Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, while I intend to vote for the Morocco Free Trade Agreement, I want to stress to the administration how important it is to respect the report language on ``Western Sahara'' which was included in this bill by my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott. This language reflects the sentiment voiced in a recent bipartisan letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. proceed with the implementation of a free trade agreement that does not categorically exclude the terrority known as the Western Sahara. The U.S., as well as the international community, does not recognize Morocco's sovereignty over Spain's former colony. Morocco has steadfastly refused any efforts by the United Nations to permit a free and fair referendum on self- determination for the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara. We should not permit Morocco to use the agreement to further its illegal occupation of Western Sahara.

I urge the administration to take these concerns seriously and to implement a free trade agreement that does not violate the sovereignty and rights of the people of Western Sahara.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw your attention to the recently announced approval by the Federal Government for a California biotechnology firm to license three experimental drugs from Cuba. This decision is especially interesting in the light of the fact that the administration also recently unveiled new measures to further tighten Cuban embargo restrictions. The contradictory actions of this administration, combined with a continued focus on maintaining an embargo that has done nothing to change the status of the Castro regime, reveal a profound lack of interest in truly improving the lives of average Cuban citizens. What is really at stake is President Bush's electoral votes in Florida this November, rather than an ethical and constructive approach to U.S.-Cuba relations. These new embargo restrictions deserve to be reexamined in terms of whether they are necessary to United States-Cuban policy and whether they may, in fact, worsen already unnecessarily tense relations with Cuba, as well as lead to counter productive reactions on the island.

I urge my colleagues to read the following research analysis on the increasingly unproductive United States policy toward Cuba that was recently authored by Lindsay Thomas, a

research associate at the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs:

The mammoth street demonstration witnessed in Havana on

June 21 was a glaring example of yet another counter-

productive, anti-Castro initiative fathered by Washington

policymakers. The latter may be long on raw ideology, but

demonstrably, are short on reality. On that day, tens of

thousands of Cubans gathered in front of the U.S. Interests

Section (the official U.S. presence in Havana) to warn

Washington against resorting to any preemptive military

action against the island.

The Bush administration, following the practice of all of

its predecessors, has maintained a cordon sanitaire around

Cuba, but ended up having to waive the penalties against the

international business community mandated by the ill-reputed

Helms-Burton legislation. Nor is the U.S. winning many

backers with its patently self-serving Florida electoral

strategy masked as a foreign policy. The Bush administration

has been so obsessed with wooing Miami, that it has fallen

victim to its own immoderacy, recently cutting remittances

and limiting packages and visits from exiles to their Cuban

relatives. By its cut offs, the White House has displayed the

same venomous lack of humanity and blind fury that was seen

with the Elian Gonzalez affair. Now, even many of those being

wooed--Cuban expatriates--are lashing back at Bush for daring

to curb family ties in a craven hunt for votes.

By a series of malevolent initiatives specifically aimed at

worsening U.S.-Cuban relations, Secretary of State Colin

Powell invoked the latest phase of a foreign policy drive

whose anointed mission was to place Florida into President

Bush's win column in November, even though such a demarche

could mortally wound his already fading reputation on regime

issues. The motivation for such a sterile approach was

prompted not so much by any genuine threat posed by Cuba to

any conceivable U.S. regional security interests, but almost

entirely by domestic political factors. The predictable

Castro response: defiance in the form of the June 21

demonstration, which provided yet another opportunity for the

Cuban leader to return to his popular base to seek

reaffirmation in a spectacular show of political thunder. But

the question remains, when will Washington realize that

attempting to isolate Cuba internationally and pressuring

it internally at best will only fail or induce more Cubans

to attempt immigrating to the U.S.--something that U.S.

officials aren't particularly anxious to encourage.

Despite its specious claim of ``hastening democracy on the

island,'' arguably, the Bush administration's latest policies

do the opposite--purposely escalating U.S.-Cuban tensions

while further legitimizing Castro in the eyes of many

islanders. President Bush's mean and nasty acts serve to

undermine his professedly lofty intentions, as they confirm

Cuba's role as a David daring to stand up to Goliath's

benighted outrages. For almost half a century the U.S. has

attempted to isolate Castro's Cuba, even though predictably,

these initiatives have always backfired. In reality, it is

Washington's Cuba policy that has ended in the dock, not

Cuba, with only dependent states like Chile and Costa Rica

cheering Washington onward.

Meanwhile, for 12 years the U.N. has voted overwhelmingly

to end the U.S. embargo that is almost solely honored by this

country. With decades of converting ``democracy'' rhetoric

into self-serving demagoguery aimed at asphyxiating the Cuban

economy and immiserating its population, Washington's

relations with Havana remain non-negotiable, beyond the

purview of the constructive engagement now routinely employed

toward Libya, North Korea, Vietnam and China.

Nor would Castro's death instantly transform Washington's

embargo strategy into a success story. In fact, it might only

underline that the U.S. fomented the deterioration of Cuban

society while it bided its time for the right moment to

initiate yet another intrusion into the internal affairs of a

hemispheric nation. Clearly, neither Castro nor any other

likely successor has indicated any intention to fall on their

sword to guarantee another Bush term. Meanwhile Washington's

thinking by now is so petrified that it is incapable of

moving past its Cold War strategy of continually escalating

threats and bringing distress upon an innocent population, to

encourage what it disingenuously calls ``democratic change.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by commending both the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, for their tireless efforts in forging a consensus for H.R. 4259, the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Our work today will move us one step closer to ensuring that the critical resources utilized for protecting our Nation will finally have an appropriate level of management and oversight.

In an era of soaring Federal deficits, along with challenges in managing a dynamic workforce from distinct legacy agencies, the exemption of DHS's CFO from the requirements of all other Cabinet-level CFOs is irresponsible. Therefore, I am happy to say that the bill before us today is a well-crafted compromise forged after months of negotiation and deliberative discussions. There are several key provisions contained in this legislation. Most importantly, however, the bill amends the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 to include the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring that the DHS CFO is subject to the same reporting requirements, oversight responsibilities, and congressional scrutiny required for all major Cabinet-level positions. The CFO is in the executive branch.

Through thoughtful analysis and consideration, there have been several significant improvements made to this legislation, which I am happy have occurred. These include a provision requiring the CFO to be a Presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation. The specific language would require the CFO to report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and authorization for the DHS CFO to become part of the statutorily created CFO Council. To address the need for stronger fiscal oversight, the bill requires DHS to annually review its internal financial controls, ensuring that agency standards for financial management and accountability remain intact.

