More GE-AVIC Worries

House Armed Services readiness subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) isn't happy with the response he received from the Pentagon regarding the national-security implications of a proposed joint venture between GE and Chinese company AVIC.

In an Oct. 17 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Forbes worried that technology developed for the F-22A and F-35 fighter aircraft could help China develop its own military aviation programs if the proposed joint venture took place. Further:

While I understand the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) and the Bureay of Industry and Security (BIS) have conducted an informal licensing review of the military-origin technology involved in this joint venture, I also understand there has not been a National Security Review of this transaction with the PRC by DTSA and the other appropriate agencies of the federal government. Such a review would focus closely on the enforcement and compliance regime proposed by the joint venture. I urge you to immediately direct such a review to be conducted.

In an Oct. 31 response, Deputy Defense Secretary for Policy Michele Fluornoy wrote that there wasn't much the Pentagon could do:

Under the Export Administration Act, DoD has no statutory authority to administer, enforce or mandate any aspects of the law that govern the export of dual-use commodities. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce (DoC), require DoC to consult with the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense regarding the export of those commodities that are controlled for national security reasons. DoD, through the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA), reviews only those applications referred to it by DoC.

But that wasn't enough for Forbes. In a letter sent today to Panetta, Forbes writes:

I understand that neither GE nor the Department of Commerce have asserted the necessity for an export control license for the joint venture between GE and AVIC and that the Department of Defense may not have independent authority to pose a binding objection or block the transaction. However, this does not abrogate the Department of Defense from advising Congress, U.S. defense contractors, and the general public of the potential national security hazards of such technology transfers.