Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner]. (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Does my distinguished chairman have any additional speakers?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and neighbor in service, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia, [Ms. McKinney]. This amendment establishes a code of conduct for recipients of U.S. military exports and training. It gives the President the authority to decide which countries meet the four responsible criteria: promote democracy, protect human rights, not engaged in acts of aggression, and participants in the U.N. arms trade register. Those countries which do not meet the criteria would require a waiver agreed to by both the President and the Congress. As we apply conditions on our military aid to other countries, so should we apply conditions to our weapons exports. It is outrageous that in our last four overseas United States engagements--Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti--our troops were threatened by weaponry that we sold to various dictators who were once our friends, and later our enemies. As the only superpower in the world, it is imperative that the United States set the standard for responsible leadership. Congresswoman McKinney's amendment would ensure our moral leadership by prohibiting the sale of arms to those countries that are undemocratic, violate human rights, or are engaged in acts of armed aggression. Arms transfers to undemocratic countries which past administrations have courted for a variety of reasons, have often come to haunt us. We have spent precious human and financial resources cleaning up after conflicts which were fueled by our own arms transfers. Our own children have been endangered by the very same weaponry that we sold because of short-term foreign policy interests. This legislation will protect our children in the future by creating a presumption against such transfers, but does establish a thorough, responsible review process for those sales that are in our best interest. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to support the McKinney amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate on our side, nowhere is the justification for foreign aid clearer and more compelling in terms of our national values than Africa. Africa is the final frontier for development. The great global challenges of tomorrow can be seen in the challenges facing Africa today, and even if I were to turn to the tragedy of disease which obviously foments within the confines of the rain forests in that great country, there are also many discoveries yet to be made in that same rain forest for medicinal purposes for the rest of the world. If we give up Africa, the continent could well slide into chaos, we could find ourselves in a world of two distinct communities where the difference between the rich and poor become unbearably extreme, and that is not a world which we want for our children. A lot of times my colleagues in this body need to have for them language couched in business terms. Let me see if I can do that briefly. In 1993 the United States exported more to sub-Saharan Africa, $4.8 billion precisely, than to Eastern Europe, which was $2.3 billion, or to the NIS, which was $4 billion, including Russia, where the United States exports a total $3 billion. The current 1992 figures for sub-Saharan international markets, excluding South Africa, is $28.5 billion. If that market were to grow at a nominal rate of 3 percent a year in constant terms, it would double every 21 years, reaching a level of $83.2 billion in the year 2025. That market would exceed the size of Korea's market today. I make those points for the reason that foreign aid is often thought of by the American people as a giveaway. But there is something else that is given away with foreign aid, and that is stability for American companies to do business. [[Page H5551]] In my district alone, there is one company that does $20 million a year of exports to the continent of Africa. There are numerous countries from Africa that provide immense resources ranging from crude oil to other minerals for this country. I ask my colleagues to stop looking at this continent as a battleground and to start looking at it as marketplace as rightly we should. I have asked not that there be money taken from any account. I have asked merely that we restore to an account an amount for the Development Fund of Africa that was already in existence and is meager by comparison to the multiplier effect of the good that it does. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Do I have the right to close, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Further reserving the right to object, I would still need an additional 15 minutes, Mr. Chairman. If we could conclude by 6:15, then that would be acceptable.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Probably there are 6 additional speakers. I could ask them to curtail some of their remarks and doubtless they will be able to do that.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I most respectfully will have to object because I do have a number of speakers that have been waiting, and I recognize that they, too, deserve an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, preserving the right to object, if I could engage the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, in dialogue further, I misunderstood the gentleman. Did the gentleman say 12 minutes for each side total?