79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–877

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000

SEPTEMBER 21, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on Science,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 4429]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.

4429) to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers

and other such businesses to successfully integrate and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business practices, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and

recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 4

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 4

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 5

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 7

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 8

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section)/Committee Views 9

VIII. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 12

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 13

X. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 14

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 14

XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight .............................................................. 14

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 14

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 15

XV. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 15

XVI. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 15

XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 15

XVIII. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 15

XIX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 15

The amendments are as follows:

2

I. AMENDMENT

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000’’.

TITLE I—ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Commercial transactions on the Internet, whether retail business-to-customer or business-to-business, are commonly called electronic commerce.

(2) In the United States, business-to-business transactions between small and

medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses and their suppliers is

rapidly growing, as many of these businesses begin to use Internet connections

for supply-chain management, after-sales support, and payments.

(3) Small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses play a

critical role in the United States economy.

(4) Electronic commerce can help small and medium-sized manufacturers and

other such businesses develop new products and markets, interact more quickly

and efficiently with suppliers and customers, and improve productivity by increasing efficiency and reducing transaction costs and paperwork. Small and

medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses who fully exploit the

potential of electronic commerce activities can use it to interact with customers,

suppliers, and the public, and for external support functions such as personnel

services and employee training.

(5) The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program has a successful record of assisting small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses. In addition, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, working with the Small Business Administration, successfully assisted United States small enterprises in remediating their Y2K computer problems.

(6) A critical element of electronic commerce is the ability of different electronic commerce systems to exchange information. The continued growth of electronic commerce will be enhanced by the development of private voluntary

interoperability standards and testbeds to ensure the compatibility of different

systems.

SEC. 102. REPORT ON THE UTILIZATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.

(a) ADVISORY PANEL.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (in this title referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) shall establish an Advisory

Panel to report on the challenges facing small and medium-sized manufacturers and

other such businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies

and business practices. The Advisory Panel shall be comprised of representatives of

the Technology Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program established under sections

25 and 26 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.

278k and 278l), the Small Business Administration, and other relevant parties as

identified by the Director.

(b) INITIAL REPORT.—Within 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act,

the Advisory Panel shall report to the Director and to the Committee on Science

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation of the Senate on the immediate requirements of small and mediumsized manufacturers and other such businesses to integrate and utilize electronic

commerce technologies and business practices. The report shall—

(1) describe the current utilization of electronic commerce practices by small

and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses, detailing the different levels between business-to-retail customer and business-to-business

transactions;

(2) describe and assess the utilization and need for encryption and electronic

authentication components and electronically stored data security in electronic

commerce for small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses;

(3) identify the impact and problems of interoperability to electronic commerce, and include an economic assessment; and

(4) include a preliminary assessment of the appropriate role of, and recommendations for, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to assist

3

small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses to integrate

and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business practices.

(c) FINAL REPORT.—Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the

Advisory Panel shall report to the Director and to the Committee on Science of the

House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 3-year assessment of the needs of small and medium-sized

manufacturers and other such businesses to integrate and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business practices. The report shall include—

(1) a 3-year planning document for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

program in the field of electronic commerce; and

(2) recommendations, if necessary, for the National Institute of Standards and

Technology to address interoperability issues in the field of electronic commerce.

SEC. 103. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE PILOT PROGRAM.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension

Partnership program, in consultation with the Small Business Administration, shall

establish a pilot program to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers and other

such businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies and

business practices. The goal of the pilot program shall be to provide small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses with the information they need

to make informed decisions in utilizing electronic commerce-related goods and services. Such program shall be implemented through a competitive grants program for

existing Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology established

under section 25 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 278k). In carrying out this section, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

program shall consult with the Advisory Panel and utilize the Advisory Panel’s reports.

TITLE II—ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION

SEC. 201. ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION ASSESSMENT AND PLAN.

(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Director shall work to identify critical enterprise integration standards and implementation activities for major manufacturing industries

underway in the United States. For each major manufacturing industry, the Director shall work with industry representatives and organizations currently engaged in

enterprise integration activities and other appropriate representatives as necessary.

They shall assess the current state of enterprise integration within the industry,

identify the remaining steps in achieving enterprise integration, and work toward

agreement on the roles of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and

of the private sector in that process. Within 90 days after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Director shall report to the Congress on these matters and on anticipated related National Institute of Standards and Technology activities for the then

current fiscal year.

(b) PLANS AND REPORTS.—Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Director shall submit to the Congress a plan for enterprise integration for

each major manufacturing industry, including milestones for the National Institute

of Standards and Technology portion of the plan, the dates of likely achievement

of those milestones, and anticipated costs to the Government and industry by fiscal

year. Updates of the plans and a progress report for the past year shall be submitted annually until for a given industry, in the opinion of the Director, enterprise

integration has been achieved.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title—

(1) the term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

(2) the term ‘‘enterprise integration’’ means the electronic linkage of manufacturers, assemblers, and suppliers to enable the electronic exchange of product,

manufacturing, and other business data among all businesses in a product supply chain, and such term includes related application protocols and other related standards; and

(3) the term ‘‘major manufacturing industry’’ includes the aerospace, automotive, electronics, shipbuilding, construction, home building, furniture, textile,

and apparel industries and such other industries as the Director designates.

