[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6795-H6798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE WAIVERS OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PAKISTAN
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 1465) to authorize the President to exercise waivers of
foreign assistance restrictions with respect to Pakistan through
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 1465
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER OF APPROPRIATIONS ACT
PROHIBITIONS WITH RESPECT TO PAKISTAN.
(a) Fiscal Year 2002 and Prior Fiscal Years.--
(1) Exemptions.--Any provision of the foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2002, or any provision of such Act for a prior
fiscal year, that prohibits direct assistance to a country
whose duly elected head of government was deposed by decree
or military coup shall not apply with respect to Pakistan.
(2) Prior consultation required.--Not less than 5 days
prior to the obligation of funds for Pakistan under paragraph
(1), the President shall consult with the appropriate
congressional committees with respect to such obligation.
(b) Fiscal Year 2003.--
(1) Waiver.--The President is authorized to waive, with
respect to Pakistan, any provision of the foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2003 that prohibits direct assistance to a
country whose duly elected head of government was deposed by
decree or military coup, if the President determines and
certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that
such waiver--
(A) would facilitate the transition to democratic rule in
Pakistan; and
(B) is important to United States efforts to respond to,
deter, or prevent acts of international terrorism.
(2) Prior consultation required.--Not less than 5 days
prior to the exercise of the waiver authority under paragraph
(1), the President shall consult with the appropriate
congressional committees with respect to such waiver.
SEC. 2. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN THE EXERCISE OF WAIVER
AUTHORITY OF MTCR AND EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PAKISTAN.
Any waiver under 73(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2797b(e)), or under section 11B(b)(5) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410b(b)(5)) (or
successor statute), with respect to a sanction that was
imposed on foreign persons in Pakistan prior to January 1,
2001, may be exercised--
(1) only after consultation with the appropriate
congressional committees; and
(2) without regard to the notification periods set forth in
the respective section authorizing the waiver.
SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF PAKISTAN FROM FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO FOREIGN COUNTRY LOAN
DEFAULTS.
The following provisions of law shall not apply with
respect to Pakistan:
(1) Section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2370(q)).
(2) Such provision of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002, as
is comparable to section 512 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2001 (Public Law 106-429; 114 Stat. 1900A-25).
SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION DEADLINES FOR DRAWDOWNS
AND TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES TO
RESPOND TO, DETER, OR PREVENT ACTS OF
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.
(a) Drawdowns.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of
section 506(b)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2318(b)(1)), each notification under that section with
respect to any drawdown authorized by subclause (III) of
subsection (a)(2)(A)(i) that the President determines is
important to United States efforts to respond to, deter, or
prevent acts of international terrorism shall be made at
least 5 days in advance of the drawdown in lieu of the 15-day
requirement in that section.
(b) Transfers of Excess Defense Articles.--Notwithstanding
section 516(f)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321j(f)(1)), each notification under that section
with respect to any transfer of an excess defense article
that the President determines is important to United States
efforts to respond to, deter, or prevent acts of
international terrorism shall be made at least 15 days in
advance of the transfer in lieu of the 30-day requirement in
that section.
SEC. 5. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional
committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on International Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 6. TERMINATION DATE.
Except as otherwise provided in section 1 or 3, the
provisions of this Act shall terminate on October 1, 2003.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on S. 1465.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the pending bill permits the President to scrape from
the hull of a great ship, the foreign relations law of the United
States, some of the barnacles that prevent us from aiding our ally,
Pakistan. It is an appropriate response to the emergency situation
confronting our Nation and to the difficulties facing Pakistan as it
assists us to stabilize their region.
Pakistan has been for decades a friend of the United States. It stood
by us, for example, by committing its armed forces on our side in the
Gulf War, unlike some of its neighbors who were mild and somewhat
equivocal in their response to Saddam Hussein. Of course, it was the
launching place for our long, difficult joint effort to free the Afghan
people of the Soviet Army.
While Pakistan and the United States have had serious disagreements
on proliferation policy and other issues and we remain concerned with
the overthrow of the elected government by President Musharref, we can
and should work with Pakistan during the coming years and establish a
new relationship based on trust, mutual interest, and common values.
