Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6574-S6576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. ROBB:
S. 2850. A bill to reduce illegal drug-related crimes in our Nation's
communities by providing additional Federal funds to develop and
implement community policing and prosecutorial initiatives that address
problems associated with the production, manufacture, distribution,
importation, and use of illegal drugs; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

the community oriented policing services against drugs act

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have visited the Carver Neighborhood of
Richmond in my state. This neighborhood is a low-income community that
thanks to collaborative efforts among the community, city, and federal
government, has seen a tremendous decrease in crime, helping to spur a
major community revitalization.
We've seen this trend more and more in cities and communities across
America. Much has been accomplished in our efforts to revitalize our
communities--but more needs to be done. We should build on our past
successes and focus our resources on keeping our children safe and our
neighborhoods free of fear. We should take what we know works and apply
it in our fight against illegal drugs.
It is in this spirit, Mr. President, that I rise to introduce the
Community Oriented Policing Services Against Drugs Act. As part of our
continuing battle against the proliferation of drugs in our nation's
communities, my bill seeks to provide $500 million over five years in
federal funds from the COPS Program to state and local law enforcement
authorities across the country to eliminate or reduce drug crime in
America. We know the COPS Program works, and I'm proud to have expanded
it to provide our schools with more than 2,600 police officers to
combat school violence.
Specifically, this new program will provide federal funds to hire
1,950 more police officers to enhance existing community policing
initiatives throughout approximately 65 cities across the country.
Newly hired police officers will be charged with developing and
implementing community policing initiatives to combat the production,
manufacture, distribution, importation, or use of illegal drugs in our
communities.
There are dozens of cities across the country, such as Richmond,
Norfolk, and Williamsburg in my state, that are committed to providing
a safe environment for citizens to live, work and raise a family but
need additional resources to help eliminate drug trafficking and drug-
related crime, including violent crime. This legislation will build
upon the successful COPS Program and focus an aspect of its community
policing initiatives against the scourge of illegal drugs in our
neighborhoods.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2850

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 ``Community Oriented Policing
Services Against Drugs Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES AGAINST DRUGS.

Part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1710. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES AGAINST
DRUGS.

``(a) Eligible Community Defined.--In this section, the
term ``eligible community'' means communities identified by
the Attorney General under subsection (c).
``(b) Award of Grants.--The Attorney General may award
grants in accordance with this part--
``(1) to local law enforcement agencies located in eligible
communities, which shall be used for programs, projects, and
activities--
``(A) to hire additional community policing officers and
civilian personnel to aggressively investigate drug-related
crimes; and
``(B) to pay overtime to existing law enforcement officers,
to the extent such overtime is devoted to community policing
efforts with respect to drug-related crimes; and
``(2) to State and local prosecutors' offices located in
eligible communities and to prosecution programs in eligible
communities that augment community policing programs, which
shall be used to assist in the aggressive prosecution of
drug-related crimes.
``(c) Identification of Eligible Communities.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall identify
eligible communities for purposes of subsection (a)(4), based
on--
``(A) the extent to which the community is a center of
illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation,
distribution, or use;
``(B) the extent to which State and local law enforcement
and prosecutorial authorities have committed resources to the
illegal

[[Page S6575]]

drug problem in the community, thereby indicating a need for
additional Federal resources to combat issues related to the
prevalence of illegal drugs;
``(C) the extent to which illegal drug-related activities
in the community have an adverse impact on other communities
in the Nation; and
``(D) the extent to which additional Federal resources
would assist, eliminate, or reduce illegal drug-related
activities in the community.
``(2) Use of certain data.--In carrying out paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall utilize information from national
data sources (including the Uniform Crime Reports of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Arrestee Drug Abuse
Monitoring (ADAM) program of the National Institute of
Justice), including data relating to--
``(A) the number of arrests for drug possession or drug
sale in the community;
``(B) the number of arrests for drug-related crime in the
community; and
``(C) the number of arrestees testing positive for illegal
drug use in the community.
``(d) Small Community Preference.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Attorney General may set aside 20 percent
of award grants to applicants located in eligible communities
with a population of less than 35,000.
``(e) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
title, of the amount made available to carry out this part, a
total of $500,000,000 shall be used to carry out this section
for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 2853. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
distributions to be made from certain pension plans before the
participant is severed from employment; to the Committee on Finance.

