Analysis of Data for Exports Regulated by the Department of Commerce
Gao ID: GAO-07-197R November 13, 2006In light of the September 2001 terror attacks, we were asked to examine the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) dual-use export control system. We reported our findings in a June 26, 2006, report, saying that BIS has not systematically evaluated the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the dual-use export control system. Specifically, we reported that BIS has not conducted comprehensive analyses of available data about items that have actually been exported from the United States. We made several recommendations in that report, including that Commerce should use the available data to evaluate the system's effectiveness. Because we had difficulty obtaining data on actual exports from Commerce, we were unable to provide specific details about these data in time for our June 2006 report. We have since obtained the data and are now transmitting to Congress our analysis of the data for 2004 and 2005.
The data we obtained provide an overall picture of the dollar value of commodities subject to Commerce regulations and of the countries receiving these exports. Most items do not require government review and approval in the form of a license prior to export. We found that less than 1 percent of exports subject to Commerce regulations were licensed in 2005. The dollar value of unlicensed exports from the United States in 2005 was about $624 billion, while the value of licensed exports was about $1.2 billion. BIS regulates the export of dual-use items that have both commercial and military applications, as well as purely commercial items. These items are either specifically identified on a control list or fall into a catch-all category referred to as EAR99. We analyzed the data according to recipient country, type of commodity, and dollar value. Items identified on the control list, whether licensed or unlicensed, were generally exported to Asian countries, such as China, Taiwan, and Singapore, and to European countries, such as France and the United Kingdom. Aircraft, computers, equipment to manufacture semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and chemicals were some of the top commodities in terms of highest dollar value for exports identified on the control list. Turning to EAR99 items, Mexico was the largest recipient of unlicensed exports in terms of dollar value, while Cuba and Syria--embargoed countries--were the top two recipients of licensed exports. Some of the top commodities in terms of dollar value for unlicensed EAR99 exports were industrial machinery, chemicals, computers, and semiconductors, while agricultural commodities dominated licensed EAR99 exports. The insight we gained from analyzing these data further supports our prior recommendation to Commerce that it use available data to evaluate the effectiveness of its export control system. The data could aid in determining the economic impact of current regulations and in evaluating whether exporters are complying with regulations. BIS officials told us they periodically use portions of the data for enforcement activities but currently do not use the data to evaluate the system's effectiveness.
GAO-07-197R, Analysis of Data for Exports Regulated by the Department of Commerce
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-197R
entitled 'Analysis of Data for Exports Regulated by the Department of
Commerce' which was released on November 17, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
November 13, 2006:
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde:
Chairman:
Committee on International Relations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Analysis of Data for Exports Regulated by the Department of
Commerce:
In light of the September 2001 terror attacks, you had asked us to
examine the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security's
(BIS) dual-use export control system. We reported our findings in a
June 26, 2006, report,[Footnote 1] saying that BIS has not
systematically evaluated the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
the dual-use export control system. Specifically, we reported that BIS
has not conducted comprehensive analyses of available data about items
that have actually been exported from the United States. We made
several recommendations in that report, including that Commerce should
use the available data to evaluate the system's effectiveness. Because
we had difficulty obtaining data on actual exports from Commerce, we
were unable to provide you with specific details about these data in
time for our June 2006 report. We have since obtained the data and are
now transmitting to you our analysis of the data for 2004 and 2005.
