Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the serious human rights problems in India--especially in Punjab and Kashmir. I would like to focus today on the case of Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann--a former Member of Parliament. He has been held in an Indian prison for over 2 months now for the simple act of making a speech. Mr. Mann was arrested after making a speech December 26 in Punjab, Khalistan, in front of a crowd of 50,000 Sikhs. At that time, he called for a peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement to liberate Khalistan. Major Sikh political groups called for an independent Khalistan in October 1987. In his speech, Mr. Mann asked those attending to raise their hands if they agreed with him that a peaceful movement for a free and independent Khalistan is necessary. Every hand was raised. Mr. Mann is being held without trial or formal charges under India's brutal Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. This oppressive law has been universally condemned by human rights groups around the world. It allows the Government to detain virtually anyone in prison for nearly 2 years without filing charges or going to court. Sikhs and Moslems detained under this law are routinely tortured and often murdered. How can a country which proclaims itself the world's largest democracy behave in such a manner? On January 12, I, along with 25 of my colleagues wrote to the Prime Minister of India, P.V. Narasimha Rao, to demand Mr. Mann's release. The letter was signed by prominent members of both parties, Republicans and Democrats. While we disagree on many things, we all agree that everyone around the world is entitled to certain basic human rights-- freedom from torture and other violent abuses, dignity, and self- determination. India's response to our letter was extremely disappointing. Instead of doing the right thing and releasing Mr. Mann, the Government of India dug up old charges against him from 1985--charges long ago discredited--and added them to the charges against Mr. Mann. India's harassment of Sikh leaders, and its revival of old trumped-up charges against Mr. Mann demonstrate India's fear of the potency of the movement for an independent Khaslistan. The fact that only 4 percent of Sikhs in Punjab participated in State elections organized by the Government in New Delhi in 1992 is a further indication of the Indian Government's weakness in that region. What India must understand is that, if a people are determined to be free, it cannot hold them at the point of a gun forever. India has over a half-a-million armed forces in Punjab to force its will on the Sikh people. It cannot sustain this heavy military presence forever. The army rules in Punjab with a ruthlessness and brutality that we in this country have a hard time understanding. However, every murder, act of torture, or rape committed by India's Army or paralegal forces will only increase the animosity between these two peoples. Mr. Mann is the most visible spokesman for the freedom of Khalistan in Punjab. The Government's intimidation of Mr. Mann and other peaceful advocates must not be met with silence by the world's leaders. As long as India continues to practice this kind of repression, the other governments of the world must speak out and protest. A country which practices systematic repression should not receive aid from free countries like ours. The United States must not support tyranny. The release of S.S. Mann would be a good first step by the Indian Government to demonstrate its commitment to democratic principles. I call for Mr. Mann's immediate release, and I call upon the First Lady, who will be traveling to India at the end of the month, to raise the issue of human rights with the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record at this point an article from the January 19 issue of the Indian Express of Chandigarh about our letter to the Prime Minister calling for Mr. Mann's release. [From the Indian Express Chandigarh, Jan. 19, 1995] Twenty-six Congressmen Protest to Rao Over Mann's Arrest Washington.--Influential members of the new Republican- controlled Congress have fired their first anti-India salvo on urgings from the pro-Khalistan lobby. Hardly two weeks in the session, the Congress has seen a bipartisan group of 6 lawmakers write to the Prime Minister, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, protesting the detention of Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann. The group has also called for the repeal of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act (TADA). The letter was written on the urging of the Council of Khalistan, the leading pro-Khalistani lobby in the US headed by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh. Influence: Although it was initiated by the usual coterie of India-bashers led by New Delhi's most acerbic critic on Capitol Hill, the Republican, Mr. Dan Burton, the difference this time around is that many of them now hold leadership positions and wield considerable influence. Mr. Burton himself is now a senior member of the House International Relations Committee. Other Republicans who had signed the letter are Mr. Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Phil Crane, the head of the Trade Sub- committee of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and Mr. Tom Bliley, chairman of the Commerce Committee. Thus, while Mr. Solomon could allow anti-India legislation and resolutions to the floor of the House for debate, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Crane could put a damper on the burgeoning Indo-US commerce and trade relations by calling for punitive action against India on trade matters and keep pushing for laws such as Super 301 and Special 301. Mann's Arrest: In their letter to Mr. Rao, the legislators said that ``we find it very troubling that a leader of Mr. Mann's stature can be arrested for exercising his freedom of speech.'' The legislators said that they had been informed by Dr. Aulakh, that Mr. Mann, a former Member of Parliament and senior leader of the Shiromani Akali Dal party, was arrested on January 5 for ``having advocated independence for Khalistan by peaceful means.'' They noted that Mr. Mann had urged a rally of 50,000 people to show their support for ``a peaceful movement toward an independent state by raising their hands, and that the entire crowd did so.'' The legislators wrote that they were concerned that this was not the first time Mr. Mann had been arrested under TADA, and noted that he spent five years in prison during the 1980s ``without trial and without formal charges being filed against him in a court of law.'' The lawmakers noted that according to press reports, ``he was subject to physical and psychological torture during that period--including electric shock and having his beard pulled out in tufts.'' Misuse of TADA: In January 1994, Mr. Mann was again arrested under TADA, and over 50 charges filed against him ``were later dropped and he was released,'' they said. The legislators wrote to Mr. Rao that ``it appears that the Indian government is using [the] TADA to harass and intimidate Mr. Mann.'' The legislators also called on the Prime Minister ``to recommend to your Parliament that (the) TADA be reformed to bring it into compliance with generally accepted human rights.