[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 474 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3937.

                              {time}  2018


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3937) entitled the ``Export Administration Act of 1994,'' with 
Mr. Serrano in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] will each be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes; the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] will each be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes; the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Fish] will each be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] will each be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] 
will each be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes; and the gentleman form 
Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] will 
each be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 
3937, the Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1994, a bill that lays a 
new statutory foundation for our dual-use export control system. I 
request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  At the outset, I would like to compliment my colleague, Mr. Roth, the 
ranking member of the Economic Policy, Trade and Environment 
Subcommittee, one of the leading architects of this bill, and the 
author of the first comprehensive export control reform bill introduced 
last year, the Commercial Export Administration Act of 1993.
  The bill before us today is largely a reflection of his leadership in 
the complex area of export control policy.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Gejdenson, and the 
distinguished chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
Hamilton, deserve no less credit for their key roles in shaping this 
legislation, moving it to the floor today and working with this Member 
in incorporating amendments to strengthen this bill.
  At each successive stage of the legislative process, this bill has 
undergone extensive revisions and improvements to ensure that the 
bill's overhaul of the licensing process does not inadvertently 
jeopardize our national security.
  As reported out of Foreign Affairs Committee on May 18 and as 
modified by the House Ways and Means and Intelligence Committees, the 
bill strikes a balance between our national security interests and our 
competitiveness objectives.
  As technological advances have made existing unilateral controls and 
policies less effective, this bill encourages the upgrading and 
strengthening of existing multilateral control regimes to control the 
proliferation threats of the 1990's.
  With the end of the cold war, it is time to reform our export control 
system to ensure that it not only meets the needs of our exporters, but 
also provides our policymakers with a sound framework on which to base 
an antiproliferation policy.
  We also need to readjust our controls in light of the diminishing 
threats from the former Soviet bloc militaries and the emerging 
proliferation and terrorist threats in other areas of the world.
  H.R. 3937 has two critical objectives. First, it shifts the focus of 
U.S. dual use export controls from cold war military threats to 
proliferation threats. It would strengthen the major nonproliferation 
export control regimes which play a critical role in containing the 
spread of the weapons of mass destruction.
  Second, it adapts the export control system to today's more 
competitive international economy by ensuring that the system can 
expeditiously process export license applications.
  In effect, we are putting up very high fences for any dual use 
commodities and technologies going to rogue regimes, such as Libya, 
North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. For other countries of concern, including 
China and Russia, there are safeguards against the export of goods or 
items that could be used in the production of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  However, according to a recently released report of the General 
Accounting Office, the United States does not have an effective 
postshipment verification program in place to verify the proper use of 
nuclear-related items.
  A Foreign Affairs Committee staff investigation has revealed similar 
problems for the monitoring of exports of missile-related goods to 
China.
  I intend to offer an amendment to this bill that would further 
tighten our ability to monitor the use of these goods and items, 
especially in countries that are unable or unwilling to control the 
proliferation of these weapons.
  The adoption of an effective end use reporting and monitoring system 
is a key element in the battle against proliferation.
  Under the provisions of this bill, the President will be able to 
impose unilateral export controls that he determines are essential to 
U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.
    
