[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4297-S4321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2602. A bill to provide for the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to fund, on a 1-year emergency basis, certain requests for
grant renewal under the programs for permanent supportive housing and
shelter-plus-care for homeless persons; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
homeless assistance legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation
designed to guarantee funding for Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) McKinney Act homeless assistance programs, including
Shelter Plus Care and the Supportive Housing Program (SHP).
The legislation I am introducing today mirrors legislation introduced
earlier this year in the House by Representative LaFalce and included
in the House version of the FY01 supplemental, which would renew
existing Shelter Plus and SHP contracts and fund them under the budget
for the HUD Section 8 housing assistance program.
The renewals funded under this legislation would provide grant
funding for existing programs that support assistance to some of the
most vulnerable Americans--the homeless. Without the resources that
this bill is designed to provide, many who receive assistance today
will literally be left out in the cold.
Keep in mind that these are not new programs--they are renewals. And
they fund community initiatives already in place in cities and towns
across the country that provide assistance to those in need. Under
Shelter Plus and SHP, states are awarded grants for services such as
subsidized housing for the homeless, many of whom are physically or
mentally ill or disabled, or who suffer from substance abuse problems,
as well as job training, shelters, health care, child care, and other
services for this population. Some of the victims that are helped are
children, low-income families, single mothers, and battered spouses.
Many are also veterans.
I have witnessed first-hand the dislocation that can be caused by
non-renewal. In January of last year, HUD issued homeless grant
assistance announcements to most states but denied applications
submitted by the Maine State Housing Authority and by the city of
Portland, Maine leaving the state one of only four not to receive any
funds. We were alarmed to learn that this would mean that many homeless
agencies and programs could lose
[[Page S4298]]
funding altogether, and that in fact, over 70 homeless people with
mental illnesses or substance abuse problems would lose housing
subsidies.
The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision
to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo. HUD officials ultimately restored
about $1 million in funding to the city of Portland, a portion of the
city's request, but refused to restore any State homeless funding.
In 1998, Maine homeless assistance providers received about $3.5
million for HUD, and the State had simply requested $1.2 million for
renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs in 1999. What did
they get to meet these needs--nothing. In spite of the proven track
record of homeless programs in Maine, including praise by Secretary
Cuomo during an August 1998 visit to Maine, HUD completely zeroed out
funding for Maine. Not a penny for these disadvantaged children,
battered women, single mothers, disabled individuals, and veterans who
sacrificed to preserve the freedoms we cherish.
This could happen anywhere, but it shouldn't. This is why I have also
cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague from Maine, Senator
Collins, to guarantee minimum funding for every state and assure a
fairer, more equitable allocation of funding in the future. The
legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 percent of funding
to each state under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act.
Without this assistance, basic subsidized housing and shelter
programs suffer, and it is more difficult for states to provide job
training, health care, child care, and other vital services to the
victims of homelessness.
In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency
homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of
the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135
homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young
people are between 5-12 with the average age being 13.
It is vitally important that changes be made to our homeless policy
to ensure that no state falls through the cracks in the future. As
such, I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for
the legislation I am proposing today. I hope this legislation will
contribute to the dialogue under way as to how best to enhance federal
homeless assistance initiatives, so that programs around the country
can continue to provide vital services to the less fortunate among us.
Lastly, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not express my
gratitude to Senator Bond, who chairs the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee
for his leadership and his support when HUD zeroed out funding for
Maine's homeless programs. I am very grateful for his vision and
leadership on issues of importance to homeless advocates nationwide. To
that end, I am pleased that the Senate version of the fiscal year 2001
Agriculture Department appropriations report contains language
expressing concern about the HUD policies that resulted in a number of
local homeless assistance initiatives going unfunded in recent years,
and urging HUD to ensure that expiring rental contracts are renewed.
HUD is also directed to submit a report to Congress explaining why
projects with expiring grants were rejected during the 1999 round.
I look forward to working with the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee as well as the Banking Committee as this year's
legislative and appropriations process continues, and as we endeavor to
craft a long-term solution to the homeless problem that is fiscally and
socially responsible and improves the effectiveness of federal homeless
programs for the future.
Once again, I applaud the leadership of the Senate VA-HUD and Banking
panels on this important issue, and I am confident in their commitment
to further improvements in the program.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 2605. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
income averaging to include the trade or business of fishing and to
provide a business credit against income for the purchase of fishing
safety equipment; to the Committee on Finance.
Tax Legislation for Commercial Fishermen
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to help commercial fishermen navigate the often choppy waters
of the Internal Revenue Code.
The legislation I am introducing would make two commonsense changes
to our tax laws. First, my legislation would extend a $1,500 tax credit
to commercial fishermen to assist them in the purchase of important
safety equipment.
Commercial fishermen engage in one of the most dangerous professions
in America. They have a higher fatality rate than even firefighters,
police officers, truck or taxi drivers. From 1994 to 1998, 396
commercial fishermen lost their lives while fishing. Last year, in the
wake of catastrophic events that killed 11 fishermen over the course of
only 1 month, the Coast Guard Fishing Vessel Casualty Task Force was
convened. The task force issued a report that draws several conclusions
about current fishing vessel safety. Despite the grim safety statistics
surrounding the profession of fishing, the report concludes that most
fishing deaths are preventable. One significant way to prevent these
tragic deaths is to make safety equipment on commercial fishing vessels
more widely available.
As those of us who represent States with commercial fishing
industries may recall, in 1988, Congress passed the Commercial Fishing
Industry Vessel Safety Act. This act required lifesaving and
firefighting equipment to be placed on board all fishing boats.
Unfortunately, the cost of some of the safety equipment has proven to
be a serious practical impediment for many commercial fishermen. The
margin of profit for some commercial fishermen is simply too narrow and
they simply lack the funds required to purchase the expensive safety
equipment they require.
Moreover, as the fishing industry has come under increasingly heavy
Federal regulation, fishermen have often felt compelled to greatly
increase their productivity on those days when they are permitted to
fish. As a result, too many take dangerous risks in order to earn a
living.
Just this last January, in my home State of Maine, a terrible and
tragic incident highlighted the critical importance of safety
equipment. Two very experienced fishermen tragically drowned off Cape
Neddick when their commercial fishing vessel capsized during a storm.
The sole survivor of this tragedy was the fisherman who was able to
correctly put on an immersion suit, a safety suit that the Coast Guard
has required on cold water commercial fishing boats since the early
1990s.
In fact, immersion suits, liferafts, and emergency locater devices
have been credited with saving more than 200 lives since 1993. By
providing a $1,500 tax credit for fishermen to purchase safety
equipment, my legislation would encourage the wider availability and
use of safety equipment on our Nation's commercial fishing boats. We
should take this sensible step to help ensure that fishermen do not set
off without essential safety gear.
The second provision of my bill would eliminate some of the perils
that the Tax Code has that particularly affect commercial fishermen. I
propose to allow fishermen to use income-averaging tax provisions that
are now available to our Nation's farmers. For tax purposes, income
averaging allows individuals to carry back income from a boom year to a
prior less prosperous year. This tax treatment assists individuals who
must adapt to wide fluctuations in their income from year to year by
preventing them from being pushed into higher tax brackets in random
good years.
Until 1986, both farmers and fishermen were covered under the Tax
Code's income-averaging provisions. However, income averaging
disappeared as part of the tax restructuring undertaken in 1986. In
1997, income-averaging provisions were again reintroduced into our Tax
Code, but unfortunately, under the changes in the 1997 law, only
farmers were permitted to benefit from this tax relief. The Tax and
Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 permanently extended this tax relief
provision, but again only for our farmers.
Although I am very pleased that Congress has restored income
averaging for our Nation's farmers, I do not believe our fishermen
should be left out in the
[[Page S4299]]
cold and excluded from using income averaging. The legislation that I
introduce today would restore fairness by extending income averaging to
our fishermen as well as our farmers.
Parallel tax treatment for fishermen and farmers is appropriate for
many reasons. Currently, unlike farmers, fishermen's sole tax
protection to handle fluctuations in income are found in the Tax Code's
net operating loss provisions. These provisions do not provide the tax
benefits of income averaging and are so complex in their computation
that it often defies the ability of any individual without a CPA after
his or her name.
Most importantly, both farm and fishing income can fluctuate widely
from year to year due to a wide range of uncontrollable circumstances,
including market prices, the weather and, in the case of fishing,
Government restrictions.
I urge my colleagues to help our fishermen cope with the fluctuations
in their income by restoring this important tax provision and by
extending a safety tax credit to help protect them from the hazards
that their fishing profession entails.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd):
S. 2606. A bill to protect the privacy of American consumers; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the consumer privacy protection act
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
address one of the most pressing problems facing American consumers
today--the constant assault on citizens' privacy by the denizens of the
private marketplace. This legislation, the Consumer Privacy Protection
Act of 2000, represents an attempt to provide basic, widespread, and
warranted privacy protections to consumers in both the online and
offline marketplace. On the Internet, our bill sets forth a regulatory
regime to ensure pro-consumer privacy protections, coupling a strong
federal standard with preemption of inconsistent state laws on Internet
privacy. We need a strong federal standard to protect consumer privacy
online, and we need preemption to ensure business certainty in the
marketplace, given the numerous state privacy initiatives that are
currently pending. Off the Internet, this bill extends privacy
protections that are already on the books to similarly regulated
industries or business practices, and requires a broad examination of
privacy practices in the traditional marketplace to help Congress
better understand whether further regulation is appropriate.
The introduction of this legislation comes as the Federal Trade
Commission releases its eagerly awaited report on Internet Privacy.
Released yesterday, that report concludes that Internet industry self-
regulation efforts have failed to protect adequately consumer privacy.
Accordingly, the report calls for legislation that requires commercial
web sites to comply with the ``four widely accepted fair information
practices'' of notice, consent, access, and security. The legislation
that we introduce today accomplishes just that.
On the Internet, many users unfortunately are unaware of the
significant amount of information they are surrendering every time they
visit a web site. For many others, the fear of a loss of personal
privacy on the Internet represents the last hurdle impeding their full
embrace of this exciting and promising new medium. Nonetheless,
millions of Americans every day utilize the Internet and put their
personal information at risk. As the Washington Post reported on May
17, 2000:
The numbers tell the story. About 44.4 million households
will be online by the end of this year . . . up from 12.7
million in 1995, an increase of nearly 250 percent over five
years. Roughly 55 million Americans log into the Internet on
a typical day. . . . Industry experts estimate that the
amount of Internet traffic doubles every 100 days. . . .
These changes are not without a price. Along with wired life
comes growing concern about intrusions into privacy and the
ability to protect identities online.
As Internet use proliferates, there needs to be some regulation and
enforcement to ensure pro-consumer privacy policies, particularly where
the collection, consolidation, and dissemination of private, personal
information is so readily achievable in this digital age. Indeed,
advances in technology have provided information gatherers the tools to
seamlessly compile and enhance highly detailed personal histories of
Internet users. Despite these indisputable facts, industry has to this
point nearly unanimously opposed even a basic regulatory framework that
would ensure the protection of consumer privacy on the Internet--a
basic framework that has been successfully adopted in other areas of
our economy.
Our bill gives customers, not companies, control over their personal
information on the Internet. It accomplishes this goal by establishing
in law the five basic tenets of the long-established fair information
practices standards--notice, consent, access, security, and
enforcement. The premise of these standards is simple:
(1) Consumers should be given notice of companies' information
practices and what they intend to do with people's personal
information.
(2) Consumers should be given the opportunity to consent, or not to
consent, to those information practices.
(3) Consumers should be given the right to access whatever
information has been collected about them and to correct that
information where necessary.
(4) Companies should be required to establish reasonable procedures
to ensure that consumers' personal information is kept secure.
(5) A viable enforcement mechanism must be established to safeguard
consumers' privacy rights.
While the Internet industry argues that the need for these
protections are premature, the threat to personal privacy posed by
advances in technology was anticipated twenty three years ago by the
Privacy Protection Study Commission, which was created pursuant to the
Privacy Act of 1974. In 1977, that Commission reported to the Congress
and the federal government on the issue of privacy and technology. The
Commission's portrait of the world in 1977 might well still be used
today. That report found that society is increasingly dependant on
``computer based record keeping systems,'' which result in a ``rapidly
changing world in which insufficient attention is being paid--by policy
makers, system designers, or system users--to the privacy protection
implications of these trends.'' The report went on to state that even
where some privacy protections exist under the law, ``there is the
danger that personal privacy will be further eroded due to applications
of new technology. Policy makers must not be complacent about this
potential. The economic and social costs of incorporating privacy
protection safeguards into a record-keeping systems are always greater
when it is done retroactively than when it is done at the system's
inception.''
Today, twenty three years later, as we enter what America Online
chairman Steve Case calls the ``Internet Century,'' the words of the
Privacy Commission could not be more appropriate. Poll after poll
indicates that Americans fear that their privacy is not being
sufficiently protected on the Internet. Last September, the Wall St.
Journal reported that Americans' number one concern (measured at 29
percent as we enter the 21st century was a fear of a loss of personal
privacy. Just two months ago, Business Week reported that 57 percent of
Americans believe that Congress should pass laws to govern how personal
information is collected and used on the Internet. Moreover, a recent
survey by the Federal Trade Commission found that 87 percent of
respondents are concerned about threats to their privacy in relation to
their online usage. And, while industry claims that self-regulation is
working, only 15 percent of those polled by Business Week believed that
the Government should defer to voluntary, industry-developed privacy
standards.
Are these fears significant enough to require federal action?
Absolutely, particularly in light of predictions by people such as John
Chambers, the CEO of CISCO Systems, who forecasts that one quarter of
all global commerce will be conducted online by 2010. As the Privacy
Commission stated a quarter of a century ago, the ``economic and social
costs'' of mandating pro-privacy protections will be far lower now than
when the Internet is handling twenty
[[Page S4300]]
five percent of all global commerce. Besides if John Chambers is right,
the Internet industry should embrace, rather than resist, strong
privacy policies. Simply put, strong privacy policies represent good
business. For example, a study conducted by Forrester Research in
September 1999 revealed that e-commerce spending was deprived of $2.8
billion in possible revenue last year because of consumer fears over
privacy.
Indeed, the fears and concerns reflected in these analyses are borne
out in study after study on the privacy practices--or lack thereof--of
the companies operating on the Internet. Last year, an industry
commissioned study found that of the top 100 web sites, while 99
collect information about Internet users, only 22 comply with all four
of the core privacy principles of notice, choice, access, and security.
A broader industry funded survey reports that only 10 percent of the
top 350 Web sites implement all four of these privacy principles. This
week, our Committee will hold a hearing to receive the report of the
Federal Trade Commission on its most recent analysis of the privacy
policies of the Internet industry. While the industry will claim that
they have made tremendous progress in their self-regulatory efforts,
the FTC apparently, is not convinced--finding in its report release
yesterday that ``only 20% of the busiest sites on the World Wide Web
implement to some extent all four fair information practices in their
privacy disclosures. Even when only Notice and Choice are considered,
fewer than half of the sites surveyed (41%) meet the relevant
standards.'' This record indicates that we should begin to consider
passing pro-consumer privacy legislation this year. The public is
clamoring for it, the studies justify it, and the potential harm from
inaction is simply too great.
It is worth noting that advocates of self-regulation often claim that
the collection and use of consumer information actually enhances the
consumer experience on the Internet. While there may be some truth to
that claim, many Internet users do not want companies to target them
with marketing based on their personal shopping habits. Those
individuals should be given control over whether and how their personal
information is used via an ``opt-in'' mechanism. Moreover, even those
consumers who targeted marketing and want to ``opt-in'' to those
practices, may not be willing to accept what happens to their
information after it is used for this allegedly benign purpose.
For example, should it be acceptable business behavior to sell, rent,
share, or loan a historical record of a customers tobacco purchasing
habits to an insurance company. Should an Internet user's surfing
habits--including frequent visits to AIDS or diabetes, or other
sensitive health-related websites be revealed to prospective employers
willing to pay a fee for such information? Should online surfing habits
that identify consumer shopping activities be merged with offline
database information already existing on a consumer to form a highly
detailed, intricate portrait of that individual? The answer to these
questions most assuredly is no. And yet right now, there is no law, or
regulation, that would prohibit these objectionable practices.
We are already seeing evidence of these practices in the marketplace
today. For example, on February 2, 2000, the New York Times reported on
a study by the California HealthCare Foundation that concluded that
``19 of the top 21 health sites had privacy policies but . . . most
failed to live up to promises not to share information with third
parties. . . . [N]one of the sites followed guidelines recommended by
the Federal Trade Commission on collection and use of personal data.''
Despite these reports, industry continues to insist that government
wait and see, and let self-regulation and the marketplace protect
against these articulable harms. We say that is like letting the fox
guard the henhouse.
At the same time, we must not ignore those members of the industry
who at least place some importance on protecting consumer privacy on
the Internet. For example, in contrast to most Internet and online
service providers, American Online does not track its millions of users
when they venture on the Internet and out of AOL's proprietary network.
In addition, IBM--while opposing federal legislation--refuses to
advertise on Internet sites that do not possess and post a clear
privacy policy. These are the types of practices that government
welcomes. Unfortunately, they are far and few between.
As a result, the time has come to permit consumers to decide for
themselves whether, and to what extent, they desire to permit
commercial entities access to their personal information. Industry will
argue that this is an aggressive approach. They will assert that at
most, Congress should give customers the right to ``opt-in'' only with
respect to those information practices deemed to be ``sensitive''--such
as the gathering of information regarding health, financial, ethnic,
religious, or other particularly private areas. The problem with this
suggestion is that it leaves it up to Congress and industry lawyers and
lobbyists to define what is in fact ``sensitive'' for individual
consumers.
