Congratulating Illinois State University as it celebrates its sesquicentennial.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 599) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and to insert extraneous materials relating to the bill under consideration into the Congressional Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I introduced, the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007, which will help ensure that safe and effective antiterrorism technologies are being deployed by the Department of Homeland Security to bolster our security throughout the country.

The Support for Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act as it is known, was designed to provide incentives for development and deployment of antiterrorism technologies.

The SAFETY Act was intended to address the liability concerns of businesses and to pave the way for innovative development of key antiterrorism technologies. Unfortunately, a lack of personnel within the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, an excessively burdensome application process, and a lack of communication between the Department's procurement and management divisions made for difficult implementation of the SAFETY Act.

This legislation which I have introduced, along with Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rogers and many other members of the Homeland Security Committee, should fix many of those shortcomings.

Last year the Homeland Security Committee held a subcommittee hearing highlighting some of the problems that arose from the SAFETY Act's implementation. We heard from a variety of industry leaders and experts that the application process was overly burdensome, and that it took far too long for the Department of Homeland Security to properly evaluate and approve many of the applications that businesses submitted.

While I am pleased to see that many companies with new and innovative technologies have already applied for the SAFETY Act program, the program can be effective only when the applications are properly approved.

My legislation, therefore, takes three important steps to improve the effectiveness of the application process. First, this bill will help facilitate communication between the Department of Homeland Security's procurement sector and the Department's Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, which is the entity tasked with reviewing the applications. This approach will allow officials at DHS to thoroughly review applications while also maintaining quick turnaround times.

Second, the bill would require that the Secretary employ a sufficient number of analysts in the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation who can deal with the ever-growing number of applications. Appropriate staffing will help ensure that the applications are being processed in a timely manner, thereby allowing us to deploy the newest and best technologies as quickly as possible.

Finally, this legislation will help raise awareness of SAFETY Act risk management provisions among procurement officers across Federal, State, and local levels, and throughout the private sector.

Contributions made by private enterprises are an extremely important component of our Nation's security, and our governmental policies should continue to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

By passing the SAFETY Reform Act, I am optimistic that we will be able to effectively streamline the application process and encourage participation in this program across all levels of government and the private sector.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the speakers who have come forward. I want to thank Members on the other side of the aisle for working with us in a bipartisan fashion to bring this bill to the floor. I want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman Thompson and his due diligence in seeing that this act was put together in such a timely fashion and brought to the floor so quickly.

It is the responsibility of every level of government, whether it is the local, State or Federal level, first and foremost to protect our citizens. Our Nation is at war, and homeland security must be our top priority. The quicker that we can get these new and vital technologies in place that will better protect the American people, the better off we will all be.

So it is my intent that this act will clarify some of the problems with the original SAFETY Act and with the implementation that has been witnessed by the Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that we have brought this act to the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I move its passage.

Madam Speaker, I request that the following letters be made part of the Congressional Record.

Professional Services Council,

Arlington, VA, January 22, 2007.

Hon. James Langevin,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,

Science and Technology.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations

and Oversight.

Homeland Security Committee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Langevin and Congressman Rogers: On behalf of

the Professional Services Council (PSC), the leading national

trade association representing the professional and technical

services industry selling to the Federal Government, I am

writing to endorse the legislation introduced by you and

others (H.R. 599) to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-

terrorism technology procurement processes.

We appreciated the bipartisan leadership of Chairman

Thompson and Ranking Member King during the 109th Congress to

provide strong oversight of SAFETY Act implementation,

including the execution of the responsibilities of the

Secretary of Homeland Security and the Under Secretary for

Science and Technology in administering the Act. We are

confident that the Committee's support for the full

implementation of the law and for extending the coverage of

the Act to appropriate anti-terrorism technologies will

remain strong through your Subcommittees' leadership. '

PSC has been a strong and active supporter of the SAFETY

Act since its development in Congress in 2002. We have

commented extensively on the Act, on the implementing

regulations, application kits, and operating principles. We

have met repeatedly with key leaders within the Department

and other offices in the Executive Branch. We testified

before your Committee last year on the Act. We are pleased

with the recent progress made in providing the regulatory and

administrative framework for implementation, and with DHS's

renewed commitment to moving

that implementation forward. However, more can and should be

done.

