Why do you suspect that it would be politically easier? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Laws are amended all the time — well over a hundred times a year by Congress. How many times a year do you think Congress totally replaces an existing law?

Remember, there is an influential group on the Hill who thinks this is a good law. We need a political laser here, that gets everybody to focus on problems that at least 51% can agree on. A meat axe approach will confuse the issues, and take attention off the substantive issues where we are strong. This is what Berin Szoka was talking about.

– Al

I would add to your list of problems the fact that most of the big players are too busy feeding at the military teet to worry about the tiny commercial divisions — Boeing being the most obvious case in point. They are not going to want to piss off the Congress people who vote for the military budget to defend a relatively tiny civilian industry.

— Donald

What you propose above is similar to what Berin Szoka, Nemo, and others are proposing. A number of people have suggested that we need limited amendments to ITAR that deal with the issue that we are imposing rules (designed for enemies of the U.S.) on those darned Brits, Canadians, and Australians.

This fight is completely winnable, but it will still take a lot of hard work by smart politically-astute lobbyists to push the rock up the Hill, to overcome intertia (and the fact that thee hawks don’t trust even our closest allies).

Which gets back to the original point from several posts ago. The industry that is most affected does not appear to be willing to make the financial commitment to pay for fixing this legislative problem.

I beleive this is for many reasons.

One reason is that this is a version of “tragedy of the commons”. Every business looks at the work to be done, and asks “Why should my company pay the entire bill to fix a problem that hurts all companies some?”

At the same time I assert, by observation, that ITAR reform is NOT a top priority at any company in the industry with deep pockets. If it was a top priority, then where is the draft legislation that has been introduced? It just happens to fall lower on the list of priorities of almost every deep-pockets company in the industry.

Why is this?

The most significant problem is that, because of the time value of money, most businesses rationally focus on shorter term strategic priorities.

Meanwhile, the most signficant damage from ITAR is encurred in the long-term as other countries incrementally replace and eliminate their dependence on U.S. suppliers. Other countries are doing this right now. This process takes place over the long-term.

Another reason is the existence of an off-setting disincentive to big companies to invest in reform — ITAR creates a barrier to entry to new players. Established companies have already figured out how to deal with and manage ITAR, and take it into account into their business plans. It is now part of the “cost of doing business”. They understand that ITAR is a bigger problem to new companies which have a steeper learning curve. This “advantage” partly offsets the ITAR pain felt by these established players. (This is not news. Many studies have been done on the fact that “regulation” creates barriers to entry to new players, and significantly benefits the established providers by reducing competition.)

In summary — what is missing is somebody (or some company) who is willing to put up the funds necessary to execute on this legislative objective.

– Al

However, I do have an idea. A lot of the problem with ITAR is that it is way too broad. I don’t want to sell military technologies to China (and Iran, et al) any more than the Republican “hawks” do. But, the idea that we cannot sell comsats to Britain without treating them as munitians is, quite literally, insane.

One way out of this may be for a bi-partisan group to introduce replacement legislation that is far more carefully targeted. How about a complete ban on launching out satellites and those with American components on Chinese (and future Iranian, et al) launch vehicles?

Target the problem (launch vehicle technology) and not the victim (civilian satellites whose wider distribution makes war less likely).

Such legislation would give both sides cover. Republicans can say they won what they wanted all along; Democrats should have little trouble signing such legislation.

— Donald

You do state some valid points (“no political incentive to change their minds” and “people in power would have to admit they were wrong”), but I have to disagree with you on other points, and (most importantly) you don’t propose any way to get out of this mess.

The driving force behind ITAR is no longer partisanship. The fundamental political problem now is that senior hawkish pro-defense Republican leaders REALLY BELIEVE that the current ITAR system is a good thing, and really do not want it to change. There is a real substance issue in the way of reform. (Duncan Hunter, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee comes immediately to mind as a representative example. A lot of other members listen to him.)

The hawkish senior Republicans WILL attack and resist proposed changes to the law, and are likely to attack the proponents of ITAR change as “weak on defense & national security”, no matter which party that person is in. The other congressional leaders know this.

These same hawkish Republicans who believe that ITAR is good are the same ones who think it is good idea to enforce “buy America” provisions. They are the same ones who are forcing the defense industry to *certify* (e.g., show the paper trail) that every nut & bolt is made of metal smelted in the U.S. Their world-view is consistent across all these issues. (These same people thought INA was a good idea too.)

