Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, It would be helpful if Senator Edwards and I can discuss, for the record, with the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations subcommittee, two matters of considerable importance to the citizens of Mecklenburg County, NC.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the able Senator. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, as well as their outstanding staffs, for all of their hard work in putting this bill together. I know that all involved have invested long hours and that you have made many difficult decisions. Senator Edwards and I are grateful for the support that we received for several vital initiatives in North Carolina that are intended to improve public and officer safety. In particular, I am grateful for the willingness of the committee to agree to our request for $500,000 to help equip a new Sex Offender Registration Unit at the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. Tragically, sex offenders are, at once, among the most difficult criminals to convict of their crimes and among the most likely to commit new offenses. North Carolina law requires convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement and to notify the police of their change of address. The safety of the public in general, and the safety of our children in particular, is placed in jeopardy when a convicted sex offender fails to comply with N.C. registration laws. Statewide, approximately one in ten convicted sex offenders does fail to register. North Carolina's largest county in terms of population, it is perhaps not surprising that Mecklenburg is also the leader in the number of registered sex offenders. Over the past few years, there have been at least 15 separate instances where offenders that were required to register were later apprehended and convicted of subsequent charges of molestation or the rape of a minor child. Ever one such case is one too many. The abhorrent nature of these crimes demands that we do everything we can to ensure that sex offenders are not able to victimize others when they return to our communities. This $500,000 will help the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office to property identify, register, and consistent with North Carolina law, track these heinous offenders after their release from prison.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the chairman. In addition to the $500,000 provided for the Sex Offender Registration Unit, there is one other matter involving the county that I would like to address. Senator Edwards and I combined our efforts in support of the county's request for $3,000,000 from the COPS Technology Program for the Criminal Justice Information System. Upon receiving the committee's report, we were pleased to note that the money requested for CJIS was included but we also noted that the reference to Mecklenburg as the intended recipient was inadvertently omitted. If the chairman would be so kind as to clarify the committee's intent with respect to these funds, then I would be most grateful.

Mr. HELMS. I again thank the chairman and my good friend, Senator Judd Gregg, for their vital support on these projects. I would also like to recognize the efforts of Senator Edwards and his staff who worked diligently to promote these initiatives.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I yield to Senator Specter and will reclaim my 10 minutes after him.

Mr. HELMS. That is fine.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have counted the number of today's U.S. Senators who were around on December 7, 1941. There are not many of us. Many present members of the Senate were not born. The Honorable Strom Thurmond was indeed around, and bless his heart, I am so pleased the able senior Senator from South Carolina is still here and active. I remember that Sunday on December 7, 1941, when we came out of church and heard the news about the bombing of Pearl Harbor. As one of the staff editors of the afternoon 6-day-a-week newspaper in Raleigh, NC, we prevailed upon the then publisher of The Raleigh Times to publish an ``extra''--and it was the last ``extra" newspaper published in the State of North Carolina, to my knowledge. I recall that we sold approximately 12,000, which pleased the management of the newspaper. After the paper was put to bed, I walked up the street to the Raleigh post office and into the Navy recruiting station to volunteer. I did pretty well, but was turned down because of my hearing in my left ear. I recall my disappointment. But over in the corner was a regular Navy chief petty officer. Mr. President, I have never met a chief petty officer of the regular Navy who didn't talk out of one side of his mouth. He said: ``Hey, boy, come over here.'' I went. He said: ``You want to get in this man's Navy?'' I said: ``Yes, sir.'' He said: ``I have some friends in BUPERS.'' I did not know what BUPERS was, but I later found it was Bureau of Naval Personnel in Washington. I thought he was pulling my leg, but it turned out that he was not, because about 2 months later, I received a waiver; I was sworn into the Navy and went to San Diego for 2 or 3 months' boot camp. Which is beside the point, except to say that the recruiting station that Sunday afternoon, December 7, 1941, was filled with young men, all wanting to defend their country. A lot of them did not know where Pearl Harbor was or what Pearl Harbor was, but they came anyhow because they realized that their country had been attacked unfairly. Mr. President, that is the reason we won the war; that was a time when the accepted and effective policy of the United States of America was to seek out and find and, when necessary, destroy the leaders of forces resorting to violent harm to the American people. That policy was in effect, as I say, on December 7, but in the years following, some in political circles decided to substitute only a vague warning to those making threats by crashing