[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25553-25558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 1735. A bill to expand the applicability of daylight saving time; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    THE HALLOWEEN SAFETY ACT OF 1999

  MR. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
``Halloween Safety Act of 1999.'' This Act has one simple purpose: to 
extend the date on which the daylight saving time ends from the last 
Sunday in October to the first Sunday of November in order to include 
the holiday of Halloween.
  The idea of extending daylight saving time was first introduced to me 
by Sharon Rasmussen, a second grade teacher from Sheridan, Wyoming, and 
her students. I received a packet of twenty letters from Mrs. 
Rasmussen's second grade class expressing their wish to have an extra 
hour of daylight during Halloween in order to make the holiday safer. 
These children explained that they would feel more secure if they had 
an extra hour of daylight when venturing door-to-door in their annual 
trick-or-treating. Halloween is a holiday of great importance to 
youngsters throughout the United States and a large number of children 
do celebrate by trick-or-treating in their neighborhoods and towns. I 
believe this reasonable proposal would make those Halloween activities 
safer.
  Upon conducting some research of my own, I discovered that Halloween 
is a time of increased danger for children. According to the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety, fatal pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions 
occur most often between 6 and 9 p.m., comprising twenty-five percent 
of the total. Another twenty-one percent occur between 9 p.m. and 
midnight, making nighttime the most dangerous time for pedestrians.
  Unfortunately, these general accident trends are magnified on 
Halloween given the considerable increase in pedestrians--most of whom 
are children, on Halloween evening. A study by the Division of Injury 
Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the 
Center for Disease Control, concluded that the incidence of pedestrian 
deaths in children ages 5-14 is four times higher on Halloween than any 
other night of the year. In order to make this holiday safer for all 
our children, Congress should take the modest

[[Page 25554]]

step of providing one extra week of daylight saving time.
  Attempts have been made in the past to extend daylight saving time. 
Most recently, Senator Alan Simpson introduced the ``Daylight Saving 
Extension Act of 1994.'' Although Senator Simpson's legislation would 
have changed both the starting date and the ending date of daylight 
saving time, the legislation I am introducing today would simply extend 
it for a week.
  The fact that the students of Mrs. Rasmussen's second grade class 
took the time to write and request that I sponsor a bill to extend 
daylight saving time is important to me. I believe that many of these 
children's parents would also be pleased with this extension of 
daylight savings time. If children are concerned about their own safety 
and come up with a reasonable approach to make their world a little bit 
safer, I believe that accommodating their request is not too much to 
ask. Protecting the children of our country should be a primary concern 
for all of us as lawmakers. If one life could be saved by extending 
daylight saving time to encompass Halloween, it would be worthwhile. I 
trust that all my colleagues will take the time to consider the 
importance the ``Halloween Safety Act of 1999'' would have for children 
and their parents in their respective states.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1736. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood products; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                  Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths (those exempt 
from attending school) between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in 
sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I 
introduced an identical measure at the close of the 105th Congress and 
am hopeful that the Senate can once again consider this important 
issue. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, 
Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House this 
year.
  As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased 
funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections 
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, 
that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from 
compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is 
extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be 
provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer 
employment where they live.
  The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish 
community. Last year, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, 
Pennsylvania, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish 
constituency. They explained that while the Amish once made their 
living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand 
into other occupations as farmland disappears in many areas due to 
pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to 
rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish 
culture expects youth upon the completion of their education at the age 
of 14 to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become 
productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one 
of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system 
limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are 
currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they 
reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and 
lifestyle of the Amish.
  In the 105th Congress, the House passed by a voice vote H.R. 4257, 
introduced by Representative Pitts, which was similar to the bill I am 
introducing today. I am aware that concerns to H.R. 4257 existed: 
safety issues had been raised by the Department of Labor and 
Constitutional issues had been raised by the Department of Justice. I 
have addressed these concerns in my legislation.
  Under my legislation youths would not be allowed to operate power 
machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as 
sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires 
that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris 
and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult 
supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to 
insure that they are enforced.
  The Department of Justice stated that H.R. 4257 raised serious 
concerns under the Establishment Clause. The House measure conferred 
benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or 
division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal 
education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of 
working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the 
Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion 
to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome 
such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all 
youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the 
eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create 
a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are 
legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities.
  I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in 
Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. Yoder held that Wisconsin's 
compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school 
until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise clause. The Court found 
that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free 
exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the 
eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of 
the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with 
respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows 
and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, 
trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the 
continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills 
denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self-
reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish 
do not need the final two years of public education.
  I offer my legislation once again with the hope of opening a dialogue 
on this important issue. This is a matter of great importance to the 
Amish community and I urge its timely consideration by the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1736

