[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 65 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5539-S5540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  PRESSLER AMENDMENT: STAY THE COURSE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join the President, Members of 
Congress, and the American people in welcoming the Prime Minister of 
Pakistan, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, to the United States. I wish her well 
during her visit. I had the opportunity to meet with her in Pakistan 
just a few months after her re-election as Prime Minister in October 
1993. I enjoyed visiting her beautiful country. The opportunity for 
lasting peace and economic growth both within Pakistan and throughout 
South Asia should be a top priority for the United States and all the 
countries of that region.
  I suspect that it is largely due to the visit of Prime Minister 
Bhutto that the Clinton administration once again is publicly 
questioning the effectiveness of the so-called Pressler amendment, the 
law that prohibits direct United States aid to Pakistan.
  As my colleagues know, it was 10 years ago that I successfully 
offered an amendment in the Foreign Relations Committee to cut off aid 
and military sales to Pakistan if the President could not certify that 
Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The Reagan 
administration supported the amendment. In fact, they helped write it. 
Even the Government of Pakistan did not object to the amendment because 
they claimed they were not pursuing a nuclear option.
  In fact, my amendment was considered a compromise. Our former 
colleague from California, Senator Alan Cranston, had another amendment 
that immediately would have cut off aid to Pakistan, without 
Presidential certification, because he believed Pakistan already 
possessed the materials needed to assemble a nuclear bomb.
  In October of 1990, nearly 5 years after the Pressler amendment 
became law, the Bush administration was unable to certify that Pakistan 
was not in possession of a nuclear explosive device. As a result, all 
U.S. direct aid and military sales were terminated. At the time of the 
aid cutoff, Pakistan was attempting to purchase a fleet of F-16's from 
the United States. Because of the enforcement of the Pressler 
amendment, delivery of the aircraft never took place.
  Despite claiming to have a strong policy on nuclear nonproliferation, 
the Clinton administration consistently has shown hostility toward the 
Pressler amendment--the only nuclear nonproliferation law with teeth. 
In the fall of 1993, the Clinton administration called for the repeal 
of the Pressler amendment, but backed off after pressure from Members 
of Congress.
  The Clinton administration last year began to float a new proposal to 
grant a one-time waiver of the Pressler amendment to allow for the 
delivery of at least 22 of the F-16 aircraft sought by Pakistan--
aircraft that can carry and drop a nuclear bomb. The administration's 
proposal was originally unconditional, but was later modified with a 
condition that Pakistan promise to cap its nuclear weapons arsenal.
  In recent weeks, the Clinton administration has been at it again, 
proposing a $1 billion package of military equipment, consisting mainly 
of the F-16's. Frankly, Mr. President, I find simply preposterous any 
proposal that would transfer even one F-16 to Pakistan without first 
securing that nation's compliance with the Pressler amendment and its 
signature on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty [NPT].
  The latest Clinton F-16 transfer plan--like the first--is 
unacceptable. I am astounded that an administration that pays so much 
lip service to the cause of nuclear nonproliferation would consider 
providing Pakistan with aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
  Never before in history has a nation sought to transfer nuclear 
delivery vehicles to a country that has nuclear weapons and say it is 
doing so in the interest of nuclear nonproliferation. The Clinton plan 
defies basic common sense.
  Indeed, President Clinton's proposed military aid package to Pakistan 
would have the worst of consequences: 
 [[Page S5540]] It would strike a serious blow against regional peace 
and worldwide nuclear nonproliferation; undermine the tremendous 
economic progress that has occurred in South Asia; launch a nuclear 
arms buildup in South Asia; and perhaps most frightening, increase the 
likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. 
Indeed, any individual who has an interest in the future economic 
development of South Asia should have serious concerns with the Clinton 
administration's proposal.
  I recognize that a number of U.S. aerospace firms have a strong 
interest in this issue. The transfer of F-16's would mean new business, 
new contracts, and new jobs here at home. I suspect these firms are 
putting tremendous pressure on the Clinton administration to push for 
military aid to Pakistan.
  Mr. President, the aid package may mean more jobs at home, but it 
would come at a heavy price on a global scale. I do not believe any 
issue is more important to the security of all free people than nuclear 
nonproliferation, particularly in potential hot spots such as South 
Asia. I am concerned that the transfer of F-16's would spark a nuclear 
arms race in South Asia.
