[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27335-27336]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          U.S.-INDIA RELATIONS

  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, I wanted to take this time to talk about 
some important developments in the relationship between the United 
States and India.
  In the past few weeks, the headlines from South Asia have been 
dominated by the news from India's neighbor Pakistan, where a military 
coup has deposed the nation's civilian prime minister. This was 
obviously an important and very disturbing development, one which has 
been condemned by me and many of my colleagues here in Congress. 
Unfortunately, there is often a tendency to lump India and Pakistan 
together, to see all developments in South Asia as a function of the 
conflicts between India and Pakistan.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we now see in South Asia are two nations 
moving in very different directions. While Pakistan is mired in 
military coups and economic collapse, India sticks to the path of 
democracy and economic reform. We must consider India, and take it 
seriously on its own terms, as the world's largest democracy, the 
second most populous nation, an important regional player in Asia in 
its own right, a huge and growing market for American trade and 
investment, a potential partner on security issues and the fight 
against terrorism, and as a country with the great potential for 
cooperation in such areas as environmental protection, energy 
efficiency, and infrastructure development.
  Mr. Speaker, this week we have seen some indications that U.S. policy 
is beginning to accommodate some of the important distinctions between 
these two countries. Last year, after India and Pakistan conducted 
nuclear tests, a wide range of economic sanctions were imposed on both 
countries.
  About a year ago, Congress and the President acted to waive these 
sanctions for 1 year. This week, under the renewed waiver authority, 
President Clinton has waived the economic sanctions on India, but kept 
most of the sanctions against Pakistan in response to the coup.
  Under the President's determination, Pakistan would be ineligible for 
loans from the Export-Import Bank and unable to participate in the 
International Military Education and Training,

[[Page 27336]]

IMET, program. It also means that the U.S.-backed Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, OPIC, and the Trade Development Agency would 
not be able to operate in Pakistan.
  A White House National Security Council spokesman stated that the 
different treatment of the two countries reflects the reality that 
things have changed for the worst in Pakistan, and that there can be no 
business as usual in Pakistan until an elected government is restored. 
I hope that our government will stick with that policy.
  More important, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the administration not to 
use the prospect of reopening military assistance to Pakistan as an 
inducement to the military coup leaders. This is particularly timely in 
light of recent reports of serious border attacks against India by 
Pakistani troops in Kashmir.
  Secretary of State Albright has called on the Pakistani side to 
withdraw from the line of control in Kashmir. Given the evidence that 
the hard-liners now in charge of Pakistan were in large part 
responsible for launching the aggression against India last spring, 
maintaining the ban on military assistance to Pakistan makes very good 
sense.
  Following the recent nationwide elections in India, a new governing 
coalition led by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of the BJP has 
been sworn in. While Mr. Vajpayee and his party were in power prior to 
last month's voting, the recent elections have given him a stronger 
majority, allowing for greater political stability.
  The new government has wasted no time in demonstrating its commitment 
to move forward on a bold economic agenda. The government will review 
the existing foreign direct investment regime to bring in greater 
transparency, cut delays in project implementation, and create a policy 
to insure an investment inflow of at least 10 billion U.S. dollars.
  In the energy and power sector, the central government will work 
closely with the State governments on privatization and regulatory 
overhauls. The government will work to dismantle the administrative 
price regime. Improvement and expansion of transportation and telecom 
infrastructure is another major priority.
  In the energy sector in particular, the potential for U.S.-India 
cooperation is great. During his trip to India, Energy Secretary Bill 
Richardson and Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh signed a 
joint declaration on energy cooperation, which calls for cooperation in 
conventional energy projects, renewable energy, and clean coal 
technology. Secretary Richardson has also reported progress with his 
India counterparts in discussions on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I hope that we will see continued 
progress in these and other areas, and that the upcoming planned visit 
to South Asia by President Clinton will further advance the process of 
establishing a U.S.-India relationship based on shared goals, mutual 
respect, and appreciation for each other's vital interests.

                          ____________________