The bill waives for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 legislative provisions
with respect to Pakistan prohibiting direct assistance on account of
the deposition of a duly elected head of government by a military coup.
It provides additional flexibility by eliminating certain notification
periods with respect to certain provisions of the Arms Export Control
[[Page H6796]]
Act and the Export Administration Act. It exempts Pakistan from certain
provisions of law which would prevent it from receiving assistance
should it be in default on certain debts. It permits drawdowns of
defense articles and the transfer of excess defense articles subject to
shorter congressional notification periods.
Madam Speaker, our military is in the air over Afghanistan as we
speak. Our forces are depending on Pakistani facilities and
intelligence. Our assistance to Pakistan helps ensure the stability of
the government of an ally and the welfare of its people. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President for his
signature.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1465. This is a very
significant piece of legislation; and I want to commend my
distinguished friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for
bringing this bill to the floor in an expedited fashion.
As we speak, Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State of the United
States is in Pakistan underscoring the importance of our relationship
and the importance of this legislation.
We are engaged in an epic struggle against the forces of
international terrorism; and our fighting men and women are risking
their lives as we speak to end this terrible threat, not only to the
United States, but to every civilized country on the face of this
planet. In this fight, we have called upon all nations to make every
contribution they can to prevail against these forces of evil.
Pakistan in particular, by geography and history, must shoulder an
unusually heavy burden in this effort. While it is true that Pakistan
had a hand in creating the Taliban, it is also true that Pakistan today
is playing a critical role in ensuring that Afghanis know Afghanistan
is no longer a base for international terrorism.
President Musharref's decision to stand with the United States and
the civilized global community was a wise and courageous choice. But as
we laud him for making the right choice, we must acknowledge that it
will not be an easy commitment to keep. The terrorist attacks on
September 11 shed light on the life-and-death struggle that is being
waged for the future of Pakistan. It is a battle against the
destructive and anarchist forces of religious fanaticism and violence
which seek to capitalize on the despair of the poor.
{time} 1445
It is a battle that President Musharraf must win to restore hope to
the people of Pakistan and to secure a future for the children of
Pakistan. It is vital, Madam Speaker, that the United States
demonstrate to the people and government of Pakistan our commitment to
help them secure that future as long as Pakistan continues its
commitment to eradicate international terrorism. It is for this reason
that I support the legislation before us today.
The situation in South Asia, Madam Speaker, is highly volatile, and I
am convinced that any military assistance or armed sales in the current
environment would only serve to further inflame tensions in the region.
I urge our administration to refrain from actions that will accelerate
the arms race on the subcontinent and further destabilize the already
fragile situation there. I will continue to monitor this issue closely.
Finally, I want to reiterate to the people of Pakistan our continued
support for a return to democracy in that country. President Musharraf
has given his word that he is committed to democracy and we in Congress
intend to hold him to his word.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 1465.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
I come to the House floor today to rise in opposition to S. 1465, as
we know, a bill that waives certain sanctions against Pakistan. Section
508 of the Foreign Operations Act for fiscal year 2001 was passed by
Congress to prohibit the export of U.S. weapons and military assistance
to countries whose duly-elected head of government is deposed. In 1999,
General Perez Musharraf overthrew the civilian-elected government of
Pakistan in a military coup and since then has governed Pakistan under
military rule. As a result, section 508 sanctions have been in place
and U.S. policy has maintained that no military assistance would be
provided to Pakistan.
Under the current circumstances due to the attacks of September 11, I
do feel that it is appropriate to provide economic assistance to
Pakistan because of General Musharraf's willingness to support the U.S.
in seizing Osama bin Laden and eliminating the al-Qaeda terrorist
network. Pakistan is not only a country suffering from severe poverty
in some regions, but it is also a fragile society. Pakistan's pleas to
the U.S. for economic help are understandable, and any humanitarian,
education, economic, and social assistance is worthy of being granted
on an expedited basis.
