Ed Towns

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, we are commemorating the terrible attack on America on September 11 last year. 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 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 hole 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. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, on August 12, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee will meet with President Bush. The next day he will speak at the United Nations in New York. I am sure he will be preaching the principles of democracy and human rights, things that we all support. However, Mr. Vajpayee would have much more credibility on these issues if India lived by the principles it preaches. Unfortunately, India is only a democracy for the upper-caste Brahmins. For minorities, it is a repressive state with little freedom. According to the Movement Against State Repression, India admitted to holding 52,268 political prisoners under the repressive, expired TADA law. Recently, it was reported in the Hindu newspaper that the violence in Gujarat this spring killed over 5,000 Muslims. According to published reports, the government orchestrated the violence and ordered police not to stop it. This is typical of India's pattern of repression against minorities. The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, more than 85,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and thousands of other minorities. Over 50,000 Sikhs have been made to ``disappear.'' The Washington Times reported that India admitted that its forces committed the March 2000 massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora. The former majority leader of the Senate, George Mitchell, has said that ``the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination.'' Yet India has never kept its promise to the UN in 1948 that it would hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. India refuses to do the democratic thing and allow the people of Nagaland, Khalistan, and the other nations seeking their freedom from Indian rule. Multinational states like India, the Soviet Union, Austria-Hungary, and others are doomed to eventual collapse. India is a practitioner of terrorism, as an excellent article by Tim Phares at NewsMax.com entitled ``The Terrorism of the Indian Government'' demonstrates. The Washington Times reported on January 2 that India sponsors cross-border terrorism in Sindh, a province of Pakistan. Journalist Tavleen Singh reported in India's leading news magazine, India Today, that India itself created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the U.S. government has called a ``terrorist organization.'' It paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to foment covert state terrorist activity in Kashmir and in Punjab, Khalistan, according to the Indian newspaper Hitavada. India has recently made deals to provide materials to Iraq. When we are fighting a war on terrorism, ``the world's largest democracy'' is practicing and supporting it. Mr. Speaker, we must do something to stop these activities. I hope that President Bush and Secretary General Annan will press Mr. Vajpayee on the issues of political prisoners, violence against minorities, and terrorism. The U.S. government also has other actions at its disposal. It is time to impose sanctions on India and cut off its aid and trade. And the U.S. Congress should go on record in support of self- determination for Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland, and the other nations seeking their freedom in South Asia. I would like to insert the article ``The Terrorism of the Indian Government'' into the Record at this time. The Terrorism of the Indian Government (By Tim Phares) The South Asian subcontinent has been called the most dangerous place in the world, and events there over the past few months seem to confirm this description. While the danger of war seems to have passed for now, India and Pakistan remain on alert and both countries continued to point nuclear-capable missiles at each other. Unfortunately, tensions remain high as each side tries to gain an advantage over the other. Pakistan and minorities within India's borders charge that India is seeking hegemony in the South Asian subcontinent. Certainly is 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. At the recent Asian security conference in Kazakhstan, India refused to talk with the Pakistanis about Kashmir. In 1948, India promised to hold a plebiscite on the status of Kashmir, but it has never been held. Recently, the BBC reported that Iraq and India have signed an agreement to boost trade ties, especially in the oil sector. This comes at a time when the United States may be preparing to fight Iraq again. Unfortunately, this is consistent with India's pattern of behavior. India now tries to create the impression that it supports the United States, but its long record says otherwise. The May 18, 1999, issue of the Indian Express reported that George 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 had a long-term friendship with the former Soviet Union and supported its invasion of Afghanistan, yet it has shown little support for the United States in its war on terrorism. On Jan. 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 news magazine, 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.'' The government also has taken quiet, implicit control of two Sikh organizations, Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation, which the United States also has designated as ``terrorist organizations.'' India's implicit support for terrorist activity is consistent with its internal behavior. It has a record of repressing minorities that undermines its proclamation of democratic values. The violence this spring in Gujarat, in which over 5,000 people were killed, according to The Hindu newspaper, has also heightened tensions. Muslims and other minorities charge that the violence was stirred up by the government to diminish Muslims in India. In addition, the pro-Fascist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the parent organization of the ruling BJP, has recently called for the majority-Muslim state of Kashmir to be divided into three states, despite India's 1948 pledge to the United Nations that it would let the people of Kashmir decide their fate in a plebiscite. The majority-Sikh state of Punjab, Khalistan, the predominantly Christian state of Nagaland, and several other states also have strong, active movements seeking their independence. Human rights organizations report that more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland have been killed by the Indian government. The book ``The Politics of Genocide,'' by Inderjit Singh Jaijee, cites figures from the Punjab State Magistracy showing that over 50,000 Sikhs have been murdered by the Indian government since it invaded the Sikhs' holiest shrine, the Golden Temple, in June 1984. In addition, according to a report by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR), the Indian government admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners under the repressive, expired TADA law. According to Amnesty International, tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held. In February, a bipartisan coalition of 42 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Reps. Dan Burton, R- Ind., and Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., wrote to President Bush urging him to work for the release of these political prisoners. 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 Kashmir. According to human rights groups, Indian forces have killed over 80,000 Muslims in Kashmir and thousands of other minorities, including Dalit ``untouchables,'' Tamils and others. 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. Retired General Narinder Singh has said that ``Punjab is a police state.'' The book ``Soft Target,'' written by Canadian journalists Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star, 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. The book 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 canceled his reservation at the last minute. Surinder Singh, director of North American Affairs for the External Affairs office in New Delhi, also canceled 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.'' In recent months, India has been added to the State Department's ``watch list'' of countries that violate religious freedom. 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 anytime soon, the Indian government has held negotiations with the freedom fighters in 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 their current form. The Indian subcontinent will continue to be a region that bears close attention by American policymakers.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, a recent intelligence report states that there are 25,000 agents of the Indian government's ``Research and Analysis Wing'' (RAW) outside India. While there is nothing wrong with legitimate intelligence work, RAW habitually infiltrates organizations of minority groups and creates terrorist incidents in order to discredit these groups. The Indian government has recently been declared a violator of religious freedom by the United States government. On January 2, columnist Tony Blankley reported in the Washington Times that India is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. This comes at a time when President Musharraf of Pakistan is actively helping us in the war against terrorism, at substantial risk to himself personally and politically. The organizations Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) have been identified by the U.S. government as ``terrorist organizations.'' The ISYF has been banned in Canada. These organizations have been heavily infiltrated by the Indian government, to the point that they are government-controlled organizations. They have spawned other organizations designed to embarrass the Sikhs, especially those in the Khalistan freedom movement, and blame them for terrorism. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is another organization that our government has labelled ``terrorist.'' Yet journalist Tavleen Singh of India Today, India's leading newsmagazine, reported that the Indian government itself created the LTTE and put up its leaders at the most upscale hotel in Delhi. If LTTE is a terrorist organization, then India created its terrorism. In November 1994, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the governor of Punjab, the late Surendra Nath, the equivalent of $1.5 billion to foment terrorist activity in Punjab, Khalistan, and in neighboring Kashmir. In a country where half the population lives below the international poverty line, the supposedly democratic government could afford to lay out one and a half billion dollars to create state-sponsored terrorism. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I don't understand how that could happen in a democracy. Also in 1994, our own State Department reported that the Indian government paid out more than 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. One of them killed a three-year-old boy and received a bounty for that! A report from the Human Rights Wing showed that at least 25,000 Sikhs were arrested, tortured, murdered, and cremated, then their bodies were declared ``unidentified'' and cremated. Two reports, one from the International Human Rights Organization (IHRO) and the other jointly issued by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) and the Punjab Human Rights Organization (PHRO), showed that Indian forces carried out the massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora in Kashmir in March 2000. In the excellent book Soft Target, journalists Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star and Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail prove that the Indian government itself carried out the bombing of an Air India airliner in 1985, killing 329 people, then blamed the Sikhs. There is too much good information in this book to quote here, but I would like to quote one statement from the Canadian State Investigative Service which appears in the book: ``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 everybody up and take them down for questioning. We know it and they know it that they are involved.'' Mr. Speaker, this ongoing pattern of terrorism against its neighbors and against the minority peoples living within its borders shows that India's claim to be a secular democracy and an opponent of terrorism is a lie. India should be declared a terrorist state and subjected to appropriate penalties. These should include a cutoff of U.S. aid to India until the terrorism stops and human rights are fully enjoyed by all people within the country. And we should declare our support for the freedom movements seeking their freedom from India. By doing these things, we will advance the fight against terrorism in the world and help all people to enjoy the basic democratic right of self-determination. As former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said, ``the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination.'' It is time for real democracy in India rather than a continued campaign of terrorism.