Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have recently been made aware of more examples of how the Government of India promotes acts of terrorism to discredit legitimate nationalism among the people of Punjab, Khalistan, Christian Nagaland, Kashmir, Manipur, and the other minority nations that India occupies. Rodney Redden is an Australian tourist who was seriously wounded in a train bombing that occurred on October 2, 1997, near Delhi, India. As you know, the Indian authorities have blamed this bombing on a Sikh militant organization called Shaheed Khalsa, which probably does not even exist. Even the state-controlled Indian press reported that no one had ever heard of this organization until it suddenly emerged to claim responsibility for this bombing. Another example of India's violent efforts to undermine nationalist movements is the recent slaughter of innocent bus passengers near Jaluki, Nagaland. The passengers belonged to the Kuki ethnic minority. Although this tragic incident serves the useful purposes of dividing Manipur, and discrediting the freedom movement in neighboring Nagaland, all at the same time. Both States are struggling for their freedom from Indian rule. Both have been subjected to mass murders at the hands of the Indian Government. For years, these two peoples have lived together peacefully. Why should one suddenly decide to destroy the other? Apparently, the central government is funneling money to violent elements on both sides. In the eyes of the Indian Government, there is no such thing as a peaceful advocate for Khalistan, a peaceful advocate for a free Kashmir, a peaceful advocate for an independent Nagaland, or a peaceful advocate for the freedom and national self-determination of any of the captive nations of South Asia. To India, they simply do not exist. Well, I know two advocates for freedom from the subcontinent. One is Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, president of the Council of Khalistan. Another is Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai of the Kashmiri American Council. These two gentlemen do not advocate violence. They advocate peaceful, Democratic, nonviolent struggle for the freedom of their homelands, Khalistan and Kashmir. Yet, according to the Indian regime, they are terrorists. Mr. Speaker, the people of America and the world, and the fair- minded, thinking Members of this Congress know better. The truth was revealed 3 years ago when the Indian newspaper Hitvada reported that the Indian regime paid the late Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, the equivalent of $1.5 billion to create and then support covert state- sponsored terrorism, not only in Punjab, Khalistan, but in neighboring Kashmir as well. Yes, the country that is one of the five largest recipients of United States aid, the country that calls itself ``the world's largest democracy,'' paid a public official $1.5 billion to foment terrorism so that it could pit the freedom-loving people of Punjab, Khalistan, and Kashmir against each other. In view of this violent, divide-and-conquer tactic, I would ask the obvious question: Who are the real terrorists here? Clearly the real terrorist organization is the Government of India. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the hard-working taxpayers of this country should be forced to support this brutal terrorist regime. We should cut off all aid to India, declare it a terrorist nation, and embrace the freedom movements in Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and throughout the occupied, oppressed nations of South Asia.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by congratulating my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for all of his efforts in the area of human rights. He is one of the finest Members we have in this body, and he really cares about his fellow man. Mr. Speaker, Laogai, or ``reform through labor,'' as it translates from Chinese, should not be a practice by nations that surprises this Congress. But it should be shocking. We have seen it throughout history, signs on the front of Nazi prison camps that, when translated read ``labor makes you free.'' And now Chinese slogans in their camps read ``labor makes a new life.'' The same gulags that Stalin was so proud of inspired Chairman Mao to launch the oppression of generations of innocent Chinese citizens, through a system of what we know now to be 1,100 labor camps, slave labor camps. As the world at one time turned its back on the victims of the Holocaust, so have they looked away from the prisoners of conscience, political dissidents, and religious believers in China. They are subjected to routine brainwashing, torture, and are forced to work for nothing in factories by the communist elite. Look around at the rubber-soled shoes that we buy, the boots, the kitchenware, toys and sporting goods in this country. These are products Americans use every day, and they are produced in the Chinese gulags by slave laborers. If it were not for a great man named Harry Wu, who knows how long this cruel injustice would have gone unexposed. Mr. Wu knows firsthand what it is like to be a prisoner in these gulags. He spent 19 years in the system and has devoted his life to exposing the slave labor camps. In Mr. Wu's book Troublemaker, he gives us a glimpse of his life during the darkest days: ``I knew things were bad when they first transferred me to Camp 585, reserved for the most unhealthy inmates. The unmarked burying field of 586 was adjacent so they would not have to carry us far when we died. When prisoners at 585 grew too weak to go out to the fields and work, they would lie on the floor, a pail on one side for food, a pail on the other side for human waste. The cook would come by with a large pail of something resembling soup and would dole it out with a ladle, being careful not to spill a drop.'' Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Subcommittee on International Operations Human Rights, I believe that the United States should link trade and economic cooperation with human rights. The United States is the world's preeminent superpower, arguably the only Nation on Earth with both the economic might and the moral legitimacy to make the observance of human rights a pillar of its foreign policy. The unfortunate peoples of the world whose basic human rights are suppressed either by tyrants or failed economic experiments turn to the United States for hope and not cheap imports. From China to India, the people who suffer under such regimes understand that if America joins their struggle by sacrificing short-term economic gain for long-term justice and freedom, these regimes will die. This administration chose again this year to grant China MFN trading status and would rather, quote, engage China, believing that human rights follows trade. Every year since 1980, when President Carter first extended MFN to China, his supporters have been saying the same thing. Mr. Speaker, it has failed. A Clinton administration official has even confessed recently that, quote, frankly, on the human rights front, the situation has deteriorated. They are rounding up more dissidents and harassing them more. Add to this the recent revelation by Harry Wu and the ABC newsmagazine PrimeTime Live on the harvest and sale of human organs from executed prisoners, forced abortions and persecution of religious believers, and we must ask ourselves how could anyone morally conduct business with a partner like that. And if the morality does not strike you, what about China's sale of nuclear material to Iran or the purchase of American-made supercomputers which could design nuclear warheads for missiles capable of reaching the United States, or possible attempts to influence our 1996 Presidential election? Some estimate our trade deficit with China to be about $60 billion on an annual basis. I would submit that is due to China's slave labor camps. It is difficult to compete against cheaper products produced by slaves of the Chinese dictatorship so that these goods we import from China become a threat to the free and fair trade of our own country. This administration has chosen to stand up to China only on one issue in the past 3 years, intellectual property rights. When the Chinese were faced with trading sanctions over this issue, they backed down. If this type of muscle from the administration is justified for the music industry, then it is justified for persecuted Christians, political dissidents, murdered infants and nuclear proliferation. The President's policy is not just one of engagement, it is a ``see no evil'' strategy. Mr. Speaker, it is time to put away the carrots and break out the sticks.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced H.R. 1836, the Federal Employees Health Protection Act of 1997, to protect Federal employees and taxpayers by helping to reduce fraud in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. This bill will help strengthen the integrity and the standards of the FEHBP and continue its reputation as one of the strongest, most cost-effective and comprehensive programs in the United States. I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], for his diligence in getting this bill before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for consideration. Last week the full committee unanimously approved H.R. 1836. This is a pro-Federal employee bill and is supported by all Members of the Congress from the D.C. metropolitan area. H.R. 1836 is a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill cosponsored by the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, and the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Henry Waxman. H.R. 1836 is supported by the major hospital and health care associations, the National Association of Postmasters, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Federal Managers Association, a number of health benefit carriers, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve. In fact, the only opposition to this bill is likely to come from health care providers and brokers who engage in unethical business practices. The FEHB Program is the largest employer-sponsored health system in this country. It insures approximately 9 million Federal employees, annuitants, and their dependents at a cost of $16 billion a year. It is often cited as the model health care program that the private sector and public sector should attempt to replicate. Through private sector competition with limited governmental intervention, this program has effectively and efficiently contained costs and continued to provide quality health care. The benefits have been very well explained by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], so I will not go into all those, but I would like to say that I urge support of all of my colleagues for this pro-Federal employee legislation. Through the changes included in this bill, the integrity and the standards of the FEHB Program will be strengthened and protected. It is also my sincere hope that once this legislation is approved by the full House of Representatives, the Senate will move expeditiously and pass this very important bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation that will help reduce fraud in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. Once again, congratulations on a job well done to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, once again the mask of Indian ``democracy'' has slipped off and the grisly reality underneath has been exposed. Just weeks after the state funeral of Mother Teresa earned India fawning media coverage, it has fired on innocent Christians who were merely holding a 5-day festival called ``Jesus Christ is the Answer.'' According to official reports, 9 Christians and 19 police officers were injured. This unconscionable act of religious tyranny took place after the militant Hindu parties complained of possible conversions of Hindus to Christianity during the festival in Ludhiana, Punjab. India used to have a law against religious conversions of Hindus. Although it claims that this law has been repealed, in practice it is still enforced. Hindu militant rioters tried to sabotage the festival by setting fire to the soundstage and other equipment. According to newspaper articles, no action was taken against the persons responsible for these acts. Instead, the authorities closed down the festival based on the allegation that conversions were occurring. What kind of ``secular democracy'' allows its police to shoot at people merely because they may be persuading people to adopt