[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    SOUTH ASIA, THE NEXT KOREA? A PROMISE OF EXTENDED SENATE DEBATE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana, and I 
join in his remarks.
  Mr. President, on a separate subject, on Wednesday, the Senator from 
Ohio, [Mr. Glenn] and I spoke to the Senate about our serious concerns 
over the Clinton administration's proposal to create a one-time 
exemption to the restrictions on aid to Pakistan contained in the 
Pressler amendment. Under the administration's plan, Congress would 
allow a one-time exemption to the ban on aid to Pakistan to allow for 
the delivery of F-16 fighter aircraft to that country.
  Mr. President, I just want to put my colleagues on notice that not 
only do I strongly oppose the administration's proposal but that it 
will not become law without extended debate in this Chamber. This is 
not a threat. This is a point of fact. My colleagues in this body know 
I have used this privilege only on the rarest of occasions. I would 
never do so lightly. However, in this case the stakes simply are too 
great.
  Let me explain exactly why I feel so strongly about this point. Much 
of this has been said before. However, it bears repeating as it is now 
apparent that the administration is not getting the message.
  I find it ironic that an administration claiming to be committed to 
nuclear nonproliferation is now attempting to further this worthy goal 
by providing aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons to a 
country that currently would be hard pressed to reliably and 
efficiently deliver the nuclear weapons it possesses. Mr. President, I 
simply do not understand the logic here. As recently as 2 days ago, I 
asked a senior administration official, Deputy Secretary of State 
Strobe Talbott, to explain it to me during a Foreign Relations 
Committee meeting. He could not.
  Let me give some background on the Pressler amendment and its 
prohibition of aid and arms sales to Pakistan.
  First of all, I like both India and Pakistan. Over the years, I have 
traveled to both countries and I like both countries. In the mid-
1980's, with the support of Pakistan, an amendment I offered was passed 
at the time I was chairman of the Arms Control Subcommittee in the 
Foreign Relations Committee. The amendment stated that aid to Pakistan 
and military sales would be cut off if the President could not certify 
that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. At the time 
Pakistan said, ``We are not developing one; we support the amendment.'' 
This was due in large part to the fact that during this same time-frame 
Alan Cranston had another amendment that would have cut off aid 
immediately under the presumption that Pakistan already had a nuclear 
weapon.
  My amendment--offered as a compromise--was adopted. About 4 years 
passed, and each year Pakistan assured President Reagan, President Bush 
and our CIA that they were not developing a nuclear weapon. Each year, 
the President was able to so certify and aid continued to flow to 
Pakistan. However, in 1990 our CIA and the administration determined 
that it could no longer certify that Pakistan did not have a nuclear 
explosive devise. Indeed, there is some evidence that they had not been 
telling the truth to visiting American Senators or to the President of 
the United States.
  As a result, all American assistance to Pakistan--including a pending 
sale of F-16's--was cut off. There are now a certain number of F-16's, 
I believe about 22, down in Arizona that Pakistan has paid for that 
have not been delivered. The manufacturer, Lockheed, obviously would 
very much like to complete the contract.
  Last fall, the Clinton administration announced that it was going to 
seek a repeal of the so-called Pressler amendment. However, after 
several members in this body--Members from both sides of the aisle--
protested, the administration withdrew that proposal. Let me add that 
the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in 1991 not to repeal 
the Pressler amendment.
  The Clinton administration's initial proposal was followed within the 
last few weeks by a proposal that seems almost preposterous. I can only 
believe that it has come from the Pentagon and the State Department. I 
do not think President Clinton and Vice President Gore are yet aware of 
it personally. Whatever the source, the administration now proposes to 
deliver the F-16's to Pakistan in exchange for an agreement from that 
country to cap its nuclear weapons arsenal.
  Probably never before in history has a country sought to promise 20 
to 40 fighter aircraft--one of the functions of which is to deliver 
nuclear weapons--to a country that has nuclear weapons and say it is 
doing so in the interest of nuclear nonproliferation. It does not add 
up at all.