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to see the quick action of the House Leadership to bring this important legislation to the floor. H.R. 3880 is a bill that will provide a temporary limited waiver to the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity requirements within the New York City regional planning area (which includes, New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties as well as seven towns in Orange County). This waiver is necessitated as a direct result of the tragic events of 9/11. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the office responsible for compiling the transportation conformity plan--was located in the World Trade Center, three of its staff members, and much of the progress that had been made in preparation for filing up to that date was lost in the terrorist attacks. In addition, as a result of the 9/11 destruction 100,000 jobs have been displaced and commuter and traffic patterns have change significantly. For example, The World Trade Center PATH Train Station was lost and a number of businesses have relocated away from lower Manhattan. Without this waiver, New York's conformity will lapse on October 1, 2002. As a result, a number of non-exempt transportation and transit projects will come to a halt until a new conformity plan is filed. New York should not be penalized any more for the disaster of 9/11. A halt to transportation and transit construction projects will be devastating to an economy that has already suffered significant losses. Moreover, this will likely have the unintended consequences of hindering New York's efforts to achieve improved air quality, as projects such as the 2nd Avenue Subway and the East Side Access will not be able to move on to a new phase of work because they are considered non-exempt. It should go without saying that no one takes this request lightly. New York, similar to most metropolitan regions, struggles to conform to clean air requirements. The events of 9/11 have made clean air an even bigger issue for many New Yorkers. However, I believe there has been some confusion over this waiver request. This request has nothing to do with the post 9/11 EPA cleanup and everything to do with the need to rebuild lower Manhattan and continue important transportation and transit projects on their current schedules throughout the region. There have been erroneous claims that there is no need to provide a waiver because it takes eighteen months for the lapse to take effect. This is not an accurate claim. In fact, some projects will begin to stop in October depending upon their implementation phase. Projects will be able to complete their current phase but not be able to progress to the next phase. As you can see from the list before us, numerous projects would be impacted without this waiver. Working in a bipartisan fashion with my New York committee colleagues, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Engel, I believe we have reached an acceptable compromise with the Environmental Defense to address to any outstanding environmental issues. This legislation is an important step forward in rebuilding the infrastructure that was destroyed on 9/11, strengthening our economy, and allowing the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council the opportunity to develop a new conformity plan that reflects the new traffic patterns of the post September 11th city. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to keep New York moving and restore New York's economy to the driving force that it always has been, I would urge my Senator colleagues to move this bill with all delivered speed. We cannot afford for New York's transportation infrastructure to experience any delays because of Clean Air restrictions. I'm hopeful that final congressional action will occur before the October 1st deadline.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues an important environmental initiative, which impacts the U.S. Navy. In 1987, Congress mandated that the U.S. naval submarines eliminate the dumping of plastic waste by 2008. This requirement presents a unique opportunity for the commercial development of biomass products to replace the use of plastics on our submarines. Further research was done on this subject as a summer project in the 2002 Office of Naval Research (ONR) Science and Engineering Apprenticeship Program (SEAP). This summer, as one of the SEAP participants, Christina Liebner, an incoming Stanford University freshman, authored a report on the viability of biomass products as an alternative to plastics on submarines. Her report suggests that biomass products may offer significant opportunities to aid the Navy in reaching its 2008 mandate but it may also provide new economic markets for corn and soybean farmers. A summary of Christina's report is listed below. I commend it to my colleagues' attention for future consideration about how our nation's farmers can help to solve this environmental mandate for the U.S. Navy. Possible Applications for Biodegradable Plastic in the United States Navy Fleet as a Method to Meet MARPOL 73/78, MPPRCA, and APPS Regulations (By Christina Liebner) First implemented in 1983, the international marine pollution prevention agreement known as MARPOL 73/78 dictates that all signing nations must comply with Annexes I and II, which prohibit vessels from dumping oil and bulk noxious liquids, respectively. The United States has further agreed to comply with Annex V, which bans vessels from dumping plastic waste. To enforce this agreement at home and to extend jurisdiction to all vessels in U.S. command (including military vessels) and in U.S. territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, Congress passed Title II in Public Law 100-220--;formally titled Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)--;on 29 December 1987. Written later, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) with amendments current to 1 November 1998, requires all Naval surface ships to comply with Annex V by 31 December 1998 and all submarines by 31 December 2008. The U.S. Navy is currently developing and refining pollution prevention procedures to process and store plastics onboard. Most surface ships are currently outfitted with at least one Plastic Waste Processor (PWP), and crews have reported success with this method; ships without PWPs find other ways to retain plastic waste. Researchers at the Naval Surface Warfare Center--;Carderock Division (NSWC-CD) are currently testing compaction and storage methods for submarine plastic management in four demonstration projects. While surface ship and submarine crews have reported success with their respective waste processes, replacing petroleum- based plastic with biodegradable products may be a more effective and environmentally responsible solution. While the Navy's current methods to make surface ships and submarines compliant with MARPOL 73/78 and MPPRCA are feasible and successful, they are only short-term solutions. Bioplastic is environmentally responsible, and with enough funding, research, and development, it could soon run at full-scale production levels and become a commercially viable replacement for petroleum-based plastic in most applications. Biodegradable plastic may be the Navy's long term solution to environmental regulation compliance. Additional funding is necessary, however, to launch demonstration of feasibility projects and to further research in bioplastic applications within the Navy. Although bioplastic products offer the most convenience to submarine waste processing, biodegradable plastic is just as applicable and as beneficial to surface ships. Not only would further research and development to promote biodegradable plastic help the Navy, but the nation would also profit from such technology. The following lists the key advantages of bio-based plastics: Corn farmers often overproduce, and as agricultural biotechnology advances to further increase crop yield, productivity will double in the near future. Bio-based technology provides another market for corn crops. Commercializing bio-based plastics from domestically grown crops allows American citizens to profit and releases pressure to import petroleum from the Middle East. Biodegradable plastic encourages the growth of municipal composting plants and slows accumulation of trash in landfills. Production and use of biodegradable plastic create much less air pollution and greenhouse gases than petroleum-based plastic. Plants create their carbohydrates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Bioplastic factories extract this carbon to create the polymer. When biodegradable plastics decompose, the released carbon dioxide is returned to the atmosphere, thus completing the cycle. Petroleum products use carbon compounds from the ground and release them into the air; no new carbon dioxide is introduced to the air with biodegradable polymers. After the necessary parts of crops are used to create the biodegradable polymer, residual biomass can be burned cleanly to generate energy.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, on August 8 there was a very significant article in the Indian newspaper The Hindu. It was written by Robert M. Hathaway, whom many of us know as a former aide to former South Asia Subcommittee chairman Steven Solarz. As you may remember, Chairman Solarz was a fervent defender of India. Mr. Hathaway's article is called ``Charity . . . or Terrorism?'' It exposes the rise of terrorism in India and how charitable contributions from Indian-Americans support it. In his article, Mr. Hathaway writes, ``substantial sums of money are sent from Indians resident in the U.S., and from American citizens of Indian origin, to groups and organizations in Gujarat and elsewhere in India that are directly linked to the violence in Gujarat.'' He also writes that ``respected Indian journalists have uncovered disturbing linkages.'' These transactions could raise issues of fraud and they appear to violate U.S. antiterrorism laws. We must not allow money from the United States, even in the form of private contributions, to be used in support of terrorism. In that case, President Bush should act. After September 11, the President froze the assets of charities involved in supporting the terrorist network that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Similar action should be taken to freeze any American assets of charities involved in the violence and terrorism in India. And contributions from U.S. residents to those charities' offices in India should expressly be prohibited. America should also stop its aid to India until it stops repressing the minorities, sponsoring cross-border terrorism against Sindh and other neighbors, and until it allows self-determination for all the people and nations seeking freedom from India. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put Mr. Hathaway's article into the Record at this time. It shows Indian terrorism in great detail. [From the Hindu, Aug. 8, 2002] Charity . . . or Terrorism? (By Robert M. Hathaway) It is probably advisable for the American Government to hold an official inquiry into fund-raising in the U.S. by groups implicated in the Gujarat violence. TERRORISM COMES in many guises. An armed assault against Parliament House in New Delhi. A suicide bomber detonating high explosives in a crowded bazaar. Political assassination. Angry young men flying commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center. And, yes, hate-consumed mobs butchering innocent women and children. The people of India need no instruction from foreigners regarding the moral issues raised by this spring's communal violence in Gujarat. Except for an embittered but fortunately minuscule minority, Indians of all religions and beliefs reacted with horror and disgust to the great human tragedy that unfolded in their country earlier this year. All those who admire Indian culture and accomplishments, who celebrate the extraordinary progress India has achieved in its still brief national existence, understand that the tragedy of Gujarat strikes at the very essence of India's being and promise. The assassination earlier this year of Abdul Gani Lone, who opposed Indian rule in Kashmir but who in his final years had come to the realisation that violence and extremism offer Kashmiris no way out in their struggle with New Delhi, represented another blow to the ideals of tolerance and moderation, another triumph for the forces of hatred and sectarian-based violence. In this sense, the tragedies of Gujarat and of Kashmir are inextricably linked. Kashmir was certainly not the cause of Gujarat. Sadly, the seeds of Godhra and Ahmedabad and Baroda spring from still more ancient soils. But the continued violence in Kashmir makes the hatred recently seen in Gujarat more likely, and in a perverted sense, more ``respectable'', or at least acceptable. Perhaps, it does not go too far to assert that until the Kashmir sore is at last healed, the poison that produced Gujarat will make other Gujarats increasingly likely. Some Indians, of course, say that the tragic events in Gujarat are a domestic Indian affair, and that the United States and the rest of the world have no business intruding into a purely internal Indian matter. This is a self-serving falsehood. Important American interests, including the global war against terrorism, can be directly impacted by what the U.S. says--;and fails to say--;about Gujarat. At this particular moment in history, the U.S. cannot allow the impression to take hold that Americans somehow value a Muslim life less than the life of a person of another religion. Sadly, there are those in the Islamic world who assert that the present conflict is a war directed not against terrorism, but against Islam. That the U.S. does not care about Muslims. That Washington seeks to hijack the tragedies of 9/11 to carry out long-held plans to repress the Islamic world. These are detestable lies, but many in the Muslim world are prepared to believe them. So leaving aside the moral issue, it is essential that India's friends in the U.S. speak out to condemn the injustice and hatred so prominently displayed in Gujarat, and to lend support to those Indians, of all religious beliefs, who are working to strengthen the forces of secularism, tolerance and multiculturalism. Some have asked what impact the recent events in Gujarat will have--;should have--;on the new and healthier relationship that the U.S. is developing with India. No one needs to be reminded of the tortured history of U.S.