[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            AID TO PAKISTAN

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, the Clinton administration has 
announced that it wishes to lift the restriction on aid to Pakistan on 
a one-time basis and deliver F-16 aircraft to that country. As my 
colleagues may know, such aid is now prohibited under the so-called 
Pressler amendment, a law which says that Pakistan cannot receive 
military or certain other forms of aid so long as the President fails 
to certify that the country does not have a nuclear explosive device.
  I am very much opposed to the Clinton administration's proposal 
because I think it will both increase nuclear proliferation and 
escalate the arms race in that part of the world. India will respond by 
seeking additional fighter aircraft.
  I find it very strange that an administration committed to nuclear 
nonproliferation would seek to achieve that goal by delivering aircraft 
that can deliver a nuclear bomb to another country.
  I am strongly opposed to the Clinton administration's plan. I hope 
the administration reverses itself. I think we need to reflect very 
carefully on the history of this amendment. It was passed in the mid-
1980's with the support of Pakistan. At that time Pakistan said they 
did not have a nuclear bomb nor were they developing such a weapon. In 
the early 1990's, President Bush was unable to certify that Pakistan 
did not have a nuclear weapon, and aid--including the sale of military 
weapons--was cut off. Any renewal of assistance, including a one-time 
exemption, would require congressional approval.
  I could perhaps see some logic if the administration were going to 
substitute renewal of some other kind of aid in exchange for Pakistan 
putting a cap on its nuclear weapons. However, make no mistake. I would 
seriously question even that type of approach. Unfortunately, all the 
administration seems to be seeking from Pakistan is an agreement not to 
build any more nuclear weapons. In exchange, Pakistan gets the F-16's 
with which they can deliver a nuclear bomb against India.
  This would be disastrous for a region that has already endured 
numerous wars and conflicts. It would mean increased proliferation of 
both weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons in that 
region of the world. In addition it would set an extremely bad 
precedent.
  Our CIA has said--and this has been published in the newspapers--that 
the existence of the Pressler amendment has played a role in causing 
Egypt, South Africa, and Brazil to abandon their nuclear weapons 
programs due to the consequences in Washington. This is the only law 
that exists on nuclear nonproliferation that has any teeth. If Congress 
were to repeal the Pressler amendment--even by granting a so-called 
one-time waiver--it would send a very encouraging signal to every other 
nation contemplating a nuclear weapons program.
  It appears President Clinton and Vice President Gore have not focused 
on this issue. I say this because the administration's new proposal 
runs contrary to everything they said in their campaign. It astounds me 
that this administration, at least the Departments of State, Defense, 
and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, is proposing to make this 
change.
  I believe this process is to a great extent being driven by a desire 
on the part of the manufacturer to keep the production line hot and 
build more F-16's. I understand there are strong arguments for creating 
employment opportunities for people in various parts of the country. 
However, there are other much cheaper ways to achieve this goal without 
destabilizing entire regions of the world and encouraging the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to place additional material 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I would like to request five minutes at 
     your earliest convenience to discuss nuclear non-
     proliferation policy.
       Despite repeated assurances from members of your 
     Administration, including Deputy Secretary of State Strobe 
     Talbott and Secretary of State Warren Christopher, I have 
     heard from several sources within the Administration about an 
     attempt to grant an exception to the Pressler amendment. As 
     you may recall, the Pressler amendment prohibits aid to 
     Pakistan unless the President certifies annually that 
     Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device.
       Mr. President, I seek a meeting with you to underscore the 
     importance of retaining the only nuclear non-proliferation 
     law in force currently. I would appreciate having a meeting 
     of no more than five minutes, which can occur in your office, 
     or during a morning run. Should such a meeting prove 
     impossible to schedule, I will raise this issue the next time 
     I am at the White House, or if you should visit the Senate. 
     While I would rather not raise this issue in such a public 
     setting, I think it is critical for the Administration to 
     send a consistent signal about the importance of nuclear non-
     proliferation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry Pressler,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, Mar. 23, 1994]

                   South Asian Lands Pressed on Arms

                         (By Michael R. Gordon)

       Washington, March 22.--Worried about an arms race between 
     Pakistan and India, the Clinton Administration is proposing a 
     series of agreements to stop the production of nuclear 
     weapons in South Asia and the deployment of ballistic 
     missiles, Administration officials said today.
       Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott plans to press the 
     arms control efforts when he visits India and Pakistan next 
     month, the officials said.
       While American officials have long been concerned about the 
     nuclear programs of Pakistan and India, Washington's arms 
     control efforts have acquired a new urgency because of 
     advances in the two sides' nuclear and missile programs.
       According to American intelligence reports, India will soon 
     field new surface-to-surface missiles and Pakistan is also 
     developing a new missile with help from China.


