[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 78 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                PROBLEMS WITH OUR ARMS EXPERT LICENSING

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I also thank the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa for bringing us this very revealing, I 
think, and thought-provoking series of charts. He has demonstrated 
where the spending priority is in our country. I think the Senator from 
Iowa has done a tremendous service for this body and for the American 
people.
  The United States today is the leading arms exporter in the world. In 
fact, we exported in arms roughly $33 billion last year, which was 
almost triple the $11 billion that we exported in 1991. In fact, the 
United States has accounted for 56 percent of the conventional arms 
exports to the Third World in 1992.
  Since we are the leading arms exporter today and we also have much of 
the most sophisticated weaponry, we would think that we would also 
have, in conjunction with that, an effective export control system, to 
prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Wrong, Mr. 
President, this is not the case.
  On June 15, last year, I chaired a hearing on the U.S. arms export 
licensing system. This hearing examined the role that the Departments 
of State and Commerce play in that system. This hearing was a followup 
to two hearings that I held on this subject in 1987. I will always 
remember our colleague, Senator George Mitchell, now our distinguished 
majority leader, asking a question of the State Department witnesses in 
1987 with regard to licensing foreign arms dealers.
  He said, ``Can you receive a license to export arms even if you have 
been convicted of treason?''
  And the answer was ``yes.''
  At that particular time, there was no watchlist and very little 
checking to see where these arms were actually going.
  The hearing we concluded last week revealed that while the commitment 
to control arms exports rather than promote them seems to be a little 
stronger than in the past, I am still very concerned that our system 
for licensing commercial defense exports is still very, very deficient.
  According to the General Accounting Office, a report that I released 
last Wednesday, both the State and Commerce Departments have large gaps 
in their watchlist of suspect parties. These watchlists are supposed to 
be made up of all relevant governmental lists of persons or companies 
that should be closely watched if they in fact apply for a license. 
These gaps in the watchlist creates a potential hole, and in fact in my 
opinion endanger national security. This means the answer to Senator 
Mitchell's question in 1987 is still ``yes,'' because the General 
Accounting Office has now found that over 1,000 licenses have been 
issued or granted to parties within this country who either should have 
been on the watchlist at Commerce or State, or were on the watchlist 
but neither agency actually checked out the derogatory information.
  Mr. President, respectfully, listen to a couple of these examples. 
According to intelligence information, a company was involved on 
January 19, 1993, just a little over a year ago, in purchasing 
helicopter avionics equipment for China. Because their name was missing 
from the watchlist, this company actually received an approved license 
from the Department of Commerce on February 2, 1993.
  Let me repeat that. Only 2 weeks after the company was involved in 
the illegal purchase for sale to China, it received, again, a sensitive 
license from the Department of Commerce to sell the same or similar 
equipment. It is unbelievable.
  Example two. Another company, according to the GAO, was convicted in 
March 1992 of violating the Arms Export Control Act for exporting 
avionics equipment to Iran. Despite this violation, this particular 
American company received three additional licenses between July and 
December 1992.
  These are just two of the hundreds of examples found by the General 
Accounting Office that we made public last week. These hundreds of 
examples are only a sample of licenses that have been approved to 
parties either not on the watchlist or who received a license without 
being checked against the derogatory information on the watchlist.
  Mr. President, this is unacceptable. With our high volume of arms 
exports, it is imperative today that we have an effective system of 
ensuring that our weapons do not end up in the wrong hands. But I am 
sorry to state that despite modest improvements, our system is still 
not what it should be. Our system is flawed and is at fault. In 
testimony before our committee last week, both the State and the 
Commerce Department witnesses preferred to argue with the GAO 
statistics rather than to admit that more aggressive oversight was 
necessary.
  I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia desiring in a 
moment to take the floor and I am concluding my remarks in just about 
60 seconds.
  In conclusion, I think that the priority is still on promoting rather 
than controlling. This is the same attitude that prevailed when I first 
looked at this issue in 1987. A State Department publication, written 
in September 1990, very clearly stated the priority of the licensing 
process then and there, and I quote: ``The Bottom Line: Fast Licensing, 
Average License Issued in 13 Days.''
  In March of that same year, another issue had this article: 
``Controls Office Expanding: Faster, More Responsive Licensing the 
Goal.''
  Mr. President, while the State Department now says they have changed 
their priority, in their testimony they repeatedly mentioned the words 
``efficiency'' and ``speed'' as hallmarks of a good licensing system. 
In fact, they were worried about tightening up their screening of the 
watchlist for fear it might slow down their processing of licenses.
  Mr. President, while the arms dealers may appreciate the speedy 
processing of arms licenses, I do not think that this is the priority 
of the Congress as expressed in the Arms Export Control Act. When the 
Senate considers the reauthorization of the Export Administration later 
this month I may try to tighten up this system.
  There may be a need for legislation to correct these problems. There 
may be a need for a change of attitude at State and Commerce. Whatever 
is necessary, we should do it immediately. We cannot tolerate any 
longer an arms licensing system full of holes--where almost anyone, in 
record time, can become an international arms dealer.
  Mr. President, I conclude by saying that the goal is not faster 
licensing, but more monitoring of those licenses that we do grant. Let 
us always remember, to have a license to sell arms overseas is a 
privilege and not a right.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________