EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1979

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 20
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 2008
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: September 21, 1979
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

H 8300
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
cide they do not want any pay raise for
r
anybody, they have that opportunity,
What I want to impress upon the Mem-
bers is the necessity of adopting the con-
tinuing resolution. There are three mat-
ters which absolutely must be adopted
before October 1 or this Government be-
gins to falter. Let us not fall by the
e
weight of our intransigence.
One of those that must be adopted by
that date is this continuing resolution
Another is the question of the debt limit
g
The third is the need for implementing
legislation to permit the United States
to continue to exercise an influence and
protect the rights and interests of the
e
United States in the operation of the
Panama Canal.
k
Unless those three are passed, I think
this House has' an obligation to the peo-
ple of the United States to forego the
e
home district work period scheduled for
the early part of October and to remain
n
on the job until we have done those three
ee
things that are so essential to the or-
derly continuance of this Government.
So I urge the Members to vote for this
rule, and when this continuing resolu-
rs
tion comes before us and the Members
y
have worked their will, whatever it may
be, to support the continuing resolution.
I urge them then to support the exten-
sion of the debt limit, and finally to sup-
port the implementing legislation tha
t
permits the United States to have a con-
tinuing hand until the year 2000 In the
operation of the Panama Canal; Until
it
those things are done, we give a poor
account of ourselves.
I have greater faith in the Members
of this House than to believe that we
will go home having failed in our duty
to the Nation and to the people who sent
us here to be their stewards.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 2 minutes.
Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman
from Maryland.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, a member
of the staff just informed me that If this
rule is adopted today, and I have no
objection to the rule, that we-may not
take up the continuing resolution and
consider it today. Is that true?
The SPEAKER. I would respond to the
gentleman that the answer is in the af-
firmative. The continuing resolution will
be brought up on Tuesday.
Mr. BAUMAN. On Tuesday?
The SPEAKER. Yes. We will go right
into Mr. BINGHAM'S resolution and I hope
we can complete it today.
Mr. BAUMAN. If the gentleman will
yield further, if we are not going to bring
up the continuing resolution, then what
is all of this talk about the rush to
pass all of these things?
Mr. LATTA. Let me say to the gentle-
man man that that is news to me.
Mr. BAUMAN. I think the I House
ought to at least know what is going on,
it seems to me.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move
he previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered. .
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
le.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. Before the Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM) I would say I hope the
Members appreciate that the House will
adjourn at 1 o'clock today, in view of the
fact that beginning at 5 o'clock it is a
eligious holiday for some people and
e Members. In order to give them an
rtunity to get to their homes, the
e will adjourn at 1 o'clock.
listened to my good friend from Texas. 1\
Let me say that I join with him in urging
the House to adopt this rule and adopt it
very quickly.
I do not know of a fairer rule that
could be reported out by the Rules Com-
mittee for all sides than this rule we now
have under consideration, because it is a
completely open rule on the subject of
compensation. Whether you are for or
against a pay raise, this is taken care of.
There is no use, as we have done many,
many times in the past in this House, in
wasting valuable time of this House in
having a rollcall on a rule that is open to
everybody. I think it is high time we
stopped wasting time and we get on with
the business of the House.
There are two other things that the
distinguished majority leader men-
tioned about the work of this House. We
could expedite it as far as the budget is
concerned by reducing the budget that
was rejected by the House, and we could
also take care of that debt limit by
taking out the Gephardt amendment
that I am sure caused a lot of contro-
versy. We could reduce the amount, 'and
we could pass it very rapidly.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
^ 11.10
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1979
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move
at the House resolve itself into the
C4bmrnittee '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 'ontinuation of authority to
regulate exports, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. BINGHAM).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill H.R. 4034, with
Mr. YATES, Chairman pro tempore, in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When
the Committee of the Whole rose on
Tuesday, September 18, 1979, the Clerk
had read through line 24 on page 49.
Are there further amendments to sec-
tion 113?
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
(Mr. BINGHAM asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, once
again I appeal to the Members to be
cooperative. It is essential that we finish
this bill by 1 o'clock today. Otherwise,
we are going to get completely shunted
aside next week by the obvious problems
that face us. I can assure Members that
as manager of the bill I will be as con-
ciliatory as possible In accepting amend-
ments that I may not be too happy with,
but that I think we can work out in
conference.
I have already worked out one such
arrangement with Mr. DosrtAN, and I
think I can work out such an arrange-
ment with Mr. MILLER. We will have the
Dannemeyer amendment which deserves
discussion, but in view of the fact that
I think the outcome of that amendment
is perfectly clear and the gentleman can-
not prevail with that amendment, I think
that after an initial speech of 5 min-
utes in favor and an opposing speech by,
presumably, Mr. MCKINNEY in opposi-
tion, there should be a limitation of time
of 10 or 15 minutes in which Members
can get permission to revise and extend
their remarks and get on the record in
opposition to or in favor of that amend-
ment.
There is the amendment to be offered
by Mr. PRYOR, with a substitute to be
offered by Mr. DORNAN. That may take
about a half hour in into. I think we can
finish this, but it will take a maximum,,
of cooperation from the Members. I
would urge the Members, please, unless
it is absolutely necessary, not to seek
record votes. If we can keep the Members
on the floor and proceed by voting by
division, I think we,can conclude.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DORNAN
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DORNAN: Page
49, line 13, insert "(1)" after "(b)".
Page 49, insert the following after line 20:
"(2) Any person who is issued a validated
license under this act for the export of any
good or technology to a controlled country
and who, with knowledge that such a good
or technology is being used by such con-
trolled country for military or intelligence-
gathering purposes willfully fails to report
such use to the Secretary of Defense, shall
be fined the sum equal to the amount of
gross profit accrued from the sale of the
item or $100,000, whichever is greater, or
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or
both. For purposes of this paragraph, "con-
trolled country" means any Communist
country" as defined in section 620(f) of the
"Foreign Assistance Act of 1961." Page 49,
line 20. strike out the closed quotation marks
and final period.
Mr. DORNAN (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be considered
as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the gen-
tleman from California?
Mr. KINDNESS. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, could we know
the subject matter of the amendment
before it is agreed to?
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I did
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7 `
September 219 1979 CONG1RIESS ONAIL RECORD - HOUSE . IBI 8299
how they feel about the pay raise. from Texas, George Mahon, I succeeded I want the Members to know that this
Whether they like it or not, they owe it as chairman of the Committee on Ap- proposition before you is whether the
to this country, to the aged and sick and propriations. high-level employees and all of the de-
the weak, to the educational programs, Realizing the dangerous situation that partments get 12.9 percent in cash and
to the defense of our Nation, to trans- we faced, I had a study made. you get a right of action, or whether you
portation programs, and so forth, to pass That study shows that 58 and a frac- scale them all back to 5.5.
this continuing resolution. tion percent of the laws on the statute May I say that one of the national net-
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I have no books provide for built-in escalation of works called me this morning at 7:15 and
further requests for time. the programs covered. That is, as the wanted 2 minutes of taped statement
h'
t
minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. PEYSER).
(Mr. PEYSER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[Mr. PEYSER addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, at this
time I yield 10 minutes to the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, the
gertleman from Mississippi (Mr. WHIT-
TEN).
(Mr. WHITTEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, inflation
is our worst problem and we cannot con-
tinue to feed it by automatically increas-
ing salaries and other programs in order
to keep up with inflation even though the
law requires it. It is like trying to put out
a fire with gasoline.
For this reason, I am recommending
that the executive pay increases of 12.9
percent that senior Federal officials and
Members of Congress would automati-
cally receive be decreased to 5.5 percent.
This is less than half the amount senior
Federal officials and Members of Con-
gress are entitled to receive because of
previous laws and, most importantly, less
than half the rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, laws have been enacted
In the past which create legal entitle-
ments for some 58 percent of Federal
programs. These programs are tied to the
rate of inflation-much like many labor
contracts. In a time of inflation, this only
causes greater problems.
I believe Congress should set an ex-
ample and therefore I believe the de-
crease in pay from 12.9 to 5.5 percent is
appropriate. If all sectors of our coun-
try--government, labor, and industry-
would take this step, I believe that over
a period of time it would greatly con-
tribute to slowing down-and eventually
stopping further inflation.
The limitation of 5.5 percent repre-
sents a significantly sharp decrease and
amounts to only about one-fourth to
one-third of the actual rate of inflation
during this period. It is hoped that this
example will be followed by other parts
of the Federal Government, private in-
dustry, and State and local government.
Unless we slow down, we face disastrous
inflation which has wrecked the economy
of the other nations
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my
colleagues, maybe not at the moment,
but to please read in House Joint Resolu-
tion 404, the continuing resolution, on
page 5, the middle paragraph, beginning
on line 10, maybe not at the moment, be-
cause I shall explain it here.
As all of the Members know, through
their good graces and with the retire-
ment of my good friend, the gentleman
is
cost of living or inflation proceeds, the about what this is about, about
amount in the law goes up with it. salary raise. I said, well, that is what
Unfortunately, in my opinion, high- most people say, a salary raise. Actually
level Federal employees are included, as it is an effort to hold down a salary in-
well as retired Members of,Congress. crease that is automatic under the law to
Might I say that my fears for inflation 5.5 percent in an effort to phase it out.
are well founded, because that study I want into these other matters. When
shows that since 1967, the dollar has lost I got through he said, "I agree with you."
50 percent of its purchasing power. Each That was fro in one of the national net-
day we read where the world is more and works. He said, "Do you hope to pass it?"
more afraid of the dollar. I said I did not know, but I have felt that
Members who retired previously have it would have passed' all along if the
received, because of this escalated clause Membership had understood that we
since 1967, by simple arithmetic, a 94.7 were voting, when we voted "no" on the
percent increase in his retirement. Com- efforts to cut back, we were voting "yes"
pounded, he has received 124.4 percent in on paying the 12.9 to all high-level em-
increases under that built-in escalator ployees, because It is automatic and the
clause. appropriation bills have been passed that
Now, those Members-and I want the provide for it.
Members to listen to me-it could be said I want to tell my colleagues what the
that those Members who have been vot- facts are. Those are the facts. You could
ing against a 7 percent or 5.5 percent not be a bit more afraid of inflation than
limitation in pay have been voting for a I am.
12.9 percent increase on all these high- But do not make the mistake here of
level employees in Government, except knowingly voting for a 12.9-percent in-
those on Capitol Hill. This is because in crease in cash to everybody in govern-
the absence of a general Government- ment except Capitol Hill. Here again you
wide restriction the entitlement of 12.9 would have a right of action, but -no
percent is the only provision governing money.
the actual amount of pay. So I want to just take this time to ex-
On Capitol Hill, because we turned plain what is involved here, and I would
down the legislative bill from which ours hope instead of amendments being of-
and other's pay comes, we will have an fered to put anybody on the spot, or to
entitlement, but no money. take anybody off the spot, I wish we
What I am afraid of-and I want the could vote on the provisions in this, yes
Members to listen to me on this-I am or no, and if you understand it I think
saying to'the Members, when the dollar you will vote to support this provision be-
goes down 50 percent since 1967, we are cause it will be a step toward repealing or
in dangerous times. scaling back this built-in escalating
On this budget, and we are all for it, ? clause that is in 58 percent of our laws.
balancing means balanced; we cannot I say we as a Congress are going to
pay an easy, cheap dollar back with a have to tangle with that along the line if
hard-to-get dollar. Income and outgo we are going to level off and save our
must balance; neither can it go down country. ?
sharply without affecting the other. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
I want to tell my colleagues our com- 3 minutes to the distinguished majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
mittee has recommended and the Mem-
bers have adopted 11 bills, which in total My GHT) W . WRIGHT. Mr. 'Speaker, I think
are below the President's budget, not- every.
Me r
can withstanding all of these factors. t on. There Member
no o reason for any this Member
So we have tried. The first bill we had to oppose pose t rote e for for thi thib
ewe recaptured $723 billion that had been this rule. It its en-
we before. tirely open rule which permits t th h e House
to work its will, whatever it may be, on
0 1100 the subject of legislative and adminis-
Not only am I afraid of inflation, but I trative pay scales. With rare exceptions,
am afraid we will create a disastrous the same applies to? the other subjects
situation by just trying to reduce-we involved in the continuing resolution.
have got to keep income up-so some bal- Surely nobody can quarrel with that. It
ance is required. Is a democratic procedure.
I realize we cannot cut back too I shall not attempt to inflict upon my
quickly. I say to my good friends on the colleagues any opinion with respect to
Budget Committee, and they did a whale the question of a pay raise for Members
of a good job, I say to them, and to you, ? of Congress or for those who have been
and to everybody else, we have got to go at equivalent pay grades in the admin-
careful on this.thing because we face a istrative branch of Government. Mem-
balancing situation. If we make the dol- bers may do whatever they wish about
lar hard to get we cannot pay it back, so that.
we crash. if we do not stop spending we But that is the point of this rule. It
crash. But keep in mind that it is a two- gives the membership that opportunity.
edged sword, If the Members of the House should de-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
H 8302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
committee or subcommittee of Congress of Congress v. Kreps (574 F. 2d 624 (D.C.
appropriate jurisdiction. No such committee Cir. 1978) ), that section 7(c) of the Ex-
or subcommittee shall disclose any informa- port Administration Act, as amended,
tion obtained under this Act or previous Acts does not completely exempt all export
regarding the control of exports which is records from the Freedom of Informa-
submitted on a confidential basis unless the reco reco Act, under exemption 3.
full committee determines that the with-tion holding thereof is contrary to the national Nonetheless, all eight other exemp-
interest.".". tions of the Freedom of Information Act
p 1120 would continue to apply such as: Exemp-
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given tion 1, national defense and foreign
permission to revise and extend his re- policy; exemption 4, trade secrets and,
marks.) commercial or financial information;
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, as re- and exemption 5, interagency or intra-
ported by the Committee on Foreign Af- agency memorandum or letters. The
fairs, H.R. 4035 would exempt Commerce Commerce Department did not seek a
Department records in the export con- writ of certiorari to obtain U.S. Supreme
trol area from public disclosure under Court review of this case. This case was
the Freedom of Information Act. My properly decided.
amendment would eliminate this unwar- To reiterate, under current law, infor-
ranted blanket exemption, which is be- mation and records obtained pursuant
ing urged upon us by the Commerce De- to "the Export Administraaion Act" are
partment, and allow public scrutiny of not blanketly exempted -from disclosure.
the Commerce Department's administra- But neither are they disclosable without
tion of our Nation's export restrictions. restriction. Simply put, they are avail-
continue current law, under the Export
Administration Act of 1969, as amended
in 1977, and as interpreted by the courts.
In fact, except for minor changes, the
exact language of current law is incor-
porated into the bill by my amendment.
First, I would adopt the suggestion
urged by the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs to broaden congressional access to
export administration records. As some
may remember, prior to 1977, the Com-
merce. Department interpreted the con-
fidentiality section of the Export Admin-
istration Act to bar disclosure of infor-
mation from Congress itself. The Con-
gress took action in the Export Adminis-
tration Act amendments of 1977 to cor-
rect the Department of Commerce's
creative interpretation of the 1969 act,
by providing that "nothing In this act
shall be ? construed as authorizing the
withholding of information from Con-
gress * * * " At the time, everyone
thought that this language would make
the law clear. But the Commerce De-
partment has taken the position, which
it takes to this day, that despite the clear
legislative history to the contrary, this
1977 amendment applies only prospec-
tively and does not require provision of
information to the Congress with respect
to license applications pending on the
effective date of the 1977 amendment.
Now, in 1979, we must try for the
second time to amend a seemingly un-
ambiguous law, with our fingers crossed,
hoping that this time the Commerce
Department will not devise still another
spurious basis on which to deny congres-
sional requests for export information.
By providing that disclosures shall relate
to all information obtained "at any time
under this act or previous acts." I hope
the Congress will win the final battle for
access to information against a recal-
citrant Commerce Department.
It should also be realized that there
has been litigation under the Freedom
of Information Act in Federal courts by
parties seeking access to information ac-
quired under the Export Administration
Act. It has now been decided by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Co-
lumbia, in the case of American Jewish
Act except where an exemption applies,
as determined on a case-by-case basis.
This is current law, and my amendment
continues current law.