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses

4

to successfully integrate and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business

practices, and to authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology to

assess critical enterprise integration standards and implementation activities for

major manufacturing industries and to develop a plan for enterprise integration for

each major manufacturing industry.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to require the Director of the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to assist small and

medium-sized manufacturers to successfully integrate and utilize

electronic commerce technologies and business practices, and to authorize NIST to assess critical enterprise integration standards and

implementation activities for major manufacturing industries and

to develop a plan for enterprise integration for each major manufacturing industry.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Small and medium-sized manufacturers, typically defined as

those with less than 500 employees, contribute greatly to our nation’s economic growth, creating thousands of new jobs each year

and providing all Americans with quality manufactured goods. According to statistics compiled by the National Association of Manufacturers and the Modernization Forum, small manufacturers make

up over 98 percent of all U.S. manufacturers and employ 1 of every

10 American workers. In addition, it is estimated that over 90 percent of all exporting manufacturers are small to medium-sized

firms. Recognizing the vital role these businesses play in the

United States, 1999 was declared the ‘‘Year of the Small Manufacturer.’’

Commerical transactions on the Internet, whether it be businessto-customer or business-to-business, are most commonly referred to

as electronic commerce, or eCommerce. It is estimated that sales

in electronic commerce alone will reach nearly $3.2 trillion by the

year 2003. Successfully implemented, eCommerce business strategies have the potential to significantly increase productivity and

revenues for many small and medium-sized manufacturers. Electronic commerce can help small and medium-sized manufacturers

develop new products and markets, interact more quickly and efficiently with suppliers and customers, and improve productivity by

increasing efficiency and reducing transaction costs and paperwork.

In addition, small and medium-sized manufacturers who fully exploit the potential of eCommerce can use it to interact with customers, suppliers, and the public, and for external support functions such as personnel services and employees training.

With all the benefits eCommerce has to offer, small and mediumsized manufacturers face numerous challenges in intergrating successful electronic commerce strategies. The first and most basic obstacle facing small and medium-sized manufacturers is access to

basic information on assessing their eCommerce needs and evaluating different options. The high costs associated with implementing even the most basic eCommerce strategies coupled with

the ever changing technology options leave small and medium-sized

manufacturers at risk for investing in expensive systems which

may soon be quickly rendered obsolete. In addition, many small

and medium-sized manufacturers who have ventured into the

eCommerce arena have found that they have invested in expensive

5

technology products only to discover that they are incompatible

with those of their suppliers and customers.

In small and medium-sized manufacturers are going to continue

to contribute significantly towards our nation’s economic growth in

the information age, many industry analysts agree that strategies

must be developed now that will help these businesses address the

challenges associated with integrating successful eCommerce policies. H.R. 4429 was introduced to help achieve this goal.

Enterprise integration may also play an important role in the future success of many small and medium-sized manufacturers. Enterprise integration involves the electronic linkage of manufacturers, assemblers, and suppliers to enable them to exchange product,

manufacturing, and other business data within the supply chain.

Many Industry analysts agree that more needs to be done to better

determine the importance of enterprise integration for the manufacturing industry.

One federal program aimed at assisting small manufacturing is

the National Institute of Standard and Technology’s (NIST) Manufacturing and Extension Partnership (MEP). MEP is a national network of over 400 not-for-profit centers that provide small manufacturers with cost-effective access to a variety of services ranging

from financial planning and product development to quality management and human resource direction. MEP centers are located in

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Therefore,

MEP centers have expertise to assist our small and medium-sized

manufacturers, address the challenges of eCommerce, and assess

the importance of enterprise integration.

Federal funding for the MEP centers are matched by state, local

and private dollars with the federal share decreasing as the center

matures. In the first three years of operation, the Federal Government supports 50 percent of a MEP center’s operating costs. In

year four it is 40 percent and limited to one third the total operating cost thereafter. Federal funding for the MEP program in Fiscal Year 2000 was $104.8 million.

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a

hearing entitled ‘‘Small Manufacturers and the Challenges of the

New Millenium.’’ The hearing examined the challenges facing small

manufacturers in the 21st Century and reviewed the appropriate

role of government, industry, and academia in helping to ensure

continued growth in the important sector of our economy. Witnesses included, The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director, National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD; Mr.

Jerry Jasinowski, President, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC; Mr. John Churchill, Quality Assurance Director, Wilcoxin Research, Gaithersburg, MD; Mr. Norm Braddock,

President, Saginaw Remanufacturing, Saginaw, MI.

Mr. Raymond Kammer testified the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Association of Manufacturers Forum had recently convened a national summit on small

manufacturing in Washington, DC. The Summit examined four topics of importance to small manufacturers: electronic commerce,

workforce, international trade, and sustainable manufacturing. He

also stated that NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partner (MEP)

6

program provides hands-on assistance to small manufacturers. He

said that through the MEP network of local extension centers,

which are each linked to public and private organizations with

complementing expertise, small manufacturers have access to comprehensive sets of technology and business assistance. He also gave

examples of specific small manufacturing companies that have

been assisted by MEP. Finally, Mr. Kammer described other programs at NIST, such as the Measurements and Standards Laboratories, that help benefit small manufacturers.

