IEEE also believes that cooperation between the government 1 private industry in fixing and administering export controls essential. As stated in its position paper,
The government should solicit the professional counsel
of knowledgeable non-government individuals in esta-
blishing joint advisory entities to evaluate specific
technology items from the viewpoint of industry, commerce,
and national security, and to review periodically
these value estimates. Individuals who create the
technology are well equipped to advise government on
the importance of specific technologies and the
appropriate, limitations on their dissemination.
In general, we support many of the concepts embodied in two Ils pending in Congress to renew the charter of the Export Iministration Act. They are S. 397, sponsored by Sen. John Heinz Pennsylvania, and H.R. 1566, sponsored by Rep. Don Bonker of ashington.
At the same time, we welcome assurances offered by the dministration that its legislative proposal is based on the ellef that "Economic strength provides the foundation for our eadership responsibilities in the world." We welcome the stateent of Lionel Olmer, the Under Secretary of Commerce, that the dministration "is committed to strengthening and improving the Effectiveness of COCOM." * We believe multilateral controls are ssential to an effective international trade position.
Many electronic products for commercial end-use are controlled reasons of national security. With some exception, most strategic or dual-use items require a validated license for export except to Canada). We agree with conclusions reached by the that the licensing requirements imposed for reasons of national security can be reduced substantially without affecting the integrity of the export control program. GAO has concluded that the present system is more a paper exercise than a control mechanism.
Testimony before the House subcommittee on International
Economic Policy on April 5, 1983.
Report of the Comptroller General of the U.S., (GAO/ID-82-14),
May 26, 1982.
"An Entity Position Statement is a document, developed to express an opinion by an
IEEE entity on a specific topic, issued in the name of the entity it is distinguished
from an IEEE Position Paper, which is issued in the name of the Institute to express a
formal opinion.-From IEEE Policy 14 (1979)
EE Entity Initiating the Statement: United States Activities Board
eed for Issuing: Position on Proposed Federal Regulations and Plans
Itended Use: U.S. Congress, Government Agencies, Media, and Industry
itial Distribution: United States Activities Board
he Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) has
jopted a position on Freedom of Technology Transter Latteched). It is the
osition of the IEEE United States Activities Board (USAB) that the
ituation in the United States in this regard can be substantially improved.
.5. government regulations concerning technology transfer, and their imple-
entation, should be designed to foster U.S. leadership in scientific and
echnological development, to Increase Innovation and productivity, and to
upport and maintain essential national security. The central thrust of
.S. government policy should strongly encourage technological growth at a
ate that ensures U.S. technological eminence, and should not impede such
rowth through excessive limitations on the flow of information within the
echnological community. USAB strongly advocates the significant changes in
urrent practices described in the following paragraphs. Industry, acade-
sia, Individuals and the nation will benefit from these changes.
An underlying, coherent policy, along with consistent, uniformly applied, and readily implementable regulations on technology transfer should be astablished, replacing or amending the several now in existence (e.g., ITAR, EAR, Department of Energy regulations,
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
ENTITY POSITION STATEMENT
The administering government organization should be
responsible for identification of potential damage to
national security, including justification of such
Pre-release screening of technical information by
government sponsored organizations should not be
employed except in extraordinary cases. These cases
should be selected only after consultation with
the knowledgeable non-government individuals who
constitute the advisory entities described herein.
The engineering, scientific, and industrial community
should be much better informed by the government than
It now is as to areas of technology considered sen-
sitive and the means employed by competitor or adversary
nations for improper acquisition of such sensitive
technology.
Regulations should not discourage the participation of
non-U.S. citizens in U.S. academic environments.
Universities cannot be expected to enforce national
security regulations unless explicitly required by a
sponsor of a program that is accepted by the univer-
sity. Admission to the U.S. for study should be
granted according to appropriate immigration criteria.
It is the opinion of USAB that the adoption of the foregoing principles and guidelines will result both in the more rapid growth of U.S. technology and in improved national security.
|