[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8561-H8570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1445
PRIVACY COMMISSION ACT
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4049) to establish the Commission for the Comprehensive Study of
Privacy Protection, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4049
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 ``Privacy Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Americans are increasingly concerned about their civil
liberties and the security and use of their personal
information, including medical records, educational records,
library records, magazine subscription records, records of
purchases of goods and other payments, and driver's license
numbers.
(2) Commercial entities are increasingly aware that
consumers expect them to adopt privacy policies and take all
appropriate steps to protect the personal information of
consumers.
(3) There is a growing concern about the confidentiality of
medical records, because there are inadequate Federal
guidelines and a patchwork of confusing State and local rules
regarding privacy protection for individually identifiable
patient information.
(4) In light of recent changes in financial services laws
allowing for increased sharing of information between
traditional financial institutions and insurance entities, a
coordinated and comprehensive review is necessary regarding
the protections of personal data compiled by the health care,
insurance, and financial services industries.
(5) The use of Social Security numbers has expanded beyond
the uses originally intended.
(6) Use of the Internet has increased at astounding rates,
with approximately 5 million current Internet sites and 64
million regular Internet users each month in the United
States alone.
(7) Financial transactions over the Internet have increased
at an astounding rate, with 17 million American households
spending $20 billion shopping on the Internet last year.
(8) Use of the Internet as a medium for commercial
activities will continue to grow, and it is estimated that by
the end of 2000, 56 percent of the companies in the United
States will sell their products on the Internet.
(9) There have been reports of surreptitious collection of
consumer data by Internet marketers and questionable
distribution of personal information by on-line companies.
(10) In 1999, the Federal Trade Commission found that 87
percent of Internet sites provided some form of privacy
notice, which represented an increase from 15 percent in
1998.
(11) The United States is the leading economic and social
force in the global information economy, largely because of a
favorable regulatory climate and the free flow of
information. It is important for the United States to
continue that leadership. As nations and governing bodies
around the world begin to establish privacy standards, these
standards will directly affect the United States.
(12) The shift from an industry-focused economy to an
information-focused economy calls for a reassessment of the
most effective way to balance personal privacy and
information use, keeping in mind the potential for unintended
effects on technology development, innovation, the
marketplace, and privacy needs.
(13) This Act shall not be construed to prohibit the
enactment of legislation on privacy issues by the Congress
during the existence of the Commission. It is the
responsibility of the Congress to act to protect the privacy
of individuals, including individuals' medical and financial
information. Various committees of the Congress are currently
reviewing legislation in the area of medical and financial
privacy. Further study by the Commission established by this
Act should not be considered a prerequisite for further
consideration or enactment of financial or medical privacy
legislation by the Congress.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established a commission to be known as the
``Commission for the Comprehensive Study of Privacy
Protection'' (in this Act referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.
(a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of issues
relating to protection of individual privacy and the
appropriate balance to be achieved between protecting
individual privacy and allowing appropriate uses of
information, including the following:
(1) The monitoring, collection, and distribution of
personal information by Federal, State, and local
governments, including personal information collected for a
decennial census, and such personal information as a driver's
license number.
(2) Current efforts to address the monitoring, collection,
and distribution of personal information by Federal and State
governments, individuals, or entities, including--
(A) existing statutes and regulations relating to the
protection of individual privacy, such as section 552a of
title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
Privacy Act of 1974) and section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of
Information Act);
(B) legislation pending before the Congress;
(C) privacy protection efforts undertaken by the Federal
Government, State governments, foreign governments, and
international governing bodies;
(D) privacy protection efforts undertaken by the private
sector; and
(E) self-regulatory efforts initiated by the private sector
to respond to privacy issues.
(3) The monitoring, collection, and distribution of
personal information by individuals or entities, including
access to and use of medical records, financial records
(including credit cards, automated teller machine cards, bank
accounts, and Internet transactions), personal information
provided to on-line sites accessible through the Internet,
Social Security numbers, insurance records, education
records, and driver's license numbers.
(4) Employer practices and policies with respect to the
financial and health information of employees, including--
(A) whether employers use or disclose employee financial or
health information for marketing, employment, or insurance
underwriting purposes;
(B) what restrictions employers place on disclosure or use
of employee financial or health information;
(C) employee rights to access, copy, and amend their own
health records and financial information;
(D) what type of notice employers provide to employees
regarding employer practices with respect to employee
financial and health information; and
(E) practices of employer medical departments with respect
to disclosing employee health information to administrative
or other personnel of the employer.
(5) The extent to which individuals in the United States
can obtain redress for privacy violations.
(6) The extent to which older individuals and disabled
individuals are subject to exploitation involving the
disclosure or use of their financial information.
(b) Field Hearings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct at least 2
field hearings in each of the 5 geographical regions of the
United States.
(2) Boundaries.--For purposes of this subsection, the
Commission may determine the boundaries of the five
geographical regions of the United States.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after appointment
of all members of the Commission--
(A) a majority of the members of the Commission shall
approve a report; and
(B) the Commission shall submit the approved report to the
Congress and the President.
(2) Contents.--The report shall include a detailed
statement of findings, conclusions,
[[Page H8562]]
and recommendations, including the following:
(A) Findings on potential threats posed to individual
privacy.
(B) Analysis of purposes for which sharing of information
is appropriate and beneficial to consumers.
(C) Analysis of the effectiveness of existing statutes,
regulations, private sector self-regulatory efforts,
technology advances, and market forces in protecting
individual privacy.
(D) Recommendations on whether additional legislation is
necessary, and if so, specific suggestions on proposals to
reform or augment current laws and regulations relating to
individual privacy.
(E) Analysis of purposes for which additional regulations
may impose undue costs or burdens, or cause unintended
consequences in other policy areas, such as security, law
enforcement, medical research, or critical infrastructure
protection.
(F) Cost analysis of legislative or regulatory changes
proposed in the report.
(G) Analysis of the impact of altering existing protections
for individual privacy on the overall operation and
functionality of the Internet, including the impact on the
private sector.
(H) Recommendations on non-legislative solutions to
individual privacy concerns, including education, market-
based measures, industry best practices, and new technology.
(I) Review of the effectiveness and utility of third-party
verification of privacy statements, including specifically
with respect to existing private sector self-regulatory
efforts.
(d) Additional Report.--Together with the report under
subsection (c), the Commission shall submit to the Congress
and the President any additional report of dissenting
opinions or minority views by a member or members of the
Commission.
(e) Interim Report.--The Commission may submit to the
Congress and the President an interim report approved by a
majority of the members of the Commission.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 17 members appointed as follows:
(1) 4 members appointed by the President.
(2) 4 members appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate.
(3) 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate.
(4) 4 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(5) 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the House
of Representatives.