phased retirement programs facilitated

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code. My bill will facilitate phased
retirement programs. In April I held a hearing in the Special Committee
on Aging. The subject of the hearing was employment of older workers.
Several experts told us what could be done to encourage older
individuals to remain in the labor market. In today's tight labor
markets, older workers are in great demand. Employers have numerous
strategies to attract and retain them--one of those is phased
retirement.
At our hearing, several witnesses testified that statutory changes to
permit phased retirement programs would be helpful. One of those
witnesses was Ms. September Dau from the Iowa Lakes Rural Electric
Cooperative in Estherville, Iowa. Ms. Dau noted that the average age of
the workforce at her Rural Electric Cooperative is high. Skilled
workers are hard to come by and Iowa Lakes has implemented a phased
retirement program in order to retain older workers. But they would
like the comfort of knowing that their program is sanctioned.
Phased retirement allows a worker to wind down his or her career, by
working part-time and retiring part-time. It helps many people maintain
their income level rather than quitting work all at once. Financially,
it can allow an individual to postpone the time when he or she has to
draw down retirement savings. A study performed by Watson Wyatt
Worldwide concluded that 16 percent of larger companies already offer
phased retirement in some form and another 28 percent show a moderate
to high level of interest in offering it in the next two years. But
plan sponsors have worries about running afoul of the ``in-service
distribution'' rules. Tax rules bar employees from receiving pension
distributions before they reach a pension's normal retirement age,
which is usually pegged to Social Security. That rule makes it
difficult for those who wish to retire gradually and use reduced
pension payments to augment reduced pay. It also helps circumvent the
``do-it-yourself'' phased retirement that some workers are forced into
where they retire one day from their long-term employer and go to work
the next day for someone else. This bill is designed to overcome those
problems. At the same time, this provision is completely voluntary and
so will not burden plan sponsors.
As I said, we heard from witnesses who supported phased retirement
programs. I mentioned September Dau from the Iowa Lakes Rural Electric
Cooperative. But another one was our friend and colleague, Congressman
Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota. Congressman Pomeroy told the Committee
that phased retirement programs should be allowed as a way of
increasing the attractiveness of defined benefit pension plans. Phased
retirement programs could also make defined benefit plans more
adaptable to the human resource needs of plan sponsors. This is
important to Congressman Pomeroy because he is introducing a phased
retirement bill that is identical to mine.
Defined benefit plans provide a stream of payments to retirees. They
can go a long way to supplementing Social Security. But defined benefit
plans are on the decline, especially among small businesses, whose
employees are the least likely group to be covered by any form of
retirement plan. We know that life expectancy is increasing. We also
know that Americans are not saving enough to maintain their standard of
living in retirement. By making defined benefit plans more attractive
to employers and workers--such as by facilitating phased retirement--we
are helping to improve the lives of everyday American people.
I hope that this bill is one step in that direction.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 2853

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PENSION DISTRIBUTIONS ALLOWED BEFORE
SEVERANCE FROM EMPLOYMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to qualified pension, profit-sharing,
and stock bonus plans) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (34) the following new paragraph:
``(35) Distribution prior to severance from employment.--A
trust forming part of a defined benefit plan (or a defined
contribution plan which is subject to the funding standards
of section 412) shall not constitute a qualified trust under
this section if the plan provides a distribution to a
participant who has not been severed from employment and the
distribution is made before the earliest of the following
with respect to the participant:
``(A) Normal retirement age (as defined in section
411(a)(8)).
``(B) Attainment of age 59\1/2\.
``(C) The date the participant completes 30 years of
service.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31,
2000.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2857. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to exclude
personally identifiable information from the assets of a debtor in
bankruptcy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with my
friend from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, to protect the personal
privacy of consumers whose information is held by firms filing for
bankruptcy protection.
The Privacy Policy Enforcement in Bankruptcy Act would prohibit the
sale of personally identifiable information held by a failed business
if the sale or disclosure of the personal information would violate the
privacy policy of the debtor in effect when the personal information
was collected. Personally identifiable information, under our
legislation, includes name, address, e-mail address, telephone number,
Social Security number, credit card number, date of birth and any other
identifier that permits the physical or online contacting of a specific
individual.
This legislation is needed because the customer databases of failed
Internet firms now can be sold during bankruptcy, even in violation of
the firm's stated privacy policy. That is wrong.
Toysmart.com, for example, an online toy store, recently filed for
bankruptcy and its databases and customer lists were put up for sale as
part of the liquidation of the firm's assets. This personal customer
information was put on the auction block even though Toysmart.com
promised otherwise on its web page.
Toysmart.com's web site states that ``personal information
voluntarily submitted by visitors to our site, such as name, address,
billing information and shopping preferences, is never shared with a
third party.'' Toysmart.com's privacy statement continues: ``When you
register with toysmart.com, you can rest assured that your information
will never be shared with a third party.''
But on June 8, 2000, one day before filing for bankruptcy,
Toysmart.com advertised in the Wall Street Journal

[[Page S6576]]

to sell its customer lists and databases. That was a clear violation of
Toysmart.com's web site privacy policy. The Federal Trade Commission
has filed suit against Toysmart.com for this violation and I commend
the FTC for its action.
Yesterday, the Walt Disney Company, the parent company of
Toysmart.com, announced that it would try to purchase Toysmart.com's
customer information from the bankruptcy court. I applaud Disney for
taking this step. There is no guarantee, however, that Disney will be
the top bidder for this information and other corporate parents may not
be as responsible if one of their subsidiaries fails. Indeed, two other
failed web businesses, Boo.com and Craftshop.com, have reportedly
sought buyers for its personal customer data.
That is why this Congress should pass the Privacy Policy Enforcement
in Bankruptcy Act this year. Consumers deserve this privacy protection.
Mr. President, it is wrong to use our nation's bankruptcy laws as an
excuse to violate a customer's personal privacy. Customers have a right
to expect an online firm to adhere to its privacy policies whether it
is making a profit or has filed for bankruptcy.
I commend Senator Torricelli for joining with me to introduce the
Privacy Policy Enforcement in Bankruptcy Act. Our legislation will
close this loophole in the Bankruptcy Code and ensure that online and
offline firms keep their promises to protect the personal privacy of
their customers.
I urge my colleagues to support this basic privacy protection
legislation.

____________________