Arms Sales Monitor #1, March 1991

FAS Homepage | Arms Sales | Arm Sales Monitor | Index | Search | Join FAS

(Issue No. 1 , March 1991)

Arms sales presented to Congress                      

27 February The administration presents to Congress the annual (as yet still classified) "Javits list" of weapons sales considered possible in 1991, as required by Section 2776(b) of the Arms Export Control Act. A closed hearing on the listed sales with State and Defense Department officials is held by the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee.

It is reported in the press that the total value of goods on the Javits list is $33 billion, with $23.6 billion attributable to arms requested by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and Egypt.

28 February Congress is notified by the administration of a sale to Egypt of 46 F-16 C/D aircraft, spare parts and assorted munitions (8 spare GE engines, 100,000 rounds of 20-mm ammunition, 240 Mark 84 2000-lb bombs, 1,000 Mark 82 500- and 1000-lb bombs, 48 glide bomb units, 80 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, and 240 cluster bomb units) totalling $1.6 billion. The administration says the sale is the fourth installment of the "Peace Vector" program to replace aging Soviet-supplied aircraft in the Egyptian arsenal.

Congress has until 30 March to invoke a joint resolution to block the sale, otherwise the administration can present the formal letter of offer to the Egyptian government.

Notes from some relevant hearings

6 February Secretary of State James Baker appears before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to explain the State Department's FY92 budget request and to outline the administration's long-term goals in the Mideast. He lists four challenges to US policy in the Mideast: a stable security structure, regional arms control, economic recovery and reconstruction, and peace. On regional arms control he says: A second challenge will surely be regional arms proliferation and control. This includes both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The terrible fact is that even the conventional arsenals of several Middle Eastern states dwarf those of most European powers. ...The time has come to try to change the destructive pattern of military competition and proliferation in this region and to reduce the arms flow into an area that is already very over-militar- ized. That suggests that we and others outside the region must consult on how best to address several dimensions of the problem: how can we cooperate to constrain Iraq's postwar ability to retain or rebuild its weapons of mass destruction and its most destabilizing conventional weapons? How can we work with others to encourage steps toward broader regional restraint in the acquisition and use of both conven- tional armaments and weapons of mass destruction? What role might the kinds of confidence-building measures that have lessened conflict in Europe play in the Gulf and the Middle East? And, finally, what global actions would reinforce steps toward arms control in the Gulf and Middle East? These, for instance, could include rapid completion of pending international agreements like the Chemical Weap- ons Convention, as well as much tighter supply restraints on the flow of weapons and dual-use technology into the region. And what implications does that have for arms transfer and sales policy? 26-27 February The Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee holds panels on Middle East policies leading to the Gulf war. The first day's theme is "How We Got There," with testimony provided by Michael Klare (Hampshire College), William Quandt (The Brookings Institute) and Judith Kipper (The Brookings Institute). The next day's topic is "Where Do We Go After the War." Robert Hunter and Edward Luttwak from CSIS, Laurie Mylroie and Martin Indyk from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Richard Murphy provide testimony. 1 March The Annual Report to the President and the Congress for 1991, by Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense, is released. According to the report, the Defense Department's focus has shifted from the need to counter the Soviet threat toward regional threats. The introduction to the report contains the following: The spread of modern weaponry has multiplied the number of sophisticated Third World arsenals that include such items as advanced tanks, attack submarines, and cruise missiles. Of grave concern is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. By the year 2000, it is estimated that at least 15 developing nations will have the ability to build ballistic missiles--8 of which either have, or are near to acquiring nuclear capabilities. Thirty countries will have chemical weapons and 10 will be able to deploy biological weapons as well. 7 March The House Armed Services Committee, Seapower, Stra- tegic, and Critical Materials Subcommittee hosts Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral Thomas A. Brooks for his annual overview. In his 100 page prepared statement, much information is presented on the Soviet military; third world arsenals and arms production; the spread of conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction; and possible regional threats and areas of instability. In his testimony he notes: The future portends a lessening of the qualitative distinc- tions between threat arenas around the world. Weapons formerly available only to the larger powers are now turning up in the hands of such sub-national groups as terrorists and drug cartels. A chief distinction between levels of conflict will increasingly be one of the quantity, not quality, of weapons available. Regional powers will be able to strike out with a greater variety and volume of firepower than ever before, while sub-regional and non-conventional powers will continue to