Exports are not unlike thousands of
other business transactions -in which
Government collects certain informa-
tion from business in order to make
proper decisions. To protect business in-
terests, the Freedom of Information Act
exempts from public disclosure (exemp-
tion No. 4) "trade secrets and commer-
cial or financial information obtained
from a person and privileged or confiden-
tial." In this way, Government decision-
making continues to be subject to public
review, under "the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act," but the interests of the compa-
nies submitting information are properly
protected. The Freedom of Information
Act should apply to export transactions
as well.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I be allowed to
continue for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. BINGHAM. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, hereafter I am
going to object to requests for additional
time.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. With-
out objection, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. DORNAN) will be allowed to
continue for 2 additional minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, the pub-
lic has a right to know about its govern-
ment. As a former broadcaster, I cannot
help but believe that the public values
Its right to know how its government
works. For example, it seems to me the
American public has a right to know
whether strategic materials are being
shipped to Communist countries and
whether these exports diminish our na-
tional security. If certain exports of crit-
ical American technology and goods are
being used to strengthen the warmaking
potential of Communist countries, as
many contend, I believe the American
public should be able to find out about
it. Secrecy fosters suspicion and secrecy
here is unnecessary. The Commerce De-
partment would undoubtedly argue we
should simply trust them to protect our
interests, and that public scrutiny is un-
necessary, but I cannot imagine that that
view would sway this body. Government
works best when subject to public review
of its actions. The Commerce Department
is no exception.
Allowing public access to these records
will have no impact on our national
security. National defense and foreign
policy matters are already exempt under
the Freedom of Information Act. More-
over, even in the case of U.S. trade with
the Soviet Union, the Soviets already
know what materials they imported from
us. If the Kremlin has this information,
why not allow the American people to
have it?
Mr. Chairman, adoption of this bill's
virtual blanket exemption would signal
a sharp reversal of our public policy of
wider access to Government records be-
ginning with the passage of the Freedom
of Information Act. This act was de-
signed to compel the Federal Government
to become more accountable to the Amer-
ican public, the ultimate judge of all
Government policies, by making more
information available about Government
activities. But this bill's exemption has
not been even considered by the Subcom-
mittee on Government Information and
Individual Rights of "the Committee on
Government Operations," which has ju-
risdiction over "the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act." As I understand it, it was
only proposed late in the Foreign Affairs
Committee's consideration of the bill, by
a Commerce Department seeking to elim-
inate public scrutiny of its actions. No
witnesses testified on this exemption No.
3 except for a brief reference by a Com-
merce Department witness and it was
never even considered by the relevant
subcommittee. This exemption would
constitute a significant inroad into the
Congress' often-stated policy to provide
for maximum public disclosure of public
records. Such blanket exemptions should
only, if ever, be granted after a full re-
view by the committees responsible for
export policy, and for "the Freedom of
Information Act." This has not been
done.
Mr. Chairman, the only way to protect
"the public's right to know" is to allow
public access to these records, except
where barred by the current exemptions
to "the Freedom of Information Act, To
create a blanket exemption would be a
victory. for an executive department
afraid of public review. To continue cur-
rent law as my amendment does, would
be a victory for the public's right to
know.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PREYER AS A SUB-
STITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. DORNAN
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment as a substitute for the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. PREYER as a
substitute for the amendment offered by Mr.
DoRNAN: Page 50, strike out line 2 and all
that follows through page 51, line 7, and in-
sert in lieu thereof the following: .
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-000038000100030007-7
September 21, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
Sec. 114. Subsection (c) of section 12 of
the Export Administration Act of '1969, as
such section is redesignated by section 104
(a) of this Act, is amended to read as fol-
lows:
"(c) (1) Except as otherwise provided by
the third sentence of section 8(b) (2) and by
section 11(c) (2) (C) of this Act, information
obtained under this Act on or before June 80,
1980, which is deemed confidential or with
reference to which a request for confidential
treatment is made by the person furnishing
such information, shall be exempt from dis-
closure under section 552 of title .5, United
States Code, and such information shall not
be published or disclosed unless the Secre-
tary determines that the withholding thereof
is contrary to the national interest.
'% "(2) Any department or agency exercising
any function under this Act may withhold
information obtained under this Act after
June 30, 1980, only to the extent permitted
by statute, except that information concern-
ing licensing of exports filed -under this Act
shall be withheld from public disclosure un-
less the release of such information is deter-
mined by the head of such department or
agency to be in the national interest.
"(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as authorizing the withholding of informa-
tion from Congress, and all information ob-
tained at any time under this Act or pre-
vious Acts regarding the control of exports,
including any report or license application
required under this Act, shall be made avail-
able upon request to any committee or sub-
committee of Congress of appropriate juris-
diction. No such committee or subcommitee
shall disclose any information obtained un-
der this Act or previous Acts regarding the
control of exports which is submitted oil a
confidential basis unless the full committee
determines that the withholding thereof is
contrary to the national Interest.".
Page 60, strike out lines 1 through 7 and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accord-
ingly.
Mr. PREYER (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, I have
a substitute for the Doman amendment
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read.
I offer the amendment because I be-
lieve that the provision now in the bill
and the Dornan amendment will do un-
necessary damage to the concept of ac-
cess to properly disclosable information.
As reported, section 114 would totally
and permanently exempt from disclosure
a broad category of information relating
to exports. Chiefly at issue here is the
information reported on the Commerce
Department document known as the
"Shipper's Export Declaration" or SED.
An SED must be filed for each export
from this country. Under the bill, none
of the data on an SED would ever be
made public. This blanket exemption is
unnecessary and unwise for two major
rtasOns.
First, some of the information that the
bill seeks to protect is not confidential in
eny way. No one disputes that some of
this information can be obtained from
several sources. Why should we prohibit
one agency from disclosing information
that is already available from another
agency or from Public sources?
Second, export information which is
legitimately. confidential already-receives
a full measure of protection under the
Freedom of Information Act. There is
no need to provide additional protection
under other laws.
H.R. 4034 would lock up much ex=
port information forever. However, my
substitute does not go to the other ex-
treme and make information automati-
cally available. My amendment is a'
compromise, incorporating both Free-
dom of Information principles .as well as
the practical needs of the Commerce
Department and exporters. Under my
amendment, export data already filed
with the Department of Commerce would
continue to have the protection that
Commerce seeks. In addition, this pro-
tection would extend to information col-
lected during the rest of this year. Thus,
no information already collected with
an expectation of confidentiality would
be disclosed under my amendment. Fur-
ther, everyone would have a transition
period of almost 6 months to prepare
The new rules that 'would take effect
on June 30 of next year are very simple
and very familiar. Documents filed after
that date would be subject to the Free-
dom of Information Act. The act pro-
vides sufficient protection for confiden-
tial business data. The fourth exemption
specifically covers trade 'secrets and con-
fidential commercial information. Le-
gitimate business .confidentiality will not
be breached.
There are additional reasons why.it is
important that my amendment be
adopted. They are inflation and the bal-
ance of payments.
As early as 1976, the Treasury Depart-
ment recognized that increased access to
export information would lead to better
and cheaper services in 'the export in-
dustry. In turn, this makes U.S. export-
ers more competitive with foreign sup-
pliers. The Treasury Department
amended its regulations in 1976 to make
available from Customs Service docu-
ments much of the same information
which is at issue here.
My amendment is necessary because
the Treasury regulations are not univer-
sally followed and much data which
should be public is not. Because Com-
merce Department regulations require
that the shipper's export declaration be
fully and accurately completed, the
problems of gathering information from
Customs documents will be avoided.
Current disclosure practices for some
export related information would not be
affected by my amendment. Where ex-
port licenses are required, my amend-
ment allows for full protection of bon-
.fidential information related to the li-
cense application. In this regard, my
amendment does not differ from the bill.
For the publication of export license in-
formation, my intent is identical to the
intent reflected in the report of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs. Also, my
amendment does not differ from the bill
with regard to the disclosure of boycott
data. Current disclosure practice for this
data will prevail.
In conclusion, let me note that the
free flow of information is essential to
H 8303
a free market economy. We have a
chance here to let the information work
for us by lowering costs and helping
the dollar. This is why so many busi-
nesses are in favor of the publication of
export information..I urge .my colleagues
to support it as well.
^ 1130
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. PREYER. I am glad to 'yield.
Mr. FASCELL. As .I -gather what the
gentleman is saying, the amendment
which the gentleman proposes would
make -public confidential business infor-
mation. .
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from North Carolina (Mr.
PREYER) has expired.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, 'I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
substitute. The Preyer substitute is a
well balanced approach that will allow
for the orderly release of information.
At the same time, It will also protect
against the release of confidential busi-
ness information or information related
to our national security. Export 'license
applications, most of them covering
items controlled for reasons of foreign
policy or national security, are specifi-
cally excluded from disclosure under this
amendment. Other information submit-
ted by exporters may also be withheld
under the Preyer amendment where it
meets the standard for protection of
confidential commercial information un-
der exemption 4 of the Freedom of In-
formation Act.
The current language of the bill re-
stricts the 'disclosure .of export informa-
tion too narrowly. It is generally agreed
that much of the export data supplied
by shippers is not secret, so there is no
reason to create a general exemption for
it. Moreover, having some export data
available-such as who is shipping what
products to which countries-should
help spur export competition. It will
enable exporters, shippers, and trans-
porters to compete more effectively in
world markets. The Preyer amendment
will permit these benefits, withoutviolat-
Ing 'legitimate business confidentiality.
The amendment also provides for a
rather long transition' period until De-
cember 31,1979. This will allow adequate
time for the Department of Commerce
and shippers to make necessary prepara-
tion for release under the new rules. I
believe this amendment balances a num-
ber of competing interests in a fair and
evenhanded way. I urge the adoption of
the substitute.
I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina to answer a question that I am
going to propound here.
I gather what the gentleman is. saying
here is that the principal amendment for
which the gentleman proposes this sub-
stitute'-would make public confidential
business information which is now in the
export license application; is that what
the gentleman said?
Mr. PREYER. My amendment would
make available information that relates
to export information. This is the in-
formation. that shippers want to know.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
H 8304 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. September 21, 1979
Mr. FASCELL. I was talking about the
principal amendment.
Mr. PREYER. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. FASCELL. The Dornan amend-
ment.
Mr. PREYER. The Dornan amend-
ment makes available information from
the licensing process.
Mr. FASCELL. That is what I thought
the gentleman said.
Mr. PREYER. it involves much confi-
dential business information.
Mr. FASCELL. Business information,
yes.
Mr. PREYER. Yes, which should not
be released.
Mr. FASCELL. And which heretofore
has not been released.
Mr. PREYER. Right.
Mr. FASCELL. And generally has been
accepted as a trade matter which should
be kept confidential.
Mr. PREYER. The gentleman is cor-
rect. This would be a broad new expan-
sion, a new doctrine.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FASCELL. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not
mean to disagree-actually, I do mean
to disagree.
I am proposing that we keep current
law. Current law now is that this infor-
mation is available under the Freedom
of Information Act.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FASCELL. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. BINGHAM. The problem is that
the current law turned out to be un-
satisfactory in the light of the Freedom
of Information Act. The gentleman in'
the well is probably the expert on this
subject. ~
The reason the current law is unsatis-
factory is that the courts have inter-
preted the Freedom of Information Act
to in effect overrule the intention of the
Congress when it extended the Export
Administration Act in 1977.
The gentleman is technically correct
that the amendment will leave the law
as it is, but it does not meet the problem.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for making that explana-
tion. That is the reason I rose, because
it seems to me that what we were trying
to deal with is to correct a very difficult
situation, because the present law was
not adequate in balancing off the interest
of the right to know and the freedom
of information and still protect business
confidentiality. It seems, to me, quite
clear that the substitute amendment of
the gentleman from North Carolina does
that.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise in
strong support of the substitute and urge
my colleagues to. support it.
(Mr. FASCELL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FASCELL. Yes; I would be
delighted to yield.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Florida.
I commend the gentleman from North
Carolina, who has been an expert and
a leader in this field of the Freedom of
Information Act and serves as its chair-
man. I was fortunate enough in the last
Congress to serve on that subcommittee.
I have a couple questions. First of all,
on that date of June, 1980, what about
all the past information tl}at has been
compiled up to that? Are we putting a
freeze on secrecy on all that information
up to June of 1980?
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman from Florida wishes to yield
to me to answer, I would be glad to re-
spond. I do not believe I have the time.
Mr. FASCELL. I was not paying that
close attention.
Mr. PREYER. The gentleman from'
Florida has the time.
Mr. QUAYLE. The gentleman from
Florida has the time.
Mr. FASCELL. I was going to say, I
yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, the
answer to the gentleman's question is
yes. What this bill does is to grandfather
in confidentiality for information that
has been received under a pledge of con-
fidentiality by the Commerce Depart-
ment. We do not think it is fair to say
retroactively that information which
businesses gave with the understanding
that it was confidential should be now
open and available. My amendment does
freeze that information; its effect begins
as of June 30, 1980, and in the future.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman from Florida, who is con-
trolling the time, be good enough to yield
further?
Mr. FASCELL. I would be delighted
to yield.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, r just
would like to follow up on that one point
of confidentiality. I was under the im-
pression that. these companies furnish
that information on the basis of confi-
dentiality, because it says confidential on
the form, but it also says within the pro-
vision of section 7(c) of the Export Ad-
ministration Act, but subsequent to that
a court has found out that it is not
constitutional.
We are not getting into trade secrets.
I do not like to get off on that, because I
do not want that information. I think it
is a tough area and I commend the gen-
tleman for his leadership on this; but I
am a little bit concerned and the gentle-
man from Florida has been a leader on
this, too. I am concerned about putting a
lid on all past information, just putting
an arbitrary clamp on June 1980. That
bothers me.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. FASCELL) has
again expired.
(At the request of Mr. PREYER and by
unanimous consent, Mr. FASCELL was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, there is
considerable confusion about the existing
law in this area. This bill makes a spe-
cific exemption as to pending lawsuits.
We do not try to clarify present law
which frankly is so confused that I do
not think we can ever come to grips with
it. What the bill does do is set out the law
clearly from June 30, 1980, on. The rights
in the future, I think, will be well under-
stood.
Mr. FASCELL.-Mr. Chairman, one of .
the problems and the reason for the date
is that the information asks names of
customers and prices of goods which is
and should be trade secrets. That is the
problem and that is the reason for the
cutoff.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield, whoever has t11e
time?
Mr. FASCELL. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. QUAYLE. If price and value were
taken out instead of parties having to
name the country, would the gentleman,
change his mind as far as that informa-
tion being released?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. FASCELL) has
again expired.
(At the request of Mr. QUAYLE, and by
unanimous consent, W. FASCELL was al-
lowed to proceed for 30 additional sec-
onds.)
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I think
it generally is released.
Mr. QUAYLE.Not according to this
amendment, I do not think so.
^ 1140
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I
take this time to rise in support of the
substitute offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. PREYER), and I do
so as a member of the President's Export
Council.
I wish to advise the Members present
today that the President's Export Coun-
cil met just yesterday and considered the
problem which is raised by the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. DoRNAN). If the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. DORNAN) were adopted,
it would in effect immobilize the efforts
of the President's Export Council to for-
mulate an aggressive export policy that
will enhance the position of this country
to trade with foreign nations and with
foreign-customers.
The President's Export Council adopt-
ed unanimously a resolution to support
the language offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. PREYER),
which language is substantially the same
as that contained in a Senate bill which
has already been adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
who are concerned about the formula-
tion of an export policy to enhance the
position of this country to trade with
foreign nations to support the substitute
offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. PREYER), and I do so as
a spokesman for the President's Export
Council which has adopted a resolution
in support of that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Export Adminis-
tration Act legislation is aimed at help-
ing exporters eliminate unnecessary red-
tape and confusion in obtaining export
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
September 21, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
licenses. The bill is a necessary first step
in allowing Congress a role in developing
a national export strategy.
However, the language of the original
Export Administratidil Act is not suffi-
ciently precise to meet the standards es-
tablished by the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) in protecting the confiden-
tiality of the shipper export declarations
(SED's).
At the time, litigation is pending to
sin access to individual SED's under the
- reedom of Information Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that ex-
porters be allowed confidentiality on
,their SED's. The data disclosed on SED's
includes confidential business informa-
tion in which disclosure to competitors
would be harmful. Foreign- competitors
would be especially benefited because
they would not have similar vulnerabil-
ity.
