House Debate / Vote On Code Of Conduct On Arms Transfers Act

Ed. note: On 24 May, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) offered the "Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers Act" as an amendment to the American Overseas Interests Act (H.R.1561), which authorizes expenditures for the conduct of foreign policy for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 157-262. This represents the first time that the full House of Representatives has debated and voted on the Code of Conduct. The floor debate and vote record follows:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

May 24, 1995
Pages H5502-5528

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment numbered 16 offered by Ms. McKinney: After chapter 5 of title XXXI of the bill, insert the following new chapter (and redesignate the subsequent chapter accordingly and make other appropriate conforming amendments): [Text of amendment posted separately]

Ms. McKINNEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

(Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, today, I will offer the ode of Conduct amendment to H.R. 1561. My amendment seeks to give Congress - for the first time in two decades - a role in U.S. arms export policy.

As the law is currently written, Mr. Chairman, it is nearly impossible for Congress to stop an arms sale. Not since 1986 has a floor vote been taken on an arms sale, nor has a sale proposed by the administration formally been disapproved by Congress.

In addition to the lack of congressional oversight in arms sales, the economic cost to the American taxpayer is more than $7 billion a year just to support the arms export bureaucracy. U.S. weapons are being used in 90 percent of today`s most significant regional and ethnic conflicts. The weapons and technology that devastated the Iraqi Army only a few years ago, are now available to nations that are undemocratic, violate human rights, and are governed by dictators.

In 1993, the U.S. Government cornered a colossal 70 percent of the global arms sales market, and in 1994 U.S. foreign military arms sales were a whopping $12.9 billion.

America`s arms sales have skyrocketed since the end of the cold war. As this first chart shows, Mr. Chairman, U.S. arms transfers from 1990 to 1993 averaged $21.7 billion a year, whereas, from 1986 to 1989, arms transfers only averaged $10.6 billion. It is amazing and shameful that as America solidifies its post-cold war leadership and encourages global democracy, the U.S. Government sold $83.1 billion in foreign military sales to dictators with no congressional review.

Despite this enormous dominance of the international arms market and the `Boomerang Effect` against U.S. Armed Forces - only a few Members of Congress have worked to restrain this dangerous trade.

Additionally, America spends billions of tax dollars to finance exports to tyrants - highlighted by the second chart - while cutting billions from key domestic programs like veterans benefits, Social Security, and student loans.

Mr. Chairman, the Code of Conduct amendment would not prohibit arms transfers to any country. Rather it would establish a higher standard of scrutiny for countries receiving U.S. weapons and more congressional oversight of arms sales. The Code of Conduct makes sure that we look before we leap by providing four guiding principles for U.S. arms transfers.

History demonstrates that as a result of Siad Barre`s Somalia, Cedras` Haiti, and Saddam Hussein`s Iraq, our soldiers have paid the price for selling U.S. materiel to dictators.

The Code would require that both the President and Congress agree that providing assistance to a certain country is in the best interest of the United States. The code also gives the President flexibility. He can request a 1-year waiver for countries not meeting the code`s standards, or in cases where vital U.S. interests are in jeopardy, use an emergency authority.

The Code is endorsed by 275 organizations from Amnesty International to the YWCA and is supported by the European Parliament. Arms sales to unstable governments must end, and the Code of Conduct will be the first step in that direction. There are 102 Members of Congress who support the guiding principles of the code - democracy, respect for human rights, and nonaggression. I urge all of you to cast your vote in favor of the Code of Conduct. Let`s ensure that America`s leadership is positively reflected in our arms export policy. Vote for the Code of Conduct.

[some supporting documents deleted]

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the code of conduct amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia, and I would like to commend her for her tireless work on this important issue.

As written, our current arms transfer policy is reckless and dangerous. Over the past decade, we have sent weapons to countries who have turned around and used them against our sons and daughters in the Armed Forces. We have provided ammunition for governments who oppress their people and commit acts of aggression against the international community. U.S. arms transfer policy must be more responsible.

In the debate over military spending and foreign policy, we continue to hear that `the cold war is over, but the world is still a dangerous place.` Mr. Chairman, our current arms transfer policy is making the world an even more dangerous place. I thought we fought the cold war in order to make the world safe for democracy and human rights, not dangerous for U.S. soldiers and innocent citizens worldwide.

Opponents of this measure argue that the United States should not restrict itself to selling arms only to countries who promote democracy and protect human rights. They suggest that we should be allowed to sell weapons to countries which may not fit these categories, but who are friendly to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, Manuel Noriega used to be friendly. Iraq used to be friendly. Why do we refuse to learn that even the Devil can be friendly if he wants to make a deal?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McKinney amendment and reject the current reckless arms transfer policy.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my support for what the gentlewoman said for the McKinney amendment. This is a restrained and sensible set of guidelines which reinvolve the Congress in the way that it used to be in the process of arms transfers before the Supreme Court decision knocked that process out and made us essentially irrelevant.

This provides waiver authority. There may be times when a country that is bad on human rights or a country that is not democratic should get some of our assistance for other, larger kinds of considerations.

There is waiver authority here. Come to Congress, let us go through that process. I think it is a sensible, restrained approach to try and deal with the causes of regional instability in so much of the world and the fueling of an arms race.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia, (Ms. McKinney).

This amendment establishes a code of conduct for recipients of U.S. military exports and training. It gives the President the authority to decide which countries meet the four responsible criteria: promote democracy, protect human rights, not engaged in acts of aggression, and participants in the U.N. arms trade register. Those countries which do not meet the criteria would require a waiver agreed to by both the President and the Congress.