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

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

       Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration 
     and enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it 
     shall not be considered oppressive child labor for an 
     individual who--
       ``(i) is under the age of 18 and over the age of 14, and
       ``(ii) by statute or judicial order is exempt from 
     compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade,

     to be employed inside or outside places of business where 
     machinery is used to process wood products.
       ``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph 
     (a) shall be permitted--
       ``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative 
     of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the 
     same religious sect or division as the individual;
       ``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the 
     operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
       ``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles 
     or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier 
     appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or 
     flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from 
     machinery in operation; and
       ``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal 
     protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels 
     of noise and saw dust.''.

[[Page 25555]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. 
        Thomas):
  S. 1738. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to 
make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed, or control livestock 
intended for slaughter; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                        THE RANCHER ACT OF 1999

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise before you today to 
introduce legislation on behalf of Senators Bob Kerrey, Charles 
Grassley, Craig Thomas, and myself. The RANCHER Act (Rural America 
Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher) is designed to reestablish a 
free, fair, and competitive market for independent livestock producers.
  South Dakota family farmers and ranchers indicate to me that one of 
the most critical problems in agriculture today is the growing, 
unabated trend of agribusiness consolidation and concentration. Too 
often today, elected leaders overlook agricultural concentration with 
rhetoric and empty promises. But talk doesn't provide any assurance to 
a cow-calf producer in South Dakota worried about what he or she will 
sell feeder calves for this fall. Talk doesn't minimize the worries of 
a diversified farmer looking for competitive markets in which to sell 
his or her grain. And talk surely doesn't assure any feeder of 
livestock that he or she will have a fair opportunity to sell slaughter 
livestock in this concentrated market.
  This bipartisan legislation would strengthen and amend Section 202 of 
the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by prohibiting meatpackers from 
owning livestock prior to purchase for slaughter. It does provide 
exceptions for farmers and ranchers who own and process livestock in a 
producer owned and controlled cooperative.
  Mr. President, concern over meatpacker concentration is not new in 
the United States. Cartoons in the 1880s negatively depicted companies 
that pooled livestock together for sale as ``beef trusts'' engaging in 
monopolistic pricing behavior. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson 
directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate meatpackers 
to determine if they were leveraging too much power over the 
marketplace.
  The FTC released a report in 1919 stating that the ``Big 5'' 
meatpackers (Armour, Swift, Morris, Wilson, and Cudahy) dominated with 
``monopolistic control of the American meat industry''. The FTC also 
found these meatpackers owned stockyards, rail car lines, cold storage 
plants, and other essential facilities for distributing food. This led 
to the Packers Consent Decree of 1920 which prohibited the Big 5 
packers from engaging in retail sales of meat and forced them to divest 
of ownership interests in stockyards and rail lines. Then, Congress 
enacted the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 that--among other 
things--prohibited meatpackers from engaging in unfair, discriminatory, 
or deceptive pricing practices.
  Unfortunately, we have allowed some in the meatpacking industry to 
once again dangerously choke free enterprise and market access. As in 
the past, producers again look to their elected leaders to take action. 
That is why I have introduced legislation in Congress to combat 
meatpacker concentration in livestock markets. My legislation will 
prohibit meatpackers from owning livestock for slaughter.
  Within the last few weeks, we've heard from pork conglomerates 
Smithfield Foods, Murphy Farms, and Tyson Foods regarding Smithfield's 
intention to own all the hogs currently held by both Murphy and Tyson. 
If these deals are to go through, around 800,000 sows could be owned 
and controlled by Smithfield. Ask any pork producer, a breeding stock 
herd of this size could enable Smithfield to totally dominate the hog 
industry.
  In response, we could seek a Department of Justice investigation of 
this deal, but it is clear to me that current anti-trust law may be 
simply too weak to stop a marriage of this nature. Some may believe we 
need trust busters with true grit in the Justice or Agriculture 