In assessing what dual-use items were exported in 2004 and 2005, we
analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which is part of the
Department of Commerce and is responsible for collecting and
maintaining data provided by exporters through the Automated Export
System. The data comprise items that Commerce regulates under the
Export Administration Regulations (EAR).[Footnote 2] Because electronic
filing of export documentation has greatly increased in the past few
years--previously, paper filings were more common--the data we analyzed
were for 2004 and 2005 and represent the most complete data from the
Automated Export System.[Footnote 3] We examined selected fields of
data, such as license codes, country of destination, commodity type,
and dollar value of items. The data we present do not include exports
to Canada because Census relies on Canada's data on what it imported
from the United States to represent U.S. exports to Canada. The data
also do not include exports filed on paper; in 2005, paper filings
represented only 4 percent of the value of all exports. We excluded
Census data for U.S. territories and possessions because shipments to
these locations are not covered under the EAR. We assessed data
reliability by performing electronic testing of the data, obtaining and
reviewing system documentation, and interviewing Census officials and
found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this
analysis. We also interviewed BIS officials to determine how they use
these data. The following analyses focus on 2005 data, as data for 2004
are not substantially different. Detailed data for 2004 and 2005 are
contained in enclosure 1. We conducted our review between July and
November 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Summary:
The data we obtained provide an overall picture of the dollar value of
commodities subject to Commerce regulations and of the countries
receiving these exports. Most items do not require government review
and approval in the form of a license prior to export. We found that
less than 1 percent of exports subject to Commerce regulations were
licensed in 2005. The dollar value of unlicensed exports from the
United States in 2005 was about $624 billion, while the value of
licensed exports was about $1.2 billion. BIS regulates the export of
dual-use items that have both commercial and military applications, as
well as purely commercial items. These items are either specifically
identified on a control list or fall into a catch-all category referred
to as EAR99. We analyzed the data according to recipient country, type
of commodity, and dollar value. Items identified on the control list,
whether licensed or unlicensed, were generally exported to Asian
countries, such as China, Taiwan, and Singapore, and to European
countries, such as France and the United Kingdom. Aircraft, computers,
equipment to manufacture semiconductors, telecommunications equipment,
and chemicals were some of the top commodities in terms of highest
dollar value for exports identified on the control list. Turning to
EAR99 items, Mexico was the largest recipient of unlicensed exports in
terms of dollar value, while Cuba and Syria--embargoed countries--were
the top two recipients of licensed exports. Some of the top commodities
in terms of dollar value for unlicensed EAR99 exports were industrial
machinery, chemicals, computers, and semiconductors, while agricultural
commodities dominated licensed EAR99 exports. The insight we gained
from analyzing these data further supports our prior recommendation to
Commerce that it use available data to evaluate the effectiveness of
its export control system. The data could aid in determining the
economic impact of current regulations and in evaluating whether
exporters are complying with regulations. BIS officials told us they
periodically use portions of the data for enforcement activities but
currently do not use the data to evaluate the system's effectiveness.
Background:
BIS is responsible for implementing and enforcing the EAR.[Footnote 4]
For fiscal year 2005, BIS had a staff of 414 (including 48 licensing
officers) and a budget of $67.5 million, of which $33.9 million was for
the administration of the export control system.[Footnote 5] The
Commerce Control List (CCL)[Footnote 6] generally specifies dual-use
items that are designated by a specific Export Control Classification
Number (ECCN), which describes a particular item and shows the controls
placed on that item. Dual-use items are regulated for a variety of
reasons, including restricting exports that could significantly enhance
a foreign country's military potential, preventing exports to countries
that sponsor terrorism, and limiting proliferation of chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. If an item
is not listed on the CCL but is subject to the EAR, it falls into the
category known as EAR99.
Exporters are ultimately responsible for determining whether the items
they want to export are subject to the EAR and if a license is required
prior to export. The EAR requires exporters to follow several steps,
including:
* classifying their item to determine if it is on the CCL,
* determining the restrictions that apply to the country the item is
being exported to,
* reviewing several lists to determine if they are exporting to a
denied person or person of concern, and:
* determining if the item will be used for a prohibited purpose.
By following these steps, exporters are to determine whether a license
is required or one of the licensing exceptions permissible under the
EAR is applicable. Exporters can request a commodity classification
when unsure of the requirements for exporting an item subject to the
EAR.[Footnote 7] Through outreach efforts, BIS also educates exporters
on export requirements.
