[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 40 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2660-H2661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ON ARMS TRANSFER TO PAKISTAN

  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. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
the impending shipment of United States arms to Pakistan. The 
administration proposes shipping 368 million dollar's worth of 
conventional arms to Pakistan, despite the recent revelations that 
Pakistan received nuclear technology from China last year. While I have 
often come to well of the House to defend this administration's foreign 
policy, in this case I must express my complete opposition to the 
direction that we are going by in providing sophisticated and de-
stabilizing weapons to Pakistan, a country that has repeatedly broken 
their assurances to us about their nuclear weapons development and 
acquisition intentions.
  A provision in the Foreign Operations appropriations legislation that 
finally became law earlier this year would authorize the transfer of 
$368 million in sophisticated conventional weaponry, including three 
Navy P-3C antisubmarine aircraft, 28 Harpoon missiles, 360 AIM-9L 
missiles, and other Army and Air Force equipment. This provision, known 
as the Brown amendment, after its Senate sponsor, passed the Senate 
last year. Although the provision was never debated in the House, it 
carried in conference. I drafted a letter to the conferees, which was 
signed by 40 other Members from both sides of the aisle urging that 
this provision not be included in the bill. But, owing in large part to 
the support of the administration and the influence of the pro-Pakistan 
lobby, the provision was included in the bill and became law.

  As far back as last summer, many of us in Congress--Democrats and 
Republicans, Members of both bodies--argued that providing these 
weapons to Pakistan was a bad idea, giving Pakistan's ongoing 
determinations to develop nuclear weapons, it involvement in arming, 
training, and financing terrorist movements and its often open 
hostility to Western interests. Last summer, it was reported that 
Pakistan received Chinese M-11 missiles, in direct violation of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime. These missiles are capable of 
carrying nuclear warheads, and can strike cities within a 275-mile 
radius. It was reported last year that Pakistan developed its nuclear 
weapons from a blueprint provided by the People's Republic of China, 
and Pakistan then gave this blueprint to Iran. Pakistan remains an 
unstable nation, where the military does not seem to be under strong 
civilian control, a country which supports the embargo of Israel and 
does not recognize the State of Israel.
  Then came the revelations early this year, based on intelligence 
information, that Pakistan purchased 5,000 ring magnets from the 
People's Republic of China in late 1994 and early 1995. These ring 
magnets are used to enrich uranium, a key component for making nuclear 
weapons. This transfer, which Pakistan has repeatedly denied to the 
administration and the Congress, is a direct violation of the Glenn-
Symington Amendment and the 1994 amendment to the Non-Proliferation 
Act. When the Senate and the Foreign Ops Conferees considered the Brown 
amendment, this information was not known. I believe that this 
information would most certainly have swung a few votes--had it been 
available.

  By way of a little history: during the last decade, Pakistan was the 
third largest recipient of United States foreign military assistance. 
Pakistan asked for the help of the United States in becoming 
conventionally strong militarily and in exchange promised--promised--
not to develop or obtain nuclear weapons. By 1985, United States 
intelligence had strong evidence that Pakistan was receiving United 
States arms while going back on its word about developing nuclear 
capability. As a form of leverage, the Congress in 1985 enacted the 
Pressler amendment, named for its Senate sponsor, requiring an annual 
Presidential certification that Pakistan does not have a nuclear 
device. In 1990, with overwhelming evidence of Pakistan's nuclear 
program, President Bush invoked the Pressler amendment. The United 
States essentially said: Yes, Pakistan has the bomb. Thus, all U.S. 
military assistance was ended--including weapons already contracted for 
and paid for but not delivered. Pakistani officials could not have been 
surprised, knowing these ramifications when they officially agreed to 
the enactment of the Pressler amendment in 1985. The only surprises may 
have been that they got caught and that the full penalty of the law was 
imposed.
  It is important to recognize that Pakistan has not agreed to do 
anything in exchange for the release of the seized equipment. In 1993, 
President

[[Page H2661]]

Clinton did offer to return all or some of the weapons in the pipeline 
if Pakistan would agree to cap its nuclear program. Pakistan rejected 
this offer. In fact, by receiving the ring magnets from China, Pakistan 
was continuing to act--in defiance of the United States--to further its 
nuclear ambitions.
  Finally, the administration came up with a compromise: While 28 F-
16 fighter jets would not be delivered to Pakistan--they already have 
40 F-16's--the 368 million dollars' worth of equipment would be 
delivered with no strings attached.

  What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is ending the ban on providing 
weapons to Pakistan, and receiving nothing in return.
  The delivery of these weapons comes just about a month before the 
general elections in India, Pakistan's neighbor. Tensions between these 
two South Asian nations remain high. Pakistan has fought three wars 
with India during the past 48 years.
  Clearly, India will see the delivery of these weapons as a slap in 
the face. The opposition BJP party in India, which has already gained 
in strength, is running on a platform promising a much harder line in 
terms of relations with Pakistan, relations with the United States, and 
India's own nuclear weapons development program. While this story may 
be buried on the back pages of American newspapers, I can guarantee you 
that the delivery of the United States weapons to Pakistan will be page 
1 news in India--to the benefit of those forces in Indian society that 
oppose the recent move toward closer commercial and strategic 
cooperation between India and the United States. The United States has 
in the past few years become India's largest trading partner. Why are 
we jeopardizing this important new economic relationship?
  Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against improved relations with Pakistan, 
but I believe this goal should be achieved through economic means. The 
Government of Pakistan devotes much too large of a share of its scarce 
resources to the military, to the detriment of the people. If the 
administration wants to engage Pakistan, let's engage them with more 
trade and support for democracy building institutions.
  Nuclear nonproliferation is and should be a top U.S. foreign policy 
goal in this post-cold-war world. The Pressler amendment has been a 
pillar of America's nonproliferation efforts. We should not weaken this 
law with waivers or loopholes.
  Pakistan keeps giving us every reason to keep the Pressler amendment 
in force.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be working with some of my colleagues to enact a 
resolution of disapproval for this weapons transfer, and I hope we can 
achieve broad, bipartisan support. Providing these weapons to Pakistan 
would be a grave error that would threaten the stability of South Asia, 
international nuclear nonproliferation and the interests and prestige 
of the United States.

                          ____________________