[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1619-S1620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this morning I want to talk about export 
controls. We all brag and are enthused about what is going on in the 
high-tech industry in America. There are stories we can tell of friends 
who have made huge amounts of money in the new economy.
  It is truly unbelievable and remarkable what we can do today. This 
little thing I carry in my pocket has all my addresses and phone 
numbers. It has in it a dictionary. It has in it a calculator. It has 
in it the Old and New Testaments. It is unbelievable what is in this 
little, tiny thing I carry around in my pocket. With the flick of my 
hand, I can get anything I want out of this.
  While we are talking a good game in Washington, we are not doing a 
good job to support this strong economy and to make sure the high-tech 
industry is allowed to continue.
  We need to pass the Export Administration Act. We have not passed it. 
As a result--and it will happen if we do not pass a law--this industry 
is going to go someplace else with the jobs. The Bureau of Export 
Administration and the Defense Department are still conducting their 
business as if we were in the cold war. The cold war is over, and we 
have to really understand the economic and political world has changed 
dramatically.
  Last year, Senators Gramm, Enzi, and Johnson, together with the 
leader, Senator Lott, agreed to move forward the Export Administration 
Act before the end of 1999. Each one of those Senators has lived up to 
what they said they would do. They have tried to move the bill forward. 
The chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Gramm, has worked very 
hard to move this legislation forward. Senators Enzi and Johnson have 
worked hard. The

[[Page S1620]]

majority leader has tried to move this legislation forward.
  Frankly, the majority is unable to join together to allow us to move 
this bill forward. It was on the floor for an hour or so 2 weeks ago. I 
repeat, it is not for lack of trying by Senators Gramm, Enzi, and 
Johnson. They all worked in good faith and have tried to accommodate 
everyone.
  When the bill passed out of the Banking Committee, it had the full 
support of the committee, while still protecting our national security. 
I am afraid, due to the serious disagreements within the majority, this 
bill will not come to the floor anytime soon. That is really too bad.
  I have the greatest respect and admiration for the ability of Senator 
Gramm of Texas to legislate. He has done many things from the time he 
was in the House to his time in the Senate. I hope he can use some of 
the experience and wisdom he has to move this forward. The majority 
must move this bill. I do not believe we are living up to what is 
necessary for this burgeoning economy if we do not move this 
legislation.
  A couple days ago, I met with members of the high-tech industry. They 
voiced concerns about the need to update our export policies. They said 
it was one of their two or three top concerns and, frankly, a few 
Members of the majority are stopping our Nation's progress in this 
area.
  As with many issues, I often hear Congress will best serve the public 
and industry by doing nothing at all. That is simply not true. This is 
one of the areas in which we can be of great help to the high-tech 
community, in export controls. It is essential. There are currently a 
number of U.S. products that cannot compete with our foreign 
competitors due to export control limitations, not because of national 
security interests but because of the slow review process in Congress. 
We are trying to change that. That is what I am talking about.
  In June of 1999 and January of this year, with the urging of the 
minority leader, Senator Daschle, myself, and others, the 
administration agreed to ease the level of controls which are referred 
to as MTOPS--million theoretical operations per second. MTOPS. We, as 
well as those in the computer industry, were elated by the news.
  However, as it stands now, there is a 6-month congressional review 
period for raising the level of MTOPS. The Banking Committee bill 
reduces the time from 180 days to 60 days. This is a step in the right 
direction. But I, along with Senator Bennett of Utah, Senator Daschle, 
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Kennedy, and Senator Boxer, believe a further reduction is 
necessary; that is, to 30 days. There is an amendment pending, if this 
bill ever comes back up, to change it to 30 days. I am confident it 
will be adopted overwhelmingly.
  The reality of the situation is, 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, to which we will never catch up. This 
could lead to the eventual loss of our Nation's lead, and it is an 
absolute lead in computer technology, which has propelled the United 
States to the good economic standing we are experiencing today. The 
issue of updating our export controls is critical to our Nation's 
economy and the success of our high-tech industry.

  I urge the majority to move this bill forward, to allow the amendment 
process, and let's get on with it. The cold war is over. People must 
understand the cold war is over. If American companies can make more 
money overseas, they will simply invest more money into research and 
development there, and that is wrong.
  I extend my appreciation to my friend from Colorado for allowing me 
to proceed.

                          ____________________