Departments to keep these deals from happening, but my experience in 
Congress tells me if we wait for this type of action, we won't have an 
independent farmer or rancher left--anywhere.
  Mr. President, current anti-trust laws have failed to address 
concerns of livestock producers in the marketplace. Moreover, growing 
packer concentration creates an imbalance in bargaining power between a 
few meatpackers who buy livestock and several producers who sell 
livestock. The relative lack of buyers means the buying side of the 
market has much more power than the selling side. Envision an 
hourglass: it is wide at both ends and very narrow in the middle. The 
two wide ends aptly represent agricultural producers and consumers. The 
narrow middle of the hourglass is the number of processors and 
meatpackers that buy livestock from farmers and ranchers and then sell 
food to consumers. A decision on the part of one meatpacker may have a 
substantial effect on the marketplace. For instance, when Smithfield 
shut down the pork plant in Huron--formerly owned by American Foods 
Group--pork producers in South Dakota were left with merely a single 
market for their slaughter hogs in the state. Alternatively, a decision 
on the part of a livestock producer seller has little if any effect at 
all on price. What does this mean? It means the marketplace is not 
competitive.
  Some so called experts'' in the industry claim that concentration 
leads to cheap prices for consumers. These experts believe 
concentration is simply unstoppable, and better yet, they point to the 
vertically integrated poultry industry as a successful guide or model 
for cattle and pork producers. They gloss over the real effects of 
concentration by touting economies of scale and productive efficiency.
  Apologists for the corporate conglomerates can criticize my efforts 
to keep meatpackers from owning livestock if they want, but given a 
choice, I will side with a broad base of family farmers and ranchers 
over conglomerate agriculture any day. It boils down to whether we want 
independent producers in agriculture, or if we will yield to 
concentration and see farmers and ranchers become low wage employees on 
their own land.
  Ultimately, if we continue to stand idle and watch control of the 
world's food supply fall into the hands of the few, consumers will be 
the real losers in terms of both retail cost and food safety.
  So today, almost a century after President Teddy Roosevelt used a big 
stick to give livestock producers a square deal, we again face a choice 
between corporate takeover of agriculture and a fight for free 
enterprise. I proudly cast my lot with the free enterprise family farm 
and ranch agriculture that has served our country so well.
 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join 
my colleagues Senator Johnson, Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey in 
introducing the ``Rural America Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher 
Act of 1999'' (RANCHER).
  Additional regulation of meat packing companies has become necessary 
because of a loophole my colleagues and I have long been concerned 
about: the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 does not clearly and 
definitively address meat packers owning livestock for slaughter. This 
legislation will prohibit meat packing companies from owning and 
feeding livestock, with the exception of producer-owned cooperatives 
defined by the majority of ownership interest in the cooperative being 
held by co-cop members that own, feed, or control livestock and provide 
those livestock to the co-op. An exemption for cooperatives is included 
as recognition and reward to those producers who have invested the 
resources necessary to enhance their market edge.
  In placing a prohibition on meat packing companies, our efforts today 
will be branded as anti-competitive and in support of ``big 
government,'' versus the ``free market.'' However, our intentions are 
precisely the opposite--we are introducing this legislation with goal 
of restoring competition to our livestock markets. In fact, this 
legislation

[[Page 25556]]

is long overdue. In recent years, livestock markets have become 
increasingly more concentrated, leaving individual producers with fewer 
options for selling their products.
  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the four top 
meat packing firms control roughly 80 percent of today's slaughter 
market, while less than 20 years ago, the top four firms controlled 
only 36 percent of the market. Over the last year we have watched the 
on-farm price of commodities plummet, while at the same time, retail 
prices have remained constant or even increased. The problem of price 
disparity, I believe is in part, attributable to growing market 
concentration. Since it is evident that market concentration exists, 
this legislation is a first step in working to restore fair market 
prices to our producers.
  Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation--it is an 
admirable initiative that seeks to strengthen financial solvency for 
our family producers. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will 
recognize the benefits this effort will generate for producers and 
rural communities across the United States and will join us in 
restoring true market competition.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1739. A bill to impose a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers 
and to establish a commission to review large agriculture mergers, 
concentration, and market power; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