airliners loaded with innocent Americans. Mr. President, I was encouraged to hear the President of the United States last evening and again this morning say, in effect, we are going to get them; they are not going to get by with it. That was the attitude in 1941 when Franklin Roosevelt--and I am the only one present in this Chamber at the moment who heard FDR say ``this is a day that will live in infamy.'' Well, Mr. President, yesterday was another day that must live in infamy. Not since the war of 1812 has the city of Washington been attacked by a hostile adversary. The attack on Pearl Harbor, of course, matched yesterday's cowardly actions in both surprise and swiftness that occurred yesterday. The losses are perhaps more enormous yesterday; in number in terms of innocent lives, than those astronomical numbers in 1941 at Pearl Harbor. The policy I have just mentioned--of going after adversaries of the United States of America--was in effect on December 7, but somewhere along the line it began to dissipate after World War II. The mind-set in some political circles gradually was substituted for a two-fisted warning to the mean, cruel terrorists who made their threats yesterday by crashing airliners loaded with innocent Americans into public buildings in New York City and Washington. That was the kind of terrorists who created that disaster yesterday; I hope I will live to see the day when it will once again be the unmistakable policy of the United States of America to search for and find that kind of sneaky slimy terrorist who created this morning's headlines by crashing those airplanes and creating destruction and disaster and bloodshed and loss of lives. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison mentioned the young lady who called her husband from one of the planes on her cell phone. All of us had seen her many times on television and enjoyed her talent--and she will be missed. But I hope Americans will again be two-fisted, standing together. President Bush laid down the bill of particulars, and I believe he is going to say let us get back in the game and punish these cruel terrorists. I intend to do my best as a United States Senator to encourage and supplement such a revival of a policy that once protected the lives and property of innocent American people. FDR was right, December 7, 1941, was a day of infamy, and yesterday, September 11, 2001, was also a day of infamy. We must stand together and vote together and never be deterred in our efforts to put an end to this sort of thing, wherever it happens around this world. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that the able Senator from Arkansas be recognized.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield to the able Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that the distinguished Senator from Wyoming be recognized.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, be recognized.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 7, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,772,587,811,775.31, five trillion, seven hundred seventy-two billion, five hundred eighty-seven million, eight hundred eleven thousand, seven hundred seventy-five dollars and thirty-one cents. One year ago, September 7, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,680,707,239,455.93, five trillion, six hundred eighty billion, seven hundred seven million, two hundred thirty-nine thousand, four hundred fifty-five dollars and ninety-three cents. Twenty-five years ago, September 7, 1976, the Federal debt stood at $625,934,000,000, six hundred twenty-five billion, nine hundred thirty- four million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $5,146,653,811,775.31, five trillion, one hundred forty-six billion, six hundred fifty-three million, eight hundred eleven thousand, seven hundred seventy-five dollars and thirty-one cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, North Carolina, down through history has been blessed with countless remarkable sons and daughters, and in my judgment, one of the truly great has been General Hugh H. Shelton, the 14th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was confirmed by the Senate on October 1, 1997, and reconfirmed by the Senate for a second 2-year term in 1999. In this capacity, this great son of Eastern North Carolina served as the principal military advisor to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. Prior to becoming Chairman, General Shelton served as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. The General was born in Tarboro, NC, in January 1942. He earned a bachelor of science degree from North Carolina State University and a master of science from Auburn University. His military education includes attendance at the Air Command and Staff College in Montgomery, AL, and at the National War College at Fort McNair, Washington, DC. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry in 1963 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps, and spent the next 24 years in a variety of command and staff positions in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Vietnam. He served two tours in Vietnam--the first with the 5th Special Forces Group, the second with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. He also commanded the 3rd Battalion, 60th Infantry in the 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, WA; he served as the 9th Infantry Division's assistant chief of staff for operation. He then returned to North Carolina where he commanded the 1st Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg; and then served as the Chief of Staff of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY. Following his selection as brigadier general in 1987, General Shelton served 2 years in the Operations Directorate of the Joint Staff. In 1989, he began a 2-year assignment as Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), a tour that included the Division's 7-month deployment to Saudi Arabia