[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13475-13477]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I rose on the floor on June 22 to 
address a matter of great concern to everyone, the issue of 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  A couple of years ago, I was watching late night television and ran 
across a seminar being conducted by former Senator Sam Nunn. Someone 
asked him during a question and answer period what he considered to be 
the greatest threat to the United States of America. He mentioned 
terrorism and the new emerging threat of weapons of mass destruction.
  A short time after that, I was watching the Charlie Rose Show late 
one night with former Secretary of State Warren Christopher. When asked 
the same question, he gave the same answer: That post cold war, we have 
not concerned ourselves perhaps very much with some of these issues but 
that we should, and there are emerging threats out there.
  I think the Senator from West Virginia is contemplating a proposal 
that deals with this very issue.
  I have been specifically concerned with that issue with regard to 
China for a couple of reasons: One, they continue to lead the nations 
of the world in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
according to our intelligence community; two, because we are now 
getting ready to embark on the issue of permanent normal trade 
relations with China.
  Many of us are free traders; many of us believe in open markets; many 
of us want to support that. I think the majority of the Senate 
certainly does. Is there not any better time, and is it not incumbent 
upon us in the same general timeframe and the same general debate, that 
we couldn't, shouldn't, consider something so vitally important to this 
country as the issue of our nuclear trading partner, that we are being 
asked to embrace in a new world regime, that sits with us on the 
Security Council of the United Nations? Is it too much to ask of them 
to cease this dangerous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
and the supplying of these rogue nations with weapons of mass 
destruction--be they chemical, biological, or nuclear--which pose a 
threat to us?
  We are considering now the issue of the national missile defense 
system. Many people in this Nation, I think a majority of people in 
this Congress, are very concerned that we have no defense against such 
a terrorist attack, an accidental attack, an attack by a rogue nation 
with weapons of mass destruction, and that we need such a missile 
defense.
  One of the primary reasons we need a national missile defense system 
has to do with the activities of the Chinese and their supplying of 
rogue nations with these materials, expertise, capabilities, military 
parts that have nuclear capabilities which we are so concerned that, by 
the year of 2005, could be turned against us. Must we not consider this 
as we consider permanent normal trade relations? As important as trade 
is, is it more important than our national security? I think that 
question answers itself.
  I pointed out on June 22 that the Rumsfeld Commission reported in 
July of 1998 that: China poses a threat as a significant proliferator 
of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and enabling 
technology. The commission went on to say China's behavior thus far 
makes it appear unlikely that it will soon effectively reduce its 
country's sizable transfer of critical technologies, experts, or 
expertise to the emerging missile powers.
  A little later, on June 22 of this year, the Far Eastern Economic 
Review reported:

       Robert Einhorn, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for 
     Nonproliferation, left Hong Kong on June 11 with a small 
     delegation bound for Beijing.

  The article said:

       Neither the American nor Chinese side reported this trip. 
     Einhorn is on a delicate mission to get a commitment from 
     Beijing not to export missile technology and components to 
     Iran and Pakistan.

  It went on to say:


[[Page 13476]]

       . . . U.S. intelligence reports suggest that China may have 
     begun building a missile plant in Pakistan. If true, it would 
     be the second Chinese-built plant there.

  If that article is indeed true, it would certainly be consistent with 
what we know about other Chinese activities. There is a recent report 
that there is growing Chinese support for Libya and their missile 
program. We know they have supported the Iranian missile program. We 
know they have supported the North Korean missile program. So those are 
some of the things we discussed back on June 22.
  Let's bring ourselves up to date now. Just this last Sunday, Sunday a 
week, July 2, the New York Times reported:

       American intelligence agencies have told the Clinton 
     administration and Congress that China has continued to aid 
     Pakistan's effort to building long-range missiles that could 
     carry nuclear weapons, according to several officials with 
     access to intelligence reports.

  The story goes on to say:

       . . . how China stepped up the shipment of specialty 
     steels, guidance systems, and technical expertise to Pakistan 
     . . . since 1998.

  That is very recent activity. Shipments to Pakistan have been 
continued over the past 8 to 18 months, according to this story.
  This, of course, would be in violation of the Missile Technology 
Control Regime to which the Chinese Government agreed to adhere. 
Strangely enough, weeks ago, our Secretary of State praised the Chinese 
for complying with the MTCR. It is pretty obvious now they are not 
complying. Some answers need to be forthcoming from the Secretary of 
State with regard to that.
  But things are more serious than that because we now know, because of 
these recent developments and, perhaps, because of some of the issues 
we are considering in this Senate, the administration sent another 
envoy to the Chinese for 2 days of talks concerning some of these 
proliferation problems. On July 9, we got a report back from that 
latest trip, where our people went over there to plead with the Chinese 
to change their behavior at a time when we are about to consider 
permanent normal trade relations. We have gotten the results back. 
According to the New York Times on July 9, this visiting American 
official, who is Mr. J.D. Holum, adviser to the Secretary of State on 
arms control, said:

       After 2 days of talks, the Chinese would not allay concerns 
     about recent Chinese help for Pakistan's ballistic missile 
     program.

