EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1979

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 5, 2008
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: September 11, 1979
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/12/05 :CIA-RDP85-000038000100030009-5
I3 ?652 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 11, 1979
rently ;processing checks, NOW's, share
drafts and in-NOW's on the same terms
and this legislation is premised on the
assumption that this will continue to be
the case.
Mr. MOORHEAD oP Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
comments and Concur completely in the
view that the general business practice
rather than legal terminology should be
the criteria Por processing payment in-
struments through the Federal Reserve
System.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CAVANAUGH. Mr. Speaker, I
was present in the Chamber during the
last vote and inadvertently did not have
my vote recorded.
I ? would like the record to reflect I
?was present and would have voted "aye"
had my vote been recorded.
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1979
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move
,that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 4034) to pro-
vide for continuation of authority to reg-
ulate exports, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-
tion is on the motion offered by the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. Bnvcluna).
The motion was agreed to.
IIP THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State oP the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4034, with
Mr. $EIHERLING 1ri the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
~'he CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose on Monday, July 23, 1979, all
time for general debate on the bill had
expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4034
Be {t enacted by the Senate and'House of
Representatives o/ the United States of
America to Congress assembled.
TITLE I-EXPORT ADMINISTRATION
BHORT TITLE
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks. )
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time for the
purpose of asking the manager of the bill
questions about the developments that
have occurred in this legislation.
First, may I paint out to the gentleman
and the Members of the House that this
bill is an extremely complicated measure
dealing with extremely difficult and com-
plicated subjects. IP there is axyy Member
oP this body who does not believe the
statement I have just made, I ask you to,
pick up a copy oP H.R. 4034 and, partic-
ularly, iP you have not been dealing with
the subjects covered by this bill on a day
in and day out basis or if you have not
made a special attempt to understand the
provisions of this bill, I defy any Member
of this body to read the sections and tell
me just exactly what the bill does.
Mr. Chairman, this is an export con-
trol bill. It is not a trade bill, although it
certainly affects trade.
It is export control for three purposes.
First, it deals with control of items in
short supply. In other words, to protect
the domestic economy.
Second, Mr. Chairman, it deals with
export controls for the purpose oP effect-
ingforeign policy.
Third, Mr. Chairmal, and the one
about which I am greatly concerned, it
deals with export controls for the pur-
pose of protecting the national security
of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has been re-
ported from the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. It covers these three subjects. I
would point out it is the latter, the con-
trol over the national security, where
the Committee on Armed 'Services also
retains jurisdiction. It is the House Com-
mittee on Armed Services that has the
expertise and has the staff that has the
expertise in matters affecting the na-
tional security of this country. Not the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
^ 1250
I will agree that the House Commit-
tee on Foreign Affairs are the experts on
controls to effect our foreign policy.
I would point out that this measure
could very well involve the most impor-
tant national security votes that the
Members are going to cast this year. Why
do I say that? Because of what has hap-
pened in recent years to the national se-
curity oP this country.
Let me remind the Members of the
House that in the field oP strategic war-
fare we have gone from a position of
nuclear monopoly in the 1950's, to a posi-
tion of overwhelming superiority in the
1960's, to a position of essential equiv-
alence today, whatever that means.
In the fleid oP conventional warfare,
the Members are acquainted with the
numbers. They are horrifying.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Missouri (Mr. Icaoaa) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, ~Mr. Icxoaa
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes)
Mr. ICHORD. In the field oP conven-
tional military capability, the figures are
horrifying, I say t0 the Members oP the
House; 7 to 1 in the case of tanks, 4
to 1 in the case of artillery pieces, 4 to
1 ixi the case oP aircraft, 50 to 1 in the
case of chemical warfare capability.
The only lead that we have over the
Soviet Union today, our potential ad-
versary, is in the field of technology. That
is what we are dealing with today, tech-
nology, dual technology which has a
military application as well as a com-
mercial application. This bill is the result
of several measures that were introduced
dealing with controls for the purpose of
items in short supply, items affecting
foreign policy, items affecting national '
security.
One of those bills, H.R. 3218, was re-
ferred jointly to the Commute on House
Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. H.R. 4034 comes before
this body under very unusual circum-
stances. All bills were referred to the
subcommittee of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. BINGHAM). The gentle-
man reported out one measure to the
full committee. The full committee
started work on the bill and dropped that
and reported out H.R. 4034.
Now, H.R. 3216 dealt only with con-
trols for national security purposes. I
would state to the gentleman from New
York that I am very much concerned that
this bill covers so much, export controls
for the purpose of protecting the domestic
economy, and that is a broad compli-
cated subject within itself;.export con-
trols for the purpose of affecting foreign
policy is another broad subject. Export
controls for the purpose of protecting
the national security is another compli-
cated subject and which is in the exper-
tise of the Committee on Armed Services.
The. gentleman from New York (Mr.
WOLFF) was the author, the principal
author of H.R. 3216. The gentleman has
been very instrumental in attaching
amendments to this bill in the interest
of national security.
I would like to ask the gentleman
from New York (Mr. BINGHAA2) . I am
quite concerned about the elimination oP
the reexport provisions on page 20 of
the bill. This would permit a, company
within the United States, once it has ex-
ported technology to its foreign subsi-
diary to forget about any U.S. controls.
If the foreign country had little or no
controls, the technology could easily be
transferred to our potential adversaries.
It is my understanding that the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. BINCxAM)
has agreed with the gentleman from New.
York (Mr. WOLFF) to accept the gentle-
man's amendment eliminating subsec-
tion (3) on page 20; is that correct?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from New York. '
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr, Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will have a colloquy with the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WOLFF) when
the gentleman offers that amendment. I
do expect to express my opinion, but that
amendment is one I have no objection to.
I think there should be some discus-
sion of it at the time so that we have
some legislative record; but I think it
would be appropriate that that discus-
sion take place when the amendment is
offered.
Mr. ICHORD. Then I am very happy
that the gentleman is accepting the
amendment oP the gentleman from New
York.
Let me ask the gentleman from New
York a question about indexing. I am
very much concerned about that and I
know the gentleman from New York (Mr.
WOLFF) is concerned about it. Have the
gentlemen worked out an agreement, will
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
WoLFF) offer such an amendment, and
will the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05 :CIA-RDP85-000038000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September
11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RIECO
D - IHIOUSIE
BINGHAM) accept such an amendment
eliminating indexing?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield again, it is my un-
derstanding that the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. IcHoaD) will offer the
amendment on indexing and I shall be
constrained to oppose that amendment.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, let me
state to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM) that I held extensive
hearings, as I stated, on H.R. 3216. We
also discussed the provisions of this
measure, H.R. 4034. I could not find a
witness coming before the committee
who was able to explain to me Just what
is meant by the language that is used
in the indexing provision. All of the
members of my staff, who are experts,
technological experts, have been unable
to explain to "me what is meant by this
language.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) has
again expired.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 3
additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, and I shall
not object, but I must say, I find this
unusual procedure. The normal proce-
dure is to go ahead and read the bill
and discuss the amendments as they
come up.
The gentleman from Missouri is ask-
ing me a number of questions. I am not
holding back anything, but it seems to me
we will have to go over this again when
the amendment is raised, so why try to
do it now in advance?
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reser-
vation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. ICHORD) to proceed for 3 addi-
tional minutes?
There was no objection.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, this bill,
I would state to the gentleman from New
York, deals with the national security of
the United States, and as I stated be-
fore, I think we are going to cast some
of the most important votes that we are
going to cast this year on national
security.
The gentleman from New York has
worked out several agreements with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. WOLFF).
I want to make sure Just what has been
worked out so I can understand the pro-
visions of this bill, because there is a lot
of vagueness, there are a lot of am-
biguities.
Let me point this out to the gentleman
from New York. Here is the way the
matter of indexing has been explained.
X do not know what we mean' by "in-
dexing."
Your committee report states as fol-?
lows: "In subsection (g), it provides that
the Secretary may, where appropriate,
establish an indexing system providing
for annual increases in the performance
levels of goods or technology subject to
licensing requirements under this sec-
tion; In order that such requirements
may be periodically removed as such
goods or technology become obsolete."
This provision is particularly applica-
ble to computers. How is it applicable to
computers?
I direct the attention of the members
of the committee to the language on
page 16 and tell me what. it means. I
ask the gentleman from New York to
tell me what it means.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, I still do not un-
derstand why we discuss this now,
rather than at the time when the gen-
tleman presents his amendment; but let
me give the. gentleman a quick answer.
As the gentleman knows, technology
is slot something static. It changes con-
stantly with advances in technology, and
as it changes, items which have been
critical, which have been closely held,
become common knowledge and no
longer can be regarded as critical.
Mr. ICHORD. Why is it particularly
applicable to computers, though?
Mr. BINGHAM. Because, computers
are particularly susceptible to this type
of advance. We have heard of genera-
tions of computers. There are genera-
tions of computers, and what a few years
ago was an advanced computer, today is
a very common computer. You can buy
them in any retail store.
Mr. ICHORD. Does the gentleman
mean to sit down and tell me that the 76
Siber computer will be obsolete tech-
nology 2 or 3 years from now, or 3 years
from now?
Mr. BINGHAM. No; there was never
any question, at least not so far as we
know, that that particular computer
should be licensed.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time, but I hope
the gentleman can explain this lan-
guage when we are actually debating
the indexing amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SECTION 101. This title may be cited as
the "Export Administration Act Amend-
ments of 1979".
FINDINGS
SEc. 102. Section 2 of the Export Admin-
tstratioi Act of 1969 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401)
is amended to read as follows:
"FINDINGS
"SEC. 2. The Congress makes the follow-
ing findings:
"(1) Exports are important to the eco-
nomic well-being of the United States.
"(2) A large United States trade deficit
weakens the value of the United States dol-
lar, intensifies inflationary pressures in the
domestic economy, and heightens instabil-
ity in the world economy.
"(3) Poor export performance is an im-
portant factor contributing to a United
States trade deficit.
"(4) It is important for the national in-
terest of the United States that both the
private sector and the Federal Government
place a high priority on exports, which
would strengthen the Nation's economy.
"(5) The restriction of exports from the
United States can have serious adverse ef-
fects on the balance of payments and on
domestic employment, particularly when re-
strictions applied by the United States are
more extensive than those imposed by other
countries.
"(6) The uncertainty o8 policy toward
IHI 7653
certain categories of exports has curtailed
the efforts of American business in those
categories to the detriment of the overall
attempt to improve the trade balance of
the United States.
"(7) The availability of certain materials
at home and abroad varies so that the
quantity and composition of United States
exports and their distribution among im-
porting countries may affect the welfare of
the domestic economy and may have an
important bearing upon fulfillment of the
foreign policy of the United States.
"(8) Unreasonable restrictions on access
to world supplies can cause worldwide polit-
ical and economic instability, interfere with
Tree internationals trade, and retard the
growth and development of nations.
"(9) The export of goods or technology
without regard to whether such export makes
a significant contribution to the military
potential of individual countries may ad-
versely affect the national security of the
United States.
"(10) It is important that the administra-
tion of export controls imposed for national
security purposes give special emphasis to
the need to control exports of technology
(and goods which contribute significantly to
the transfer of such technology) which
could make a significant contribution to the
military potential of any country or com-
binations of countries which would be detri-
mental to the national security of the United
States.".
^ 1300
Mr. BINGHAM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that section 102 of the bill be considered
as read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. In there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, reserv-
ing the right to object, as I explained a
while ago, controls for national security
purposes comes under the joint juris-
diction of the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs and the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices.
Now, this is an open rule. I have at
least two amendments, perhaps three
amendments, I would state to the gentle-
man' from New York (Mr. BINGHAM),
that I will offer on behalf of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services. They are not
my amendments alone. They were ap-
proved unanimously by the Subcommit-
tee on Research and Development.
I do not want to delay the considera-
tion of this bill. I certainly do not want
to inconvenience the gentleman from
New York (Mr. WOLFF), who I know has
several amendments to offer to this bill
and who has recently been involved in an
automobile accident, but I do want to
make sure that 1. am able to be recog-
nized to offer an amendment, particular-
ly the one dealing with the transfer of
critical military technology, which I con-
sider a very important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, ? can the gentleman
from New York (Mr. BINGHAM) assure
me that 1 will be recognized without any
limitations on time?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, so far as it is
within the power of this Member to give
the gentleman that assurance, I am glad
to give him that assurance. The gentle-
man's amendments come under section
104, which is a very long section running
from page 6 to page 40 in the bill.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5 It 4
1 7654
Of course, the members of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs will, have pri-
ority, and primarily that means the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. WOLF F) and
2 believe possibly the gentleman from
California (Mr. LAGowAnsmro). Other
than that, I know of no reason why the
gentleman should not be recognized for
that purpose in about 20 minutes or a
half hour from now.
Mr. XCHORD. Twenty minutes or a
half hour from now. How many amend-
ments do we have pending now? Does
the gentleman anticipate a long period
of time on those amendments?
Mr. BINGHAM. No, i do not, because
on some of the amendments the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WOLFF) has
to offer there will be no disagreement.
There are amendments to sections 102
and 103, some of which are unfamiliar
to me, and so I cannot give the gentle-
man a definite answer. But the amend-
ments of the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Xcioao) do not arise until section
104.
Mr. ICHOR3. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. BINGHAM)
is the manager of the bill, and l am sure
the chairman of the committee will
acquiesce in the wishes of the manager.
Therefore, I will not object.
With that understanding, Mr. Chair-
man, II withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAER dAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. BINGHAM) ?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GLICKMAN
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GLICKMAN: On
page @, line 7, delete the quotation mark and
period at the end thereof and insert the fol-
lowing new paragraph thereafter:
"(11) Minimization of restrictions on ex-
ports of agricultural commodities and prod-
ucts to of critical importance to the mainte-
nance of a cound agricultural sector, to
achievement of a positive balance of pay-
ments, to reducing the level of federal ex-
penditures for agricultural support programs,
and to United States cooperation in efforts
to eliminate malnutrition and world
hunger.".
(Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, basi-
cally this is a fairly simple amendment.
It just adds a new finding to the bill
which basically provides some additional
support for agricultural exports and
again creates the burden of proof to see
to it that these agricultural exports
should proceed forthwith. I think they
generally are proceeding in a positive
fashion, but I just want to make sure
this language does appear in the bill.
So Mr. Chairman, I do offer this
amendment at this time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to commend the gentleman from
CONGRIESSIIONAIL RECORD-HOUSE September 11fl 1979
]Kansas (Mr. GLIclc]u w) on offering this
amendment and providing us with this
whole line of thinking.
I think so often we overlook the fact
that were it not for the tremendous ex-
port capability of this country, our bal-
ance-of-payments problem would be
probably even much worse than it is. We
should keep reminding ourselves and our
fellow citizens of the importance of agri-
cultural exports, and I compliment the
gentleman for offering this amendment.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
SKELTON) for his remarks.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I have had occasion to examine the
gentleman's amendment, and as far as
I am concerned, we have no objection to
it on this side.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I have also examined the gentleman's
amendment, and I have no objection to
it. I support it. It is certainly consistent
with what we are trying to do in the
bill, especially with regard to foreign
policy considerations.
I accept the amendment for this side.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to
commend the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. GLICKMAN) for this amendment,
which I strongly support. The gentleman
from Kansas and I have discussed the
amendment. I give him my wholehearted
support and compliment him for offering
the amendment.
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. FOLEY) and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. GLICKMAN).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
amendments to section 102?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York (Mr. SOLOMON).
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SOLOMON
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk which amends
various sections and various titles
throughout the bill. It simply removes
or strikes the word, "significant,"
throughout all those sections, and I ask
unanimous consent that these amend-
ments be considered en bloc at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reserv-
ing the right to object, I have not had a
chance to examine the gentleman's
amendment. I do not know its signif-
icance or the implications of making
this change throughout the bill, and
under those circumstances I am con-
strained to object.
I think the gentleman from New York
(Mr. SOLOMON). should offer the amend-
ments section by section. I must take
that position at this time.
Mr. SOLOMON.. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from New York (Mr. BINGHAM) continue
to reserve his right to object?
Mr. BINGHAM. I continue to reserve
my right to object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
BINGHAM) yield to me?
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will
state to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM), for whom I have high
respect and who certainly is very familiar
with the bill, that the word "significant"
appears throughout the existing law in
this legislation, and if the gentleman
from New York will read the first amend-
ment referring to page 3, line 20, the
amendment simply repeats these words
throughout the entire bill, so it is very
easy to understand.
It simply says that what we are do-
ing is changing the phrase which says,
"which would make a significant con-
tribution to the military potential of any
country or combination of countries
which would prove detrimental to the
national security of the United States of
America." We simply change that phrase
throughout the entire bill by removing
the word "significant."
Mr. Chairman, I would like the op-
portunity to explain the amendment in
that context.
Mr. BINGHAM. I must maintain my
objection, Mr. Chairman. I think that
the matter is not as simple as my col-
league, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. SOLOMON) has suggested, so I ob-
ject to the unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
assert his objection?
Mr. BINGHAM. I object, Mr. Chair-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Does the gentleman from New York
(Mr. SOLOMON) offer an amendment?
Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, I do, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman, I would restructure my
amendment to state: On page 3, line 20,
strike the word, "significant," and so
forth.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SOLOMON: On
page 3, line 20; page 4, line 4; page 4, line 14;
strike the word "significant" wherever it
appears.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, one of
the loopholes in our policy as it now
stands which jeopardizes U.S. security
is the word, "significant," which appears
throughout this bill.
Under the legislation, the Secretary of
Commerce is required to restrict sales
"which would make a significant"-and I
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
repeat, "significant"-"contribution to
the military potential of any other na-
tion or nations which would prove detri-
mental to the national security of the
United States." I think this is what the
genleman from Missouri (Mr. IcxoRa)
was dwelling on when he spoke previ-
ously.
^ 1310
I think this is what the gentleman from
Missouri was dwelling on when he pre-
viously spoke. It is precisely the Depart-
ment of Commerce that has nullified the
intent of this legislation by continuing to
objectively -interpret militarily important
matters as insignificant.
I would bring to the attention of the
Members an internal Carter administra-
tion memorandum concerning a com-
puter sale to the Soviet Zil truck plant,
which states that a quarter of the 200,000
trucks that Zil produces annually goes to
the military, including 100,000 missile
launchers. Nonetheless, State and Com-
merce both support approval, on the
grounds that we have already licensed
exports for this plant, that the military
trucks are basically like civilian trucks
anyway, and that 100,000 missile launch-
ers out of a 200,000-vehicle annual pro-
duction is small. That is according to
Juanita Kreps. Two hundred thousand
annual production is small? Missile
launchers? What kind of rationale is
that? At a time when Communist influ-
ence is spreading across the globe, at
such a time our leadership should be
concerned with our own security instead
of exempting military equipment in such
an offhand manner.
We must tighten this legislation for
our own protection and safety.
I see nothing wrong with removing
the word "significant" throughout this
'bill, but, in particular, out of this one
section. I think it would clarify the intent
of the legislation, which I am sure the
gentleman from New York, the gentle-
man from Missouri, and most Members
of this House would support.
I urge support of the amendment
Mr. ICHORD.. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, this
is an extremely complicated bill. I do not
know whether the removal of the word
"significant" would really accomplish
anything or not, and I am afraid that it
might prohibit the export of any item.
What I am concerned about, I would say
to the gentleman, is the export of critical
military technology. "Significant" as
used in the present legislation has always
been used. There is some ambiguous lan-
guage, I would state to the gentleman
from New York, where you interchange
"major" with "significant." But I see
nothing wrong with "significant," as
such. I do not quite understand what the
gentleman is driving at.
Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman
would just read that language, I think
that one of the problems we have is the
fact that the Secretary of Commerce,
Juanita Kreps, has been interpreting too
many things as not being significant.
I cited the example of 100,000 missile
launchers being produced in the Kama
River plant.
Mr. ICHORD. I agree with the gentle-
man on that case. But I wonder whether
or not you might with the elimination
of the word "significant" prohibit the
export of practically every item.
Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will
just read the language, it says "? ? ?
which could make ? ? ?"-we strike the
word "significant" right there-P? 0 0
which could make a significant contribu-
tion to the military potential of any
country or combinations of countries
which would be detrimental to the na-
tional security of the United States."
If it is not going to be detrimental to
national security, if we are selling them
oil, for instance, or we are selling them
other items, which Is-not going to prove
detrimental to the national security of
this country, then I do not see where we
have a problem; but we do have a prob-
lem by leaving the word "significant" in
there, because we leave it up to Juanita
Kreps to interpret.
Mr. ICHORD. If the gentleman will
yield, I do not know whether you could
actually administer the law if significant
is removed.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think the point of the
gentleman from Missouri is a very valid
one. I think what the gentleman seeks to
achieve is something that we have sought
to achieve in the entire bill of separating
out what is significant and what is crit-
ical. If we dilute that in each particular
case, we will dilute the significance of
what we are trying to achieve in setting
up a critical technology list.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment for the
reasons suggested by the gentleman from
Missouri' and my colleague, the gentle-
man from New York.
I believe that to eliminate the word
"significant" would create a great deal of
confusion and probably exacerbate the
problems of administration which this
program has been bedeviled with. As we
know, there are great delays in the con-
sideration of licenses. If we eliminate the
word "significant" and decide that the
purpose is to consider any contribution
to military potential whatever, no mat-
ter how miniscule, this is going to add
enormously to the licensing burden. We
are all agreed, those of us who have
studied this legislation and have had
hearings, that there is a lot of unneces-
sary paper work that goes on. We want to
concentrate, as the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. ICHORD) has said, on militarily
critical technologies.
Let me point out further that this
word "significant" has been in the Ex-
port Administration Act since 1969 and
was retained when this legislation was
extended in 1974 and 1977. Incidentally,
the reference that the gentleman from
IE 7655
Missouri has made to the enormous
scope of this legislation surprises me a
little bit, because the scope is no different
from the scope of the legislation when
it was extended in 1974 and again in
1977.
So for these reasons I hope that the
gentleman's amendment will be omitted.
It was not something that we considered
in committee. We had long hearings on
this, both in subcommittee and full com-
mittee. It is something that comes to my
attention today for the first time, and I
think for the reasons that have been
suggested, the amendment should be,
voted down.
Mr. WOLFS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think what the gen-
tleman seeks to achieve is, again, what we
had hoped to achieve in committee. One
aspect of this is that if you clutter the
process with all of the various elements
that are involved in trying to make a de-
termination, as the gentleman would
have us make, then we will never get to
the point of really safeguarding the criti-
cal technology that we want to protect.
Right now one of the most important
problems faced by industry is the fact
that we are so far behind with the grant-
ing of licenses that we are not able to
devote sufficient time to protect those
critical areas that we need to protect.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike. the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I share the concern of the gentleman
from New York who has offered this
amendment, but, like the gentleman
from Missouri and the gentleman from
New York, I am afraid that this amend-
ment goes in exactly the wrong direction.
It is vitally necessary that we adopt
some legislation, because to fail to do so
means there are no controls, which would
be an infinitely worse situation than
even the passage of this bill in its present
form would be to the people who are con-
cerned about some of its provisions.
There is no one, with the exception,
perhaps, of the gentleman from Missouri
and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
WOLFF), who tried harder to tighten this
bill up in the subcommittee and in the
full committee than I did. I offered some
25 amendments. Some were adopted and
others were not. Others were adopted in
the full committee by other members of
that committee. But it does seem to me
that if we take out "significant," par-
ticularly in this subsection, that what we
are saying is that there can be no ex-
port to Communist countries at all, be-
cause I think you can make a very good
argument that when we export wheat,
for example, to Russia we certainly free
them up from spending the kind of re-
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
sources in the growing of wheat that they
would have to do otherwise, and that
extra effort can go into munitions and
technology, and so on. So unless we are
prepared-and X certainly am not-to
say we shall not export anything to any
Communist country, I think we had bet-
ter turn this amendment down, and we
had better pay very close attention to the
amendments that will be offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. WOLFF)
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD). I will be supporting some of
those amendments, as I did in committee.
I think we ought to zero in on issues of
importance and concern, those things
that we can do something about and
those things that we can.control.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. SOLOMON).
The, amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 102? If not, the
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
POLICY
Sac. 103. (a) Section 3 of the Export
Administration Act of 1989 (50 U.S.C. App.