improve their capabilities as well. He goes on to say: Global proliferation of ever more lethal military hardware continues to make the Navy's role of protecting US inter- ests abroad more dangerous and complex. Sophisticated weapons and delivery systems are being transferred to and/or developed by Third World states that are proving increasingly able to use them effectively. These are not just weapons of mass destruction but are also medium- and high-technology systems, usually of Western manufacture, that are becoming more "user friendly" and are being sold as "turn key" operations along with their means of support and, increasingly, even the means of production. The mix of Soviet, Western, and indigenously-produced and modi- fied systems complicates the threat environment and increases risks and battle management problems for US forces and allies. His testimony details Soviet arms exports during 1990, noting that deliveries continue to decline, "partly because of a reordering of foreign policy priorities but also as a result of severe Soviet economic problems. ...All of the fourteen top Soviet client states registered significant decreases in deliveries except for Yemen and Iran, the latter having begun to rearm its military partially with Soviet equip- ment." Specifically, Brooks says that the Soviets have sold Iran SA-5 and SA-6 air-defense missiles and 20 MiG-29 fighter aircraft. He also outlines arms production and sales by European and Third World countries. Concerning Israel's significant arms industry, he notes: "By the mid-1980s Israel was exporting over 50 percent of domestic arms production to over 50 countries and was adding two to three markets yearly. Since the Israelis place few resale restriction on customers, and since much of their arms technology is derived from the latest Western developments, the proliferation of their arms exports is an issue of concern." Regarding weapons of mass destruction, he expresses concern over increased tension between Pakistan and India. "A war between these antagonists--both more heavily armed and equipped than ever before--could possibly include the nightmare scenario of a nuclear exchange," and might also, he says, involve chemical weapons. He notes China's lack of adherence to the NPT and its suspected collusion with nuclear programs in several developing countries. Brooks says that outside of the WP/NATO, 14 countries "probably possess" chemical weapons, and four more "may possess" them. He says that "Iraq and Syria currently have developed an offensive BW capability. At least five other countries have offensive biological (BW) programs in varying stages of development." In reference to conventional arms proliferation he says: "Other than the US and USSR, some 41 countries collectively possess 393 subs.... Nineteen countries are either currently building submarines or have recently done so, and three or four others are preparing to build submarines in the near future." In addition, he says, 45 countries besides the US and USSR have naval mining capabilities, with at least 21 countries producing mines, and 13 of those countries exporting mines. Drawing heavily on the example of Iraq throughout his tes- timony, he notes: "Iraq today is the nightmare example of what can happen in an atmosphere of virtually uncontrolled weapons and technology proliferation." 13 March The Congressional Presentation Document, the annual foreign aid request put together by the State Department and the DSAA is delivered to Congress today. It contains a total request of $8.1 billion in FY92 foreign security assistance, with $5 billion for the foreign military financing (FMF) program. The FMF request includes $1.8 billion for Israel and $1.3 billion for Egypt, the same amount as last year. According to Defense Daily, the document also said that "the administration will seek legislation to introduce a trial program of EXIMBANK financing for US commercial defense exports to selected credit-worthy countries." The program would begin in 1992. 13 March Senate Foreign Relations holds the first of a series of hearings on the post-war Middle East. This hearing addresses the future of Iraq, the continuing arms race in the Middle East and the prospects for peace in the region. In his opening statement, Sen. Pell says: It is interesting to note that all the countries that supplied Saddam Hussein's armies were part of the coalition against Iraq. Unrestrained arms sales to Iraq may have made the regime more aggressive; it certainly made it more danger- ous. I would hope we could take advantage of the coopera- tion that existed among the major weapons suppliers to move to a new regime in which restraint is the watchword for arms sales in the Middle East and in the third world. Expert testimony is provided by Joseph Nye (JFK School, Har- vard), William Quandt (Brookings Institution) and Phebe Marr (National Defense University). In the Q/A, Sen. Biden notes the seeming shift in administration policy away from Secretary of State Baker's 6 February testimony saying that the US should be pursuing very ambitious arms control policies not only on mass destruction weapons but also on conven- tional arms. "Less than 24 hours after the guns fell silent," Biden says, "the Congress is notified of the F-16 aircraft sale to Egypt, signifying that the arms bazaar is open." Biden thinks that compelling arguments could be made for and against the sale--against, because of the symbolic message it sends out. When Sec. Baker was before the Committee five months ago, he indicated that arms control along the lines of a CFE in the Middle East and supplier controls should be established. Biden asks Nye: "Is a suppliers' cartel feasible?" [See excerpts from Biden speech below.] Nye questions how ambitious the US can afford to be, citing what he sees as inherent difficulties in arms transfer