However, Madam Speaker, I stand strong in my argument against
military aid to Pakistan, even under the current circumstances. Since
the first day of U.S. military action against the Taliban in
Afghanistan, it has become clear that Pakistan's armed forces are not
participating in the antiterrorism effort in Afghanistan. If Pakistan's
forces are not being used directly against the Taliban and terrorist
groups, there is no justification for providing military aid.
South Asia is today one of the most politically volatile areas in the
world. Pakistan is a nuclear power, but has been unstable and, like I
said earlier, very fragile. Until sound democracy is established in
Pakistan, it is unclear what purpose military artillery and weapons
will be used for.
My fear is that if we provide weapons to Pakistan or lead to that
possibility, they may inadvertently fall into the wrong hands and be
used in ways contrary to U.S. interests. And Pakistan has Iran to the
west of its borders and India to the east. Sri Lanka and several other
countries contribute to the volatile makeup of the region.
Historically, U.S. arms exports to Pakistan have been used against
India, primarily through cross-border military action in Kashmir. We
saw a terrifying example of this on October 1 when a suicide car bomb
exploded in front of the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly while it was
in session. This terrorist attack left at least 40 dead and many more
injured. Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistani-based group, is the terrorist
group that came forward and claimed responsibility for this horrific
act. This group is now on the Treasury Department's list of terrorist
groups whose assets will be frozen by the U.S., but this example of
cold-blooded murder by a Pakistani-based group should be evidence
enough that weapons can and will fall into the hands of terrorist
networks and potentially be used against India or other U.S. allies.
The Pakistan government is currently not only supportive of the
Taliban but, in fact, is one of the proponents that created the Taliban
movement in Afghanistan. Due to the deep ties between Pakistan and the
Taliban, and the deep ties between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, I
feel that it is in the best interests of the U.S. to uphold its current
policy of restricting military assistance at this time. Given
Pakistan's instability, nuclear proliferation capabilities, and current
military rule, I do not see a reasonable argument for compromising our
democratic values by waiving section 508.
Finally, for my colleagues that feel that we should grant Pakistani
aid requested, including military aid, I would note that under section
614 of the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. may provide weapons and
military assistance when U.S. national security interests are at stake.
Given that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network have not only
savagely attacked us, but continue to pose a threat to the U.S., the
President could provide U.S. military assistance to Pakistan under
section 614. Unless the President certifies that that assistance
provided under 614 is insufficient, there is no reason for Congress to
waive section 508.
[[Page H6797]]
If and when Pakistan takes steps towards establishing a democracy
with a civilian-elected government, perhaps section 508 would be
irrelevant. However, General Musharraf has shown no steps towards
returning Pakistan to democratic rule and, in fact, has moved in the
opposite direction for at least the past several months. On June 20 he
declared himself President of Pakistan, which is a clear indication of
his desire to maintain a dictatorial stronghold. Musharraf's past
actions include dissolving Pakistan's National Assembly and four
provincial assemblies. He has claimed that he will hold fair national
elections by 2002; however, this has only been lip service so far. As a
self-proclaimed President, Musharraf may be seen with more credibility
in the eyes of the international community at large, but the fact
remains that the people of his Nation never elected him. I believe that
repealing section 508 clearly sends the wrong message, given the
General's actions.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking
Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of S. 1465,
and I would like to address several concerns about this bill which
would authorize the President to exercise certain waivers with respect
to Pakistan.
In recent weeks, the President has invoked special authorities to
enable the provision of $100 million in economic assistance for
Pakistan. I have been consulted on these decisions and I have supported
them as necessary to carry out our campaign against terrorism. But the
passage of this bill today will remove all remaining legislative
restrictions on assistance to Pakistan for both fiscal year 2002 and
fiscal year 2003. It is my understanding that the administration will
soon inform Congress of its intention to provide an additional $500
million in economic assistance to Pakistan to be taken from the $40
billion emergency supplemental.
There is simply no question that the United States should move
rapidly to provide economic assistance to Pakistan in light of its
cooperation in the war on terrorism, and because of the severe economic
crisis there, but I caution my colleagues against relinquishing our
role in this process. With the passage of this bill, we give
extraordinary discretion to the administration to determine the extent
and content of our assistance. While I support a bold and significant
assistance program for Pakistan, I believe it must have appropriate
congressional oversight.
