area because I think the chemical problem and the biological problem are quite different and the politics and the science and technology and the language of the treaty that surround the biological side, to me are so complex that classic arms control is not the way to go forward.

I think what we have to do is redefine the problem and redefine the environment within which solutions can be found, and what I mean by that is to take it out of being a classic security arms control problem, but define the biological weapons as part of a broader challenge that has to do with the appropriate use of the life sciences to serve the public safety and security and to create an environment in which the misuse of that science is diminished to the point that you can manage. It includes not just biological weapons but other kinds of challenges that we have in looking at where the incredibly rapid advances in the life sciences are going to be going in the next two decades.

I think that if we approach the problem from that redefinition, that we will, in fact, find more acceptable mechanisms for dealing with the problem. One of the issues, for example, in the arms control approach and the protocol negotiations that was mentioned earlier was a difficult relationship between industry and the negotiators and the role of industry in this. I think if we set the problem on a different footing, we will have a different basis in which to engage industry to ensure that their contribution in this area, because they are such a driver of the science and technology at this point, that if we redefine the problem in that way, we will have a better basis for engaging industry in looking at solutions.

So I think some of the measures that the Bush Administration has proposed to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention move in this direction. I think they provide a basis for moving forward. They are not the total answer. They are not where we want to go or should go. But I think they give us a starting point for that kind of redefinition of the problem that will yield some more creative solutions.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you so much for that. There is a need to review these and come out with other solutions.

Dr. Tucker, you just stated that export controls buy time for diplomacy but do not offer a long-term solution. Are there any changes to our current export control policies you would advocate? Mr. TUCKER. Well, I think some of the controls probably could be made more targeted on technologies that are really critical, that provide bottlenecks to the acquisition of chemical and biological weapons. Increasingly, of course, these technologies are becoming widely available as they diffuse to more and more countries in the developing world. So we have to identify those really key critical technologies that are not widely available that are really still a monopoly of the highly-advanced countries and which by withholding, we will place significant impediments in the path of proliferators. So it may be a form of "smart" export controls or more targeted export controls, which I think will be welcomed by industry because they will be less affected by more targeted controls. That will require quite a bit of thought, because it is the conventional wisdom that this technology is all dual-use. That is not strictly true.

gens, for example, weaponized pathogens, whose access should be very tightly restricted. So I think there is a need to rethink export controls in a way to make them more targeted and, hence, more effective.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you.

Ms. Gottemoeller, in your written testimony, I think you raised a good point on the priorities we should take to prevent further proliferation of nuclear material from the former Soviet Union. Many are also concerned about the proliferation of nuclear expertise and know how. We are familiar with examples of nuclear scientists being offered substantial sums of money either to train others or to develop nuclear weapons.

The Subcommittee is going to hold a hearing on this subject next week, but some would suggest that it is already too late. For example, there is no doubt Iran's nuclear program being developed with Russian assistance has a weapons component or potential. What should we be doing to ensure that Iran complies with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, I hesitate to say what the future will bring, but I would say the first step, if U.S. relations improve with Iran, as there have been some hints recently in Washington they may improve, I think the first step we should undertake is to take up these issues directly with Tehran.

We have been working this issue through and with Moscow. It has been a difficult issue. Apparently, President Putin in an interview that will appear this evening on television has denied pretty firmly that there is any official Russian government involvement in nuclear technology trade with Iran. Well, I think we have long felt that it is not a matter of an official Russian government policy, but that there are some organizations in Russia that are perhaps not paying the attention to export control laws that they should be paying attention to, first of all. And second of all, I believe there is also disagreement among some Russian experts about the danger inherent in particular dual-use technologies, and so there is a disagreement and discussion between the United States and Russia in that regard.

I believe we should continue very vigorously to pursue these issues with Russia and I hope that we will do so at the upcoming Washington Crawford Summit. But I believe in addition to that that should our relationship improve with Iran, this is something we need to take up directly with the Iranians, as well.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Senator Carper do you have any further questions?

Senator CARPER. No, I do not.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Moodie, Dr. Tucker, and Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you for all of your testimony and for your cooperation, also. Some of what you said will certainly be helpful to us in what we are trying to do here. So thank you again and you may be excused.

Mr. MOODIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TUCKER. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I just received a call that there is another vote on, but I want to prepare for the second panel and ask the second panel to come forward, please.

The Subcommittee will be in recess.

[Recess.]

Senator AKAKA. The Subcommittee will be in order.

Thank you, Mr. Christoff, Dr. Cupitt, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Milhollin for being part of our second panel, and at this time, I invite you to make any statement or comments you wish, beginning with Mr. Christoff.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH A. CHRISTOFF,1 DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. CHRISTOFF. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the efforts of the United States and the international community to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Historically, the United States has used four important tools to combat WMD proliferation: International treaties, multilateral export control arrangements, U.S. export control laws, and security assistance to other countries. My bottom line is that each tool is important to U.S. nonproliferation policy, but each tool has limitations, and I would like to briefly describe and comment on each of these tools.