As we apply conditions on our military aid to other countries, so should we apply conditions to our weapons exports. It is outrageous that in our last four overseas United States engagements - Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti - our troops were threatened by weaponry that we sold to various dictators who were once our friends, and later our enemies.

As the only superpower in the world, it is imperative that the United States set the standard for responsible leadership. Congresswoman McKinney`s amendment would ensure our moral leadership by prohibiting the sale of arms to those countries that are undemocratic, violate human rights, or are engaged in acts of armed aggression.

Arms transfers to undemocratic countries which past administrations have courted for a variety of reasons, have often come to haunt us. We have spent precious human and financial resources cleaning up after conflicts which were fueled by our own arms transfers. Our own children have been endangered by the very same weaponry that we sold because of short-term foreign policy interests.

This legislation will protect our children in the future by creating a presumption against such transfers, but does establish a thorough, responsible review process for those sales that are in our best interest.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to support the McKinney amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a kind of an uncomfortable position because I do not particularly like some of the ways that the President has conducted foreign policy, and I did not particularly like the invasion of Haiti or the way he conducted our operations in Somalia and lost a bunch of American lives, but here is one case where I do agree with the President. The President has to have some leverage and be able to conduct foreign policy, and many times his ability to negotiate with countries that are buying U.S. arms is one way that he can get the job done.

So the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, is against this particular amendment. In this particular case, I concur with him because I think it hamstrings him in one respect, as far as his ability to conduct foreign policy is concerned.

But, in addition to that, there is another economic issue that needs to be taken into consideration. If anybody believes that a country that wants to buy weaponry is going to not buy it simply because they cannot buy them from the United States, they are just barking up the wrong tree. France sells weapons, Great Britain sells weapons, a number of countries sell sophisticated weaponry. If they do not buy them from the United States of America, then certainly they are going to buy them from some place else.

It will have an adverse economic impact on many segments of our society. If you go out to California and take a look at the aircraft industry, it is in a depressed state. It is starting to come out of it now because of the commercial sales. The fact of the matter is if you put these kinds of constraints on the sales of these kinds of materials, you are going to have an impact on industry in this country, and there are going to be a lot of people lose their jobs and those jobs will go overseas to manufacturers of this equipment in foreign countries.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sentiments that the gentleman from Indiana is showing in terms building up our own economic base here at home. It is a legitimate concern.

This amendment does not say that we cannot sell arms to Third World countries, nor does it say we cannot sell arms to other countries throughout the world. All it says is that when there are human rights abuses, when there are gross inequities in terms of how the country that is trying to purchase arms treats its neighbors, is overly aggressive in those issues, in terms of spending far too much money on its own arms industry rather than looking out after its own people, that the United States ought to take those issues into account.

It gives the President the flexibility of overruling these on a national security basis, and in any given year. So I think it does provide the kind of flexibility that is necessary to address the concerns the gentleman from Indiana has articulated, but it does put us into the immoral position that we are currently in where we are actual selling arms to our neighbors that end up using those arms, or to our friends that end up using those arms against us when we get into conflict.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I disagree simply because the President of the United States has the ability right now to put pressure on those countries by not allowing arms sales to them. As a matter of act, the President has exercised that authority already in a number of countries. If you followed what has been going on in the past several years, you will find there are a number of countries that even purchased equipment from the United States and the President has not allowed those purchases to go forward.

So he does have some latitude. It is a Democrat President. He is asking for this authority to be maintained. Whether it is a Republican or Democrat, I would support it.

The fact of the matter is there is an inconsistency as far as our foreign policy is concerned. There are many pieces of legislation which I have sponsored, regarding human rights abuses in India, for instance, that have not passed this House because the minority now, then the majority, would not support them.

So I find it kind of interesting that here is the President of the United States wanting to protect his ability to conduct foreign policy and, because of human rights issues, his party is trying to stop it, while at other times in our history when we were fighting for human rights abuses to be removed on other pieces of legislation, we could not get that support.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield further, maybe this kind of legislation would actually improve and get the kind of result that you were looking for in terms of your amendment with regard to Pakistan.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Not Pakistan. India.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. With regard to India in times past. The fact of the matter is, if we had a uniform policy instead of the hodgepodge policy that we have today, I think we would get the moral leadership of the rest of the world to support us, as we have seen today in the European Parliament, which is taking up legislation very similar to this.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I appreciate the gentleman`s contribution. In a perfect world we might have a consistent foreign policy worldwide. But as the gentleman well knows, we do not have a perfect world; we have an inconsistency in foreign policy. That is why the President, whether Republican or Democrat, has to have latitude in conducting that foreign policy that includes the ability to stop arms sales or allow those arms sales to go forward.

I am very sympathetic to the human rights abuses issue being raised here.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am very sympathetic to the human rights issue being raised here. This is a very, very complex world. It is a dangerous world. Even though the so-called cold war is over, we still have to have a foreign policy that will allow us to be able to deal with friends to make sure that they have the ability to defend themselves.

I might add one more time, if we do not sell them these weapons, we will make sure that they will buy them someplace else. Let us allow that the President of the United States will be able to make these determinations where necessary and at the same time protect American jobs by not letting them go overseas.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, the fact is that I have worked very closely with Members of the Republican side in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to structure amendments that are very similar to this dealing with funding for the World Bank and the IMF, which have received bipartisan support. The question is whether or not Members of this body want to provide this authority in the Presidency or whether or not we want to establish this as a national policy for this country.

