Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, did I not have additional time?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we also had a unanimous consent for an additional, I think, 5 minutes that was allotted to me. I think the Senator from Ohio should be given at least an additional 2 minutes, if that is the case. I certainly agree Senator Byrd should be given some time. There is no reason why we cannot work this out.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am not speaking either, and I will yield the remainder of my time after the Senator from Ohio is finished. I will yield the remainder of any time I have.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Privacy Commission Act.'' This legislation would establish a 17-member commission to examine the complex issue of personal privacy and to make recommendations to Congress as we consider how to map out privacy protections for the future. The Commission for the Comprehensive Study of Privacy Protection, whose members would include experts with a diversity of experiences, would look at the spectrum of privacy, from protecting citizens' health and financial information to ensuring their security on web sites. As we all know, Americans are increasingly concerned that their personal information is not as secure as they once believed. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that loss of privacy was the greatest concern that Americans have as we enter this new century. In these times of rapidly changing technology, people are uncertain and fearful about who has access to their personal information and how that information is being used. It seems that as fast as new communications technologies appear, so do new capabilities for diverting information in unintended ways. The increasing popularity of the Internet and e-mail as a primary means of communicating and disseminating information is one of the major reasons for the rising concerns about personal privacy. Consumer information such as drivers' license numbers, educational records and purchase records has always been available in some capacity. Before the advent of the Internet, however, the time and effort required to accumulate such information often was prohibitive. Now, the use of information-gathering devices on the Internet makes building consumer information databases relatively cost-free, and using and sharing them extremely profitable. Some data privacy experts have shown how combining information from separate so-called ``anonymous'' public databases can not only identify those people included in the database but can reveal private information as well, including detailed medical and financial records. The increased sharing of information between medical practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, insurance entities and employers has made consumers more aware of the lack of confidentiality in the physician- patient relationship. Breakthroughs in genetic testing have made the potential consequences of such sharing even more serious. The first federal privacy commission, which operated from 1975 to 1977, faced the same basic question that is being posed today: ``What is the correct balance between protecting personal privacy and allowing appropriate uses of information?'' But in the past 25 years, there have been enormous leaps in technology. Today, a few keystrokes on a computer hooked up to the Internet can produce a quantity of information that was unimaginable in 1975. This freedom of information can be beneficial, by helping people to get loans quickly or by personalizing consumer services. But the same information in the hands of bad actors can cause harm, resulting in nightmarish situations such as identity theft. It is crucial that we act soon to protect the American people from crimes like these, without overregulating so much that we stunt the growth of our booming economy. The Privacy Commission is the key to finding the balance between protecting the privacy of individuals and permitting specific and appropriate uses of personal information for beneficial purposes. The Commission would be directed to study a wide variety of issues relating to personal privacy, including the monitoring, collection, distribution and use of personal information by government and private entities; current legislative and self-regulatory efforts to respond to privacy problems; and the practices and policies of employers with respect to the personal financial and health information of their employees. In the course of its examination of these issues, the Commission would also be required to hold at least 3 field hearings around the country and to set up a website to facilitate public participation and public comment. By December 31, 2001, the Commission would submit a report to Congress on its findings, including any recommendations for legislation to reform or augment current laws. There is great deal of interest in legislating on privacy. Everyone is trying to establish the appropriate level of privacy protection that the American people want and need. But there are many different answers being proposed. On the state level, approximately 7000 bills about privacy were introduced just last year. Here in Congress, scores of proposals have been introduced on a wide range of privacy issues, and we undoubtedly will consider many of these proposals in the next Congress. The Privacy Commission Act will help us to understand the complex issue of privacy and to map responsible protections, without delaying action where consensus is reached. The final report of the Privacy Commission would be available by the second session of the new Congress. In the meanwhile, if consensus can be reached on any substantive privacy legislation, nothing in the Privacy Commission Act would impede movement on those bills. To the contrary, the bill contains a provision specifying that it is not intended to delay any other privacy legislation. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House, particularly Congressmen Asa Hutchinson and Jim Moran, who sponsored H.R. 4049. They and their staffs have worked diligently on the Privacy Commission Act. They held three days of hearings on this legislation, and the House Government Reform Committee passed the Hutchinson-Moran bill by voice vote on June 29th. I also want to thank my cosponsors, particularly Senators Kohl and Torricelli, who have worked on a privacy commission bill for some time, as well as Senators Abraham, Lincoln, Voinovich, Roth, Gregg, Hutchinson, Collins, DeWine, Levin and Landrieu. It is my hope that we can all work together to pass the Privacy Commission Act to help us make informed and thoughtful decisions to protect the privacy of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the ``Privacy Commission Act'' be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 354 submitted earlier by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, first, I am sorry if I drew the wrong conclusion this might be jurisdictional. When the Senator mentioned this would be a better part of the Export Administration Act legislation, which happens to be his legislation, and it was not referred to the right committee, I just thought that might be jurisdictional. That is where I got that idea. If he resents that implication, I am sorry, but that is the source of that idea. I think back to a time not too long ago when the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Texas worked long and hard on a bill called the Export Administration Act. Several of us who are committee chairmen had problems with that because of some of the same things we are talking about. In my view, and I think my colleagues' view, it liberalized our export rules at a time when we should have been tightening them up. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, looked at this and said that it had some major problems. The statement was made by the sponsors of the bill that they would not bring it up, as I recall, without our signing off on it, and we never signed off on it. If the hangup here is the fact my colleagues have not gotten a vote on their Export Administration Act, I suggest they offer it as an amendment to my amendment. Let's have a second-degree amendment. If that is the problem, then let's have a vote on both of them. Let's be frank with each other. The Senator's opposition is the same opposition and arguments in many respects that we have heard from four other amendments that have been considered. The only difference is we have had votes on those four other amendments. The Senator was not over here complaining that we had not had sufficient process, I guess, with regard to the Wellstone amendment or the Byrd amendment or the Hollings amendment or the Helms amendment. The process was OK with regard to those, but now we have an amendment, the only amendment that deals with a direct threat to this Nation, and we are talking about process. One of the big complaints of the opponents of the Thompson-Torricelli amendment has been that we have changed it so much they hardly know what is going on here anymore. The reason we changed it is we kept responding to the complaints. Staffs met numerous times. Everybody knew these meetings were going on. It was not an open forum for somebody to come down and lay down a bunch of requirements if they did not get what they wanted the first day, leave, and not show up again. It was an open, rolling forum with various staff members. I sat in on an occasion or two. It was very open since May that we were talking about trying to come together because we all appreciate the proliferation problem and we need to do something. While we are talking about trade with China, we ought to be talking with them also about the fact they are endangering this country by arming these rogue nations, and we tried to work it out. Some Members objected. We had mandatory sanctions and they said we did not give the President enough discretion. We gave him more discretion. Some people claimed we are singling out the Chinese; it will make them angry; and it will be counterproductive. We broadened it. Some people claimed we were giving Congress too much authority; that any Member of Congress could come in and have a vote to override a Presidential decision in this regard, so we raised the requirement to 20 Members. There have to be 20 Members who have to have that concern. We made all of these changes. Now I understand the complaint is that we did not change it enough, or is it the process? Is that process? Is that a process issue? There are still problems with it. Everybody who has spoken against this bill has raised problems with it, but none of them have raised an objection to taking a vote. I just received the latest in a series of fliers I have been graced with over the last several days; this one from an industry coalition. The first thing we got today was a report from the president of the Chamber of Commerce who