By adding these provisions to the bill, we are strengthening the accountability, management, and oversight responsibilities of the new Department. As we all recognize, Madam Speaker, the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was an unprecedented effort by Congress to increase our Nation's preparedness and responsiveness to domestic security threats. The Department is one of the largest in the Federal Government, consisting of 22 legacy agencies, and has perhaps the most important mission of any Federal agency as we struggle to counteract new threats to our domestic security.

To conclude, this is a necessary step forward if we are to develop an efficient and effective agency that is ready to achieve its purpose of protecting our citizens, infrastructure, and borders. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his outstanding work in terms of bringing about a coalition to be able to work out some of the disagreements that we had, to be able to come up, I think, with a very strong bill. So I would like to salute him for that. I would like to salute the staff on both sides, the Democratic side and the Republican side, for their hard work as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man who has touched the lives of countless Americans and helped to put smiles on the faces of kids young and old.

Jack Valenti has served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association for almost 40 years. Texas born and Harvard educated, Jack has led several lives: a wartime bomber pilot, advertising

agency founder, political consultant, White House Special Assistant, and movie industry leader. He earned a B.A. from the University of Houston and a M.B.A. from Harvard.

In his current role as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association, Jack has presided over and led the American film and television industry as it has confronted a sea change in the landscape of the industry, both in the United States and abroad.

Born in Houston, Texas, Jack was the youngest (age 15) high school graduate in the city. As a young pilot in the Army Air Corps in World War II, Lieutenant Valenti flew 51 combat missions as the pilot- commander of a B-25 attack bomber with the 12th Air Force in Italy. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with four clusters, the Distinguished Unit Citation with one cluster and the European Theater Ribbon with four battle stars.

In 1952, he co-founded the advertising/political consulting agency of Weekley & Valenti. In 1955 he met the man who would have the largest impact on his life, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson. Jack's agency was in charge of the press during the visit of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Texas. Jack was in the motorcade (six cars back of the President) in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Within an hour of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jack was aboard Air Force One flying back to Washington with the new President as the first newly hired Special Assistant to the President. On June 1, 1966, Jack resigned his White House post to become the third man in MPAA's history (founded in 1922) to become its leader.

Jack has written four books (three non-fiction): The Bitter Taste of Glory (World Publishing); A Very Human President (W.W. Norton Co.); Speak Up With Confidence (Wm. Morrow Co.), and the political novel, Protect and Defend (Doubleday). His most recent book is an updated revision of Speak Up With Confidence (2002, Hyperion). Jack has written extensively for America's preeminent newspapers and magazines. He is one of the few public figures who actually writes his own speeches.

France has conferred upon him its highly prized Legion d'Honneur, the French Legion of Honor. Jack has been awarded his own star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame. He has also been named a Life Member of the Directors Guild of America.

Mr. Speaker, America and the rest of the world will greatly miss Jack Valenti. His watchful and caring eye has helped bring joy to countless children and adults alike, and I wish him a very happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly of Punjab recently annulled a longstanding agreement that allowed the diversion of water from Punjab to other states.

According to the Tribune of Chandigarh, whose article I will be inserting in the Record at the end of my remarks, the Legislative Assembly asserted the sovereignty of Punjab in doing so. The newspaper reports that the bill passed by the Legislative Assembly says that ``as a sovereign authority [Punjab] considered it its duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws and to protect the interests of its inhabitants.''

Apparently, all parties supported this measure. We congratulate them on taking this step forward to protect the interests of the people of Punjab. I urge them to continue claiming, promoting, and establishing the sovereignty of Punjab.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the people of Punjab have been severely oppressed by the tyrannical Indian government. Over a quarter of a million Sikhs have been killed since 1984, according to the Punjab State Magistracy. The Movement Against State Repression reports that 52,268 have been taken as political prisoners, held without charge or trial, some as long as 20 years. According to the Punjab Human Rights Commission, about 50,000 Sikhs have simply been made to disappear by being arrested, tortured, killed in police custody, declared ``unidentified bodies,'' and secretly cremated, without their remains even being given back to their families.

Similar repression has been visited on Christians, Muslims, and other minorities. Yet India continues to say that it is the world's largest democracy.

If India is truly a democracy, it will allow the will of the people to be carried out in regards to the diversion of water. It will allow the people--Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and everyone living under Indian rule--to enjoy the full range of human rights. And it will allow self-determination for these sovereign states.

Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, we should not provide any aid to India. And we should take a stand for self-determination, which is the cornerstone of democracy, by supporting a free and fair plebiscite on independence in Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, in predominantly Christian Nagaland, and everywhere that people seek their freedom from Indian rule. The assertion of sovereignty by the Punjab Legislative Assembly is a good first step. They should act to claim their sovereignty by severing their ties to India. We should take a stand by letting them know that when they do, we will be there with them.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I would like to insert the Tribune article into the Record at this time.

Punjab Annuls All Water Pacts, Cong, Akalis Join Hands on Issue

Chandigarh, July 12--A special session of the Punjab Vidhan

Sabha today unanimously passed the Punjab Termination of

Agreements Bill, 2004, thereby ``knocking down'' the very

basis on which the Supreme Court had passed its order on

construction of SYL--Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal on June 4,

last.

This Bill annuls the December 31, 1981, agreement between

Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan signed by the three Chief

Ministers in the presence of the late Ms. Indira Gandhi and

also all other agreements relating to the water of the

rivers, Ravi and Beas.

This, the Bill says, was done in ``public interest''. The

annulment has come after 23 long years with two staunch

political rivals, the Congress and the Akalis, joining hands

to protect the state's riparian rights. Immediately after the

Bill was passed, the Chief Minister, Capt. Amarinder Singh,

accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Parkash

Singh Badal, PPCC president, Mr. H.S. Hanspal, Ms. Rajinder

Kaur Bhattal, Mr. Partap Singh Bajwa and a team of legal

experts went to Raj Bhavan to meet the Governor, Justice O.P.

Verma (retd.), to request him to give his assent to the Bill,

as the dead-line for compliance with the Supreme Court order

was July 15. The combined delegation spent an hour with the

Governor. The Raj Bhavan sources said, ``The Bill is being

examined.''

Capt. Amarinder Singh told TNS that he had not discussed

the Bill with Ms. Sonia Gandhi. ``Why involve her? When I go

to Delhi, I shall brief her''.

Presenting the Bill to the House, Capt. Amarinder Singh

made an emotive speech giving facts, figures and background

to the entire issue of sharing of river waters and steps

taken in the recent past to protect and safeguard the

interests of Punjab, particularly the farmers and save nine

lakh acres going dry and barren, which would affect the

livelihood of 1.5 million families.

The Bill says that Punjab was proud of its position in the

Indian union, felt equal concern for its neighbours and as a

sovereign authority also considered it its duty to uphold the

constitution and the laws and to protect the interests of its

inhabitants.