A better approach is to give consumers an ``opt-in'' right to control
access to all personally identifiable information that might be
collected online. This approach allows consumers to make their own,
personal, and subjective determination as to what they do or don't want
known about them by the companies with which they interact. If industry
is right that most people want targeted advertising, then most people
will opt-in. Indeed, Alta Vista, a commonly used search portal on the
Internet, employs an ``opt-in'' approach.
As if this evidence were not enough, we only need to look to the
February 24, 2000, article in TheStreet.Com entitled, ``DoubleClick
Exec Says Privacy Legislation Needn't Crimp Results.'' In that article,
a leading Internet executive from DoubleClick, the Internet's most well
known banner advertiser, states that his company would not ``face an
insurmountable problem'' in attempting to operate under strict privacy
rules. Complying with such rules is ``not rocket science,'' the
executive stated, ``it's execution.'' He went on to state that his
company could continue to be successful under an ``opt-in'' regulatory
regime. This is a phenomenal admission that ``opt-in'' policies would
not impede the basic functionality and commercial activity on the
Internet. The admission is particularly stunning given that it comes
from a company whose business model is to track consumer activities on
the Internet so as to target them with specific advertising.
Moreover, evidence in the marketplace demonstrates that ``opt-out''
policies will not always lead to full informed consumer choice. First
of all, ``opt-out'' policies place the burden on the consumer to take
certain steps to protect the privacy of their personal information.
Under an ``opt-out'' approach, the incentive exists for industry to
develop privacy policies that discourage people from opting out. The
policies will be longer, harder to read, and the actual ``opt-out''
option will often be buried under hundreds, if not thousands of words
of text. Consider the recent article in USA Today on this very issue.
Entitled, ``Privacy isn't Public Knowledge,'' this May 1, 2000, article
outlines the difficulty consumers have in opting out of the information
collection practices of Internet companies. While consumers may be
informed if they actually locate and read the company's privacy policy
that they are likely to be ``tracked by name . . . only with [their]
`permission,' '' they may not be informed up front that it is assumed
that they have granted such permission unless they ``opt-out.''
Moreover, to get through the hundreds of words of required reading to
find the ``opt-out'' option, it turns out, according to this article,
that you need a graduate level or college education reading ability to
simply comprehend the policies in the first place. According to FTC
Chairman Robert Pitofsky, ``Some sites bury your rights in a long page
of legal jargon so it's hard to find them hard to understand them once
you find them. Self-regulation that creates opt-out rights that cannot
be found [or] understood is really not an acceptable form of consumer
protection.'' One thing is clear from this article--``self-regulation''
is not working.
We know, however, that some companies do not collect personal
information on the Internet. For example,
[[Page S4301]]
some banner advertisers target their messages and ads to computers but
not to people individually. They do this by tracking the Internet
activity of a particular Internet Protocol address, without ever
knowing who exactly is behind that address. Thus, they can never share
personal information about a consumer's preferences, shopping, or
research habits online, because they don't know who that consumer is.
According to the chief technology officer of Engage--a prominent banner
advertiser--``We don't need to know who someone is to make the [online]
experience relevant. We're trying to strike this balance between the
consumer's need for privacy and the marketer's need to be effective in
order to sustain a free Internet.'' Such a business practice is an
example of marketplace forces providing better privacy protection and
my legislation recognizes that. Accordingly, if companies are only
collecting and using non-personal information online they could comply
with this bill by providing consumers with an ``opt-out,'' rather than
an opt-in option.
Under this legislation, companies would be required to provide
updates to consumers notifying them of changes to their privacy
policies. Companies would also be prohibited from using information
that had been collected under a prior privacy policy, if such use did
not comport with that prior policy and if the consumer had not granted
consent to the new practices.
In addition, the bill would provide permanence to a consumer's
decision to grant or withhold consent, and allow the effect of that
decision to be altered only by the consumer. Consequently, companies
would not be permitted to let their customer's privacy preferences
expire, thereby requiring consumers to reaffirm their prior
communication as to how they want their personal information handled.
Unfortunately, many privacy violations are often unknown by the very
consumers whose privacy has been violated. Therefore, the legislation
would provide whistleblower protection to employees of companies who
come forward with evidence of privacy violations.
In order to enforce these consumer protections, our bill would call
upon the Federal Trade Commission to implement and enforce the
provisions of the legislation applicable to the Internet. The FTC is
the sole federal agency with substantial expertise in this area. Not
only has the FTC conducted extensive studies on Internet privacy and
profiling on the Internet in recent years, but it recently concluded a
comprehensive rulemaking to implement the fair information practice of
notice, consent, access, and security, as required by the Childrens
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which we enacted in 1998.
In addition, the legislation provides the attorneys general with the
ability to enforce the bill on behalf of constituents in their
individual states. And, while the legislation would preempt
inconsistent state law, citizens would be free to avail themselves of
other applicable remedies such as fraud, contractual breach, unjust
enrichment, or emotional distress. Finally, the bill would permit
individual consumers to bring a private right of action to enjoin
Internet privacy violations.
While rules are clearly needed to protect consumer privacy on the
Internet, we recognize that information is collected and shared in the
traditional marketplace as well. The rate of collection, however, and
the intrusiveness of the monitoring is nowhere near as significant as
it is online. For example, when a consumer shops in a store in a mall
and browses through items without purchasing anything, no one makes a
list of his or her every move. To the contrary, on the Internet, every
browse, observation, and individual click of the mouse may be
surreptitiously monitored. Notwithstanding this distinction, it may be
appropriate at some time to develop privacy protections for the general
marketplace, in addition to those set forth in this bill for
the Internet. That is why our bill asks the FTC to conduct an
exhaustive study of privacy issues in the general marketplace and
report to the Congress as to what rules and regulations, if any, may be
necessary to protect consumers.
We are also learning that employers are increasingly monitoring their
employees--both in and out of the workplace--on the phone, on the
computer, and in their daily activities on the job. While employees may
be justified in taking steps to ensure that their workers are
productive and efficient, such monitoring raises implications for those
workers' privacy. Accordingly, this legislation directs the Department
of Labor to conduct a study of privacy issues in the workplace, and
report to Congress as to what--if any--regulations may be necessary to
protect worker privacy.
Additionally, the legislation extends some existing privacy
protections that we already know are working in the offline
marketplace. For example, the bill would extend the privacy protections
consumers enjoy while shopping in video stores to book and record
stores, as well as to the digital delivery of those products. The bill
would also extend the privacy protections we put forth in the Cable Act
of 1984 to customers who subscribe to multichannel video programming
services via satellite. And, the legislation would codify the Federal
Communications Commission's CPNI rules, to provide privacy protection
to telephone customers. The bill would also ask the Federal
Communications Commission to harmonize existing privacy rules that
apply to disparate communications technologies so that the personal
privacy of subscribers to all communications services are protected
equally. Finally, the legislation would clarify that personal
information could not be deemed an asset if the company holding that
information avails itself of the protection of our bankruptcy laws.
The development of a strong and comprehensive privacy regime must
also address the security of Internet-connected computers. This month,
the world was bitten by the ``love bug,'' a computer virus that
devastated computer systems in more than 20 countries and caused an
estimated $10 billion in damages. One of the features of the ``love
bug'' was an attempt to steal passwords stored on an infected hard
drive for later use. If successful, the virus-writer could have gained
access to thousands of Internet access accounts. The spread of the
virus highlighted the vulnerability of interconnected computer systems
to malicious persons intent on disrupting or compromising legitimate
use of these systems.
The development of technology, policies, and expertise to effectively
protect a computer system from illegitimate users is a cornerstone of
privacy protection because a privacy policy is worthless if the company
cannot adequately secure that information and control its
dissemination. While it would be impossible for the Federal government
to protect every web site from every threat, it can help users and
operators of web sites by researching and developing better computer
security technologies and practices. Therefore, I have included a title
on computer security in this bill.
This title of the bill is an attempt to promote and enhance the
protection of computers connected to the Internet. First, the bill
would establish a 25-member computer security partnership council. This
council would build on the public-private partnership proposed in the
wake of February's denial of service attacks which shut down leading e-
commerce sites like Yahoo! and E-bay. The council would identify
threats and help companies share solutions. It would be a major source
of public information on computer security and could help educate the
general public and businesses on good computer protection practices. In
addition, our bill calls on the Council to identify areas in which we
have not invested adequately in computer security research. This study
could be a blueprint for future research investments.
While the private sector has put significant resources into computer
security research, the President's Information Technology Advisory
Council has noted that current information technology research is often
focused on the short-term and neglects long-term fundamental problems.
This bill would authorize appropriations for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to invest in long-term computer security
research needs. This research would complement private sector, market-
driven research and could be conducted at NIST or through grants to
[[Page S4302]]
academic or private-sector researchers. The results of these
investigations could power the next generation of advanced computer
security technologies.
Of course those technologies will not protect government, or
companies and their customers, unless there are well-trained
professionals to operate and secure computer systems. The problem is
particularly acute for the Federal government. According to a May 10th
Washington Post article, the Federal government will need to replace or
hire more than 35,000 high-tech workers by the year 2006. The last time
I checked, the same people who could fill those government positions
are in high demand from Silicon Valley and the Dulles Corridor
companies, among other. Until the government is able to offer stock
options, we will continue to struggle to fill these positions. Our bill
would establish an ROTC-like program to train computer security
professionals for government service. In exchange for loans or grants
to complete an undergraduate or graduate degree in computer security, a
student would be required to work for the government for a certain
number of years. This would allow students to get high-quality computer
security training, to serve as a Federal employee for a short time, and
then, if they desire, to enter the private sector job market.
This legislation would also push the government to get its house in
order and become an example for good computer security practices. It
proposes increased scrutiny of government security practices and would
establish an Award for Quality of Government Security Practices to
recognize agencies and departments which have excellent policies and
processes to protect their computer systems. The criteria for this
award will be published by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and should encourage government to improve security
on its systems. In addition, these criteria could become a model for
computer security professionals inside and outside the government.
Finally, the bill would tie research and theory to meaningful, on-
the-ground protections for Internet users. The bill calls on NIST to
encourage and support the development of software standards that would
allow users to set up an individual privacy regime at the outset and
have those preferences follow them--without further intervention--as
they surf the web.
This bill asks a lot of private companies in protecting the
personally-identifiable information of American citizens. It would be
wrong for the Congress not to apply the same standard to itself as
well. Title IX of the bill calls for the development of Senate and
House rules on protecting the privacy of information obtained through
official web sites.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Consumer
Privacy Protection Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2606
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Privacy Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The right to privacy is a personal and fundamental
right worthy of protection through appropriate legislation.
(2) Consumers engaging in and interacting with companies
engaged in interstate commerce have an ownership interest in
their personal information, as well as a right to control how
that information is collected, used, or transferred.
(3) Existing State, local, and Federal laws provide
virtually no privacy protection for Internet users.
(4) Moreover, existing privacy regulation of the general,
or offline, marketplace provides inadequate consumer
protections in light of the significant data collection and
dissemination practices employed today.
(5) The Federal government thus far has eschewed general
Internet privacy laws in favor of industry self-regulation,
which has led to several self-policing schemes, none of which
are enforceable in any meaningful way or provide sufficient
consumer protection.
(6) State governments have been reluctant to enter the
field of Internet privacy regulation because use of the
Internet often crosses State, or even national, boundaries.
(7) States are nonetheless interested in providing greater
privacy protection to their citizens as evidenced by recent
lawsuits brought against offline and online companies by
State attorneys general to protect consumer privacy.
(8) Personal information flowing over the Internet requires
greater privacy protection than is currently available today.
Vast amounts of personal information about individual
Internet users are collected on the Internet and sold or
otherwise transferred to third parties.
(9) Poll after poll consistently demonstrates that
individual Internet users are highly troubled over their lack
of control over their personal information.
(10) Research on the Internet industry demonstrates that
consumer concerns about their privacy on the Internet has a
correlative negative impact on the development of e-commerce.
(11) Notwithstanding these concerns, the Internet is
becoming a major part of the personal and commercial lives of
millions of Americans, providing increased access to
information, as well as communications and commercial
opportunities.
(12) It is important to establish personal privacy rights
and industry obligations now so that consumers have
confidence that their personal privacy is fully protected on
our Nation's telecommunications networks and on the Internet.
(13) The social and economic costs of imposing obligations
on industry now will be lower than if Congress waits until
the Internet becomes more prevalent in our everyday lives in
coming years.
(14) Absent the recognition of these rights and the
establishment of consequent industry responsibilities to
safeguard those rights, consumer privacy will soon be more
gravely threatened.
(15) The ease of gathering and compiling personal
information on the Internet, both overtly and
surreptitiously, is becoming increasingly efficient and
effortless due to advances in digital communications
technology which have provided information gatherers the
ability to seamlessly compile highly detailed personal
histories of Internet users.
(16) Consumers must have--
(A) clear and conspicuous notice that information is being
collected about them;
(B) clear and conspicuous notice as to the information
gatherer's intent with respect to that information;
(C) the ability to control the extent to which information
is collected about them; and
(D) the right to prohibit any unauthorized use, reuse,
disclosure, transfer, or sale of their information.
(17) Fair information practices include providing consumers
with knowledge of any data collection clear and conspicuous
notice of an entity's information practices, the ability to
control whether or not those practices will be applied to
them personally, access to information collected about them,
and safeguards to ensure the integrity and security of that
information.
(18) Recent surveys of websites conducted by the Federal
Trade Commission and Georgetown University found that a small
minority of websites surveyed contained a privacy policy
embodying fair information practices such as notice, choice,
access, and security.
(19) Americans expect that their purchases of written
materials, videos, and music will remain confidential,
whether they are shopping online or in the traditional
workplace.
(20) Consumer privacy with respect to written materials,
music, and movies should be protected vigilantly to ensure
the free exercise of First Amendment rights of expression,
regardless of medium.
(21) Under current law, millions of American cable
customers are protected against disclosures of their personal
subscriber information without notice and choice, whereas no
similar protection is available to subscribers of
multichannel video programming via satellite.
(22) Almost every American is a consumer of some form of
communications service, be it wireless, wireline, cable,
broadcast, or satellite.
(23) In light of the convergence of and emerging
competition among and between wireless, wireline, satellite,
broadcast, and cable companies, privacy safeguards should be
applied uniformly across different communications media so as
to provide consistent consumer privacy protections as well as
a level competitive playing field for industry.
(24) Notwithstanding the recent focus on Internet privacy,
privacy issues abound in the traditional, or offline,
marketplace that merit Federal attention.
(25) The Congress would benefit from an exhaustive analysis
of general marketplace privacy issues conducted by the agency
with the most expertise in this area, the Federal Trade
Commission.
(26) While American workers are growing increasingly
concerned that their employers may be violating their
privacy, many workers are unaware that their activities in
the workplace may be subject to significant and potentially
invasive monitoring.
(27) While employers may have a legitimate need to maintain
an efficient and productive workforce, that need should not
improperly impinge on employee privacy rights in the
workplace.
(28) Databases containing personal information about
consumers' commercial purchasing, browsing, and shopping
habits, as well as their generalized product preferences,
represent considerable commercial value.
[[Page S4303]]
(29) These databases should not be considered an asset with
respect to creditors' interests if the asset holder has
availed itself of the protection of State or Federal
bankruptcy laws.
SEC. 3. PREEMPTION OF INCONSISTENT STATE LAW OR REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
Act preempts any State law, regulation, or rule that is
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act preempts--
(1) the law of torts in any State;
(2) the common law in any State; or
(3) any State law, regulation, or rule that prohibits fraud
or provides a remedy for fraud.
(2) Private right-of-action.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a), if a State law provides for a private right-of-action
under a statute enacted to provide consumer protection,
nothing in this Act precludes a person from bringing such an
action under that statute, even if the statute is otherwise
preempted in whole or in part under subsection (a).
SEC. 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Preemption of inconsistent State law or regulations.
Sec. 4. Table of contents.
Title I--Online Privacy
Sec. 101. Collection or disclosure of personally identifiable
information.
Sec. 102. Notice, consent, access, and security requirements.
Sec. 103. Other kinds of information.
Sec. 104. Exceptions.
Sec. 105. Permanence of consent.
Sec. 106. Disclosure to law enforcement agency or under court order.
Sec. 107. Effective date.
Sec. 108. FTC rulemaking procedure required.
Title II--Privacy Protection for Consumers of Books, Recorded Music,
and Videos
Sec. 201. Extension of video rental protections to books and recorded
music.
Sec. 202. Effective Date.
Title III--Enforcement and Remedies
Sec. 301. Enforcement.
Sec. 302. Violation is unfair or deceptive act or practice.
Sec. 303. Private right of action.
Sec. 304. Actions by States.
Sec. 305. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 306. No effect on other remedies.
Sec. 307. FTC Office of Online Privacy.
Title IV--Communications Technology Privacy Protections
Sec. 401. Privacy protection for subscribers of satellite television
services for private home viewing.
Sec. 402. Customer proprietary network information.
Title V--Rulemaking and Studies
Sec. 501. Federal Trade Commission examination.
Sec. 502. Federal Communications Commission rulemaking.
Sec. 503. Department of Labor study of privacy issues in the workplace.
Title VI--Protection of Personally Identifiable Information in
Bankruptcy
Sec. 601. Personally identifiable information not asset in bankruptcy.
Title VII--Internet Security Initiatives.
Sec. 701. Findings.
Sec. 702. Computer Security Partnership Council.
Sec. 703. Research and development.
Sec. 704. Computer security training programs.
Sec. 705. Government information security standards.
Sec. 706. Recognition of quality in computer security practices.
Sec. 707. Development of automated privacy controls.
Title VIII--Congressional Information Security Standards.
Sec. 801. Exercise of rulemaking power.
Sec. 802. Senate.
Title IX--Definitions
Sec. 901. Definitions.
TITLE I--ONLINE PRIVACY
SEC. 101. COLLECTION OR DISCLOSURE OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION.
An Internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website on the Internet may not
collect, use, or disclose personally identifiable information
about a user of that service or website except in accordance
with the provisions of this title.