2402) is amended by amending paragraph
(2) to read as follows:
"(2) It is the policy of the United States
to use export controls to the extent neces-
sary (A) to restrict the export of goods
and technology which would make a sig-
nificant contribution to the military po-
tential of any country or combination of
countries which would prove detrimental to
the national security of the United States;
(B) to restrict the export of goods and tech-
nology where necessary to further signifi-
cantly the foreign policy of the United States
or to fulfill its international responsibilities;
and (C) to restrict the export of goods
where necessary to protect the domestic
economy from the excessive drain of scarce
materials and to reduce the serious infla-
tionary impact of foreign demand.".
(b) Such section is further amended-
(1) in paragraph (5) by striking out "ar-
ticles, materials, supplies, or information"
and inserting in lieu thereof "goods, tech-
nology, or other information";
(2) in paragraph (6) by striking out "ar-
ticles, materials, or supplies, including tech-
nical data or other information," and in-
serting in lieu thereof "goods, technology,
or other Information"; and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraphs:
"(9) It is the policy of the United States
to cooperate with other nations with which
the United Stater has defense treaty'commit-
ments in restricting the export of goods and
technology which would make a significant
contribtuion to the military potential of any
country or combination of countries, which
would prove detrimental to the security of
the United states and of those countries with
which the United States has defense treaty
commitmonte.
"(10) It is the policy of the United States
that export trade by United States citizens be
given a high priority and not be controlled
except when such controls (A) are essential
to achieve fundamental national security,
foreign policy, or short supply objectives,
(B) will clearly achieve such objectives, and
(C) are administered consistent with basic
standards of due process. It is also the policy
of the United States that such controls shall
not be retained unless their efficacy Is an-
nually established in detailed reports avail-
able to both the Congress and to the public,
to the maximum extent consistent with the
national security and foreign policy of the
United States.".
CONG JE55IIONAIL RECORD--HOUSE September 11, .199
Mr. BINGHAM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that section 103 be considered as read,
printed in the RECORD, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT COTFERED BY MR. PEYSER
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. PEYSER: Page 4.
line 20, immediately after "responsibilities"
insert ", including to restrict exports to coun-
tries which violate the principles of the Mon-
roe Doctrine".
^ 1320
(Mr. PEYSER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.) .
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, it is sel-
dom that the House has an opportunity
at the time of particular crisis to really
reflect and to express an opinion to the
President as to how we feel on a speuific
issue.
At this time, as we all know, the Sec-
retary of State and the President are en-
gaged in efforts to resolve the issue of the
Russian troops that are in Cuba today.
What this amendment does, is state
that the President, knowing the will of
the Congress, would have the right of
restricting any trade to the Russians un-
less a solution is'reached on the Russian
troops who are presently located in Cuba.
I believe that the Soviets should have
to choose between millions of bushels of
wheat or the-removal of their troops from
the Western. Hemisphere.
I would also like to suggest that this is
a way of saying to the President, that we
do not think the Senate should be placed
in a position that they are trading off a
SALT II agreement in order to get troops
out of Cuba. The SALT II agreement has
either got to stand or fall on its own and
not be an item of trade-offs.
If there are any trade-offs that should
be made, let us make them in trade. Let
us And out what really is important to
the Russians, and let us accept this
amendment by overwhelmingly indicat-
ing that we simply are giving the au-
thority to the President, letting the Presi-
dent know that the Congress feels that
they too are deeply concerned over the
Russians being in Cuba today. We want
them out.
We want to give him this authoriza-
tion, which he may use in his negotia-
tions with the Russians, who are located
in Cuba today, and with the Russian
Government.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amend-
ment. It does not dictate anything, but it
simply provides an opportunity for the
Congress to express its point of view on
this issue.
Mr. BINGHAM., Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PEYSER. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I would like to ask the gentleman a
question. Is it his view that at this time,
so long as the Soviets maintain these
troops in Cuba, that we should stop all
exports to the Soviet Union?
Mr. PEYSER. Not at all, nor does this
amendment do that. This amendment
merely authorizes the President and
states that he has the right, and it is the
feeling of the House and letting him
know how we voted on this, that we are
concerned, if that is the way the House
feels, with these Russian troops there;
and he ought to have the right of using
trade to terminate the arrangement.
Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will
yield further, I think this amendment
goes much further than that.
This amendment occurs in a section
which says:
It is the policy of the United States to use
export controls to the extent necessary ...
Then we go down to:
(b).to the extent necessary to restrict the
export of goods and technology where nec-
essary to further significantly the foreign
policy of the United States or to fulfill its
international responsibilities; including to
restrict exports to countries which violate
the principles of the Monroe Doctrine.
From what the gentleman has said, it
seems to me that he does mean to refer
there to the Soviet Union in connection
with its maintenance of troops in Cuba.
Therefore this, as I read it, would be a
statement of policy that all exports to
the Soviet Union should be stopped until
those troops are withdrawn.
Mr. PEYSER. I appreciate the gentle-
man's comments. I think, in reading the
bill, and I listened to him read it, it says,
"where necessary," where the President
deems it necessary, and it is true. Even
though the amendment does not say the
Soviet Union, I am speaking to the situ-
ation in Cuba, without question, but it is
only where necessary. It does not dictate
and say that the country cannot continue
trade with the Soviets. It simply says that
we are in a position, and we are letting
the Congress speak out on an issue that
I think we can easily speak out on here
and express the concern that the peo-
ple-certainly my constituents-have ex-
pressed that we do something and we
let them know we are concerned. That
is the reason.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen.
tleman from New York (Mr. PEYSER) has
expired.
(At the request of Mr. BINGHAItS and by
unanimous consent, Mr. PEYSER was al-
lowed to proceed for 3 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PEYSER. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman:
Mr. BINGHAM. I think that matter of
interpretation is very important. I take
his word that is what he means. I take
it all he is saying is that in a situation
of this kind, the President should con-
sider the possibility of foreign policy con-
trols on exports as one method of pur-
suing an objective. Is that so?
Mr. PEYSER. I would agree with the
gentleman.
Mr. BINNGHAM. on the basis of that
interpretation, I have no objection to the
amendment.
Mr. PEYSER. I thank the gentleman.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 119,1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PEYSER. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I think perhaps the gentleman's
amendment could be a little more art-
fully drawn, although as I sit here I am
not able to do that.
As I understand it, there is not a simi-
lar provision in the Senate bill, so we
will have that opportunity in conference.
I think what the gentleman is saying
and the way he is explaining his amend-
ment is very clear that this would only
be an added tool for the President in
determining whether or not to apply
foreign policy controls.
Mr. PEYSER. That is correct.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. With that un-
derstanding, I support the amendment.
Mr. PEYSER. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time,
Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. PEYSER).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GLICKMAN
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GLICKMAN: On
page 6, line 4, delete the quotation mark and
following period at the end thereof, and in-
sert the following new paragraph thereafter:
"(11) It is the policy of the United States
to minimize restrictions on the export of
agricultural commodities and products.".
(Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, this
is an attempt to conform language I ear-
lier offered and the House accepted in the
findings section into the policy section,
and basically I think it does put into
statutory language what is already exist-
ing law, that the United States should
try to minimize to the extent feasible
restrictions on the export of agriculture
commodities and products.
I did utilize the word "minimize" at the
suggestion of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. LAGOMARSINO).
I would ask for the, adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLICKMAN. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I certainly believe this. is the purpose
of the bill, and if this adds to making
that clear, I am in favor of the amend-
ment.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GLT('KMAN. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding.
I support the gentleman's amendment.
Hopefully. the committee will adopt it.
Mr. GLICKMAN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. Charman, I yield back the balance
of my time.'
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. GLICKMAN).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 103?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
EXPORT LICENSES; TYPES OF CONTROLS
SEC. 104 (a) The Export Administration
Act of 1969 is amended-
(1) by redesignating section 4 as section 7;
(2) by repealing sections 5 and 9;
(3) by redesignating sections 6, 7, 8, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as sections 11, 12, 13,
14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, respectively; and
(4) by redesignating sections 4A and 4B
as sections 8 and 9, respectively.
(b) The Export Administration Act of 1969
is amended by adding after section 3 the
following new sections:
"EXPORT LICENSES; COMMODITY CONTROL LIST;
LIMITATION ON CONTROLLING EXPORTS
"SEC. 4. (a) TYPES OF LICENSES.-The Sec-
retary may, in accordance with the provi-
sions of this Act, issue any of the fol-
lowing export licenses:
"(1) A validated license, which shall be
a document Issued pursuant to an applica-
tion by an exporter authorizing a specific
export or, under procedures established by
the Secretary, a group of exports, to any
destination. 0
"(2) A qualified general license, which,
shall be a document issued pursuant to an
application by the exporter authorizing the
export of any destination, without specific
application by the exporter for each such
export, of a category of goods or technology,
under such conditions as may be imposed by
the Secretary.
"(3) A general license, which shall be a
standing authorization to export, without
application by the exporter, a category of
goods or technology, subject to such condi-
tions as may be set forth in the license.
"(4) Such other *licenses, consistent with
this subsection and this Act, as the Secre-
tary considers necessary for the effective and
efficient implementation of this Act.
" (b) COMMODITY CONTROL LIST.-The Sec-
retary shall establish and maintain a list
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the
'commodity control list') consisting of any
goods or technology subject to export con-
trols under this Act.
"(c) RIGHT OF' EXPORT: NO authority or
permission to export may be required under
this Act, or under any rules or regulations
issued under this Act, except to carry out the
policies set forth in section 3 of this Act.
"NATIONAL SECURITY CONTROLS
"SEC. 5. (a) AUTHORITY: (1) In order to
carry out the policy set forth in section
13(2) (A) of this Act, the President may, in
accordance with the provisions of this sec-
tion, prohibit or curtail the export of any
goods or technology subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the United States or exported by any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. The authority contained in
this subsection shall be exercised by the Sec-
retary, in. consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, and such other departments and
agencies as the Secretary considers appropri-
ate, and shall be Implemented by means of
export, licenses described in section 4(a) of
this Act.
"(2) (A) Whenever the Secretary makes
any revision with respect to any goods or
technology, or with respect to the countries
or destinations, affected by export controls
imposed under this subsection, the Secretary
shall publish in the Federal Register a no-
tice of such revision and shall specify In
such notice that the revision relates to con-
trols imposed under the authority contained
in this section.
"(B) Whenever the Secretary denies any
IH[ '657
export license under this subsection, the
Secretary shall specify in the notice to the.
applicant of the denial of such license that
the license was denied under the authority
contained in this section.
"(b) POLICY TOWARD INDIVIDUAL COUN-
TRIES.-In administering export controls un-
der this section, United States policy toward
individual countries shall not be determined
exclusively on the basis of a country's Com-
munist or non-Communist status, but shall
take into account such factors as the coun-
try's present and potential relationship to
the United States, its present and potential
relationship to countries friendly or hostile
to the United States, its ability and willing-
ness to control retransfers of United States
exports in accordance with United States pol-
icy, and such other factors as the President
may consider appropriate. The President
shall periodically review United States policy
toward individual countries to determine
whether such policy is appropriate in light
of factors specified in the preceding
sentence.
CONTROL LIST.-(1) The Secretary
(c)
shall establish and maintain, as part of the
commodity control list, a list of all goods
and technology subject to export controls
under this seottion. Such goods and tech-
nology shall be clearly identified as being
subject to controls under this section.
"(2) The Secretary of Defense and other
appropriate departments and agencies shall
identify goods and technology for inclusion
on the list referred to in paragraph (1).
Those items which the Secretary and the
Secretary of Defense concur shall be subject
to export controls under this section shall
comprise such list. If the Secretary and the
Secretary of Defense are unable.to concur
on such items, the matter shall be referred
to the President for resolution.
"(3) The Secretary shall issue regulations
providing for continuous review of the list
estabilshed pursuant to this subsection in
order to carry out the policy set forth in
section 3(2) (A) and the provisions of this
section, and for the prompt issuance of such
revisions of the list as may be necessary.
Such regulations shall provide interested
Government agencies and other affected or
potentially affected parties with an oppor-
tunity, during such review, to submit writ-
ten data, views, or arguments with or with,
out oral presentation. Such regulations shall
further provide that, as art of such review,
an assessment be made of the availability
from sources outside the United States of
goods and technology comparable to those
controlled for export from the United States
under this section.
"(d) MILITARY CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES:
(1) The Congress finds that the national in-
terest requires that export controls under
this section be focused primarily on military
critical technologies, and that export con-
trols under this section be removed insofar
as possible from goods the export of which
would not transfer military critical tech-
nologies to countries to which exports are
controlled under this section.
"(2) The Secretary of Defense shall
develop a list of military critical technolo-
gies. In developing such list, primary em-
phasis shall be given to-
"(A) arrays of design and manufacturing
know-how;
"(B) keystone manufacturing, inspection,
and test equipment; and
"(C) goods accompanied by sophisticated
operation, application, or maintenance
operation, or maintenance know-how,
which are not possessed by countries to which
exports are controlled under this section and
which, If exported, would permit a major
advance In a weapons system of any such
country.
"(3) The list referred to in paragraph (2)
shall-
"(A) be sufficiently specific to guide the
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 7650 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSIE
determinations of any official exercising ex-
port licensing responsibilities under this
Act; and
"(B) provide for the removal of export
controls under this section from goods the
export of which would not transfer military
critical technology to countries to which
exports are controlled under this section,
except for goods with intrinsic military
utility.
"(4) The list of military critical technolo-
gies developed by the Secretary of Defense
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become a
part of the commodity control list subject to
the provisions of subsection (c) of this
section.
"(5) The Secretary of Defense shall report
annually to the Congress on actions taken
to carry out this subsection.
"(e) EXPORT LICENSES: (1) The Congress
finds that the effectiveness and efficiency of.
the process of making export licensing deter-
minations under this section is severely
hampered by the large volume of. validated
export license applications required to be
submitted under this act. Accordingly, it is
the intent of Congress In this subsection to
encourage the use of a qualified general
license, in lieu of a validated license, to the
maximum extent practicable, consistent with
the national security of the United States.
"(2) To the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with the national security of the
United States, the Secretary shall require a
validated license under this section for the
export of goods or technology only if-
"(A) the export of such goods or tech-
nology is restricted pursuant to a multi-
lateral agreement, formal or informal, to
which the United States is a party and, under
the terms of such multilateral agreement,
such export requires the specific approval of
the parties to such multilateral agreement;
"(B) with respect to such goods or tech-
nology, other nations do not possess capa-
bilities comparable to those possessed by the
United States; or
"(C) the United States is seeking the
agreement of other suppliers to apply com-
parable controls to such goods or technology
and, in the judgment of the Secretary,
United States export controls on such goods
or technology, by means of such license, are
necessary pending the conclusion of such
agreement.
"(3) To the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with the national security of the
United States, the Secretary shall require a
qualified general license, in lieu of a vali-
dated license, under this section for the ex-
port of goods or technology if the export of
such goods or technology is restricted pur-
suant to a multilateral agreement, formal or
informal, to which the United States is a
party, but such export does not require the
specific approval of the parties to such mul-
tilateral agreement.
"(f) FOREIGN AVAILABILITY.-(l) The Sec-
retary, in consultation with appropriate
Government agencies and with appropriate
technical advisory committees established
pursuant to subsection (h) of this section,
shall review, on a continuing basis, the
availability, to countries to which exports
are controlled under this section, from
sources outside the United States, including
countries which participate with the United
States in multilateral export controls, of any
goods or technology the export of which re-
quires a validated license under this section.
In any case in which the Secretary deter-
mines, in accordance with procedures and
criteria which the Secretary shall by regula-
tion establish, that any such goods or tech-
nology are available in fact to such destina-
tions from such sources in sufficient quan-
tity and of sufficient quality so that the re-
quirement of a validated license for the ex-
port of such goods or technology is or would
be ineffective in achieving the purpose set
September 11, 1979
forth in subsection (a) of this section, the of a substantial segment of any industry
Secretary may not, after the determination which produces any goods or technology sub-
is made, require a validated license for the ject to export controls under subsection (a)
export of such goods or technology during or being considered for such controls because
the period of such foreign availability, un- of their significance to the national security
less the President determines that the ab- of the United States, the Secretary shall ap-
sence of export controls under this section point a technical advisory committee for any
would prove detrimental to the national se- such goods or technology which the Secre-
curity of the United States. In any case in tary determines are difficult to evaluate be-
which the President determines that export cause of questions concerning technical mat-
controls under this section must be main- ters, worldwide availability, and actual utili-
tained notwithstanding foreign availability, zation of production and technology, or
the Secretary shall publish that determina- licensing procedures. Each such committee
tion together with a concise statement of its shall consist of representatives of United
basis, and the estimated economic impact of States industry and Government, including
tho decision. the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and
"(2) The Secretary shall approve any ap- State and, in the discretion of the Secretary,
plication for a validated license which is re- other Government departments and agen-
quired under this section for the export of cies. No person serving on any such com-
any goods or technology to a particular coun- mittee who is a representative of industry
try and which meets all other requirements shall serve on such committee for more than
for such an application, if the Secretary de- four consecutive years.
termines that such goods or technology will,
if the license is denied, be available in fact
to such country from sources outside the
United States, including countries which
participate with the United States in multi-
lateral export controls, 3n sufficient quantity
and of sufficient quality so that denial of
the license would be ineffective in achieving
the purpose set forth in subsection (a) of
this section, subject to the exception set
forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection. In
any case in which the Secretary makes a
determination of foreign availability under
this paragraph with respect to any goods or
technology, the Secretary shall determine
whether a determination under paragraph
(1) with respect to such .goods or technology
is warranted.
"(3) Whenever the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary, has reason
to believe that the availability of any goods
or technology from sources outside the
United States can be prevented or eliminated
by means of negotiations with other coun-
tries, the Secretary of State shall undertake
such negotiations. The Secretary shall not
make any determination under this subsec-
tion with respect to such goods or technology
until the Secretary of State has had a rea-
sonable amount of time to conclude such
negotiations.
"(4) In order to further effectuate the
policies set forth in this paragraph, the Sec-
retary shall establish, within the Office of
Export Administration of the Department of
Commerce, a capability to monitor and
gather information with respect to the for-
eign availability of any goods or technology
subject to export controls under this section.
The Secretary shall include a detailed state-
ment with respect to actions taken in com-
pliance with the provisions of this paragraph
in each report to the Congress made pur-
suant to section 14 of this Act.
"(g) INDEXING.-In order to ensure that
requirements for validated licenses and
qualified general licenses are periodically re-
moved as goods or technology subject to such
requirements become obsolete with respect
to the national security of the United States,
regulations issued by the Secretary may,
where appropriate, provide for annual in-
creases in the performance levels of goods
or technology subject to any such licensing
requirement. Any such goods or technology
which no longer meet the performance levels'
established by the latest such increase shall
be removed from the list established pur- section (f) (1) of this section, the Secretary
suant to subsection (c) of this section un- shall take steps to verify such-availability.
less, under such exceptions and under Such and upon such verification shall refnove the
procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe, requirement of a validated license for the
any other Government agency objects to export of the goods or technology, unless the
such removal and the Secretary determines, President determines that the absence of ex-
on the basis of such objection, that the goods port controls under this section would prove
or technology shall not be removed from the detrimental to the national security of the
list. United States. In any case in which the Presi-
"(h) TECHNICAL ADvisoar COMMITTEES- dent determines that export controls under
(1) Upon written request by representatives this section must be maintained notwith-
"(2) Technical advisory committees estab-
lished under paragraph (1) shall advise and
assist the Secretary, the Secretary of De-
fense, and any other department, agency, or
official of the' Government of the United
States to which the President delegates au-
thority under this Act, with respect So ac-
tions designed to carry out the policy set
forth- in section 3(2) (A) of this Act. Such
committees, where they have expertise in
such matters, shall be consulted with respect
to questions involving (A) technical matters,
(B) worldwide availability and actual utili-
zation of production technology, (C) licens-
ing procedures which affect the level of ex-
port controls applicable to any goods or tech-
nology, and (D) exports subject to multi-
lateral controls in which the United States
participates, including proposed revisions of
any such multilateral controls. 'Nothing in
this subsection shall prevent the Secretary or
the Secretary of Defense from consulting, at
any time, with any person representing in-
dustry or the general public, regardless of
whether such person is a member of a tech-
nical advisory committee. Members of the
public shall be given a reasonable opportu-
nity, pursuant to regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, to present evidence to such
committees.
"(3) To facilitate the work of the technical
advisory committees, the Secretary, in con-
junction with other departments and agen-
cies participating in the administration of
this Act, shall disclose to each such commit-
tee adequate information, consistent with
national security, pertaining to the reasons
for the export controls which are In effect
or contemplated for the goods or technology
with respect to which that committee fur-
nishes advice.
"(4) Whenever a,technical advisory com-
mittee certifies to the Secretary that goods
or technology with respect to which such
committee was appointed have become avail-
able in fact, to countries to which exports are
controlled under this section, from sources
outside the United States, including coun-
tries which participate with the United States
in multilateral export controls, in sufficient -
quantity and of sufficient quality so that re-
quiring a validated license for the export of
such goods or technology would be ineffective
in achieving the purpose set forth in subsec-
tion (a), and provides adequate documenta-
tion for such certification, in accordance with
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 H 7660
to any export control on food or medicine or
to any trade embargo in effect on the effec-
tive date of the Export Administration Act
Amendments of 1979.
"(k) CONTROL LIST.-The Secretary shall
establish and maintain, as part of the com-
modity control list, a list of any goods or
technology subject. to export controls under
this section, and the countries to which such
controls apply. Such goods or technology
shall be clearly identified as subject to con-
trols under this section. Such list shall con-
sist of goods and technology identified by the
Secretary of State, with the concurrence of
the Secretary. If the Secretary and the Secre-
tary of State are unable to agree on the list,
the matter shall be referred to the President
for resolution. The Secretary shall issue regu-
lations providing for periodic revision of such
list for the purpose of eliminating export
controls which are no longer necessary to ful-
fill the purpose set forth in subsection (a) of
this section or are no longer advisable under
the criteria set forth in subsection (b) of
this section.
(c) The Export Administration Act of 1969
is amended by inserting after section 9, as re-
designated by subsection (a) of this section,
the following new section:
"PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING VALIDATED AND
QUALIFIED GENERAL LICENSE APPLICATIONS
"SEC. 10. (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE SECRETARY; DESIGNATED OFFICIAL: (1)
All export license applications required under
this Act shall be submitted by the applicant
to the Secretary. All determinations with re-
spect to any such application shall be made
by the Secretary, subject to the procedures
provided in this section for objections by
other agencies. The Secretary may not dele-
gate the authority to deny any such appli-
cation to any official holding a rank lower
than Deputy Assistant Secretary.
"(2) For purposes of this section, the term
'designated official' means an official desig-
nated by the Secretary to carry out functions
under this Act with respect to the adminis-
tration of export licenses.
"(b) APPLICATIONS To BE REVIEWED BY
OTHER AGENCIES.-(I) It is the intent of Con-
gress that a determination with respect to
any export license application be made to the
maximum extent possible by the Secretary
without referral of such application to any
other Government agency.
"(2) The head of any Government agency
concerned with export controls may, within
ninety days after the effective date of this
section, and periodically thereafter, in con-
sultation with the Secretary, determine the
specific types and categories of license appli-
cations to be reviewed by such agency before
the Secretary approves or disapproves any
such application. The Secretary shall, in ac-
cordance with the provisions of this section,
submit to the agency involved any license ap-
plication of any such type or category.
"(c) INITIAL SCREENING.-Within ten days
after the date on which any export license
application is received, the designated official
shall-
"(1) send to the applicant an acknowledg-
ment of the receipt of the application and
the date of the receipt;
"(2) submit to the applicant a written
description of the procedures required by
this section, the responsibilities of the Sec-
retary and of other agencies with respect to
the application, and the rights of the ap-
plicant;
"(3) return the application without action
if the application is improperly completed or
if additional information is required, with
sufficient information to permit the applica-
tion to be properly resubmitted, in which
case if such application is resubmitted, it
shall be treated as a new application for the
purpose of calculating the time periods pre-
scribed in this section; and
"(4) determine whether it is necessary to
submit the application to any other agency
CONGRIESSIEONAIL RECORD-ff]tOUSIR. September 11, 1979
and, if such submission is determined to be
necessary, inform the applicant of She agency
or agencies to which the application will be
referred.
