BIS IT Modernization Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
ID: C001121
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 5.
April 21, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this mess, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The BIS IT Modernization Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) aims to "modernize" the information technology systems of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the Department of Commerce. Wow, how original. It's not like they're trying to justify a $100 million budget increase or anything. The bill's objectives are as vague as a politician's promise: improve data sharing, enhance cybersecurity, and streamline export license adjudication. Yawn.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the BIS to adopt cutting-edge technologies (read: expensive consulting contracts) to "improve" its systems. It also mandates the development of new data sharing interfaces because, apparently, the current ones are too secure. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security will oversee this modernization process, which will undoubtedly involve a lot of meetings, PowerPoint presentations, and bureaucratic finger-pointing.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: the BIS, the Department of Commerce, industry partners, federal agencies, and international partners. Oh, and let's not forget the intelligence community, which will likely have a field day with all the new data sharing "opportunities." The only parties that won't be affected are the American taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this boondoggle without seeing any tangible benefits.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away." The $25 million annual appropriation will likely be squandered on unnecessary IT upgrades, consultant fees, and bureaucratic overhead. The real impact will be on the BIS's ability to effectively regulate export licenses, which will probably become even more mired in red tape and inefficiency. As for cybersecurity, don't hold your breath – this bill is more likely to create new vulnerabilities than fix existing ones.
In conclusion, the BIS IT Modernization Act is a textbook example of legislative malpractice: a solution in search of a problem, driven by special interests, and designed to waste taxpayer money. It's a disease, really – a symptom of a deeper illness that afflicts our political system: the inability to prioritize meaningful reform over pointless posturing. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this train wreck unfold.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]
ID: K000398
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]
ID: M001137
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
ID: K000400
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]
ID: F000466
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
ID: L000599
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]
ID: S000344
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 36 nodes and 35 connections
Total contributions: $131,000
Top Donors - Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
- +Cybersecurity confidence 0.90
Section 2(c)(1)(B) and (d)(3) require enhancing data and cyber security of Bureau systems and infrastructure, which creates demand for cybersecurity solutions and services.
- +AI & Cloud Infrastructure confidence 0.85
Section 2(a)(3) and (c)(2) call for incorporation of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and advanced tools, driving demand for AI and cloud infrastructure providers.
- +Defense Contractors confidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(5) and (6) require mapping the PRC defense industrial base and commercial linkages, likely increasing contracts for defense contractors involved in analysis and intelligence.
- +Big Tech Platforms confidence 0.75
Modernization of IT systems with data fusion, analytics, and commercial data sets (Sec 2(c)(2)) may benefit big tech firms providing cloud, AI, and data services.
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]) received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
Industries this bill HELPS
- AI & Cloud Infrastructure$17,225from 16contributions
- ALLHASSANI, MEHDI$6,600
- SANKAR, SHYAM$6,600
- JAIN, AKASH$3,300
- ALHASSANI, MEHDI$500
- GRANT, RORY$225
- from 10contributions
- BLACK, ED$350
- BUFFARD, JOHNEEN RUENE$275
- from 2contributions
- CHANDLER, SHANA$500
- SMITH, MARK EARLON$50
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The BIS IT Modernization Act aligns with the Project 2025 policy by aiming to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of export control processes, particularly in identifying and mitigating risks associated with exports to countries of concern, which is a key objective of the Project 2025 policy. The bill's focus on modernizing IT systems and improving data sharing and analysis capabilities also supports the policy's goals of regulating exports of emerging and foundational technologies."
— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The BIS IT Modernization Act aligns with the Project 2025 policy by aiming to enhance the efficiency and security of export license adjudication, supply chain analysis, and enforcement activities related to national security and foreign policy concerns, which are central themes in the Project 2025 policy objectives. The bill's focus on modernizing BIS's IT systems and improving data sharing and analytics capabilities also supports the policy's goals of regulating exports of emerging and foundati"
— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.