    
  It toughens U.S. antiterrorism policy by prohibiting any dual-use 
technology exports to terrorist countries; it prohibits the export of 
any item that an exporter knows would materially contribute to the 
development of a weapon of mass destruction in a country outside the 
nonproliferation regimes; it toughens our nonproliferation sanctions 
against countries that use chemical or biological weapons or missiles 
and against persons that export items in support of a weapon of mass 
destruction or missile program.
  In its consideration of this legislation on May 18, the committee 
agreed to accept a package of amendments, which I offered, that protect 
our security interests in our unilateral control policies and 
strengthen the multilateral control regimes.
  The amendments specifically: First, broadened the focus of controls 
to include terrorist threats to the United States or its allies; 
second, directed the United States to pursue efforts with its economic 
partners to establish a policy denying licenses for exports of goods 
that would directly contribute to acts of terrorism against them; 
third, required the Secretary of Commerce to evaluate the extent to 
which regime members have adopted uniform license and no-undercut 
policies; and fourth, mandated the assignment of an export control 
officer in key countries, such as China, to monitor the end use of all 
dual-use items.
  Other amendments to the bill clarified the conditions under which a 
license free export regime could be created, established a workable 
procedure for Congress to review the proposed termination of unilateral 
export controls, and provided a set of benchmarks for the 
administration's policy of encouraging the Arab League to end the 
secondary Arab boycott.
  Since the markup of this legislation, the House Intelligence 
Committee has unanimously voted to delete language requiring the 
decontrol of software with encryption capabilities and to substitute 
language in its place requiring a study of the impact of U.S. 
encryption export controls and the competitiveness of the U.S. computer 
software industry.
  The incorporation of this study provision in the bill, in my view, 
satisfactorily resolves this issue by ensuring that the administration 
will maintain its ability to combat international terrorism, drug 
trafficking and other threats to our foreign policy interests.
  A key remaining issue on this bill is the proper role of the 
Secretary of Defense in the licensing and the list-making process. In 
this regard, I would urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Affairs 
Committee's amendment, which takes into account the provisions in the 
proposed amendment of the Armed Services Committee.
  It gives a key role to the President in drawing up a list of 
unilateral export controls and establishing a shared consultative role 
for five agencies, including the Defense Department, in the overall 
licensing process.
  I would also draw the attention of my colleagues to an urgent 
multilateral export control problem that has not received sufficient 
attention inside this administration.
  Deposit months of on-again and off-again negotiation, the 
administration appears no closer to reaching a clearly defined and 
enforceable agreement setting up a successor regime to CoCom. This 
multilateral Coordinating Committee controlled strategic exports to the 
former Soviet Union and other Communist States until March of this 
year.
  Thus far, the administration appears to have made little headway in 
obtaining multiple, and often conflicting, goals in including 
conventional arms transfers in the new regime as well as the full 
participation of Russia and other former Communist countries.
  While I do not intend to offer any amendments related to CoCom, I do 
want to stress the urgent need to recreate a successor regime where all 
members will have the same obligations concerning the export of weapons 
and major weapons systems to rogue regimes targeted in the bill, 
including Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
  Promises and half-hearted commitments will not take the place of 
sustained high-level diplomatic efforts needed to re-create a 
proliferation-oriented successor to CoCom.
  The administration's failure to build on the CoCom Cooperation Forum, 
established under President Bush, together with its overly ambitious 
plans of including conventional arms transfers in the new CoCom, have 
prolonged the negotiations and led to confusion among our allies about 
our strategic objectives.
  Notwithstanding my concerns about the administration's handling of 
negotiations with our allies regarding export controls, I believe this 
bill takes an important step in the right direction. Accordingly I urge 
its adoption.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today begins consideration of H.R. 3937, the 
Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1994. This legislation 
fundamentally reforms the Export Administration Act, the statutory 
basis for export controls on commercial goods and technology that also 
have potential military application.
  The last time Congress looked at export controls in any serious way 
was in 1985. The world has changed dramatically since then, and this 
bill reforms our export controls to meet those changing conditions.
  Let me make it clear that this bill covers the export of technology, 
not the export of weapons. Arms exports are controlled under the Arms 
Export Control Act.
  H.R. 3937 is important legislation. The present export control system 
was built to fight the cold war. The system of export licenses now in 
place was meant to keep sensitive technology from falling into the 
hands of our enemies, primarily the Soviet Union.
  But the cold war is over and the Soviet Union is no more. Those to 
whom we denied exports of sensitive technology are no longer our 
enemies. They are now our markets.
  The world, of course, is still a dangerous place. But new threats and 
new dangers have replaced the evil empire. Our concerns are no longer 
the military prowess of the Soviet. Our fear now is that weapons of 
mass destruction--or the means to produce or deliver them--will fall 
into the wrong hands in many corners of the globe.
  H.R. 3937 addresses these new threats.
  This bill also takes into account another major change from the cold 
war era. If you are an exporter, it's a competitive world out there. In 
the cold war, the United States and its allies dominated world markets 
and controlled key technologies. If we decided not to sell sensitive 
technology to certain countries, those countries didn't get the 
technology.
  If we decide not to sell technology today, or if we are too slow 
processing the export license, we lose the sale--and the jobs.
  This bill has one very important goal: to ensure that the United 
States doesn't pursue a go-it-alone export control strategy that hurts 
American exports and American workers without any benefit to our 
national security.
  Let me outline briefly the key provisions of H.R. 3937.
  First, it strengthens the multilateral export control regimes so that 
the United States doesn't go it alone in controlling the spread of 
weapons of mass destruction.
  It creates incentives for countries to join the multilateral export 
control regimes and comply with their rules.
  It links our own nonproliferation efforts more closely with the 
multilateral regimes, and requires the president to negotiate with our 
allies to improve the multilateral regimes and the export control 
systems of member countries.
  Second, this bill shifts the focus of export controls to the new 
threats to our national security: proliferation.
  It strengthens our ability to keep sensitive technology out of the 
wrong hands. It prohibits the export of any dual-use technology to 
terrorist countries. No item on international export control lists may 
be exported to Iran, Iraq, Syria, or North Korea. It also prohibits the 
export of any item if the exporter knows it could be used to develop 
weapons of mass destruction, and if it is going to a country that has 
not signed on to one of the control regimes. Those are tough 
provisions.
  H.R. 3937 also toughens sanctions against countries that use chemical 
or biological weapons or missiles, and against anyone that exports 
items that will be used in nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or 
missile programs.
  In addition, it gives the President the authority to impose 
unilateral controls when they are needed to protect U.S. national 
security and foreign policy.
  Third, while this bill is tough on proliferation, it also meets the 
concerns of U.S. exporters. Poorly conceived export controls often hit 
the wrong target. This bill streamlines the cumbersome export licensing 
bureaucracy and sets tight licensing deadlines. It scales back 
unilateral export controls that don't benefit U.S. national security.
  Opponents of this legislation will tell you this bill goes too far in 
loosening our export controls. The only thing I can say is, they 
haven't read our bill. When it comes to the real security threats we 
face--the spread of weapons of mass destruction--this bill is tougher 
than existing law.
  H.R. 3937 effectively balances U.S. security and economic interests. 
It gives the United States a badly needed new export control system, 
one that responds to new security threats while allowing U.S. exporters 
to respond to new economic opportunities.
  H.R. 3937 protects U.S. national security. It improves our ability to 
control the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  It is not in our interest--and it does not serve U.S. national 
security--to keep in place an outdated, cumbersome export control 
system. Outdated export controls hurt U.S. exports and U.S. workers 
while doing nothing to benefit our security.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3937.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Frost) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3937) entitled 
the Export Administration Act of 1994, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________