for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Upon returning from the Gulf War, General Shelton was promoted to major general and again assigned to Fort Bragg where this time he commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. In 1993, he was again promoted-- to lieutenant general--and assumed command of the XVIII Airborne Corps. In 1994, while serving as corps commander, General Shelton commanded the Joint Task Force that conducted Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. In March 1996, he was promoted to general and became Commander in Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. In his 4 years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for military members and their families. He championed numerous initiatives including the largest across-the-board pay raise for the military in 18 years--helping to narrow the civilian-military ``pay gaps.'' His push for pay table reform targeted greater increases for mid- grade noncommissioned officers, and his retirement reform package reinstated benefits for those entering service after 1986, and, thanks to his dedication and support, an enhanced housing allowance was implemented gradually to eliminate out of pocket expenses for service members living off post. Chairman Shelton was a strong advocate of the effort to reform medical health care, to make medical care more responsive--to include military retirees over 65. He made great strides to improve the readiness of the U.S. military by articulating a regiment for increased defense spending. As a result, the Department of Defense realized a $112 billion increase in defense spending over the 5-year defense plan to arrest declining readiness rates. He additionally implemented new processes to carefully manage high demand/low density resources in support of the National Security Strategy. Chairman Shelton and his staff published Joint Vision 2020 to establish goals and the metrics for the future joint force; he established the U.S. Joint Forces Command as the proponent for Joint Experimentation and Joint Force readiness. He established Joint Task Force-Civil Support to increase the military's ability to respond to crises in the U.S. homeland and established Joint Task Force-Computer Network Operations to enhance protection of U.S. information networks. The General directed numerous initiative designed to improve the interoperability of the four Services including a Joint Airfighting Logistics Initiative, development of a Global Information Grid, revision of all Joint Professional Military Education programs and an enhancement on the joint warfighting focus of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. General Shelton's awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with two oak leaf clusters), Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit (with oak leaf cluster), Bronze Star Medal with V device (with three oak leaf clusters), and the Purple Heart. He has also been awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, Master Parachutist Badge, Pathfinder Badge, Air Assault Badge, Military Freefall Badge, and Special Forces and Ranger Tabs and numerous foreign awards and badges. Mrs. Shelton is the former Carolyn L. Johnson of Speed, NC, who was young Hugh Shelton's high school sweetheart. As Mrs. Hugh H. Shelton, she has been actively involved with service issues and support to military families throughout General Shelton's career. The General and Mrs. Shelton have three sons: Jonathan, a special agent in the U.S. Secret Service; Jeffrey, a U.S. Army Special Operations soldier, and Mark, their youngest son. Mr. President, Dot Helms and I are proud to have General Shelton and Carolyn as our very special friends--and to be theirs. The General has represented the U.S. military with great distinction for the past four years as its senior military officer. This splendid North Carolinian has participated in policy-making at the highest levels of Government but he never lost the common tough with our men and women in uniform. He will be remembered as a soldier's soldier and a quiet professional, along with his lovely wife and three sons.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 5, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,769,122,055,290.29, five trillion, seven hundred sixty-nine billion, one hundred twenty-two million, fifty-five thousand, two hundred ninety dollars and twenty-nine cents. One year ago, September 5, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,678,475,470,839.16, five trillion, six hundred seventy-eight billion, four hundred seventy-five million, four hundred seventy thousand, eight hundred thirty-nine dollars and sixteen cents. Five years ago, September 5, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,225,564,391,083.90, five trillion, two hundred twenty-five billion, five hundred sixty-four million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, eight-three dollars and ninety cents. Ten years ago, September 5, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,623,548,000,000, three trillion, six hundred twenty-three billion, five hundred forty-eight million. Fifteen years ago, September 5, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,112,803,000,000, two trillion, one hundred twelve billion, eight hundred three million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $3 trillion, $3,656,319,055,290.29, Three trillion, six hundred fifty-six billion, three hundred nineteen million, fifty-five thousand, two hundred ninety dollars and twenty-nine cents during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 4, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,761,532,655,812.62, five trillion, seven hundred sixty-one billion, five hundred thirty-two million, six hundred fifty-five thousand, eight hundred twelve dollars and sixty-two cents. Five years ago, September 4, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,228,998,407,724.89, five trillion, two hundred twenty-eight billion, nine hundred ninety-eight million, four hundred seven thousand, seven hundred twenty-four dollars and eighty-nine cents. Ten years ago, September 4, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,617,415,000,000, three trillion, six hundred seventeen billion, four hundred fifteen million. Fifteen years ago, September 4, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,113,006,000,000, two trillion, one hundred thirteen billion, six million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $3,648,526,655,812.62, three trillion, six hundred forty-eight billion, five hundred twenty-six million, six hundred fifty-five thousand, eight hundred twelve dollars and sixty-two cents during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Yes, of course.