came out against our bill. Somebody told me they were at a Chamber of Commerce meeting not long ago and they mentioned my bill, and most of the people there broke into applause. I ought to be careful talking about the Chamber of Commerce. This is coming from the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who I do not think speaks for the average business person in America on this issue. Let's get that straight. First of all, he complains that it is limited to one country--obviously, he has not read the bill--that if we do this, it will effectively kill the bill, not that we have this serious problem and we should do something about it, but effectively it will kill the bill. Then he says he is getting ready to leave for a tour of Asia and going to wind up in Beijing, but before he leaves, he delivers his last salvo against my amendment, purporting to speak for all the members, I suppose, of the Chamber of Commerce. I hope while he is in Beijing, he will ask them to quit selling weapons of mass destruction to our enemies. I hope that is on his agenda while he is talking about his trade. The latest has been a sheet put out by the High-Tech Industry Coalition on China, the American Electronics Association, Business Software Alliance, Computer Systems Policy Project, Computer Technology Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Electronic Industry Alliance, Information Technology Industry Council, National Venture Capital Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, Semiconductor Equipment Materials International, Software and Information Industry Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, and United States Information Technology Offices. All of them have joined together to put out this opposition sheet to this bill. Some people have been so crass as to imply that maybe it was this feverish lobbying that is going on from exporters that might have something to do with the opposition to this bill. But I have the greatest respect, from what I know, about this entire group here. Our high-tech industry has done phenomenally well. They are creative. They have contributed mightily to our economy. They want to export; I understand that. They want to make more money; I understand that. God bless them. More power to them. But I do not see any association listed on here that has any responsibility for the protection of this country. We can vote on human rights, religious freedom, and all the other important things, but the only thing that poses a danger to this country we can't get a vote on because we didn't go through the ``process'' because it needs to go back to a committee. The chairman of that committee gave the most eloquent statement that has been given on behalf of my amendment. One Senator just said he wants to send it to a committee that does not want it, whose chairman, Senator Helms, says we do not need it; that we have had enough hearings; that we know what the problem is. Give me a break. There will be a vote on this issue. But let's get back to the latest salvo, which may or may not have something to do with what we are dealing with tonight. The information they are putting out says this undercuts China PNTR; that it will undo PNTR; that it will return us to inflammatory annual votes on China. I have been involved in a few annual votes on China. I do not remember the flames, but be that as it may, this will not kill PNTR. The die is cast on PNTR. The House has passed PNTR. We are going to pass PNTR. The only issue is whether or not in doing so, we raise the issue with our new ``strategic trading partners,'' the issue that we are making this world a more dangerous one. The House passed it by a 40-vote margin. Are you here to tell me that if we passed it and added on a nuclear proliferation component, that it would make it more difficult for the House to pass it again? It would have to go back to the House if we add anything new. So for the folks who might be listening and watching, the deal is, they say: You can't pass the Thompson amendment because it is different from what the House passed. If you make any changes, it has to go back to the House for another vote, and they might not vote for it again. That is the bottom- line argument for those who oppose this amendment. My first response is, so what. If we have a serious national security problem and issue that is paramount, it begs the question: Is this problem serious enough for us to address? I can join issue on that argument and respect my friends who disagree with it. But don't tell me that even though it may be that serious, we can't add it on over here because the House might have to take another vote. That is an insult to this body. Since when did we stop being the world's greatest deliberative body and become a rubber stamp for the House of Representatives? The practical answer to this particular accusation is that it will not kill PNTR. Before the sun sets, they will have it back over there, and they will revote on it. Nobody is going to go into an election just having cast a vote for it and then a vote against it, and the vote against it has a proliferation tag-on. That is going to make it more difficult to vote for it? Give me a break. Please, be serious in your arguments, I say to my friends. There are some serious arguments to be had around here. I had a good discussion with the Senator from Kansas today on sanctions in general--a good discussion. But don't tell me, as a Senator, I have to rubber stamp something, when the House of Representatives identifies problems-- religious persecution, slave labor, Radio Free Asia--and then it comes over here, and we can't identify the only thing that is a threat to this Nation. All those things are things that ought to be identified. They were correct in doing that. But to tell us that we have to rubber stamp it, that the benefits of PNTR to this country are so great, and so obvious, and so overwhelming, and so clear, that we are afraid to risk letting the House, with a 40-vote margin, with a nuclear proliferation add-on, have another shot at it because it is going to cost us a few more days--while the Chinese Government, as we speak, is trying to undercut the WTO agreement. That is just kind of a sideline. We see this in the paper now. We understand. They are trying to mess with Taiwan coming into the WTO later. They are trying to renege on some of the agreements that they have previously made in their bilateral agreement with us. They must not have any respect at all for us right now. We have danced to their tune now for a few years. We do not make any big fuss about the theft of nuclear secrets. We say: Boys will be boys. Everybody does that. The Chinese military puts money into our campaigns, and they say, again: Maybe the higher-ups didn't know about it. We give them WTO. We give them a veto on a national missile defense system. That is the reason the President put off that decision, because the Russians and the Chinese objected to it. We send delegations over there asking them to please stop their proliferation activities. They give us the back of their hand and say: We're going to continue our activities as long as you continue with the missile defense system and your friendship with Taiwan. Then the President meets Jiang Zemin at the Waldorf in New York on Friday. According to the New York Times, the President once again raised the issue of what they were doing with regard to Pakistan. They have outfitted Pakistan. They took a nation, a small nation with no nuclear capability, and have outfitted Pakistan, soup to nuts. Not only do they have missiles, M-11 missiles, goodness knows what else, but they now have, apparently, missile plants where they can make their own. The Chinese are probably ready to sign a new agreement now not to ship any more in there. They do not need to. They have equipped Pakistan so they can do it themselves. They have made that place a tinderbox. So the President rightfully brings this up, according to the New York Times. Jiang Zemin's response, apparently, according to the New York Times, was to smile, wish the President well on his pending retirement, and to thank him for his assistance in getting them into the WTO. They must not have much respect for us anymore. And we are over here saying we are afraid to give our House of Representatives another vote on this, regardless of the merits of the case. It would kill, as they say, the PNTR. They are incorrect. They are wrong. They are brilliant people. They have contributed mightily to our economy. I am talking about all these high-tech people. I want to help them in every way I can. I am with them on most things. But they do not know this subject. We are supposed to know it. We are given access to classified information. We are paid the big bucks to spend long hours poring over these documents that the intelligence people bring to us--and the Rumsfeld Commission and the Deutch Commission and the Cox Commission, and all the rest. It is not their responsibility. But they are papering this town. I said today, you can't stir the lobbyists with a stick. Everybody is petrified of this amendment. I think the reason is because they fear it will irritate the Chinese and maybe cause us some problems, trade retaliation, or something like that. But the Chinese want this mightily. They want this PNTR badly. They have a $69 billion trade surplus with us. There will be no killing of that golden goose. They are not foolish people. They also said that it is ineffective because it is a unilateral sanction. Unilateral sanctions rarely achieve the intended results of the targeted country, but they penalize American companies, workers, and investments. Let me tell you when an American company or worker would be penalized. If we catch the Chinese entities selling missile parts or the ability to make bombs, nuclear weapons, to Libya, let's say, then we are going to cut off military and dual use that can be used for military purposes, we are going to cut those sales off. So if you make those items, you are going to be affected. The President has the discretion--let me add that--and it does not happen automatically. The process, under our bill, is that we have a report. Our intelligence agencies give a report. It identifies these entities, companies that are doing these things. Then our President has the discretion or he has to make a determination, depending on the category, but it is within his power to exercise the appropriate remedy. We are not talking about cutting off sales of wheat or food or shoes--we would not be selling them shoes--or any other commodity. We are talking about munitions and dual-use items. If you are affected by that, you will be affected by this bill. I don't know about the company president, but I will bet you, if you said to the average worker--that is 2 percent, by the way, of our dual use and munitions; our entire trade with China is 2 percent of our exports; 2 percent is what