The following is the text of the amendment by congressman Wally Herger and the debate on the amendment:
Sec 925 Suspension of Foreign Assistance to India
INDIA
(a) Findings – The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Amnesty International has confirmed that in April 1989 a teenage Sikh girl was arrested by police in Laharka held for three days and repeatedly raped by a number of police officers.
(2) Such findings have been confirmed by the London Sunday Times and a local doctor and were even acknowledged by the head of the Punjab Police.
(3) The Government of India has not taken any action against the officers suspected in this incident.
(4) Several Indian newspapers and magazines have reported on similar treatment of other women including an incident in mid April where an aged widow and her two daughters were beaten up and tortured by a police party headed by officers of the Beas police station in Butala village.
(5) The Government of India has refused to allow Amnesty International to investigate such allegations. (6)No other democratic nation refuses to allow Amnesty International access within its borders even Nicaraga and Cuba have allowed Amnesty International to investigate human rights abuses.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS – The Congress condemns the inaction by the Government of India relating to the incidents described in subsection (a)
(c) LIMITATION ON DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE – Notwithstanding any other provision fiscal years 1990 and 1991 under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for development assistance which are allocated for India may be obligated or expended unless the President certifies to the Congress that:
(1) the individuals responsible for the incidents described in subsection (a) are identified charged with the appropriate offenses, and imprisoned for their crimes;
(2) Amnesty International is allowed access to’ the Punjab to investigate the incidents described in sub- section (a) and other charges of human rights abuses by the government and
(3) the economic blockade of Nepal is lifted.
- HERGER: (during the reading),
Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentlemen from California?
There was no objection 1420
Mr. FASCELL: , Mr. Chairman how much time do we have remaining under the rule?
The CHAIRMAN: Under the rule, there are 17 minutes
Mr. FASCELL: I would say I believe this is the last amendment to this title. It would be our purpose to go to the next title where I believe that all questions there have been resolved, and we could go to the next title that would be designated. We would then return Mr. Chairman to the reservation that we had with regard to section 707 of title VIL That would then move Members into the rest of the bill. I just wanted to remind my colleagues when the time expires.
Mr. BROOMFIELD:, Excerpt for the unanimous consent request on the title VII matter unless the amendments are printed in the RECORD. Members would then have 5 minutes and we would be out of general debate time, am I correct in 17 minutes?
The CHAIRMAN: The gentlemen is correct.
Mr. FASCELL: . I do not want to use up all the gentlemen time on his own amendment.
- HERGER:, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reclaim my time,
Mr. Chairman the proposed level of United States economic assistance to India for fiscal year 1990 is $110.4 million. The amendment I am offering would
reduce that amount by just $25 million striking the developmental assistance portion of the proposed aid. But yet it would not make reductions in the $85 million worth of Public Law 460 food aid programs.
Mr. Chairman the reason I am offering this amendment is quite simple. India has a serious problem of officially tolerating human rights abuses against religious and ethnic minorities, and the Indian Government is presently doing nothing to correct this problem.
According to Amnesty International, thousands of Indian citizens from these minority groups, have been arrested and detained for up to 2 years without being charged with any criminal offense.
Furthermore Amnesty International and the London Sunday Times allege female detainees have been raped by law enforcement personnel, with no action being taken against those who have committed these atrocities.
In one Indian province according to Amnesty International over a 16 year period more than one women per week was raped in police custody.
Perhaps that is why India is the only democracy that has repeatedly refused to allow representatives of Amnesty international to investigate charges of human rights violations within their country.
In an era of high Federal deficits and restraints on Federal spending. I question whether sending an additional $25 million for development assistance to the Indian Government is an effective use of our tax dollars.
Moreover the Indian Government has not shown itself to be a friend of the United States. For example at the United Nations, India voted against the United States position 93 percent of the time in 1988, more so that either Cuba or the Soviet Union. At the United Nations India refused to condemn the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the downing of Korean Air Lines flight 007 in which a Member of our own House of Representatives was killed.
Currently India has an active nuclear weapons pro- gram and is leasing a nuclear submarine from the Soviet Union. They have developed a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads and have also provided financial assistance to the Communist government in Afghanistan.