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time deemed to be appropriate by the managers of the bill I be recognized to be heard for 30 minutes on this bill.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I feel obliged to voice my strong opposition to S. 149, the pending Export Administration Act of 2001. I do this because this bill does not protect the national security of the American people. It does not control the export of our most sensitive dual-use items. It does not promote U.S. foreign policy. Instead, this is an indiscriminate trade promotion bill, and I am obliged to state that I am troubled by the fact that this bill, S. 149, was written in fact, by the business community to maximize future sales to Communist China, and to other such countries that represent the highest risk of technology diversion and proliferation. Make no mistake about it, this legislation will enable dangerous regimes around the world to arm themselves through the use of the best dual-use technology America has to offer. This bill's sponsors argue that because the cold war is over, the world is a much safer place and that we need to rid ourselves of outdated export controls that inhibit trade and harm the economy. These Pollyannas could not be more mistaken. As the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, I feel obliged to make clear that I hold a very different view. It is a view based on years of experience in foreign policy and national security matters, and sharpened by ongoing intelligence assessments. My view is shared by the other ranking members of the national security committees of the Senate; that is why we have joined together in opposing this legislation. The fact is, despite the fall of the Soviet Union, the world is actually a far more complicated and dangerous place due to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. During the past 30 years alone, the number of countries pursuing nuclear weapons programs has doubled, the number of countries pursuing ballistic missile programs has tripled, and more than a dozen countries, including most state sponsors of terrorism, have offensive biological and chemical weapons programs. Even worse, this activity is being fueled by Russia and Communist China, two members of the United Nations Security Council who are illicitly selling to rogue countries the dual-use technologies so critical to their weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. For years, some other Senators and I have cautioned the Senate about these growing threats; we have argued forcefully for a national missile defense system to make the United States less vulnerable to blackmail or missile attack itself. But missile defense cannot alone keep us safe. What we desperately need, and don't have, is a comprehensive strategy that ranges from a credible strategic deterrent to rigorus export controls as our first line of defense. At a time when the United States of America is becoming increasingly vulnerable to rogue states and others armed with WMD-tipped ballistic missiles, it makes absolutely no sense for the United States to liberalize its export controls over the technology and know-how so critical to these weapons programs. Moreover, doing so sends all of the wrong signals to our allies, and others, about our commitment to nonproliferation. I have also tried as best I can to make clear my view about the need to deal firmly with Communist China, which is dramatically increasing its military spending and modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces. China's leaders talk openly about preparing for a future conflict with the United States. Meanwhile, Communist China is making every effort to acquire U.S. technology and know-how, through theft, circumvention of export laws, or legitimate commercial activity. In the past year and a half alone, Communist China illegally used U.S. supercomputers to improve its nuclear weapons. And just a few months ago, we learned that Chinese technicians were installing fiber optic cable for Iraq's air defenses, a clear violation of U.N. sanctions. Worse yet, this assistance and technology--which was provided to Chinese companies by American business firms when the previous administration mistakenly decontrolled this equipment over-- and I must emphasize ``over''--the objections of the National Security Agency in 1994--has been of great help to Saddam Hussein in his quest to shoot down American pilots. Seven months ago, a CIA report made clear that China continues ``to take a very narrow interpretation of their non-proliferation commitments with the United States.'' Just recently, we learned that the Communist Chinese are continuing to ship missile parts and components to Pakistan despite Beijing's pledge in November 2000 to stop all such transfers and set up an export control system. Consideration of this bill by the Senate sends all of the wrong signals, wrong messages, to China. It reminds Beijing that the United States is all too willing to place profit before principle. Let me address some of the major elements of this legislation that have convinced me that its passage will seriously jeopardize the national security of the United States. To begin, no one--and I