While the Department is fully committed to robust

implementation of the Act, we see your bill as an important

step in helping the Department achieve that goal--whether

through the allocation of additional full-time DHS employees

to carry out the functions assigned under the Act or ensuring

that the Department's internal procurement and policy

organizations are aligned with and use the authorities

provided under the Act. In addition, the Department plays an

important role in providing guidance and information to other

federal agencies and to other stakeholders about the Act.

Each of these important items is addressed in H.R. 599.

We appreciated the opportunity to comment on the draft bill

and are pleased to offer PSC's support for the legislation as

introduced. We strongly support passage by the House early in

the legislative cycle and look forward to further legislative

and administrative action to fully implement the goals and

objectives of the SAFETY Act. We also look forward to working

with your Subcommittees and others on this important homeland

security initiative.

In the interim, if you or your staffs have any questions or

need any additional information, please do not hesitate to

let me know.

Sincerely,

Alan Chvotkin, Esq.,

Senior Vice President and Counsel.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5916, the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague Mr. Berman. I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership on this important legislation, which will make important reforms to U.S. arms exports.

I would also like to thank the chairman and the committee staff for working with me to incorporate two important amendments that I offered to this bill, both of which will encourage respect of basic standards of human rights in countries receiving security assistance and arms exports. I believe that these two amendments improve this legislation by taking steps to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not being used to arm governments contributing to or engaging in massive violations of human rights, including genocide.

My first amendment, which will be inserted as section 406 of this legislation, states that

``It is the sense of Congress that the United States should not provide security assistance or arms exports to nations contributing to massive, widespread, and systematic violations of human rights or acts of genocide, particularly with respect to Darfur, Sudan.''

This Congress has already taken remarkable strides to condemn the genocide in Sudan, now entering its fifth year, and to work to ensure that the people of this Nation are not unwittingly supporting these human rights abuses. My amendment reaffirms that it is the sense of Congress that violations of this nature, which are gross, widespread, and systematic, are a serious issue, and that the United States should not be providing security assistance to countries that are contributing to such abuses.

In addition, I offered a second amendment, which would also serve to reinforce the respect for basic human rights under this act. Section 103 of this legislation requires a ``comprehensive and systematic review and assessment'' of the U.S. arms export controls system by the President, to be completed not later than March 31, 2009, and sets forth a number of elements that such a review must contain. My second amendment adds an additional element to this report. It states that the President's report must also:

``(F) assess the extent to which export control policies and practices under the Arms Export Control Act promote the protection of basic human rights.''

This language will ensure that Congress will remain apprised of the implications of U.S. security assistance and arms exports on basic human rights. Through the inclusion of this amendment, we will ensure that Congress has all the information it needs to fully understand the impact of our security assistance. Because this amendment only requires an assessment of current human rights practices, it does not run the risk of restricting assistance to nations that, like Liberia, have a poor history of human rights but now, under new leadership, have made important strides toward respect of basic human freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a nation's human rights record should be one element that the United States uses when determining whether security assistance or arms trade will be extended to that nation. My two amendments to this legislation seek to ensure that the United States is not arming governments that are contributing to or committing the grossest violations of human rights, like genocide, and to collect information on how our security assistance policies are affecting human rights in nations to which we are providing arms.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation, H.R. 5916, we are considering today includes a number of important provisions which will strengthen and reform U.S. security assistance and the defense trade licensing and review process. Congress has jurisdiction over oversight of both the U.S. arms export control process and individual sales, under the Arms Export Control Act, while the Department of State has primary responsibility to ensure that arms exports are in line with U.S. foreign policy and security objectives. Unfortunately, the State Department arms export process has broken down, and there is now an accumulated backlog of approximately 10,000 unprocessed applications for arms export license. Due to mismanagement and an underallocation of resources, the State Department process has proven dysfunctional.

