PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 4, 1999
Millennium Digital Commerce Act - Declares that an interstate contract transaction shall not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.Authorizes parties to an interstate transaction to determine the appropriate electronic signature technologies for their transaction, and the means of implementing such technologies. Denies the legal effect of an electronic record of a contract required by law to be in writing, unless it is delivered to all parties in a form that can be: (1) retained for later reference; and (2) used to prove agreement terms. Provides exclusions. Prohibits a contract relating to a commercial transaction from being denied legal effect solely because its formation involved electronic agents (computers or other automated means). States as the specific intent of Congress that this section apply to the business of insurance.Directs the Federal Government, to the extent practicable, to observe certain principles governing the use of electronic signatures in international commercial transactions, including to: (1) remove paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions by adopting relevant principles from the Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted in 1996 by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL); (2) permit parties to a transaction to determine the appropriate authentication technologies for such transactions, with assurance that they will be recognized and enforced; (3) permit such parties to have the opportunity to prove in court that such authentication approaches and transactions are valid; and (4) take a nondiscriminatory approach to electronic signatures and authentication methods from other jurisdictions.Directs each Federal agency to report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of Commerce on any provision of law administered, or regulation issued, by it that imposes a barrier to electronic transactions. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress concerning any legislation needed or Executive or Federal agency action being taken to remove such barriers.
People & committees
Rep. Gephardt, Richard A. [D-MO-3] · D–MO
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 Government Management, Information and Technology.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 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: Mar 23, 2026. 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.3220 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.3220 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.3220 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.3220 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.