Under existing Federal law and regu-
lations, exporters are required to file a
SED for each merchandise shipment ex-
ported from the United States. The SED
covers 20 items of information concern-
ing the details of the particular export
transaction. Among other things, a SED
includes the name of the exporter, net
quantity, value of the shipment, shipping
weight, date exported, et cetera.
The confidentiality issue is not an at-
tempt to skirt national security policy
or the critical technology issue; it is an
attempt to protect the integrity of the
merchant-buyer relationship. If Census
is to continue to receive information on
a scale sufficient to the demands for sta-
tistical data, it must be widely perceived
as treating all data it receives confiden-
tially.
The United States needs to be protect.
ing and encouraging the export of Amer-
ican goods and services, not hindering
those companies trying to gain access to
markets.
The Preyer amendment would retain
confidentiality of SED's until June 30,
1980. In order that my colleagues can
more fully' understand the SED issue,
the following prepared by the Caterpillar
Tractor Co. should prove to be useful.
The President's Export Council, of which
I am a member, has also endorsed the
confidentiality of SED's.
I urge my colleagues to support the
Preyer amendment.
The material follows:
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.;.
'Peoria, 111.
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT AND THE
CONPIDRNTIALrrY IsMVE
SUMMARY
This memorandum states Caterpillar's
concerns with the possible public release of
Shipper's Export Declarations (BEDs), to-
gether with the company's views as to why
the Export Administration Act should be
amended to ensure that BEDS will remain
confidential in the future.
Why We're Concerned. Caterpillar is a
major exporter from the United States, with
$2.2 billion in exports in 1978 (the second
largest total of any U.S. company). Cater-
pillar has filed some 40,000 SEDs annually
in recent years, and disposition of these
documents.-which contain important and
detailed business information-is of vital
concern to the company.
Recent court cases indicate that existing
Export Administration Act (EAA) language
authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to
maintain confidentiality of SEDs may not be
sufficiently precise to meet standards estab-
lished by the Freedom of Information Act.
Exporters, such as Caterpillar, could be
faced with the disclosure of valuable com-
mercial information contained in BEDS,
revelation of which would strengthen the
position of competitor companies. All. com-
petitors, U.S. and foreign, could benefit from
public disclosure of BEDs filed by Cater-
pillar. Caterpillar, of course, would also gain
access to information about U.S. competi-
tors. The big gainers, however, would be
foreign competitors. They would gain valu-
able information about all U.S. exporters
... while Caterpillar and other U.S. firms
would have no access to comparable infor-
mation about them.
Surely, no one intends this to be a result
of either the Export Administration Act or
the Freedom of Information Act. If U.S. ex-
port performance is to be strengthened, it
is important to resolve the matter of SED
confidentiality in a way .that does not add
still another -burden to be borne by U.S.
exporters alone. That's a matter for Con-
gress, not the courts, to decide.
In the absence of appropriate legislative
action, Caterpillar might still be able to
fight disclosure of BEDS in. the courts. How-
ever, such legal action would be expensive;
it would consume the time of people who
could better devote their efforts to expand-
ing exports; and the outcome would still be
uncertain. It is also possible that companies
would be required to file suit or take other
action on an individual basis to prevent re-
lease of their BEDS, which would impose a
particular burden on smaller U.S. exporters
for whom the regulatory maze is already a
strong discouragement to exporting.
Conflict Between Freedom of Information
Act and Export Administration Act. The Ex-
port Administration Act gives the Secretary
of Commerce authority to require such re-
ports as may be necessary or appropriate to
the enforcement of the Act. For census and
other purposes, the Commerce Department
requires the filing of a Shipper's Export
Declaration with each export shipment.
This document then becomes a piece of
U.S. Government paper, subject to possible
disclosure under the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act (FOIA). The existing EAA author-
izes the Secretary of Commerce to protect
the confidentiality of business information
obtained in reports, but courts have ruled
that existing EAA language is not precise
enough to meet certain FOIA standards. The
issue at this point is whether the confiden-
tiality directive should be maintained and
clarified by revised FAA language which
would bring it into line with FOIA standards.
What Does a Constitutional SED Conceal
From the Public? Let's begin by considering
what an BED is and isn't.
Each BED is a report from a single com-
pany about a single export transaction.
It is not an application for any kind of
government action. It is not a document on
the basis of which any kind of decision will
be made.
It does become relevant when a substantial
number of such documents have been. col-
lected; they then provide useful census-type
information which may serve as the basis
for policy studies or judgments.
But a single BED has on governmental pur-
pose in ordinary usage ... just as a census
form for an individual household does not
serve as the basis for governmental decisions,
although information aggregated from such
forms is important in many respects, such
as apportioning seats in the House of Rep-
resentatives among the states.
SEDs do reveal information about indi-
vidual commercial transactions. A market
analyst in possession of a number of BED's
filed by a company could learn much about
IHI 8305
that company's customers, sales, pricing
policies, business trends, dealer organization,
replacement parts sales opportunities, and
other information. Other companies with ac-
cess to such information could use it to sig-
nificant competitive advantage. They could
more carefully target market development
efforts, identify potential new customers, ad-
just production scheduling and inventories,
adapt pricing strategies, and make countless
other decisions on the basis of'hard infor-
mation-where as now they must make many
such decisions on the basis of estimates or
guesses.
A competitor, in business or politics, who
knows everything you do, while you know
much less about him/her, has a significant
advantage.
Is the Whole SED Confidential? No. Clearly
some information contained on the BED form
is not confidential-the name of the export-
ing carrier, for example.
No single piece of information on the BED
if released alone, would be confidential. What
is special about the BED is the detailed pic-
ture it gives of a single transaction.
Some Information on SEDs is Already
Available Elsewhere. Some information avail-
able in SEDS is also available to the public
and press in other documents. Specifically, _
title 19 (customs duties) of the Code of
Federal Regulations, sec. 103.11, specifies con-
ditions under which information on vessel
manifests may be disclosed to members of
the press and to the public. Members of the
public are permitted to obtain information
from, but not to examine, vessel manifests.
Members of the press may examine vessel
manifests, and copy and' publish certain
data. "Of the information and data appear-
ing on outward manifests, only, the general
character, destination, and quantity (or
value) of the commodity, name of vessel,
names of shippers, (?) and country of desti-
nation may be copied and published. Where
the manifests show both quantity and value,
either may be copied and published, but not
both in any instance." (*Shippers may re-
quest that access to the name of a shipper
be refused.)
Some argue that such existing availability
of some of the information contained in
SEDs is reason to make the BED publicly
available, in whole or in part. That argu-
ment can be turned around: if much infor-
mation is already available, why is more
needed? Why put the U.S. Oobernment in
the effective position of telling the world
more details about its exporters and their
transactions than other governments do
about theirs?
The "it's alreadly available" argument also
reveals, however, an important additional
reason for maintaining the confidentiality
of SEDs.
The press may now publish, from outward
manifests:
General character of commodities.
Destination.
Quantity or value (but not both).
Country of destination.
It has been suggested that comparable
information contained in SEDs be released,
and that only a few key items in the BED
need be kept confidential, such as the iden-
tity of consignees and the value of the ship-
ment.
However, If the rest of the BED is available
to the public or press, it would be an easy
matter to match up information from such
BEDS with published information-obtained
from manifests-about the same shipment.
Information common to the two documents
(name of vessel, destination) could be used
to match up the BED with a published report
based on the manifest. Information on quan-
tity could then be obtained from the BED;
information on value of the same shipment
could be copied from the manifest.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
H 8306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
Combining two sources in this manner doing and what these corporations are correct the gentleman and say "a former
could provide nearly as complete a picture
SED were released.
Two-part SED a Compromise Solution? A
two-part SED has been proposed as a possible
compromise. A precedent is found in the two-
part form prescribed for boycott reports in
another section of the EAA. We don't think
this is a good solution.
First, it would inevitably add to the paper-
work burden of filling out and filing SEDs.
Caterpillar alone files over 40,000 such docu-
ments annually, and administrative incon-
venience is a significant argument against
complicating this form unless there is a com-
pelling reason to do so. We simply don't need
more governmental paperwork.
Second, the basic purpose of the boycott
reports-cited as a precedent for the two-
part form-is to gather information about
boycott requests. Take away the confidential
business information from the boycott re-
port form, and the report still serves its basic
purpose of indicating the nature and value
of boycott requests received by U.S. exporters.
Take away the confidential business in-
formation from the SED, and nothing of im-
portance is left. (It should also be noted that
the SED calls.for more detailed information.
There is no reference anywhere in the boy-
cott form to consignees, .for example.)
Thus, we believe-there is no valid reason
for a two-part SED, and the entire document
should remain confidential ... just as entire
Census Bureau documents remain confiden-
tial, even though telephone directors and
many other publicly available documents re-
peat much of the information contained In a
census form.
Public Enumeration of Confidential Items.
If a specific enumeration of items which the
Secretary of Commerce may hold confidential
is to be included In the EAA, an appropriate
list is contained in H.R. 4034 as reported by
the Foreign Affairs Committee:
Parties to .a transaction.
Type of good or technology being exported.
Destination.
End use.
Quantity.
Value or price.
For Caterpillar's purposes, "end use" could
be dropped from this list. However, there
may be other exporters for whom this is also
a sensitive item.
In summary, we urge the Congress, in deal-
ing with this matter, to avoid the following:
An BED that is subject to release in its
entirety; and
An SED that is released in part and that
can be matched up with other publicly avail-
able information about individual export
transactions so as to provide a detailed pic-
ture of each transaction.
Both S. 737 and H.R. 4034 contain accept-
able provisions on confidentiality, and Cater-
pillar supports enactment of either of these
provisions, or some combination of them.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I move.
to strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in support of the substitute
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the
gentleman from California (Mr. DORNAN)
has a good idea. I support and under-
stand his objective, but I think it is bet-
ter reached and more moderately and
appropriately reached by the language
worked out by the gentleman from North
Carolina, Judge PREYER, who has worked
on this matter very-assiduously.
The Freedom of Information Act is
one of the most important pieces of
legislation that Congress has enacted in
recent years. -It stands as a monument to
our belief in the idea that the people have
a right to know what the Government is
any legislation which tends to restrict of the Government Operations Commit-
the access of the public to information tee.
in the hands of their Government. I do Mr.,QUAYLE. I wish I were still there.
not mean any criticism of the Commit-
tee on Foreign Affairs in saying that.
They have fashioned a bill dealing with
the very complex question of export con-
trols, in which the section the gentle-
man from North Carolina seeks to amend
is a minor part. And, as their report
shows, they resisted an effort by the De-
partment of Commerce to write a much
broader exemption from the Freedom
of Information Act into the bill. .
I believe the language proposed in the
substitute amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from North Carolina (Mr.
PREYER), the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on Government In-
formation and Individual Rights, which
watches over the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act like a mother hen, presents a
better, a more rational, a more reason-
able, and a more rational, a more rea-
sonable, and a more workable and feasi-
ble solution to the problem that is
presented .here.
The Preyer substitute would pre-
serve the existing protections against the
release of confidential information.
In fact, it would make very little dif-
ference in the way the information in-
volved in export transactions is sup-
posed to be handled now.
Mr. Chairman, if we are interested in
preserving the integrity of the Freedom
of Information Act, if we are interested
in preserving the vitality of our corpora-
tions whose exports must be licensed,
and the business which seek overseas
they, then we ought to support the
Preyer substitute.
Mrs. FENWICK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield? .
Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the distin-
guished gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. FENWICK. Mr. Chairman, I
thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to pro-
tect the Freedom of Information Act, and
I, too, am worried about our export trade.
I would like to call the attention of
the Members of the House to the fact
that our exports account for less than
7 percent of our GNP. In Germany their
exports are 22 percent of their GNP; in
Belgium they are 45 percent of their
GNP. We are losing -out in the export
market. Companies are strangled by
these restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, I think the bill is bet-
ter than the Preyer amendment, but
the Preyer amendment is better than
the Dornan amendment. 'We are going
to kill our export trade and our small
businesses that are trying to get into it.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to 'thank the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. FENwIcx) for emphasizing
the importance of the Preyer amend-
ment.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr.. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS. I yield to my distin-
guished friend, a great member of the
committee.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I might
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentle-
man, what information would be re-
vealed under this substitute?
Mr. BROOKS. Not any more than is
released now; not confidential business
secrets.
Mr. QUAYLE. Would the countries
that they are trading with be released,
or would that be not reseased?
Mr. BROOKS. They would be.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, that is
what I am concerned about. I do not
think, according to the substitute, that
the countries would be released. I am
concerned about that, plus putting the
lid on by June 30, 1980. Those two things
bother me.
The gentleman knows that I support
him. I support him most of the time
and follow his leadership, but on this,
if I would follow his leadership, I would
need a couple of clarifying statements
on the subject.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, perhaps
that could be found in the report. I think
the gentleman understands report lan-
guage.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I under-
stand the importance and the integrity
of report language that we -so often refer
to when we just do not want to put it in
the bill.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr.. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. LAGOMARSINO) should
have his 5 minutes on the amendment,
but after that I will ask unanimous con-
sent that debate cease in 10 minutes.
(Mr:.LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I think the gentlewoman from New Jer-
sey (Mrs. FENwIcx) summed this up
very. well. The bill is better than the
Preyer amendment, the Pryer amend-
ment is better than the Dornan amend-
ment, and I am not sure about what the
Quayle amendment does, if the gentle-
man ever offers it.
I think what we did in the bill, which
represents a compromise in and of itself,
is s pretty good solution to a very diffi-
cult problem. The Department of Com-
merce and the exporting industry had
asked us to clarify the law and in effect
to reverse court decisions.
What we did instead is this: we turned
down that request. I thought,' frankly,
we should go along with that request and
change the law completely, but the com-
mittee disagreed. 'They felt it would not
be wise to grant that request, and it is
the committee's intent in this provision
to meet the requirements of the Freedom
of Information Act by specifying the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 September 21, 1979 CON(CRIESSJONALL RIEC?IRb-jHtOUS3 H 8307
particular types of matters which may courts in one instance have already will put the telegram in the RECORD in
be withheld from disclosure. ruled they must allow, and that this bill its entirety.
Section 114 of the bill we are discuss- and the Dreyer amendment, which is al- Caterpillar has always complied willingly
Ing here- most the same as this bill, will ratify with Commerce Department requests for
Further provides, however, That this pro- Commerce's refusal to reveal this infor- SED's and other documents, relying on the
vision shall not be construed to require the mation about strategic materials and promise of confidentiality contained in the
withholding of any type of information processes being shipped to unfriendly EAA and printed on each copy Of the SED
which, immediately before the effective date nations, form. (SED's are shippers export declara-
of these amendments, is not being withheld Somewhere in all of this no one has tions)
from disclosure. The complete text of the telegram is
hardly mentioned the fact that this over- as follows:
This language which is in the report, turns a court decision and severely re- CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.,
continues: stricts the Freedom of Information Act. May 1, 1979.
The committee specifically intends that I cannot understand why that Is in the Hon. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO,
the information currently published in the best interest of this country. House of Representatives,
daily list of export licenses granted-that Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, will the Washington, D.C.
Is. the type of commodity, value of the trans. gentleman yield? We want to invite your attention to a
`action, and country of destination-shell seriousproblem that has arisen with regard
LAGOMARSIN? I yield to the
continue to be made available to the public. Mr. .
t
ntleman . FR fZZEL Mr lChair n, I would
I think it is important to point out geM
that the language in the bill is strongly like to concur in the remarks made by
supported by the export industry. They the gentleman from California and the
feel that not to do this is going to affect gentlewoman from New Jersey. I would
their ability to compete with other coun- like to remind this body that we are
tries and with each other. I say that the standing here with a $30 billion trade
confidentiality provision in this bill does deficit from last year. We are trying to
not conflict with the principles of the expand exports. We are not doing a very
Freedom of Information Act. good Jbb of it.
It is quite specific, as required by
FOIA, and it does not prevent disclosure
of Government information but, rather,
prevents publication of data submitted
by business as a function of exporting,
data which the Government does not
have for domestic sales, as a matter of
fact.
