[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1271-S1272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1712, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1712) to provide authority to control exports, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Gramm is not here. The manager of 
the bill for the Democrats, Senator Johnson, has graciously consented 
so that I can say a word or two about this legislation.
  I rise to speak about an issue that is of particular interest to me 
and our national economy. The issue I wish to discuss is export 
controls. As I stated previously, it is critical that the Congress 
support the engine of our thriving economy while still protecting the 
integrity of our national security.
  Today in America consumer confidence is at a record high. 
Unemployment is at a 30-year low. New home sales set a record last 
year. The rate of inflation is less than 2 percent. The stock market 
has been surging, and corporation profits are better than analysts 
dreamed.
  It was announced last month that we are experiencing a record 107 
months of economic expansion. This is all proof that Congress and the 
administration has done a stellar job in steering the country in the 
right direction. And yet, thus far, we have been unable to pass 
legislation to update our export controls. The Bureau of Export 
Administration and the Defense Department are still conducting business 
under cold war era regulations. The economic and political world has 
changed dramatically. That is why I am so pleased that this bill has 
come to the floor today.
  Last year, I met with Senators Gramm, Enzi, and Johnson, in my 
office, to discuss export controls. They informed me that The majority 
leader pledged to them that the Export Administration Act would come to 
the floor before the end of 1999.
  Everyone tried, but as happens a lot of times at the end of the 
session, it was unable to be brought to the floor. That is not because 
the Senators I visited with--Enzi, Gramm, and Johnson--didn't try. 
These three Senators, for whom I have the greatest respect, have all 
worked hard and in good faith to bring all parties to an accommodation.
  When this bill passed out of the Banking Committee, it had the full 
support of the committee and the business community, while still 
protecting our Nation's national security. I am afraid with the 
addition of many of the amendments in the so-called managers' package 
that this bill is losing support both from the business community and 
the national security interests. I hope we can work something out and 
not have to adopt the managers' amendment as it is written.
  In January of last year, along with the distinguished majority 
leader, I, Senator Daschle, and a group of Senate Democrats, got 
together to form a high-tech working group. This group came about 
because we as Democrats realize the importance of high tech to the 
Nation's economy. Senator John Kerry, through his leadership capacity, 
has worked very hard in this regard.
  We also recognize that Congress can have a large impact on the 
growth, or potential growth, of this sector of our economy. Our initial 
goal was to educate our caucus on the high-tech issues. Because of the 
generation gap between those who run this industry and most Members in 
the Senate, this took a little time. However, we got to speed very 
quickly. We toured sites all over the United States, including high-
tech sites in Maryland, Virginia, and Silicon Valley.
  As with many issues, I often hear that Congress would best serve the 
public and industry by doing nothing at all. One of the areas most 
believe we can be of help is in the area of export controls of high-
performance computers. There are currently a number of U.S. products 
that cannot compete with national competitors due to export control 
limitations, not because of national security interests but because of 
the slow review process here in Congress.
  In June of 1999, and then in January of this year, with the urging of 
Senator Daschle, myself, and other Senators, the administration agreed 
to ease the level of controls which were referred to as MTOPS--million 
theoretical operations per second.
  We, as well as those in the computer industry, were elated. There is 
a 6-month congressional review period for raising the level of MTOPS. 
The Banking Committee bill reduces the review from 180 to 60 days. By 
the Senate Banking Committee agreeing to the shortened review period of 
60 days, the committee recognized a few important things:
  No. 1, 180 days is too long for an industry whose success depends on 
its ability to beat its foreign competition to the marketplace;

[[Page S1272]]

  No. 2, a shorter time period gives the Congress adequate time to 
review the national security ramifications of any changes in the U.S. 
computer export control regime.
  While this is a good step in the right direction, I, along with 
Senators Bennett, Daschle, Kerry, Murray, Bingaman, Kennedy, and Boxer, 
believe that further reduction of this to 30 days makes more sense.
  The high-performance computers we are talking about have a 3-month 
innovation cycle. Therefore, if 60 days are taken up in Congress, on 
top of the turnaround time for new regulations at the administration, 
the innovation cycle is long overdue.

  There is no precedent for such a long review period. Even the sales 
of items on the munitions such as tanks, rockets, and high-performance 
aircraft only require a 30-day review period. The reality of the 
situation is that by limiting American companies to this degree we are 
not only losing short-term market share, but we are allowing foreign 
companies to make more money and, in turn, create better products in 
the future. This could lead to the eventual loss of our Nation's lead 
in computer technology, which has propelled the United States to the 
good economic standing we see today.
  This amendment is critical to our Nation's economy and the success of 
our high-tech industry.