Under the 1981 agreement, flow series were changed from

1921-45 to 1921-60, which had the result of increasing the

availability of Ravi-Beas waters from 15.85 MAF to 17.17 MAF.

The allocation of water made to the states concerned under

that Agreement was as under:

Haryana (non-riparian) 3.50 MAF, Rajasthan (non-riparian)

8.60 MAF, Delhi (non-riparian) 0.20 MAF, Punjab (riparian)

4.22 MAF and Jammu and Kashmir (riparian) 0.65 MAF. Under

clause IV of this agreement, Punjab and Haryana withdrew

their respective suits from the Supreme Court. But the

controversy rages on. The issue has become emotive.

Referring to the broad clauses of the proposed Bill, Capt.

Amarinder Singh maintained that riparian and basin principles

were ignored all along and allocation of the Ravi-Beas waters

had always been affected by ``ad hoc decisions and

agreements, dictated by prevalent circumstances''. Here was a

typical case involving ``emotive'' issue of impending

transfer of water from ``deficit'' Ravi-Beas basin to the

``surplus'' Yamuna basin.

Never any reliable and scientific study of hydrological,

ecological and sociological impact of such large scale trans-

basin diversion from Punjab to Haryana and Rajasthan had been

undertaken. Besides this transfer, diversion was even

contrary to the National Water Policy guidelines, he added.

Capt. Amarinder Singh pointed out, ``Non-riparian and non-

basin states of Haryana and Rajasthan are not only not

entitled to any Ravi-Beas waters, even their current

allocation and utilisation is totally disproportionate to the

areas alleged to be falling in the Indus basin. Therefore,

Punjab, as a good neighbour, has accepted such utilisations

by Haryana and Rajasthan as `uusages by sufferance' but not

as a matter of any recognition of their rights''.

He supported this hypothesis, when he posed the question,

``Does Punjab have surplus water and do the claimants of our

water a legal right to it? Then, he paused for effect, ``The

answer to this question is a resounding ``no'', and went on

to give the following picture:

All three rivers, the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej, flow

through the present Punjab and none through either Haryana or

Rajasthan. No part of territories of these states fall within

the basin areas of the Ravi and the Beas, although, according

to unsubstantiated report of the Irrigation Commission, only

9,939 sq. kms. within Haryana fall in Indus basin, against

50,305 sq. kms. of Punjab.

Again, the present utilisation by Haryana was about 5.95

MAF, about 4.33 MAF from Sutlej and about 1.62 MAF from the

Ravi-Beas water, through the existing systems. Also out of

17.17 MAF of ``surplus'' Ravi-Beas water, only 4.22 MAF was

allocated to Punjab, a riparian state, against higher

quantities to Haryana and Rajasthan. From the total surplus

availability of 11.98 MAF of the Beas water, Punjab has been

allocated 2.64 MAF.

Therefore, justifying the annulling of the December 31,

1981, agreement and all other agreements relating to the Ravi

and the Beas, the Bill seeks to present the fact that ground

realities have since undergone a sea change from that date

and Punjab settlement of July 24, 1985, under the Rajiv-

Longowal Agreement. Therefore, this had made the

implementation of that 1981 agreement ``onerous and

injurious'' to the public interest.

The availability of the Ravi-Beas water, 1717 MAF, as on

December 31, 1981, has been reduced to 14.37 MAF, as per the

flow series of 1981-2002. Haryana has been given 4.65 MA

under the Yamuna agreement of May 12, 1994, which will be

further augmented by the Sarda-Yamuna link. In the

meanwhile, irrigation requirements have increased in

Punjab. ``The Punjab settlement, except one para 9,

relating to allocation of the Ravi-Seas water, has

remained unimplemented in letter and spirit, to date.

``In these circumstances, the terms of 1981 agreement were

`onerous, unfair, un-reasonable and contrary to the interests

of the inhabitants of the Ravi-Beas basin, who have law-full

rights to utilise water of these rivers'. Is the Bill

justified? Will it tantamount to contempt of the court? In

his well prepared speech, Capt. Amarinder Singh has addressed

such questions, as well.

Armed with the House resolution of June 15 that aims to

protect the rights of Punjab, legal opinions and all-party

resolution of June 12, the Chief Minister said.

``This mandate enables the government to find ways and

means to protect the people from adverse consequences of the

Supreme Court judgment of June 4. The state had been advised

that the obligations arising from an agreement or the

contract did not fetter the powers of the legislature to

enact a law in public interest.

``We have been further advised that it is a well settled

law that the legislature is competent to remove or take away

the basis of judgment by law and thereby it does not encroach

upon the exercise of the judicial power of the judiciary and

the legislative action within its competence, do not commit a

contempt of court. However, final decision in all these

matters lies in the court, as any law enacted by this august

House is subject to a judicial review''.

When the Bill had been introduced, Mr. Parkash Singh Badal

stood up to express the collective anguish of the opposition

that on such an important item, involving the question of

``life and death'' had been treated lightly by the government

and till noon today ``we had no idea of what the agenda was

all about nor we had received copy of the Bill or what it was

all about''.

Mr. Badal said the traditions and conventions of the House

were being eroded, day-by-day. ``It was also a disgrace that

even the information inviting us to meet the Governor after

the House had passed the resolution was sent by the Congress

president, Mr. H.S. Hanspal, who was not involved in this in

any which way. How can we discuss anything at such a short

notice? We are against political confrontation and are

available 24 hours for any thing related to the interests of

the state and are willing to support the government''.

Thereafter, the Speaker, Dr. Kewal Krishan said he had

received a resolution sent by four Akali MLAs, Mr. Parkash

Singh Badal, Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, Mr. Gurdev Singh Badal

and Mr. Manpreet Singh Badal, for the consideration of the

House.

Then, he ruled that since a comprehensive Bill was being

presented, they could express their views while speaking on

that. Mr. Manpreet Singh Badal and Capt. Kanwaljit Singh

suggested that certain provisions, including Clause 78, in

the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, be also annulled. BJP's

Tikshan Sud, said though a ``belated step'', the Bill was a

welcome and offered full co-operation but rued that the

Opposition be given due place and respect.

On this the Captain had stated in his reply that whatever

steps were required to be taken to protect Punjab's interests

would be taken in consultation with the legal experts. The

speakers, including Mr. Bir Devinder Singh and Mr. Jeet

Mohinder Singh spoke in the context of historical background,

stressing time and again on the riparian principles. Mr. Bir

Devinder Singh recalled how even the British Government had

sought a certificate from Punjab that it will protect its own

interests under the riparian rights while selling water to

Rajasthan.