(6) 1 member, who shall serve as Chairperson of the
Commission, appointed jointly by the President, the majority
leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Diversity of Views.--The appointing authorities under
subsection (a) shall seek to ensure that the membership of
the Commission has a diversity of views and experiences on
the issues to be studied by the Commission, such as views and
experiences of Federal, State, and local governments, the
media, the academic community, consumer groups, public policy
groups and other advocacy organizations, business and
industry (including small business), the medical community,
civil liberties experts, and the financial services industry.
(c) Date of Appointment.--The appointment of the members of
the Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Terms.--Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission.
(e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the same manner in which the original appointment was
made.
(f) Compensation; Travel Expenses.--Members of the
Commission shall serve without pay, but shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold
hearings.
(h) Meetings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of
the Chairperson or a majority of its members.
(2) Initial meeting.--Not later than 45 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall hold its
initial meeting.
SEC. 6. DIRECTOR; STAFF; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.
(a) Director.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the
appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission, the
Chairperson of the Commission shall appoint a Director
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments to the competitive service.
(2) Pay.--The Director shall be paid at the rate payable
for level III of the Executive Schedule established under
section 5314 of such title.
(b) Staff.--The Director may appoint staff as the Director
determines appropriate.
(c) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--
(1) In general.--The staff of the Commission shall be
appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service.
(2) Pay.--The staff of the Commission shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification
and General Schedule pay rates, but at rates not in excess of
the maximum rate for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule
under section 5332 of that title.
(d) Experts and Consultants.--The Director may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code.
(e) Staff of Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Upon request of the Director, the head of
any Federal department or agency may detail, on a
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that department
or agency to the Commission to assist it in carrying out this
Act.
(2) Notification.--Before making a request under this
subsection, the Director shall give notice of the request to
each member of the Commission.
SEC. 7. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the
purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act
at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as
the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may
administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing
before it.
(b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of
the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any
action which the Commission is authorized to take by this
section.
(c) Obtaining Official Information.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the Chairperson of the Commission submits a request to a
Federal department or agency for information necessary to
enable the Commission to carry out this Act, the head of that
department or agency shall furnish that information to the
Commission.
(2) Exception for national security.--If the head of that
department or agency determines that it is necessary to guard
that information from disclosure to protect the national
security interests of the United States, the head shall not
furnish that information to the Commission.
(d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(e) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Director, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out this Act.
(f) Gifts and Donations.--The Commission may accept, use,
and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property to
carry out this Act, but only to the extent or in the amounts
provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
(g) Contracts.--The Commission may contract with and
compensate persons and government agencies for supplies and
services, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised
Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
(h) Subpoena Power.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas
requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of any evidence relating to any matter that the
Commission is empowered to investigate by section 4. The
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence may be
required by such subpoena from any place within the United
States and at any specified place of hearing within the
United States.
(2) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to
obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Commission
may apply to a United States district court for an order
requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give
testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter
under investigation. The application may be made within the
judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where
that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any
failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the
court as civil contempt.
(3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission
shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued
by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
(4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which
application is made under paragraph (2) may be served in the
judicial district in which the person required to be served
resides or may be found.
(i) Rules.--The Commission shall adopt other rules as
necessary for its operation.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting a
report under section 4(c).
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Commission $5,000,000 to carry out this Act.
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated pursuant to the
authorization in subsection (a) shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 10. BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE.
Any new contract authority authorized by this Act shall be
effective only to the extent or in the amounts provided in
advance in appropriation Acts.
SEC. 11. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS.
(a) Destruction or Return of Information Required.--Upon
the conclusion of the matter or need for which individually
identifiable information was disclosed to the Commission, the
Commission shall either destroy
[[Page H8563]]
the individually identifiable information or return it to the
person or entity from which it was obtained, unless the
individual that is the subject of the individually
identifiable information has authorized its disclosure.
(b) Disclosure of Information Prohibited.--The Commission--
(1) shall protect individually identifiable information
from improper use; and
(2) may not disclose such information to any person,
including the Congress or the President, unless the
individual that is the subject of the information has
authorized such a disclosure.
(c) Proprietary Business Information and Financial
Information.--The Commission shall protect from improper use,
and may not disclose to any person, proprietary business
information and proprietary financial information that may be
viewed or obtained by the Commission in the course of
carrying out its duties under this Act.
(d) Individually Identifiable Information Defined.--For the
purposes of this Act, the term ``individually identifiable
information'' means any information, whether oral or recorded
in any form or medium, that identifies an individual, or with
respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that
the information can be used to identify an individual.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
General Leave
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 4049, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4049 would establish a commission to engage in one
of the Nation's most comprehensive examinations of privacy protection
issues in more than 20 years.
A few key strokes on a computer can yield a quantity of information
that was unimaginable 26 years ago when the privacy act of 1974 became
law. From e-mail and e-commerce to e-government, technology has changed
the way people communicate, shop, and pay their bills.
The downside of these advances is that a vast amount of personal
information, such as credit cards and Social Security numbers, flows
freely from home computers to commercial and government Web sites.
Today, everything from medical records to income tax returns is being
maintained in an electronic form and is often transmitted over the
Internet.
Growing concern over protecting the privacy of those records has led
to the proposal of approximately 7,000 State and local laws, and more
than 50 Federal laws. This bill before the House today will provide a
most important function in this debate. The commission will examine
privacy policies and laws throughout the Nation.
The commission's work will help determine the extent to which the
Nation's privacy laws and policies may need to be revised for today's
information technology.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4049 was introduced on March 21, 2000, by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), a true bipartisan bill.
The Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Government
Management Information and Technology held 3 days of legislative
hearings on the issue, including a day of hearings at the behest of the
subcommittee's minority members. The subcommittee approved the bill on
June 14, 2000; and the full committee finalized its work on the bill on
June 29, 2000.
During the full committee's consideration, a number of amendments
offered by the minority were adopted, and the bill was favorably
reported to the full House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the honorable
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the chief author of the bill,
for further discussion.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Horn) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in support of this legislation, the
Privacy Commission Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) for his leadership and cooperation on this.
I want to thank the Democrat gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for
his coauthorship of it.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the
ranking member of the full committee, for his participation through
this process, his very constructive criticisms and suggestions that he
has offered. I think because of the gentleman's participation we have
certainly made this a better product that has moved to the floor today.
I certainly also want to thank the gentleman from the State of
Virginia (Mr. Moran), my cosponsor, who from the very beginning has
helped make this a bipartisan product which we have presented to this
body.
If we look back over the issue of privacy, the last comprehensive
look at privacy that we have had in our Nation was 25 years ago in
1974, and the report after that privacy study commission was privacy in
the information age. Certainly that has changed in 25 years. But even
that last commission gave us the hallmark of our privacy legislation
today, the foundation of privacy here in the Federal Government.
