Congressional Hearings/Resolutions

Limitation on Assistance for the Government of India

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
Title VII - Additional General Provisions

July 12, 2000

Fearing a route because of pro-India forces on the Hill, Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) withdrew his amendment to the Foreign Appropriations bill seeking a cut or freeze on US aid to India. Opposition to the amendment was led by Sonny Callahan (R-AL) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Jim McDermott (R-WA), Ben Gilman (R-NY), Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), Ed Royce (R-CA), Eva Clayton (D-NC) and Rush Holt (D-NJ) all spoke against the Burton Amendment.

Sec. 701. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act in title II under the heading `BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE-Funds Appropriated to the President-development assistance', not more than $35,000,000 may be made available to the Government of India.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, for the past probably 10 or 12 years, maybe even longer, I have been coming to the floor talking about the atrocities that have been taking place at the hands of the Indian government in places like Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, and other places in India, and today this amendment is merely to update my colleagues and anybody else who is paying attention as to where we stand on this issue.

When only a few hundred people were killed in Haiti, we sent 20,000 troops into Haiti at taxpayer expense, and the problems there have not been resolved. In the Sudan, over 2 million people have been killed, and the United States has not really done too much.

In Kashmir, there are half a million Indian troops that have been there for years and years and years imposing marshal law, gang raping women, taking men out of their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen again, except maybe turning up in the streams around Kashmir with their hands and feet bound, having been tortured and drowned.

Amnesty International concludes the policies of the Indian government in Kashmir to be an official policy of sanctioning extrajudicial killings. Another half million troops are in Punjab, right next to Kashmir.

If U.S. action and attention was justified in places like Kosovo and Bosnia around the world, then we at least ought to be paying attention to what is going on in the area of human rights violations in places like Kashmir and Punjab and Nagaland and other places in India.

India does not allow Amnesty International or other human rights groups to go into these areas. Even Cuba, the last communist bastion in our hemisphere, allows Amnesty International in. India has killed over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab have been killed since 1984, more than 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir have been killed since 1988, and thousands of Dalits, or what they call the untouchables, the blacks in India, have been killed. We do not know how many of them.

According to our own State Department, India paid over 41,000, 41,000, cash bounties to the police for killing innocent Sikhs from 1991 to 1993. They actually paid bounties to kill some of those people.

In Punjab, Sikhs are picked up in the middle of the night, only to be found floating dead in the canals with their hands and feet bound. As I mentioned before, the same thing happened in Kashmir. Some Sikhs are only so fortunate, and others are just never found.

Recently, India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI, told the Supreme Court that it had confirmed 2,000 cases of unidentified bodies that were cremated by the military. Their families did not know what happened to them. They were all piled up and cremated.

It does not get any better in Kashmir. Women, because of their Muslim beliefs, are taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and gang raped, while their husbands are forced to stay inside.

The State Department says on page 3 of its report released this year, `The National Human Rights Commission does not have the power to investigate the military's actions in that area.'

They went on to say, 'The Indian government rejected the Commission's recommendations to bring the army and paramilitary forces under closer scrutiny by allowing the Commission to investigate complaints of their excesses.' So the military has so much power, the Human Rights Commission in India cannot even look into these things.

Human Rights Watch, an international organization, says, 'Despite government claims that normalcy has returned to Kashmir, Indian troops in the State continue to carry out summary executions, disappearances, rape and torture.' That is from this year's Human Rights Report, the 1999 Human Rights Report, issued last July.

'Methods of torture include severe beatings with truncheons, rolling a heavy log on the legs, hanging the detainee upside down, and using electric shocks on various parts of their body.' Just imagine what it would be like if you had to go through that.

'Security forces are making Dalit women,' the untouchables, 'eat human defecation, parading them naked, and gang raping them.'

Amnesty International says, 'Torture, including rape and ill-treatment, continued to be endemic throughout the country.' That is in their annual report.

'Disappearances continue to be reported during the year, predominantly in Jammu and Kashmir.' Amnesty International again, the recent report.

'Hundreds of extrajudicial executions were reported in many States.' Again, in the same report.

In July of 1998, police picked up Kashmira Singh. Police said they were investigating a theft. They then tortured him for 15 days. They rolled logs over his legs until he could not walk. They submerged him in a tub of water and slashed his thighs with razor blades and stuffed hot peppers into the wounds.