Mr. Jerry Jasinowski discussed in detail the four topics addressed at the National Summit on Small Manufacturing. He said

the number one issue facing small manufacturing is finding qualified workers to fill employment slots. He said many small manufacturers want to hire more minorities and older Americans but lack

the resources to adequately train them. On the subject of

eCommerce, Mr. Jasinowski suggested that NIST MEP institute a

website that will provide small manufacturers with advice on getting started in eCommerce. Mr. Jasinowski testified that many

small manufacturers were not participating to their fullest extent

in international trade because of daunting trade barriers. He said

programs such as the Export-Import bank were important for small

manufacturers. Mr. Jasinowski also said that we need greater flexibility and cooperation in environmental quality enhancement between the Federal Government and the private sector. Finally, he

stated that he supported the work of NIST MEP and looked forward to working in partnership with them to ensure small manufacturers continue to thrive.

Mr. John Churchill stated that he had utilized the services of his

local MEP affilated office on many occasions. He testified that advise from the MEP affiliate helped to decrease his company’s products failure rates and product warrant returns, thus affecting about

50 percent of their sales.

Mr. Norm Braddock described for the Subcommittee his experience with the Saginaw Valley State University’s Center for Manufacturing Improvement (an affiliate of Michigan MEP). He stated

that their expertise helped him to better understand how the production process contributes to the overall cost of the product, thus

allowing him to provide more accurate quotes to potential customers. Mr. Braddock testified that he gained a great deal of

knowledge from the national summit and appreciated the opportunity to discuss with other small manufacturers ways to improve

their businesses. He also stressed the importance and difficulties

facing small manufacturers coming ‘‘on-line.’’

On June 22, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a hearing entitled, ‘‘E-commerce: A Review of Standards and Technology

to Support Interoperability.’’ This hearing examined the impact of

standards and emerging technologies that support electronic commerce. Witnesses included: Dr. Karen Brown, Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD;

Mr. Keith Krach, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the

Board, Ariba, Inc., Mountain View, CA; Mr. Ken Baker, President,

ERIM, Ann Arbor, MI.

Dr. Karen Brown, Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, discussed NIST’s role in eCommerce, which

is to work closely with the private sector and to provide tools such

7

as: measurements and standards for the hardware, software and

networks that comprise the eCommerce infrastructure; direct

hands-on assistance through MEP to U.S. small manufactures who

need help to thrive in the eCommerce economy; and co-funding private sector research through the ATP to develop new technologies

that will enable future advances in the eCommerce infrastructure.

NIST is leading the global effort to develop the Advanced

Encryption Standard, which will be used to ensure that encrypted

sensitive documents can not be decoded by anyone but the intended

parties. They are also helping to develop Public Key Infrastructure

(PKI) standards that ensure accurate identification of the parties

in an Internet transaction. Dr. Brown states that NIST has proposed a FY 2001 eCommerce initiative with three components:

MEP eCommerce outreach ($9 million plus $6 million reprogramming, totaling $15 million), Manufacturing Interoperability ($4 million), and Wireless Technologies ($1 million).

Mr. Keith Krach, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the

Board, Ariba Inc., stated that business to business eCommerce

spending is necessary spending, not discretionary. It enables small

companies to leverage the Internet economy by giving them a

chance to work with larger businesses that they might have never

encountered. Furthermore, Mr. Krach believes that the Federal

Government could support business to business eCommerce by becoming a broad user of eCommerce and derive many of the same

benefits that businesses gain. In closing Mr. Krach believes that

Government’s information technology spending should be directed

towards implementing the infrastructure that will enable the Government to participate in the business-to-business marketplace.

Mr. Ken Baker, President, ERIM, testified that the problem of

interoperability in the U.S. industrial supply chain costs the American automotive industry more than $1 billion each year. ERIM’s

center for Electronic Commerce has been working on interoperability issues for over 10 years. They have also worked with the

Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and NIST to conduct pilots to improve the quality and timeliness of data exchange among

current automotive manufactures and their suppliers. Mr. Baker

added that the industry lacks the third party leadership to reach

common agreement on standards.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On July 26, 2000, the Committee on Science convened to markup H.R. 4429, The Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000.

A substitute amendment was offered and adopted by voice vote. No

additional amendments were offered to the substitute.

1. Mrs. Morella and Mr. Barcia offered a substitute amendment

making several changes to the bill. The substitute streamlines the

findings contained in the original text, modifies the make-up of the

Advisory Panel to allow the Director of NIST to select relevant outside parties to participate on the Advisory Panel rather than name

specific organizations in the bill, and better defines the goals of the

electronic commerce pilot program. In addition, the substitute creates a new title to the bill to address the issue of enterprise integration. The new title requires the Director of NIST to conduct an

assessment to identify critical enterprise integration standards and

implementation activities for major manufacturing industries unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:36 Sep 23, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR877.XXX pfrm08 PsN: HR877
8

derway in the United States and to report to Congress within 90

days of enactment on these matters. The new title also requires the

Director of NIST within 180 days of enactment of the bill to submit

a plan for enterprise integration for each major manufacturing industry, including milestones for NIST’s part of the plan, and anticipated costs to the Government and industry by fiscal year. Finally,

the new title requires yearly updates of these plans until the Director of NIST determines that enterprise integration for a particular

industry has been achieved. The substitute was adopted by voice

vote.