Mr. Bir Devinder Singh even cautioned to be prepared

following the enactment of the Act, terminating 1981 and

other agreements since new situation would develop. Mr. Jeet

Mohinder Singh wondered if the Bill would stop the

construction of SYL. He was for adding a new amendment in the

form of a clause in the Eastern Punjab Canal and Drains Act,

1873 that permission of the state Assembly should be

mandatory to dig or construct any canal that carries water

beyond the boundaries of the state.

rare bonhomie in house

The discussion on the Bill was, however, not without the

usual political punches and colour. There were moments when

some ministers and opposition members took pot shots blaming

either side for having failed Punjab and messed up the water

issue. Some Opposition members said had such a Bill been

brought forward 23 years ago, Punjab would have been spared

the agony. Even the Bill says that in the wake of large-scale

militancy, the Punjab settlement was reached, which however,

had remained unimplemented in letter and spirit.

For once, the House was in a serious mood. There were no

political skirmishes, though usual jibes were heard. The

Governor's and Speaker's galleries were packed.

But it was the Captain's day all the way. Having worked

overtime to get this Bill prepared, presented and passed by

the House, he responded to the collective anguish of the

opposition, expressed by Mr. Badal, with utmost humility and

courtesy, acknowledging all what Mr. Badal had said. But then

he point by point not only explained the unusual

circumstances, including race against time, under which the

Bill in as prepared and thus could not be circulated earlier,

giving the members a chance to prepare themselves.

Capt. Amarinder Singh was apologetic and said so repeatedly

taking the wind out of the sails of the Akalis. He showed

faint starchiness in his voice, when he responded to some

of the observations of Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, saying, ``We

are together here for an important task, not for rhetoric and

emotive outbursts. We cannot allow Punjab to go back into the

grip of violence''.

Warming up, he concluded, ``We will resort to all legal and

constitutional means to seek justice. Already enough

bloodshed has taken place. Even all the bodies have not been

counted, so far. We shall fight to the end but within the

parameters of laws, rules and the constitution. I will be

willing to resign, if need be, for the sake of Punjab. The

time is not for blame game. We have all made mistakes in the

past. We are rectifying the same after 23 years. Come, lets

join hands, close ranks. I appreciate the Opposition's

cooperation''.

Mr. Speaker, recently Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan wrote to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva to ask them to help keep the world aware of the repression of minorities, including Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and others, in India.

The letter pointed out that over 250,000 Sikhs have been murdered by the Indian government, along with more than 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 88,000 Muslims in Kashmir, Muslims and Christians throughout India, and other minorities such as Dalits, the dark skinned aboriginal people of the subcontinent, Assamese, Bodos, Manipuris, Tamils, and others. Over 52,000 Sikhs and tens of thousands of other minorities are being held as political prisoners. The letter pointed out that the government has been involved in atrocities such as the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat and the massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and that it has not punished those who have carried out atrocities against Christians nor the killer of Jathedar Gurdev Singh Kaunke.

Such atrocities are unacceptable in any country, but especially in one that claims to be democratic. We must take a stand for freedom. It is time to stop our aid to India and go

on record in support of self-determination for all the people seeking their freedom there.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place Dr. Aulakh's letter to the Human Rights Commission into the Record at this time.

Council of Khalistan,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.

Madam Justice Louise Arbour,

High Commissioner, United Nations Commission on Human Rights,

Plaise des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.

Dear Justice Abrour: As the Chief Prosecutor for the

International Court of Justice, you helped to bring the

persons who committed massacres, genocide, and pogroms on the

innocent people of Bosnia to justice. Your work for human

rights around the world is well known and we salute you for

it. It is because of that record that I am writing to you

today about the plight of the Sikhs and other minorities in

India. The plight of the Sikhs and other minorities in India

is deplorable. India claims to be ``the world's largest

democracy'' and claims that it is a secular country, but in

practice it is not. As Narinder Singh, a spokesman for the

Golden Temple, told America's National Public Radio, ``The

Indian government, all the time they boast that they are

democratic, that they are secular, but they have nothing to

do with a democracy, nothing to do with a secularism. They

just kill Sikhs just to please the majority.'' Unfortunately,

Sikhs are not the only victims of this brutality. Other

minorities such as Christians, Muslims, even the Dalits

(called ``Untouchables'') are persecuted in India.

The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since

1984, more than 300,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947,

over 88,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988. Christians and

Muslims have been murdered in other parts of the country as

well, along with tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos,

Dalits, Manipuri's, Tamils, and other minorities. According

to the Movement Against State Repression (MASR), 52,268 Sikhs

are being held as political prisoners under the repressive

TADA law, which expired in 1995. Amnesty International

reports that tens of thousands of other minorities are also

being held as political prisoners. These prisoners are held

without charge or trial in ``the world's largest democracy,''

some of them since 1984! That is 20 years in illegal

detention. Their whereabouts are unknown. They might have

been killed while in police custody.

Sardar Jaswant Singh Khalra looked at the records of the

cremation grounds at Patti, Tam Taran, and Durgiana Mandar

and documented at least 6,018 secret cremations of young Sikh

men ages 20-30. These young Sikhs were arrested by the

police, tortured, murdered, then declared unidentified and

secretly cremated. Their bodies were not even returned to

their families. They have never officially been accounted

for. The Punjab Human Rights Commission estimates that about

50,000 such secret cremations have occurred.

For exposing this horrendous atrocity, Sardar Khalra was

abducted by the police on September 6, 1995 while he was

washing his car, then murdered in police custody. The only

witness to his kidnapping, Rajiv Singh Randhawa, has been

repeatedly harassed by the police. Once he was arrested for

trying to hand a petition to the then-British Home Minister,

Jack Straw, in front of the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

Police SSP Swaran Singh Ghotna tortured and murdered Akal

Takht Jathedar Gurdev Singh Kaunke and has never been

punished for doing so. K.P.S. Gill, who was responsible for

the murders of over 150,000 Sikhs in his time as Director

General of Police, is still walking around scot-free. He was

even involved in leading the Indian Olympic field hockey

team. His trip to the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 was protested

by the Sikh community in the United States, which is over

half a million strong, but he was allowed to come to the

Olympics on an Olympic Committee visa. Immediately after the

Olympic hockey game, he was shipped back to Punjab as a

threat to peace and an affront to the Sikh community. 50

members of the U.S. Congress from both parties wrote to the

President protesting his appearance in the United States.

In addition to this, the Indian government attacked the

Golden Temple in Amritsar, the center and seat of the Sikh

religion, in June 1984, as well as 224 other Gurdwaras (Sikh

places of worship) throughout Punjab. Sikh leaders Sant

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, General Shabeg Singh, and others,

as well as over 20,000 Sikhs were killed in these attacks.

