9 June 1998
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html

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

[Congressional Record: June 4, 1998 (Extensions)]
[Page E1032]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr04jn98-57]


           THE UNNECESSARY LEGISLATIVE FIGHT OVER ENCRYPTION

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 4, 1998

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 695, the Security and Freedom Through
Encryption (SAFE) Act is unnecessary legislation and should not be
passed. Past service on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has provided this Member with considerable evidence of the
harmful effects this legislation, in its current form, would have on
our national security and law enforcement efforts. In addition, H.R.
695 would prohibit the Administration and specifically, the Bureau of
Export Administration, from striking the proper balance between
national security and commercial interests in the licensing of strong
encryption. The legislation needs to be amended, dramatically, if it
comes to the House Floor. But most importantly, it is not necessary.
  In the House International Relations Committee, this Member co-
authored and supported an amendment to H.R. 695 which would have given
the President of the United States a national security waiver to the
mandated and complete relaxation of export controls of encryption
products under H.R. 695. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated on a
13-22 vote in the House International Relations Committee and H.R. 695
was passed over my opposition. This issue has been intensely lobbied by
the software and electronics business sector and others.
  On the other hand, this Member also does not support competing
legislation to H.R. 695, which would impose domestic controls on the
use of encryption in the United States. This very complicated and
important national issue has been unnecessarily polarized by the
software industry and by the law enforcement community. In fact, the
software industry's uncompromising position on H.R. 695 has actually
prompted the law enforcement community to push for this more rigorous
domestic legislation and a stalemate has been created.
  This Member believes that the disinformation that has been provided
by a few groups or persons on both sides of this national debate has
not led to an environment where a legislative compromise is easily
achieved. For example, the software industry currently downplays the
fact that many U.S. software manufacturers and hardware exporters are
exporting relatively robust encryption after obtaining license
approvals from the Department of Commerce. Moreover, U.S. financial
institutions have general exceptions to the export controls on
encryption for their own purposes.
  These two important points reveal that the solution to this issue for
U.S. software exporters is not the legislative process, but a change in
the administrative regulations. Simply put, current law does not
prohibit the Administration from relaxing these export controls and,
therefore, a change in law is not necessary.

                          ____________________