The Government is not precluded from
publishing statistical information, and
protecting confidentiality of information
can be critical for the success of a busi-
ness in a particular deal.
The information, if published, would
enable foreign and domestic competitors
to gain significant advantages in the
same markets. It has always been public
policy to insure confidentiality of com-
petitive business information. For exam-
ple, custom import declarations are con-
fidential. IRS returns are not published.
Domestic production and pricing statis-
tics are not published when there are
only one or two producers.
If Government requires business to
supply confidential information, then
Government should provide protection
for that information.
As the Members will note from the
language of the bill itself, there is abso-
lutely no intention to restrict this in-
formation from being made available to
Congress. As a matter of fact, we
strengthen the provisions requiring that
time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. LAOOMARSINO) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LAGO-
p
e
-m
IWARSINO was allowed to proceed for 2 for approximately 19,635 surface shipments.
additional minutes.) In addition, Caterpillar made 22,542 air ship-
Mr. LAC OMARS11V0. Mr. Chairman ments in 1978, most of which required'the
,
I continue to yield to the gentleman filing of SEDs. (Caterpillar exports amounted
from Minnesota, to some X2.2 billion in 1978, and provided
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, what jobs for 26,0II0 of Caterpillar's U.S. em-
we are trying to do as a national policy plTh prescribed SED form requires shippers
is to expand exports. What we are do- to provide detailed information about the
ing in our amendments to the Export consignee, items being exported, quantity,
Administration Act on this floor is to and value. Such information is of consider-
offered by the gentleman from Cali- xpand export, it
try to limit exports. The amendment able commercial value. In the hands of com-
sabout Cate prr important market
fornia is an amendment intended to sa of specific pricis customers-
harass all potential exporters who will knowledge offi which dould help competitors
not now export because they have to identify promising sales targets, focus sales
produce a whole bunch of information efforts for competitive replacement parts, de-
that will become available to the world. velop pricing strategies-all to the competi-
The amendment offered by the gentle- tive disadvantage of Caterpillar.
man from North Carolina is the same Such commercial intelligence would be of
thing, only not quite as bad, great value to both foreign and domestic
We need to stimulate exports. We have wo lde beoto foreign comptors, who would
to tell American businessmen to get out , be able to gather data about all U.S. ex-
and work harder, not be more confused porters without expending the tremendous
and more depressed by the kind of limita- amount of time, effort, and money that
tions that we are putting on here. It is- would be required to obtain this information
simply a question of whether you want in other ways.
to export or whether you do not. If you with C pillar Commerce Departmentp reque tsnf r
want to have all of this extra informa- SElls and other documents. Relying on the
tion spread out and demanded of our promise of confidentiality contained in the
producers, they simply will not export. EAA and printed on each copy of the SED
Mr
Chairman I thi
f
.
orm
nk all of the
this information be furnished to Con- amendments should be defeated. Now, however, the Commerce Depart-
gress Itself. Mr. LAGOMARSIRTO. Mr. Chairman, ment's ability to maintain confidentiality of
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the I want to make an additional comment. this information is being challenged in
gentleman yield? The gentleman from Maryland e court suits, which are based on a claim that
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I yield to the a statement about the effecthiswould meet cn erta n st ndarp s afor an E a A emption
gentleman from Maryland. have on existing litigation. Section 123 under the Freedom of Information Act. One
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman of this act, page 62, provides: of these suits would force the Commerce
for yielding. This Act and the amendments made by Department to disclose all information con-
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from this Act shall not affect any investigation, tained in SEDs. The potential competitive
ryland? has become interested in this suit, action, or other judicial proceedin harm to Caterpillar, should SEDa be dis-
_1: is
because of his acquaintance with M. commenced under the Export Administration closed, urge substantial.
Stanton Evans, one of the plaintiffs in Act ... and n We to ur fyou face this issue squarely
-
the suit seeking from Commerce infor- So we have exempted existing suits. dom of Information rthe conflict
Act Act ca and the between the Export t Ad-
oration that has been withheld. I would like to conclude by reading to ministration Act In a manner that will not
My study of this question seems to run the Members one sentence from a tele- harm group. exporters, ngr falls inoividend or
totally contrary to what the gentleman gram on this subject from Caterpillar si a cIf oofom ce to am I the
has said and, in fact, Commerce is not Tractor Co., one of the largest exporters mmation courts of considerable erabiee commercial andimar-
allowing the information out that the in this country, just one paragraph. 1, keting value, particularly to foreign compet.
C1 1150 The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
o the Export Administration Act (EAA). It's
a matter we believe deserves urgent con-
sideration when the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee meets to mark up H.R. 3652, a bill to
extend and amend the EllA.
At issue is treatment of confidential busi-
ness information submitted to the Depart-
ment of Commerce. Under the authority of
the EAA, the Commerce Department requires
exporters to provide considerable informa-
tion about export transactions.
Caterpillar's most serious concern is with
shippers' export declarations (SED's). A copy
of this document must be filed for each
export shipment. Caterpillar is a major U.S.
exporter. In 1978 alone Cater
illar fil
d
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 r
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
H 8308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
itors. Meanwhile, U.B. companies will have Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I for the countries of the parties. So the
no offsetting access to comparable informa- withdraw my unanimous consent re- businesses cannot complain that you are
tion from foreign competitors. Their gov- quest. going to give them the list of their
ernments, aware of the value of commercial AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. QUAYLE TO THE parties. Only the countries.
and marketing intelligence, do not require AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DORNAN This amendment also takes out the
such disclosure.
There is growing recognition, prompted by Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer price and the value. I happen to think
concern over the large U8. trade deficit, an amendment to the Dorman amend- that that should be confidential, and we
that the needs of U.B. exporters have too of- ment. do not want our businesses subject to
ten been given inadequate attention. We The Clerk read as follows: have the other businesses go in and try to
hope that won't happen in this instance. Amendment offered by Mr. QUAYLE to the find out how much it is going to cost or
A What in should bEAA e that done? n privily pro- amendment offered by Mr. DoRNAN: On line what the value was in trading an item.
needed for the the protection confidential in- 3 of the amendment strike all after the So the only thing that would be revealed-
fo
vides rm o submitted to the Commerce e De- word "following" and insert the following: would be the countries of the parties; -
par the DAA - (1) In the first sentence by striking out the type of goods or technology, the des-
There under "is deemed confidential or with reference to
There is now the w a conflict between the Free- confidential treatment tination, the end use, and the quantity.
dam of Information Act and the EAA, and which a request for That is reasonable, to compromise. And1
is made by the person furnishing such in-
I want to point out that this information
as an unintended.result, the U.B. Commerce formation" and insrting is lieu thereof
Department could compete be forced to help "would reveal the countries of the parties would not be released until 6 months
against U. . companies
exporters through more effectively to an export or re-export transaction, the after the fact-6 months after the fact.
against U on. We on type of good or technology being exported The problem I have with my good
SED in believe release e of Of
or re-exported, or the destination, end use,
gress Intended information.
ended to undermine ndermnot not b mine the competitive e such good or tech- friend-and the gentleman knows that I
position of U.S. companies in this manner. quantity, value, or price of have utmost respect for his leadership
nology for a period of six months after issu-
DONALD in this area, having served on his com-
hi urge you to amend the EAA to eliminate ance or denial of an export license or grant-
ts problem Ing or denial of re-export authorization mittee, his judiciousness and fairness,
Governmental ai Affairs. (after which this information, with the ex- not only in this, but in everything the
GoveGovernmental ception of value or price of such good or problem I have with the substitute or his
Mr. PREYER. Mr.' Chairman, will the technology, will be available pursuant to amendment is the fact that you put an
gentleman yield? section 552 of Title 5, United States Code)"; arbitrary blanket clamp on any infor-
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I yield to the and mation until June 30, 1980. Nothing could
gentleman from North Carolina. (2) by striking out the last two sentences be released. And then \after 'that, I do
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, I would and inserting in lieu thereof the following: not even know what could be released.
like "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
gentle man reply to the comments of the authorizing the withholding of information So this spells out a compromise, a com-
entlma from Minnesota. from Congress, and all information obtained promise instead of asking for the parties,
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The at any time under this Act or previous Acts we have put in the countries, I have com-
time of the gentleman from California regarding the control of exports, including promised that we will not ask fdr the
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO) has expired. any report or license application required value or the price. I will say to those
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask under this Act, shall be made available upon Members who are concerned about hurt-
uani2nous consent that the gentleman be request to any committee or subcommittee mg exports that we ought to cut out some
allowed to proceed for 1 additional min- of Congress of appropriate jurisdiction. No of the paperwork that they have to file
ute. such committee or subcommittee shall dis. with the Government in the first place.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there close any information obtained under this If that is a concern, cut some of the
objection to the request of the gentle- Act previous Acts regarding the control
of exports which ch is submitted ted on a confi- redtape; but do not cut back the people's
man from North Carolina? dential basis unless the full committee de- right to know. And they do have a right
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ob- termines that the withholding thereof is to know..I realize that it is delicate, it is
ject. contrary to the national interest." a tough situation, but I think this com-
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. O.bjec- Redesignate the following sections ac- promise language will get to the heart of
tion is heard. cordingly. the matter and I hope the amendment is
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask Mr. QUAYLE (during the reading). accepted.
unanimous consent that all debate on Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
this amendment and all amendments that the amendment be considered as gentleman yield?
thereto cease in 10 minutes. read and printed in the REcoRD. Mr. QUAYLE.I yield to the gentleman
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there from Maryland.
objection to the request of the gentle- objection to the request of the gentle- AUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want
man from New York? man from Indiana? Mr. B
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, reserv. There was no objection. to say to the we have
character-
ing the right to objection, I hope that Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, this- seen say A seed the Preyer gentleman compromise. It is no compro-
10-minute gentleman would not insist on his amendment is basically a compromise mice as a amendment an that
the all. It is a cosmetic . It is change o-
10-minute limitation to this colloquy. I between what the gentleman from Cali- the bill's language which fact restricts
do have a perfecting amendment to the fornia (Mr. DORNAN) and the gentleman the public's right to know, and we do
Dorman amendment. After the expira- from North Carolina (Mr. PREYER) are have alance the rights and we do
tion of my time on that amendment, trying to do..Let me tell the Members hx
coun-
then I would not object to limitation of what this amendment does. against the in strategic damage done to processes, this
time. So I would hope that I could con- It does not release any information try by trading ma-
vince the gentleman to withdraw his during the licensing process. I do not trrib nations and which pin ruse them t wit th Communist
e set, build up their
t
unanimous consent request. think that it is appropriate to release
LLIULI4, 2LUU L11611 11 U116 g61SLIVAII L1a waLLLJ COO, UUL-r, Y11G v115'J1LSe ..?.b.,ww,,.,,..., .,,,.. here. The gamendment is a
to ask for a 10- or 15-minute limita- I do want some information-revealed true compromise. gentleman's does protect the
tion, I would not object at that time. to the public, if the public wants it, 6 rights of business exporters and at the
Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will months after the export license is
yield, the gentleman will have to make granted: same equally and and even A more,
his peace with the gentleman from Cali- I realize that it is a very delicate thing important time the know that right of their the Government American will not
fornia (Mr. DANNEMEYER), because his to balance what is in fact a trade secret, permit to fall into the hands of our
time is being cut down `by every addi- what should be confidential and what pnrmies, secrets and processes and prous
tional minute we spend on this amend- should be the people's right to know.
ment. That is not an easy question to answer. ucts that should not be there.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.Does In this amendment there are a couple of Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentle-
the gentleman from New York (Mr. things that are taken out that are now in man for offering his amendment.
BINGHAM) withdraw his unanimous con- the bill. One of those things, we do not Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
sent request? ask for the parties involved. We do ask gentleman yield?
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
September 21, 1979 (CON(C]iSIESSEONAL RSCORD OUSTS H 8309
Mr. QUAYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentleman
for, yielding.
Mr. Chairman, because we are all try-
ing to be conciliatory here, I hate to be
political; but I will put my Chamber of
Commerce rating or yours up against
anybody who has spoken against my
amendment or the gentleman's perfect-
ing amendment, which I accept, against
any Member who has spoken against us
oft this side of the aisle or that side of
the aisle.
We are the defenders of free enter-
prise. I want to give American business
the right and the freedom to export all
over the world. But what Mr. Stan Evans,
the distinguished citizen from the gen-
tleman's State is trying to find out are
the ugly secrets involved with the Kama
River problem, that massive truck fac-
tory.
^ 1200
Those trucks will be carrying soldiers
to kill people in Israel soon. That is why
the American-Jewish Congress Against
Kreps has a case this so-called substi-
tute amendment would cut. We would
change current cases and change current
law by this cutting amendment of the
distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina.
I accept the criticism of the distin-
guished gentleman from Florida to put
a 6-month limit on this and keep prices
secret, but not to put everything under
wraps until 1980.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto cease in 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Mem-
bers standing at the time the unanimous-
consent request was agreed to will be rec-
ognized for 45 seconds each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. PREYER).
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, let me
make clear that there is no compromise
involved in the Quayle amendment as be-
tween the Dornan amendment and the
Preyer amendment. The key thing we
are losing sight of is there is a difference
between licensing information and ex-
part information.
My amendment goes to export infor-
mation. It carries out the policy estab-
lished by William Simon, the former
Secretary of the Treasury. It carries out
the policy in effect at the Treasury De-
partment right now.
It is simply being avoided by some
shippers, mostly on the west coast, who
remove or destroy the bill of lading.,This
prevents the routine disclosure of export
information.
-Mr. Simon is hardly a man who would
harass business. As far as licensing in-
formation, the Dornan amendment and
the Quayle amendment would reveal bus-
iness information not now revealed. That
is harassing business. That Is the amend-
ment the Members ought to be against.
The statements of the gentleman from
Minnesota and the gentlewoman from
New Jersey are directed at the licensing
information that would be revealed. The
disclosure of export information is al-
ready our policy.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. LAGOnu ass o) .
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I think we should clarify exactly what
we are doing here. I think that the lan-
guage in the bill, as explained in the
committee report which I referred to
earlier, solves the problem to the satis-
faction of industry and the people in the
Department of Commerce. As far as
strategic information, that does not have
to be released now, as provided for by
the P'reedom of Information Act.
All of this information-and this Is
confirmed by and fortified in the bill-
has to be furnished to Congress, and cer-
tainly we are capable of exercising over-
sight. I am sure that this subcommittee
is going to continue to do that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Doa-
NAN) is recognized.
Mr. DORNAN. Although the Foreign
Affairs Committee report states that they
turn down the administration request to
exempt. from the FOIA all Information
obtained from exporters under this act
by receiving the types of information
which could be withheld, the bill, in ef-
fect, grants a complete exemption.
The following information is exempt:
Parties, type of goods or technology be-
ing exported, destination, end use, quan-
tity-what else Is there?
I wish every Member of this House
could read the brief of the American-
Jewish Congress against Kreps legal case
to understand better exactly what we are
talking about here.
If there are further refinements need-
ed, let us get at them next year, but
something has to be done now before we
find ourselves facing Armageddon with
our own high technology coming back at
us in a totalitarian blitzkrieg.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. BAuruAw).
(Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. BAUMAN addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Extensions of Remarks.]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BAuRzAN
yielded the balance of his time to Mr.
QUAYI:E).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ANDREws
of North Carolina and Mr. F'ASCELL
yielded their time to Mr. PREYER.)
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Pagvxa).
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, if-- I
might finish up the argument I was mak-
ing earlier, those who say the Preyer
amendment is another amendment har-
assing business do not understand that
this is a procompetitive amendment.
The more information that carriers,
warehousemen, Insurance people, and
others who deal with the shipping in-
dustry, the more information they have,
the more competitive they are, the more
they can reduce prices, the more our
shipping is competitive around the
world.
The Dornan amendment is a broad-
sweeping, new step in our policy. It
adopts an open-door policy on informa-
tion which is collected during the licen-
sing process, information as sensitive as
market shares, for example.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. KINDNESS).
Mr. KINDNESS. Mr. Chairman, there
is a good bit of complication involved
in this, far too much to discuss in 45
seconds, but I wish everyone who has
spoken so eloquently on this subject to-
day had studied the difference between
the two different sections of the law in-
volved and the two types of informa-
tion to which we are directing our at-
tention; the shippers export declaration
is one thing, an export license applica-
tion is another.
