Bart Gordon

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and I want to compliment him for trying to provide some wiggle room for the ultra-efficient energy technology program. However, I think it simply falls short, in that NASA has pointed out that anything less than a focused effort on the ultra-efficient energy technology would not be as efficient or effective a program. So although the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has good intentions, I am afraid his intention falls short; yet it certainly does no harm and, if anything, can be more good than bad. So I would support his amendment.

Mr. GORDON. I agree, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has done yeoman's work in trying to educate us to really the benefits of this program. Hopefully that education will continue as we go through conference and as we try to bring a final bill to this floor.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to wholeheartedly concur with the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from California's kind remarks concerning the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown). He will always be known for his humor and his expertise and his fairness. But let me again point out, he is doing very well. He is up and about, active, and will be back here soon to bring all those same skills to us. If I could shift gears just a moment and go back to the amendment at hand, which is to kill the Space Station, I think we are all aware of the expression, ``same song, second verse.'' This is the same second, 22nd verse, or more. Let me just quickly again remind the Members that two sections of this Space Station have already been put in orbit. Most all the hardware is on the ground ready to go into orbit. If this amendment passes, those billions of dollars of investment will be wasted, as well as wasting the potential of the good work of the Space Station.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, this amendment that has had no hearings within our committee. This amendment would force NASA to kick the Russians out of the Space Station program with no consideration of the potential cost or schedule consequences for the United States that will result from such action, and with no consultation or negotiation with our 16 international partners in this multilateral cooperative program, each of whom have their own financial stake in the Space Station program. Instead, this amendment would have the United States take unilateral action that could damage our relations with our existing international partners and do real damage to the Space Station program itself. Once again, let me remind this body that two segments, the first two segments of the Space Station have been launched and are now in orbit. I think this amendment has a real risk of both wasting that particular investment and doing away with the potential benefits in the future. So for those reasons, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. GORDON. If I can just finally thank the gentleman for explaining what that term meant? I read it, but I did not know what it meant, so I thank him for that definition.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me again concur that this should be about issues, not name calling, and I completely agree with the gentleman. I suspect part of this probably resulted from the fact that the chairman of the Republican National Committee had earlier released news releases condemning it and calling the Vice President names. That was wrong, and it was wrong on each side. As my colleagues know, this is about issues. As my colleague pointed out, this is about a variety of disagreements, this is about trying to get the best bill possible, and we should rise above name calling, and I had no part in that, but I would offer my apologies for anything that goes beyond the real merits of this bill.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my classmate, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education in this body.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. First, I wish to commend Chairman Rohrabacher for his efforts in developing H.R. 1654. I believe that he made a serious effort to include a number of positive provisions in the bill and to work with the minority. Thus, while it was by no means a perfect bill, I thought that H.R. 1654 was a reasonably constructive piece of legislation as introduced. In fact, I was a cosponsor of the bill as introduced, with the understanding that we would continue to work to improve its provisions. At this point I have to say that I do not think that H.R. 1654 is ready for floor consideration. I have not reached this position easily. As a supporter of NASA, I want to provide a solid, fiscally responsible foundation for the space agency's activities. I also want to make sure that we do not micromanage NASA in ways that will hurt its ability to carry out its programs effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, I think that H.R. 1654 falls short of the mark in meeting these two goals. The NASA Administrator has sent over a letter outlining a number of serious concerns with the NASA bill. Let me discuss just a few of them. First, there is the absence of any funding for NASA's information technology programs. While we have received some assurance from the chairman of the Committee on Science that authorization of these programs will be done at a later date, I remain concerned. NASA needs to be on the cutting edge of information technology R&D if it is to deliver missions that are both cost-effective and innovative. Second, H.R. 1654 would prohibit the Ultra Efficient Energy Technology focused program. That program is a new program that is critical to maintaining NASA's capabilities for long-term aircraft engine R&D. It also is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. aeronautics industry. Moreover, the UEET program will offer important benefits to military aviation by conducting important R&D into improved engine performance. I am afraid that H.R. 1654 attempts to micromanage NASA's aeronautics R&D efforts in ways that can do real damage over the long term. Third, the bill as amended at full committee would cancel the Triana scientific mission. Triana is an Earth observing spacecraft that would deliver both scientific and educational benefits. This mission was selected out of nine competing proposals, and it has undergone scientific peer review. It already was funded in last year's VA-HUD appropriations conference report. If we cancel it now, we would waste $40 million, which is more than it would cost to save it. Fourth, H.R. 1654 has a provision that would have the effect of holding NASA's Earth science research program hostage to a ``data buy'' earmark. While I support a healthy commercial remote sensing industry, the bill's provisions will do real harm to NASA's programs while doing little to help grow industry. It is a misguided and ultimately unworkable position. Fifth, the bill would prohibit NASA from spending any money on the Trans-Hab or other innovative inflatable structure technologies. While I am as careful with taxpayers' dollars as anyone, I do not believe that we should prohibit NASA from doing research to improve our space program. H.R. 1654's Trans-Hab prohibition would keep NASA from getting the data Congress will need if we are to make informed decisions on these innovative technologies. Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues not to diminish the efforts of Chairman Rohrabacher in drafting this bill. I simply believe the bill we have before us today is not ready for prime time. I think that the bill needs more work. I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1654 on final passage, and I would urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to include for the Record a letter from Administrator Goldin of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in which, among other things, he states ``NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654.'' The letter is as follows: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and micro gravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. triana NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restrictions could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R&T base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits of these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--by being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most effectively. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although I appreciate the comments of my friend from Florida, I think it is ironic that he is concerned about laid off NASA employees yet he is not concerned about the fact that, by his amendment, we are going to waste more money canceling the program than has already been spent and he does not seem to be concerned about those employees and those scientific projects that are going to be laid off and missing because of his amendment. It is really, I think, a disingenuous argument, totally parochial, totally partisan; and this bill and this committee deserves better. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me first concur with the fact that the gentleman has brought a much better atmosphere to our committee. I think that we are working in a much better way. We need to since, when we think, there has not been a bill passed since 1992. Certainly there needs to be some improvements. Let me also point out that the gentleman said, and he went through a litany, a variety of acceptances of the majority to minority position. Let us put this in perspective. There was never a subcommittee markup. The minority was given a bill 10 days in advance and said, ``Here it is.'' So I hardly think that it is a mammoth undertaking that the majority would accept some positive, I think constructive ways to make this bill better so we can get it passed in a bipartisan way.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to support the amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), with some qualifications. First, I want the legislative record to be clear that I do not regard this language as a blank check for NASA to spend as much as it wants on open-ended initiatives to promote commercial participation in the space station. We have a duty to protect the taxpayers' pocketbook and vague language can be dangerous in that regard. Second, I read paragraph two to simply mean that NASA will also consider impacts on commercial participation in the space station when it makes policies, along with all other impacts it may consider. These other impacts include the impact of the station's research capabilities on the utilization of the station, on international agreements and so forth. It is my understanding that this amendment makes commercial participation neither the only consideration when making station policies, nor the highest priority consideration.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me quickly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and their staff for their efforts to try to bring about a good bill here, but I have to say I am disappointed that we were not able to get that done. Let me point out very quickly that Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator, has strongly suggested that Members oppose this bill; that the OMB has recommended this bill be opposed, for a variety of reasons: Quickly, because it would delete all funding for NASA's information technology initiatives, it would hold NASA's earth science research program hostage to an unworkable data buy earmark, it would cancel the peer reviewed Triana scientific and educational mission and waste the $35 million already appropriated, and it would prohibit any research on innovative inflatable technologies that have great potential to lower the costs of future human space operations. You can be pro NASA and against this bill. I recommend, as the ranking member on this committee, a ``no'' vote.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Bateman-Scott amendment. They have both been good friends of NASA and tireless champions of aeronautic research. I believe this amendment is well- intentioned. Nevertheless, I think taking money from NASA's Space Station will simply destabilize that program and that will result in more station cost growth, more pressure on the NASA budget that will not benefit anyone in the long-run. So although I think we need to take a long hard look at what needs to be done to keep NASA's aeronautics program world class, I oppose taking money from the Space Station. And I urge Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Indiana's scrutiny of the Space Station over the past few years. I think because of that that we have a better Space Station program, that NASA is more accountable. But I do have concerns with this amendment, in that, as has been pointed out, two segments of the Space Station have already been launched and placed in orbit. This particular cap would result in a 12 percent approximate reduction in the budget for the projected completion of the Space Station. I think to take 12 percent out really raises questions of safety and efficiency. For those reasons, I think this is just too big a cut and would oppose the amendment.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1654.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous contributions Kreda Frierson Yokley has made to the Sixth Congressional District and to her community on this her last day as my field representative. Since November 1995, Kreda has worked in my Murfreesboro District office. Although my staff and I are sad to see her go, it is comforting to know that she will continue her career in public service as a director for the Mid-Cumberland Community Action Agency. For the past 13\1/2\ years, Kreda has helped those who served our country. Veterans from across the Sixth District relied on her to help get their medals and serve as a liaison in their efforts to receive compensation and medical assistance from the Veterans Administration. She has helped not only those who served, but those just starting a career with the Armed Forces. Kreda has been instrumental in securing the appointments of scores of young men and women in the Sixth District to the academies at West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs. Traveling to Williamson and Marshall counties, Kreda reached out to constituents through my Mobile Congressional Office. I always get my best ideas from home and Kreda served as a constant conduit for peoples' ideas and concerns. My staff and I will miss Kreda. Constituents, friends, family and staff describe her as professional, a class act and dependable. Most of all, she always seems to have the knack for saying just the right thing, whether to calm a frustrated or hunting constituent or to encourage a friend or co-worker. Kreda, congratulations on your new job. May you prosper and thrive in your new environment. May you new co-workers and clients value you as much as we do. Thank you for your many years of service, and may God bless you in your future endeavors.