[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1662-E1663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      TECHNOLOGY EXPORT REVIEW ACT

                                 ______


                         HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 4, 1995
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce The 
Technology Export Review Act. This legislation is based largely on H.R. 
3534, The Computer Equipment and Technology Export Control Reform Act, 
introduced last year by my good friend, Representative Don Edwards. I 
am proud to carry forward Mr. Edward's work on this issue in the 104th 
Congress.
  The Foreign Availability Act, and H.R. 3534 of last year, were both 
introduced to reform a Federal system that has gone amok. Currently, 
our Nation's interagency export control regime is overly bureaucratic, 
does not accurately take into account changes in technology or in the 
world marketplace, and puts too difficult a burden on the backs of our 
Nation's economically critical high technology companies.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. electronics and information technology 
industries employs 2.5 million Americans in secure, high paying jobs. 
But it is important to know that these companies, which are vital to 
America's economic future, depend on foreign sales. For example, the 
computer industry earns more than half of its sales overseas, and that 
number is growing. And, the U.S. semiconductor industry has recently 
reclaimed a dominant world market share for the first time in more than 
a decade. All of this means that where federal policies unnecessarily 
burden and delay foreign sales, American workers suffer. It is that 
simple.
  Under the current export control system, certain technologies can be 
freely exported to most of the world, while others, usually the most 
advanced, must be given licenses on an individual case-by-case basis. 
Under this process, the determination of winners and losers is 
haphazard. There is no regular review of technological progress. There 
is no questioning of the purpose and the effect of the controls. There 
is no seeing the forest through the trees.
  Mr. Speaker, my legislation requires an annual review of export 
controls on dual-use technology. The annual review must consider first, 
the objectives of such controls--what were they designed to accomplish 
and why specific product performance levels were set--and the extent to 
which such objectives have been met; second, the extend to which the 
products controlled are widely available from sources outside the 
United States; and third, the economic impact of such controls on U.S. 
industries.
  Based on this review, the Secretary of Commerce would be required to 
increase the performance level thresholds at which technologies are 
controlled or otherwise modify controls in accordance with the 
findings. The legislation includes a general default provision that 
requires the Secretary to propose multilateral decontrol of all dual-
use goods that reach mass-market status of 100,000 units installed for 
end-use outside of the United States over a 12-month period.
  Finally this bill would make a common sense notion into law. Under 
the current system, individual components may be subject to 

[[Page E1663]]
tighter restrictions than the product in which they are included. This 
bill stipulates that no part will face tighter restrictions than the 
device for which it is manufactured.
  Mr. Speaker, our export control system needs direction and vision. It 
is my hope that the legislation I have introduced today will go a long 
way toward reforming this system, and end the current practice of tying 
the hands of America's best competitors.


                          ____________________