repeat no one--has conducted a thorough national security risk assessment to determine the possible impact of this bill's sweeping changes on our national security. Rather, many have blindly accepted the anecdotes and assertions of industry as the basis for changes in the bill. Second, this bill does not adequately cover ``deemed exports,'' more commonly understood as the transfers of sensitive knowledge from one person to another within the United States. Under this bill, the information and know-how passed to visiting scientists and others does not appear to be illegal. Third, this bill creates a new licensing exemption category called mass marketed items, which allows companies to produce their products off of the control lists, notwithstanding the sensitivity of the item. If an item is widely available in the United States, then the bill's authors argue that it shouldn't be controlled. Fourth, when coupled with a new definition of foreign availability that further loosens controls, this bill has the potential to decontrol large numbers of items. For example, according to one outside expert, under S. 149, the high-precision electronic switches needed to detonate atomic bombs could be up for sale by claiming that they are needed as spare parts for medical equipment; this is what Iraq tried as recently as 1998. Fifth, despite the fact that the purpose of the EAA is to safeguard our nation's security, the various advisory committees and consultative requirements placed on the administration in the bill do not require that national security or non-proliferation experts be included, while labor organizations and the business community are clearly mentioned. Sixth, this legislation prohibits export controls on sensitive parts if they are incorporated into more expensive commercial items or if the controlled item in shipping overseas for final assembly. In other words, despite the national security importance of an item, whether or not it's controlled depends to some degree on its relative monetary value and where it is produced. So if a special airborne navigation or radar system requires a license when exported individually, a license would not be required if it were merely a part of an expensive aircraft. And last, but certainly not least, S. 149 provides extraordinary authority to the Secretary of Commerce on important procedural issues such as commodity classifications, license referrals, dispute resolutions, and the development of export administration regulations. If national security concerns are to be given adequate consideration in export decisions, then the Departments of State and Defense must be given greater authority in the export licensing process. And if these two departments are found already to have sufficient authority under current practice, then why not codify it? The bottom line is that there seem to be more loopholes and exemptions from export controls in this bill than there are export controls. Could it be that the drafters of this legislation assume that any effort to obtain a license will meet with failure, and that no effort should therefore be spared in ensuring that companies need not bother to ask for one. I cannot understand why the bill goes to such great lengths to ensure that no exporter will ever be required to tell the U.S. government what he proposes to export, and to whom he intends to sell it. Just because an exporter is required to obtain a license for a sale does not mean that the sale is going to be denied. In fact, over 80 percent of all license applications are approved. At the same time, the requirement for a license enables the United States Government to ensure that U.S. companies do not contribute, either intentionally or unintentionally, to the arming of potentially hostile regimes. Licenses also allow the government to track acquisition efforts by various countries and groups. Without the licensing of dual-use commodities, the U.S. will know less about the potential proliferation of dangerous technologies, will be less able to combat that proliferation, and will lose the ability to exhort other nations to take steps to strengthen their regimes. Notwithstanding these facts, the bill's authors will argue that they have made considerable changes to the bill that address many of the concerns my colleagues and others have raised in the past. For example, the Banking Committee will argue that: Penalties for violations of this Act have been raised in order to punish violators and deter others. While this is true, this bill also raises the evidentiary standard for illicit transfers. Moreover, raising penalties doesn't make much difference when fewer items are being controlled, or when enforcement procedures--such as the mandatory conduct of post-shipment verifications on high-performance computers-- are stripped from the law. An Executive order will be issued to cover deemed exports, give the Department of Defense more visibility and a larger role in the commodity classification process, and strengthen the voice and role of other agencies. However, to date, a draft of the Executive order has yet to be provided for review. But more importantly, given the significance of these matters, doesn't it make sense to make these changes part of the law? It doesn't make sense to control mass marketed items that can be purchased at Radio Shack and carried out of the country. The problem with this argument is that if items were controlled, they wouldn't be available for purchase at Radio Shack. But beyond that, acquiring widely available items illegally denies end-users the parts, maintenance, and servicing agreements essential to their long-term operation. Since most licenses are approved anyway, requiring a licensing only harms U.S. companies by slowing them down. The fact is, DoD and the intelligence community benefit greatly from the opportunity to look at and understand complex dual-use items before they are shipped abroad, and the licensing data provides an important audit trail