With a quorum present, Mr. Hall moved the H.R. 4429, as

amended, be reported. The motion was adopted by a voice vote.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Major provisions of H.R. 4429 are directed towards assisting

small and medium-sized manufacturers to successfully integrate

eCommerce into their business practices. The legislation:

1. Requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) to establish an Advisory Panel to report on

the challenges facing small and medium size manufacturers in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies. The Advisory Panel is to be comprised of representatives of the technology

Administration, the NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP) program, the Small Business Administration, and other relative parties as identified by the Director.

2. Requires the Advisory Panel to submit an initial report within

12 months from the date of enactment of the bill to the Director

of NIST, the House Science Committee, and the Senate Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation detailing the Advisory

Panel’s preliminary findings and recommendations.

3. Requires the Advisory Panel to issue a final report to the Director of NIST, the House Science Committee, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation within 18

months of enactment of the Act. Requires the report to contain a

three-year planning document for NIST’s MEP program in the field

of electronic commerce.

4. Allows the NIST MEP program, in conjunction with the Small

Business Administration, to establish a pilot program to assist

small and medium-sized manufacturers and other businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies and business practices. Requires the program to be implemented through a

competitive grants program to be awarded among the existing MEP

Regional Centers. Directs the MEP program to consult with the

Advisory Panel and utilize the Advisory Panel’s reports.

5. Requires the Director to conduct an assessment to identify

critical enterprise integration standards and implementation activities for major manufacturing industries underway in the U.S.

Working in consultation with industry representatives, the Director

will identify the current state of enterprise integration within the

industry and detail the remaining steps to be taken in achieving

enterprise integration. Requires the Director within 90 days after

the date of enactment of the bill to report to Congress on these

matters and on anticipated related NIST activities for the current

fiscal year.

9

6. Requires the Director within 180 days after the date of enactment of the bill to submit a plan to Congress for enterprise integration for each major manufacturing industry, including milestones

for NIST’s part of the plan, and anticipated costs to the Government and industry by fiscal year. Requires that updates of the

plans and a progress report for the past year shall be submitted

annually until for a given industry, in the option of the Director,

enterprise integration has been achieved.

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION)

Section 1. Short title

The Act’s title is the ‘‘Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of

2000.’’

Title I: Electronic Commerce

Section 101. Findings

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Commercial transactions on the Internet, whether retail business-to-customer or business-to-business, are commonly called electronic commerce.

(2) In the United States, business-to-business transactions between small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such business and their suppliers is rapidly growing, as many of these businesses begin to use Internet connections for supply-chain management, after-sales support, and payments.

(3) Small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses play a critical role in the United States economy.

(4) Electronic commerce can help small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses develop new products and markets, interact more quickly and efficiently with suppliers and customers, and improve productivity by increasing efficiency and reducing transaction costs and paperwork. Small and medium-sized

manufacturers and other such businesses who fully exploit the potential of electronic commerce activities can use it to interact with

customers, suppliers, and the public, for external support functions

such as personnel services and employee training.

(5) The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program has a successful record

assisting small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such

businesses. In addition, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

program, working with the Small Business Administration, successfully assisted United States small enterprises in remediating

their Y2K computer problems.

(6) A critical element of electronic commerce is the ability of different electronic commerce systems to exchange information. The

continued growth of electronic commerce will be enhanced by the

development of private voluntary interoperability standards and

testbeds to ensure the compatibility of different systems.

Section 102. Report on the utilization of electronic commerce

(a) Requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) to establish an Advisory Panel to report on

the challenges facing small and medium size businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies. The adviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:36 Sep 23, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR877.XXX pfrm08 PsN: HR877
10

sory Panel is to be comprised of representatives of the Technology

Administration, the NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP) program, the Small Business Administration, and other relative parties as identified by the Director.

(b) Requires the Advisory Panel to submit an initial report within 12 months from the date of enactment of the bill to the Director

of NIST, the House Science Committee, and the Senate Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The report should:

(1) describe the current utilization of electronic commerce

practices by small and medium-size manufacturers and other

businesses, detailing the different levels between business-toretail customers and business-to-business transactions;

(2) describe and assess the utilization and need for

encryption and electronic authentication technologies, and the

security needs for electronically stored data in electronic commerce for small and medium-sized manufacturers and other

businesses;

(3) identify the impact and problems of interoperability to

electronic commerce, and include an economic assessment; and

(4) include a preliminary assessment of the appropriate role

of, and recommendations for, NIST’s MEP program to assist

small and medium-sized manufacturers and other businesses

to integrate and utilize electronic commerce technologies and

business practices.