The Pakistani government has requested billions in economic
assistance to meet its cash shortfall and to address its significant
infrastructure, education, and health needs, and I expect we will
provide $600 million to respond to that request. But at the moment,
there is no clear plan for how this assistance will flow, and we have
very little monitoring capacity to ensure funds are spent for their
intended purposes. Under normal circumstances, Congress has a role in
directing the use of appropriated funds prior to their disbursement,
and I hope we will be included in the current process as well.
At this point, we have not been informed of any plan to provide
significant military assistance to Pakistan. However, that could and
likely will change as the situation develops. There are no legislative
guidelines in place to ensure that we will have appropriate assurances
from the Pakistani government that the use of such assistance will be
restricted to the fight against terrorism. While it is my expectation
that the President would seek and obtain such assurances, Congress does
not currently require him to do so.
Finally, I am puzzled that this bill takes the unusual step of
waiving a provision of law on a bill that is not yet written: the
fiscal year 2003 Foreign Operations bill. I understand and support the
need to send a strong signal to Pakistan and to provide some assurance
that our commitment to them is long term, but I submit that providing
$600 million is a very strong signal. The Committee on Appropriations,
under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), has
responded with speed and cooperation to the President's request for
resources to fight this war. We neglect our oversight responsibilities
when we provide prospective waivers for bills that have yet to be
written.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill, but I urge my colleagues to
carefully consider these concerns as we move forward.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address my colleagues
regarding S. 1465.
As we pass this legislation today, I wanted to note for the record
certain reservations I have about authorizing the President to waive
sanctions against Pakistan. I am in favor of providing aid to Pakistan
and helping them develop economically. This development is crucial for
a transition to a democratic form of government. Our relationship with
Pakistan is especially important in light of the events since September
11. We must continue to cement our alliance with Pakistan and all
interested countries in order to maintain our campaign against al Qaeda
and the Taliban. However, I question whether waiving restrictions on
U.S. arms exports is the best way to help these countries.
South Asia, as we now know, is an extremely volatile area. In the
last 50 years, India and Pakistan, who both have nuclear capabilities,
have fought three conflicts. As we have seen in just the last few days,
the area around Kashmir continues to be a source of tension in the
region. Any weapons that we export to these countries could be used in
future conflicts. Do we really want to contribute to the instability of
this region by providing more weapons?
United States law prohibits the export of arms to government in power
due to a military coup. Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Act for
FY01 prohibits the export of weapons and military assistance to
countries whose duly elected head of government is deposed. Reversing
this policy without making any stipulations about the re-establishment
of democracy could send the wrong message to undemocratic regimes.
These are extraordinary times. Extreme measures may be necessary. But
the President has already exercised his right to provide American
weapons and military assistance when national security interests are at
stake, as allowed by section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Congress should not waive sanctions on arms export to India and
Pakistan unless the President shows that the assistance he has already
provided is insufficient.
If these sanctions are waived, there is no guarantee that the United
States has any control over the weapons exported. Our experiences in
Somalia, Iran, Iraq, an Afghanistan demonstrate this. How do we know
that American weapons will not fall into the hands of potential enemies
and threaten our troops at a future date? The Taliban may own up to 100
Stinger missiles that were provided by the United States in the 1980s
for their clash with the Soviet Union.
As I mentioned earlier, I worry about the message that the United
States sends to undemocratic regimes by allowing exports to countries
without stipulations about the establishment of democracy. To allow
such a waiver regardless of a country's human rights standards violates
one of the central tenets of U.S. foreign policy. Congress should
exercise caution, for allowing such waivers now may lead to broader
waivers later. The fight against terrorism should not be at the expense
of our principles.
Madam Speaker, instead of providing military aid, the United States
should target its aid toward the more immediate needs of the people of
Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India rank No. 127 and No. 114,
respectively, in the U.N.'s Human Development Index. More weapons will
not move them up in these rankings. The United States should provide
economic assistance to the people of Pakistan and India--not more
weapons.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise in support of S. 1465,
a bill that would waive certain restrictions on U.S. assistance to
Pakistan.
