Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. A consumer's acknowledgment or affirmative response to such a query would satisfy the ``reasonable demonstration'' requirement.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. The requirement is satisfied if it is shown that the consumer actually accesses electronic records in the relevant format.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would welcome the chance to participate in a colloquy about the scope of the electronic signature legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, because the differences between the House and Senate passed bills required much careful contemplation on the part of the Conferees that may not be apparent in the final text of the Conference Report, and because the Conference did not produce an official interpretive statement regarding the Conference Report, as the primary author of S. 761, I have prepared an explanatory document that should serve as a guide to the intent behind the following provisions of S. 761. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section explanation of S. 761 be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I welcome the chance to participate in a colloquy about the consent provisions in the conference report.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, this act applies to all actions or sets of actions related to the underlying business, consumer, or commercial relationship which is based on the nature of the activity and not the number of persons involved in the activity. The act is also intended to cover the related activities of those persons or entities who are counterparties to, or otherwise involved in or related to, the covered activity.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, and as a result, the act would apply to such activities as the execution of a prototype plan adoption agreement by an employer, the execution of an IRA application by an individual, and the waiver of a qualified joint and survivor annuity by a plan participant's spouse and the designation of any beneficiary in connection with any retirement, pension, or deferred compensation plan, IRA, qualified State tuition program, insurance or annuity contract, or agreement to transfer ownership upon the death of a party to a transaction.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report accompanying S. 761.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on the legislation which has just passed. This is an extraordinarily important bill which will essentially open up opportunities in e-commerce that have previously not been existent for Americans. It will be a tremendous incentive to our economy. I express to all my colleagues my appreciation for their hard work on the legislation. It is a significant accomplishment for the Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will begin with a brief statement on behalf of the majority leader. Today the Senate will immediately begin a vote on the conference report to accompany the digital signatures legislation. Following the vote, the Senate will be in a period of morning business with Senator Craig in control of the first hour. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill on Monday at 3 p.m. By previous consent, Senators Hatch and Kennedy will be recognized to offer their amendments regarding hate crimes. Those amendments will be debated simultaneously, with any votes ordered to take place on Tuesday at 3:15 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I might need.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we are obviously in the midst of an ongoing discussion that has been held on a number of occasions here over the issue of CAFE standards and this motion, obviously, to instruct the Senate conferees to either modify or strike the moratorium on CAFE standards in the House bill. I rise to speak in opposition to this motion to instruct. Let me begin, first, by outlining the case against raising corporate fuel economy standards, or CAFE. Then what I would like to discuss is what would actually happen as a matter of law if the CAFE freeze were lifted. First, increased CAFE requirements would cost American auto workers their jobs. They put American automobile manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis foreign manufacturers. Let me explain what I mean by this. The Federal Government currently mandates that auto manufacturers maintain an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for minivans, sport utility vehicles, and light trucks. To meet increased CAFE requirements, automakers must make design and material changes to their vehicles. Those changes cost money. They force American manufacturers to build cars that are smaller, less powerful, less popular to consumers, and, as I will indicate in a moment and as several of the preceding speakers have noted, less safe. In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences found that raising CAFE requirements to 35 miles per gallon would increase the average vehicle's cost by about $2,500. Japanese automakers have escaped these costs because sky high gasoline prices in their home markets forced them to make smaller, lighter cars years ago. Increased CAFE requirements will continue to favor Japanese automakers, and that means they will continue to place an uneven burden on American automobile workers. The American auto industry accounts for one in seven U.S. jobs. Steel, transportation, electronics, literally dozens