we are so afraid of here--if you said to the average worker: we are going to impose these restrictions or these sanctions on China for a year to try to get them to clean up their act because we have caught these Chinese companies doing these things. Obviously, it is going to make it a more dangerous place for your kids if we keep on down this road. We need to get their attention. It is going to mean some loss of sales for the company you work for. Do you think we ought to do it? I don't think there is any question about that. I have more faith and confidence in the American worker and the American farmer. They talk about farmers being concerned. Well, agriculture is not directly affected, but what if the Chinese get mad at us and decide to cut off some of our agricultural exports? I think my Tennessee farmers are willing to take that chance. If that is the price we have to pay to sell corn, then that is too high a price to pay. I am like all these other agriculture Senators here. I have agriculture. I have farmers. They are concerned about these issues. But they are also very patriotic. When you come right down to it, there are a lot of organizations running around using the names of various people, but when you come right down to the workers of America and the farmers of America, you are not cutting off exports of goods across the spectrum, and you are certainly not cutting off agricultural exports. They would see through that. They would say, well, yes, there is an indirect possibility, if I am in a certain area, that there might be some ramifications down the road. But if that possibility were to occur, if that is what I have to do to help make this place a little bit safer and get their attention because, goodness knows, if we can't get their attention while we are about to give them this trade bill, we are never going to get their attention, I think they would be willing to go along with that. What else do they say? It duplicates current U.S. proliferation laws. The last point was the unilateral sanction. Of course, this was drafted by some lobbyists downtown. We all know that that works for these folks. All the points are always the same. They hand them around town. Everybody uses them. Do you really think their real concern is that these sanctions won't work or that we are duplicating current laws? Is that what is stirring up all this activity, that we are being inefficient in some way? Please. Unilateral sanctions don't work. Well, some don't. And there is a chance these might not. But there is a good chance they might. Why is the Chinese Government so upset? If you read the French newspapers--and I assure you, they are translated in English before I read them--or the Chinese, you will see that there is tremendous consternation over the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. Why do you think that is, if we are only duplicating what is already on the books and unilateral sanctions don't work? Do you think they are concerned because we are about to do something that doesn't work, or do you think they are going to maybe think twice before they continue their activity because they know that at least the Congress is serious about this? They are going to continue to get highlighted and embarrassed in the world community for making this a more dangerous world. I think it is the latter. I have had Mr. Berger, the President's national security adviser, tell me that on occasions when they have actually used or threatened unilateral action in times past, that it has had an effect. I don't think they have done it nearly enough, and we have strong disagreements about that. That is part of the problem we have had. They have gone around the barn to apologize for 95 percent of what the Chinese Government has done here. That is the reason we are here tonight. But when they have on occasion done this, he has told me it has had effect. You can't have it both ways. Unilateral sanctions sometimes do work. We are not talking about these blanket agricultural sanctions or going towards some particular country. We are going to the supplier and saying that we are going to cut off the relevant goods and items if we continue to catch you doing these things that you are flaunting disrespectfully. Unilateral sanctions undercut PNTR, will kill PNTR, and duplicates current laws. To a certain extent that is right. There are laws on the books now that require sanctions, just as we are proposing, or close to it. So you say, Thompson, why are you doing this? Well, because we have other provisions, such as a little more congressional oversight, such as a more extensive report where it would make it more difficult for a President to game the system and do what President Clinton said he had to do on occasion--that is, to fudge the facts--because if he made a finding against a company that he didn't want to move against for diplomatic reasons, the law would require him to do that. He didn't want to do that. What this does is make it more transparent. The President can still do it, but he has to give Congress a reason why he is not imposing sanctions on an entity that has been found to have been selling weapons of mass destruction. While it duplicates current law in many respects, which is a point in our favor because we are not doing something new and dangerous and onerous and burdensome, the President should already be doing some of these things. What we are doing is saying, yes, that, but also in addition to that, a mechanism whereby we can have some enforcement to it, have some congressional oversight and highlight the fact that the President has some options here. The President can address the capital markets issue. One of the things the opponents have complained about is the fact that our bill actually gives the President the authority to say to a particular Chinese company or, for that matter, a Russian or a North Korean company, but the big players right now, such as Petro China or the Chinese companies, raising billions of dollars in our stock markets, in the New York Stock Exchange, going back, in some cases, to enhance the Chinese military--and in many cases, according to the Deutch Commission and according to the Cox committee, these are proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, raising all this money in our capital markets. How many people know about that? You know, we don't want to close our capital markets. We can't do that without thought. But, for goodness' sake, that is a privilege; that is not a right for them to come in and raise money from our people who do not know who they are dealing with-- raise billions of dollars, while at the same time selling stuff that is making the world more dangerous for that investor's kids. Do we really want to keep financing these people that way? I don't think so. According to this latest leaflet, it is inconsistent with current nonproliferation regimes. It would be activated by a hair-trigger mechanism--a hair-trigger mechanism--based on credible information. Well, that just comes from a misunderstanding of the law and what the bill says. What the bill says is that if you get credible information that they are doing these things, you have to put it in the report. That is the only thing it activates. That is the hair-trigger they are talking about. If our intelligence people find that you are selling these things to these rogue nations, you have to put it in the report. Now, the President takes a look at that. If it has to do with a country, he has total discretion as to what to do. If it has to do with a company, an entity, say a state-owned company in China, as so many of them are, the President has to make a determination that in fact the credible evidence is true. Then the President has an option to have a waiver. Even after he makes a determination that the allegations are true, he still has a waiver that he can exercise before all of this happens, before any sanctions are levied. That is the hair-trigger they are talking about. They are just misinforming folks. I think it comes from a lack of understanding of what is in the bill. Somebody downtown, hopefully, will read it more carefully. You can have a lot of complaints about it, and so be it, but let's not misrepresent what it does. There is no hair-trigger, there is no automatic sanction, no automatic anything; it is discretionary with the President. If it is credible evidence, it goes into the report. Some people say: Well, it might be credible evidence, but it might not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt; we might catch up some innocent Chinese company. We are not trying a criminal lawsuit here. We are talking about information to go into a report for the American people to see and for Congress to see. If it turns out we are incorrect, we can correct that when the time comes. I don't want to be callous about this just because they are Chinese companies and maybe had proliferation problems in the past. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything of which they are not guilty. My guess is, if our intelligence community takes the time and effort and concludes that this information is credible enough to go into the report, they probably did it. Considering the fact that they are the world's leading proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, somebody over there is doing it--not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but, then again, we are not putting anybody in the penitentiary. We are trying to protect the American people. Contains automatic overbroad sanctions. The bill mandates automatic U.S. sanctions against any private or governmental entity, even for acquisition of commodity level products. Somebody is not paying attention, are they? ``Mandates automatic U.S. sanctions.'' It is just not true. The bill doesn't do that. There is nothing automatic about it. It is within the power and determination of the President if he chooses to do that. Then he has a waiver if he wants to use that. It is a modest step. I think this report is the most important part of this legislation. It is a more extensive report. We get these halfway jobs, summaries, but this is a more extensive report. The President will know we are getting it, and we will have a dialog about who is on it and why and to the extent the President is doing anything about it. The report requires the President to tell us what he intends to do about it. He doesn't have to do anything. But there is the pressure, I would think, for most Presidents, to want to have a pretty good reason if they didn't choose to do anything about it once that credible evidence was there. So, my friends who may be listening to this, there is an awful lot of false information going around. I know these people didn't intend to do this. They are in the business of advancing technology. They are the world's best, and God bless them. But they are not in this business. Somebody downtown is doing this who wants