The House bill, authored by Rep. Benjamin Gilman who chairs the International Relations Committee, was unlike the Senate bill called the Brownback Amendment which suspended the sanctions for five years. Both bills, however, have to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee before they can be enacted. This can be tricky as several House members, particularly those belonging to the Congressional Caucus on India, have expressed qualms about the provision in the Brownback Amendment to repeal the Pressler Amendment which bans arms and security assistance to Pakistan.

American businesses, and especially the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC), which lobbied feverishly to get the Brownback Amendment adopted, are fearful that opposition by some House members could torpedo the billaltogether and put paid to any chance of a five-year break in the sanctions.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, the co-chair of the India Caucus, said that while he welcomed the Gilman legislation that was passed as part of the Security Assistance Act of 1999, he rather wished that the repeal of the sanctions was permanent. He also joined in the chorus of those criticising the Brownback bill for its provision to repeal the Pressler Amendment.

``Although I welcome the step taken by the House, I firmly believe that a permanent waiver authority for the President is the more appropriate course for Congress to take,'' Ackerman said. ``Sanctions are too blunt a weapon to be used by us against a sister democracy such as India. Sanctions aren't good for India and they aren't good for America either.''

``Besides the stigma,'' he added, ``sanctions are bad for expanding trade and investment with both countries. Additionally, it's politically unrealistic to expect that friendly relations can bloom between the two democracieswhen the atmosphere is fouled with the threat of sanctions.''

Ackerman said it was imperative that ``when we are dealing with co-equals -- especially an ancient and proud civilisation such as India -- one should not dictate or offer preconditions to the other.'' Thus, he declared, ``We have to waive them (the sanctions) -- and waive them permanently; it's very important for US-India relations.'' A senior and influential member of the International Relations Committee, Ackerman said he would be working with his colleagues on the panel ``to enact a permanent waiver authority.''

Expressing his deep concern over the Senate's efforts to repeal Pressler, Ackerman warned, ``We will be sending the wrong signal to the national security apparatus in Pakistan by repealing the Pressler Amendment at this critical time.''

``Now is not the time to be repealing the Pressler Amendment,'' he emphasised. ``Pakistan is engaged in a proxy war in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has also needlessly raised theissue of the validity of the Line of Control. Repealing Pressler any time soon will be seen as a `reward' for Pakistan's unacceptable behaviour in Jammu and Kashmir.''

``Any lifting of Pressler must be clearly tied to Pakistan ensuring the pullout of the invading Islamic forces from Kargil and Islamabad's unambiguous acceptance of the well-demarcated Line of Control,'' he added.

Ackerman also urged the administration ``to remove all those firms and research laboratories that are not directly linked to India's nuclear and missile programme'' from the Entities List. ``Similarly, I urge that all unnecessary restrictions placed on India scientists by the administration in the wake of the nuclear tests be revoked.''