of industries employing thousands upon thousands of Americans depend on the health of our auto industry. It is not just people in Michigan or people in Ohio; it is people across our Nation whose livelihoods are linked to the success of the American automobile manufacturing industry. In their letter of June 7, the United Auto Workers wrote: * * * further increases in CAFE could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs at automotive plants across this country that are associated with the production of SUVs, light trucks and full size automobiles. In a June 9 letter, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters writes: The CAFE program has not helped manufacturers reduce U.S. consumption of gasoline. Instead, it has created competitive disadvantages for the very companies that provide job opportunities for millions of Americans. I ask unanimous consent the full text of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In addition, raising CAFE standards will cost lives. On the issue of vehicle safety, for a number of years, the Federal Government has taken the lead in mandating additional safety features on automobiles in an attempt to reduce the number of lives lost in auto accidents. How ironic to learn that Federal CAFE requirements have been costing lives all this time. The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that between 2,700 and 4,500 drivers and passengers die every year as a result of CAFE-induced auto downsizing. Last year, USA Today, in a special section devoted to the issue of CAFE standards and auto safety, calculated CAFE's cumulative death toll at 46,000 lives. Even the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which runs the CAFE program, has recognized the deadly effects of CAFE standards. In its publication ``Small Car Safety in the 1980s,'' NHTSA explains that smaller cars are less crash worthy than large ones, even in single-vehicle accidents. Small cars have twice the death rate of drivers and passengers in crashes as larger cars, and smaller light trucks will mean even more fatalities. These trucks and SUVs have higher centers of gravity and so they are more prone to rollovers. If SUV and truck weights are reduced, thousands more will die. On the safety issue, two additional items: First of all, it is true that since CAFE standards came into effect, the overall death rates on our roads have gotten better. However, this fails to note some pretty significant information. We have had safety belts and airbags, a variety of other safety devices included and, in some cases, mandated for usage in automobiles and other vehicles. Our roads have gotten better. For all these reasons, the overall cumulative effect in terms of safety has been better over the last 25 years. But the studies that have specifically focused on the impact of CAFE standards, the impact of lighter vehicles, the impact of less crash-resistant vehicles has shown that the problem in terms of CAFE is not to make cars and vehicles more safe but to make them less so. That is the bottom line. Moreover, in relationship to SUVs in particular, these are vehicles that are more crash prone. Therefore, the notion of making them less safe as a product of a CAFE reform effort would be a strike at the heart of the safety of the American motorist. In addition, increased CAFE standards reduce consumer choice. CAFE averages are determined by the buying pattern of the American public. U.S. automakers are challenged by the current CAFE standards because the American consumer has demonstrated time and again a preference for minivans and SUVs, even though alternatives that are more fuel efficient are readily available. We don't need Government mandates to force automakers to produce fuel-efficient cars. If consumers want vehicles which get better gas mileage no matter what the cost of gasoline, they have a wide choice of vehicles from which to choose. If, as the supporters of new CAFE standards contend, consumers crave more fuel-efficient vehicles, then more small cars and vehicles would be purchased. It is supply and demand. Yet despite a variety of choices for fuel-efficient vehicles which get as much as 40 to 50 miles per gallon, these vehicles account for less than 1 percent of total vehicle sales. Why? The answer is simple: The public demands the convenience of vehicles with a larger carrying capacity and vehicles that are safer. These vehicles, minivans, and SUVs are the class of vehicle that will be eliminated should new CAFE standards be enacted, and the livelihood of the thousands of Americans employed in the production of such vehicles will be threatened. The Americans Farm Bureau writes: Full size pickups are the tools of the agricultural trade and they do, indeed, haul everything from bales of hay to farm equipment to livestock feed on an every day basis. Higher CAFE standards would almost inevitably lead to less powerful engines and weaker frames and suspension or even the elimination of some full size truck models. We should continue to let the market, not the Government, choose the types of vehicles produced by American automobile manufacturers. Consumers will suffer if their choices are narrowed. Automakers and their employees will suffer if they are forced to make cars the public simply does not want. Again, on the choice issue, this is precisely what happened when the CAFE standards were first adopted. In a statement before the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, Dr. Marina