[The bill was introduced as HR3627, then folded into HR3937, after which
it was removed, and thus did not pass.]

Subject: H.R. 3627 co-sponsored by Rep. Karen Shepherd (D-UT)
-------------------------------------------------------------

Activism works! Writing to your representatives in goverment is *not* a
waste of time or paper.  It is effective, and it does produce results.
In many cases, your Senators, Representatives, Assemblymembers, Delegates,
etc., are not only unopposed to a bill, they may not even be aware of it
or the issue at all.

In Feb. 1994, EFF asked the net to help us show support for the Cantwell
bill, HR 3627, which would liberalize export controls on cryptography.
Thousands of you sent your letters in to this campaign, as well as to our
parallel Leahy Clipper hearings campaign which was also a success.  But the
story doesn't stop there, and neither does the action.  Co-sponsors or
lack thereof can be the life or death of a bill, and the more co-sponsors
HR 3627 has, the more likely it is to pass the House.  Shabbir Safdar and
many others have done some great work in this area, and one message
indicating how effective personal grassroots activism can be was sent to
us from Colin Campbell, whose Representative Karen Shepherd has agreed to
co-sponsor the bill.  We reproduce the letter below so you can see for
yourself.

>>From: ccampbel@dsd.es.com (Colin Campbell)
>>To: jberman@eff.org (Jerry Berman)
>>Subject: H.R. 3627 will be co-sponsored by Rep. Karen Shepherd (D-UT)
>>
>>Dear Mr. Berman:
>>
>>I recently sent the following letter to my district's delegate in the
>>House of Representatives, Rep. Karen Shepherd (D-UT) in support of
>>H.R. 3627.  Her office later telephoned me to say that before my
>>letter she had been unaware of the issue, but after studying the issue
>>she will be co-sponsoring the bill.
>>
>>;;; text of letter
>>
>>Rep. Karen Shepherd
>>U.S. House of Representatives
>>Washington, DC
>>
>>Dear Rep. Shepherd:
>>
>>I would like to register my strong support for H.R. 3627, Legislation
>>to Amend the Export Administration Act of 1979.  The bill proposes to
>>end the ban on the export of privacy and data-security software from
>>the U.S.
>>
>>As a longtime worker in the software industry, I can attest to the
>>senseless and counter-productive effects of the current export
>>restrictions on cryptographic software.
>>
>>For me, the issue is simple:
>>
>>        1) The current ban is ineffective.  There is no way to control
>>           the availability of privacy software in other countries.  
>>           Software is not a commodity that is consumed and continually
>>           reexported to replenish supply; it is information and technology.  
>>           The encryption technology in question is already fully available
>>           wherever there are computers.  Whether we like it or not,
>>           the genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back.
>>
>>        2) The U.S. software industry is severely hampered by not
>>           being able to export products with privacy
>>           and data-security features.  This is about jobs.
>>
>>I think cryptography has a bit of an image problem.  I think it is
>>inaccurately associated in popular thinking with secrecy, espionage
>>and even crime or terrorism.  In fact, privacy software is just an
>>electronic "envelope."  It is as common and unexotic as paper
>>envelopes or locking file cabinets.
>>
>>I regularly send my mail sealed in envelopes made of opaque paper, and
>>no one would interpret this practice as evidence of criminal intent.
>>Similarly, I file my business documents in a locking file cabinet.  In
>>the future, nearly all electronic communication will be enclosed in
>>secure, software "envelopes."  This is proper, natural and in no way
>>suspect.  And it is a growth industry for the U.S., if we are only
>>sensible enough to recognize and take advantage of the opportunity.
>>
>>I believe that the arguments of national security offered by opponents
>>of the proposed legislation are not compelling.  I suspect that many
>>in the law enforcement and national security communities, who pursued
>>the majority of their careers with the technology and politics of the
>>Cold War, regret the wide availability of electronic privacy;
>>undeniably, it does make their job harder.  However, whether or not we
>>allow privacy software to be exported will not change this.
>>
>>Classifying privacy software as a "munition" makes about as much sense
>>as classifying personal computers and photocopy machines as implements
>>of war.  Are we willing to forbid the export of personal computers and
>>photocopy machines for national security reasons as well?
>>
>>Now is an opportunity for progressive, forward-thinking approaches to
>>electronic communications and the software industry.  Our national
>>policy should reflect the realities of the technology and the public
>>interest.  Needlessly crippling one of our most vital industries with
>>a policy which is ineffective at meeting its stated goals is not in
>>that interest.  I urge you to support and even co-sponsor H.R. 3627. 
>>This is an issue that is very important to the software
>>community.
>>
>>If there is any way I can help you in your effort pass HR 3627,
>>please let me know.
>> 
>>Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>>Sincerely yours,
>>
>>
>>Colin Campbell
>>
>>--
>>Colin Campbell                       ccampbel@dsd.es.com
>>Salt Lake City, UT 84108