Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. H.R. 480. You have me on as a cosponsor, I hope?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the majority leader a question. This resolution of inquiry does not preclude any other legislative action pertaining to the Mexican bailout program?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think it could be interpreted to be broad in that regard, too. I would just reclaim my time and thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I think this amendment speaks for itself, and I would rather not get into a lengthy discussion on China and other things of that type. However, I do think this amendment is broad enough that it probably covers a lot of those concerns. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, I think I agree with what the chairman said, that it probably is not absolutely necessary. However, there are a number of industries in this country that feel like there needs to be some insurance that there is no misinterpretation. That is why we have offered the amendment, to make sure they feel comfortable with this piece of legislation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It may be an interpretation of what is really insurance as far as these industries are concerned.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country did not want us to spend billions of dollars and risk Americans lives going into Haiti. And the Congress knew that. We were not going to support it. Yet President Clinton unilaterally took action that put our troops at risk and sent our people in Haiti and spent billions of dollars in the process. The people of this country did not want us to spend money bailing out Mexico. And yet President Clinton unilaterally is spending $53 billion of American taxpayers' money bailing out that country that is in an absolute mess. And now yesterday unilaterally by executive order they are replacing strikers, a striker replacement bill is being passed by the executive branch without any act of Congress. This is illegal, in many of our opinions. However, the President did it. Unilateral action again. Someone should tell this President this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like the House of Representatives to take a moment to commend one of the finest officers in the U.S. Navy. He is Comdr. Roy J. Balaconis, of the U.S.S. Mitscher, one of the Navy's newest and finest ships, an Aegis Destroyer. To become the Commander of an Aegis Destroyer, which is the Rolls Royce of the fleet, one must be a tremendous officer. Commander Balaconis certainly fits the bill. He served under the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the gulf war, specifically because of his knowledge of the Navy's Tomahawk missile. He had the foresight to develop a thesis which utilized the Tomahawk missile in a scenario where it supported and sustained a surface and air confrontation in the Middle East during the time of crisis * * * and this was some 2 years before Operation Desert Storm/Shield. His thesis basically became the manual for Tomahawk use during the gulf war. Mr. Speaker, now Commander Balaconis has his own ship, and he is continuing to utilize his unique leadership skills. A member of my staff recently took a tour of his ship, and Commander Balaconis repeatedly stopped to talk to every member of his crew with whom they came into contact. Additionally, there were several members of his crew's families on board, and Commander Balaconis also stopped to speak with each of them, and the concern he showed was genuine. Commander Balaconis always referred to his crew and their families as part of the Mitscher family. Mr. Speaker, the men on his ship feel his enthusiasm and share in his desire to succeed. The high morale is evident in every being a Commander alone warrants respect, his men respect him for more than that. They respect him because of who he is. Mr. Speaker, Comdr. Roy Balaconis is a truly dynamic leader, and is definitely an asset to the U.S. Navy and our country. His accomplishments are certainly deserving of our recognition and praise.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the democratic Government of Guatemala has been put under a great deal of pressure to resolve the case of Efrain Bamaca, a commander of the URNG, a Marxist terrorist group that has been fighting for power in Guatemala for 34 years. The Government says Mr. Bamaca was killed in combat in 1992. Jennifer Harbury, an American citizen who says she is Mr. Bamaca's widow, claims he is being held in a clandestine military prison. As we weigh Ms. Harbury's claims, I urge my colleagues to take the following into account. First, Ms. Harbury is a strong partisan of the URNG. In the press, this is seldom mentioned. But she makes it no secret. In fact she published a book, ``Bridge of Courage,'' portraying the struggle of this Marxist movement in glowing, heroic terms. On the back cover, the top endorsement comes from one of the worst violators of human rights in the hemisphere, Daniel Ortega. In one chapter, entitled ``How You Can Make A Difference,'' she points out that Americans are legally barred from aiding the military efforts of the URNG, but strictly humanitarian aid is legal. Given her intense commitment to the URNG cause, it is plausible that her campaign on behalf of Mr. Bamaca is, like the URNG's military and political actions, designed first and foremost to weaken the