|
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the version of H.R.
1714 that was considered by the House on November 1, 1999. The
Administration strongly urges the Committee on Rules to adopt a rule that
permits floor consideration of H.R. 3220 as a substitute amendment, which
the Administration endorses as an alternative to the text of H.R. 1714.
As the Congress was advised on November 1, 1999, in a previous Statement of
Administration Policy on H.R. 1714 (copy enclosed), we share the view of
the Congress that electronic commerce can play an important role in
expanding our economy at the same time that it provides new benefits to
consumers, and that States - and to the extent necessary, the Federal
government - can assist the growth of electronic commerce by ensuring a
predicable legal environment with regard to the validity of electronic
signatures and contracts.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1714 overreaches in its efforts to accomplish this
goal. The provisions of this bill on electronic records and electronic
record retention unnecessarily deprive consumers of significant protections
under current law. The bill deprives regulators of the ability to ensure
that electronic disclosures and notices under existing consumer protection
statutes will be made in a meaningful way. Under this bill, financial
institutions could continue to make disclosures or notices electronically
even if a consumer does not have, or never had, reliable access to a
computer and never actually receives the notice. The bill would also
preempt State laws too broadly.
H.R. 3220, by contrast, would:
- ensure the legal validity of contracts between private parties that are
made and signed electronically;
- preserve longstanding authority to establish safeguards, such as
consumer protection laws, to promote the public interest in
electronic commerce among private parties just as they can now
establish safeguards for paper-based commerce;
- cover only commercial transactions between private parties that affect
interstate commerce;
- not affect Federal laws or regulations, but instead would give Federal
agencies six months to conduct a careful study of barriers to
electronic transactions under Federal laws or regulations and to
develop plans to remove such barriers, where appropriate; and
- sunset completely when a State enacts the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act.
The Administration supports these provisions, or any similar alternative or
amendment that seeks to accomplish these critically important and more
focused objectives.
|