Just like INA, the first problem is winning the substantive debate on the Hill with the majority of members, AND in the minds of the 4th estate (media). The linked (and next) problem is that in the next election, the opponents of that Senator or Congressperson may turn this issue into a campaign issue. Considering the times, one good way to lose the next election is to be pigeon-hole as “weak no defense/national security.” (Remember the vietnam veteran Senator from Georgia who was pigeonholed as weak on defense, and lost.)

It really does NOT matter much which party you are. If I was a Democrat, and a Republican had introduced a bill for ITAR reform, and other Republicans had attacked that ITAR-reform Republican as doing something that hurt national security, I might use it in my campaign against him or her. If ITAR was not hurting the local industry in the State/district, I would seriously consider picking this up as an issue.

The only way to win this fight is to change the politics FIRST, by turning this substance of the issue on its head. We need to make the case that the “pro-ITAR reform” politicians are pro-national-security, and (of course) that the anti-ITAR reform politicians are “weak on defense”, and are destroying our high-tech industries and key part of our economy.

WHEN substantive change in the debate has taken place (which will take hard work), the conditions will be set for a legislative fix.

Donald — if you really want to solve this issue, you need to let go of the past, and deal with the substantive reality of issue right now.

– Al

The political price for changing the law, however, could be very high indeed. The people in power would have to admit they were wrong and that they made a decision that hurts the national interest for the benefit of their political party. No one wants to admit that.

I’m afraid we do have to chalk this up as one more price for the senseless and unreasoning political attacks on the Clinton Administration. Sure, Clinton left in disgrace and his ideological enemies got into power, but the price to the national economic interest — not least to commercial space — was very, very high.

We desperately need some relatively rational, relatively non-ideological leadership in this nation. Unless we get it, our future is very dark.

— Donald

Fast forward to today: Aerospace Daily for today (26 April) has a piece on AIA’s push on the Hill for “..The top three legislative priorities being pushed by AIA….”. To read the whole piece, see AD; the short version is:

#1.”Reforms to a law that requires suppliers to certify that 100 percent of specialty metal used in military hardware was smelted domestically.”

#2. “..Ward…off efforts to impose new “Buy America” restrictions on military hardware purchased by the Pentagon…”.

#3. ” Passage of bills that would help small companies lower health care costs…”

If AIA isn’t putting ITAR in even its top 3 list this year,we certainly can’t expect anyone else on the hill — or in the Executive Branch — to have it on their own list, can we? Even if AST tried to jawbone the powers that be on this subject to move, they’d get it thrown back in their face by every entity since “even industry itself isn’t making it a top issue, so why should you, or we?……”.

As Jeff has mentioned, ITAR is, in effect, to the domestic competitive advantage of The Big Guys over The Little Guys. They will never–ever– do anything about it, for that reason. (Other than promise to). So we need another strategy, folks.

Perhaps….can our space lawyer friend that Jeff mentions get the Trial Lawyers Association to come out- publicly and loudly- in favor of absolutely no changes to ITAR? That, in their opinion, ITAR is perfect, as it is?
(Now, you know, and I know, that this isn’t a Trial Lawyers issue per se; but politically…this could work….)

Such a loud declaration by the Trial Lawyers might just be enough leverage for Rohrbacher to use to stoke up the House enough to pass a reform ‘to stop ‘em”.

Dave
(best I could think of on the spur of the moment)

The credible & capable political players of the world (in the Jim Muncy-class) are quite limited in number, and they don’t work for free. At any given time, they have a dozen or more issues & priorities they could work on that also align with their personal philosophies, and (to state the obvious) they tend to focus on those projects that their clients are willing to pay for.

Although I hear lots of complaining out of the various advocacy groups, and out of both very big, medium and small aerospace companies about the damage, I see very little evidence of any companies “putting their money where their mouth is”.

So the Aerospace Industries Association, and the US Space Foundation, and the Space Access Society, and the Space Frontier Foundation can keep on complaining about the ITAR problem. Until somebody pays real money to execute the “Nemo Strategy” nothing is going to happen.

– Al

A nation of fools, represented by … fools.

What more did you expect?

The GOP controls The White House and both houses of Congress. Got a beef? Take it there.