[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 21, 2000

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Commerce 
Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer 
Protection, and as one of the two Democrats appointed to serve on the 
conference committee to resolve differences between S. 761, the 
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, and the 
House amendments to the bill, I wish to indicate that I concur with the 
extension of remarks today submitted to the Record by the Gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) with respect to this legislation.
  I have had an opportunity to review the gentleman from Michigan's 
extension of remarks concerning certain insertions previously placed 
into the Record by other conferees. I agree with the Gentleman from 
Michigan's responses to these remarks.
  There was no joint explanatory statement prepared in connection with 
the conference report on S. 761, and the Gentleman from Michigan quite 
properly notes, certain statements made in the extensions of remarks 
previously submitted by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) do not accurately reflect the 
intent or understanding of the conferees. Moreover, some of these 
statements are simply not correct or conflict with the plain language 
of the statute.
  In addition to the matters discussed in the Gentleman from Michigan's 
statement, I would also like to mention an additional matter which I 
believe merits clarification.
  I note that Senator Abraham states that the ``reference in section 
101(a) of the conference agreement to `any transaction in or affecting 
interstate commerce' is intended to include electronic records, 
signatures and agreements governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 and all electronic records, signatures and agreements used in 
financial planning, income tax preparation and investments.'' The scope 
of section 101 is actually narrower; it is limited to ``transactions'' 
involving ``consumers''. For example, the conferees defines 
transactions to include ``an action or set of actions relating to the 
conduct of business, consumer, or commercial affairs'' and consciously 
rejected including governmental affairs as a whole. The bill does not 
purport to affect all records, signatures and agreements governed in 
general by the federal securities laws or ``used in financial planning, 
income tax preparation and investments''.

                          ____________________