SEC. 102. NOTICE, CONSENT, ACCESS, AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Notice.--An Internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website may not collect
personally identifiable information from a user of that
service or website unless that provider or operator gives
clear and conspicuous notice in a manner reasonably
calculated to provide actual notice to any user or
prospective user that personally identifiable information may
be collected from that user. The notice shall disclose--
(1) the specific information that will be collected;
(2) the methods of collecting and using the information
collected; and
(3) all disclosure practices of that provider or operator
for personally identifiable information so collected,
including whether it will be disclosed to third parties.
(b) Consent.--An Internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website may not--
(1) collect personally identifiable information from a user
of that service or website, or
(2) except as provided in section 107, disclose or
otherwise use such information about a user of that service
or website,
unless the provider or operator obtains that user's
affirmative consent, in advance, to the collection and
disclosure or use of that information.
(c) Access.--An Internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website shall--
(1) upon request provide reasonable access to a user to
personally identifiable information that the provider or
operator has collected after the effective date of this title
relating to that user;
(2) provide a reasonable opportunity for a user to correct,
delete, or supplement any such information maintained by that
provider or operator; and
(3) make the correction or supplementary information a part
of that user's personally identifiable information for all
future disclosure and other use purposes.
(d) Security.--An Internet service provider, online service
provider, or operator of a commercial website shall establish
and maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the
security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally
identifiable information maintained by that provider or
operator.
(e) Notice of Policy Change.--Whenever an Internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website makes a material change in its policy for
the collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable
information, it--
(1) shall notify all users of that service or website of
the change in policy; and
(2) may not collect, disclose, or otherwise use any
personally identifiable information in accordance with the
changed policy unless the user has affirmatively consented,
under subsection (b), to its collection, disclosure, or use
in accordance with the changed policy.
(f) Notice of Privacy Breach.--
(1) In general.--If an Internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website commits
a breach of privacy with respect to the personally
identifiable information of a user, then it shall, as soon as
reasonably possible, notify all users whose personally
identifiable information was affected by that breach. The
notice shall describe the nature of the breach and the steps
taken by the provider or operator to remedy it.
(2) Breach of privacy.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an
Internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website commits a breach of privacy
with respect to personally identifiable information of a user
if--
(A) it collects, discloses, or otherwise uses personally
identifiable information in violation of any provision of
this title; or
(B) it knows that the security, confidentiality, or
integrity of personally identifiable information is
compromised by any act or failure to act on the part of the
provider or operator or by any function of the Internet
service or online service provided, or commercial website
operated, by that provider or operator that resulted in a
disclosure, or possible disclosure, of that information.
(g) Application to Certain Third-Party Operators.--The
provisions of this section applicable to Internet service
providers, online service providers, and commercial website
operators apply to any third party, including an advertiser,
that uses that service or website to collect information
about users of that service or website.
SEC. 103. OTHER KINDS OF INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
provisions of sections 101 and 102 (except for subsections
(b), (c), and (e)(2)) that apply to personally identifiable
information apply also to the collection and disclosure or
other use of information about users of an Internet service,
online service, or commercial website that is not personally
identifiable information.
(b) Consent Rule.--An Internet service provider, online
service provider, or operator of a commercial website may
not--
(1) collect information described in subsection (a) from a
user of that service or website, or
(2) except as provided in section 107, disclose or
otherwise use such information about a user of that service
or website,
unless the provider or operator obtains that user's consent
to the collection and disclosure or other use of that
information. For purposes of this subsection, the user will
be deemed to have consented unless the user objects to the
collection and disclosure or other use of the information.
(c) Application to Certain Third-Party Operators.--The
provisions of this section applicable to Internet service
providers, online service providers, and commercial website
operators apply to any third party, including an advertiser,
that uses that service or website to collect information
about users of that service or website.
[[Page S4304]]
SEC. 104. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) In General.--Sections 102 and 103 do not apply to the
collection, disclosure, or use by an Internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website of information about a user of that
service or website--
(1) to protect the security or integrity of the service or
website; or
(2) to conduct a transaction, deliver a product or service,
or complete an arrangement for which the user provided the
information.
(b) Disclosure to Parent Protected.--An Internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website may not be held liable under this title,
any other Federal law, or any State law for any disclosure
made in good faith and following reasonable procedures in
responding to a request for disclosure of personal
information under section 1302(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 to the
parent of a child.
SEC. 105. PERMANENCE OF CONSENT.
The consent or denial of consent by a user of permission to
an Internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website to collect, disclose, or
otherwise use any information about that user for which
consent is required under this title--
(1) shall remain in effect until changed by the user;
(2) except as provided in section 102(e), shall apply to
any revised, modified, new, or improved service provided by
that provider or operator to that user; and
(3) except as provided in section 102(e), shall apply to
the collection, disclosure, or other use of that information
by any entity that is a commercial successor of that provider
or operator, without regard to the legal form in which such
succession was accomplished.
SEC. 106. DISCLOSURE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR UNDER COURT
ORDER.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, an Internet service provider, online service
provider, operator of a commercial website, or third party
that uses such a service or website to collect information
about users of that service or website may disclose
personally identifiable information about a user of that
service or website--
(1) to a law enforcement agency in response to a warrant
issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in
accordance with subsection (c); and
(2) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding
granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information
that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--
(A) the user to whom the information relates is given
reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of
the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and
(B) that user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to
appear and contest the issuance of requested order or to
narrow its scope.
(b) Safeguards Against Further Disclosure.--A court that
issues an order described in subsection (a) shall impose
appropriate safeguards on the use of the information to
protect against its unauthorized disclosure.
(c) Court Orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure
under subsection (a)(1) may issue only with prior notice to
the user and only if the law enforcement agency shows that
there is probable cause to believe that the user has engaged,
is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal activity and
that the records or other information sought are material to
the investigation of such activity. In the case of a State
government authority, such a court order shall not issue if
prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order
pursuant to this subsection, on a motion made promptly by the
Internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of the commercial website, may quash or modify such
order if the information or records requested are
unreasonably voluminous in nature or if compliance with such
order otherwise would cause an unreasonable burden on the
provider or operator.
SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This title takes effect after the Federal
Trade Commission completes the rulemaking procedure under
section 109.
(b) Application to Pre-existing Data.--
(1) In general.--After the effective date of this title,
and except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), sections
101, 102, and 103 apply to information collected before the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Collection of both kinds of information.--Section
102(b)(1) and 103(b)(1) do not apply to information collected
before the effective date of this title.
(3) Access to personally identifiable information.--Section
102(c) applies to personally identifiable information
collected before the effective date of this title unless it
is economically unfeasible for the Internet service provider,
online service provider, or commercial website operator to
comply with that section for the information.
SEC. 108. FTC RULEMAKING PROCEDURE REQUIRED.
The Federal Trade Commission shall initiate a rulemaking
procedure within 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act to implement the provisions of this title.
Notwithstanding any requirement of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code, the Commission shall complete the
rulemaking procedure not later than 270 days after it is
commenced.
TITLE II--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS OF BOOKS, RECORDED MUSIC,
AND VIDEOS
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF VIDEO RENTAL PROTECTIONS TO BOOKS AND
RECORDED MUSIC.
(a) In General.--Section 2710 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking the section designation and all
that follows through the end of subsection (b) and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 2710. Wrongful disclosure of information about video,
book, or recorded music rental, sale, or delivery
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `book dealer' means any person engaged in
the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
of renting, selling, or delivering books, magazines, or other
written or printed material (regardless of the format or
medium), or any person or other entity to whom a disclosure
is made under subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(2),
but only with respect to the information contained in the
disclosure.
``(2) The term `recorded music dealer' means any person,
engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, of selling, renting, or delivering recorded
music, regardless of the format in which or medium on which
it is recorded, or any person or other entity to whom a
disclosure is made under subparagraph (D) or (E) of
subsection (b)(2), but only with respect to the information
contained in the disclosure.
``(3) The term `consumer' means any renter, purchaser, or
user of goods or services from a video provider, book dealer,
or recorded music dealer.
``(4) The term `ordinary course of business' means only
debt-collection activities, order fulfillment, request
processing, and the transfer of ownership.
``(5) The term `personally identifiable information' means
information that identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services, specific
books, magazines, or other written or printed materials, or
specific recorded music.
``(6) The term `video provider' means any person engaged in
the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
of rental, sale, or delivery of recorded videos, regardless
of the format in which, or medium on which they are recorded,
or similar audio-visual materials, or any person or other
entity to whom a disclosure is made under subparagraph (D) or
(E) of subsection (b)(2), but only with respect to the
information contained in the disclosure.
``(b) Video, Book, or Recorded Music Rental, Sale, or
Delivery.--
``(1) In general.--A video provider, book dealer, or
recorded music dealer who knowingly discloses, to any person,
personally identifiable information concerning any consumer
of such provider or seller, as the case may be, shall be
liable to the aggrieved person for the relief provided in
subsection (d).
``(2) Disclosure.--A video provider, book dealer, or
recorded music dealer may disclose personally identifiable
information concerning any consumer--
``(A) to the consumer;
``(B) to any person with the informed, written consent of
the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought;
``(C) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant
issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in
accordance with paragraph (4);
``(D) to any person if the disclosure is solely of the
names and addresses of consumers and if--
``(i) the video provider, book dealer, or recorded music
dealer, as the case may be, has provided the consumer, in a
clear and conspicuous manner, with the opportunity to
prohibit such disclosure; and
``(ii) the disclosure does not identify the title,
description, or subject matter of any video or other audio-
visual material, books, magazines, or other printed material,
or recorded music;
``(E) to any person if the disclosure is incident to the
ordinary course of business of the video provider, book
dealer, or recorded music dealer; or
``(F) pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon
a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot
be accommodated by any other means, if--
``(i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the
person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding
relevant to the issuance of the court order; and
``(ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear
and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.
``(3) Safeguards.--If an order is granted pursuant to
subparagraph (C) or (F) of paragraph (2), the court shall
impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized
disclosure.
``(4) Court orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure
under paragraph (2)(C) shall issue only with prior notice to
the consumer and only if the law enforcement agency shows
that there is probable cause to believe that a person has
engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal
activity and that the records or other information sought are
material to the investigation of such activity. In the case
of a State government authority, such a court order shall not
issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing
an order pursuant to this subsection, on a motion made
promptly by the video provider, book dealer, or recorded
music dealer, may quash or modify such order if the
information or records requested are unreasonably voluminous
in nature or if compliance with such order otherwise would
cause an
[[Page S4305]]
unreasonable burden on such video provider, book dealer, or
recorded music dealer, as the case may be.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsections (c) through (f) of section 2701 of title
18, United States Code, are amended by striking ``video tape
service provider'' each place it appears and inserting
``video provider''.
(2) The item relating to section 2701 in the analysis for
chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``2710. Wrongful disclosure of information about video, book, or
recorded music rental or sales.''.
SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 201 take effect 12 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
SEC. 301. ENFORCEMENT.
Except as provided in section 302(b) and section 2710(d) of
title 18, United States Code, this Act shall be enforced by
the Federal Trade Commission. Except as otherwise provided in
this Act, a violation of this Act may be punished in the same
manner as a violation of a regulation of the Federal Trade
Commission.
SEC. 302. VIOLATION IS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE.
(a) In General.--The violation of any provision of title I
is an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed by
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.--Compliance with
title I of this Act shall be enforced under--
(1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
(A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal
agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency;
(B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than
national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks
(other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured
State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending
companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and
organizations operating under section 25 or 25(a) of the
Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and 611 et seq.),
by the Board; and
(C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve
System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the
Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation;
(2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818), by the Director of the Office of Thrift
Supervision, in the case of a savings association the
deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation;
(3) the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
by the National Credit Union Administration Board with
respect to any Federal credit union;
(4) part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air
carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
(5) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act (7
U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with
respect to any activities subject to that Act; and
(6) the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) by
the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any Federal
land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal
intermediate credit bank, or production credit association.
(c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the
exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its
powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a
violation of title I is deemed to be a violation of a
requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its powers
under any provision of law specifically referred to in
subsection (b), each of the agencies referred to in that
subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing
compliance with any requirement imposed under title I of this
Act, any other authority conferred on it by law.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall
prevent any person from violating title I in the same manner,
by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers,
and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of
the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were
incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Any entity
that violates any provision of that title is subject to the
penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities
provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act in the same
manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction,
power, and duties as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of that title.
(e) Effect on Other Laws.--
(1) Preservation of commission authority.--Nothing
contained in this title shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
(2) Relation to communications act.--Nothing in title I
requires an operator of a website or online service to take
any action that is inconsistent with the requirements of
section 222 or 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 222 or 551, respectively).
SEC. 303. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
(a) Private Right of Action.--A person whose personally
identifiable information is collected, disclosed or used, or
is likely to be disclosed or used, in violation of title I
may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of
a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State--
(1) an action to enjoin or restrain such violation;
(2) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such
a violation, or to receive $5,000 in damages for each such
violation, whichever is greater; or
(3) both such actions.
(b) Willful and Knowing Violations.--If the court finds
that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated title I,
the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the
award available under subsection (a)(2) to $50,000.
(c) Exception.--Neither an action to enjoin or restrain a
violation, nor an action to recover for loss or damage, may
be brought under this section for the accidental disclosure
of information if the disclosure was caused by an Act of God,
network or systems failure, or other event beyond the control
of the Internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website if the provider or operator
took reasonable precautions to prevent such disclosure in the
event of such a failure or other event.
(d) Attorneys Fees; Punitive Damages.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a)(2), the court in an action brought under this
section, may award reasonable attorneys fees and punitive
damages to the prevailing party.
SEC. 304. ACTIONS BY STATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of
the residents of that State has been or is threatened or
adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a
practice that violates title I, the State, as parens patriae,
may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the
State in a district court of the United States of appropriate
jurisdiction to--
(A) enjoin that practice;
(B) enforce compliance with the rule;
(C) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on
behalf of residents of the State; or
(D) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to
be appropriate.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide
to the Commission--
(i) written notice of that action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
(B) Exemption.--
(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subsection, if the attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in that subparagraph before the filing of the
action.
(ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i),
the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a
copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as
the attorney general files the action.
(b) Intervention.--
(1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection
(a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in
the action that is the subject of the notice.
(2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes
in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
(A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in
that action; and
(B) to file a petition for appeal.
(c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subsection (a), nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an
action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for
violation of title I, no State may, during the pendency of
that action, institute an action under subsection (a) against
any defendant named in the complaint in that action for
violation of that rule.
(e) Venue; Service of Process.--
(1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(2) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subsection (a), process may be served in any district in
which the defendant--
(A) is an inhabitant; or
(B) may be found.
SEC. 305. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--No Internet service provider, online
service provider, or commercial website operator may
discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with
respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment because the employee (or any person acting
pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information
to any Federal or State agency or to the Attorney General of
the United States or of any State regarding a possible
violation of any provision of title I.
(b) Enforcement.--Any employee or former employee who
believes he has been
[[Page S4306]]
discharged or discriminated against in violation of
subsection (a) may file a civil action in the appropriate
United States district court before the close of the 2-year
period beginning on the date of such discharge or
discrimination. The complainant shall also file a copy of the
complaint initiating such action with the appropriate Federal
agency.
(c) Remedies.--If the district court determines that a
violation of subsection (a) has occurred, it may order the
Internet service provider, online service provider, or
commercial website operator that committed the violation--
(1) to reinstate the employee to his former position;
(2) to pay compensatory damages; or
(3) take other appropriate actions to remedy any past
discrimination.
(d) Attorneys Fees; Punitive Damages.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c)(2), the court in an action brought under this
section, may award reasonable attorneys fees and punitive
damages to the prevailing party.
(e) Limitation.--The protections of this section shall not
apply to any employee who--
(1) deliberately causes or participates in the alleged
violation; or
(2) knowingly or recklessly provides substantially false
information to such an agency or the Attorney General.
(f) Burdens of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof that
prevail under subchapter III of chapter 12 of title 5, United
States Code (5 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) shall govern adjudication
of protected activities under this section.
SEC. 306. NO EFFECT ON OTHER REMEDIES.
The remedies provided by this sections 303 and 304 are in
addition to any other remedy available under any provision of
law.
SEC. 307. FTC OFFICE OF ONLINE PRIVACY.
The Federal Trade Commission shall establish an Office of
Online Privacy headed by a senior level position officer who
reports directly to the Commission and its General Counsel.
The Office shall study privacy issues associated with
electronic commerce and the Internet, the operation of this
Act and the effectiveness of the privacy protections provided
by title I. The Office shall report its findings and
recommendations from time to time to the Commission, and,
notwithstanding any law, regulation, or executive order to
the contrary, shall submit an annual report directly to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce on the
status of online and Internet privacy issues, together with
any recommendations for additional legislation relating to
those issues.
TITLE IV--COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
SEC. 401. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR SUBSCRIBERS OF SATELLITE
TELEVISION SERVICES FOR PRIVATE HOME VIEWING.
(a) In General.--Section 631 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 551) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 631. PRIVACY OF SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION FOR SUBSCRIBERS
OF CABLE SERVICE AND SATELLITE TELEVISION
SERVICE.
``(a) Notice to Subscribers Regarding Personally
Identifiable Information.--At the time of entering into an
agreement to provide any cable service, satellite home
viewing service, or other service to a subscriber, and not
less often than annually thereafter, a cable operator,
satellite carrier, or distributor shall provide notice in the
form of a separate, written statement to such subscriber that
clearly and conspicuously informs the subscriber of--
``(1) the nature of personally identifiable information
collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber
as a result of the provision of such service and the nature
of the use of such information;
``(2) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure
that may be made of such information, including an
identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure
may be made;
``(3) the period during which such information will be
maintained by the cable operator, satellite carrier, or
distributor;
``(4) the times and place at which the subscriber may have
access to such information in accordance with subsection (d);
and
``(5) the limitations provided by this section with respect
to the collection and disclosure of information by the cable
operator, satellite carrier, or distributor and the right of
the subscriber under this section to enforce such
limitations.