(c) Requires the Advisory Panel to issue a final report to the Director of NIST, the House Science Committee, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation within 18

months of enactment of the Act. The final report shall include:

(1) a three-year planning document for the NIST MEP program in the field of electronic commerce; and

(2) recommendations, if necessary, for NIST to address interoperability issues in the field of electronic commerce.

Committee views

The Committee believes that NIST can play an important role in

assisting small and medium-sized manufacturers in integrating

and utilizing electronic commerce technologies. By creating the Advisory Panel, the Committee intends this body to be an independent entity that can provide guidance to the Director of NIST

in deciding the best programs and policies to implement that will

be most beneficial to small and medium-sized manufacturers. The

Committee believes that the Director should draw heavily on the

expertise of outside, private sector entities in creating the Advisory

Panel. The preliminary report required by the legislation should

address the needs of the industry and should be relied upon in

drafting a more complete plan for future NIST activities in this

area. The Committee has included a requirement that the Advisory

Panel include a three-year planning document for NIST in its final

report. The Committee believes it is important for NIST to have a

solid plan in place before moving forward with any initiatives to

help small and medium-sized manufacturers in electronic commerce.

11

Section 103. Electronic Commerce Pilot Program

Allows the NIST MEP program, in conjunction with the Small

Business Administration, to establish a pilot program to assist

small and medium-sized manufacturers and other businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic technologies and business practices. Requires the program to be implemented through a competitive grants program to be awarded among the existing MEP Regional Centers. Directs the MEP program to consult with the Advisory Panel and utilize the Advisory Panel’s reports.

Committee views

The purpose of the pilot program is to create a testbed for different practices and ideas to determine which work best. The pilot

program should take into account the regional needs of different

manufacturing sectors. Rather than put in place a one-size-fits-all

federal program, the Committee believes the pilot program can be

used to determine which practices work best in each geographic

and industry sector. It is the intent of the Committee that no single

MEP Regional Center is singled-out for participation in the pilot

program through this legislation, but that the program is implemented through a competitive awards process. The Committee does

not intend, nor does it support, the creation of any new MEP Regional Centers to take part in the pilot program. The legislation

does not authorize new federal dollars to implement the pilot program and it is the intent of the Committee that it be funded utilizing existing MEP funding.

Title II—Enterprise Integration

Section 201. Enterprise integration assessment and plan

(a) Requires the Director to conduct an assessment to identify

critical enterprise integration standards and implementation activities for major manufacturing industries underway in the U.S.

Working in consultation with industry representatives, the Director

will identify the current state of enterprise integration within the

industry and detail the remaining steps to be taken in achieving

enterprise integration. Requires the Director within 90 days after

the date of enactment of the bill to report to Congress on these

matters and on anticipated related NIST activities for the current

fiscal year.

(b) Requires the Director within 180 days after the date of enactment of the bill to submit a plan to Congress for enterprise integration for each major manufacturing industry, including milestones

for NIST’s part of the plan, and anticipated costs to the Government and industry by fiscal year. Requires that updates of the

plans and a progress report for the past year shall be submitted

annually until for a given industry, in the opinion of the Director,

enterprise integration has been achieved.

Committee views

Preliminary evidence indicates that adoption of electronic commerce based supply chains can significantly reduce business costs

in the manufacturing industry. The Committee believes the assessment required in this section of the legislation will help to better

determine the importance of enterprise integration and how it imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:36 Sep 23, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR877.XXX pfrm08 PsN: HR877
12

pacts small and medium-sized manufacturers. Working together

with industry, the Committee believes NIST should develop a concrete plan before moving forward with any enterprise integration

initiatives. The legislation requires, and the Committee expects,

NIST to submit its findings to Congress and to provide an annual

update to Congress on any activities NIST plans to undertake in

a given fiscal year regarding enterprise integration.

Section 202. Definitions

1. The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

2. The term ‘‘enterprise integration’’ means the electronic linkage

of manufacturers, assemblers, and suppliers to enable the electronic exchange of product, manufacturing, and other business data

among all businesses in a product supply chain, and such terms include related application protocols and other related standards.

3. The term ‘‘major manufacturing industry’’ includes the aerospace, automotive, electronics, ship building, construction, home

building, furniture, textile, and apparel industries and such other

industries as the Director designates.

VIII. COST ESTIMATE

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of

a public character to contain: (1) an estimate, made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out such

bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which it is reported, and

in each of the five fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the

authorized duration of any program authorized by such bill or joint

resolution, if less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate

of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by

such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when

practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for

the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate levels

under current law. However, House rule XIII, clause 3(d)(3)(B) provides that this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate

and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional

Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the report

and included in the report pursuant to House rule XIII, clause

3(c)(3). A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of

the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and is included

in this report pursuant to House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report that accompanies a measure providing new

budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new

spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in revenues

or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when

practicable with respect to estimates of new budget authority, a

comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant

program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law.

13

H.R. 4429 does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. H.R. 4429 does

not authorize additional discretionary spending.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, August 22, 2000.

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4429, the

Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Taman Morris and

Kathleen Gramp.