That was 1974. Basically, it is time that we need to do it again, and
I do believe that Congress understands the issue of privacy and the
importance of this issue to the American people. The NBC-Wall Street
Journal poll indicated that the number one issue of Americans as they
enter the next century is the concern about loss of personal privacy,
and so Congress understands that.
If we look at the issue of video rental records, we understand the
public, and we do not want our video rental records disclosed to third
parties, and we passed a law that prohibited that.
We understand that driver's license information should not be passed
along and sold to commercial enterprises. We passed a law that
restricted that.
When you look at cable stations and the knowledge as to what an
individual, a consumer, clicks his channels and where he goes, we do
not want that information passed along; and we pass a law that
restricted it.
Tax returns, we passed a law obviously that restricts the transfer of
information from a tax return. So we deal with privacy, but Congress
should not end its work with what we have done thus far.
How about medical records? How about State law protection dealing
with medical records; is that sufficient? Do we need a new Federal
standard? How about the financial records? What do we need to do to
further protect the transfer of financial information? And the answer
is that regardless of what we can agree upon now, and I have sponsored
various portions of privacy legislation and have moved forward, but
regardless of what we agree upon now, we cannot end here.
We need to build a consensus; and this bill, this privacy study
commission, is designed to build this consensus that we have not been
able to form yet. I think it will help us to enhance personal privacy
and do the work that Congress should do.
Let me go to some of the particulars of this legislation. Obviously,
the commission will consist of 17 members appointed by the President,
the majority leader, minorities leader, Speaker of the House. So it
certainly is bipartisan in the way that it is formulated, but it is
tasked with numerous responsibilities from studying the current state
of laws on individual privacy, to conducting field hearings across the
country, listening to the people, as well as privacy experts.
We are to submit a report to Congress, this commission will, within a
timely fashion; and even though 18 months is a drop-dead date,
hopefully they will come back sooner, and they have specifically the
right to come back sooner if they can reach that consensus.
The Committee on Commerce has stepped in and suggested some very
important changes but are not dramatic in its impact. One of them is
that the commission should look at the impact on the Internet and its
functionality. Certainly we want to do that. It says that any
commissioner or group of commissioners may dissent and submit a record,
so there is nothing dramatic about those changes; but those have been
some suggested improvements from the Committee on Commerce.
[[Page H8564]]
I want to talk for a second about the processes as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) just indicated. We have gone through 3 days of
hearings. We have gone through markup in subcommittee and full
committee, and it was during that time that I think we really improved
this legislation. One of the suggestions that came from the Democrat
side was suggested by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the
ranking member, who said that we should make it clear that this
legislation in no way should impede the passage of individual privacy
legislation. The language that was suggested by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) was included.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) suggested very
appropriately that the commission should look at the extent that older
individuals are subject to exploitation involving the disclosure of use
of their financial information. That was adopted in subcommittee.
Then the third-party verification efforts, an amendment sponsored as
well by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) was adopted.
The importance of having civil liberties represented on the
commission was accepted as well, and so there was tremendous
improvement through this process. We have really followed the regular
order as we have come to this full House.
This is a very important commission that I believe will do good work.
It is important that we have a good vote today, that will send it on
its way in a bipartisan way; and I think that when it comes back with a
report, hopefully, and I see the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) joining us, that we can continue to work on individual privacy
legislation between now and the end of this year and into next
Congress.
In the meantime, regardless of what else happens, we need to have
this commission that will continue to recommend and supplement what we
are doing in this body and to assist in our efforts, and I urge my
colleagues to support this common sense approach to privacy.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their
efforts to focus attention on the important issue of privacy. I believe
that H.R. 4049 is a well-intentioned bill. The authors' sincerity in
their motivation to improve privacy protections is a real one.
I strongly object, however, to the decision to bring up this bill as
a suspension bill. Until today, we have had no opportunity to consider
fundamental privacy legislation that matters to millions of Americans.
And now that we have a bill, we are only provided with 20 minutes of
debate time and no chance for amendments. And I think that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) said that
his bill could go forward and other legislation on the subject of
privacy could be considered at the same time. Well, the reality is that
other legislation on privacy is not being considered at all. For
example, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has introduced
genetic nondiscrimination and privacy legislation that has broad
support; yet there has not even been a hearing on it.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) introduced legislation
with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), myself and many other colleagues to provide
comprehensive medical privacy protections for American consumers. That
bill, which is in the subcommittee of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Horn), has not even been given a hearing.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) have introduced comprehensive financial
privacy protections; yet there has not even been a hearing on their
bills.
Today, with consideration of H.R. 4049, the leadership is finally
taking up a bill concerning privacy, but the leadership has brought the
bill up under suspension of the rules. This procedure blocks the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and others from bringing up
measures to provide privacy protections for American consumers.
We should not waste this opportunity to consider meaningful privacy
protections. The Privacy Commission Act should be brought to the floor
under regular order so that Members have an opportunity to discuss
whether substantive privacy protections or other improvements should be
added to the bill through amendment.
One of the main issues that has been raised about privacy, about the
privacy commission bill, is whether its practical effect would be to
delay the enactment of privacy protections.
People who advocate privacy protections have expressed concern about
the potential for delay. For example, the Consumer Federation of
America Consumers Union and U.S. PIRG have stated that ``the creation
of a commission would delay efforts to put meaningful privacy
protections on the book.''
People who oppose privacy protections have been happy that this bill
could delay privacy initiatives. On April 17, 2000, there was an
editorial in the National Underwriter magazine that urged insurance
companies to support this measure, because the presence of such a
commission will provide a strong argument for Congress and the State
legislatures to wait for the results before enacting, as they put it,
highly restrictive privacy legislation.
Under the right circumstances, establishing a privacy commission
could be a helpful step in addressing privacy concerns. If Congress
concurrently took action on enacting privacy legislation or at least
made a binding commitment to take such action, American consumers could
be confident that they would complement, rather than delay, this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this point and urge my colleagues to
oppose this suspension.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I looked at the evolution of this legislation, every
bill or an amendment that the Democratic minority gave us we accepted,
and what we are going to have here is just on and on and on, and
nothing is going to happen.
Five years ago when the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) was in
my position as chair of the subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, we had legislation that he submitted, a
very fine bill. We have had others. We have Senator Leahy come over. He
has a very fine bill. So it goes. Nobody can pull all the pieces
together.
In the closing weeks of Congress, there is absolutely no way to have
the floor time to start having amendments all over the place. I would
love to have floor time and have a 3-day debate. It is going to be a 3-
day debate, at least.
It has been a bipartisan proposal all the way, and I would hope we
would get something done where it could be pulled together and we might
look at it as a base bill, which does not preclude the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
We have a whole bunch of people here who want to have a privacy bill. I
am not against that. I just want to get something done in a practical
sense.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues would support this and
not have to go through the--we have the votes, I am sure, on the
majority, but we ought to get this movement going.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that if we are going to be
serious about doing something on privacy legislation, we should have
had hearings in the Horn subcommittee, that is how we organize a
consensus, not wait for one to happen. We ought to have hearings. We
ought to have had leadership to develop legislation. We have not had
that leadership to develop legislation.
