[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 86 (Thursday, June 30, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            EXPORT OF MILITARY SENSITIVE DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGY

                                 ______


                           HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 30, 1994

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, shortly the House of Representatives will 
begin consideration of the Export Administration Act of 1994. This will 
be one of the most critical national security votes of this session.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee has reported out H.R. 3927, which rewrites our current laws 
regarding the export of militarily sensitive dual-use technology. I 
think it is safe to say that many in the nonproliferation community are 
alarmed by the Foreign Affairs Committee bill. In a statement before 
the House Armed Services Committee, Gary Milhollin, Director of the 
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, stated, ``The bill reported 
out of the Foreign Affairs Committee would greatly weaken existing law. 
As I have already said there is absolutely no justification for that. 
In fact, the lesson of Iraq is that controls need to be stronger 
instead of weaker.'' Later in his statement Mr. Milhollin notes, ``At 
best, the bill would allow the United States to control exports about 
the same way that Germany controlled them in the 1980's. The graphic I 
referred to above shows that German firms were the main suppliers of 
Iraq's chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and long-range missile 
programs.''
  There are many problems with the Foreign Affairs Committee bill; 
however, the most glaring is that this legislation would significantly 
reduce the authority of the Secretary of Defense in making 
determinations of what to control and his authority to review license 
applications. I would like to remind my colleagues that in 1991 the 
Government Operations Committee held extensive hearings on our export 
control laws and specifically sales to Iraq, and Government Operations 
concluded that, ``U.S. export officials (Commerce and Energy) 
transferred sensitive U.S.-origin equipment directly into the hands of 
Iraq's bomb and missile makers, and did it on behalf of an exporter 
that was already notorious for nuclear smuggling. The export went out 
at top speed even through there was a bad seller, a bad buyer, and a 
bad end use.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Defense needs more authority not less.
  Many in industry are strongly supportive of the work done by the 
Foreign Affairs Committee. They argue that the Department of Defense 
slows down the process and that too many items are controlled. Industry 
claims that $10-20 billion in sales and hundreds of thousands of jobs 
are lost. While I am sensitive to these claims, I am concerned that 
they may be overstated. My colleagues should be aware that in 1992, 96 
percent of all manufactured exports left the country without a license. 
Of the remaining 4 percent that required a validated license, 96 
percent were approved for export. According to the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs the dollar value of license denials is about $700 
million, a far cry from $10-20 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, we all care about jobs but we must also consider that 
sales of dual-use technology could cost our soldiers their lives. 
During consideration of the Export Administration Act, I plan to offer 
several amendments regarding the role of the Secretary of Defense and 
amendments to strengthen the process for creating the Commodity Control 
List. For example, I believe the Secretary of Defense should be given 
the authority to stop any export that he feels could be detrimental to 
U.S. national security. I am not trying to slow down the process or to 
hurt our businesses potential to export. I just want to ensure that we 
don't create another Iraq.

                          ____________________