their religious views. That is not secularism, and Mr. Speaker that is not democracy. It is militant, fundamentalist theocracy of the same kind that operates in Iran. And finally Mr. Speaker, I sadly report that a Catholic priest was found beheaded in the northern India state of Bihar. This was the third Catholic clergyman killed in the past 2 years in this religion. The colleagues of the Reverend A.T. Thomas said that he was killed for aiding the region's ``untouchables.'' There were further reports that the police in the area were offering a $28 reward for the return of the priest's missing head. Mr. Speaker, these gruesome facts make it imperative that this Congress continue to support the inclusion of India as a major violator of religious rights in the Wolf-Specter Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997. I would like to conclude by thanking Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, president of the Council of Khalistan, for bringing these atrocities to my attention. I am introducing the Council of Khalistan's press release and the AP article on this matter into the Record. Indian Police Open Fire on Christian Festival Just Weeks After Mother Teresa's State Funeral Washington, D.C., October 30--Several police and Christians were injured after police used firearms, tear gas and baton charges to disperse Christians who were holding a five-day festival entitled ``Jesus Christ is the Answer'' in Ludhiana, Punjab. Indian authorities dispersed the festival by force after allegations that organizers were engaging in conversions of Hindus to Christianity. Indian authorities allowed the Christian festival only after assurances by organizers that no conversions would take place. However, in the course of the five-day festival, Hindu protests organized by political leaders turned more militant as rioters attempted to set fire to the soundstage and other equipment. It was reported that Indian authorities took no action against the Hindu rioters. When allegations arose that the Christian festival was actually converting Hindus, Indian authorities closed down the festival. Christians conducted a sit-in protest on the Chandigarh Road. Police responded by using tear gas and batons to beat the protestors, police gunfire was also reported. Official figures place the injuries at 9 Christians and 19 police officers, however, Christian casualties may be much higher. ``This is secular democracy in action,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. ``Unless you are Mother Teresa, this is how most Christians in India are treated.'' Christians in Nagaland have faced religious and political persecution since Indian independence, over 200,000 Christian Nagas have been murdered since 1947. Punjab State Magistracy and human rights groups have stated that since 1984, over 250,000 Sikhs were killed by Indian security forces. 53,000 Kashmiris have been killed since 1988 and tens of thousands of Dalits, India's dark skinned aboriginals relegated to untouchable status, have also been killed. ``Although the Indian Government has publicly declared that their law against converting Hindus is no longer in force, these Christians were attacked by Indian police because of charges that they were converting Hindus and that should indicate how the Indian Government feels about Christians and about Hindus converting to Christian faith,'' concluded Dr. Aulakh.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this letter came from a young man in the 11th grade in Alabama, and I thought it was worth putting into the Congressional Record so everyone in America could see how some of our Government programs are being used. To: Honorable Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Sir: My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Wells Iowa, received a check for $1,000 from the government for not raising hogs. So, I want to go into the ``not raising hogs'' business next year. What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs. As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised. My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs. If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane. Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to feed 4000 hogs I am not going to raise? Also, I am considering the ``not milking cows'' business, so send me any information you have on that too. In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps. Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election. Patriotically Yours, Entre Prenuer.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, October 7, 1997, marks a significant occasion in the history of the Sikh Nation. Ten years ago today, the Sikh nation declared its independence and forged the Nation of Khalistan. Led by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, the Council of Khalistan has brought the Sikh struggle for freedom to the attention of world leaders. Dr. Aulakh and the Council of Khalistan should be applauded for their efforts to liberate Khalistan through peaceful, non-violent means. As you know, the Sikhs had ruled themselves for over 80 years before the British conquered the subcontinent and created the artificial entity called India for their own administrative convenience. At the time of India's independence 50 years ago, the Sikhs joined with India on the promise of Gandhi and Nehru that they would enjoy the glow of freedom, and that no law affecting the Sikhs would be enacted without their consent. Well Mr. Speaker, that promise was soon broken, and no representative of the Sikhs has ever signed India's Constitution. India cannot survive as one political entity for much longer. In actuality, India is a conglomerate of Nations held together through oppression. It has as many as 18 official languages, and the central government is run by an unstable 13-party coalition. The only remaining question is whether India's inevitable breakup will be peaceful like the Soviet Union's or violent like Yugoslavia's. I join with the leaders of the Khalistani freedom movement in expressing the hope that it will be peaceful. However, if India continues its policy of genocide, it may preclude that possibility. Since 1984, more than 250,000 Sikhs have been murdered by Indian forces. According to various human rights groups, more than 60,000 police officers received cash bounties for their participation in these murders. According to a 1995 report published by human rights activist, Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra, at least 25,000 young Sikh men have been abducted, tortured, and killed, then their bodies are declared ``unidentified'' and finally they are cremated. On September 6, 1995, shortly after this report was published, Mr. Khalra was kidnapped by the police. Over 2 years later, his whereabouts remain a mystery. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Khalra has probably been murdered like so many before him. Furthermore, India's own Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] conducted a brief investigation at just one cremation site and was able to confirm about 1,000 mass cremations. Now, the National Human Rights Commission says that it will investigate this brutal policy that Indian's own Supreme Court has called ``worse than a genocide.'' So far, no one has been punished for these murders. Religious persecution continues in India as well. On September 4, 1997, a Sikh church was invaded by security forces without a search warrant. Six Granthis, who serve as the guardians and teachers of the Sikh holy scriptures, were subsequently beaten and tortured. Police occupation of the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh shrine, continues to this day. The mayor of a village in Punjab was tortured in front of the people because he is an Amritdhari, or baptized, Sikh. Amritdhari Sikhs are considered a criminal class. Sikhs have been raped, beaten, tortured, and even killed because they would not renounce their religious beliefs. Meanwhile, an expired law that made it illegal to convert a Hindu to any other religion continues to be enforced despite the fact that is has expired. It is clear from events like this that the Sikhs are a captive nation in the Indian Empire, colonized and enslaved for the benefit of a Brahmin elite that is grossly out of touch with its people, many of whom live in abject poverty. The only real solution is a fully independent Khalistan. We must end our financial support of tyrants. We need to send strong messages to India, and put a stop to the endless amount of foreign aid we send to them until the repression ends. We should also use our influence as the world's preeminent superpower to affect a vote on freedom for Khalistan, similar to the vote the United States conducts in Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues in this Congress calls India ``the largest democracy in the world.'' Well, if that is true, than what's good for the United States must be good for ``the largest democracy in the world.'' I challenge India to follow the path of democracy, and let the people of Khalistan and all the nations under its occupation choose their own destiny at the ballot box. Only then can India be considered a truly democratic nation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We cannot get it at the local level unless we go through the local LSC.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman, and would ask him to repeat his question, if he would.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We want to make sure. We want to make sure we are covering the waterfront so that there is no problem and they are not covering up something.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The situation right now is if we want information, we have two choices. We can go through all the court records, as the gentleman just mentioned, which is a very cumbersome task, or we can go to the Federal LSC offices. Only 8 percent of the cases are really divulged by the LSC. That means 92 percent are not. They already have those records at the local LSC office. We put protections in there for the battered wives and so forth.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The bottom line is this. Many of us feel like we are spending $283 million and that is excessive. We want to help the indigent, everybody does, but we believe there should be more accountability. Even though Congress passed, a couple of years ago, some rules regarding LSC, in the last 2 years there have been violations of those rules. All we want to do is make sure there is accountability. The bottom line is this, that those records are there. If we could get them from the local LSC instead of going through the paperwork at the national level, we think it would be easier to make sure there is accountability and there are no abuses. We are not asking for anything but more accountability. It is just that simple. The records are there. I do not think it is going to cost anymore than it does already.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the discussion.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This information, if you really want to get it, you can go to the court records, a cumbersome thing, and it takes a lot of time to dig through records that you do not want to go through, or you can go to the national LSC and get it. What I am saying is they can get it from the local LSC.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that more detailed information gives us more of an oversight of the actual operation of the local LSC that may be in violation of the current statutes that we pass here in the Congress, and we know those exist.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Nussle]. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just say they are not going to be overburdened. The information is already in their files. This makes it easier to police it, though, because the people who want to police LSC do not have to go through the machinations of going to Washington, DC to get the information. They can get it through the local LSC office. The fact of the matter is the local LSC offices do not really want to give that information out. They have it. It will not be an additional burden. I do not understand the argument. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, I do not think there will be any additional expenses. The records are already there.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will answer the gentleman's question, but he obviously does not want to hear.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)