10 November 1997
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html

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

[Congressional Record: November 8, 1997 (Senate)]
[Page S12195-S12196]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr08no97-203]


                    SUPPORT U.S. ENCRYPTION EXPORTS

<bullet> Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of
great importance to Washington state. I remain deeply concerned about
the Administration's lack of progress in working with interested
Senators and industry to craft a workable, effective solution for
modernizing the United States export controls on products with
encryption capabilities. I have been involved in this debate for a long
time, too long. We need to take action.
  I am an original cosponsor of several encryption legislative
initiatives introduced by Senator Burns and Senator Leahy. Both of
these Senators continue to do extraordinary work on this issue and I
commend them for their thoughtful leadership. The Burns and Leahy bills
basically say that if strong encryption is generally available or
comparable encryption is available from foreign vendors, then our U.S.
companies--the ones dominating the computer industry--should be able to
sell their products as well. Previously, I also introduced similar
legislation on encryption.
  I simply do not understand the Administration's continued refusal to
acknowledge technological and marketplace realities when it has
embraced the use of technology in so many ways.
  Computer users are demanding the ability to communicate securely over
the Internet and to store data safely on their personal computers. We
have all heard the stories about hackers monitoring our communications
and even financial transactions, while at the same time gaining access
to our hard drives while we are looking at a certain website. Until
consumers have confidence that transactions and communications are
secure, I do not believe that we will ever see the full potential of
the communication technologies that are currently available and those
to be developed in the future.
  I was hopeful late last year that the Administration had taken a very
small, positive step on encryption exports. Instead, the result was
basically the status quo. Computer software publishers and hardware
manufacturers are still limited to shipping the same old 40-bit
encryption unless they agree to design key recovery systems according
to a government mandated standard. Ultimately, due to economics and

[[Page S12196]]

marketing issues in the computer world, most Americans are still
limited to this 40-bit strength encryption as well, because our
companies develop one product for worldwide distribution.
  What will it take for the federal government to learn that consumers
are opposed to having ``Big Brother'' interfere with their technology
choices. We all remember the failed Administration attempts on Clipper
I and Clipper II. Yet, the federal government persists in its efforts
to peek into the private lives of law-abiding American citizens. The
latest salvo by FBI Director Louis Freeh in demanding government
mandated encryption for domestic users is the latest example of
government obstruction of private decisions by American consumers and
business opportunities for American innovators. If Director Freeh gets
his way, the federal government will have even greater authority to
peer and peek into the private lives of American citizens. ``Big
Brother'' as feared by law-abiding Americans has a powerful champion at
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  While this war of attrition is taking place, we are losing in the
trenches. Foreign vendors are happily supplying stronger 128-bit
encryption to our foreign purchasers. Some of these vendors have
publicly thanked the U.S. government for helping them to develop
thriving businesses. Importantly, current U.S. policy represents a
surrender of an industry where our innovative workers and companies are
technologically superior. We are surrendering jobs and economic
opportunities both today and for the long term. There are many examples
from my own State of Washington, usually small start-up firms eager to
grow, diversify and develop new high-tech applications in computer
hardware and software. These firms regularly point out to me the names
and business histories of their foreign competitors that have gladly
taken business opportunities from Washington firms restricted by
ineffective government mandates.
  It is time for the United States to acknowledge that we no longer
exclusively control the pace of technology. Purchasers around the world
can download software off of the Internet from any country by simply
accessing a website. Foreign purchasers have turned to Russian, German,
Swiss and other foreign vendors for their encryption needs. We are
truly trying to put the genie back in the bottle--a genie so nimble
that it can transfer in seconds from one location to another using a
modem over a traditional telephone line.
  U.S. law enforcement seems to believe that Americans will recapture
this market once our industry has developed key recovery systems for
128-bit or stronger encryption technology. This is extremely naive in
my opinion. All the world will know that the U.S. government approved
export technology will enable U.S. law enforcement to view encrypted
information. Most foreigners believe the U.S. government will use this
capability to spy on them; for law enforcement, political and economic
information. Foreigners will simply buy elsewhere, period. It's pretty
simple to me. What foreign entity would want to surrender information
to the U.S. government when they can easily avoid this by purchasing
someone else's product?
  Again, I turn to the approach advocated by Senator Burns and Senator
Leahy. S. 909 as adopted by the Senate Commerce Committee simply does
not go far enough. While it makes some minor modifications to export
controls, it also goes in the totally wrong direction by starting down
the path of domestic controls on encryption.
  Washington state and American companies deserve the opportunity to
compete free from government restrictions. Their role in the
international marketplace should be determined by their ingenuity and
creativity rather than an outdated, ineffectual system of export
controls. The time to act is now, the longer we wait, the further
behind America gets on this issue.<bullet>

                          ____________________