Secondly, not every one of our amendments was adopted in committee.
We wanted a deadline for action by the Commission and an opportunity
for privacy protections to be put into place.
[[Page H8565]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a very important member of our committee.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, normally bills to study serious problems are like apple
pie and motherhood, but I will tell the Members, this one deserves the
serious reservations of Members of this body in light of mounting
concerns among the public about medical privacy and Internet privacy.
When I chaired the Women's Caucus last term, one of the bills at that
time Democratic and the Republican women were able to get some kind of
consensus on was a bill involving genetic privacy.
The notion that we are here talking about studying privacy at the end
of yet another term pains me to even hear. This issue is at the top of
the agenda of the American public. The concern of the public is so loud
and so real, and has been there for so long after so many hearings
about various aspects of this problem, that the expectation has been
that we would do something about it at least by now.
Let us take medical privacy. That one is so long overdue,
particularly with respect to genetic information. We now know the
genetic code. That thing is traveling against us at such a speed. We
are here talking about studying it with no time limit? People are
thinking, will I lose my job if I go to the company doctor or to any
doctor to talk about my condition? And all doctors use the Internet
now.
Do we know where the public is on this? They are clamoring on the
doors of this Congress, saying, ``Protect me.''
My own recent experience makes me come to the floor. I needed
something, a fancy new telephone. Somebody found out that I could order
it and get it in 24 hours over the Internet. I said, over my dead body.
I have a recognizable name. I am not going to put the name of Eleanor
Holmes Norton on the Internet, because at least in this region somebody
might decide that that is the name to use.
Do Members know how many people have lost their identity fooling with
the Internet? I am not going to lose what little identity I have left.
That is one of the things people write again more and more. Yet, we
say, here is our answer, we will study that for you. We are making
people think we are doing something about something they have clamored
for us to do something about for almost 10 years now.
This bill says that this commission is going to make recommendations
on whether additional legislation is necessary? Give me a break. Tell
that to the public, that we are trying to find out if it is necessary.
Or listen to what the FCC has just said: ``Legislation is now needed
to ensure consumers online privacy is adequately protected.'' It is
necessary. This bill does nothing about that necessity. It is very hard
for me to advocate support of this bill. I do not do so.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to answer the ranking member of the full
committee on hearings. We had a full hearing on April 12, 2000. We had
a full hearing on May 15. That is two major hearings on a rather simple
bill, but it is the only way we are going to get something done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), the ranking member on the subcommittee.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) has put in on this bill. It is clear to all of us
that the American people are demanding action and that their privacy be
protected by this Congress. I think it perhaps is one of the most
critical issues and one of the most difficult issues we face.
I think we also understand that there are very complex issues
surrounding the discussion of privacy, and there are many opinions that
have been voiced to us in the course of proceedings on this bill and
others that indicate that the Congress must carefully consider
legislation in this area.
H.R. 4049 is a bipartisan measure which would establish a commission
charged with studying issues relating to the protection of individual
privacy and the balance to be achieved between protecting privacy and
allowing appropriate uses of information.
The commission would submit a report to Congress and the President
within 18 months after its appointment. As a cosponsor of the bill, I
commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their leadership on a topic
of this importance.
I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), on his willingness to work with us on the issue. I agree with
him, that there are bills pending in this Congress that can be acted
upon and should be acted upon prior to the final report of this
commission.
The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology of the Committee on Government Reform held 3 days of
legislative hearings on this bill, heard from a number of witnesses,
hearing various points of view. The witnesses testified regarding the
commission's scope, the relationship of ongoing and past privacy
efforts, the composition of the commission, and other issues.
I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for
his willingness to accept an amendment, a manager's amendment, at the
full committee level which clarified that the intent of this bill is
not to delay or obstruct any pending, ongoing privacy initiatives in
this Congress.
It has been more than 20 years since a privacy commission studied
this issue. It is clear to me that we need a comprehensive reevaluation
of the subject; that legislation that is pending can be considered and
passed while we are studying this issue, but there are enough problems
in the area of privacy regulation, privacy protection, to justify a
commission with the expertise that is laid out in the bill as far as
the creation of a commission and its membership.
I believe Congress should strictly adhere to the intent of the bill,
which calls for the commission to be used as a supplement to and a
sounding board for ongoing legislative privacy initiatives rather than
any means of delay.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their good work, and I urge the
House to adopt this bipartisan measure.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey), who is one of the champions on privacy questions in this
Congress, I want to point out that the Horn subcommittee held three
hearings, two at our request. They were all on the issue of this
commission. There was not a single hearing on the medical privacy issue
or the Internet privacy, which is also the jurisdiction of that
committee.
I regret that, because it seems to me we could be much further down
the road in directly enacting legislation if we had that leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), who has raised the privacy issue in a number of different
spheres and has been such an enormous champion in trying to get
legislation, and shown such leadership in trying to get that
legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate. I think it is important
for everyone who is listening to the debate to understand what we are
debating and what we are not debating.
We are debating a privacy commission. In fact, that is how it is
described by the proponents. But for those that want real privacy, we
are debating a privacy omission. That is what this debate is really all
about.
We have bills before Congress. They have been sitting there for
years. The gentleman was the chair of this subcommittee and did not
have any hearings on the subject. The Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, no hearings; the Committee on Commerce, no
hearings.
Everyone understands what the problem is. The Internet industry
understands, the banking industry understands, the health industry
understands the issues. What frightens them most greatly is that the
public understands them, as well.
[[Page H8566]]
These are not complicated issues. We over the years have made many
decisions with regard to the privacy of the American public. It is not
something that requires a lot of study.
We make it a requirement that a driver of an automobile have to opt
in before any license information, driver's license information, can be
transferred. If we rent a video cassette at a video rental store, they
have to get our permission before they transfer that information. If we
are watching cable TV and late at night we might flick over to one of
those pay per view channels that maybe we don't want the rest of the
family, much less everyone else in the neighborhood, understanding that
we might have watched, the cable industry cannot tell anyone that we
did that. They have to get our permission before they do so. If we call
anyone on our phones, the phone company cannot tell anybody who we
called without our permission.
If a child goes online to a commercial site for children and they are
under the age of 13, that site cannot transfer that information to
anyone else without the express permission of parents. But if the child
is 13, if the child is 14, if the child is 15, there are no
restrictions.
