4 May 1999
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Congressional Record: May 3, 1999 (Extensions)]
[Page E827]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr03my99-5]

[[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.

                          ____________________