First, the international community has established treaties to eliminate chemical and biological weapons and prohibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Three treaties are of particular importance, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention. These treaties share similar objectives. They are legally binding and they include most countries. However, their effectiveness depends on the mechanisms for verifying and enforcing them and the integrity of those countries party to them. For example, the Biological Weapons Conventions lacks the inspection and enforcement provisions that might have detected the Soviet Union's massive biological weapons program in the 1970's and the 1980's.

Limitations in membership also constrain the effectiveness of these treaties. Key states remain outside the treaties. For example, India, Israel, and Pakistan are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, while Iraq and Syria have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The second tool for controlling sensitive technologies is multilateral export control arrangements. Both the Executive and Legislative Branches have affirmed support for strengthening these arrangements. However, their effectiveness has been challenged in recent years.

As part of GAO's ongoing work on these arrangements, we are examining the following important questions. Does the voluntary nature of these arrangements and the dependence on member nations to impose export control limits affect their effectiveness? Do

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Christoff with attachments appears in the Appendix on page

member nations abide by their commitments to refrain from exporting items other members have denied? How do member nations share information about their export decisions? And how do the arrangements ensure that non-member nations do not transfer sensitive technologies to countries of concern?

The third tool is U.S. export control policy, which is intended to constrain the transfers of WMD technology. In GAO's past work, we have identified problems with U.S. policy. First, the Executive Branch has not assessed national security risks for important dualuse items, such as high-performance computers and semi-conductor technologies.

Second, the government does not adequately screen proposed recipients of sensitive U.S. technologies. For example, the government does not always have complete intelligence information on license applicants who may serve as fronts for proliferators or terrorists.

And third, the government cannot always ensure that recipients of sensitive technologies comply with the conditions of the license. This is most important in countries of concern, such as China, which restrict U.S. officials' access to facilities that house U.S. technologies.

And finally, the fourth tool is the security assistance to other countries that we provide, most importantly to the former Soviet Union. At the time of its collapse, the Soviet Union had, by some estimates, 30,000 nuclear weapons, 40,000 tons of chemical weapons, and an extensive biological weapons program. The collapse also left 30,000 to 75,000 Soviet weapons scientists without fulltime employment.

Since 1991, the United States has helped Russia eliminate and secure weapons of mass destruction and provide part-time employment to former Soviet scientists. U.S. efforts have helped make large quantities of WMD-related materials more secure and they have supplemented the incomes of several thousand former Soviet scientists.

However, it has been difficult to assess the effectiveness of these programs, which have cost about $5.5 billion since 1991. Russian officials continue to limit U.S. access to certain WMD facilities. In addition, the part-time employment provided by the United States may not necessarily deter Russian scientists from selling their weapons knowledge to rogue states or terrorists.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the events of the past 2 months provide the impetus for reexamining all these tools that are used to restrict the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Ten years ago, the international community made major changes in its controls over nuclear technology after revelations about the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. We may be at a similar point today. We need to reassess the adequacy of our current policy tools to address the vulnerabilities and the changed perceptions of the threat that we currently face.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Christoff. Dr. Cupitt,

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD T. CUPITT,1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND SECURITY

Mr. CUPITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling and organizing this hearing on what I think is a very important topic. I have submitted some additional remarks that represent my personal views on several of the broader export control questions raised by the Subcommittee staff, so I would like to focus this testimony on some problems the U.S. Government will face in coordinating nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls with its allies and on some possible steps to address these difficulties.

Senator AKAKA. At this time, may I say that all of your full statements will be made part of the record.

Mr. CUPITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The tragic events of the last 2 months not only emphasize the need to reform the multilateral export control system, they have shaken the international community sufficiently, I believe, that reform initiatives may actually succeed. So this is a moment of opportunity for us, because the importance of limiting the weapons of mass destruction capabilities of terrorists and states that support international terrorism has never been more clear.

Nonetheless, many of the same problems that plagued efforts to improve multilateral coordination of proliferation-related export control systems in the late 1990's will hamper attempts to coordinate nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls now. Let me mention five likely problem areas-and I will be happy to go into detail about them perhaps in the question and answer period-and then raise some possible responses to these problems.

First and foremost, there is a very weak infrastructure for coordinating nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls internationally. The Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Wassenaar Arrangement, for example, have pretty primitive methods and mechanisms for gathering and sharing information, resolving disputes, and enforcing group norms.

Second, the list of sensitive anti-terrorism items appears to be based mainly on delaying state-sponsored weapons of mass destruction programs and not with a view towards delaying or preventing the development of non-state weapons of mass destruction programs.

Third, there are very divergent national nonproliferation antiterrorism export control systems now, even among key U.S. allies. Fourth, there are divergent views on the targets of nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls.

And finally, there are very divergent approaches to industry-government cooperation on nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls.

Based on these concerns, I would like to take the opportunity to recommend that the U.S. Government consider five steps in the near term to begin to address these problems.

First, I think the U.S. Government should consider doing more extensive assessments of foreign export control policies related to