Do Members think this Congress could figure out that maybe we should
protect 13- and 14- and 15-year-olds? We are told by the committee that
they cannot figure that out. It is too hard for them to know whether or
not a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old's information
should be transferred. They need to get an expert panel of industry
officials, primarily, I am going to bet that is the case, to tell us
whether or not those children should be protected.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we run for office. People in this country
know whether or not they want their health care records protected or
not. They know whether or not they want their financial records
protected. We do not need a Commission to study this. This is not
beyond the ability of this Congress to deal with.
What the bill is really all about is punting for another 2 years, 18
months, for the commission to study it. It means it is right before the
next Congress ends, in the year 2002, which is exactly what the
industry wants. We do not have to be a genius to figure out what to do
to protect children, to protect the medical record of Americans, to
make sure that somebody cannot take all of our checks or all of our
brokerage accounts, all of the medical exams we might have to take for
an insurance policy, and then sell it as though it is a product.
Do we really have to study that? I don't think so. This is just a
commission to make sure that this Congress can say that it did
something; that is, put a fig leaf over this issue.
So Mr. Speaker, yes, we need a new economy, but we need a new economy
with old values. We need commerce with a conscience. This Congress, by
passing this bill, demonstrates that it is unwilling to grasp this
moral issue of what corporate America is doing in taking the private,
most sensitive information of American families and turning it into a
product which is sold around the country and around the world.
So if Members want privacy and they want it to happen, vote no on
this bill and force them to bring out the bills over this next week
that ensure that on the Internet, on financial records, on the health
care data of every American family, we give them the protections which
they deserve.
Otherwise, this bill is going to guarantee that there will be no
action in the next Congress either, because the report does not come
back until 2 years from now, at the end of the next Congress.
{time} 1515
So I think that, while they may have had all the hearings on their
commission bill, that, without question, whether or not we are going to
ensure that the new technology ennobles and enables Americans rather
than degrades and debases, whether or not we come to grips with the
fact that there is a sinister side of cyberspace and that we understand
it and that we demonstrate to the American people that we do understand
it, and that we become the privacy keepers as were our local bankers
when we were younger, our doctors and nurses when we were younger, and
that we identify with those privacy keepers rather than the privacy
peepers and the information reapers which these new data banks are able
to make possible, creating products out of the family information of
each one of us in the United States. I do not believe that there is an
issue more central to the integrity and the well-being of a family in
the United States than whether or not we give them the rights today to
protect that information from being turned into a product.
To say that we do not have the ability to understand it says that we
do not understand cyberspace, we do not understand the world in which
everyone is living, and we do not understand that 85 percent of the
American public in every single poll are demanding us to give them the
right to protect this information. Vote no on this commission.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran), the co-author of this legislation, I want to say that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is always very eloquent. Did
he beat on the door of the chairman of the Committee on Commerce? Did
he beat on the door of the chairman of the Committee on Judiciary? I
did not hear him beating on my door.
But we knew the gentleman from Massachusetts and five others were out
there, and we would have been glad to give them a hearing. But there
are a lot of other committees around here that have the jurisdiction. I
am not aware of the gentleman from Massachusetts ever going before any
of those committees. But he always is eloquent, no question about it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to answer how many doors did he knock on.
When I have a bill out, I am knocking on doors.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I was given an ironclad commitment by the
other side when we were debating the financial services bill last
November that they would have hearings all this year in the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services on financial services and health care
privacy. They had no hearings on this issue. That side over there did
not, in fact, fulfill its commitment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). He made it clear
from the outset that he wanted bipartisan constructive legislation,
that he wanted hearings, and he wanted to do what we could do given the
information that we had available to us.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). He
has worked, again, in a constructive manner, listening to everyone that
wanted to have input into this legislation, has never behaved, to my
knowledge, in this context in any partisan fashion. He wanted this to
be a bipartisan bill. So I was very pleased to work with him.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of
the subcommittee. Again, all they wanted to do was work in a
constructive bipartisan manner.
Now, I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
whose leadership has been outstanding. In fact, I agree with the
gentleman's emphasis on the need for privacy legislation and with the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
I think that we ought to have privacy legislation right now,
particularly with regard to the protection of medical records. No
question. Let us do it. We will vote for it. I know that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) will and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) will as
well.
So I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my
very good friend, I wished that I had had the same rhetoric teachers as
my colleague, but I did go to the Jesuits, and I remember some of this,
and it is very effective and impressive.
[[Page H8567]]
But let me say to the gentleman from Massachusetts just do it. If he
wants privacy legislation, do it. As the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) suggested, the gentleman from Massachusetts is on the Committee
on Commerce.
The reality is that it is not going to get done. This is all we have.
We have made it clear, every speaker has made it clear this does not
preclude any other privacy legislation. It is meant to compliment it.
We do not have to take 18 months. We can do it in 6 months.
The problem is, while the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey),
my good friend, may have all the answers, I do not. I am not sure what
to do. Given the fact that there are 7,000 privacy bills introduced in
State legislatures, one out of every 5 legislative bills introduced
around the country this year had to do with privacy, we have got dozens
of bills pending before our committees on privacy, which one of them
works? Which ones will create a consistency? I am not sure. I do not
have those answers.
I am not even sure how we protect the consumer choice that is very
important to many people while ensuring that we protect people's basic
privacy which is a fundamental American right and freedom. I do not
have those answers. I am not sure this Congress has those answers.
Perhaps some of us do; and if they do, just do it. Come up with the
legislation, and we will vote for it.
In the meantime, we want to get the experts together to bring out all
the factors that need to be considered so that we can have the most
thoughtful, the best considered legislation possible.
This is critically important. It is critically important to our
economy and to our society. It is a basic American freedom, individual
privacy. But let us not mess it up.
I know that privacy is off the charts on every poll we take. I know
that all the voters want us to do something about privacy. But if we
are going to do it, we ought to do it right. We ought to do it in a
bipartisan way. We ought not politicize it. It ought to be good, public
policy that is sustainable. That is what this legislation does. That is
all it does.
We have worked on this. We have listened to everyone. I know the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my friend and the distinguished
leader will recall that, in fact, when we had hearings, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) testified about medical records, about
financial records.
I am not sure I got an answer about the question how do we make
consistent privacy regulations on medical records, on financial
records, on the children's privacy protection act that was just passed.
How do we bring all these together and have a consistent Federal
policy? How do we get consistency among the States without preempting
their right to protect their citizens? I do not know. Let us ask the
experts, and that is what this commission does.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4049. I would
like to thank my colleague Asa Hutchinson and Jim Turner, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, for their leadership and bipartisan efforts
in introducing this bill.
This legislation has been criticized by some as a proposal to slow
down other privacy legislation. On the other hand, the idea of a
privacy commission has been criticized by at least some in the business
community out of a concern that it may lead to the enactment of
overbearing legislation.
Unfortunately, this way of thinking and operating has become a
familiar pattern with a familiar result. Congress winds up doing
nothing. That is really what we are talking about today. Do we engage
in the same old partisan gridlock and do nothing or do we get serious
about moving forward on some of the most important issues in this
nation and pass this legislation.
