Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on 15 November 2002, Turkish Cypriots are celebrating the 19th Anniversary of the proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The historic decision by the Turkish Cypriots to declare independence was not a separatist endeavor, but an act of self-defense undertaken 20 years after being forced out of the bi-national partnership State of 1960 by the Greek Cypriot partner; and having been physically driven from their homes and properties in 103 villages across the island in a campaign of violence and ethnic cleansing that had started in 1963. Terrorized, displaced and disenfranchised, the Turkish Cypriots had no choice but to reorganize themselves in the areas or ``enclaves'' under their control, in a collective act of survival, and to start running their own affairs. As to what happened afterwards, let us hear it from Mr. Glafcos Clerides, the Greek Cypriot leader, as candidly recounted in his memoirs entitled ``Cyprus: My Deposition.'' (Vol. 111, pp. 236-237): In the years that followed a steady, stage-by-stage development is noted in the Turkish administration, with the separation in its legislative, executive and judicial powers. An administrative organization is created, as well as police force and army. The increase of the financial resources of the Turkish Cypriots through economic aid from Turkey permitted the functioning of their administration on a more permanent basis, a fact which they made clear, by renaming their ``Temporary Turkish Cypriot Administration'' to ``Turkish Cypriot Administration.'' Thus there exist today in Cyprus two poles of power on a separate geographical basis; i.e., the Government of the Cyprus Republic, controlling the largest section of the territory of the state and internationally recognized, and the Turkish Cypriot Administration, which controls a very limited area and is not internationally recognized, but has already taken almost all the characteristics of a small state. This State is now the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is a product of the exercise, by the Turkish Cypriot people, of their inalienable right to self-determination on 15 November 1983. The Turkish Cypriot Independence Declaration contains all the principles and ideals that are universal to mankind, and are very familiar to the American people, such as ``that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'' and that ``Governments derive their just Powers from the Consent of the governed.'' In this Declaration, the Turkish Cypriots also extended a hand of friendship to the Greek Cypriots and called for the peaceful resolution of all their differences. That hand of peace and friendship remains extended today. It should be clear from the above brief history that the Turkish Cypriot people never owed any allegiance to the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus, which has no legal or moral right to claim to represent anyone other than the Greek Cypriot people. The said administration, under the pretentious title of the ``Government of Cyprus,'' has no jurisdiction to represent or act on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot people, whose sole legitimate representatives are those elected under the Constitution of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The fact that the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides are political equals and that neither of the parties can represent the other has been underlined by the UN Secretary-General on 12 September, 2000 as follows: I have ascertained that the parties share a common desire to bring about, through negotiations in which each represents its side--and no-one else--as the political equal of the other, a comprehensive settlement enshrining a new partnership . . . This fact has also been expressed by other foreign dignitaries, such as Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. Presidential Special Emissary for Cyprus, who, at a press conference held on 4 May 1998 in Cyprus, stated the following: I think it is very clear and no one has disputed that Glafcos Clerides does not represent or have control over the people of Northern Cyprus. The former Italian Foreign Minister, Mr. Lamberto Dini, expressed the reality of the existence of two independent and sovereign States representing the two peoples of the island in his statement of 26 August 1997, even in clearer terms: It has to be recognized that there are two republics in Cyprus, two entities, two governments . . . and therefore, if the European Union does not recognize this basic fact, in conducting negotiations for membership, then you bump into the problem . . . that one of the parties would not accept negotiations, going on with only what, in effect, is the Greek Republic of Cyprus. The way to the future in Cyprus must be based on this reality, rather than the myth that there is only one government in the island and that this is the Greek Cypriot administration. The Turkish Cypriot side has again demonstrated its good will in regard to a settlement by initiating the face-to-face talks between the two parties which started in December 2001 and are still continuing. However, these talks, already facing great difficulty because of the unilateral and unlawful EU aspirations of the Greek Cypriot side, face even a greater threat by the prospect of a positive decision on this matter by the European Union at its approaching summit in Copenhagen in early December 2002. It is sincerely hoped that the EU will act in full awareness of the fact that such a decision before a settlement can only perpetuate the division in Cyprus and will refrain from doing so. The decades-long negotiating process in Cyprus should have demonstrated to all concerned that worn-out clich[eacute]s and tried-and-failed formulas have not worked in Cyprus, and a bold new approach is needed. With its democratic system of government, respect for rule of law and human rights, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus deserves to be treated on a par with the Greek Cypriot State in the South. The two States can then come together to forge a common future on the basis of equality and a new partnership, also serving as a bridge of cooperation between Turkey and Greece, two allies the United States, which have direct interests and responsibilities vis-[agrave]-vis Cyprus. This is the way to lasting, peace and reconciliation in the island as well as the eastern Mediterranean region. Is it not time for all concerned to rethink their approach to the Cyprus issue and bring it in line with the realities on the island?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, On behalf of Ellis Island Medals of Honor Ceremonies, I am submitting the following statement for the Record. Standing on the hallowed grounds of Ellis Island--the portal through which 17 million immigrants entered the United States--a cast of ethnic Americans who have made significant contributions to the life of this nation were presented with the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor at an emotionally uplifting ceremony. This year's event was dedicated to the memory of those individuals whose lives were lost on September 11, 2001. NECO's annual medal ceremony and reception on Ellis Island in New York Harbor is the Nation's largest celebration of ethnic pride. Representing a rainbow of ethnic origins, this year's recipients received their awards in the shadow of the historic Great Hall, where the first footsteps were taken by the millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. in the latter part of the nineteenth century. ``Today we honor great ethnic Americans who, through their achievements and contributions, and in the spirit of their ethnic origins, have enriched this country and have become role models for future generations,'' said NECO Chairman William Denis Fugazy. ``In addition, we honor the immigrant experience--those who passed through this Great Hall decades ago, and the new immigrants who arrive on American soil seeking opportunity.'' Mr. Fugazy added, ``it doesn't matter how you got here or if you already were here. Ellis Island is a symbol of the freedom, diversity and opportunity ingredients inherent in the fabric of this nation. Although many recipients have no familial ties to Ellis Island, their ancestors share similar histories of struggle and hope for a better life here.'' Established in 1986 by NECO, the Ellis Island Medals of Honor pay tribute to the ancestry groups that comprise America's unique cultural mosaic. To date, approximately 1500 American citizens have received medals. NECO is the largest organization of its kind in the U.S. serving as an umbrella group for over 250 ethnic organizations and whose mandate is to preserve ethnic diversity, promote ethnic and religious equality, tolerance and harmony, and to combat injustice, hatred and bigotry. NECO has a new goal in its humanitarian mission: saving the lives of children with life-threatening medical conditions. NECO has founded The Forum's Children Foundation, which brings children from developing nations needing life-saving surgery to the United States for treatment. Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients are selected each year through a national nomination process. Screening committees from NECO's member organizations select the final nominees, who are then considered by the Board Directors. Past Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients have included several U.S. Presidents, entertainers, athletes, entrepreneurs, religious leaders and business executives, such as William Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George Bush, Richard Nixon, George Pataki, Mario Cuomo, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, Gloria Estefan, Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Elie Wiesel, Muhammad Ali, Mickey Mantle, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Barbara Walters, Terry Anderson, Dr. Michael DeBakey, Senator John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Janet Reno. Congratulations to the 2002 Ellis Island Medals of Honor Recipients: Abel Abrahamsen, Chairman Emeritus/Co-Founder, Norwegian Immigration Assoc., Norwegian; William Achenbaum, President, S/A Associates, Russian; Elias S. Adamopoulos, M.D., President, Piraeus Realty Corp., Hellenic; Hector Alcalde, Chairman & CEO, Alcalde & Fay, Spanish; Kurt Aschermann, Sr. Vice President, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, German/ Austrian/Italian; Lawrence Auriana, Chairman, Federated Kaufman Fund, Italian; Kenneth E. Behring, CEO & Founder, Wheelchair Foundation, German; Hon. Cornelius Blackshear, Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, African; Barbara Blair, CEO, Cyberstaff, Russian; Michael J. Brescia, M.D., Sr. V.P. & Exec. Med. Dir., Calvary Hospital, Italian; Lt. Gen. Bryan D. Brown, Commanding General, US Army Special Operations Command, Irish; Jeanette Grasselli Brown, Chair, Ohio Board of Regents, Hungarian; Maurice A. Buckley, President & CEO, Irish Chamber of Commerce in the USA, English/Irish; Preston C. Caruthers, General Partner, Carfam II Associates, L.P., Scottish/English; Steven W. Casteel, Assist. Admin. For Intelligence, US Dept of Justice, Dutch; Peter Castellana, Jr., President & CEO, Western Beef, Inc., Irish/Italian; Joseph R. Cerrell, Chairman & CEO, Cerrell Associates, Inc., Italian/French; Stephen Cherpelis, CEO, Stephen Cherpelis Enterprises, Inc., Hellenic; Hon. Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Russian/Polish; Stanley M. Chesley, Attorney, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., Ukrainian; Michael V. Ciresi, Partner & Chairman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Italian; Anthony S. Colavita, Esq., Attorney and Councilman, Italian/Irish; William J. Collis, M.D., Founder & Ophthalmic Surgeon, Kentucky Eye Institute, Hellenic; Martin E. Cooperman, Managing Partner, Grant Thornton, Russian/Polish; Salvatore J. Cumella, M.D., Executive Producer/President ``Women to Women'' Radio Show, Cumella Professional Services Inc., Italian; John C. Cushman III, Chairman, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., English/Dutch. Lucia Grieco Danzi, 100 years old, Italian; Oscar Davis, Chairman, Hayward Industries, Inc., Hungarian; Gen. Raymond G. Davis, USMC, United States Marine Corps, Scottish/German; Joseph J. DePaolo, President & CEO, Signature Bank, Italian; Thomas B. Doolan, President & CEO, TBD & Associates Inc., Irish; Harry A. Dorian Esq., Armenian; Thomas C. Eakin, President, Ohio Baseball Hall of Fame, Scottish/Irish/ English; Marvin E. Eisenstadt, President, Cumberland Packing Corp., Russian; Terrence A. Elkes, Principal, Apollo Partners LLC, Russian/Polish; Eugene C. Enlow, Chairman & CEO, Atlantic Detroit Diesel-Allison, German; Joseph Anthony Esposito, President & CEO, eResearch Technology, Italian; John H. Eyler, Jr., Chairman & CEO, Toys `R' Us, Inc., English/German/Irish; John Joseph Fareri, President, Fareri Associates, L.P., Italian; George N. Faris, Chairman & CEO, American International, Petroleum Corporation, Lebanese; John P. Ferguson, President & CEO, Hackensack University Medical Center, Irish/Italian, Scottish; John Fitzpatrick, CEO, Fitzpatrick Hotel Group N.A., Irish; Dewey Fong, Deputy Chief, New York City Police Department, Chinese; Hon. Vito J. Fossella, Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Italian/Irish; Daniel Frasca, Executive Director of Finance & Administration, New York State United Teachers, Italian; Louis J. Freeh, Sr. Vice Chairman, MBNA, America, Italian/ Irish/German; Clifford H. Friedman, Senior Managing Director, Constellation Ventures, Russian. Andre P. Gambucci, Consultant to the President, The Acordia Cos Wells