There has never been a better chance than now to reform the U.S. export regime, U.S. and foreign officials and experts said Sept. 5. But any change is racing the 2008 elections clock and already faces European and industrial fatigue.

Speaking at the Common Defense 2007 conference in Washington, U.S., British, Italian and industry representatives claimed the post-Cold War defense supply chain has already become commercially based and globally sourced. In turn, U.S. laws and regulations need to evolve from relying on old lists, lengthy license applications, a focus on countries and multidecade development timelines.

They highlighted pending U.S. treaties with the United Kingdom and Australia and their preapproved community provisions, which would obviate several license applications, as a likely trend (see story p. 3).

Conference speakers also noted 19 active reviews inside Washington that are examining export controls, as well as new attitudes on Capitol Hill brought by a change in political control there, along with a set of industry recommendations they said the Bush administration is about to enact through executive agencies.

"There is certainly something in the water in Washington about export controls," said Pierre Chao of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

"The door appears to be open," agreed Jeremiah Gertler, a defense policy and international affairs official with the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).

Still, while conditions inside Washington's Beltway appear favorable for updating U.S. export controls, European spirit may be flagging from years of lobbying while achieving little, said Chao, director of the CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group.

And Bill Greenwalt, deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy, warned the ComDef audience that the industrial base is trying to avoid so-called "ITAR-tainting," making it harder for the Defense Department to reach into the commercial world for quick, innovative goods and services.

An Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) report for Greenwalt's office, released early this year, outlined how the State Department's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) are dissuading companies and how industry seems less interested in raising the matter with Pentagon officials because they can turn to friendlier Commerce Department regulations.

At the same time, U.S. firms such as advanced material developers are reluctant to engage in research and development (R&D;) funded by DOD because it means future products based on this R&D;, though intrinsically commercial, will be saddled with ITAR controls due to the link to defense funds.

"The impact on firms is that it reduces the sources of R&D; funding, if firms see the ITAR constraints as excessive, and even has driven firms to conduct their R&D; abroad," IDA said.

"We're still getting our arms around the problem," Greenwalt said. The issue is not a crisis, but Pentagon officials are becoming increasingly aware of the situation, he said.