                       Opposition on Capitol Hill

       But a key element of the Administration's plan could face 
     stiff opposition on Capitol Hill. As an opening move, the 
     Administration is offering to deliver to Pakistan F-16' jet 
     fighters that have been blocked by Congressional legislation, 
     if Pakistan agrees in return to accept a verifiable ban on 
     production of nuclear material for nuclear weapons. When the 
     White House raised that idea on Capitol Hill recently it met 
     with a mixed reception.
       And all experts agree that negotiating the accord would 
     require overcoming difficult political issues in both 
     Pakistan and India, particularly in light of Washington's 
     currently strained relations with New Delhi.
       The Administration's effort also comes as Pakistan and 
     India have continued to differ over Kashmir and are 
     proceeding with weapons programs, including the development 
     of missiles.
       ``India and Pakistan have the ability to move rather 
     quickly to deploy nuclear weapons and are moving fast to 
     deploy longer-range missiles,'' said Lynn E. Davis, Under 
     Secretary of State for International Security Affairs.


                     proposals by the United States

       Washington is proposing several steps to restrain the arms 
     race. One is an agreement by India and Pakistan banning the 
     deployment of surface-to-surface missiles, which would give 
     each side the ability to launch nuclear strikes rapidly.
       Another is a set of separate proposals to Pakistan and 
     India that they agree to stop producing nuclear material for 
     nuclear weapons and agree to international inspections to 
     determine that they are keeping their pledge.
       That would still leave the two countries with small nuclear 
     arsenals, but officials say that ``capping'' each side's 
     nuclear potential is a far more realistic step than trying to 
     immediately negotiate the elimination of each side's nuclear 
     weapons stocks, which would, however, would remain the 
     ultimate goal.
       The Administration also wants to establish a multinational 
     forum to consider ways to build confidence between the two 
     sides and reduce tensions.


                       incentives for arms curbs

       To persuade India and Pakistan to agree to ban the 
     production of bombgrade materials for nuclear weapons, the 
     Clinton Administration is offering various incentives.
       In the case of Pakistan the administration is offering to 
     deliver weapons Islamabad purchased but never received 
     because of the Congressional restrictions on aid to Pakistan, 
     including F-16 fighters and P-3 anti-submarine warfare 
     planes.
       Legislation sponsored by Senator Larry Pressler, the South 
     Dakota Republican, and adopted in 1985 bans military aid to 
     Pakistan unless the President can certify that Pakistan does 
     not possess nuclear weapons, Because of advances in the 
     Pakistani nuclear program, the White House has been unable to 
     make that certification for the last four years.
       Administration officials say the Pakistani military wants 
     the F-16's because its Air Force's planes are getting older. 
     But experts say that letting international inspectors visit 
     will be a difficult political hurdle for the Pakistani 
     Government.
       The Clinton Administration is calculating that Congress 
     will support a ``one-time'' exception to the Pressler 
     amendment if an agreement can be reached with Islamabad that 
     would ban the production of nuclear material.
       Whether lawmakers would agree is unclear. Senator Pressler 
     has expressed alarm at the proposal. But Representative Lee 
     H. Hamilton, the Indiana Democrat who heads the House Foreign 
     Affairs Committee, has argued that the Pressler amendment has 
     failed to slow the Pakistani program and should be replaced 
     with a broader strategy.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1994]

         The United States Proposes Sale of F-16's To Pakistan

                         (By R. Jeffrey Smith)