" (d) ACTION BY THE DESIGNATED OFFICIAL:
Within thirty days after the date on which
an export license application is received, the
designated official shall-
"(1) approve or disapprove the applica-
tion and formally issue or deny the license,
as the case may be; or
"(2) (A) submit the application, together
with all necessary analysis and recommenda-
tions of the Department of Commerce, con-
currently to any other agencies pursuant to
subsection (b) (2) ; and
"(B) if the applicant so requests, provide
the applicant with an opportunity to review
for accuracy any documentation submitted
to such other agency with respect to such
application.
"(e) ACTION BY OTHER AGENCIES.-(I) Any
agency to which an application is submitted
pursuant to subsection (d) (2) (A) shall sub-
mit to the designated official, within thirty
days after the end of the thirty-day period
referred to in subsection (d), any recom-
mendations with respect to such applica-
tion. Except as provided in paragraph (2),
any such agency which does not so submit its
recommendations within the time period pre-
scribed in the preceding sentence shall be
deemed by the designated official to have no
objection to the approval of such application.
"(2) If the head or acting head of any
such agency notifies the Secretary before
the expiration of the time period provided
in paragraph (1) for submission of its rec-
ommendations that more time is required
for review of the application by such agency,
the agency shall have an additional thirty-
day period to submit its recommendations
to the designated official. If such agency
does not so submit. its recommendations
within the time period prescribed by the pre-
ceding sentence, it shall be deemed by the
designated official to have no objection to
the approval of the application.
"(f) DETERMINATION BY THE DESIGNATED
OFFICIAL: (1) The designated official shall
take into account any recommendation of an
agency submitted with respect to an applica-
tion to the designated official pursuant to
subsection (e), and, within twenty days after
the end of the appropriate period specified in
subsection (e) for submission of such agency
recommendations, shall-
?(A) approve or disapprove the applica-
tion and inform such agency of such ap-
proval or disapproval; or
"(B) if unable to reach a decision with
respect to the application, refer the applica-
tion to the Secretary and notify such agency
and the applicant of such referral.
??(2) The designated official shall formally
issue or deny the license, as the case may be.
not more than ten days after such official
makes a determination under paragraph (1)
(A), unless any agency which submitted a
recommendation to the designated official
pursuant to subsection (e) with respect to
the license application, notifies such official,
within such ten-day period, that it objects to
the determination of the designated official.
"(3) The designated official shall fully in-
form the applicant, to the maximum extent
consistent with the national security and
foreign policy of the United States-
"(A) within five days after a denial of the
application, of the statutory basis for the
denial, the policies in section 3 of this Act
that formed the basis of the denial, the
specific circumstances that led to the denial,
and the applicant's right to appeal the denial
to the Secretary under subsection (k) of this
section; or
"(B) in the case of a referral to the Secre-
tary under paragraph (1) (B) or an objection
by an agency under paragraph (2), of the
specific questions raised and any negative
considerations or recommendations made by
an agency, and shall accord the applicant an
opportunity, before the final determination
with respect. to the application is made, to
respond in writing to such questions, con-
siderations, or recommenadtions.
"(g) ACTION BY THE SECRETARY: (1) (A)
In the case of an objection of an agency of
which the designated official is notified under
subsection (f) (2), the designated official
shall refer the application to the Secretary.
The Secretary shall consult with the head of
such agency, and, within twenty days after
such notification, shall approve or disapprove
the license application and immediately in-
form such agency head of such approval or
disapproval.
"(B) In the case of a referral to the Secre-
tary under subsection (f) (1) (B), the Sec-
retary shall, within twenty days after noti-
fication of the referral is transmitted pur-
suant to such subsection, approve or disap-
prove the application and immediately in-
form any agency which submitted recom-
mendations with respect to the application,
of such approval or disapproval.
"(2) The Secretary shall formally issue or
deny the license, as the case may be, within
ten days after approving or disapproving an
application under paragraph (1), unless the
head of the agency referred to in paragraph
(1) (A), or the head of an agency described
in paragraph (1) (B), as the case may be,
notifies the Secretary of his or her objection
to the' approval or disapproval.
"(3) The Secretary shall immediately and
fully inform the applicant, in accordance
with subsection (f) (3), of any action taken
under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsec-
tion.
"(4) The Secretary may not delegate the
authority to carry out the actions required
by this subsection to any official holding a
rank lower than Deputy Assistant Secretary.
"(h) ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT.-In the
case of notification by an agency head, under
subsection (g) (2), of an objection to the Sec-
retary's decision with respect to an appli-
cation, the Secretary shall immediately refer
the application to the President. Within
thirty days after such notification, the Pres-
ident shall approve or disapprove the appli-
cation and the Secretary shall immediately
issue or deny the license, in accordance with
the President's decision. In any case in which
the President does not approve or disapprove
the application within such thirty-day pe-
riod, the decision of the Secretary shall be
final and the Secretary shall immediately is-
sue or deny the license in accordance with
the Secretary's decision.
" (i) SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE: (1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to review any proposed
export of any goods or technology to any
country to which exports are controlled for
national security purposes and, whenever he
determines that the export of such goods or
technology will make a significant contribu-
tion, which would prove detrimental to the
national security of the United States, to the
military potential of any such country, to
recommend to the President that such ex-
port be disapproved.
"(2) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of Defense shall deter-
mine, in consultation with the export con-
trol office to which licensing requests are
made, the types and categories of transac-
tions which should be reviewed by him in or-
der to make a determination referred to in
paragraph (1). Whenever a license or other
authority is requested for the export to any
country to which exports are controlled for
national security purposes of goods or tech-
nology within any such type or category, the
appropriate export control office or agency to
which such request is made shall notify the
Secretary of Defense of such request, and
such office may not issue any license or other
authority pursuant to the request before the
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RIEOO
expiration of the period within which the
President may disapprove such export. The
Secretary of Defense shall carefully consider
all notifications submitted to him pursuant
to this paragraph and, not later than thirty
days after notification of the request, shall-
"(A) recommend to the President that he
disapprove any request for the export of any
goods or technology to any such country if
he determines that the export of such goods
or technology will make a significant con-
tribution, which would prove detrimental to
the national security of the United States, to
the military potential of such country or any
other country:
"(B) notify such office or agency that he
will Interpose no objection if appropriate
conditions designed to achieve the purposes
of thin Act are imposed: or
"(C) indicate that he does not Intend to
interpose an objection to the export of such
goods or technology.
If the, President notifies such office or agency,
within thirty days after receiving a recom=
mendation from the Secretary of Defense,
that he disapproves such export, no license
or other authority may be issued for the ex-
pert of such goods or technology to such
country.
"(3) The Secretary shall approve or dis-
approve a license application, and issue or
deny a license, In accordance with the pro-
visions of this subsection, and, to the extent
applicable, In accordance with the time pe-
riods and procedures otherwise set forth In
this section.
"(j) MULTILATERAL REVIEW.-(1) In any
case in which an application, which has been
finally approved under subsection (d), (f),
(g). (h), or (I) of this section, is required
to be submitted to a multilateral review proc-
ess, pursuant to a multilateral agreement.
formal or informal. to which the United
States is a party, the license shall not be
issued as prescribed in such subsections, but
the Secretary shall notify the applicant of
the approval (and the date of such ap-
proval) of the application by the United
States Government, subject to such multilat-
eral review. The license shall be issued upon
approval of the application under such multi-
lateral review. If such multilateral review
has not resulted in a determination with re-
spect to the application within sixty days
after such date, the Secretarys approval of
the application shall be final and the license
Shall be issued. The Secretary shall institute
such procedures for preparation of necessary
documentation before final approval of the
application by the United States Government
as the Secretary considers necessary to Imple-
ment the provisions of this paragraph.
"(2) In any case In which the approval of
the United States Government is sought by a
foreign government for the export of goods
or technology pursuant to a multilateral
agreement, formal or informal, to which the
United States is a party, the Secretary of
State, after consulting with other appropriate.
United States Government agencies, shall,
within sixty days after the date on which the
request for such approval is made, make a
determination with respect to the request
for approval. Any such other agency which
does not submit a recommendation to the
Secretary of State before the end of such
sixty-day period shall be deemed by the Sec-
retary of State to have no objection to the
request for United States Government ap-
proval. The Secretary of State may not dele-
gate the authority to disapprove a request
for United States Government approval under
this paragraph to any official of the Depart-
ment of State holding a rank lower than
Deputy Assistant Secretary.
"(k) EXTENSIONS.-If the Secretary deter-
mines that a particular application or set of
applications is of exceptional importance and
complexity, and that additional time Is re-
quired for negotiations to modify the appli-
cation or applications, the Secretary may ex-
tend any time period prescribed in this sec-
tion. The Secretary shall notify the Congress
and the applicant of such extension and the
reasons therefor..
"(1) APPEAL AND COURT ACTION-(l) The
Secretary shall establish appropriate proce-
dures for any applicant to appeal to the Sec-
retary the denial of an expert license applica-
tion of the applicant.
"(2) In any case in which any action pre-
scribed in this section is not taken on a
license application within the time periods
established by this section (except in the
case of a time period etxended under subsec-
tion (k) of which the applicant is notified),
the applicant may file a petition with the
Secretary requesting compliance with the re-
quirements of this section: When such peti-
tion is filed, the Secretary shall take imme-
diate steps to correct the situation giving rise
to the petition and shall immediately notify
the applicant of such steps.
"(3) If, within thirty days after petition
is filed under paragraph (2). the processing
of the application has not been brought into
conformity with the requirements of this
section. or, if the application has been
brought into conformity with such require-
ments, the Secretary has not so notified the
applicant, the applicant may bring an action
in an appropriate United States district court
for a restraining order, a temporary or per-
manent injunction, or other appropriate re-
lief, to require compliance with the require-
ments of this section. The United States dis-
trict courts shall have jurisdiction to pro-
vide such relief as appropriate.
"(m) RECORDS.-The Secretary and any
agency to which any application is referred
under this section shall keep accurate rec-
ords with respect to all applications consid-
ered by the Secretary or by any such-agency.".
Mr. BINGHAM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that section 104 be considered as read,
printed in the RECORD, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman' from
New York?
There was no Objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WOLFF
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WOLFF: Page
15, insert the following after line 13, and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accord-
ingly:
"(3) If, in any case in which the Presi-
dent makes a determination under para-
graph (1) Or (2) of this subsection with
respect to national security, the good or
technology concerned is critical to United
States national security and, if available to
an adversary country, would permit a sig-
nificant contribution to the military poten-
tial of that country, the President shall
direct the Secretary of State to enter into
negotiations with the appropriate govern-
ment or governments in order to eliminate
foreign availability of such good or tech-
nology.
Page 15, line 20, strike out "under" and
insert In lieu thereof "of foreign availabil-
ity under paragraph (1) or (2) of".
0 1330
Mr. WOLFF (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
-7611
(Mr. WOLF :asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I believe
that this amendment offers a construc-
tive addition to the foreign availability
section of this bill, which was so care-
fully drafted by my colleague from New
York (Mr. BINGHAM).
As written, the foreign availability
section provides that the Secretary of
State undertake negotiations to elimi-
nate foreign availability of items to
which the United States applies export
controls, if he has reason to believe that
such negotiations can be successful.
The subsection also states that vali-
dated export licenses should not be ap-
plied if foreign availability exists, unless
the President determines that export
controls should be maintained for na-
tional security purposes, despite foreign
availability.
My amendment seeks to add the next
logical step to this process. That is, if the
President decides that export controls
must be maintained despite the fact that
the item is sold in another country, and
the President feels that the item con-
cerned is critical to U.S. national secu-
rity, then the President should direct the
Secretary of State to negotiate to elimi-
nate that foreign availability. If the item
concerned is important to our national
security, the President will be mandated
to try to keep controls on it, and secure
the cooperation of another, nation or na-
tions producing the item in question. In
this way, initiation of negotiations in this
step of the process will depend upon the
importance of the item, and not the
judgment of potential success before
negotiations begin.
If such negotiations fail to secure co-
operation from the nation also producing
the item, then of course 'the President
can take any steps he feels are necessary
to try to encourage cooperation, based
upon the importance of the item to our
security and military systems.
I believe that this amendment fits in
nicely with the provisions already estab-.
lished in this subsection. It also relates
very well to the "military critical tech-
nologies" section, which mandates the
Secretary of Defense to complete the list
of technologies and goods that are criti-
cal to our national security. Our export
control policy will emphasize controls on
commodities that are truly important to
our national defense and security, and
reflect the degree of importance of those
items.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this
amendment is simply a logical extension
of the provisions as drafted. I urge adop-
tion of my amendment.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
My colleague from New York has al-
ready made great contributions to this
bill and I think he, in proposing this
amendment, is making a further con-
tribution.
We have discussed the language and
he has graciously accepted some sug-
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 766 CONGRIESSXONAIL RECORD -HOUSE
gestions we made in terms of clarifying
the language. I am happy to say that I
am supporting the amendment.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ? LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I am happy to yield.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding.
With the language in the bill the ad-
ministration has to believe negotiations
can eliminate foreign availability before
it even has to undertake such negotia-
tions, so the administration could, say
that foreign availability cannot be elimi-
nated and no effort would be necessary
to try to eliminate it.
With the gentleman's amendment, ne-
gotiations must be attempted whether
there is reason to believe foreign avail-'
ability can be eliminated or not, and at
least in this way an effort will be made,
to try to find out and to try'to eliminate
it no matter what.
I called attention to this problem in
the subcommittee: the full committee
went part of the way. I support the
gentleman's amendment because I think
it removes a very serious flaw in the
legislation.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ICHORD. I want to commend
the gentleman in the well for offering
this amendment. I think it is a very im-
portant amendment. As the gentleman
stated, if we, are able to mandate the
establishment of a critical military tech-
nology list it will really help in the
administration of this act.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF).
The amendment was agreed to. .
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WOLFF
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WoLFF: Page
.15, insert the following after line 13 and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accord-
ingly:
"(3) With respect to export controls im-
posed under this section, any determination
of foreign availability which is the basis of
a decision to grant a license for, or to re-
move a control on, the export of a good or
technology, shall be made in writing and
shall be supported by reliable evidence, in-
cldding scientific or physical examination,
expert opinion based upon adequate factual
information, or intelligence information. In
assessing foreign availability with. respect to
license applications, uncorroborated repre-
sentations by applicants shall not be deemed
sufficient evidence of foreign availability.,
Mr. WOLFF (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the 'gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was given
permission to revise and extend' his _
.remarks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment provides that, in making a
finding of foreign availability under this
section, that reliable evidence be used.
The Commerce Department may not
make such a finding, and thus decontrol
the article, simply because the company
making the application for an export
license says that foreign availability
exists.
This amendment was passed in the
other body on Saturday, July 21 by voice
vote. It was offered by Senator MOYNIHAN
for Senator JACKSON. The amendment,
as I propose it today, is in the form as
it was amended by Senator STEVENSON.
Administration representatives monitor-
ing the debate had no objection to this
amendment.
This subsection contains important
and valuable new procedures for decon-
trolling commodities because those items
are available for export in foreign coun-
tries. I think that these procedures will
be very helpful to business, in that busi-
nesses will be free to compete in interna-
tional markets when an item is truly
available, unless there is some extra-
ordinary national'security control placed
upon the item. In light of this new em-
phisis placed on foreign availability, it
is essential that reliable evidence be re-
ceived to determine whether a product
of comparable quality and produced in
sufficient quantity exists, and that de-
control of the item should occur. If re-
liabile evidence is not presented, such
decontrol because of foreign availability
could lead to a signficant loophole in
our export control process.
In the past the procedures on foreign
availability have been inadequate, frus-
trating to business, and did not serve our
export control policy well. A GAO report
of this year, entitled "Export Controls:
Need to Clarify Policy and Simplify Ad-
ministration," was extremely critical of
U.S. foreign availability considerations
in the export licensing process. The re-
port strongly criticized the lack of a
standard of comparing goods available in
foreign countries with proposed exports
here. The report also found serious fault
with the fact that no one really seemed
to be in charge of developing this stand-
ard.
The legislation before us will go far
in solving the enormous problems with
foreign availability review that the GAO
found. I believe that this amendment will
insure that these constructive improve-
ments will not 'permit any unwanted
loopholes in the law.
I believe that this legislation, on the
whole, .is sending a strong signal to the
business community that the U.S. Gov-
ernment wants to improve its perform-
ance on foreign availability, consistent
with protecting our national security. As
a former businessman 'myself, I know
that business would not want to sell an
item that is really damaging to our na-
tional security, if it got into the wrong
hands. Therefore, I view this amendment
as a logical addition to the improved
foreign availability procedures, and an
addition that will add to the intent of
this section.
September 11, 1979
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am
prepared to go along with the amend-
ment. But I would like to say that I do
not quite agree with the gentleman's
characterization of the procedures we
have been following. As a matter of
fact, f think the amendment codifies
the procedures that have been followed
in the administration of the Export
Administration Act.
We have had a number of cases
brought before our committee where the
authorities were too slow to find foreign
availability. In some cases they even-
tually agreed with the company that
there was foreign availability, but by
that time it was so late that the ex-
porters had lost the business.
We had that in a case that I brought
to the attention of the House, the Cyril
Bath case, where the French were sell-
ing a particular metal forming machine.
Cyril Bath was able to enter into a con-
tract to sell one such machine to the
Soviet Union. They were held up for so
long because of discussions and debates
as to whether the French, in fact, were
selling those machines. The French
denied it. The company submitted evi-
dence, and eventually the administra-
tion went along with that.
We have never, in the course of our
discussions and hearings in the commit-
tee, been told of a case where foreign
availability was found by the adminis-
tration and should not have been found.
In other words, the fault in the a.dfninis-
tration of the act, as far as we have
been able to observe it, has been in the
other direction, that they were too re-
luctant to find foreign availability. This
meant the loss of business to American
companies.
But since I believe this amendment
requires sensible procedures, since these
are the procedures, as I understand it,
essentially now being followed, I have
no objection to the amendment.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I think the gentleman's amendment, like
his previous one, tightens up the defini-
tion of foreign availability, because we
must realize that if a technology is
available from a foreign source, then our
controls can, in effect, be thrown out the
window. So it is a very, very important
issue and I think that certainly reliable
evidence should be produced to justify
such a finding. I support the amendment.
^ 1340
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WOLFF
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
Amendment offered by Mr. WOLFF: Page 16,
Insert the following after line 7:
? "(5) Each department or agency of the
United States with responsibilities with re-
spect to export controls, including intelli-
gence agencies, shall, consistent with the
protection of intelligence sources and meth-
ods, furnish information concerning foreign
availability of such goods and technologies to
the Office of Export Administration, and such
Office, upon request or where appropriate,
shall furnish to such departments and agen-
cies the Information it gathers and receives
concerning foreign availability.
Mr. WOLFF (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment would insure that adequate
intelligence information is given to the
Office of Export Administration in the
Commerce Department concerning for-
eign availability of goods subject to ex-
port controls.
This amendment is important and
necessary for two reasons. First it is
clear that foreign availability was not
given adequate attention in the past. A
GAO report of March 1, 1979, specifically
criticized the consideration of foreign
availability in granting export licenses,
particularly because no one was in charge
of "developing and applying a standard
for comparability." In other words, there
is no criterion for judging whether an
item produced in another country is of
comparable quality or produced in suf-
ficient quantity to warrant a finding of
foreign availability, and thus decontrol
the item. Insuring that the Office of Ex-
port Administration and the other de-
partments having input into the licens-
ing process, receive adequate intelligence
information will help OEA determine
correctly whether a good is truly com-
parable and a finding of foreign avail-
ability should be made.
Also, this legislation strengthens the
provisions which decontrol items based
on foreign availability. I think this will
be a real step forward for the business
community, which has been frustrated
by the lack of a good foreign availability
policy. However, as foreign availability
will be given more consideration, we
must insure that the OEA and other
agencies are given all the necessary in-
formation to make the proper decision.
.This amendment was offered by Sen-
ators JAGxsoN and BAVH in the other
body, and amended by Senator STEVEN-
SON. X am offering this amendment in
the same form in which it passed, by
voice Vote, in the other body. This
amendment represents a constructive
addition to this subsection and I urge
its adoption.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I yield to my colleague
from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am
happy to concur not only, in this case,
ECORD - HOUSE HE 7663
with the amendment, but with what the
gentleman said about it.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. On
behalf of the minority I accept the
amendment. I think it merely clarifies
what "foreign availability" means by
making sure that, in fact, it is foreign
availability.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I yield to the gentleman
from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I would
like the attention of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. BINGHAM). I believe the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF) clears up
one of the questions that I had about
section 4, and I think we ought to be
clear that we establish a record because
we could be setting up another intelli-
gence-gathering operation within the
Department of Commerce if we are not
very careful. I read the language now
in the bill which tide gentleman's amend-
ment does bear upon, beginning at the
bottom of page 15:
"(4) In order to further effectuate the
policies set forth in this paragraph, the Sec-
retary shall establish, within the. Office of
Export Administration of the Department
of Commerce, a capability to monitor and
gather information with respect to the for-
eign availability of any goods or technology
subject to export controls under this section.
Now, anyone who knows anything
about critical military technology knows
that this is a day-to-day intelligence-
gathering operation. We have got to find
out what is the level of technology of the
potential adversary. We have got to know
about our own level of technology. We
have got to know about the level of
technology of our allies, and this lan-
guage standing alone, anyway, could
justify the establishment of a separate
intelligence unit in the Department of
Commerce. I do not think this body
wants to do that.
I would ask the gentleman from New
York, is the legislative history clear that
we are not establishing an intelligence
unit within the Department of Com-
merce?
Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will
yield, I think that is correct, and the
amendment of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. WOLFF) I think makes that
doubly clear, because it adds the fact
that the intelligence agencies and others
are to share information in this impor-
tant field.
Mr. WOLFF. That basically is the pur-
pose of this amendment, to make the in-
telligence community responsible.
Mr. ICHORD. In other words, the in-
telligence community will give this in-
formation to the Department of Com-
merce, and the Department of Com-
merce is not authorized to set up a new,
separate intelligence unit itself?
Mr. WOLFF. As far as I am concerned,
that is the purpose of this legislation.
Mr. ICHORD. I commend the gentle-
man for offering the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WOLFF).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WOLFF
Mr. WOLFF: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WOLFF: Page
15, line 12, insert "of foreign availability"
after "determination".
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, this is
simply a technical amendment which
corrects a problem I discovered in draft-
ing my other amendments to the foreign
availability section of the bill. I believe
that this difficulty came about in the
process of the various committee and
subcommittee markups.
In paragraph f(1) the bill says that
the Secretary of Commerce may not re-
quire a validated license if an item is
available in another country, "unless
the President determines that the ab-
sence of export controls under %his sec-
tion would prove detrimental to the na-
tional security of the United States."
Then in paragraph (2) of this subsec-
tion referring to foreign availability
determinations, the bill states "? " ' the
Secretary shall determine whether a
determination under paragraph, (1) is
warranted."
This determination by the Secretary
in paragraph (2) could be construed to
mean that the Secretary shall deter-
mine whether a determination by the
President in paragraph (1) is war-
ranted.
Obviously, this is an unintentional re-
sult of the amending process, and clearly
would not be used by any Secretary.
However, in the interests of correcting
this anomaly, and having the law read
properly, I have offered this amendment.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BINGHAM. Again, the gentleman
from New York has made a definite im-
provement in clarifying the intent of the
language. I' had difficulty reading that
sentence myself as I reread it over the
weekend, and I think this amendment
clarifies the intent.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
on behalf of the minority I accept the
amendment.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment. offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WOLFF).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WOLFF
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 7t
CONGRESSXONAIL RECORD -HOUSE September 11, 1979
Amendment offered by Mr. WoLrr: Page 20,
strike out line '21 and all that follows
through page 21, line 2.
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment deletes the section in the bill
which prohibits the United States from
attaching any condition onto the reex-
port of goods that the United States has
exported to any one of our COCOM
allies.
