[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 116 (Monday, September 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9246-S9247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think it is important to state my 
reasons for voting against S. 149, the Export Administration Act. I do 
so because I think there is too much deference to commercial interests 
at the expense of limiting exports which may threaten national 
security.
  I cast my vote late in the rollcall when there were 77 votes in favor 
of the bill, which eventually turned out to be an 85 to 14 vote, so 
that I knew the bill was going to pass by overwhelming numbers.
  Legislation on this subject is of great importance and is long 
overdue. I was tempted to vote in favor of the bill on the proposition 
that the best frequently is the enemy of the good. Had my vote been 
decisive so that it might have been a matter of having a bill which 
vastly improved the current situation, which is the absence of 
legislation, then I might have voted differently. I think the number of 
negative votes are important as a protest signal that this subject 
should be monitored closely and perhaps reviewed sooner rather than 
later.
  For example, my concerns about the elevation of commercial interests 
over potential national security risks are illustrated by the foreign 
availability and mass market status this Act provides controlled items. 
The foreign availability component of the act would make the U.S. 
Government unable to control the sale of items that are also 
manufactured by other countries. Such lack of control would allow U.S. 
firms to sell anthrax to Saddam Hussein because of anthrax's dual-use 
in vaccine production. Additionally, the mass-market status in this 
bill would enable export of controlled items without a license if the 
item were mass produced for different industrial uses. An example of 
this mass-market status would be glass and carbon fibers that can be 
used in the manufacture of both golf clubs and also ballistic missiles.

[[Page S9247]]

  These are only illustrations of problems which, I believe, should yet 
be corrected in conference or in later legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am very pleased that S. 149, the Export Administration 
Act of 2001, passed the U.S. Senate by such an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote of 85-14. This important law reforms our export controls of dual-
use items to reflect the vast geopolitical, technological and 
commercial changes that have occurred since the old law was enacted 
back in 1979. While we must remain ever-vigilant to protect our nation 
from security threats, we must at the same time recognize that our 
security depends in large measure on a vibrant economy, and in 
particular on our ability to continue innovating in the high technology 
sector. Ensuring that American producers have the ability to 
participate in the global marketplace is critical to this effort.
  The hard work that contributed to the overwhelming support for S. 149 
cannot be overstated, and I was especially gratified by the spirit of 
cooperation that dominated the discussion. This bill, and the quality 
of its provisions, owe a great deal to the thoughtful participation of 
a variety of players on both sides of the aisle. In some cases, too 
many cooks spoil the broth. In this case, however, a variety of players 
made very thoughtful improvements to the bill. I extend my thanks and 
gratitude to the core group of sponsors, which included Senator Mike 
Enzi, Republican of Wyoming, Chairman Paul Sarbanes from Maryland, 
Senator Phil Gramm from Texas, and also to so many others contributed 
to an improved final product.
  In particular, I would be remiss in not mentioning the important and 
dedicated efforts of Senator Mark Dayton, my Democratic colleague from 
Minnesota. Senator Dayton and his staff worked tirelessly to ensure 
that S. 149 protects the interests of the agricultural community 
relative to export controls. While there are many legitimate reasons to 
restrict the export of certain items abroad, especially where the 
export of such items could pose a threat to America's national 
security, there is to my mind absolutely no acceptable logic for 
imposing restrictions on the export of food.
  The export of food can never pose a national security threat to this 
Nation, and Senator Dayton, along with his Republican colleague from 
Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, put together an amendment that eliminated 
the possibility that this government ever restrict the export of food 
for a purported national security threat. I look forward to continuing 
to work with Senator Dayton on agricultural issues, and I know that the 
farm community is grateful to the Senator for his work in this area. I 
also wish to commend Senator Dayton's staff, in particular Jack 
Danielson, Sarah Dahlin and Lani Kawamura.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, a consensus emerged during the 1990s with 
regard to the national security of the United States. That consensus 
was and remains that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--
nuclear, chemical and biological--and their means of delivery 
constitute the most important threat to our national security. There is 
also widespread acknowledgment that a number of rogue nations, and 
particularly China, represent the new national security challenge for 
the United States.
  Yet, this body, the U.S. Senate, is about to pass with overwhelming 
support a major piece of legislation that stands in direct 
contradiction to the objectives of U.S. national security policy--to 
limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of 
delivery.
  This is not hyperbole; it is a simple statement of fact. I 
acknowledge that the administration has endorsed S. 149. A campaign 
pledge has been kept. But the long-term ramifications of the vote we 
are about to take should not be underestimated. S. 149 received the 
strong opposition of the former chairmen, now ranking members, of each 
committee and subcommittee with responsibility for national security. 
It can in no way be considered to represent a prudent balance between 
commerce and national security. It is, in fact, heavily weighted in 
favor of the former, with scant regard for the latter.
  The list of exports with which we have traditionally been concerned, 
the Commerce Control List, has 2,400 items on it. It is important to 
note that exports of these items are licensed, not prohibited. Contrary 
to the rhetoric of some, it also is not the shopping list of someone 
making a Sunday trip to Radio Shack. It is, rather, a compilation of 
esoteric items that have military applications, including for the 
construction of nuclear weapons and ballistic and cruise missiles. The 
amount of commerce at issue is minuscule relative both to the amount of 
U.S. exports and to the size of the gross domestic product. 
Restrictions or limitations on the export of items on the Commerce 
Control List do not now, nor have they ever had a deleterious effect on 
the U.S. economy, or on U.S. competitiveness. They do, however, 
represent the regulatory manifestation of our national security 
requirements and the role our moral values should play in the conduct 
of foreign and trade policies.
  Some of us who oppose this bill support permanent normal trade 
relations with China. And, yet, we oppose this bill. We oppose it 
because it will, by design, open the door to the export without 
government oversight of the very items and technologies that contribute 
to the threats to our security that justifies a defense budget of over 
$300 billion per year. When we debate national missile defense over the 
months ahead, we should not hesitate to reflect on the connection 
between what we do here today, and what those of us who support missile 
defenses hope to do tomorrow.

                          ____________________