       The Clinton administration wants to give Pakistan new F-16 
     fighter planes in exchange for proof that the country has 
     capped its nuclear weapons program, Undersecretary of State 
     Lynn E. Davis said yesterday.
       The proposal would require U.S. lawmakers to take the 
     politically difficult step of exempting the F-16 warplanes 
     from a congressional ban on U.S. weapons sales to Pakistan 
     that took effect in 1990 after the country built its own 
     nuclear bomb.
       Some arms control experts and congressional aides have 
     raised questions about the plan, saying it could effectively 
     reward Pakistan for flouting U.S. warnings not to develop 
     nuclear weaponry and also may wind up provoking India to 
     purchase more advanced weapons of its own to offset the 
     Pakistani warplane purchase.
       But the Clinton administration is portraying the proposed 
     $658 million sale of 38 F-16s to Pakistan as a first step in 
     a new diplomatic strategy aimed to getting around the long-
     standing nuclear stalemate between India and Pakistan. U.S. 
     officials worry that the two arch-enemies might soon deploy 
     new ballistic missiles capable of hurling nuclear warheads at 
     each other.
       Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott plans to present 
     the new U.S. plan to Islamabad and New Delhi during a two-day 
     visit to each city next month, Davis told reporters at a 
     breakfast meeting.
       ``The basic premise is that you have to have something 
     worthwhile for the Pakistanis to pursue this,'' a State 
     Department official said on condition he not be named. ``You 
     have to start out with something'' that eases Pakistan's 
     military anxieties and improves its ability to compete with 
     superior Indian forces.
       Davis and other U.S. officials said that under the new 
     strategy, Pakistan would get the new warplanes only if it 
     accepts international inspections of key nuclear facilities, 
     proving to India and other nations it is no longer making 
     highly enriched uranium for nuclear arms.
       India would then be asked to accept similar inspections at 
     nuclear reactors capable of making plutonium for nuclear 
     arms.
       These moves, officials said, are meant to defuse tensions 
     growing out of mutual suspicion about nuclear weapons 
     development programs. Proving that both nations have halted 
     production would be ``a first step toward the reduction and 
     elimination'' of these weapons at a later date, Davis said.
       Additionally, both India and Pakistan will be asked to take 
     part in new regional security discussions involving all five 
     declared nuclear powers as well as Japan and Germany.
       They also will be asked to sign a ban on nuclear tests and 
     an agreement barring any ballistic missile deployments. But 
     the proposed warplane sale to Pakistan--which has been 
     aggressively promoted in Washington by the F-16's 
     manufacturer, General Dynamics Corp.--would not be 
     conditioned on these promises, just the nuclear inspections.
       Officials said the strategy reflects an administration 
     decision that its policy of low-visibility, patient diplomacy 
     in the Asian subcontinent has not made enough headway. They 
     said Washington has chosen to pursue a higher-profile effort 
     to try to fend off potential deployments of the new Indian 
     and Pakistani missiles later this year.
       Washington is not considering offering India any reward 
     such as F-16s to gain its participation, and some officials 
     predicted that Talbott will encounter significant resistance 
     there. ``Maybe they think they can get it for free, because 
     we are not aware of any programs [such as the F-16] for 
     India,'' said an Indian diplomat.
       Said Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), the sponsor of the 
     legislation that blocked military sales to Pakistan: ``I feel 
     very strongly it would be a mistake to * * * have a one-time 
     lifting of the amendment.''
       Several arms control experts who criticized the proposal 
     noted that last March when lawmakers asked Gordon Oehler, the 
     CIA's top expert on proliferation matters, which weapons 
     systems Pakistan might use to deliver its nuclear weapons, 
     Oehler replied, ``Our best judgment right now would be the F-
     16s.''
       But a senior U.S. official said that in response to 
     congressional criticism, ``we will find ways to verify'' that 
     the F-16s are not modified for that purpose. The official 
     added that as of now, ``we're not sure how'' this might be 
     accomplished.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 23, 1994]