    agribusiness merger moratorium and antitrust review act of 1999

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, over the past several years there 
has been a wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions in this country 
that is of historic proportions. Last year the dollar value of 
announced corporate combinations in the United States was more than 
$1.6 trillion. This exceeded the amount of all the mergers in the world 
the year before.
  The big are getting bigger, the small are getting trampled, and this 
has large implications for the kind of economy we are going to have 
and--more importantly--for the kind of nation we are going to be.
  This is apparent in rural America, where the elephants have been 
stomping with a special gusto. Control of the nation's food chain--from 
production and processing to packing and distribution--has been falling 
into fewer and fewer hands. Over a decade ago, the four biggest grain 
processing companies in the U.S. accounted for some 40 percent of the 
nation's flour milling. Today the figure is 62 percent. About three 
quarters of the wet corn milling and soybean crushing are controlled by 
the four biggest firms--and about 80 percent of the beef.
  This extraordinary concentration of economic power has large 
implications. It is draining the economic life out of rural America. In 
1952 farmers received close to half of every retail food dollar. Today 
they get less than a quarter of that same dollar. From a pound loaf of 
white bread that costs 87 cents at the store, the wheat farmer gets 
less than 4 cents. Farmers are working harder than ever; but the reward 
for their toil is going to the corporate conglomerates, which offer 
farmers fewer options for marketing their products than at probably any 
time in this century.
  While these corporations are showing record profits, farmers are 
forced to sell commodities such as wheat and pork, at Depression era 
prices. Thousands of farmers have gone under, and thousands more are 
barely hanging on. Farm auctions have become a grim feature of the 
rural landscape today, as has suicide. ``Everything is gone, wore out 
or shot, just like me,'' one Iowa farmer said in his suicide note.
  When farmers go, our rural communities go. We lose the stable social 
structures, the generations of family ties, the investment in schools 
and churches, libraries and clinics. Independent business people, from 
implement dealers to insurance salesmen, go belly up. And what do we 
get for this human tragedy and social loss? The low prices on the farm 
have not shown up in corresponding decreases at the supermarket. The 
processors and packers are getting the money instead.
  That's not the only source of the hardship in rural America. But it's 
a large one. The growing concentration of the nation's food chain into 
fewer corporate hands is something this Congress must address.
  The Clinton Administration deserves credit for reviving antitrust 
enforcement from the dormancy of the previous administrations. But it 
is laboring under reduced budgets and a body of law that, as 
interpreted by court decisions, may not be up to the task. When the two 
giants of the grain trade, Continental Grain and Cargill, are permitted 
to merge, then one has to wonder if the hole in the screen has become 
so big that there's no screen left.
  That's why I'm joining with Senator Wellstone in introducing 
legislation to impose a moratorium on large corporate mergers in the 
agriculture sector. The legislation would also create an independent 
commission to advise how to change the underlying antitrust laws and 
other federal laws and regulations to ensure a competitive agricultural 
marketplace and to protect family farmers and other family-sized 
producers.
  A moratorium on large corporate agriculture mergers is needed to give 
Congress time to consider these important questions and craft a 
suitable response. If we wait it could be too late. We won't be able to 
advance the fortunes of family-based agriculture because there won't be 
much left.
  Specifically, our bill imposes an 18-month moratorium on those large 
corporate mergers in the agriculture industry that would generally be 
required to make a ``Hart-Scott-Rodino" pre-merger filing with the 
Department of Justice. Such filings are triggered by a three-part test, 
one of which is that either of the two firms proposed for merger or 
acquisition have $100 million or more in net annual sales or assets. 
The Attorney General is granted authority to waive the application of 
the moratorium in ``extraordinary circumstances'' such as a merging 
firm's facing insolvency or similar financial distress.
  The legislation also establishes a 12-member commission to study the 
nature and consequences of mergers and concentration in America's 
agricultural economy. The Commission members are appointed by the 
leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives after consultation 
with the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate 
Agriculture Committees. After completing its study, the Commission will 
submit to the President and Congress a final report that includes its 
findings on consolidation in agriculture and recommendations about how 
our antitrust laws and other federal regulations should be changed to 
protect family-based agriculture, the communities they comprise, and 
the food shoppers of the nation.
  The family farmers of this nation are facing what could be the end 
game. The distortions and abuses in the agriculture marketplace have 
contributed to the loss of thousands of family farmers, and the grim 
foreboding that hangs over much of rural America.
  This does not have to be. No harm will come from this moratorium. 
Agribusiness enterprises will continue to see record profits, if the 
market so permits. Farmers and food shoppers will not lose because the 
record is clear that concentration in the food sector does not benefit 
them. Ironically, this merger mania means less freedom and less 
choice--in a nation that is supposed to stand for them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this moratorium, and antitrust review 
commission, and cast a vote for family-based agriculture and the health 
of rural America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1740. A bill to protect consumers when private companies offer 
services or products that are provided free of charge by the Social 
Security Administration and the Department Of Health and Human 
services; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 25557]]