controls. He wonders what types of arms we should seek to control, and answers that we should stick to the high end of the spectrum, where the US has more leverage with the fewer suppliers. Biden: does the high end include conventional weapons? Nye: yes sophisticated tanks and advanced aircraft, etc. Further, says Nye, technologies similar to those controlled by CoCom should be constrained as well as weap- ons. If a CoCom-like system were established, then the buyer would have to make a strong case for an exception to the controls -- negotiate for an exception to the restriction. Another problem, Nye says, lies in defining the region. Is Congress really willing to include Israel in any restraint regime? He thinks the US should start by controlling sales to Iran and Iraq and see if the restraint could be spread to other countries later. In response, Biden says: "I would be willing to bet that the Israelis would say, if there are going to be no more arms sold to the Arabs, OK--don't sell to us." In response to the question of how an embargo would be viewed by actors in the region, Quandt says that there is now somewhat of a knee-jerk response against arms in the region. Iraq's expenditure of tens of billions of dollars on arms looks pathetic as far as serving Arab interests and peoples' needs. The bottom line, he says, is that "there is no compelling need for more arms in the middle east today." Iraq did provide a rationale, but that rationale is gone now. Moreover, the US has demonstrated that it will come through for its allies in times of need. Marr agrees with Nye that Iran and Iraq make a good starting point for control, but points out that Iraq will feel a need to acquire defensive weapons. She brings up the role of the Soviet Union in the process, which Biden says is vital. She further notes that prepositio- ning of US weapons will alter the arms sales equation greatly. As a useful CBM toward arms control in the region, she cites agreements limiting the use of weapons. Sen. Simon asks about a verified system of elimination of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, to which Quandt replies that the idea of an NBC weapons-free zone is an especially good one, as it originates in the region. Both Israel and Egypt have put forward such proposals. [The Soviets favor the idea as well.] The US has been unwilling to pursue it though, perhaps because of nuclear weapons on US ships in the region. Concerning nuclear arms control, he thinks progress could be built on Israel's declaratory policy of "Not being the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region" by promoting a ban on the testing and deployment of nuclear weapons. He feels that completing the Chemical Weapons Convention under negotiation is the most important step in promoting chemical disarmament. In this vein, he says the US ought to rethink its negotiating stance of insisting on retention of a small stock of chemical weapons until all chemical-capable states sign on. Concerning biological weapons, he notes the lack of verification for the BWC and thinks this should be addressed. 14 March House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science questions Reginald Bartholomew (Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs) and Lt. Gen Teddy Allen (Director, Defense Security Assistance Agency) on an overview of "Security-Supporting Assistance Programs: Foreign Assistance Legislation for Fiscal Years 1992-93." In his opening statement, Chairman Dante Fascell recalls the legislation, passed with solid bipartisan support in 1989 [HR 2655, 101st Cong], which would reform the laws governing foreign assistance and foreign military sales. This legislation died in the Senate. He cites the "significant differences in the foreign aid climate of today": One of the many lessons of [the gulf] war, I would suspect, is that business as usual approach in the arena of US arms sales policies must, and I can tell you, will be carefully reexamined. A second lesson of that war is that US foreign aid policy and law is in need of an overhaul as we look to the end of the century. To this end, the subcommittee is pleased to know of the administration's commitment to achieving a rewrite of the laws governing our foreign assistance and military sales programs. In his testimony, Bartholomew says that one of the administra- tion objectives is to "Promote peace by helping defuse regional conflicts, strengthening the security of regional partners and our cooperation with them, and pursuing arms control and non-prolifera- tion efforts." He goes on to say that: "Our international security programs advance these foreign policy interests. These programs -- and the relationships that they have helped to develop--served us extraordinarily well during the past months." The administration is requesting $4.65 billion in budget authority for Foreign Military Financing to support a program level of $4.92 billion. In the economic support fund, $3.24 billion in budget authority is requested, supporting a program of the same size. The total requested is $8.16 billion. His testimony provides a further break- down: $5.51 billion for Near East and South Asia; $1.21 billion for Southern Europe; $980 million for Latin America; and $343 million for East Asia and Pacific. In addition, $52.5 million is being sought for the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. Bartholomew also testifies that the administration will be propos- ing a new foreign assistance bill to Congress in the coming weeks, implying that the proposal will draw heavily from the legislation passed by the House in 1989. The administration's proposed legislation "would make major changes in the Arms Export Control Act, shifting the military assistance program to the FAA [Foreign Assistance Act] to consolidate assistance. The AECA would be amended and