While we need to attempt to be helpful to President Musharraf for
permitting the United States access to its bases and in an attempt to
build a relationship with Pakistan, I am very concerned about working
too closely with Pakistan at this point and providing for them to have
too much of a role in forming the future Government of Afghanistan.
In the past, the Government of Pakistan and President Musharraf have
given to the Taliban the support they needed to take and stay in power.
Pakistani military officials have guided and counseled Taliban military
leaders in their war against the National Alliance. Indeed without the
support of Pakistan the Taliban would not even exist.
The Taliban originated from Islamic fundamentalist religious schools
in Pakistan. President Musharraf and other Pakistani leaders throughout
the years have provided the
[[Page H6798]]
Taliban a lifetime by giving it military, economic, and logistical
support.
As Secretary Powell seeks to be helpful to the Afghans as they
attempt to form a new government I would hope that we do not take
Pakistani advice to install a ``reinvented'' Taliban in power.
We should also not forget that Pakistan, bin Laden, and the Taliban
have been responsible for terrorist acts that have led to the deaths of
innocent Indian civilians in Kashmir and throughout India for many
years.
Pakistan has used its military against India time and time again.
Given that, while it makes sense to give Pakistan economic support I do
not believe that it is wise to give it military support until we are
clear about the way in which it intends to use that support.
Accordingly, I reluctantly support S. 1465.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for
S. 1465, a bill authorizing the President to exercise waivers of
foreign assistance restrictions with respect to Pakistan through
September 30, 2003. This Member would like to commend the distinguished
gentleman from kansas serving in the other body, Mr. Brownback, who
previously served in this body, for his commitment to develop an
expertise in South Asian and Central Asian issues and for introducing
S. 1465. This Member would also like to thank the gentleman from
Illinois, the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr.
Hyde, for expeditiously moving this measure to the floor.
Pakistan is located in a neighborhood where its alignment with the
United States during the cold war was neither an easy nor popular
choice, and yet Pakistan served well as an ally to the United States
during that era. Following the unspeakable and horrific terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, the world has entered a new era, and, to
its credit, Pakistan has once again made a choice that was neither easy
nor popular--that is, to align itself with the United States in the war
against global terrorism.
Madam Speaker, this legislation provides President Bush with the
tools he needs to encourage Pakistan's continued participation in
United States efforts to combat terrorism. It provides the President
with the opportunity to provide increased assistance to Pakistan is
critical and very appropriate at this time.
However, this Member would note that even if the terrorist attacks
had not occurred, reviewing current sanctions against Pakistan, as
provided in S. 1465, would have been appropriate. Following the October
12, 1999, unfortunate, but bloodless coup, which brought him to power,
General Musharraf has abided by the Pakistani Supreme Court's
prescribed timetable for reinstating local elections, and he continues
to promise that Pakistan will conduct Federal elections in October
2002. Additionally, freedom of the press appears to be improving
according to the Pakistan Country Report on Human Rights Practices for
2000. While the Pakistani economy continues to suffer, reports indicate
that General Musharraf's administration has made progress in improving
transparency and in liberalizing trade. Certainly, these steps would
have warranted the consideration of resuming foreign assistance which
could foster continued improvements in these areas. It could also
assist in supporting improvements in other human rights areas.
Madam Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to support S.
1465.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1465 but do so
with some serious reservations. While I think we all agree that the
President needs a significant amount of flexibility in order to
effectively prosecute the war on terrorism, I believe we should be
careful about the types of assistance that could flow to Pakistan under
this particular proposal.
Clearly, everyone supports the provision of economic assistance to
Pakistan. Among the poorest nations in the world, Pakistan was, until a
recent rescheduling, in default on U.S. loans and continues to need
assistance with its massive foreign debt. In addition, the Pakistani
economy remains weak although General Musharaff should be given credit
for adhering to the structural adjustment plan required by the
International Monetary Fund. Pakistan should also be given assistance
to provide health care and education. Life expectancy is low, infant
mortality is high, and too many of Pakistan's children are educated in
Madrassas that provide only lessons in hatred.