  Now, the Pentagon says, ``Well, the F-16's will not have nuclear 
weapons mounts.'' That is, the mounts necessary to carry a nuclear 
weapon will not be on the planes as delivered. Mr. President, a third-
rate garage mechanic can make those mounts. They are very simple to 
make. Therefore, what we are talking about here is supplying Pakistan 
with a large number of F-16's--one of the best ways in which that 
country could deliver a nuclear bomb to India or elsewhere--and we are 
told it is to be done in the interest of nuclear nonproliferation. As I 
have said, that does not add up. What does add up is that southern 
California and Texas have economic problems. The administration wants 
to help. This involves Lockheed. It involves jobs. It involves U.S. 
sales of military aircraft abroad. I can see the desire to do that. On 
the other hand, it flies in the face of the goal of nuclear 
nonproliferation.
  Mr. President, another part of the administration's proposal that I 
find very strange is that we are saying to a country that has lied to 
us and lied to our President for several years, that if you will now 
agree to cap your nuclear weapons program--not to build anymore--we 
will give you fighter planes. That does not make sense. The same 
country that did not tell us the truth for all of these years will not 
necessarily cap its program based on a promise alone. Indeed, there 
would be no incentive to do so once the planes are delivered.
  The next very disturbing thing about this plan is its potential to 
create a renewed and very serious arms race in South Asia. For that 
matter, I am concerned about what it could mean in terms of an arms 
race throughout Asia. The catalyst for much of what is currently 
happening on the Korean Peninsula was a Clinton administration policy 
that sent disastrously mixed signals to the North Korean government. As 
a result, officials in Pyongyang came to believe the United States was 
not serious about preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in 
that part of the world. North Korea postured. The administration 
waffled. North Korea was emboldened, and today we have an extremely 
unstable and frightening situation that even the world community may 
not be able to contain.
  Mr. President, we still have a chance to prevent a similar story from 
playing out in South Asia. At the very least, we do not need to put 
ourselves in the position of looking back some months from now and 
realizing that we once again provided the catalyst for destabilization. 
The warning signs are there. Recently, Pakistan closed its consulate in 
Bombay. India responded by shuttering its consulate in Karachi. The 
Indian press is calling America another evil empire and I ask unanimous 
consent that a recent editorial from the New Delhi ``Indian Express'' 
be reprinted in the Record immediately following my remarks. Providing 
F-16's to Islamabad would add extremely volatile fuel to this fire.
  If we deliver the F-16's, India certainly will react by escalating 
its procurement of arms. Tensions will mount. Two countries that have 
been at war three times since independence in the 1940's once again 
will find themselves on the brink. Perhaps Kashmir will provide the 
spark to ignite the fourth war. Only this time, each side will have the 
ultimate weapon at its disposal. While the world focuses its attention 
on the Korean Peninsula, South Asia could find itself in a nuclear war.
  Mr. President, there is yet another problem with the administration's 
proposal. If we allow a so-called one-time exemption to the Pressler 
amendment, we will be certifying and accepting Pakistan as a full 
nuclear power. We will say, ``We will recognize you have nuclear 
weapons. You are not a signatory of the NPT, you do not allow 
inspections, but we recognize you as a nuclear power along with China, 
the U.S., and other nuclear powers.'' In other words, we would tell 
Pakistan--and other countries considering a nuclear weapons program--
that there is no long-term penalty for going nuclear. We already are 
faced with a situation that if Korea insists on keeping the bomb, Japan 
is going to get into the nuclear business. They probably are, already. 
We have a major nuclear race in Asia which is directly opposed to 
stated U.S. policy. A one-time exemption to the Pressler amendment 
would only serve to make matters much worse.
  Let me say that our own country is one of the chief proliferators of 
conventional arms, and I do not agree with that. Under the 
administration's plan we are now considering becoming a leader in the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are being asked to wipe the slate 
clean for a country that has not met the requirements laid down in law 
almost a decade ago.
  If Pakistan wants aid, and if Pakistan wants the planes, it can 
dismantle its nuclear weapons program, and our CIA and our President 
would so certify, as they did between 1985 and 1990.
  There are still other problems that surround this whole matter. If 
the administration wants to exchange some form of aid for a nuclear 
cap--and I am not advocating such a policy--why does it not propose to 
resume economic aid on a one-time basis, instead of sending military 
planes on a one-time basis, to test Pakistan's good intentions? Again, 
I am not saying I would agree with such an approach. I am only saying 
that it would be a more logical tactic. As it stands, the 
administration's plan is a very strange policy, indeed.
