WASHINGTON
-- Legislation designed to ease export restrictions on U.S. satellite
technology is being welcomed by some industry advocates, but others note that
the measure would not affect the current ban on trade with China and that the
bill faces a tough road to passage.
The
provision in the proposed Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2010 and
2011, which passed the full House June 10, would give the executive branch
authority to remove commercial satellites from the State Department's U.S.
Munitions List, thus freeing the technology from the highly restrictive U.S.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
Industry
observers say the new presidential authority would benefit U.S. satellite
manufacturers, who have struggled to maintain their share of the global market
since Congress transferred oversight of all communications satellite exports
from the Commerce Department to the State Department. Before that legislation
was passed as part of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of
1999, the Commerce Department had export licensing authority over all but the
most sophisticated commercial communications satellites.
"Granting
the president the authority to remove satellites and related components from
ITAR controls in certain circumstances should help produce a more nimble and
productive domestic capability," said Bob Dickman,
executive director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
here. Dickman said the U.S. export control regime is
overly restrictive and affects products that no longer pose a threat to
national security and are widely available on the international market. "This
unintended consequence of current export control policy tends to
disproportionately impact small firms that otherwise might generate the new
jobs and export receipts our national economy needs now more than ever."
Patricia
Cooper, president of the Satellite Industry Association, a lobbying group here,
said the legislation would offset the overly broad rules that have put U.S.
spacecraft and component makers at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
"This
legislation will allow U.S. export policies to adapt to changes in satellite
manufacturing technology, and focus on items that merit control," Cooper said
in a June 10 statement. "This legislation will enable even stronger U.S.
satellite exports, reinforcing the American industrial position in the global
marketplace and at home, and safeguarding both jobs and critical space
technology for the nation."
Others were
less sanguine. Joel Johnson, executive director-international with the Teal
Group Corp., a Fairfax, Va., consulting firm, noted that the legislation does
not grant the White House jurisdictional discretion when it comes to China, the
subject of a de facto ban on U.S. satellite technology exports. Allegations
that China was benefiting militarily from launches of U.S. commercial
satellites are what prompted Congress to transfer satellite export licensing
jurisdiction to State in the first place.
"When you
build a common satellite bus as standard for a series of six or seven
satellites, you don't know where they're going to go," Johnson said. "They might
go to a Chinese launcher. So the only way a foreign buyer can protect
themselves is to pick suppliers not controlled by the State Department."
Moreover,
the satellite provision includes language requiring the executive branch to
provide the House and Senate Foreign Affairs committees 30 days' written notice
of plans to remove satellites or related components from the Munitions List.
"The
president will have to convince the committees of jurisdiction that this is
worthwhile to do," said one congressional aide familiar with the legislation.
"It's going to be an involved and complicated process."
Although
the president would not be required to await congressional approval, in
practice, it would be politically risky to move forward with removal of any
satellite technology from the Munitions List without congressional approval.
Significantly,
while the proposed legislation gives the president discretion to remove
satellite technology and related items from the Munitions List, it does not
mandate that they be subsequently placed on the Commerce Department's Commerce
Control List, which would require a Commerce Department license for export.
"There may
be components that are no longer sensitive, and which don't need to be
controlled," the congressional aide said. "But that's something about which the
administration will have to successfully persuade the committees."
The bill
faces an uphill climb in the Senate, which is preoccupied with hearings to
confirm President Barack Obama's
political nominees. Congress has not passed a State Department authorization
bill since 2002, though lawmakers consider foreign relations authorization
bills annually.
If the
legislation ultimately becomes law, the executive branch would not be able to
exercise its new authority for another 90 days. Congressional sources say the
waiting period was inserted to allow the Defense Department time to complete a
study of the implications barring from Pentagon contracts foreign companies
that do space-related business with China. Observers say the study, mandated in
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, is aimed at Thales
Alenia Space of France and Italy, which markets a
so-called ITAR-free telecommunications satellite devoid of U.S. components and
thus unaffected by U.S. export restrictions. Thales Alenia Space in recent years has sold two full satellites
and several satellite electronics payloads for launch aboard Chinese rockets.
The Thales marketing strategy worries some lawmakers, who see a
need to prevent American satellite and component manufacturers from being
further edged out of the international market.
"While
their technology may not be quite on par with American products, it comes with
none of the restrictions on selling to unfriendly nations," Rep. Gerry Connolly
(D-W.Va.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, said during an April 2 hearing on satellite technology exports. "So
while we succeeded in preventing American companies from inadvertently
providing technology to China or other restricted nations, we helped fuel our
global competitors, some of whom do not share our concerns for supplying
unfriendly regimes."