Sincerely,

STEVEN LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 4429—Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000

Summary: H.R. 4429 would authorize the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) to implement various initiatives

related to electronic commerce. The bill would direct NIST to establish an advisory board on challenges facing small and mediumsized businesses in using electronic commerce technology and require that the board submit several reports within 18 months after

enactment. The bill also would direct NIST to help small and medium-sized companies incorporate electronic commerce technologies

in their business practices through a pilot program that would be

implemented by grants to Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP) centers. Other provisions would direct NIST to assess standards and protocols for electronically integrating data among major

manufacturing enterprises.

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $10 million

over the 2001–2005 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. H.R. 4429 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The

bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would

have no impact on state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4429 is shown in the following table. For this

estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 4429 will be enacted near the

start of fiscal year 2001 and that the necessary amounts will be appropriated each year. Estimated outlays are based on historical

spending patterns for NIST and information provided by the agency. The cost of this legislation would fall within budget function

370 (commerce and housing credit).

14

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 6 4 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 1 4 3 1 1

According to NIST, most of the activities authorized by this bill

would be implemented in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and would

cost a total of about $10 million. Of that total, about $1 million

would be used in 2001 to administer both the advisory board and

the electronic commerce pilot program. CBO estimates that NIST

would dedicate $4 million in each of the fiscal years 2001 and 2002

for grants to MEP centers as part of the pilot program. Finally, we

estimate that another $1 million would be needed in 2001 to evaluate standards for data integration among industries.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Integovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4429 contains

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal

governments.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Taman Morris and Kathleen Gramp; impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Victoria Heid Hall; impact on the private sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 4429 contains no unfunded mandates.

XI. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report to include oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The

Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations

are reflected in the body of this report.

XII. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report to contain a summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by the House Government Reform

Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the Committee

in a timely fashion. The Committee on Science has received no

such findings or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform.

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public

character to include a statement citing the specific powers granted

to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by

the bill or joint resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution

15

of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R.

4429.

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committee established by H.R. 4429

are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or more

agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory

committee.

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 4429 does not relate to the terms

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).

XVI. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

XVII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives

requires that changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported,

be included in the report.

This bill makes no direct amendments to any Act.

XVIII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 26, 2000, a quorum being present, the Committee on

Science favorably reported H.R. 4299, The Electronic Commerce

Enhancement Act of 2000, by a voice vote, and recommends its enactment.

XIX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

BUSINESS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m. in room 2318,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee on Science will come

to order.

The Chair notes the presence of a working quorum. And pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science will consider today the following measures: First, H.R. 2413, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999, as amended by the Subcommittee on Technology; H.R. 4429, the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of

2000; and H.R. 4271, the National Science Education Act.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess

at any point. And without objection, it is so ordered.

We will now consider H.R. 2413, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999, as amended by the Subcommittee on Technology. And the Subcommittee Chair is not here.

16

So, we will try the next bill, which is H.R. 4429, the Electronic

Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000. Does the gentleman from

Texas move to adjourn?

Mr. HALL. It would be a good idea. [Laughter.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, let’s do H.R. 4429. This should

go fairly quickly. Yes? You are asking me to put aside a Democratic

bill for a Republican bill? Let’s do the Democratic bill, okay.

This bill was introduced by the Ranking Member of the Technology Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia, and the Chairman of the Energy

and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert, on May 11th of this

year. The legislation addresses the needs of small and mediumsized manufacturers in implementing the successful electronic commerce business practices. I would ask unanimous consent that all

members may submit opening statements at this point.

[A copy of the bill H.R. 4429 follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for whatever statement he would like

to make.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I also consider H.R. 4429

to be very important legislation and wish to compliment Congressman Barcia for his persistence in focusing the Committee on the

impacts that electronic commerce is having on small business

throughout our country.

Competing as a small businessman can be very tough under the

best of circumstances, and it gets just that much harder during

times of rapid change. Today, computers and e-commerce are turning many small businessmen’s world on its head. And I compliment

Mr. Barcia and his cosponsors for writing legislation to make sure

that the small businesses have the information and expertise available to them through the Manufacturing Extension Program to

make intelligent decisions as they move into the Internet.

Congressmen Barcia, Rivers, and Stabenow have also introduced

H.R. 4906 this week that aggressively addresses another small

business problem that is just around the corner. According to recent testimony before the Technology Subcommittee, European governments are spending over $45 million per year to develop standards that will permit companies to exchange manufacturing data

instantaneously and, in effect, establish vital manufacturing enterprises.

H.R. 4906 provides for a meaningful U.S. role in the development

of these standards and for developing the tools that small businesses will need to participate in this new way of doing business.

Two subsections from H.R. 4906 are being added to the bill before

us, and we appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to work with us

further on this important problem as the legislation progresses.

At this time, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Barcia.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I also consider H.R. 4429 to be very important legislation and wish

to complement Congressman Barcia for his persistence in focusing this Committee

on the impacts that electronic commerce is having on small businesses throughout

this country. Competing as a small businessman can be tough under the best of circumstances and it gets just that much harder during times of rapid change. Today,

computers and e-commerce are turning many small businessmen’s worlds on their

heads.

I complement Mr. Barcia and his cosponsors for writing legislation to make sure

that small business have the information and expertise available to them through

the Manufacturing Extension Program to make intelligent decisions as they move

onto the Internet.

