[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16] [Senate] [Pages 22962-22963] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 761 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 243, S. 761, under the following limitations: There be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form and the only amendment in order to the bill be a managers' substitute amendment to be offered by Senators Abraham and Leahy. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time and the disposition of the substitute amendment, the committee substitute be agreed to, as amended, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of S. 761, with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask my colleague from Michigan whether or not this unanimous consent request can be modified to include other amendments; for example, some amendments that deal with how we improve farm policy or amendments on minimum wage? Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I cannot agree to such a modification. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if that is the case, as I explained to the majority leader earlier, I am determined that I am going to have an opportunity as a Senator from Minnesota [[Page 22963]] to come out here on the floor of the Senate and to fight for farmers who are losing their farms in my State, and therefore I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if I may comment, I certainly appreciate Senators will differ on issues, and I have talked with the Senator from Minnesota. I understand his feelings on the issue he would like to include, either in the context of legislation I am talking about tonight or in some other context. But I point out for the benefit of all of our colleagues that the legislation that was the subject of this unanimous consent proposal, S. 761, is a very important piece of legislation but not one I believe should become tied up in a variety of nongermane amendments and debate. The bill that would have been proposed, S. 761, is essentially a bill which would seek to make it feasible for us to engage in electronic commercial activities and to provide validity to what we call digital signatures or the authentication of digital signatures to allow for the expansion and continuing development of commercial activities over the Internet. This legislation is needed, and it is my understanding, in efforts to secure unanimous consent to go to this, we have found as many as 99 Members in support of this bill. That is not surprising. The States are in desperate hope we will pass this legislation and pass it soon. It left the Senate Commerce Committee, as the Presiding Officer knows, being a member of the committee, with unanimous support on a bipartisan basis. I have been pleased to offer this legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Wyden of Oregon, and a number of cosponsors. It was basically to this point uncontroversial. We have worked closely with Senator Leahy to come forward with a substitute which we are prepared ultimately to offer that I think addresses some concerns that had been expressed. The administration has expressed its support for the legislation as well. So I hope that we can, if not in the context of today, then at a point very soon, find some manner or means to pass the legislation and move it forward. Every day, the expansion of those who have access to the Internet is increasing. Every day, the activities of a commercial sort that go on through the Internet are increasing. What the people who are engaging in those commercial activities need is a certainty that their contracts over the Internet will be, in fact, authenticated and given full faith and credit. The absence of this legislation makes that issue somewhat in doubt. So while 42 States, I believe, have now passed their own digital signature laws, no 2 of these are alike. States are working hard at this time to come up with a uniform system and, in fact, a uniform code for digital signatures, and authentication has been developed but it has not yet been passed. In the interim, until that happens, in my judgment, we need to have a system in place. This legislation would provide it. It is strongly backed by the high-tech industries of our country. I know they will be contacting Members in the hope that we can move this forward because there are so many, as I have said already, increases in the use of the Internet for commercial activity going on every single day. So I deeply regret we could not move to this legislation tonight. I hope that as Senators with other agenda items consider ways to bring their items to the floor, they will find germane, as opposed to nongermane, vehicles to which to offer their amendments, or at least, at a minimum, they will not seek to stall this legislation any further. I think it is an important bill. I do not think it is controversial. But I think every day we go without its passage, we will create the potential for greater problems in regard to the expansion of commercial activity that takes place in this country through the Internet and through electronic means. So, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Hopefully, at a date very soon, I will be back so we can successfully move forward on this legislation. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri. Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes regarding the agricultural embargo issue. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________