The United States, as the world’s largest arms exporter, often sells weapons under the guise of improving relations to countries whose leaders are irresponsible or dangerous. This means that U.S. soldiers are likely to encounter expertly made U.S. weapons as they chase hot spots around the world. Unfortunately, some common-sense restrictions on arms sales have received little support in Congress.

Current law allows Congress to block arms sales with a two-thirds vote within 30 days of the sale. Not exactly a quick-strike operation, Congress has been able to organize a vote just three times since the law was passed in 1976, and each time the vote failed to stop the sale. For practical purposes, the law is useless.

Sen. Mark Hatfield, a Republican from Oregon, introduced last spring a so-called Code of Conduct bill that would “prohibit United States military assistance and arms transfers to foreign governments that are undemocratic, do not adequately protect human rights, are engaged in acts of armed aggression, or are not fully participating in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.” The bill, which will be considered this month, brings a small measure of sanity to an increasingly well-armed world.

Without a military crisis to point to, however, proponents of the bill are having a difficult time finding sponsors. The Clinton administration has offered no encouragement, and has continued the policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations. It was those policies, according to the National Security News Service, that helped arm Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

Redirecting the U.S. military industry will take years of gradual change, but holding its customers to basic human-rights standards should not. With the Hatfield bill, Congress has an opportunity to safeguard U.S. soldiers abroad while improving international arms control.