Fargo, Italian; Joe Garagiola, Former Baseball Player, TV Announcer, Joe G. Enterprises, Italian; Michael Gewitz, M.D., Professor & Director. Dept. of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital At Westchester Med. Center, Russian/ Austrian/Slovakian; George Gialamas, President & CEO, Gialamas Company, Hellenic; Matthew Goldstein, Chancellor, CUNY, Romanian/Polish/Austrian; John B. Goodman, Chairman, The Goodman Group, Russian/Romanian/Lithuanian; C. Flemming Heilmann, Principal, Banyan Projects, Danish; Werner F. Hiller, Founder & President, The Hiller Family Foundation, German; John H. Hong, President, Hanmi Realty, Korean; Myung Mike Hong, Chairman & CEO, Dura Coat Products, Inc., South Korean; Professor James Jacobson, Associate Professor of Education, Saint Peter's College, Finnish; Eugenia Janke, Chairman, Tolstoy Foundation, Russian; Kaija R. Kalervo, President, American Finnish Community Club, Inc., Finnish; Professor Andrew G. Kampiziones, Professor of Philosophy, Francis Marion State University, Hellenic; Hon. Marcy Kaptur, Member of Congress-9th District U.S. House of Representatives, Polish; James G. Kennedy, President, James G. Kennedy & Co., Inc., Irish/French; Joseph Kisup Kim, President, Kim's Jewelers, Korean; William C. Korner, President & CEO, Prinexus, Scottish/English; Gust C. Kraras, President & CEO, KCK & GCM, Inc., Hellenic; Kent Kresa, Chairman & CEO, Northrop Grumman Corp., German; Robert I. Kuperman, Chairman & CEO, DDB/New York, Russian. Joseph R. Lagana, President & CEO, United States Information Systems, Inc., Italian; Joseph J. Lagano, President & Founder, J. Lagano Family Foundation, Italian; Louis E. Lataif, Dean--School of Management, Boston University, Lebanese; Br. Robert E. Lavelle, C.S.C, Headmaster, Gilmore Academy, Irish; Josephine LeBeau, Executive Director Vice President, AFSCME International, French/Creole; Professor Heo-Peh Lee, President & CEO, Shie- Jie Enterprises Group, Chinese; Joe (McCoy) Lenti, Vice President/Program Director, WCBS-FM Radio, Italian; Mark M. Lii, President, Ten Ren Tea & Ginseng Co., Inc., Chinese; Dr. Johnny M.J. Lu, President, Lucoral Co., Inc., Chinese; William Lucy, International Secretary-Treasurer, AFSCME, African; Martin J. Maddaloni, General President, United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, Italian; Farah B. Majidzadeh, CEO & Chairperson, Resource International, Inc., Iranian; Lt. Gen. Dan K. McNeill, Commanding General United States Army, XVIII Airborne Corps & Ft. Bragg, Scottish; Frank Meehan, International Vice President & President, UFCW--Local 1500, Irish; John R. Miller, Vice Chairman, KPMG, Welsh/English; Matthew Mirones, Assemblyman, Hellenic; Alfred T. Mockett, Chairman & CEO, AMS, English; Ralph Salvatore Mosca, M.D., Director of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Children's Hospital of New York, Italian/Irish/German; John P. Moses, Esq., Moses and Gelso, Lebanese; Murlan J. Murphy, Jr., Principal, JTM Company, Irish; Mike Mehmet Mustafoglu, Chairman & CEO, Transglobal Financial Corporation, Turkish; A. Maurice Myers, Chairman, President & CEO, Waste Management, Danish/Austrian. Nicholas Andrew Natsios, Retired-Senior C.I.A. Official, Central Intelligence Agency, Hellenic; ADM. Robert J. Natter, USN, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Austrian/ Scottish/Irish; Albert G. Nickel, President, Chairman & CEO, Lyons Lavey Nickel Swift, German; Louis Nicozisis, President, NICO Properties Group, Hellenic; Hon. Lyndon L. Olson, Jr., Senior Advisor, Citigroup, Swedish; Harry C. Orbelian, Conductor & Musical Director, Moscow Chamber Orchestra, Armenian/Ukrainian; Vasilia (Bess) Pappas, Director Hellenic Cardiac Fund for Children, Children's Hospital Boston, Hellenic; Michael F. Parlamis, President & CEO, Frank Parlamis Inc., Hellenic; Santo Petrocelli, CEO, Petrocelli Electric Company, Inc., Italian; John George Poles, Senior Partner, Poles, Tublin, Patestides & Stratakis LLP, Hellenic; Albert T. Primo, President & CEO, Eyewitness News Service, Inc., Italian; Hon. A. Gail Prudenti, Presiding Justice, State of New York, Italian/German; Anthony R. Pustorino, Professor Emeritus, Pace University, Italian; Robert C. Radice, Chairman & CEO (retired), Radice Corporation, Italian; John C. Rakkou, President & CEO, Interbank of New York, Hellenic; George Randazzo, Founder and Chairman of the Board, National Italian American Sports Hall of Fame, Italian; Hon. Edward D. Re, Chief Judge Emeritus, US Court of International Trade, Italian; Dr. Arthur Lachlan Reed, Lachlan International, Scottish; Mona Romain, Assistant Treasurer, United Federation of Teachers, West Indian; Michael L. Royce, Acting President, Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp., Polish/Russian; Charles J. Santelli, Director of Policy & Program Development, New York State United Teachers, Italian; Chief Michael Scagnelli, Chief of Transportation, N.Y.P.D., Italian; Hon. Chris Victor Semos, Former Governmental Consultant, Hellenic; Phillip J. Shapiro, President & CEO, Liberty Maritime Corp., Russian/Polish; Rhona Hope Silver, CEO, Rhona Silver's Huntington Townhouse, Russian/Polish; James L. Singleton, President, The Cypress Group LLC, Irish/ Portuguese; Hon. Dean G. Skelos, Senator, New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader, Hellenic; Edward D. Soma, M.D., Lebanese; Hon. Michael Sotirhos, US Ambassador (Retired), Hellenic; George W. Souvall, President, Leisure Management Corporation, Hellenic; Dean A. Spanos, President, San Diego Chargers, Hellenic; Daniel J. ``Rusty'' Staub, Chairman, NYP & Firefighters' Widow & Childrens Benefit Fund, German/Irish; Hon. Joseph A. Suozzi, Senior Partner, Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Italian; Laurence M. Traub, President, Intermetal Corporation, Russian/Lithuanian/ Byelorussia; Savey Tufenkian, Executive Vice President (Retired), Western Waste Industries, Armenian; Rajendra B. Vattikuti, Founder & Co-Chairman, Covansys, Asian Indian; Antonio ``Nino'' Vendome, CEO, Vendome Group, Italian; Hon. James T. Walsh, Member of Congress N.Y. 25, Irish; David Walters, Former Governor of Oklahoma/President, Walters Power International, German/French/Swiss; Dr. Ruth Westheimer, Professor/Author/Therapist, German; Major General George N. Williams, Commander, 21st U.S. Air Force, Hellenic; George C. Zoley, Vice Chairman & CEO, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Hellenic.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed to find out that mail sent by the Council of Khalistan has not been reaching India for the past two months. The ``world's largest democracy'' is once again violating democratic principles by practicing mail censorship. It is violating the fundamental freedom of the people within its borders by prohibiting them from receiving information relating to the violations of the human rights of Sikhs and the peaceful, democratic, nonviolent effort to liberate Khalistan from Indian control. This is in clear contravention of democratic principles, but that is not surprising from India. It has never been a democracy for the minorities within its borders, but only for the Brahmin fanatics. General Narinder Singh, a respected Sikh leader in Punjab, has said that ``Punjab is a police state.'' A few years ago, the late journalist Sukhbir Singh Osan was subjected to censorship of his mail and harassment, including telephone calls from unidentified persons saying things like ``It is dangerous to write against the government.'' All this happened because Mr. Osan ran the outstanding news website Burning Punjab, which featured news about government corruption, until he died earlier this year. These actions prove that India is not a democracy. It is a theocratic Hindu fundamentalist tyranny, and a supporter of terrorism in Sindh and elsewhere, as well as internal terrorism. Accordingly, it should not be a country that receives U.S. aid, yet it is one of the largest recipients despite its anti-Americanism. We should stop our aid to India until it allows basic human rights such as receiving mail without content control and we should support basic human rights like self-determination. Self-determination is the very foundation of democracy. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagalim, and the other states seeking their freedom. This is the way to real freedom, peace, stability, and prosperity in South Asia. Mr. Speaker, the Council of Khalistan has issued an excellent press release on this issue, which I would like to place in the Record at this time. Mail Censorship in ``World's Largest Democracy'' Mail From Council of Khalistan Is Not Being Allowed to Get to Addressees in India Washington, D.C., October 8, 2002--Mail censorship is again being practiced in India, which bills itself as ``the world's largest democracy.'' Mail from the Council of Khalistan to addresses in India has not been received in India for the last two months. The Council of Khalistan is the government pro tempore of Khalistan, the Sikh homeland that declared its independence on October 7, 1987. It has worked for 15 years to liberate Khalistan by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent means and has specifically rejected militancy. Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, has talked to many people in Punjab who have not received any mail from the Council of Khalistan during the last two months. The Council has mailed two mailings to India in that time. ``This undemocratic action shows the true nature of India,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``Although it claims to be democratic, India has engaged in this kind of censorship before. It controls information and uses its control to whip up hatred and violence against Sikhs and other minorities,'' he said. ``Is this what a democracy does, or is it what a tyranny does?,'' he said. ``Why is a `democracy'threatened by facts? Is this freedom of speech? These mailings included statements from the Congressional Record, press releases from the Council of Khalistan, and clippings from U.S. and international newspapers,'' he said. A few years ago, similar mail censorship was imposed on the late Sukhbir Singh Osan, the journalist who founded the website Burning Punjab, which reported on Indian government corruption, tyranny, and human-rights violations against the Sikh Nation. Osan, who died of a heart attack early this year, also received a telephone call telling him that ``it is dangerous to write against the government.'' The Indian government controls both major Indian news services, Press Trust of India (PTI) and United News of India (UNI). India has used its control of media to generate violence against minorities. During the 1984 Delhi massacres of Sikhs, Indian media called for the shedding of more Sikh blood. In February 42 Members of Congress wrote to President Bush to get 52,268 political prisoners released from Indian prisons. The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984. Over 80,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed since 1988. More than 200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947, along with tens of thousands of Dalits, Tamils, Assamese, Bodos, Manipuris, and other minorities. Since Christmas 1998, Christians have been subjected to a wave of oppression. According to the Indian Express of October 7, Hindu militants have forcibly reconverted Christians in Ajmer. Priests have been murdered, nuns have been raped, churches have been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been destroyed, and no one has been punished for these acts. Militant Hindu fundamentalists allied with the RSS, the pro-Fascist parent organization of the ruling BJP, burned missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons to death. ``Sikhs are a separate nation. We ruled Punjab until 1849. No Sikh representative has ever signed the Indian constitution,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``Nations that do not have political power perish,'' he said. ``Remember the words of former Jathedar of the Akal Takht Professor Darshan Singh: `If a Sikh is not a Khalistani, he is not a Sikh.'Support for Khalistan is picking up internationally. Last month, members of the British Parliament from both political parties supported the Sikh demand for an independent Khalistan. Many U.S. Congressmen are on record in support of an independent Khalistan.'' ``The censorship of the Council of Khalistan's mail shows that India is a fundamentalist majority Hindu theocracy and is a tyranny, not a democracy. It does not respect human rights for Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, or anyone but Brahmin extremists,'' Said Dr. Aulakh. ``For the well being of the Sikh Nation, to prevent abuses like this from occurring in the future, we must free Khalistan,'' he said. ``I call on the Sikh leadership in Punjab to launch a Shantmai Morcha to liberate Khalistan from Indian occupation,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``I call on the Sikh leadership in Punjab to begin a Shantmai Morcha immediately. The people of South Asia must have self- determination now.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this week the Council of Khalistan, which leads the fight to free the Sikhs from the repression of India, marked its fifteenth anniversary. It was founded on October 7, 1987, when the Sikh Nation declared its independence and named their new country Khalistan. The repression that has been inflicted on the Sikhs and other minorities in India before and after that declaration is well documented. The Indian regime has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, according to the book ``The Politics of Genocide'' by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. A report from the Movement Against State Repression notes that over 52,000 remain in Indian jails as political prisoners without charge or trial. Some of them have been held since 1984. Another 50,000 have simply been made to ``disappear.'' Sikhs are not the only ones. Christians, Muslims, Bodos, Assamese, Manipuris, and others have felt the brunt of Indian oppression, with tens of thousands of them losing their lives. That is why there are seventeen freedom movements in India. The Council of Khalistan, while it focuses on the Sikh struggle, has spoken out for freedom and an end to the repression for all these peoples and nations. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take the occasion to congratulate the Council of Khalistan on its 15 years of service.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Appeasement does not work. The chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), spoke just a few minutes ago and he talked about what happened in the 1930s and how 40 to 50 million people died because of appeasement. Nobody wants war. But what my colleagues failed to mention, the previous speaker, is that we are at war now, right now. Has anyone forgotten that we lost over 3,000 people on September 11 last year? There are al Qaeda cells and terrorist cells in the United States and around the world that want to do us ill. Saddam Hussein is part of that terrorist network. We all know that. He has used chemical weapons on his own people, chemical weapons on the people next to him, killing tens of thousands of people. He has used Scud missiles. He has violated every U.N. agreement he has signed, and he has been shooting at our airplanes in a no-fly zone. Does anyone doubt his intentions? Now, what are we to do about that? Are we to wait for another attack on America where maybe 10 or 20,000 or hundreds of thousands of Americans might die? Or do we take preemptive action? I think if everybody thought very seriously about this, they would realize that we have to preempt Saddam Hussein and the terrorist network that he is a part of. Do we preempt him or do we react? Do we react after the fact, after we lose 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 or 100,000 people? Our responsibility in this Chamber and in this government is to protect American citizens, to protect our democracy, our freedoms and our rights; and if we do not take the right actions now, we will suffer the consequences later. Let me just tell my colleagues, we have a chance now to avoid more carnage in America; and the only way to do it is to send a very strong signal to the terrorist network around the world that we mean business, that we are not going to appease them, and if they mess with us, we are going to take them out; and the first target ought to be, and I believe if President Bush has his way will be, Saddam Hussein.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, just as we are about to go to war with Iraq, supposedly democratic India is propping up that brutal dictatorship. According to an article in the September 25 issue of the Times of India by Rashmee Z. Ahmed, Iraq possesses some of the deadliest weapons of mass destructions and missile infrastructures thanks to the illicit help of Indian companies. One such company, NEC Engineers Private Limited, has ``extensive links in Iraq,'' according to the article. Although such transactions violate India's export control laws, they are apparently taking place with a wink and a nod from the Indian government. Earlier I exposed India's oil transactions with Iraq, which violates UN sanctions. In spite of this, according to the September 18 issue of the Times of India, the United States and India are conducting joint naval exercises. On January 2, the Washington Times exposed the fact that India is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in the province of Sindh in Pakistan. India's leading newsmagazine, India Today, reported that India created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the United States government calls a ``terrorist organization.'' The U.S. State Department reported that the Indian government paid 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. According to the Indian newspaper Hitavada, the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, received $1.5 billion from the Indian government to forment terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir. The book Soft Target shows that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs. This has been discussed many times. If India is practicing and sponsoring terrorism and helping to build Saddam Hussein's war machine, why are we conducting joint naval exercises with India? Isn't this like conducting joint exercises with the enemy? I call on the Defense Department to call off these exercises. Mr. Speaker, we can help bring freedom to South Asia and end India's flirtation with terrorist enemies of the United States. The time has come to impose sanctions on India, cut off its aid, and openly declare our support for self-determination for all the people of the subcontinent. This is the best way to help see to it that everyone in that troubled region can live in freedom, dignity, prosperity, stability, and peace. I am inserting the articles from the Times of India into the Record. [From the Times of India, Sept. 25, 2002] Indian Firms Arming Iraq, Says UK (By Rashmee Z. Ahmed) London: Britain has alleged that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is able and willing to deploy some of its deadliest weapons of mass destruction in under one hour from the order being given and that it possesses missile infrastructure produced with the illicit help of Indian companies. The British claims of Indian involvement are contained in a 55-page dossier controversially and uniquely published by Tony Blair on Tuesday on the basis of what he called ``unprecedented and secret'' intelligence information. The dossier, received by largely skeptical political, press and public opinion here, tries to make a case for a Gulf War II-type operation to disarm Saddam and ``regime change''. Repeating US and UK claims that Baghdad continues to improve its missile capability, the dossier names names when it comes to alleged Indian support for Iraqi missile production. The document, which only obliquely blames ``Africa'' for supplying uranium to Saddam's secret nuclear weapons programme, pinpoints India as part of the supply chain for banned propellant chemicals destined for ballistic missiles. One of these, ammonium perchlorate, the dossier says, was ``illicitly'' provided by an Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Limited, which had ``extensive links in Iraq'', particularly to its al-Mamoun missile production plant and Fallujah 2 chlorine plant. Analysts added that in an intriguing insight, the dossier appeared to indicate that much of this had been known to New Delhi for some time. ``(The) Indian authorities recently suspended its (the company's) export license'' after ``an extensive investigation'', the dossier says, ``although other individuals and companies are still illicitly procuring for Iraq''. In what defense experts suggested was yet another indication of a host of ``front companies'' in India and elsewhere, the dossier further says the machine tools and raw materials supply chain crucially remains in place for Iraq's al-Samoud and longer-range missile systems. Even as Iraq refuted the dossier's claims as ``totally baseless'' and a ``Zionist campaign'', Blair went before a heated emergency session of the British parliament to declare, ``regime change would be a wonderful thing''. Blair's dossier, which precedes Washington's promised evidence on Iraq, was greeted by boredom and yawns among sections of the pundits and politicians, who said it crucially lacked the so-called killer fact. Commentators said the dossier, which Blair described as primarily for the British people, may do little to persuade opinion further afield, notably India. India has long said that it is opposed to military intervention in Iraq and that ``regime change'' is an issue for the Iraqi people. Indian diplomats react Responding to the allegations in Blair's dossier, Navdeep Suri, spokesman for the Indian High Commission confirmed that the case against the company, NEC, had been charged and the matter was currently sub-judice. He said, ``such actions are in violation of India's export control laws and whenever such a violation comes to the government's attention, firm action is taken''. He declined to comment on what he called ``speculative statements'' about ``other (Indian) individuals and companies'' continuing to procure illicit material for Iraq.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, we are at war. Homeland security legislation passed this body in July, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) just mentioned, and yet the Senate has not acted. The President wants the tools that he thinks are necessary to protect every man, woman and child in this country, and yet the Senate has not acted. He wanted it done before September 11, the anniversary of the tragedy that happened in New York, here in Washington, D.C. and in Pennsylvania, but the Senate has not acted. It is almost October. We are about to get out of here, and the Senate has not acted. The other body wants to give the President less authority over national security than any other agency of government, and that is wrong. He needs the tools to protect this country, and yet the Senate has not acted. Let me just say to the leaders of the Senate who were raising Cain yesterday: Get on the ball, protect America, support our President, and protect all the people who want to be protected in this country. We do not need another attack of terror.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am distressed about two recent articles that show the continuing repression of minorities in India. One article appeared in The Hindu, an Indian newspaper. It said that over 5,000 Muslims were killed in the violence this spring in Gujarat. Then the Times of India reported that a group of Indian police officers fired on a group of peaceful Sikh protestors. These articles show that minorities such as Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and others continue to suffer the worst kind of repression in ``democratic'' India. In Gujarat, the police were quoted as saying that they were ordered to stand aside and let the Muslims be killed. This was strangely reminiscent of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi. It is part of India's pattern of repression of its minorities. Now, it comes out that peaceful Sikh protestors who were simply holding a peaceful protest against what they see as desecration of their gurus and their scriptures were fired upon by Indian police. What kind of a democracy fires on peaceful protestors engaged in peaceful action? Christians continue to be oppressed as well. Churches have been burned, prayer halls have been attacked, nuns have been raped, and priests have been murdered. Militant Hindu nationalists burned a missionary and his two young sons to death while they slept in their jeep. A few years ago, police fired on a Christian religious festival that was peacefully promoting the theme ``Jesus Is the Answer.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop U.S. aid to India. It is time to declare our support for self-determination for the Sikhs of Khalistan, the Muslims of Kashmir, the Christians of Nagaland, and all the peoples demanding their freedom from India. We cannot just stand by and allow India's repression to go on with our support. Self-determination is everyone's birthright. Freedom is everyone's birthright. It is time for America to follow our principles and support it. The Council of Khalistan issued an excellent press release on the police firing at the peaceful demonstrators. I would like to insert that into the Record at this time. In addition, I would like to place the article from The Hindu into the Record to show my colleagues the ongoing repression of minorities in supposedly democratic India. Indian Police Fire at Peaceful Sikh Protestors india again shows it is not a democracy Washington, DC, August 5, 2002.--The Times of India reported on August 1 that police in Malout fired on a crowd of peaceful protestors, injuring many of them. Several have been admitted to Civil Hospital, Malout. Eight protestors were arrested. The police used tear gas on the demonstrators. Two people suffered bullet wounds, according to the article. The demonstrators were protesting against a so-called religious function organized by the Divya Jyoti Jagriti Sansthan which was aimed at undermining the Sikh religion and slandering the Sikh gurus, according to the Times of India. ``Like the attack on the Golden Temple, this incident shows that there is no place in India for Sikhs,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. Khalistan is the Sikh homeland declared independent on October 7, 1987. ``The Indian government is dedicated to wiping out the Sikh religion,'' he said. ``Nations that do not have political power perish. The only way to ensure that the Sikh religion can survive is to liberate Khalistan as soon as possible,'' he said. ``This attack shows that India is not a democracy, despite its pretensions,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``Democracies don't attack minorities and minority religions. Democracies don't commit genocide.'' Indian security forces have murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human-rights organizations. These figures were published in the book ``The Politics of Genocide'' by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. India has also killed over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 80,000 Kashmiris since 1988, and tens of thousands of other minorities. A report issued last year by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) shows that India admitted that it held 52,268 political prisoners under the repressive ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA) even though it expired in 1995. Many have been in illegal custody since 1984. There has been no list published of those who were acquitted under TADA and those who are still rotting in Indian jails. Additionally, according to Amnesty International, there are tens of thousands of other minorities being held as political prisoners. On February 28, 42 Members of the U.S. Congress from both parties wrote to President Bush to urge him to work for the release of Sikh political prisoners. The MASR report quotes the Punjab Civil Magistracy as writing ``if we add up the figures of the last few years the number of innocent persons killed would run into lakhs [lsqb]hundreds of thousands.