[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S271-S272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1594. A bill to amend the Bank Protection Act of 1968 for purposes 
of facilitating the use of electronic authentication techniques by 
financial institutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


    the digital signature and electronic authentication law of 1998

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Digital 
Signature and Electronic Authentication Law (SEAL) of 1998.
  We Americans place such trust in the act of signing a document that 
we traditionally have referred to the written signature as a ``John 
Hancock'' after one of the first signers of the Declaration of 
Independence and one of our country's founding fathers. As the country 
moves into the 21st century and into the digital age, it is necessary 
for the government to validate the use of equally trustworthy forms of 
authentication for electronic transactions. In doing this, our country 
will secure its position as a leader in the international digital 
economy.
  Electronic authentication, broadly defined, is any technology which 
provides a way for the recipient of a message to verify the identity of 
the sender, make sure the message was not altered in transit, and 
confirm that the message was the one the sender intended to transmit. 
Parties to electronic transactions must have access to this 
authentication process in order to feel secure in conducting business 
over open networks.
  While this concept is fairly simple, the legislative process has 
proven quite complex. Many states have enacted legislation on 
electronic authentication, but the state laws are vastly different. 
Because electronic transactions do not respect state or national 
boundaries, there are no clear rules to govern this activity. This lack 
of direction has limited the use of electronic authentication. The 
process is further complicated by the number of competing technologies 
available to provide authentication as well as the fact that businesses 
from all different sectors of the economy seek to use and offer 
authentication services.
  As Chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Financial 
Services and Technology, I have examined this issue and have determined 
that the appropriate first step toward addressing it is to introduce a 
firmly grounded, free-market bill that addresses the concerns of 
financial institutions. In introducing this bill, I do not want to 
suggest that this authority should belong exclusively to that group. I 
have stated repeatedly my belief that all entities, banks and nonbanks 
alike, should be authorized to use electronic authentication for their 
own transactions and offer the service to third parties. In attempting 
to fashion a bill that would appropriately address the needs and 
concerns of all interested groups, however, I have reached an impasse. 
My attempts to reach out and engage those representing nonbank 
interests in serious discussions have failed. I have determined, 
therefore, that it is appropriate for me to take a first step and 
introduce this bill to address the needs of financial institutions.
  While I do not intend to create a monopoly for banks, and indeed hope 
that this legislation can be amended to include other entities, I do 
recognize that there are valid reasons why we may choose to address the 
concerns of financial institutions separately.
  Financial institutions are accustomed to assuming ``trusted third 
party'' roles, including serving as trustee and offering notary and 
signature guarantee services. Offering electronic authentication 
services is the functional equivalent of those traditional bank 
activities.
  Financial institutions are highly regulated entities, and the 
financial institution regulators have experience in supervising these 
``trusted third party'' activities.
  Many of the transactions which individuals and businesses will seek 
to authenticate are likely to be financial transactions.
  In Europe and other countries around the world, electronic 
authentication activities are conducted almost exclusively by financial 
institutions. By taking a first step and authorizing our financial 
institutions to use electronic authentication, we will strengthen our 
position in establishing the conditions for international transactions.
  The Digital SEAL Bill is, as I have described it, a minimalist, free-
market bill. It provides quite simply that a financial institution may 
use electronic authentication in the conduct of its business and that 
the use of such electronic authentication shall be valid. A financial 
institution's use of electronic authentication shall be governed by the 
rules of the system or agreement under which it operates and shall be 
regulated by the appropriate financial institution regulator. The bill 
defines electronic authentication broadly in an effort to be as 
technologically neutral as possible.
  Of equal importance is what this bill does not do. It does not create 
a new regulatory bureaucracy to supervise this activity. It does not 
impair consumers' rights under the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic 
Fund Transfer Act, or any state law of similar purpose. Finally, it 
does not limit, in any way, the ability of any other entity to use or 
offer electronic authentication in the course of its business.
  The time has come for Congress to begin a serious discussion of the 
impact of technology on commercial transactions and consider how age-
old concepts, like the importance of a signature, will fit into an 
increasingly electronic world. Electronic authentication is a good 
starting point for this discussion, and passage of this bill will 
advance the development of electronic banking and commerce.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this 
legislation to give financial institutions, and appropriate other 
entities, the authority to use electronic authentication.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 1595. A bill to provide for the establishment of a Commission to 
Promote a National Dialogue on Bioethics.