that is useful for conducting cumulative effects analyses and other follow-ups. This bill addresses all of the major findings and recommendations of the Cox commission report. Upon closer examination, many of the Cox commission's conclusions are not addressed, but are simply explained away. For example, the Cox commission recommended that the government conduct a comprehensive review of the national security implications of exporting high-performance computers to the PRC, yet S. 149 does away with that requirement. The Cox commission also recommended that current licensing procedures be modified to provide longer review periods when deemed necessary by any reviewing department or agency on national security grounds, and require a consensus by all reviewing departments and agencies for license approval. Unfortunately, S. 149 also fails to fully adopt these proposals as well. The Wassenaar arrangement is a weak multilateral regime that fails to control many dual-use items to the advantage of our European partners. It is true that Wassenaar is an inadequate agreement, but it is also true that the U.S. government has contributed to its weakness by making changes to our export control laws that seemed to undercut our Wassenaar partners. But rather than pushing for greater decontrol, we should follow up on President Bush's statement that we need a stronger regime--closer to what we had under COCOM--to prevent the proliferation of sensitive dual-use items to rogue states. It is unfortunate that the United States is giving up its leadership role on this issue and walking away from years of progress in the export control and nonproliferation field. Finally, some have argued that failure to pass S. 149 will result in economic harm to our country and the loss of thousands of U.S. jobs. These claims ignore the fact that, according to the Congressional Research Service, controlled exports represented less than 3 percent of total U.S. exports in 1998. And since over 80 percent of all licenses are approved, only a few billion dollars in sales were lost due to denied licenses--an extremely low percentage of the United States' $10 trillion GDP. These numbers also demonstrate that while exports are being controlled--and mainly to embargoed countries or those at high risk of diversion, such as China--American firms are not losing out to foreign competition. Industry simply does not want the U.S. government reviewing the export of sensitive dual-use items, even if it is for national security purposes. If current licensing procedures are cumbersome for business, then the solution is to improve the efficiency and operations of the export process, not decontrol sensitive items simply to avoid the process altogether. Despite all of these dubious arguments by the drafters and supporters of this flawed bill, the core problem with S. 149 is its fundamental refusal to recognize that sometimes the United States must go it alone to make a point. The structure of S. 149 fails to take into account the ability of the U.S. to lead other nations by demonstrating self- restraint and a commitment to principle. It restricts the U.S. ability to control exports unless other nations are already doing likewise, or can be guaranteed to do the same in the near term. I do not believe in the contrived arguments of those who say if you can't beat them, join them. Industry reasons that if America cannot stop rogue states from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, then why should we be ceding market share to our competitors? They say that the United States cannot stop dictators or communist governments from denying their people certain basic rights and freedoms, so why not conduct business as usual with them? Well, that is not the American way. Americans do not support profit at any price, especially if that price is our national security or our moral dignity. The American people will not support the prospect of fueling our economy by selling sensitive technologies to tyrants and potential adversaries. This is what we witnessed in the eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration, and it is time for this type of nonsense to stop. We don't need another eight years of intelligence reports that are leaked to the press, outlining in great detail how the PRC is using American technology to improve its armed forces; how Russian and Communist Chinese entities are transferring American technology to rogue states around the world; how American security, interests and friends have been jeopardized; and how it is completely legal thanks to the Export Administration Act of 2001. Rather, the Senate should follow the wisdom and courage of the House International Relations Committee. Under the fine leadership of Chairman Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, the HIRC was able to pass, with overwhelming bipartisan support, numerous amendments--similar to the ones my colleagues and I will offer this week--that put national security back into this legislation. While the United States does need a new Export Administration Act, the bill should protect our national security, not jeopardize it at the expense of marginal increases in trade. The bill should give every government department a role commensurate with its expertise and responsibilities. And the bill should send the right message to our allies, friends and adversaries, that United States takes non- proliferation issues seriously, and will continue to take the lead in the efforts. We need a new EAA but not this one.