-India relations over the years, or the difficulty the two nations have had in working collaboratively with one another, even on those issues where our purposes and interests ran along parallel tracks. Over the past half dozen or so years--;and notwithstanding the temporary if traumatic jolt to the relationship administered by India's 1998 nuclear tests and subsequent imposition of U.S. sanctions--;Washington and New Delhi have begun to construct a qualitatively better relationship, so much so that the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, has come to describe the two countries as ``natural allies'', a phrase increasingly used by Americans as well. Following the trauma Americans experienced on September 11, India was one of the first countries in the world to step forward with a pledge of unconditional and unambivalent support for the U.S. in its quest to bring to justice those responsible for the terror attacks in New York and Washington. The administration of George W. Bush, already keen to upgrade relations with Delhi, took notice. Prior to the February 27 Godhra attack that touched off the bloodshed in Gujarat, this new and more sanguine relationship between the U.S. and India was widely viewed by Americans as in the national interest. it remains so today; Gujarat has not changed this calculation. And yet, it is neither possible nor practical simply to pretend that Gujarat did not happen. The violence in Gujarat, and the steps the Indian Government might take in coming months in response to those events, could have a significant impact on American views of India, and hence, on political and public support in the U.S. for a close and collaborative U.S.--;India partnership. Credible reports have recently suggested that substantial sums of money are sent from Indians resident in the U.S., and from American citizens of Indian origin, to groups and organizations in Gujarat and elsewhere in India that are directly linked to the violence in Gujarat. I do not know if these accounts are true. But respected Indian journalists have uncovered disturbing linkages. If these reports prove accurate, then it is possible that such financial transactions violate U.S. anti-terrorism statutes. Alternatively, issues of fraud may be at issue. Responsible sources report that some U.S. residents make financial contributions to overseas religious groups in the belief that these funds are to be used for religious or humanitarian purposes, when in fact the monies so raised are, used to promote religious bigotry. In either event, it is probably advisable for the American Government to hold an official inquiry into fund-raising in the U.S. by groups implicated in Gujarat violence, to ensure that U.S. laws are not being violated. Legitimate organizations need not fear such an investigation, which would serve to clear their names and reassure potential donors about the legitimacy of their fund-raising activities. Nor would such an inquiry be new or unusual. The U.S. has acted in the past to regulate or even to band fund-raising activities by groups advocating violence and ethnic or religious intolerance in other countries, as well as activities where fraud may be an issue. Since September 11, both the Bush administration and other Governments have shut down a number of groups whose ostensible purposes were to collect funds for Muslim charities, but which actually served to finance terrorist networks. The Gujarat violence, Lone's assassination, and most recently, the designation of L.K. Advani as Deputy Prime Minister and most likely successor to Mr. Vajpayee have all raised new concerns about India's future among India's friends in the U.S. An official U.S. investigation into Gujarat-related fund-raising, voluntarily facilitated by the Government of India, would go far towards easing those concerns and further strengthening the new partnership between our peoples.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to note a historic occasion that is being observed this week. In addition to our observance of D-Day, the day that Allied troops landed in Europe to begin the attack on Nazi Germany, this week marks the anniversary of India's military attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar and the brutal massacre of 20,000 Sikhs in June 1984. Recently, Sikhs from the East Coast gathered to commemorate this event in front of the Indian Embassy here in Washington. Similar events have been held or will be held in New York, London, and many other cities. The Golden Temple attack was an attack on the seat of the Sikh religion. It forever put the lie to India's claim that it is secular and democratic. How can a democratic state launch a military attack on religious pilgrims gathered at the most sacred site of their religion? The Indian troops shot bullet holes through the Sikh holy scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib, and took boys as young as eight years old out in the courtyard and shot them in cold blood. This set off a wave of repression against Sikhs that continues to this day. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the flyer from that event into the Record now. It contains a lot of important information about the Golden Temple attack that shows the tyranny just under the facade of Indian democracy. Indian Government Genocide Against the Sikh Nation Continues to This Day From June 3 to 6, 1984 the Indian Government launched a military attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh shrines and seat of the Sikh religion. This is the equivalent of attacking the Vatican or Mecca. 38 other Gurdwaras throughout Punjab Khalistan were simultaneously attacked. More than 20,000 Sikhs were killed in these attacks. Desecration of the temple included shooting bullets into the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scripture, and destroying original Hukam Namas written by hand by the ten Sikh Gurus. Young Sikh boys ages 8 to 12 were taken outside and asked if they supported Khalistan, the independent Sikh homeland. When they responded ``Bole So Nihal,'' a religious statement, they were shot to death in cold blood by the brutal Indian troops. The Golden Temple attack launched an ongoing campaign of genocide against Sikhs by the Indian government that continues to this day. Punjab, Khalistan, the Sikh homeland, has been turned into a killing field. The Golden Temple attack made it clear that there is no place for Sikhs in India. The Movement Against State Repression issued a report showing that India is holding at least 52,268 Sikh political prisoners, by their own admission, in illegal detention without charge or trial. Some of them have been held since 1984. Many prisoners continue to be held under the repressive, so-called ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA),'' even though it expired in 1995. According to the report, in many cases, the police would file TADA cases against the same individual in different states ``to make it impossible for them to muster evidence in their favor.'' It was also common practice for police to re-arrest TADA prisoners who had been released, often without filing new charges. ``In November 1994,'' the report states, ``42 employees of the Pilibhit district jail and PAC were found guilty of clubbing to death 6 Sikh prisoners and seriously wounding 22 others. They were TADA prisoners. Uttar Pradesh later admitted the presence of around 5000 Sikh TADA prisoners.'' Over 50,000 Sikhs have been made to disappear since 1984. Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan formally declared independence on October 7, 1987, to be achieved through the Sikh tradition of Shantmai Morcha, or peaceful resistance. Sikhs ruled Punjab from 1765 to 1849 and were to receive sovereignty at the time that the British quit India. While India seeks hegemony in South Asia, the atrocities continue. India has openly tested nuclear weapons and deployed them in Punjab, weapons that can be used in case of nuclear war with Pakistan. These warheads put the lives of Sikhs at risk for Hindu Nationalist hegemony over South Asia. The Indian government is run by the BJP, the militant Hindu nationalist party in India, and is unfriendly to the United States. In May 1999, the Indian Express reported that Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes led a meeting with representatives from Cuba, Russia, China, Libya, Iraq, and other countries to build a security alliance ``to stop the U.S.'' In March 42 Members of the U.S. Congress from both parties wrote to President Bush asking him to help free tens of thousands of political prisoners. India voted with Cuba, China, and other repressive states to kill a U.S. resolution against human-rights violations in China. India is a terrorist state. According to published reports in India, the government planned the massacre in Gujarat (which killed over 5,000 people) in advance and they ordered the police to stand by and not to interfere to stop the massacre. Last year, a group of Indian soldiers was caught red-handed trying to set fire to a Gurdwara and some Sikh homes in a village in Kashmir. According to the Hitavada newspaper, India paid the late Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to organize and support covert state terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, While citizens in this country take for granted the freedom of the press, there are nations in this hemisphere where journalists are still victimized by their governments for exposing injustices in their societies. In Panama, despite the apparent triumph of democracy following the arrest of Manuel Noriega and the U.S. intervention in that country, inquisitive journalists such as Miguel Antonio Bernal are treated as criminals because they dare to speak out on otherwise taboo subjects. The following documents were prepared by Sarah Watson, Laura McGinnis and Karen Smith, Research Associates at the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). Watson's article, entitled Press Freedom in Panama: Going, Going, Gone, was distributed as a memorandum to the press on May 30 and appeared in the June 1 issue of the organization's highly estimable biweekly publication, the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. It examines the ongoing plight of Miguel Antonio Bernal--a plucky professor-journalist--who was acquitted on trumped-up charges brought by former police chief Jose Luis Sosa, but now faces Panama's attorney general appealing his legal setback to a higher court and his intention to silence the voice of a man who cried out against government abuse in his country. The interview of the highly regarded Bernal was conducted by COHA researchers McGinns and Smith, and reveals the journalist's personal perspective on the state of free speech in his country. It appeared in the July 11 issue of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. These documents should be of great relevance to my colleagues as they demonstrate the severity of the situation in Panama, and the need for continued international scrutiny of cases that threaten the freedom of speech and the right to dissent. Press Freedom in Panama: Going, Going, Gone On May 29th, Judge Lorena Hernandez announced her decision on a criminal slander case that made headlines in Panama and throughout Latin America. In a victory for the forces defending freedom of speech and of the press, she acquitted one of Panama's leading intellectuals and activists, Miguel Antonio Bernal, of flagrantly trumped-up charges brought against him by former police chief Jose Luis Sosa. But Bernal is not out of the woods yet--the country's attorney general has announced his intention to appeal the decision. