[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              IT'S TIME TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT PAKISTAN

                                 ______


                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 22, 1994

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a sense-of-the-
House resolution regarding several recent troubling developments in 
Pakistan. As our colleagues know, in 1992 Pakistan was placed on the 
State Department's ``Watch List'' of countries suspected of exporting 
terrorism. In 1993, however, the State Department dropped Pakistan from 
its ``Watch List.'' Since the State Department took this action, there 
have been several startling revelations which suggest our State 
Department needs to reexamine its decision to drop Pakistan from its 
``Watch List.''
  First, the Washington Post recently reported that former Pakistan 
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated publicly that his former Chief of 
Staff and the former head of the Inter Services Intelligence Agency 
[ISI] informed him while he was Prime Minister that they had several 
covert actions in other countries in dire need of funding and they 
wanted to pay for these activities from the profits of large-scale 
narcotics transactions.
  Second, a suspect recently was arrested in the March 1993, terrorist 
bombings of the Bombay Stock Exchange and other sites in that city. 
Killed in one of the most terrible acts of violence ever were 317 
innocent people. The suspect has implicated the ISI in the bombings, 
claiming the ISI provided his associates and him with money, weapons, 
and explosives, as well as directions on where to place the bombs. The 
suspect, an Indian citizen, possessed a number of incriminating items, 
including a Pakistan passport and identity card. The suspect's brother 
and family now reside in a lavish residence in Pakistan.
  Third, Indian security forces in Kashmir in recent months have 
arrested numerous Pakistani, Afghani, and Libyan nationals in Kashmir. 
Those arrested have said they were trained, funded, and armed by ISI-
backed elements in Pakistan.
  Finally, and most disturbing, former Prime Minister Sharif recently 
told the world that Pakistan has for some time possessed nuclear 
weapons. This admission comes after more than 7 years of assurances to 
the contrary by Pakistan to the United States Government.
  Mr. Speaker, these developments come at a time of heightened concern 
about terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and nuclear proliferation 
throughout the world. The Government of the United States has spent 
many billions of tax-payer dollars during the past decade fighting each 
of these menaces. In light of these four developments, it is vital for 
the Congress to go on record in favor of a review of the State 
Department's decision last year to drop Pakistan from the ``Watch 
List'' of nations suspected of supporting terrorism. It is also 
important for Congress to reaffirm the validity of the Pressler 
amendment, which Congress adopted in 1987. The Pressler amendment 
states that Pakistan will not receive foreign aid from the United 
States unless the President of the United States can certify that 
Pakistan does not have a nuclear device.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
resolution. The questions raised by the recent developments on the 
Asian subcontinent simply are too important for our Government to 
ignore.
       Whereas the United States Government has longstanding 
     policies opposing the spread of terrorism and advocating the 
     destruction caused by narcotics trafficking;
       Whereas the United States Government has devoted tens of 
     billions of United States taxpayer dollars during the past 
     decade fighting terrorism and drugs both within our borders 
     and throughout the world;
       Whereas, in 1992, Pakistan was placed on the State 
     Department's Watch List of nations suspected of supporting 
     terrorism;
       Whereas, in 1993, the State Department dropped Pakistan 
     from its watch list;
       Whereas former Pakistani Prime Minister Narwaz Sharif 
     recently publicly admitted that his Chief of Staff, General 
     Beg, and his head of the Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) 
     Agency informed him while he was Prime Minister that the 
     Pakistani Army and ISI planned to conduct covert acts of 
     terrorism in other countries and fund these activities 
     through large scale narcotics sales;
       Whereas 317 Indian citizens were killed in March, 1993, in 
     a series of bombings of the Bombay Stock Exchange and other 
     sites in Bombay in one of the worst acts of terrorism in the 
     twentieth century;
       Whereas a leading suspect in the bombing, Yakub Memon, has 
     publicly implicated the ISI in the bombings by accusing the 
     ISI of providing arms, money, and explosives for the attack, 
     and directing Mr. Memon, his brother and their associates on 
     where to place the bombs and by providing Mr. Memon and his 
     brother with transportation to and from Pakistan and a large 
     and lavish house in Pakistan for his brother and his family;
       Whereas Indian Security forces in Kashmir have arrested 
     numerous foreign nationals in Kashmir who have confessed to 
     having been trained, funded, supported, and armed by ISI-
     backed elements across the border in Pakistan;
       Whereas former Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif has recently 
     stated publicly that the Government of Pakistan, for several 
     years, has possessed nuclear weapons in direct contradiction 
     to repeated assurances to the United States Government that 
     Pakistan does not possess and is not attempting to develop 
     nuclear weapons;
       Whereas in 1987 the United States Congress enacted and 
     President Reagan signed into law the Pressler Amendment 
     banning foreign aid to Pakistan until the President certifies 
     that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear weapon; and
       Whereas President Bush and President Clinton have been 
     unable to certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear 
     weapon: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the United States, condemns the involvement of Pakistan 
     in acts of terrorism in other countries;
       (2) the United States condemns any involvement by Pakistan 
     in the illegal manufacture, sale, transportation, or 
     distribution of any narcotic substance;
       (3) the United States urges Pakistan to cooperate with law 
     enforcement authorities in the United States to reduce and 
     eliminate the growing heroin trade in Pakistan, which 
     currently accounts for 20 percent of all the heroin sold in 
     the United States;
       (4) the United States urges the Administration to review 
     the State Department decision in 1993 to drop Pakistan from 
     the Watch List of nations which are suspected of supporting 
     terrorism; and
       (5) the United States reaffirms the validity and wisdom of 
     the Pressler Amendment prohibiting foreign assistance to 
     Pakistan in light of Prime Minister Sharif's public admission 
     that Pakistan has possessed nuclear weapons for several years 
     despite repeated assurances to the contrary to the United 
     States.

