WASHINGTON / CATHERINE COLLINS : Letting the Public in on Which Firm Ships What Technology to Whom

A congressional committee is readying recommendations that a new federal agency be created to consolidate all export licensing for U.S. technology and high-tech equipment. The panel will also propose public disclosure as to which companies are shipping technology abroad.

The proposals, which are expected to be released this month from the House Government Operations subcommittee on commerce, consumer and monetary affairs, come with a backdrop of controversy.

The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Doug Barnard (D-Ga.), disclosed earlier this year that the Commerce Department issued export licenses to U.S. companies for the sale of $1.5 billion worth of dual-use technology--which has both commercial and military applications--to Iraq between 1985 and 1990.

The proposals are likely to ignite protests from business groups and a battle among federal agencies which now share oversight of export trade.

As it stands, a dozen government agencies regulate different pieces of high-tech exporting. And each has its own interests: Commerce is primarily interested in increasing exports, the State Department is concerned with international relations, and the Defense Department worries about national security.

A draft of the subcommittee’s upcoming report calls for establishing a new agency to merge all these licensing functions under a single control.

“The situation is very murky now,” said a congressional staffer. “Whether a particular item needs a license, how to get that license and what agency is responsible for licensing it. We want to simplify and consolidate the system. There should be only one set of interests considered--those of the United States.”

The report also proposes that information on exports of sensitive goods, now held secret, would be made public on a regular basis. This proposal is expected to generate strong opposition from the business community, which maintains that such disclosure would have a chilling effect on U.S. trade.

Among the organizations that have opposed the release of such information in the past is the California World Trade Commission, which represents the interests of the state’s exporting industry.

While the business groups argue that there are competitive dangers in releasing such information, critics of the present secrecy rules say that companies would be far less likely to ship sensitive technologies to foreign countries if they knew the public might find out.

A Plan to Modernize the Customs Service

Exporters might like this proposal better: A one-way ticket to the 20th Century for the U.S. Customs Service.

Rep. Philip Crane (R-Ill.) has introduced the Customs Modernization Act (H.R. 2589), which would provide the first overhaul of the Tariff Act since 1978. At the heart of the proposal is bringing the Customs Service into the Computer Age by giving it authority to use electronic processing for all its transactions.

Although the Custom Service uses electronic processing today, archaic regulations still require “paper” documentation for such items as manifests and invoices. Paper is also required for evidence in court proceedings.

“Our customs laws are for the most part a slightly updated version of what the British left us, designed for an era of sailing ships and physical handling,” said William von Raab, a private attorney in Washington and former commissioner of the Customs Service.

Throughout his eight years as customs boss, Von Raab pushed for a total electronic processing system for the $1 trillion of goods that pass through the country’s borders each year. While he argues that the modernization would be smoother for everyone, the proposed shift to a paperless system has some opponents, including some who work in the industry itself.

“The issue is corporate socialism and to what degree the government is obligated to provide work for the middleman,” said Von Raab.

The Crane bill also would bring new flexibility to the import-export business by creating a national entry processing program. Under current law, U.S. Customs processing must take place at the port where the imported goods arrive. So importers must have a representative or broker in every port where they do business. The new proposal would allow goods to enter one port while the Customs Service did the processing in the importer’s home city. Goods in turn could be shipped to a destination in yet another city.

Rewarding Those Who Don’t Drive to Work

More than a dozen bills are pending in Congress to raise the tax credit given to mass transit riders for employer-subsidized commuting from $15 to as much as $100 a month.

Under the current tax code, if an employer-provided subsidy for using mass transit exceeds $15 a month, it is considered a taxable fringe benefit for the employee. However, when an employer provides free parking it is not taxed, although employers are allowed a tax deduction for the full amount.

“There ought to be equity and balance so that our tax policies encourage people to use mass transit and not discourage them,” said Charles Bishop, director of public affairs for the American Public Transit Assn.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) agrees, saying: “We need to implement policies aimed at getting people out of their cars.” So Cranston has introduced legislation (S.129) that would increase the ceiling to $30 a month.

In the House, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) has already gotten 42 co-sponsors for his bill (H.R. 1145), which would raise the ceiling to $60 a month, the national average cost of commuting.

There is little opposition. But the problem is paying for it, because the result would be a decrease in federal tax revenues.

One answer would be to tax parking subsidies at the same level. If that is proposed, however, it is likely to generate opposition from employers and the auto industry.

Backers say benefits for encouraging people to use public transportation are obvious--a reduction in both traffic congestion and air pollution.

There is the question of fairness, too. The current tax code effectively penalizes workers who use public transportation.