After an exporter has either obtained an export license from BIS or
determined that a license is not needed, the exporter is required in
most cases[Footnote 8] to document the actual export with a Shipper's
Export Declaration. Most declarations are filed electronically through
the Automated Export System. The Census Bureau maintains this system
and publishes some aggregate data for the purpose of reporting U.S.
trade statistics. In most cases,[Footnote 9] exporters are not required
to file an export declaration for exports to Canada because the United
States and Canada exchange import data, which are used by each country
to represent its export statistics.
Most Items Subject to Commerce's Regulations Were Exported Without
Licenses, with Asia and Europe as Major Recipients of Certain
Commodities:
Our analysis of export data shows that more than 99 percent of CCL and
EAR99 items--or about $624 billion--were exported without licenses in
2005. These items were exported worldwide, while top recipient
countries of CCL items were chiefly in Asia and Europe. The majority of
items, about $555.3 billion worth, were declared by exporters to be
EAR99. About $1 billion of CCL items were exported with licenses. The
primary commodities exported from the United States comprised aircraft,
certain gas turbine engines, industrial and service machinery, and
computers. Because 2004 data are not substantially different, we focus
on 2005 data in this section of our letter. Both years' data are in
enclosure 1. The insight we gained from analyzing this data further
supports our prior recommendation to Commerce that it use available
data to evaluate the effectiveness of its export control system.
Overview of Export Data:
About $625 billion of U.S. exports were subject to Commerce regulations
in 2005.[Footnote 10] Exporters declared that about $70 billion of
these items were on the CCL, representing about 11 percent of all
exports subject to Commerce regulations. The remaining $555 billion
fell under the general designation of EAR99. About 98.5 percent of the
CCL items were exported without licenses, and 99.98 percent of EAR99
items were exported without licenses, as shown in figure 1. Commerce
regulations permit both CCL and EAR99 items to be exported without a
license under a variety of circumstances.
Table 1: Value of Licensed and Unlicensed Exports Subject to Commerce's
Regulations, 2005 (in millions of dollars):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: U.S. Census Bureau(data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
Note: Figure does not include data for Canada. Some numbers may not add
because of rounding.
[End of Figure]
Countries:
The top countries receiving exports of items identified by exporters as
being on the CCL were largely in Asia and Europe. In 2005, China,
Taiwan, Singapore, and France were the largest recipients of both
licensed and unlicensed CCL exports (see table 1). Among the top five
recipients of these items, the percentages in terms of dollar value of
items exported with licenses to those countries ranged from 1.4 to 3.6.
The majority of EAR99 items exported with a license were to Cuba, an
embargoed country. In contrast, Mexico--a major U.S. trading partner--
received the largest dollar value of unlicensed EAR99 exports.
Table 1: Top Five Countries in Terms of Dollar Value for Items Exported
with and without Licenses (2005):
CCL Items.
Exported With Licenses.
Rank: 1;
Country: France;
Value(in millions of dollars): $168.47;
percentage of all CCL exports: 3.64%.
Rank: 2;
Country: China;
Value(in millions of dollars): 123.95;
percentage of all CCL exports: 1.96.
Rank: 3;
Country: United Kingdom;
Value(in millions of dollars): 101.95;
percentage of all CCL exports: 2.49.
Rank: 4;
Country: Taiwan;
Value(in millions of dollars): 72.80;
percentage of all CCL exports: 1.39.
Rank: 5;
Country: Singapore;
Value(in millions of dollars): 70.30;
percentage of all CCL exports: 1.61.
Exported without licenses.
Rank: 1;
Country: Japan;
Value(in millions of dollars): $8,751.83;
percentage of all CCL exports: 99.58%.
Rank: 2;
Country: China;
Value(in millions of dollars): 6,196.96;
percentage of all CCL exports: 98.04.
Rank: 3;
Country: Taiwan;
Value(in millions of dollars): 5,176.88;
percentage of all CCL exports: 98.61.
Rank: 4;
Country: France;
Value(in millions of dollars): 4,454.73;
percentage of all CCL exports: 96.36.
