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 past few weeks tensions have increased in the area that is known as the `roof of the world,' and that is India's state of Jammu and Kashmir, located in the western Himalayan Mountains. For years they have been victimized by foreign militants, mercenaries affiliated with Islamic extremist groups, and supported by Pakistan, who have imposed a reign of terror on the inhabitants of the state, and this spring the Pakistan -backed infiltrators took over Indian defensive positions located on India's side of the line of control near the town of Kargil. India has responded to this incursion on its territory by exercising its legitimate right of self-defense.

Mr. Speaker, recently Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S. has complained of what he called a `bias in favor of the Indian position' by our State Department. Ambassador Kokhar was apparently upset about a statement made by State Department spokesman James Rubin at his regular press briefing in which Mr. Rubin described the Kashmiri Mujahideen as infiltrators from Pakistan on India's side of the line of control. Mr. Rubin also stated that insertion of any additional fighters from across the line of control will only increase tensions and prolong the fighting.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the Pakistani Ambassador complained about a pro-India tilt at the State Department, since for years the State Department has demonstrated what I consider to be a pronounced pro-Pakistan tilt. In fact, in the first few days of the current conflict, the State Department seemed to be going out of its way to suggest that both countries were equally guilty. At last week's briefing, the State Department spokesman was just stating the facts, describing the situation in Kashmir as it truly is. I hope that the State Department and other administration officials will not bow to Pakistani pressure in characterizing the current conflict in Kashmir . It is clear that Pakistan has had a major role in precipitating this current conflict. Pakistan has for years tried to internationalize its bilateral dispute with India over Kashmir, and it is a strategy we cannot allow to succeed.

Officially, Pakistan claims that it only provides political and moral support for militants in Kashmir, although I think it is highly inappropriate to use the term `moral' for a campaign of terror that has claimed thousands of victims, both Hindu and Muslim, and has made refugees of hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri pundits. Mr. Rubin's statement indicates a recognition of the obvious fact that the militants have crossed over from Pakistan . Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are reports indicating that these well-trained mercenaries are not only supported by the Pakistani Army, but that Pakistani Army regulars may be participating in the infiltration of India .

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that India has undertaken a defensive operation to repulse hostile infiltrators, and India has taken appropriate steps to keep its neighbor Pakistan and the world community informed about its actions. The militants are occupying strategic locations, threatening to alter the current line of control that was established by the U.N. in a negotiated cease-fire and which both countries officially recognize and honor, almost as a de facto international boundary. India could not stand by and allow this to continue.

During this conflict, India's Prime Minister Vajpayee has been in contact with his Pakastani counterpart, Prime Minister Sharif, and the Directors-General of Military Operations of India and Pakistan have been in contact with each other over the hotline installed to defuse tensions between the two countries. The U.S. Ambassador to India , Richard Celeste, has been briefed by both the Defense Department and the External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi. The week before last, India's Ambassador to the United States came up to Capitol Hill to brief Members of Congress, and other friendly governments have also been briefed.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken out repeatedly about the need to repeal the economic sanctions that were imposed on India and Pakistan last year pursuant to the Glenn amendment after both countries conducted nuclear tests. In fact, I have introduced legislation to repeal these sanctions which have done nothing to promote nuclear nonproliferation or to build confidence between India and Pakistan. What the sanctions have accomplished is to cause American businesses to lose trade and investment opportunities with both India and Pakistan , to disrupt bilateral relations in many other areas not related to military or nuclear technology, and to block important development projects funded by international lending institutions.

The current situation in Kashmir should have nothing to do with our efforts to lift the sanctions imposed by the Glenn amendment.

But the current situation does point to an area where I believe U.S. sanctions should be maintained. The Pressler amendment bans U.S. military assistance to Pakistan unless the U.S. President certifies that Pakistan does not possess nuclear weapons. Late last month, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Karl Inderfurth, testified before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee in support of repealing the Pressler amendment, and I greatly respect Rick Inderfurth, Mr. Speaker, but I believe he was wrong on this issue.

The justification for the Pressler amendment is Pakistan's long-term involvement in nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the Cox report contains 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, and this is a very important distinction.

• Now, Pakistan's involvement in supporting the militants that 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.

• Mr. Speaker, 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. While I obviously oppose repealing the Pressler Amendment, in any case we should be focusing now on lifting the sanctions imposed by the Glenn Amendment. We must not be pulled into intervening in the Kashmir issue, since India and Pakistan must resolve this conflict on a bilateral basis.