[rsqb]'' In November 1994, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to organize and support covert terrorist activity in Punjab, Khalistan, and in neighboring Kashmir. The book ``Soft Target'', written by Canadian journalists Brian McAndrew and Zuhair Kashmeri, shows that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs and justify further repression. It quotes an agent of the Canadian Security Investigation Service (CSIS) as saying, ``If you really want to clear up the incidents quickly, take vans down to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancouver. We know it and they know it that they are involved.'' On January 2, the Washington Times reported that India sponsors cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. Christians have been victims of a campaign of terror that has been going on since Christmas 1998. Churches have been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked, nuns have been raped, and priests have been killed. Missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were burned alive while they slept in their jeep by militant Hindu members of the RSS, the parent organization of the ruling BJP. Earlier this year, over 5,000 Muslims were murdered by Hindus in Gujarat, according to The Hindu. These attacks were planned by the government, according to human-rights organizations, and news reports quoted a police officer as saying they had orders not to intervene to stop the violence. ``India's efforts to eliminate the Sikh religion are doomed to fail,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``This terrible act of police brutality shows that India is neither secular nor democratic, and it is time to launch a Shantmai Morcha to liberate our homeland, Khalistan, so that the Sikh Nation can finally enjoy the glow of freedom that was promised to us in 1947. Sovereignty is our birthright, and self-determination is the cornerstone of democracy. It is time for self-determination for all the peoples of South Asia.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we are commemorating the terrible attack on America this past September 11. This was a terrible event in which about 3,000 people lost their lives. A year later, they are in our prayers. Also in our prayers are the other victims--those who were subjected to violent, unfair attacks in the aftermath of September 11. One of these was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a gasoline station owner from Arizona. He was murdered at his gas station by someone who apparently mistook him for a follower of Osama bin Laden. His brother, Sukhpal Singh Sodhi, a cab driver in the San Francisco Bay area, was recently killed in his taxicab. I am sure that we would all like to extend our sympathies to the Sodhi family. No one should be killed because of his religion. Even if Mr. Sodhi had been a Muslim and a follower of bin Laden that would not justify murdering him. But what makes this crime even more disturbing is that this perception was a mistake. Mr. Sodhi was a Sikh, not Muslim. Sikhism is an independent, monotheistic, revealed religion that believes in the equality of all people, including gender equality. It is not part of either Hinduism or Islam, yet because of the turbans they wear, which are required by their religion, Sikhs are sometimes mistaken for Muslim followers of bin Laden. The violence has mostly ended, but there are still some unrelated violent incidents. Unfortunately, Balbir Singh Sodhi's brother was also killed just a couple of months ago in his taxicab outside San Francisco. I call for an end to all these attacks and for full and prompt prosecution of all the people responsible. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Council of Khalistan's recent press release on the anniversary of September 11 into the Record at this time. In Memory of Those Killed in Last Year's Attack on United States Sikhs Suffered the Most After the Attacks Council of Khalistan Condemns Attacks, Calls for End to Violence Against Minorities Washington, D.C., September 11, 2002.--Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, today remembered the attacks on America a year ago that killed almost 3,000 Americans. He also condemned the violence against Sikh Americans and other minorities that broke out in the wake of the September 11 attacks. ``On behalf of the 21-million strong Sikh Nation and especially on behalf of more than 500,000 Sikh Americans, we remember with sadness and outrage the attacks on America a year ago and offer our prayers and sympathies on this sad anniversary to the people of the United States for the terrible attack on the United States and for the loss of life it entails,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``We especially pray for the families of those who have departed.'' ``America must do what it can to eradicate terrorism from the world,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``We support all the efforts to do so and we must do our part as American citizens,'' he said. ``This sad anniversary reminds us that we stand together as a nation. We must show unity on this occasion.'' ``We also condemn the violence against Sikhs and other minorities that took place last year after the September 11 attacks,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``Sikhs suffered the most in the post-September 11 violence,'' he said. ``The very first victim of this violence was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gasoline station owner from the Phoenix area,'' he noted. Recently, his brother was killed in his taxicab. All this violence must stop,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``Nobody should be killed for his or her religion, whether Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever religion one may follow,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``But it is important to note that Sikhs are not Muslims nor followers of bin Laden. We condemn bin Laden,'' he said. ``Unfortunately, because of the turbans we are required to wear, many people mistake Sikhs for bin Laden followers,'' he said. ``The Sikh religion is an independent, monotheistic, sovereign religion that believes in the equality of the whole human race, including gender equality,'' he said. ``Daily we pray for the well being of the whole human race.'' In the wake of the September 11 attacks, a couple of young Sikhs were attacked in Brooklyn. Sikh businesses have been stoned and cars have been burned. A Sikh boy was even shot in New York. Many Muslims and other minorities were also subjected to violent attacks. ``We hope that there will not be any more of these incidents in connection with the anniversary of the attacks. ``Violence against innocent people of any religion or ethnicity is unacceptable,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``It must be condemned and the violence must be ended.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on September 13, the Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, will speak to the United Nations in New York. There are several issues that should be brought up while Mr. Vajpayee is there. I am sure that Prime Minister Vajpayee will denounce terrorism. India claims to be democratic, after all. But India continues to sponsor cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh, according to the Washington Times. It continues to engage in terrorist activity against the minorities within its own borders. Recently, India admitted that its troops were responsible for the massacre of 35 Sikhs in the village of Chithisinghpora in March 2000. The Council of Khalistan issued an excellent press release on this, which I will introduce later. In November 1994, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, was paid $1.5 billion by the Indian government to foment terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir. The book Soft Target alleged that India blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs and justify further repression. These are just a few examples. India continues to practice repression against its minorities. Its ongoing repression of Christians is well-documented. Recently, The Hindu reported that the death toll for this spring's violence in Gujarat is as high as 5,000. That is more people than were killed in the World Trade Center attack. The newspaper also reported that police officers were ordered not to intervene to stop the violence, in a scary echo of the Delhi massacre of Sikhs in 1984. Recently, in Malout, a peaceful demonstration of Sikh activists was fired upon by Indian police. In 1997, police gunfire broke up a Christian religious festival. The pattern continues. America cannot and must not permit this to go unchallenged. When Prime Minister Vajpayee is in the country, he must be pressed on the issues of terrorism, democracy, and human rights. We should halt aid to India until it corrects these patterns of behavior, and we should support self-determination for all of the 17 freedom movements within India's borders. These measures will help to end terrorism in South Asia and promote real democracy and stability there. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Council of Khalistan's press release on India's admission that it was responsible for the Chithisinghpora massacre into the Record at this time. Indian Government Admits Its Responsibility for Massacre in Chithisinghpora--Evidence a Fraud, Indian Soldiers Implicated Washington, DC, Aug. 2, 2002.--According to today's Washington Times, the Indian government has admitted that its forces were responsible for the massacre of 35 Sikhs in the village of Chithisinghpora, Kashmir on March 20, 2000. India finally admitted that the evidence it used to implicate alleged Kashmiri ``militants'' in the murders was faked. This is a victory for Sikhs, including the Council of Khalistan, who have maintained that the Indian government is responsible for this atrocity. However, it is only after India's case against the alleged ``militants'' was exposed that it took responsibility. The massacre was timed to occur at the time of former President Clinton's visit to India. Recent attacks on minorities also blamed on alleged ``militants'', took place just before Secretary of State Colin Powell visited. At the time of the Chithisinghpora massacre, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, strongly condemned the murders. ``What motive would Kashmiri freedom fighters have to kill Sikhs? This would be especially stupid when President Clinton is visiting. The freedom movements in Kashmir, Khalistan, Nagaland, and throughout India need the support of the United States,'' he said. Khalistan is the Sikh homeland declared independent on October 7, 1987. The massacres continued a pattern of repression and terrorism against minorities by the Indian government, which it attempts to blame on other minorities to divide and rule the minority peoples within its artificial borders. In November 1994, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to organize and support covert terrorist activity in Punjab, Khalistan, and in neighboring Kashmir. The book Soft Target, written by Canadian journalists Brian McAndrew and Zuhair Kashmeri, shows that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs and justify further repression. It quotes an agent of the Canadian Security Investigation Service (CSIS) as saying, ``If you really want to clear up the incidents quickly, take vans down to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancouver. We know it and they know it that they are involved.'' On January 2, the Washington Times reported that India sponsors cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. A report issued last year by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) shows that India admitted that it held 51,268 political prisoners under the repressive ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA) even though it expired in 1995. Many have been in illegal custody since 1984. There has been no list published of those who were acquitted under TADA and those who are still rotting in Indian jails. Additionally, according to Amnesty International, there are tens of thousands of other minorities being held as political prisoners. On February 28, 42 Members of the U.S. Congress from both parties wrote to President Bush to urge him to work for the release of Sikh political prisoners. The MASR report quotes the Pubjab Civil Magistracy as writing ``if we add up the figures of the last few years the number of innocent persons killed would run into lakhs [lsqb]hundreds of thousands[rsqb].'' Indian security forces have murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human-rights organizations. These figures were published in the book The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. India has also killed over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 80,000 Kashmiris since 1988, and tens of thousands of other minorities. Christians have been victims of a campaign of terror that has been going on since Christmas 1998. Churches have been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked, nuns have been raped, and priests have been killed. Missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were burned alive while they slept in their jeep by militant Hindu members of the RSS, the parent organization of the ruling BJP. ``It is good that India has finally admitted its responsibility for the massacre at Chithisinghpora,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``Now I urge the U.S. government to place sanctions on India as a country and practices and promotes terrorism. The Chithisinghpora massacre proves that India is not a democracy, but a repressive, terrorist state which murders it minorities.