[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1080-1081]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 MUSHARRAF'S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES

  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 rise this evening to discuss my concerns 
with H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution introduced by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) this afternoon that commends General Musharraf 
of Pakistan for his leadership and friendship and welcomes him to the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that General Musharraf was faced with a 
difficult decision when he was asked, and he cooperated, with the 
United States in the fight against terrorism. There is much civil 
unrest throughout Pakistan, and I do believe that there was a risk 
involved when Musharraf decided to side with the United States.
  However, there have been some major shortcomings in Musharraf's 
promises to root out the Taliban, al Qaeda and certain terrorist groups 
in Kashmir that are linked to al Qaeda. I sent a

[[Page 1081]]

letter to President Bush today outlining these shortcomings, and I will 
include that in the Record at this point.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2002.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President of the United States, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I understand that you, along with other 
     officials in your administration, will be meeting with 
     General Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday during his visit to the 
     United States. I am writing to explain why I continue to 
     oppose lifting the ban on military assistance to Pakistan and 
     the proposal in your budget to provide $50 million in such 
     assistance.
       Since September 11 and Musharraf's supposed willingness to 
     fight against terrorism, Pakistani-based militant groups have 
     been carrying out violent cross-border terrorist attacks on 
     innocent civilians throughout Kashmir on a daily basis. In 
     addition, the largest symbol of democracy, the Indian 
     Parliament, was attacked on December 13, 2001 by the same 
     terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan near the Kasmir 
     border.
       Musharraf has claimed to crack down on terrorists operating 
     in Pakistan since the attack on the Parliament, however it 
     remains my concern that this is not the case. Although he has 
     arrested nearly 1600 individuals, there is no assurance that 
     these individuals are criminals and there is no notice of 
     whether these individuals are terrorist fighters. In 
     addition, there has been no progress on Pakistan's part to 
     quell the violence taking place in Kasmir. In fact, the 
     Kashmir Solidarity Day last week, Musharraf delivered a 
     speech, which I found to incite violence among these 
     terrorist groups that he refers to as ``freedom fighters''. 
     Pakistan has openly acknowledged that it provides logistical 
     and moral support to these groups, however, the support 
     extends beyond that to arms and weapons transfers. It is 
     clear that Musharraf is in fact supporting terrorist 
     activities under the guise of calling these groups ``freedom 
     fighters''.
       When you asked Congress last fall to lift the ban on 
     military assistance to Pakistan, there were no plans to 
     provide any such assistance to General Musharraf. State 
     Department representatives appeared before the House 
     International Relations Committee at the time, and in 
     response to my question, stated that no military aid to 
     Pakistan was anticipated.
       In your FY 2003 budget proposal you have requested $50 
     million in military assistance to Pakistan. Frankly, I don't 
     see that the situation has changed in Pakistan to justify 
     such a turnaround. It is alarming that you are proposing 
     military assistance to a country that verbally condemns 
     terrorism on a global level, but that actively supports 
     terrorist activities in its own backyard.
       I agree that Pakistan needs extensive aid to rebuild its 
     economy, education system and social structure. However, I 
     cannot support a proposal that funds military assistance to 
     Pakistan given its current leadership under a dictator and 
     its continued backing of militant groups. Historically, U.S. 
     military assistance to Pakistan has been used to arm cross-
     border terrorists in their attacks on Indian civilians in 
     Kashmir and throughout the nation. There is continued 
     evidence that terrorist groups operating in Pakistan are 
     linked to Al-Qaeda and that their attacks on India are 
     experiments for future attacks on the United States. I do not 
     believe it is in our best interest to provide military 
     assistance to Pakistan, despite their agreement to help in 
     our war on terrorism. South Asia is a very volatile, unstable 
     region and given the current military standoff between 
     Pakistan and India, $50 million worth of U.S. weapons will 
     only aid future conflict in that region.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                            Frank Pallone, Jr.

  However, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on democracy, or 
the lack of democracy, in Pakistan. In the Pitts resolution, there is 
mention of President Musharraf's pursuit of a return to democracy and 
civil society, in addition to his adherence to the timetable for 
restoring democratic elections to Pakistan. I do not support this 
resolution because the opposite is true. Mr. Speaker, Musharraf has 
made no concrete attempt to restore democracy in Pakistan, and I urge 
the Congress and the administration to be very wary of any guarantees 
of a return to civilian rule in Pakistan.
  In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the civilian-elected 
government of Pakistan in a military coup and since then has governed 
Pakistan under military rule. General Musharraf has shown no steps 
toward returning Pakistan to democratic rule and, in fact, has moved in 
the opposite direction.
  On June 20 of last year, Musharraf declared himself President of 
Pakistan, which is a clear indication of his desire to maintain a 
dictatorial stronghold. Musharraf's past actions include dissolving 
Pakistan's National Assembly, or parliament, and four provincial 
assemblies. He has claimed that he will hold fair national elections by 
October of 2002. However, there are no indications that this is likely 
to occur. October is only 9 months away. As a self-proclaimed 
president, Musharraf may be seen with more credibility in the eyes of 
the international community at large, but the fact remains that the 
people of his nation have never elected him.
  Mr. Speaker, on October 16 of last year, the House debated lifting 
section 508 that would allow military assistance to Pakistan. The 
United States prohibited the export of U.S. weapons and military 
assistance under section 508 to countries whose duly elected head of 
government is deposed.
  Today the House debated the Pitts resolution which praises Musharraf 
for his steps toward returning Pakistan to democracy.
  If and when Pakistan exemplifies steps towards establishing a 
democracy with a civilian-elected government, perhaps then section 508 
discussion would have been relevant and perhaps the Pitts resolution 
would be relevant. But until then, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial for 
Congress to indicate its support for a restoration to democracy and 
civilian rule in Pakistan.

                          ____________________