[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12195-S12196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    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.

                          ____________________