streamlined, and would encompass both government-to- government and commercial arms sales." "Perhaps the key element" of the legislation as envisioned, he says, "is the provision of greater flexibility in providing assistance." Allen testifies in part as follows: [T]he job of bringing a coalition together first to stop Saddam Hussein and then to liberate Kuwait would have been far more difficult, if not impossible without the broad base laid down by years of patient military assistance work on a military-to-military basis. Once we began fighting alongside our coalition allies the importance of interoperab- ility was even more in evidence. Later, he says that "Countries in the Gulf will continue to have a legitimate need for modern means of self-defense. The Middle East will remain a relatively unstable area." He does not, however, outline the sources of that instability. In close, he says, "In an uncertain and frequently still dangerous world it is vital to be prepared ourselves and to prepare our friends to manage that uncertainty and to deter or combat regional conflict." In the Q/A, Rep. Foglietta, who is concerned about the buildup of sales to Middle East, calls for arms sales control and asks, "Shouldn't we set our goals first, before we sell the weapons?" To which Bartholomew answers, "Restraint [of sales] can't be addressed in isolation from the things we're trying to do in the gulf right now." Later in the hearing Bartholomew says, "We're [the administration] not talking about cutting off all sales to everywhere," to which Rep. Berman responds: "I hope we have a policy [of control] and pursue that policy." Bartholomew responds rather defensively: "Our weapons didn't create the Gulf crisis." Foglietta asks why $214 million in military aid for Pakistan is re- quested in FY92, when aid to that country was suspended last October due to the administration's inability to certify that Pakistan was not working toward nuclear weapons. Bartholomew says the request is symbolic--to say "we want to maintain good relations with Pakistan." Berman notes that Pakistan can't get the aid unless (a) the Pressler amendment is rescinded or (b) Pakistan disavows its nuclear intentions, neither of which he deems likely, so why propose the money? The administration, Bartholomew says, is trying to facilitate a process of nuclear disarmament between India and Pakistan by providing this carrot to Pakistan. Berman cites the Baker testimony concerning conventional arms control [see 6 February]. Since then, he says, the Congress has been notified of the F-16 sale. In a torrent of questions he says: "I want to see Israel maintain its qualitative edge. I want to see Egypt get what it needs, but...are we in a major effort to get other arms sellers to try and develop a policy of supplier arms restraint? Is this a policy being pursued by the administration? Are we pushing the idea of arms control in the Middle East and with our allies? How do we avoid getting back into the arms business as usual?" Bartholomew responds that the arms control dimension is one of Pres. Bush's four proposals [outlined in his speech to Congress on 6 March]. In Ottawa, he says, President Bush spoke to the issue of conventional arms transfers (!). He rather vaguely notes: "It is a subject that's out there." Berman closes his questions by requesting assiduous briefings by the administration on "how the peace is going." Lt.Gen. Allen says, regarding the F-16 sale to Egypt, that in 1978-79 the US started replacing Soviet aircraft with US aircraft; this sale is the 4th block of that program. He cites the "Sovereign right of a nation to protect itself." Yes, but Berman wonders to what extent the timing of the F-16 notification now might undermine efforts at conventional arms control in the region. To close the hearing, Chairman Fascell says, "We know we can't go it alone on arms reduction." But he says we should put a policy forward now--send a clear and strong signal. We have a lot of clout now and should use it to "See what we can do with both buyers and suppliers." "Arms as part of the peace process," he says, "are fine; arms outside of the process are the problem." [Allen and Bartholomew appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the previous day, along with AID Administrator Ronald Roskens on the FY92 foreign aid request.] 19 March Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney appears before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to explain US defense strategy in "a changing security environment." In his testimony, he notes: "The Gulf war presaged very much the type of conflict we are most likely to confront again in this new era--major regional contingencies against foes well-armed with advanced conventional and unconventional weaponry." Of unconventional weapons, he says: "By the year 2000, it is estimated that at least 15 developing nations will have the ability to build ballistic missiles--eight of which either have or are near to acquiring nuclear capabilities. Thirty countries will have chemical weapons, and ten will be able to deploy biological weapons as well." The New York Times reports that during the hearing, "Mr. Cheney said he was willing to consider some restraint in conventional arms sales, `but I think our first concern ought to be to work with our friends and allies to see to it that they're secure.'" In that vein, he says that he expects weapons sales to continue to the region, and in some cases to increase over past amounts. 20 March The Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee holds hearings with Eugene Lawson (First Vice President and Vice Chaiman of the Ex-Im Bank) on admin- istration-proposed legislation to permit Export-Import Bank financing of arms sales. The proposed legislation would allow the Ex-Im Bank to guarantee up to $1 billion per fiscal year in commercial loans to finance commercial sales of weapons to NATO-member countries, Japan, Israel, Australia, and "any other country" the President determines such guarantees should be extended to. Subcommittee Chairman David Obey is opposed to the proposal, according to the New York Times, calling it "very wrongheaded." 