Rank: 5;
Country: Singapore;
Value(in millions of dollars): 4,301.76;
percentage of all CCL exports: 98.39.
EAR99 Items.
Exported with Licenses.
Rank: 1;
Country: Cuba;
Value(in millions of dollars): $104.32;
percentage of all CCL exports: 40.46%.
Rank: 2;
Country: Syria;
Value(in millions of dollars): 4.89;
percentage of all CCL exports: 3.55.
Rank: 3;
Country: Taiwan;
Value(in millions of dollars): 3.75;
percentage of all CCL exports: 0.02.
Rank: 4;
Country: China;
Value(in millions of dollars): 2.85;
percentage of all CCL exports: 0.01.
Rank: 5;
Country: Uzbekistan;
Value(in millions of dollars): 2.03;
percentage of all CCL exports: 2.82.
Exported without licenses.
Rank: 1;
Country: Mexico;
Value(in millions of dollars): $105,197.71;
percentage of all CCL exports: 100.00%.
Rank: 2;
Country: Japan;
Value(in millions of dollars): 40,074.20;
percentage of all CCL exports: 100.00.
Rank: 3;
Country: China;
Value(in millions of dollars): 33,076.30;
percentage of all CCL exports: 99.99.
Rank: 4;
Country: United Kingdom;
Value(in millions of dollars): 30,369.41;
percentage of all CCL exports: 100.00.
Rank: 5;
Country: Germany;
Value(in millions of dollars): 29,262.51;
percentage of all CCL exports: 100.00.
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada.
[End of table]
Commodities:
The CCL consists of about 500 ECCNs, which describe the item or types
of items and designate the controls placed on that item. The top CCL
items exported with a license include items listed on the Wassenaar
Arrangement[Footnote 11] munitions list, navigation equipment,
semiconductor manufacturing equipment, aircraft, and chemicals (see
table 2). Aircraft and certain aircraft engines were the most common
CCL item exported without a license in terms of dollar value. Other top
unlicensed items included computers and electronics.
Table 2: Top Five Exports of CCL Items by Dollar Value and Export
Control Classification Numbers, 2005:
Rank: 1;
ECCN: 9A018;
Descriptions of CCL items exported with licenses: Equipment on the
Wassenaar munitions list[A];
Value(in millions of dollars): $129.21.
Rank: 2;
ECCN: 7A103;
Descriptions of CCL items exported with licenses: Instrumentation,
navigation equipment/systems;
Value(in millions of dollars): 116.24.
Rank: 3;
ECCN: 3B001;
Descriptions of CCL items exported with licenses: Equipment for
manufacture of semiconductors;
Value(in millions of dollars): 89.41.
Rank: 4;
ECCN: 9A991;
Descriptions of CCL items exported with licenses: Aircraft and certain
gas turbine engines;
Value(in millions of dollars): 69.50.
Rank: 5;
ECCN: 1C350;
Descriptions of CCL items exported with licenses: Chemicals and
precursors for toxic chemical agents;
Value(in millions of dollars): 68.42.
Rank: 1;
ECCN: 9A991;
Descriptions of CCL items exported without licenses: Aircraft and
certain gas turbine engines;
Value(in millions of dollars): $29,198.03.
Rank: 2;
ECCN: 4A994;
Descriptions of CCL items exported without licenses: Computers,
electronic assemblies, and related equipment;
Value(in millions of dollars): 8,079.06.
Rank: 3;
ECCN: 5A991;
Descriptions of CCL items exported without licenses: Telecommunications
equipment;
Value(in millions of dollars): 6,736.68.
Rank: 4;
ECCN: 3A991;
Descriptions of CCL items exported without licenses: Other electronic
devices and components not covered under 3A001;
Value(in millions of dollars): 3,490.47.
Rank: 5;
ECCN: 3A001;
Descriptions of CCL items exported without licenses: Electronic devices
and components;
Value(in millions of dollars): 3,360.13.
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada.