Either leave the bill as it is or support
the Preyer amendment, but let us not
go overboard with either of the alterna-
tives that are presented with this and
put more roadblocks in the way of de-
veloping exports for our Nation.
We are going far too far in an unnec-
essary way, I believe, with the amend-
ment of the gentleman from California.
The gentleman from Indiana has
sought to improve upon it, but we still
are talking about two different things
and not that involved in the Jewish Con-
gress litigation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. FRLNEEL).
(Mr. FRENZEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I owe
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
PREYER) an apology. I was a little over-
enthusiastic in describing his amend-
ment. His description of it is accurate.
Mine was overstated. It is an enormous
improvement over the Dorgan amend-
ment.
The Quayle amendment should be de-
feated. It does not make the Dornan
amendment much more palatable.
The Dornan amendment should be de-
feated.
If the Preyer amendment is accepted,
I guess it will not do too much damage;
but, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing
wrong with the language in the commit-
tee bill. That section was well written by
the committee. That language is my first
choice.
The best option for all of us is to de-
feat all of the amendments. We are try-
ing to improve our balance of trade. We
are trying to improve the value of the
dollar by reversing our persistent trade
deficits. We want to enhance export. de-
velopment from this country.
We can no longer tolerate the huge
deficit. The best way to encourage ex-
ports is to leave the law as it is. Support
the Preyer amendment to the Dornan
amendment, and then reject the Preyer
amendment as amended.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
IH[ 831
CONGRIESSJONAIL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
That is the best way to encourage
American firms, especially small firms, to
develop export potential.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. VOLKMER
yielded his time to Mr. BINGHAM.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZA-
BLOCKI).
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, the
Subcommittee on International Eco-
nomic Policy of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs, after holding extensive
hearings, gave serious consideration to
the confidentiality provisions that are
contained in this bill. The committee bill
solves the existing problem of the court
having ruled that the confidentiality pro-
vision of the Export Administration Act
do not meet the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act. The bill
specifies what information should be
held confidential.
I urge the members of the committee
to support the House version. If they see
some concern, 'certainly the Preyer sub-
stitute is far preferable to the Dornan
amendment, even if it is modified by the
Quayle amendment.
I hope the Members will support the
committee.-
[1 1210
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
FENWICK).
Mrs. FENWICK. Mr. Chairman, we
have heard about trucks and we know
about trucks. Trucks can be made not
only in France by Renault, in Italy by
Fiat, in Germany by Volkswagen, but
also they can be made in Czechoslo-
vakia, and every bus in the Soviet Union
is made in Czechoslovakia. Why do we
get so many of these contracts despite
the competition and the harassment?
Because some of the big companies are
able to deal with the roadblocks that
are put in the way. The smaller com-
panies cannot.
We imported over $106 billion of manu-
factured goods last year and we exported
only $91 billion, and these restrictions
are part of the problem. What part of
the public is interested in the price and
quantity of what has been sold? Compet-
itors. Congress has a right to know if
we are concerned about security, but not
competitors.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DANNE-
MEYER yielded his time to Mr. QUAYLE.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
QUAYLE).
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, let me
Just put in perspective what we have
here. We have the Doman amendment
which goes back basically to the law we
have today. There are people that are
concerned about the law. Bill Simon is
concerned, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. PREYER) is concerned
about it and I am concerned about it.
Next we have the Preyer amendment
to the Dornan amendment, which puts a
cap on all information that is given to
the Department of Commerce concern-
ing exports to June 30, 1980, it puts a lid
on it.
I want. to direct myself to what is a
compromise beteween those two things.
We are not after licensing information,
we are not after information during the
process, we are concerned and interested
about historical data. That is why the
Quayle amendment says any of this in-
formation will not be released until 6
months after the fact.
I do not like to see us get into argu-
ments about whether it is a pro-Soviet or
anti-Soviet or proexport or antiexport
matter, because what we are talking
about here is what kind of a balance we
are going to strike between what the peo-
ple have a right to know and what busi-
ness has a right to be kept confidential. I
want to reiterate that ifi the Freedom of
Information Act today trade secrets are
protected. There is no doubt about it.
Trade secrets are protected. We are not
interested in that.
What my amendment does is to com-
promise what the Doman and Preyer
amendment goes to, and that is after 6
months we will release information. We
will not release parties. Business came
to us and said we do not want to give you
our list of clients. OK, we will release
the countries of the parties.
We will not release price, because that
should be kept confidential, and we will
not release value.
That is a compromise and it is a com-
promise from the original version. I think
it is a step in the right direction to bal-
ance off this thing on the right to know
and the right to protect confidentiality.
I must also say as we get into this, and
I am sure the gentleman from North
Carolina, who has been very active in
this area knows, we will take it up under
the Freedom of Information Act itself
to try to clarify what is a trade secret
and what is not a trade secret. This is
sort of a piecemeal approach to put this
in now. I think the Members ought to
support the Quayle amendment which is
a balance.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
.the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
PREYER).
Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
My amendment is consistent with the
committee bill as far as export licensing
goes. I agree with him absolutely, to pass
the Dornan amendment or the Quayle
amendment would open up business to
great harassment.
Why do we need my amendment at all
then? Simply because some shippers are
frustrating what is our announced policy
in this country about export informa-
tion. Some West Coast shippers are
avoiding that policy, what William Simon
said our policy was on information, by
tearing the bill of lading off the shipping
documents or by mutilating it. My
amendment- simply provides that all ex-
port information will be 'treated the
same all over the country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. BINGHAM).
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first
of all, very briefly on the subject of the
interests of the American Jewish Con-
gress, the American Jewish Congress has
no objection to the committee bill. Their
legitimate problem dealt with the past.
There is no quarrel with what we are try-
ing to do here.
As far as the choice between the Preyer
substitute and the Dornan amendment
is concerned, I think the arguments are
overwhelming in favor of the Preyer
substitute, and I hope the Preyer substi-
tute will be adopted.
As far as the Quayle amendment to the
Doman amendment is concerned, it is
probably an improvement, and in any
event, Mr. DORNAN himself has accepted,
it, so I think that can go on a voice vote.
I would still prefer the committee bill
to the Preyer amendment, but mildly,.
and if the Preyer substitute is adopted,
and I assume we will have a record vote
on that, I will not ask for a record vote
on the final adoption of the Preyer sub-
stitute. .
The CHAIRMAN. The question is'on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. QUAYLE) to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. DORNAN).
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from North Carolina (Mr. PREYER)
as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. DORNAN), as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Maryland press his point 01; order?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman
from Maryland press the point of order
or withdraw the point of order?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I with-
draw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN) withdraws his
point of order of no quorum.
RECORDED VOTE
The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-
ness is the demand of the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN) for a re-
corded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 318, noes 29,
not voting 87, as follows:
[Roll No. 4991
AYES-318
Abdnor
Beard, R.I.
Brooks
Akaka
Beard, Tenn.
Broomfield
Albosta
Bedell
Brown, Calif.
Alexander
Beilenson
Buchanan
Ambro
Benjamin
Burgener
Anderson,
-Bennett
Burlison
Califl
Bereuter
Burton, John
Andrews, N.C.
Bevill
Byron
Andrews,
Bingham
Campbell
N. Dak.
Blanchard
Carr
Annunzio
Boggs
Cavanaugh
Anthony
Boland
Cheney
Applegate
Bolling
Chisholm
Archer
Boner
Clay
Ashley
Bonior
Clinger
Aspin
Bonker
Coelho
Atkinson
Bouquard
Coleman
Bailey
Bowen
Conable
Baldus
Brademas
Conte
Barnard
Brinkley
Corcoran
Barnes
Brodhead
Corman
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
September 21, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
Courter Hyde Pease
D'Amours Ireland Perkins
Daniel, Dan Jeffords Petri
Daniel, R. W. Jeffries Peyser
Danielson Jenkins Preyer
Dannemeyer Jenrette Price
Davis. Mich. Johnson, Calif. Pritchard
Deckard Jones. N.C. Rahall
Derrick Jones, Okla. Railsback
Derwinaki Jones, Tenn. Rangel
Devine Kastenmeler Ratchford
Dickinson Kazen Regula
Dicks Kildee Reuss
Dingell Kindness Rhodes
Dodd Kostmayer Rinaldo
Donnelly Kramer Ritter
Drinan LaFalce Roberts
Duncan, Tenn. Lagomaraino Robinson
Eckhardt Latta Roe
'Edgar Leach, Iowa Rostenkowski
finery Leach, La. Roth
English Lederer Roybal
Erdahl Lehman Royer
Erlenborn Leland Russo
Ertel Lent Sabo
Evans, Del. Levitas Schauer
Evans, Ga. Lloyd Schroeder
Evans, Ind. Loeffler Seiberling
Fary Long, La. Sensenbrenner
Fascell Long, Md. Shannon
Fenwick Lott Sharp
Ferraro Lowry Shelby
Findley Luken Shumway
Fish Lundine Shuster
Fisher Lungren Skelton
Fithian McClory Slack
Flippo McCloskey Smith, Iowa
Florio McCormack Emith, Nebr.
Ford. Tenn. McDade Snows
Forsythe McHugh Snyder
Fountain McKay Solerz
Fowler McKinney Spellman
Frenzel Madigan Spence
Frost Maguire St Germain
Fuqua Markey Stack
Garcia Marks Staggers
Gephardt Marlenee Stangeland
Giaimo Martin stark
Gingrich Matsui Steed
Ginn Mattox Stewart
Glickman Mavroules Stockman
Goldwater Mazzoli Stokes
Gonzalez Mica Studds
Goodling Michel swift
Gore Mikulski Synar
Gradison Mikva Tauke
Gramm Miller, Calif. Thomas
Grassley Mineta Thompson
Gray Minish Traxler
Green Mitchell. Md. Trible
Grisham Mitchell, N.Y. Udall
Guarini Moakley Van Deerlin
Gudger Mollohan Vander Jagt
Guyer Montgomery Vanik
Hagedorn Moore Vento
Hall, Ohio Moorhead, Volkmer
Hamilton Calif. Waigren
Hence Moorhead, Pa. Walker
Harkin Mottl Watkins
Harris Murphy, Pa. Wa (man
Harsha Murtha Weaver
Hawkins Myers, Ind. Weiss
Heckler Natcher White
Hefner Neal Whitehurst
Heftel Nedzi Whitley
Hillis Nelson Whittaker
Hinson Nichols Whitten
Holt Nolan Wilson, Bob
Holtzman Nowak Wilson, Tex.
Hopkins O'Brien Wirth
Horton Oberstar Wright
Howard Obey Wylie
Hubbard Ottinger Yates
Huckaby Panetta Yatron
Hughes Patten Young, Alaska
Hutto Patterson Zablocki
NOES-29
Ashbrook
Hammer-
Quayle
$afalis
Schmidt
Quillen
B!7uman
Hansen
Rudd
Btthune
Ichord
Satterfield
Carney
Kelly
Schulze
Collins, Tex.
Kemp
Solomon
Crane, Daniel
Livingston
Stratton
Crane, Philip
Lujan
Stump
Dornan
McDonald
Wyatt
Gilman
Miller, Ohio
Young, Fla:
NOT VOTING--87
Addabbo Edwards, Calif. Pepper
Anderson, Ill. Edwards, Okla. Pickle
AuCoin Fazio Pureell
Badham Flood Richmond
Biaggi Foley Rodino
Breaux Ford, Mich. Rose
Brown, Ohio Gaydos Rosenthal
Broyhill Gibbons Rousselot
Burton, Phillip Hall, Tex. Runnels
Butler Hanley Santini
Carter Hightower Sawyer
Chappell Holland Sebelius
Clausen Hollenbeck Simon
Cleveland Jacobs Stanton
Collins, Ill. Johnson, Colo. Stenholm
Conyers Kogovsek Symms
Cotter Leath, Tex. Taylor
Coughlin Lee Treen
Daschle Lewis Ullman
Davis, S.C. McEwen Wampler
de la Garza Marriott Williams, Mont.
Dellums Mathis Williams, Ohio
Diggs Moffett Wilson, C. H.
Dixon Murphy, M. Winn
Dougherty Murphy, N.Y. Wolff
Downey Myers, Pa. Wolpe
Duncan, Oreg. Oakar Wydler
Early Pashayan Young, Mo.
Edwards, Ala Paul Zeferetti
^ 1230
Messrs. SATTERFIELD, STRATTON,
SOLOMON, LIVINGSTON, and COL-
LINS of Texas changed their votes from
"aye" to "no."
So the amendment offered as a substi-
tute for the amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr.
DORNAN), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
REPORT TO CONGRESS
SEC. 115. Section 14 of the Export Admin-
istration Act of 1969, as redesignated by sec-
tion 104(a) of this Act, is amended to read
as follows:
"ANNUAL REPORT
"SEC. 14. Not later than December 31 of
each year, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report on the administration of
this Act during the preceding fiscal year. All
agencies shall cooperate fully with the Secre-
tary in providing information for such report.
Such report shall include detailed informa-
tion with respect to-
" (1) the implementation of the policies set
forth in section 3;
"(2) general licensing activities under sec-
tions 6, 6, and 7;
"(3) actions taken in compliance with sec-
tion 6(c) (3);
"(4) changes in categories of items under
export control referred to In section 5 (e);
"(5) the operation of the indexing system
under section 6(g);
"(6) determinations of foreign availability
made under section 5(f), the criteria used
to make such determinations, the removal
of any export controls under such section,
and any evidence demonstrating a need to
impose export controls for national security
purposes notwithstanding foreign availabil-
ity;
"(7) consultations with the technical ad-
visory committees established pursuant- to
section 5(h), the use made of the advice
rendered by such committees, and the con-
tributions of such committees toward im-
plementing the policies set forth in this Act;
118311
"(8) changes in policies toward individual
countries under section 5(b);
"(9) actions taken to Cary out section
5(d);
"(10) the effectiveness of export controls
imposed under section 6 in furthering the
foreign policy of the United States;
"(11) the Implementation of section 8;
"(12) export controls and monitoring
under section 7;
"(13) organizational and procedural
changes undertaken to increase the efficiency
of the export licensing process and to fulfill
the requirements of section 10, Including an
analysis of the time required to process li-
cense applications and an accounting of ap-
peals received, court orders issued, and
actions taken pursuant thereto under sub-
section (1) of such section; and
"(14) violations under section 11 and en-
forcement activities under section 12.".
Mr. BINGHAM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that section 115 be considered as read,
printed in the RECORD and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection,
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are
there amendments to section 115?
If not, the,Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
RULES AND REGULATIONS
SEC. 118. The Export Administration Act
of 1969 is amended by inserting after section
14, as redesignated by section 104(a) 'of this
Act, the following new section:
"REGULATORY AUTHORITY
"SEC. 16. The President and the Secretary
may issue such rules and regulations as are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Act. Any such rules or regulations Issued to
carry out the provisions of section 6(a),
6(a), 7(a), or 8(b) may apply to the financ-
ing, transporting, or other servicing of ex-
ports and the participation therein by any
person.".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are
there amendments to section 116?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
DEFINITION
SEC. 117. Section 16 of the Export Adminis-
tration Act of 1969, as redesignated by sec-
tion 104(a) of this Act, is amended-
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking out "and"
after the semicolon;
(2) In paragraph (2) by striking out the
period at the end thereof and Inserting in
lieu thereof "; and"; and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(3) the term 'Secretary' means the Secre-
tary of. Commerce.".
EFFECT ON OTHER ACTS
SEC. 118. (a) Section 17 of the Export Ad-
ministration Act of 1969, as redesignated by
section 104(a) of this Act, is amended in
subsection (b) by striking out "section 414
of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C.
1934) " and inserting in lieu thereof "section
38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2778) ".
(b) Effective October 1, 1979, the Mutual
Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951 (22
U.S.C. 1611-1613d) is superseded.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 119. Section 18 of the Export Adminis-
tration Act of 1969, as redesignated by sec-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
H 8312
tion 104(a) of this Act, is amended to read
as follows:
"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
"SEC. 18. (a) REQUIREMENT OF AUTHORIZING
LEGISLATION.-Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no appropriation shall be
made under any law to the Department of
Commerce for expenses to carry out the pur-
poses of this Act unless previously and spe-
cifically authorized by law.