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, let me just say that all cases are not on a contingency basis.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just make two comments. First of all, many of the States are working on similar legislation of this right now as far as State litigation is concerned. We all know that. I believe that what we do here today will serve as a model for many of those States, so this reaches beyond just Federal litigation in my view in the long run. In addition to that, I read the gentleman's amendment, and, while I think that is a step in the right direction, the problem I have with that is we still have some jurors and some judges that may rule against a legitimate case, and what the gentleman's amendment does is only deals where the plaintiff gets some kind of a settlement. If the plaintiff does not get any settlement, then he or she still pays 100 percent of the defense cost for the defendant, and in my view, as my colleagues know, that could work an undue hardship. My amendment, my amendment right now, says that they do have a 25- percent penalty, and, if it is truly a frivolous case, the judge can assess more than that, but it does leave some discretion with the court, and to me that makes some sense.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman yield briefly?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, ``Well, you're giving the judge latitude; I mean that's a sliding scale.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What I disagree with is that this is putting such a huge burden on, in many cases, people who could not afford to pay the 100 percent, and--but at the same time the gentleman is still giving the judge latitude in the event it is a frivolous case. It seems to me this is as close to a sliding scale as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] requested, as we can possibly come.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But the gentleman does not want them to have this latitude.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But the fact of the matter is judges have latitude right now. What we are setting is a floor of 25 percent, and we are allowing them to go to 100 percent. So what the gentleman wants to do is he does not want the judges to have any latitude; is that correct?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Then why would this exacerbate that situation?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I ask, ``Don't judges already have latitude?''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield on one further question. The further question is did the gentleman understand, he did not mention in his comments, that the judge does have latitude to increase that 25 percent to 100 percent if he chooses to do that?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand the chairman's argument. He said that this would eliminate the forcing of a settlement before the trial takes place. It seems to me that this puts more of a balance into the legislation instead of having all of the burdens shifted over to the plaintiff. Right now you are shifting 100 percent of the costs to the plaintiff if he does not settle and the judgment is below what was the last offer. And it seems to me that that is putting undue pressure on the plaintiff. What I was trying to do was to try to reach a middle ground that was more fair than what the original legislation intended.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I believe that if there is a frivolous lawsuit filed there ought to be a penalty assessed on the plaintiff. I believe that should be the case. I do not believe, however, it should be a 100 percent losers paying totally, and the reason I say that is because I have known a number of people who have been involved in litigations of this type who have had a legitimate lawsuit, and because of the jury or because of the judge or for whatever reason the ruling was against them, and they were not in a position to be able to pay exorbitant legal fees on the part of the defendant. Many times these defendants are lawyers for large corporations who can drag these suits on for long periods of time and spend an awful lot of money. Look at some of the trials like you see on TV right now like the O.J. Simpson trial, you see how much time and effort and money is being spent on legal defense. Some of these people are very proficient at what they do. Can you imagine, we are not talking about a murder trial now, but can you imagine a person in a civil case that is suing somebody and they have the ability to hire the kind of legal counsel you see in the O.J. Simpson case where millions of dollars might be spent in defending someone? So I believe that there ought to be some middle ground. And that middle ground is exhibited in my amendment, and my amendment says that if the plaintiff loses the case, there is a 25-percent penalty. But if it is a frivolous up to 100 percent. So there is somewhat of a sliding scale. I talked to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] last night, the bill's sponsor, and he said he thought he could live with some kind of sliding scale. The problem is that neither the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], nor I, nor anyone in the body could come up with a sliding scale. So the next best thing is to come up with a hard percentage, like the 25 percent I am talking about, and then leave discretion to the judge in the event he feels like it is a case that was not meritoriou and was frivolous and he can raise that fee. I think that will discourage an awful lot of lawsuits. In addition, I think this will bring both sides closer together than the loser pays provision that is already in the bill because it is going to encourage the plaintiff, because he knows there is a penalty if they lose the case; and it is going to encourage the defense because they know they are not going to get 100 percent even if they hire high- powered lawyers to win the case. So I think this will force more people to settlement, even more so than the entire loser pays provision in the bill. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a sound, reasonable amendment. It strikes a middle ground. It comes as close to the sliding scale the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] said he would accept without going to an actual sliding scale, which I think is an impossible thing to achieve.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well----