The Sikh holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, written in

the time of the Sikh Gurus, was shot full of bullet holes by

the Indian Army. Over 100 young Sikh boys ages 8 to 13 were

taken out into the courtyard and asked if they supported

Khalistan, the independent Sikh state. When they answered

with the Sikh religious incantation ``Bole So Nihal'' they

were summarily shot to death.

Unfortunately, other minorities have also suffered greatly

under the boot of Indian repression. In March 2002, 5,000

Muslims were killed in Gujarat while police were ordered to

stand by and let the carnage happen, in an eerie parallel to

the Delhi massacre of Sikhs in November 1984 in which Sikh

police officers were locked in their barracks while the

state-run television and radio called for more Sikh blood.

Christians have suffered under a wave of repression since

Christmas 1998. An Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and

his two young sons, ages 8 and 10, were burned to death while

they slept in their jeep by a mob of Hindu militants

connected with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), an

organization formed in support of the Fascists. The mob

surrounded the burning jeep and chanted ``Victory to

Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. None of the mob has ever been

brought to justice; instead the crime has been blamed on one

scapegoat. Mr. Staines's widow was thrown out of the country

after the incident. An American missionary, Joseph Cooper of

Pennsylvania, was expelled from India after being beaten so

severely that he had to spend a week in the hospital. None of

the persons responsible for beating Mr. Cooper has been

prosecuted. Churches have been burned, Christian schools and

prayer halls have been attacked and vandalized, priests have

been murdered, nuns have been raped, all with impunity.

Police broke up a Christian religious festival with gunfire.

Amnesty International has not been allowed into Punjab

since 1978. Even Castro's Cuba has allowed Amnesty into the

country more recently. What is India hiding?

My organization, the Council of Khalistan, is leading the

Sikh struggle for freedom and sovereignty. Working with the

Congress of the United States, we have internationalized the

struggle for freedom for the Sikhs and all the people of

South Asia since the Council of Khalistan's inception on

October 7, 1987, the day that the Sikh Nation declared its

independence from India. We have worked to preserve the

accurate history of the Sikhs and the repression of

minorities by India by preserving the information in the

Congressional Record. We continue to work for freedom for the

Sikh Nation. Self-determination is the essence of democracy.

On behalf of the Sikh Nation, I am asking the Human Rights

Commission to expose India's reign of terror to the

international community. It is time for India to be held to

account for its tyrannical rule covered by a veneer of

democracy. Please do not let India hide behind a false claim

of democracy and secularism. By shining the light on India's

terroristic rule, you can help bring freedom and basic human

rights to all the people of the subcontinent.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this situation

and for helping the people of South Asia.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh,

President, Council of Khalistan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Richard Jones Jr. in recognition of contributions to the community through his professional work and civic endeavors.

Richard is a police officer in the New York City Police Department and is assigned to the Transit Division's Kings County Task Force. He is also an independent associate for Pre-paid Legal Services.

A Bedford Stuyvesant resident, Richard is the father of three lovely children. Shawntice is an honor student. His two active sons are Sirrichard and Khaliq. Richard's devotion to his family is unmatched.

Richard is a founding member of the civic association; ``Black Men Who Care Inc.,'' which was founded in 1998 to creatively occupy the spare time of the youths residing in Brooklyn. During the winter, the organization developed a mentorship program to help youth after school. This program targeted young men between the ages of 12 and 15. In spite of the organization's name, it has come to include members of all races and both genders.

Richard is the Treasurer and Director of Sports and Recreation. Each week, he spends many hours with the organization, planning and coordinating future activities. The organization emphasizes etiquette, self-respect, respect for one's neighborhood, and respect for elders. For his continued community service, Richard received the Isaac Liberman Service Award in 1999 from the Hundred Year Association of New York.

As an independent associate with Pre-paid Legal Services, Richard is providing an opportunity for hard working middle class people to

obtain quality legal services. With the help of Richard's efforts, more people, regardless of their income status, will have access to quality attorneys.

Mr. Speaker, Richard Jones Jr. has dedicated his time to improving the community as a member of law enforcement and a civic leader. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of John C. Whitehead for his continued dedication to public service.

John was born in East New York and raised in Bedford Stuyvesant by his loving parents, Jesse and Mary. The ninth of twelve children, he was educated in the New York public school system.

John previously served his country proudly as a member of the United States Army and Reserves.

He has vast experience with many civic groups and community-based organizations. John is a founding member of the youth organization Black Men Who Care. He is the Chief Executive Officer and an Executive Board Member. He is a member of the Men's Caucus for Congressman Ed Towns where he is a Congressional diplomat and Chairman of this year's awards dinner. John is also an executive board member of Community Board No. 5 which serves East New York.

John is deeply involved with a number of community organizations. He is an Advisory Board Member of NIA Theatrical Production Company and New York City Works, a Special Advisor to the Committee To Honor Black Heroes, and a member of Black Watch. John has served as a supervisor and youth counselor for the Vanguard Urban Improvement Association, which was founded by Albert Vann (City Councilman and Former Assemblyman), and is the former vice-president of the Spring Creek Tenants Association.

John is currently employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation as well as being a licensed paralegal. He has served as Vice-President of the United States Steel Workers Local No. 2, and has worked as a security supervisor for Burns Security.

John is a single parent of six wonderful children: John Jr., Jeffrey, Jatina, Dakeem, Jay and Justin. By his example of community service, love of neighbor and a strong work ethic, he strives to teach his children that they can be successful in any endeavor they undertake. John's greatest focus and concern is to be the voice for those hard- working taxpayers who are not being heard. They need and deserve someone to ensure the delivery of quality services to their community.

Mr. Speaker, John C. Whitehead has continued to strengthen and improve the community through his wide array of civic activities. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Constantine Lincoln Stewart for his public service for the City of New York and his volunteer efforts to educate our children.

Lincoln, as he is more affectionately known, currently serves as a senior policy advisor in the Office of Policy Management with the New York City Comptroller's Office. As a Senior Policy Advisor, he conducts research and analyzes public policy issues affecting education, the infrastructure, public safety, and technology. He has worked in the Comptroller's Office for the last 17 years.

Lincoln is also an adjunct professor at York College in Jamaica, New York. He tutors students of all ages throughout the city. He enjoys the opportunity to be a positive influence on young people. Lincoln especially likes working with students in the areas of math and science. These areas are traditionally viewed as problematic for women and people of color. Lincoln emphasizes that it is the student's duty to take responsibility for his or her own education. He often tells his students that the international community is providing opportunities for ambitious African-American, Latino, female and immigrant youths.

Lincoln was born in Jamaica. He is the second of Samuel and Lethe's five children. He received his degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of the West Indies. After graduating, he immigrated to Brooklyn in 1980. He quickly resettled in West Texas after accepting an offer as a chemical engineer with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Two years later, he returned to Brooklyn and attended Baruch College where he earned his Masters of Business Administration.