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, India calls itself ``the world's largest democracy'' yet it does not act democratic. As you know, a report from the Movement Against State Repression shows that India admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners. Fort-two Members of Congress from both parties wrote to President Bush to urge him to work for the release of these political prisoners. There are tens of thousands of other political prisoners also, according to Amnesty International, and they must also be released. Recently, the Council of Khalistan wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell to urge him to work for the release of political prisoners. India has killed over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 80,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, and tens of thousands of other minorities. Mr. Speaker, this is not acceptable, and it shows that using the term ``democracy'' to describe India may not be the best use of the term. Recently, former Senator George Mitchell said ``the essence of democracy is the right to self determination.'' I'm not in the habit of quoting Democrats, Mr. Speaker, but Senator Mitchell is right about this. In 1948, India promised the United Nations that it would allow the people of Kashmir to decide their future in a free and fair plebiscite. No such vote has ever been held. Instead, over 600,000 troops have been sent to Kashmir to suppress the legitimate aspirations of the people for freedom. Similarly, in Punjab, Khalistan, which declared its independence from India on October 7, 1987, over half a million troops have terrorized the population to destroy the Sikh Nation's freedom movement, even though the Sikhs were one of the parties to the agreement establishing the independence of India and were supposed to get their own state. Nagaland, which is predominantly Christian, has been trying to secure its freedom and India has reacted with similar terror. All in all, there are 17 freedom movements within India's artificial borders. Mr. Speaker, it is time for all the people of South Asia to enjoy freedom. Until India allows the people to exercise their legitimate rights, we should stop all U.S. foreign aid to India. We also should formally declare our support for self-determination for Kashmir, Khalistan, Nagaland, and all the people and nations of South Asia. These measures will go a long way towards securing the blessings of freedom to all the people of the subcontinent.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, recently several Members of Congress came to the House floor to attack Turkey and enumerate all the bad things that have happened to Cyprus as a result of the 1974 Turkish intervention on Cyprus. As has happened in the past, only one-sided, inaccurate, and incomplete information was provided, which not only ignored the historical reasons for the division of Cyprus, but also ignored the international laws that legitimized the Turkish intervention. For the sake of historical accuracy, I would like to insert in the Record an article authored by the Honorable Osman Ertug, the Representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus here in Washington, DC. I commend it to anyone who has a sincere desire to understand why Cyprus stands divided today. Is It All History? The month of July is marked by mourning and protestations in Cyprus on the one side, while by jubilations and celebrations on the other. Even this sharp contrast in public mood shows the depth of the division between the two peoples of this eastern Mediterranean island--the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. We believe the 28tb Anniversary of the events of 1974 in Cyprus is an appropriate time to reflect on the background of the conflict and the prospects for its peaceful resolution. Contrary to common belief, the origin of the Cyprus conflict dates back not to 1974, but to December 1963, when the Greek Cypriots, aided and abetted by Greece, launched an all-out attack on the Turkish Cypriot people aimed at annexing the island to Greece (Enosis). Turkish Cypriots resisted Greek attempts to ``hellenize'' Cyprus and, with the help of Turkey, which is a Guarantor Power under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, succeeded in defending and maintaining their existence in Cyprus as one of the two equal peoples of the island. Yet, this defense came at a heavy cost to the Turkish Cypriots, with thousands of them being killed, wounded or missing; a quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population evicted from their homes and properties in 103 villages; and the entire Turkish Cypriot population condemned to live in enclaves on 3% of the territory of Cyprus deprived of all human rights. The suffering of the Turkish Cypriots prompted a prominent US official, Mr. George W. Ball, former US Undersecretary of State, to write the following in his memoirs entitled ``The Past Has Another Pattern'': ``Makarios' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriots just want to be left alone to kill the Turkish Cypriots.'' The severity of Greek Cypriot attacks was such that The Washington Post of 17 February 1964 reported in a relevant article that ``Greek Cypriot fanatics appear (ed) bent on a policy of genocide. . .'' The years-long campaign of the Greek Cypriots to annex the island to Greece culminated in the coup d'etat of 15 July 1974, which was described as ``an invasion of Cyprus by Greece'' even by the then Greek Cypriot leader Makarios in his dramatic admission before the UN Security Council on 19 July 1974. Turkey exercised its right of intervention under these circumstances, in order to prevent the wholesale massacre of the Turkish Cypriots; stop the bloodshed on the island and prevent the colonization of Cyprus by Greece. Turkey's legitimate and justified intervention did not only achieve all these aims, but also led to the downfall of the military junta in Greece. The legitimacy of the Turkish intervention was confirmed by prominent outside sources, including the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, which, in its decision dated 29 July 1974, stated the following: ``Turkey exercised its right of intervention in accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty.'' Even the Athens Court of Appeal, in its decision of March 21, 1979, also held that the intervention of Turkey in Cyprus was legal: ``. . . The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Agreements was legal. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek Officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions of this intervention.'' Decision No. 2658/79 dated 21 March 1979. The events of 1974 were followed by a population exchange between the North and the South, formally agreed between the two sides in August and implemented in September 1975, enabling the Turkish Cypriots to regroup and reorganize themselves in the North, and the Greek Cypriots in the South. This created the geographical basis for a permanent settlement of the Cyprus issue on a ``bi-zonal'' basis--a term that has since become a permanent feature of the UN's Cyprus vocabulary. Is this all history? Perhaps; but it is a history from which we must learn so as not to repeat it. A forward-looking strategy in Cyprus must necessarily take into account the above background of events, the existing mistrust between the two peoples of the island and the realities of today, that is the two-state situation on the island evolved in the course of time. The possibility of a just, realistic and viable settlement depends on the acknowledgement of these facts, not a rejection of them. The Turkish Cypriots deserve to have their own State and, what is more, they already have it, albeit without international recognition. The current face-to-face negotiations, started at the initiative of the Turkish Cypriot side, could produce the desired result if the Greek Cypriots were to accept the Turkish Cypriots as their true partners and equals. However, pampered by the European Union and a world that has come to view the question largely from a Greek Cypriot perspective, treating them as the ``Government of Cyprus'', the Greek Cypriots have little or no reason to settle their scores with their Turkish Cypriot neighbors for a shared future. In view of these realities, it is evident that for the current negotiations to have a real chance of success, third parties need to encourage the Greek Cypriot side to accept that there is no going back to the old days in Cyprus, and that the aim of the talks is the establishment of a NEW PARTNERSHIP on the basis of the sovereign equality of the two parties. Perhaps we could then reach an outcome in Cyprus that all can celebrate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. First of all, let me just say that I have very high regard for the gentlewoman from Maryland. She is a very fine member of our committee. As a matter of fact, I admire her so much, we made her a subcommittee chairman. But we have a strong disagreement on this issue. We are at war, and we are talking about national security, and there is really no evidence that we have a problem. In fact, this very issue has been used very sparingly by past Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, and they have never abused the privilege. Second, as I said, we are in a war, and the Homeland Security Department is a very, very important part of the President's strategy of dealing with that war. This amendment would give the President less authority over the defense of America, the new Homeland Security Department, less authority than he has over any other department of government. Why would we do that? Why would we give the President less authority over the security of America, the Homeland Security Department, than he has over any other department? It makes no sense. Regarding this vote, this was one of the most controversial votes we had before our committee. It came right down to the last vote. It passed by one vote. When it went to the select committee, the leadership committee, that issue was reversed by one vote. So this is a very, very difficult issue for us to deal with. That is why we supported the Shays amendment, because the Shays amendment is an amendment we think that deals with the subject very well. Finally, let me just say, President Bush is not an antiunion President. He cares about organized labor, and he will work with organized labor. So let us not give the President less authority than he already has over every other agency in dealing with the security of this Nation. It makes absolutely no sense. I hope Members will all vote against the Morella amendment, not because she is not a lovely lady, but because it is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and I did work very closely along with the Democrats on the committee to come up with a product that we can all be proud of, and it did pass by a vote of 30-1. While I do have some pride of authorship, I believe that the Portman amendment goes a little further and does a little better job than I did in the manager's amendment. First, in the committee bill we maintained whistleblower protections, veterans' preferences, and we retained collective bargaining rights, not that we thought the administration would in some way violate those things, but we thought they should be in the bill. We wanted to reassure the Federal workforce. But the Portman language goes even further. It provides against political retaliation regarding the Hatch Act. It retains protections against racial discrimination and gender discrimination. It protects health care benefits, retirement benefits, and it protects workers compensation. Those are things that ought to be in the bill that are not. Now, putting this department together is a monumental undertaking. We are talking about taking parts of 22 different departments and bringing them together to protect this Nation. It is not an easy job, and the administration is going to have a difficult time getting all of this accomplished, and they have to have flexibility wherever possible in order to make this whole thing work. One of the things that concerned me was protections against those who may be set aside because there is a possibility there is a national security concern about these people and their jobs and what they may or may not be doing. For that reason, I supported the Quinn amendment that provides due process for those individuals. That was not in the manager's mark or the original bill, but it is now. I know that Federal employees are very nervous and I know that change is hard and it causes anxiety. But I believe the administration is going to be fair. I believe we are putting as many protections as possible in this legislation, and we are still providing the flexibility that the President needs. We are talking about protecting every single American, and the President is going to have to have flexibility. I believe that the bill that we passed in the committee, much of which has been talked about here on the floor, does that; and I believe the Portman amendment even improves upon that. I would just like to say that I support the Portman amendment. I did before the Committee on Rules, and for that reason I hope we will defeat this amendment that would take that out.