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs is now embarking on a major campaign to bring the deplorable situation of Panama's media in general, as well as Bernal's current plight, to the attention of the international community. One of Panama's most respected public figures, Bernal has been a thorn in the side of every repressive dictatorship from Colonel Torrijos on, all of which have targeted him for harassment with grim regularity. Professor Bernal's sufferings at the hands of previous governments included being exiled from Panama by General Manual Noriega, causing his flight to the U.S., where he later taught at Davidson College and Lehigh University. Given this background, one might expect that the democratically-elected government of President Mireya Moscoso--who herself had been mistreated by previous repressive regimes--would have offered him a safe haven from where he could have played his important, if often unacknowledged, muckraker role in one of the Americas' most corrupt societies. Unfortunately, at least for the time being, Moscoso has chosen to assume the role of an apologist for Bernal's perverse persecutors. Accusations of Slander In a 1998 radio interview, Bernal stated that he held the Panamanian police responsible for the death by decapitation that year of four inmates at the infamous Isla de Coiba prison. Earlier, the police department had illegally seized control of the facility, which had achieved well-deserved notoriety for its inhumane conditions. In response to Bernal's accusation, Sosa, the then-chief-of-police, sued him for slander--specifically for besmirching the institutional ``honor'' of the Panamanian police. In contrast to U.S. slander law, which provides for a civil trial with, at worst, a possible monetary penalty, Bernal could have faced up to two years in prison if convicted, since the charges against him for ``slander and disrespect'' were, under Panamanian law, criminal in nature. He also could have been denied the right to work in Panama for an additional two years. Bernal's case went to trial on May 14th, and despite his recent exoneration by a Panama City judge, it is likely to take months, or even years, before the appellate process runs its course and any final verdict is handed down. On May 29th, Judge Lorena Hernandez took the startling step of declaring Bernal not guilty. Although this was the decision hoped for by all his supporters, the rapidity with which it was handed down came as a surprise given the usual viscous operating speed of Panama's judiciary. It is likely that the wide attention given to the case in the international press affected the pace of the judge's decision. A Legacy of Corruption Sosa, Bernal's accuser, was police chief during the administration of Moscoso's predecessor, Ernesto Perez Balladares, of the compromised PRD, General Noriega's old, tainted party. Thus, it is not surprising that Perez Balladares and his corrupt cronies had something to hide from a free press, since many of them were acolytes from the Noriega era who were continuing the venal practices inherited from the master. But the prevailing atmosphere didn't change noticeably under the leadership of Moscoso, who was elected in 1999. In May of last year, she tentatively proposed an amnesty for the large number of journalists accused of defamation, only to backtrack and withdraw her support a month later. Moscoso later instructed her attorney general to demand that journalists must have proof of their allegations when they levy charges of corruption. ``We cannot allow it to be said that we in the government are corrupt,'' she said. Censorship Abounds in Corrupt Panama; With Situation Likely to Worsen Bernal is not the only Panamanian journalist facing such charges. Some of the others include a cartoonist, Julio Enrique Briceno, who was forced to meet with a judge every fortnight after the former vice president of the country (who also had been president of the Christian Democratic Party), Ricardo Arias Calderon, sued him for ``insulting behavior.'' Journalists Rainer Tunon and Juan Diaz were sentenced to either 18 months in prison or a 400 euro fine, as well as being banned from working in Panama for 6 months, for reporting on a judge's investigation of doctors alleged to possess forged licenses. One of those under investigation, whose license later provided to be genuine, sued--and won-- for damages to his reputation. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH), more than 90--one out of every three--Panamanian journalists have cases pending against them for libel or slander. Furthermore, in 70 percent of such cases, the suit was brought by a public official. The Panamanian government, however, claims that only 28 journalists currently have cases to be heard on the docket. A bill drafted last year in the corruption-plagued county by interior minister Winston Spadafora is ostensibly designed to regulate Panama's journalistic practices, but critics maintain that it will also serve to expedite press manipulation by the authorities. Among its provisions, carefully knitted to net all of the government's perceived foes, is the requirement that all active journalists in the country must possess a license as well as a journalism diploma; foreign journalists who wish to work in Panama will only be able to do so if no national is available to do the job, and even if they obtain permission to work, such outsiders will be limited to a one-year tenure. Critics insist that these rules constitute a violation of free trade and the right to practice a journalism career unencumbered by bureaucracy. The OAS Human Rights Commission, CIDH found in 1985 that such ``gag rules'' as those listed above violate the Inter- American Convention on Human Rights. International pressure was placed on Moscoso to lighten such restrictions when she came into office, but she now appears to be trying to reintroduce some of the most draconian controls that the country has witnessed while the world's attention is currently directed elsewhere. The international media community, as well as Panama's embattled press, has risen to Bernal's defense. His case was included as an example of government repression in the annual report of the watchdog group, ``Reporters without Borders,'' and he has been defended in editorials by some of Panama's best-known human-rights advocates. Also, in 2001, Bernal received international recognition for his work when he received one of France's most prestigious awards, the ``Academic Laurels,'' with a rank of Commander. His supporters are not hesitant to observe that apparently only Bernal's own government fears his pen and his tongue.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, we are all hoping that war can be avoided in South Asia. A war there would take an enormous toll in human lives an din damage to land and the fragile economies of India and Pakistan. The biggest losers, clearly, would be the Islamic people of Kashmir and the Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan. Unfortunately, some of the media accounts of this conflict have been very one-sided. You would think after reading a lot of the papers and watching a lot of TV news that India is absolutely blameless in this conflict. That is not true. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on June 4, it is India's hegemonic ambitions, as much as anything, that have brought this crisis to a head. Mr. Speaker, at the time that India was partitioned, the Hindu maharajah of Kashmir, despite a majority Muslim population, acceded to India. That accession has always been disputed and India promised the United Nations in 1948 that it would settle the issue with a free and fair plebiscite on Kashmir's status. As we all know, the plebiscite as never been held. Instead, India has tried to reinforce its rule there with over 700,000 troops. According to columnist Tony Blankley in the January 2 Washington Times, meanwhile, India supports cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. Indian officials have said that everyone who lives in India must either be Hindu or subservient to Hindus, and they have called for the incorporation of Pakistan into ``Akand Bharat''--Greater India. In January, Home Minister L.K. Advani admitted that once Kashmir is free from Indian rule, it will bring about the breakup of India. India is a multinational state and history shows that such states always unravel eventually. We all hope that it won't take a war to do it. No one wants another Yugoslavia in South Asia, but there are 17 freedom movements within India. Unless India takes steps to resolve these issues peacefully and democratically, a violent solution becomes much more likely. As the former Majority Leader of the other chamber, Senator George Mitchell, said, ``The essence of democracy is self- determination.'' It is true in the Middle East and it is true in South Asia. The Sikh Nation in Punjab, Khalistan also seeks its freedom by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent means, as does predominantly Christian Nagaland, to name just a couple of examples. The Sikhs declared the independence of Khalistan on October 7, 1987. They ruled Punjab prior to the British conquest of the subcontinent and no Sikh representative has signed the Indian constitution. India claims that these freedom movements have little or no support. Well, if that is true, and if India is ``the world's largest democracy,'' as it claims, then why would it not hold a plebiscite on the status of Kashmir, of Nagaland, of Khalistan? Wouldn't that be the democratic way to resolve these issues without a violent solution? Until that day comes, Mr. Speaker, we should support self- determination. We should declare our support for a plebiscite in Khalistan, in Kashmir, in Nagaland, and wherever they are seeking freedom. We should stop aid to India until all people in the subcontinent live in freedom and peace. These measures will help bring the glow of freedom to everyone in that troubled, dangerous region. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Wall Street Journal article into the Record at this time. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2002] India's Kashmir Ambitions Western worry over Kashmir has focused on Pakistan's willingness to control terrorists slipping over the border with India, and rightly so. But that shouldn't allow U.S. policy to overlook India's equal obligation to prevent a full-scale wear from breaking out in Southwest Asia. That obligation has come into focus with today's Asian security conference in Kazakstan. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan will both be on hand, and everyone has been urging a bilateral meeting on the sidelines. But so far Mr. Vajpayee has ruled out any dialogue until Pakistan presents evidence that it is acting against the Kashmiri terrorist groups crossing the U.N. line of control to attack Indian targets. This is shortsighted, not least for India, because it allows Mr. Musharraf to take the moral high ground by offering to talk ``anywhere and at any level.'' On Saturday the Pakistani leader also went on CNN to offer an implied assurance that he wouldn't resort to nuclear weapons, as something no sane individual would do. This went some way toward matching India's no-first-use policy and could be considered a confidence-building measure, however hard it would be for any leader to stick to such a pledge were national survival at stake. India's refusal even to talk also raises questions about just what that regional powerhouse hopes to achieve out of this Kashmir crisis. If it really wants terrorists to be stopped, some cooperation with Pakistan would seem to be in order. We hope India isn't looking for a pretext to intervene militarily, on grounds that it knows that it would win (as it surely would) and that this would prevent the emergence of a moderate and modernizing Pakistan. This question is on the mind of U.S. leaders who ask Indian officials what they think a war would accomplish, only to get no clear answer. India is by far the dominant power in Southwest Asia, and it likes it that way. Some in India may fear Mr. Musharraf less because he has tolerated terrorists than because he has made a strategic choice to ally his country with the U.S. If he succeeds, Pakistan could become stronger as a regional competitor and a model for India's own Muslim population of 150 million. The danger here is that if India uses Kashmir to humiliate Pakistan, Mr. Musharraf probably wouldn't survive, whether or not fighting escalates into full-scale war. That wouldn't do much to control terrorism, either in India or anywhere else. It would also send a terrible signal to Middle eastern leaders about what happens when you join up with America. All of this is above and beyond the immediate damage to the cause of rounding up Al Qaeda on the Afghan-Pak border, or of restoring security inside Afghanistan. No one doubts that Mr. Musharraf has to be pressed to control Kashmiri militants, as President Bush has done with increasing vigor. The Pakistani ruler was the architect of an incursion into Indian-controlled Kashmir at Kargil two years ago, and his military has sometimes provided mortar fire to cover people crossing the line of control. But at least in the past couple of weeks that seems to have changed, as Pakistani security forces have begun restraining militants and breaking their communications links with terrorists already behind Indian lines. In any case, the line of control is so long and wild that no government can stop all incursions. More broadly, Mr. Musharraf has already taken more steps to reform Pakistani society than any recent government. U.S. officials say he has taken notable steps to clean up his intelligence service and that he has even begun to reform the madrassa schools that are the source of so much Islamic radicalism. (The problem is that Saudi Arabia hasn't stopped funding them.) The Pakistani leader has done all this at considerable personal and strategic risk, and it is in the U.S. and (we would argue) Indian interests that the process continue and succeed. He deserves time to show he is not another Yasser Arafat, who has a 30-year record of duplicity. As it works to defuse the Kashmir crisis, the U.S. has to press Mr. Musharraf to stop as many terror incursions into India as possible. But it also must work to dissuade Indian from using Kashmir as an excuse to humiliate Pakistan, a vital U.S. ally. The U.S. has a long-term interest in good relations with India, a sister democracy and Asian counterweight to China. But self-restraint over Kashmir is a test of how much India really wants that kind of U.S. relationship.