I sympathize with the intent of my col-
league from New York when he included
this provision in his legislation. He
points out that our COCOM allies, by
participating in the Coordinating Com-
mittee, already have controls on the
items to which we attach reexport con-
ditions. Such conditions have irritated
our allies in the past. In addition, our
reexport controls have not always been
effective.
However, while I agree with the gen-
tleman that reexport controls are less
than desirable, I do not believe that we
should prohibit ourselves from utilizing
them if we feel it is necessary. I feel
that eliminating the possibility of using
reexport controls could create an enor-
mous loophole through which third
country transfers could legally be made.
In addition, our COCOM allies do not
always agree with our assessment of the
need for control on some items. COCOM
does not protect technical data as much
as this Nation would prefer. Also, our
COCOM allies do not always share our
foreign policy objectives either. Where
we might be very concerned about trade
with certain Eastern bloc countries, our
COCOM allies might view such trade
with more enthusiasm.
I am personally very concerned over
other foreign policy issues where this
country might strenuously disagree with
one of.our COCOM allies on the reexport
of a highly sensitive item to a country
known to be aiding terrorists, or actively
seeking to scuttle our foreign policy-ob-
jectives in the Middle East, such as Libya
for instance.
Finally, the Defense Department, in
speaking for the entire administration
had voiced concern over this section in
testimony by Assistant Secretary, Dr.
Ellen Frost, before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. Dr. Frost called re-
export controls a "necessary evil," and
maintained that, unfortunately, their
use should not be prohibited at this time.
The administration agrees that these
controls should be used sparingly, and
only when necessary of effective.
I feel very strongly about this issue.
While I think that reexport controls
should not be used excessively, I believe
it is necessary to leave our options open
at the present time to apply them if they
are needed. I urge the adoption of my
amendment.
^ 1350
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I would be happy to yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
This is a case where the same amend-
ment was offered in the Committee on
Foreign Affairs and I opposed it, and
others opposed it, and it was defeated in
the committee. Since then we have had
occasion at the instance of my friend,
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
WOLFF), and also because of the interest
of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD), to reexamine the whole propo-
sition. There is something to be said on
both sides.
One thing that should be pointed out,
and that the committee should realize, is
that no other country requires this type
of second-degree controls, and so a part
of the difficulty has been that we tend to
irritate our COCOM partners by this
dual procedure. I might add that the
GAO in its study of export administra-
tion recommended that dual licensing be
abandoned, and concluded that it would
entail no diminution of control. On the
other hand, on reexamination of the
matter I have decided that on balance it
probably is best to retain the dual licens-
ing authority. The administration has
taken that position all along, as the
gentleman from New York (Mr. WOLFF)
has just stated. It is true that there are
certain items that we would not have the
right to veto in COCOM if they were to
be exported, and so on balance, and in
consideration of all the major efforts
that the gentleman has made in his con-
tributions to this legislation, I recom-
mend that the committee go along with
the amendment.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will he
gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I will be happy to yield
to the eentleman from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Again I want to thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF) for what
I consider to be the great service that
he has rendered this body and rendered
his country as a leader in perfecting this
measure and as an author of H.R. 3216,
taking a real leadership position in pro-
tecting the. critical military technology
of this country. I was quite concerned
about the provision which the gentle-
man strikes with his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. DANIELSON).
The time of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. WoLFF) has expired.
(At the request of Mr. ICHORD, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. WOLFF was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. ICHORD. I thought it was a loop-
hole through which we could have driven
a T-72 tank. For example, an interna-
tional computer company here in the
United States-and computer technol-
ogy is one of the places where we have
a tremendous lead over potential adver-
saries-could have transferred that
computer technology to one of its sub-
sidiaries in a NATO country that has
rather weak controls,-and then all con-
trols whatsoever would have been lost
over the computer technology which is
very important to the military capabil-
ity Of the United States.
The Department of, Commerce, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. GING-
HAM) stated, is in favor of this amend-
ment, too, and I commend the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WOLFF) for
not only the leadership he has exerted
but for his persuasive ability in persuad-
ing the administration and the gentle-
man from New York to accept this
amendment.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I will be happy to yield
to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I want to commend the gentleman in
the well not only for offering the amend-
ment but also for being so persuasive.
I offered exactly the same amendment
in committee and I did not fare as well as
I think the gentleman is going to do here
this afternoon.
Mr. WOLFF. It must be because I
have a neck brace on.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. As the gentle-
man said; several others have also men-
tioned this: The Department of Defense
is strongly in support of this amend-
ment. I believe I am not overstating the
case when I say they consider this to be
one of the most important amendments
that will be considered and one they
think will be most vital.
Eliminating reexport controls by the
United States on technology transferred
to COCOM countries provides a small
but significant loophole for retransfer of
technology to destinations that might
prove detrimental to the national secu-
rity of the United States. While there is
general agreement on what should be
controlled for export purposes, certain
areas like technical data are exported
by COCOM members without submitting
those applications to COCOM.
The argument is made that we should
not require dual reexport licensing along
with COCOM, but we have no choice
when there are areas where COCOM
members do not require licensing.
I think until we have complete agree-
ment on the types of controls to be re-
viewed by COCOM, we cannot rely on
COCOM procedures to protect vital
technology and technical data,
As I say, I commend the gentleman
for his amendment and on behalf of the
minority I accept it.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLFF. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentleman
'for yielding.
I just want to enthusiastically get in
line here to commend my chairman of
the Narcotics Committee, the gentleman
in the well (Mr. WOLFF), and asso-
ciate myself totally with the remarks
of the distinguished gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) and my col-
league, the gentleman from California
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO). As the amendment
process goes along today, I want to em-
phasize what both of these colleagues
have said, and what the gentleman in
the well has said, so eloquently, that al-
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 7666
"(C) goods accompanied by sophisticated
operation, application, or maintenance know-
how,
which are not possessed by countries to
which exports are controlled under this sec-
tion and which, if exported, would permit a
significant advance in a military system of
any such country.
"(3) (A) The list referred to in paragraph
(2) shall be sufficiently specific to guide the
determinations of any official exercising ex-
port licensing responsibilities under this Act;
and
(B) The initial version of the list referred
to in paragraph (2) shall be completed and
published in an appropriate form in the Fed-
eral Register not later than October 1, 1980.
"(4) The list of military critical technol-
ogies developed by the Secretary of Defense
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall become a
part of the commodity control list.
"(5) The Secretary of Defense shall report
annually to the Congress on actions taken to
carry out this subsection.
Mr. ICHORD (during the reading)..
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
the amendment be considered. as read
and printed in the RECORD at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. ' Chairman, as I
stated, earlier in the colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM), I am offering this,
amendment, not on my own behalf but on
behalf of the Research and Development
Subcommittee of the House Committee
on Armed Services.
This amendment was approved unani-
mously by the Subcommittee on Research
and Development.
Mr. Chairman, I would state again for
the benefit of Members who may not have
been on the floor of the House at that
time, we are now dealing with a subject
that is directly under the jurisdiction of
the House Committee on Armed Services.
Granted, the House Committee on For-
eign Affairs is the expert and has the ex-
pert staff members with regard to foreign
policy but here we are dealing with the
expertise of the House Committee on
Armed Services, namely the protection of
the national security.
I might state the most important sub-
ject with which we could possibly be
dealing is the national security of the
United States.
We are dealing with export controls for
the purpose of protecting the national
security of the United States.
When I first read the bill, I voiced con-
cern about the vagueness and ambiguities
in the legislation. I think there is reason
for that, perhaps. This is an extremely
complicated bill dealing with some ex-
tremely complicated subjects. Neverthe-
less, Mr. Chairman, I first thought the
gentleman from New York (Mr. BING-
HAM) was right in step with the thinking
of the Department of Defense and right
in step with the House Committee on
Armed Services when he included this
section "military critical technologies"
on page 10 of the bill.
I would state it was the finding of a
1976 Defense Science Board, chaired by
Mr. J. Fred Bucy, president of Texas In-
struments, that we install a critical mili-
tary technology approach in solving this
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 11, 1979
problem with which we are faced in the
field of export controls.
Mr. Chairman, I think I share the con-
cern of all of the members of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to re-
strict trade. Trade is very essential to the
economic health and welfare of this Na-
tion, but let me tell the members of the
Comixlittee on Foreign Affairs that even
more essential to the health and wel-
fare of this Nation is to protect our lead
in technology. That is the only lead that
we have today in -the field of military
affairs over our potential adversaries.
I went over the numbers a while ago.
In tanks, we are outnumbered 7 to 1; air-
planes, we are outnumbered 4 to 1; artil-
lery pieces, we are outnumbered 6 to 1;
and in chemical warfare we are outnum-
bered 50 to 1. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,
we are dealing with the most crucial part
of our military security, that is, our tech-
nological lead, the quality of our weapon
systems.
Mr. Chairman, I concur with the 1979
Bucy Defense Science Board as do
most of the experts in the research and
development field and the entire Sub-
committee on Research and Develop-
ment.
They say, rather than concentrate on
the end product one should concentrate
on the critical technology behind that
product.
Mr. Chairman, let me take some time
in explaining this because it is an ex-
tremely technical matter. I am a gen-
eralist myself. I have a technical staff. I
deal with a lot of technical problems. I
might say that as a generalist I think I
serve some purpose because sometimes
the technologists cannot see the forest
for the trees. They become too involved
with the technical details.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. IcHoaD
was allowed to proceed for- 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, we should
not worry about exporting a particular
commodity, which we are doing today.
I would point out to the Members of this
House that the man who ought to know,
the Acting Director of the Export Ad-
ministration Act has stated that our pres-
ent export control program was a total
shambles. I have that in the hearing rec-
ord of the House Committee on Armed
Services on H.R. 3216 dealing with this
specific subject. Mr. Larry Brady testi-
fied it is an absolute shambles. He is the
one who ought to know and I think the
gentleman from New York (Mr. GING-
HAM) will concur in that regard.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, some Mem-
bers of the House may disagree with me
but I might not even object to the sale
of 10 particular jet engines to a poten-
tial adversary. Ten jet engines in and of
themselves might mean nothing. How-
ever, Mr. Chairman, I would object to
the transfer of the-manufacturing tech-
niques or the metallurgical technology
that goes behind the production of the
jet engine blades. It is that about which
we should be concerned.
There are several ways we can trans-
fer our technological lead to our poten-
tial adversaries. We can do it through a
scientific exchange program, we can do
it through a technical data package. We
can do it through turnkey packages,
manufacturing processes and know how,
or by maintenance and support capa-_
bility.
I think this administration and past
administrations have made a terrible
mistake in building turnkey factories
right in the countries that are our po-
tential adversaries. That is where you
transfer the manufacturing processes
and know how. That is where you trans-
fer the technological data of which I
speak. That is where you transfer the
maintenance and support technology.
This is the export of our technological
lead that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I will state to the Mem-
bers of the House, I do not think we can
keep our potential adversaries from some
day getting this technology. I say that
because they have a massive program to
narrow the existing technological gap.
They are doing it by clandestine meth-
ods, they are doing it by legal methods,
they are doing it by illegal methods. Some
day they are going to get it.
-However, Mr. Chairman, we can delay
them and maintain the only lead that
we have: Our technology. We can delay
them, say, for 10 years rather than 3
years.
^ 1410
That is extremely important, because
that is how we measure a technological
lead, in terms of time.
Now, when I first read the bill of the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Chair-
man, I thought that I was in agreement
with the gentleman as it appeared he was
mandating the existence of a military
critical technologies list; but after close
reading, I find that the gentleman did
not do that.
We took testimony, the Committee on
Armed Services took testimony that this
is the way to solve the problem. We can
maintain a large trade in exports. We
can maintain trade with the end product.
Do not worry about the end product.
Worry about the technology behind the
production by establishing this military
technologies approach.
I have testimony from Dr. Ruth Davis,
who is head of the R. & D. in the Defense
Department, Under Secretary for Re-
search and Development. She says that
she is ready to go with this critical mili-
tary technologies approach. She stated
personally to me that she can have the
approach in place by October 1. 1980.
Now, the gentleman from New York
in his bill, and I think the gentleman
from New York is to be commended for
at least recognizing the importance of
this approach and the potential that it
has, but the gentleman did not mandate
the establishment of it.
Mr. Larry Brady, the Chairman of the
Export Administration Board, testified
they are ready to go with it within 1
year.
I will state to the gentleman from New
York that this will solve the problem the
gentleman is talking about. Even looking
at this approach has resulted in the re-
moval of 162 commodities from the ex-
port control lists, so I think it would
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 GONG
accomplish the objectives of the gentle-
men on the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs to increase our trade, but still pro.
tect on national security.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the
members of the committee give support
-to this amendment in the interests of
national security.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman,
that I agree with I think 90 percent of
what the gentleman from Missouri has
just said. I very much agree that mili-
tary critical technologies are the heart
of this matter of national security ex-
port controls. In fact, in the bill which
I originally introduced, we tried to limit
controls exclusively to military critical
technologies. But we found we could not
do that, because the Defense Depart-
ment had been wrestling with the ques-
tion of what is a military critical tech-
nology for 3 years and had not been able
to come up with the answers. As of the
time we had our hearings, they were still
struggling with it. It is still a crucial idea,
a crucial concept.
The gentleman from Missouri, in mak-
ing his eloquent plea, sounded as if we
had not provided for a list of critical
technologies.
Let me call attention to pages 10, 11.
and the beginning of 12 in the bill, which
deal with the subject of military critical
technologies. The bill' recognizes that
the national interest requires that ex-
port controls under this section be fo-
cused primarly on military critical tech-
nologies. Then it goes on to say:
The Secretary of Defense shall develop a
list of military critical technologies.
That is a mandate. If it is not, I do not
know what is. It specifies what should go
into the list. If you are a nonengineer,
as I am, you will have difficulty under-
standing the specifications that are to
be included in the list of military crit-
ical technologies that are set forth there
on page 11, lines 4 through 9. But those
are the very specifications that were
taken right out of the Bucy report that
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
IcHoRD) referred to. We take the Bucy
report very, very seriously. We think it
has brought a new and proper emphasis
to the whole field of national security
export controls.
Now, what the gentleman from Mis-
souri did not make clear to us is just
what his amendment does. It does not
really change the language of the bill,
except in a few respects. It follows it
pretty closely. One thing it does is to
eliminate this language which comes
from paragraph (1) of subsection (d)
on page 10: "export controls under this
section be removed insofar as possible
from goods the export of which would
not transfer military critical technolo-
gies to countries to which exports are
controlled under this section."
That is simply to emphasize the point
that we are concerned with military crit-
ical technologies, and we want the agen-
cies concerned to get rid of a lot of this
underbrush which takes their time, which
is not critical, which is not important,
and let us get it out of the picture. That
IESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE IHI 7667
is 'all that sentence says, but it does not
conradict what went before in paragraph
(1), which is "that the national interest
requires that export controls under this
section be focused primarily on military
critical technologies."
Now, another thing the Ichord amend-
ment does, with which I quarrel, and
I must say quarrel only mildly, is that
the Ichord amendment sets a deadline
for the completion and publication of
the list at October 1, 1980, a year away.
We simply do not know whether the De-
fense Department will be ready at that
point or not. The gentleman has said
they have told him they are ready. That
is not our information. We understand
they are still struggling with it. In any
event, hopefully they will have it ready
before October 1. Maybe it will be a little
later. That is not a matter of the utmost
importance, in our judgment, since the
gentleman has modified his amendment
to say that the original version of the
list shall be completed and published in
an appropriate form. The words "in an
appropriate form," which were not in
the gentleman's original version of this
amendment, recognizes, I take it, that
some of this material must be classified
and cannot be published for anyone to
read.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. BINGHAM)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BINGHAM
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
distinguished gentleman yield on that
point?
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, the dis-
tinguished gentleman from New York is
correct in pointing out this is one of the
differences between my amendment and
the approach in the bill. It definitely does
establish a critical military approach on
October 1, 1980; but the gentleman
stated that there was no evidence to the
effect that it could not be established
within that time. I would point out to
the gentleman in the hearing record
on H.R. 3216 that the Committee on
Armed Services conducted is the testi-
mony of Mr. Larry Brady, the Director of
the Export Control Agency, who has been
working on this matter with the Defense
Department. Mr. Battista, a staff coun-
sel, asked him this question:
Can you achieve it in 180 days?
Mr. BRADY. I do not think so.
In what time frame do you think?
Mr. BRADY. I think six months to a year
perhaps. Six months to a year.
I would state to the gentleman from
New York that I personally called Dr.
Ruth Davis. She gave me the assurance,
and Dr. Ruth Davis has the overall re-
sponsibility for the establishment of this
approach, that she can put it into being
in 1 year; so I have no doubt about
their being able to institute the approach.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for his contribu-
tion.
May I say again that before our com-
mittee, the Defense Department, which
has the responsibility for the prepara-
tion of the list-Mr. Brady, of course,
has no responsibility for the creation of
the list-was dubious as to whether it
could be done within the matter of a
year. But let me proceed, because that is
just one of the three differences, and I
think it is the least important difference
between the version of the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) and the ver-
sion of the bill. ,
^ 1420
The third point is the most important
one. In the legislation, after the list has
been developed, under paragraph (4)
we say:
The list of military critical technologies
developed by the Secretary of Defense pur-
suant to paragraph (2) shall become a part
of the commodity control list subject to
the provisions of subsection (c) of this
section.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. IcHoED) leaves out the last part of
that sentence. In other words, under the
proposal of the gentleman from Missouri,
the list prepared by the Secretary of
Defense becomes part of the control list
without anybody else having anything
to say about it. It is solely the responsi-
bility of the Defense Department, and
that is an area in which we and, I may
say, the Defense Department also strong-
ly disagree. We say that this total process
of deciding what should be on the con-
trol list has been and should continue to
be a joint process. The Defense Depart-
ment has the leading role.
I want to emphasize that in no case
has the Secretary of Commerce sought
to override the Secretary of Defense on
matters of a license issuance. The De-
fense Department is satisfied that the
procedures that have been in effect be-
fore, bringing in other agencies, the
Commerce Department and the State
Department, should be continued.
It is that point on which I think we
primarily differ. It is not on the question
of the importance of focusing on military
critical technologies.
Those are the three differences in the /
version offered to, us by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) and the bill
before us which, as I say, emphasizes the
importance of this concept.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Com-
mittee of the Whole will go along with
the position recommended by the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs and will reject
the amendment.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield on that particular point?
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I think
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
BINGHAM) has delineated the differences
except in one respect. There is a third or
a fourth major difference, and that, I
would point out, is the result of an over-
sight by the people drafting the bill.
I direct the attention of the Members
to page 11, line 10 of the bill, where this
is stated:
? ? ? which are not possessed by coun-
tries tb which exports are controlled under
this section and which, if exported, would
permit a major advance in a weapons sys-
tem of any such country.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 H 7668
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 119 1979
That is not in keeping with the policy
statement on page 4, and I read from
page 4, line 12:
It is the policy of the United States to
use export controls to the extent necessary
(A) to restrict the export of goods and tech-
nology which would make a significant con-
tribution ? ? ?.
Mr. Chairman, when the bill uses "ma-
jor" and "significant," in that manner,
there is one heck of a difference, I would
say to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BINGHAM
was allowed to proceed for 1I additional
minute.)
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I
may respond to the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. ICHORD), the gentleman is
quite right in pointing out that that is a
difference. It is not a difference which I
consider to be a significant one. If the
gentleman believes it is and if his amend-
ment is voted down and he wishes to of-
fer an amendment simply to change the
word, "major," to "significant," I would
not oppose it.
Mr. BADHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would, first of all, like
to commend the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. ICHORD) for his involvement
in this in trying to protect military
critical technologies, from improper ex-
port because it is essential to our defense
effort to protect our technologies.
On the other hand, however, we are
experiencing delays in the regulatory
process and denials which are causing
tremendous adversity to industry in the
United States of America which is try-
ing to do something about the export im-"
balance and the balance of trade deficit
which is contrary to the interests of the
United States of America.
One association which has a great deal
of involvement in my district, the Amer-
ican Electronics Association, surveyed
its more than 1,000 member companies,
which is small in terms of all industry of
the United States, on their export trade
activities. They had a very good response.
About 400 of the 1,000 responded to the
inquiries that were sent, and they
clearly demonstrated that the present
export control system, where we are
bounced around from State to Commerce
to Defense, with no hope in some cases
of any kind of a decision at all, results
in the fact that jobs are lost and trade is
lost.
It was revealed that in 1978 over $1
billion in sales in just one small segment
of our economy was denied, not because
it was going against military technology
transfer in the critical sense but because
there were export licensing delays and
denials and just plain uncertainties.
These losses contribute to our deficit in
the balance of trade. They also contri-
bute to the lack of employment increase
in the United States as well as the loss of
jobs for thousands of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentle-
man for preserving military critical tech-
nologies, and I hope, as this bill passes
on its way through this House and be-
yond, that we can do something about
the ridiculous denials, delays, and over-
regulatory processes that keep our coun-
try from being in the export market and
cause the loss of American creditibility
throughout the world as a reliable sup-
plier.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentle-
man for offering this bill, and I com-
mend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
IcHoRD) for offering this amendment. I
hope that in the future we may put our-
selves in a position where we allow peo-
ple to export technology and export
goods from this country, which can be
done with no threat to our military de=
fense.
Mr. COURTER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. COURTER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. COURTER. Mr. Chairman, I sup-
port the amendment offered by my dis-
tinguished colleague, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. IcHoRD).
There is obviously a crying need to
control the export of technology which
would be detrimental to our national
security. It makes little sense to make
available to potential adversaries our
most sophisticated technologies which
would contribute to their military capa-
bilities.
Incredibly, it is obvious from the testi-
mony that we heard in the Subcommit-
tee on Research and Development that
this technology is very often clearly
available to those people who would make
themselves our adversaries today. Any
sampling of the hours of testimony pre-
sented before the Subcommittee on Re-
search and Development chaired by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD)
on the issue of exporting military critical
technologies reveals a frightening story
of an, almost unchecked flow of tech-
nology out of this country to other coun-
tries. This includes computer technology,
micro-computer technology, micro-cir-
cuitry technology, electronic technology,
optical technology, and laser technology,
that goes into Soviet hands. Whether it
goes directly, or indirectly by some other
means, it is apparent that the control
of military critical technology is woe-
fully inadequate at the present time.
I think that the bill as submitted
speaks to that particular problem, and
I think that the Ichord amendment
strengthens it and speaks even more
clearly. These technologies are being
shipped to the Soviet Union directly, and
often they are sent indirectly.
The transfer of military critical tech-
nology is dramatically eroding our quali-
tative lead over the Soviet's military
capability. And that is all we have right
now, a qualitative lead. We do not have
a quantitative lead.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD) articulated the fact that we are
woefully behind in tanks, in artillery, in
airplanes, in aircraft, and in other areas.
The current export control mechan-
isms which this bill seeks to improve are
unworkable. On one hand they inhibit
our export trade, and on the other they
permit vital technology to fall into the
hands of those who would turn that .
technology against the United States of
America.
The amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri (Mr. IcHoRD) seeks.
to strengthen the Export Administration
Act by allowing the Secretary of De-
fense to develop a list of military critical
technologies, not only to develop this list
but do so quickly and in fact, by a day
certain.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. COURTER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, on that
point I think the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. COURTER) has put his finger
on the point that is most important. This
amendment is offered with a view of in-
creasing trade, not decreasing trade. As
I pointed out in my own statement, I
think the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM) will agree with the Di-
rector of the Board, Mr. Larry Brady,
when he says the present export control
program is in a shambles.
^ 1430
This is all he had to say about 4034.
If I thought 4034 would straighten up
this shambles, I would not be offering
this amendment, and I do not think the
gentleman in the well would now be in
the well.
Mr. Brady says:
The House bill also has another provision
in it which is not workable.
Mr. ICHORD. What bill are you talking
about now?
And I am reading from the report-
I am talking about 4034. When you take
the deadlines together with the appeals pro-
cedures, I am firmly convinced that we will
tie it into context. The effect of that will be
that the business community will say accu-
rately the system does not work, it needs
changing, it needs replacing, it is. no good.
It is in that spirit that I offer this-
amendment.
I commend the gentleman in the well
for the remarks that he is making.
Mr. COURTER. I thank the gentle-
man for his observations. It is so true. To
adopt the amendment, is to add clarity,
making a date certain as to when a list
of critical military technology would be
written and made available.
