[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 75 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S6135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. GORTON. Last week, Mr. President, Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright traveled to Geneva to meet with the other permanent members of 
the U.N. Security Council. The purpose of her meeting was to convince 
the world's declared nuclear powers to join the United States in 
condemning India and Pakistan for their recent nuclear tests and 
somehow to prevent an arms race from escalating in South Asia. To no 
one's surprise but her own and President Clinton's, no agreement was 
reached.
  The foreign policy of the United States in the Clinton Administration 
has now come down to this. In dealing with the People's Republic of 
China, a country with a developing internal free market, but repressive 
of any political dissent, with systematic restrictions against 
competitive American products, and a blind eye toward billions of 
dollars of intellectual property piracy, we not only don't defend the 
victims of these practices, we generously supply the PRC with missile 
technology that allows it to increase in its already immense threat to 
its neighbors.
  The Clinton Administration gives ``Most Favored Nation'' treatment 
for China a whole new meaning. What it means now is, what China wants, 
China gets--even an American president to be greeted on Tiananmen 
Square, insulting the memory of its martyrs.
  And then we are surprised when India tests nuclear weapons, joining a 
club we founded fifty years ago. We react by sanctioning--
unilaterally--the world's most populous democracy. And we follow up by 
imposing the same sanctions on Pakistan, a long time ally, for a 
natural and justified reaction to India's tests.
  As Charles Krauthammer so eloquently put it in his column in Friday's 
Washington Post, the President:

     . . . is guilty of more than mere fatuousness, however, in 
     dealing with the India-Pakistan nuclear arms race,. He is 
     guilty of fueling it. While for years his administration has 
     claimed deep concern about proliferation, [he] has 
     shamelessly courted the world's worst proliferator of weapons 
     of mass destruction: China.

  Not only is the administration in large part to blame for the current 
crisis, but is now taking steps to ensure that our economy will suffer 
together with our national security. The President has decided to 
impose harsh economic sanctions on both India and Pakistan.
  It has already been made alarmingly clear that unilateral sanctions 
do not work. For the law the President stands behind in his decision to 
impose sanctions was designed not to punish other nations for flexing 
their nuclear muscle, but to deter them from entering the nuclear club. 
As David E. Sanger wrote in The New York Times on May 24, ``passionate 
national causes--particularly the urge for self-sufficiency--almost 
always trump economic rationality.'' Mr. Sanger goes on to say, wisely, 
that ``unilateral sanctions almost never work--precisely because they 
are unilateral. In a global economy, there are too many producers of 
almost everything.''
  The President has told the American people that he has no choice but 
to impose the sanctions, claiming that they are required under the 
Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994. What he doesn't say is 
that Sections 102 (b)(4) and (5) of that law provide the President 
authority to waive the sanctions in whole or in part if he uses the 30 
day delay allowed him before imposing the sanctions. The President did 
not use the 30 day delay. The reason for his rush to impose sanctions 
is clear. The President has no other solution.
  But unilateral sanctions do little to produce results. Instead, they 
harm U.S. workers, farmers, and families. My home state of Washington 
has a lot at stake in this international dispute. In 1996, Washington 
exports to India totaled $429.39 million and India was the state's 
fourteenth largest export market. Boeing airplane sales to India 
totaled $372.8 million in 1996 and accounted for a large majority of 
overall Washington state exports to that country. Most of the planes 
India purchases from Boeing are financed by the Export-Import Bank. If 
the President cuts off Ex-Im Bank loans to India, Boeing, and 
Washington state's economy will feel a major strain.
  Washington is the largest producer of soft white wheat, Pakistan's 
grain of choice. Pakistan is the largest market for Washington state 
wheat exports.
  During Fiscal Year 1997, Pakistan purchased 2 million metric tons of 
soft white wheat from the Pacific Northwest--32 percent of total soft 
white wheat exports from the region. So far in FY 1998, Pakistan has 
purchased 2.14 million metric tons of soft white wheat--37 percent of 
total wheat exports from the region, with purchases from Washington 
totaling $140 million.
  While American farmers and manufacturers stand today at risk of 
losing these important markets, their counterparts in Canada, Europe, 
and Australia are celebrating the shortsightedness of the U.S. 
Administration. For the U.S. sanctions are better for their businesses 
than the most ingenious of marketing campaigns. They are happy to step 
in and fill the place of American exporters in India and Pakistan.
  Mr. President, if the U.S. is the only country imposing sanctions on 
India and Pakistan for actions strongly supported by a large majority 
of their people, then the Indian and Pakistani governments and the 
Indian and Pakistani people will turn to nations that are not 
criticizing their actions for their imports. Airbus and Canadian or 
Australian grain farmers will benefit from U.S. actions, while Boeing 
and U.S. farmers will be left out in the cold.
  The President must take action now to resolve the situation in South 
Asia and end the sanctions. If he does not, the American people will 
suffer the consequences of his mistakes for a long time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered
  Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________