[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 62 (Monday, May 3, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E827]]



                     HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY EXPORT LAWS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DARLENE HOOLEY

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 3, 1999

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the 
importance of assuring that our export control laws do not 
unnecessarily hinder the development of the U.S. high-technology 
industry.
  Mr. Speaker, in districts like mine in Oregon, where constituents 
have suffered the consequences of economic shifts in the logging, 
fishing, and agricultural sectors, the high-tech industry presents 
itself as a growth sector and an anchor for future employment. I see 
the high tech industry as vital for economic development in my district 
and in the State of Oregon.
  The rest of the country should be looking to this sector for 
employment growth as well. According to the Department of Commerce, 
between 1995 and 1997 the high tech sector has been responsible for 35% 
of economic growth in the United States. If things continue at that 
rate, this industry will almost double its employment numbers over the 
next six years.
  If we saddle this industry with unreasonable unilateral export 
restrictions, that type of job growth, so badly needed in my district, 
will go to other nations.
  While there are often legitimate national security reasons to 
restrict high-tech exports, much of our export laws do not keep pace 
with actual advances in technology.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of how high-tech exports can 
be unreasonably restricted. The application and approval process to 
ship a computer--no bigger than the server in many Congressional 
offices--to Tier III nations can take as along as 30 days.
  If we were the only country offering high-speed and powerful personal 
computers, this might not be a problem. But Mr. Speaker we are not the 
only nation that can build and sell these machines. By placing 
unilateral export controls we cede the sales of these computers to our 
foreign competitors. Let me raise another example of how our export 
control policy just doesn't make sense. Right now the U.S. government 
places restrictions on the export of encryption technology. While 128 
bit encryption technology is widely available on the Internet and can 
be easily bought in countries like Canada and Germany, the United 
States prevents our companies from exporting 128 bit encryption.
  This puts U.S. high tech firms at a severe competitive disadvantage. 
It is for this reason that I have become a co-sponsor of the SAFE act 
which will bring our trade policy in line with the current state of 
encryption technology. Our National Security does not depend on these 
types of unilateral economic sanctions. Our National Security relies on 
the development of U.S. based high technology companies--who currently 
supply the United States military with 75% of its high tech national 
security apparatus. If our U.S. based technology companies are 
weakened, Mr. Speaker, our own national security is weakened. I would 
like to thank all of the members of my party who have been working to 
bring these issues to the forefront. Through their support of bills 
like the SAFE act we can assure that U.S. trade policies allow U.S. 
technology firms to grow, while enhancing our own national security.

                          ____________________