[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 161 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8371-H8372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      EXPORT EXTENSION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3189) to extend the Export Administration Act until April 20, 
2002.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3189

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Export Extension Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979.

       Section 20 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2419) is amended by striking ``August 20, 2001'' 
     and inserting ``April 20, 2002''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3189, the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This is the extension of 
the Export Administration Act of 1979. It is H.R. 3189, and it is a 
measure approved by voice vote on October 31 by the Committee on 
International Relations. Enactment of this measure would reauthorize 
the existing Export Administration Act through April 20, 2002, thereby 
giving sufficient time for the House to act on comprehensive Federal 
Export Administration Act reform legislation considered on August 1, 
2001.
  The Export Administration Act was extended for 1 year in the 106th 
Congress, but that authority lapsed on August 20, and I would argue 
that we need to act on this measure today so we can keep this stopgap 
authority in place to maintain our export control authorities and to 
ensure that the Bureau of Export Administration has the enforcement 
powers it needs to stop terrorists from acquiring any dual-use goods or 
technologies that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction.
  The prompt enactment of this stopgap authorization will, moreover, 
enable the Bureau's administrators to protect licensing information and 
to increase the size of the fines for criminal and administrative 
sanctions against individuals and companies found to be in violation of 
our export control regulations.
  A comprehensive reform measure, H.R. 2581, the Export Administration 
Act of 2001, considered by the Committee on International Relations on 
August 1, has now been referred to seven other House committees, and it 
is not expected to come before the House for further consideration 
until early next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will 
preserve the integrity of our Nation's export control system at a time 
when we can afford no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3189. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) has indicated the history here in terms of its 
expiration.
  I personally believe that this time will also give us an opportunity 
to review the legislation. I think it is important for us to balance 
national security concerns with the impact that this has on American 
commerce and on our own national security posture.
  While the President reestablished the general authority to control 
exports using his emergency economic powers, without a full EAA in 
force, the Department of Commerce lacks the full enforcement powers 
which may be necessary to safeguard United States national security. I 
think some Members were rather sanguine about this before September 11. 
I do think in the aftermath of September 11 and our coordinated effort 
and a global alliance against terrorism Members are concerned that we 
have the full range of

[[Page H8372]]

support necessary to protect American interests.
  But we do need to take advantage of this time to look at the 
underlying act. It needs to be brought up to date with current 
technologies in several ways. For instance, it is no secret that today 
people can routinely purchase off the shelf more computing power than 
was used to create the hydrogen bomb. We are all familiar with stories, 
not just apocryphal, where the technology in children's games, the Game 
Boys, commonly used by junior high students, could have been 
potentially subjected to this legislation in the past.
  We also have to be very, very careful that we do not have unintended 
consequences by clamping down in an unrealistic fashion on American 
industry. We might well have the effect of diverting business to other 
countries that do not enjoy the same range of protections that we have 
got, and it would not just be a case of hamstringing American industry, 
although I think all of us are concerned about the impact it may have 
on the technology-based industries that are the cornerstone of so many 
economies around the country and is part of our dominant position in 
the future.
  It could have the effect of encouraging further business for foreign 
sources of competition that would leapfrog past us in terms of 
technology so we would lose our advantage, we would encourage other 
states, some that may not be friendly to the United States or others 
that might be a little looser in terms of how they sell the technology, 
so that at the end of the day, by being unrealistic and too 
bureaucratic in our structure of this act, we will have not just lost 
business for the United States companies but we will have seen this 
technology shift to other parts of the world so that we will actually 
be less safe.
  But I do think that the extension that my colleague has talked about 
that is embodied in this legislation is a good window. We have had, 
with the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), other members of the committee, we 
have had productive discussions. We have laid the foundation to be able 
to do this properly in the future.
  I hope we would be fair to American industry, be fair to American 
security interests, and move forward with the extension and come back 
in an expeditious fashion that will meet our needs now and in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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 California (Mr. Royce) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3189.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________