We have gotten bipartisan support for such a policy in times past, and I would hope we would gain support on the Republican side for this well-thought-through amendment that the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is offering.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has again expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Let me just end up by saying that we have asked time and time again that there be a stronger voice by the Congress in the conducting of foreign policy, and the Administration has found that they do not want that to be accomplished. They wanted to keep that power in the executive branch, and I understand that. And we have not been successful in making those changes.

In this particular case, I think the President`s arguments are well founded, and I, as a Republican, find myself once again in a difficult position, but I am supporting the President in this particular case.

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think it is very important that we consider it. I would hope we would pass it. The gentleman is right. It is not a perfect world, but we have got to strive to make it a better world.

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

The United States has long been an arms merchant to the world, Mr. Chairman, but this amendment is not about the quantity of arms sales. This amendment is about who we sell arms to and who makes these decisions.

At the present time, except in rare circumstances, the executive branch alone decides what countries are eligible to receive weapons. This process has resulted in arms transfers to undemocratic countries that use our arms to maintain their own control and to oppress their own people, and in recent United States military operations overseas, in Panama, Iraq, and Somalia, our troops had to fight against hostiles armed with the very weapons we previously sold to them.

We sold $200 million in weapons to Somalia. We spent $2 billion fighting soldiers armed with these weapons, many times at the destruction of the U.S. soldiers and citizens.

This amendment brings Congress into the arms sales process without tying the hands of the President. This amendment sets reasonable criteria that have to be met before arms can be transferred, including promoting democracy, protecting human rights, participating in the U.N. arms trade register, and refraining from aggression. A waiver is provided for countries that do not meet this criteria if the national security requires.

Mr. Chairman, the McKinney amendment is a very sound amendment. It is reasonable and responsible reform. It restores the balance of power in arms sales between the legislative and the executive branches. It helps secure responsible decisions in this important policy area.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for bringing forth this wonderful amendment, and I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Let me commend the sponsor of the code of conduct amendment, and let me try to be as brief as possible, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of this amendment. I think that we cannot divorce American ideals from American foreign policy, and in the area of arms sales, I do not think we would want our contribution and our legacy to the world to be that we have sold arms to everyone and allowed for the continuation of the practice of war as almost a permanent vocation in this world.

So I would hope that we would support the McKinney amendment and the companion effort in the Senate because I think it moves us in the right direction, and even though it may be a debatable matter in some people`s minds, I think that for all of us, if we want to be on the right side of history on this issue, that we should, in the final analysis, find ourselves voting favorably for the McKinney amendment.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered in good faith. But it is slightly misnamed. This amendment is not about human rights, and this amendment is not about foreign policy. This amendment instead is about a philosophical difference that exists within the Congress.

Some in this body simply believe that all arms sales to our allies are wrong in all cases. They believe that helping our allies defend themselves and helping them defend our vital interests amounts to exporting violence. I disagree. Often selling arms to our allies may mean we do not have to send U.S. troops, and that makes sense for Americans. Moreover, responsible arms sales have for many years played an important role in our Nation`s foreign policy.

Obviously, opponents of arms sales to our allies could not hope to enact a complete ban on the practice, so they have come up with this lesser amendment.

But we should not artificially restrict our arms sales to our allies, or hold them hostage to interpretations of vague definitions contained in this amendment.

I welcome continued debate on whether we should ban all arms sales to other nations. But this back door effort at beginning such a ban today, should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleague, I just want to make a couple of points and rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered here this afternoon.

First of all, this does address the human rights violation question, and none of us favor any type of human rights violations anywhere in the world or by any of our allies, but the matter of fact is that this amendment is not a realistic amendment, and it is not a needed amendment. I say to my colleagues: First of all, if you want to look at human rights violations, just refer to - and I invite all my colleagues to do this, and other folks that are listening - read the Amnesty International human rights violation reports. You find actually one of the countries that is cited is the United States. Not only is the United States cited, but you also have Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and, if this amendment passed, I think you really would jeopardize the status of peace efforts in the Middle East if this was properly applied according to the language in the amendment, and again I think it serves no purpose. We must work against human rights violations wherever they occur, and human rights violations are not condoned by this Congress.

Let me also point out that a major flaw in this amendment is the President already has the authority. Maybe the other side of the aisle or the sponsor does not trust the President of the United States, but in fact under current law the President of the United States is required to even notify Congress before there is an arms sale in the appropriate committee of Congress.

So first of all, it is not a realistic amendment, and it is not an amendment that recognizes that there are human rights violations, whether it is in the United States or with our allies that are sometime recipients of these arms; and, second, the amendment has no purpose because the President really already has the authority, and the Congress is, in fact, notified when there are these arms sales pending. So it is not a needed amendment, and it is not a useful amendment, and I urge its defeat.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment authored by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

This amendment is about the new world order. The United States has emerged as the undisputed political, economic, and military leader of the world.

With the end of the cold war, the old ways of doing international business - especially military business - are no longer adequate. This is a time to re-evaluate. It is a time for America to live up to the promise of its creed - across our borders as well as within them.

This Nation must not support dictators. It must stand strongly against human rights abuses. We have the capacity - through diplomatic pressure, business opportunity, and military arms relationships - to make the world safer for its citizens. The United States should exercise that power. This, Mr. Chairman, is what the McKinney amendment is all about.

We only need to look at the recent past to find examples of good intentions gone bad in the U.S. arms sales.

