Everyone says we all agree, we are going to have digital signature, it is just a matter of the details. Unfortunately, the details that are being presented by the opponents of the Inslee amendment and of the Dingell amendment are such that one would, in practical effect, not be able to do digital signature. If, first of all, one does not have uniformity and one is doing something across State lines and one has 50 or maybe even 100 different rules and regulations for how it is going to be done, it makes it very, very difficult to do business in the electronic commerce world. That is what the Dingell amendment would do. That creates a huge problem for the bill. 

Second of all, it requires that paper be done in addition to the digital signature. Well, if we are going to have to do a paper contract, what is the advantage of doing a digital contract? One merely has to duplicate oneself. Those two provisions basically mean that what the opponents of the Inslee amendment are doing is creating a situation where digital signature will not be a choice that any logical businessman will make. That is why we have to oppose it. 

Two final points. Consumer protection is clearly protected in this bill. The sentence says this law changes in no way one's contractual protections under consumer protection laws. We are simply doing it digitally instead of by paper. We have the same protections. 

Lastly, this well, if one goes on a computer it could get lost, the computer could blow up; paper notices get lost all of the time. If one moves and the notice is required to go by mail, many times these notices do not arrive. Whether it is paper or digital, there are challenges in making sure that all of the notices get there. I strongly submit that those challenges are no greater with digital signature than they are with paper, and we are stuck in a lost mindset here thinking that somehow, if it is not paper, it is not real. If we do not do this right, we will not have digital signature. The Inslee amendment does it right. Support it.