I respect and appreciate much of the work that colleagues and friends
like Ed Markey and John LaFalce have done on privacy issues. I agree
with them that there are some privacy issues, like the protection of
medical records, that Congress should immediately move to protect.
That is why we purposely did not include any moratorium or preemption
language that would prevent Congress or the states from enacting
privacy legislation that may be needed before the work of this
commission is done. But the reality is that there is not going to be
any other privacy legislation passed this term. In the meantime, we can
be doing something constructive.
Let me repeat that: Nothing in this bill precludes Congress or the
states from moving forward on privacy legislation.
I do believe, however, that the work of the Privacy Commission will
lead to better overall decisions about privacy, particularly as it
relates to the Internet and electronic commerce.
Privacy has become a major public policy issue. Last year, the state
legislatures considered over 7,000 privacy bills. Approximately one out
of every five bills introduced in the state legislatures was a privacy
bill. The Congress currently has before it dozens of privacy bills. The
federal regulatory agencies are busy on numerous privacy initiatives.
And yet, it has been more than twenty years since the Privacy
Protection Study Commission issued its landmark report in 1977. Since
then, the personal computer and the Internet have transformed our
economy. At the same time, they have raised and continue to raise new
privacy issues that the 1977 study could not have envisioned. It is
time to revisit the issues from the 1977 report as well as the broader
new issues raised by the information economy. The Privacy Commission
Act creates an opportunity to do just that.
Everyone agrees that getting privacy policy right will go a long way
towards fully developing the potential of the Internet and e-commerce.
The extent to which this exciting new medium will continue its
incredible expansion depends in large measure on balancing legitimate
consumer privacy rights with basic marketplace economics. An open and
supportive legal environment has helped encourage the rapid development
of the Internet. Companies and consumers alike realize that Internet
privacy is the one issue that must be done right.
Americans are rightly concerned about their lack of privacy. We know
and appreciate that the public worries about cookies; worries about the
capture of information regarding browsing behavior; and worries about
profiling. But, we don't know what the dimensions are of the real
privacy threats posed by these activities and what the economic payoffs
are of these activities. We certainly don't know very much yet about
the impact of recently enacted privacy protection legislation, such as
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act or the privacy protections
in Title V of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
There is a lack of consensus about whether the U.S. should move
toward the establishment of some type of national privacy regulatory
agency or whether the existing combination of courts, consumer
protection authorities, Attorney Generals and various federal agencies
provide a more than adequate privacy regulatory presence.
There is also the troubling question of preemption. In an electronic
environment where information moves across local, state, and national
borders in nanoseconds, does it really make any sense to allow the
location of data, sometimes the momentary location of data, to dictate
the rules that apply?
The stakes are high. As a nation, we must find a way to protect
information privacy and to give our citizens confidence that they can
engage in e-commerce and provide access to their personal information,
knowing that the information will be used appropriately and in ways
that are consistent with their understanding of the transaction.
At the same time, we must preserve the ability of the business
community to use personal information effectively to promote consumer
convenience and to drive down the cost and improve the quality of goods
and services; and to personalize the marketplace--in a very real sense,
revolutionize the marketplace--to spur growth and to give consumers
information about the goods and services which consumers wish to
receive.
The Privacy Commission created by H.R. 4049 will not answer every
question to everyone's satisfaction. But, there is every reason to
believe that this is exactly the right time for a Privacy Commission to
look at these questions, as well as the profound changes in the
underlying technology and the underlying business models that have
ignited the current privacy debate. This will allow us to get to our
destination with fewer mistakes and in a way that encourages the
effective use of personal information while protecting privacy.
The Privacy Commission Act is supported by The Information Technology
Industry Council, The Center for Democracy and Technology, The American
Electronics Association, The Information Technology Association of
America, and The Association for Competitive Technology.
I would like to thank Asa for his leadership on this issue and I urge
my colleagues to support the serious study of these important issues
and to vote for this important legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from California
[[Page H8568]]
(Mr. Waxman) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) has 50 seconds remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) very much for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Let me explain
quickly why. First, it is important to know that this body has
legislated for the past 30 years on privacy concerns. There are at
least a dozen or so privacy bills that already have been passed by this
body, some recently dealing with children online, some recently dealing
with financial services, issues, or medical records. We continue to
examine those before the Committee on Commerce and other committees of
this body.
Recently, the Chamber of Commerce put on an extraordinary function at
Lansdowne, Virginia where we brought in private sector individuals and
learned a great deal more about the issue. The staff, as we speak, of
the Committee on Commerce is working with my staff to see if we cannot
have one additional hearing before we leave Congress this year as we
prepare for what the Committee on Commerce expects to do in this area
next year. But the last thing we need to do, in my opinion, is to give
this issue to some commission to make decisions about these critical
issues.
Let me tell my colleagues about a report that GAO just did at the
request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and I. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey) and I asked GAO to look at Federal Web sites to
see how well they protected privacy and to use the FTC standard to find
out which among our Federal sites were out of line.
Do my colleagues know how many sites on the Federal Web complied with
the FTC guidelines? Three percent. Fourteen percent of them had
cookies. Everyone of them was gathering personal information. Only 23
percent met the test for security, which means those Web sites are open
to hackers every day.
The bottom line is the Federal Government itself does not have its
act in order. Our own Federal Web sites, 3 percent only comply with the
FTC. Yet, we are going to appoint a commission to tell us how the
private sector should be adopting rules on privacy. No, I think that is
our responsibility. I think our responsibility is, number one, number
one, to get the Federal Web sites in line so that, on the Federal site
where one has to give up information to the government, that
information is protected properly; and then, two, for the Committee on
Commerce and the legislature to come up with some good legislation for
the private sector.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, along the lines of the argument just made by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), I want to point out that a
number of privacy experts, including individuals from the Electronic
Privacy Information Center, Consumer Action, Privacy Times, the Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse, the Free Congress Foundation, Junk Busters and
others, they said: ``We oppose this bill because it is unlikely to
advance privacy protections in the United States. To the contrary, if
adopted, it would likely retard the progress of legislation that would
result in meaningful protections for Americans.
``Enacting this bill would give the appearance that Congress was
finally doing something about protecting Americans' right to privacy
when, in fact, it was not. Such a result would be unfair to the
American people.''
I agree with the argument that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) and others have made, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me give my colleagues an illustration of the problem
that we have right now. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach),
Republican, passed a bill earlier out of his committee that would have
given additional opt-in protections for medical information. It passed
out of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services 26 to 14. That
was back on June 29 of this year. The bill has not been heard from
since.
It just sits over there with the leadership on the Republican side
holding onto this bill even though, on a bipartisan basis, Democrats
and Republicans have already come to an agreement that the financial
records that include sensitive medical information should be protected
with this extra level of an opt-in protection.