Whitman of General Motors noted: In 1982, we were forced to close two assembly plants which had been fully converted to produce our new highly fuel efficient compact and mid-size cars. The cost of the conversions was $130 million. But the plants were closed because demands for those cars did not develop during the period of sharply declining gasoline prices. Our automakers simply cannot afford to pay the fines imposed on them if they fail to reach CAFE standards or to build cars that Americans won't buy. In either case, the real victims are American workers and American consumers. Proponents of CAFE argue that it will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and gasoline consumption. Since the program was enacted 25 years ago, the U.S. fleet average fuel economy has more than doubled. However, U.S. oil imports have risen from 36 percent to over 50 percent, and gasoline consumption has increased during that very same timeframe. Thus raising CAFE will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it will reduce job opportunities, consumer choice, and the automobile safety we presently enjoy. Mr. President, let me explain why the entire CAFE issue itself is almost obsolete. In just a few years, American automobile workers, working individually as well as through partnerships with Government, academia, and suppliers, will be bringing to the market advanced fuel- efficient technologies--cars powered by electric, hybrid electric, clean burn, and fuel cell engines, and other promising new technologies. Toyota became the first manufacturer to mass produce a hybrid electric passenger car, the Prius, which will be on sale in the U.S. later this year. Several companies, such as Volkswagon, are already selling vehicles that utilize advanced technology to achieve 40 to 50 percent greater fuel efficiency than conventional gasoline- powered vehicles without sacrificing performance. American automobile manufacturers are close behind. They continue to invest almost $1 billion every year in research to develop more fuel- efficient vehicles, and those efforts will soon bear fruit. In fact, just today, GM announced it will offer a fuel-efficient SUV capable of handling ethanol-based fuel. As we heard from previous speakers, the Ford Motor Company is in the process of bringing forth vehicles which will be hybrid fuel efficient within just a few years. Clearly, there already exists fierce competition among automakers to market more fuel-efficient vehicles. So why should we even consider turning to the punitive and disruptive methods of Federal mandates through CAFE standards to increase fuel efficiency for American vehicles. This is going to happen, Mr. President. The market will drive it, and it will be done in the most efficient fashion if we allow the companies to do what they are already in the process of accomplishing, instead of grabbing control in Washington and once again dictating through a bureaucracy the way America ought to do business. Since 1993, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has brought together Government agencies and the auto industry to conduct joint research, research that is making significant progress that will breach the gap to real world applications after 2000. By enhancing research cooperation, PNGV is helping our auto industry develop vehicles more easily recyclable, have lower emissions, and can achieve up to triple the fuel efficiency of today's mid-size family sedans--all this while producing cars that retain performance, utility, safety, and economy. Mr. President, we are making solid progress--progress toward making vehicles that achieve greater fuel economy without sacrificing the qualities consumers demand or the safety we should all expect, progress that will render CAFE requirements obsolete. Mr. President, I want to address the contention that lifting the CAFE freeze will simply allow the Department of Transportation to study the need to raise CAFE standards. Of course, that sounds rather benign on its face, and a study alone is something we do often around here. But the way the rules and the law are currently set up, that is simply not the case. As a matter of law, lifting the freeze will lead to higher CAFE standards on sports utility vehicles and light trucks. Public Law 94-163, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, requires the Department of Transportation to set CAFE standards each year at--get this, Mr. President--the maximum feasible average fuel economy level. The Secretary is not authorized to just study CAFE. The Secretary must act by regulation to set new CAFE standards each year. The last year prior to the CAFE freeze--1994--the administration began rulemaking on new CAFE standards. DOT's April 6, 1994, proposal referenced feasible higher CAFE levels for trucks of 15 to 35 percent above the current standard. Since 1995, Congress has refused to allow DOT to unilaterally increase the standards, as it has in the past. We have recognized that it is our duty as legislators to make policy in this important area of economic and environmental concern. I believe that very strongly. I think it ought to be the Congress that steps up to the responsibility of making these kinds of determinations, which have such overriding and such pervasive impact on the economy of virtually every one of the 50 States. Now, however, the proposal before us would move us back in the direction of delegating these critical economic decisions to the bureaucracy, the