Congressmen Barcia, Rivers, and Stabenow also introduced H.R. 4906 this week

that aggressively addressed another small business problem that is just around the

corner. According to recent testimony before the Technology Subcommittee, European governments are spending over $45 million per year to develop standards that

will permit companies to exchange manufacturing data instantaneously and in effect

establish virtual manufacturing enterprises. H.R. 4906 provides for a meaningful

U.S. role in the development of these standards and for developing the tools that

small business will need to participate in this new way of doing business. Two subsections from H.R. 4906 are being added to the bill before us. We appreciate the

Chairman’s willingness to work with us further on this important problem as the

legislation progresses.

I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Barcia.

25

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Hall. I

want to begin by thanking Chairman Sensenbrenner, yourself, and

Chairwoman Morella for bringing this bill before the Committee.

H.R. 4429, the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act, is a bipartisan effort to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers

bring their businesses on line. I introduced this bill, along with

Representatives Calvert, Baird, Doyle, and Udall, earlier this year.

This bill is the result of Technology Subcommittee hearings and a

district event I held on the e-commerce needs of small and medium-sized manufacturers.

As large companies move their business transactions on line,

small manufacturers must go on line, too. Unfortunately, many of

these smaller manufacturers do not have the information they need

to make informed decisions on e-commerce-related purchases and

services. As one small manufacturer put it, ‘‘I know whether I need

a $20,000 or a $30,000 truck. But I do not have any idea of whether I need a $5,000 or a $50,000 e-mail server.’’

The goal of this legislation is to provide our small businesses

with the information and knowledge they need to make these business decisions. This bill builds upon the successful Manufacturing

Extension Partnership, or MEP program. The bill authorizes the

establishment of an advisory panel to determine the e-commerce

needs of small businesses. The panel will then report to Congress

on its findings and will prepare a planning document for the MEP

to follow. The MEP, working with this advisory panel, will begin

to establish a pilot program at MEP centers. The goal of this pilot

program is to allow MEP centers to provide small manufacturers

with the information they need to make informed purchases of ecommerce products and services.

I want to thank Chairwoman Morella for the series of hearings

she has held on e-commerce during the past year. These hearings

focused my attention on this issue and highlighted the challenges

facing our small manufactures. I believe this bill represents sound

and reasonable policy and builds upon the successful track record

of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and I urge

my colleagues to support it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas has 40

seconds left. Do you yield back?

Mr. HALL. Unless the gentleman wants to make a motion about

his bill.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, we have got one amendment

we have got to offer.

Mr. HALL. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The one amendment the Chair is

aware of is an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mrs.

Morella and Mr. Barcia. And at this time, the Chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from Maryland in order to offer her substitute.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment

at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

4429, offered by Mrs. Morella and Mr. Barcia.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be

considered as read.

26

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for

five minutes.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman for

convening this markup of H.R. 4429, the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Barcia,

for the work that he has done and for introducing this important

legislation, and the other cosponsors, and this Committee, and our

Technology Subcommittee.

As amended by the substitute, H.R. 4429 seeks to help small and

medium-sized manufacturers from across the country to fully integrate and utilize electronic commerce in their everyday business

practices. Last fall, the Technology Subcommittee convened a hearing looking at the challenges and the opportunities facing small

and medium-sized manufacturers in the coming decade, and implementing successful electronic commerce strategies emerged as one

of the industry’s top priorities. We had a number of small manufacturers testify as well as the president of the National Association

of Manufacturers, Mr. Jerry Jazonowski. They all agreed that we

need to address this issue and that NIST can play an important

role in helping to achieve this goal.

So I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000, this substitute amendment.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs.

Morella follows:]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Any further discussion on the

amendment?

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Barcia?

Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I want to just take——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BARCIA. I certainly won’t take that long. I just want to thank

Chairwoman Morella and yourself for working together on this

amendment and I urge its adoption. I think it is a great improvement to the bill, and I thank both of you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

[No response.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Hearing none, all those in favor of

the amendment in the nature of a substitute will signify by saying

aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Opposed, no.

[No response.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes

have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments to the bill?

[No response.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan to make a motion.

Mr. BARCIA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 4429, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass.

27

Further, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative

report and make necessary technical and conforming amendments

and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill

before the House for consideration.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is there any discussion on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan?

[No response.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If not, the Chair notes the presence

of a reporting quorum. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Opposed, no.

[No response.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes

have it, and the bill is reported.

Without objection, the Chair will be given authority to move to

conference pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule 22, excuse me.

Without objection, the staff will be given the authority to make

any necessary technical and conforming changes. And pursuant to

the rules, any member or the minority will have two calendar days

in which to submit additional dissenting or supplemental views for

the Committee Report.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP, JULY 26, 2000—

AMENDMENT ROSTER FOR H.R. 4429, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000

No. and Sponsor, description, results:

1. Mrs. Morella and Mr. Barcia, amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

4429, adopted by a voice vote.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4429 OFFERED BY MRS.

MORELLA AND MR. BARCIA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000’’.