Muslim persecution. March 1996, Mr. Jalil Andrabi, chairman of the Kashmir Commission of Jurists and a human rights advocate, was abducted and slain 2 weeks before he was to travel to Geneva to testify before the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

Christian persecution. Since Christmas day of 1998, there has been a wave of attacks against Christians all over the country. Churches have been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked, nuns have been raped and priests have been killed. Our State Department agrees, there has been a sharp increase in attacks against Christians and Christian organizations. This past weekend, just this past weekend, two churches were bombed in India. Last month, a women's prayer meeting was bombed by militant Hindus. Last month, four Christian missionaries who were distributing Bibles were beaten, one so severely that he may lose both his arms and his legs.

Right now, we are talking about giving India more money. We are talking about today in this appropriation bill giving them more money and yet India has increased their military budget this year by 28 percent. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on conventional and nuclear weapons, and we are subsidizing, indirectly, that proliferation of weaponry. This year, the President has requested $46.6 million for developmental assistance to India through AID. That is an increase of almost $18 million from last year's request. I cannot recall the President asking for this large of a request for India ever.

I understand that the Glenn amendment, which passed the U.S. Senate, is currently imposing sanctions on India for some of these violations. So why should we be increasing aid to a country that we are currently sanctioning for human rights abuses and other travesties? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

We are talking about 25 percent cut with this amendment. I think it is justifiable, it sends a strong message, one that will be heard around the world, but especially in India.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for agreeing to withdraw his amendment, which I understand he is going to do momentarily.

The objective, or my objective in handling this bill is to wind up with a final document that does not have offensive language in there to my views or the views I think of the majority Members of Congress. The very fact that the gentleman has agreed to withdraw it gives me my victory, and I can see no sense in standing here all day long and delaying the possibility of whether or not Members are going to be able to get out of here in a timely fashion to catch their arranged flights to go home for the weekend. So I have accomplished my mission, and that is that the offensive language to me, with respect to India, is going to be withdrawn and the amendment is going to be withdrawn.

But out of deference to those who want to speak in response to the gentleman's remarks, I am going to yield 7 of my 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), with the forewarning, Mr. Chairman, that she is not going to come forward with a unanimous consent request to extend this debate and preclude the possibility of Members getting out of here in a timely fashion this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to control that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) controls 7 minutes which she may yield to others.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment. I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I only regret that we do not have as much time to put the light of truth to so many of the things that he said, because we have not been given equal time in this debate.

That being said, the House has rejected the gentleman's amendment on repeated occasions, and I do hope and expect it will do so again today. I think it should be clear to all by now that punishing India by cutting our assistance is not a policy that this U.S. Congress will adopt.

The Burton amendment is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. In the wake of the President's successful visit to India, the U.S. and India have a new opportunity to build a broad-based relationship. Instead of applauding India for establishing a joint working group with the U.S. to fight against terrorism, the amendment would punish India by cutting crucial assistance.

The gentleman makes a great many allegations about human rights abuses in India, but conveniently ignores the fact that the people of India are the major victims of terrorism perpetrated by groups supported and trained in Pakistan and associated with Osama bin-Ladin. In fact, after the Kargil incursion and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane to Afghanistan, the Pakistani-backed terrorists have stepped up their attacks on innocent civilians and security forces in Kashmir.

To characterize India's struggle against terrorism as a violation of human rights is not only unjust, but also provides aid and comfort to the terrorists who have claimed thousands of innocent victims in India. That there are things that go wrong in any civilized society, including India, are true, and some of the things the gentleman points out are true, but these are not done by the government of India.

Mr. Chairman, churches are bombed and burned here. People are killed every day here. Women are raped every day of the year here. These things are terrible, but it does not mean that our government is responsible. The best way for us to help India continue to improve its human rights record is to engage in positive and constructive dialogue, one great democracy to another, not with punitive sanctions and cuts.

The momentum that we have gained in relations by the President's visit needs to be strengthened and sustained. For Congress to act now to stigmatize India for alleged human rights abuses would send the wrong signal to the 1 billion democratic people in India. I urge all of our colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). This is the time that we should be working together on environmental, education, and health issues.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise, as I have many times, in opposition to the Burton amendment, and for our continued support for the world's largest democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to this ill-conceived amendment.

This legislation has many problems, but one of the bright spots is a continued commitment to our Indian allies.

Unfortunately, this amendment will unfairly cut the critically-needed economic assistance funding for India included in this legislation.