Department of Transportation. The automobile industry is a critical component of our overall economy. Indeed, the future of our economic growth depends on the continued health of the automobile manufacturing sector. That is why I believe that we in Congress should make the policy decisions related to CAFE, not regulators at the Department of Transportation, or anywhere else. In summary, raising CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs will cost American jobs. It will undermine our automobile industry's global competitiveness. It will compromise passenger safety. It will reduce consumer choice, and it will not reduce America's dependence on foreign oil sources. Nor, in my judgment, as I think some of our colleagues who will soon be speaking will indicate, will it make that much of an impact with respect to fuel efficiency. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct the conferees to strike the CAFE freeze provision. I yield the floor and withhold the remainder of our time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent following the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts, after his 4 minutes, we then return to consideration of the motion to instruct, and that I be permitted to speak at that time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I object.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I know we want to move as quickly as possible to the digital signature, e-signature legislation. Obviously, we have to finish the action on the proposed motion to instruct. My comment on the proposal submitted by the Senator from Washington is that I think it moves in a very positive direction. I have introduced legislation in the Senate for the past several Congresses, attempting to establish what I consider to be a more appropriate way of considering issues related to corporate average fuel economy. Specifically, I feel the current considerations are not broad enough. We do not take into account--as I indicated in my speech earlier today--the impact on employment in the United States and, more specifically, in the automotive industry. We do not take into account safety; we do not take into account similar factors that matter to the people I represent. The proposal is to have a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences that would look specifically at those considerations, as well as many others that the Academy or the conference committee would recommend--as the Senator from Washington indicated in the colloquy with my colleague from Michigan--and other criteria that we have included in legislation that I have introduced in this and previous Congresses. The other thing which I have always felt is relevant to this process is how the role of Congress should be enhanced. I mentioned this earlier today in my remarks. I believe something as directly significant to the economy of the United States as the automobile industry, and specifically the CAFE standards' impact on that industry, are issues that Congress ought to have an ultimate role in addressing. I am happy the provisions here would subject any changes--at least in this fiscal year--to the approval of Congress by a joint resolution. I think that makes a lot of sense, because that would put the elected officials of this country--not the unelected bureaucrats of this country--in the position of making the significant determinations that will impact our economy. For both those reasons I think this approach makes sense for this fiscal year. It keeps intact the freeze which we have had in recent years, so there will not be an increase or change in corporate average fuel economy standard generated through the process that has existed under United States Code. But at the same time, it does provide those who wanted a study the opportunity to have one conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. It also gives Congress a much more direct role in any changes that might occur during the upcoming year. And it does, I think, acknowledge the very important criteria beyond simply the question of appropriate levels of fuel economy--criteria like safety, criteria like employment. Criteria that relate to our economy would also be taken into consideration. So I believe this makes sense as now submitted to this body. I hope we can quickly act on it.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to rise this evening to discuss legislation that I am very confident we will pass tomorrow--the conference report to S. 761, the Electronic Signatures and Global National Commerce Act. This is the culmination of nearly two years' effort, and I deeply appreciate all of the generous assistance on the part of my colleagues who helped move this bill through the legislative process. I believe that hindsight will prove this to be one of the most important pieces of legislation to emerge from the 106th Congress. This legislation will eliminate the single most significant vulnerability of electronic commerce, which is the fear that everything it revolves around--electronic signatures, contracts, and other records--could be rendered invalid solely by virtue of their being in ``electronic'' form, rather than in a tangible, ink and paper format. This bill will literally supply the pavement for the e-commerce lane of the information superhighway. What we do today truly changes tomorrow, and I am certain that this legislation will prove to have a tremendous positive impact on electronic commerce--and on the general health of