This legislation contains a number of important provisions which will alleviate this serious and ongoing problem. It sets up a strategic review, to be conducted by the President, to determine the effectiveness of the current export control regime, and to make improvements where necessary, including in the efficiency in export licensing. Further, it establishes performance goals for the export licensing process, ensuring adequate staffing, flexibility in use of exporter annual registration fees for administrative purposes, regular Inspector General audits, and regular review of items for inclusion/ deletion from the U.S. Munitions List. Finally, this legislation authorizes a special up-front licensing regime for spares and components for weapons systems previously sold to U.S. allies, and increasing licensing process transparency measures to facilitate Congressional oversight.

In addition to these important provisions, this legislation will strengthen vital security relationships with a number of U.S. allies. It adds South Korea to a list of countries already receiving expedited Congressional review, including NATO nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. This move recognizes the critical importance of South Korea to U.S. security and regional stability, and it is a significant symbolic move.

This legislation also extends the same recognition to Israel, and it authorizes the initial phase-in of the Foreign Military Financing formula agreed on by the United States and Israel last year. Further, this legislation requires the administration to empirically assess, on an ongoing basis, the State of Israel's Qualitative Military Edge against conventional or non-conventional security threats. This provision codifies a principle that has been stated by every President since Lyndon Johnson, and requires the administration to provide an assessment to Congress every 4 years, to be used in reviewing arms exports to other Middle Eastern countries. These provisions continue U.S. assistance to Israel, and they provide for increased congressional oversight of this assistance.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also allows for a waiver of Section 102 (b) of the Arms Export Control Act, commonly known as the Glenn Amendment, in the case of the North Korea nuclear program. The Glenn amendment, adopted in 1994, prohibits all U.S. economic and military assistance to any state that carries out a nuclear explosion and that is, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, defined as a non- nuclear weapon state. In light of the nuclear disablement and dismantlement activities agreed to in the Six-Party Talks, this waiver will grant the administration the ability to request appropriations directly to the Department of Energy for these activities, rather than its current practice of channeling such assistance through the State Department's Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, which has other high-priority demands on its funding and personnel. I support this provision because I believe that it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to continue to disable and hopefully remove North Korea's means to make more nuclear weapons, weapons or material that may be used against our interests or even transferred to other states.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I support a provision in Title V of this legislation, which will grant to the government of Pakistan naval vessels, including the Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate McInerney (FFG-8). I believe that the continuation of U.S. assistance to Pakistan is particularly vital at this moment, following the February 2008 Pakistani elections in which two main opposition parties won a majority of seats. At this crucial time for the

new Pakistani Government, I believe that the continuation of U.S. assistance is vital if we are to see crucial reforms and ongoing strides in the global fight against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will strengthen and reform the process of U.S. security assistance and arms exports. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5916) to reform the administration of the Arms Export Control Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has a wide variety of foreign policy tools to promote the national security of the United States. While these tools are often referred to as ``soft power,'' they represent such diverse mechanisms as enhancing ties with friendly countries, ensuring that U.S. exports are regarded positively by prospective customers, ensuring that our policies reflect our values, and using U.S. assistance to stem the wave of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that threaten our very homeland.

The bipartisan legislation before the House today, cosponsored by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, represents a new and important initiative to accomplish all these missions.

Title I of H.R. 5916 reforms the Arms Export Control process, based on proposals made by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Manzullo as introduced in H.R. 4246, the Defense Trade Controls Performance Improvement Act of 2007 to create consistency in our export policy. It also provides for a strategic review of U.S. export control policies to help ensure they promote the protection of human rights.