[A] Items that fall under 9A018 include certain military trainer
aircraft including parts and components and ground transport vehicles
with specific ballistic protection.
[End of table]
In terms of dollar value, most EAR99 items exported with a license were
agricultural and food-related (see table 3). These items required a
license because they were exported to an embargoed country, such as
Cuba, or were exported to an end user of concern or in support of a
prohibited use. In contrast, top U.S. exports that were unlicensed
EAR99 included industrial machinery, computers, and chemicals.
Table 3: Top Five Commodity Type Categories for Exports of EAR99 Items
by Dollar Value (2005):
Rank: 1;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported with licenses: Other
agricultural foods;
Value(in millions of dollars): $41.11.
Rank: 2;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported with licenses: Feedstuff;
Value(in millions of dollars): 35.06.
Rank: 3;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported with licenses: Industrial and
service machinery;
Value(in millions of dollars): 8.38.
Rank: 4;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported with licenses: Soybeans and
other oil seeds and food oils;
Value(in millions of dollars): 8.35.
Rank: 5;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported with licenses: chemicals,
excluding medicinals and food additives;
Value(in millions of dollars): 7.63.
Rank: 1;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported without licenses: Industrial and
service machinery;
Value(in millions of dollars): $60,590.56.
Rank: 2;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported without licenses: Computers,
peripherals, and semiconductors;
Value(in millions of dollars): 58,664.01.
Rank: 3;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported without licenses: Chemicals,
excluding medicinals and food additives;
Value(in millions of dollars): 58,465.29.
Rank: 4;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported without licenses: Other consumer
nondurables;
Value(in millions of dollars): 34,248.71.
Rank: 5;
Commodity type of EAR99 items exported without licenses: Civilian
aircraft, engines, and parts;
Value(in millions of dollars): 24,194.69.
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: These commodity type categories were developed by the Census
Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis utilizing the international
Harmonized Tariff Schedule categories. Table does not include data for
Canada.
[End of table]
BIS Analysis:
In our June 2006 report, we recommended that BIS obtain and analyze
available data to systematically evaluate its export control system.
While BIS is responsible for regulating a wide range of dual-use and
commercial items, it only has visibility over the small portion of
items it has licensed for export. BIS has not conducted comprehensive
analysis of export data from Census. BIS officials told us they have
access to Automated Export System data and can view individual export
declarations. They said they periodically use these data for
enforcement activities, such as targeting licensed exports for post-
shipment verification.
Analysis of the data gave us insight into how the data could be used.
We analyzed the data on a macro level to gain insight into the
magnitude of items leaving the United States, in terms of recipient
countries and commodities. To gain insight on a micro level, the
specific data elements could be examined, for example, to determine the
economic impact of a proposed regulatory change that would add or
remove licensing requirements for commodities to a country. The data
could also be used to evaluate industry compliance of regulations,
especially for unlicensed exports, and target industry outreach
activities.
During the course of our review, BIS officials told us the bureau
recognizes the value of analyzing overall export data and has recently
established an Office of Technology Evaluation to perform this type of
analysis. BIS is in the process of hiring analysts with the needed
skills for this office. In addition, BIS is determining how it can
better utilize Automated Export System data for analyses.
Agency Comments:
We provided Commerce the results of our analysis and obtained oral
comments. Commerce officials agreed with our analysis and the value of
using export data to assess the effectiveness of the export system.
They also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate.
We plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days from the
letter date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of
Commerce and interested congressional committees. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this letter or need additional
information please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or
calvaresibarra@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
letter. Key contributors to this letter were Anne-Marie Lasowski,
Assistant Director; Bradley Terry; Brandon Booth; Lily Chin; and Karen
Thornton.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Ann Calvaresi-Barr:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Enclosure:
Enclosure I: Analysis of Export Data for 2004 and 2005:
We are providing export data for 2004 and additional data for 2005. The
data include overall dollar value of exports under Commerce
regulations, the top 10 countries of destination, and top 10
commodities for both years.