our economy--for decades to come. Mr. President, thanks to the development of secure electronic signatures and records, individuals, businesses, and even governments are increasingly able to enter transactions without ever having to travel--whether the travel is a short drive across town or a thousand- mile flight. They are turning on a computer and opening e-mail, rather than scheduling drop-offs at mailboxes or pick-ups from courier services. They are able to transact now, rather than ``tomorrow, before 10AM'', or over the next few days, depending on mail volume (and, of course, except for on Sunday). They are paying transactions costs in the fractions of cents, rather than in 33 cent increments. And as we move forth into the electronic world, ``they'' will increasingly include even the smallest businesses and consumers, who will find themselves able to take advantage of many of the technologies and efficiencies available only to the largest of firms. Even now, consumers are realizing the time and cost benefits of electronic commerce at a rapidly escalating rate. On-line catalogs are everywhere, all the time, and always in competition to provide the best service at the lowest price. And for the average family in America, on- line lending and real estate brokerage services are making the most significant of all purchases--the purchase of a family home--available over the Internet. Changes to home-buying over the near term will be dramatic. Rapid document and service delivery will reduce a transaction typically measured in days or weeks to minutes or hours, and the ability of a consumer to quickly assess the rates offered by scores of lenders will increase competition and lower mortgage costs and rates for every consumer. Mr. President, Franklin Raines, the Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae, told an investor conference in May that ``. . . the application of electronic commerce to the U.S. mortgage finance industry should help the U.S. homeownership rate reach 70 percent over the next decade.'' Mr. President, and Chairman Raines, I look forward to that future. But for e-commerce to continue growing, we must have a consistent, predictable, national framework of rules governing the use of electronic signatures and records. Current legal inconsistencies are deterring businesses from fully utilizing electronic signature technologies. And the ability of one court, in one jurisdiction, to rule against the validity of a contract solely because of its electronic form threatens to destabilize the entirety of electronic commerce--bringing down the whole house of cards. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law has developed a uniform system for the use of electronic signatures. Their product, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or UETA, is an excellent piece of work and I look forward to its enactment in all fifty states. But as some state legislatures are not in session next year, and as other states face more immediately pressing issues, it will likely take three to four years for all the states to enact the UETA. That is a long time in the high-technology sector--far too long to permit, when this Congress possesses the ability to bridge the gap. With this in mind, Mr. President, in November of 1998--shortly after the passage of the first electronic signature legislation, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which I also co-authored with my friend, Senator Wyden--I initiated a series of discussions with both industry and states for the purpose of developing a plan to foster the continued growth of electronic signatures and electronic commerce. In January of 1999, my staff had produced draft legislation which I invited Chairman Bliley to consider introducing in the House of Representatives. Over the next several months, Senator Wyden and I worked with Republicans and Democrats in both chambers to refine this legislation. On March 25 of 1999, Senators Wyden, McCain, Burns, Lott, and I introduced the ``Millennium Digital Commerce Act'' (S. 761); Representative Anna Eshoo introduced the House companion later that day. My staff continued to consult with Chairman Bliley in order to refine our substantive approach to this issue, and his electronic signature legislation, H.R. 1714, was introduced on May 6, 1999. As I noted, S. 761 was the first electronic signature bill introduced in the 106th Congress. Thanks to the gracious assistance of Chairman McCain, our bill received its first hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on May 27 of last year. On June 23 it was passed out of the Commerce Committee on a unanimous 19-0 vote. I would note that the version of the bill passed out by the Committee included provisions regarding both electronic signatures and electronic records. During the fall of 1999, we made several attempts to pass this bill by unanimous consent agreement in the Senate, but unfortunately, we were unable to proceed because several Members had concerns relating to the inclusion of electronic records in the legislation. Given our need to accommodate the Senate's schedule, we made a decision to pass a substitute bill that excluded the records provisions, and the Abraham- Wyden-Leahy substitute amendment passed the Senate unanimously on November 19, 1999. At the time the Senate passed S. 761, Senator Lott and I made clear our intention to work for inclusion of electronic records provisions in the final bill. I am pleased to say that with much