[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 93 (Friday, June 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6752-S6754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 983. A bill to prohibit the sale or other transfer of highly 
advanced weapons to any country in Latin America; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


              THE LATIN AMERICAN ARMS CONTROL ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I come to the Senate floor to 
introduce legislation designed to send a signal to the Clinton 
administration that the current United States policy of banning the 
sale or transfer of sophisticated fighter aircraft and other armaments 
to Latin American countries--which has by and large been United States 
policy for some 20 years--should not be altered.
  The bill I am introducing today would call upon the President to 
respect the requests of a number of Latin American leaders and 
prominent political figures to maintain a moratorium on the export of 
United States advanced weapons to that region. It would also prohibit 
the issuances of the necessary licenses for such exports unless the 
President first certificated that such sale was in the national 
security interest of the United States and the Congress concurred with 
that finding.
  The Clinton administration is currently in the process of reviewing 
that policy predominantly as a result of heavy lobbying by those who 
are seeking to open up a new front for high dollar sales of state-of-
the-art defense

[[Page S6753]]

technology to countries in the Western Hemisphere--particularly those 
in South America.
  Mr. President, President Clinton has a record he can be proud of with 
respect to the Western Hemisphere. The 1994 Summit of the Americas, 
hosted by the United States, to which all but one head of state in the 
hemisphere was invited, was hugely successful.
  Since that time, the President, together with his colleagues 
throughout the region, has endeavored to pursue the hemispheric agenda 
that the region's leaders agreed to during the course of that summit--
namely to strengthen democracy, increase trade, bolster national 
security and combat drug trafficking.
  I would respectfully assert that were the United States to alter our 
policy of arms restraint with respect to the region, we would be 
undermining efforts to implement those important hemispheric 
objectives. Heretofore, the President had been on the record in support 
of arms restraint, particularly with respect to sales to developing 
countries.
  Last year, President Clinton joined with other members of the so 
called G-7 countries at the Lyon Summit to underscore the importance of 
developing and transition countries giving priority to avoiding 
unproductive expenditures, in particular excessive military spending.
  The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is responsible for 
monitoring economic policies and balance of payments throughout the 
world, has also given high priority to warning against the dangers of 
arms purchases.
  Most recently, on June 19, during the Article IV consultations with 
the United States, where the performance of the United States economy 
was reviewed, the IMF staff, ``urged the United States, together with 
other major countries, to administer their policies on military sales 
to developing and transition economy countries in a way that avoids 
encouraging unproductive expenditures and heightening security 
tensions.''
  It would be the ultimate irony, after all the time and effort that 
the President and his administration has expended in helping to plant 
the seeds of democracy in our own hemisphere, and in so carefully 
nurturing those seeds as they have germinated and bloomed, if he were 
to make a decision that would undermine all of those efforts.
  I believe that a decision to alter our current policy to permit the 
export of highly advanced weaponry to the region would do just that. 
Over the medium term it could only serve to disturb the delicate 
regional military balance and thereby pose a serious threat to regional 
peace and economic prosperity.
  Mr. President, if you were to listen to American defense contractors 
you would think that our current policy has prevented them from earning 
even 1 dollar on arms sales to Latin America. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Between 1992-1995 the United States was the single 
largest supplier of weapons to Latin America, capturing more than 25 
percent of that market. According to the Congressional Research Service 
during fiscal years 1993-1996, U.S. arms sales to Latin American 
nations averaged nearly $200 million annually.
  No one is suggesting that Latin American countries, or that Latin 
American militaries do not have legitimate defense and national 
security requirements that can only be met from foreign sources. I 
would strongly argue that our current policy is absolutely compatible 
with those countries being able to fulfill their legitimate 
requirements.
  Sales of appropriate U.S. defense articles and equipment have and 
should continue.
  But, collective arms restraint should also be a part of any effort by 
regional leaders to prepare their armed forces for their role in the 
21st century.
  In that regard, I believe that the Governments of Argentina and 
Brazil deserve special recognition for the very significant progress 
they have made in this area.
  Mr. President, the region is at peace. Democracy is the order of the 
day. The demands on governments throughout the region to meet pressing 
economic and social needs have never been greater while government 
resources are severely constrained. Now would seem a perfect 
opportunity to make real progress in reaching a regional arms control 
agreement to deter future arms races, and thereby better marshal scarce 
resources.
  The entire region has just recently recovered from a decade of 
negative growth. And, while growth is now on the upswing in many 
countries, more than half of them currently have per-capita income 
levels below those achieved by them 10 years ago. The educational 
systems throughout the region need major infusions of resources to 
prepare the children of the Americas for the next decade. Currently, 
less than half of those children who enter the first grade remain in 
school through the fifth grade. This is a staggering statistic and one 
that needs to be changed. However, that isn't going to happen unless 
government resources are devoted to this objective.
  Perhaps that is why there has been no drumbeat from governments 
throughout the hemisphere that President Clinton abandon our policy of 
arms restraint. In fact, heads of state from Argentina, Brazil, 
Uruguay, and Paraguay have publicly expressed their concerns about our 
altering the current United States policy.
  They know better than we do, the kinds of pressures that they will 
confront from their own militaries once this proverbial cat is out of 
the bag.
  One military instititution after another will seek to justify demands 
for more and more costly defense expenditures in order to maintain 
parity with neighboring militaries--in some cases militaries that they 
have been in conflict within the last 20 years--Peru and Ecuador as 
recently as 1995.
  I am strongly supportive of efforts designed to improve U.S. export 
performance. Certainly we all want to see U.S. exports continue to 
grow--exports are critical to the health of our own economy and are a 
primary source of jobs for hard working American men and women.
  However, I would argue that it is shortsighted on our part to push 
countries in the hemisphere to divert scarce resources for 
nonproductive, one-time, arms purchases.
  These resources could be more wisely spent repairing badly eroded 
infrastructures and on other productive investments that will reduce 
unemployment in these countries and generate domestic purchasing power 
that will provide for a more stable and sustainable market for U.S. 
nondefense exports.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the legislation I am introducing 
today will call attention to the issues and concerns I have raised 
today, and hopefully will provoke a serious debate on the wisdom of 
altering a policy that has worked so well to promote U.S. interests in 
this hemisphere.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from former President Jimmy Carter in support of this 
legislation, along with the text of the bill.
  There being no objection, the bill and letter were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Latin American Arms Control 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It has been United States policy since the Presidential 
     directive of May 19, 1977, to refrain from making sales or 
     other transfers to governments of Latin American countries of 
     highly advanced weapons systems that could undermine regional 
     military balances or stimulate an arms race.
       (2) There has only been one exception to that policy, the 
     sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Venezuela in 1982, in 
     response to a perceived Cuban military buildup, including the 
     acquisition by Cuba of Soviet-made MIG-23 fighters.
       (3) While United States defense companies have not been 
     able to sell highly advanced weapons to Latin America, they 
     are a major supplier of military equipment to the region and 
     hold the largest share of that market.
       (4) From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1996 the 
     United States Government sold $789,000,000 in arms to Latin 
     America.
       (5) In August 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher 
     stated that his ``strong conviction is that we should be very 
     careful about raising the level of competition between 
     countries with respect to arms sales''.
       (6) There are historic hostilities and mistrust in Latin 
     America that can flare into serious conflict, as evidenced 
     most recently