democratically elected Government of Guatemala. Second, Ms. Harbury is seeking far better treatment than Guatemalans in her position. Ms. Harbury demands that the government of President Ramiro de Leon Carpio--which took office over a year after the fateful military engagement involving Comandante Bamaca--produce her husband or his remains. This is in the context of a guerrilla war with countless human rights violations on both sides and no record of prisoner exchanges. Bamaca is one of thousands whose fate is unknown. In fact, there have been so many abuses that the Guatemalan Government and the URNG agreed last June on a way to address them all. A special Historical Commission will conduct a sweeping investigation and issue a public report, as Chile's Government did after the Pinochet era. So, even though her case received special attention last year, Ms. Harbury continues to demand higher priority than the thousands of Guatemalan widows of soldiers and guerrillas, who will await the Historical Commission. Out of all this, a few things are clear. First, Ms. Harbury will be back in the headlines next month with her second hunger strike, pressuring President Clinton to take action against Guatemala. Second, she is hoping for a second free ride in the media. Human interest coverage brings few hard political questions. Her marriage alone provides a wealth of questions for a good political reporter. There are no photos of her with her husband, and records of her marriage in Texas can only be described as bizarre. When the URNG sought investigators' help locating Bamaca in 1992, their documents didn't mention that he was married. When Harbury has travelled to Guatemala, Bamaca's parents have declined to meet her. Third, Harbury's campaign helps the URNG at a critical time. The rebels are in the process of abandoning U.N.-mediated peace talks, after those talks made major progress in 1994. The URNG doesn't want to face the next major issue--ceasefire and demobilization--so it is walking away from the table. Its futile military struggle, with the suffering it brings to the Guatemalan people, will continue. That is the real crime in Guatemala--the trashing of a peace process that is close to ending a 34-year conflict. If U.S. media attention stays on a guerrilla commander lost in combat 3 years ago, it's a crime that won't get the attention it deserves.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. All of it or half of it or three-fourths of it, how much?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I think that needs to be stressed is how much money the United States is paying for U.N. operations, peacekeeping and otherwise. According to the General Accounting Office, the United States paid 80 percent, 80 percent of the worldwide peacekeeping operations for the United Nations last year. Out of $3.4 billion, we paid, the American taxpayers ponied up $2.7 billion. And on the regular administrative cost of the United Nations, we pay between 25 and 33 percent. Of all the countries in the world, we are picking up almost a third of all the costs. I do not think it is unreasonable to want a complete accounting for the President to tell us about all these costs. And if we feel it is extremely high, we should be able to do something about it. This is a very, very good amendment. The American people want us to participate and do what we can to make sure there is peace and harmony in this world, but they do not want to pay the whole enchilada. And 80 percent of the cost last year was paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. In addition to that, the year before that, we paid 44 percent of the peacekeeping cost. Think about that. Forty-four percent is a lot when we consider all the countries in the world that are in the U.N. But it was almost doubled last year. This is a move that should be taken. I think it is a good amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It has a No. 2 at the top, Mr. Chairman. We had to make a clerical change.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] and I are cosponsors of this amendment. It a very simple and straightforward amendment designed to make sure that the latest and best technology is used in building prisons and prison cells. It mandates that the States look into this to make sure they are using taxpayer dollars as wisely as possible in the construction of new prisons. That is basically all the amendment does. I think it is an important amendment. It will help control costs of new prison construction. I think the people of this country want that kind of scrutiny of construction of new prison facilities in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would presume that it might. That has not been a consideration in the amendment, but I presume it would.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, it ought to be pointed out, and I think the gentleman did that, and that is, if they are constructed off site, it is going to cut down construction costs----

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. As I yield back, let me say this in conclusion, Mr. Chairman: This modular cell construction we are talking about is one new technology. There will be others in the years to come, and we believe every Governor of every State should be looking into these new technologies to cut down the cost of these new prisons that are going to be constructed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.