As an important ally and a nation committed to strong democratic government, India has worked hard to ensure that the human rights of all its citizens are protected.

The Indian government has aggressively responded to assaults against religious minorities and has repeatedly expressed its commitment to ensuring tolerance. Recently, in response to attacks on Christians, Prime Minister Vajpayee reiterated his nation's desire to be inclusive of all faiths and to ensure equal justice under law for all Indians. We should support these efforts.

India is also one of our key trading partners and the Indian government has worked hard to create a friendly environment for U.S. firms.

As a result, U.S. investment in India has skyrocketed in the last ten years. Direct U.S. Investment in India has increased from $500 million in 1991 to more than $15 billion today.

India has demonstrated a commitment to continue this growth and I strongly believe that we must support their efforts.

As a key ally and a fellow democracy, India deserves our support.

However, Congressman Burton's amendment, rather than rewarding India, seeks to punish the people of India by withholding crucial humanitarian assistance.

India is a strong and vibrant democracy. It is the world's largest democracy. And, the U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest investor.

The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations in recent years needs to be sustained and strengthened.

A vote for the Burton amendment would send the wrong signal to the people of India from the U.S. Congress at this very critical time.

I urge a 'no' vote on the Burton amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the arguments against the punitive anti-India amendment are stronger this year than they have ever been. In March, President Clinton completed the first visit to India by an American President in more than 20 years. The President's trip accompanied by a bipartisan congressional delegation produced a range of agreements on trade and investments, security partnerships and cooperation on energy and the environment. In September, India's democratically elected prime minister will be visiting the U.S. To further build upon this progress, especially in the area of economic relations.

India is the world's largest democracy. It is a country that has made tremendous progress in free market economic reforms over the past decade. But more to the point, since the gentleman from Indiana has been critical of India's human rights records, India's Human Rights Commission has been praised by our State Department and many international agencies for its independence and effectiveness. Indeed, India has become a model for the rest of Asia and the rest of the developing world in terms of democratization, economic reform and human rights.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, cutting aid to India only serves to hamper America's efforts to reduce poverty, eradicate disease and promote broad-based economic growth in the world's second most populous Nation. This amendment never made any sense, and it certainly makes less sense now.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, it is in America's national interests to support and sustain India's development. The Commerce Department identifies India as one of the 10 Big Emerging Markets. With a growing high-tech industry, combined with the support and confidence of American investment, India has positioned itself to be one of the great success stories of the 21st century.

India has made tremendous progress in addressing human rights issues. The State Department has praised India for its substantial progress in the area of human rights. It is a strong, vibrant democracy that features an independent judiciary, diverse political parties and a free press, which vigorously assists in the investigation of human rights abuses.

This amendment threatens the relationship between the United States and the Republic of India. We should not be punishing countries like India, an example of freedom and democracy in Asia, while rewarding authoritarian governments like China which supports forced labor, which opposes freedom of the press, which opposes freedom of religion.

Mr. Chairman, the Burton amendment is a step in the wrong direction for American foreign policy. We should oppose it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because I believe that we want peace in India and Pakistan, and my visit with the President in those countries, I ask that we oppose this amendment so that peace can be had in those nations.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that we come out here on this Burton amendment again. It is going to lose. But I implore my colleagues to look seriously and objectively at India. The proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently intimidates its religious minorities. To use a Hindi word, that is backwash; that is absolute nonsense. The Indians know they have a problem, but they are the most secular country in the world. They appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, only the second time in their history, to look at the death of an American missionary. They also have a separate Human Rights Commission that operates in this country. In contrast, consider our own treatment of Arab Americans in this country. When they are portrayed as terrorists, we turn a blind eye. India recognizes their problem and deals with them. I believe that India has problems, but it is a nation that is dealing with them. Rather than debate these kinds of amendments, we ought to find ways to work cooperatively with India to support their development.

Vote against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, here we are discussing the Burton amendment yet again. It never passes, and as far as I can tell, is brought up just to be inflammatory.

I implore my colleagues to look at the nation of India objectively. Since Independence, India has been a thriving democracy where suffrage is universal and voting rates are higher than the United States.

Unlike most former colonial nations, India has never suffered under a military dictator. The United States Military has more influence and participation in our government than the Indian Military has in theirs. India is a stable democracy, arguably the strongest and most stable in all of Asia.

Proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently intimidates its religious minorities. That is backwash--pure nonsense. India is one of the most secular states in the world. India recognizes and guarantees religious freedoms and has the commitment to the rule of law to enforce those guarantees.

There have been isolated incidents -- anomalies really -- that have made the worldwide news, however, India has publicly, officially, and resoundingly responded. India appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, for only the second time in this country's history, to investigate an instance of a Christian missionary's death. Also, India has a separate Human Rights Commission that is active and highly independent.

What is our response in this country when American-Muslims are depicted vilely as terrorists? We blindly turn away. India admits these problems and addresses them in the courts as well as and in the open and totally free press.

India has its problems, but it is a nation dealing with those problems. Rather than debate amendments that divide the US and India, we ought to work with India help come to grips with their problems and be a partner in the development of technology, trade and culture. The US and India have much in common and the potential to be great partners, we must not cut India off.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend from Indiana's amendment. While I commend my colleague's sincere concern about human rights and his tireless work on behalf of the oppressed, I have to disagree with him about his assessment regarding India. India has a fiercely democratic system that protects and promotes religious freedom and an independent judicial system.

We must not forget that the tensions between the people of India and Pakistan are to a very large degree fueled by communist China. Beijing's mischief making in Burma, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and occupied Tibet, nations that surround India, is a dangerous attempt to keep democratic India off balance. China has sold over $2 billion in arms to the drug dealing Burmese junta. It has given or sold nuclear and conventional weapons to Pakistan. China occupies Tibet on India's northern border and Beijing is Sri Lanka's major supplier of arms.

India faces a difficult challenge in fighting extremists. The same vicious terrorists who attack innocent Indians are also responsible for the deaths of many innocent Americans. And our requests to the Pakistani government to pressure their Taliban clients to turn over the Saudi terrorist Osama bin Ladin to American law officers has fallen on deaf ears.

I regrettably, oppose my good friend's amendment. We need to work closer with democratic India to promote our similar concerns throughout the region. However, this is a wrong amendment targeted at the wrong country.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her excellent work on this and so many other issues.

We have had an interesting year. President Clinton has led a delegation to India and we have begun to undo the damage of the Cold War where these two great democracies, the United States and India, did not have the best of relations. The Burton amendment is inappropriate almost any time; it is particularly inappropriate at this moment. We need to build a closer relationship with this largest free country in the world.

It is easy for us to run our democracy with the great wealth we have. India runs a democracy in excess of 1 billion people with some of the poorest people on this planet. We ought to be working to make a closer relationship between India and the United States, these two great leading democracies, and not drive a wedge between them. I urge rejection of this amendment and the concept that somehow India should be a whipping boy. India should be admired for its great successes in building a democracy in one of the largest and one of the poorest countries with some incredible economic development.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from California for her work in these last several days and all of her work here.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that we not provide a 50 percent increase in aid to India. The fact is, we should be asking ourselves why, in a country that has a vibrant and growing economy, a country that is now moving forward on its own, is the United States continuing to give more and more foreign aid to a country like India.

Beyond that question, yes, let us concede that India is a democracy. We are proud that India has made some progress and stands in that region as a democratically-elected government. In Pakistan, I am afraid they have gone in the opposite direction.

But that does not mean that we should have a reflexive, a reflexive response to give India money, or just ignore the transgressions that the Indian government commits upon its own people. We should be encouraging this democracy to live up to the principles of human rights and freedom that they are violating, and not just try to cover it up.

The fact is that it is clear that there are severe violations of the rights of Christians, of Sikhs, of Muslims, that have been blessed by the Indian government, if not at the highest level, at the local level.

We must also recognize the continuing violence and terrorism on the subcontinent. Most of it flows from one fact, and that fact is that India has refused to allow a democratic election in Kashmir in order to solve a problem that a long time ago happened in 1948.

The United Nations has mandated that they have an election and permit the people of Kashmir and Jammu to control their own destiny. Then this terrorism that we have heard about would disappear. What we have now instead is terrorism on the part of government itself, trying to terrorize the people of Kashmir and other dissidents in India into submission.

Terrorism is nothing more than an attack on unarmed people. We see that in Kashmir, unarmed people are being attacked by soldiers who are trying to push them into submission because they know in a free election the Kashmiris would vote not to be part of India.