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, apparently the efforts of some of us in this House to set the record straight about India's repression of its minorities in making an impression. Recently, Indian Ambassador Lalit Mansingh felt compelled to lash out at me and a couple of my colleagues for our statements in this House about the violations of human rights in India. I am tempted to say that I am honored that Mr. Mansingh noticed, but his response is full of misleading and hurtful statements. Everything that we have stated about India is based on the documented record, as Mr. Mansingh well knows. Let me review the recent information about Indian activities. Recently, India has been cited as a violator of religious freedom by the U.S. Government. While no action has followed this designation so far, it clearly exposes the true nature of Indian democracy. How can India be called democratic when last year a Cabinet member said that everyone who lives in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to Hindus? The pro-Fascist RSS, the parent organization of the ruling BJP, published a booklet on how to implicate religious minorities in fake criminal cases. Prime Minister Vajpayee implicitly endorsed these extremist views when he told a audience in New York, ``I will always be a Swayamsewak.'' The recent massacres in Gujarat are another example of how India treats its minorities. Recently, the New York Times reported that the police stood aside while Hindu militants murdered Muslims, which, as I pointed out previously, is similar to the modus operandi they used in the 1984 massacre of Sikhs. The Hindu newspaper quotes a Gujarati police officer as saying that the police were ordered not to intervene to stop the violence, which is also reminiscent of the Delhi massacres. According to Human Rights Watch, the entire incident was pre-planned with government involvement. Does Ambassador Mansingh dispute the credibility of these sources? Mr. Mansingh attacks my colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia, for saying that in India a Hindu life is worth twice as much as a Muslim life. Yet News India-Times, a New York-based Indian-American newspaper, reported that the government is paying 200,000 rupees to the families of Hindu victims of the Gujarat violence and just 100,000 rupees--half as much--to the families of Muslim victims. In addition, Mr. Mansingh flatly rejected holding the referendum on the independence of Kashmir that India promised the United Nations it would hold in 1948 and also rejected a free and fair plebiscite on independence in Punjab, Khalistan. He simply ignored the other countries like predominantly Christian Nagaland which also seek their independence. If India is the democracy it claims to be, then why are there 17 freedom movements within its borders? If there is no support for independence in Punjab, Khalistan, as India claims, then why not just hold a free and fair vote and prove it? If that claim is true, then it should be massively rejected, shouldn't it? What is India afraid of? Instead, India has killed over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, according to The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee, who gathered these figures from figures put out by the Punjab State Magistracy, which represents the judiciary of Punjab. It has also killed over 75,000 Kashmiri Muslims, more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland and tens of thousands of other minorities. According to the Movement Against State Repression, 52,268 Sikh political prisoners are still being detained in Indian jails. Mr. Speaker, America is founded on the idea of freedom. We believe in freedom for ourselves and all the people of the world. We should work to bring real freedom to all the peoples and nations of South Asia. To do so, we should stop American aid to India until is respects basic human rights and we should continue to call for a free and fair vote on independence for the people of Kashmir, of Punjab, Khalistan, of Nagaland, and all the other peoples seeking their freedom. Mr. Speaker, Gurmit Singh Aulakh, the President of the Council of Khalistan, wrote an excellent letter to the Washington Times refuting the false statements of Mr. Mansingh. I would like to place it in the Record at this time to help set the Record straight about what is really going on in India. [From the Washington Times, May 19, 2002] India Doesn't Act Like a Democracy In his May 14 Embassy Row column, James Morrison reports that Indian Ambassador Lalit Mansingh is accusing Reps. Dan Burton, Edolphus Towns and Cynthia A. McKinney of spreading ``false, hurtful'' information about India. This is ludicrous. Mr. Morrison has been sent the proof of the statements that Mr. Mansingh questions, yet he made no apparent effort to get the other side. He should stop repeating Mr. Mansingh's disinformation. We understand that tyrants are hurt when their crimes are exposed. Yet they do not show any concern for the rights of minorities. Last year, a member of the Indian Cabinet said everyone who lives in India must either be Hindu or be subservient to Hindus. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which was formed in 1925 in support of the fascist and is the parent organization of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, published a booklet on how to implicate Christians and other minorities in fake criminal cases. Yet Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee told an audience in New York City, ``I will always be a Swayamsevak.'' This belies Mr. Mansingh's claim that ``[a[all citizens of India . . . enjoy equal rights and equal protection of law.'' Mr. Mansingh might want to explain that to the 250,000 Sikhs who have been murdered by his government. This figure is documented. It was published in ``The Politics of Genocide'' by Inderjit Singh Jaijee and derived from figures first used by the Punjab State Magistracy, which represents the judiciary of Punjab. Further, a study by the Movement Against State Repression showed that the Indian government admitted to holding 52,268 Sikh political prisoners under the very repressive so-called Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), which expired in 1995. Amnesty International reported that tens of thousands of other minorities also are being held as political prisoners. Mr. Mansingh undoubtedly is aware of these facts. Mr. Mansingh is not telling the truth about the massacres in Gujarat. A recent report from Human Rights Watch showed that the massacres were planned in advance. The New York Times reported that the police stood aside while militant Hindu nationalists attacked and murdered Muslims in Gujarat, an act reminiscent of the Delhi massacres of Sikhs in 1984, in which Sikh police were confined to their barracks while the state-run radio and television called for more Sikh blood. According to published reports in India, a police officer in Gujarat said the police were ordered to stand aside. Mr. Mansingh disputes Miss McKinney's statement that in India, a Hindu life is worth twice as much as a Muslim life. He claims Hindu and Muslim families who were victimized by the Gujarat massacre are receiving equal compensation. Yet according to News India-Times, the Indian government is paying out 200,000 rupees each to the families of Hindus who were killed but just 100,000 rupees to the family of each Muslim killed. Mr. Mansingh knows this, yet he uses his two high-powered lobbying firms to spin dis-information at gullible reporters such as Mr. Morrison. Despite India's claim to be democratic, Mr. Mansingh rejected the referendum on the status of Kashmir that India promised in 1948, which still has not been held. Despite India's boast that it is democratic and its claim that there is no support for independence in Punjab, Khalistan, he also rejects a free and fair vote on the issue there. He does not even mention the 15 other nations, such as Christian Naga- land, which are seeking their freedom from India. How can a democratic country reject settling issues by a free and fair vote? Also, Mr. Mansingh does not even address the fact that the U.S. State Department recently put India on its watch list of countries that violate religious freedom. India is not a democracy; it is a Hindu fundamentalist theocracy. The United States should work for the release of all political prisoners and halt its aid to this repressive, tyrannical state until all people enjoy their God-given human rights. We also should support freedom for all the nations of South Asia through a free and fair vote. That is the only way to bring democracy, peace, freedom and stability to the region. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan, Washington.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to note a historic occasion that is being observed this week. In addition to our observance of D-Day, the day that Allied troops landed in Europe to begin the attack on Nazi Germany, this week marks the anniversary of India's military attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar and the brutal massacre of 20,000 Sikhs in June 1984. Recently, Sikhs from the East Coast gathered to commemorate this event in front of the Indian Embassy here in Washington. Similar events have been held or will be held in New York, London, and many other cities. The Golden Temple attack was an attack on the seat of the Sikh religion. It forever put the lie to India's claim that it is secular and democratic. How can a democratic state launch a military attack on religious pilgrims gathered at the most sacred site of their religion? The Indian troops shot bullet holes through the Sikh holy scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib, and took boys as young as eight years old out in the courtyard and shot them in cold blood. This set off a wave of repression against Sikhs that continues to this day. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the flyer from that event into the Record now. It contains a lot of important information about the Golden Temple attack that shows the tyranny just under the facade of Indian democracy. Khalistan Martyrs Day, June 1, 2002

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, we are all hoping that war can be avoided in South Asia. A war there would take an enormous toll in human lives and in damage to land and the fragile economies of India and Pakistan. The biggest losers, clearly, would be the Islamic people of Kashmir and Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan. Unfortunately, some of the media accounts of this conflict have been very one-sided. You would think after reading a lot of the papers and watching a lot of TV news that India is absolutely blameless in this conflict. That is not true. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on June 4, it is India's hegemonic ambitions, as much as anything, that have brought this crisis to a head. Mr. Speaker, at the time that India was partitioned, the Hindu maharajah of Kashmir, despite a majority Muslim population, acceded to India. That accession has always been disputed and India promised the United Nations in 1948 that it would settle the issue with a free and fair plebiscite on Kashmir's status. As we all know, the plebiscite has never been held. Instead, India has tried to reinforce its rule there with over 700,000 troops. According to columnist Tony Blankley in the January 2, Washington Times, meanwhile, India supports cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. Indian officials have said that everyone who lives in India must either be Hindu or subservient to Hindus, and they have called for the incorporation of Pakistan into ``Akand Bharat''--Greater India. In January, Home Minister L.K. Advani admitted that once Kashmir is free from India rule, it will bring about the breakup of India. India is a multinational state and history shows that such states always unravel eventually. We all hope that it won't take a war to do it. No one wants another Yugoslavia in South Asia, but there are 17 freedom movements within India. Unless India takes steps to resolve these issues peacefully and democratically, a violent solution becomes much more likely. As the former Majority Leader of the other chamber, Senator George Mitchell, said, ``The essence of democracy is self- determination.'' It is true in the Middle East and it is true in South Asia. The Sikh Nation in Punjab, Khalistan also seeks its freedom by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent means, as does predominantly Christian Nagaland, to name just a couple of examples. The Sikhs declared the independence of Khalistan on October 7, 1987. They ruled Punjab prior to the British conquest of the submcommittee and no Sikh representative has signed the Indian constitution. India claims that these freedom movements have little or no support. Well, if that is true, and if India is ``the world's largest democracy,'' as it claims, then why would it not hold a plebiscite on the stauts of Kashmir, of Nagaland, of Khalistan? Wouldn't that be the democratic way to resolve these issues without a violent solution? Until that day comes, Mr. Speaker, we should support self- determination. We should declare our support for a plebiscite in Khalistan, in Kashmir, in Nagaland, and wherever they are seeking freedom. We should stop aid to India until all people in the subcontinent live in freedom and peace. These measures will help bring the glow of freedom to everyone in that troubled, dangerous region. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Wall Street Journal article into the Record at this time. [From the Wall Street Journal] India's Kashmir Ambitions Western worry over Kashmir has focused on Pakistan's willingness to control terrorists slipping over the border with India, and rightly so. But that shouldn't allow U.S. policy to overlook India's equal obligation to prevent a full-scale war from breaking out in Southwest Asia. That obligation has come into focus with today's Asian security conference in Kazakstan. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan will both be on hand, and everyone has been urging a bilateral meeting on the sidelines. But so far Mr. Vajpayee has ruled out any dialogue until Pakistan presents evidence that it is acting against the Kashmiri terrorist groups crossing the U.N. line of control to attack Indian targets. This is shortsighted, not least for India, because it allows Mr. Musharraf to take the moral high ground by offering to talk ``anywhere and at any level.'' On Saturday the Pakistani leader also went on CNN to offer an implied assurance that he wouldn't resort to nuclear weapons, as something no sane individual would do. This went some way toward matching India's no-first-use policy and could be considered a confidence-building measure, however hard it would be for any leader to stick to such a pledge were national survival at stake. India's refusal even to talk also raises question about just what that regional powerhouse hopes to achieve out of this Kashmir crisis. If it really wants terrorists to be stopped, some cooperation with Pakistan would seem to be in order. We hope India isn't looking for a pretext to intervene militarily, on grounds that it knows that it would win (as it surely would) and that this would prevent the emergence of a moderate and modernizing Pakistan. This question is one the mind of U.S. leaders who ask Indian officials what they think war would accomplish, only to get no clear answer. India is by far the dominant power in Southwest Asia, and it likes it that way. Some in India may fear Mr. Musharraf less because he has tolerated terrorists than because he has made a strategic choice to ally his country with the U.S. If he succeeds, Pakistan could become stronger as a regional competitor and a model for India's own Muslim population of 150 million. The danger here is that if India uses Kashmir to humiliate Pakistan, Mr. Musharraf probably wouldn't survive, whether or not fighting escalates into full-scale war. That wouldn't do much to control terrorism, either in India or anywhere else. It would also send a terrible signal to Middle Eastern leaders about what happens when you join up with America. All of this is above and beyond the immediate damage to the cause of rounding up al Qaeda on the Afghan-Pak border, or of restoring security inside Afghanistan. No one doubts that Mr. Musharraf has to be pressed to control Kashmiri militants, as President Bush has done with increasing vigor. The Pakistani ruler was the architect of an incursion into Indian-controlled Kashmir at Kargil two years ago, and his military has sometimes provided mortar fire to cover people crossing the line of control. But at least in the past couple of weeks that seems to have changed, as Pakistani security forces have begun restraining militants and breaking their communications links with terrorists already behind Indian lines. In any case, the line of control is so long and wild that no government can stop all incursions. More broadly, Mr. Musharraf has already taken more steps to reform Pakistani society than any recent government. U.S. officials say he has taken notable steps to clean up his intelligence service and that he has even begun to reform the madrassa schools that are the source of so much Islamic radicalism. (The problem is that Saudi Arabia hasn't stopped funding them.) The Pakistani leader has done all this at considerable personal and strategic risk, and it is in the U.S. and (we would argue) Indian interests that he process continue and succeed. He deserves time to show he is not another Yasser Arafat, who has a 20-year record of duplicity. As it works to defuse the Kashmir crisis, the U.S. has to press Mr. Musharraf to stop as many terror incursions into India as possible. But it also must work to dissuade India from using Kashmir as an excuse to humiliate Pakistan, a vital U.S. ally. The U.S. has a long-term interest in good relations with India, a sister democracy and Asian counterweight to China. But self-restraint over Kashmir is a test of how much India really wants that kind of U.S. relationship.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I have recently proposed an amendment to H.R. 4635, the ``Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act,'' which would establish a program for training pilots as Federal flight deck officers. This amendment enhances the bill by requiring the Under Secretary of Security to address the crucial issue of accidental discharges. I am very pleased that the gentleman from Florida has agreed to include my amendment in the Manager's amendment. While all law enforcement officers are trained to handle their firearms with the utmost care, accidental discharges do occur, and are a cause of firearm-related injuries. Typically, accidental discharges result in the wounding of the gun carrier, or of a limited number of bystanders. But in an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet, an accidental discharge, which can potentially shoot out a window, or damage other vital technology, endangers many more people. To address this concern, I drafted a two-part amendment. The first part instructs the Under Secretary to consider the potential risk of accident discharges prior to implementing the program. The second half requires the Under Secretary to include in his report to Congress, an account of the specific instances of accidental discharges, and the subsequent damage caused by them. By requiring the Under Secretary to pay specific attention to the issue of accidental discharges, this amendment increases the security that the program proposed by the bill strives to provide to airline passengers. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Manager's amendment, and I thank the Chairman and the subcommittee chair for its inclusion in the Manager's amendment.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation turns its focus toward a full- scale battle against worldwide terrorism, there are some international human rights issues that are evading the scope of U.S. policymakers. This should be of great concern to those in this country who have long been concerned with the welfare of all humanity, be it in Asia, Africa, or in the Caribbean. Unbeknownst to many in this country, one of the hungriest and most neglected nations in the world lies not only in this hemisphere, but also in our own Caribbean backyard. The situation in Haiti is worsening by the day while international financial institutions refuse to provide development assistance, and the role of the U.S. is still unclear. What is certain is that a double standard has been created regarding Haiti, and that rather than being helped, the population is being further driven into the ground. Andrew Blandford, Research Associate at the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), has recently authored a press memorandum entitled ``As Catastrophe Approaches in Haiti, the U.S. Continues to Block International Loans.'' This important analysis, which was released on June 13, will shortly appear in a revised form in the upcoming issue of that organization's estimable biweekly publication, The Washington Report on the Hemisphere. Blandford's research findings spotlight the developing Haitian tragedy and examine the role played by units of our own government in orchestrating the withholding of over $500 millon in loans and grants to our poverty-stricken neighbors. Following weeks of floods and increased potable water shortages in Haiti, residents are forced to spend, on average, nearly a tenth of their meager U.S. $1 a day income on such a fundamental staple as water. As a result of its scarcity and inflated price, less than half of Haiti's population consumes potable water, compounding the nation's abysmal health standards. Over 4% of Haiti's populace is infected with HIV/AIDS while only 1 in 10,000 has access to a physician. The sanctions against Haiti include the withholding of a $146 million loan from the Inter-American Development Bank that was intended to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure projects. Because the IDB loans have already been approved, we have the ironic situation where Haiti must continue to pay interest on money it does not receive. While U.S. dollars flow in record amounts to such undemocratic nations as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, our Caribbean neighbors live in abject poverty. We must recognize the injustice of withholding, international development assistance to a country previously ruled by the U.S.- supported Duvalier family dictatorship which distorted the country's institutions while running up record debts. COHA researcher Blandford calls for action through the passage of H.C.R. 382, sponsored by our colleague Representative Barbara Lee and the Congressional Black Caucus. This resolution would urge the President to end the virtual embargo on development assistance to Haiti. Consequently, the article is of great relevance since the need to constructively engage Haiti is likely to grow in importance in the coming months, given the precedent for Haitian refugees to attempt to escape to Florida by means of a perilous sea passage when famine and destitution become unbearable at home, even though they face automatic interdiction and are forced to return to the island. As Catastrophe Approaches in Haiti, the U.S. Continues To Block International Loans Less than a decade after the United States triumphantly pronounced the restoration of democracy in Haiti with the return of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the international community has financially repudiated the island nation. Only two years before its bicentennial, the unrest which has characterized much of Haiti's two centuries of independence has returned to the poverty-stricken nation. A loose and disparate opposition coalition of mainly tiny rightist factions, the Democratic Convergence, due to its tight links to conservative Washington powerbrokers, has been able to undermine the Aristide administration both abroad and at home. The Developing Haitian Tragedy In recent weeks, in addition to Haiti's routine political and economic woes, its populace has been forced to spend, on average, nearly a tenth of their meager U.S. $1 a day income on water alone due to a lethal shortage of supplies. Because of its scarcity and price inflation, less than half of Haiti's population consumes potable water. Dr. Paul Farmer, a Harvard medical professor and director of Haiti's celebrated Zanmi Lasante clinic, notes the close connection between contaminated water and the cataclysmic HIV epidemic that affects 4% of the island's population. Dr. Farmer has of late witnessed the number of untreated patients in Haiti multiply at an unprecedented pace: ``I had worried about 60-70,000 patients for the year. Now it'll likely be well over 120,000. The blocked $146 million in IDB [Inter- American Development Bank] loans are for health, water, and education. It's insane for the richest country in the world to hold up financing of these projects in one of the poorest.'' Dr. Farmer's invaluable role in spearheading the battle against AIDS, nevertheless, is thus far a losing effort. Currently there is only one physician for every 10,000 Haitians. The Pan-American Heath Organization's director, George Alleyne, laments that 74 Haitian babies die per every 1,000 live births and that life expectancy on the island is among the lowest in the Americas. To him the cause is clear: ``It is poverty.'' The U.S. Role in Haiti's Plight Due to the U.S. Treasury Department's virtual veto power over the IDB, a low interest loan of $54 million meant to improve Haiti's access to clean water cannot be disbursed, despite the fact that the bank's charter specifically forbids such political meddling. The IDB claims that no loans can be sent to Haiti because the country is in arrears, but the State Department has made it clear that international pressure will be removed only when the strict demands on the U.S. agenda are met. At June's OAS General Assembly in Barbados, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted that Haiti needs the assistance of the international