[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12713-12714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



WELCOME ACTION ON REMOVING SANCTIONS AGAINST INDIA, BUT BAN ON MILITARY 
               TRANSFERS TO PAKISTAN SHOULD BE MAINTAINED

  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, last week in the other body, the Senate, an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations bill was 
approved 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.
  I want to express my support for the approval of this amendment which 
was offered by Senator Brownback of Kansas. I have introduced similar 
legislation to lift the sanctions, although my proposals would 
permanently repeal the sanctions as opposed to the 5-year suspension 
provided for by Senator Brownback's amendment.
  There is one other critical difference between the legislation I have 
introduced and the provision approved in the Senate last week, and that 
is the Senate bill includes language to repeal the Pressler amendment 
which bans U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. I support retaining 
the Pressler amendment which was adopted in the 1980s and was invoked 
by President Bush in response to Pakistan's nuclear proliferation 
activities. Nothing has changed to justify repeal of the Pressler 
amendment. Thus, I will work for the Pressler amendment to be retained 
and will urge my House colleagues to maintain this vital provision of 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, we were again reminded of why the 
Pressler amendment should remain in effect, as we have seen Pakistani 
support for the militants who have infiltrated territory on India's 
side of the line of control in Kashmir. It is clear that Pakistan is 
the country that is promoting instability in this current conflict as 
they have often done so 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 is not involved in these kinds of hostile 
destabilizing activities.
  This is no time to be renewing military cooperation with Pakistan. 
Indeed, the Cox report, whose recommendations were implemented last 
week in this House as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, 
contain several references to transfers of nuclear technology and 
missile technology between China and Pakistan. India's nuclear program, 
on the other hand, is an indigenous program, and India has not been 
involved in sharing this technology with unstable regimes. This is an 
extremely, an extremely important distinction.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that our priorities should be to 
do what we can to promote stability and economic opportunities in south 
Asia. The best way we can do that is to lift the sanctions imposed 
under the Glenn amendment as the Senate has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that the Senate amendment 
has an important sense of the Congress provision stating that the 
export controls should be applied only to those Indian and Pakistani 
entities that make direct and material contributions to weapons of mass 
destruction and missile programs and only those items that can 
contribute to such programs. I have long been critical of the so-called 
``entities list'' which has targeted a wide range of private and 
government entities in India that have no bearing on nuclear 
proliferation concerns, but which have been prohibited from contacts 
with U.S. entities. As the Senate language states, and I quote, ``The 
broad application of export

[[Page 12714]]

controls to nearly 300 Indian and Pakistani entities is inconsistent 
with specific national security interests of the United States, and 
that this entities list requires refinement.''
  I hope we can enact a similar provision here on this side of the 
Capitol and that the administration will respond in a meaningful way by 
removing entities from this list that really do not belong there; 
thereby reopening important bilateral contacts that benefit both sides. 
To that end, I am drafting a sense of the Congress resolution which I 
hope to introduce this week.
  Mr. Speaker, repealing the sanctions would have a positive impact on 
the people of India. But I also want to stress that the remaining 
sanctions are causing American companies to lose opportunities to do 
business in India, while our economic competitors in Europe and Japan 
gain a major foothold in this great emerging market.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must get beyond the unproductive approach of 
confrontation and work towards policies that will promote improved 
opportunities for cooperation between the world's two largest 
democracies. Last week's action in the Senate, in the other body, 
certainly will contribute to that process.

                          ____________________