The problem with this bill is that it opens the door to a significant
new arms relationship with Pakistan and before the United States even
considers going down that road, we must consider who the arms are
likely to be used against. It is clear from looking at Pakistan's
immediate neighbors that the threats to Pakistan are low. In
Afghanistan, the expectations for a post-Taliban government are that it
would not be a threat to Pakistan. Since China is Pakistan's long-time
partner on nuclear and missile-related technologies, it is unlikely
Pakistan would use the weapons there. There are tensions between Iran
and Pakistan but they don't seem to rise to the level of armed
conflict. That leaves India, which is where any weapons we provide are
likely to be used. We should think long and hard before we agree to
supply Pakistan with any weapons or spare parts that would be used
against India. India strongly supports the U.S.-led coalition against
terrorism and does so without preconditions or reservations. Now is not
the time for the U.S. to abandon its democratic friends in South Asia,
or elsewhere.
One final point, Madam Speaker, we should remember that among the
sanctions we are waiving here today are those imposed because of the
October 1999 coup in Pakistan. The message from this waiver must not be
that democracy is no longer important. In fact, the one lesson we
should draw from the current situation is that democracy remains the
solution to extremism everywhere. We must continue to urge Pakistan to
return to democracy as soon as possible.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation, which will allow for the temporary waiver of economic
restrictions with respect to Pakistan.
We currently find ourselves involved in a military action far from
home. This is only possible due to the coordinated efforts of many
nations that have demonstrated their commitment to eliminating
terrorism from the earth. Pakistan has contributed mightily to our
efforts in Afghanistan, both diplomatically and otherwise.
Madam Speaker, President Clinton imposed sanctions on Pakistan and
India for their dual nuclear tests in 1998 under the Glenn Amendment of
the Arms Export Control Act. In addition, the October 1999 overthrow of
the democratically elected government of Pakistan triggered additional
sanctions under the Foreign Appropriations Act. Foreign Assistance Act
also imposed restrictions on Pakistan for arrearages in bilateral debt
payments. On September 22, 2001, President Bush triggered waivers to
lift remaining sanctions on Pakistan as a good faith gesture towards
this nation for its cooperation in eradicating terrorism. The Congress
must also demonstrate its commitment to our allies in this struggle,
while respecting the long-term policy goals our sanctions are designed
to promote and protect. This legislation achieves this goal by granting
the President waiver authority for fiscal year 2002. However, for the
following fiscal year, the waiver is only extended if the President can
show this Body that the waiver would ``facilitate the transition to
democratic rule in Pakistan; and is important to United States efforts
to respond to, deter, or prevent acts of international terrorism.''
Thus, this House ensures that we do not disregard our commitment to the
spread of viable stable democracies throughout the world, while
recognizing the need to commit resources to those nations willing to
facilitate the development of peace throughout both the region and the
world.
Pakistan is also given the opportunity to continue its support of our
military efforts in FY 2003 by allowing the President to waive arms
control export laws if President Bush deems it necessary and notifies
Congress 45 days in advance. The leadership of Pakistan, though not
elected, has recognized the urgent need for the Peace of Nations in
this world. Despite sustained protests and alleged destabilization by
Taliban infiltrators from Afghanistan, the leadership of Pakistan has
proven that it has renounced its ties to the Taliban, and agreed to
play a decisive role in the shaping of a new democracy within
Afghanistan. Our actions here today ensure that we will play a decisive
role in pursuing the goal of democracy within Pakistan.
Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill ensures that we do not sell
ourselves for the sake of our pursuit of the Taliban. This legislation
``sunsets'' on October 1, 2003. By limiting the scope of this waiver,
we respect our constitutional function of checking the power of the
executive to pursue policies against our long-term interests longer
than necessary for the swift administration of justice
Though the times we live in are uncertain, we are not desperate, for
our cause is just and our will strong. This Congress is charged to face
unpleasant realities for the sake of our children's futures. S. 1465
does this, and in a way that ensures the children of Pakistan might
someday know democracy, too.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1465.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________