India has been a bully to its neighbors as well imposing a crippling economic blockade on Nepal landing some 45,000 troops in Sri Lanka and now refusing to remove them at the request of that nation’s government.
Mr. Chairman, AID’s 1990 Congressional presentation notes that and I quote, “India is on a new threshold of development” end quote. As the self-proclaimed world largest democracy the Indian government should be expected to eliminate the pattern of human rights abuses cited by Amnesty Internal it its August 1988 report. My amendment nearly suggests that if it does not do so, the Indian Government should spend its own money, perhaps from the funds it now devotes to its nuclear weapons program on the development projects under discussion today.
- SOLARZ: Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
It is based on factual inaccuracies .If it were adopted, it would have a chilling effect on our relationship with the world’s most populous democracy. In addition if this amendment were adopted, it would entirely eliminate 100 percent of our development assistance program in a country in which one third of all the poor people of the world actually reside,
I would eliminate $6 million for child survival activities. It would eliminate $1 million for a vaccination program. It would eliminate forestry programs. It would eliminate Irrigation programs.
Now what is the justification for taking $25 million away from development assistance. In a country which is the most populous democracy in the world with over 250 million people living below the poverty level? We are told it is because according to this amendment some woman was raped in Punjab and not until the authorities identify incarcerate and imprison those responsible they do not get any development assistance. What about due process, What if they cannot prove a Case against the people? This is virtually unheard of The amendment would make our whole development assistance program to India contingent on what happened in one incident in Punjab? There are human right abuses in the Punjab but I did not hear the author of the amendment say 90 to 95 percent of them are due to Sikh extremists murdering not only Hindus but Sikhs, as well.
I would like to defend a country that identifies with the democratic values. I will be happy to yield when my time expires to the gentlemen. The amendment says our development assistance to India should be eliminated if they cease to blockade. There is no blockade. There are border crossings still open with Nepal through which 90 percent of the commerce between India and Nepal passed prior to the dispute. There is no comprehensive % total embargo or blockage which is imposed by India against Nepal. In the last few years first the Reagan administration and then the Bush administration has brought about a quiet but significant improvement in our relations with India. If this amendment is adopted, it is a slap in the face against India and it will have a chilling impact on our relationship. The author of the amendment says that India votes against the United States 93 percent of the time at the United Nations so therefore we should cut out the development assistance program.
Let me warn my friends on the other side of the aisle who might be inclined to support this amendment that if that is the basis on which to cut off development assistance to India, what about Pakistan which gets six times as much aid as India but which votes against us a the United nations 88 percent of the time? We are giving $600 million a year to Pakistan. They vote against us 88 percent of the time.
I do not hear any of my friends on the other side of the. Aisle saying that therefore, we should cut out our aid to Pakistan which is one of the largest recipients of aid from. The United States. And I agree with them that we should not cut aid to Pakistan. It is an important country. But so. is India the most populous democracy in the world and it is beginning to work with us in a number of areas. Finally, the amendment says that because they do not permit Amnesty International into the Punjab they should not get our development assistance; the fact of the matter is that they do permit representatives of Indian human rights organizations to go into the Punjab. They have been to the Punjab and they have reported on he Punjab, In fact in the last few months there has been a significant improvement, The Government of India has released political prisoners. It has acceded to a number of Sikh requests. It is moving in the right direction. If in spite of that this amendment is adopted the chances are that it will bring the progress in the Punjab to an end.
So, Mr. Chairman I strongly urge the Members to vote against this strongly misguided amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Chairman they are friends of the United States of America? They are our friends, right Mr. Solarz?
They are one of the few nations that did not condemn then the shooting down of 007 the Korean airline on which one of our colleagues was killed. Friends of ours, Mr. Solarz?
They did not condemn the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. I think they were one of the two or three countries in the world that did not. Our friends Mr. Solarz?
They vote with us 6.7 percent of the time at the United Nations, That means that 92.3 percent of the time they do not vote with us. They are good friends of ours, Mr. Solarz?,
They took $10.4 million of our money, Mr. Solarz, and gave it to Daniel Ortega when he went to India, and they supported that nation, They support the government in Kabul.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 7, 1989
