[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 39 (Monday, April 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1660-H1661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE MICROSOFT CASE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I am compelled to address the House 
tonight about the decision by the Federal District Court in the 
Microsoft case, and I rise today on behalf of two groups of people that 
I think deserve a voice in this debate. The first group is the American 
consumers and the second group are the people who work and dedicate 
their lives to the products they create for American consumers at 
Microsoft.
  I would like to address the beliefs of the American consumers first, 
because I will warrant that if we go out and we ask our constituents, 
Should the Federal Government break up Microsoft?, the answer will be a 
resounding no. From the State of Maine to the State of Washington, 
people do not believe that the Federal Government will help their 
lives, will advance the Internet, will advance software one inch by 
breaking up this engine of creative growth.
  And the Americans are right when it comes to this belief. American 
consumers are right in having the belief that this industry is healthy. 
This is not a sick industry that demands the physician of the Federal 
Government to come rescue it. And the evidence is clear: American 
consumers know that they are getting better products, faster products, 
less expensive products every day with Microsoft as it is currently 
configured.
  Look at the evidence. This industry has grown from 290,000 workers in 
1990

[[Page H1661]]

to 860,000 productive workers today. It has grown from 24,000 companies 
in 1990 to 57,000 companies today. Where is the stranglehold on 
creativity when we have doubled the number of companies in the software 
business in the last decade? This industry today has contributed $20 
billion, $20 billion, to our trade balance. The reason is creative 
people are doing creative work.
  And I will tell my colleagues one thing, Madam Speaker, when I talk 
to people across this country, they tell me they know they are getting 
better products, and they do not trust the American government to try 
to define through judicial fiat what products these software engineers, 
who are geniuses, should give to the American consumers. Products 
should be defined by what the American consumers want, not what the 
Federal Government wants.
  I want to touch now on a message from the folks who work at 
Microsoft, Madam Speaker. I represent thousands of people who get up in 
the morning and work commonly 12 to 14 hour days to try to bring their 
creative talents to bear to create new products for the American 
people.
  They have done a good job and they are doing a good job and they are 
going to continue to do a good job creating new products for America. 
The reason is that the people at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, are 
not going to be distracted, they are not going to be deterred, they are 
not going to stop their efforts to continue that creative growth by the 
fact that this case will go to the appellate court because they realize 
this is the first step in a long process. They trust the American 
appellate courts and trust that ultimately the will of the American 
consumers will prevail in this case.
  Microsoft should continue to be creative and should not be broken up.

                          ____________________