  The Clinton administration has traveled this same road before. The 
catalyst for the nuclear tightrope walk that occurred in North Korea 
was the perception by officials in Pyongyang that the United States was 
not serious about nuclear nonproliferation. I would have thought that 
after North Korea, the Clinton administration would have learned an 
important lesson. It does not appear they have learned.
  Once again, the administration is willing to be the catalyst for 
destabilization. The wrong signals are there. I fear India will be 
forced to rethink its current military force structure if Pakistan 
takes delivery of the F-16's, including resumption of their nuclear 
program, deployment of short-range weapons, and even development of 
long-range options.
  Further, Mr. President, we must consider not just the instability 
between India and Pakistan, but instability within Pakistan itself. 
With all due respect to Prime Minister Bhutto, I have very serious 
concerns about the ability of her civilian government to hold its 
military leaders accountable to civilian-based policies. I urge my 
colleagues to examine closely this military-civilian chain-of-command 
issue.
  We also must examine the inability of Mrs. Bhutto's government to 
respond effectively to the shocking wave of violence sweeping her 
country. Terrorist groups, such as the Harkatul Ansar--the Movement of 
Friends--are based in Pakistan, but have links to similar groups in 
Iran. The New York Times recently reported that a massive worldwide 
network of Islamic terrorism was traced to a university in Peshawar--
the University of Dawat and Jihad. This is not a run-of-the-mill 
institution of higher learning. Students go there to seek advanced 
degrees in worldwide terrorism. Graduates of this university have 
applied their lessons of death in North Africa, the Middle East, and 
Asia.
  Terrorist violence is a mortal plague within Pakistan, leaving more 
than 1,000 people dead since the beginning of last year. This wave of 
terror recently claimed the lives of two American diplomats, who were 
tracked down and killed in cold blood. Even Prime Minister Bhutto 
questioned whether or not she had the resources necessary to crack down 
on the militant organizations operating within her country. Others 
question whether or not Prime Minister Bhutto has enough political 
capital to take the tough action needed to restore stability.
  Therefore, I shudder at the thought of a nuclear capable government 
in South Asia that is incapable of controling its own military command 
or restoring order at home. This internal instability increases the 
possibility that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of a 
terrorist state or organization. It boggles my mind that President 
Clinton would propose an aid package that would add both to the 
Government's nuclear capability and to the region's instability.
  This fact raises yet another problem, which gets to the very essence 
of the Pressler amendment. Mr. President, the Pressler amendment was 
meant to be a strong warning to an ally: If you go nuclear, it will 
come at the expense of U.S. aid. The United States cannot condone--
through taxpayer assistance--the Government of Pakistan becoming a 
nuclear power.
  This policy has worked to a large degree. Pakistan has at least 
frozen the development of its nuclear program. A number of states that 
pursued active nuclear weapons research programs in the 1980's have 
abandoned them, including Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, and 
South Africa. They responded to American diplomacy and their own good 
common sense. It is worth noting that both South Korea and Taiwan have 
antidemocratic neighbors and the temptation to hide behind a nuclear 
shield is undoubtedly high.
  In one of the worst ways imaginable, the Clinton administration's 
proposed military aid package would be seen as a certification and 
acceptance of Pakistan as a full-fledged nuclear power--a signal that 
runs counter to our own support and insistence for the ratification of 
the NPT. Pakistan is not a signatory of the NPT. It does not allow 
inspections. Yet, these facts do not seem to be important to the 
Clinton administration. Just as ominous, the proposed military aid 
package tells other countries that there are no long-term penalties for 
going nuclear.
  Mr. President, I have made this point: The administration's proposal 
to change the Pressler Amendment is a bad policy. I urge my colleagues 
to review it carefully, but skeptically. Let me reiterate: I want to 
see Pakistan succeed economically. I want to see peace achieved both 
within and beyond Pakistan's borders. I want to see our nuclear 
nonproliferation goals achieved. The administration can achieve all 
those policies by withdrawing its proposed aid package and standing 
firmly behind the Pressler amendment.


                          ____________________