[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8885-H8886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ORDINANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about recent statements made 
by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), with 
regard to India. We will soon be voting on the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill which will be providing very limited aid to India, 
the world's largest democracy and our strong friend in the politically 
unstable Southeast Asia region.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) recently made critical 
statements to the press about India in an effort to persuade Members to 
not provide aid to India or to resume sanctions against India. He 
specifically referenced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, or POTO, 
and stated that it was the most repressive law that India has ever 
considered.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 50 years, India has been forced to deal 
with severe cross-border terrorism in Kashmir and an upsurge of 
terrorist attacks throughout their nation. Since the September 11 
attacks here in the U.S., India has experienced heightened terrorism in 
Kashmir; and, quite frankly, I have been reading about murders of 
innocent Kashmiris by Islamic militants on nearly a daily basis.
  Just this morning I read about two new incidents that occurred 
yesterday. Suspected terrorists shot and killed a judge in Kashmir, 
along with his friend and two guards. This is the first attack on the 
judiciary of Jammu and Kashmir State.
  The other incident was a suicide squad of a Pakistani-based guerilla 
group that killed at least five people at an Indian Army camp in 
Kashmir. This latest suicide attack is to be added to a long series of 
suicide attacks that have killed many innocent Kashmiris.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of violent terrorist attacks against India, 
the Indian President has issued the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 
POTO. POTO would make provisions for Indian law enforcement officials 
to prevent and deal with terrorist activities. The current criminal 
justice system in India is not sufficient in prosecuting terrorists 
and, with passage of POTO, India will be provided the necessary law 
enforcement tools to prevent and effectively deal with terrorism.
  I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) or anyone else should not be able to speak out against 
POTO if they desire. We know that India is a vibrant democracy with an 
open political system. Its free press and democratic nature allows all 
voices and opinions to be heard. But I think the criticism is 
undeserved at this time.
  I would like to draw an analogy between what is happening with POTO 
in India and what is happening with the

[[Page H8886]]

Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct a 
Terrorism Act, or PATRIOT Act, in the United States. This analogy was 
conveniently overlooked by the gentleman from Indiana.
  In October of this year, the U.S. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, 
which gave law enforcement officials more tools to detect, apprehend, 
and prosecute terrorists. In the aftermath of September 11, Congress 
was required to act quickly to pass measures to address the immediate 
and long-term security, recovery, and financial needs of the country.
  There was controversy and there still remains criticism of the 
PATRIOT bill from both the right and the left. Members protested that 
it would grant the government too much power and endanger civil 
liberties. However, the administration called for immediate action and, 
while moving the bill through Congress, several provisions were either 
dropped or modified and a bill did pass.
  From what I understand, the Indian Parliament is planning on going 
through a similar process of modifying some provisions in their 
ordinance. It is likely that the bill will pass and be enacted into 
law, thereby affording Indian officials the authority to deal with the 
growing terrorist threat facing India that the normal criminal justice 
system could not address sufficiently.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that unusual circumstances in the U.S. call 
for these types of measures, and the same holds true for India. A true 
parallel can be drawn here for the two largest and most vibrant 
democracies in the world. Unfortunately, both of these countries are 
now combating terrorism.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) I think is incorrect in 
accusing India of being repressive by enacting this law. His strategy 
to bash India is clearly a pattern. It is no surprise that these types 
of statements come at a time when we are providing aid to India. There 
is no justification for ending the limited aid that we provide to 
India, and there is no rhyme or reason to cutting back or putting back 
in place the sanctions against India that should have been lifted a 
long time ago.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman from Indiana's efforts 
to implement such things are simply wrong. We do not need to go back to 
the sanctions, and we certainly should not punish India for essentially 
doing the same thing that the United States has done in the aftermath 
of September 11.

                          ____________________