rights, is indeed promising. However, the implementation of reclaiming all reserved powers for the States and the people is going to be one enormous challenge, after 60 years in the opposite direction. The accumulated vested special interests created, enlarged and entrenched during three score years are awesome! Accomplishing such a feat is only possible by retention of the inordinate cooperation and oneness of purpose shared by republicans in the last election. Our failure to seize upon and well perform during this brief unique opportunity will only serve to further diminish the confidence in the two party system that so fragilely underpins this great Nation and its perceived destiny. Elections are only vital as pre-requisites to providing good government. In closing I would like to say that I believe the City of Indianapolis, the State of Indiana and our Nation owe L. Keith Bulen a debt of gratitude for this years of unselfish service. The country would do well to have a thousand people like Keith Bulen active in the political process.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important bill. It has 20 pages of cuts, approximately $20 billion. But one of the things that really bothers me is that at a time we are making very strong cuts to get this budget under control, we are sending up to $52 billion down to Mexico. The President circumvented the Congress of the United States and did that by himself with the Secretary of the Treasury from the exchange stabilization fund. Fifty-two billion dollars. Mr. Chairman, we are cutting $20 billion out of this, and at the same time we are cutting Americans, and we should do that to get the budget balanced, we are sending $52 billion to Mexico. This is at a time when their peso is dropping like a rock and our dollar is dropping right with it because, in part, of our sending that $52 billion down there. The American people do not want us sending their taxpayers' dollars down to Mexico, and we cannot even get a vote on it in this House of Representatives. One of the things that I think is extremely important, if we are asking Americans to take a hit in order to get this budget balanced, we should do the same thing in foreign policy, and we should tell the people in leadership here, and in the other body, and at the White House, ``We want an up or down vote on the Mexican bailout.''