[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 115 (Thursday, September 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9146-S9147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           NATIONAL SECURITY

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, before my colleague from Texas leaves 
the Chamber, I want to congratulate him on what I consider to be 
another major achievement of his career. He can add this legislation to 
the long list of legislation he has either been primarily responsible 
for or substantially responsible for. While we have disagreements on 
the legislation, this is something I have seen him work tirelessly on 
for at least a couple of years now, and certainly Senator Enzi carried 
a large share of the work, as Senator Gramm said.
  This is another one of those instances where Senator Gramm took an 
issue like a dog taking to a bone and did not turn it loose until he 
got it done. I must say it is another impressive performance, and I 
want to congratulate my good friend for adding another important 
legislative victory to his long legacy.
  I want to discuss the legislation for a minute in response to my good 
friend.

[[Page S9147]]

 We talked of two goals. This bill has been put to bed now, as it were. 
We are going to be voting on it shortly. We have made some modest 
improvement to it. The Senators opposite are correct in saying we have 
been talking about this a long time.
  I do not know whether we can take credit for 59 changes or not. They 
say 59 changes have been made, but I guess we can take credit for some 
changes that have been made along the way to improve the bill.
  We still have problems with the basic concept, and right before we go 
off into this good night, we need to lodge at least one summary 
statement with regard to the nature of our concern and where we 
hopefully will go from here.
  The nature of our concern simply is this: It is a more dangerous 
world out there than ever before, and we have to be more careful than 
ever we do not export dangerous items to dangerous people that will 
turn around and hurt this country. The risk of that is greater than 
ever before.

  We do not have two equal goals of trade and commerce on the one hand 
and national security on the other. The interest of national security 
dwarfs the interest of trade and commerce, although they are discussed 
in this Chamber somehow in equipoise. That is not the case. It should 
not be the case. It is not even set out that way in the bill if one 
looks to the purposes of the bill. The purposes of the bill are to 
protect this country. That is why we have an export law, not to 
facilitate business.
  A great majority of the time I am with my business friends, but when 
it comes to national security I must depart with those who would weigh 
too heavily the interests of trade. I suggest those who are interested 
in trade get about giving the President fast track, giving the 
President trade promotion authority. That will do more for trade and 
industry and to help the economy of this Nation than exporting dual-use 
high tech items to China and Russia that may find their way to Iran and 
Iraq. So that is what we ought to be doing if we are concerned about 
trade in this country. So those two goals are not equal.
  We need to understand what we are doing once again on these issues. 
Call it a balance, if you will. No matter how you weigh the factors 
involved, we are giving the Secretary of Commerce and those within the 
department responsibility for national security. The Secretary, who I 
have the greatest confidence in--and I think he is a great man doing a 
great job--should not have the responsibility for national security. 
That is not supposed to be his job.
  We are once again giving the Commerce Department, which we greatly 
criticized during the Clinton administration for some of their laxness, 
the life or death decisionmaking power in terms of these regulations or 
policies, in many important instances--not all instances, not always 
unilaterally, but many of them in some very important areas. We are 
deregulating entire categories of exports.
  Foreign availability has always been something we considered in terms 
of whether or not we would export something or grant a license for 
something, and I think properly so. We do not want to foolishly try to 
control things not controllable. So foreign availability ought to be a 
consideration. We are moving light-years away from that, letting 
someone over at the Department of Commerce categorize entire areas of 
foreign availability that takes it totally out of the licensing 
process, so you do not have a license, and our Government cannot keep 
up with what is being exported to China or Russia. That is a major 
move. It is not a good move.

  With regard to the enhanced penalties, what sanction is there to be 
imposed upon an exporter when he is not even required to have a 
license? It is saying: We will raise the penalty for your conduct, but 
we will make your conduct legal. That is not very effective in terms of 
export control, to say the least.
  Finally, when I hear the proponents of this legislation say 99.6 
percent of these exports are approved anyway, they are arguing against 
themselves. They use it to make the point this is kind of a foolish 
process anyway. So if the great majority of them are going to be 
approved, why even have the process? I assume that is the logical 
conclusion of their position.
  My question is: What about the .4 percent that don't make it? Do we 
not have to look at the body of exports taking place in order to 
determine what that .4 is? Or if we didn't have a process, would that 
.4 be more like 3.4 if people knew there wasn't such a process? The .4 
is the important thing to look at. Besides, if all the exports are 
being approved anyway, why is it so onerous to go through a process 
that will take a few days and get a clean bill of health so there is no 
question?
  Therein lies the basis of our concern. It is a fundamental 
disagreement as to how far we should be going in this dangerous time. 
As the world is becoming more dangerous, as technology proliferates, as 
we see those we are sending technology to using that technology for 
their military purposes, then passing it on to rogue nations, and we 
see our agencies and our committees--like the Cox committee--saying our 
lax export laws are causing some of this, and we are in the process of 
loosening export laws, I think that is unwise. I hope I am wrong.
  As I said yesterday, I can afford to be wrong. If I am wrong, a few 
companies have been held up a few days. If the proponents of this 
legislation are wrong, it could cause problems for the country. I hope 
I am proven to be wrong and that I am strong enough to be able to stand 
up and say it when and if that time comes. I hope it does come to that. 
But we will not know for a while.
  In the meantime, hopefully, through changes as we go along, through 
continuing to work with the administration in heightening their 
awareness of some of the problems and details we have seen in our 
committee work over the years, if we see we are going down the wrong 
track, we will be able to respond and adjust in midstream. I know my 
colleagues on the other side will join in that hope and desire, and I 
am sure we will be able to work together toward that end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________