[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Page 20939]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



LIFTING OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST INDIA AND PAKISTAN SHOULD NOT BE 
       VEHICLE FOR LIFTING BAN ON MILITARY TRANSFERS TO PAKISTAN

  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, in the next few weeks, the House-Senate 
conference on the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill will 
address, among other issues, a provision that would suspend for 5 years 
certain sanctions against India and Pakistan. The sanctions were 
imposed pursuant to the Glenn amendment to the Arms Export Control Act 
more than a year ago after the two South Asian nations conducted 
nuclear tests.
  In the other body, the Senate, the amendment to limit the sanctions 
offered by Senator Brownback of Kansas was approved 3 months ago. The 
House version of the Defense Appropriations bill does not address the 
issue leaving this issue to be resolved in conference.
  Mr. Speaker, while I generally support the provision to suspend the 
sanctions against the two South Asian nations, there is one other 
critical provision in the Senate language that would, in my opinion, be 
a grave mistake. The Senate bill includes language to repeal the 
Pressler amendment, which bans U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. I 
will be sending a letter to the conferees this week urging them to drop 
the Pressler amendment repeal and to just stick to suspending the Glenn 
amendment sanctions that were imposed last year, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I believe we must retain the Pressler amendment, which was adopted in 
the 1980s and was invoked by President Bush in response to Pakistan's 
nuclear proliferation activities. And nothing has changed to justify 
repeal of Pressler.
  Earlier this year, we were again reminded of why the Pressler 
amendment should remain in effect. Pakistan provoked a serious crisis 
in Kashmir by supporting the incursion of militants into territory on 
India's side of the Line of Control in Kashmir in the spring. Given 
that the two countries have become nuclear powers, the conflict in 
Kashmir grabbed the world's attention.
  Fortunately, India responded in a restrained and responsible way, 
using measured and appropriate force to protect its territory without 
precipitating a wider war. And our State Department, in its public 
statements, clearly recognized which of the two countries was fomenting 
instability, and that is Pakistan, and which was behaving responsibly, 
and that was India.
  Besides playing a direct role in arming and training the militants, 
there were strong indications that the Pakistani Army regulars were 
actually among the infiltrators. As Pakistan-supported aggression in 
Kashmir backfired militarily, Pakistan tried to salvage some kind of 
diplomatic or political windfall out of its Kashmir debacle by trying 
to drag the U.S. into the role of mediator, an offer that our country 
has wisely refused.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Pakistan is the country that promoted 
instability in the recent conflict as they have so often done in the 
past. Pakistan's involvement in supporting the militants who 
continually infiltrate India's territory is an example of how Pakistan 
promotes regional instability and commits or supports aggression 
against its neighbors. India, on the other hand, is not involved in 
these kinds of hostile, destabilizing activities against its neighbors.
  Pakistan, Mr. Speaker, has also been repeatedly implicated, along 
with China, Iran, and North Korea, in the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons and missile technology. India's nuclear program, on the other 
hand, is an indigenous program and India has not been involved with 
sharing this technology with unstable regimes. And I think that is an 
extremely important distinction.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to stress that our priorities should be to 
do what we can. The best way we could do that is to limit the sanctions 
imposed under the Glenn amendment, to restore the growing economic 
relationship between the United States and India. But we should lift 
those sanctions in the case of the Glenn amendment without the ill-
advised lifting of the Pressler amendment prohibition on military 
transfers for Pakistan.
  The historic free-market economic reforms that India initiated at the 
beginning of this decade have created vast opportunity for American 
participation in India's economic future. The sanctions under the Glenn 
amendment restrict our ability to participate in this emerging market. 
And that is why the Glenn amendment is a good thing and there is 
bipartisan support for lifting it for the 5 years, but it has to be 
done without the ill-advised lift of the Pressler amendment and the 
prohibition on military transfers for Pakistan that are in the Pressler 
amendment.

                          ____________________