Let us not give India aid anymore. If we do, let us mandate democratic change and human rights.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I think in this debate we also need to think of India in strategic terms, not taking the action that the gentleman has proposed, which I think would be harmful to the relationship with India.

In strengthening our ties with India, we have the great advantage of common values of democracy and rule of law. With that, we can push for the further reforms we want to see in India. But I think we should all remember that it is going to take engagement to push for those reforms.

I think a decade of reforms by several governments has moved India from socialism and spurred economic growth. There is a new generation of Indians who have taken advantage of this liberalization of their economic climate, and frankly, I think that we see reforms coming to the fore in India. I think these reforms on the human rights front and in terms of trade can frankly succeed there because they have the rule of law as an underpinning.

I think there is an effective bridge with the Indo-American community. I think for those reasons this would be counterproductive. I think that increasing U.S.-India cooperation is about maintaining a regional security balance. I would urge withdrawal of the amendment.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, the object of this piece of legislation is to get a document that does not have language that is either offensive to my philosophy or even to the will of the House.

The gentleman from Indiana in the essence of time has agreed to withdraw his amendment. That is the purpose. The language will not be in there.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that a few years ago, this amendment did pass. Since then the other side, the Indian lobby, has been very effective. I congratulate them on their effectiveness.

The problem still exists, though. I hope one day we will not even have to talk about it because they will have solved that problem.

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman. Once again Mr. Burton seeks to treat our friends in India in an unfair and unjust manner. The House should reject this ageless exercise by our colleague. This, like all the others over the years, is an ill-advised amendment.

This Burton Amendment, which would prohibit development assistance to India, is a step in the wrong direction.

The Government of India has consistently been moving at a rapid pace to strengthen its ties with the United States and the World. The economic and diplomatic relationship between the United States, the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest democracy, can only be hurt by successful passage of this Burton amendment. We can not and must not ignore the important progress and mutual benefit we have achieved in recent years.

The Government of India has been on a constant pace of change, for the last decade. Recent elections have featured world record voter turnout, essentially free of violence.

Mr. Burton, as usual, claims that human rights violations are taking place in India. That claim is not supported by the facts. As Members of Congress, we must be very careful not to view the Government of India as being callous to these alleged human rights violations.

India has made great strides in their battle to bring its various and diverse interests together. Indeed, recent reports by the U.S. State Department declare that India continues to make notable and important progress with its human rights problems. It would be false and misdirected to say that India is not our friend.

U.S. business in India has grown at an astonishing rate of more than 50% a year over the past ten years, with the United States becoming India's largest trading partner and largest investor.

India has more than a half century of democratic self rule, and we must not break the ties that we have so diligently strived to assemble. We must strengthen those ties. That is why we must defeat this latest Burton amendment.

We must also note that Indian Americans have become an important and active part of the fabric of this Nation. Organized around the country, they too use their influence to press for continued improvement in their native land. Reject this latest Burton Amendment! There is much too much at stake!

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. This debate seems to be an unfortunate rite of summer here in the House. Every year we debate a Foreign Operation Appropriations bill and every year the gentleman from Indiana tries to cut funding for India, one of our most important allies. As in previous years, this attack should be rejected.

The amendment in question would eliminate programs aimed at improving India's development. As my colleagues know, U.S. aid to India is primarily used for food, family planning programs, child survival programs and infrastructure development. We should be doing all that we can to support India's government in stimulating economic development and opportunity for the Indian people, not standing in the way of these productive efforts.

Unfortunately, U.S. policy-makers have long neglected this important region, one that is home to one-fifth of the world population. That's why I applaud the efforts of President Clinton who visited India earlier this year and who has invited the Indian Prime Minister to the United States later this year.

There has been good news about India's economic performance in recent years; fiscal reforms, market opening and the privatization of state-owned companies has led to reduced inflation and tariffs as well as a reduced budget deficit. The economy's current 6 percent rate of expansion puts it among the fastest-growing in the world, as the Economist reported earlier last month. India's economic growth underlies its enhanced significance politically as a power that will play a decisive role for many years to come.

The U.S. Is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. India continues to reduce and eliminate barriers to trade, and U.S. Investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to over $15 billion in 1999.

Passage of the Burton amendment, however, would be a blow to the flourishing bilateral partnership between the United States and India and a setback to Indian political and human rights reform.

As in previous years, the Burton amendment is wrong. It was rejected in a bipartisan manner. I urge all of my colleagues to again defeat this amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana is withdrawn.