"(b) AUTHORIZATION: (l) There are au-
thorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Commerce to carry out the purposes
of this Act $7,070,000 for the fiscal year 1980
and $7,777,000 for the fiscal year 1981 (and
such additional amounts as may be neces-
sary for increases in salary, pay, retirement,
other employee benefits authorized by law,
and other nondiscretionary Costs).
"(2) Of the funds-appropriated to the De-
partment of State for the fiscal year 1980, the
Secretary of State may use such amounts as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions
of section 5 (k) of this Act.".
TERMINATION DATE
SEC. 120. Section 20 of the Export Adminis-
tration Act of 1969, as redesignated by sec-
tion 104(a) of this Act, is amended by strik-
ing out "1979" and inserting in,lieu thereof
"1983".
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 121: (a) For purposes of this section,
an amendment which is expressed in terms
of an amendment to a section or other pro-
vision, shall be considered to be a section, as
redesignated by section 104(a) of this Act,
or other provision of the Export Administra-
tion Act of 1969.
(b) Section 7 is amended-
(1) in the section heading by striking out
"AUTHORITY" and inserting in lieu thereof
"OTHER CONTROLS";
(2) in subsection (b)-
(A) in paragraph (1)-
(1) by inserting "(2) (C)" immediately
after "section 3" the first time it appears,
(ii) by striking out "articles, materials, or
supplies, including technical data on any
other information," and inserting in lieu
thereof "goods",
(iii) by striking out "articles, materials, or
supplies" and inserting in lieu thereof
"goods", and
(iv) by striking out "(A)" and inserting
in lieu thereof "(C) "; and
(B) by striking out paragraph (2) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(2) Upon imposing quantitative restric-
tions on exports of any goods to carry out the
policy, stated in section 3(2) (C) of this Act,
the Secretary shall include in a notice pub-
lished in the Federal Register with respect
to such restrictions an invitation to all in-
terested parties to submit written comments
within fifteen days from the date of publica-
tion on the impact of such restrictions and
the method of licensing used to implement
them.";
(3) in subsection (c)-
(A) in paragraph (1)-
(i) by striking out "(A)"" and inserting in
.lieu thereof "(C) "",
(ii) by striking out "of Commerce",
(iii) by striking out "7(c)" and inserting
in lieu thereof "12(c)", and
(iv) by striking out "article, material, or
supply" and inserting in lieu thereof "goods":
(B) in paragraph (2) by striking out "each
article, material, or supply" and inserting in
lieu thereof "any goods'"; and
(C) by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
"(3) The. Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of Energy to determine whether
monitoring under this subsection Is war-
ranted with respect to exports of facilities,
machinery, or equipment normally and prin-
cipally used, or intended to be used, in the
production, conversion, or transportation of
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
fuels and energy (except nuclear energy),
including but not limited to, drilling rigs,
platforms, and equipment; petroleum refin-
eries, natural gas processing, liquefaction,
and gasification plants; facilities for produc-
tion of synthetic natural gas or synthetic
crude oil; oil and gas pipelines, pumping
stations, and'associated equipment; and ves-
sels for transporting oil, gas, coal, and other
fuels."; -
(4) in subsection (f)-
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking out "(B)
or (C)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(A)
or (B)"
(B) in paragraph (2)-
(I) by striking out "of Commerce" each
place it appears, and
(ii) by striking out "(A)" and inserting in
lieu thereof "(C)"; and
(C) in paragraph (3) by striking out
"clause (A) or (B) of paragraph (2)" and
inserting in lieu thereof "paragraph (2) (C) ";
(5) in subsection (i) by striking out "(A)
,and inserting in lieu thereof "(C) ";
(6) in subsection (j)-
(A) by striking out "(A)" and inserting in
lieu thereof "(C)"; and
(B) by striking out "of Commerce" each
place it appears; and
(7) by striking out subsections (a), (d),
(e), (g), (h), and (k), and redesignating
subsections (b), (c), (f), (I), (j), (1), sub-
section (m), as added by section 6(d) (2) of
the International Security Assistance Act of
1978, and subsection (n), as added by,sec-
tion 109 of this Act, as subsections (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively.
(c) Section 8 is amended- .
(1) in paragraphs (1) (D) and (5) of sub-
section (a) by striking out "of Commerce";
and
(2) in subsection (b)- -
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking out
"4(b)" and inserting in lieu thereof "6(a) ";
and
(B) in paragraph (2) by striking out "of
Commerce" each place it appears.
(d) Section 9 Is amended-
(1) by striking out "of Commerce" each
place it appears; and
(2) by striking out "commodity" each place
it appears and inserting Iii lieu thereof
"good"
(e) Subsection (c) (2) of section 11 is
amended by striking out '4A`' each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof "8".
(f) Section 12 is amended-
(1) in subsection (b) by striking out "the
Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11,
1893 (27 Stat. 443; 49 U.S.C. 46)" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "section 6002 of title 18.
United States Code";
(2) in subsection (c)-
(A) by striking out '"4A" and Inserting in
lieu thereof "8";
(B) by striking out "6" and inserting in
lieu thereof "11 and
(C) by striking out "section 4(b)" and
inserting in lieu thereof "this Act";
(3) in subsection (d)-
(A) by striking out "quarterly"; and
(B) by striking out "10" and inserting in
lieu thereof "14"; and
(4) in subsection (e)-.-
(A) by striking out "of Commerce";
(B) by striking out "(c)" and inserting
in lieu thereof "(h) ";
(C) by striking out "articles, materials,
and supplies" and inserting in lieu thereof
"goods and technology", and
(D) by striking out the last two sentences
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"The Secretary shall include, in the annual
report required by section 14 of this Act,
actions taken on the basis of such review
to simplify such rules and regulations.".
(g) Section 13 is amended by striking
out "6" and inserting in.lieu thereof "11".
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ACTS
SEC. 122. (a) Section 38(e) of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(e)) Is
amended by striking out "sections 6 (c), (d),
(e), and (f) and 7 (a) and (c) of the Export
Administration Act of 1969" and inserting
in lieu thereof "subsections (c), (d), (e),
and (f) of section 11 of the Export Admin-
istration, Act of 1969, and by subsections (a)
and (c) of section 12 of such Act".
(b) (1) Section 103(c) of, the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6212(c) )
is amended by striking out "(A)" each place
it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
"(C)'
(2) Section 254(e) (3) of such Act (42.
(A) by striking out "7" and inserting in
lieu thereof "12"; and
(B) by striking out "(50 App. U.S.C. 2406".
(c) Section 993(c) (2) (D) of the Internal-
Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 993(c) (2)
(D)) is amended-
. (1) by striking out "4(b)" and inserting
in lieu thereof "7(a)";
(2) by striking out "(50 U.S.C. App. 2403
(b))"; and
(3) by striking out "(A)" and inserting
in lieu thereof "(C) ".
SAVINGS PROVISIONS
SEC. 123. (a) All delegations, rules, regula-
tions, orders, determinations, licenses, or
other forms of administrative action which
have been made, issued, conducted, or al-
lowed to become effective under the Export
Control Act of 1949 or the Export Adminis-
tration Act of 1969 and which are in effect
at the time this Act takes effect shall con-
tinue in effect according to their terms
until modified, superseded, set aside, or re-
voked under this Act or the amendments
made by this Act.
(b) This Act and the amendments made
by this Act shall not apply to any admin-
istrative proceedings commenced or any ap-
plication for a license made, under the Ex-
port Administration Act of 1969, which is
pending at the time this Act takes effect.
(c) This Act and the amendments made
by this Act shall not affect any investigation,
suit, action, or other judicial proceeding com-
menced under the Export Administration
Act of 1969, or under section 652 of title 5,
United States Code, which is pending at the
time this Act takes effect; but such investi-
gation, suit, action, or proceeding shall be
continued as if this Act had not been
enacted.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 124. (a) Except as provided in sub-
section (b), this title and the amendments
made by this title shall take effect on Oc-
tober 1, 1979.
(b) The amendments made by sections
107 and 108 of this Act shall take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE II-INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT
SURVEY ACT
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 201. (a) Section 9 of the International
Investment Survey Act of 1976 (90 Stat.
2059) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 9. To carry out this Act, there are
authorized to be appropriated $4,400,000 for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980,
and $4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 1981.".
(b) The amendment made 'by subsection
(a) shall take effect on October 1, 1979.
Mr. BINGHAM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent's
that the remainder of the bill be consid-
ered as read, printed in the RECORD and
open to amendment at any point. -
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there'
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. BINOBAes) ?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF OHIO
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
September 21, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSIE
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MILLER of
Ohio: Page 63, immediately after line 6, in-
sert the following new section:
DIVERSION TO MILITARY USE OF CONTROLLED
GOODS OR TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 127. Section 5 of the Export Admin-
istration Act of 1969, as added by section
104(b) of this Act, is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new subsec-
tion:
"(1) DIVERSION TO MILITARY USE. OF CON-
TROLLED GOODS OR TECHNOLOGY.-(1) When-
ever there is reliable evidence that goods
or. technology, which were exported subject
to national security controls under this sec-
tion to a country to which exports are con-
trolled for national security purposes, have
been diverted to significant military use, the
Secretary shall, for as long as that diversion
to significant military use continues-
"(A) deny all further exports to the party
responsible for that diversion of any goods
or technology subject to national security
controls under this section which contribute
to that particular military use, regardless
of whether such goods or technology are
available to that country from sources out-
side the United States; and
"(B) take such additional steps under this
Act as are necessary to prevent the further
military use of the previously exported goods
or technology.
"(2) As used in this subsection, the terms
'diversion to significant military use' and
'significant military use' include, but are not
limited to, the use of goods or technology In
the design or production of any item on the
United States Munitions List.".
Mr. MILLER of Ohio (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. MILLER) ?
There was no objection.
(Mr. MILLER of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
there is one important item missing from
this act which must be corrected. The
item concerns what the administration
should do once a determination has been
made that a military diversion has taken
place by a country to which we are con-
trolling exports for national security rea-
sons.
This amendment would require the
President to stop any further export of
American goods or services to the par-
ticular project or plant which is pro-
ducing the item on the U.S. munitions
control list.
The need for this amendment can be
easily recognized through the Kama Riv-
er truck plant episode. Whether there
were adequate "safeguards" or "end-use"
statements in place should not be the
focus of attention at this stage of the
game.
The fact is-
The plant is in existence;
It was built in large part with Ameri-
can technology and equipment; and
It is producing military vehicles not
only for Soviet use, but for the Warsaw
Pact as well.
Therefore, the question now confront-
ing us is what should America do today,?
Not what we should have done yesterday.
Are we going to continue the export of
spare parts and technical expertise to
keep the plant in operation? If we do, we
are very foolish.
This amendment seeks to clarify U.S.
policy once a diversion has occurred.
All we are saying with this amend-
ment is that if by chance the "safe
guards" and "end-use" statements fail;,
if by chance we made a mistake by trans-
ferring the technology-and that it can
be shown that the Soviets are using the
exports for miltary purposes-then we
must stop the further flow of goods and
services which will contribute or support
the diversion.
We cannot abdicate our responsibility
by saying, "the previous administration
is responsible for this military truck
plant in the Soviet Union; it is too late
now; the water is over the dam, and we
should therefore continue to ship them
the spare parts and technical advice they
need to keep the plant in operation."
That attitude is ridiculous. Why should
we aid in continued diversion?
The arguments can be raised, "won't
the French or Germans come in and sup-
ply the technical expertise and material
to keep the plant going?" I do not think
so. Once the President learns that a di-
version has taken place. He should im-
mediately go to our allies and say-"we
made a mistake, we did not think the
Russians would use this export for mili-
tary purposes. They breached the under-
standing. Therefore, we are going to can-
cel all existing license agreements and
to the best. of our ability, we will try to
prevent the export of spare parts and
technical advice they need to run the
plant. Can we count on your help?"
I have faith that our allies will listen
to such a plea, and work with us to keep
the West strong.
If they choose to undercut us, they are
only hurting themselves, because one day
the Warsaw Pact nations may decide to
challenge NATO with superior mili-
tary strength. The cause for such a con-
frontation will be in large part their do-
ing.
Mr. Chairman, why should the United
States have a munitions control 'list to
prevent the export of military hardware
to countries deemed as potential ad-
versaries-if we turn right around and
transfer the technology and equipment
needed to produce the very items we are
trying to keep from falling in the hands
of these nations?
If we are going to build the Soviet
Union a truck plant to assist in the pro-
duction of military troops transport ve-
hicles, armored personnel carriers, and
tank turrets, why not scrap the muni-
tions list, and sell them the equipment
directly?
If the Soviets choose to divert U.S.
technology for their military-let us call
the deal ofi'. That is the least we can do.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we should take
a few, minutes and define some of the
terms used in this amendment so that,
there will be no misunderstanding of its
original intent when the Commerce De-
partment implements it.
By "reliable evidence that goods or
technology have been diverted," we mean
HH 8313
when the administration has reason to
believe that a diversion is taking place.
It does not mean the administration
must sit back and wait for some third
party to bring in the absolute proof that
a diversion has taken place. When deal-
ing with national security issues and with
nations like the U.S.S.R., there is rarely
absolute proof of anything. The admin-
istration must act on those items it has
reason to believe are being used for mili-
tary purposes. As a result, American in-
telligence agencies must aggressively in-
vestigate any allegations that a diversion
is taking place. In addition, they must
have the attitude that when dealing with
Communist nations-if technology can
be diverted for military use, it will be.
The term "significant military use" is
at least tied to the munitions list. There
may be other items not specifically on the
U.S. munitions list that need to be con-
trolled for national security reasons. Law
enforcement and intelligence gathering
equipment could be examples of such
items. Items on the "critical technology
list" currently being developed within
the Department of Defense will probably
be added to the list of items we do not
want the Soviet Union producing with
U.S. technology and support services. As
a result, the administration must be
given the flexibility to broaden the defi-
nition of "significant military use" be-
yond the items on the U.S. munitions
list.
The term "diversion" does not neces-
sarily have to be connected with the use
of "safeguards" and "end-use" state-
ments. Because of the Miller "safeguard"
amendment overwhelmingly accepted by
this body-271 to 138-on Tuesday, Sep-
tember, 11, license applications to poten-
tial adversaries cannot be approved on
the basis of "safeguards" or on the as-
sumption that "end-use" statements will
be followed. We must still assume that
if it can be diverted, it will be diverted.
Therefore, the United States should not
export the goods or technology. How-
ever, the Soviets are very good at using
American civilian technology for mili-
tary purposes. This amendment is needed
to protect U.S. national security on those
items we exported where we did not
realize that it could be diverted for mili-
tary use by a potential adversary.
The very nature of the Export Ad-
ministration Act we are amending today
defines that we are dealing with dual-
use technologies, and that the United
States would not export goods or tech-
nology which could be used in the design
or production of items on our munitions
list. So, if for example, the Soviet Union
is using the Kama River truck plant to
produce military vehicles-or "civilian"
vehicles later diverted for direct military
use, that is, rocket launchers, troop
transport carriers, et cetera-it can be
said that a diversion has taken place-
regardless of the presence of "end-use"
statements or "safeguard" arrangements.
Finally, this amendment does not limit
the President on additional actions he
chooses to take in dealing with govern-
ments like the Kremlin. This amendment
is only the bottom line. If he knows of
a diversion, his administration must act.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
H 8324
CONGRESSIONAL II CORD - HOUSE September 21, 1979
He can do more than the amendment re-
quires, but he must meet this bottom
line.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a
constructive amendment which will
greatly improve the bill. I urge that it be
accepted. Thank you.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish
we could debate this amendment and dis-
cuss it but it would take some. time to
do so. Under the circumstances, since we
only bad this amendment given to us
fairly recently, I will not object to it.
I think it may require some clarification
in conference, but at this point I. am
pleased to accept the amendment.
Mr. BULLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEM& a of Ohio.. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
on behalf of the minority, I accept the
amendment with the same caveat ex-
pressed by the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. BINGHAM. It may require some
clarification in conference.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from California,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
question is on the 'amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr..
MILLER).
The amendment was agreed, to.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. MOAKLEY
Mr. MOAXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
a series of amendments, and ask unani-
mous consent that they be considered en
block.
There is one substantive amendment
but it necessitates five technical
amendments.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAALEY) ?