Lincoln is the loving husband of Charmanie Harris Stewart, his wife, partner, and friend for

17 years. He is the proud father of three gifted children: Lincoln, Jr. is currently serving in the U.S. Marine Corps; Anika is an honors student; and Din, his youngest son, attends St. Raymond's Catholic School.

Mr. Speaker, Constantine Lincoln Stewart has dedicated his professional career to serving his community while still finding time to tutor children throughout the area. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Norma Cirino in recognition of her public service and volunteer efforts to strengthen the community.

Norma has worked for the New York City Department of Probation for five years. In this short time, she has made an unforgettable mark on the Department and the East New York community. She was born and raised in East New York.

Norma is well known in her ``home neighborhood'' of East New York. She attends all of the 75th Precinct Council, Community Board #5, and Cabinet meetings. She serves on several boards of community organizations. In 2000, she created the annual Department of Probation ``East New York Family Day.'' This event gathers law enforcement, elected officials and community residents at Thomas Jefferson Field for a great day of family fun. This event has drawn over 1,000 participants each year. More than 150 sponsors and many community organizations have made this event possible at no cost to the public. Norma has also developed ``Afternoon with Santa.'' This event is held during the Christmas season and involves probation officers reading stories and distributing toys to the children of the Cypress Hills Housing Development.

Norma consistently conducts community outreach and develops affiliations with community organizations and residents. Hundreds of East New Yorkers have been employed, received health services or educational opportunities through referrals received from Norma.

Norma has linked community-based organizations to community service work, crews. The work performed by these crews has improved the quality of life in East New York. She has also increased the community's voice in the criminal justice system by helping people report crimes and connecting them with criminal justice services. Finally, she has helped change the community's perception of law enforcement through her affiliation with the U.S. Department of Justice's Weed and Seed program.

Norma graduated from Maxwell High School. She takes pride in the East New York community where she lives with her daughter Stephanie, who is the light of her eyes. Her sisters, Lydia and Rosa, her brother, Anthony, all of her nieces and nephews, and her mother live in the community as well.

Mr. Speaker, Norma Cirino has dedicated her time to improving the community through both her professional and volunteer efforts. As such, she is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.

Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly of Punjab recently annulled a longstanding agreement that allowed the diversion of water from Punjab to other states.

According to the Tribune of Chandigarh, whose article I will be inserting in the Record at the end of my remarks, the Legislative Assembly asserted the sovereignty of Punjab in doing so. The newspaper reports that the bill passed by the Legislative Assembly says that ``as a sovereign authority [Punjab] considered it its duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws and to protect the interests of its inhabitants.''

Apparently, all parties supported this measure. We congratulate them on taking this step forward to protect the interests of the people of Punjab. I urge them to continue claiming, promoting, and establishing the sovereignty of Punjab.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the people of Punjab have been severely oppressed by the tyrannical Indian government. Over a quarter of a million Sikhs have been killed since 1984, according to the Punjab State Magistracy. The Movement Against State Repression reports that 52,268 have been taken as political prisoners, held without charge or trial, some as long as 20 years. According to the Punjab Human Rights Commission, about 50,000 Sikhs have simply been made to disappear by being arrested, tortured, killed in police custody, declared ``unidentified bodies,'' and secretly cremated, without their remains even being given back to their families.

Similar repression has been visited on Christians, Muslims, and other minorities. Yet India continues to say that it is the world's largest democracy.

If India is truly a democracy, it will allow the will of the people to be carried out in regards to the diversion of water. It will allow the people--Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and everyone living under Indian rule--to enjoy the full range of human rights. And it will allow self-determination for these sovereign states.

Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, we should not provide any aid to India. And we should take a stand for self-determination, which is the cornerstone of democracy, by supporting a free and fair plebiscite on independence in Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, in predominantly Christian Nagaland, and everywhere that people seek their freedom from Indian rule. The assertion of sovereignty by the Punjab Legislative Assembly is a good first step. They should act to claim their sovereignty by severing their ties to India. We should take a stand by letting them know that when they do, we will be there with them.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I would like to insert the Tribune article into the Record.

[From the Tribune (Chandigarh), July 13, 2004]

Punjab Annuls All Water Pacts: Cong, Akalis Join Hands on Issue

(By P.P.S. Gill)

Chandigarh, July 12.--A special session of the Punjab

Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed the Punjab Termination

of Agreements Bill, 2004, thereby ``knocking down'' the very

basis on which the Supreme Court had passed its order on

construction of SYL--Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal on June 4,

last. This Bill annuls the December 31, 1981, agreement

between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan signed by the three

Chief Ministers in the presence of the late Ms Indira Gandhi

and also all other agreements relating to the water of the

rivers, Ravi and Beas. This, the Bill says, was done in

``public interest''. The annulment has come after 23 long

years with two staunch political rivals, the Congress and the

Akalis, joining hands to protect the state's riparian rights.

Immediately after the Bill was passed, the Chief Minister,

Capt Amarinder Singh, accompanied by the Leader of the

Opposition, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, PPCC president, Mr H.S.

Hanspal, Ms Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Mr Partap Singh Bajwa and

a team of legal experts went to Raj Bhavan to meet the

Governor, Justice O.P. Verma (retd.), to request him to give

his assent to the Bill, as the dead-line for compliance with

the Supreme Court order was July 15. The combined delegation

spent an hour with the Governor. The Raj Bhavan sources said,

``The Bill is being examined.''

Capt Amarinder Singh told TNS that he had not discussed the

Bill with Ms Sonia Gandhi. ``Why involve her? When I go to

Delhi, I shall brief her''.

Presenting the Bill to the House, Capt. Amarinder Singh

made an emotive speech giving facts, figures and background

to the entire issue of sharing of river waters and steps

taken in the recent past to protect and safeguard the

interests of Punjab, particularly the farmers and save nine

lakh acres going dry and barren, which would affect the

livelihood of 1.5 million families.

The Bill says that Punjab was proud of its position in the

Indian union, felt equal concern for its neighbours and as a

sovereign authority also considered it its duty to uphold the

constitution and the laws and to protect the interests of its

inhabitants.

Under the 1981 agreement, flow series were changed from

1921-45 to 1921-60, which had the result of increasing the

availability of Ravi-Beas waters from 15.85 MAF to 17.17 MAF.

The allocation of water made to the states concerned under

that Agreement was as under:

Haryana (non-riparian) 3.50 MAF, Rajasthan (non-riparian)

8.60 MAF, Delhi (non-riparian) 0.20 MAF, Punjab (riparian)

4.22 MAF and Jammu and Kashmir (riparian) 0.65 MAF. Under

clause IV of this agreement, Punjab and Haryana withdrew

their respective suits from the Supreme Court. But the

controversy rages on. The issue has become emotive.