Many people have heard about the recent, gross violations of human rights in Turkey. Turkey happens to be one of the largest recipients of United States military aid. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb testified yesterday that Turkey`s rulers have used United States-supplied F-16`s, Black Hawk helicopters and M-60 tanks against its own Kurdish population.

The United States also militarily supplies human rights abusers in Indonesia and Malaysia. Unfortunately, we are considering more aid to the Government of Indonesia - despite widely reported human rights abuses by the Indonesian military against East Timor.

In the not quite so recent past, this country felt forced to stop a military exercise by Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. We had a major war - risking the lives of thousands of soldiers - against Iraq, a country which had always been a human rights abuser, and which had been the recipient of U.S. aid, including military aid.

Too many times in this country`s history, we have been short-sighted policy in our arms export policy. Too many times, short-term military alliances have led to long-term human rights disasters, or worse.

The McKinney amendment does not preclude military assistance to any country. If the President and Congress agree that an arms sale is in the national security interest, that sale would be allowed. However, the McKinney amendment would establish basic, humane, and appropriate standards for the conduct of U.S. military export policy. These standards are common sense standards such as requiring our military exports to go to countries which hold free and fair elections; such as being sure our sales go to countries which do not engage in gross violations of human rights, and making sure that our arms exports do not go to countries which engage in illegal acts of armed aggression.

If there was ever a time when this country could justify working with human rights abusers to further some longer-term strategic objective, that time is surely past. This country, without any serious military threat to our security, now must face its responsibility, and act as the world`s moral leader. The McKinney amendment would apply a moral test to U.S. foreign policy.

Let us assert our role as a moral leader in the world. Support the McKinney amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McKinney amendment. I agree with some of her concerns, but not the solutions embodied in the amendment.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, during the cold war the two superpowers did transfer billions of dollars of weapons to the developing world every year as a part of their strategic competition. With the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and excess conventional military equipment flooding global markets, I believe it is essential to find a way to stop the spiral of militarization. An over armed developing world not only has a terrible human cost, it is also contrary to American interests in fostering democracy, building political stability, and enhancing growing global economy, and I think those are some of the gentlewoman`s concerns, and I certainly agree with them.

In my mind the solution to the problem of militarization in arms transfer must be a multilateral one. It would do us, nor the developing world, any good if we reduce exports only to find the gap filled by other suppliers. Yet it is also clear that multi-lateral solutions require U.S. leadership both by the President and by the Congress.

Congress has already begun to address the need for arms restraint, enacting several measures which I support, including, No. 1, encouraging the President to establish a multilateral arms restraint regime; No. 2, imposing a moratorium on the export of antipersonnel land mines and calling on the administration to negotiate a worldwide ban on their deployment; and, No. 3, calling on the administration to oppose multilateral lending to countries who refuse to reduce military spending in concert with their neighbors.

That brings me to the amendment at hand. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong agreement with the sentiments, as I said, which were expressed in the amendment which express the view that we should not sell arms to countries that are democratic, that do not respect human rights, and that do not promote peace and stability. Where I have problems with this amendment is that it mandates, at least as I read it, that human rights, democracy, and participation of the U.N. arms registry of conventional arms be the only criteria that should govern our arms transfers. To say that these criteria should be paramount in evaluating a particular transfer is, I think, going too far. This is too restrictive in my view. Arms transfers serve important foreign policy and national security objectives. That can contribute to regional stability and help deter aggression. They can even foster interoperability should U.S. Assistance ever be required as in the Desert Storm operation.

Human rights and the democratic make up of recipient governments ought to be among the criteria in making a final decision on a proposed transfer. In some cases they may be the primary criterion, but not in all cases. The President must be able to weigh all relevant criteria to reach sensible, sound decisions on the merit of each proposed transfer.

Moreover, the amendment would require the President to certify annually those nations that qualify for arms transfer according to these criteria. Transfer to other countries could only be made if the President certifies to Congress that such a transfer is in the national security interests of the United States and the Congress enacts a law approving such an exception or if the President determines that an emergency exists under which it is vital to the interests of the United States to provide the transfer. If the President cannot meet this very high standard, quote, that an emergency exists, end of quote, then this amendment would force the Congress to enact a resolution of approval for arms sale. This, of course, turns the current system of congressional review of arms transfer on its head, a system that I, for one, do not think to be broken.

Now, I do believe the author of this amendment has made a very serious effort to modify the language to address concerns of limiting Presidential flexibility by inserting new language under which countries could receive arms if they were violating the criteria in the bill if the President determines that an emergency exists, so there is that flexibility for the President. I would only point out this is a very high standard and one that I think cannot be met, at least not in very many instances. The

President`s room to maneuver is largely circumscribed, so in my view the modification does not fix one of the fundamental flaws of the amendment.

I want to correct the conclusion here that I think supporters of the amendment may be making. The Congress, contrary to what the supporters ---

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

Mr. BEREUTER. The Congress, contrary to what the supporters of the amendment are seeming to be saying, currently has a very important role in determining which sales are made. In many ways, tangible or not so tangible, the Congress influences the sales about which the administration ends up notifying the Hill. There is an elaborate consultation procedure which we will not find in the formal statutory law whereby the administration vets possible sales with the appropriate committees. Members and staff briefings are convened on proposed sales that are controversial, and, contrary to what some may think, the administration backs off and drops proposed sales, not just this administration, but that has been the trend and the practice.