effort, the bill is being passed today as conceived nearly two years ago--granting legal certainty to both electronic records and signatures. Mr. President, at this point I would like to speak to several of the key principles of this legislation, which I believe will provide the legal framework needed for the continued growth of e-commerce. The general rule of this legislation ensures the legal certainty of e-commerce in very clear, targeted terms: ``a signature, contract, or other record . . . may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form''. Mr. President, the word ``solely'' is pivotal in this context: it means that electronic writings are not to be discriminated against, but instead are to be judged according to existing principles of contract law. With this language, the ``achilles heel'' of all of e-commerce is protected--the ``electronic'' nature of a contract will not be used to attack the validity of a contract. Mr. President, I view this as my single most important contribution to the future of electronic commerce, and would like to thank Senators McCain, Wyden, Gramm, and Hatch for their counsel and support in writing this section of the legislation. This section of the legislation was added to ensure that no ambiguity existed with respect to our treatment of existing contract law. Although we strongly believe that our General Rule is formulated in the least onerous incarnation, Section 101(b) clarifies that principles of contract law, which have been established over a millennium of commerce, remain in effect and should continue to guide transactions nationwide. It is the strong belief of the conference that the decision whether or not to participate in electronic commerce is completely voluntary, and if the parties decide to do so, the bill grants parties to a transaction the freedom to determine the technologies and business methods to employ in the execution of an electronic contract or other record. Under the consent provisions, a consumer must affirmatively consent to the provision of records in electronic form, and there must be a reasonable demonstration that the consumer can access electronic records. For the immediate future, the conference envisions this ``electronic consent'' to take the form of either a web-page based consumer affirmation, or a reply to a business' electronic mailing which includes an affirmation by the consumer that he or she could open provided attachments. I eagerly await future technology developments that render the burdens this section imposes on consumers and businesses obsolete. This provision, in combination with the simple fact that the use of electronic records by a consumer and right to contract generally are completely voluntary, should ensure that no consumer will be forced by any business to accept any electronic document that the consumer does not wish to receive. It is well worth noting that the term ``consumer'' does not include business-to-business transactions, which will allow businesses to take full advantage of the efficiency opportunities presented by this legislation. As I have noted, the central purpose of this legislation is to establish a nation-wide baseline for the legal certainty of electronic signatures and records. The States themselves have recognized the need for uniformity in laws governing e-commerce, and in July of last year, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL) reported out model legislation designed to unify state law in a market- oriented, technology-neutral approach. I believe that the eventual adoption of UETA by all 50 states in a manner consistent with the version reported by NCCUSL will provide the same national uniformity which is established in the Federal legislation. For that reason, and at my insistence, when a state adopts the ``Uniform Electronic Transactions Act'' (UETA) as reported by NCCUSL, the federal preemption provided in this bill is superceded. In the meantime, the preemption contained in the Federal Act will ensure a uniform standard of legal certainty for both electronic signatures and electronic records. Mr. President, I would like to address two additional points related to preemption. First, UETA includes a provision that permits a state to prescribe ``delivery methods'' for various records. I saw this as a potential loophole to the bill, which would allow a state to circumvent the intent of the general rule and require that an electronic document be delivered via physical methods--most likely ``first class'' mail. It should be clear to all that the federal legislation would not permit such a delivery method requirement, and we have specified as much in the preemption section. Second, I believed that the House version of the preemption was unnecessarily overbroad, and went so far as to seriously hamper the ability of a state or local government to perform those governing functions entrusted to it by the citizens. I am pleased that the conference agreed with my opinion, and that the language was changed in response. The ``consumer protection'' provisions of this legislation specify that any notice of product recalls or cancellation, or termination of utility services, among other items, are to be excluded from the scope of this legislation. This means, of course, that the validity of these notices may be denied solely because they are in electronic form. I hope that industry does not shy away from providing these notices electronically--as well as in paper--as it seems to me that electronic ``anyplace, anytime'' notification of a product recall or utility shutoff would be extremely valuable. Especially to a resident of northern Michigan on business or vacation travel, whose furnace was subject to recall during the dead of winter. Mr. President, because of the benefits of ``anyplace, anytime'' notice--and especially in light of the strong consent provisions in the bill--I believe consumers should be free to choose to receive any type record electronically, even those expressly precluded in this legislation. I hope the appropriate regulatory agencies will utilize the authority granted in this bill to allow all records, even those precluded from electronic transmission by this legislation, to be sent electronically. The Legislation does not prevent states from establishing standards for electronic transactions with their constituents. Just as the Government Paperwork Elimination Act provided the Federal government the authority to set standards for electronic regulatory filing and reporting, so too should the States have the ability to set standards for electronic submission with a State or political subdivision. And, like any business, the Federal government and the States also have the ability to establish procedures and standards for procuring goods and services online. The bill directs the Department of Commerce and Office of Management and Budget to report on Federal laws and regulations that might pose barriers to e-commerce and report back to Congress on the impact of such provisions and provide suggestions for reform. Such a report will serve as the basis for Congressional action, or inaction, in the future. This was one of the final sections of the language to be modified in response to my concerns. The original proposal by the Administration to deny legal validity for records required to be retained by Federal or State law or regulation until October 1, of 2001 was, in my opinion, needlessly excessive and punitive to those consumers and businesses prepared to leap now into the electronic age. I maintained that Federal and State agencies should be provided only six months time to develop standards to ensure document validity and integrity, so as to not inappropriately burden the private sector. Objective individuals outside the process with experience in developing and implementing regulations at the Federal and State level assured me that six months was feasible. In the end, however, we effectively agreed upon an eight- month delayed implementation. And finally, language which House negotiators insisted upon which would have needlessly created an uneven playing field for the financial services industry was also dropped at my request. Since the Internet is inherently an international medium, consideration must be given to the manner in which the U.S. will conduct business with overseas governments and businesses. This legislation therefore sets forth a series of principles for the international use of electronic signatures. In the last year, U.S. negotiators have been meeting with the European Commissioners to discuss electronic signatures in international commerce. In these negotiations, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the State Department have worked in support of an open system governing the use of authentication technologies. Some European nations oppose this concept, however. For example, Germany insists that electronic transactions involving a German company must utilize a German electronic signature application. I applaud the Administration for their steadfast opposition to that approach. This bill will bolster and strengthen the U.S. position in these international negotiations by establishing the following principles as the will of the Congress: One, paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions must be eliminated. Two, parties to an electronic transaction should choose the electronic authentication technology. Three, parties to a transaction should have the opportunity to prove in court that their authentication approach and transactions are valid. Four, the international approach to electronic signatures should take a non-discriminatory approach to electronic signature. This will allow the free market--not a government--to determine the type of authentication technologies used in international commerce. Mr. President, it is my hope that adoption of these principles will increase the likelihood of an open, market-based international framework for electronic commerce. Mr. President, two years ago I believed that if we, as a body, could maintain a spirit of bipartisanship and a strong commitment to principles of free commerce, that we were poised to produce the landmark accomplishment of this Congress. Well we took these commitments seriously, and I believe our work product will be hailed for generations to come as the grounds upon which the dream of a prosperous new economy became a reality--and well beyond our expectations. I am pleased to say that we have already begun work on the next legislative effort to help this nation shift to the electronic world, addressing the apportionment of liability for violations of duty and trust, and the protection of information and user confidentiality in electronic commerce. Mr. President, I welcome the help of my colleagues who have been with me in the effort to protect electronic signatures and records, I look forward to again working closely with the states and industry, and I hope to deliver to the American public