Table 4: Dollar Value and Percentage of Exports for Items Regulated by
Commerce in 2004 and 2005 (in millions of dollars):
2004:
Items: CCL;
Exported with licenses: $1,166.45 (2.50%);
Exported without licenses: $45,518.53 (97.50%);
Total value of items exported: $46,684.98.
Items: EAR99;
Exported with licenses: 143.55 (0.03);
Exported without licenses: 506,411.17 (99.97);
Total value of items exported: 506,554.72.
Items: Total value of items exported;
Exported with licenses: 1,310.01 (0.24);
Exported without licenses: 551,929.69 (99.76);
Total value of items exported: 553,239.70.
2005:
Items: CCL;
Exported with licenses: $1,050.85 (1.50%);
Exported without licenses: $69,026.41 (98.50%);
Total value of items exported: $70,077.26.
Items: EAR99;
Exported with licenses: 126.86 (0.02);
Exported without licenses: 555,284.75 (99.98);
Total value of items exported: 555,411.61.
Items: Total value of items exported;
Exported with licenses: 1,177.72 (0.19);
Exported without licenses: 624,311.16 (99.81);
Total value of items exported: 625,488.88.
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada. Some numbers do not add
because of rounding.
[End of table]
Table 5: Top 10 Countries in Terms of Dollar Value for CCL Items
Exported with and without Licenses in 2004 and 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada. Percentages for some
countries may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table : Top 10 Countries in Terms of Dollar Value for EAR99 Items
Exported with and without Licenses in 2004 and 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada. Percentages for some
countries may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 7: Top 10 Exports of CCL Items by Dollar Value and Export Control
Classification Numbers in 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada.
[End of table]
Table 8: Top 10 Exports of CCL Items by Dollar Value and Export Control
Classification Numbers in 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: Table does not include data for Canada.
[End of table]
Table 9: Top 10 Exports of EAR99 Items by Dollar Value of Commodity
Type in 2004 and 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Census Bureau (data); GAO (presentation and analysis).
Note: These commodity type categories were developed by the Census
Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis utilizing the international
Harmonized Tariff Schedule categories. Table does not include data for
Canada.
[End of table]
(120578):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Export Controls: Improvements to Commerce's Dual-Use System
Needed to Ensure Protection of U.S. Interests in the Post-9/11
Environment, GAO-06-638 (Washington, D.C., June 26, 2006).
[2] 15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774.
[3] Electronic filings became mandatory for all items on the Commerce
Control List in October 2003.
[4] Other U.S. government agencies regulate other exports. For example,
the Department of State regulates the export of defense articles and
services. In fiscal year 2003, State had 35 licensing officers who
reviewed about 54,700 license applications.
[5] In addition to administering the dual-use export control system,
BIS is responsible for enforcing dual-use export control regulations
and law, along with the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.
BIS is also responsible for monitoring the viability of the defense
industrial base, ensuring industry compliance with arms control
treaties, enforcing antiboycott laws, and assisting other countries in
developing effective export control systems.
[6] 15 C.F.R. Part 774, Supp. 1.
[7] GAO, Export Controls: Processes for Determining Proper Control of
Defense-Related Items Need Improvement, GAO-02-996 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 20, 2002.)
[8] Per the Foreign Trade Statistics Regulations (15 C.F.R. Part 30),
an export declaration is required for most countries for any commodity
valued at $2,500 or above, with certain limited exemptions. In general,
a declaration is required for all items requiring an export license.
[9] Generally, export declarations are not required to Canada unless an
export license is required or the items are being transshipped through
Canada to another country.
[10] In 2005, U.S. world exports, excluding Canada, totaled about $693
billion.
[11] The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms
and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies is one of four multilateral export
control regimes in which the United States participates. The
arrangement establishes lists of items for which member countries are
to apply export controls. The lists include dual-use goods and
technologies such as materials, electronics, navigation and propulsion,
as well as munitions including weapons and ammunition.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
