Statement by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN). Markup session of the House Telecom Subcommittee. Re: Gordon amendment to HR 1714, an electronic signatures bill. Date: July 29, 1999. Source: This document was created by Tech Law Journal by transcribing from an audio recording of the hearing. Editor's Note: Rep. Gordon offered, explained, and then withdrew his amendment.

Rep. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Rep. Tauzin: The Gentleman has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.

Clerk: Amendment to HR 1714, offered by Mr. Gordon. At the end of the bill ...

Rep. Tauzin: Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Rep. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss one aspect of policy that I believe needs to be fully addressed.

First, I want to commend you and other Members of the Committee for their interest and efforts in promoting electronic commerce and the use of electronic authentication technologies.

I first became interested in the electronic signature issue over two years ago, when I amended the Computer Security Enhancement Act. My amendment focused on how to encourage the widespread use of digital signatures by developing a panel to make recommendations on how to develop the infrastructure needed to support this technology.

Since that time, interest in electronic commerce and the use of electronic authentication technologies has increased geometrically -- and a number of bills have been introduced to address various aspects of this issue.

The purpose of my amendment supports the goals of Mrs. Eshoo's HR 1714 the Government Paperwork Elimination Act provisions which requires federal agencies to accept electronic signatures by 2003.

My concern has always been, "How do we get there from here?" I agree that the federal government should not mettle in the private sector market place by mandating standards and practices.

I know that there has been some concern that these provisions may be redundant. But I want to quote from someone in the federal agencies trenches who is responsible for implementing the provisions of Government Paperwork Elimination Act. In a recent Federal Technology Week article, Tony Trenkle, the director of electronic services at the Social Security Administration, said, and I quote, "[this bill] moves the debate about standards in the right direction, especially at a time when agencies are trying to comply with [the Government Paperwork Reduction Act] passed last year ... the OMB guidelines do not provide much additional help for agencies trying to choose an electronic infrastructure in a growing market."

These same concerns prompted me to develop this legislation.

I felt it was necessary to ensure that agencies have access to uniform guidance to (1) promote interoperability among the different technologies that they will use, and (2) provide them with information on the levels of security provides by these different authentication methods. I believe that uniform guidance will encourage agencies to use commercial-off-the-shelf products and services.

The provisions in my amendment focus on two elements.

One, the amendment directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop voluntary guidelines to assist agencies in deploying electronic authentication technologies. These guidelines are technology neutral and are limited to: providing assessments of the level of security provided by different technologies and minimum interoperability specifications for agencies to consider when deploying these technologies. These guidelines also include a description of the minimum technical criteria for agencies that plan to use electronic certification and management systems, and validation criteria for agencies to use when confirming the technical claims of commercial products.

I want to add this amendment does not mandate that agencies must use these guidelines. However, I believe that guidelines will point agencies in the right direction to head-off problems that have developed in other government-wide technology deployments. In addition, these guidelines will encourage agencies to use commercial products and services whenever possible for providing uniform guidelines for the agencies to use when evaluating the suitability and different technologies for their use.

Let me just summarize, Mr. Chairman. The problem which we have is this.

You have a variety of agencies that are certainly on their way to trying to get the ability by 2003 to qualify for this Paperwork Reduction Act. The problem which you are going to have is, if there is not some kind of interoperability, you could have agencies, or divisions within an agency, that can't communicate with each other. You could have a state government that can't communicate with particular agencies, because they have different software. So, it is important that we not have dictates, but rather that there be some advice of giving technology neutral advice as to what are the different standards so that agencies can go to the shelf, take off technology, and know they are going to be compatible within their own agency, as well as within the other federal government.

So, with this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I know there are still some concerns. I am going to withdraw this amendment at this time and hope to work with you and the rest of the Committee so that we can see if this can be an addition that would be favorable to this bill at full committee ...

Rep. Tauzin: The Chair would ask the Gentleman's time be extended briefly for one minute, and ask the Gentleman to yield to the Chair.

Rep. Gordon: Certainly.

Rep. Tauzin: Without objection, so ordered. The Chair wishes to thank the Gentleman for withdrawing the amendment. The Gentleman knows, I think the amendment is technically outside the scope of this bill because it does deal with the authentication technologies of the federal government. Our bill, as currently is drafted before us, deals with electronic signatures and records in commercial interstate transactions. And we had other concerns with the bill. But the Gentleman has been very generous in his agreement to withdraw the amendment and continue with the discussion with Chairman Bliley and others who have an interest in this issue. And I want to thank him for that and would ask that he is recognized to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.