Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would like to engage my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton, in just a very brief colloquy and follow up on what has been discussed with him and the chairman. The development assistance fund cuts that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] proposes of $144 million, can he tell me in his opinion how that would be offset? My belief is, based on what the gentleman from Alabama is saying, is that it will come out of the Africa account. Does the gentleman dispute that, or does he not care?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, actually, I was prepared to offer an amendment that does the same thing that the Payne amendment does, with the exception of the funding structure changes, the amendment that I have proposed to offer but am prepared to withdraw at this time. I would offer to give this body an opportunity, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] has, to show its support for development programs in Africa by restoring the development fund for the Africa line item. I am fully supportive of Mr. Payne's amendment and even more many appreciative of the extraordinary work done by the committee and specifically by the chairman in doing creative things to try to protect the Africa account. I need not explain why much of the continent of Africa needs our expertise. Africa has special development needs. The continent has a unique combination of war-related, humanitarian requirements and traditional sustainable development needs. Africa continues to be one of the world's greatest development challenges. The Development Fund for Africa has proven to be an effective mechanism in providing foreign assistance to Africa. Its flexibility and orientation toward establishing measurable results puts the DFA on the cutting edge of the U.S. foreign assistance mechanisms. Actually, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] was prepared to offer this amendment with me. It does not increase in our view the spending levels in this bill. As a matter of fact, it had basically the same development structure and the same assumptions for Africa which are found in the fiscal year 1977 appropriations bill. The difference is that the amendment, had I offered it, would have reestablished the line item for the DFA which was deleted last year. Mr. Chairman, the Payne amendment and the one that I have proposed to offer have great symbolic and real significance. They show the people of Africa that the United States supports development programs rather than respond to emergencies or provide direct financial aid. We are saying that we are determined to teach them to help themselves. This short-term investment, as requested by Mr. Payne, will reap many stable prosperous trading partners for American businesses. That is all that I would say, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the proposed amendment that I was going to offer. I offer support for Mr. Payne's amendment and thank the chairman of the committee for, as I said earlier, the extraordinary work that he and the committee have done. I hope to continue to work with him in efforts to ensure that the accounts with reference to Africa are protected to the extent that our budget will permit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I just suggest not only as pertains to India but elsewhere around the world, and I do not accuse the gentleman from Indiana of being arrogant, but very often we start because of our parochial or personal political considerations to point fingers at others. We would almost be in a position of not being able to do any business anywhere in the world if we were to just identify human rights violations as the only link that we must have considered before we do business. We are getting ready to do MFN China, we do business with Russia, we do business all over this world. With Nigeria we have on one decertification link; Pakistan, we do not on another and I have not even reached South America. I could go on and on.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleague from Indiana is extremely serious about the matter that he brings to the attention of the body this evening. I would only urge upon him when we discuss human rights around the world that we be mindful also of human rights violations within the confines of the United States. I listened actively to the debate a moment ago about asking the Turks to apologize for atrocities that took place some years ago against Armenians and many Members will come to vote on that rollcall vote with this country never having apologized to black folk in this country for slavery in this country, and I am not talking about the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I am talking about the country. We need to be very cautious when these elections are taking place like in Turkey and in India and we recognize the value of these countries for a variety of reasons. Right here in our country, for example, there is no massive outcry in this body--there is among some Members--about church burnings that are taking place in the South at black churches. So let us get a little careful before we throw stones. I rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman, to my good friend Dan Burton's amendment. This marks the third year that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will submit an amendment that singles out India for punitive treatment. Ironically he was on the floor a moment ago arguing about others singling out treatment for Turkey. It sounds to me like a whole lot of political pandering is going on in this body. These alleged claims of India's human rights violations, despite the fact that the State Department has praised India for its progress in this area, have always been based on outdated and mistaken information. Yet this year these attacks will be especially damaging to United States- India relations in light of India's recent economic reforms. Present the United States is India's largest trading partner with investments reaching $5 billion this year. United States firms such as General Motors, McDonnell Douglas, GE, AT&T, Boeing, and Citicorp, major investors in India, are taking advantage of its strong intellectual property rights laws and highly skilled work force, many of whom are in the United States of America. The Enron Oil & Gas Co., which I received, as did a lot of Members, a letter from dated June 3, has three plants throughout India which together make Enron the largest non-Indian energy developer in India. Such investments are currently possible as India is taking increasing steps away from a command and control economy. Yet Dan Burton's amendment would send the wrong signals to India, discouraging it from continuing with these reforms and improving its economic ties with these United States companies. My good friend's amendment also ignores that India is not only the world's largest democracy but has just completed the world's largest free and popular election ever. Our foreign policy should be aimed at encouraging democracy rather than punishing it with unjust punitive measures, and I caution my friends with reference to the Turkish matter that they be mindful of elections and the results there as well. Finally, my good friend's attacks on India's human rights record is not consistent with its ongoing improvements in this area. An independent human rights commission found the Indian Government to be cooperative and consistently complying with the proposals and reforms of its human rights commission. India, the world's largest democracy, is currently taking tremendous strides to open its economy and improve its relations with the United States. I believe that your amendment caps development assistance but it does nothing but damage these relations by sending the wrong signals to India's Government as well as hurting our own American companies that are already working to make future projects possible in a truly promising market.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and had earlier planned to file an amendment without understanding that he had been way ahead of me on that subject. So I thank the gentleman and the chairman in that regard and do not intend to offer the amendment that I had prepared. amendment offered by mr. visclosky