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to my good friends, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), I have high regard for both of them. We have tried to work on this in a bipartisan manner, and I really hope this whole issue does not degenerate into a political name-calling session, because we all want the same thing. We want to make sure Americans are secure and free from the threat of terrorism. Now, the President wants to encourage the private sector to give information to the Department of Homeland Security to enhance the safety of the American people. He is concerned that the people we are talking about will not volunteer information if they think whatever they turn over will be released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. I think he is right. You would not want some terrorist getting some of this information that would be voluntarily given to Homeland Security. Let me give you an example. If a business owner recognizes that some part of his business infrastructure might be vulnerable to a terrorist attack, we want him to be able to come to the government and tell us about what he thinks might be done and how to deal with it. We want him to go to the Department of Homeland Security and be very candid. We wanted to be proactive, not reactive. This is the sort of information we must have to prevent tragedy to the American people. But if the businessman is worried and if his lawyers are worried that whatever he voluntarily discloses will go straight into the public domain and hence maybe to the terrorists, as we said earlier today, then he probably will not do it. We are in a war. I hope my colleagues all remember that. We are in a war. We need to take steps to guarantee that those people will come to us with that information to protect the safety of the American people, and that is why I oppose this amendment. I think the concerns raised by the sponsors of the bill, and I have high regard for all of them, are misplaced. The Freedom of Information Act will not be harmed. The legislation we will vote on today will not allow people to dodge the Freedom of Information Act. This bill does not change FOIA or the rules of FOIA for any other forms that businesses have to produce to any agency of the Federal Government. The only thing that will not be subject to FOIA information are the vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. The government needs the kind of information we are talking about, and we will not get it unless there is a voluntary decision by the business people and the private sector to disclose it to government. They are not going to do it if they feel like they are going to be threatened or they will expose something that might lead to a terrorist attack. This is a commonsense, real world proposal, and we should not tie our hands behind our backs when it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting the American people. I hate to say this, but I have high regard for the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), but this amendment would do more harm than good. We need to make sure we take every step possible to get the private sector working with the government to make sure we are free from terrorist attacks.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 385, a resolution which states that the Department of Health and Human Services should conduct or support research on certain tests to screen for ovarian cancer, and that health care programs and health insurance plans should cover these tests. Specifically, H. Con. Res. 385 would encourage the development and wide-spread use of a blood test that would detect ovarian cancer in its early stages, thus significantly reducing fatalities that result from the most lethal form of ovarian cancer. Currently, more than 75 percent of women with ovarian cancer are not diagnosed until they are in the fourth stage of the disease. The new protein-screening blood test would detect almost all ovarian cancers in the first stage of the disease when 5-year survival rates approach 95 percent. This is an extremely important step in helping to eliminate the threat of ovarian cancer. Early detection is critical for survival success and should be everyone's goal. There are many new cancer screening devices becoming available, and we must use these new technologies to help protect more Americans from the scourge of cancer. I know first-hand the pain that cancer can put a family through. On May 10, 2002 my wife passed away after a very long and difficult battle with colon cancer. I hope that all health insurance plans utilize to the fullest extent existing and promising detection methods for all cancers. Early detection can go a long way toward sparing other families from the pain of having a loved one suffer from cancer.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the prosecutor allegedly threatened a witness and said if he did not say what he wanted him to say he would be indicted. He did not say what he wanted him to say and he was indicted. That could be prosecutorial misconduct. I do not know. If the court upholds the decision that they have made and they sentence the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to prison, I certainly will vote for expulsion, but I do not know whether there was prosecutorial misconduct. I do know that two jurors, after watching the ethics hearing, said if we had known and seen what we saw before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we would have voted otherwise. That creates a little bit of doubt in my mind, and I do not know and I do not think any of my colleagues know tonight if the judge might say, hey, because of the jurors' reevaluation of this, maybe we should order a new trial. I do not know if he will do that or not. He may not, but that is his decision. I do know that he is going to be making that decision next week and he is also going to be making a decision on whether or not to send the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to prison for how long, and for the life of me, and I say this to both my Democrat and Republican colleagues, I cannot understand why we cannot wait until we come back from break to vote on this issue. That is why I support the motion of my colleague who serves on the Committee on Government Reform with me, and I am sure that he would have the same attitude whether the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was from California, New York or whatever, because that is the kind of man that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is. Another reason why I feel very strongly about this is we have had hearings, numerous hearings about what went on in Boston about 30 years ago where they put an innocent man in jail for over 30 years for a crime he did not commit, and I believe all the way up to J. Edgar Hoover, they knew he was innocent, but they were protecting Mafia informants. So many times there are miscarriages of justice. I am not saying that is the Traficant case, but it happens, and for that reason alone I think we ought to say let us take a deep breath, go on break, come back in 4 or 5 weeks and then vote on this issue. If he is sentenced, if he goes to prison, he should be expelled, and I will vote for expelling, but what in the world is wrong with waiting for 4 or 5 weeks? I simply do not understand that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, India calls itself ``the world's largest democracy'' and it claims it is a partner in the fight against terrorism, yet it just signed an agreement to strengthen its trade ties with one of the nation's major sponsors of terrorism, Iraq. According to the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), Amir Muhammad Rasheed, the Iraqi Oil Minister, called India a ``strategic partner.'' Under the agreement, India will provide medicine, wheat, rice, railway equipment, and turbines for electrical generators to Iraq. In addition, India, Iraq, and Algeria are in the final stages of an agreement to drill oil in the southern part of Iraq. Mr. Rasheed's counterpart, Indian Oil Minister Ram Naik, said that India opposes the sanctions on Iraq. On May 18, 1999, the Indian Express reported that Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes organized and led a meeting with the Ambassadors from Iraq, Red China, Cuba, Russia, Serbia, and Libya to discuss setting up a security alliance ``to stop the U.S.'' This demonstrates that many in India do not view America as an ally, but instead, view us as an enemy. Apparently, these people are even willing to support America's enemies. The time has come for the United States to recognize the truth about India. India has a long way to go before it can be considered an American ally. It is a supporter of terrorist regimes and a practitioner of terrorism itself. It has already been placed on the State Department's watch list of violators of religious freedom. Now it is time to impose appropriate sanctions on India. We should immediately cut off all American aid to India, and we should declare our support for the self-determination movements in South Asia, such as those in Kashmir, in Punjab, Khalistan, and in Nagalim, among others. If India is going to support terrorism around the world, it is not worthy of the support of the hard-working, freedom-loving people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the BBC report on the India-Iraq deal into the Record at this time for the information of my colleagues and the American people. Iraq and India Ties Warmed by Oil Deals Iraq and India have signed an agreement to boost trade ties, especially in the oil sector. Indian Oil Minister Ram Naik told a press conference that the Indian oil firm Oil Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) would soon open offices in Baghdad. Mr. Naik added, after meeting his Iraqi counterpart Amir Muhammed Rasheed, that ``work was progressing'' on an ONGC oil concession in southern Iraq. Iraq has awarded Indian companies a number of contracts under the United Nations ``oil-for food'' programme, in return for India's diplomatic support. The programme allows Iraq to bypass sanctions imposed for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and use oil revenues to buy food and humanitarian goods. The U.S. has classified Iraq as a member of the ``axis of evil'' while it has strengthened relations with India to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. Strategic partner After meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on Saturday, Mr. Naik said that India opposed the sanctions on Iraq, and called for them to be ended immediately. Mr. Rasheed described India as a ``strategic partner''. ``We have entered new projects in railways, oil and gas, health and industry in addition to technical co-operation and this will give a boost to the economic relations of the two countries, which in consequence will be reflected on the volume of trade exchange,'' Mr. Rasheed said. Under the agreement, India is to supply Iraq with medicine, wheat, rice railway equipment and turbines for electricity generations. Mr. Rasheed said trade between Baghdad and New Delhi under an ``oil-for-food'' deal with the UN had reached $1.1 bn. Expanding oil interests Iraq, India and Algeria are ``in the final state'' of a deal to start exploring and drilling the Tuba oil field between Zubair and Rumaila in the south of the country. ``It is a consortium between Indian companies and the Algerian Sonatrach Company, and we hope to realize it by the end of summer,'' Mr. Rasheed was quoted as saying in the ruling Baath party's Al-Thawra newspaper. The field was being developed by Iraq until the 1991 Gulf War, when storage facilities were destroyed. ONGC is awaiting approval from its board to invest approximately $63m in Iraq. India, which imports more than two-thirds of its crude oil requirement, has been seeking foreign sources as domestic output matures. Last month it took over a concession in Sudan from Canadian oil company Talisman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes Nos. 246- 248 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes Nos. 246 and 247, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 248.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the danger of war in South Asia concerns us all. Such a war would be useless, dangerous, and a disaster for Pakistan, India, the minorities of the subcontinent, and the world. Many South Asia's watchers speculate that India needs a war to keep its multinational empire together and to divert attention away from its other internal problems. They have even speculated that India's collapse is not a fantasy, and that even L.K. Advani, the militant Hindu Home Minister of India, is worried about India's territorial integrity. However, a war in South Asia could become the trigger that brings freedom to the minority nations such as the Sikh homeland of Khalistan, predominantly Christian Nagaland, Kashmir, and others, just as World War I brought independence to many nations living under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The end of the Cold War brought freedom to many nations which had been living under Soviet rule, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and others. A war in South Asia could have a similar effect on the nations and peoples of the subcontinent. The Council of Khalistan recently called on Sikh soldiers not to fight for India, but to fight to free their homeland, Khalistan. Given the oppression that has killed over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984 according to the Punjab State Magistracy, that continues to hold 52,268 political prisoners, which the Movement Against State Repression reported that the Indian government has admitted to, that has killed over 80,000 Muslims, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland, thousands upon thousands of other minorities like Bodos, Dalit ``Untouchables,'' Tamils, Assamese, Manipuri's, and others, why should any of these minorities fight for the Indian state? The Council of Khalistan's recent Open Letter contains much more information on this. To help my colleagues and constituents stay fully informed about the sentiments of many Sikhs within India, I would like to put that open letter into the Record at this time. Council of Khalistan, Washington DC, May 21, 2002. Open Letter to the Sikh Nation Clouds of War Between India and Pakistan Gather; India Is on the Verge of Disintegration--Sikh Soldiers and Officers Should Not Fight for India But to Free Khalistan; Now Is the Perfect Time to Launch Shantmai Morcha to Liberate Khalistan Dear Khalsa Ji: WAHE GURU JI KA KHALSA, WAHE GURU JI KI

