[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11731-H11732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H11731]]
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1714, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN 
                    GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 366

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1714) to facilitate the use of electronic 
     records and signatures in interstate or foreign commerce. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments 
     recommended by the Committees on Commerce and the Judiciary 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall), my 
very good friend; and pending that I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. All time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a bill, H.R. 
1714, that is critically important to consumers in our 21st century 
information-age economy. It is also appropriate that we consider this 
legislation on the heels of last week's passage of S. 900, the 
Financial Services Modernization Act.
  As significant as S. 900 is to bringing our financial services laws 
up to date with the realities of the current marketplace, H.R. 1714 
will actually do more to empower consumers of financial products and 
other goods and services and establish the framework for competition in 
the emerging electronic marketplace. For this I applaud the efforts of 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to move this legislation 
forward.
  This is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Commerce. The rule makes in order as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1. That amendment in 
the nature of a substitute is identical to the bill which on November 1 
fell just three votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary for 
passage of a measure under suspension of the rules.
  The rule provides for consideration of only the two amendments 
printed in the rules report, as the Clerk just gave us, which may be 
offered only in the order printed in the Record, may be offered only by 
the designated Member, shall be considered as read, shall not be 
divisible, and shall be debated for 30 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
  The first amendment is the bipartisan Inslee-Eshoo-Smith-Dooley-
Moran-Roukema amendment, which I urge my colleagues to support. It 
preserves all Federal and State consumer protection laws and actually 
creates new consumer rights in the area of electronic commerce.
  The second is a gutting amendment offered by Representatives Dingell, 
Conyers, LaFalce and Gephardt which, if adopted, will leave all 
consumers to ponder the question: Why did I just spend $1,200 on a 
computer? Now, think about it, Mr. Speaker. The scale of electronic 
commerce is undergoing dramatic change as a result of the Internet, 
networking and communications technology, and the expansion of computer 
memory and storage capabilities. Computer-to-computer communication is 
increasingly being used to initiate and execute a substantial and 
growing number of personal business and financial transactions.
  Enactment of this E-SIGN bill will transform the way we work, the way 
we are educated, the way we contract for goods and services, and the 
way we are governed. It will make it easier for people using just a 
computer and a modem to pay their bills, apply for mortgages, trade 
securities and purchase goods and services without ever leaving the 
confines of their homes or offices.

                              {time}  1215

  But the consumer revolution that would be unleashed by this bill may 
never see the light of day if the Dingell-Gephardt amendment is 
adopted. So I am going to once again urge my colleagues to oppose that 
clearly anti-consumer amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, my State of California is home to many of the companies 
that produce the technologies that are shaping the global electronic 
marketplace. In talking with business leaders in the fields of 
technology and finance, I am convinced that the promise of electronic 
commerce will never be fully realized without the establishment of a 
clear, uniform national framework governing both, and I emphasize both, 
digital signatures and records.
  This is one of the most important economic challenges facing 
Congress, as our country transitions into our 21st century Information 
Age economy. With H.R. 1714, businesses and consumers can be confident 
that the transactions we engage in electronically are both safe and 
secure. This bill addresses this challenge in a way that ensures that 
competition and consumer choice remain the hallmarks of the emerging 
global electronic marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that is deserving of bipartisan 
support, as was evidenced in the suspension vote, although, as I said, 
we were just three votes short of what we needed to pass it. So I 
assume that the rule will sail right through and the bill, with only 
the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), will sail 
through, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support of both, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a restrictive rule which will allow for the 
consideration of H.R. 1714. As my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, has explained, this rule provides 1 hour of general debate, 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Commerce.
  This restrictive rule will permit only two /AELDZ to the base text. 
No other amendments may be offered. Mr. Speaker, electronic commerce 
has become part of our life for millions of Americans who use the 
Internet to conduct business. Congress needs to update our laws so that 
buyers and sellers can take better advantage of the new technology. One 
such change is to give electronic signatures and contracts the

[[Page H11732]]

same legal force as written signatures and contracts.
  In concept, this change has broad support on both sides of the aisle 
and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. This positive development 
would encourage electronic commercial activity and benefit both 
business and consumers.
  Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond electronic signatures and 
contracts. It contains controversial provisions preempting State laws 
that require maintaining certain written records. It contains 
provisions opposed by consumer groups that would permit electronic 
notices and disclosures to be substituted for written notices. For 
these reasons, the bill failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote 
when it was considered earlier this month under suspension of the 
rules.
  This restrictive rule we are now considering does make in order an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
LaFalce), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), which will 
remove the controversial provisions of the bill and leave much needed 
language dealing with electronic signatures and contracts.
  The rule also makes in order a bipartisan amendment that contains a 
number of consumer protections. The House is not served by rules which 
restrict the amendment process on legislation so important to the 
Nation's commerce. However, the two amendments which are made in order 
will give Members the opportunities to make meaningful changes to the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren).
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the rule makes in 
order the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), 
myself, and several other individuals, which strengthens and I believe 
solves the consumer protection issues that were of concern to some 
Members.
  Specifically, on the third page of the amendment, and I will quote, 
the amendment would provide that ``Nothing in this Act affects the 
content or timing of any disclosure required to be provided to any 
consumer under any statute, regulation, or other rule of law.'' I think 
that is about as broad as we can get in terms of making sure that 
consumer protection statutes are undisturbed by this electronic 
signature act.
  It is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Commerce 
is disposed to favor this amendment, and I think that shows the 
bipartisan effort that has been underway to make sure that this 
electronic signature act does become law. The other important provision 
of the bill guarantees the consumers the right to opt into electronic 
records, and really an astoundingly broad provision that allows the 
consumer to withdraw his or her consent at any time.
  So I think this is a light touch in terms of regulation, but there is 
a need for consistency and a general scheme for electronic commerce, as 
we all know.
  I am hopeful that Members will read the language of the Inslee 
amendment, along with the underlying bill, so they can assure 
themselves, as I have been assured, that this is a fair measure that 
will promote e-commerce and will do no harm to other important issues. 
Please do read the amendment, instead of just listening to the 
arguments.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say very briefly that this is a bill 
that clearly moves us forward and recognizes e-trade and so forth. With 
that, I would urge the Members to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________