to win too badly. There are no automatic sanctions. Underwent an inadequate public process. Well, we are getting back to my friends from Wyoming and Texas. Deserves a full vetting by the Senate, not the hurried and nonpublic process that has characterized the consideration of this bill. Subsequent drafts and basic proposals have not addressed the bill's deficiencies. Should not be substituted for critical processes, such as public hearings. In other words, we haven't had any public hearings. Somebody is not paying attention. I just read off two pages of the public hearings that we have had on this general subject matter. Nobody paid attention then because trade was not involved; it was only national security. Now they are shocked to find out that all this time we have been having public hearings, and we have been getting the reports from bipartisan commissions all this time warning us, warning Congress, warning the American citizens, that it is becoming more dangerous. Countries such as North Korea will have the capability of hitting us within 5 years of their decision to do so. We know that some time ago they decided to have that capability. We know that some years ago they already decided to have the capability. Shortly after we got the report, they fired a two-stage rocket over the country of Japan--another one of our allies. I guess, now that I think about it, that delivered more than one message, didn't it? It told the good old USA: Yes, we have that capability that you are debating over there. This is what we have. It shocked our intelligence community and surprised us. The Rumsfeld Commission told us they feared that was the case, and then they showed us the capability. Of course, Japan is one of our closest allies. So I suppose that accentuated it. So we have gone through all that. How much does it take? And now my friends from Texas and Wyoming say we can't have a vote. We can't even have a vote on an issue that poses a direct threat to the security of this Nation because it hasn't sufficiently gone through the process. Then we had the Deutch Commission telling us some of the same things. And then the Cox Commission told us that, relevant to our export laws, the Chinese Government was using our technology and the supercomputers we were sending to them to perfect and enhance their nuclear capability. Was it Lenin who said, ``The U.S. would sell the rope with which to hang itself''? That is what that issue is all about. That is serious business. That opens another whole question about our export laws. That is why we have this debate and concern. My friends from Wyoming and Texas and I disagreed. So did these other Senators from various other committees, chairmen of these committees. It wasn't just me. At this particular time, while we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we can't keep technology from circling the globe eventually. But there is great dispute among experts as to what people can get their hands on and how long it will take other countries to get their hands on our technology. We shouldn't ship it out willy-nilly and let the Commerce Department decide. Some of our friends would let the Commerce Department decide whether or not these things ought to be sent around. The Commerce Department is in the business of business. Again, more power to them. But this is not a commerce issue. This is a national security issue. We should not be blind to our commercial interests, and we should not be unreasonable about that. But there are more important things than whether we should be loosening our export laws and saying, well, if we can make it, everybody is going to have it eventually. So we might as well give it to them tomorrow. Even if we are able to slow them down somewhat, this is a dangerous world. I am looking to the day we find out the direct proof that one of these rogue nations has what we shipped to China and China just passed it along. I assume it has already happened, but we don't have any proof of that. That is what all of this is really about, in my opinion. It goes on to say here--this is the last objection--it provides for dangerous procedures and fast-track procedures would inevitably lead to highly politicized annual votes. Our bill, of course, says the President's actions have been, frankly, inadequate. I think some of President Clinton's actions have been totally inadequate with regard to some of these decisions. Our intelligence has proof that the Chinese Government sent M-11 missiles to Pakistan, and the response from the State Department is: No. We are not going to impose sanctions there because we cannot prove it. We only see canisters on the ground that we know were put there by the Chinese on Pakistani docks. But we do not really know that there are missiles inside the canisters. What can you say to that? Then there was another occasion where we proved that they sent ring magnets to the Pakistanis, and those go to enhance the uranium enrichment process that goes into these nuclear weapons. The answer there was that we did not have sufficient proof that those high up enough in the Chinese Government really signed off on that. We are requiring courtroom-level proof. Instead of requiring them to bear the burden, you had better prove to us that you didn't do it because it sure looks as if you did it. No, we are putting the burden on ourselves to have a level of proof that no one can ever reach because our diplomats and some of our administration officials are living in another world. They think if they can continue to dialog with the leadership of the Communist Chinese Government that things are going to magically fall into place. In this bill we said if we run into one of those situations Congress ought to have some input. Congress hasn't done enough in this regard. We can't sit back and say that we can't mess with the President's authority. We have done that too much--go into wars, and everything else--partially under the jurisdiction of this body. And we really do not want to take the political heat for making the decisions. Our tendency, it seems to me nowadays, is to sit back and let the President do the tough stuff and make those decisions. We will criticize him every once in a while. We don't want to be involved. That exposes us to criticism if we make a mistake. If you look at the national political polls, national security and foreign affairs ranks, only 2 percent of the people in this country would put it at the top of their area of concern--2 percent. That doesn't get the attention of a lot of people around here. So we sit back. We have done it too long. The problem is that this administration has sat back right along with us. The result of that has been a more dangerous world. We signal to our allies that we claim we need a national missile defense system because of rogue nations. But the signal is we are really not that worried about it; Trade is more important. We are signaling to the leadership of the Chinese Government that we may or may not be concerned about this. We may issue a sanction in one out of every five times we catch it. That is still going to lead to a more dangerous world because they somewhere along the line are going to misjudge how far we will go in response to some action. What we need to do is have something right now that is measured, that is reasonable, and that is not extreme to put in place to simply send a signal that while we are approving the trade bill, that trade is not the only thing that is important to us and that we are going to blow the whistle on them and maybe cut off some of their dual-use technology. Yes--perhaps even with hardship on one or more of those conferences. That is the signal we need to send. So we fashioned the provision in this bill that said if 20 Senators agree that we should disagree with the President's action--that we think it is clear and he is doing nothing, or that we think it is not so clear and he is doing something and we believe we should become involved--if 20 of us think that way, we can become involved in a variety of actions. He can veto that. Or it would take a tremendously unusual situation for us to actually get anything done, quite frankly. Everybody knows that. I know that. Overriding the President's veto on something like that would be tremendous. It would have to be an egregious situation. That is the kind of thing we need to signal to the world that we are willing to do, at least in an egregious situation. They say that it is dangerous. I say to them that we already have 60 laws on the books that in one form or another have this general procedure I just described. They are making it look as if it is a dangerous, unusual thing. We have at least 60 laws on the books which provide for expedited procedure in one way or another. We will have an opportunity to discuss this further. As I say, I particularly want to get a vote on this. I guess I am having a hard time absorbing what has happened here. After all of this debate, all of this discussion, this clearly would not cause any harm and would not cause any problem, except some people think it would complicate the trade bill. It is not as if we are about to do something dangerous or we are about to do something where some of our critics say the law is already on the books and you don't need to do it. That is the level of danger we are talking about. Our colleagues are keeping us from even having a vote. And we let all of these other things go? The Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Texas say we haven't gone through the process enough. It has nothing to do with the fact that we couldn't get our Export Administration Act up for a vote, or chose not to. Frankly, I don't know which. If that is the case, that is the case. I take them at their word. I don't want to accuse them of having jurisdictional concerns. I say when it is in the wrong committee and it is on the wrong bill, to me that is a jurisdictional problem. If I am using the wrong word, I apologize. But the very idea that in light of this threat and in light of the good debate that we have had--and we have pros and cons on the Republican side and pros and cons on the Democratic side as to whether or not we ought to pass this. We have had a good debate. We are talking about one of the few things that really matter around here. Our first obligation in the preamble of our Constitution is the reason for the creation of this Government, the kind of matters we are considering here tonight. To come down to this, after all these hearings and all this time, with no one denying the nature of the threat, saying it needs to be sent to the committee of jurisdiction--they know by now, of course, that the Parliamentarian has said it would go to the Foreign Relations Committee; it would not even go to their Banking Committee. The only problem they have with that is Senator Helms is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and says he doesn't want that to happen. He wants my amendment to pass. I don't understand. It has nothing to do with anything other than some jurisdiction. We need to go back and massage this a little bit more, send it back to a committee that doesn't want it. Maybe we can offer some amendments. Why not offer it now, I ask my friends from Wyoming and Texas. If you want to offer amendments, offer them now. I don't understand the nature of the problem. I cannot for the life of me understand the nature of the problem. But we will have a chance, perhaps, to explore that further. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. First, I thank the majority leader and agree with him completely on the proposition that we will have a vote on this issue. It might not be the exact wording of this bill, but we will have a vote on this issue. We introduced this bill last May because, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction on proliferation matters under the statute, we receive briefings, as a few committees do, on proliferation developments, for example. In that position, we have had numerous hearings and have been told there is a longstanding and growing threat because of proliferation of China, primarily, and Russia and North Korea. We haven't had a lot of attention with regard to that, or a whole lot of interest, until we started discussing it in the context of trade. Trade interests everybody because there is money to be made. That is understandable. I am all for it. We introduced this bill because we were told by our intelligence people that there was a threat to this country. I can't think of anything more serious that we could possibly be dealing with than a nuclear, biological, or chemical threat, and the fact that rogue nations are rapidly developing the capability to hit this country with all three of those. Let that sink in for a little bit. All the time that we spend around here in budget and other votes that take up most of our time, trying to divide up the money, we are being told by our experts--whether it is the Rumsfeld Commission, the Deutch Commission, the Cox Commission, or the biennial intelligence assessment--there is a present danger and it is growing, and the Chinese are actually increasing their activities as far as missiles are concerned. That is why we introduced the bill. People raise various objections. Last night some were saying the report that we want to have produced is too extensive and we might catch up some innocent Chinese companies that might later prove to be innocent when we accuse them of proliferating. Frankly, I am willing to take that risk. We tried to get a separate vote. We said: Let's not put it on PNTR. Our amendment shouldn't be considered a trade measure. The bipartisan bill shouldn't be considered a trade bill. It is a proliferation bill. So let's discuss it in the context of our overall relationship with China, but don't force us to put it on the China trade bill. No, you wouldn't have that. We couldn't have that. You wouldn't give me a separate vote on that because it might complicate things. So I said OK, if you don't do that, I will put it on the bill. So I put it on bill. Senator Torricelli and I did. And now it is an amendment to the China trade bill. They said: My goodness, we wish you wouldn't have done that. We wish it was a freestanding bill now that we see you are serious, but we can't possibly vote on it as an amendment to the trade bill because it might complicate the trade bill. So we have gone through all of that. Frankly, we were told from the minority side that our Democratic colleagues were the ones who sunk--a few over there were the ones who had a problem with this. We have discussed this since May and there have been some changes. Anybody who wanted to discuss this bill--and there were staffers from many, many Senators, Democrats and Republicans, who have worked with Senator Torricelli and my staff-- anyone who wanted some input certainly had the opportunity to do that for months. There have been changes because we have been trying to accommodate the concerns: It is too tough; we didn't give the President enough discretion. We made changes because of that. We have been discussing this since May, with all of the foot-dragging that we have seen along the way. We had a good debate last night, and we had a good debate today. We debated over sanctions and whether or not they were effective--things that we ought to be debating. Good things, good substance, important subjects that we ought to be debating, and raising the issue now. When we are obviously getting ready to engage in this new trade relationship with China, what better time to address the fact that they are the world's worst in selling weapons of mass destruction to these rogue nations. We claim we need a national defense system because of the threat of these rogue nations. How can we talk to the Chinese Government without addressing it? That is what the debate has been about. It has been good. Now it is time for a vote. I have been around here a few years. I don't remember another occasion where a colleague has objected to a vote under these circumstances. My Democratic colleagues have raised no objection, but my two good friends on this side of the aisle raise objections. I am sad to say that it appears the real objection all comes down to one of jurisdiction. My friend from Wyoming apparently believes this should be a part of his bill if it is going to be anything, the Export Administration Act; and that this should be presumably under the purview of the Banking Committee if it is going to be considered. He will have the opportunity to correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that is what I heard. I think that is a sad set of circumstances, if after all of that we finally flush out the real reasons for the objection to even having a vote. Oppose it if you will, but the objection to even having a vote is because somebody got somebody else's jurisdiction. All my colleagues should know that according to the Parliamentarian, this bill, if it were referred to committee, would be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. Let's look at some of the hearings we have had in the Governmental Affairs Committee. The Banking Committee has some jurisdiction with regard to export administration. The Governmental Affairs Committee has some jurisdiction with regard to proliferation. I can't believe we are even talking about this, but here goes. It is like kids squabbling in the back of the schoolbus. If the issue is that nobody has paid any attention to this and nobody has had any hearings, this committee of jurisdiction, the Governmental Affairs Committee, in May of 2000, had a full committee hearing on export control implementation issues with respect to high-performance computers. In April of 2000: Full committee hearing on the Wassenaar Arrangement and the future of the multilateral export controls; February of 2000: Subcommittee on Internet Security, Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on National Intelligence Estimate on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States; June of 1999: Full committee hearing on Interagency Inspector General's Report on the Export-Control Process for Dual-Use and Munitions List Commodities; June of 1999: Full committee hearing on Dual-Use and Munitions List Export Control Processes and Implementation at the Department of Energy; May of 1999: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services--that is Senator Cochran's subcommittee. He had a hearing on the Report of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China. Senator Cochran's subcommittee, of course, has been in this area, the proliferation area, the missile area, the whole problem with China and Russia in particular, the problem with the rogue nations--Senator Cochran has been dealing with this for years and has put out published reports. The last one was within the last couple of weeks, for anybody who is interested. September of 1998: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on GAO Reports on High Performance Computers; June of 1998: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on the Adequacy of Commerce Department Satellite Export Controls; March of 1998: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Proliferation; October of 1997: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on North Korean Missile Proliferation--again Senator Cochran's subcommittee. Once again, in September of 1997, his Subcommittee on International Security Proliferation and Federal Services had a hearing on Missile Proliferation in the Information Age. In June of 1997, his subcommittee had a hearing on Proliferation and U.S. Export Controls. In May of 1997, his subcommittee had a hearing on National Missile Defense and the ABM Treaty. Senator Cochran, of course, is chairman of this subcommittee. He is the leader on the national missile defense issue and has been for some time. Of course, again, it is directly relevant because the reason we are claiming we need a national missile defense is the very issue our amendment brings up. April of 1997: Subcommittee on International Security--again, Senator Cochran's subcommittee--hearing on Chinese Proliferation--Part II; April of 1997: His subcommittee, Chinese Proliferation hearing, Part I. So, for the uninformed, we have various committees here with various jurisdictions. Sometimes jurisdiction overlaps, where more than one committee has jurisdiction in the subject area. This is one of those cases. Over the past 4 years, the Governmental Affairs Committee alone has held 15 hearings on proliferation; over 30 hearings have been held by my committee, the Armed Services Committee, and in the Foreign Relations Committee. Furthermore, this legislation has the full support of the chairman of jurisdiction, Senator Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The issue of proliferation, of course, has had a full, full consideration for some time now. So we will have an opportunity to discuss this further, including further tonight. I don't know if anyone wants to speak to this. I will give them the opportunity, give my colleague from Wyoming an opportunity to further address it. But it is a sad situation, when our country faces this kind of threat, that we cannot even get a vote on an amendment that would address that threat. Vote it down if you must. Oppose it if you will. But the very idea of us not having a vote because it has not been considered enough by the right committee or that it is more properly a part of somebody else's bill instead of our bill? Surely it has not come to that. I will yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on Wednesday there be 60 minutes for closing remarks for two amendments, with the following Senators in control of time: Senator Roth, 15 minutes; Senator Moynihan, 15 minutes; Senator Byrd, 15 minutes, Senator Bob Smith, 15 minutes. I further ask consent that the vote on the pending Byrd amendment occur immediately at 11 a.m., to be followed by a vote in relation to division 6 of Senator Smith's amendment, No. 4129.