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Let me start off by thanking the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) who worked with me to get this piece of legislation to the floor. This is an extremely important piece of legislation because if there is one thing that small businesspeople across the country are very chagrined about, it is the amount of paperwork that they have to deal with on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, the cost to a small businessperson runs about $7,000 per employee to deal with the paperwork that faces them from the Federal Government. If you have got 20 employees, that is a $140,000 burden that you have to deal with, and it simply is not necessary. This legislation is designed to streamline that effort to make sure that small businesspeople do not suffer from a tidal wave of paperwork that makes the profitability of their business almost impossible. I think my colleagues have covered this very, very well. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has worked very hard on this. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has as well. I think they have covered all of the provisions of the bill and the problems we had in getting this bill drafted and to the floor. I would just like to say that it is high time that we got this job done. If there is one thing that small business and business in America needs, it is a reduction of the amount of paperwork and regulation that they have to deal with on a daily basis with the Federal Government. I believe this is going to save them money, it is going to streamline the effort to comply with government regulations, and it is a giant step in the right direction. All of the small businesspeople in America that may be watching this right now, you can take heart. We are moving in the right direction. There is a lot more that needs to be done, but this is a great first step. Mr. Speaker, today we have before us a piece of legislation that's going to help small businesses navigate the maze of Federal forms that they have to fill out. This is a serious problem for small businesses. If you talk to any small business owner, they'll tell you that Federal regulations, Federal mandates, and Federal paperwork are a serious burden. It's hard to figure out what rules have to be complied with and what forms have to be filled out. It's time-consuming and expensive. Last year, the Small Business Administration estimated that small businesses spend close to $7,000 per employee on Federal paperwork. Think about that--$7,000 per employee. For a company that has 20 employees, that's $140,000. That's a serious drain on the resources of a small business. When we passed the Paperwork Reduction Act many years ago, the goal was to reduce the Federal paperwork burden. Unfortunately, it hasn't been very successful. Over the last six years, the paperwork burden on the American people has not shrunk--it's grown every year. This bill isn't going to reverse that tide all by itself. But I think it will help small businesses cope with the problems they're having. It will give them more resources so they can get assistance when they need it. This bill requires every Federal agency to have a single point of contact for small businesses. If a small businessman in Indiana or Ohio doesn't understand what forms he has to fill out, there should be one office in each agency where he can pick up the phone and get help. This bill does that. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to post on its website every year an up-to-date list of all of the resources that are available to help small businesses with paperwork problems. It requires every Federal agency to make additional efforts to reduce paperwork for the smallest businesses--businesses with fewer than 25 employees. This bill sets up an inter-agency task force. This task force will develop a plan to consolidate reporting requirements and make them more uniform. Many small businesses have to report the same information to several different agencies. We should have a system that would allow a small businessman to submit that information once, in electronic form. That would be the job of this task force. It would also look at whether we could have interactive reporting systems, so businesses could get immediate feedback if there is a problem. These things would be very valuable to small businesses around the country. Last but not least, this bill would require Federal agencies to report to Congress on the penalties they impose on individuals and small businesses. They would be required to file two annual reports on the number of civil actions they take, the number of those actions that were taken against small businesses, the number of times they've reduced penalties imposed by the agency, and the number of penalties that were reduced specifically on small businesses. We've never had that kind of information before. We need to get a better handle on how many penalties are being imposed on small businesses, and for what kind of offenses. These reports will help us do that. When we first started working on this bill several years ago, we had a provision that required agencies to waive first-time penalties against small businesses for inadvertent paperwork errors. I thought that was a very good idea. It was approved twice in the House. Unfortunately, we couldn't get it passed in the other body. We tried for about three years, and it just wasn't doable. So we compromised. Nobody got everything they wanted in this bill--but it's a good compromise. These reports on penalties being imposed on small businesses will give us more information and help us understand what's happening. We've worked very hard with Members of both bodies to get to this point. I want to thank my friends on the Government Reform Committee, Mr. Ose, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Tierney for working with me to get this bill done. I also want to thank our friends in the other body for their assistance--particularly Senator Lieberman, Senator Voinovich and Senator Thompson. We couldn't have gotten to this point without their help. Let me conclude by saying this--I was a small businessman before I came to Congress. Mr. Ose was a small businessman before he came to Congress. Many Members of the House ran their own businesses before they decided to run for Congress. We understand how difficult it is to start your own business, and to make it successful. We understand how difficult it is to comply with Federal mandates and Federal tax laws, and to make sure you've filled out the right forms. And we also understand how important small businesses are to our economy. They're the life-blood of our economy. So any time we have an opportunity to develop legislation that will make it a little easier to deal with the Federal bureaucracy, we should do it. That's what this bill is meant to do. It won't make all the problems that small businesses face go away, but it's a good start. We're going to continue to look for opportunities to pass legislation that will help small businessmen and women. I urge all of my colleagues to support this good piece of legislation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment to participate as a delegate at the Indiana Republican State Convention, I was unable to be in Washington, DC during rollcall votes 226-229. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 226 and 227, ``no'' on rollcall vote 228 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 229.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, this week marked the anniversary of India's June 1984 attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the seat of the Sikh religion. This is the equivalent of attacking the Vatican of Mecca. In the attack, which also included attacks on 38 other Sikh temples (known as Gurdwaras), more than 20,000 Sikhs were killed, including Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a Sikh political leader. The Indian government hoped that by murdering Bhindranwale, it would end the Sikh Nation's aspirations for freedom, but as Bhindranwale himself said, the attack ``laid the foundation of Khalistan,'' the independent Sikh homeland. I would like to extend my sympathies to all Sikhs on this occasion and I would like to let them know that many of us grieve with them at this brutal atrocity committed against them. The Council of Khalistan recently led a commemoration of the Golden Temple attack. I would like to place the report of that commemoration into the Record for the information of my colleagues. Sikhs Observe Khalistan Martyrs Day--Sikhs Never Forgive or Forget Attack on Golden Temple Golden Temple Attack Laid Foundation of Khalistan Washington, D.C., June 1, 2002.--It is a Sikh tradition and Sikh history that Sikhs never forgive or forget the attack on the Golden Temple, the Sikh Nation's holiest shrine. In that spirit, Sikhs from all over the East Coast gathered in Washington, D.C. today to observe Khalistan Martyrs Day. This is the anniversary of the Indian government's brutal military attack on the Golden Temple and 38 other Sikh temples through Punjab, from June 3-6, 1984. More than 20,000 Sikhs were killed in those attacks, known as Operation Bluestar. These martyrs laid down their lives to lay the foundation for Khalistan. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation declared its homeland, Khalistan, independent. ``We thank all the demonstrators who came to this important protest,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. ``These martyrs gave their lives so that the Sikh Nation could live in freedom,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``We salute them on Khalistan Martyrs' Day,'' he said. ``As Sant Bhindranwale said, the Golden Temple attack laid the foundation of Khalistan.'' Sikhs ruled Punjab until 1849 when the British conquered the subcontinent. Sikhs were equal partners during the transfer of power from the British. The Muslim leader Jinnah got Pakistan for his people, the Hindu leaders got India, but the Sikh leadership was fooled by the Hindu leadership promising the Sikhs would have ``the glow of freedom'' in Northwest India and the Sikhs took their share with India on that promise. No Sikh representative has ever signed the Indian constitution. Recently, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D- Me.) said, ``The essence of democracy is the right to self- determination.'' The minority nations of South Asia need freedom. ``Without political power nations perish. We must always remember these martyrs for their sacrifice,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``The best tribute to these martyrs would be the liberation of the Sikh homeland, Punjab, Khalistan, from the occupying forces,'' he said. ``That must be the only objective,'' he said. ``We should use the opportunity presented by the situation in South Asia to liberate our homeland.'' The Golden Temple attack launched a campaign of genocide against the Sikhs that belies India's claims that it is a democracy. The Golden Temple attack made it clear that there is no place for Sikhs in India. Since 1984, India has engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in which tens of thousands of Sikhs were murdered by the Indian police and security forces and secretly cremated after declaring them ``unidentified.'' The Indian Supreme Court described this campaign as ``worse than a genocide.'' General Narinder Singh has said, ``Punjab is a police state.'' U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) has said that for Sikhs, Kashmiri Muslims, and other minorities ``India might as well be Nazi Germany.'' According to a report last year by the Movement Against State Repression, India admitted that 52,268 Sikh political prisoners are rotting in Indian jails without charge or trial. Many have been in illegal custody since 1984. In February, 42 Members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Bush to get these Sikh prisoners released. MASR report quotes the Punjab Civil Magistracy as writing ``if we add up the figures of the last few years the number of innocent persons killed would run into lakhs [hundreds of thousands.]'' Indian security forces have murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human-rights organizations. These figures were published in The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. India has also killed over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 80,000 Kashmiris since 1988, and tens of thousands of Tamils, Bodos, Dalits (the aboriginal people of the subcontinent labelled ``Untouchables'') as well as indigenous tribal peoples in Manipur, Assam and elsewhere. In March 2000, while former President Clinton was visiting India, the Indian government murdered 35 Sikhs in the village of Chithisinghpora, Kashmir and tried to blame the massacre on alleged militants. The Indian media reported that the police in Gujarat were ordered by the government to stand by and not to interfere with the massacre of Muslims there. ``Guru gave sovereignty to the Sikh Nation,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``The Golden Temple massacre reminded us that if Sikhs are going to live with honor and dignity, we must have a free, sovereign, independent Khalistan,'' he said.