HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY EXPORT LAWS -- HON. DARLENE HOOLEY (Extensions of Remarks - May 03, 1999)

[Page: E827]
---

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.
END