[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT EXTENSION

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5108) to extend the Export Administration Act of 1979.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT EXTENSION

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5108) to extend the Export Administration Act of 1979.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5108

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 20 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2419) is amended by striking ``August 20, 1994'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1995''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as Members are aware, the Export 
Administration Act of 1979 is the statutory basis for the U.S. dual-use 
export control system.
  The Committee on Foreign Affairs had been working this session to 
enact a comprehensive reform of the Export Administration Act, but we 
were unable to resolve several differences.
  The last Export Administration Act extension expired August 20.
  Since that time, the executive branch has maintained export controls 
under an Executive order issued pursuant to the authority of the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
  The policy and legal problems associated with the use of IEEPA make 
it prudent for us to extend the Export Administration Act authority 
until the end of the next fiscal year. This extension will provide 
Congress sufficient time to pass the reform legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5108.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this simple and straightforward 
bill, H.R. 5108, which extends the Export Administration Act through 
September 30 of 1995.
  Enactment of this measure ensures that the administration no longer 
has to rely on the authorities of the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act to administer our export control system.
  I join with Chairman Hamilton, Mr. Gilman, and the chairman of the 
International Economic Policy Subcommittee, Mr. Gejdenson, and the 
ranking member, Mr. Roth, in supporting this measure that should 
provide sufficient time for the completion of a bill streamlining and 
updating our export control system.
  Several challenges and questions as to the extent of the Department 
of Commerce's authority under IEEPA have been raised, including a 
possible challenge to its use to continue the anti-boycott regulations.
  So far, the Department of Commerce has successfully defended its 
authority, but there have been no definitive rulings on these issues. A 
continuing lapse of EAA is likely to promote a renewal of these 
challenges and a diversion of governmental resources to counter them.
  I ask my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a mark of achievement by this House 
that we have not passed the package that was initially put together and 
offered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I say this as a member of 
the House Committee on Armed Services which unanimously endorsed a 
number of changes that we thought were important to protect American 
security.
  Let me just say that the lesson of the gulf war was that it does not 
make a lot of sense to sell Winchesters to the hostiles, to engage in 
the sale of technology that ultimately may come back against you on the 
battlefield and result in death of Americans.
  Rather than tightening up technology flow, especially militarily 
critical technology, in my estimation, the way the House started to 
move early in this session was to liberalize that flow and make it 
easier for some of the rogue nations in the Middle East to gain high 
technology that ultimately could damage Americans in the battlefield.
  I am glad we have not passed the package that was initially put 
together. I think this Congress should go back and make some real 
evaluations with such smart people as Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and 
others who understand the effect that high technology play in wars and 
on the battlefield and come back with a much more conservative bill 
than we initially offered this year.
  I thank the gentlemen on both sides of the aisle for basically 
extending what we have not passing the package that the House initially 
was putting together. I think it is important that we have a vote on 
this bill incidentally on the extension because I think the extension 
is for better than the substitute that we would otherwise have.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do thank 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for that very important 
statement. I think especially in this increasingly volatile world, we 
need to be very careful about dual-use technology and the fact that 
again what we might sell with one intent ends up being used against us 
in a military capacity or capability. I think the time between now and 
next year gives us that opportunity to revisit this issue in a way that 
more eyes will look at it and hopefully come up with a better bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member reluctantly supports this 
legislation which extends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to 
September 30, 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his sincere 
disappointment and deep regret that this body is again considering 
legislation which merely puts a band aid on an outdated set of export 
control laws badly in need of reform. Unfortunately, with the fast 
approaching adjournment of Congress, this Member believes a 1-year 
extension is necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not in any way amend the Export 
Administration Act of 1979 except to extend its authority for 1 year. 
Nevertheless, in passing this simple extension, Mr. Speaker, we will 
maintain our authority to administer the export control laws of the 
United States.
  Currently and in the past, Mr. Speaker, Congress has failed to extend 
the Export Administration Act and our Presidents have been forced to 
administer our export control system by executive order and under the 
authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA].
  Unfortunately, however, this residual authority has proven woefully 
inadequate and legal challenges to the use of emergency authority have 
seriously jeopardized the President's ability to effectively administer 
these export control laws.
  Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of this potential problem cannot be 
overstated. If the legal challenges to the President's emergency 
authority are upheld, the U.S. Government would not be able to enforce 
its export control laws and proliferators could violate them without 
penalty. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, countries like North Korea, 
Iran, and Libya could obtain extremely sensitive technology from U.S. 
exporters and the Federal Government would be without recourse.

  Additionally, Mr. Speaker even if the President's emergency authority 
were upheld, significant differences exist between the preferred Export 
Administration Act and the President's emergency authority under IEEPA. 
For example, emergency authority severely limits civil and criminal 
penalties for those found in violation of U.S. export control laws, and 
the investigative powers of the Department of Commerce's special agents 
are eroded. Finally, and most importantly, the confidentiality of 
information received from U.S. businesses who are cooperating with the 
U.S. Government on export control laws is endangered by the lapsing of 
section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act.
  Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, COCOM, the international agency 
which coordinates national export control laws, disintegrated and its 
member countries resorted to policies of ``national discretion'' for 
approving export licenses for sensitive technologies. Meanwhile, the 
United States, outdated export control laws cost U.S. businesses $20 
billion annually while disproportionately penalizing our Nation's most 
promising high-technology goods and service exports.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, with the demise of COCOM and the United States' 
woefully outdated export control system, we must reach the fundamental 
conclusion that the United States cannot afford to attempt to 
unilaterally restrict exports that it cannot control.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member consequently supports passage of H.R. 5180 
to extend the Export Administration Act of 1979 for another year. 
Nevertheless, this Member would like to express his severe 
disappointment with the failure to pass significant export control 
reform legislation during the 103d Congress. Clearly, U.S. high-
technology industries and high paying jobs for American citizens are 
the casualties of our inability to arrive at a compromise on this 
important issue.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I regret that we are at this point today. 
I strongly supported the export control reform bill that passed the 
Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year. I wish we were at a 
signing ceremony today instead of passing a simple extension of the 
old, cold war-based Export Administration Act.
  But we need this extension today so that legal threats to our export 
control system do not emerge. I certainly do not want those who export 
sensitive technology to banned countries to escape scott-free because 
of our inaction in Congress.
  Plus, in some respects, the current export control system is better 
than some of the changes proposed by the House Armed Services Committee 
[HASC]. For example, the current Export Administration Act [EAA] allows 
for free export and reexport privileges among our most trusted trading 
partners--for example, Canada, Europe, Japan. You don't need specific 
approval from the U.S. Government for every time a company may wish to 
export a high technology good to our allies.
  However, the HASC amendments to the EAA rewrite would remove 
provisions for license-free zones and recontrols any item presently 
controlled to a rough regime across the board to every country. In 
other words, the HASC amendment would place the same restrictions that 
now apply only to terrorist countries such as Libya, Iran, Iraq, and 
Syria unilaterally even on our most trusted trading partners such as 
Great Britain and Japan.
  I urge my colleagues to support this simple extension of the EAA so 
that we can work on this issue next year.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5108.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________