``(b) Collection of Personally Identifiable Information.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor shall not
use its cable or satellite system to collect personally
identifiable information concerning any subscriber without
the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber.
``(2) Exception.--A cable operator, satellite carrier, or
distributor may use its cable or satellite system to collect
information described in paragraph (1) in order to--
``(A) obtain information necessary to render a cable or
satellite service or other service provided by the cable
operator, satellite carrier, or distributor to the
subscriber; or
``(B) detect unauthorized reception of cable or satellite
communications.
``(c) Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor may not
disclose personally identifiable information concerning any
subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of
the subscriber and shall take such actions as are necessary
to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a
person other than the subscriber or the cable operator,
satellite carrier, or distributor.
``(2) Exceptions.--A cable operator, satellite carrier, or
distributor may disclose information described in paragraph
(1) if the disclosure is--
``(A) necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business
activity related to, a cable or satellite service or other
service provided by the cable operator, satellite carrier, or
distributor to the subscriber;
``(B) subject to paragraph (3), made pursuant to a court
order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is
notified of such order by the person to whom the order is
directed; or
``(C) a disclosure of the names and addresses of
subscribers to any other provider of cable or satellite
service or other service, if--
``(i) the cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor
has provided the subscriber the opportunity to prohibit or
limit such disclosure; and
``(ii) the disclosure does not reveal, directly or
indirectly--
``(I) the extent of any viewing or other use by the
subscriber of a cable or satellite service or other service
provided by the cable operator, satellite carrier, or
distributor; or
``(II) the nature of any transaction made by the subscriber
over the cable or satellite system of the cable operator,
satellite carrier, or distributor.
``(3) Court orders.--A governmental entity may obtain
personally identifiable information concerning a cable or
satellite subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in
the court proceeding relevant to such court order--
``(A) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that
the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of
engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought
would be material evidence in the case; and
``(B) the subject of the information is afforded the
opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.
``(d) Subscriber Access to Information.--A cable or
satellite subscriber shall be provided access to all
personally identifiable information regarding that subscriber
that is collected and maintained by a cable operator,
satellite carrier, or distributor. Such information shall be
made available to the subscriber at reasonable times and at a
convenient place designated by such cable operator, satellite
carrier, or distributor. A cable or satellite subscriber
shall be provided reasonable opportunity to correct any error
in such information.
``(e) Destruction of Information.--A cable operator,
satellite carrier, or distributor shall destroy personally
identifiable information if the information is no longer
necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and
there are no pending requests or orders for access to such
information under subsection (d) or pursuant to a court
order.
``(f) Relief.--
``(1) In general.--Any person aggrieved by any act of a
cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor in
violation of this section may bring a civil action in a
district court of the United States.
``(2) Damages and costs.--In any action brought under
paragraph (1), the court may award a prevailing plaintiff--
``(A) actual damages but not less than liquidated damages
computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation
or $1,000, whichever is greater;
``(B) punitive damages; and
``(C) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs
reasonably incurred.
``(3) No effect on other remedies.--The remedy provided by
this subsection shall be in addition to any other remedy
available under any provision of law to a cable or satellite
subscriber.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Distributor.--The term `distributor' means an entity
that contracts to distribute secondary transmissions from a
satellite carrier and, either as a single channel or in a
package with other programming, provides the secondary
transmission either directly to individual subscribers for
private home viewing or indirectly through other program
distribution entities.
``(2) Cable operator.--
``(A) In general.--The term `cable operator' has the
meaning given that term in section 602.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term includes any person who--
``(i) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership
or control with, a cable operator; and
``(ii) provides any wire or radio communications service.
``(3) Other service.--The term `other service' includes any
wire, electronic, or radio communications service provided
using any of the facilities of a cable operator, satellite
carrier, or distributor that are used in the provision of
cable service or satellite home viewing service.
``(4) Personally identifiable information.--The term
`personally identifiable information' does not include any
record of aggregate data that does not identify particular
persons.
[[Page S4307]]
``(5) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier'
means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or
satellite service licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission and operates in the Fixed-Satellite Service under
part 25 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations or the
Direct Broadcast Satellite Service under part 100 of title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulations, to establish and operate
a channel of communications for point-to-multipoint
distribution of television station signals, and that owns or
leases a capacity or service on a satellite in order to
provide such point-to-multipoint distribution, except to the
extent that such entity provides such distribution pursuant
to tariff under the Communications Act of 1934, other than
for private home viewing.''.
(b) Notice With Respect to Certain Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor who has
entered into agreements referred to in section 631(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended by subsection (a),
before the date of enactment of this Act, shall provide any
notice required under that section, as so amended, to
subscribers under such agreements not later than 180 days
after that date.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
to any agreement under which a cable operator, satellite
carrier, or distributor was providing notice under section
631(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect on the
day before the date of enactment of this Act, as of such
date.
SEC. 402. CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION.
Section 222 (c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 222 (c)(1)) is amended by striking ``approval'' and
inserting ``express prior authorization''.
TITLE V--RULEMAKING AND STUDIES
SEC. 501. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION EXAMINATION.
(a) Proceeding Required.--The Federal Trade Commission
shall--
(1) study consumer privacy issues in the traditional,
offline marketplace, including whether--
(A) consumers are able, and, if not, the methods by which
consumers may be enabled--
(i) to have knowledge that consumer information is being
collected about them through their utilization of various
offline services and systems;
(ii) to have clear and conspicuous notice that such
information could be used, or is intended to be used, by the
entity collecting the data for reasons unrelated to the
original communications, or that such information could be
sold, rented, shared, or otherwise disclosed (or is intended
to be sold rented, shared, or otherwise disclosed) to other
companies or entities; and
(iii) to stop the reuse, disclosure, or sale of that
information;
(B) in the case of consumers who are children, the
abilities described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of
subparagraph (A) are or can be exercised by their parents;
and
(C) changes in the Commission's regulations could provide
greater assurance of the offline privacy rights and remedies
of parents and consumers generally;
(2) review responses and suggestions from affected
commercial and nonprofit entities to changes proposed under
paragraph (1)(C); and
(3) make recommendations to the Congress for any
legislative changes necessary to ensure such rights and
remedies.
(b) Schedule for Federal Trade Commission Responses.--The
Federal Trade Commission shall, within 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a report
containing the recommendations required by subsection (a)(3).
SEC. 502. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULEMAKING.
(a) Proceeding Required.--The Federal Communications
Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
establish uniform consumer privacy rules for all
communications providers. The rulemaking proceeding shall--
(1) examine the privacy rights and remedies of the
consumers of all online and offline technologies, including
telecommunications providers, cable, broadcast, satellite,
wireless, and telephony services;
(2) determine whether consumers are able, and, if not, the
methods by which consumers may be enabled to exercise such
rights and remedies; and
(3) change the Commission's regulations to coordinate,
rationalize, and harmonize laws and regulations administered
by the Commission that relate to those rights and remedies.
(b) Deadline for Changes.--The Federal Communications
Commission shall complete the rulemaking within 6 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 503. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR STUDY OF EMPLOYEE-MONITORING
ACTIVITIES.
The Secretary of Labor shall study the extent and nature of
employer practices that involving monitoring employee
activities both at the workplace and away from the workplace,
by electronic or other remote means, including surveillance
of electronic mail and Internet use, to determine whether and
to what extent such practices constitute an inappropriate
violation of employee privacy. The Secretary shall report the
results of the study, including findings and recommendations,
if any, for legislation or regulation to the Congress within
6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE VI--PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION IN
BANKRUPTCY
SEC. 601. PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION NOT ASSET IN
BANKRUPTCY.
Section 541(b) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(4)(B)(ii);
(2) by striking ``prohibition.'' in paragraph (5) and
inserting ``prohibition; or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) any personally identifiable information (as defined
in section 901(6) of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act), or
any compilation, or record (in electronic or any other form)
of such information.''.
TITLE VII--INTERNET SECURITY INITIATIVES
SEC. 701. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Good computer security practices are an underpinning of
any privacy protection. The operator of a computer system
should protect that system from unauthorized use and secure
any private, personal information.
(2) The Federal Government should be a role model in
securing its computer systems and should ensure the
protection of private, personal information controlled by
Federal agencies.
(3) The National Institute of Standards and Technology has
the responsibility for developing standards and guidelines
needed to ensure the cost-effective security and privacy of
private, personal information in Federal computer systems.
(4) This Nation faces a shortage of trained, qualified
information technology workers, including computer security
professionals. As the demand for information technology
workers grows, the Federal government will have an
increasingly difficult time attracting such workers into the
Federal workforce.
(5) Some commercial off-the-shelf hardware and off-the-
shelf software components to protect computer systems are
widely available. There is still a need for long-term
computer security research, particularly in the area of
infrastructure protection.
(6) The Nation's information infrastructures are owned, for
the most part, by the private sector, and partnerships and
cooperation will be needed for the security of these
infrastructures.
(7) There is little financial incentive for private
companies to enhance the security of the Internet and other
infrastructures as a whole. The Federal government will need
to make investments in this area to address issues and
concerns not addressed by the private sector.
SEC. 702. COMPUTER SECURITY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with the President's Information Technology
Advisory Committee established by Executive Order No. 13035
of February 11, 1997 (62 F.R. 7231), shall establish a 25-
member Computer Security Partnership Council.
(b) Chairman; Membership.--The Council shall have a
chairman, appointed by the Secretary, and 24 additional
members, appointed by the Secretary as follows:
(1) 5 members, who are not officers or employees of the
United States, who are recognized as leaders in the
networking and computer security business, at least 1 of whom
represents a small or medium-sized company.
(2) 5 members, who are--
(A) not officers or employees of the United States, and
(B) not in the networking and computer security business,
at least 1 of whom represents a small or medium-sized
company.
(3) 5 members, who are not officers or employees of the
United States, who represent public interest groups or State
or local governments, of whom at least 2 represent such
groups and at least 2 represent such governments.
(4) 5 members, who are not officers or employees of the
United States, affiliated with a college, university, or
other academic, research-oriented, or public policy
institution, with recognized expertise in the field of
networking and computer security, whose primary source of
employment is by that college, university, or other
institution rather than a business organization involved in
the networking and computer security business.
(5) 4 members, who are officers or employees of the United
States, with recognized expertise in computer systems
management, including computer and network security.
(c) Function.--The Council shall collect and share
information about, and increase public awareness of,
information security practices and programs, threats to
information security, and responses to those threats.
(d) Study.--Within 12 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Council shall publish a report which evaluates
and describes areas of computer security research and
development that are not adequately developed or funded.
(e) Additional Recommendations.--The Council shall
periodically make recommendations to appropriate government
and private sector entities for enhancing the security of
networked computers operated or maintained by those entities.
[[Page S4308]]
SEC. 703. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Research and Development of Protection
Technologies.--
``(1) In general.--The Institute shall establish a program
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to
conduct, or to fund the conduct of, research and development
of technology and techniques to provide security for advanced
communications and computing systems and networks including
the Next Generation Internet, the underlying structure of the
Internet, and networked computers.
``(2) Purpose.--A purpose of the program established under
paragraph (1) is to address issues or problems that are not
addressed by market-driven, private-sector information
security research. This may include research--
``(A) to identify Internet security problems which are not
adequately addressed by current security technologies;
``(B) to develop interactive tools to analyze security
risks in an easy-to-understand manner;
``(C) to enhance the security and reliability of the
underlying Internet infrastructure while minimizing any
adverse operational impacts such as speed; and
``(D) to allow networks to become self-healing and provide
for better analysis of the state of Internet and
infrastructure operations and security.
``(3) Matching grants.--A grant awarded by the Institute
under the program established under paragraph (1) to a
commercial enterprise may not exceed 50 percent of the cost
of the project to be funded by the grant.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Institute to carry out
this subsection--
``(A) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(C) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(D) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(E) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(F) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
SEC. 704. COMPUTER SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, shall establish a program
to support the training of individuals in computer security,
Internet security, and related fields at institutions of
higher education located in the United States.
(b) Support Authorized.--Under the program established
under subsection (a), the Secretary may provide scholarships,
loans, and other forms of financial aid to students at
institutions of higher education. The Secretary shall require
a recipient of a scholarship under this program to provide a
reasonable period of service as an employee of the United
States government after graduation as a condition of the
scholarship, and may authorize full or partial forgiveness of
indebtedness for loans made under this program in exchange
for periods of employment by the United States government.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this section--
(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(C) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(E) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(F) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
SEC. 705. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SECURITY STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Section 20(b) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(4);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) to provide guidance and assistance to Federal
agencies in the protection of interconnected computer systems
and to coordinate Federal response efforts related to
unauthorized access to Federal computer systems; and''.
(b) Federal Computer System Security Training.--Section
5(b) of the Computer Security Act of 1987 (49 U.S.C. 759
note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) to include emphasis on protecting the availability of
Federal electronic citizen services and protecting sensitive
information in Federal databases and Federal computer sites
that are accessible through public networks.''.
SEC. 706. RECOGNITION OF QUALITY IN COMPUTER SECURITY
PRACTICES.
Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3), as amended by section 703,
is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c), the following:
``(d) Award Program.--The Institute may establish a program
for the recognition of excellence in Federal computer system
security practices, including the development of a seal,
symbol, mark, or logo that could be displayed on the website
maintained by the operator of such a system recognized under
the program. In order to be recognized under the program, the
operator--
``(1) shall have implemented exemplary processes for the
protection of its systems and the information stored on that
system;
``(2) shall have met any standard established under
subsection (a);
``(3) shall have a process in place for updating the system
security procedures; and
``(4) shall meet such other criteria as the Institute may
require.''.
SEC. 707. DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATED PRIVACY CONTROLS.
Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3), as amended by section 706,
is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Development of Internet Privacy Program.--The
Institute shall encourage and support the development of one
or more computer programs, protocols, or other software, such
as the World Wide Web Consortium's P3P program, capable of
being installed on computers, or computer networks, with
Internet access that would reflect the user's preferences for
protecting personally-identifiable or other sensitive,
privacy-related information, and automatically execute the
program, once activated, without requiring user
intervention.''.
TITLE VIII--CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATION SECURITY STANDARDS.
SEC. 801. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWER.
This title is enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such it
is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively,
but applicable only with respect to that House; and it
supersedes other rules only to the extent that it are
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to that
House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent
as in the case of any other rule of that House.
SEC. 802. SENATE.
(a) In General.--The Sergeant at Arms of the United States
Senate shall develop regulations setting forth an information
security and electronic privacy policy governing use of the
Internet by officers and employees of the Senate in
accordance with the following 4 principles of privacy:
(1) Notice and awareness.--Websites must provide users
notice of their information practices.
(2) Choices and consent.--Websites must offer users choices
as to how personally identifiable information is used beyond
the use for which the information was provided.
(3) Access and participation.--Websites must offer users
reasonable access to personally identifiable information and
an opportunity to correct inaccuracies.
(4) Security and integrity.--Websites must take reasonable
steps to protect the security and integrity of personally
identifiable information.
(b) Procedure.--
(1) Proposal.--The Sergeant at Arms shall publish a general
notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553(b) of title
5, United States Code, but, instead of publication of a
general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register, the Sergeant at Arms shall transmit such notice to
the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in
the Congressional Record on the first day on which the Senate
is in session following such transmittal. Such notice shall
set forth the recommendations of the Sergeant at Arms for
regulations under subsection (a).
(2) Comment.--Before adopting regulations, the Sergeant at
Arms shall provide a comment period of at least 30 days after
publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking.
(3) Adoption.--After considering comments, the Sergeant at
Arms shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of
such action together with a copy of such regulations to the
President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the
Congressional Record on the first day on which the Senate is
in session following such transmittal.
(c) Approval of Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The regulations adopted by the Sergeant at
Arms may be approved by the Senate by resolution.
(2) Referral.--Upon receipt of a notice of adoption of
regulations under subsection (b)(3), the presiding officers
of the Senate shall refer such notice, together with a copy
of such regulations, to the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate. The purpose of the referral
shall be to consider whether such regulations should be
approved.
(3) Joint referral and discharge.--The presiding officer of
the Senate may refer the notice of issuance of regulations,
or any resolution of approval of regulations, to one
committee or jointly to more than one committee. If a
committee of the Senate acts to
[[Page S4309]]
report a jointly referred measure, any other committee of the
Senate must act within 30 calendar days of continuous
session, or be automatically discharged.
(4) Resolution of approval.--In the case of a resolution of
the Senate, the matter after the resolving clause shall be
the following: ``the following regulations issued by the
Sergeant at Arms on ---------- ----, 2------ are hereby
approved:'' (the blank spaces being appropriately filled in
and the text of the regulations being set forth).
(d) Issuance and Effective Date.--
(1) Publication.--After approval of the regulations under
subsection (c), the Sergeant at Arms shall submit the
regulations to the President pro tempore of the Senate for
publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on
which the Senate is in session following such transmittal.
(2) Date of issuance.--The date of issuance of the
regulations shall be the date on which they are published in
the Congressional Record under paragraph (1).
(3) Effective date.--The regulations shall become effective
not less than 60 days after the regulations are issued,
except that the Sergeant at Arms may provide for an earlier
effective date for good cause found (within the meaning of
section 553(d)(3) of title 5, United States Code) and
published with the regulation.
(e) Amendment of Regulations.--Regulations may be amended
in the same manner as is described in this section for the
adoption, approval, and issuance of regulations, except that
the Sergeant at Arms may dispense with publication of a
general notice of proposed rulemaking of minor, technical, or
urgent amendments that satisfy the criteria for dispensing
with publication of such notice pursuant to section 553(b)(B)
of title 5, United States Code.