F

                          PRESERVING THE WEST



HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, September 22, 1994

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in this body, there is much 
that we can--and do--disagree on. But I think that one thing upon which 
we can all agree is that the West is settled.
  This simple fact should be central to something which is long 
overdue--a review of the complex, interlocking web of subsidies which 
the Federal Government has long provided to industries and users of our 
natural resources.
  Last month, the majority staff of the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Natural Resources finished a report 
looking at those subsidies.
  Today, I'm inserting into the record an editorial from the St. Louis 
Post-Dispatch from last Aug. 30 which is about that report.
  This editorial raises a number of questions about our natural 
resource policies. These questions should be debated and answered as we 
review these increasingly outdated policies.

                          Preserving The West

       No region of the United States quite captures the American 
     spirit or mythos as the West. When Americans think of the 
     heart and soul of the American identity, they think of the 
     rugged individualism of the cowboy and the lure of the 
     frontier. They think of the heroism, courage and just plain 
     fortitude it took to ``tame'' the Wild West.
       The country's attachment to the West continues today. 
     Indeed, it is at the root of the burgeoning national debate 
     over the proper stewardship of the West's natural resources, 
     especially those located on public lands. Under the Clinton 
     administration, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has 
     begun a painstaking process of re-examining public policy 
     regarding mining, logging and grazing--and met thunderous 
     opposition from Republican legislators.
       Still, the premise underlying Mr. Babbitt's efforts is 
     dead-on right: The laws governing the extraction of 
     resources, many of which were written in the past century, 
     have outlived their purpose. In the spirit of Manifest 
     Destiny, they were meant to promote the settlement and 
     development of the West, and they have succeeded gloriously.
       In some sense, they have succeeded all too well and left a 
     despoiled environment of overgrazed, clearcut, contaminated 
     or eroded land. It is no longer necessary for the 
     government--the taxpayer--to subsidize the West's 
     exploitation. New principles and new policies must replace 
     the old.
       The framework of a new public policy can be found in a 
     report, ``Taking from the Taxpayer: Public Subsidies for 
     Natural Resource Development,'' prepared for the House 
     Committee on Natural Resources, chaired by Rep. George Miller 
     of California.
       Any revisions in law or policy must start from the 
     recognition that public land belongs to the public. That may 
     seem patently obvious, but much of current law and policy is 
     oblivious to that fact. Policies regarding public land should 
     benefit the public first and foremost. Currently, as Mr. 
     Miller notes, that is far from the case; taxpayer handouts to 
     private companies amount to ``hundreds and millions, 
     sometimes billions of dollars.'' At a time of fiscal crisis, 
     such massive subsidies are irresponsible.
       The first step in ending these government giveaways is to 
     require profit-making companies to join the free market. Why 
     should mining companies, particularly foreign-owned 
     companies, be able to buy or ``patent'' public land for $2.50 
     or $5 an acre--and then owe the American taxpayer not a penny 
     in royalties for minerals worth millions of dollars? Why 
     should the government charge but a fraction of what private 
     landowners charge for grazing fees, especially when the 
     proceeds don't cover running the program?
       Why should timber companies help decide the price they pay 
     for the timber from public land? And, finally, why should the 
     American taxpayer be responsible for paying for the 
     environmental damage done by mining, grazing or logging?
       Something like fair-market value should govern the pricing 
     of fees, leases or royalties. At the very least, they should 
     cover the government's cost in providing these resources. 
     None of this means that all subsidies should be ended. Public 
     policy goals may warrant the use of targeted subsidies.
       What kind of goals? Republicans argue that charging market 
     value would put small companies or ranches out of business. 
     If preserving smaller enterprises is a worthy goal, and many 
     would argue it is, means testing might be needed to ensure 
     that those who need the subsidy get it. The public may also 
     believe that companies or ranches deserve subsidies to 
     encourage higher environmental standards.
       The battle to win the West is over. Now, we must ensure 
     that the battle to save the West is not lost.

                          ____________________