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on September 12, 2000, by the President of the United States: Protocol Amending Investment Treaty with Panama (Treaty Document 106-46); and Investment Treaty with Azerbaijan (Treaty Document 106-47). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time, that they be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations in order to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 13. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10 a.m., with the time equally divided between Senator Thomas and Senator Durbin.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Legitimate debate. Some think we ought to pass this: No complications, no amendments, no muss, no fuss; worry about this later. If not now, when? I thank the Chair and relinquish the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for the level of his debate. This is a good discussion. This is what we ought to be doing. This is what we should have been doing for some time now. These are legitimate problems and legitimate disagreements. But let me disagree with my good friend on a couple of very important points. The trade we talk about here, the only trade that would be stopped by my amendment, is trade that is already prohibited in other legislation. It is trade that is basically on the munitions list; that is, armaments and things of that nature, munitions and dual-use items. Under the Export Administration Act, if these entities are caught proliferating, it is already required that we stop that. We are certainly not arguing, are we, that the President should not enforce that law? It is already on the books. The worst that can be said about ours is that it is duplicative. I have had a lot worse things said about things that I have done than that I have been duplicative. I hardly think that is a major problem, in light of the fact there are additional items in our bill which help which are not on the books now. But in terms of the trade that we would be losing, if that is the case, we would be losing it now if the President was applying the law the way he is supposed to apply the law. It is already on the books. Suppose it was not. Do we really want to be sending munitions list items and dual-use items to companies we find are proliferating? Can't we stand to lose that trade? We are not talking about Kansas farmers. We are not talking about Tennessee farmers. We are talking about those folks in this country--if you are in the business that would be affected by the munitions or the dual-use items that have either domestic or military capability, you would be affected if the President decided he wanted to go that route. That is the limitation. I think it is over $1 billion a year in exports that we have in a $9 trillion economy. Can't we afford that in light of this threat? Can't we afford that? My friends on the other side say this is a killer amendment. Let's analyze that for a minute. I submit to you that is not the case. It is being used, but it is not the case. The House of Representatives passed PNTR by about a 40-vote margin-- more than anybody thought. All of us in this body have had a chance to express ourselves, and the votes are overwhelming here. The support and the leadership in the House is solid. You cannot stir with a stick the lobbyists in support of it around this town. The fight is over. We are going to have PNTR. The idea that we would send it back to the House with a proliferation amendment on it and people will say, ``My goodness, we are trying to do something about Chinese proliferation. We can't have that. I voted for it before but I am going to change my vote now and vote against it,'' is ludicrous. People say: Who is going to change their vote? With that 40-vote margin, who is going to change? Is it going to be the Republicans because we added a proliferation amendment? Of course not. Is it going to be the Democrats because the labor unions are pressuring them? When the Democrats are so close to taking back control of the House? When the labor unions have already lost this PNTR battle, and they know it, they are going to put their members in that kind of position so they can go into the election with a vote for it and a vote against? With all due respect, that is not going to happen. If we add a proliferation amendment and do what we should have been doing a long time ago--and say we are just going to ask for a report, and if we catch you, we are going to give our President the clear option to do something about it or, if he does not, he is going to have to tell us why--if it went back to the House, it would be ratified within 24 hours and that would be the end of it. We are not going to know until it happens. If we are so intent on avoiding what I consider to be a minute risk that we will turn a blind eye to what is going on because we are so intent on this trade agreement that we cannot even do the minimal of requiring an additional report, requiring some additional congressional involvement and making it a little tougher for the President to game the system--the way, quite frankly, this President has--then we have bigger troubles than I think we have. How can this help? My friends ask: How can this help? I will ask a question. Why is the PRC so against this amendment? Is it because it is ineffective or duplicative? They are against this amendment because they don't want the additional attention on their activities. They don't want the President to have it highlighted that he has this discretion and has to give a reason why he does not take action. They think it will be effective. I think it will be effective. I think it will have an effect on them where they will think at least one more time before they do something that they know is going to be another major debate on this floor. That is my belief. My friend makes a good point with regard to the issue of sanctions in general. That has been the source of a great debate for a long time. He makes some good points. But I reiterate: Sanctions are not sanctions are not sanctions. There are different kinds of sanctions. We can't lump all sanctions in one group. There are sanctions that differ in terms of the targeted country. There are sanctions that differ in terms of the activity that is going to be addressed. There are sanctions that are different in terms of the commodities or goods on which you are placing some limitation. We have had sanctions that have dealt with agriculture, as he points out. They have dealt with goods in general in times past. What we are dealing with here basically is munitions and dual-use items. Should we not stop that, if we catch these companies proliferating weapons of mass destruction? Over the years when the U.S. has been serious about implementing measures to signal our displeasure with a foreign government's actions, these measures have had an effect. For example, U.S. economic pressure in the late 1980s and early 1990 led to China's accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992. In June of 1991, the Bush administration applied sanctions against the PRC for missile technology transfers to Pakistan. They have been doing this for a long time, folks. These measures led to China's commitment 5 months later to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime. They systematically violate it, but perhaps, hopefully, not as much as if they had not even agreed to abide by it. In August of 1993, the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on the PRC for the sale of M-11 missile equipment to Pakistan in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Over a year later, Beijing backed down by agreeing not to export ground-to-ground missiles if sanctions were lifted. They entered into this agreement in order to get sanctions lifted. I wonder why they wanted those sanctions lifted-- because they were having no effect? And that occurred in 1994. Some of these examples were provided to me by Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser, to illustrate how unilateral sanctions and/ or the threat of sanctions have been effective when dealing with the PRC in the past. The President's security adviser opposes my amendment because he doesn't want any complications to PNTR. We respectfully disagree with that. We certainly disagree over the extent to which they have attempted to do something about China's activities, but they have, on occasion, taken some action. He cites these particular instances when they have taken action, and he acknowledged they had some effect. So we cannot have it both ways. We cannot lump all this together and say sanctions are bad, period, forever, regardless. We can't say, ``Let's not tie the President's hands,'' when all of this is discretionary. He has to make a determination. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this. We are not tying the President's hands. He can do it if he wants to and he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to. That is not tying the President's hands. We are not talking about agriculture or any other general goods. We are talking about dual-use items. So we have a legitimate debate here. Some think we should go ahead and pass PNTR and have no amendment strategy.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I was wondering if I can take some time, if the distinguished chairman has finished.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, it depends on what his plans are. If I can have 20 minutes, it will be greatly appreciated. I understand we have 3 hours on this amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON. I urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. President. I thank the Chair and my chairman, Senator Roth, for their indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent I may have 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Roth for his generosity. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment to a couple of things that have come up in the debate today with regard to the amendment on China proliferation offered by myself and Senator Torricelli. Of course, once again, our reason for offering this amendment is because we have been told time and time again by various bipartisan commissions that we are facing an imminent threat; that China, Russia, and North Korea--but historically as of 1996, for example, China--have led the way in selling weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations. We are told that these rogue nations pose a threat to our country. The question now is whether or not we intend to do anything about it. Some say diplomacy should work. Perhaps it should. However, we see that diplomacy has not worked. The problem is getting worse. Our intelligence estimates, which have been made public, have shown that the problem is getting worse with regard to missile technology, especially with Pakistan, instead of getting better. A couple of my colleagues, speaking on behalf of PNTR, have pointed out that the Chinese have signed several nonproliferation-type agreements that should give us some cause for optimism, and that is true. The problem is that they have repeatedly violated every agreement they have ever made. I emphasize that. At this time, when we are getting ready to engage in a new trading relationship, hoping for the best, we should acknowledge that China has violated every understanding, agreement, and treaty they have ever made. My concern is proliferation, although human rights is very important and religious freedom is very important. There is only one activity of the Chinese Government that poses a mortal threat to this Nation, and that is the one of proliferation, spreading weapons of mass destruction around the globe. How in the world can we claim we need a missile defense system because of the threat of rogue nations and the nuclear missiles they are developing that will have the capability of hitting us, when we will not address the folks such as the Chinese who are supplying these rogue nations? It is all carrot and no stick. They cannot take us seriously when we express concern about proliferation. Let's talk about the proliferation agreements they have signed. In March of 1992, China ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, in 1994, China sold to Pakistan 5,000 unsafeguarded ring magnets which can be used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. In 1995, China built in Iran a separation system for enriching uranium. As we know, China has outfitted Pakistan from soup to nuts. Under our watchful eye, they have made it so that Pakistan can now build their own missiles. We have watched them do this over the last few years in total violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which some of my colleagues so optimistically claim they signed; therefore, they must be abiding by it. They are not. In May of 1996, China reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. Again, however, in 1996, China sold a special industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in Pakistan. In 1997, China was the principal supplier of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. In 1997, China transferred to Iran a uranium conversion facility blueprint. In 1997, China promised not to begin a new nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran after completing a small nuclear reactor and a factory for building nuclear fuel rod encasements. In 2000, U.S. intelligence reports state that ongoing contact between PRC entities and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program cannot be ruled out. China is a member of the Zangger Committee which considers procedures for the export of nuclear material and equipment under the NPT but is the only major nuclear supplier of the 35-nation nuclear suppliers group whose nations agreed to guidelines covering exports for peaceful purposes to any non-nuclear weapon state and requires full-scope safeguards. The Chinese Government has agreed to a list of nonproliferation treaties and agreements and then violated them, but with regard to those treaties that require safeguards, where someone can come in and inspect whether or not they are doing it, they will not agree to those, and that has been the history. Are we so eager for trade that we accept this kind of behavior as in some way acceptable to us? In February of 1992, China pledged to abide by the missile technology control regime and renewed this commitment in 1994. However, I have an entire list which I will not read, but in 1993 they transferred M-11 short-range missile equipment to Pakistan. In 1996, China helped Pakistan build an M-11 missile factory. In 1997, telemetry equipment to Iran. In 1999, China supplied specialty steel, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and precision-grinding machinery to North Korea; a wind tunnel to Libya--on and on and on--the roughest nations on the face of the Earth in terms of their proliferation and dangerous activities. China consistently supplies them in violation of their own agreement. In 1997, China ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention; however, they have violated it on numerous occasions. In 1997, the PRC transferred chemical weapons technology and equipment to Iran. In 1998, the PRC entities sold 500 tons of phosphorus materials, which is controlled by the Australia Group, to Iran--and on and on and on and on. We cannot turn a blind eye to this. We can trade even with people with whom we have strong disagreements. We can trade with China. But can we really address a trade issue with them and envelop them into a new understanding with trade, from which we believe we will get some economic benefit, without telling them that they cannot continue to make this world a dangerous place? And it is the United States of America that is going to be most vulnerable to this; Belgium and France, with all due respect, are not going to be the primary targets of these rogue nations if and when they get the ability to hit foreign nations. It is going to be the blackmail that they will try against us. What if Saddam Hussein had this capability in the gulf war? Do we really think it would have turned out the way it did? How much activity will breach the tolerance level of the Senate when it comes to the Chinese? We do not have to jeopardize trade with China. We must have some measures to get their attention. What our bill does, when all is said and done, is provide a report on those proliferation activities and provide the President the opportunity to do something about it. It makes it a little more difficult for him to turn a blind eye to these proliferation activities because if he does not do something about it, he has to tell Congress why. It also provides that if Congress feels strongly enough about it--if enough people sign up--we can actually take a vote on the President's decision. That is what it boils down to. We have had people come to this floor and say: If we pass this amendment, these unilateral mandatory sanctions, the sky will absolutely fall. It will mess up everything. It will make the Chinese mad. We might lose trade. No. 1, even if all those things happened, I ask, what is the primary obligation of this body? To protect ourselves from these problems and trying to address them or not? But these things are not going to happen because we already have laws on the books that are unilateral sanctions that this body has voted for oftentimes without a dissenting vote, time and time again, to impose sanctions on various entities for various reasons. Perhaps we have done too much in some respects. Perhaps we have not done enough in others. But there are numerous laws on the books. What our amendment does is provide for a more extensive report and provide for congressional input, as I have said. But in terms of sanctions, it is right along the lines of what we have done on numerous occasions. It is only when it comes to China, it is only when we identify China that everyone comes rushing to the floor saying: My goodness, we can't do this; Our allies will be against us; China will be against us; It will upset Russia; It will be a bad example to the world, and all of that. It is only when someone thinks that we are complicating the China trade deal that all of these concerns come to the fore. We can do better than that. People say we need hearings, that no committee of jurisdiction has had hearings. My committee, the committee I chair, is a committee of jurisdiction. We have had 30 hearings on the issue of proliferation. There have been 60-some-odd hearings on the issue of proliferation. Some people say: Thompson's committee has had several drafts. They keep coming up with different drafts. That is true because we keep trying to satisfy the critics who do not want to do anything to irritate the Chinese Government. They have said: You identified China specifically. We broadened it to include Russia and North Korea because they are also major suppliers. They say: You do not give the President enough discretion. Now we give him almost total discretion. He has to make a determination before anything happens. They say: You are going to hurt farmers or small businessmen. We specifically eliminated any potential involvement of farmers or small businesses. Some people say: Farmers still don't like it because if we are mean to the Chinese Government, they might retaliate, and it might be against farmers. Not my farmers in Tennessee. I think if my farmers in Tennessee had a choice between us responding responsibly to this irresponsible behavior on the part of the Chinese Government and risking their getting mad, and in some way affecting them in some export that they might have, they would be willing to take that chance. The farmers are not involved in this. Some said that any Member of Congress could force a vote to override the President. So we made it so it had to be 20 Members of Congress. Yes, there have been several reiterations of this bill because we have been trying to answer the reasonable complaints. What it boils down to is that not all of these various complaints are the reason for the opposition. My opinion is that the root of it is a genuine desire not to irritate the Chinese Government at a time we are trying to enter into a new trading relationship with them. Generally speaking, I think that is a laudatory idea. I cannot complain about that as a general rule. But these are not times to apply the general rules. These are extraordinary circumstances. We have been getting reports on what they have been doing for years now and have not done anything about it. Now we are about to enter into a new trade relationship which they want desperately. They have a favorable trade balance with this Nation of $69 billion. They are not going to turn their back on that. They want this. If we do not have the wherewithal to raise the issue of the fact that they are making this a more dangerous world and threatening our country now, when are we going to do it? A Senator actually said yesterday that one of the problems he had with this bill, in light of the nuclear proliferation that we are dealing with, is that this report will be too onerous, this report which we are requiring on these activities will be too voluminous for our intelligence. Why would it be so voluminous? I agree with him. It would be. Why? Because of all of the proliferation that is going on. Do we not want to know about it because it is too voluminous? I suggest that we get serious about this. Some complained that we might catch up some innocent Chinese company, where there is credible evidence that they are selling these dangerous weapons, but they may later prove to be innocent. That is not a major problem is all I have to say. If I