(f) Right to Petition for Rulemaking.--Any interested party
may petition to the Sergeant at Arms for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a regulation.
TITLE IX--DEFINITIONS
SEC. 901. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Operator of a commercial website.--The term ``operator
of a commercial website''--
(A) means any person who operates a website located on the
Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains
personal information from or about the users of or visitors
to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such
information is collected or maintained, where such website or
online service is operated for commercial purposes, including
any person offering products or services for sale through
that website or online service, involving commerce--
(i) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign
nations;
(ii) in any territory of the United States or in the
District of Columbia, or between any such territory and--
(I) another such territory; or
(II) any State or foreign nation; or
(iii) between the District of Columbia and any State,
territory, or foreign nation; but
(B) does not include any nonprofit entity that would
otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(2) Disclose.--The term ``disclose'' means the release of
personally identifiable information about a user of an
Internet service, online service, or commercial website by an
Internet service provider, online service provider, or
operator of a commercial website for any purpose, except
where such information is provided to a person who provides
support for the internal operations of the service or website
and who does not disclose or use that information for any
other purpose.
(3) Release.--The term ``release of personally identifiable
information'' means the direct or indirect, active or
passive, sharing, selling, renting, or other provision of
personally identifiable information of a user of an Internet
service, online service, or commercial website to any other
person other than the user.
(4) Internal operations support.--The term ``support for
the internal operations of a service or website'' means any
activity necessary to maintain the technical functionality of
that service or website.
(5) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of
personally identifiable information about a user of an
Internal service, online service, or commercial website by or
on behalf of the provider or operator of that service or
website by any means, direct or indirect, active or passive,
including--
(A) an online request for such information by the provider
or operator, regardless of how the information is transmitted
to the provider or operator;
(B) the use of a chat room, message board, or other online
service to gather the information; or
(C) tracking or use of any identifying code linked to a
user of such a service or website, including the use of
cookies.
(3) Cookie.--The term ``cookie'' means any program,
function, or device, commonly known as a ``cookie'', that
makes a record on the user's computer (or other electronic
device) of that user's access to an Internet service, online
service, or commercial website.
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5,
United States Code.
(5) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means collectively the
myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities,
including equipment and operating software, which comprise
the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ
the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any
predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to
communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
(6) Personally identifiable information.--The term
``personally identifiable information'' means individually
identifiable information about an individual collected
online, including--
(A) a first and last name, whether given at birth or
adoption, assumed, or legally changed;
(B) a home or other physical address including street name
and name of a city or town;
(C) an e-mail address;
(D) a telephone number;
(E) a Social Security number;
(F) a credit card number;
(G) a birth date, birth certificate number, or place of
birth;
(H) any other identifier that the Commission determines
permits the physical or online contacting of a specific
individual; or
(I) unique identifying information that an Internet service
provider, online service provider, or operator of a
commercial website collects and combines with an identifier
described in this paragraph.
(7) Internet service provider; online service provider;
website.--The Commission shall by rule define the terms
``Internet service provider'', ``online service provider'',
and ``website'', and shall revise or amend such rule to take
into account changes in technology, practice, or procedure
with respect to the collection of personal information over
the Internet.
(8) Offline.--The term ``offline'' refers to any activity
regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United
States Code, that occurs other than by or through the active
or passive use of an Internet connection, regardless of the
medium by or through which that connection is established.
(9) Online.--The term ``online'' refers to any activity
regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United
States Code, that is effected by active or passive use of an
Internet connection, regardless of the medium by or through
which that connection is established.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Big Browser is watching you. Almost every
time, you or I or an American consumer surfs the Internet, someone is
tracking our movements. And someone is compiling a databank of
information about our preferences and could even be profiling us.
Maybe they're doing it to make our experience better. Most of the
time, they probably are. But too often we are being profiled for
profit, and at the expense of privacy.
I am proud to co-sponsor Senator Hollings' legislation, the Consumer
Privacy Protection Act, that would help consumers gain control of their
most personal information. I believe that the measure we introduce
today is a step in the right direction. It strikes the right balance.
Privacy is protected, while critical elements of the information
revolution are preserved. Consumer confidence in the Internet is
bolstered, while businesses will not be overburdened by the
requirements.
We can enjoy the convenience of online shopping and allow e-commerce
to thrive without putting profits over privacy. Consumers, not dot.com
companies, should control the use of confidential information about
buying habits, credit card records and other personal information.
Mr. President, the time to act is now. If not, we may wake up one day
to find our privacy so thoroughly eroded that recovering it will be
almost impossible.
No one denies that the rapid development of modern technology has
been beneficial. New and improved technologies have enabled us to
obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. Students
can participate in classes that are being taught in other states, or
even in other countries. Almost no product or piece of information is
beyond the reach of Americans anymore. A farmer in Sampson County,
North Carolina can go on the Internet and compare prices for anything
he needs to run his business. Or he can look up critical weather
information on the Internet. Or he can just order a hard-to-get book.
Meanwhile, companies have streamlined their processes for providing
goods and services.
But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They
have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and
financial records and buying habits. They have made it profitable to do
so. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information private
is being eaten away.
[[Page S4310]]
The impact of this erosion ranges from the merely annoying--having
your mailbox flooded with junkmail--to the actually frightening--having
your identity stolen or being turned down for a loan because your bank
got copies of your medical records. There are thousands of ways that
the loss of our privacy can impact us. Many of them are intangible--
just the discomfort of knowing that complete strangers can find out
everything about you: where you shop, what books you buy, whether you
have allergies, and what your credit rating is. These strangers may not
do anything bad with the information, but they know all about you. I
think privacy is a value per se. Our founding fathers recognized it,
and so too do most Americans.
``Liberty in the constitutional sense,'' wrote Justice William O.
Douglas, ``must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental
restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository
of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all
freedom.''
Recent surveys indicate that the American public is increasingly
uneasy about the degradation of their privacy. In a recent Business
Week poll, 92 percent of Internet users expressed discomfort about Web
sites sharing personal information with other sites. Meanwhile, an FTC
report issued yesterday indicated that only 42 percent of the most
popular Internet sites comply with the four key fair information
practices--notice about what data is collected, consumer choice about
whether the data will be shared with third-parties, consumer access to
the data, and security regarding the transmission of data.
We must be vigilant that our privacy does not become a commodity to
be bought and sold.
I would also like to point out one area of privacy protection that I
have been deeply interested in. Last November, I introduced the
Telephone Call Privacy Act. My bill would prevent telecommunications
companies from using an individual's personal phone call records
without their consent. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that
the law does not protect them from having their phone records sold to
third parties. Imagine getting a call one night--during dinner--and
having a telemarketer try to sell you membership in a travel club
because your phone calling patterns show frequent calls overseas. My
legislation would prevent this from occurring without the individuals's
permission.
This measure we introduce today also contains a provision relating to
telephone privacy. It differs in at least one key respect from the
legislation I previously introduced, but my hope is that as we discuss
this issue over time, the differences will be resolved.
Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Senators Hollings and
Leahy for their leadership on this vital issue. Senator Hollings has
crafted the comprehensive and thoughtful proposal that we introduce
today. Senator Leahy has led a coalition of Senators interested in this
issue. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues in
passing this measure.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the information highway began just a few
years ago as a footpath and is now an unlimited lane expressway with no
rush hour. People can now use the Internet to shop at virtual stores
located thousands of miles away, find turn-by-turn directions to far
away destinations and journey to hamlets, cities and states across the
country--and indeed around the world--without ever leaving home.
While the virtual world is available to us with a few key strokes and
mouse clicks, there is one area of the Internet that many are finding
troublesome. It is the collection and use of personnel data. All too
often web surfers are providing personal information about themselves
at the websites they visit, without their knowledge and consent. There
is so much information being collected every day that it would take a
building the size of the Library of Congress to store it all in. That
is a lot of information, much of which is very personal and I believe
it must be kept that way.
Concern about one's privacy on the Internet is keeping people from
fully enjoying this marvelous technology. According to a recent survey
by the Center for Democracy & Technology, consumers' most pressing
privacy issues are the sale of personal information and tracking
people's use of the Web. In another recent survey, 66.7 percent of
online ``window shoppers'' state that assurances of privacy will be the
basis for their making online purchases. These surveys make the same
point that was made when credit cards were first introduced to the
American public. Back then, credit cards did not initially enjoy
widespread usage because of a fear that others could misuse the card.
From these studies' findings it can be reasoned that the Internet is
experiencing the same effects because of privacy concerns. These
concerns are translating into lost opportunity, for consumers as well
as electronic businesses.
Most of the Dot Com companies doing business over the Internet today
are very cognizant of the fact that privacy is a major concern for
their customers. Many of these firms allow visitors to their web site
to ``opt out,'' or elect not to provide data they consider private and
do not wish to give. A Federal Trade Commission May 2000 Report to
Congress found that 92 percent of a random sampling of websites were
collecting great amounts of personal information from consumers and
only 14% disclosed anything about how the information would be used.
More interesting in this report was the finding that a mere 41% of the
randomly selected websites notified the visitor of their information
practices and offered the visitor choices on how their personal
identifying information would be used. These report findings seem to
suggest that industry efforts by themselves are not sufficient to
control the gathering and dissemination of personal data.
There are some Dot Coms that are not concerned about the privacy of
their customers. These firms are successfully collecting enormous
amounts of data about a person and in turn sell it to others or use it
to intensify the advertising aimed at that person. At one website
visit, a company can collect some very interesting facts about the
person who is on the other end. While surfing the web the other day, I
hit on a website that was designed to provide me with information about
my PC. The report the site provided opened my eyes about the types of
information that could be obtained from a website visitor in less one
minute. In this small amount of time it could tell what other sites I
had visited, what sites I would likely visit in the future, what plug-
ins are installed on my PC, how my domain is configured and a whole lot
more information that I did not understand. Many consider this type of
tracking capability akin to stalking. I believe that the information
that can be collected by website administrators can create problems for
people through a violation of trust and an invasion of privacy. Novice
Internet users are generally unaware, as I was until visiting this
site, of the extent of the information being collected on them. Even
those who are aware of the capabilities of firms to collect private
data are frightened by what can happen with the information once it is
collected.
I am proud to be cosponsoring the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of
2000 that was introduced today by Senator Hollings. This Act will
legitimize the practices currently being used by many reputable firms
who are collecting private data. Does it seem unreasonable that firms
collecting private data should notify consumers of the firm's
information practices, offer the consumer choices on how the personal
information will be used, allow consumers to access the information
that is collected on them and require the firms to take reasonable
steps to protect the security of the information that is collected? I
think not. Firms like Georgia-based VerticalOne are already performing
under standards very similar to these. I believe that all firms should
be held to the same standard and that a level playing field should be
established for every firm that is collecting data. Taking these
actions will translate into greater consumer confidence in the
Internet.
Increasing the level of protection for private information to a level
that the people of our nation can live with should be a welcome relief
to those firms already providing fair privacy treatment of their site
visitors. This Act certainly will be a relief to the people who are
visiting their sites.
[[Page S4311]]
Passing this Consumer Privacy Protection Act will help prevent
confusion by establishing a common set of standards for all firms to
follow and all Americans to enjoy.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2607. A bill to promote pain management and palliative care
without permitting assisted suicide euthanasia, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Pain Relief Promotion Act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
which was actually authored by Senators Nickles and Hatch, and which
they have entitled the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' Their bill which
I am now introducing is identical to H.R. 2260 as reported out of the
Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2000, as amended. Today, it has been
referred by the Senate Parliamentarian to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
While I remain steadfastly opposed to the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act
of 2000,'' I am introducing this bill for one reason: to call the
Senate's attention to the fact that a far-reaching health policy bill--
which many experts believe has the potential to sentence millions of
sick and dying patients across the nation to needless pain and
suffering--was mistakenly referred to a committee with insufficient
health policy resources and no health policy jurisdiction. It is that
bill which the Judiciary Committee reported and which, without
consideration by the committee with health expertise, the Republican
leadership wants to bring to the floor. The unintended consequence of
this could be the tragic decline of the quality of pain care across our
nation.
Some historical context might help my colleagues and their staff
better understand how the Senate finds itself in this unfortunate
situation, and the important issues that are at stake. On two separate
occasions, the State of Oregon passed a ballot measure that would allow
terminally ill persons, with less than six months left to live, to
obtain a physician-assisted suicide if they met a variety of safeguard
requirements. As a private citizen, I voted twice with the minority of
my state in opposition to that measure.
In response to Oregon's vote, several of our congressional
colleagues, including Senator Nickles, Senator Lieberman, and
Congressman Henry Hyde, promptly undertook legislative and other
efforts to overturn Oregon's law. I do not, for the purposes of today,
debate the merits of the Oregon law, or the merits of physician-
assisted suicide, generally.
The original ``Pain Relief Promotion Act,'' S. 1272, was introduced
in the Senate by Senator Nickles, and referred to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) on June 23, 1999. That
committee held one inconclusive hearing on October 13, 1999, at which
time it was reported that Senators on both sides of the aisle wished to
investigate the matter more thoroughly before acting on the
legislation.
Then, on November 19, 1999, Bob Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian,
made what he termed ``a mistake'' when he referred H.R. 2260-- the
virtually identical House-passed version of the ``Pain Relief Promotion
Act''--to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Over the course of my service
in the Senate, I have come to know Mr. Dove to be a man of integrity
and fairness, and one of the most dedicated and enduring public
servants in Washington, D.C. When he discovered his mistake, to his
great credit, Mr. Dove did something all-too-rare in this town; he
simply acknowledged his error. According to an article by the
Associated Press on December 7, 1999, Mr. Dove stated plainly that he
had mistakenly referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee, instead of
the HELP Committee.
Lord knows I've made a few mistakes in my day, so I want to make
clear that I harbor nothing but respect for Mr. Dove, and that I do not
for one second question Mr. Dove's motives. But the mistake made on
November 19, 1999, if left uncorrected, threatens unspeakably negative
and long-lasting consequences for the future of health care in this
nation.
The jurisdiction of the HELP Committee over the ``Pain Relief
Promotion Act'' is clear. The Senate Manual describes the jurisdiction
of this committee as including ``measures relating to education, labor,
health, and public welfare''. The Senate Manual also describes the HELP
Committee as having jurisdiction over aging, biomedical research and
development, handicapped individuals, occupational safety and health,
and public health.
According to the Senate Manual, the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee includes bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, counterfeiting, civil
liberties, constitutional amendments, federal courts and judges,
government information, holidays and celebrations, immigration and
naturalization, interstate compacts generally, judicial proceedings,
local courts in territories and possessions, measures relating to
claims against the United States, national penitentiaries, patent
office, patents, copyrights trademarks, protection of trade and
commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies, revision and
codification of the statutes of the United States, and state and
territorial boundary lines.
The committee jurisdiction is not a close call, in this case. As the
Senate's leading expert on jurisdiction has now demonstrated, this bill
is fundamentally an issue of medical practice, which clearly is within
the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee.
Congress has heard conflicting messages from respected medical
experts on both sides of this debate about whether the ``Pain Relief
Promotion Act'' may, in fact, have a chilling effect on physicians'
pain management, thus actually increasing suffering at the end of life.
Under the legislation, federal, state, and local law enforcement could
receive training to begin scrutinizing physicians' end-of-life care.
Many believe that the legislation sends the wrong signal to physicians
and others caring for those who are dying, noting the disparity between
the $5 million allotted for training in palliative care and the $80
million potentially available for law enforcement activities.
In addition, there is considerable concern that this legislation puts
into statute perceptions about pain medication that the scientific
world has been trying to change. Physicians often believe that the
aggressive use of certain pain medications, such as morphine, will
hasten death. Recent scientific studies show this is not the case. Dr.
Kathleen M. Foley, Attending Neurologist in the Pain and Palliative
Care Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Professor of
Neurology, Neuroscience and Clinical Pharmacology at the Cornell
University, had this to say about the Nickles-Hatch legislation, ``In
short, the underpinnings of this legislation are not based on
scientific evidence. It would be unwise to institutionalize the myth
into law that pain medications hasten death.''
Renowned medical ethicist, and Director of the Center for Bioethics
at the University of Pennsylvania, Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., also
appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2000. He
testified that: ``Doctors and nurses may not always fully understand
what the law permits or does not, but when the issue requires an
assessment of intent in an area as fraught with nuances and pitfalls as
end of life care then I believe that this legislation will scare many
doctors and nurses and administrators into inaction in the face of
pain.''
Dr. Scott Fishman, the Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine and
Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of California
Davis School of Medicine wrote of the Hatch substitute: ``It is ironic
that the `Hatch substitute', which seeks to prevent physician assisted
suicide, will ultimately impair one of the truly effective counters to
physician assisted suicide, which is swift and effective pain
medicine.''
Dr. Foley, who also assisted the Institute of Medicine committee that
wrote the report ``Approaching Death,'' further testified that, ``The
Pain Relief Promotion Act, by expanding the authority of the Controlled
Substances Act, will disturb the balance that we have worked so hard to
create. Physician surveys by the New York State Department of Health
have shown that a strict regulatory environment negatively impacts
physician prescribing practices and leads them to intentionally
undertreat patients with pain
[[Page S4312]]
because of concern of regulatory oversight.''
The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized against these
legislative approaches to overturning Oregon's law out of concern for
its impacts on pain management nationwide, saying: ``Many doctors are
concerned about the scrutiny they invite when they prescribe or
administer controlled substances and they are hypersensitive to `drug-
seeking behavior' in patients. Patients, as well as doctors, often have
exaggerated fears of addiction and the side effects of narcotics.
Congress could make this bad situation worse.''