So, it is incorrect, I think, to argue that we have no role under the current process. The administration and the Congress are in constant dialogue about arms transfers which are conducted in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act. The Congress significantly influences arms transfers in direct and practical ways through the years beginning with consultation on the Javits report. Critics of arms transfer point to the fact that Congress has never enacted a resolution of disapproval on arms sales. That is not a correct measure. In fact, congressional passage of such a resolution would represent a breakdown of the existing process, not a measure of its success. The fact that we have not passed a resolution then is evidence that in fact the consultation process is working.

Now, I have gone on at length here because I think this is a serious amendment with much merit. But the author of this amendment is committed to the issue, and I commend her. But for the reasons I stated, I cannot support it in its current form, and I would urge a `no` vote for all of my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a `no` vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, will wonders never cease, where my colleague from Georgia and I are standing together on an issue in this body?

Let me note that the cold war is over. I would not have supported this amendment if it had been 10 years ago. I believe that now is the time for us as a Nation to seriously consider what our policies are around the world in a different light than what we did 10 years ago during the cold war.

This amendment puts Congress squarely in the decision making process. My good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), just suggested there is a process that is taking place right now, but it is just not codified. It is not set down solid in legislation.

Well, I believe that now that the cold war is over we can afford to take this decision making process about what kind of countries that we will be dealing with, especially arming to the teeth, what kind of countries we will be selling our sophisticated weaponry to, is a decision in which the Congress can play a legitimate and verifiable role, and that we can be held accountable to our own people for the moral basis of the decisions that are being made by our Government in this area.

When the cold war was on, we left these decisions up to the President of the United States, and I supported that, because we were up against an enemy that wanted to destroy our country. I was, as many of you know, a member of President Reagan`s staff for 7 years. I felt it appropriate that the President had the right to counter Soviet moves that were aimed at putting us in a vulnerable situation to a military threat, without necessarily having to come to Congress and have the issue debated on for weeks.

We are not in that situation today. In fact, during the cold war, human rights were secondary in many of the cases in our dealings with foreign countries. In many cases, if we were not dealing with such a hostile and horrible enemy as the communists, we should have been ashamed of ourselves in dealing with the tyrants we were dealing with. But just like in the Second World War when we allied ourselves with Stalin, we allied ourselves in the cold war against the communists with some unsavory characters. That is no longer the case. The cold war is over, and today human rights should play a more important role in our decision making process than it did when we were under attack. If a country is crucial to our national security, even besides the fact we are not in the cold war, this amendment provides us the ability to say well, you may not be up to our democratic standards, and indeed we want you to be more democratic and respect human rights, but we will put you on an exception list. You are acceptable because you are crucial to the national security interests of the United States.

I would imagine we might debate countries like Saudi Arabia, who I believe is crucial to the security of the United States, and other kingdoms where people in those countries are more inclined toward having a kingdom than a democracy. That would be a legitimate decision we could make. I have no doubt this Congress is capable to working with the President to determine which nondemocratic countries are crucial to our national security. This gives the President in fact leverage even in those countries to secure more human rights for their people, when now the President cannot just say well, the Congress is forcing me and thus have a dialog with these countries.

Now, I may, as I say, disagree with the proponents of this amendment on many issues in terms of what countries we are dealing with, but the principle is sound. Let me say this in terms of the practicality. When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, we decided we were no longer going to be just anti-Communist and support anti-Communist regimes. I believe that was the turning point in the cold war.

When Ronald Reagan made human rights and democracy the issue against the Communists, when he turned away from just supporting dictators who are anti-Communist but instead went to the people of then the Soviet Union and other countries under Communist domination and said we in the West do believe in democracy and we are willing to support those people who are struggling for freedom, and we established the National Endowment for Democracy, that is when the cold war turned around.

In the long run, that proved the downfall of communism. It was the practical thing to do. In the short run, it gave us some problems, because there were some anti-Communist dictatorships which basically were on our side. This too will be practical if we have guts enough to stand for our principles.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has expired.

(On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made one salient point in his comments. He said during the Reagan administration, in which he served, that the felt the President should have this latitude, because of the critical time problems that the President should not have to mess around with Congress for 3 or 4 weeks when he might have to make a quick decision.

What makes the gentleman think that will not happen at some point in the future with some future President?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the cold war is over. The fact is that today we should not be operating under the same rules as when our country was targeted by a very powerful enemy that meant to destroy us. We now can afford to bring the moral questions into play, and we should, the human rights questions, the democracy questions. This is what America can stand for, and if we do, we will have the allegiance of young people around the world, rather than the fear of those young people of their own regimes that might be armed by our people. That is the way America should be. That is the strength. Abraham Lincoln said, `Right makes might.`

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from Georgia`s amendment to H.R. 1561, the McKinney Arms Code of Conduct. The Arms Code of Conduct is a rational approach. It implements a coherent and comprehensive arms control policy. This legislation would prohibit U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to foreign governments, unless the President certifies that the foreign government adheres to a national code of conduct. In order to be eligible for military assistance, the gentlewoman`s amendment specifically requires that the foreign government head be elected through a fair and free elections process; that the country respect human rights and not be engaged in any aggression which violates international law; and must fully participate in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms.

The United States is the sole superpower in the world and the world`s undisputed leader in arms exports. Today, U.S. firms dominate more than 70 percent of the international arms sale market, up from 57 percent in 1991. According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency`s 1993-94 report, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, the United States sold $10.3 billion in arms exports worldwide, compared to our closest competitor, which is Great Britain, which racked up $4.3 billion in sales. In 1994 alone, the U.S. taxpayer paid more to subsidize weapons sales than we paid for the Federal elementary and secondary education programs.