Referring to the broad clauses of the proposed Bill, Capt

Amarinder Singh maintained that riparian and basin principles

were ignored all along and allocation of the Ravi-Beas waters

had always been affected by ``ad hoc decisions and

agreements, dictated by prevalent circumstances''. Here was a

typical case involving ``emotive'' issue of impending

transfer of water from ``deficit'' Ravi-Beas basin to the

``surplus'' Yamuna basin.

Never any reliable and scientific study of hydrological,

ecological and sociological impact of such large scale trans-

basin diversion from Punjab to Haryana and Rajasthan had been

undertaken. Besides this transfer, diversion was even

contrary to the National Water Policy guidelines, he added.

Capt Amarinder Singh pointed out, ``Non-riparian and non-

basin states of Haryana and Rajasthan are not only not

entitled to any Ravi-Beas waters, even their current

allocation and utilisation is totally disproportionate to the

areas alleged to be falling in the Indus basin. Therefore,

Punjab, as a good neighbour, has accepted such utilisations

by Haryana and Rajasthan as `usages by sufferance' but not as

a matter of any recognition of their rights''.

He supported this hypothesis, when he posed the question,

``Does Punjab have surplus water and do the claimants of our

water a legal right to it?'' Then, he paused for effect,

``The answer to this question is a resounding `no''', and

went on to give the following picture:

All three rivers, the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej, flow

through the present Punjab and none through either Haryana or

Rajasthan. No part of territories of these states fall within

the basin areas of the Ravi and the Beas, although, according

to un-substantiated report of the Irrigation Commission, only

9,939 sq. kms. within Haryana fall in Indus basin, against

50,305 sq. kms. of Punjab.

Again, the present utilisation by Haryana was about 5.95

MAF, about 4.33 MAF from Sutlej and about 1.62 MAF from the

Ravi-Beas water, through the existing systems. Also out of

17.17 MAF of ``surplus'' Ravi-Beas water, only 4.22 MAF was

allocated to Punjab, a riparian state, against higher

quantities to Haryana and Rajasthan. From the total surplus

availability of 11.98 MAF of the Beas water, Punjab has been

allocated 2.64 MAF.

Therefore, justifying the annulling of the December 31,

1981, agreement and all other agreements relating to the Ravi

and the Beas, the Bill seeks to present the fact that ground

realities have since undergone a sea change from that date

and Punjab settlement of July 24, 1985, under the Rajiv-

Longowal Agreement. Therefore, this had made the

implementation of that 1981 agreement ``onerous and

injurious'' to the public interest.

The availability of the Ravi-Beas water, 1717 MAF, as on

December 31, 1981, has been reduced to 14.37 MAF, as per the

flow series of 1981-2002. Haryana has been given 4.65 MA

under the Yamuna agreement of May 12, 1994, which will be

further augmented by the Sarda-Yamuna link. In the meanwhile,

irrigation requirements have increased in Punjab. ``The

Punjab settlement, except one para 9, relating to allocation

of the Ravi-Beas water, has remained unimplemented in letter

and spirit, to date.''

In these circumstances, the terms of 1981 agreement were

``onerous, unfair, un-reasonable and contrary to the

interests of the inhabitants of the Ravi-Beas basin, who have

law-full rights to utilise water of these rivers''. Is the

Bill justified? Will it tantamount to contempt of the court?

In his well prepared speech, Capt. Amarinder Singh has

addressed such questions, as well.

Armed with the House resolution of June 15 that aims to

protect the rights of Punjab, legal opinions and all-party

resolution of June 12, the Chief Minister said.

``This mandate enables the government to find ways and

means to protect the people from adverse consequences of the

Supreme Court judgment of June 4. The state had been advised

that the obligations arising from an agreement or the

contract did not fetter the powers of the legislature to

enact a law in public interest.

``We have been further advised that it is a well settled

law that the legislature is competent remove or take away the

basis of judgment by law and thereby it does not encroach

upon the exercise of the judicial power of the judiciary

and the legislative action within its competence, do not

commit a contempt of court. However, final decision in all

these matters lies in the court, as any law enacted by

this august House is subject to a judicial review''.

When the Bill had been introduced, Mr Parkash Singh Badal

stood up to express the collective anguish of the opposition

that on such an important item, involving the question of

``life and death'' had been treated lightly by the government

and till noon today ``we had no idea of what the agenda was

all about nor we had received copy of the Bill or what it was

all about''.

Mr Badal said the traditions and conventions of the House

were being eroded, day-by-day. ``It was also a disgrace that

even the information inviting us to meet the Governor after

the House had passed the resolution was sent by the Congress

president, Mr H S Hanspal, who was not involved in this in

any which way. How can we discuss anything at such a short

notice? We are against political confrontation and are

available 24-hours for any thing related to the interests of

the state and are willing to support the government''.

Thereafter, the Speaker, Dr Kewal Krishan said he had

received a resolution sent by four Akali MLAs, Mr Parkash

Singh Badal, Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, Mr Gurdev Singh Badal and

Mr Manpreet Singh Badal, for the consideration of the House.

Then, he ruled that since a comprehensive Bill was being

presented, they could express their views while speaking on

that. Mr Manpreet Singh Badal and Capt Kanwaljit Singh

suggested that certain provisions, including Clause 78, in

the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, be also annulled. BJP's

Tikshan Sud, said though a ``belated step'', the Bill was a

welcome and offered full co-operation but rued that the

Opposition be given due place and respect.

On this the Captain had stated in his reply that whatever

steps were required to be taken to protect Punjab's interests

would be taken in consultation with the legal experts.

The speakers, including Mr Bir Devinder Singh and Mr Jeet

Mohinder Singh spoke in the context of historical background,

stressing time and again on the riparian principles. Mr Bir

Devinder Singh recalled how even the British Government had

sought a certificate from Punjab that it will protect its own

interests under the riparian rights while selling water to

Rajasthan.

Mr Bir Devinder Singh even cautioned to be prepared

following the enactment of the Act, terminating 1981 and

other agreements since new situation would develop. Mr Jeet

Mohinder Singh wondered if the Bill would stop the

construction of SYL. He was for adding a new amendment in the

form of a clause in the Eastern Punjab Canal and Drains Act,

1873 that permission of the state Assembly should be

mandatory to dig or construct any canal that carries water

beyond the boundaries of the state.

Rare bonhomie in House

The discussion on the Bill was, however, not without the

usual political punches and colour. There were moments when

some ministers and opposition members took pot shots blaming

either side for having failed Punjab and messed up the water

issue.

