Mr. Chairman, much has happened since encryption was debated during the 104th Congress. The President has decided on an encryption policy, and we are well on our way to implementing it. It balances all of the competing interests in this issue: privacy, electronic commerce, law enforcement, and national security.
Making strong commercial encryption widely available is in the best interest of the United States. Indeed, it is inevitable, as powerful computers and advanced telecommunications rapidly lead tothe creation of broad electronic networks which will form the basis for communication and commerce in the future. The ability to encrypt electronic messages and data will be essential for electronic commerce and for the full development of information technology. Businesses andindividuals need encrypted products to protect sensitive commercial information and to preserve privacy, and their demand for those products will further facilitate the spread of encryption.
This trend is also economically desirable. Protecting the confidentiality of business information will reduce losses from industrial espionage. Perhaps more important, we are the world's leadingproducer of information technology with almost half the world's producers and roughly half their revenues coming from exports. And we want to keep it that way.
To retain this leading position and the jobs it produces, we must ensure our producers' continued ability to capture foreign market share. Our companies must be able to meet the growing demand for products with strong encryption. If they do not, foreign firms will step in to fill thevoid. The United States cannot allow its encryption policy to become a point of vulnerability for this vital industrial sector. We must shape our export control policies to allow American companies to take advantage of their strengths in information technology in their pursuit ofglobal markets.
But the increased use of encryption carries with it serious risks for law enforcement and our national security. Any policy on encryption must address these risks as well if it is to be in the national interest. Our policy provides that balance, and does it in close consultation with theprivate sector and by working with the market, not against it.
The President's policy of balance is based on trying to promote key recovery in the marketplace. By "key recovery" I refer to a range of technologies, some in existence, some under development, some still being conceived, designed to permit the plaintext recovery of encrypted data orcommunications. There has been a tendency in this debate to construe this term and others as narrowly focussed on a single technology, and I want to make clear that is not our intent. We expect the market to make those judgments. In order to facilitate the development and dissemination of these products, we have taken the following steps:
The flow of licenses and the company commitment plans tell us our policy is working. That said, we intend to amend our regulations in the near future to reflect the many helpful comments we received from industry. We want to make sure that our efforts to regulate the export of recoverable encryption are compatible with the larger structure for electronic commerce now beginning to take shape.
We have also supported the development of ten pilot projects designed to demonstrate key recovery in such diverse applications as processing electronic grants and sharing international patent applications. I have with me a description of those projects, and I would request that it beincluded in the record.
The Administration has stated on numerous occasions that we do not support mandatory key escrow and key recovery. Our objective is to enable the development and establishment of a voluntary key management system for public-key based encryption. We believe the Administration's policy is succeeding in bringing key recovery products to the marketplace. Ourattention is now turning toward how we can best facilitate the development of the key management infrastructure that will support those products. To that end, we will shortly submit legislation intended to do the following:
In reviewing H.R. 695, let me first say that we welcome a continuing dialogue with Mr. Goodlatte and others interested in this subject to see if we can reach a common view. At the same time, I must tell you that legislation such as H.R. 695 would not be helpful, and theAdministration cannot support it. The bill has a number of similarities to what we will shortly submit, but it proposes export liberalization far beyond what the Administration can entertain and which would be contrary to our international export control obligations. We are sympathetic tosome aspects of H.R. 695, such as penalties for unlawful use of encryption and access to encrypted information for law enforcement purposes, but the bill does not provide the balanced approach we are seeking and as a result would unnecessarily sacrifice our law enforcement and national security needs. I defer to other witnesses to describe the impact of the bill on law enforcement, but let me describe a few of its other problems.
The bill appears to decontrol even the strongest encryption products, thus severely limiting government review of highly sensitive transactions. The Administration has a long-standing policy that the risks to national security and law enforcement which could arise from widespreaddecontrol of encryption justify continued restrictions on exports.
In addition, whether intended or not, we believe the bill as drafted would preclude the development of key recovery even as an option. The Administration has repeatedly stated that it does not support mandatory key recovery, but we most certainly endorse and encourage development of voluntary key recovery systems, and we see a strong and growing demand forthem that we do not want to cut off.
As I have said on many occasions, Mr. Chairman, encryption is one of the most difficult issues in public policy today, but we are committed to solving it in cooperation with industry, the law enforcement community, and the Congress in a way that reinforces market principles andachieves our diverse goals. We hope that you will work with us to facilitate that process by passing the legislation we are proposing.
In April of 2002 the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) changed its name to the Bureau of Industry and Security(BIS). For historical purposes we have not changed the references to BXA in the legacy documents found in the Archived Press and Public Information.