financial community . . . but it is difficult to provide that kind of aid until there is political stability.'' Despite Aristide's democratic authenticity, the Convergence's provocations have effectively cut off international resources to Haiti while billions of U.S. dollars flow to authoritarian nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In January 2001, Ira Kurzban, the Aristide administration's general counsel in the U.S., claimed that the IRI facilitated the allocation of $3 million of NED funds to the Convergence. Shortly thereafter, in a February 2 article, The Washington Post substantiated the IRI's connection to the origins of the Convergence. In effect, the IRI has arranged for the Convergence to have a de facto veto power over Aristide's constitutional mandate. The Convergence essentially delivered an ultimatum to the Haitian president when it called for the annulment of the results of the May 2000 election, which its leaders insisted were flawed. Aristide agreed over a year ago to fire the seven senators whose votes were contested and to move up the elections despite the fact that an American delegation led by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) witnessed the balloting and characterized it as ``the democratic process working, exceptionally well.'' The Convergence, however, still stonewalls negotiations, choosing instead to advance its policy of economic asphyxiation of the government. The Republican leadership argues that USAID already delivers sufficient funding to Haiti. According to remarks made by Secretary of State Powell, the U.S. only provided $73 million in aid last year for emergency rations, but this figure will be slashed to $20 million for Fiscal Year 2002. Moreover, a USAID official in Haiti recently told visitors ``79 cents of every USAID dollar worldwide is actually spent in the U.S.'' The OAS-Sponsored Negotiations A total of $500 million in approved international loans and grants have been withheld as a result of demands made by Aristide's political enemies that a consensus be reached between the democratically-based Aristide administration and the Convergence's questionable bona fides. Few analysts see any grounds for optimism as an OAS negotiation team is in the country on its twentieth visit in an attempt to produce a peace accord. Like Aristide, the OAS has been unable to accomplish its goal due to a lack of political and financial assets. Section nineteen of the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report specifically cites a lack of resources as the leading cause behind Haiti's inefficient judicial institutions and the OAS has displayed a particular lack of ability to operate independent of State Department dictates. At a June 28 Haiti Symposium in Washington, the leader of the OAS peace initiative, Assistant Secretary General Luigi Einaudi, fresh from the island, agreed that it is now ``the absolute critical time'' to move forward and set a deadline for negotiations. This step would thwart the Convergence's strategy of issuing perpetual ultimatums. Einaudi stressed, ``There is not one nation--certainly not one of the 34 in the OAS--which disputes Aristide's presidency.'' The problem, as he explained it, is that the international community will not sign onto the process of renewing development support until Aristide and his administration's opposition reach an agreement. ``I hate sanctions,'' Einaudi griped, ``they're easy to put on and hard to take off.'' Since a consensus in Haiti is far from assured, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) and the CBC introduced in April H.C.R. 382, ``New Partnership for Haiti,'' which calls for an end to U.S.-influenced sanctions on the island, regardless of the Convergence's obstinacy. However, while the resolution remains stalled in committee, and with Congress sharply divided along party lines, it is doubtful whether the legislation will reach the House floor. Furthermore, Haitian advocacy groups stress that a resumption of international development assistance is only the first step in addressing Haiti's dire condition. Once the Haitian government is able to establish its authority and marshals the necessary resources, It will have to begin to create solid institutions and reform its judicial process in order to effectively serve the nation.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4858, introduced by my colleague Congressman Moran of Kansas. As a co-sponsor of this legislation, let me stress that it is vital to maintaining access to health care for the medically underserved, both in urban and rural areas. This legislation is needed to reauthorize the J1 Visa waiver program, whose authorization expired on June 1, 2002. The J1 Visa waiver program has been successful in recruiting physicians in both primary care and specialty areas in both rural and urban medically underserved communities. Without this critical program many rural communities would be without access to basic primary care if not for a physician with a J1 Visa waiver. Since its inception in 1994, the J1 Visa program has been successful as both a Federal and State program, but in late February, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that it was no longer going to act as the Federal Interested Government Agency (IGA) in processing J1 Visa applications for physicians wishing to practice 8in rural underserved areas. The USDA cited security concerns as the issue. However, USDA's decision caused a major shortage of filling the needs of the medically underserved. Although, the Administration has formed a task force to address the Federal J1 program in selecting another IGA to sponsor candidates, we still need to reauthorize the state program to limit the disruption in health care services in these communities. Today, I am pleased that we here in Congress have an opportunity to take a proactive stand to ensure that the states' J1 Visa program is continued. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Adam N. Haskins and his commitment to service. From an early age, Adam focused on education, personal growth, spirituality, and serving his community. After receiving his high school diploma from Brooklyn College Academy, he will pursue a Computer Science degree at Central Connecticut State University. Mr. Haskins has always been very involved in extra-curricular activities at school. He was a member of the Leadership Team, participated in a walk-a-thon for the March of Dimes, the Toys for Tots drive and many school fundraising drives. Adam has also received many awards including the National Commemorative Certificate in the Arts from the United States Achievement Academy. The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art honored him with the Saint Gauden's medal for visual arts. Adam's mother, Peggy, inspired him to get involved in his community. He was a valuable intern in my Brooklyn district office. During his internship, he was involved in many community projects including the Toy Gun Exchange, the community Christmas Tree lighting, town hall meetings, and health forums. He was also closely involved with Congressman Towns' Youth Initiative. Mr. Speaker, Adam N. Haskins is a fine young man who has an outstanding record of achievement in his school and in his community. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable person.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, though the events of September 11 were a tragic and unbelievable experience for almost all of us in this country, some of the policies and security measures that we are creating and enforcing because of it go against the principles that we as a nation stand for. The freedoms that many countries deny their citizens, but we allow to ours, has been the reason that we have been able to shine as the great nation that we are. The responsibility that we have taken on by assisting victims of terror and oppression have separated us from other countries and again helped us to create a nation dedicated to the welfare of all peoples. However as a result of 9-11, we have started to retract on these policies. And though they may be grounded in a fear that is all too real, retracting on our principles and ideals will not remove that fear, nor will it solve the problem. Two groups that have been affected the most by some of the new policies and/or security measures are two groups that need it the most. Haitian and African refugees are suffering in their homelands and are turning to the U.S. for aid, nonetheless, we are turning them away and/ or allowing them to enter the U.S. and continue their suffering in detainment centers. Will we allow ourselves to succumb to the laws of other countries that deny people their rights and ability to live as free civilized peoples? In December, the Administration initiated a policy, which detains all Haitians seeking asylum in Miami. This policy is unmistakably discriminatory: 91 percent of refugees from other nations are given parole in American communities while they seek asylum, while Haitians who have been granted asylum often remain in detention. The policy's objective, to deter Haitians from risking their lives to come to the U.S. by boat, has not been successful. Many Haitians are not aware of this new policy and some choose to face detainment here rather than face terrorism at home. In fact, approximately 97 percent of Haitians seeking asylum are detained. For a country that was built on a historical acceptance of refugees, does it make logical sense that we treat refugees in this manner? Most Americans' ancestors came here escaping problems in their homelands as well, yet were not treated with the same disdain. Yet this goes beyond disdain, these people lack the basic rights that we as a country preach that everyone should have. These people are detained in facilities that have surpassed their maximum limit. They are not given ample time to obtain legal assistance or prepare and file their claim of asylum. They are not given sufficient medical care. Their children are denied educational services and are not allowed recreational time outdoors. They are housed with criminal prisoners even though they themselves are not. Their human rights are being violated. It is important that we ensure the due process and equal protection to Haitians asylum seekers as they turn to us for help. The treatment of African refugees is equally problematic. According to the Interaction's Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs, almost 50 percent of the world's 25 million internally displaced persons are in Africa, yet we only allow 31 percent of all refugees admitted to the U.S. are African. And, because the Department of State has consistently not processed refugees, we have not been able to reached our refugee allocations throughout the 1980s and 90s. For the Fiscal Year 2002, the allocation for Africa was 22,000 yet only 891 African refugees were admitted into the country. In 1999, $120 was spent on a refugee from Yugoslavia, whereas $35 was spent on one refugee from Africa. If African refugees are in greater need why are their needs being neglected? Witness the case of Melrose Coker, an African refugee from Sierra Leone, who has languished in two different refugee camps since 1999. She and her children have been subjected to hazardous labor exploitation, physical abuse, denial of education, sexual violence and exploitation. While trying to survive hardships in one of these camps, Melrose was able to make contact with her family in the United States. Her mother was deeply troubled and saddened by the hardships Melrose and her family suffered in Guinea. She could not sit back and watch while her daughter and grandchildren suffered. She therefore petitioned for Melrose and her family to be provided with visas to travel to the United States, for purposes of family reunification and resettlement. This petition was filed with a local refugee agency in New York City in 1999. Several months passed and no feed-back was received from the agency handling the petition. Several petitions have been filed by Melrose's family in the United States, with various agencies and UNECR, to resettle Melrose's family in the United States. Thus far, all of these efforts have been unsuccessful. Inquiries into the status of her case have all produced no information or response. Meanwhile, Melrose and her family continue to perish while putting their lives at risk everyday, living in fear, poverty and squalor. Melrose's voice is reaching out of the depths of darkness and misery and is crying out to us today. Not only has Melrose's family suffered some of the worst atrocities ever recorded in the world during the war in Sierra Leone, but they continue to remain at risk in the refugee camps in Guinea-- where they are supposed to find safety. I, therefore, appeal to you to listen to Melrose's voice calling from beyond the tents of refugee camps in Guinea. I urge you to take on the challenge to protect her and resettle and reunify her with her family in the United States. Finally, Haitian and African refugees are in dire need of our help and as we close our doors to their pleas or continue to allow them to be mistreated in our own nation, we join alliances with those that are for the inhumane treatment of human beings. Have we not dedicated ourselves to promoting the freedom of those deprived of rights that we believe are inherent to human life? The answer is yes. The United States has been a leader in the protection of refugees and as we decline in our dedication to those that need our aid so do the rest of the resettlement countries. We must remember the events of September 11th and learn how to prevent them, but we cannot do so at the cost of the lives of others. We were attacked on that day because of our principles, if we retract on them, we our only allowing ourselves to lose in the war on terrorism. The Haitian and African refugees need our help; let us stand up for what we believe in and give them the rights that they deserve.