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.

1

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH A. CHRISTOFF, 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 de

struction.

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

nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls, starting with the policies and programs of the G-8 and other key members of the supplier arrangements. Frankly, we simply do not know enough. A critical lack of information and analysis of these policies, as well as broader export control policies, exists. We need to do more.

Second, the U.S. Government should consider providing more funding, technical assistance, and critical information to help U.S. partners implement and coordinate their intelligence, licensing, and enforcement activities related to nonproliferation anti-terrorism export controls. This includes an increase in efforts and support for U.S. export control outreach programs worldwide. We do have an extensive program through the Department of Commerce and also the Department of Energy to do work in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere and there has been some work now in China and India, but it needs to be much more extensive in order to succeed and the United States has to take the lead on this.

Third, the U.S. Government should consider creating priorities in its list of items of greatest nonproliferation anti-terrorism concern as a basis for international negotiations. It is not clear from our current list of, for instance, dual-use items, which items are more important than others to control for anti-terrorism purposes. There are very few items that are controlled for anti-terrorism purposes alone. For most of the others, it appears that if there is a requirement related to chemical, biological proliferation, nuclear nonproliferation, or missile proliferation, we just tack anti-terrorism on to that as well, and I am not sure that that is an appropriate way to address the problem. Some items may be more important to control than others, and if we do not see that, maybe some of our allies will.

Fourth, the U.S. Government should also consider creating priorities for listed terrorists and terrorist organizations that pose the greatest weapons of mass destruction threat as a basis for negotiations. I think one might start by differentiating among those individuals and entities on the specially designated terrorist list or the foreign terrorist organizations list according to the weapons of mass destruction risk they present.

Finally, I think the U.S. Government should consider creating new standards for industry export control compliance programs, including certification of the substantive knowledge of export administrators regarding nonproliferation anti-terrorism controls. Export administrators in several of the national laboratories, for example, have expressed keen interest in certification as a means of ensuring the highest standards of compliance with nonproliferation export controls, and I think this would also hold true for related antiterrorism controls.

Again, let me thank the Subcommittee both for holding the hearing and for allowing me to present my views. Thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. LEWIS,1 SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Mr. LEWIS. Let me thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important subject. I think that since September 11, we have an opportunity and a need for a new look at nonproliferation and controlling export of technology.

Changes in international security and the global economy have made export controls less effective in preventing technology transfer. In particular, technological change and economic integration pose real challenges for both nonproliferation and counterterrorism. This decline in effectiveness is less noticeable in the nonproliferation regimes because of their strength. The Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group have strong support from their members. They focus their efforts on key proliferation technologies and they have good mechanisms for information exchange.

In contrast, there is another arrangement called the Wassenaar Arrangement. It is ineffective. There is little consensus. This would be a problem except for the fact that most of what Wassenaar controls is unimportant for nonproliferation purposes, and I think we would get more benefit if we paid less attention to Wassenaar and more attention to strengthening both our own national catch-all controls and helping foreign countries strengthen their catch-all controls, as well.

Another problem that we have with the export control debate in the United States, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not spent enough time perhaps looking at some of the larger problems. First, the rationale for nonproliferation export controls needs to be reexamined, and hearings like this are very helpful in advancing the thinking of the United States.

Export controls were designed, as many of my colleagues have said, and it is amazing to me how, at least with the first panel and I think some of the others, I will be repeating many of the things they said, which is the problem for being last, but export controls for nonproliferation were designed to make programs more costly and to buy time for diplomacy. This worked very well for the last 10 years, but we are now facing a hard core of countries-Iraq, Iran, and North Korea-where export controls are going to be very less effective and we will need some new approach.

In addition to that level of problem, we face new problems with non-state actors who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. They pose a serious challenge to current nonproliferation controls, which are aimed at countries and large government programs. Nonproliferation is now more than an arms control problem that can be approached in the traditional diplomatic and military context.

Export licensing will be less important for dealing with terrorist organizations. Terrorists will not be applying for licenses and they may not even try to export materials. A more plausible scenario is that terrorists will attempt to acquire WMD-related materials in