There was no objection.
The Clark read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. MOAKLEY:
Page 55, insert the following after line 19 and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly:
REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Sc. a121. Section. 7 of the Export Adminis-
tration Act of 1969, as amended by section
109 of this Act, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new subsection:
"(o) (1) No rained petroleum product or
residual fuel oil may be exported except pur-
suant to an export license specifically author-
izing such export. Not later than five days
after an application for a license to export
any refined petroleum product or residual
fuel all is received, the Secretary shall notify
the Congress of such application, together
with the name of the exporter, the destina-
tion of.the proposed export, and the amount
and price of the proposed export. Such noti-
fication shall be referred to a committee of
appropriate jurisdiction in each House of
Congress.
"(2) the Secretary may grant such license
if, within live days after notification to the
Congress under paragraph (1) is received, a
meeting of either committee of Congress to
which the notification was referred under
paragraph (1) has not been called, with re-
spect to the proposed export, (A) by the
chairman of the committee, (B) at the re-
quest in writing of a majority of the mem-
bers of the committee, or (C) at the request
of the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives or the Majority Leader of the Senate.
Any such meeting shall be held within 10
days after notification to the Congress under
paragraph (1) is received. If such a meeting
is so called and held, the Secretary may not
grant the license until after the meeting:
"(3) If, at any meeting of a committee
called and held as provided. in paragraph
(2), the committee by a majority vote, a
quorum being present, requests 30 days,
beginning on the date of the meeting, for
the purpose of taking legislative action with
respect to the proposed export, the Secretary
may not grant the license during such 30-
day period.
"(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (2) and (3) of this subsection,
the Secretary may, after notifying the Con-
gress of an -application for an export license
pursuant to paragraph (1), grant the license
if the Secretary certifies in writing to the.
Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President pro tempore of the Senate that
the proposed export is vital to the national
interest and that a delay will cause irre-
parable harm.
"(5) At the time the Secretary grants any
license to which this subsection applies, the
Secretary shall so notify the Congress, to-
gether with the name of the exporter, the
destination of the proposed export, and the
amount and price of the proposed export.
"(6) This subsection shall not apply to
(A) any export license application for ex-
ports to a country with respect to which
historical export quotas established by the
Secretary on the basis of past trading rela-
tionships apply, or (B) any license applica-
tion for exports to a country if exports under
the license would not result in more than
250,000 barrels of refined petroleum products
and residual fuel OR being exported from the
United States to such country in any fiscal
year.
"(7) For purposes of this subsection, 're-
fined petroleum product' means gasoline,
kerosene, distillates, propane or butane gas,
or diesel fuel.
"(8) The Secretary may extend any time
period prescribed in section 10 of this Act
to the extent necessary to take into account
delays In action by the Secretary on a license
application on account of the provisions of
this subsection."
Page 59, line 1. strike out "and".
Page 59, line 2, insert after "Act," the
following: "and subsection (o), as added
by section 121 of this Act,".
Mr. MOAKLEY (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendments be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD.
Th CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
? 1240
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, during
the August recess, the Department of
Commerce granted export licenses for
the sale of $47 million worth 'pf petro-
leum products to Iran. There was II)}ich
public outcry over this sale, and I was
active in this protect.
I would like to point out that my ob-
jection has- not been raised because I
want to stop aid from going to the peo-
ple of Iran, nor have I been protesting
an action that may ultimately be in the
best interests of this country. Rather, my
objections were prompted by the fact that
this oil was shipped with no advance
notice to the Congress at a time when
our own citizens are concerned that they
may be facing serious shortages of home
heating oil this winter.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, just let me
explain for a moment the particular
situation in which I found myself when
the announcement of the export to Iran
was made. The original target date put
out by the Energy Department for the
time at which we were to have sufficient
heating oil stockpiled had already slipped
by a full month. I was home in my dis-
trict telling senior citizens that they
would most likely be faced with lower
temperatures in their homes this winter,
telling housing projects that they might
well have to take the risk of maintaining
only 20 percent supply of heating oil in
their tanks-which may cause the sedi-
ment to start flowing through the pipes
and may cause the furnaces to shut
down-and telling everyone that they
would have to make the maximum effort
to conserve.
It was clear that things could well. be
very serious this winter for many people,
particularly the elderly and the poor.
Then, all of a sudden, the Energy De-
partment announced that we had plenty
of home heating oil and were, in fact,
shipping some of it to Iran.
Mr. Chairman, the people in my dis-
trict and throughout, the northeast were
deeply concerned about that action. We
have received a great many conflicting
reports from. the Department of Energy.
It is not at all certain that we are go-
ing to have sufficient home heating oil
this winter. Energy experts from across
the country are doubting whether sup-
plies will be sufficient this winter, partic-
ularly if this winter follows the recent
pattern of severe cold temperatures. A
Small Business subcommittee staff re-
port that was recently issued expressed
grave doubts about supplies because, even
if we meet the Energy Department goal
for primary storage, the amounts of oil
at the secondary and tertiary level-the
retailers and the consumers-are unsea-
sonably low. The overall situation is still
not good.
And, even if we do manage to squeak
by with enough, Mr. Chairman, the.
prices people will be paying are astound-
ingly high-much higher in most in-
stances than the price Iran paid for the
amount they received. As Deputy Energy
Secretary O'Leary testified a short while
ago, people may literally be faced this
winter with a choice between heat for
their homes and food.
When there is that kind of domestic
impact involved, Mr. Chairman, it seems
imperative to have export decisions like
the Iranian one subject to congressional 0--
scrutiny-not necessarily to bar exports,
but to insure that they do not threaten
our own national interests. The amend-
ment I now offer seeks to remedy this
situation and allow for an open review
of a few major energy export decisions
with the potential for this kind of im-
pact.
First, by major export decisions I mean
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
September 21, 1979
two things: One is that the export would
have to be going to a country with which
we do not ordinarily trade in refined
petroleum products, or the export would
have to be significantly greater than
usual. Exempt from coverage under this
amendment will be all our usual trading
partners, like Canada, Mexico, and the
countries of the Caribbean. The other
provision is that this amendment will ap-
ply only to exports that would involve
sending more than 250,000 barrels of re-
fined petroleum or residual fuel oil an-
nually to any one country. Here again.
the vast majority of our usual, routine,
day-to-day transactions will be exempt
from the requirements of this amend-
ment.
In those few instances, however, in
which a relatively large amount of re-
fined petroleum is going to a country to
which we do not ordinarily export such
amounts, the amendment requires that
the Department of Commerce, after re-
ceiving a request for an export license,
notify the appropriate committee of each
House of Congress of the name of the ex-
porter, the destination of the proposed
export and the amount and price of the
proposed export.
Once the appropriate committees have
received such notification, the amend-
ment gives 5 days for a hearing to be
called in either committee in regard to
the proposed export, if they feel the pro-
posal is significant enough and serious
enough to warrant review. If a meeting
were called, either committee would have
10 days-thlit is a total of 10 days from
the time of ? notification-in which to
actually hold a hearing. In all but the
most indefensible instances, the maxi-
mum delay imposed by this amendment
would be 10 days from the time the De-
partment of Commerce received the ex-
port application.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is
drawn as carefully as possible to provide
congressional review in a few important
instances without in any way adversely
affecting the great majority of transac-
tions between this country and our trad-
ing partners. I recognize, however, that
even as moderate as this amendment is,
it might still possibly be necessary in an
emergency (such as an outbreak of hos-
tilities in the Middle East) to forego any
congressional review. As a result, there
is one final provision in this amendment,
one final measure of flexibility. It is that
the Secretary of Commerce can waive
any review-even the initial 5 days-by
deeming the export vital to the national
interest and certifying that delay would
cause irreparable harm. This would pave
the way for immediate export.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, let me
emphasize that my amendment does not
seek to stop future energy exports, nor
does it try to tie the hands of the Com-
merce Department or of the energy ex-
porting companies in dealings in foreign
trade. It is specifically designed not to
affect any routine transactions.
Rather, it seeks to insure a congres-
sional voice in a few unique instances in
which the Departments of Commerce,
Energy, and State are making rather
radical departures from our usual trad-
ing patterns, in transactions that in-
volve relatively large amounts of refined
petroleum products. In that limited num-
ber of cases, Congress should have at
least a few days to review the decisions
of those agencies-decisions that are af-
fecting the lives and well-being of a
great many of our constituents.
This is a most reasonable approach,
Mr. Chairman, and I urge the support
of my colleagues for. this important
amendment.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I would be glad to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
the gentleman's amendments refer to
past historical quotas based on past trad-
ing relations. Am I correct in my inter-
pretation that means existing trading
partners will not have to worry about the
reliability of the United States as a sup-
plier of refined oil products?
Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I believe the gentleman's amendments
are very useful. For one thing, it will help
to lay to rest the mistaken notion that it
comes out of ordinary exports of oil
products that are happening all the
time.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the mi-
nority we accept the amendments.
Mr. BEARD of Rhode Island. Mr..
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Rhode Island.
Mr. BEARD of Rhode Island. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to go on record
as supporting the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts on his amendments.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
PEASE).
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding:
I would like to commend the gentle-
man from Massachusetts for this
amendment. I think it is an excellent
one. .
The whole situation points up the in-
adequacy of the Carter administration
in terms of its understanding of how
Americans, ordinary Americans, respond
to problems in the energy field. The
gentleman's amendment is a construc-
tive step toward overcoming or at least
bypassing that inadequacy. I do com-
mend the gentleman for his effort.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAK-
LEY).
The amendments were agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BINGHAM
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BINGHAM:
Page 63, insert the following after line 6:
(c) Regulations implementing the pro-
visions of section 10 of the Export Adminis-
tration Act of 1969, as added by section
104(c) of this Act, shall be issued and take
effect not later than July 1, 1980.
1HI 8315
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the
Members will recall that this section pro-
vides somewhat complicated procedures
for imposing deadlines on the various
stages of the export administration proc-
ess. The amendment would give the
administration 9 months in which to
bring those procedures into effect. We
believe they are doing this administra-
tively today. They are working out those
procedures. I think the 9 months is
necessary for them to get into line.
Otherwise, they would have to impose
these procedures by October 1, which
is the date the bill otherwise would take
effect.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I commend the gentleman for offering
this amendment. I think it is an improve-
ment to the bill and will take care of
some problems.
I accept it on behalf of the minority.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. BINGHAM).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ZABLOCKI
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ZABLOCKI: Page
63, after line 18, insert the following:
TITLE III-MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. Section 402 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1964 is amended by inserting "or beer" In
the second sentence immediately after
'wine".
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is designed to correct an in-
equity in present law which discrim-
inates against beer as one America's ex-
port items.
The situation arises from the current
wording of section 402 of Public Law 84-
480, the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1956. This act is
the authorizing legislation for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's overseas
market development program.
Section 402 states that the term "agri-
cultural commodity" under that act shall
not include alcoholic beverages. Section
402 goes on to exempt wine from this
prohibition, by providing that the U.S.
wine industry can take part in market
development activities financed by local
currencies under this law which was de-
signed to promote American agricul-
tural export sales.
Thus, under present law, while Ameri-
can wines can be exhibited at USDA
shows abroad, American beers cannot,
notwithstanding that other nations have
their competing export beers on display.
Indeed, if it were a U.S. Commerce De-
partment exhibit, American beers could
be included; but not with the Agriculture
Department.
So we have a self-defeating situation
such as occurred at a recent Harnml Pier
International Food Show in Tokyo,
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
1 8316
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 21, 1979
where there were at least a dozen West
German, Australian, and Dutch beers
displayed, but none from the United
States of America.
My amendment would remove the dis-
crimination in the present law by putting
American beer exporters on the same
basis as wine.
Mr. Chairman, I am of course par-
ticularly interested in removing this legal
discrimination because of my desire to
help Wisconsin's agricultural exports:
Beer is an important product of my
State. I also happen to think we produce
the world's best.
It is important to our State's economy.
Some 10,000 workers are employed in
the brewing industry in. Wisconsin. It is
a billion dollar industry in our State. It
is of course an important contributor to
economies in other States.
At this time of recession at home and
big deficits in our foreign trade, it is in-
cumbent upon us to do what we can to
increase American sales abroad.
The Secretary of Agriculture, the Hon-
orable Bob Bergland, supports this
amendment in the interest of American
farmers. The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO
and the State Brewers Association sup-
port it. The Office of Management and
Budget have indicated no objection to
it. It does not involve any expenditure
of taxpayers' funds.
I ask unanimous consent to include in
my remarks, letters of support from Sec-
retary Bergland and from the Wisconsin
Secretary of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection, the Honorable
Gary Rhode.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., September 11, 1979.
Hon. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI,
Chairman, Commission on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MR. OuAmaAN: This responds to
your request for a report on a proposed
amendment to H.R. 4034, the purpose of
which would be to allow beer to be among
the items included in U.S. Department of
Agriculture export promotion exhibits
abroad.
As we understand the amendment, it
would add the words "or beer" in the second
sentence immediately following the word
"wine" in Section 402 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954.
The Department favors enactment of the
amendment.
The omission of beer from those products
eligible for export promotion assistance dis-
criminates against beer produced in the
United States. We favor increased exports
of American agricultural commodities, and
beer is an important product made from our
farm products.
The Office of Management sand Budget ad-
vises that there is no objection to the pres-
entation of this 'report from the standpoint
of the President's program.
Sincerely,
BOB BERGLAND,
Secretary.
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
May 17, 1979.
Hon. CLEMENT J. ZA$Locar,
V.S. House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Bldg.,
Washington. D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ZABLOCKI: Our de-
partment has been intensifying its efforts
over the last few years to increase Wisconsin
agricultural exports. We work with producers
of raw agricultural commodities., as- well as
suppliers of processed food and beverage
products.
We have found that the American Food
Exhibits sponsored by the Foreign Agricul-
tural Service 'of the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture (FAS/USDA) are a useful forum. in
which to introduce and promote Wisconsin
food products before an international audi-
ence. Unfortunately, the members of one of
our most important industries, Wisconsin's
beer brewing companies, are precluded by law
from showing their products at these ex-
hibits.
Public Law 89-808 approved in November
1966, amended P.L. 84-480, the authorizing
legislation for, the overseas market develop-
ment program for FAS/USDA. Section 402 of
the 1966 legislation read in part: "The term
'agricultural commodity' shall not include
alcoholic beverages .
In 1971, P.L. 92-42 amended section 402,
releasing the prohibition for domestic wine
prodoucers. This was accomplished through
the efforts of the California wine producers.
The prohibition, however, remains in effect
for beer.
The inability of Wisconsin's brewers. to dis-
play their products at, these overseas trade
shows puts them at a great disadvantage rel-
ative to beer producers from other countries.
For example, at the recent Harumi Pier In-
ternational Food Show in Tokyo, Japan,
there were at least a dozen West German,
Australian, and Dutch beers displayed. There
were no American beers on display. in the
U.S. exhibit.
Wisconsin's beer industry is a major com-
ponent of our state's economy. Approxi-
mately 10,000 people are directly employed by
local brewing companies, which generate a
total annual revenue of almost one billion
dollars. Of course; the wider effect on the
economy can be imagined when one considers
all the other Wisconsin companies that sup-
ply and service the brewing industry. The
prohibition of beer at government-sponsored
international food shows appears to be
unique to the United States at this time, as
evidenced by the plethora of foreign beers
seen on display overseas. Even U.S. wine is
not so hindered in its international market-
ing efforts.
We feel that it would. be of benefit for the
Wisconsin beer- industry, the farmers who
provide the raw materials for the brewing
process, and the state's economy in general
for this law to be amended further so as to
allow Wisconsin beer to gain greater interna-
tional exposure. We would like to urge you to
study this legislation with the prospect of
altering the inequity that allows U.S. wine to
be displayed at USDA shows, while our' beer
is not. Such a change would not only be in
the best interest of. fair competition, but also
would stimulate growth in the important
Wisconsin. brewing sector.
At a time when our national. balance of
trade is in deficit, State and Federal govern-
ments must make every attempt to remove
regulations that unnecessarily impede the
expansion of exports. There is considerable
interest in Wisconsin for an amendment that
would allow beer to be shown at USDA shows,
including the Wisconsin State Brewers As-
sociation and the Wisconsin State. AFL-CIO.