Ninety percent of the significant ethnic and territorial conflicts in the world in the last 2 years involve one or more parties which had received some type of U.S. weaponry or military technology in a period leading up to the conflict. Additionally, in the war with Iraq there were countless documented and verified instances where U.S. troops faced the enemy who was armed with U.S. based technology and weaponry.

Mr. Chairman, as the world`s leading exporter of weaponry, the United States has an implicit responsibility to provide global leadership on this issue by formulating a policy of restraint. While the world`s arms market is a lucrative venture, no country has been willing to take up unilateral steps toward control, fearing loss of exports to market competitors. Therefore, it is vital as the world`s leading supplier, that the United States take responsibility for initiating a comprehensive and a rational approach to controlling arms sales, which will prevent repeat scenarios, such as those that occurred in Iraq where United States forces faced weapons supplied by the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the McKinney Arms Code of Conduct amendment. This amendment is supported by 103 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans alike, including the chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Approving this legislation will be one of the most significant steps this body takes to enhance our national foreign policy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the McKinney amendment. I think it is a very responsible amendment. I comment her for introducing it. Quite simply, it seems to me in the absence of the cold war we have lost our way in terms of foreign policy. Foreign policy is supposed to advance our interests, our long-term interests, in the global community. To do this, however, we cannot be passive. We have to have some standards and objectives to pursue.

It seems to me our objective ought to be encouraging diplomatic solutions around the world and discouraging warfare and the use of weapons around the world. The McKinney amendment represents sound policy advancing our foreign policy interests, because it sets a specific criteria on which we can evaluate arms sales. Democracy, adherence to human rights, the absence of aggression, and participation in the U.N. Registry of Conventional Arms, all give us a sound basis on which to evaluate who we ought to be selling arms to. It is correct policy because it gives us leverage. It enables us to leverage those people who are buying our arms in the direction that we wish them to go.

It is also good policy because it imposes moral values. People throw that around. We ought to have moral values in U.S. policy. Well, opposing human rights violations, promoting democracy, and opposing aggression represents the best of moral values.

I am not naive. There are certainly circumstances that are exigent that will require changes in this policy. The bill addresses that. It has a national security exception which the President can utilize. It also has an emergency waiver which the President can utilize. But it seems to me we have got to quit being passive and reactionary and understand what advancing our interests really means. I urge adoption of the McKinney amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the code of conduct amendment that is offered by my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney). The code of conduct will be the first major reform of U.S. arms transfer policy in almost two decades.

The code of conduct highlights guiding principles on human rights and democracy which I believe are important to America`s leadership role in the post-cold-war era. This amendment would help stem the flow of U.S. weapons to countries that violate human rights of its citizenry and fail to respect international human rights standards. The code of conduct offers an avenue for America to make violators of human rights accountable for their actions if they wish to continue to receive U.S. arms sales.

Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of all the foreign military sales went to countries described by the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as human rights violators, with undemocratic governments. The code of conduct is supported by some 275 national organizations who believe that human rights should play a key role in our arms export policy.

Mr. Chairman, I will never forget some years back when I made a trip to Croatia when it was under siege. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I got into a place by the name of Vukovar. Vukovar was surrounded by Serb artillery and tanks. We went there to try to bear witness to peace and to try to encourage the people there. We followed it up with meetings with President Milosevic and others. But I remember looking at shell casings and bomb casings that littered the streets, dozens of bomb casings, and they were U.S. made.

Now, some people can say `Oh, big deal. That doesn`t really matter. We sell it to them and how they use it is their business.` But it greatly distressed me to know that people, innocent civilians, were being destroyed by the dropping of these 500-pound bombs. I remember bringing that issue to the attention of our National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft. He surely agreed. He said, `Yeah, we sold those bombs, and other kinds of military hardware to the former Yugoslavia,` which had a disgusting human rights record.

Now, I think we need to be more serious about who we are willing to sell arms to. This code of conduct may not be perfect. It may be liable to additional change as it makes its way through conference, should it pass. There are reasonable objections by reasonable people about what ought to be a part of this, whether or not the national security exemption is the best and most properly drawn way of proceeding. But I think it makes a clear statement that it will not be business as usual. Arms sales ought to be conditioned and human rights ought to matter.

Unfortunately, we have had hearings in the Committee on Human Rights, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights which I chair, two human rights hearings. Amnesty International came forward and told us in this administration, the Clinton administration, human rights is an island, disconnected from policy considerations.

We have seen it in a myriad of other issues like the most-favored-nation status for China and other kinds of human rights considerations. There is a disconnect. This tries to, at least in the selling of arms, which kill people, we try to make sure, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) tries to make sure that, if we are going to sell arms, that human rights is a significant factor.

I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise to offer my strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague and good friend the gentlewoman from Georgia, (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. Chairman, I recall one of the fundamental concerns raised by one of our great Presidents in our time - the late President Dwight Eisenhower. Before leaving the White House and in one of his speeches - President Eisenhower warned our nation of the ever increasing power and influence of the industrial military interests in our country.

Now don`t get me wrong - I want our military industry complex to produce weapons and military equipment that meet our national security interest too - but the question is how much and to whom should we sell these weapons?