                social security consumer protection act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation I 
originally proposed during the 105th Congress, the Social Security 
Consumer Protection Act. Quite simply, this bill is designed to protect 
constituents from what has been an all too common consumer scam.
  I introduced a similar bill during the prior Congress after an 
investigation by my staff found that unsuspecting consumers--from new 
parents to newlyweds to senior citizens--were falling prey to con 
artists who charged them for services that are available free of charge 
from the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS). Many of these schemes involve the use 
of materials and names which purposely mislead consumers into believing 
the scam artists are affiliated with the government.
  Companies operating under official sounding names like Federal 
Document Services, Federal Record Service Corporation, National Records 
Service, and U.S. Document Services are mailing information to 
thousands of Americans, scaring them into remitting a free to receive 
basic government services, such as a new Social Security number and 
card for a newborn or changing names upon marriage or divorce.
  One of my constituents, Deb Conlee of Fort Dodge, received one of 
these mailings. It sounded very official. It began, ``Read Carefully: 
Important Facts About your Social Security Card.'' The response 
envelope is stamped ``SSA-7701'' giving the impression that it is 
connected with the SSA. The solicitation goes on to say that she is 
required to provide SSA with any name change associated with her recent 
marriage and get a new Social Security card. It then urges her to send 
the company $14.75 to do this on her behalf. It includes the alarming 
statement, ``We urge you to do this immediately to help avoid possible 
problems where your Social Security benefits or joint income taxes 
might be questioned.''
  What the solicitation fails to mention, of course, is that these 
services are provided at no charge by SSA.
  After hearing Ms. Conlee's story, I contacted SSA and asked them to 
investigate these complaints. Then SSA Commissioner Shirley Chater 
responded that the services provided by these companies, ``Are 
completely unnecessary. Not only do they fail to produce any savings of 
time or effort for the customer, they also tend to delay issuance of 
the new Social Security card.''
  In its investigations, SSA received hundreds of complaints involving 
over 100 companies. The Postal Inspection Service has received hundreds 
of additional complaints. The Inspector General of SSA validated many 
of these complaints, including finding repeated cases of violations of 
Federal law. While it is already illegal for a company to imply any 
direct connection with a Federal agency, it is not illegal to charge 
for the very same services that are available at no cost to the 
Government.
  The Social Security Consumer Protection Act addresses this issue in a 
few important ways. First, the bill prohibits charging for services 
that are provided for free by SSA and HHS unless the following 
statement is prominently displayed on the first page of the 
solicitation in bold type, 16-point font, ``Important Public 
Disclosure: The product or service described here and assistance to 
obtain the product or service is available free of charge from the 
Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human 
Services. You may wish to check the government section of your local 
phone book for the phone number of your local Social Security 
Administration or Department of Health and Human Services office for 
help in obtaining this service for no charge or you may choose to use 
our service for a fee.''
  Should a consumer decide to use the services of one of these 
companies, they are protected from inappropriate use of their personal 
information. This bill prohibits the sale, transfer or use of personal 
information obtained on consumers through such a solicitation without 
their consent on a separate authorization form that clearly and plainly 
explains how their personal information could be used.
  I am joined in introducing this important consumer legislation by 
Senators Bryan, Kerrey, and Dodd.
  I am also pleased that the Social Security Consumer Protection Act 
enjoys the support of such consumer organizations as the National 
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Consumer 
Federation of America.
  Mr. President, these scams must come to an end. Consumers deserve 
full disclosure. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring 
consumers understand their rights when it comes to obtaining services 
from their government. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Social Security Consumer 
Protection Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1740

       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 ``Social Security Consumer 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CHARGING FOR SERVICES OR PRODUCTS THAT 
                   ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT CHARGE BY THE SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND PROHIBITION OF 
                   SALE, TRANSFER, OR USE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 1140 the following:

     ``SEC. 1140A. PROHIBITION OF CHARGING FOR SERVICES OR 
                   PRODUCTS THAT ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT CHARGE BY 
                   THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND 
                   PROHIBITION OF SALE, TRANSFER, OR USE OF 
                   CERTAIN INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     person shall not offer, for a fee, to assist an individual to 
     obtain a product or service that the person knows or should 
     know is provided for no fee by the Social Security 
     Administration or the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.
       ``(b) Exception.--A person may offer assistance for a fee 
     if, at the time the offer is made, the person provides, to 
     the individual receiving the assistance, a written notice on 
     the first page of the offer that clearly and prominently 
     contains the following phrase (printed in bold 16 point 
     type): `IMPORTANT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: The product or service 
     described here and assistance to obtain the product or 
     service is available free of charge from the Social Security 
     Administration or the Department of Health and Human 
     Services. You may wish to check the government section of 
     your local phone book for the phone number of your local 
     Social Security Administration or Department of Health and 
     Human Services office for help in obtaining this service for 
     no charge or you may choose to use our service for a fee.'.
       ``(c) Sale, Transfer, or Use of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except with prior, express, written 
     authorization from an individual, a person obtaining any 
     information regarding such individual in connection with an 
     offer of assistance under subsection (b) shall not--
       ``(A) sell or transfer such information; or
       ``(B) use such information for a purpose other than 
     providing such assistance.
       ``(2) Required form of authorization.--An authorization 
     under paragraph (1) shall be presented to the individual as a 
     separate document, clearly explaining the purpose and effect 
     of the authorization and the offer under subsection (a) shall 
     not be contingent on such authorization.
       ``(d) Imposition of Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commissioner or the Secretary (as 
     applicable), pursuant to regulations, may impose a civil 
     monetary penalty against a person for a violation of 
     subsection (a) or (c) not to exceed--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), $5,000; or
       ``(B) in the case of a violation consisting of a broadcast 
     or telecast, $25,000.
       ``(2) Violations with respect to individual items.--
       ``(A) Offer of services.--In the case of an offer of 
     services consisting of pieces of mail, each piece of mail in 
     violation of this section shall be a separate violation.
       ``(B) Use of information.--In the case of a violation of 
     subsection (c), each sale, transfer, or use of information 
     with respect to an individual shall be a separate violation.
       ``(e) Recovery of Penalty.--
       ``(1) Procedure.--The provisions of section 1128A (other 
     than subsections (a), (b), (f), (h),

[[Page 25558]]

     (i) (other than paragraph (7)), and (m) and the first 
     sentence of subsection (c)) shall apply to civil money 
     penalties imposed under subsection (d) in the same manner as 
     the provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under section 
     1128A(a).
       ``(2) Compromise.--Penalties imposed against a person under 
     subsection (d) may be compromised by the Commissioner or the 
     Secretary (as applicable).
       ``(3) Venue.--Penalties imposed against a person under 
     subsection (d) may be recovered in a civil action in the name 
     of the United States brought in the district court of the 
     United States for the district in which the violation 
     occurred or where the person resides, has its principal 
     office, or may be found as determined by the Commissioner or 
     the Secretary (as applicable).
       ``(4) Deduction of penalty from benefits.--The amount of a 
     penalty imposed under this section may be deducted from any 
     sum then or later owing by the United States to the person 
     against whom the penalty has been imposed.
       ``(f) Use of Penalty Amounts Recovered.--
       ``(1) Costs of the office of the inspector general.--
     Amounts recovered under this section shall be made available 
     to the Commissioner and the Secretary (as applicable) to 
     reimburse costs of the applicable Office of the Inspector 
     General related to the enforcement of this section.
       ``(2) Excess amounts.--Amounts recovered under this 
     section, in excess of the amounts needed to reimburse the 
     Commissioner and the Secretary under paragraph (1), shall be 
     deposited as miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury of the 
     United States.
       ``(g) Enforcement.--The provisions of this section may be 
     enforced through the Office of the Inspector General of the 
     Social Security Administration or the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Health and Human Services (as 
     appropriate).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part A 
     of title XI of the Social Security Act is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1140 the 
     following:

``Sec. 1140A. Prohibition of charging for services or products that are 
              provided without charge by the Social Security 
              Administration or the Department of Health and Human 
              Services and prohibition of sale, transfer, or use of 
              certain information.''.

                          ____________________