TITLE I—ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Commercial transactions on the Internet, whether retail business-to-customer or business-to-business, are commonly called electronic commerce.

(2) In the United States, business-to-business transactions between small and

medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses and their suppliers is

rapidly growing, as many of these businesses begin to use Internet connections

for supply-chain management, after-sales support, and payments.

(3) Small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses play a

critical role in the United States economy.

(4) Electronic commerce can help small and medium-sized manufacturers and

other such businesses develop new products and markets, interact more quickly

and efficiently with suppliers and customers, and improve productivity by increasing efficiency and reducing transaction costs and paperwork. Small and

medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses who fully exploit the

potential of electronic commerce activities can use it to interact with customers,

suppliers, and the public, and for external support functions such as personnel

services and employee training.

(5) The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program has a successful record of assisting small and meVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:36 Sep 23, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR877.XXX pfrm08 PsN: HR877
28

dium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses. In addition, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, working with the Small Business Administration, successfully assisted United States small enterprises in remediating their Y2K computer problems.

(6) A critical element of electronic commerce is the ability of different electronic commerce systems to exchange information. The continued growth of electronic commerce will be enhanced by the development of private voluntary

interoperability standards and testbeds to ensure the compatibility of different

systems.

SEC. 102. REPORT ON THE UTILIZATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.

(a) ADVISORY PANEL.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (in this title referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) shall establish an Advisory

Panel to report on the challenges facing small and medium-sized manufacturers and

other such businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies

and business practices. The Advisory Panel shall be comprised of representatives of

the Technology Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program established under sections

25 and 26 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.

278k and 278l), the Small Business Administration, and other relevant parties as

identified by the Director.

(b) INITIAL REPORT.—Within 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act,

the Advisory Panel shall report to the Director and to the Committee on Science

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation of the Senate on the immediate requirements of small and mediumsized manufacturers and other such businesses to integrate and utilize electronic

commerce technologies and business practices. The report shall—

(1) describe the current utilization of electronic commerce practices by small

and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses, detailing the different levels between business-to-retail customer and business-to-business

transactions;

(2) describe and assess the utilization and need for encryption and electronic

authentication components and electronically stored data security in electronic

commerce for small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses;

(3) identify the impact and problems of interoperability to electronic commerce, and include an economic assessment; and

(4) include a preliminary assessment of the appropriate role of, and recommendations for, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to assist

small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses to integrate

and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business practices.

(c) FINAL REPORT.—Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the

Advisory Panel shall report to the Director and to the Committee on Science of the

House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 3-year assessment of the needs of small and medium-sized

manufacturers and other such businesses to integrate and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business practices. The report shall include—

(1) a 3-year planning document for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

program in the field of electronic commerce; and

(2) recommendations, if necessary, for the National Institute of Standards and

Technology to address interoperability issues in the field of electronic commerce.

SEC. 103. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE PILOT PROGRAM.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension

Partnership program, in consultation with the Small Business Administration, shall

establish a pilot program to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers and other

such businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies and

business practices. The goal of the pilot program shall be to provide small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses with the information they need

to make informed decisions in utilizing electronic commerce-related goods and services. Such program shall be implemented through a competitive grants program for

existing Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology established

under section 25 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 278k). In carrying out this section, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

program shall consult with the Advisory Panel and utilize the Advisory Panel’s reports.

29

TITLE II—ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION

SEC. 201. ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION ASSESSMENT AND PLAN.

(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Director shall work to identify critical enterprise integration standards and implementation activities for major manufacturing industries

underway in the United States. For each major manufacturing industry, the Director shall work with industry representatives and organizations currently engaged in

enterprise integration activities and other appropriate representatives as necessary.

They shall assess the current state of enterprise integration within the industry,

identify the remaining steps in achieving enterprise integration, and work toward

agreement on the roles of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and

of the private sector in that process. Within 90 days after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Director shall report to the Congress on these matters and on anticipated related National Institute of Standards and Technology activities for the then

current fiscal year.

(b) PLANS AND REPORTS.—Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Director shall submit to the Congress a plan for enterprise integration for

each major manufacturing industry, including milestones for the National Institute

of Standards and Technology portion of the plan, the dates of likely achievement

of those milestones, and anticipated costs to the Government and industry by fiscal

year. Updates of the plans and a progress report for the past year shall be submitted annually until for a given industry, in the opinion of the Director, enterprise

integration has been achieved.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title—

(1) the term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

(2) the term ‘‘enterprise integration’’ means the electronic linkage of manufacturers, assemblers, and suppliers to enable the electronic exchange of product,

manufacturing, and other business data among all businesses in a product supply chain, and such term includes related application protocols and other related standards; and

(3) the term ‘‘major manufacturing industry’’ includes the aerospace, automotive, electronics, shipbuilding, construction, home building, furniture, textile,

and apparel industries and such other industries as the Director designates.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to require the Director of the National

Institute of Standards and Technology to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses to successfully integrate and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business practices, and to authorize the National Institute

of Standards and Technology to assess critical enterprise integration standards and

implementation activities for major manufacturing industries and to develop a plan

for enterprise integration for each major manufacturing industry.

Æ