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, recently, the news website NewsMax.com ran a vary comprehensive article called ``India: Allies or Instigators?'' It details India's pattern of abuse against the Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities, its anti-Americanism, and its support of terrorism against its neighbors. The article shows that the Indian government has killed tens of thousands of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other minorities; that it holds tens of thousands of political prisoners; and it is funding terrorism in Pakistan and created and supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an organization the U.S. government has called a ``terrorist'' organization. It shows India's domestic terrorism against Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and all the other minority groups. Reading this article should cause any fair-minded reader to ask whether or not India is a terrorist state seeking hegemony in South Asia and questions whether India is a country we should trust as an ally. The United States should work for freedom for all the people of the subcontinent. I was proud to be one of 42 Members of Congress from both parties who signed a letter urging President Bush to press for the release of Sikh and other political prisoners in India. The Administration should do that. But it should do more. After reading this article, it is clearly time for the U.S. government to cut off its aid to India and to come out in support of self-determination for all the peoples and nations of South Asia. This is the best way to spread liberty, democracy, prosperity, and true stability to the subcontinent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the article into the Record at this time. I urge my colleagues and all people interested in South Asian affairs to read it. India: Allies or Instigators? (By Tim Phares) Trouble is brewing again in South Asia, as India and Pakistan move troops to their border. The recent violence in Gujarat, in which over 540 people have been killed, has merely heightened tensions. It follows an attack by Muslims on a train full of Hindu activists headed for Ayodhya, where the BJP government in India is seeking to build a Hindu temple on the site where the most revered mosque in India was destroyed by Hindu militants a few years ago. It was reported that the passengers were taunting the Muslims by chanting slogans about rebuilding the temple. Unfortunately, India, which proclaims itself ``the world's largest democracy,'' has made moves that undermine America's war on terrorism. Indian military maneuvers have forced Pakistan to divert troops from the border with Afghanistan to the Line of Control in Kashmir, creating a potential opening for terrorists to escape. On January 2, Tony Blankley wrote in the Washington Times that India is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. Journalist Tavleen Singh has reported in India's leading newsmagazine, India Today, that the Indian government created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the U.S. government has identified as a ``terrorist organization.'' According to Internet journalist Justin Raimondo, the Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, raised money and arms for the LTTE. Pakistan and minorities within India's borders charge that India is seeking hegemony in the South Asian subcontinent. Certainly its deployment of new missiles that can reach deep into Pakistan and its tests that began the nuclear escalation in the region suggest that this may be true. While India blames Pakistan for the attack on its Parliament, President Pervez Musharraf says he has evidence that the Indian government itself was responsible. No Indian soldiers were killed, just guards, workers, and other lower- caste people. The book Soft Target, written by Canadian journalists Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star and Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail, shows that India blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 people, apparently in order to blame Sikhs for the atrocity and create a pretext for more violence against them. It shows that the Indian Consul General in Toronto pulled his daughter off the flight shortly before it was due to depart. An auto dealer who was a friend of the Consul General also cancelled his reservation at the last minute. Surinder Singh, director of North American Affairs for the External Affairs office in New Delhi, also cancelled his reservation on that flight. The Consul General also called to finger a suspect in the case before the public knew that the bombing had taken place. The book quotes an agent of the Canadian State Investigative Service (CSIS) as saying, ``If you really want to clear the incidents quickly. take vans down to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancouver, load up everybody and take them down for questioning. We know it and they know it that they are involved.'' India has a long record of Anti-Americanism. On May 18, 1999, The Indian Express reported that Mr. Fernandes, the Defense Minister, organized and led a meeting with the Ambassadors from Red China, Cuba, Russia, Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq to discuss setting up a security alliance ``to stop the U.S.'' India votes against the United States at the United Nations more often than any country except Cuba. It had a long term friendship with the former Soviet Union and supported its invasion of Afghanistan. India's implicit support for terrorist activity is consistent with its internal behavior. It has a record of repression of minorities that undermines its proclamation of democratic values. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads a 23- party coalition, is a branch of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), an organization founded in 1925 in support of the Fascists. The governing ideology of the BJP and all the branches of the RSS is Hindutva, the subjugation of society, politics, and culture to Hinduism. Last year, a cabinet member said that everyone living in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to Hinduism. And in New York in 2000, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said, ``I will always be a Swayamsewak.'' This is the ideology behind the attacks on Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities. The target of choice these days seems to be Christians. Human-rights organizations report that more than 200,000 Christians in Negaland have been killed by the Indian government. On February 17, the Associated Press reported an attack on the Catholic church on the outskirts of Bangalore in which several people were injured. The assailants threw stones at the church, then broke in, breaking furniture and smashing windows before attacking worshipers. the February 25 issue of the Washington Times reported another church attack in which 20 people were wounded. In February, two church workers and a teenage boy were shot at while they prayed. The boy was injured. Two Christian missionaries were beaten with iron rods while they rode their bicycles home. A Christian cemetery in Port Blair was vandalized. These attacks continue a pattern of oppression of Christians that has been going on heavily since Christmas 1998. Since then, members of the RSS have murdered priests, raped nuns, burned churches, and committed other atrocities with impunity. The RSS published a booklet last year detailing how to file false criminal cases against Christians and other religious minorities. The RSS objects to the presence of missionaries in India. The missionaries are having a good deal of success in converting members of the lower castes, especially Dalits, also known as ``Untouchables.'' This removes the lower-caste people from the stratification of the caste system, which is essential to the Hindu religion and social structure. RSS activists also burned a missionary and his two sons to death while they slept in their jeep. They surrounded the jeep and chanted ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. Now the Indian authorities have found a single individual to blame and they are moving to throw the missionary's widow out of the country. In 1997, Indian police broke up a Christian religious festival with gunfire. In 1994, the U.S. State Department reported that the Indian government paid out over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing members of the Sikh minority. In the same year, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, the equivalent of $1.5 billion to foment terrorist activity in Punjab and in Kashmir. According to the book The Politics of Genocide, over 250,000 Sikhs have been killed by the Indian government's forces. According to human-rights groups, Indian forces have killed over 75,000 Muslims in Kashmir and thousands of other minorities, including Dalit ``untouchables,'' Tamils, and other groups. A report issued last year by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) showed that India admitted to holding 52,268 political prisoners. Amnesty International reports that tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held as political prisoners. These prisoners continue to be held under a law called the ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA), which expired in 1995, It empowered the government to hold people virtually indefinitely for any offense or for no offense at all. According to many reports, some of these political prisoners have been in custody for almost two decades. Amnesty International reported last year that tens of thousands of minorities are big held as political prisoners. On February 28, 42 Members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Bush asking him to work for freedom for these political prisoners. MASR also co-sponsored with the Punjab Human Rights Organization an Investigation of the March 2000 massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora. It concluded that Indian forces carried out the massacre. A separate investigation conducted by the International Human Rights Organization came to the same conclusion. As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) said on the floor of Congress on August 2, 1999, ``for the people in Kashmir and Punjab and Jammu, India might as well be Nazi Germany.'' In the words of Narinder Singh, a spokesman for the Golden Temple, the seat of the Sikh religion, who was interviewed in August 1997 by National Public Radio, ``The Indian government, all the time they boast that they are secular, that they are democratic. But they have nothing to do with a democracy, nothing to do with a secularism. They just kill Sikhs to please the majority.'' In the March 4 issue of Forbes, Steve Forbes compared India to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, arguing that as a multinational State, India is inherently unstable. Prior to the British conquest of the subcontinent, there was no political entity called India. It was a series of princely states brought together by the British. The Kashmiri people were promised a referendum on their status in 1948, but that vote has never been held. The Sikhs, who were supposed to receive independence, have never had any of their representatives sign the Indian constitution. Instead of respecting ``the glow of freedom'' that Nehru and Patel promised the Sikhs, the government declared them a ``criminal class'' as the ink was dry on the constitution. Currently, 17 freedom movements are going on within India's borders. Some Members of Congress have called for sanctions against India and for an end to American aid. Some have also endorsed self-determination for the peoples seeking freedom from India through a plebiscite on independence. While these events seem unlikely to occur any time soon, the Indian government has held negotiations with the freedom fighters in predominantly Christian Nagaland. Home Minister L.K. Advani recently admitted that if Kashmir achieves freedom (which now seems more likely than ever), it will cause India to break apart. Some experts have predicted that within a decade, neither India nor Pakistan will exist in the form we know them presently. The Indian subcontinent will continue to be a region that bears close attention by American policymakers.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on May 10th, my wife died after a long battle with cancer. During her final weeks and in immediate aftermath of her death, I was unable to depart Indianapolis, and consequently, I missed several roll call votes. Had I been here I would have voted Yea on roll call votes 171-191; No on roll call vote 192; Yea on roll call vote 193-194; No on roll call votes 195-197; Yea on roll call vote 198; No on roll call votes 199-202; and Yea on roll call votes 203-206.