In addition, I mean, we can go down the litany, the gentleman from
California already went down earlier the litany of bills which have
been introduced in this Congress which are still awaiting hearings,
still awaiting deliberation. But it is hard for Members of Congress to
reach that bipartisan consensus if no hearings are being held by the
Republican leadership on these very sensitive subjects.
And to basically subcontract out our responsibility to a commission
when the American public expects us to be making those decisions
ourselves, and we have the capacity to do so, while we feign ignorance,
we are basically saying there is an invincible ignorance on our part,
when we cannot understand these issues, when in fact the reality is
that, when we act on these issues, when we move, the Republican
leadership then blocks them from coming out here on the floor because
the industries that are affected do not want the American people to
have any additional privacy.
That is the core issue that we are talking about here, whether or not
we are going to take on those large industries who basically have a
commercial stake in compromising the privacy of every single American.
At this point in time, if we look down the litany of bills that have
been before the Congress over the past year, we can say that, without
question, that there can only be a zero which is given to the
Republican leadership in dealing with this issue of American privacy.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished
gentleman from California for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague if he is aware, I was the
author of the opt-in requirement on licensing and registration of
automobile vehicles, and it is working. But it was done in a bipartisan
way if the gentleman will recall and we had adequate information.
I would suggest to my colleague that if he has legislation that can
pass that the authors of this bill would be more than happy to sign on
to that legislation and support it.
{time} 1530
We just want to get something done that will work, that is
constructive, and that is sustainable.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
point out that the predecessor of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) of the committee that has the jurisdiction over privacy
legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), worked for
many years on the issue of medical privacy; and, as a result, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) introduced a bill that had
conservatives to liberals in the House on his legislation.
Rather than build on that legislation and move it forward, the
Republican leadership let it languish. Rather than work to resolve the
issues of financial privacy, the Republican leadership in the Congress
has not brought that to the floor. What the Republican leadership in
the Congress has suggested we do about privacy is set up another
commission. And many of us fear that setting up another commission is
an excuse not to move forward. That is why, when this commission
legislation was brought before the committee, we wanted a mandatory
deadline to force actual action to protect people's privacy, not simply
to continually study it.
So I regret we do not have legislation on the subject, and that is
why I would urge that we do not agree to this bill on suspension. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[[Page H8569]]
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Obviously, this is the only thing that is going to happen, and it
sounds like a lot of bipartisanship that we pride ourselves on in our
subcommittee, with the gentleman Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) over the years, is somehow missing here.
I am very sorry that the ranking Democrat on the full committee
cannot go along on this. If the gentleman knew he was going to kill it,
why did he not say it when we had it before the full committee instead
of playing games here when we are getting near an election?
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who spent a lot of hours and weeks and
months on this legislation.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) has 30 seconds.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, one thing I believe we agree on is that
we want to go in the same direction in protecting privacy. The bottom
line here is that, for whatever reason, the bill of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is not moving through the Committee on
Commerce.
Please do not disappoint people who want to do something about
privacy by saying we are not going to do anything this year. This is
our only opportunity. I hope we can come back and do something in the
Committee on Commerce, but I also hope this bill can pass this year,
and I ask for my colleagues' support.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, enactment of federal legislation to protect
the medical privacy of Americans has been a subject of congressional
debate for years. More recently, with passage of the financial
modernization legislation last year, financial privacy has been on the
minds of millions, and electronic privacy concerns are becoming a major
source of friction for dot.com companies and consumers.
Legislative solutions in these areas are not simple. Inevitably, the
rules that will do the most to protect consumers cause affected
businesses to object that they would be burdensome and costly. But
reasonable solutions are needed, or the fears that many harbor now--
that public and private entities they know nothing about are somehow
gaining access without their knowledge to intimate (and sometimes
damaging and embarrassing) information about them--will increasingly
cause privacy-protective consumers to take extreme measures to avoid
releasing as much personal information as possible. Or, they may simply
decide to lie.
Already, surveys tell us that some consumers are deciding not to seek
certain medical treatments--genetic tests in particular--because they
fear that the results could render them uninsurable. On the other hand,
insurers insist that they have a right to seek and demand as much
information as possible in order to accurately determine risk and
premiums.
Legislation is urgently needed to set boundaries and rules that are
fair, reasonable, broad and balanced. There are many such bills that
are pending in this Congress that would do much to advance the privacy
agenda. Regrettably, they have been bottled up in committee. Among
these bills are:
H.R. 4380, a bill developed by the administration and introduced by
Representative John LaFalce (D-NY). The legislation would inform and
empower consumers in the area of financial privacy by giving them the
choice of saying ``yes'' or ``no'' before any disclosure of their
medical information that is gathered by financial institutions (which
include insurers). It would also allow consumers who chose to take the
initiative to stop the transfer of other personal financial information
that would otherwise take place.
H.R. 4585, introduced by Representative Jim Leach (R-Iowa) would also
enhance financial privacy protections by giving consumers an
affirmative ``opt in'' choice before their medical information could be
shared by financial institutions. The bill also features a federal
private right of action. It was marked up by the House Banking
Committee on June 29, where it was approved 26-14.
H.R. 1941, introduced by Representative Gary Condit (D-Calif.) would
give consumers control over the use and disclosure of their medical
records, and private health plans, physicians, insurers, employers, and
others clear rules for how medical records should be handled. Consumers
whose privacy was violated would have legal redress through a private
right of action.
H.R. 4611, introduced by Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.)
features the administration's proposals to strengthen privacy
protections for use of Social Security numbers.
H.R. 3321, introduced by Representative Markey and Representative
Bill Luther (D-Minn.) would provide comprehensive privacy protections
on the Internet.
H.R. 4857, introduced by Representative Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) and Jerry
Kleczka (D-Wisc.) was approved last week by the House Ways and Means
Committee, and aims to curb identity theft with new rules restricting
abuse of Social Security numbers. No floor action on the bill has yet
been scheduled.
By comparison, the bill on today's suspension calendar, the Privacy
Commission Act (H.R. 4049) offers no solutions. Instead, it calls for a
17-member commission to spend 18 months and $5 million to figure out
what to do. There is nothing inherently wrong with studying privacy.
But the majority party, in putting only this legislation on the floor
during the 106th Congress, misses the main point, which is that we need
to be legislating--not sitting on our hands and waiting for input from
a commission that may or may not provide additional worthwhile insights
on crafting sound privacy policy in 2002.
Nor do we need a commission to second-guess the medical privacy
regulations that will soon be issued by the Department of Health and
Human Services. There are some in the health industry who are hoping a
commission will call for further delay in the date on when the HHS
regulations take effect, and who will use the commission to raise
hypothetical concerns about their workability and cost. Yet the
regulations are already subject to a 2-year implementation timeline,
giving stakeholders a long lead-time to prepare and put in place some
initial necessary safeguards to protect consumers' medical records from
misuse and abuse.
