[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                 THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1994

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today the Committee on Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs marked up the Export Administration Act of 
1994 [EAA]. The EAA is the legal authority for implementing both 
multilateral and unilateral export controls. Our need to continue an 
effective and enforceable export control system did not disappear with 
the end of the cold war. Instead, our Nation and the world are faced 
with new security threats posed by terrorists and others who support 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  To put it in perspective, one must look at the big picture. Not only 
are we faced with reauthorizing the Export Administration Act [EAA] but 
a number of other things are happening on the export and the export 
control front.
  Currently, on the international front, the United States has no 
agreement with our allies on a successor regime to CoCom which expired 
on March 31. The new multilateral regime is critical to controlling the 
worldwide proliferation of militarily critical products and 
technologies to rogue regimes. Many members of this committee, on a 
bipartisan basis, joined me earlier this year in supporting a 
resolution which passed the Senate expressing the importance of this 
goal. Without a multilateral organization, the United States could end 
up controlling these items unilaterally, a situation that is good for 
neither security or economic interests.
  On the domestic front, the administration has decontrolled 
approximately 70 percent of United States export controls through 
regulation, including significant decontrols to Russia and China. In 
fiscal year 1993, there were over 25,000 license applications. In 
fiscal year 1995, the number is expected to drop to under 8,500. While 
there was justification for some export decontrol, these efforts appear 
extreme. From the exporter's point of view, this massive decontrol has 
resulted in a minimum of $30 billion in new export opportunities for 
U.S. businesses.
  On the legislative front, I commend my colleagues, Senator Riegle, 
Senator Sasser, and Senator Mack for their diligence in attempting to 
provide a bill that balances the security and economic interests of 
this country. While I support certain aspects of the bill, I have 
concerns including concerns regarding the decontrol that is occurring 
around us. Multilateral control and regulatory decontrol 
are intricately tied to the effectiveness of what we can accomplish in 
reauthorizing the EAA. The committee bill and the inclusion of my 
amendments addressed a number of these concerns.

  The committee bill strengthens the U.S. terrorism controls, our most 
serious security threat today, by making controls mandatory for exports 
to states which support terrorism. These mandatory controls cover 
national security and nonproliferation items as well as exports which 
could contribute to the military potential of those states or to their 
ability to support terrorism.
  The committee bill helps to cut the redtape faced by the exporter 
when going through the license application process. This bill allows 
for more timely consideration of U.S. exporter's license application 
reducing the time spent in the bureaucracy from 120 days down to 60 
days. The U.S. exporter should not be disadvantaged in trade due to 
bureaucratic redtape.
  While this EAA bill takes those important steps, there are also areas 
which concern me greatly. I fully realize the need to help our economy 
and expand our exports but I do not believe that we can endanger our 
future security by allowing dangerous dual-use technology to make its 
way into the hands of the uncontrollable rogue states that threaten the 
security of the United States and its allies. I believe a number of my 
colleagues share that goal.
  I am afraid that this threat becomes a critical issue in this debate 
due to: First, the lack of a multilateral successor regime to CoCom to 
control the proliferation of militarily critical products and 
technologies to rogue regimes; and, second, the reduction in authority 
given to the Department of Defense in stopping exports that impact our 
national security and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  My first amendment to the committee bill leaves in place the ability 
for the Department of Defense to veto an export license if the export 
threatens our national security. This authority shall remain in place 
until such time as the President certifies that a new multilateral 
regime has been established and serves the national security interests 
of the United States.
  Currently, this is section 10(g) of current law. Every EAA proposal 
on the table completely eliminates this authority in favor of a 
majority vote by relevant agencies, tilting the scales away from 
license denial and toward license approval.
  The amendment also sets forth strong negotiating objectives for 
multilateral regimes including that regime members should have 
verifiable export control systems--Russia wants to be a member but 
still exports arms to Iran; and, that members and prospective members 
should seek to prevent arms and other sensitive exports to dangerous 
states like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and any other terrorist 
nations that are contributing to tensions in the Middle East and 
elsewhere.
  The amendment also requires accountability by the administration in 
the ongoing negotiations for a multilateral organization by requiring a 
status report within 30 days of the bill's enactment and requiring the 
Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce to testify before the 
Banking Committee every 6 months on the progress of the multilateral 
negotiations.
  Another amendment directs all relevant agencies in the license review 
process to develop an on-line system so that agencies know what is 
available to review and can do so in the most timely manner. The 
current licensing system is based on referrals by the Commerce 
Department. Under this bill, each agency in the licensing review 
process is allowed to review any license application it chooses. Thus, 
in the case of DOD, they can see more licenses but take less action.
  Lastly, the bill includes my amendment which requires Defense and 
Commerce to provide licensing information and certify that licenses 
approved for export did not pose a threat to national security or 
nonproliferation interests of the United States.
  Once again, I do not believe that we can endanger our future security 
by allowing dangerous dual-use technology to make its way into the 
hands of the uncontrollable rogue states that threaten the security of 
the United States and its allies. I look forward to continuing to work 
with my colleagues on this important issue throughout the legislative 
process.

                          ____________________