Our computer industry is the best in the world -- it provides great jobs and leverages huge productivity gains in many segments of the U.S. economy.

It is a massive engine driving and pulling U.S. economic growth and giving us a major competitive advantage.

This industry grows twice as fast as the overall U.S. economy and this Committee wants to help make sure it keeps growing.

If the Senate were as productive as the computer industry we would be doubling our output in speeches, bills and hearings every 18 months . . . though I doubt the public would want that kind of “improvement” from us.

But the public does want to keep our computer industry vibrant and innovative, and open to all, and so should we. In the time it sometimes takes Congress to pass an appropriations bill our computer industry can bring to market hundreds of new products and a few killer apps that make other countries cringe with envy.

If this competitive environment becomes impaired America will lose its edge in world markets. It is clear to me that consumer choices, innovation and our economic future are all on the line.

I think it is that simple. Open markets, an open Internet, open systems and open architecture provide the most opportunities for everyone to fairly compete -- from young programmers to retired engineers, from huge computer giants to a fledgling new start-up company with one good idea.

Our antitrust laws are consumer protection laws, while, at the same time, they work to promote economic growth and strengthen our economy.

The idea was, and still is, that strong competition benefits consumers through lower prices, innovation, better service and products, and more choices.

I get very nervous every time I hear someone say that we have to regulate this industry or the Internet to make sure it works right. That would send a scare down Wall Street and down Main Street in most towns in this country. But the use of massive economic power rather than innovative power is also wrong.

It is important to know whether there are unfair barriers to that emerging competition. And it is important to know whether market structure is improperly serving to sustain one technology over another.

Some important, relevant and timely issues will be raised today. Some practices will be exposed that the Justice Department will carefully explore.

I am keenly interested in hearing from all these witnesses. An article in Business Technology raised one issue when the author wrote:

Battered by the relentless onslaught of Microsoft, Lotus has seen its market share in desktop software dwindle so low that many analysts no longer bother to track it.

I met with Jeff Papows yesterday and I know Lotus has concerns about the network server and messaging markets that we will explore today.

I know that Microsoft’s management believes they could not testify today since they are under active investigation by the Justice Department and are in litigation right now over antitrust issues.

Their side of the story will be an important missing piece of this hearing, but I fully understand why they felt they could not be here today. Because of the timing of this hearing, Microsoft understandably cannot testify, and that unfortunately does create an appearance of imbalance.