PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 8, 1997
Electronic Financial Services Efficiency Act of 1997 - Provides that: (1) in any written communication with any Federal agency or instrumentality, or any U.S. court, which calls for a signature, any party to the communication may affix a digital signature with a certificate issued by a trusted third party; and (2) all forms of electronic communication that comport with the standards prescribed by this Act shall have standing equal to paper-based written signatures with respect to Federal agencies, courts, and instrumentalities, as well as in general. Sets forth criteria for electronic authentication technology and other signature technologies. Establishes the National Association of Certification Authorities (Association), of which any person wishing to provide electronic authentication services shall be a registered member. Prescribes membership guidelines. Requires the Association to establish the Electronic Authentication Standards Review Committee, with rulemaking and enforcement powers, which shall: (1) establish, develop, and refine criteria for application to the emerging electronic authentication industry; and (2) report biannually to the Secretary of the Treasury. Requires the Secretary to oversee and review the Committee's activities.
People & committees
Rep. Baker, Richard H. [R-LA-6] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2292-2293)
Referred to House Banking and Financial Services
Referred to House Science
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to House Government Reform
Referred to House Commerce
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight, the Judiciary, Science, and Banking and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2937 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2937 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2937 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2937 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.