I urge my colleagues to raise their voices in support of real privacy
legislation that will provide comprehensive medical, financial, and
Internet protections for all Americans.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4049, the Privacy Commission Act. I am proud to be an original sponsor
of this bill, which would be a significant step forward toward creating
a comprehensive framework for the protection of personal privacy.
The Privacy Commission would be unique in Congress because of its
comprehensive approach to dealing with the growing concern Americans
have regarding the protection of their personal privacy--whether that
be online privacy, identity theft, or the protection of health,
medical, financial, and governmental records. The Commission would be
charged with investigating the problem of protecting personal privacy
in a broad-based fashion, across-the-industry spectrum. After an
extensive 18 month investigation, the commission will then be required
to recommend whether additional legislation is necessary, what specific
proposals would be effective, and proposals for non-governmental
privacy protection efforts as well.
This bipartisan commission would be comprised of 17 members
representing experts of various industries and organizations whose work
impacts individual's personal privacy. Specifically, the commission
would be representing federal, state, and local governments; business
and industry groups; academics; consumer groups; financial services
groups; public policy and advocacy groups; medical groups; civil
liberties experts; and the media, though it is not limited to just
these areas.
Mr. Speaker, in these times of rapidly changing technology, people
are uncertain and fearful about who has access to their personal
information and how that information is being used. The Privacy
Commission would examine the entire spectrum of privacy issues and find
solutions that will aggressively protect these growing concerns. I urge
all my colleagues to vote in support of the Privacy Commission Act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4049, the
Privacy Commission Act.
As my colleagues know, this legislation would establish a commission
to study various aspects of privacy--financial, medical, electronic,
and so on--and make recommendations to Congress. The 15 commission
members would have 18 months to complete their work.
My objections to this bill have little to do with its actual
substance. If the majority prefers to study an issue rather than act
upon it, they are welcome to do so. I am deeply disturbed, however,
that they would deny those of us who wish to act the opportunity to
offer amendments.
In many cases, we know privacy does not exist, and we know how to
provide the protections that American consumers are demanding. Just
last week, the Institute for Health Freedom released a Gallup survey
finding that 78 percent of those polled considered it very important
that their medical records be kept
[[Page H8570]]
confidential. Individuals are particularly concerned about their
genetic privacy. Genetic information is perhaps the most personal
information that can be learned about an individual, and can have
enormous ramifications for their future. As a result, Americans are
especially worried that their genetic information could fall into the
wrong hands and be used to undermine, rather than advance, their best
interests.
I am proud to sponsor H.R. 2457, the Genetic Nondiscrimination in
Health Insurance and Employment Act. As its title states, this
legislation would prevent insurers and employers from using genetic
information to discriminate against individuals. The bill has the
support of dozens of organizations, as well as over 130 bipartisan
cosponsors. It was developed with the review and input of all the
stakeholders, including consumers, health care professionals, and
providers. H.R. 2457 has been enthusiastically endorsed by the
administration, and the President has called repeatedly for its
passage.
Nevertheless, this legislation languishes in committee without so
much as a hearing. The majority has buried this reasonable,
responsible, timely legislation in favor of establishing a commission
that will, in this case, simply tell us what we already know.
I have traveled all over the nation to discuss genetic discrimination
issues. At every turn, I am approached by individuals who tell me that
they would like to take a genetic test, but have decided not to do so
because they are afraid the results will be obtained by their insurer
or employer. I am contacted by doctors who say that their relationships
with their patients are being damaged because patients are afraid to
have notes about a genetic disorder in their medical records. I receive
calls and letters from researchers who tell me that it is getting more
difficult every year to recruit participants in genetic research.
Congress has already waited too long to act on this issue. We cannot
waste any more time by deferring to a commission that will not report
for a year and a half. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4049,
and to call for its consideration under regular order.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4049, the
``Privacy Commission Act.''
We don't need a commission to study consumer privacy rights.
Consumers either have the right to determine how personal information
they gave others will be used, or they don't. In my view, consumers
deserve this right. Spending 18 months studying privacy and $5 million
of the taxpayers money will not bring us any closer to deciding this
fundamental issue. Only Members of the Congress, not members of a study
commission, can decide whether to protect consumer privacy.
What consumers are demanding is a simple and clear statement from
Congress that banks, insurance companies, securities firms, HMO's, and
other entities cannot disseminate or use personal information in ways
the consumer has not approved. That's not a complicated concept,
although many who don't want to protect consumer privacy will maintain
that it is. One hundred and thirty-eight of our colleagues are
cosponsors of one such bill that we should have the opportunity to
consider either as an amendment to the bill before us or on its own.
That legislation, H.R. 2457, is sponsored by our colleague, Mrs.
Slaughter, and prohibits genetic discrimination in determining
eligibility for health insurance and employment. Polls show that more
than 80 percent of those surveyed are afraid that genetic information
could be used against them. One hundred and seventy-eight of our
colleagues have signed a discharge petition to bring this matter to the
floor for a vote. Outside medical professional groups, including the
Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, support the
bill. The administration strongly support it, and the platforms of both
major national parties include planks that call for legislation like
H.R. 2457.
Clearly, Members are ready to act on genetic privacy, yet the
Republican House leadership says we can't. The chairman of the Commerce
Committee has repeatedly rejected requests from Democratic Members to
let the committee act on this important legislation. In fact,
Republican leadership won't even permit an amendment prohibiting
genetic discrimination to be offered to the matter before us.
That's just plain wrong, and the Republican majority should not be
allowed to cite passage of this meaningless commission bill as evidence
that they have concerns for consumer privacy. If they truly were
concerned about consumer privacy we'd be considering Mrs. Slaughter's
bill, or others like it that are intended to legally protect consumer
privacy, not just study it. At the very least, Members should have the
right to amend this bill with proposals that provide consumers real and
needed protection.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4049.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker today I rise in support of H.R.
4049, the Privacy Commission Act. I commend the gentleman from
Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, on this fine piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as we enter into this new millennium, the Internet has
taken the American economy to unseen levels of prosperity. The Internet
has contributed to a stock market which has reached unimaginable highs.
However, with this amazing new medium, we must be cautious of the
privacy of individuals. The Internet, this storehouse of financial,
personal and medical information can be easily abused and unjustly
destroy people's credit, reputation and security. America's families
have a right to be concerned.'' This Congress must take steps to assure
families that their privacy will be protected in the modern age.
This piece of legislation will create a bipartisan committee to study
privacy and its protection. Mr. Speaker this legislation will take
monumental steps in protecting individual privacy in the 21st Century.
This commission will spend 18 months discussing the question of
privacy, and find the answers to these questions.
Mr. Speaker, I support this important piece of legislation and urge
my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 4049, the Privacy Commission Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4049, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________