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this Nation was founded on the principle of freedom and, needless to say, America's free enterprise system is the hallmark of our Founding Fathers' economic vision. The news on television and in the newspapers report remarkable success stories, and, indeed, our Nation's most notable businesses were founded by men and women who had the ideas and the vision, and the courage to convert those visions into incredible successes. Those of us blessed to live in North Carolina are proud of our State's history of business successes, citizens like Buck Duke who developed a system to roll tobacco, William Henry Belk, the amazing merchant, whose Main Street sidewalk in Monroe grew into a chain of high-end department stores. There are countless others whose vision and faith in the free enterprise system made North Carolina one of the leading states in which to do business. Now then, it's an honor to salute another remarkable North Carolinian who has fulfilled the principles of the free enterprise system and thereby developed the largest privately-held software company in the world which, by the way, is headquartered in Cary, NC. SAS Institute, as it is known, was co-founded and now co-owned by James H. Goodnight and John P. Sall in 1976. Today their dream and wisdom ranks as one of North Carolina's largest employers. This remarkable enterprise was born following a research grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to several universities which were seeking new ways to analyze enormous volumes of agricultural data. A result of this grant was the development of the Statistical Analysis System from which SAS takes its name. The customer list of SAS is replete with the vast majority of the Fortune 100 companies, plus all 14 Federal Government departments now use software developed by SAS. SAS software is used by customers in more than 111 countries around the world. It has vast overseas operations which are based in Heidelberg. I could go on and on reciting the SAS company's business successes but when you get down to it SAS is a reflection of its leadership. It is important to note the innovation of Dr. Goodnight, the distinguished Chairman and Chief Executive Officer who has created one of the most desirable workplace environments in America. For example, Jim Goodnight had the forethought to create an on-site childcare center back in 1981 and SAS has an extensive medical facility providing healthcare for all of its associates on its campus. As a result of such creative and family friendly innovations SAS has one of the lowest personnel turnover rates in the industry; moreover SAS has been justifiably praised nationally by countless publications such as Working Mother, Fortune and Business Week. SAS's longstanding commitment to its community, its State and the world is evidenced by its significant contributions to multiple charitable organizations which focus on education and technology. Jim Goodnight took his personal commitment to education further by establishing a world-class independent co-educational college preparatory day school, which is a model for integrating technology into all facets of education. Its vast campus might easily be confused for that of a major university. As the SAS Institute marks its silver anniversary, it's an honor, indeed a privilege to join other friends across North Carolina in saluting this remarkable corporate citizen, the great leader, Dr. Jim Goodnight, on his incredible 25 years. Jim Goodnight's sound business practices, his adherence to the principles of the free enterprise system, together guarantee another remarkable 25 years for this great North Carolina business.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, August 2, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,730,045,940,032.12, five trillion, seven hundred thirty billion, forty-five million, nine hundred forty thousand, thirty-two dollars and twelve cents. One year ago, August 2, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,656,022,578,326.22, five trillion, six hundred fifty-six billion, twenty-two million, five hundred seventy-eight thousand, three hundred twenty-six dollars and twenty-two cents. Five years ago, August 2, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,172,008,136,975.88, five trillion, one hundred seventy-two billion, eight million, one hundred thirty-six thousand, nine hundred seventy- five dollars and eighty-eight cents. Ten years ago, August 2, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,569,166,000,000, three trillion, five hundred sixty-nine billion, one hundred sixty-six million. Twenty-five years ago, August 2, 1976, the Federal debt stood at $623,367,000,000, six hundred twenty-three billion, three hundred sixty-seven million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $5,106,678,940,032.12, five trillion, one hundred six billion, six hundred seventy-eight million, nine hundred forty thousand, thirty-two dollars and twelve cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, August 1, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,706,162,161,657.50, five trillion, seven hundred six billion, one hundred sixty-two million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, six hundred fifty-seven dollars and fifty cents. One year ago, August 1, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,652,485,270,404.28, five trillion, six hundred fifty-two billion, four hundred eighty-five million, two hundred seventy thousand, four hundred four dollars and twenty-eight cents. Five years ago, August 1, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,183,636,383,503.29, five trillion, one hundred eighty-three billion, six hundred thirty-six million, three hundred eighty-three thousand, five hundred three dollars and twenty-nine cents. Ten years ago, August 1, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,577,200,000,000, three trillion, five hundred seventy-seven billion, two hundred million. Fifteen years ago, August 1, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,079,858,000,000, two trillion, seventy-nine billion, eight hundred fifty-eight million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $3 trillion, $3,626,304,161,657.50, three trillion, six hundred twenty-six billion, three hundred four million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, six hundred fifty-seven dollars and fifty cents during the past 15 years.