I might add, basically, there was a
statement made by an individual in the
other body, which was repeated in. the
Defense/Space Daily on July 25 of this
year.
In 1961, the Soviets attempted to obtain
from the U.S. grinder machines used to mass
produce ultra-high precision miniature ball
bearings. Congress interceded and, with the
support of President Kennedy, blocked this
sale. However, the Soviets persisted and fi-
nally in 1972-12 years later-these ma-
chines were sold to the Soviets. In 12 years
the Soviets could not master this tech-
nology, but finally we gave it to them.
This amendment speaks to that very
critical problem, and I urge my col-
leagues on my side of the aisle and on
the other side of the aisle to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 ? Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
COURTER) has expired.
(On request of Mr. BINGHAM and by
unanimous consent, Mr. COURTER was al-
lowed to proceed for 1 additional min-
ute.)
Mr. BINGHAM.. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COURTER. I yield to the gentler
man from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, just in
relation to the ball bearing cases, the
Bryant Grinder case, the facts there
were that for 12 years the industry, the
exporters, were claiming that the Swiss
were producing identical machines and
they were getting the business with the
Soviet Union. It took years for them to
persuade the administration that that
was the case. Finally foreign availability
was established and the licenses were is-
sued.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am heartened to see
that the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) will
tighten up this title I, the title that
mandates the development of a list of
critical technologies by the Secretary of
Defense. If the Department of Defense
does not have the capability to do this,
then we are in worse shape than I would
ever have imagined, and they better
harness some of the multitude of Ph. D.'s
they have over there to develop this
expertise.
I was very pleased to see that the
authors of this bill employed the sug-
gestions of the report on export of tech-
nology for the Defense Science Board
presented by Mr. Fred Bucy, president
of Texas Instruments, namely, provid-
ing guidelines on design and manufac-
turing, keystone manufacturing, test
equipment and goods of a militarily sen-
sitive nature.
As much as I appreciate their efforts,
I do not believe that the wording of the
measure goes, far enough in defining or
clarifying the guidelines for the Secre-
tary of Defense who is charged with de-
veloping a list of critical technologies.
But in the interest of team play here,
I will defer this year to the excellent
amendment of the gentleman from Mis-
souri. All the more reason to support
him is that there are Members who feel,
as I do, that we cannot be too specific
in this area.
I ask my colleagues in the House to
recall again what was just discussed, the
1972 sale of 164 Centalign-B precision
grinding machines. They were used in
the production of precision miniature
ball bearings. The equipment produces
small, pinhead-sized ball bearings of al-
most perfect uniformity. The sale was
made by the Chucking Grinder Co. of
Vermont. It was approved by the State
Department. A significant use of preci-
sion ball bearings is in missile guidance
systems used in this country and also in
the Soviet Union. The Defense Depart-
ment warnings were overridden more
than once. The Soviet Union now has
7,100 MIRV warheads on heavy mis-
siles, including the awesome heavy SS-
18, which can now strike targets within
a radius of 600 feet. ,
I ask my colleagues to also consider
the 1976 plan for Control Data to sell the
Soviets its most sophisticated computer,
the Cyber 76 or 7600 series. That sale was
canceled because many of the Members
of this House-I circulated a list myself.
I believe a record-breaking 315 signa-
tures of the House Members blocked this
sale by putting pressure on the adminis-
tration. And, as we all remember now,
there were only a small number of Cyber
7600 series computers in operation, and
they are still only in the most sensi-
tive or militarily critical agencies of the
U.S. Government: The National Security
Agency, the Energy Research and De-
velopment Agency, NASA, and the U.S.
Air Force.
That Cyber 76 is still at least 40 times
faster in processing information than its
nearest Soviet counterpart. It is incredi-
bly naive, as some members of the busi-
ness and political communities would
have us believe, that the Cyber 76 or a
comparable computer would be used by
the Soviets for purely peaceful, domestic
purposes. It is incredible, indeed night-
marish, that such a sale was actually
contemplated. We need assurance-that
such a sale is never contemplated again.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Our subcommittee
had hearings on the ball bearings case 3
years ago and brought out all of the facts
about foreign availability in that respect.
I just point out in that regard that the
test of the MIRV's occurred before any
of the licenses were issued for those ball
bearings.
On the Cyber 7600, we also had
hearings.
It is not correct to say that export
licenses were ever contemplated by any-
body, certainly nobody in our committee.
The gentleman is correct in pointing
out the Cyber 7600 is something we do
not want to export to the Soviet Union,
but the point I want to make is that no-
body, in the control mechanism we have
had, was in favor of that.
Mr. DORNAN. The gentleman had
excellent committee hearings and allow-
ed me to sit in on even some of the ex-
ecutive committee hearings. Those hear-
ings certainly put the nails in the coffin
of that sale.
. We had a very new Secretary of Com-
merce then, and in a personal phone con-
versation with her office-I was not
aware other people were listening in un-
til they interrupted finally, and I asked
them to identify themselves-she gave
me the clear impression that it was in-
deed being contemplated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. DORNAN)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. IcxoRD and by
unanimous consent, Mr. DORNAN was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. DORNAN. You recall a memo-
randum was discovered that showed
Control Data was of the opinion that
completely circumnavigated the State
and Defense Departments of this coun-
try to build the largest computer in the
III 7669
world, even bigger, they hoped, than the
current state of the art.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman
from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. I think the record will
show, will not the gentleman in the well
and the gentleman from New York agree,
that the Commerce Department was in
favor of'the export of the Cyber 7600?
.The Defense Department objected and, I
believe, they had to go to the President
for a resolution?
Mr. DORNAN. It was, at the White
House; but there was divided opinion in
the Commerce Department. The final de-
cision never really came down from the
new Secretary of that Department, Mrs.
Juanita Kreps.
Mr. ICHORD. Certainly the Cyber 7600
was not quoted. The gentleman from
California is correct.
I brought up another matter, which
should be of great concern to this body,
and that was the matter of the precision
ball bearings.
I will state to the gentleman from New
York-and this is another reason why
this critical technology approach is so
important-it would not have been so
important if you had just transferred the
precision ball bearings themselves. We
didn't do that. We transferred the ma-
chinery to make ball ' bearings, which
really put them in the position of making
the precision ball bearings which can be
used in MIRV'd missiles. This is what I
am talking about. I doubt if they could
engineer precision ball bearings them-
selves and make them in large quanti-
ties. It is the technology we are concerned
about.
Mr. DORNAN. If I could add, the gen-
tleman from New York is quite correct
that the testing of some of these MIRV's
had gone on before this particular sale.
However, it is the constant increase in
accuracy, down to very small differences,
that transforms a MIRV'd warhead into
a killer warhead capability.
Mr. ICHORD. Is it not generally agreed
in the technological community that the
Soviet Union could not have had the pre-
cision that they now have today if it had
not been for the export of this tech-
nology?
Mr. DORNAN. Absolutely correct.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. The fact is that the
Swiss were selling machines capable of
producing the same degree of accuracy.
It was that reason the licenses were is-
sued. The Swiss were not just selling
ball bearings; they were selling the
machines to make the ball bearings.
0 1440
That was the issue that was discussed
at length in our hearings 3 years ago.
We put out a report for the entire Con-
gress. The significance of it was that as
far as foreign availability that there was
no way we could prevent that technology
from being exported to the Soviet Union.
The Swiss are not members of the--
Mr..DORNAN. If I could finish some
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 7670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 11, 1979
of my remarks and give me the time, I of payments or the free commerce in outmaneuver ? and outaccelerate the
will certainly engage further in colloquy. technology throughout this world in the F-86 is because the British sold them the
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- West. main jet engine.
tieman from California (Mr. DoRNAN) To do that, we must, as Mr. Bucy sug- We have a problem not only with re-
has expired. gests, be specific, as specific as is hu- verse engineering but with "eyeball tech-
(At the request of Mr. JOHN L. BURTON manly possible. nology transfer" that we cannot do any-
and by unanimous consent, Mr. DORNAN We must give the Department of De- thing about. That is an expression I have
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional fense a clear indication of what guide- coined after I sat on the Ilyusin 76 and
minutes.) lines this Congress wishes them to fol- 86 aircraft at the Paris Exposition in
Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentle- low. There should be no doubt about the 1977.
man. intentions of my colleagues in this mat- If you look at the Concorde and the
In his report to the Defense Science ter. If we err, as a famous chairman of Soviets' ill-fated Tupelov 144's, if you
Board, Mr. Fred Bucy of TI also declared the Defense Committee in this House look at the Backfires as opposed to our
that the definition of technology must be said for years, let us err on' the side of B-1, if you look at their latest fighter
used in a specific sense if the issues are security. technology-Aviation Week and Space
to be clarified. That is his quote. I urge my colleagues to support this Technology a few weeks ago showed they
I agree with this statement and other excellent amendment by the gentleman have copied our F-18, our A-10 and our
statements of Mr. Bucy entirely, specifi- from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD). F-15 and F-16, maybe through "eyeball
cally when our national security is at Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the technology", that is all the more rea-
stake. gentleman yield? son we should not help them with critical
The issue to be clarified is the rela- Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentle- technology or goods, as we have done in
tionship between the export of technol- man from Missouri. the Kama River truck factory, with com-
ogy and our national security. The key Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman puters to help them reverse engineer in
to that relationship is the production of for yielding. addition to what they
military weapons systems. The gentleman from New York (Mr. all of the European coget untres lthrough
The relationship between technology BINGHAM), brought in the matter of their agents.
and goods and the weapons systems of availability in the case of precision ball Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I move
actual or potential adversaries, espe- bearings, which the gentleman from to strike the requisite number of words.
cially the Soviet Union, is critical. It California raised. (Mr. FRENZEL asked and was given
mandates the Secretary of Defense to I would point out to the gentleman permission to revise and extend his re-
give emphasis to this bill and the amend- from New York that is something we marks,)
ment of the gentleman from Missouri could argue about as nontechnologists Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I want
(Mr. IcHoRn) with even more specificity particularly until doomsday as to to support the chairman of the subcom-
to advance the state of the art or emerg- whether that availability did exist. mittee in opposition to the amendment of
ing technology in the possession of the Mr. DORNAN. An unusual choice of the gentleman from Missouri. I think the
United States, which is indispensable to words. bill that he has written is a good one. I
current or projected U.S. military sys- Mr. ICHORD. This is what we are wish we had not adopted many of the
tems. doing in this amendment. Yes, we are amendments that we already have.
In light of state of the art or emerg- saying that the Department of Defense In my district, it sometimes takes as
ing technology, we must take into con- is the one who should decide whether long as 16 months to get a license to ex-
sideration the fact that the military there is critical military technology port a very simple piece of machinery.
value of the new technology is time de- involved. There are thousands of workers within
pendent. Dr. Ruth Davis, Deputy Under They are the ones who should decide my district whose livelihoods depend on
Secretary of Defense for Research and the availability, because they have the our ability to sell overseas.
Engineering, has correctly pointed out intelligence. That is their duty. Now, the It seems to me that we are being over-
that our national security has in recent State Department has the responsibility protective in our desire to see that we
times become increasingly dependent in the case of foreign policy, but my God, do not ship military technology abroad.
upon our military technological superi- let us not put the Secretary of Commerce None of us wants to do that.
ority, which in turn is based on main- in charge of the defense of this Nation. In .defense of the subcommittee chair-
taining our technological leadtime. I agree with the gentleman from New man, I would like to say that when the
I conclude' by noting that this prob- York, that is the main difference. The ball bearing incident occurred, the juris-
lem includes the transfer of goods or Secretary of Defense is responsible for diction for this material was of course in
products that may embody critical tech- the national security of this country. another committee. That other commit-
nologies of a military sensitive nature. Now, both the Secretary of Defense tee continued the same kind of hearings
We simply must counter. the export of and the Secretary of Commerce are an- that the gentleman conducted on the
goods, which through a process of re- swerable to the President of the United subject-that was the Banking Commit-
verse engineering, could facilitate the Sttaes, who is Commander in Chief, but tee at the time-we found the same
design and manufacture of military sys- why not pinpoint responsibility? That is thing, that the exact material or ma-
tems or reveal critical elements of the why we have such a shambles today. We chinery was available from the Swiss
U.S. military system. do not pinpoint responsibility. and could be sold and that was the rea-
The Ichord amendment definitely Mr. DORNAN. The reason, even son for the issuance of that license.
helps to plug some of these leaks. though we have a slight quarrel here over With respect to Cyber 76, Mr. Chair-
I remind all my colleagues that during degree, that I am so ecstatic over this bill, man, that machine is made within my
the past 10 years approximately $10 bil- the chairman's hearings and the gentle- district.
lion annually has been expended on mili- man's contribution, the gentleman from
tars R. & D. to maintain our lead in this Missouri (Mr. ICHORD), is that it emerges want If this sell ell or t leasease deo not
r to that wid be
allow to be
military technology field; and for this out of a long history of debate on these used on some kind td l contractual
past fiscal year our Congress has voted critical national security issues. Russia, that machine, sbe it; b and $12 billion for R. & D. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- honor that decision, because a ; I
tan
If it is true military security or mili- do
tleman from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) has do not want to decision, away any certainly
tary superiority is tied directly to main- expired. technology. of like a have the
e
taming a lead in the technological revo- (At the request of Mr. DORNAN, and House thin there is any attempt by the
lution, then we simply must make every by unanimous consent, Mr. ICHORD was employees or managers of that company
effort to maintain that lead by prevent- allowed to proceed for 1 additional to get around the U.S. restrictions, what-
ing the transfer of militarily sensitive minute.)
technologies upon which our security is Mr. DORNAN. It is an old story for laever they ws or bad laws., whether they are good
based, even 'if we infringe-and I say those interested in aerospace that the Those, are patriotic people. They are
this as a defender of free enterprise- reason that the Mig-15 appeared as a good people. What they were trying to do
occasionally on the side of an imbalance swept-wing fighter in Korea that could in that sale )s to sell some technology
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL
that was 20 years old to be used for in-
ternational meteorological analysis, and
in my judgment there was no reason not
to sell the machine.
However, we decided not to sell it, and
.so that was done with.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I want to confirm the statement just
made by the gentleman from Minnesota.
Certainly no one should question the
patriotism of the manufacturer of the
Cyber 76, because they are not in a posi-
tion to make the necessary decisions to
protect our national security.
^ 1450
This particular company should not
be the one protecting the national secu-
rity of the United States. Here the gen-
tleman confirms my point. It should be
the Secretary of Defense that has that
responsibility. An individual company is
not in a position to make that decision.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution, but I want to be
sure everybody knows that there is no
intent to subvert whatever law might be
on the books. I hope that point is clear.
The other point .I want to make is this
was a 20-year-old piece of technology.
The final point I want to make is that
it still takes often a year to sell technol-
ogy that has no military application
whatsoever, because we have to wind our
way through tortuous processes that in-
volve department after department.
I think the language of the bill, which
says that, if it is not military, then we
will try to make it easier, makes a lot of
sense. It makes sense particularly since
we are running this enormous deficit in
our balance of trade, and because we are
nervous about our employment and we
would like to have the U.S. employees
producing goods for export. I think it is
fine if we prohibit all of these sales of
military technology, but let us leave the
language the way it is. It specifies both.
It says do not give away the military, but
it also says let us make it easier to sell
this stuff that is not military.
I certainly hope the amendment will
be defeated.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
IECORD - HOUSE .
are needed to stay ahead of our adver-
saries. This provision, ' the Ichord
amendment, is a refinement of what is
already in the bill, but it makes even
more clear that we are serious about
protecting military critical technologies.
For example, on pages 10 and 11 the
Ichord amendment makes a change by
stating something positively instead of
negatively, as the bill presently does.
The Ichord amendment would provide
that export controls be implemented for
goods, the export of which would trans-
fer military critical technologies. The
bill, as now written, takes the opposite
viewpoint and says that goods should
be removed from the list unless they
affect our security.
It is really a matter, I think, of making
ing sure that the correct signals are
being sent to our adversaries and that
we will not jeopardize our national
security.
Incidentally, when this bill came out
of the subcommittee and was before the
full committee, Department of Defense
officials told me that although the way
the bill had been amended really took
care of a lot of their problem insofar as
the law would actually read, they were
quite concerned that the wrong signals
would be sent. It is a matter of emphasis.
The amendment further requires that
the Defense Department proceed ex-
peditiously with development of the mili-
tary critical technologies approach. It
has been working on that for 3 years
and it should not be delayed any further
than is required.
I believe that this amendment is a
very important amendment. It is not as
important perhaps as it once was, be-
cause we did make some changes in the
bill. But we should not stop there. I think
we should adopt this amendment, that
will send the proper signal to our ad-
versaries, that is, that we are serious
about controlling our technology and
that we do think that the Department of
Defense should have a very important
part to play in this whole process of try-
ing to prevent our adversaries from gain-
ing access to our military critical tech-
nology.
0 Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to voice my support for the
rapid implementation of the military
critical technologies approach to con-
trolling the flow of U.S. military tech-
nology to our adversaries. Like the gen-
tleman from Missouri, I am very con-
cerned that our technological lead over
the Soviet Union is rapidly eroding. This
erosion is due both to Soviet efforts in
developing their own technology base
together with capitalizing on technology
that has been directly transferred to
them from the West.
. This effort has led to recent Soviet
advancement in high technology areas
such as the development of: First, a
highly accurate ICBM guidance system;
second, a look-down/shoot-down inter-
ceptor aircraft; third, a killer satellite;
fourth, an advanced submarine; and
fifth, a new family of high speed
computers.
There is virtually nothing we can do
to stem.the Soviets relentless pursuit of
technological excellence through their
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the Ichord amend-
ment. As the gentleman from Missouri
has pointed out, in our technology race,
if you will, with the Soviet Union, all
we can really do is to delay technology.
We have all seen how every technology
that we have developed has been adopted
sooner or later by the Soviets. But it is
important that we continue to develop
such technology and keep it out of the
hands of our adversaries.
I think it is also very important, al-
though it is not before us today, that
we continue to make the kind of invest-
ments in research and development that
H 7671
own laboratory efforts-over the past 5
years they have outspent the United
States by over $40 billion in this area-
but we can help to protect our own tech-
nological breakthroughs by strengthen-
ing the military critical technology pro-
vision in this bill. I join my colleagues in
asking for your support of his amend-
ment.0
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
question is on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD).
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. BINGHAM)
there were-ayes 27, noes 9.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 273, noes 145,
not voting 16, as follows;
[Roll No. 4551
AYES-273
Abdnor
Edwards, Okla.
Kindness
Addabbo
Emery
Kogovsek
Akaka
English
Kramer
Alexander
Erdahl
Lagomarsino
Ambro
Ertel
Latta
Andrews,
Evans, Del.
Leach, La.
N. Dale.
Evans, Ga.
Leath, Tex.
Anthony
Evans, Ind.
Lee
Archer
Ferraro
Lent
Aehbrook
Fish '
Levitas
Atkinson
Flippo
Livingston.
Bafalis
Florio
Lloyd
Bailey
Foley
Loeffler
Baldus
Ford, Tenn.
Long, La.
Barnard
fountain
Long, Md.
Bauman
Fowler
Lott
Beard, Tenn.
Frost
Lujan
Benjamin
Fuqua
Luken
Bennett
Gaydos
Lungren
Bereuter
Gephardt
McClory
Bethune
Gilman
McDade
Bevill
Ginn
McDonald
Biaggi
Glickman
McEwen
Boggs
Goldwater
McKay
Boner
Gonzalez
McKinney
Bouquard
Goodling
Madigan
Bowen
Gore
MarLenee
Breaux
Gradison
Marriott
Brinkley
Gramm
Martin
Brooks
Grassley
Mathis
Broomfield
Grisham
Mazzoli
Brown, Ohio
Guarini
Mica
Broyhill
Gudger
Michel
Buchanan
Guyer
Miller, Ohio
Burgener
Hagedorn
Minish
Butler
Hall, Tex.
Mitchell, N.Y.
Byron
Hemmer-
Mollohan
Campbell
Schmidt
Montgomery
Carney
Hance
Moore
Chappell
Hansen
Moorhead,
Clausen
Harsha
Calif.
Cleveland
Heckler
Mottl
Clinger
Hefner
Murphy, N.Y.
Coelho
Heftel
Murphy, Pa.
Coleman
Hightower
Murtha
Collins, Tex.
Hillis
Myers, Ind.
Conte
Hinson
Natcher
Corcoran
Holland
Nelson
Cotter
Hollenbeck
Nichols
Coughlin
Holt
O'Brien
Courtier
Hopkins
Oakax
Crane, Daniel
Horton
Panetta
Crane, Philip
Howard
Pashayan
D'Amours
Hubbard
Patten
Daniel, Dan
Huckaby
Paul
Daniel, R. W.
Hughes
Perkins
Dannemeyer
Hutto
Pickle
Davis, Mich.
Hyde
Price
Davis, S.C.
Ichord
Quayle
de Is Garza
Ireland
Quillen
Deckard
Jacobs
Rahall
Derrick
Jeffries
Railsback
Devine
Jenkins
Regula
Dickinson
Jenrette
Rhodes
Dornan
Johnson, Calif.
Rinaldo
Dougherty
Jones, N.C.
Ritter
Duncan, Oreg.
Jones, Tenn.
Roberts
Duncan, Tenn.
Kazen
Robinson
Early
Kelly
Roe
Edwards, Ala.
Kemp
Rose
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 H 7672
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
Roth Solomon
Rousselot Spence
Royer St Germain
Rudd Stack
Runnels Staggers
Russo Stangeland
Santini Stanton
Satterfield Steed
Sawyer Stenholm
Schroeder Stratton
Schulze Stump
Sebelius Symms
Sensenbrenner Synar
Sharp Tauke
Shelby Taylor.
Shumway Thomas
Shuster Treen
Skelton Trible
Slack Ullman
Smith, Nebr. Van Deerlin
Snowe Volkmer
Snyder Walker
NOES-145
Albosta Findley
Anderson, Fisher
Calif. Fithian
Andrews, N.C. Ford, Mich.
Annunzio Forsythe
Ashley Frenzel
Aspin Garcia
AuCoin Giaimo
Badham Gibbons
Barnes Gray
Bedell Green
l3eilenson Hall, Ohio
Bingham Hamilton
Blanchard Hanley
Boland Harkin
Bolling Harris
Bonior Hawkins
Bonker Holtzman
Brademas Jeffords
Brodhead Johnson, Colo.
Brown, Calif. Jones, Okla.
Burlison Kastenmeier
Burton, John Kildee
Burton, Phillip Kostmayer
Carr LaFalce
Cavanaugh Lehman
Chisholm Leland
Clay Lewis
Collins, Ill.
Conable
Conyers
Corman
Danielson
Daschl e
Dellums -
D;cks
Dingell
Dixon
Dodd
Donnelly
Lowry
Lundine
McCloskey
McHugh
Maguire
Markey
Marks
Mattox
Mavroules
Mikulski
Mikva
Miller, Calif.
Downey , Mineta
Eckhardt Mitchell, Md.
Edgar Moakley
Edwards, Calif. Moffett
Erlenborn Moorhead, Pa.
Fary Murphy, Ill.
Fascell Myers, Pa.
Fazio Neal
Fenwick Nedzi
Wampler
Watkins
White
Whitehurst
Whitley
Whittaker
Whitten
Williams, Mont.
Williams, Ohio
Wilson, Bob
Wilson, C. H.
Wilson, Tex.
Winn
Wolff
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wylie
Yatron
Young, Fla.
Young, Mo.
Zeferetti
Nolan
Nowak
Oberstar
Obey
Cttinger
Patterson
Pease
Pepper
Petri
Peyser
Preyer
Pritchard
Pursell
Rangel
Ratchford
Reuss
Richmond
Rodino
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Sabo
Scheuer
Seioerling
Shannon
Simon
Smith, Iowa
Solarz
Spellman
Stark
Stewart
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Swift
Thompson
Traxler
Udall
Vander Jagt
Vanik
Vento
Walgren
Waxman
Weaver
Weiss
Wirth
Wolpe
Yates
Zablocki
NOT VOTING-16
Anderson, Ill. Diggs McCormack
Applegate Drinan Matsui
Beard, R.I. Flood Roybal
Carter . Gingrich Young, Alaska
Cheney Leach, Iowa
Derwinski Lederer
^ 1510
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Beard of Rhode Island for, with Mr.