Some Opposition members said had such a Bill been brought

forward 23 years ago, Punjab would have been spared the

agony. Even the Bill says that in the wake of large-scale

militancy, the Punjab settlement was reached, which however,

had remained unimplemented in letter and spirit.

For once, the House was in a serious mood. There were no

political skirmishes, though usual jibes were heard. The

Governor's and Speaker's galleries were packed.

But it was the Captain's day all the way. Having worked

overtime to get this Bill prepared, presented and passed by

the House, he responded to the collective anguish of the

opposition, expressed by Mr Badal, with utmost humility and

courtesy, acknowledging all what Mr Badal had said. But then

he point by point not only explained the unusual

circumstances, including race against time, under which the

Bill in as prepared and thus could not be circulated earlier,

giving the members a chance to prepare themselves.

Capt. Amarinder Singh was apologetic and said so repeatedly

taking the wind out of the sails of the Akalis. He showed

faint starchiness in his voice, when he responded to some of

the observations of Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, saying, ``We are

together here for an important task, not for rhetoric and

emotive outbursts. We cannot allow Punjab to go back into the

grip of violence''.

Warming up, he concluded, ``We will resort to all legal and

constitutional means to seek justice. Already enough

bloodshed has taken place. Even all the bodies have not been

counted, so far. We shall fight to the end but within the

parameters of laws, rules and the constitution. I will be

willing to resign, if need be, for the sake of Punjab. The

time is not for blame game. We have all made mistakes in the

past. We are rectifying the same after 23 years. Come, lets

join hands, close ranks. I appreciate the Opposition's co-

operation''.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Numerous reports and commissions have documented the civil rights problems at USDA. For those who might not be aware of this history, let me give the Members a brief overview.

In 1965, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found discrimination in USDA program delivery and in USDA treatment of minority employees.

In 1970, a USDA employees focus group report concluded the agency was insensitive to the issues regarding equal opportunity and civil rights.

In 1982, the Civil Rights Commission found that USDA's Farmers Home Administration had failed to place adequate emphasis on dealing with the crisis facing black farmers and saw indications that the agency may be involved in the very kind of racial discrimination that it should be seeking to correct.

In 1990, the Committee on Government Operations of the United States House of Representatives found that Farmers Home Administration practices were one of the key causes of the drastic decline in black farmer ownership.

In 1997 and 1998, CRAT, a special team within the USDA, found systemic discrimination in employment and farm assistance programs.

In 1998 the Congress passed a measure which helped African American farmers pursue legal claims against the USDA. In 1999 a Federal court entered a consent decree which allowed many black farmers to recover damages for the years of discrimination they faced at the hands of the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the educational and athletic achievements of Master Yeon Hwan Park.

Master Park is an 8th dan (degree) black belt, and coach of the USA Olympic National and Pan American Tae Kwon Do teams. He is the world's premier authority on Tae Kwan Do and his knowledge is without parallel in this martial arts discipline. Master Park has been featured in the New York Times, Newsday and has graced the covers of virtually every martial arts publication. Master Park is renowned for having translated his fighting ability into teaching ingenuity, something few successful competitors have been able to do. He brought his techniques and the austere conditions of his native Korean training halls to the African nation of Lesotho. He trained their secret service and special police agents for 2 years. He, also, trained and led their Tae Kwon Do team to the Seoul Olympics. The women's team took first place and the men's team finished second.

Master Park has established himself as a great teacher and an outstanding community leader. He has done much to bring Tae Kwon Do to national prominence. Presently, he is President of the NY State Tae Kwon Do Association. And, he has served the United States as an Olympic coach and as a coach at the Pan American Games. Though Mr. Park has been busy in the sport that he loves, he has not forgotten the welfare of the community. He promotes the fundraising programs for the March of Dimes, The American Cancer Society, the American Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and many other organizations. He has also served as the president of the Korea American Association of Long Island and is a current member of the Nassau County Youth Board.

Mr. Park graduated from Korea University with honors in history. He studied at the United States Olympic Academy XII at Penn State University. He has published many books including ``Tae Kwon Do for Children'' and ``Tae Kwon Do DINOSAURS''. He has been honored by Nassau County, the United States Olympic Committee, Korea University, and the World Tae Kwon Do Federation, and many others.

He and Sunwoo (also known as Connie) were married in 1982 and they have two sons, Edward and Elliot, and one daughter, Nina.

Mr. Speaker, Master Yeon Hwan Park's worldwide contributions to the sport of Tae Kwon Do and his New York community make him more than worthy of receiving our recognition today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Reverend Gun Ha Song in recognition of his business accomplishments and spiritual leadership in the community.

Reverend Song came to the United States in 1979. He founded the Good Pickin' store in 1982 and he continues to manage it successfully today. Reverend Song is the president of the Korean Association of Brooklyn.

Reverend Song's passion is his faith. He leads his congregation in Brooklyn. In preparation of his pastoral duties, Reverend Song has studied extensively, earning advanced degrees in the area of religious thought. He has earned a Masters Degree of S.B.E. Christian Education. He received an additional Masters Degree from Chongshin Theological Seminary. Finally, Reverend Song also holds a Doctor of Christian Education from Cumberland University.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Gun Ha Song came to this country about 25 years ago and has made several contributions to this country through his entrepreneurial spirit and spiritual leadership. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Sharon Devonish-Leid in recognition of her dedication to strengthening the community.

Sharon is a Community Relations Specialist for the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office in the Community Relations Bureau. In this capacity, she serves as the link between the community, the police, and the DA's office. Ms. Devonish-Leid is responsible for four police precincts (93rd, 69th, 73rd, and 75th), and two police service areas (1 and 2).

In this capacity, she has developed the Young People's Law program in the Community Relations Bureau. This program is an offspring of the People's Law School program, which District Attorney Hynes developed to educate adults about the criminal justice system. She is also responsible for developing the East New York College and Career Fair at Maxwell High School. Additionally, she has implemented other informational fairs and conferences that bring important information to our communities.

Sharon has always had a passion for the field of law. In fact, she earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice, with

merit, from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Even as an undergraduate, she participated in community programs that helped others. These experiences helped her develop her interest and skills in community relations.

Prior to joining the Community Relations Bureau, she worked as a senior paralegal in various bureaus in the District Attorney's office. She worked as a legal secretary in the Eastern District office of the United States Attorney General.

Sharon's biggest love is working with our community's young people as she is always willing to volunteer her knowledge and experience to help others. Remarkably, she plans to serve as an example to our students by continuing her education in law school.

Mr. Speaker, Sharon Devonish-Leid has been a shining star in the community by bringing residents and law enforcement together. As such, she is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this, truly remarkable person.