                    Pakistan Nuke Cap Might Win Arms

       The Clinton administration wants Pakistan to cap its 
     nuclear weapons program in exchange for a one-time exemption 
     from the congressional ban on U.S. military aid, 
     Undersecretary of State Lynn Davis said yesterday.
       If Pakistan accepts the deal, the administration will ask 
     Congress to lift the Pressler Amendment and allow the 
     delivery of F-16 fighters that Pakistan purchased from the 
     United States, she said.
       Delivery was held up by the 1985 congressional dictum that 
     blocks all but humanitarian aid unless the U.S. government 
     can certify Pakistan is not producing a nuclear bomb, 
     something U.S. officials have been unable to do since 1990.
       Miss Davis told a breakfast meeting of reporters that 
     getting Pakistan to cap its nuclear program is part of an 
     effort to stem nuclear proliferation in South Asia.
       The proposal is for a one-time exception to the military 
     aid ban with the goal of getting Pakistan to cap production 
     of atomic materiel in a manner that could be verified, said 
     Miss Davis, who heads the administration's nonproliferation 
     efforts as undersecretary for international security affairs.
       Pakistan and India are longtime rivals that have advanced 
     nuclear programs. U.S. officials are concerned about long-
     standing friction between the two neighbors, and they hope to 
     get Pakistan to take a first step to calm the situation.
       Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott is traveling to 
     Pakistan and India next month and will discuss the issue with 
     both countries, officials said.
       Administration officials say the ban on military aid has 
     failed to keep Pakistan from attaining nuclear capability and 
     that a new approach is needed to halt the growth of regional 
     nuclear programs and roll them back.
       The plan would not require Pakistan to abandon its nuclear 
     program, but simply not to move beyond current production.
       U.S. officials see the F-16s, for which Pakistan has paid, 
     as a carrot that could advance the policy.
       Miss Davis said State Department officials are sounding out 
     Congress to see whether there would be support if Pakistan 
     agreed to the plan. They received some positive response.
       But Sen. Larry Pressler, South Dakota Republican and author 
     of the 1985 legislation, opposes the administration's 
     proposal.
       President Clinton has told the United Nations that stemming 
     the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a top priority.
                                  ____


   The Reuter Transcript Report--Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
                        Hearing, March 23, 1994

       Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD). Thank you very much, Mr. 
     Chairman, and this question is related to nuclear non-
     proliferation. It ties into Russia in the end, but it--I have 
     been concerned, and I saw in this morning's paper that you, 
     Mr. Talbott, will be leading the delegation to India and 
     Pakistan regarding a one-time lifting of the prohibition on 
     aid there to deliver the F-16s to Pakistan. And I can 
     appreciate very much your desire to try to open more talks up 
     there, but I think that is a--that is a very bad first step. 
     The secretary of state and you both pledged here that you 
     would not attempt to repeal that amendment, but--the 
     secretary of state did in particular--but I view a one-time 
     exemption to it to deliver the F-16s would be--would gut the 
     amendment and would leave us in a situation that we'd be much 
     worse off. And I might ask for your response to that.
       But let me say that it seems contrary to the positions 
     President Clinton and Al Gore have taken on non-proliferation 
     because the--according to what's been published in this 
     morning's paper, that our intelligence people have said that 
     the F-16 would be the delivery vehicle for a bomb if Pakistan 
     were to use its bomb. And it seems passing strange to me that 
     if the administration is going to offer something, some 
     exemption, it wouldn't be some area of aid or something or 
     this sort rather than the F-16s.
       Somebody has been very determined to get the F-16s 
     delivered, whether it's the state of Texas or General 
     Dynamics or Lockheed or whoever. I certainly don't see any 
     conspiracy here, but for some time now there have been--
     maneuvering around to get the rest of them built and 
     delivered and paid for. But I think that this would increase 
     the arms race in that region, it would not really do 
     anything--
       This amendment is the only piece of non-proliferation 
     legislation that has ever made it into law, and it seems 
     passing strange that the Clinton-Gore administration would 
     seek to essentially gut this with this effort.
       If there were going to be something to be negotiated, 
     perhaps it could be aid. I'm not suggesting that that would 
     be acceptable. But the whole thing seems out of context with 
     the things that you stand for in non-proliferation with 
     Russia and so forth. What is going on here?
       Mr. Talbott. Well, Senator Pressler, let me try to put it 
     as much into context as I can. And I do this acutely aware 
     that this is a subject that you and I have talked about for 
     the past month or so in connection with my own courtesy call 
     on you and, I believe, in open session as well.
       I assure you that gutting either the Pressler amendment or 
     our non-proliferation agenda is exactly the opposite of what 
     the administration has in mind here--in fact, quite the 
     contrary. We see the Pressler amendment, which I stress will 
     remain in force, which will remain very much a part of 
     American law, as an important and positive instrument to use 
     in accomplishing our non-proliferation goals for the Indian 
     subcontinent.
       When I came--I hope it's all right for me to try to 
     summarize one exchange between the two of us when I came and 
     spoke to you in your office. And I've--I appreciated your 
     being able to see me that day. You made clear that you do not 
     see the Pressler amendment as an anti-Pakistan measure or 
     directed against Pakistan per se, you see it as a means of 
     advancing the goal of non-proliferation, and that's the way 
     we see it, too. Our intention here would be to use the 
     leverage that we have because of your amendment in order to 
     try to achieve a verifiable cap on Pakistan's nuclear weapons 
     material production, in return for which we would seek 
     approval by Congress for some relief for Pakistan from some 
     legislative sanctions. And that would include the F-16s that 
     Pakistan has already paid for.
       I am just beginning now, Senator Pressler, to prepare for 
     my trip to the subcontinent, and if you would permit and if 
     your schedule allows it, I would like very much to come by at 
     some point in the next week or so and talk to you about this 
     in detail. Obviously, there are several features of this 
     which will be feasible only if we have the necessary support 
     from the United States Congress. This is a classic example of 
     where we need to work in partnership with each other.
       Senator Pressler. Well, let me say that I think that--it--
     it's--well, it's been the opinion of our intelligence people, 
     it's been printed in the papers that Egypt, Brazil, and South 
     Africa all backed off their nuclear programs in part because 
     of fears of trouble from Washington as--as a result of this 
     amendment, that it's had a broader impact than just there. 
     Also, it was not an anti-Pakistan thing at the beginning; 
     indeed, Pakistan supported it strongly in this room when Alan 
     Cranston had another amendment that would have cut aid off 
     immediately, and they said ``We're not building a 
     bomb anyways,'' And this was the mid-1980s, and in the 
     early 1990s the Bush administration certified that they 
     did have a bomb in violation of it. So it didn't start off 
     to be an anti-Pakistan thing, but I think it has slowed 
     the arms race down in that region.
       But it seems the logic of saying that since Pakistan still 
     has its bomb and the amendment has not been effective, the 
     logic of delivering F-16s, a delivery vehicle for the bomb, 
     in some sort of a settlement, it seems very ironic. If the 
     administration were proposing a one-time lifting of aid or 
     something of that sort, it would be more consistent with this 
     administration's stated non-proliferation of both 
     conventional weapons and--and nuclear weapons. The whole 
     thing seems to be delivered by a great desire to build the 
     remaining F-16s, get them paid for and delivered than it does 
     anything else. And that concerns me a great deal, because I 
     can't follow the logic of how delivering a nuclear weapons 
     delivery vehicle to a country that has a bomb is going to 
     somehow slow the arms race down there. That is my logic.
       Mr. Talbott. I'm reluctant to get too deeply into this both 
     because of the sensitivity of the issue and also because I am 
     beginning now preparations for this trip. But I'm sure that 
     the last point that you make is very much on--I know that the 
     last point that you make is very much on the minds of my 
     colleagues: that is, looking for some way to ensure that we 
     don't inadvertently create new problems in terms of delivery 
     systems in the way that we address the problem of nuclear 
     weapons per se.
       But I do assure you that the motive is one of high policy, 
     and the policy is one that you clearly support, and that is 
     trying to bring about a verifiable and comprehensive non-
     proliferation regime on the subcontinent. But if you would 
     permit me to come and talk to you about this, I would be 
     grateful.
       Senator Pressler. Okay, fine. Let me ask about the--about 
     Russia's sale of conventional arms or arms of any sort. How 
     much hard currency are they making from it, and are they 
     increasing or decreasing their sales?
       Mr. Talbott. The short answer is that they are--they have 
     decreased their sales significantly from the Soviet period. 
     Nonetheless, Russian arms sales remain a subject of intense 
     and sometimes difficult discussion with them and will for a 
     long time to come. The dilemma is the following.
       During the Soviet period in the Cold War, Russia--the 
     Soviet Union--used conventional arms sales as an instrument 
     of its foreign policy, which is to say, an instrument of its 
     political and ideological struggle with the United States. It 
     was--they were pieces that they played on the board of the 
     zero-sum game in the rivalry with the United States. That is, 
     they went out of their way to arm our enemies, as it were.
       That is no longer the driving motivation. The motivation 
     now is that Russia is trying desperately to make hard 
     currency in any way it can. It doesn't have a great deal that 
     it can sell in international markets, but it does--has 
     inherited from the Soviet Union a considerable arms industry.
       Our effort--and it's going to take time to accomplish it--
     is to do two things: first of all, defense conversion so that 
     plants which are now making weapons will make items for the 
     civilian sector--and I know that that was a subject that 
     Secretary Perry raised when he was in Moscow--and the other 
     is to get Russia in as many ways as possible to adopt 
     responsible export control policies.

                          ____________________