corresponding legislation that is as well-contemplated and effective as S. 761 in the next Congress. Before I close, there are a number of individuals whom I would like to thank for their hard work, and without exception, for their endurance. First, I would like to recognize Chairman McCain for his assistance and dedication to this effort. The Chairman was one of the original cosponsors of this legislation, and lent a great deal of support well before any of the current attention was being paid to the issue of the legal certainty of electronic commerce. Senator McCain's constant momentum eliminated many obstacles over the past 18 months and kept this process moving forward. Without his efforts and those of Mark Buse and Maureen McLaughlin of the Senate Commerce Committee staff, I certainly wouldn't be making this statement today. I would also like to sincerely thank my friend, Senator Phil Gramm, Chairman of our Banking Committee, whose dedication to those important principles of economic freedom was a key ingredient in guiding our legislation through the past year and a half. The expertise which he and his staffers Geoff Gray and Wayne Abernathy brought to the table was absolutely indispensable. Senator Gramm ensured that this legislation's propound impact on the financial services industry will be a positive one. I also want to acknowledge our Judiciary chairman, Senator Hatch, who I understand will not be participating in the final vote on this legislation tomorrow due to another commitment, but he and his staff likewise worked very closely with us throughout this effort. The support and counsel of Senator Wyden, my partner in introducing this bipartisan bill last year, has also been essential to bridging the conceptual differences between colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Despite the different approaches we occasionally endorsed, I could always count on his sincere efforts to find common ground on this legislation. Senator Wyden and his legislative director, Carole Grunberg did yeoman's work on this bill, and for that I wish to express my true appreciation. I also commend Senator Pat Leahy and his counsel, Julie Katzman for their contributions to this bill. Indeed, we worked hard in putting together the ingredients that made up the Senate version of this legislation, the final amendment which was adopted by the Senate when we passed this last year. Senator Leahy's continuing interest, involvement, and support were very important to our success. I must also express my gratitude to the Senate leadership for their patience as well as their persistence in moving this legislation. I truly appreciate the assistance of Dave Hoppe, Jack Howard, Jim Sartucci, and Rene Bennett of the Senate Majority Leader's staff. I would also like to give thanks to Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci for his assistance and support through the process of drafting this legislation. Massachusetts should be proud of the work done by their Governor and his staff on this bill, especially the Governor's Special Counsel for e-commerce, Daniel Greenwood, to assure that state and federal law governing e-commerce are complimentary. Finally, I would like to recognize the efforts of three members of my own staff who are here tonight. My legislative assistant, Kevin Kolevar, my Judiciary Committee Counsel, Chase Hutto, and my Administrative Assistant Cesar Conda. I thank them for their tireless efforts and loyalty, and recognize they possess both the tremendous vision necessary to conceive of this legislation back in November of 1998, and the dedication to bring it to the point of final passage today. I would just indicate that without these three gentleman and their hard work, numerous impasses that seemed to have doomed this legislation would not have been surmounted. Their willingness to creatively examine the problems we were confronting and come up with new approaches that offered all the participants an opportunity to work together to find a common ground were absolutely indispensable to this success. I certainly can attest to the long hours that were put in by these individuals to make sure that we completed this project and that we are in a position to pass this legislation. As people look back on this effort, and I think they will with a sense that this was an important achievement, all three of these individuals will be accorded the praise they deserve for their efforts. In closing, let me urge my colleagues to support final passage of the conference report tomorrow morning. I believe that we are passing a very important, landmark piece of legislation that will provide a stimulus to the new economy the likes of which we have not previously seen. I believe it is one of the most important steps we can take as a Congress to remove some of the barriers and impediments that might prevent us from fully enjoying the benefits of the new technologies, and I believe that as it becomes the law of the land, and subsequently as it is used as a basis for the entering into of transactions through e-commerce, we will look back on these achievements with great pride. I am happy to have been part of it. I thank all of my colleagues who made this possible.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.J. Res. 101, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be read the third time and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand that 2742 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 16.