Congressional Statements

Rep. Pallone on Sanctions Against India/Pakistan

Congressional Statement
September 8, 1999

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 five 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 lift the sanctions, offered by Senator Brownback of Kansas, was approved three months ago. The House version of the Defense Appropriations bill does not address the issue, leaving the issue to be resolved in Conference.

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. 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. 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. Our State Department, in its public statements, clearly recognized which of the two countries was fomenting instability -- Pakistan -- and which one was behaving responsibly -- India.

Besides playing a direct role in arming and training the militants, there were strong indications that Pakistani Army regulars were actually among the infiltrators. As Pakistani-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 B an offer that our country has wisely refused.

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 is not involved in these kinds of hostile, destabilizing activities against its neighbors.

Pakistan has also repeatedly been implicated, along with China, Iran and North Korea, in the proliferation of nuclear weapon and missile technology. 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 important distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that our priority 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, to restore the growing economic relationship between the United States and India. The historic free-market economic reforms that India initiated at the beginning of this decade have created vast opportunities for American participation in India's economic future. India's huge middle class represents a significant market for American goods and services. The sanctions restrict our ability to participate in this emerging market.

Another problem with the Glenn Amendment is that it obligates the U.S. to oppose many significant loans to India from the World Bank and other international financial institutions. India's infrastructure development needs offer opportunities for cooperation that will benefit both of our countries, but loans from the World Bank and other international financial institutions are often necessary to make these development projects possible.

There is bipartisan support, in both House of Congress, for putting the U.S.-India economic relationship back on track. The State Department Authorization bill approved in this Chamber includes a provision, sponsored by the distinguished Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, to continue for another year the waiver authority granted to the President last year. Since that waiver authority expires next month, we need to take some action to lift the sanctions. I hope we can do something more permanent -- but without the ill-advised lifting of the Pressler Amendment prohibition on military transfers for Pakistan.