Mr. Chairman, everyone here in this Chamber knows that our Nation is the largest producer and exporter of military equipment and weapons of war. It is time that our national leaders need to be more sensitive about exporting and selling of weapons of war to kill and maim other human beings.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for introducing this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following article: (FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, MAY 24, 1995) ARMS SALES `CONDUCT CODE` OPPOSED - STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS PROPOSAL COULD IMPINGE ON POLICY AND FRIENDLY NATIONS(BY R. JEFFREY SMITH):

The Clinton administration declared yesterday that it opposes a `code of conduct` drafted by some members of Congress to block U.S. arms sales to countries that commit human rights abuses or are not democratic.

At a Senate hearing, Under secretary of State Lynn E. Davis criticized the proposed code on grounds that its rigid criteria for arms sales would impinge on the administration`s authority to decide foreign policy and could force a cutoff of military aid to friendly nations in regions important to U.S. interests.

The code, which is scheduled to come up for a vote on the House floor today, was crafted by Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) to stanch estimated annual sales or gifts of billions of dollars worth of U.S. arms to countries that the sponsors claim are not upholding important U.S. values. At the hearing, Hatfield particularly criticized recent U.S. arms sales to Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey, which he said had each engaged in recent human rights abuses.

The proposed code states that U.S. military assistance and arms transfers should be provided only to nations with governments chosen by free elections that protect basic freedoms and are not engaged in `gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.`

It also bars aid to nations engaged in illegal acts of armed aggression and to nations that do not register their arms transactions with the United Nations. The president could waive these restrictions for any country, but only with congressional approval.

The code has collected 102 sponsors in the House, but last week it missed gaining the International Relations Committee`s endorsement by a one-vote margin. Hatfield has vowed to try to attach it to a foreign aid or defense appropriations bill this year.

Davis told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that while the administration supports the `principles` expressed by the code, it `simply cannot agree to this weighting of criteria` for deciding on individual arms sales.

Instead, she said, the administration prefers its own policy of selling arms based on `national security,` as spelled out in flexible language approved by President Clinton in February. Under this policy, Davis said, no single criterion such as respect for human rights `takes precedence over another.` Arms transfers can be made to nondemocratic nations if they promote regional stability or help prop up failing U.S. defense companies that produce key military technologies.

Although McKinney has charged that 90 percent of the $12.9 billion in U.S. arms sales approved last year went to countries that Washington classifies as nondemocratic, Davis said the `vast majority (went to) . . . allies, major coalition partners, and European neutrals.`

Davis confirmed that the administration is considering offering F-16 jet fighters to Indonesia, despite recent evidence of fresh abuses by Indonesian military forces in East Timor.

Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck, who appeared with Davis, said `we are paying close attention to Indonesia`s human rights situation and will take this into consideration` in deciding on such sales.

With regard to Turkey, he said `we are, as you know, gravely concerned about the use of (U.S.-made) military material, particularly cluster bombs` during Turkey`s military assaults on Kurds in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq.

But Shattuck did not say whether the use of these arms would affect future sales to Turkey, which he described as `a crucial NATO ally.`

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who is now at the Brookings Institution, testified later that Turkey`s use of F-16s, Black Hawk helicopters and M-60 tanks against the Kurds indicated that many U.S. arms transferred overseas `are used not against the foreign enemies of the U.S., but against the indigenous populations.`

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the whole 5 minutes. I would just like to put some facts on the table. Right now under the Export Control Act, the Congress of the United States can stop sales. In the past when the President, any President, has started to go ahead with arms sales and he found opposition was rising under the Export Control Act that was passed by the Congress of the United States, they have pulled in their horns and they have renegotiated those sales deals with these foreign countries. So we already have the authority in law to do what is being talked about today. The only difference is we are turning the process around. That hamstrings the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy. That is a mistake.

Ten years ago, the United States controlled only 15 percent of the arms sales. My colleagues who spoke on the other side are absolutely right; we do control a large part of arms sales today, but that is because the Soviet Union has disintegrated. Ten years ago, they controlled 50 percent of the arms sales worldwide, and they sold to countries like Iraq, Iran, and Libya. We are not selling to those pariah countries, but they did.

Now that they have fallen apart, our percentage of the market has gone up, but we are still below, way below, where we were 10 years ago. So while our percentage is higher, our actual sales are lower. So the bottom line is this. Simply put, we have the control in the Congress to stop any arms sales that we want to under the Export Control Act. We do not need this legislation. Second, we should not hamstring the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy. And third, the economic concerns that I talked about awhile ago are real, because there are other countries who will sell this equipment to foreign governments if we do not. Along with those sales will go American jobs.

I think those points should be considered by my colleagues. We have the authority to deal with this problem already. We do not need this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia. I can tell you that in the course of my service in Congress, too often we have seen instances where we have taken the scarce resources of the United States, bought military weaponry, sent it to corners of the world and then find not too much later that it has been turned either on our country or on our allies.

These so-called boomerang sales are addressed directly by the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia. I think her amendment is a step in the right direction. I rise in strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct for the record some misstatements and misrepresentations that have been made about this amendment.

First of all, this amendment does not ban arms sales to any country. Second, if there is a problem with this amendment in terms of human rights, it is not that this amendment will fail because it does not address human rights well enough; it will fail for other reasons.

Let me just begin to say what some of those reasons are. One is that we are spending millions of dollars to quell regional strife that we, in turn, are the fomenters of. First of all, we are fomenting murder and rampage around the world by fueling conflict, by arming potential adversaries, that is the boomerang effect that my colleague just spoke about, by promoting territorial expansion and crossborder aggression and also by facilitating terrorism and repression. And, in fact, as we learned recently, the CIA funded Jihad school over in Afghanistan trained two of the suspects in the World Trade Center bombing.