It also amends the Arms Export Control Act to ensure that our close allies, South Korea and Israel, get the same expedited licensing review that our NATO allies, Australia, New Zealand and Japan currently enjoy. In this regard, the bill partially draws from H.R. 5443, the United States-Republic of Korea Cooperation Act of 2008, which was introduced by our colleagues, Mr. Royce and Mrs. Tauscher of California.

In addition, in order to address recent major sales of defense articles and services to countries in the Middle East, the bill insures that Israel will maintain its qualitative military edge against whatever security threats it may face, codifying this important principle into law for the first time. It also authorizes the security assistance to Israel, including implementing the recent U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Security Assistance.

It's only fitting that as Israel commemorates the 60th anniversary of its founding, the United States renews and strengthens its relationship with our most important friend in the region. Israel is a democratic island of stability in a sea of chaos, chaos which we continue to see just this week this neighboring Lebanon. It deserves all the support we can muster.

Finally, title III of this legislation provides for a limited waiver of current sanctions to support and accelerate U.S. efforts to eliminate North Korea's nuclear program. The waiver would apply to portions of what is commonly called the Glenn Amendment.

Glenn Amendment sanctions keep the Department of Energy from funding its own ongoing work on disabling and dismantling North Korea's nuclear program, including removing plutonium in the next phase of this process, as well as verifying that Pyongyang is living up to its commitments.

Until now, a flexible but limited fund at the Department of State has paid for this work. Continued exclusive use of this State Department mechanism will undermine the ability of the United States to urgently respond to unexpected opportunities to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons elsewhere in the world.

Title III of our bill allows for more rational funding and planning of these activities without giving the administration a blank check. It provides a narrow, carefully tailored authority. It also requires the administration to document for Congress each year the need for keeping this authority in place.

Title III also includes a provision authored by ranking member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen that reinforces U.S. policy regarding removing North Korea from the State Department's list of countries supporting terrorism.

The conditions laid out in that provision include certification that North Korea no longer is engaged in transferring to other countries any technology that enables the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons. The provision also underscores the importance of keeping the agreement laid out in the Six-Party talks, and it states that North Korea must agree to allow participation of the International Atomic Energy Agency in ensuring that the Yongbyon nuclear reactor is shut down and stays that way.

I pledge to this House that the Committee on Foreign Affairs will continue to keep a close eye on the implementation of the Six-Party Denuclearization Agreement. It is entirely possible that North Korea's own actions may sour the deal. However, in the interest of U.S. and global security, we need to forge ahead and accomplish what we can now.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues in joining me in supporting this important legislation.

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 12, 2008.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 5916, ``To reform the

administration of the Arms Export Control Act, and for other

purposes.'' This legislation contains subject matter within

the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5916 and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.

Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over

this legislation, the Committee on Armed Services will waive

further consideration of H.R. 5916. I do so with the

understanding that by waiving further consideration of the

bill, the Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional

claims over similar measures. In the event of a conference

with the Senate on this bill, the Committee on Armed Services

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees.

I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter and a copy

of the response in your Committee's report on H.R. 5916 and

in the Congressional Record during consideration of the

measure on the House floor.

Very truly yours,

Ike Skelton,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Mr. Sherman of California.

Mr. Speaker, I extend an additional minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also rise in strong support of H.R. 5916, the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008. Among this legislation's provisions is language I offered which was incorporated into the original text regarding North Korea's nuclear programs and the ongoing Six-Party talks.

We have heard in recent days about North Korea's hand-over of 18,000 pages of so-called logs concerning its plutonium extraction activity at the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. However, let's not be fooled yet again by North Korea or by those seeking an agreement with this regime at any and all costs.

These logs, according to many regional and nonproliferation experts, do not mark any substantive progress towards nuclear disarmament. For starters, the reporting is limited to North Korea's plutonium-based nuclear facilities and not the totality of its nuclear weapons program as called for under the February 2007 Six-Party agreement whereby North Korea commits to completely disarming itself in exchange for certain concessions from the West.