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Digital Signature Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation is to require the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop minimum technical standards and guidelines for Federal agencies to follow when deploying digital signature technologies. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to establish a National Policy Panel for Digital Signatures to explore the factors associated with the development of a National Digital Signature Infrastructure based on uniform standards to enable the widespread utilization of digital signature systems in the private sector. I want to make clear that this legislation is technology neutral. Rather it encourages federal agencies to use uniform criteria in deploying digital signature technology and to ensure that their system are interoperable. It also encourages agencies to use commercial-off- the shelf software (COTS) whenever possible to meet their needs. By now, we are all aware of how the Internet is revolutionizing telecommunications and the business world. In less than ten years, the Internet has grown from a network linking a small, self-proscribed group of scientists to a telecommunication network linking millions of people around the world. The potential uses of the Internet seem unlimited. One of the most rapidly growing areas in electronic commerce. Statistics indicate electronic commerce was an $8 billion industry in 1998. Analysts now expect electronic commerce to explode into a $108 billion industry by 2003. When the Internet was first developed, virtually all users were known to each other or they were easily identifiable. However, with the rapid growth of the Internet we have lost the ability to actually ``know'' who we are communicating with is who they say they are. In order to exchange sensitive documents or to do business transactions with confidence it is important that an electronic authentication system is developed through which both the sender and recipient can be uniquely identified. One type of electronic authentication which is both secure and provides unique identification of the sender and recipient of messages is asymmetric cryptography, commonly referred to as a digital signature. I am not alone in my belief that digital signatures are a key element in the continuing growth of electronic commerce. The European Commission recently drafted a directive on a common framework for a comprehensive digital signature infrastructure. In addition, the Canadian government is already utilizing digital signatures for its transactions. These actions are designed to promote the growth of electronic commerce, but they will also enhance the position of European and Canadian companies that are developing digital signature systems. This is an attempt to become the world leader in electronic commerce. In the United States, we have a number of companies which offer digital signature services. The States are beginning to enact a patchwork of laws on digital signatures that could inhibit the widespread use of digital signatures. While I don't believe the government should dictate any one digital signature system, we should develop a level playing field which will encourage rather than hinder the development of a truly national infrastructure. It is my intent that the Digital Signature Act be a first step in this direction. This legislation has two simple goals: (1) develop uniform guidelines for Federal agencies to follow when they use digital signatures and encourage agencies to maximize the interoperability of their systems; and (2) establish a national policy panel for digital signatures to begin a dialog on the development of a national digital signature infrastructure. My legislation requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop minimum technical standards and guidelines for use by Federal agencies when developing their digital signature infrastructure and to give due consideration to the interoperability of their system. Whenever possible, the legislation encourages agencies to use commercial-off-the-shelf products. Agencies are currently developing and beginning to deploy digital signatures technologies. However, there is little coordination between agencies to ensure that the standards they use are consistent and that the technologies that they deploy are interoperable. NIST is charged with developing, with input from industry, technical standards and guidelines which ensure that the agencies deploy digital signature infrastructures that are both secure and interoperable. If agencies develop a variety of incompatible systems, I believe the result will be to discourage the widespread use of this electronic authentication technique by making it more complicated rather than easier to conduct business with the Federal Government. Agencies would be required to report back to Congress what they are doing to develop digital signature systems, and why, if applicable, they are not following NIST guidelines. In addition, the bill requires NIST to develop minimum technical criteria for agencies' use for electronic certification and management systems, both ``in-house'' systems or if they use a private entity. Once again, this is an attempt to level the playing field among Federal agencies to promote the private sector development of these goods and services. To promote a uniform environment for certification authorities, the bill establishes a national panel, under the auspices of the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration to develop model practices and procedures, uniformity among jurisdictions that license certification authorities, and uniform audit standards for certification authorities. This national panel, with broadly based representation from all stakeholders, will provide the coordination needed to put in place the national infrastructure that is a prerequisite for the widespread use of digital signatures. In closing, I want to make clear that this legislation does not favor any digital signature system, but attempts to begin to create a minimum uniform framework for Federal agencies to make communicating with the Federal Government easier and more secure. I also want to make clear that this legislation is an outline or work in progress. The framework of the Internet is dynamic. It would be short-sighted to draft Internet related legislation that is static and unresponsive. I expect further refinements and will continue to work with industry groups, the States, the administration and other stakeholders as we move through the legislative process.