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all I wish to point out is that there are 200 that have been cut, 200 through attrition. That is 400, a 17-percent decrease, and since 1995 there has been a freeze on hiring and, in addition to that, there has been a freeze on salary increases. They are making progress, I would say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that certainly we do not want to be put in the position of not wanting to eliminate cholera and having children immunized and having safe water for as many places as possible, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, when the gentleman makes a broad-based statement about that, about what the American taxpayer does not like, I am an American taxpayer and I recognize the critical aspect, as does the gentleman, of what we do abroad. The fact of the matter is we do not do enough. We are for free markets, he and I, and we know that international aid assists American investment and import and export undertakings, not only in the underdeveloped countries, but throughout the world. With that in mind, what U.S. AID does can be construed as a failure, and the gentleman knows, and he and I were in the hearing; all of that was put into the record. But much has been done since that time by U.S. AID and other agencies in consultation with State to make some changes that I think the gentleman and I would agree upon.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute to H.R. 3322. This so-called omnibus bill has several missing pieces. This omnibus bill does not contain an authorization for the Department of Commerce's technology programs housed at the National Institute of Science and Technology. These programs are designed to help industry develop new technologies. They provide medium-sized companies with scarce matching funds and necessary manufacturing information. H.R. 3322 cuts personnel accounts at the National Weather Service. Coming from Florida where hurricanes are a major weather threat, I feel that these cuts are unjustifiable. This action leaves many areas of the country at risk from severe weather events. But this measure does not stop there. It also takes shots at another major presence in Florida, NASA. The funding levels proposed in the bill translate into personnel layoffs at the NASA facilities in Florida. Mr. Chairman, I could go on, but these few examples are proof enough that his bill needs fixing. I urge opposition to this bill and support the Brown substitute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have sat, incredulous, that this debate has been ongoing. Of course, I am very supportive of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and appreciative of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and those who are concerned enough to be about the business of trying to reconcile what remaining differences exist with reference to some rather innocuous language. Mr. Chairman, this Nation built a monument to middle-class housing under the aegis of the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans' Administration, and rightly so. We seem to forget exactly what the United States of America does for any number of entities who are involved in institutional development. When a major institution in this country builds a new building and leases it for 99 years, it does not mean that the Federal Government is not involved in insuring the loan that constructed those magnificent high-rises in many of our communities that have absolutely nothing to do with the housing of poor individuals. How dare we come in here and say, as policymakers of this Nation, that we do not favor a goal of ensuring that every citizen in this country has safe and inhabitable housing? I find it almost unbelievable that in the preamble to this bill that is going to change housing policy that has been in existence for as much as 50 years, we find ourselves debating something as simple as whether or not it ought to be the goal of the U.S. Congress and its Members to state that we favor every citizen in this country having safe and inhabitable housing.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is no question but what that is true, if we were to add to that the mortgage deduction that I benefit from in developing my interests in a home, or any number of aspects of the government's involvement in allowing for the development. But what I was trying to get across is it is not only homes. We insure the homes of millionaires with their mortgages. There is nothing wrong with that. Why, then, should there not be a goal that we want to make sure that every American understands that we as policymakers favor their right to have a safe and inhabitable house, and that the public and the private sector, local and Federal and State, ought to participate as a goal to ensure that? I thought that is what I was here about.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the 35 people who were killed this past Sunday in Australia. Allegedly killed by a 28- year-old man with a history of mental illness, the killer was random and deadly with his rifle. The victims were visiting a popular tourist site in the Australian state of Tasmania when their day was interrupted by this horror. Mr. Speaker, it is tragedy enough when one person is shot and killed. However, it is nearly unthinkable to have 35 dead and have the lives of many more changed forever because of this violence. The victims ranged in age from 3 to 72 and came from all parts of the world. On behalf of the people of the State of Florida and the entire United States, I extend my sincere condolences to the people of Australia and to all those who mourn this tragedy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations and the chairman of the Black Caucus. (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. But if the gentleman will yield further, how does that improve foreign policy? When a mission is closed, a U.S. citizen is seeking assistance in some foreign place, how does that help that U.S. citizen? And we do know that missions are closed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this provision, as vetoed by President Clinton, is styled the American Overseas Interest Act. I find it passing strange that in all of our discussions, not just here today, but in the runup to this particular measure being on the House floor and the subsequent veto by the President, very little is being said about American interests abroad in a fashion that allows for the private sector to be considered by those actions that are undertaken by us as policymakers. It is a fact that American business interests benefit greatly from the efforts that are put forth on behalf of our great country. Toward that end I cannot believe that we would want to mandate such a far- reaching reorganization of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus that has no connection to the real problems of foreign policy. In my view, having sat in many hearings with my colleagues, it is reorganization for the sake of reorganization. In the final analysis, it just simply will not serve the best interests of this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.