20 March John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, testifies before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on "Problems and Opportunities in the Near East." He says: "We will be working with our coalition partners on ways to address Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. All the officials we met with [in the Middle East] also agreed on the need to address the issue of weapons of mass destruction on a region-wide basis." Concerning foreign assistance: "Economic and military assistance remain significant tools in our efforts to bring stability to the region. These assistance programs validated themselves during the recent crisis, as our multi-year assistance to Egypt and other Arab and Moslem states such as Morocco, Oman, Pakistan and Bangladesh was repaid with dividends in the constitution of united will that defeated Iraq's aggression." Statements on the floor 26 February Rep. Ritter, apparently basing his assertions on an article which appeared in the Journal of Commerce on 25 Feb (which is entered in the Record), that "Many members of [the] Communist old guard in the Soviet Government and military have gotten hit hard in the wallet by the United States-United Nations sanctions against Iraq, and they want their military economic relationship restored with Saddam Hussein's Iraq." The Journal of Commerce article cites a member of the Supreme Soviet as saying: "We have to think about lifting the sanctions against Iraq, if only for the reason that we are bound [to] Iraq by a bilateral treaty. This treaty includes possible shipments of defense systems to Iraq." Ritter says Congress needs to send a clear message to the hardliners in the USSR, "that we will not stand for resumed military shipments from the Soviet Union to Iraq...." 7 March During debate over the supplemental budget bill, Rep. Obey, supporting the provision of $650 million to Israel in compensation for wartime damages incurred, says that "This is part of the price we have to pay for the actions that took place over the past month [the war]. We need to stay together with the administration. We also need to see to it that in the future there will be a policy of arms denial to the entire region, so that we do not have a situation like this ever develop again." 13 March Sen. Biden delivers a strong speech on Mideast arms control: "The Congress and the administration must now begin to work together to develop a coherent arms control agenda for the Middle East. Such an agenda must address both the supply side and the demand side of the arms control equation. ...In the coming days and weeks, I will be working with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee to develop legislation that will provide a framework for American policy on arms control in the Middle East. I am hopeful that this effort will garner bipartisan support. ...The first step is to organize those supplier nations, particularly the Soviet Union, Germany, France, Great Britain, China and Brazil, into a suppliers' cartel. ...This suppliers' cartel must also control the proliferation of advanced conventional arms. A conference should be convened, in which these nations agree on a new system to share information about arms sales to the Middle East, to use the missile technology control regime as a model for certain conventional weapons, and to consider further steps to place strict controls on arms sales to the Middle East. "[We should not] rule out the possibility of a formal agreement limiting conventional arms, along the lines of the CFE Treaty signed last year in Paris. The relevant agencies in the US Government should be working to see what techniques we have applied in the CFE Treaty, and the INF Treaty that can be usefully applied to the region. "If we are to construct a stable Middle East peace in the aftermath of the gulf war, we must recognize--as the Bush ad- ministration insisted throughout the gulf crisis--that the status quo ante cannot be restored. We cannot go back to business as usual." 19 March Sen. Robert Byrd, chairman of the Appropriations Commit- tee, speaks in support of the supplemental budget bill under discus- sion on the Senate floor, which contains a provision to ban the sale of weapons to any US allies who had not fulfilled their monetary pledges to the United States in order to defray the costs of the gulf war. Such a ban could affect Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Germany and Japan. The supplemental appropriation bill is approved by a 98 to 1 vote. The House approved a similar bill on 7 March, but without the strong Senate language. The Senate version of the supplemental bill also reportedly contains a provision that would require congressional approval before the administration could sell or give away any military equipment now in the Middle East. The provision banning arms sales to nations that have not yet met their financial obligations is "modified" two days later in conference. Legislation introduced in the 102nd Congress Export Administration Reauthorization ActS.320 Sponsors: Pell, Helms, McCain and many others took lead in Senate; Fascell in House This bill contains a provision that mandatory sanctions be levied against any person (or corporation) who knowingly contributes to the proliferation of chemical or biological weapons; or against any government which uses chemical weapons. The same bill was passed out of Conference Committee late last session, but President Bush, opposed to the automatic nature of the sanctions (which he must apply but could