We would be pleased to assist you in any
way with regard to this issue. Thank. you for
your kind attention.
Sincerely, -
GARY E. RHODE,
Secretary.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am
happy to concur in the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I rest my case, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
,the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI).
The, amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.,
Mr. Chairman, just to lay out the pro-
cedure, we have 15 more minutes. We
can conclude the consideration. of this
bill with. a record vote orr the gentle-
man's amendment to start at 1 o'clock..
I see no reason for a recorded vote on
final passage.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, just
a minute.
Mr. BINGHAM., Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman may really be fouling us up
here. The final passage of the bill is not
controversial.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Wait a second. What
did the gentleman mean, we will be foul-
ing it up? by orderly legislative process?
The CHAIRMAN. Regular order will
be observed.
Mr. BINGHAM. I tried to explain be-
fore. We have been trying desperately to
finish this bill today. I am just asking
for- consideration.. If anyone wants to
vote against final passage of the bill,
wants to call for a record vote, that is:
their intention.
I wanted to explain to the gentleman
from California (Mr. DANNEMEYER) that
I felt the gentleman's amendment could
be dealt with. The gentleman would have
the full 5 minutes to present it.
Others can present their remarks and
revise and extend and start that record
vote. at 1 o'clock and then the Members
call leave. If Members wish to call for a
recorded vote on final. passage. and wish
to do so, that is their privilege..
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. Eighty Members are present, not
a quorum.
The Chair announces that pursuant to
clause 2, rule XXIII, he will vacate pro-
ceedings under the call when a quorum
of the Committee appears.
Members will record their presence by
electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic de-
vice.
^ 1250
QUORUM CALL VACATED
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Mem-
bers have appeared. A quorum of the
Committee of the Whole is present. Pur-
suant to clause 2, rule XXIII, further
proceedings under the call shall. be con-
sidered as vacated.
The Committee will resume its busi-
ness.
Are there any further amendments?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DANNEMEYER
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DANNEMEYER:
Page 62 after line 24 add the following new
section and renumber the succeeding sec-
tions accordingly.
SEC. 124. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act subsection (1) of section 7
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003RO00100030007-7
September 21, 1979 CONGRIESS ONAIL II8IECORD-IFIIOUSII3
of the Export Administration Act of 1969
as such section is redesignated by section
104(a) of the Act, is amended-
(1) in paragraph (1)-
(A) by striking out clause (A) and insert-
ng in lieu thereof the following: "(A) is
orted to another country in exchange
or the same quantity of crude all being
exported from an adjacent foreign country
to the United States, or", and
(B) by striking out "during the 2-year-
period beginning on the date of enactment
of this subsection"; and
,(2) by striking out paragraph (2) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(2) Crude oil subject to the prohibition
contained in paragraph (1) may be exported
only if-
'9~(A) the President makes and publishes
express findings that exports of such crude
oil, including exchanges-
"(I) will not diminish the total quantity
or quality of petroleum refined within,
stored within, or legally committed to be
transported to and sold within the United
States;
"(ii) will, within three months following
the initiation of such exports or exchanges,
result in (I) acquisition costs to the refln-
erdes which purchase the imported crude oil
being lower than the acquisition costs such
refiners would have to pay for the domes-
tically produced oil which is exported, and
(II) commensurately reduced wholesale and
retail prices of products refined from such
imported crude oil;
"(iii) will be made only pursuant to con-
tracts which may be terminated if the crude
oil supplies of the United States are inter-
rupted, threatened, or diminished;
"(iv) are clearly necessary to protect the
national interest; and
"(v) are in accordance with the provisions
of this Act; and
"(B) the President reports such findings
to the Congress and the Congress, within
sixty days thereafter, passes a concurrent
resolution approving such exports on the
basis of the findings.
Findings of lower costs and prices described
in subparagraph (A) (ii) should be audited
and verified by the General Accounting office
at least semiannually.
"(3) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section and notwithstanding subsec-
tion (u) of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920, the President may. export on
otherwise subject to this subsection to any
nation pursuant to a bilateral international
oil supply agreement entered into by the
United States with such nation before May 1,
1979.
"(4) The limitations of this subsection,
and the requirement contained in subsection
(u) of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920 that the President make certain find-
ings, shall be effective only during a period in
which, as determined by the President, the
major oil exporting countries have imposed
severe restrictions on the export of oil to the
United States.".
Mr. DANNE MYER (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be con-
sidered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
,tW request of the gentleman from Call-
1 ynia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I
ant offering this amendment in an effort
to resolve a complication that is Interfer-
ing with our domestic oil supply situa-
tion. Currently, our North Slope Alaskan
oil fields are expanding their production
in spite of the fact that they presently
outproduce the refinery capacity of the
closest domestic refining market, the
west coast. The consequent higher costs
of shipping excess Alaskan crude oil to
the gulf coast ports, due to the inability
of west coast refineries to accommodate
it, represents dollars that could either be
used to develop new sources of oil or
could be passed along to the consumers in
the form of lower prices at the pump.
Ironically, Mexico, which is on its way
-to becoming a major world supplier of
oil, has somewhat the same problem.
While the closest markets for its oil.
much of which is located in the Gulf of
Mexico; are obviously the gulf coast ports
of the United States, it may be shipping
oil through the Panama Canal to Japan
under terms of a proposed agreement.
Paradoxically, of course, Japan is a lot
closer to Alaska than it is to Mexico.
With the energy shortage being a fact
of life, with inflation running at 13 per-
cent and with the easy availability of
Mexican oil, limiting ourselves to less
oil, or higher prices, or both makes no
more sense than it does for Mexico,
which needs every peso it can get to pro-
mote economic development, to ship oil
through a canal and across an ocean
when it could ship it just across a gulf.
What would make a whole lot more
isense would be for this Congress to
reject the idea of a prohibition on Alas-
kan oil imports so that the way would
be clear for a barter arrangement to be
worked out between the United States,
Japan, and Mexico. The United States
could send some of its 'surplus Alaskan
oil, surplus being defined as that amount
over and above west coast refinery capac-
ity, to Japan in lieu of Mexican oil and
in turn, the Mexicans would send the
oil that would otherwise go to Japan,
to U.S. gulf coast ports. Oil shipments
would be speeded up, hopefully costs
would be lessened and the dependence
on the Panama Canal, which could al-
ways be nationalized and closed now that
the United States has surrendered its
claim - of sovereignty, would be sub-
stantially reduced. Furthermore, rela-
tions between the United States and
Mexico, strained in the aftermath of the
President's less than successful recent
visit, would stand a good chance of being
improved.
So that such a barter arrangement
could be worked out, if the parties were
willing, my amendment would waive the
Alaskan oil export prohibition except
when foreign nations impose severe re-
strictions on the export of oil to the
United States. To give my colleagues a
better idea of why this is needed and how
it would work, let me elaborate for a
moment on the remarks I made at the
outset.
At Present, the North Slope oil fields
in Alaska produce 1.2 million barrels of
oil per day, a rate of production that
will soon rise by 200,00.0 barrels per day
and will ultimately peak at two million
barrels per dav, the capacity of the
trans-Alaska pipeline. From there, one
would expect the oil to be shipped to the
closest point, the west coast and either
H 8317
refined or piped East. However, west
coast refineries can refine only 850,000
barrels a day of crude oil, due to severe
environmental restrictions on refinery
construction and expansion, and there
is no west-to-east pipeline for the ship-
ment of crude oil, so the only way to get
Alaskan crude in excess of west coast
refinery capacity to the Middle West and
Texas is to ship it via the Panama Ca-
nal. This, in turn, means that the large
oil tankers that bring the oil down from
Alaska must offload the oil onto a fleet
of small tenders for the canal passage.
Thus, the extra cost of shipping has been
estimated to add roughly $2 to the price
of oil-not an inconsequential sum even
in these days of high oil prices.
The Japanese, likewise, are faced with
the problem of higher than necessary
shipping costs when importing oil from
Mexico. Japan imports almost all its oil
and is bargaining with the Mexican Gov-
ernment for the importation of crude oil,
but Mexico's only point of oil export is
on the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently,
Mexican oil bound for Japan must trans-
ship the Panama Canal just like oil bound
for Galveston from Alaska.
The closer proximity of Alaska to Ja-
pan, and the fact that oil from Alaska
to Japan would not have to go through
the canal, has apparently not escaped the
attention of the Japanese for they have
indicated an interest in buying approxi-
mately 300,000 barrels per day of Alas-
kan crude oil now. This figure also cor-
responds to the amount Japan may con-
tract to purchase from the Mexican Gov-
ernment. Likewise, this figure is close to
the amount of Alaskan oil presently being
produced in excess of west coast refinery
capacity, so we could easily make a deal
with Japan to meet their oil needs and
with Mexico to receive the oil that would
have been sent to Japan. In this man-
ner, all parties could get their oil more
quickly and save some money to boot.
The positive effects of this action would
either be a reduction in cost of crude oil
at the refinery, or an added incentive to
production, or a combination of the two.
The nature of possible savings at the re-
finery would be dependent upon market
supply conditions from time to time. If
there were a crude oil supply shortage,
the price would tend to drop the degree
it would if there were a condition of over-
supply of crude oil to refineries. Trans-
portation cost savings not realized at the
refinery or the gas pump would be re-
tained by the suppliers and these addi-
tional profits could reasonably be ex-
pected to facilitate further exploration
and development in the energy field.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. DANNE-
MEYER) has expired.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
 I[[ 8318
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE September 21, 1979
fornia'(Mr. DANNEMEYER). opposed to the amendment offered b
(Mr. BINGHAM) for his courtesy. ever-decreasing domestic oil reserves for
Mr. Chairman, this amendment can American consumption and resist efforts
have far-reaching positive effects on our
balance of trade position regarding both
Japan and Mexico. In 1977 our balance-
of-trade deficit with Japan was approxi-
mately $8.1 billion. If we were to export
the majority of our current surplus ANS
oil (300,000 barrels per day) at $20 per
barrel we could reduce this deficit by
$2.19 billion. In 1977 Mexico had a trade
deficit with the United States in the
amount of $121 million. The purchase
of additional Mexican crude oil could
create a positive trade balance with Mex-
ico that could help facilitate industrial-
ization in a nation that cannot employ
its people. Such industrialization repre-
sents a long term solution to the prob-
lems of unemployment and illegal immi-
gration to the United States that has
plagued United States-Mexico relations
for so long. The benefits from this facet
of this amendment bear careful consid-
eration by the House in view of their sig-
nificant foreign policy and economic im-
plications.
My amendment proposes that export
of Alaskan crude oil be permitted only
when a barter arrangement may be
worked out with a contiguous foreign na-
tion. This guarantees that export of
crude oil will not result in a net loss of
oil to the nation, but will insure faster
more economical deliveries. The refer-
ence to a contiguous foreign nation nar-
rows the applicability of this provision,
but it also prevents further dependency
upon potentially interruptible foreign
sources since a foreign source, that is ad-
jacent to our borders, may be made more
secure than ones that depend upon ocean
shipment of supplies.
There is additional benefit, heretofore
unmentioned, that 'would come out of
such a barter arrangement. Interesting-
ly, Mexican crude oil, while similar in
sulfur content to Alaskan crude, has a
lower specific gravity. This, in turn, per-
mits refiners to obtain a higher percent-
age of gasoline from each barrel of
crude oil delivered. I need hardly remind
anyone here of the significance of that
fact in terms of the gas lines we have
been experiencing lately.
The objection has been raised that
adoption of this amendment would hurt
our merchant marine. But this argument
overlooks the fact that additional oil
may be produced to offset, at least some-
what, the reduction in shipping distance
and that this additional production
might keep our ships busy. Furthermore,
the fate of our merchant marine is only
one of a number of factors that have to
be considered here. Even if the critics
are right, should that concern outweigh
the incentives to production, the possible
savings to consumers, and the prospect of
improved relations with our neighbor to
the south? I think not. A balance has to
be struck and adoption of this amend-
ment to waive the prohibition on Alaska
oil exports would help strike it. I urge
adoption of the amendment.
to allow exportation of Alaskan oil with-
out careful examination of the costs and
benefits.
The bill, as it is written now, does not
prevent Alaskan crude from ever being
exported, but it does seek to insure that
if and when it becomes available for
trade it will be to the benefit of the
American consumer and not to just the
oil-producing corporations.
It is our responsibility to retain a con-
gressional voice in determining our ex-
port options, and the bill presently main-
tains that any oil exchange plan must
be approved by both Houses of Congress
and not be left up solely to the executive
branch.
Let's look at who would benefit from an
oil exchange. First, the price of Alaskan.
oil is already completely decontrolled.
Since it is pegged to world prices of crude
oil, OPEC increases result in price in=
creases for Alaskan oil.
This has proved to be very profitable
for the oil companies. According to an
article in "Petroleum Intelligence Week-
ly" in June of this year, after-tax profits
on Alaskan sales to the United States
west and gulf coast markets have soared
past $3 a barrel and could reach $4.10,
which would be an 85-percent increase.
The incentive for the oil corporations
in shipping this oil to Japan rather than
the continental United States is that
they will save about $2 per barrel in
transportation costs, increasing their
profits even more-not to mention that
the tankers they use can be foreign-flag
ships using foreign crews.
Second, Alaskan oil's heavier gravity
makes it ideally suited for the production
of home heating oil. At a time when we
are trying to build up our heating oil
stocks for the winter, especially for the
oil-dependent New England region. I feel
we should not ease the restrictions on its
export.
How can we justify sending domesti-
cally produced oil to Japan or any coun-
try when the American people are still
skeptical about the origins of our summer
liquid fuel shortages? We are now at a
time when our President, along with the
Congress, is trying to renew confidence
in Government and I believe that any
exportation of domestic oil would seri-
ously undermine our efforts.
I urge defeat of the amendment.o
^ 1300
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. MURTHA)
having assumed the chair, Mr. SEIBER-
LING, 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 au-
thority to regulate exports, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. CONABLE asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve
this time for the purpose of inquiring o;
the distinguished majority leader about
the schedule for next week.
Mr. WRIGHT. If the gentleman will
yield, there are three things whicl as
an absolute mum w m s a end to
if we--a-r-e-Fo avail ourselves o e o?-
wor period for the first part of October.
e ee thznes_are: The continu-
ing a ro ri he hrn1-
ion and the Panama Canal imple-
mntrig legislation.
seems obvious and beyond the ne-
cessity of any explanation that the
House could not in good conscience
abandon its duty and leave the public
in the lurch with those needs unat-
tended. Each of those bills has a very
short fuse. They should be attended be-
fore the 1st of October, and that means
next week.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I will
give to the gentleman and the Members
the program as I see it from the vantage
point of this far out.
On Monday we plan no votes at all,
and recorded votes would be postponed
until Tuesday. There is one District bill,
the D.C.. Retirement Reform Act. After
that we would proceed to eight bills
listed under suspension of the rules, pro-
ceed with -H.R. 2795, International
Travel Act authorizations, and H.R. 3642,
emergency medical services reauthoriza-
tions, doing general debate only on those
two bills. In each instance, they are
open rules, with 1 hour of general debate
authorized.
Tues the House would meet at
noon. ere would follow the recorded
votes on any suspensions and, if re-
quired, on the District bill, which would
have been debated on Monday. .
-o ed to the ,oMid-
of House Joint so u Io 04,
Continuina A ropriations o al
QQn ~r ?u__ich a rue already has
1 ,a ope t o complete
tion; then procee a consideration
S!??. 2795, International Travel Act
authorizations, and H.R. 3642, emergency
medical services reauthorizations, voting
on the amendments and, we would hope,
on the bills.
On Wednesday, Thurdsay, and Friday
we would meet at 10 a.m. We would come
to the second concurrent budget resolu-
tion, then to the Public Debt Limitation,
following that with S. 832, FEC amend-
ments; g.R. Defense appropria-
tions, fiseayear 33000, DO
au or ions, 1980; H.R. 3180, DOE aff"
thorizations, 1979; H.R. 2859, Domestic
Volunteer Service Act amendments; H.R.
2061,'LEAA reauthorizations; and H.R.
3303, Justice Department authorizations,
1980.
We make clear, Mr. Speaker, that con-
erence reports may be brought up at
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100030007-7