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 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. ____________________