To address these important issues, the language I drafted, which was incorporated into title III of the bill before us, clarifies and reinforces the conditions that North Korea must meet before it can be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism and before related sanctions can be removed. No new conditions have been added. However, this bill does specify that North Korea must take verifiable actions regarding all of its nuclear activities before such an important concession is granted to this duplicitous regime.

These requirements, Mr. Speaker, include ceasing to provide nuclear assistance to countries such as Syria and Iran, providing a complete and correct declaration of all of its nuclear programs, and in addition to U.S. verification, agreeing to the participation of the International Atomic Energy Agency in monitoring and verifying the shutdown and sealing of the nuclear facility at Yongbyon.

Given North Korea's abysmal record in keeping its promises, verification of its declarations and actions is of central importance to any agreement. For that reason, this bill also contains language in title III that requires the State Department to submit a report to the committee describing the methods and actions that the U.S. will use to verify North Korea's declarations regarding its nuclear facilities, describing all formal and informal agreements regarding verification, and documenting any objections regarding these measures that have been expressed by North Korea.

This bill also strengthens U.S. national security interests and assistance to our strong ally, Israel. It requires the administration to perform an ongoing assessment of Israel's qualitative military edge and authorizes an increase in U.S. Foreign Military Financing that is consistent with the August 2007 U.S.-Israel memorandum on military assistance.

These provisions are of vital importance because, as we all know, Israel is surrounded by a multitude of threats which threatens its very survival. Radical Islamic jihadists in Gaza are continuing to launch large numbers of powerful, accurate, and deadly rockets at Israel civilians and have smuggled weapons, cash, and armed militants from Egypt through underground tunnels. Palestinian extremists continue to carry out attacks inside Israel itself, including the murder of eight people at a yeshiva in Jerusalem this past March, which included one American.

In the aftermath of the summer 2006 war launched by Hezbollah against Israel, this Islamic militant group continues its reign of terror made possible by aid from Iran and Syria, both sworn enemies of Israel, both state sponsors of terrorism, both seeking a nuclear capability, and both receiving support from the regime in North Korea.

According to a Congressional Research Service report finalized just last week and prepared at my request, North Korea's relationship with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an entity involved in proliferation activities and in supporting Islamic extremists, appears to be in two areas: One, coordination and support of Hezbollah; and two, cooperation in ballistic missile development.

And turning to Syria, Mr. Speaker, CIA Director Michael Hayden was recently quoted as saying that the nuclear reactor the Syrian regime was building with assistance from North Korea could have produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons within 1 year of beginning operations.

Then there is the growing menace from Iran's radical Islamist regime. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently reminded us that Iran ``is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.'' As it aggressively pursues the nuclear option, the regime in Tehran still continues to call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Thus, the provisions in this bill enhancing our relationship with Israel are critical to Israel's security and to our own vital interests in the region. This bill also advances U.S. national security and economic competitiveness by including language derived from legislation introduced by Mr. Sherman of California and Mr. Manzullo promoting long-overdue reforms in the licensing of defense exports by the State Department. It also significantly strengthens congressional oversight over a range of issues requiring the Executive Branch to fully consult with our committee before undertaking any actions covered by this legislation.

Lastly, drawing upon an initiative led by Mr. Royce of California and strongly supported by Secretary of State Rice, it upgrades the foreign military sales, FMS, status of our staunch ally, the Republic of Korea. The bill also appropriately affords the same status to our close defense relationship with Israel.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a strong, bipartisan effort unanimously adopted by our Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is the appropriate vehicle to address the significant policy changes on North Korea that the administration is requesting. It is my hope and expectation that we allow the legislative process to take its appropriate course and that we will not seek to circumvent the authority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or to undermine this bill by attaching broad waiver language regarding North Korea to either the pending supplemental appropriations bill or the national defense authorization bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this carefully crafted, much needed, and bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of our time.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes the text of H.R. 4246, the Defense Trade

Controls Improvement Act of 2008, which was introduced by myself and Mr. Manzullo, and it is Title I, subtitle A of this bill.