Second, we are violating our own law. The law states that it shall be the policy of the United States to exert leadership in the world community to bring about an arrangement for reducing the international trade in implements of war. We are violating our own policy.

And then finally, why is that the case? It is the case because in the Washington Post story by Jeffrey Smith in today`s newspaper, it says that the present administration takes the tack that arms transfers can be made to nondemocratic nations if they help to prop up failing U.S. defense companies.

So the bottom line, once again, is the amount of money that is being spent in failing U.S. defense industries.

Finally, I would just like to compliment and thank those people who have worked so hard on behalf of this amendment. They are the over 200 grassroots organizations that have gone around the country in support of this amendment, the strong support of our colleagues who have spoken here this afternoon and who have cosponsored this amendment, and finally the strong staff work of Robin Sanders who put it all together.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I want to echo her comments. It is a false economy for us to believe that we are encouraging exports and creating American jobs by these arms transfers and in questionable situations, because, as the gentlewoman alludes to, many times we find in the future even greater expenditures are necessary because of this so-called boomerang effect. We send guns to the wrong people. They turn on us. They shoot at us and they shoot at our friends.

What the gentlewoman is trying to do is to minimize that possibility. She has the strong support of so many organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference and others, and I hope my colleagues will take her amendment very seriously and join me in supporting it.

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Arms Trade Code of Conduct.

The House International Relations Committee nearly passed this historic piece of legislation in its markup last week, where it failed by a margin of just 18 to 17. A Gallup Poll released in February found that only 15 percent of those queried supported our Government selling military equipment to other countries.

The European Union and the United States together sell 90 percent of the world`s weapons. No country has been willing to take unilateral steps toward control, fearing it will lose export markets to competitors. Therefore, it is vital that as the world`s leading suppliers, the European Union, and the United States work together to implement restraint.

Fortunately, the European Parliament has started that process already. In January of this year, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Union to immediately implement a coherent and comprehensive arms export control policy at the Union level. A measure similar to this amendment before us today is being considered by the European Union at this time.

As the world`s leading exporter of weaponry, the United States has a special responsibility to provide global leadership in the area of restraint.

As to the issue of jobs in the United States, we must weigh the limited economic benefits of expanding arms exports against the larger costs to the economy as a whole. Arms exports do nothing to address the fundamental problems of lagging U.S. competitiveness in nonmilitary industries. Furthermore, arms exports undermine peaceful conflict resolution upon which world trade, economic growth, and long-term job creation are based.

Administration policy states that the impact on defense jobs must be taken into account when exports are considered. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish we would extend the same consideration to the impact on the lives and well-being of American service personnel. Our laissez-faire approach to arms sales creates a self-generated danger - the possibility that our service men and women will someday be fighting nations or groups who obtained U.S. weapons and technology.

Even the Pentagon now officially acknowledges that it faces the prospect of American weapons being used against U.S. military personnel. In his latest Annual Report to the President and Congress, Secretary of Defense Perry writes that `threats encountered in major regional conflicts would be standing armies of foreign powers, armed with mixes of old and modern weapons systems. * * * Thus, U.S. forces must be prepared to face a wide variety of systems, including some previously produced in the United States.` With its current policy, the United States is bolstering the war fighting capabilities of a substantial number of those fighting today`s conflicts. It does not take a stroke of genius to realize that these capabilities can just as easily be used against U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

It is a sad irony that the current U.S. arms trade policy confirms the words of cartoonist Walt Kelly`s character, Pogo, when he said, `We have met the enemy and it is us.`

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers and commend my colleague from Georgia, Representative Cynthia McKinney, for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Since 1990, the United States has been the top-selling merchant in the international arms bazaar. We have dominated the global arms market by sending billions and billions of dollars worth of all types of weaponry to some of the world`s worst human rights abusers and most corrupt and repressive regimes. Sophisticated combat weapons exported from the United States, such as armored personnel carriers, antitank missiles, and specialized rifles, have found their way into the hands of notorious international troublemakers and fueled conflicts raging throughout the world.

Placing short-term economic interests above crucial security concerns and fundamental human rights principles has serious consequences, both for our stature as a world leader and for the safety of U.S. military personnel engaged around the world. By cashing in on profits from arms sales abroad without closely scrutinizing potential customers according to criteria like the ones outlined by Representative McKinney, we risk incurring substantial security and human costs. During the Gulf war and in Somalia, for example, the safety of many of our men and women in the Armed Forces was threatened by weaponry sold by our own Government. Moreover, skyrocketing arms sales have contributed to regional arms races, which in turn force us to increase spending to deal with greater threats to our national security.

As we continue to adjust to the realities of the post-cold-war world, we need to revise our philosophies concerning foreign military sales. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many of the principles which guided our arms export policies in the past no longer are relevant. The provisions of the Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers will establish a sensible, much-needed framework for making decisions about what we send abroad and to whom. The United States should take a leadership role in forging new policies and encouraging new thinking in this area.

Being the world`s No. 1 weapons supplier is a very dubious distinction. As we approach the start of the 21st century, we should re-evaluate the priorities which have placed us in this category and look to the Code of Conduct as a model.

Again, I would like to thank Representative McKinney for all her hard work on behalf of this important issue. I strongly support this initiative and urge my colleagues to vote for the McKinney amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device. And there were---ayes 157, noes 262, not voting 15, as follows: [SEE VOTE]


FAS Home | ASMP Home | Search | About ASMP
Publications | Sales Data | Issues | Resources