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, often in this House we discuss the most important and contentious issues of the day, but it is only on that rare occasion that we have the chance to recognize positive achievements. Today, is just such an occasion, it is a tremendous privilege for me to honor Mr. Joseph R. Lewis and Mrs. Avis J. Lewis who have done something that is all too rare in this day and age--they have been happily married for fifty years. On Saturday, June 8, 2002, this happy couple celebrated their golden wedding anniversary together. Fifty years sharing the joy and sorrow that come with every day life. Together, Joseph and Avis are the proud parents of seven remarkable children. On June 22, 2002, their children as well as their 20 grandchildren, and one great grandchild will be gathering in Port St. Lucie, Florida to celebrate this momentous occasion in the manner that this family has grown quite used to, together. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Joseph R. and Mrs. Avis J. Lewis have reached a milestone that only a lucky few will ever know. They will be celebrating with their family this Saturday. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable couple and their family on this wonderful and happy occasion.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Diane E. Harris. She has been a mother to all of the children in her community and for that we commend her today. Diane was born and raised on Staten Island in the borough of Richmond. She received her formal education at Port Richmond High School and then attended Hunter College where she majored in Sociology/ Education. She has dedicated herself to working with children for over 27 years. She has held positions as a counselor for Henry Street Settlement, as an assistant director for Markham YMCA, and as an assistant director for Richmond Continental Color Guard. In 1979, she joined the United Activities Unlimited at the Joseph R. Garcia PAL Center as a program director and was later promoted to director of this Center in the New Brighton community of Staten Island. In 1999, Ms. Harris became the director of the Schwartz Police Athletic League Center in East New York, Brooklyn. Diane has developed a tremendous bond with the families of East New York. She has had experiences that have broadened her horizons and enabled her to embrace both her past training and academic knowledge to coordinate a full academic, recreational, cultural, and therapeutic program. She has received numerous community service and humanitarian awards, including the Richmond Continental Instructor Extraordinaire, the S.I. Hope, the Staten Island League for Better Government, and the Youth Services Planning Committee of CB#5. She is not only a mother to her community, but also a mother to her own two sons, John III and JoVaughn. Diane provides a positive alternative by improving the lives of families, children, and her community by sharing her knowledge, love, support, and dedication. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Diane Harris.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Arthur P. Johnson for his dedication to helping others. Arthur P. Johnson is a native New Yorker whose professional and community service is guided by the philosophy of empowering individuals, families and communities to be self-sustaining. His parents and grandparents instilled in him the importance of education, a strong work ethic, and the need for spiritual guidance. He demonstrated his commitment to these values when he helped start the ALPHA School for substance abusing teens. During his diverse career he has also been involved with mental health and H.I.V. services at the New Hope Guild Centers as well as owning a share of a city licensed pest control business. Arthur is devoted to improving the environment in which we live through his public service. In East New York, he sits on Community Board #5, the board of Brownsville Medical Services, and the board of the Twelve Towns Y.M.C.A. He is also 2nd Vice-President of the Congressman Towns' Men's Caucus and treasurer of the New York Shot Makers Golf Club. With this work, and his entrepreneurial endeavors, Arthur is working to make a difference. In addition, to his many work and volunteer responsibilities, he is also the proud father of Lisa, Arthur, Jr., and Latasha as well as the very happy grandfather of Asia and Cameron. Mr. Speaker, Arthur P. Johnson has shown his commitment to serving the community and helping those who cannot help themselves. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in honoring this remarkable person.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Honorable Alfred D. Cooper for his commitment to pursuing justice. The Honorable Alfred D. Cooper is a long-standing New York public servant. After receiving his bachelor's degree in History and Political Science from Brooklyn College, Judge Cooper served in the United States Army. He later received a Masters Degree from the Brooklyn College Graduate School and a law degree from the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Judge Cooper has served in the Unified Court System of New York for more than twenty-five years. He started as a Uniformed Court Officer and rose through the ranks to Senior Court Attorney. In 1999, he became the first African American elected to the Nassau County Court as a Democrat. Prior to ascending to the bench, Judge Cooper served as the president of the Men's Caucus for Congressman Towns, president of the District Court Arbitrators' Association, vice-president of finance and vice chairperson of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, Inc. He has received awards from the Amistad Bar Association, and the 2000 Man of the Year Award from the Bedford-Stuyvesant Lions. He has also published a number of decisions in the New York Law Journal exemplifying another aspect of his fine record of service. Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Alfred D. Cooper has shown outstanding dedication to the community. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in honoring this remarkable person.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Reverend Richard J. Lawson for his contribution to the Brooklyn community. Reverend Richard J. Lawson is pastor of the New Canaan Baptist Church in Brooklyn, New York. At the 400-member church, he offers spiritual and moral guidance. Reverend Lawson has been involved in the church since 1984 and currently oversees its educational programs. He developed the church's youth leadership program and established its athletic team. The Reverend also spearheaded the purchase of the Church's new worship facility. He is truly committed to improving the lives of others. Reverend Lawson also ministers outside of his church. He visits those who are sick and travels throughout New York to provide a religious program in prisons. Additionally, he is involved in several community organizations. Reverend Lawson is a member of the Manhattan Bible Alumni Association, Suna Enoch A.M.F.M. Lodge #139, Association of Brooklyn Clergy, Eastern Baptist Association, Brooklyn Clergy and Elected Officials, and Churches to Save and Heal. Reverend Lawson served almost a decade in the United States Army. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Richard J. Lawson is a dedicated minister and contributor to his community. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in honoring this remarkable spiritual leader.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lenford L. Robins, a leasing representative and a fine individual. Currently the Founder and Chairman of Bridgeport Capital Resources Inc. Mr. Robins attended St. George College in the West Indies and subsequently worked as a law clerk in the Criminal Justice System, Sutton Street Court Division, Kingston, Jamaica, and immigrated to the United States in 1969 to further his studies. In the United States, he attended New York School of Dentistry and Brooklyn Community College, where he received his degree in Orthodontic Dentistry. He went on to invent the ``Tooth Aligner,'' commonly known as the ``Spring Retainer,'' which is used in all dental practices globally. In 1973, Mr. Robins changed his career path and pursued corporate financing. He became a member of the ``Elite Clout Club'' of First Investor Investment Corporation, and joined Ford Motor Credit from 1976 to 1979, where he was trained as a representative. He has worked as a Leasing and Credit manager for Toyota Motor Credit, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW, and has received several awards for his outstanding performance and contributions in the leasing industry. Mr. Robins has also served as the Director of Leasing for Emar International and Reserve Lease Systems, as the President of Leasing Research International, and as the Director of International Markets for Blockwell Funding Corporation. He has also headed the International Division for GFI Business Capital. In each of these capacities, he has used his expertise to train others, and has been recognized and respected by his peers. As proof of his prominence, Mr. Robins has been interviewed on the Bill McCreary Report on Fox Channel 5 Television and CNBC Television, and has been written about in several newspapers and magazines. He is also the author of ``The Advantages of Leasing.'' I would like to commend to my colleagues' attention the many achievements of Mr. Lenford L. Robins, a true expert in equipment leasing.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Nezam Kelvin and Cynthia Hosein, for their outstanding volunteer work with the 500 Block Association Community Garden and Food Pantry. Kelvin, as he is known, and his wife Cynthia were born and raised in Trinidad, West Indies. In 1989, they moved to East New York in Brooklyn. They have two children, Princess (18) and Kelvin Jr. (13), and attend the Shepherd Home Open Bible Church. Mr. Hosein is the President of the Euclid 500 Block Association Community Garden and Food Pantry, where both Kelvin and Cynthia volunteer. This picturesque garden is located on Euclid Avenue between Belmont and Sutter Avenue. In the spring of 2000, the Association built a basketball court behind the garden to provide neighborhood kids a recreational alternative to ``hanging out'' in the street. In addition to basketball, the site is used for regular cookouts for the kids and volunteers. In November 2000, the Association, together with Food For Survival and Green Guerillas, opened their food pantry. The number of people served, already at 440 families, increased dramatically after September 11, 2001. The line is so long, police assistance is now necessary to maintain an orderly process. Needless to say, the food pantry has had a tremendous effect on the community. I would like to congratulate Nezam Kelvin and Cynthia Hosein, and the Euclid 500 Block Association Community Garden for their dedicated efforts in support of our Brooklyn community and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring these dedicated community servants.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Yong Soo Jun, who has actively promoted the interests of Korean-American entertainers. Mr. Jun, who currently lives in Fresh Meadow, New York, moved to New York from Chicago in 1980, and immediately became affiliated with the Korean American Entertainers Association, which at the time, had about thirty members. Over the next six years, Mr. Jun participated in and helped organize many charitable events and performances for the Korean community throughout New York and New Jersey. In 1986, for business purposes, Mr. Jun moved to Virginia, and spent the next ten years traveling from state to state. During this time, Mr. Jun constantly organized and participated in numerous events, bringing smiles to the faces of virtually everyone with whom he came into contact. Upon his return to New York in 1996, Mr. Jun picked up where he left off. He immediately resumed his activity with the Korean American Entertainers Association, which by then had increased its membership to about 100, and became President of the organization in 2001. As President, Mr. Jun met Reverend Solomon Y. Kim, the pastor of the Mirral Church, in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn. Their collaboration has produced many special events, including a performance at Brookdale Hospital's Shulman Institute Nursing Home, and charity events for children with leukemia. A devoted husband and father, Mr. Jun used to view receiving an applause after one of his performances as his ultimate goal, but has found another calling in life in helping others in need. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Yong Soo Jun for his accomplishments and volunteer work for the communities of New York.