Lederer against.
Mr. MARLENEE and Mr. LUKEN
changed their votes from "no" to "aye."
Mr. TRAXLER changed his vote from
aye" to "no."
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
amendments to section 104?
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. GLICKMAN
Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. Chairman, i offer
two amendments.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
September 11, 1979
The Clerk read as follows: nesses have the capability to figure out
Amendments offered by Mr. GLICKMAN: how to cure any defects in their export
On page 8, line 24, insert the following new licenses in order to insure that we can
sentence immediately after the period: "Fur- get goods reasonably exported without
ther, the Secretary shall include in the unreasonable delay.
notice to the applicant of denial of such It- I understand that the Department of
cease. what, if any, modifications in or Commerce was concerned in that the
restrictions on the goods or technologies for language of this amendment could
which the license was sought would allow
such export to be compatible with controls bureaucratize even more their agencies.
implemented under this Section, or shall So I have structured the language to in-
indicate in such notice which Departmental dicate that if the department in charge
officials familiar with the application will be could not specifically indicate what was
made reasonably available to the applicant wrong with the export license, at a mini-
for consultation with regard to such mod- mum that department would be required
ifications or restrictions if appropriate.".. to let the applicant know who in the de-
-On page 23, line 6, insert the following partment was familiar with the applica-
new sentence immediately after the period: lion so that he could help the licensee
"Further, the Secretary shall Include In the
notice to the applicant of denial of such out and get the license approved if
license what, if any, modifications in or possible. Basically, this amendment is
restrictions on the goods or technologies for just an incentive to try to get as many
which the license was sought would allow export licenses approved to the extent
such export to be compatible with controls possible and try to help a lot of people in
implemented under this Section, or shall this country who cannot afford a Wash-
indicate in such notice which Departmental ington lobbyist to help them.
officials familiar with the application will be
made reasonably available to the applicant I think it is a straight forward and
for consultation with regard to such mod- simple amendment.
ifications or restrictions if appropriate.". ^ 1520
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
unanimous consent that the two amend- the gentleman yield?
ments be considered en bloc. Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gentle-
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to man from New York.
the request of the gentleman from Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentle-
Kansas? man for yielding.
There was no objection. We have had an opportunity to ex-
`J n., Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
quire the Secretary of Commerce in both th will the gentleman yield?
cases where an application for an export will the gentleman
reasons why it 'has been deniedl andf to is an attempt to balance between the
suggest to the extent feasible what modi- attempt to make it easier to get the
fications or restrictions on the technol- licenses to export noncritical technical
ogies and goods for which the license is goods and the desire on the other hand
sought could be changed to be compati- as was demonstrated by the last vote,
ble with getting the items exported, or if to secure our security.
that is too administratively difficult, at a This amendment does what many of
minimum to let the applicant for the the speakers who opposed the last
license know which department official amendment does. It makes it easier for
is in charge of his license application so business to get licenses approved, it
that that applicant can go to that per- treats the little guy like the big compa-
son and find out what is wrong with the vies are already treated. I think it is an
application and how the problem can be excellent amendment and I strongly
remedied. The reason for that, Mr. Chair- urge its adoption.
man, is the fact that while many large - Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
businesses-whether they be the Boeing yield back the balance of my time.
Co. or Cargill-have lobbyists up here The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
and work very frequently with the de- question is on the amendments offered
partment officials to find out whether ex- by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
small businesses do not have that finan- The amendments were agreed to.
cial capability. So the Purpose of the AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ICHORD
amendments, Mr. Chairman, is to re-
quire the Secretary to do one of two Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer
things. When an export license is denied an amendment.
by reason of national security control or The Clerk read as follows:
foreign policy: First, he shall include in Amendment offered by Mr. ICHORD: Page
the notice to. the applicant if there are 16, strike out lines 8 through 23.
ac-
any modifications or changes that need co a ngly note the following subsections ac-
to be made in order to get the items ex-
ported; or, second, if he cannot do that, Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I first
to let the applicant know who in the De- wish to thank the members of the. com-
partment of Commerce will be made mittee for the overwhelming vote on the
reasonably available to the applicant so last amendment that I offered.
that the applicant can thee go back and As I pointed out on the previous
try to work out something to get the amendment, this is not my amendment.
items exported. The whole purpose is This is an amendment unanimously re-
that the Department ' in effect already ported by the Subcommittee on Research
does this for big business, and all I am and Development of the House Commit-
trying-to do is to insure that all busi- tee on Armed Services. I reiterate this
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
amine these amendments. We have no
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
is not my amendment, it is an amend-
ment of the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment de-
letes section 5(g), the concept of in-
dexing.
I apologize to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. BINGHAM) for bringing
the matter up out of order but I was so
concerned about this particular provision
of the bill, and as I stated, I asked my
technologist on the Research and De-
velopment Subcommittee staff just what
the language of section 5(g) meant, "in-
dexing." I asked witnesses who came be-
fore the committee about the subject of
indexing and no. one could satisfactorily
explain it to me.
The gentleman states on page 18 of
the report:
Subsection (g) provides that the secre-
tary may, where appropriate, establish an
indexing system providing for annual. in-
creases in the performance levels of goods
and technology subject to license require-
ments under this section, in order that such
requirements may be periodically removed
as such goods and technology become obso-
lete. This provision is particularly applicable
to computers.
Again, I want to know about this
vision. I do not understand it. Why is it
particularly applicable to computers, I
would ask the distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. BINGHAM).
Mr. Chairman, I have not been able
to get an answer.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. First of all, let me say,
if the gentleman is puzzled by the word
"indexing," I would point out that the
text of the section that the gentleman
would like to knock out of the bill does
not use the word, "indexing." Indexing is
sort of a shorthand way of referring to
the process in which we are here inter-
ested, which is to have periodic removal
from the list of goods and technology
that no longer qualify as being necessary
to control for export for national secu-
rity reasons. That is all we are talking
about. It is an authorizing section. it
mandates nothing. As far as the gen-
tleman's particular question is con-
cerned, I thought it was generally
understood-I certainly so understood
it-that the technology of computers has
been rapidly advancing, and what is an
advanced computer today, 2 years from
now may be old hat. ?That is all we are
talking about.
Mr. ICHORD. That may be so, but one
must take into consideration the level of
our technology. One must take into con-
sideration the level of technology of the
potential adversary. How can the gen-
tleman say with certainty, today, that a
particular computer technology will be
obsolete, say, 3 years from now?
? Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, all we
here ask for is that where appropriate
the Secretary issue regulations to pro-
vide for periodic renewal of the exami-
nation of the list. I should think the gen-
tleman would agree that, as items
become no longer critical, they should
be taken off the list so the people over
there do not have to bother with it.
III 7673
Mr. ICHORD. Let me take the distin- mitted the first amendment, let us face
guished gentleman from New York it. In terms of numbers, we are out of
through this bill. Let us go to page 10. the ball park. The gentleman from Flor-
The gentleman already has that author- ida (Mr. BENNETT) and the chairman of
ity. If that is all the gentleman was doing the full Committee on Armed Services
by this language I would be little who sit in front of me, know the num-
concerned. bers, they know we are outnumbered 7 to
Let us refer to page 10 of the bill. I 1 in tanks. They know we are outnum-
read this language: bered 4 to 1 in aircraft. They know we
The Secetary shall issue regulations pro- are outnumbered 6 to 1 in artillery pieces.
viding for continuous. review of the list They know we are outnumbered 50 to 1
established pursuant to this subsection'in in chemical warfare. The only place
order to carry out the policy set forth in Where we have a lead is in technology,
section 3(2) (A) and the provisions of this and again I reiterate, especially computer
section, and for the prompt Issuance of such technology.
revisions of the list as may be necessary. Let us not open up the gate and lose
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. Icaolw
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, section
32(a) refers to controls for national se-
curity purposes.
Here the Secretary of Commerce has
the authority for continuous review of
the control list. He can take them off.
Certainly we should not keep controls
on piston engines, for example. I rather
doubt if we should keep controls on just
the ordinary jet engine. If you had a jet
engine involving critical military tech-
nology, perhaps you should.
I thank the gentleman for his explana-
tion. It makes me reiterate that I believe
the Committee should support the House
Committee on Armed Services in its
unanimous reporting of this amendment.
Let me again point out to the Mem-
bers, Mr. Chairman, the only place where
we have a lead over our potential ad-
versaries is in the field of technology,
and particularly in the field of computer
technology.
As the gentleman has explained, this
indexing concept envisions the establish-
technology would no longer be subject to Let me point out that in the provisions
controls. of the paragraph that we are talking
Another example might be the case, as about, if any goods or technology are
the gentleman stated, of a computer proposed to be removed from the list pur-
where a certain speed or memory ca- suant to that system, any of the inter-
pacity might be set as a threshold for, ested departments, including the Defense
say, January 1, 1980. On that date all Department, can object. That takes the
controls would be removed from com- automaticity out of the process. That is
puters. The gentleman says this is espe- In the second paragraph of subsection
cially applicable to computers. Having (g) . There is no danger of anything Nap-
a speed or capacity less than the estab- pening automatically that the Defense
lished threshold. Department disapproves of. They will
Mr. Chairman, I submit this concept have their opportunity. It just will en-
is flawed in two respects. First, it is an courage a better and more efficient sys-
attempt to forecast technology in ad- tem of taking items off the list that
vance and predetermine the state of the should no longer be on the list.
art at a given time. I submit this is a Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
very dangerous way to establish our ex- gentleman yield?
port controls. Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
One cannot tell whether a particular man from Missouri.
technology, today, is going to be obsolete Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I would
on January 1, 1980, or January 1, 1981. ask the distinguished gentleman from
We already have the authority on page New York if the gentleman took testi-
10 to review the items on the control mony from the technologists as to how
list. I think it particularly dangerous to accurately they could predict the level of
proceed with such ,a vague, ambiguous a technology.? to This is concern. Here
control concept. Let us not fool around say ar of e going try to o predict the level
say technology in 1982.
with computers where we certainly have Now, you have got to not only predict
a lead over the Soviet Union. the level of our own technology, you have
^ 1530 to predict the level of the adversaries,
This is the only place that we have what the level of technology of the ad-
the lead. For the benefit of those Mem- versaries is going to be and what the
bers who were not here when I sub- technology of our allies will be.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
that particular lead; so on behalf of the
Committee on Armed Services, I hope
that the Committee will also adopt this
amendment.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment. Again,
we are in substantial agreement that it
is desirable for the list to be constantly
reexamined so as to take off those items
which need no longer be controlled.
This section, which is entirely permis-
sive with the Secretary of Commerce,
does not mandate anything. The purpose
of it is to encourage setting up a system
for taking items off the list, so that it
will not be a case of items being taken
off one by one or two by two, which never
catches up with obsolescence.
The number of export license applica-
tions is increasing by about 20 percent
per year. It is currently running at an
annual rate of close to 80,000. This is
causing all kinds of delays which our
friends in the export industry have com-
plained to all of us about.
Now, in order to encourage the admin-
istration to do a better job and a quicker
job of taking items off the list that
should no longer be on it, we have in-
cluded this provision urging and author-
izing the Secretary to set up a system
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 7674 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 11, 1979
The gentleman has brought up avail- items in accordance with that system point of view of national security? Did
ability. How accurate can you be? That would occur, unless another Government the gentleman have in mind relation-
is my concern. agency objected. ship between those two?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Mr. COURTER.Mr. Chairman, my Mr. BINGHAM. No; that would be up
testimony we had on this from industry point, I believe, if the gentleman will to the Secretary to determine and to
in particular was that we can do it. We yield further, is the fact that it will propose such a system. I would not be.
are proposing a similar system in CO- inevitably go into effect. The restraints qualified to do that myself. I doubt if
COM. It is being discussed in COCOM would have to, therefore, be lifted, and many people here would be qualified to
currently. the word "shall" is mandatory, provided, do that. It would be something that
Again I say, if DOD thinks it is going as the gentleman says, something else would be established pursuant to this
too fast or something is going to be taken does, not happen.. The chances are per- authorization and, again, I would say in
off that should not be take off, DOD can haps. that something else will not hap- the operation of it, it would be subject to
object to it. pen. The word "shall" therefore makes abjection from the Department of De-
Mr. ICHORD. But DOD cannot stop it it mandatory and we have a problem, fense if that Department chose to object.
if they object to It. That is the question particularly when U.S. technology is ad-
that I would ask the gentleman. vanced two or three stages beyond some ^? 1540
Mr. BINGHAM. Sure. The gentleman foreign country's technology. Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, I
knows DOD has not been overridden by Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, again want to be sure I understand: Your reply
the Secretary of Commerce on any of let me say, the "shall" applies only if and that there would be consideration by
these national security items. the Secretary has, pursuant to this para- aa determination from the Depart-
Mr. COURTER. Mr. Chairman, will graph, established the kind of system ment of Defenseyas to whether or not
the gentleman yield? we are talking about, and that part of it national security interests were to be
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle- is discretionary. served?
man from New Jersey. Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, I Mr. HECKI BINGHAM. Absolutely.
Mr. COURIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of Mrs. . HECKLER. That is the Defense
thank the gentleman for yielding. I have words. Department would decide if the tech-
basically a couple inquiries. (Mrs. HECKLER asked and was given nology had become obsolete from the
First, I think the gentleman said that permission to revise and extend her re- point of view of national security; Is that
this does not mandate the Secretary to marks.) right?
do anything at all. My reading on line Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, I take Mr. BINGHAM. Of course, yes.
17 says, "the latest such increase shall this time'to ask the distinguished chair- _ Mrs. HECKLER. So an operational
be removed from the list." man of the Subcommittee on Interna- precondition to the act of indexing as
That seems to be mandatory, The tional Economic Policy of the Committee it could be implemented under this lan-
word "shall" seems to be mandatory. on Foreign Affairs some questions be- guage would depend upon a judgment by
Second, I would give the gentle- cause I want the legislative history and the Secretary of Defense that the par-
man a chance to respond to both these intent to be as clear as possible on this ticular equipment had become-obsolete
inquiries; in that same area, starting on complex but important piece of legisla- and would not adversely affect our na-
line 15 it reads: tion. And particularly this section of the tional security?
Any such goods or technology which no bill. Mr. BINGHAM. That is correct.
longer meet the performance levels estab. Of course, I begin with the major Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
lished by the latest such inquiries. premise which I believe every Member distinguished gentlewoman yield on that
Nay problem there is that the latest of this House accepts: that the national point?
latest security, in a very literal sense, of our Mrs. HECKLER. I am happy to yield to
such inquiries could very well be a
n in-
crease. in the technology solely within country, is the point of departure from the gentleman from Missouri.
the United States of America. I think in which all of us operate. I certainly would Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I think
Crier to protect, of oto gsub- not want to be a party to compromising the distinguished gentlewoman from
Criers oo the balance order the give ivculb our national security in any way, or in Massachusetts (Mrs. HECKLER) has
bill sta, a tic herthe ofIchord amend- any manner, directly or indirectly. None- brought up a very crucial point and I
dent, we have to make sure that we are theiess, within that context I would like want to direct the Members to the ex-
not we have
or not selling technology we are to suggest that there is nothing of more ception. We will recall that the gentle-
nh giving the lhero, but import in economic terms-in transfer man from New Jersey talked about the
%hich mas, not
nevertheless, of which be
may latest t two or thb ut and exchange in the world today-than mandatory language, "shall," in lines
nev hel
erators ahead of fay be two
rclcgy, the computer. The computer is an im- 16, 17, and 18. Now, let us look at the
govit technology, if you will. If the gen- portant? wave of the future; it travels at exception.
Homan would res and to those two in. a breathtaking rate across all national First, the approach of the committee
p and ideological barriers and boundaries.
quiries. The technology of the computer can be- was to mandate the indexing. Now they
Mr. BINGHAl!?. Mr. Chairman, I car- come obsolete, out of date, very, very have brought in an a ac ep*tiun approach,
tainly would agree with the gentleman quickly. That is what prompts my in- and it xces tike this: unless, unde-
that what is obsolete here is not neces- quiry. such exceptions and under such proce-
in view of dunes as the Secretary yh of prescribe
that obsolete in the Soviet Union. Cer- I wonder, Mr. Chairman, meaning the Secretary of
Commar mer e ce-11 -
tainly the gentleman is correct about the language of this particular section,
that. what Iriechanism the gentleman and his ,any other Government agency objects
The CHAP-MAN. The time of the gen- committee colleagues considered when that the goods the list." logy shall
tleman from New York (Mr. BINGHA T) the requirements in the Indexing provi- not be removed
language gives he S _ _
has expired. sion In the section were adopted. They That language gives the' Secretary of
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bmo,s provide: Commerce the responsibility for deter-
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional in order to ensure that requirements for mining whether this is critical military
minutes.) validated licenses and qualified general li- technology or not. That is-my point. The
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the t
censes are chnologiepesubjecl to suche requigrements Secretary of Defense be doing this is the as or person who should
answer to the first question the gentle- become obsolete with respect to the national Now, they are all working in the inter-
man raises, about the word "shall" in security of the United States, regulations ests of the United States of America, but
line 17, is that that it refers to a sys- issued by the Secretary may, where appro- solely
tom or, set of regulations which the priate, provide for changes- the. Secretary of Commerce dealt
Secretary, under the first sentence of And so forth. with trade. Let me point out again we
are dealing here with export co for
subsection (g), is authorized to estab- My question is., How will the needs of the purpose of protecting thennat onal
lish. In other words, if the Secretary our national security be ascertained? I security of the United States, and that
sets up this kind of a system, which we would like to know what mechanism should be the responsibility of the Sec-
in the Committee would hope that she will be used to determine what or which retary of Defense, not the Secretary of
would be able to do, then the removal of particular licenses are obsolete from the Commerce and not even the Secretary of
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
State. The Secretary of State should be of this, it is subject to U.S. unilateral
Secretary of Commerce should be respon-
sible for trade controls, but the Secre-
tary of Defense should be the one who
is responsible for protecting the military
security and the national security inter-
ests of the United States. My God, let
us start pinpointing responsibilities. This
is a responsibility of the Congress to pin-
point executive responsibility. I think the
gentlewoman has brought up a very cru-
cial point.
Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to respond to my colleague the
gentleman from Missouri.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
McKAY). The time of the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Mrs. HECKLER) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. BINGHAM, and by
unanimous consent, Mrs. HECKLER was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, it
would seem to me that the section is cap-
able of different interpretations, which is
why I asked for this clarification.
In my view, the legislation before us
would make major and necessary policy
and procedural changes in the current
export control process, a process which
has been called "draconian and inflexi-
ble" by U.S. exporters. At the same time,
the legislation will certainly preserve vital
U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests. The net result of H.R. 4034 will
hopefully be the enhancement of legiti-
mate U.S, export trade.
I say "hopefully," Mr. Chairman, be-
cause the utility of the reforms included
in this legislation will be to a great ex-
tent dependent upon subsequent actions
taken by both the' Department of Com-
merce and the Department of Defense.
For example, H.R. 4034 requires the
Secretary of Commerce to develop foreign
availability criteria by regulation. A de-
termination of foreign availability is a
critical aspect of this legislation because
such a determination can trigger the re-
moval of complicated and time-consum-
ing U.S. export controls thereby insuring
that U.S. exporters will be competitive
with their foreign counterparts.
It is my hope that the Commerce
Secretary will insure that these regu-
lations are developed as quickly as pos-
sible, and that the criteria set forth in
those regulations will not be so stringent
that they will be impossible to meet.
It is also my hope that the Department
of Commerce will proceed expeditiously
to reduce the-list of unilaterally con-
trolled items, especially in the area of sci-
entific, industrial, and medical instru-
ments. This is especially troublesome to
exporters in my district because of the
widespread incorporation of microproc-
essors in this type of gquipment.
Let me illustrate why I raise these two
points by one example. The Foxboro Co.,
which is located in my district, manu-
factures an infrared analyzer called the
Foxboro-Wilks 801. This instrument is
used in laboratories to measure the
chemical composition of gas and other
elements. The instrument contains an
Intel 8080 microprocessor and, because
manufactures a multipurpose gas chro-
motograph which competes directly with
the Foxboro infrared analyzer. The Sie-
mans product also contains a microproc-
essor, but the Government of West Ger-
many permits Siemans to ship this
product throughout the world without
any export licensing restrictions.
Typically, it takes Foxboro 4 to 6 weeks
to obtain U.S. Department of Commerce
approval to export its infrared analyzer
because of U.S. licensing requirements.
Siemans, on the other hand, can ship its
product immediately because it is con-
fronted with no export licensing require-
ments. In this highly competitive world,
a delay of 4 to 6 weeks in a company's
ability to deliver a product can mean the
loss of the sale.
I should note that the microprocessor
contained in the Foxboro infrared ana-
lyzer is a "dedicated" microprocessor.
This means that it cannot be repro-
gramed. It should also be noted that the
value of the microprocessor represents
only a minor portion of the value of the
entire instrument.
Representatives from the Scientific
Apparatus Makers Association, of which
Foxboro is a member, recently met with
officials in the Department of Commerce
to discuss this-problem, and I understand
that the Department has begun to look
into it. I hope that the Department will
make rapid progress in resolving this
type of situation. By eliminating these
types of products which contain dedi-
cated microprocessors from the U.S. uni-
lateral control list, licensing officers in
the Commerce Department and those
who review these matters at the Defense
Department will be free to turn their at-
tention to more critical areas of legiti-
mate national security concern.
I ask the chairman of the subcom-
mittee of the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs as to whether or not in the very
operation of the phrase, "national secu-
rity," the determination of obsolescence
would necessarily have to come from the
Department of Defense, and I would
again ask the chairman of the subcom-
mittee as to whether or not he reads the
section as requiring that approach in
agreeing on other items of technology not
within the immediate needs of national
security or within the preferred list for
commerce or commercial approach. I
would ask the chairman to respond to
that inquiry.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I can
respond in this way: That the responsi-
bility for setting up the system so that
we will be sure that items that have be-
come obsolete from the point of view of
national security are at least looked at
in terms of whether they should be
taken off the list is provided. That is
done so as to allow those concerned with
licensing to focus on the important
items, on the items that are important
in national security.
That responsibility in the first sen-
tence lies with the Secretary of Com-
merce to propose regulations to
H 7675
accomplish that. If he or she does that
and then items are proposed to be re-
moved from the list in accordance with
that section, the Secretary of Defense,
can, if he or she chooses, object to their
removal from the list.
The advantage of this is that instead
of leaving the situation exactly as it has
been in the past, with items remaining
for years on the list that should not be
on the list, there is here a proposed
system to make sure that- the unimpor-
tant items are taken off. If we knock
this out of the bill, we leave it just the
way it has been, with an endless num-
ber of items being considered that should
no longer be considered, simply because
the bureaucrats have not enough time
to get around to taking them off. '
Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for his response.
I would say that in this area we have
two interests, the first being the over-
riding one of national security and the
second one that of being realistic in this
ever evolving age of international ex-
change in which the computer is
exchanged and copied by foreign gov-
ernments and foreign organizations and
foreign industries.
Just recently I have been informed
that the People's Republic of China pur-
chased over $100 million worth of com-
puter technology from a French firm.
I think, that even as we meet the needs
of our national security, it is very im-
portant as a matter of overall economic
export policy and American business in-
terests=out balance of payments and
American jobs to allow American firms
to complete and to promote their prod-
ucts. When national security matters are
not at issue it is important that we in no
way hobble or harm the business inter-
ests in our country who have a good
product to sell abroad.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion
that has just gone on indicates that
there is some lack of clarity about the
amendment and just exactly what . it
does.
The provision in the legislation, es-
pecially as compared to the original bill
that was introduced, does leave some
flexibility on when indexing may be in-
stituted. However, once a category is
agreed on for using indexing, it becomes
mandatory that those items be dropped
from the control list unless, under cer-
tain circumstances, another Govern-
ment agency objects. Even that is not
clear because the Secretary of Com-
merce still retains the authority to over-
ride any such objection. The provision
goes on to say: If certain performance
levels are reached, no matter what the
Secretarydetermines might be the situa-
tion for an individual a.gse, would
have to remove it.
Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest that
if we should get into such a situation,
the Secretary of Commerce, if he or she
felt there would be a leak in our military
critical technologies overseas, would ' go
ahead with that.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL
Trible
Whitley
Winn
Volkmer
Whittaker
Wolff
Walker
Whitten
Wydler
Wampler
Williams, Ohio
Wylie
Watkins
Wilson, Bob
Yatron
White
Wilson, C. H.
Young, Fla.
Whitehurst
Wilson, Tex.
Zeferetti
NOES-206
Akaka
Florio
Nedzi
Albosta
Foley
Nelson
Alexander
Ford, Mich.
Nolan
Ambro
Ford, Tenn.
Nowak
Anderson,
Forsythe
O'Brien'
Calif.
Frenzel
Oakar
Andrews, N.C.
V ost
Oberstar
Annunzio
Garcia
Obey
Anthony
Gibbons
Ottinger
Ashley
Glickman
Panetta
Aspin
Gradison
Patten
AuCoin
Gray
Patterson
Baldus
Green
Pease
Barnes
Hall, Ohio
Pepper
Bedell
Hamilton
Perkins
Beilenson
Hanley
Petri
Benjamin
Harkin
Peyser
Bingham
Harris
Preyer
Blanchard
Hawkins
Pritchard'
Boggs
Heckler
Pursell
Boland
Hollenbeck
Railsback
Bolling
Holtzman
Rangel
Bunker
Horton
Ratchford
Brademas
Howard
Reuss
Brodhead
Huckaby
Richmond
Brown, Calif.
Hughes
Ritter
Buchanan
Jacobs
Rodino
Burlison
Jeffords
Roe
Burton, John
Jenrette
Rosenthal
Burton, Phillip Johnson, Calif.
Rostenkowski
Carr
Johnson, Colo.
Russo
Cavanaugh
Jones, Okla.
Scheuer
Clay
Kastenmeter
Seiberling
Clinger
Kildee
Shannon
Coelho
Kogovsek
Sharp
Collins, Ill.
Kostmayer
Simon
Conable
Leach, Iowa
Smith, Iowa
Conte
Lehman
Snows
Conyers
Leland
Solari
Corcoran
Lloyd
Spellman
Carmen
Long, La.
St Germain
Cotter
Lowry
Stack
D'Amours
Luken
Stanton
Danielson
Lundine
Stark
Dannemeyer
McCloskey
Stewart
Daschle
McDade
Stockman
Deckard
McHugh
Stokes
Dellums
McKinney
Studds
Derrick
Maguire
Swift
Dicks
Markey
Synar
Dingell
Marks
Tauke
Dixon
Marlene
Thompson
Donnelly
Matsui
Traxler
Downey
Mattox
Udall
Drinan
Mavroules
Ullman
Early
Mazzoli
Van Deerlin
Eckhardt
Mica
Vanik
Edgar
Mikulski
Vento
Edwards, Calif. Mikva
Walgren
Erdahl
Miller, Calif.
Waxman
Erlenborn
Mlneta
Weaver
Evans, Ind.
Moakley
Weiss
Fary
Moffett
Williams, Mont.
Fascell
Moorhead, Pa.
Wirth
Fazio
Murphy, N.Y.
Wolpe
Fenwick
Murphy, Pa.
Wright
Findley
Myers, Pa.
Yates
Fisher
Natcher
Young, Mo.
Fithian
Neal
Zablocki
NOT VOTING-27
Anderson, Ill.
Dodd
Murphy, Ill.
Applegate
Flood
Price
Beard, R.I.
Giaimo
Roybal
Bonior
Gingrich
Sabo
Cartier
Goldwater
Steed
Cheney
Lederer
Stump
Chisholm
McCormack
Vander Jagt
Derwinski
Madigan
Wyatt
Diggs
Mitchell, Md.
Young, Alaska
?
^ 1600
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Carter for, with Mr. Murphy of Illinois
against.
Mr. Cheney for, with Mr. Lederer against.
Mr. Young of Alaska for, with Mr. Beard
of Rhode Island against.
]ECORD - IH[OU51E IHI 7677
Mr. Gingrich for, with Mr. Mitchell of
Maryland against.
Mr. Goldwater for, with Mrs. Chisholm
against.
Mr. LONG of Maryland and Mr.
VOLKMER changed their votes from
"no" to "aye."
Mr. ALEXANDER changed his vote
from "aye" to "no."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
amendments to section 104?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF OHIO
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MILLER of Ohio.
Page 8, add the following after line 24:
"(3) In issuing rules and regulations to
carry out this section, particular attention
shall be given to the difficulty of devising ef-
fective safeguards to prevent a country that
poses a threat to the security of the United
States from diverting critical technologies
to miltiary use, the difficulty of devising ef-
fective safeguards to protect critical goods,
and the need to take effective measures to
prevent the reexport of critical technologies
from other countries to countries that pose
a threat to the security of the United States.
Such regulations shall not be based upon
the assumption that such effective safe-
guards can be devised.
^ 1610
(Mr. MILLER of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
to successfully implement the critical
technologies approach endorsed by this
bill it is imperative that we, correct an
existing weakness in the current system.
One such loophole concerns so-called
end-use statements and safeguards to
prevent the diversion of technology for
military purposes once it has been trans-
ferred to a controlled nation like the So-
viet Union.
It is often current practice to require
nations receiving American technology
to sign an end-use statement agreeing
that the transfer of goods or technology
will not be diverted for military uses. The
problem with end-use statements and
so-called safeguards is that they are only
cosmetic in nature and do not work. As
the Senator from the State of Washing-
ton recently stated on the floor of the
other body, they provide no protection
against diversion of critical technologies
and goods since, by definition, they con-
sist of know-how or products which
transfer know-how for which safeguards
against diversion cannot be devised. The
diversion of know-how cannot ordinarily
be detected or prevented since it consists
of the transfer of knowledge from one
person to another. Once the transfer of
such critical know-how occurs, it is lost
forever.
Let me set up a hypothetical situation
to illustrate the need for this amend-
ment. Let us assume there is a man whom
you know to be a potential adversary,
and this person is holding a baseball in
one hand and a grenade in the other.
Would you teach this potential adversary
,how to throw the baseball; in other
words, give him the know-how, and then
pray to God that he will not use this
know-how to throw the grenade? I hope
not. But that is exactly what this country
is doing; a promise not to throw the gre-
nade is not enough. In dealing with gov-
ernments like the Soviet Union, we must
assume that if the technology to be ex-
ported can be diverted for military uses
that it will be diverted for military uses.
And as a result, a license application
should not be approved on the basis
"end-use statements" and "safeguards."
In light of the Kama River truck plant
incident, it would 'be totally naive for
the United States to think that safe-
guards are an effective mechanism in
preventing diversion. If the Soviets want
to divert the technology for direct mili-
tary purposes, they will do so, like they
have done with the military truck en-
gines coming out of the Kama River.
This amendment provides that rules
and regulations for the control of critical
technologies and goods reflect the dif-
ficuties associated with end-use state-
ments and safeguards. The amendment
also requires that effective measures be
taken to prevent the re-export of critical
goods and technologies to potential ad-
versary nations when we export them to
friendly nations, which include most
Third World countries as well as our
allies in COCOM.
An amendment such as this was passed
in the other body by'unanimous con-
sent, and met with the approval of the
Commerce Department official monitor-
ing the bill's debate on July 21 of this
year.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman
for yielding and I rise in support of the
amendment.
Let me take this opportunity of thank-
ing the gentleman for all of the work
he has put in in tightening up this bill
and making it a very meaningful bill.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMA'RSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Yes, I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I would like to also commend the gentle-
man for all of his efforts on behalf of
this bill and trying to improve it. I would
like to support the amendment as well.
I think it merely makes explicit what
has been apparent from hearings on ex-
port controls, and that is, as the gentle-
man has already pointed out, safeguards
cannot be devised to prevent the diver-
sion of technology if someone is really
determined to get that technology.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Ohio has ex-
pired.
(At the request of Mr. LAGOMARSINO
and by unanimous consent Mr. MILLER
of Ohio was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. The gentleman's
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 H 7678
amendment, of course, provides that
rules and regulations be developed in
such a way as to prevent reliance on in-
effective safeguards as a means of coun-
tering diversion of technology. I think
it is something that needs to be in the
bill. As the gentleman points out, the
other body included very similar lan-
guage in its version of this bill, -and I
hope it is adopted.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to the
'gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I want
to commend the gentleman in the well,
the gentleman from Ohio, for offering
this amendment. I know the gentleman
from Ohio, along with the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF), have work-
ed long and hard in this area. I would
hope that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM) would accept the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Ohio.
This amendment, I would point out,
might well get rid of the can of worms,
the so-called shambles the Director
testified about before the House Armed
Services Committee.
But we are going to have this problem
if we do not do something about it. We
are going to have it with us for years
to come. I would cite for the Members
of the House the Kama River project.
I know that the gentleman from Ohio
is familiar with tie Kama River project.
I think it is absolutely reprehensible
when NATO is so short, extremely short
of 5-ton trucks that we not only export
trucks, we export a whole turnkey fac-
tory to the Soviet Union at Kama River,
the largest truck plant in the world,
and which has definitely produced
trucks that go into the Soviet military.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Ohio has
again expired.
(At the request of Mr. IcHORD and by
unanimous consent Mr. MILLER of Ohio
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. ICHORD. If the. gentleman will
continue to yield, it has been proven be-
yond a doubt that that truck plant, the
Kama River truck plant has been di-
verted to military uses.
Now, what can we do? It is true that
there were no end-use restrictions placed
upon the Kama River turnkey plant.
That was the problem. No end-use re-
striction. But certainly somebody should
have been thinking about end-use re-
strictions if we are going to transfer a
whole turnkey factory. Again, on top of
that, someone should be thinking about
how we are going to enforce these end-
use restrictions. Are we going -to deny
them support? This is what the bureauc-
racy should be directing their attention
to, and this is what the amendment of
the gentleman from Ohio calls for. I
hope that the manager of the bill will
accept the amendment in order to get rid
of the shambles that we now have in the
administration of the Export Adminis-
tration Act.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER or Ohio. Yes, I yield to
the gentleman from California.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 11., 1979
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I also of reducing the degree to which diversions
want to commend the gentleman in the occur. In fact, if this amendment is
well. I know we have worked together adopted, it might very well discourage the
with two distinguished members of the administration from using safeguards or
majority for over a year on this reexport end use requirements, and that is cer-
problem. The whole nightmare situation tainly not the intention, I am sure, of
in Eiyrope of these critical materials the author of the amendment. But,. that
leaking like a sieve behind the Iron might be the result.
Curtain cannot be overemphasized. One of the areas where end use safe-
When I first met with- COCOM mem- guards are used, and used effectively, is
bers ' in Europe 21/2 years ago they ex- in the utilization of computers, where the
plained to me that people will find state- agreements provide that the vendors of
ments under the COCOM agreements the computers have access, recurrent or
that a third nation will not have access constant access, to the operation of the
to materials that are stacked up in ware- computers to see that they are used for
houses, digital computing equip.nent, the purposes for which they are sold. So,
sensitive transistorized backup hardware safeguards are a necessary and beneficial
and software. part of the total process of trying to see
Then, they go back a month later and
half the warehouses are empty. "Sixty
Minutes," the Nation's No. 1 rated show,
which is always in the top five-it says
something about the viewing habits of
the American people that this hard-hit-
ting factual show outdraws all the situa-
tion comedies and. adventure shows-
"Sixty Minutes" wanted to do a long seg-
ment on the export control problem, and
found out that it is just too difficult to
film. All they have is people describing
how bad the problem is, or they can film-
a full warehouse and come back a few
months later and show the same ware-
house empty.
In spite of the television difficulties of
filming this, we in Congress should cer-
tainly be aware of what Mike Wallace
and his producer, Barry Lando, are aware
of, and should support the gentleman's
amendment. I would hope that the dis-
tinguished chairman, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. BINGHAM) would accept
this amendment in its totality.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I thank the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
I do so with some reluctance, because
I know of the great deal of work that
the gentleman from Ohio has. given to
this topic. The committee and the admin-
istration both are opposed to this amend-
ment because, in essence, it appears to
be an amendment that is against safe-
guards. I ask the question: How can you
be against safeguards?
We are not suggesting, nobody sug-
gests, that these safeguards are absolute
or that they will totally prevent the diver-
sion of items to an unintended use. But
as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
IcxoRD) has just pointed out, the Kama
River deal has been criticized, and maybe
rightly, by many of these same people
because no end use requirements were
incorporated in the deal. When President
Nixon and Secretary Kissinger decided
tp go ahead with the exports to the Kama
River plant, they deliberately did not put
in any provisions to preventthe diversion
of the products of that plant.
So, what we are talking about here
is safeguards in the sense of an effort
.to deter the misuse of the products that
we export to the Soviet Union and to
other Communist countries. As I say,
there is no way in which safeguards can
absolutely prevent diversions, but they.
are a useful device to assist in the process
that we have exports to the Soviet Union
that are beneficial to our industry, but
that do not assist the military potential
of the Soviet Union.
This amendment does not prohibit
them, but the whole effect of the amend-
ment is negative. It would discourage the
use of safeguards, and I urge a negative
vote on the amendment.
Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BINGHAM. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. BONKER. As it relates to the
Kama River case and the statement on
the question of other safeguards, we have
access to the computer there, the results
of which gave us access to the facility.
Mr. BINGHAM. That is correct, yes.
Mr. COURTER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. MILLER).
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. In re-
ply to the chairman's remarks concern-
ing safeguards and end-use statements, I
would like to state that the amendment
will not stop the end-use statements or
safeguards. The amendment wants the
Commerce Department not to rely on a
tag that will be hanging on an article
that says, "We will sell you this article
if you sign this tag stating that you will
not use it for military uses, and use it
back against us."
We do not want someone relying on a
statement, because if it can be used for
military use, and it goes to controlled
nations, they will use it for military use.
We are conveying the message that, in
issuing rules and regulations to carry
out this section,. particular attention
shall be given to the difficulty of devising
effective safeguards to prevent a country
that poses a threat to the security of the
United States from diverting a critical
technology to military use.
We are giving a warning. We certainly
need this section, and safeguards and
end-use statements can certainly be
used, but through the legislative pro-
cess-we want the administration to
know that end-use statements are not
the items that we should rely on com-
pletely in order to turn over our tech-
nology to some other nation that could,
in time, use it back against us.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COURTER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr.. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I
-41
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
thank the gentleman for yielding. Does
the gentleman know of any case in
which a license was granted in which
safeguards were included, and it then
turned out that the safeguards were use-
less and the material was misused or
diverted? Does the gentleman know of
any such case, bearing in mind that in
the Kama River case the majority of
the exportation contained no end-use
restrictions?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. In the Kama
River case there is still a dispute as to
whether there was an end-use certifi-
cate as such, or understanding of an end-
use certificate. I would ask the gentle-
man, whenever we have sent articles on
the basis of end-use would the gentle-
man assure the committee that not one
item has been diverted?
All we want to do is to have our ad-
ministration be alert and aware that
this is not the solution to solving our
problem of transferring our technology.
We do not just want an end-use state-
ment signed, and then say, "Yes, you
can have it; there it is."
There is no assurance whatsoever
once it arrives, that it will not be turned
over for military use.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman
yield briefly further?
Mr. COURTER. I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. As far as. Kama River
ments in the testimony. All I can say is Bereuter
that if there was an intention to pro- Bethune
vide end-use restrictions, they did a Biaggi
Boland
hell of a bad job. As the gentleman from Boner
Missouri just stated, there really were Bouquard
no end-use restrictions. The best they Bowen
could come up with was some vague un- Brinkley
derstanding There was not anything in Broomfield
Gore Markey
Gradison Marks
Gramm ' Marlenee
Grassley Marriott
Grisham Martin
Guarini Matihis
Gudger Mattox
Guyer Mazzola
Hagedorn Mica
Hall, Tex. Michel
Hammer- Miller, Ohio
the documents to show that there were Brown. Ohio Schmidt Mitchell, N.Y.
Broyhill Hance Mollohan
end-use restrictions. Buohanan Hanley Montgomery
But, I agree with the gentleman that Burgener Hansen Moore
safeguards are not absolute. My pur- Butler Harsha Moorhead,
pose in opposing this amendment is that Byron Heckler Calif.
Campbell Hefner Mottl
the amendment will discourage the use Carney Heftel Murphy, N.Y.
of safeguards, and that seems to be Chappell Hightower Murtha
cutting off the nose to spite the face. Clausen Hillis Myers. Ind.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. That is the Cleveland Hinson Natcher
Clinger Hollenbeck Neal
main purpose of the amendment, to at- Coelho Holt Nelson
tempt to show the administration that Collins Tex. Hopkins Nichols
the safeguards are not there when an Conte Howard O'Brien
end-use statement is signed. Corcoran Hubbard Panetta
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Coughlin Huckaby Pashayan
the amendment offered by the gentle- courser Hughes Paul
man from Ohio (Mr. MILLER). Crane, Daniel Hutto Pepper
Crane, Philip Hyde Perkins
The question was taken; and on a di- D?Amours Ichord Petri
vision (demanded by Mr. MILLER of Ohio) Daniel, Dan Ireland Peyser
there were-ayes 20, noes 24. Daniel, R. W. Jeffries Pickle
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, Dannemeyer Jenkins Preyer
Daschle Jenrette Pursell
I demand a recorded vote, and pending Davis, Mich. Johnson, Colo. Quayle
that I make a point of order that a Davis, S za JJones, ones, Okla. C. QQuillen
flhael
quorum is not present. d eckard Jones, Tenn. Railsback
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count Devine Kazen Regula
for a quorum. Dickinson Kelly Rhodes
A quorum is not present. Dicks Kemp Rinaldo
The Chair announces that pursuant to Dornps.n Kit Kindness Ritter
s
ceedings under the call when a quorum Duncan, Tenn. LaFalce Roe
of the committee appears. Members will Edwards, Ala. Lagomarsino Rose
record their presence by electronic de- Edwards, Okla. Latta RostenkO ski
Emery Leach, Iowa Roth
vice. English Leach, La. Rousseiot
The call was taken by electronic device. Erdahl Leath, Tex. Royer
. H 7679
Rudd
Staggers
Wampler
Runnels
Stangeland
Watkins
Russo
Stanton
Weaver
Santini
Steed
White
Satterfield
Stenholm
W hitehunst
Sawyer
Stockman
Whitley
Schroeder
Stratton
Whittaker
Schulze
Symms
Whitten
Sebel.fus
Synar
Williams, Mont.
Sensenbrenner
Tauke
Winn
Sharp
Taylor
Wolff
Shelby
Thomas
Wyatt
Shumway
Traxler
Wydler
Shuster
Treen
Wylie
Slack
Trible
Yates
Smith, Nebr.
Ullman
Yatron
Snowe
Vary Deerlin
Young, Fla.
Snyder
Vander Jagt
Young, Mo.
Solomon
Walgren
Zeferetti
NOES-138
Alexander
Fary
Murphy, Ill.
Ambro
Fascell
Murphy, Pa.
Annunzio
Fazio
Myers, Pa.
Ashley
Fenwick
Nedzi
Aspin
Fisher
Nolan
AuCoin
Flippo
Oakar
Baldus
Ford, Tenn.
Oberstar
Barnard
Forsythe
Obey
Barnes
Frenzel
Ottinger
Bedell
Garcia
Patten
Beilenson
Gephardt
Patterson
Bevill
Gibbons
Pease
Bingham
Ginn
Pritchard
Blanchard
Glickman
Rangel
Boggs
Gonzalez
Ratchford
Bolling
Gray
Reuss
Bonior
Green
Richmond
Bonker
Hall, Ohio
Rodino
Brademas
Hamilton
Rosenthal
Brodhead
Harkin
Harris
Scheuer
Seiberling
.
Brown, Calif. Hawkins
Shannon
Burlison Holtzman
Simon
Burton, John Jacobs
Skelton
Burton, Phillip Jeffords
Smith, Iowa
Carr Johnson, Calif
. Solarz
Cavanaugh Kastenmeler
Spellman
Chisholm Kildee
St Germain
Clay Kogovsek
Stack
Collins, Ill. Lehman
Stark
Conable Leland
Stewart
Conyers Long, La.
Stokes
Corman Lowry
Studds
Danielson Lundine
Swift
Dellums McHugh
Thompson
Derrick McKinney
Udall
Dingell Maguire
Vanik
Dixon Matsui
Vento
Dodd Mavroules
Volkmer
Mikulski
Waxman
Downey Mikva
Weiss
Drinan Miller, Calif.
Williams, Ohio
Early Mineta
Wirth
Eckhardt Moakley
Wolpe
Edgar Moffett
Wright
Edwards, Calif. Moorhead, Pa.
Zablocki
NOT VO7ING-2S
Anderson, Ill.
Foley
Roybal
Applegate
Ford, Mich.
Sabo
Beard, R.I.
Gingrich
Stump
Carter
Holland
Wilson, Bob
Cheney
Lederer
Wilson, C. H.
Cotter
McCormack
Wilson, Tex.
Derwinskl
Minish
Young, Alaska
Diggs
Mitchell, Md.
Flood
Price
^ 1650
The Clerk announced
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Bob Wilson
against.
Mr. Derwinski for, with Mr. Beard of Rhode
Island against.
Mr. Carter for, with Mr. Mitchell of Mary-
land against.
Messrs. BUTLER, PREYER,
D'AMOURS, PEPPER, and WEAVER
changed their vote from "no" to "aye."
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
^ 1640
QUORUM CALL VACATED
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Mem-
bers have appeared. A quorum of the
Committee of the Whole is present.
Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, fur-
ther proceedings. under the call shall be
considered as vacated.
The Committee will resume its busi-
ness.
The pending business is the demand
of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MILLER) for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 271, noes 138,
not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 457]
AYES-271
Abdnor Erlenborn Lee
Addabbo Ertel Lent.
Akaka , Evans. Del. Levitas'
Albosta Evans, Ga. Lewis
Anderson, Evans, Ind. Livingston
Calif. Ferraro Lloyd
Andrews, N.C. Findley Loeffler
Andrews, Fish Long, Md.
N. Dak. Fithian Lott
Anthony Florio Lujan
Archer Fountain Luken
Ashbrook Fowler Lungren
Atkinson Frost McClory
Badham Fuqua McCloskey
Bafalis Gaydos McDade
Bailey Giaimo McDonald
Bauman Gilman McEwen
Beard, Tenn. Goldwater ' McKay
Benjamin Goodling Madigan
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
H 7680
Ms. HOLTZMAN changed her vote
from "aye" to "no."
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above reported.
^ 1700
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I rise at this point in the bill to inquire
of the chairman whether my under-
standing is correct that, the imposition
of constraints and criteria upon the use
of export controls for foreign policy pur-
Poses. would not, and is not intended by
the committee, in any way to tie the
hands of the President in time of crisis.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is correct. H.R. 4034 would not
prevent the President from imposing ex-
port controls quickly in response to un-
predictable foreign policy crises, such as
attempts to develop a nuclear weapons
capability, support for international ter-
rorism, extreme violations of human
rights, or imminent threats of regional
military conflict. Nor would it prevent
continuation of such controls once im-
posed. On the contrary, it encourages the
President to make decisions on export
licenses without excessive delay. Pursu-
ant to section 112, H.R. 4034 would not
limit authority to control items of signifi-
cance for nuclear explosive purposes. For
such items the special procedures called
for by section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act of 1978 would apply.
With respect to other items:
(1) the criteria listed in section 6(b) and
referred to in section 6(e) (2) are factors to
be considered but are not conditions which
must be met-in any given situation, one,
several, or all of them might be irrelevant;
(2) consultation with industry called for
by section 6(c) and referred to in section
6(e)(3) might not be appropriate in some
circumstances;
(3) reasonable efforts to achieve the pur-
poses of controls through alternative means,
as called for by section 6(d) and referred to
in section 6(e) (4), need not delay the im-
position of controls in a crisis. Under urgent
circumstances there may be few, if any,
feasible alternative means to pursue.
(4) the President would have discretion to
determine what steps were feasible to secure
the cooperation of other governments per
section 6(h).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
eign policies relating to export trade or na-
tional security requests the Secretary, the
Secretary of Defense, or any Federal depart-
ment or agency, to submit a record with
respect to any action taken under this Act
concerning the administration of export con-
trols for national security purposes, the Sec-
retary, Secretary of Defense, or Federal de-
partment or agency, as the case may be, shall
so submit such record within ten days after
the request Is made.