have to come down on the side of doing something to address this problem or running the risk that we may for a period of time unjustly accuse a Chinese company and, therefore, cut off military exports to them, I am willing to run that risk. Others say we have to give engagement a chance. One of the most distinguished Senators ever to serve in this body spoke a little while ago, someone I respect tremendously, the senior Senator from New York. He talked about the fact that Jiang Zemin met with our President last Friday at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. He also mentioned the fact that he met with American businessmen, and it was a good thing for the leader of the Chinese Government to be meeting and talking with American businessmen. I think, generally speaking, that is true. But we have to consider the context in which this happened. According to the New York Times story the next day, that luncheon meeting with America's top business executives was to declare that China was plugging into the New World. Jiang Zemin said: We have over 18 million citizens, more than 27,000 World Wide Web sites, over 70,000 Chinese domain names, and 61 million mobile phones in China. It goes on to say what he did not mention: China's recent efforts to crack down on the use of the Internet for the spread of dissenting opinions in China. Mr. Clinton said that he never broached the subject. It went on to say that President Clinton brought up the proliferation which we all know, and they admit that we know, they were doing and asked him to do something about it. He smiled and wished the President well in his retirement and thanked the President for his assistance with regard to getting China into WTO--smiled and went on, knowing there would be no repercussions. We have sent three delegations to China this year beseeching them, on the eve of this PNTR vote, to stop some of their activities. According to our own people who were there in the meetings, they were told by the Chinese Government officials that they intended to continue their policies with regard to weapons of mass destruction unless we backed off on our missile defense system and our positions on Taiwan. You have to give the leadership of the Communist Chinese Government credit for being up front about it. They are doing it and telling us they are going to continue to do it. We are over here worried about whether or not to upset them because it might cost us some trade or it might in some way be counterproductive and we need to exercise diplomacy. What has diplomacy gotten us so far? They say: Unilateral sanctions never work; we need to get our allies together. What have we been able to get our allies together on in the last several years? When you can't get multilateral action on something that is dangerous to your country, what do you do, go home? We can't get a U.N. resolution to criticize China's behavior with regard to human rights. We can't get our European friends to let us send them bananas. Yet we are supposed to sit back, in light of this nuclear and biological and chemical threat to our Nation, until we can get all of our allies together to do it at once. Otherwise, it would be ineffective and somebody might be critical of us? Some say Chairman Greenspan thinks our provision that allows the President to cut some of these companies out of our capital markets is a bad idea. What we did is list one option. The President has this authority anyway, but I think it has a salutary effect to have it listed up front, telling the world this is what we intend on doing as a possibility. One of the options the President has, when he catches these folks doing this and he makes a determination--or when it comes to a country, in his complete discretion, one of the options he has is to tell the companies that are in our capital markets in the New York Stock Exchange that they can't be raising any more money. The Deutch Commission, comprised of distinguished Americans, told us one of the things that is happening to us--and the American people ought to know about it--is that proliferating companies under the control of the Chinese Government are raising billions of dollars on the New York Stock Exchange from American citizens who don't know what they are doing. The Deutch Commission suggested the capital markets are among a wide range of economic levers we could use as carrots or sticks as part of an overall strategy to combat proliferation. That is from this thoughtful commission of experts in this area. How many Americans know that these companies are raising billions of dollars on the New York Stock Exchange? That is an option the President could or could not use as he sees fit. Some of my colleagues--in fact, all of my colleagues--who oppose this amendment have quoted Mr. Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He was in the Banking Committee. I am not sure what the subject was. I can assure you it was not nuclear proliferation. Opponents of my amendment asked him this specific question: Basically, do you oppose the idea of cutting people out of our capital markets? He said, no, he thought that was not a good idea generally, and went on to explain why. I have a couple of comments about that. This is not a capital market issue, this is a proliferation issue. I have extreme respect for Chairman Greenspan, but I would not ask a proliferation expert whether or not he thought interest rates ought to be raised. I don't think Chairman Greenspan would claim to be an expert on the nature of the problem this country faces and what we should do about it. As a general proposition, I agree with him. I think we ought to be expanding all of our markets, including our capital markets. But on an occasion, if we catch a company and our intelligence agencies come forth and say there is credible evidence that this company just sold missile capabilities to Libya, and we have caught them, we have the intelligence on it, the President looks at it, makes his own evaluation and says, yes, I believe it is true. I hereby make that determination, and this same company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, should we not do something about that, raising money from the very American citizens who would be targeted potentially by a Libya?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which begins to address the issue of improper payments in Federal programs. Each year, the Federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars for a variety of grants, transfer payments, and the procurement of goods and services. The Federal government must be accountable for how it spends these funds and for safeguarding against improper payments. Unfortunately, the problem of improper payments by Federal agencies and departments is immense. Today, I released a GAO report which I requested which identifies $20.7 billion in improper payments in just 20 major programs administered by 12 Federal agencies in Fiscal Year 1999 alone. And this represents an increase of more than $1.5 billion from the previous year's estimate. In its report, GAO writes that its ``audits and those of agency inspectors general continue to demonstrate that improper payments are much more widespread than agency financial statement reports have disclosed thus far.'' Legislative efforts have focused on improving the Federal government's control processes. Recently-enacted laws, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act, the Government Management Reform Act, and the Government Performance and Results Act, have provided an impetus for agencies to systematically measure and reduce the extent of improper payments. However, the risk of improper payments and the government's ability to prevent them continue to be a significant problem. While we continue to work to improve the government's widespread financial management weaknesses, we also can attempt to recover the tens of billions of dollars in improper payments. And that's what the legislation I am introducing today will do. The legislation is modeled on H.R. 1827, a bill sponsored by House Committee on Government Reform Chairman Dan Burton, to require the use of a management technique called ``recovery auditing'' which would be applied to a Federal agency's records to identify improper payments or payment errors made by the agency. Recovery auditing is used extensively by private sector businesses, including a majority of Fortune 500 companies. These businesses typically contract with specialized recovery auditing firms that are paid a contingent fee based on the amounts recovered from overpayments they identify. Recovery auditing is not ``auditing'' in the usual sense. Recovery auditing firms do not examine the records of vendors doing business with their client companies or assess the vendors' performance. Instead, these firms develop and use computer software programs that are capable of analyzing their clients' own contract and payment records in order to identify discrepancies in those records between what was owed and what was paid. They focus on obvious but inadvertent errors, such as duplicate payments or failure to get credit for applicable discounts and allowances. The bill I am introducing today would require Federal agencies to perform recovery audits in order to identify discrepancies between what was actually paid by the agency and what should have been paid. This bill seeks to address concerns with H.R. 1827 which were raised after its passage by the House. For example, this bill would make clear that the relationship established by this bill is one between the agency and the recovery audit contractor, and all communications and interaction on the part of the recovery audit contractor is with the agency. Further, this bill includes exemptions for contracts which, under current law, already are subject to extensive audit scrutiny and oversight. Also, this bill includes Federal agency authority for recovery audit pilot programs for contracts, grants or other arrangements other than those covered by this bill. I appreciate all the work done by Chairman Burton on H.R. 1827. I believe my legislation appropriately addresses concerns raised with that bill and goes a long way in addressing the wasted taxpayer dollars and government inefficiencies resulting from Federal agency payment errors which are made each year.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. For the information of all Senators, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, there will be 60 minutes for closing remarks on two amendments: The Byrd amendment, regarding safeguards; and division 6 of the Smith amendment, No. 4129. Votes on those two amendments will be back to back at 11 a.m. Senators should be aware that there are amendments currently pending to the PNTR bill and further amendments are expected to be offered. Therefore, votes are expected throughout the remainder of the week.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.