It is worth noting that many people and organizations with expertise
in pain management and palliative care are both opposed to physician
assisted suicide and opposed to the Nickles-Hatch bill. There are over
thirty organizations representing doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and
patients who oppose the legislation, including: American Academy of
Family Physicians; American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine,
American Academy of Pharmaceutical Physicians; American Geriatrics
Society; American Nurses Association; American Pain Foundation;
American Pharmaceutical Association; American Society for Action on
Pain; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; American Society
of Pain Management Nurses; College on Problems of Drug Dependence;
Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association; National Foundation for the
Treatment of Pain; Oncology Nursing Society; Society of General
Internal Medicine; Triumph over Pain Foundation; California Medical
Association; Massachusetts Medical Society; North Carolina Medical
Society; Oregon Medical Association; Rhode Island Medical Association;
San Francisco Medical Society; Indiana State Hospice and Palliative
Care Association; Hospice Federation of Massachusetts; Kansas
Association of Hospices; Maine Hospice Council; Maine Consortium of
Palliative Care and Hospice; Missouri Hospice and Palliative Care
Association; New Hampshire State Hospice Organization; New Jersey
Hospice and Palliative Care Organization; New York State Hospice
Organization; and, Oregon Hospice Association.
Physician-assisted suicide is not a cry for help from people
experiencing the failure of patents, copyrights and trademarks.
Physician-assisted suicide is a cry for help from people who, in many
cases, are experiencing a failure in the health system. And those
failures occur across our nation; not just in Oregon. In one study
reported in the August 12, 1998, issue of JAMA, over 15 percent of
oncologists admitted to participating in physician-assisted suicide or
euthanasia. The February 1997 New England Journal of Medicine published
a report finding that 53 percent of physicians in a large, San
Francisco-based AIDS treatment consortium admitted assisting in a
suicide at least once. Personally, I am troubled and saddened that so
many of our loved ones are so dissatisfied with their end-of-life
options that they seek physician-assisted suicide, instead.
Whether or not this Congress decides to overturn Oregon's law, I
believe it is critical that whatever we do must result in a reduced
demand for physician-assisted suicide, not only in Oregon, but across
our nation. Many reputable experts believe the ``Pain Relief Promotion
Act'' will cause physicians--far beyond Oregon's borders--to provide
less aggressive pain care to their suffering and dying patients. If
this occurs, not only will millions of our elderly and dying
constituents suffer needlessly, we may unwittingly increase the demand
for suicide at the end of life.
I urge my colleagues, regardless of where they stand on the issue of
Oregon's law, to join with me in supporting the restoration of the HELP
Committee's jurisdiction. It would be unconscionable for the Senate to
fail to correct an honest mistake that could contribute to a
devastatingly significant change in health policy. With so much at
stake, shouldn't we follow the regular order of the Senate? Shouldn't
we insist that the Senate's best qualified health policy experts fully
consider the complex policy implications before taking such an
extraordinary risk for our constituents, our friends, and our families?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2607
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) in the first decade of the new millennium there should
be a new emphasis on pain management and palliative care;
(2) the use of certain narcotics and other drugs or
substances with a potential for abuse is strictly regulated
under the Controlled Substances Act;
(3) the dispensing and distribution of certain controlled
substances by properly registered practitioners for
legitimate medical purposes are permitted under the
Controlled Substances Act and implementing regulations;
(4) the dispensing or distribution of certain controlled
substances for the purpose of relieving pain and discomfort
even if it increases the risk of death is a legitimate
medical purpose and is permissible under the Controlled
Substances Act;
(5) inadequate treatment of pain, especially for chronic
diseases and conditions, irreversible diseases such as
cancer, and end-of-life care, is a serious public health
problem affecting hundreds of thousands of patients every
year; physicians should not hesitate to dispense or
distribute controlled substances when medically indicated for
these conditions; and
(6) for the reasons set forth in section 101 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801), the dispensing and
distribution of controlled substances for any purpose affect
interstate commerce.
TITLE I--PROMOTING PAIN MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE
SEC. 101. ACTIVITIES OF AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND
QUALITY.
Part A of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 903. PROGRAM FOR PAIN MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE
RESEARCH AND QUALITY.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (e) and (f) of
section 902, the Director shall carry out a program to
accomplish the following:
``(1) Promote and advance scientific understanding of pain
management and palliative care.
``(2) Collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based
practices regarding pain management and palliative care, with
priority given to pain management for terminally ill
patients, and make such information available to public and
private health care programs and providers, health
professions schools, and hospices, and to the general public.
``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `pain
management and palliative care' means--
``(1) the active, total care of patients whose disease or
medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or
whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced
disease; and
``(2) the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management
of primary and secondary pain, whether acute, chronic,
persistent, intractable, or associated with the end of life;
the purpose of which is to diagnose and alleviate pain and
other distressing signs and symptoms and to enhance the
quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.''.
SEC. 102. ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Part D of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 754 through 757 as sections
755 through 758, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 753 the following:
``SEC. 754. PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PAIN
MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
may award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to
health professions schools, hospices, and other public and
private entities for the development and implementation of
programs to provide education and training to health care
professionals in pain management and palliative care.
``(b) Priority.--In making awards under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall give priority to awards for the
implementation of programs under such subsection.
``(c) Certain Topics.--An award may be made under
subsection (a) only if the applicant for the award agrees
that the program to be carried out with the award will
include information and education on--
``(1) means for diagnosing and alleviating pain and other
distressing signs and symptoms of patients, especially
terminally ill patients, including the medically appropriate
use of controlled substances;
``(2) applicable laws on controlled substances, including
laws permitting health care professionals to dispense or
administer controlled substances as needed to relieve
[[Page S4313]]
pain even in cases where such efforts may unintentionally
increase the risk of death; and
``(3) recent findings, developments, and improvements in
the provision of pain management and palliative care.
``(d) Program Sites.--Education and training under
subsection (a) may be provided at or through health
professions schools, residency training programs and other
graduate programs in the health professions, entities that
provide continuing medical education, hospices, and such
other programs or sites as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(e) Evaluation of Programs.--The Secretary shall
(directly or through grants or contracts) provide for the
evaluation of programs implemented under subsection (a) in
order to determine the effect of such programs on knowledge
and practice regarding pain management and palliative care.
``(f) Peer Review Groups.--In carrying out section 799(f)
with respect to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the membership of each peer review group involved includes
individuals with expertise and experience in pain management
and palliative care for the population of patients whose
needs are to be served by the program.
``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `pain
management and palliative care' means--
``(1) the active, total care of patients whose disease or
medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or
whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced
disease; and
``(2) the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management
of primary and secondary pain, whether acute, chronic,
persistent, intractable, or associated with the end of life;
the purpose of which is to diagnose and alleviate pain and
other distressing signs and symptoms and to enhance the
quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations; Allocation.--
(1) In general.--Section 758 of the Public Health Service
Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is
amended, in subsection (b)(1)(C), by striking ``sections 753,
754, and 755'' and inserting ``sections 753, 754, 755, and
756''.
(2) Amount.--With respect to section 758 of the Public
Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of
this section), the dollar amount specified in subsection
(b)(1)(C) of such section is deemed to be increased by
$5,000,000.
SEC. 103. DECADE OF PAIN CONTROL AND RESEARCH.
The calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001, is
designated as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research''.
SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES ACT
SEC. 201. REINFORCING EXISTING STANDARD FOR LEGITIMATE USE OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
(a) In General.--Section 303 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(i)(1) For purposes of this Act and any regulations to
implement this Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the
usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical
purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of
a controlled substance that is consistent with public health
and safety, even if the use of such a substance may increase
the risk of death. Nothing in this section authorizes
intentionally dispensing, distributing, or administering a
controlled substance for the purpose of causing death or
assisting another person in causing death.
``(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
in determining whether a registration is consistent with the
public interest under this Act, the Attorney General shall
give no force and effect to State law authorizing or
permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
``(B) Paragraph (2) applies only to conduct occurring after
the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
alter the roles of the Federal and State governments in
regulating the practice of medicine. Regardless of whether
the Attorney General determines pursuant to this section that
the registration of a practitioner is inconsistent with the
public interest, it remains solely within the discretion of
State authorities to determine whether action should be taken
with respect to the State professional license of the
practitioner or State prescribing privileges.
``(4) Nothing in the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000
(including the amendments made by such Act) shall be
construed--
``(A) to modify the Federal requirements that a controlled
substance be dispensed only for a legitimate medical purpose
pursuant to paragraph (1); or
``(B) to provide the Attorney General with the authority to
issue national standards for pain management and palliative
care clinical practice, research, or quality;
except that the Attorney General may take such other actions
as may be necessary to enforce this Act.''.
(b) Pain Relief.--Section 304(c) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) Before'' and inserting the following:
``(c) Procedures.--
``(1) Order to show cause.--Before''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Burden of proof.--At any proceeding under paragraph
(1), where the order to show cause is based on the alleged
intentions of the applicant or registrant to cause or assist
in causing death, and the practitioner claims a defense under
paragraph (1) of section 303(i), the Attorney General shall
have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the practitioner's intent was to dispense, distribute,
or administer a controlled substance for the purpose of
causing death or assisting another person in causing death.
In meeting such burden, it shall not be sufficient to prove
that the applicant or registrant knew that the use of
controlled substance may increase the risk of death.''.
SEC. 202. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Section 502(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
872(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) educational and training programs for Federal, State,
and local personnel, incorporating recommendations, subject
to the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of section 902
of the Public Health Service Act, by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, on the means by which investigation and
enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may better
accommodate the necessary and legitimate use of controlled
substances in pain management and palliative care.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the
roles of the Federal and State governments in regulating the
practice of medicine.''.
SEC. 203. FUNDING AUTHORITY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the operation
of the diversion control fee account program of the Drug
Enforcement Administration shall be construed to include
carrying out section 303(i) of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 823(i)), as added by this Act, and subsections
(a)(4) and (c)(2) of section 304 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 824), as amended by this Act.
SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Roth):
S. 2608. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the treatment of certain expenses of rural letter carriers; to the
Committee on Finance.
legislation regarding the taxation of rural letter carriers
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides
a vital and important communication link for the Nation and the
citizens of my state of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role
and have a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery
of our mail. Rural Carriers first delivered the mail with their own
horses and buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their
own vehicles. They are responsible for maintenance and operation of
their vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the
winter, snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting
snow and ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these
quite adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3
million miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000
routes.
Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the
horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has, as the
Nation's mail volume has continued to increase throughout the years,
the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion pieces of
mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces of mail a
day to about 500 addresses. Most recently, e-commerce has changed the
type of mail rural carriers deliver. This fact was confirmed in a
recent GAO study entitled ``U.S. Postal Service: Challenges to
Sustaining Performance Improvements Remain Formidable on the Brink of
the 21st Century,'' dated October 21, 1999. As this report explains,
the Postal Service expects declines in its core business, which is
essentially letter mail, in the coming years. The growth of e-mail on
the Internet, electronic communications, and electronic commerce has
the potential to substantially affect the Postal Service's mail volume.
First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal
Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters
will decline in the next few years. However, e-commerce is providing
the Postal Service with another opportunity to increase another part of
[[Page S4314]]
its business. That's because what individuals and companies order over
the Internet must be delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and
often by rural carriers. Currently, the Postal Service has about 33%
percent of the parcel business. Carriers are now delivering larger
volumes of business mail, parcels, and priority mail packages. But,
more parcel business will mean more cargo capacity will be necessary in
postal delivery vehicles, especially in those owned and operated by
rural letter carriers.
When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the
Internet, Rural Letter Carriers use vehicles they currently purchase,
operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from
the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment
Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognizes that providing a
personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use.
So, when a rural carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to
have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage,
extraordinary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right-
hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance
from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail
carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. That
provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was
involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to
compute their business use mileage deduction as 150% percent of the
standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative,
rural carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense
method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the
vehicle, plus depreciation). If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle
expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of
the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the
extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous
itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted
gross income.
The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns
of rural letter carriers. This act permits the EMA income and expenses
``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be
reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for
approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the
option of filing the actual expense method for employee business
vehicle expenses.
The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic changes the
Internet has and will have on the mail, specifically on rural carriers
and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress can and must
address.
The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has,
understandably, encouraged rural carriers to purchase larger right-hand
drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), to handle the
increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than
traditional vehicles, so without the ability to use the actual expense
method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their salaries to
cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed
11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers
receive no EMA.
These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the
historical congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the
government service of delivering mail, and also has created an
inequitable tax situation for rural carriers. If actual business
expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be
allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill today, along
with Senator Roth, that would reinstate the ability of a rural letter
carrier to choose between using the actual expense method for computing
the deduction allowable for business use of a vehicle, or using the
current practice of deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses.
Rural carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face many
changes and challenges in this new Internet era. Let us make sure that
these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they
perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate
of binding the Nation together.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roth and myself in supporting
this legislation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 2609. A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to enhance the
funds available for grants to States for fish and wildlife conservation
projects, and to increase opportunities for recreational hunting, bow
hunting, trapping, archery, and fishing, by eliminating chances for
waste, fraud, abuse, maladministration, and unauthorized expenditures
for administration and implementation of those acts, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2000
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation along with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, that
will eliminate government waste, conserve wildlife, and provide hunter
safety opportunities.
We are all familiar with the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
funds which impose an excise tax on firearms, archery equipment, and
fishing equipment to conserve wildlife and provide funds to states for
hunter safety programs. These funds were created decades ago with the
support of both the sportsmen who pay the tax and the states who
administer the projects.
The federal government collects the tax, which amounts to around
half-a-billion dollars a year, and is authorized to withhold a
percentage of the funds for administration of the program. This is how
it should be. However, thanks to the thorough oversight of the program
by Mr. Young of Alaska, Chairman of the House Committee on Resources,
it was uncovered that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency
charged with administering the program, abused the vagueness of the law
in exactly what constituted an administrative expense.
Under current law, the Service is authorized to withhold
approximately $32 million a year to administer the program and, quite
frankly, the law leaves it up to the Service as to what is an
appropriate administrative expense. Mr. Young discovered that the
Service was spending this money on expenses that were outside the
spirit of the law. These tax dollars paid by hunters and fishermen were
being used for everything from foreign travel to grants to anti-hunting
groups to endangered species programs that work against the interests
of hunters. In addition, they created unauthorized grant programs, some
of which have merit and are authorized in our bill, but all of which
were created outside of the law.
Mr. President, I am not going to rehash all of the hearings that were
held in the House on this issue. What I will say is that it was an
embarrassment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and, not until all
but two members of the House supported legislation to fix the problems
did the Service begin cooperating with Congress and admitting there
were actions at the Service which they are not proud of.
In response to the waste, fraud, and abuse uncovered by his
Committee, Mr. Young introduced legislation to fix the problems. His
legislation caps the administrative expenses at around half of the
currently authorized level, sets in stone what is an authorized
administrative expense, provides some specific money for hunter safety,
authorizes a multi-state grant program, and creates a position of
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs.
His bill, H.R. 3671, passed the House on April 5th with an overwhelming
vote of 423-2.
Mr. President, Senator Crapo and I have taken the lead of the House
by using their bill as a model and simply strengthened it for the
sportsmen who pay the excise tax. By providing more money, $15 million
per year, for hunter safety programs and providing a total of $7
million per year, $2 million more than the House, for the Multi-State
Conservation Grant Program, this bill ensures that the money that
sportsmen pay for wildlife conservation and hunter safety is actually
used for those purposes.
Mr. President, this is a win-win for everyone--for wildlife and for
tax payers--and I urge my colleagues to support it and work for its
quick enactment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife and
[[Page S4315]]
Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000 with my
colleague, Senator Larry Craig, to bring accountability back to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's administration of the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish
Restoration Act. For years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
apparently misused millions of dollars from these accounts, betraying
the trust of America's sportsman.
Congressional investigations and a General Accounting Office audit of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have revealed that, contrary to
existing law, money has been routinely diverted to administrative slush
funds, withheld from states, and generally misused for purposes
unrelated to either sportfishing or wildlife conservation. In addition,
the GAO called the Division of Federal Aid, ``if not the worst, one of
the worst-managed programs we have encountered.'' As an avid
outdoorsman, I am particularly disturbed by this abuse.
Since 1937, sportsman have willingly paid an excise tax on hunting,
and later fishing, equipment. These hunters, shooters, and anglers paid
this tax with the understanding that the money would be used for state
fish and wildlife conservation programs. This partnership has been
instrumental in providing generations of Americans a quality
recreational experience. Through the years, it has been an experience
that I have enjoyed with both my parents and my children.
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, commonly known as
the Pittman-Robertson Act, provides funding for wildlife habitat
restoration and improvement, wildlife management research, hunter
education, and public target ranges. Funds for the Pittman-Robertson
Act are derived from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms,
ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns.
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program, often referred to
as the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux Acts, is funded through a 10
percent excise tax on fishing equipment and a 3 percent tax on electric
trolling motors, sonor fish finders, taxes on motorboat fuels, and
import duties on fishing and pleasure boats. Through the cost
reimbursement program, states use these funds to enhance sport fishing.
These enhancements come through fish stocking, acquisition and
improvement of habitat educational programs, and development of
recreational facilities that directly support sport fishing, such as
boat ramps and fishing piers.
Under the law, revenue from these taxes are expected to be returned
to state and local fish and game organizations for programs to manage
and enhance sport fish and game species. The Fish and Wildlife Service
is supposed to deduct only the cost of administering the programs, up
to 8 percent of Pittman-Robertson revenues and 6 percent of Dingell-
Johnson funds.
Unfortunatly, these funds have been misdirected and misused by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Through their investment in the Federal Aid
program, America's hunters and fisherman have proved themselves to be
our nation's true conservationists. Through its misuse of these funds,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has proven itself to be a negligent
steward of the public trust.