terminate in one year), pocket-vetoed the bill on November 17. Status: The bill was passed by the Senate on 20 February, amended to allow the President to delay the imposition of sanctions against companies aiding in the production of chemical weapons, pending action by their home government. The House is now considering the bill. Nonproliferation and Arms Transfer Control ActS.309 Sponsor: John McCain This bill would prohibit the transfer by US companies of anything subject to control under the Arms Export Control Act or the Export Administration Act to countries which "threaten world peace by acquiring conventional arms or the means to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The determination of which countries are threatening would be made by the President every year, and would include: any nation that conducted an "aggressive attack against any other nation"; threatens to attack or to use weapons of mass destruction against any country; or supports terrorist organizations; and all nations that transferred military and/or arms technology and equipment that may be used to manufacture and deliver arms or weapons of mass destruction and dual use technology to nations that the President has listed as threatening to world peace. The bill would enact harsh enforcement mechanisms against foreign companies that supply weapons to the listed countries, and countries that seek to acquire weapons deemed not necessary for self-defense. A weakness of the legislation is that it explicitly states: "This list of countries does not include our friends or allies, or include any peace-loving states that is acquiring arms for its own defense." Sen. McCain's list of "nations that threaten world peace" seems to include any nation that buys weapons from the Soviet Union (and to a lesser extent from West European countries), and it excludes those who buy from the United States. For example, he includes Cuba in that list, even though Cuba has not invaded another country, threatened to invade or use mass destruction weapons on another country, etc. during the recent past. Status: This bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after having died there last year. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1991 S.347 Sponsors: many The DPA was due for renewal last year. The reauthorization bill was negotiated through conference last session and passed in the House, but blocked by some influential Senators from coming to a vote on the Senate floor because of administration opposition to it. One provision the administration opposed concerned section 123, on "offset policy," which requires an annual report to Congress on the progress of international consultations to limit the adverse effects of offsets in arms sales. The administration feels such a requirement places an unnecessary burden on industry and the Government. Also contentious is an amendment offered by Sen. Dodd to permit and facilitate Ex-Im Bank loans and loan guaranties to NATO and major non-NATO allies for purchasing weapons from the US armament industry. As rationale, he says he is trying to "level the playing field" against ultra-competitive West European suppliers whose governments finance the sales of arms. The amendment was killed by a one vote majority on 21 February. The administration is apparently re-introducing similar legislation [see 17 March]. Status: S.347, nearly identical to the bill passed out of Conference Committee last year, was passed by the Senate on 21 February, as was S.468, a temporary extension of the DPA through 30 September 91. The House Banking Committee approved H.R.991, a similar short- term extension of the DPA during the last week of February. The House is not expected to vote on the longer-term measure until it holds hearings on the matter. Hearings were scheduled in mid-March, but were canceled and have not yet been rescheduled. Upcoming hearings House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East is holding hearings on the post-war Middle East. The Subcommittee Chairman, Lee Hamilton has been quite vocal on the need for regional arms control, and has proposed an embargo of the region. House Appropriations Committee, Foreign Operations Subcommittee is holding hearings on policies which lead to the war, post-war policies and security assistance. On 24 April, Under Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger is scheduled to testify on arms sales and security assistance policies. The House Banking Committee is expected to hold a hearing on the proposed change to the Export-Import Bank's by-laws, which would permit it to finance arms sales, on the morning of 11 April. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will continue to hold hearings on arms control in the Middle East after the Easter recess. Recent committee prints and GAO reports Crisis in the Persian Gulf Region: U.S. Policy Options and Implications (hearings held by the Senate Armed Services Committee: September 11, 13; November 27, 28, 29 & 30; December 3, 1990) USGPO: 1990 Proliferation and Arms Control (hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and its Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science, House of Representatives: May 17 and July 11, 1990) USGPO: 1991 Proposed Sales and Upgrades of Major Defense Equipment to Saudi Arabia (hearing before the Subcommittees on Arms Control, Interna- tional Security and Science, and on Europe and the Middle East of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: June 19, 1990) USGPO: 1991 Military Exports: Implementation of Recent Offset Legislation, US General Accounting Office, December 1990 (GAO/NSIAD-91-13) Arms Sales Monitor Federation of American Scientists 307 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington DC 20002 (202) 546-3300

FAS Homepage | Arms Sales | Arm Sales Monitor | Index | Search | Join FAS