"(2) In order to comply with any request
described in paragraph (1)..the Secretary,
Secretary of Defense, or any other Federal de-
partment or agency participating in any
action taken pursuant to this Act (including
the approval or disapproval of a validated li-
cense application) concerning the adminis-
tration of export controls for national se-
curity purposes, shall retain, for at least five
years after the action is completed, a com-
plete record with respect to such participa-
tion, including the following, as appro-
priate:
(A) With respect to a technology or good
involved in the action-
"(I) the technical facts upon which the
action was based, including (,but not. limited
to) the nature and strategic importance of
the technology or good, and the analysis of
such facts,
"(ii) the extent of the technological lead
of the United States,
"(iii) foreign availability of such tech-
nology or good, and,
" (iv) the safeguards against the transfer of
the technology involved to a controlled coun-
try.
"(B) Material factual and policy issues.
"(C) Each department or agency which
participated in the action and the recom-
mendations of such department or agency
with respect to the action.
"(D) 'Such other information as is neces-
sary and appropriate to an understanding
of the action.
" (3) For purposes of this subsection, the
term 'controlled country' means any com-
munist country as defined in section 620(f)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.".
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I want
to applaud the efforts of the dis-
tinguished gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM) for including a section in
H.R. 4034 requiring the keeping of rec-
ords pertaining to applications for export
licenses. This legislative proposal is ex-
cellent so far as it goes; but in all respect
I do not think it goes far enough.
The language of H.R. 4034 pertains
only to license applications. What are
more important, from the standpoint of
general policy, are the profesisonal and
administrative decisions as to how and
why certain goods and technologies are est truck facility in the world. Today. the
controlled under this act. My amend- Defense Department reports trucks from
ment provides for a complete set of rec- this plant are regularly seen with Com-
ords, specifying the technical, strategic, munist military units throughout East-
and foreign policy considerations which em Europe.
entered into the granting or denial of li- This amendment will help clear up ad-
cen
M
ses.
y amendment mandates the ministrative confusion, clarify what is
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, maintenance of those records for at least expected in the assembling and main-
I thank the gentleman from New York 5 years, and also provides for relevant tenance of adequate and complete rec-
(Mr. BINGHAM) and I yield back the bal- congressional committee acquisition of ords, and foster a consistency of ap-
ance of my time. those records with in a period of 10 days proach within the executive branch of
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DORNAN of a committee request. the Government in regard to these deci-
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer The object of my amendment is to sions. It is only in this way that Members
an amendment. simply strengthen the quality of con- of Congress and responsible officials
The Clerk read as follows: gressional oversight over the entire ex- within the executive branch can ascer-
Amendnient offered by Mr. DORNAN: page Port license application and control sys- tain whether or not a particular action
22, insert the following after line 2: tem. Congress must exercise this over- on an export license is justified by the
"(1) SUBMISSION OF RECORDS TO CONGRESS.- sight over the operation of agency rules facts, and is consistent with the legisla-
(1) In any case in which any committee or and regulations in order to determine if tive intentions of the Congress.
subcommitte of either House of Congress those rules comply with original con- Mr. Chairman, I ask for adoption of
which has jurisdiction over domestic or for- gressional intent. I am sure there would the amendment.
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979
be much less confusion within the execu-
tive branch if the Congress were to spec-
ify what it considers important in the
license application process.
Even more important is our own abil-
ity to monitor the performance of the
executive agencies and departments '
which participate in the licensing proc-
ess. On May 15, 1979, the House Sub-
committee on Research and Develop-
ment of the Armed Services Committee,
chaired by the distinguished gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. IcHORD), opened a
series of hearings on. our export control
policies. I sat in on many of them. After
21/2 weeks of hearings, Congressman
ICHORD discovered disturbing evidence of
administrative confusion, if not down-
right 'deception and/or incompetence,
within the administration on the issue of
export licenses and control. According
to a recently published statement by my
distinguished colleague, there were at-
tempts to control witnesses before the
subcommittee; witnesses gave conflicting
testimony; witnesses changed state-
ments between appearances; and, most
shocking of all, one witness stated he had
been instructed to make sure his testi-
mony would not conflict with that of his
superiors, an instruction that he clearly
translated, again to use the chairman's
language, as a "veiled threat to his job."
I agree with the gentleman from Mis-
souri that the condition of information-
possibly the condition of truth-in the
executive branch is in an amorphous, in-
coherent, and confused state-a "typical
bureaucratic maze."
When calling upon the executive
branch, whether it is the Department of
Commerce or the Department of Defense
or any other agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment, the Congress cannot afford to
waste time taking testimony or in ana-
lyzing confusion over matters of fact and
postmistake rationalizations of export
control policy. From the standpoint of
hindsight, it would have been much bet-
ter for all concerned if Congress.had had
access to a complete set of records on the
Cyber 76 case in 1977, the sale of the
Centalign B ball-bearing machines in
1972, or the records pertaining to the
licensing of American firms who provided
as much as $1.5 billion in construction
technology to the Soviet Union's massive
Kama River truck plant, now the larg-
 ' Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
^ 1710
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. DORNAN)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. IcxoRD and by
unanimous consent, Mr. DORNAN was al-
lowed to proceed for 3 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, the dis-
tinguished gentleman from California
mentioned my name and the hearings
the Armed Service Committee conducted
on H.R. 3216 and the problems that we
encountered in obtaining information,
particularly from the Department of
Commerce.
The gentleman is correct.
I was concerned. I do not know who
exactly is to blame. I thought the at-
tempts to muzzle the witnesses was real-
ly very silly and hurt the cause, their
own cause, rather than helped it.
The gentleman is correct. One witness,
Dr. Ruth Davis, did have her testimony
censored, in which she was to give what
was thought to be opinion testimony in
regard to possible diversions of this dual
technology that had been transferred to
our potential adversaries.
I have not had the opportunity to read
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from California. I think that I do
agree with the objectives, but I do raise
the question: Is the gentleman sure that
he is not going to impose too much rec-
ordkeeping responsibilities upon the
agencies?
Mr. DORNAN. That is a good objec-
tion. I anticipated this as one of the seri-
ous objections to this amendment, be-
cause most of us in this Chamber are
properly upset about the bureaucratic
maze that has inundated our Nation-1
million forms a week saying there is
nothing to report.
However, as the gentleman has em-
phasized over and over, if ever there was
an area that needed proper, careful
analytical reporting, it is this area of
technology transfer. In the amendment,
if I might say, I have asked that the gen-
tleman's staff take a look at it, the staff
of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
WOLFF) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. MILLER), and I think it has been
very fair and cost-accounting conscious
in the number of reports that it does re-
quire. I think it just backs up what the
gentleman's other amendments have
done in making this an area of serious
concern to both the Commerce Depart=
ment, the Defense Department, this Con-
gress and the executive branch, so that
we all play a role in what goes over to
people who might use it against us in,
God forbid, another major conflict.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gen-
tleman from California did not have the
opportunity to let us consider this
amendment in advance. It has just
reached my desk here. It raises a num-
ber of questions along the lines raised
by the gentleman from Missouri. There
are thousands and thousands of export
applications that are filed every year. If
these detailed requirements are applica-
ble to those, we are going to have to ap-
propriate more funds for the department
to cope with the flood of paper.
I could appreciate the gentleman's
concern with wanting this information
with respect to the Kama. River truck
project, but that is 1 in 10,000 in terms of
its importance, in terms of its signifi-
cance. There are 80,000 applications for
licenses submitted to the Department
every year, and I think this is just going
to bury them in a flood of paper. I doubt
very much that the Congress is going to
make use of it or any substantial por-
tion of it.
We have added to the bill provisions
which make clear that none of the pro-
visions of confidentiality which we will
be discussing later, and which have al-
ways been in the act, prevent the sub-
mission of all necessary information to
congressional committees. I might just
read that provision:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed-as
authorizing the withholding of information
from Congress, and all information obtained
at any time under this Act or previous Acts
regarding the control of exports, including
any report or license application required
under this Act, shall be made available upon
request to any committee or subcommittee
of Congress of appropriate jurisdiction.
So there is no question that Congress
has access to the information. The only
question is whether there is need for this
type of detailed information to be kept
on all of the many thousands of appli-
cations.
In terms of governmental economy and
trying to eliminate the spread of the
bureaucracy, in the form in which it
has been submitted to us I am con-
strained to oppose the amendment.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I have some concerns about this amend-
ment, as well.
What we are trying to achieve with
export controls is a question of balanc-
ing controls on the one hand and our
interest in promoting exports. I am con-
cerned that this amendment might go
too far the other way. It could deter ex-
ports to such an extent that our national
interest could be harmed-and I am sure
this is not what the gentleman intends
and maybe it would not be the way it
would work out-just because DOD
would not want to become involved with
all of the paperwork.
So there is the possibility, at least in
some cases, that it would not exercise
its option to review licenses for national
security purposes. I hope that would not
happen, but it is certainly a possibility.
My amendment in committee provided
for complete access to records by Con-
gress, so that need is already taken
care of.
I am concerned that this amendment
might be counterproductive. I am con-
vinced, even though I have only served
on this subcommittee for a short period
of time, that we are going to continue to
hold very extensive oversight hearings
and, should-it come to our attention that
the records are not being kept ade-
quately or that proper information is not
being provided for, we certainly can
come back to the floor and ask that the
law be changed to require it.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, in our
analysis of.this amendment we were very
careful to make sure that it was so spe-
cific that it would deal with less than 1
percent of total U.S. trade. What this
amendment specifies, on the types of rec-
ords to be maintained, is only the tech-
nical facts upon which a license applica-
tion was denied, the extent of the tech-
nological need of the United States on
this particular item, the foreign avail-
ability of the technology, the safeguards
of the technology to a controlled coun-
try, and any other information appropri-
ate to an understanding of license ap-
plication decisions.
The distinguished chairman said that
he doubted that Congress would use this
information. I know I personally would
use it, because I have made this an area
of expertise in my office for 2 years and
8 months.
I have talked with many staffers on
both the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and the Defense Committee, who would
absolutely use this, and, in talking to
many Defense people, honestly, I say to
my distinguished colleague, I have not
had one Department of Defense person
say that they would not be eager to keep
records in this way and to keep us in-
formed, because they feel they have been
overridden by the State Department.
And I say that this happened under a
Republican administration several times,
particularly with computers.
So I would hope that the gentleman
would consider supporting this, and I am
sure that it will be discussed in confer-
ence committee. I have already talked to
the chairman who will be on this com-
mittee, and he said that all of this will
be hammered out in the conference com-
mittee.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I thank the gen-
tleman for his remarks.
^ a720
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from California (Mr. DORNAN).
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. DORNAN)
there were-ayes 14, noes 16.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice and there were-ayes 109, noes 296,
not voting 29, as follows:
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
September 11, 1979 CONGR]ESS][ONAL RECORD- HOUSE
tary shall take such steps as may be
necessary to verify such availability
within some time frame?
Mr. BINGHAM. Yes. Certainly we ex-
pect the Secretary to focus attention on
such a recommendation as quickly as
possible and certainly within a reason-
able time frame.
Mr. MINETA. Assuming that a
technical advisory committee or com-
pany does certify to the Secretary of
Commerce that foreign availability does
exist, is it your intent that the Secretary
advise the Congress of such an allega-
tion-whether or not acted upon-in the
annual report to the Congress required
by section 14(6) ?
Mr. BINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. MINETA. I thank the gentle-
man very much.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution and for his kind
remarks.
0 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment that was of-
fered by the gentleman from Missouri,
the'chairnian of the House Armed Serv-
ices Research and Development Sub-
committee.
First, I would like to commend Mr.
IcxoRD for his role in bringing to our
attention the fact that the current
system of export control is seriously
deficient in insuring, our national
security objectives. H.R. 4034 goes a long
way in improving upon the Export Con-
trol Act of 1969-it is a good bill, but it
falls a little short in assuring that tech-
nology and goods that are vital to our
national security are not prematurely
transferred to our potential adversaries.
The amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri simply requires the
Secretary of Defense to develop a list
of military critical technologies-the
transfer of which would jeopardize our
national security. This list of military
critical technologies would then become
part of the commodity control list and
would be sufficiently specific to guide the
determination of the Secretary of Com-
merce or any official exercising licensing
responsibility, over this act.
The need to define and control critical,
technology and goods dates back several
years.
In 1976, a Defense Science Board was
convened to address the matter of U.S.
technology export. This panel, under the
direction of Dr. Fred Bucy, president of
Texas Instruments, concluded, and I
quote:
While Defense does not have the primary
responsibility for control of technology ex-
port, the task force believes the initiatives
for developing policy objectives and strate-
gies for controlling specifCc technologies are
their responsibility.
On May 17, 1979, Mr. William Root,
Director of East-West Trade, State De-
partment, advised Mr. IcxoRD's subcom-
mittee that-
The Department of Defense is the best
equipped place to evaluate the military
significance of any particular technology.
Mr. Chairman, we have made a num-
ber of serious mistakes especially during
the past 5 years in allowing some of our
more critical technology and goods to be
transferred to the Soviet Union. Most re-
cently, we transferred some very special
oil drilling technology to the Soviets.
While I would not oppose the sale of drill
bits to the Soviet Union, I do strongly
oppose the transfer of advanced manu-
facturing technology to them.
I want to make sure that we do not re-
peat our past mistakes. We must have a
better export control system to serve our
security objectives.
At this time the Soviets are most
anxious to get U.S. computers and semi-
conductor technology. Their attempt to
acquire our technology has been both
legal and illegal.
No legislation, H.R. 4034 included, will
provide 100 percent assurance against
the transfer of U.S. technology to our
potential adversaries. Effective legisla-
tion, however, will serve to lengthen the
time it takes for them to acquire our
technology and . goods.
I believe that while H.R. 4034, the bill
before us today, enhances the export-
control process, it must be strengthened
to preserve our national security. The
amendment offered by Mr. ICHORD adds
the necessary strength to this bill and I
strongly agree with its adoption.0
0 Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, at
a time of dollar inflation, a serious
deficit in international trade, and the
need to maintain our vital alliances
abroad, the administration of U.S. ex-
port policy is a particularly important
issue.. It has long been a serious ques-
tion and is even more so now.
The Export Administration Act (H.R.
4034) recognizes the importance of ex-
ports to the U.S. economy but maintains
certain restrictions on those exports for
reasons of national security, foreign
policy, and short supply at home. It is
essential that the administration have
an instrument that provides flexibility
in dealing with our trading partners;
economic leverage to help redress' the
imbalances that adversely affect our
exports.
Of particular interest to American
exporters is the bill's provisions to im-
prove export licensing procedures and
reduce the oppressive bureaucratic re-
strictions that impede the flow of
exports.
Also, a necessary and just decision has
been made by the Congress in this bill
in its recognition of the profound
changes .that have taken place in
Uganda. There is hope from all quarters
that the long, dark travail of Uganda's
holocaust is at last at an end. The orgy
of death and destruction inflicted on
Uganda by Field Marshal Idi Amin is
finally over. It is logical for us to help
that unfortunate country restore itself.
Hopefully, much of this task can be
accomplished through church organiza-
tions; Christian missionaries-those who
were not butchered by that African
despot,-Amin-have been a traditionally
strong element in Ugandan society, par-
ticularly in the area of education. More-
over, religious and charitable organiza-
tions, such as Catholic Relief Services,
CARE, Protestant church groups, and
many private voluntary organizations
have'long experience and excellent rec-
ords for success in emergency humani-
IIII 7683
tarian relief programs such as are now
needed in Uganda.
This bill is an appropriate vehicle for
lifting U.S. trade sanctions rightly im-
posed by Congress against the viciously
totalitarian regime of Idi Amin. The
legislative fight for those sanctions, in-
cidentally, appropriate at the time, was
led by our colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. PEASE) over the initial opposi-
tion of the administration, which "in
principle" opposed trade sanctions in
general, although it has fought long and
hard-and successfully, thus far-to
maintain U.S. sanctions against another
African government, the newly elected
regime of Bishop Abel Muzorewa in
Zimbabwe.O
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the, Speaker pro tempore (Mr. BRADE-
MAS) having assumed the chair, Mr.
SEIBERLING, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 4034) to provide for continuation
of authority to regulate exports, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolu-
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the Presi-
dent of the United States was communi-
cated to the ]Mouse by Mr. Chirdon, one
of his secretaries.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE TO SIT DURING 5-
MINUTE RULE ON WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 12, 1979
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the House Committee
on Agriculture may sit tomorrow,
Wednesday, September 12, 1979, during
consideration under the 5-minute rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Washington?
There was no objection.
DELETION OF NAME FROM LIST OF
COSPONSORS ON H.R. 5050
Mrs. FENWICK. Mr. Speaker, I was
erroneously listed as a cosponsor on the
bill H.R. 5050, and ask unanimous con-
sent that my name be deleted from the
list of cosponsors on that bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
woman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
REPORT ON PROJECTED DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT SPENDING-MES-
SAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
96-184)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-
fore the House the following message
from the President of the United States,
which was read and, without objection,
referred to the Committee of the Whole
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
 Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5
IIII 7684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-]HOUSE September 11, 1979
House on the State of the Union and
ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am sure you agree with me that we
cannot effectively safeguard U.S. legiti-
mate interests abroad nor pursue safely
peace, justice and order at home unless
our national security is protected by ade-
quate defenses. The fundamental respon-
sibility of the President-a responsibility
shared with Congress-is to maintain
defenses adequate to provide for the na-
tional security of the United States. In
meeting that responsibility, this Admin-
istration moved promptly and vigorously
to reverse the downward trend in U.S.
defense efforts. This is demonstrated by
an examination of the trends` in real de-
fense expenditures since the mid 1960s.
At NATO Summits in May 1977 and 1978
we persuaded our allies to join with us
in endorsing a goal three percent real
annual growth in defense outlays and an
ambitious Long Term Defense Program
for the Alliance. Together these repre-
sented a turning point, not only for the
United States, but the whole Alliance.
For our part, we moved promptly to
act on this resolve. We authorized pro-
duction of XM-1 tanks; we greatly in-
creased the number of anti-tank guided
missiles; we deployed F-15s and addi-
tional F-ills to Europe, along with
equipment for additional ground forces.
We reduced the backlog of ships in over-
haul and settled contractual disputes
that threatened to halt shipbuilding
progress. In strategic systems, we accel-
erated development and began procure-
ment of long range air-launched cruise
missiles, began the deployment of Tri-
dent I missiles, and have begun the mod-
ernization of our ICBM force with the
commitment to deploy the MX missile in
a survivable basing mode for it.
These and other initiatives were the
building blocks for a determined pro-
gram to assure that the United States re-
mains militarily strong. The FY 1980
budget submission of last January was
designed to continue that program. In
subsequent months, however, inflation
has run at higher levels than those as-
sumed in the cost calculations associated
with that defense program. Accordingly,
I plan to send promptly to the Congress
a defense budget amendment to restore
enough funds to continue in FY.1980 to
carry out the Administration's defense
program based on our current best esti-
mate of the inflation that will be ex-
perienced during the fiscal year. Al-
though the detailed calculations needed
to prepare an amendment are still in
progress, I expect that the amount of the
amendment will be about $2.7 billion in
Budget Authority above the Administra-
tion's January 1979 budget request.
Correcting for inflation is not enough
In Itself to assure that we 'continue an
edequate defense program through FY
1980. We must also have the program and
$130.6 billion in outlays. I will also re-
quest that the Congress support the Ad-
ministration's FY 1980 defense program
and, in particular, that the Appropria-
tion Committees actually appropriate the
funds needed to carry it out.
Furthermore, in FY 1981 I plan P. fur-
ther real increase in defense spending.
The Defense Department is working on
the details of that budget. It would,
therefore, be premature to describe the
features of that budget beyond noting
that it will continue the broad. thrust of
our defense program, and that I intend
to continue to support our mutual com-
mitment with our NATO Allies.
While this defense program is ade-
quate, it is clear that we could spend
even more and thereby gain more mili-
tary capability. But national security in-
volves more than sheer military capa-
bility; there are other legitimate de-
mands on our budget resources. These
competing priorities will always be with
us within the vast array of budget deci-
sions both the Congress and the Presi-
dent are called upon to make. Defense
outlays are actually lower in constant
dollars than they were in 1963, and a
much lower percentage of the gross na-
tional product (5% compared with 9%).
There are those that think this has
caused a decline in American military
might and that the military balance has
now tipped against us. I do not believe
this to be so, but I am concerned about
the trends. I believe that it is necessary
for us to act now to reverse these trends.
The Secretary of Defense will be pre-
senting to the Congress over the coming
months the highlights of our defense pro-
gram in terms of the goals we think we
should achieve and the Five-Year De-
fense Program we plan to achieve them.
In this context he will point out, among
many other items, how MX and our
other strategic programs will contribute
to the maintenance of. essential equiv-
alence between the central strategic
forces of the United States and Soviet
Union; how we plan to modernize theater
nuclear forces in cooperation with our
NATO allies, how our general purpose
forces programs contribute both to our
military capability to support our NATO
allies and rapidly to deploy forces to de-
fend our vital interests elsewhere.
That presentation can serve as the
basis for future discussions (including
open testimony) that will allow us to
build the national consensus that is the
fundamental prerequisite of a strong and
secure America.
JIMMY CARTER.
The WHITE HOUSE, September 11, 1979.
^ 1210
REPUBLICANS, RUSSIANS, AND
CUBA
(Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was
given permission to address the House?
ignore the realities of history, reveal a
callous indifference toward the need for
responsibility from a former president,
and uselessly complicate the execution
of U.S. policy.
The former President knows, or should
know, of the secret deals made by Secre-
tary Rogers and President Nixon in the
latter part of 1970, when there was a
sharp increase in the concentration of
Russian troops on that island. There is
nothing new about Russian troops there;
the revelations of the past few days are
not news at all. This entire episode is
intended- merely to embarrass a Presi-
dent who appears vulnerable.
Everyone knows, or should know, that
Cuba is hardly an independent state.
Cuba is and has for years been at the
beck and call of its Russian masters.
Cuba is financed by the Russians, it is
organized by them, and its policies are
evolved in clear response to the demands
of Moscow. None of that is new. The so-
called brigade is not new, either, nor
does its presence make any difference in
the servile condition of the Cuban Gov-
ernment. If that island had the inde-
pendence of spirit of even the weakest
canary, all it need ao is ask the Russian
troops to leave. Would they do so? It
is a question that can be raised best with
Havana. Why do they need the Rus-
sians? Do they really want them there?
For ourselves the questions to ask are
what about the deals that have been
made not by this but by previous admin-
istrations to accomodate the Russians
in Cuba? For accommodation there has
been, and it has been there at least since
1970.
If we have concerns, let us speak to
them in truth and in good conscience.
That is assuredly the least we should ex-
pect from a man like Mr. Ford.
As to Castro, my immediate concern
is that the United States should dis-
courage him from his projected plans
to visit New York. Our Government
should let him know that there are
serious threats against him, and that
there is no assurance that he could be
protected while here. We cannot protect
our own judges. Mr. Castro may have to
be admitted to the environs of the
United Nations, as would any other head
of state, even one as servile as he. But
our Government has an obligation to in-
form such vistors of any threat to their
safety. Mr. Castro is threatened, and
he should not come here, for there is no
assurance that he could be protected.
FULL UTILIZATION OF NEW
MELONES RESERVOIR
(Mr. SHUMWAY asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. SHUMWAY. Mr. Speaker, I stand
before my colleagues today to apprise
them of a situation within my congres-
sional district.
There exists a dam on the Stanislaus
River which was authorized in 1962 by
the 87th.Congress. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is nearing completion of the
construction phase and the project's
management will soon be turned over to
.evwe teuu rxbeYl(1
substantially as they were submitted. his remarks.)
Therefore, In the course of Congressional Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, former
consideration of the second budget reso- President Ford has uttered remarks
lution, I will support ceilings for the Na- about the presence of Russian troops in
tional Defense Function for FY 1980 of Cuba that are calculated to gain politi-
$141.2 billion in Budget Authority and cal advantage. But those same remarks
Approved For Release 2008/12/05: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030009-5