The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act,
would restore accountability to the administration of Federal Aid
funds. By limiting the amount of revenue that may be used on
administration, and the accounts that these funds may be used for, this
bill will reign in the opportunities for misuse by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Our legislation will also make legal a multi-state
conservation grant program to allow streamlined funding for projects
that involve multiple states. Additionally, the bill will increase
funding for firearm and bow hunter safety programs.
This bill seeks to re-establish a trust between the hunters and
anglers who pay the excise taxes and the federal government. It is an
opportunity to repair a system that has been lauded as one of the
nation's most successful conservation efforts. I hope my colleagues
will join with us in a bipartisan effort to restore accountability and
responsibility to the Federal Aid programs and the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Craig, and Mr.
Feingold):
S. 2610. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the provision of items and services provided to Medicare
beneficiaries residing in rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.
the medicare fairness in reimbursement act of 2000
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by
my colleagues, Senator Thomas, Senator Craig and Senator Feingold, to
introduce the ``Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000.'' This
legislation addresses the terrible unfairness that exists today in
Medicare payment policy.
According to the latest Medicare figures, Medicare payments per
beneficiary by state of residence ranged from slightly more than $3000
to well in excess of $6500. For example, in Iowa, the average Medicare
payment was $3456, nearly a third less than the national average of
$5,034. In Wyoming the situation is worse, with an average payment of
approximately $3200.
This payment inequity is unfair to seniors in Iowa and Wyoming, and
it is unfair to rural beneficiaries everywhere. The citizens of my home
state pay the same Medicare payroll taxes required of every American
taxpayer. Yet they get dramatically less in return.
Ironically, rural citizens are not penalized by the Medicare program
because they practice inefficient, high cost medicine. The opposite is
true. The low payment rates received in rural areas are in large part a
result of their historic conservative practice of health care. In the
early 1980's rural states' lower-than-average costs were used to
justify lower payment rates, and Medicare's payment policies since that
time have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost states.
Mr. President, late last year I wrote to the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) and I asked them a simple question. I asked their
actuaries to estimate for me the impact on Medicare's Trust Funds,
which at that time were scheduled to go bankrupt in 2015, if average
Medicare payments to all states were the same as Iowa's.
I've always thought Iowa's reimbursement level was low. But HCFA's
answer suprised even me. The actuaries found that if all states were
reimbursed at the same rate as Iowa, Medicare would be solvent for at
least 75 years, 60 years beyond their projections.
I'm not suggesting that all states should be brought down to Iowa's
level. But there is no question that the long-term solvency of the
Medicare program is of serious national concern. And as Congress
considers ways to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program, the
issue of unfair payment rates needs to be on the table.
The bill we are introducing today, the ``Medicare Fairness in
Reimbursement Act of 2000'' sends a clear signal. These historic wrongs
must be righted. Before any Medicare reform bill passes Congress, I
intend to make sure that rural beneficiaries are guaranteed access to
the same quality health care services of their urban counterparts.
Mr. President, our legislation does the following:
Requires HCFA to improve the fairness of payments under the original
Medicare fee-for-services system by adjusting payments for items and
services so that no state is greater than 105% above the national
average, and no state is below 95% of the national average. An
estimated 30 states would benefit under these adjustments, based on
1998 data from the Ways and Means Green Book.
Requires improvements in the collection and use of hospital wage data
by occupational category. Experts agree the current system of
collecting hospital data ``lowballs'' the payment received by rural
hospitals. Large urban hospitals are overcompensated today because they
have a much higher number of highly-paid specialists and sub-
specialists on their staff, while small rural hospitals tend to have
more generalists, who aren't as highly paid.
Ensures that beneficiaries are held harmless in both payments and
services.
Ensures budget neutrality.
Automatically results in adjustment of Medicare managed care payments
to reflect increased equity between rural and urban areas.
[[Page S4316]]
This legislation simply ensures basic fairness in our Medicare
payment policy. I urge my Senate colleagues, no matter what state
you're from, to consider our bill and join us in supporting this common
sense Medicare reform. Thank you.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2610
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Fairness in
Reimbursement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVING FAIRNESS OF PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE
FEE-FOR-SERVICE PROGRAM.
(a) Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
sections:
``improving fairness of payments under the original medicare fee-for-
service program
``Sec. 1897. (a) Establishment of System.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary shall establish a
system for making adjustments to the amount of payment made
to entities and individuals for items and services provided
under the original medicare fee-for-service program under
parts A and B.
``(b) System Requirements.--
``(1) Adjustments.--Under the system described in
subsection (a), the Secretary (beginning in 2001) shall make
the following adjustments:
``(A) Certain states above national average.--If a State
average per beneficiary amount for a year is greater than 105
percent (or 110 percent in the case of the determination made
in 2000) of the national average per beneficiary amount for
such year, then the Secretary shall reduce the amount of
applicable payments in such a manner as will result (as
estimated by the Secretary) in the State average per
beneficiary amount for the subsequent year being at 105
percent (or 110 percent in the case of payments made in 2001)
of the national average per beneficiary amount for such
subsequent year.
``(B) Certain states below national average.--If a State
average per beneficiary amount for a year is less than 95
percent (or 90 percent in the case of the determination made
in 2000) of the national average per beneficiary amount for
such year, then the Secretary shall increase the amount of
applicable payments in such a manner as will result (as
estimated by the Secretary) in the State average per
beneficiary amount for the subsequent year being at 95
percent (or 90 percent in the case of payments made in 2001)
of the national average per beneficiary amount for such
subsequent year.
``(2) Determination of averages.--
``(A) State average per beneficiary amount.--Each year
(beginning in 2000), the Secretary shall determine a State
average per beneficiary amount for each State which shall be
equal to the Secretary's estimate of the average amount of
expenditures under the original medicare fee-for-service
program under parts A and B for the year for a beneficiary
enrolled under such parts that resides in the State
``(B) National average per beneficiary amount.--Each year
(beginning in 2000), the Secretary shall determine the
national average per beneficiary amount which shall be equal
to the average of the State average per beneficiary amounts
determined under subparagraph (B) for the year.
``(3) Definitions.--In this section:
``(A) Applicable payments.--The term `applicable payments'
means payments made to entities and individuals for items and
services provided under the original medicare fee-for-service
program under parts A and B to beneficiaries enrolled under
such parts that reside in the State.
``(B) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given such
term in section 210(h).
``(c) Beneficiaries Held Harmless.--The provisions of this
section shall not effect--
``(1) the entitlement to items and services of a
beneficiary under this title, including the scope of such
items and services; or
``(2) any liability of the beneficiary with respect to such
items and services.
``(d) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section.
``(2) Protecting rural communities.--In promulgating the
regulations pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
give special consideration to rural areas.
``(e) Budget Neutrality.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the provisions contained in this section do not cause the
estimated amount of expenditures under this title for a year
to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of
expenditures under this title that would have been made in
such year if this section had not been enacted.
``improvements in collection and use of hospital wage data
``Sec. 1898. (a) Collection of Data.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
for improving the methods used by the Secretary to collect
data on employee compensation and paid hours of employment
for hospital employees by occupational category.
``(2) Timeframe.--The Secretary shall implement the
procedures described in paragraph (1) by not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of the Rural Health
Protection and Improvement Act of 2000.
``(b) Adjustment to Hospital Wage Level.--By not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of the Rural Health
Protection and Improvement Act of 2000, the Secretary shall
make necessary revisions to the methods used to adjust
payments to hospitals for different area wage levels under
section 1886(d)(3)(E) to ensure that such methods take into
account the data described in subsection (a)(1).
``(c) Limitation.--To the extent possible, in making the
revisions described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall
ensure that current rules regarding which hospital employees
are included in, or excluded from, the determination of the
hospital wage levels are not effected by such revisions.
``(d) Budget Neutrality.--The Secretary shall ensure that
any revisions made under subsection (b) do not cause the
estimated amount of expenditures under this title for a year
to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of
expenditures under this title that would have been made in
such year if the Secretary had not made such
revisions.''.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues
in introducing the ``Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000,''
which specifically addresses the current payment inequities of the
Medicare program. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Craig, and Mr. Feingold in crafting this bill for rural Medicare
beneficiaries.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services to establish a payment system for Medicare's Part A and B fee-
for-service programs that guarantees each state's average per
beneficiary amount is within 95 percent and 105 percent of the national
average. The reason for this seemingly drastic action is because the
current payment disparities between states is unacceptable. According
to 1998 data, Wyoming's per beneficiary spending is 36 percent below
the national average of $5,000 while some other states receive almost
36 percent above the national average.
Mr. President, I understand that there are some legitimate cost
differences among states in providing health care services to our
seniors, but I do not believe there is justification for an inequity of
this size. Seniors in Wyoming and other rural states have paid the same
Medicare tax over the years as beneficiaries residing in urban states.
However, the current Medicare payment system does not reflect the equal
contributions made by all seniors.
The other section of this legislation requires the Secretary to make
adjustments to the hospital wage index under the prospective payment
system after developing and implementing improved methods for
collecting the necessary hospital employee data.
I believe this legislation is an important piece of the overall
Medicare reform puzzle. I feel strongly that any final legislation
approved by the Senate to ensure Medicare is financially stable for
current and future generations must also ensure all beneficiaries are
treated fairly and equitably. Mr. President, the current system is not
only far from long-term solvency, it is far from fair, especially to
seniors living in rural states such as Wyoming.''
______
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 2611. A bill to provide trade adjustment assistance for certain
workers; to the Committee on Finance.
TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill
that will close a loop hole in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program
for employees of the Copper Range Company, formerly the White Pine
Company, a copper mine in White Pine, Michigan. My legislation will
extend TAA benefits to those employees who were responsible for
performing the environmental remediation that was required to close the
facility.
My legislation is needed because these employees were unfairly
excluded from the TAA certification that applied to other workers at
the facility simply because the service they provide, environmental
remediation, does not technically support the production of the article
that the mine produced: copper. My legislation simply extends TAA
coverage to those few workers
[[Page S4317]]
who remained at the facility with responsibility for the environmental
remediation necessary to close the facility.
The Copper Range Company received NAFTA-TAA certification in 1995
when it began closing down. The company was still in the process of
closing down in 1997 and received re-certification at that time. As of
the end of 1999, there were still workers at the plant engaged in the
final stages of closing down. Their work consisted of environmental
remediation. When the plant applied for re-certification in September
for purposes of covering these workers, the Department of Labor (DoL)
denied the request because DoL said that the remaining workers were not
performing a job ending because of transplant to another NAFTA country;
they were performing environmental remediation, not production of
copper.
Mr. President, this is an unfair catch-22 situation that must be
rectified legislatively. The legislation I am introducing today would
provide those few employees involved in the final stages of closing
down the mine with the same TAA benefits their co-workers received. The
total number of workers at issue is small and my legislative fix is
straightforward. I hope this legislation can be adopted quickly so that
these Michigan workers who have fallen through the cracks can access
the TAA benefits they rightfully deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2611
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) Certification of Eligibility for Workers Required for
Closure of Facility.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any decision by the Secretary of Labor denying
certification or eligibility for certification for adjustment
assistance under title II of the Trade Act of 1974, a
qualified worker described in paragraph (2) shall be
certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under such title II.
(2) Qualified worker.--For purposes of this subsection, a
``qualified worker'' means a worker who--
(A) was determined to be covered under Trade Adjustment
Assistance Certification TA-W-31,402; and
(B) was necessary for the environmental remediation or
closure of a copper mining facility.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Biden,
and Mr. Bayh):
S. 2612. A bill to combat Ecstasy trafficking, distribution, and
abuse in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
the ecstasy anti-proliferation act of 2000
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my
colleagues, to introduce the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000--
legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and
abuse of MDMA, a drug commonly known as Ecstasy.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy's Year 2000 Annual Report
on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of
Ecstasy is on the rise in the United States, particularly among
teenagers and young professionals. My state of Florida has been
particularly hard hit by this plague. Ecstasy is customarily sold and
consumed at ``raves,'' which are semi-clandestine, all-night parties
and concerts. Young Americans are lulled into a belief that Ecstasy,
and other designer drugs are ``safe'' ways to get high, escape reality,
and enhance intimacy in personal relationships. The drug traffickers
make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth.
Mr. President, I want to be perfectly clear in stating that Ecstasy
is an extremely dangerous drug. In my state alone, 189 deaths have been
attributed to the use of club drugs in the last three years. In 33 of
those deaths, Ecstasy was the most prevalent drug, of several, in the
individual's system. Seven deaths were caused by Ecstasy alone. In the
first four months of this year there have already been six deaths
directly attributed to Ecstasy. This drug is a definite killer.
Numerous data also reflect the increasing availability of Ecstasy in
metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In a speech to the
Federal Law Enforcement Foundation earlier this year, Customs
Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated that in the first few months of
fiscal year 2000, the Customs Service had already seized over four
million Ecstasy tablets. He estimates that the number will grow to at
least eight million tablets by the end of the year which represents a
substantial increase from the 500,000 tablets seized in fiscal year
1997.
The lucrative nature of Ecstasy encourages its importation.
Production costs are as low as two to twenty-five cents per dose while
retail prices in the U.S. range from twenty dollars to forty-five
dollars per dose. Manufactured mostly in Europe--in nations such as The
Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain where pill presses are not controlled
as they are in the U.S.--Ecstasy has erased all of the old routes law
enforcement has mapped out for the smuggling of traditional drugs.
Under current federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is
equivalent to only 35 grams of marijuana. In contrast, one gram of
methamphetamine is equivalent to two kilograms of marijuana. This
results in relatively short periods of incarceration for individuals
sentenced for Ecstasy-related crimes. When the potential profitability
of this drug is compared to the potential punishment, it is easy to see
what makes Ecstasy extremely attractive to professional smugglers.
Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 addresses
this growing and disturbing problem. First, the bill increases the base
level offense for Ecstasy-related crimes, making them equal to those of
methamphetamine. This provision also accomplishes the goal of
effectively lowering the amount of Ecstasy required for prosecution
under the laws governing possession with the intent to distribute by
sending a message to Federal prosecutors that this drug is a serious
threat.
Second, by addressing law enforcement and community education
programs, this bill will provide for an Ecstasy information campaign.
Through this campaign, our hope is that Ecstasy will soon go the way of
crack, which saw a dramatic reduction in the quantities present on our
streets after information of its unpredictable impurities and side
effects were made known to a wide audience. By using this educational
effort we hope to avoid future deaths like the one columnist Jack
Newfield wrote about in saddening detail.
It involved an 18-year-old who died after taking Ecstasy in a club
where the drug sold for $25 a tablet and water for $5 a bottle.
Newfield speaks of how the boy tried to suck water from the club's
bathroom tap that had been turned off so that those with drug induced
thirst would be forced to buy the bottled water.
Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 can only
help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. We urge our
colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by
cosponsoring this bill.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my
colleague, Senator Graham, to cosponsor the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation
Act of 2000. This legislation is vital for the safety of our children
and our nation. Around the country, Ecstasy use is exploding at an
alarming rate from our big cities to our rural neighborhoods. According
to Customs officials, Ecstasy is spreading faster than any drug since
crack cocaine. This explosion of Ecstasy smuggling has prompted Customs
to create a special task force, that focuses exclusively on the
designer drug.
Along with my colleague Senator Graham, I believe it is important
that we act to stop the spread of this drug. I join with Senator Graham
in urging our colleagues to support the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act
of 2000, and pass this measure quickly. By enacting this important
bill, we will get drug dealers out of the lives of our young people and
alert the public to the dangers of Ecstasy.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is a new drug on the scene--Ecstasy,
a synthetic stimulant and hallucinogen. It belongs to a group of drugs
referred to
[[Page S4318]]
as ``club drugs'' because they are associated with all-night dance
parties known as ``raves.''
There is a widespread misconception that Ecstasy is not a dangerous
drug--that it is ``no big deal.'' I am here to tell you that Ecstasy is
a very big deal. The drug depletes the brain of serotonin, the chemical
responsible for mood, thought, and memory. Studies show that Ecstasy
use can reduce serotonin levels by up to 90 percent for at least two
weeks after use and can cause brain damage.
If that isn't a big deal, I don't know what is.
A few months ago we got a significant warning sign that Ecstasy use
is becoming a real problem. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the
Future survey, a national survey measuring drug use among students,
reported that while overall levels of drug use had not increased, past
month use of Ecstasy among high school seniors increased more than 66
percent.
The survey showed that nearly six percent of high school seniors have
used Ecstasy in the past year. This may sound like a small number, so
let me put it in perspective--it is just slightly less than the
percentage of seniors who used cocaine and it is five times the number
of seniors who used heroin.
And with the supply of Ecstasy increasing as rapidly as it is, the
number of kids using this drug is only likely to increase. By April of
this year, the Customs Service had already seized 4 million Ecstasy
pills--greater than the total amount seized in all of 1999 and more
than five times the amount seized in all of 1998.
Though New York is the East Coast hub for this drug, it is spreading
quickly throughout the country. Last July, in my home state of
Delaware, law enforcement officials seized 900 Ecstasy pills in
Rehoboth Beach. There are also reports of an Ecstasy problem in Newark
among students at the University of Delaware.
We need to address this problem now, before it gets any worse. That
is why I am pleased to join Senators Graham, Grassley and Thomas to
introduce the ``Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000'' today. The
legislation takes the steps--both in terms of law enforcement and
prevention--to address this problem in a serious way before it gets any
worse.
The legislation directs the federal Sentencing Commission to increase
the recommended penalties for manufacturing, importing, exporting or
trafficking Ecstasy. Though Ecstasy is a Schedule I drug--and therefore
subject to the most stringent federal penalties--not all Schedule I
drugs are treated the same in our sentencing guidelines. For example,
selling a kilogram of marijuana is not as serious an offense as selling
a kilogram of heroin. The sentencing guidelines differentiate between
the severity of drugs--as they should.
But the current sentencing guidelines do not recognize how dangerous
Ecstasy really is.