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. And the gentleman keeps talking about a contingency basis, but many of those are on hourly rate, and so the plaintiff does pay legal fees in many of these cases on an hourly rate, and it is pretty doggone high. So this contingency thing is real, but that is not 100 percent.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. One more brief comment, and that is this, that I that the penalty should be pretty severe. Twenty-five percent is not peanuts in many of these cases, but what I disagree with----

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield further, I say to the gentleman, if your amendment would deal, in addition to those cases where the plaintiff got a settlement, but below the last best offer; if it went further than that, even where the plaintiff lost, I could probably accept that amendment, but the gentleman completely eliminates that possibility. I say to the gentleman, in your amendment here that you just presented to me, if the plaintiff gets a zero grant or zero decision from the court, he still picks up 100 percent of the defense's legal fees. So that part of the amendment I don't think is good, and I could not accept that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that I think that a 25-percent penalty is an inducement for settlement. The gentleman keeps acting like it is nothing. Twenty-five percent of the legal fees of the defendant can be an awful lot of money, especially in a Federal case. We are not talking about peanuts. I think that this will dissuade people from going to trial, and it will force a settlement. The gentleman acts like if it is not 100 percent, it is not going to force a settlement. The other thing you are discounting is that if it is a frivolous case, the judge can start at the 25 percent and go all the way to the 100 percent level. So you can have total loser pays. This is a good middle ground. It will dissuade people from going to court. It will force settlements. So I think the gentleman is overstating the case. It will not be as onerous as far as forcing settlements as 100 percent. But it certainly is going to force a lot of these people to settle out of court without going to trial. Twenty-five percent is a step in the right direction, and it still gives the judge latitude to go all the way to 100 percent. I think this is a good amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand the gentleman does not think the judges will assess this additional 75 percent in a case where it is a flagrant example of a frivolous case. But I do not think I agree with that. At least there is 25 percent penalty, a flat 25 percent right off the top. Let me just say something about the amendment you referred to. The problem with your amendment that you suggested as an alternative, and it is a step in the right direction, is that it is 50 percent if the plaintiff gets less than zero, they still pay 100 percent of the defendant's legal expenses. And in many cases, I wish the gentleman would just pay attention here for a second, in many cases, you may have a jury or a judge who for one reason or another does not like the way the plaintiff looks and they rule that they should not get anything and then they have to pick up 100 percent of the cost. If the gentleman made this 50 percent across the board, I would accept it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield----

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, went out to a school here in Washington, DC, to try to support a program called the Earn and Learn Program. That is where they pay children $2 for reading a book and it is to encourage kids to learn. It is a great program; it is being adopted in many schools across this country. But before he got there, two Members of the Democrat minority went out there and had lunch with the kids and told them that the Speaker was coming out and that he was going to take away their lunches, that the Speaker of the House was against them, he was going to take away the school lunch for all of the kids across the country and scared those little kids to death. Now, that is wrong; that is wrong. The fact of the matter is we are going to increase school lunch funding by 4 percent, we are going to increase it. What we are going to cut is the bureaucracy. We are going to send it to the States in block grants, so that the Governors who understand their States and the mayors who understand their cities can distribute this money properly so that it goes to the intended purpose without a lot of bureaucratic expense. And I really want to say to my colleagues on the Democrat side, if you criticize us for the school lunch program, criticize your colleagues for going out and scaring those little kids last week. That is wrong.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Subcommittee on Africa under the able chairmanship of our colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, on their upcoming hearing on promoting the private sector in Africa. As ranking member of that subcommittee over 8 years, I felt very strongly that only through the proper and vigorous encouragement of the private sector will Africa be able to develop and prosper. In this context, I want to highlight the activities and efforts of the Corporate Council on Africa, which is doing yeoman's work in advancing these goals. I also want to salute two members of the council. M&W Pump has done fantastic work in Nigeria and elsewhere, through its water pump business which has benefited so many people. Finally, Coca-Cola one of the largest and oldest companies in Africa, has been a very positive force in Africa. Its social responsibility program in South Africa is exemplary, and it has indeed been a positive force on the continent.