[[Page S6754]]

     by the 1995 border war between Peru and Ecuador that required 
     international efforts to resolve.
       (7) For the first time in modern history, all but one 
     country in the Western Hemisphere is governed by 
     democratically elected leaders.
       (8) Latin America has just recovered from a decade of 
     negative growth, as measured on a real per capita basis, and 
     18 of the countries in the Western Hemisphere currently have 
     per capita income levels below those achieved by them ten 
     years ago.
       (9) Poverty and insufficient educational opportunities 
     continue to be a major challenge to democratic governments in 
     the Western Hemisphere, with less than one-half of the 
     children entering first grade remaining in school until grade 
     five, and with more than 100,000 street children in cities 
     throughout Latin American countries.
       (10) At the meeting of the Council of Freely Elected Heads 
     of Government on April 29, 1997, representatives of Latin 
     American governments on the Council discussed the issue of 
     arms sales to Latin American countries, pledged to accept a 
     two-year moratorium on the purchase of highly advanced 
     weapons, called upon countries in the Western Hemisphere to 
     explore ideas to restrain future purchases, and called upon 
     the United States and other governments that sell arms to 
     affirm their support for such a moratorium.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     respect the request of Latin American heads of government for 
     a two-year moratorium on the sale or other transfer of highly 
     advanced weapons to Latin American countries while proposals 
     for regional arms restraint are studied.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, under the Arms Export Control Act or any other Act--
       (1) no sale or other transfer may be made of any highly 
     advanced weapon to any Latin American country,
       (2) no license may be issued for the export of any highly 
     advanced weapon to any Latin American country, and
       (3) no financing may be extended with respect to a sale or 
     export of any highly advanced weapon to a Latin American 
     country,

     unless the requirements of subsection (b) are satisfied and 
     except as provided in subsection (c).
       (b) Requirements.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     satisfied if--
       (1) the President determines and certifies to Congress in 
     advance that the sale, transfer, or financing, as the case 
     may be, is necessary to further the national security 
     interests of the United States; and
       (2) Congress has enacted a joint resolution approving the 
     Presidential determination.
       (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any sale, 
     sales, financing, or license permitted by an international 
     agreement that provides for restraint--
       (1) in the purchase of highly advanced weapons by countries 
     in Latin America; or
       (2) in the sale or other transfer of highly advanced 
     weapons to countries in Latin America.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION OF HIGHLY ADVANCED WEAPONS