Under current federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is
treated like 35 grams of marijuana. Under the ``Ecstasy Anti-
Proliferation Act'', one gram of Ecstasy would be treated like 2
kilograms of marijuana. This would make the penalties for Ecstasy
similar to those for methamphetamine.
The legislation also authorizes a major prevention campaign in
schools, communities and over the airwaves to make sure that everyone--
kids, adults, parents, teachers, cops, clergy, etc. --know just how
dangerous this drug really is. We need to dispel the myth that Ecstasy
is not a dangerous drug because, as I stated earlier, this is a
substance that can cause brain damage and can even result in death. We
need to spread the message so that kids know the risk involved with
taking Ecstasy, what it can do to their bodies, their brains, their
futures. Adults also need to be taught about this drug--what it looks
like, what someone high on Ecstasy looks like, and what to do if they
discover that someone they know is using it.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the United States Senate
on numerous occasions to state what I view as the most effective way to
prevent a drug epidemic. My philosophy is simple: the best time to
crack down on a drug with uncompromising enforcement pressure is before
the abuse of the drug has become rampant. The advantages of doing so
are clear--there are fewer pushers trafficking in the drug and, most
important, fewer lives and fewer families will have suffered from the
abuse of the drug.
It is clear that Ecstasy use is on the rise. Now is the time to act
before Ecstasy use becomes our next drug epidemic. I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting this legislation and passing it quickly so
that we can address the escalating problem of Ecstasy use before it
gets any worse.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 2614. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States to provide for duty-free treatment on certain manufacturing
equipment; to the Committee on Finance.
TO SUSPEND THE DUTY ON CERTAN EQUIPMENT USED IN THE MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which
will suspend the duties imposed on certain manufacturing equipment that
is necessary for tire production. Currently, this equipment is imported
for use in the United States because there are no known American
producers. Therefore, suspending the duties on this equipment would not
adversely affect domestic industries.
This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on tire manufacturing
equipment required to make certain large off-road tires that fall
between the sizes currently fabricated in the United States. These
tires would be used primarily in agriculture.
Mr. President, suspending the duty on this manufacturing equipment
will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing
these products. In addition to permitting new production in this
country, these duty suspensions will allow U.S. manufacturers to
maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope
the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2614
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN MANUFACTURING
EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Subheadings 9902.84.79, 9902.84.83,
9902.84.85, 9902.84.87, 9902.84.89, and 9902.84.91 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each
amended--
(1) by striking ``4011.91.50'' each place it appears and
inserting ``4011.91'';
(2) by striking ``4011.99.40'' each place it appears and
inserting ``4011.99''; and
(3) by striking ``86 cm'' each place it appears and
inserting ``63.5 cm''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 15
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2615. A bill to establish a program to promote child literacy by
making books available through early learning and other child care
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
the book stamp act
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, literacy is the foundation of
learning, but too many Americans today are not able to read a single
sentence. Nearly 40 percent of the nation's children are unable to read
at grade-level by the end of the third grade. In communities with high
concentrations of at-risk children, the failure rate is an astonishing
60 percent. As a result, their entire education is likely to be
derailed.
In the battle against literacy, it is not enough to reach out more
effectively to school-aged children. We must start earlier--and reach
children before they reach school. Pediatricians like Dr. Barry
Zuckerman at the Boston Medical Center have been telling us for years
that reading to children from birth through school age is a medical
issue that should be raised at every well child visit, since a child's
brain needs this kind of stimulation to grow to its full potential.
Reading to young children in the years before age 5 has a profound
effect on their ability
[[Page S4319]]
to learn to read. But too often the problem is that young children do
not have access to books appropriate to their age. A recent study found
that 60 percent of the kindergarten children who performed poorly in
school did not own a single book.
The Book Stamp Act that Senator Hutchison and I are introducing today
is a step to cure that problem. Our goal is to see that all children in
this country have books of their own before they enter school.
Regardless of culture or wealth, one of the most important factors in
the development of literacy is home access to books. Students from
homes with an abundance of reading materials are substantially better
readers than those with few or no reading materials available.
But it is not enough to just dump a book into a family's home. Since
young children cannot read to themselves, we must make sure that an
adult is available who interacts with the child and will read to the
child.
In this day of two-parent working families, young children spend
substantial time in child care and family care facilities, which
provide realistic opportunities for promoting literacy. Progress is
already being made on this approach. Child Care READS!, for example, is
a national communications campaign aimed at raising the awareness of
the importance of reading in child care settings.
The Book Stamp Act will make books available to children and parents
through these child care and early childhood education programs.
The act authorizes an appropriation of $50 million a year for this
purpose. It also creates a special postage stamp, similar to the Breast
Cancer Stamp, which will feature an early learning character, and will
sell at a slightly higher rate than the normal 33 cents, with the
additional revenues designated for the Book Stamp Program.
The resources will be distributed through the Child Care and
Development Block Grant to the state child care agency in each state.
The state agency then will allocate its funds to local child care
research and referral agencies throughout the state on the basis of
local need.
There are 610 such agencies in the country, with at least one in
every state. These non-profit agencies, offer referral services for
parents seeking child care, and also provide training for child care
workers. The agencies will work with established book distribution
programs such as First Book, Reading is Fundamental, and Reach Out and
Read to coordinate the buying of discounted books and the distribution
of the books to children.
Also, to help parents and child care providers become well informed
about the best ways to read to children and the most effective use of
books with children at various stages of development, the agencies will
provide training and technical assistance on these issues.
Our goal is to work closely with parents, children, child care
providers and publishers to put at least one book in the hands of every
needy child in America. Together, we can make significant progress in
early childhood literacy, and I believe we can make it quickly.
We know what works to combat illiteracy. We owe it to the nation's
children and the nation's future to do all we can to win this battle.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
and the accompanying letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2615
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Book Stamp Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Literacy is fundamental to all learning.
(2) Between 40 and 60 percent of the Nation's children do
not read at grade level, particularly children in families or
school districts that are challenged by significant financial
or social instability.
(3) Increased investments in child literacy are needed to
improve opportunities for children and the efficacy of the
Nation's education investments.
(4) Increasing access to books in the home is an important
means of improving child literacy, which can be accomplished
nationally at modest cost.
(5) Effective channels for book distribution already exist
through child care providers.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
In this Act:
(1) Early learning program.--The term ``early learning'',
used with respect to a program, means a program of activities
designed to facilitate development of cognitive, language,
motor, and social-emotional skills in children under age 6 as
a means of enabling the children to enter school ready to
learn, such as a Head Start or Early Head Start program
carried out under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et
seq.), or a State pre-kindergarten program.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(4) State agency.--The term ``State agency'' means an
agency designated under section 658D of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858b).
SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATE AGENCIES.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish and carry out a program to promote child literacy
and improve children's access to books at home and in early
learning and other child care programs, by making books
available through early learning and other child care
programs.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
shall make grants to State agencies from allotments
determined under paragraph (2).
(2) Allotments.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
allot to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to
the total of the available funds for the fiscal year as the
amount the State receives under section 658O(b) of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858m(b)) for the fiscal year bears to the total amount
received by all States under that section for the fiscal
year.
(c) Applications.--To be eligible to receive an allotment
under this section, a State shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Accountability.--The provisions of sections 658I(b) and
658K(b) of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858g(b), 9858i(b)) shall apply to States
receiving grants under this Act, except that references in
those sections--
(1) to a subchapter shall be considered to be references to
this Act; and
(2) to a plan or application shall be considered to be
references to an application submitted under subsection (c).
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``available
funds'', used with respect to a fiscal year, means the total
of--
(1) the funds made available under section 416(c)(1) of
title 39, United States Code for the fiscal year; and
(2) the amounts appropriated under section 9 for the fiscal
year.
SEC. 5. CONTRACTS TO CHILD CARE RESOURCE AND REFERRAL
AGENCIES.
A State agency that receives a grant under section 4 shall
use funds made available through the grant to enter into
contracts with local child care resource and referral
agencies to carry out the activities described in section 6.
The State agency may reserve not more than 3 percent of the
funds made available through the grant to support a public
awareness campaign relating to the activities.
SEC. 6. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Activities.--
(1) Book payments for eligible providers.--A child care
resource and referral agency that receives a contract under
section 5 shall use the funds made available through the
grant to provide payments for eligible early learning program
and other child care providers, on the basis of local needs,
to enable the providers to make books available, to promote
child literacy and improve children's access to books at home
and in early learning and other child care programs.
(2) Eligible providers.--To be eligible to receive a
payment under paragraph (1), a provider shall--
(A)(i) be a center-based child care provider, a group home
child care provider, or a family child care provider,
described in section 658P(5)(A) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n(5)(A));
or
(ii) be a Head Start agency designated under section 641 of
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836), an entity that receives
assistance under section 645A of such Act to carry out an
Early Head Start program or another provider of an early
learning program; and
(B) provide services in an area where children face high
risks of literacy difficulties, as defined by the Secretary.
(b) Responsibilities.--A child care resource and referral
agency that receives a contract under section 5 to provide
payments to eligible providers shall--
(1) consult with local individuals and organizations
concerned with early literacy (including parents and
organizations carrying out the Reach Out and Read, First
Book, and
[[Page S4320]]
Reading Is Fundamental programs) regarding local book
distribution needs;
(2) make reasonable efforts to learn public demographic and
other information about local families and child literacy
programs carried out by the eligible providers, as needed to
inform the agency's decisions as the agency carries out the
contract;
(3) coordinate local orders of the books made available
under this Act;
(4) distribute, to each eligible provider that receives a
payment under this Act, not fewer than 1 book every 6 months
for each child served by the provider for more than 3 of the
preceding 6 months;
(5) use not more than 5 percent of the funds made available
through the contract to provide training and technical
assistance to the eligible providers on the effective use of
books with young children at different stages of development;
and
(6) be a training resource for eligible providers that want
to offer parent workshops on developing reading readiness.
(c) Discounts.--
(1) In general.--Federal funds made available under this
Act for the purchase of books may only be used to purchase
books on the same terms as are customarily available in the
book industry to entities carrying out nonprofit bulk book
purchase and distribution programs.
(2) Terms.--An entity offering books for purchase under
this Act shall be present to have met the requirements of
paragraph (1), absent contrary evidence, if the terms include
a discount of 43 percent off the catalogue price of the
books, with no additional charge for shipping and handling of
the books.
(d) Administration.--The child care resource and referral
agency may not use more than 6 percent of the funds made
available through the contract for administrative costs.
SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report on the implementation of the activities carried out
under this Act.
SEC. 8. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS FOR CHILD LITERACY.
Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 416. Special postage stamps for child literacy
``(a) In order to afford the public a convenient way to
contribute to funding for child literacy, the Postal Service
shall establish a special rate of postage for first-class
mail under this section. The stamps that bear the special
rate of postage shall promote childhood literacy and shall,
to the extent practicable, contain an image relating to a
character in a children's book or cartoon.
``(b)(1) The rate of postage established under this
section--
``(A) shall be equal to the regular first-class rate of
postage, plus a differential of not to exceed 25 percent;
``(B) shall be set by the Governors in accordance with such
procedures as the Governors shall by regulation prescribe (in
lieu of the procedures described in chapter 36); and
``(C) shall be offered as an alternative to the regular
first-class rate of postage.
``(2) The use of the special rate of postage established
under this section shall be voluntary on the part of postal
patrons.
``(c)(1) Of the amounts becoming available for child
literacy pursuant to this section, the Postal Service shall
pay 100 percent to the Department of Health and Human
Services.
``(2) Payments made under this subsection to the Department
shall be made under such arrangements as the Postal Service
shall by mutual agreement with such Department establish in
order to carry out the objectives of this section, except
that, under those arrangements, payments to such agency shall
be made at least twice a year.
``(3) In this section, the term `amounts becoming available
for child literacy pursuant to this section' means--
``(A) the total amounts received by the Postal Service that
the Postal Service would not have received but for the
enactment of this section; reduced by
``(B) an amount sufficient to cover reasonable costs
incurred by the Postal Service in carrying out this section,
including costs attributable to the printing, sale, and
distribution of stamps under this section,
as determined by the Postal Service under regulations that
the Postal Service shall prescribe.
``(d) It is the sense of Congress that nothing in this
section should--
``(1) directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total
funds received by the Department of Health and Human
Services, or any other agency of the Government (or any
component or program of the Government), below the level that
would otherwise have been received but for the enactment of
this section; or
``(2) affect regular first-class rates of postage or any
other regular rates of postage.
``(e) Special postage stamps made available under this
section shall be made available to the public beginning on
such date as the Postal Service shall by regulation
prescribe, but in no event later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of this section.
``(f) The Postmaster General shall include in each report
provided under section 2402, with respect to any period
during any portion of which this section is in effect,
information concerning the operation of this section, except
that, at a minimum, each report shall include information
on--
``(1) the total amounts described in subsection (c)(3)(A)
that were received by the Postal Service during the period
covered by such report; and
``(2) of the amounts described in paragraph (1), how much
(in the aggregate and by category) was required for the
purposes described in subsection (c)(3)(B).
``(g) This section shall cease to be effective at the end
of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which special
postage stamps made available under this section are first
made available to the public.''.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
____
Children's Defense Fund,
E. Street, NW,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The Children's Defense Fund welcomes
the introduction of the Book Stamp Act. This legislation make
books available in early learning/child care programs for
young children and their parents. Reading to young children
on a regular basis is a first step to ensure that they become
strong readers. This bill gives parents access to books to
make it more likely for them to read to their children. Thank
you for recognizing how important reading is for our youngest
children.
Sincerely yours,
Marian Wright Edelman.
____
4 To 14.Com,
Broadway,
New York, NY, May 23, 2000.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I sincerely commend you on your sponsoring
the ``Book Stamp'' legislation.
As the CEO of a dot-com designed to help children learn, I
am very aware of the ``digital divide'' that separates
children from wealthier families from those growing up in
poorer households. That disparity--that difference in
opportunity--doesn't begin when children start using the
computer and exploring the Internet. Rather, it starts much
earlier, when very young children should have their first
exposure and access exposed to books.
Unfortunately, far too many children--particularly children
from lower income families--simply do not have books to call
their own. They need books, lots of them, for brain
development, to develop the basis and ``habit'' of reading,
and to share in one of the true joys of childhood.
Ensuring that all children--particularly those under five
years of age--have access to good books that they can call
their own, is an essential ingredient of a healthy childhood.
This legislation will help make that a reality.
As Susan Roman of the ALA once pointed out, ``Books are the
on-ramp to the information super-highway.''
I commend you and Senator Hutchison for being real leaders
in this crusade to make all children ready to meet the
challenges of the 21st century.
Please let me know how I can help.
Sincerely,
Steve Cohen,
President.
____
Association of American
Publishers, Inc.,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ted: The American publishing industry enthusiastically
supports the ``Book Stamp Act'' introduced by you and Senator
Hutchison today. This important and timely legislation
acknowledges the fact that young minds need as much
nourishing as young bodies.
Every September, some 40 percent of American children who
start school are not literacy-ready and, for most, that
educational gap never closes. From a growing body of
research, we have begun to understand how important it is for
very young children to have books in their lives. At BookExpo
America on June 3, for the first time, a distinguished group
of early literacy experts, pediatricians, child-development
professionals and children's publishers will come together to
explore ways of improving access to quality books for the 13
million pre-school-age children in daycare and early
education programs. The ``Book Stamp Act'' couldn't come at a
better time.
We congratulate you on the introduction of the ``Book Stamp
Act,'' and look forward to working with you to ensure its
passage.
With warmest regards,
Sincerely,
Patricia S. Schroeder.
____
National Association for the
Education of Young Children,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Hutchison: The National
Association for the Education
[[Page S4321]]
of Young Children (NAEYC), representing over 100,000
individuals dedicated to excellence in early childhood
education, commends you for your leadership in promoting
early childhood literacy through the Book Stamps legislation
you will introduce today.
Learning to read and write is critical to a child's success
in school and later in life. One of the best predictors of
whether a child will function competently in school and go on
to contribute actively in our increasingly literate society
is the level to which the child progresses in reading and
writing. Although reading and writing abilities continue to
develop throughout the life span, the early childhood years--
from birth through age eight--are the most important period
for literacy development. It is for this reason that the
International Reading Association (IRA) and NAEYC joined
together to formulate a position statement regarding early
literacy development.
We are pleased that this bipartisan legislation will expand
young children's access to books and support parent
involvement in early literacy. By making books more
affordable and accessible to young children in Head Start, in
child care settings, and in their homes, we can help them not
only learn to read and write, but also foster and sustain
their interest in reading for their own enjoyment,
information, and communication.
Sincerely,
Adele Robinson,
Director of Policy Development.
____
Reading Is Fundamental, Inc.,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
Dear Senator: Reading Is Fundamental's Board of Directors
and staff urge you to support the passage of the Kennedy-
Hutchison Book Stamp Act to help bridge the literacy gap for
the nation's youngest and most at-risk children.
Educators, researchers and practitioners in the literacy
arena have increasing focused on the 0-5 age range as the key
to helping the nation's neediest children enter school ready
to read and learn. We know that focus and attention will give
them a far better chance at succeeding in life than many of
their parents and older siblings had.
At RIF, we have increased our focus on providing books and
literacy enhancing programs and services in recent years and
we are actively pursuing working relationships and
partnerships with the childcare community. We have launched a
pilot program to create effective training system, called
Care to Read for childcare providers and other early
childhood caregivers. That program is now ready to help these
caregivers provide appropriate environmental and literacy
enhancing experiences for children. We are anxious to engage
with NACCRA in working out ways to link this training with
the Book Stamp Act initiative and share RIF's resources to
help make this program effective.
RIF now provides books and essential literacy services to
nearly 1,000,000 children and we know the need is critical
for significant infusions of books and services to help
reduce illiteracy among this at-risk population. We urge your
strong support.
Yours truly,
Richard E. Sells,
Senior VP and Chief Operating Officer.
____________________