[[Page S272]]

      the commission to promote a national dialogue on bioethics 
                       establishment act of 1998

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, In recent years, I have often voiced 
concern that medical technology is moving at an unprecedented pace, 
leaving the rest of society ill-prepared to cope with the increasingly 
complex moral and ethical dilemmas that follow in the wake of new 
inventions. We must never attempt to divorce scientific progress from 
ethical considerations. We must instead fashion timely answers to the 
timeless question ``Is there a line that should not be crossed even for 
scientific or other gain, and if so, where is it?'' (Washington Post 
editorial, Oct. 2, 1994)

  The recent furor over Dolly the cloned sheep, and Dr. Seed's 
subsequent announcement that he intended to clone a human being through 
the same technique, has highlighted the necessity of an independent, 
balanced forum to address the ethical implications of new technological 
capabilities. Two temptations threaten both science and ethics in the 
current milieu. There is pressure on legislators (often unfamiliar with 
scientific issues) to rush to draft laws that could hamper important 
research efforts. There is a parallel tendency on the part of academic 
scientists to resist any input from law or ethics into their research. 
Thus, science and ethics are lost in the political morass, while the 
public often remains uninvolved and frightened. The example of the 
cloning debate provides ample evidence of this tendency.
  There are no fewer than six legislative proposals to address cloning 
on the horizon, ranging from sweeping prohibitions to largely symbolic 
bans. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (a commission 
appointed entirely by President Clinton) did a good job of trying to 
assimilate the information on cloning under their ninety day deadline 
last year, but they were unable to substantively address the ethical 
issues surrounding human cloning. The Commission cited inadequate time 
to tackle difficult ethical issues in the context of our pluralistic 
society, and primarily focused on scientific concerns as well as the 
less abstract issue of safety. They then appealed to each American 
citizen to step to the plate and exercise moral leadership in forming a 
national policy on human cloning.
  In an effort to follow up on the Commission's recommendations, the 
Senate labor Committee's Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, 
which I chair, held a hearing June 17, 1997, entitled ``Ethics and 
Theology: A Continuation of the National Discussion on Human Cloning.'' 
We heard testimony on all sides of the issue, from the Christian, 
Islamic, and Jewish traditions, and from philosophers well-schooled in 
biomedical ethics. We launched a broader public debate with questions 
about the nature of human individuality, family, and social structure.
  However, time has shown that both a Presidential Commission, and the 
United States Congress are inadequate and inappropriate forums for 
bioethical issues of intricacy and importance. I am therefore proposing 
to establish a new independent National Bioethics Commission, 
representative of the public at large, with combined participation of 
experts in law, science, theology, medicine, social science, and 
philosophy/ethics with interested members of the public.
  It is my hope that this Commission will forge a new path for our 
country in the field of bioethics. That they will enable us to have an 
informed, thoughtful, scientific debate in the public square without 
fear or politics driving our decisions. The Majority and Minority 
Leaders of Congress would appoint members of the panel, but no current 
Member of Congress or Administration political appointee would be 
allowed to participate during their term of office. We simply must 
depoliticize these discussions while simultaneously broadening input 
from the general public. Each and every citizen should have the 
opportunity to contribute to these great debates.
  I anticipate that some may question the role of theology in a public 
policy debate. Certainly the President's advisory commission found that 
their considerations were incomplete without examining the religious 
mores of our culture. Our founding fathers also recognized that public 
policy could not be formulated in a theological vacuum. While they 
forbade the establishment of a state religion, they simultaneously 
affirmed the rights of God-fearing people to make their voices heard in 
the public arena. Today, and throughout history, religion has been a 
primary source of the beliefs governing these decisions for men and 
women of all races and creeds.
  So it is vital that our public debate and reflection on scientific 
developments keep pace, and even anticipate and prepare for new 
scientific knowledge. The moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in the 
cloning of human beings may well be our greatest test to date. We do 
not simply seek knowledge, but the wisdom to apply that knowledge. As 
with each of the mind boggling scientific advances of the last century, 
we know that there is the potential for both good and evil in this 
technology. Our task as legislators is to define the role of the 
federal government in harnessing this technology for good. Our task as 
citizens is to exercise responsible stewardship of the precious gift of 
life. May this Commission enable us to fulfill our trust.

                          ____________________