  Mr. President, I have worked on nuclear nonproliferation and 
conventional nonproliferation issues with great interest and a fair 
amount of frustration since coming to Congress in 1974. Before that, I 
was a lawyer at the State Department, and worked on it there.
  The Pressler amendment is the only amendment ever passed into law 
that has teeth in it regarding U.S. nonproliferation policy. If it is 
repealed, there is little else. Basically letting the delivery of these 
planes go forward means that the law is being repealed. So I ask my 
colleagues to take a close look at this. It is an extremely bad deal, 
to put it as mildly as I can.
  I do not know who cooked this up in the Pentagon. I do not know if it 
is driven by economic needs in southern California or Texas. But it is 
a very bad policy, and I think we should review it carefully.
  Let me say also that I think the people making some of these policies 
in the State Department and the Pentagon are totally out of touch with 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore.
  I see my colleague from Georgia. I know he wants to speak. So I shall 
wrap it up, and yield shortly.
  The point is that the statements being made by the State Department 
and the Defense Department are contrary to what has been stated by the 
President and the Vice President in their campaign. It is a very 
serious matter.
  Mr. President, these are some of the reasons I feel so strongly that 
the Pressler amendment must remain in force. This also is why I put my 
colleagues on notice that any attempts to weaken it will be subject to 
extended debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  I am prepared to yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Delhi Indian Express, Mar. 22, 1994]

                          Another Evil Empire

       Only those living in a world of make believe will shrug off 
     the possibility of the world's two largest democracies being 
     on a collision course. The U.S. is still in the process of 
     fully coming to terms with its status as the unchallenged 
     global power. There is, however, one area where there are not 
     only no signs of departure from the old cold war approach, 
     but positive evidence of efforts to perpetuate and even 
     enhance the traditional anti-Indian thrust of American policy 
     in South Asia. This was clearly hinted by the Raphels and 
     Mallots of the State Department last year that they were 
     meant to prepare the way for a clear-cut anti-Indian edge to 
     U.S. policy now seems obvious from the Clinton 
     administration's stubborn reluctance to heed the decision of 
     Congress to persist with the Pressler Amendment. Since then 
     Senator Pressler has found it necessary to reiterate, more 
     vehemently than before, his charge that the administration 
     plans to resume military sales to Pakistan banned by the 1985 
     amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. Pressler's assertion 
     that Pentagon is trying to achieve the aim of effectively 
     removing the amendment through the back-door, namely, by 
     making a ``one-time exception'' has now been confirmed by 
     Robin Raphel in her deposition before the Ackerman sub-
     committee. The ``exception'' aims to clear the long-standing 
     proposal to sell 71 F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan. 
     Pressler has warned that the withdrawal of the only piece of 
     non-proliferation legislation will have disastrous 
     consequences.
       Before the Soviet Union crumbled in a heap, the rationale 
     behind U.S. mollycoddling of successive Pakistani military 
     dictators was a blind hatred of the ``evil empire'' that 
     played footsie with socialists in New Delhi. It would have 
     been logical if in today's unipolar context, Washington no 
     longer found it worth its while to accord preferential status 
     to Pakistan. After all, in purely economic terms the lure of 
     an untapped Indian market is worth more than the price of 
     courting one Benazir Bhutto. However, precisely the opposite 
     is happening.
       It is to be hoped that no security wiseacre will emerge in 
     New Delhi to underplay the proposed sabotage of the Pressler 
     Amendment as nothing but a ploy to prevent Lockheed, the 
     manufacturers of F-16, from going under. It is some 
     reassurance that Narasimha Rao bluntly told Senator Pressler 
     last month that the removal of the Amendment would force 
     India to review its defence policy. The Prime Minister was, 
     however, being characteristically mild. The antics of the 
     Clinton administration call for an entire revision of Indian 
     foreign policy to take into account the threat from a 
     democratic, but no less ``evil empire.'' Diplomacy is one 
     facet of the counter-offensive, but New Delhi may also find 
     it prudent to retaliate in other ways, namely by curbing its 
     slavish endorsement of U.S. economic hegemonism. There are 
     risks, but India must be prepared to take them.

  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell].

                          ____________________