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment today to increase by $173 million the Development Fund for Africa account. This additional $173 million will restore this account to the current funding level. The Development Fund for Africa was established by a bipartisan majority in 1987. Why? Because development aid is clearly in our long- term interest. Development assistance ensures that underdeveloped economies become stable friends and future trading and business partners. The Development Fund for Africa has been critical to supporting the transition in South Africa, crucial in turning around Africa's economic decline, has helped bring about market liberalization efforts in some 20 countries, and has addressed basic issues such as girls education, vaccinations against curable diseases, and halting the spread of AIDS. [[Page H5545]] The Development Fund for Africa helps develop the physical infrastructure, the human resource base, and the rule of law structures which provide a safe and hospitable locale for American businesses to operate successfully. The Development Fund for Africa was specifically created to target development resources efficiently in countries that both need the assistance and have the potential to become self-sufficient economies which can later buy our products. Cuts in the Development Fund for Africa account would undercut our efforts to strengthen export markets and fledgling democracies in southern Africa; undermine our ability to prevent Somalia-like crises and famine; and diminish support for democracy building to countries in political transition, allowing countries like Mozambique and Angola (which are on the cusp of recovery) to slip into chaos and crises similar to Rwanda. Those who would dismiss Africa as being unimportant are taking a narrow, shortsighted view of American interests. We are making a long- term investment in Africa, and we know from our own experience that the United States benefits directly from the development which foreign aid helps fuel. We hear a lot of talk about Africa being a sinkhole for foreign aid and that the U.S. has no reason to remain engaged in Africa. But I am not sure that many Members are aware that South Africa played a key role in the recent indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. U.S. engagement, and U.S. assistance, has played an important part in the emergence of South Africa as a democratic partner for the United States. South Africa's role in the NPT conference shows that our support is already bringing dividends. Nor are many Members aware that American exports to Africa are growing faster than U.S. exports to Europe and that U.S. trade with Africa exceeds our trade with the former Soviet Union. It is in our national interest to prevent crises like we have witnessed in Rwanda and Somalia, which together cost us $2.25 billion in emergency assistance funds. Preventive diplomacy will help us avoid these crises. Aid to Africa is not only in our self-interest, it is consonant with our national values. We have a long and proud tradition in this great country of helping the needy both home and abroad. Emergency aid is invaluable for relieving human suffering, but sustainable development assistance is critical to breaking the cycle of dependency and despair by addressing the root causes of poverty. We have unavoidable responsibilities around the world. Some of the problems around the world which currently demand our attention are problems of our own making. Our foreign policy goal for the past 40 years was the dissolution of the communist system. We have been largely successful in achieving this goal, but the repercussions of the breakup mean that there is both a political and financial vacuum in many troubled spots. Now that we have forced so many countries to abandon either their type of government or their support system, do we now say, ``Sorry, you're on your own? We can't help?'' I don't think so. Senator Claude Pepper of Florida was the only Member of Congress to criticize the isolationist mood in the U.S. Congress when Hitler began toppling nations in 1939. Senator Pepper argued that it was the responsibility of all mankind to intervene in the face of evil. Senator Pepper said, ``when a few men are wronged and the force of brutality and the jungle are let loose, when civilization is denied and godliness and goodness scorned, that is no private war, that is a war against man. Hence, to vindicate those things for which good men stand, good men everywhere must stand together against wrong, not only wrong to a chosen few, but wrong to any man, woman or child.'' To ignore our responsibilities to nations less fortunate, to refuse to share our bounty, to silence our teachers, to shut out friends who cry for our help, these are crimes against humanity. The American people are not that cruel, nor should we be. I beg my colleagues, support the Hastings amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The gentleman cuts the money?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me speak very briefly to my colleague from California on the remarks that he made. There are human faces on these people that are working for the State Department, and there is a critical need in order that we maintain a continuum throughout the world in the various diplomatic and consulate missions that are ongoing. Therefore, the downsizing in my opinion should not be analogized to private downsizing. I am not so certain, based on the lack of service that I receive in the various institutions that I do business with, that downsizing is good. In that sense, and to answer my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], who spoke earlier about us cutting one-third of the staff here, I think that that was a mistake, too, because it has not produced any greater efficiency. It has produced greater stresses and greater problems overall in terms of the overall product.