This subtitle grew out of hearings in our subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade, which were held last July. I want to thank Chairman Berman for including the revised text of H.R. 4246 into this larger piece of legislation. I want to thank Mr. Manzullo for his efforts in crafting our original legislation, and I want to thank Mr. Ed Royce, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade, for his work as well.

The Defense Trade Controls Improvement Act, which is part of this larger legislation, seeks to address past performance failings and, most importantly, understaffing of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, the State Department agency responsible for adjudicating licenses for commercial arms sales. This agency was found to have more than 10,000 open cases at the end of 2006. Only an unsustainable winter offensive where leaves were canceled and overtime was made mandatory and people were moved in from other areas allowed this agency to reduce this huge backlog. Licenses had languished for months, not because they raised significant national security or foreign policy concerns in most cases, but because they simply sat in someone's in box unattended.

Why has the State Department consistently underfunded and understaffed the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls? I believe that there is simply an institutional bias in the State Department toward work that is more highbrow, more likely to be the subject of a seminar at the Woodrow Wilson's School of Diplomacy. But this work, the work of licensing munitions exports, is of critical importance; arguably there is nothing more important done by the State Department. And Congress provides typically over $1 billion to the relevant account which can be used by the State Department for a whole variety of staffing, yet they have consistently understaffed this very important function.

What the bill will do is basically add a couple of dozen licensing officers and avoid this tendency of the State Department to understaff the portion of the State Department which licenses munitions exports.

Why is this licensing process so important? Well, if we say ``yes'' and issue a license and make the wrong decision, the harm is obvious. We have sent the wrong technology to the wrong country which may hurt our military or the military of our allies in the future. But there is also enormous harm if we unduly delay or wrongfully deny an application. It means we lose jobs in the United States; it means our interoperability with our allies is diminished because they won't have American munitions and therefore, won't be able to operate as effectively with our military as they could; it can rupture or hurt our relationship with allies if we wrongfully do not export or unduly delay their request to purchase American munitions, and perhaps most importantly, when we don't act quickly and people in other countries buy their munitions elsewhere, we are building the munitions industry of other countries.

And what is the effect of that? More lost jobs for the United States, more losses on interoperability, and most of all, an undercutting of our policy objectives because once those munitions industries are well established in other countries, they will not be subject to any U.S.- State Department oversight and they may export to third countries things that we would not.

So right now the relevant State Department agency has roughly 40 licensing officers available to adjudicate 85,000 cases expected to be received this year. This bill will beef up the staffing by the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 so that there will be one licensing officer for every 1,250 applications that are based on what we anticipate to be the workload that year.

That is to say, we will go from roughly 40 licensing officers to roughly 68 licensing officers. This is hardly overstaffing.

The Department of Commerce performs a similar function with regard, not to munitions, but rather, dual-use exports. The relevant part of the Department of Commerce deals with one-third as many applications that has five times the staffing. Clearly, we need those 68 licensing officers at the State Department.

This bill also requires a complete strategic review of our arms export control system, a policy review that has not occurred since 9/ 11.

The bill codifies the administration directives with respect to processing times for licenses with respect to export of hardware to our allies. Our exporters will have reasonable assurance that licenses will be adjudicated, not necessarily approved, but adjudicated within 60 days unless there are extenuating circumstances.

This bill does not include any provisions clarifying the jurisdiction over civilian aircraft parts since the State Department has issued a proposed rule, designed to provide a bright line for those decisions.

Finally, I would like to note that improvement in the operations of the State Department office have already occurred, in part in response to the hearings we held in July of 2007.

I hope this bill will further improve our licensing process. It is not for us to tell the State Department that they need to have one licensing officer for every 1,250 applications is not being overly assertive. When we provide over $1 billion to the relevant account, we ought to provide some guidance as to how that money should be spent.

I thank the gentleman for including our provisions in the larger bill.