                           Amendment No. 2883

 (Purpose: To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     year 1998 with respect to export controls on high performance 
                               computers)

  Mr. REID. I send this amendment to the desk for Senators Reid of 
Nevada, Bennett, Daschle, Kerry of Massachusetts, Murray, Bingaman, 
Kennedy, and Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     Bennett, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2883.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 27, beginning on line 6, strike all through line 9 
     and insert the following:
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 1211(d) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2404 note) is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``180'' and 
     inserting ``30''; and
       (B) by adding at the end, the following new sentence: ``The 
     30-day reporting requirement shall apply to any changes to 
     the composite theoretical performance level for purposes of 
     subsection (a) proposed by the President on or after January 
     1, 2000.''.

  Mr. REID. I recognize the leader has said there will be no votes on 
this bill today; therefore, I will ask for the yeas and nays at such 
time as the leadership determines it is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in the absence of Chairman Gramm and 
Chairman Enzi, in order to expedite consideration of this very 
important legislation, I will go forward with a brief discussion and my 
view of the Export Administration legislation.
  I rise today in support of the Export Administration Act. I have 
worked closely on export control issues with Senators Enzi, Gramm, and 
Sarbanes, and I am pleased that we have reached consideration of this 
important issue by the full Senate. There are several different 
classifications of exports. Items which can have both civilian and 
military applications are considered to be dual-use technology, and 
those goods are governed by the EAA.
  There have been numerous attempts to reauthorize the EAA in the years 
since it expired in 1990. It is unfortunate that this legislation has 
gone unauthorized for most of this decade, and I strongly urge the 
Congress to not forgo this opportunity. Reauthorization becomes even 
more critical as legal challenges to the continued reliance on the 
expired EAA through emergency powers winds its way through the courts. 
After ten years of congressional silence, I am fearful that one of 
these challenges will ultimately succeed, leaving us without any 
control over sensitive dual use technologies. At that point, even 
technology which is universally agreed to be dangerous could be freely 
exported to countries considered to be direct threats to the United 
States. Reauthorization of the EAA in of itself adds a tremendous 
component to our national security.
  I want to especially thank Chairman Enzi for his work on this issue. 
Without his hands-on leadership, we frankly would not be at this point 
today. S. 1712 is a testament to Mike's hard work and the widespread 
support this bill enjoys derives from Chairman Enzi's commonsense 
approach to issues.
  I want to note the important roles played by Banking Committee 
Chairman Gramm and Ranking Member Sarbanes of Maryland. We have had 
constructive participation across the board, and that bipartisan 
cooperation has brought us to this point. That spirit contributed to 
the unanimous 20-0 vote in support of S. 1712 in the Banking Committee.
  We had a simple goal when we embarked on this effort: reduce or 
eliminate controls on items that do not have security implications and 
tighten controls on items that raise security concerns. While most 
everyone can agree on these principles, it is much more difficult to 
draft the language to accomplish that end.
  We worked very closely with concerned Senators, the national security 
establishment, the administration, and the impacted industries. I 
believe we addressed the major concerns of each entity. We increased 
the penalties, making violators of export control laws pay a real 
price. We made the foreign availability and mass market standards a 
true measure of what items could be accessed regardless of U.S. 
sanctions, and provided for those items to be decontrolled.
  S. 1712 strengthens our national security. For the first time, the 
Department of Defense will have unilateral appeal rights if it 
disagrees with an approved export. Penalties move from $10,000 per 
violation to up to $1 million per violation.
  At one of our eight hearings on this bill, we heard from 
Representatives Cox and Dicks on the Cox Report relative to exports to 
the People's Republic of China. We directly incorporate fifteen of the 
Cox Report recommendations in our bill to enhance national security. I 
might add that reauthorization of the EAA is one of the specific 
recommendations from the Cox Report.
  America benefits when our businesses prosper. Exporting technology 
has long been an American success story. The technology field will lead 
our economy into the next century. But, new technologies could prove 
dangerous in the wrong hands, and our national security depends in part 
on limiting access to certain technologies. That is the balance we seek 
to strike, and I believe S. 1712 does that.
  I look forward to a vigorous debate of these important issues. 
Passage of this EAA bill will make a significant contribution to our 
national security and will help bring transparency to our export 
control system. I encourage my colleagues to join this bipartisan, 
balanced approach to these critical issues.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________