[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13860-13861]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 REPEAL OF PRESSLER AMENDMENT MEANS MORE ARMS FOR RADICAL MILITANTS IN 
                                KASHMIR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as both Houses of Congress work to lift the 
unilateral American economic sanctions on India and Pakistan, an effort 
I strongly support, another dangerous issue has been introduced into 
the mix, threatening stability in South Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, a provision in the defense appropriations bill, recently 
approved by the other body, the Senate, would suspend for 5 years the 
sanctions imposed last year on India and Pakistan after the two 
countries conducted nuclear tests. Last week, in this body, legislation 
was approved that would continue for 1 year the President's authority 
to waive the sanctions. These are worthy initiatives that I hope we can 
build on.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the Senate legislation also includes language that 
would repeal the Pressler amendment prohibition on U.S. military 
assistance to Pakistan.
  In 1985, Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act to prohibit all 
U.S. aid to Pakistan if the President failed to certify that Pakistan 
did not possess a nuclear explosive device. Known as the Pressler 
Amendment, after the distinguished former Senator who sponsored the 
provision, this law arose from the concern that Pakistan was ignoring 
U.S. concerns about proliferation, despite promises of billions of 
dollars of U.S. assistance. In 1990, President Bush invoked the 
Pressler amendment to block aid to Pakistan.
  Now, the Senate has acted to repeal the Pressler amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a serious mistake, as nothing has 
changed to justify the repeal of the Pressler amendment. Indeed, in 
recent weeks we have seen strong indications of Pakistani support for 
militants who have infiltrated into India's side of the line of control 
in Kashmir. Besides the so-called political and moral support for the 
militants that Pakistan acknowledges, there is growing evidence that 
Pakistan is providing material and logistic support for the militants, 
and that Pakistani army regulars are actually taking part in breaching 
the internationally recognized line of control in Kashmir. This is 
really in a cynical bid to ratchet up the tensions between India and 
Pakistan, and at such a time it does not seem prudent, in my opinion, 
to renew military transfers to Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, given the long and well-documented history of Pakistani 
support for and collaboration with the militants who have been 
perpetrating a reign of terror in Kashmir, there is every reason to 
believe that providing U.S. arms to Pakistan would result in

[[Page 13861]]

these American weapons being funneled to the militants.
  By arming Pakistan, we would be arming the militants responsible for 
the deaths of thousands of civilians in Kashmir, and who are now 
contributing to the escalating tensions with India.
  Mr. Speaker, there was an article in Saturday's New York Times 
entitled ``Kashmir Militants Seek Islamic State,'' and it describes how 
Islamic militants from several different nations are working to 
transform Kashmir from a tolerant secular democratic state, that people 
from many faiths call home, into an area under strict Islamic religious 
rule. I wanted to quote from this article by Times reporter Steven 
Kinzer. He says,

       The campaign is in part a legacy of the proxy war the U.S. 
     waged against Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

  The article describes how having succeeded in driving the Soviet 
forces out of Afghanistan and establishing a form of religious rule 
there under the Taliban, these warriors are now turning their attention 
to Kashmir. And quoting again from the Times article, it says that,

       In Srinigar, the summer capital of Kashmir, militants from 
     countries as far apart as Indonesia, Sudan and Bahrain have 
     given interviews asserting that they learned the art of war 
     from Americans and are now using their skills to fight the 
     Indian Army. Many are evidently using not only tactics that 
     Americans taught them, but also weapons Americans gave them.

  In fact, the article notes how an Indian helicopter was shot down by 
an Islamic guerilla using an American made stinger missile, and that 
about a dozen more stingers, each capable of shooting down a plane or a 
helicopter, are unaccounted for in the region. The U.N. envoy in 
Srinigar is quoted as saying that,

       Weapons provided for Afghanistan with large help from the 
     Americans and CIA are now in the hands of the militants.

  An Indian Army colonel states that, ``The militants are using not 
only small arms that they got from the Americans, but also Stinger 
missiles and American anti-tank weapons. It's not only weapons, but 
also battle-hardened troops. It's a direct result of the American 
policy in Afghanistan.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was an important 
turning point contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Yet, 
one of the unintended consequences has been the creation of a radical 
movement of armed terrorists, mercenaries and militants who have 
imposed a repressive regime in Afghanistan, are trying to take over 
Kashmir, and who seem to have a great deal of influence within the 
Pakistani government and armed forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that during the Cold War our fear of 
Soviet expansionism led us to embrace regimes like Pakistan that do not 
share our values of democracy and tolerance. But in the post-Cold War 
era, there is no justification for militarily propping up such a 
regime. Maybe we cannot completely stop the militants who threatened 
Democratic India as well as American and western interests, but we can 
at least make sure we do not give them what they want most, and that is 
American arms. Sending military assistance to Pakistan amounts to a 
guaranty that these American weapons will be funneled to the militants. 
And given this sad reality, we must not repeal the Pressler amendment.

                          ____________________