       In this Act, the term ``highly advanced weapons'' includes 
     advanced combat fighter aircraft and attack helicopters but 
     does not include transport helicopters.
                                  ____



                                            The Carter Center,

                                       Atlanta, GA, June 25, 1997.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC.
       To Senator Christopher Dodd: I have read the draft, Latin 
     American Arms Control Act, that you plan to introduce in the 
     Senate. It is a far-sighted statement, which I hope your 
     colleagues will endorse. Regrettably, the momentum for an 
     arms race in South America seems to be increasing at the very 
     moment that the Cold War is over and democracy has taken 
     root. Your bill offers an alternative to an arms race in a 
     way that respects Latin America.
       I sincerely hope your colleagues join you in this important 
     endeavor at discouraging an arms race in Latin America. I 
     commend you for your leadership in Congress on this issue. 
     Let me know if there is anything else I can do to further our 
     shared goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jimmy Carter.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from 
Connecticut in sponsoring legislation aimed at preventing the 
commencement of an arms race in Latin America.
  For the past two decades, the United States has prohibited the sale 
or transfer of advanced military equipment to the region. The ban, 
instituted by President Carter, has been generally maintained since the 
late 1970's, including during the administrations of Presidents Reagan 
and Bush. The lone exception occurred in 1982, in response to a 
perceived Cuban military buildup, when the United States sold F-16 
fighter aircraft to the Government of Venezuela.
  The ban was instituted during a different era, when many nations of 
the region were under the rule of military dictators. To be sure, the 
nations of Latin America have made important advances since that 
period. Politically, dictatorship has given way to democracy. Every 
nation of the hemisphere--with the glaring exception of Cuba--is now 
governed by a democratically chosen leader. Additionally, after the 
lost decade of the 1980's--a period of negative economic growth in many 
nations of the region--the region is beginning to recover economically. 
Indeed, the nations of the region have made tremendous progress in the 
past few years, shedding the statist policies of past decades and 
embracing free markets and free trade.
  Although the times have changed, the need for restraint in the sale 
of arms has not. First, although the region is advancing economically, 
it is abundantly clear that few nations of the region can afford the 
high costs that an arms race would impose. Second, an arms race in the 
region would be destabilizing--not only among nations of Latin America, 
but within those nations where civilian control of the military is not 
yet fully consolidated. The Armed Forces remain important institutional 
actors in many nations of the region; the increased emphasis on arms 
procurement and arms budgets could undermine the priorities and powers 
of the civilian leadership.
  In the past year, there has been considerable discussion within the 
Clinton administration, and among the nations of the region, about the 
wisdom of lifting the U.S. ban on the sale of advanced weapons. In this 
respect, it is important to note that many senior figures in Latin 
America have come down on the side of restraint. In April of this year, 
for example, the Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government--an 
organization consisting of current and former hemispheric leaders from 
leading countries in the region--called on Latin American governments 
to ``accept a moratorium of two years before purchasing any 
sophisticated weapons.'' In the interim, the Council urged governments 
of the region to ``explore ideas to restrain such arms,'' and urged 
governments that sell arms, including the United States, ``to affirm 
their support for such a moratorium.''
  This legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduce today would heed 
that request by expressing support for such a moratorium, and banning 
the transfer to the region of highly advanced weapons by the United 
States, unless such transfer conforms to an international agreement 
governing sales to, or purchases by, nations of the region. In other 
words, if a regional arms control agreement is negotiated permitting 
some sales but prohibiting others, arms transfers by the United States 
would be allowed, provided such transfers conform to the arms control 
agreement then in place.
  It should be emphasized that this bill would not ban all sales of 
military equipment to Latin America. Rather, it would merely continue, 
in law, the policy and practice adhered to by the executive branch for 
the past two decades: to not sell sophisticated military equipment such 
as advanced combat aircraft and attack helicopters to the nations of 
Latin America. It would permit U.S. firms to continue to sell other 
military equipment to Latin America--a market in which the United 
States now holds the largest share, and in which U.S. firms have sold a 
total of nearly $800 million over the past 4 fiscal years.
  Mr. President, it is the policy of the United States to promote 
greater hemispheric integration--an objective pursued in the process 
initiated at the Summit of the Americas, which was hosted by President 
Clinton in 1994. The policy set forth in this bill advances that 
objective by honoring the request of several Latin American nations 
that they pursue a regional arms control approach before advanced 
weapons are introduced into the region. I urge my colleagues and the 
administration to support this legislation.
                                 ______