WASHINGTON - It's always difficult to predict the outcome of lobbying efforts and legislation on Capitol Hill, but never so much as during an election year. Still, while Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and the Administration jockey for position on who will get the credit for passage of the pending electronic signatures bill, CUNA has become the first credit union group to endorse the House version of the measure. The question now is, who will be next? CUNA's Vice President of Governmental Affairs John McKechnie said Reps. Thomas Bliley, Jr. (R- Va.) and David Dreier (R-Calif.)-the prime movers of H.R. 1714, "The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" -are eager to get the bill to conference by late January or early February. "They intend to hit the ground running," said McKechnie. The House passed the bill last August. That's not to say that CUNA is 100% in favor of all the wording in the House bill. The association is contemplating pushing for clarification of a couple of areas of the bill, specifically those portions pertaining to the Fed's rulemaking authority. McKechnie explained that H.R. 1714 language is ambiguous in these sections. Still, "the House version is better than the Senate's bill S.761 which lacks a record retention provision crucial to electronic signatures and it's less consumer friendly," said McKechnie. "CUNA doesn't perceive the modifications in the House bill as being a deal breaker, but we'd prefer to see the wording about the Fed's rulemaking authority clarified and put in writing." CUNA apparently isn't the only one concerned with some of the wording in H.R. 1714. Without naming names, McKechnie said "there are some people on the Hill" who think the Fed won't be detrimentally affected by the lack of rulemaking protection in the bill, but others including the Fed think there's something to be concerned about. As to how this disagreement will affect the final outcome of H.R. 1714, McKechnie opined that it's still too early to tell because a Conference Committee hasn't met yet to reconcile the House and Senate approved separate versions. He offered though that "There is broad sense the Hill wants to get electronic signatures up and running. Nothing can stop the bill at this point." Not even what he described as the "cat and mouse game" the Democrat Administration and Republican-controlled House are playing to make sure their side comes out on top and gets the credit for the bill. "There are definitely a lot of sub-plots going on, but I get the sense this is an issue that will get resolved and the bill will get rolling," McKechnie said. He added that it appears the House version will prevail during the conference committee. NAFCU meanwhile is choosing to take a wait-and-see position on the e-signatures bill. John Zimmerman, communications manager said the trade association was "still tracking the bill, but we have no formal position on it right now." He added that NAFCU has had several meetings on the bill and that it recognizes the importance of the legislation to credit unions. "Whatever the outcome of the bill, we're sure there will be a lot of rulemaking and NAFCU will want to participate. Our lack of formal position on the bill at this time shouldn't be misinterpreted as a lack of interest." With the start of the Conference Committee imminent when Credit Union Times went to press, congressmen and CUNA have been flexing their lobbying muscles to push for the desired wording clarification. McKechnie said he and Maura McGilvray, manager of House Legislative Affairs for CUNA have met with members of the House Commerce Committee and that they have shared their mutual concerns. In addition, House Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach (R-Iowa) has asked the House leadership that the House Banking Committee be given a seat at the conference meeting and that one member of the House Commerce Committee be allowed to be part of the conference committee as well. "Given the high level of interest in broader e-commerce issues, it's imperative that the credit union point of view be expressed during the upcoming Conference Committee," said McKechnie. -
ekingoff@cutimes.com