  He is quoted here as saying:

       We raised our concern that China has provided aid to 
     Pakistan and other countries . . .

  That is according to Mr. Holum.
  The article goes on to say:

       Some Chinese arms experts say that China is unlikely to 
     promise to end exports of missile technology anytime soon 
     because such trade, or the threat of it, gives China a 
     bargaining chip over the scale of American weapons sold to 
     Taiwan.

  Apparently, what the Chinese Government is saying is that as long as 
we assist Taiwan--which we are determined to do--for defensive purposes 
against the aggression of the Chinese Government, they are going to 
continue to assist these outlaw nations in their offensive designs that 
might be targeted toward the United States.
  That bears some serious consideration. The Chinese Government is 
saying if you continue to be friendly with Taiwan and assist them in 
defending themselves against us, we are going to continue to make the 
world more dangerous for you and the rest of the world by continuing to 
assist these nations of great concern. We have to ask ourselves: Are we 
willing to acquiesce to that kind of blackmail? We have a policy with 
regard to Taiwan. It is well stated. Are we going to withdraw our 
support for Taiwan, which might assist in doing something about this 
proliferation? I don't think so. I would certainly oppose it. I think 
most every Member of this body would oppose that. So you can take that 
option off the table.
  What are we going to do? The other option would be to continue to sit 
pat, continue our policy, and see the continued proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. We will try to build a missile defense 
system that will catch them. While they are building up over there, we 
will build up over here.
  There is a third option, of course. That is to tell the Chinese 
Government that, yes, we will trade with you; yes, we want to engage 
with you; yes, we will help you see progress in human rights and other 
issues; yes, we acknowledge you have taken a lot of people out of 
poverty and opened up your markets somewhat; yes, we will do all those 
things, but if you continue to do things that pose a mortal threat to 
the United States of America, we will respond to that in an economic 
way. There will be consequences to you.
  It does not have to be directly related to trade. We can do some 
other things that would not hurt our people. For example, the Chinese 
have access to our capital markets. They raise billions of dollars in 
our capital markets. It is free and open to them. It is not transparent 
at all. We don't know what they do with that money. Some people think 
they use it to build up their army. But Chinese interests raise 
billions of dollars in our capital markets. Should we allow them to 
continue to doing that when they are supplying these rogue nations with 
weapons that are a threat to us? It makes no sense at all.
  Must we read in the paper someday that the North Koreans or the 
Iranians, sure enough, have a missile and have the nuclear capability 
of send a nuclear missile to the United States of America?
  People say: They know they would be wiped off the face of the Earth. 
We could retaliate and they would never do something like that. No. 1, 
we made a lot of mistakes in this country by assuming other people 
think the same way we do. No. 2, I am not sure we are always going to 
be able to detect the source of a missile such as that. The United 
States would not likely, as some people say--having it trip off their 
tongue so easily--wipe a nation off the face of the Earth unless we 
were absolutely sure. So there is no need to go down that road. We must 
do something on the front end that will ameliorate the possibility of 
our ever getting into that situation and that condition. That is why 17 
of my colleagues and I have proposed a bill called the Chinese 
Nonproliferation Act, which basically calls for an annual assessment of 
the activities of the Chinese Government and Chinese Government-
controlled entities within China, to see how they are doing on a yearly 
basis in terms of their proliferation activity. Then, if there is a 
finding that they continue their proliferation activity, the President 
has the authority to take action.
  I believe that is the least we can do under the circumstances. Our 
bill has become quite controversial because many people think it 
complicates the issue of permanent normal trade relations with China. 
They do not want to do anything--No. 1, they say--to hurt our 
exporters. We have made changes. No one can arguably say our bill hurts 
U.S. exporters now. We don't want to hurt our agricultural industry. We 
have made changes to accommodate that concern. We are not designing 
this in order to hurt our agricultural industry, so that is not an 
issue anymore.
  When you get right down to it, the opponents of this bill are 
primarily concerned about doing anything to agitate the Chinese at a 
time in which we are trying to get permanent normal trade relations 
passed. I don't think we ought to gratuitously aggravate them. But if 
we are not prepared to risk the displeasure of a nation that is doing 
things that pose a mortal threat to our national security, what are we 
prepared to do?
  What is more important than that? I am not saying let's cut off trade 
with them. I am not saying let's take action against them for 
precipitous reasons or reasons that are not well thought out. I am 
saying we must respond to these continued reports from the Rumsfeld 
Commission, from the Cox Commission, from our biennial intelligence 
assessments, from these reports from our own envoys coming back saying 
the Chinese are basically telling us to get lost. We know what they are 
doing, and they are apparently not even denying it anymore. And we are 
going to approve PNTR without even taking up this issue?
  We are trying to get a vote on this bill. So far we have been unable 
to do so. I ask my colleagues to seriously

[[Page 13477]]

consider what kind of signal we are going to be sending. We talk a lot 
about signals around here. I ask what kind of signal we are going to be 
sending to the Chinese Government, to our allies, to the rest of the 
world, if we are not willing to take steps to defend ourselves? A great 
country that is unwilling to defend itself will not be a great country 
forever.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________