[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22856-22864]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 3208. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
enhance consumer protection in the purchase of prescription drugs from 
interstate Internet sellers; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


       internet prescription drug consumer protection act of 2000

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join with my 
colleagues in the Senate and House in a bipartisan effort to address 
the relatively new development of Internet pharmacies. The ever-
increasing cost of prescription drugs has led a growing number of 
Americans to turn to Internet pharmacies to try to find savings. Our 
goal with the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act is to 
allow American consumers to place the same confidence and trust in 
Internet pharmacies as they do in traditional brick-and-mortar 
pharmacies. The bill we are introducing today is a starting point in 
addressing this issue. If there is not enough time to pass this bill in 
the remaining days of the session, then I hope to return to this issue 
early in the next Congress and finish what we have started.
  We are well aware that the explosion of Internet commerce has put all 
manner of goods and services literally at our fingertips. In this 
respect, health care products and prescription drugs are no different 
from books, compact disks, or the many other products sold online. But 
there is a potential for very serious dangers when purchasing 
prescription drugs online. On March 21 of this year, I chaired a 
hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to 
examine this issue.
  In the search for lower-priced prescription drugs, American consumers 
can, unwittingly, order prescription drugs from rogue web sites that 
appear to be American-based companies, but are actually overseas sites 
offering low-priced prescription drugs that are unapproved, 
counterfeit, contaminated, expired, mislabeled, manufactured in 
unapproved facilities, or not stored or handled in a proper manner.
  I believe legitimate Internet pharmacies that operate legally and 
ethically can offer valuable services to many Americans and have an 
important role in E-commerce. But there must be an appropriate 
regulatory system that protects American consumers from illegal and 
unethical behavior which can endanger lives, and which combats any 
rogue Internet operators.
  Our legislation contains several provisions to protect consumers. But 
the most important is clearly the one that allows states to obtain 
nationwide injunctive relief against unlawful Internet sellers, as 
requested by the National Association of Attorneys General. Currently, 
in their efforts to combat illegal actions by a few Internet 
pharmacies, several states' Attorneys General have filed suit against 
the same companies and the same doctors. To simply prevent those bad 
actors from doing business in their state, each Attorney General has to 
file an action in his or her state court. This duplication of effort 
drains resources that could be utilized against other offenders. Since 
the states' primary goal is to prevent rogue sites from harming 
citizens, nationwide injunctive relief would allow each state to help 
protect all the citizens of this nation. This power would be directly 
analogous to the national injunctive relief contained in the federal 
telemarketing statute.
  A number of witnesses at our hearing testified that the most 
prominent danger presented to consumers is the rogue pharmacies 
operating in countries other than the United States. In this case, the 
federal government is clearly the most appropriate entity to deal with 
international rogue pharmacists, and this legislation provides 
remedies. Our bill also provides for better coordination between 
federal and state authorities.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents a great deal of work by 
Senator Kennedy and myself. Representatives Bliley, Klink, and Upton 
have worked on this issue as well, and I understand that they are 
introducing companion legislation in the House. I am pleased that we 
have been able to work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion on such a 
complicated issue. Any time Congress attempts to respond to emerging 
technologies, similar challenges are faced.
  I recognize that we are introducing this bill late in the session and 
that several members have expressed concern with certain aspects of our 
proposal. I want to assure my colleagues that this legislation is a 
starting point. This will provide my colleagues with the opportunity to 
make comments and suggestions on the different policy areas. We have 
written this bill with bipartisan cooperation, and I look forward to 
continuing in that spirit as we work to ensure the safety of Internet 
pharmacies.
 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Internet is transforming all 
aspects of our society, including health care. Web-based businesses, 
such as Internet pharmacies, can offer convenience and an opportunity 
for privacy for large numbers of consumers buying online. The Internet 
also creates opportunities, however, for scam artists and unprincipled 
suppliers to market contaminated, expired, ineffective, or counterfeit 
medications to unsuspecting patients. Today, these bad actors can 
easily prey on patients who turn to the Internet for easy access or 
low-priced medications.
  Clearly, effective oversight is needed to protect consumers using the 
Internet and root out illegal operators without interfering with 
legitimate Internet commerce. Americans are entitled to the same 
protections on the Internet that they enjoy in other commercial 
settings.
  So far, existing Federal and State laws have had only limited success 
in protecting consumers from unlawful Internet sellers of prescription 
medications.
  Today, some physicians issue prescriptions for patients they have 
never seen, let alone seriously examined. Patients can purchase 
prescription drugs on the Internet without adequate safeguards that the 
drugs are appropriate and of high quality. Because web sites can be 
easily created and designed, patients may think they have purchased 
their medications from a U.S.-licensed pharmacy when, in fact, they 
have not. The prescription drugs they receive may be sold out of 
someone's garage or from a country with few, if any, standards for 
manufacturing, storing or shipping these products.
  Several states and Federal agencies have taken enforcement actions 
against unlawful Internet sellers, but with limited results. While the 
number of legitimate Internet pharmacies remains small, the number of 
illegal sellers continues to grow. We must do

[[Page 22857]]

more to protect patients when they buy prescription drugs online. 
Patients should have the same protections when purchasing their 
medications over the Internet as when buying from a ``bricks-and-
mortar'' pharmacy.
  At a hearing on Internet pharmacies by the Senate Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee in March, state and Federal regulators 
asked the Committee for additional enforcement tools to combat illegal 
sales of prescription drugs over the Internet. The National Association 
of Attorneys General called for Federal legislation to require Internet 
entities that sell prescription medications to disclose information 
about their businesses, and to give the states the authority to stop 
illegal sales nationwide, rather than only within their own borders. At 
a hearing by the House Commerce Committee in May, the Department of 
Justice asked for authority to freeze domestic assets of illegal 
foreign web sites.
  The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000, which 
Senators Jeffords, Dodd, and I are introducing today, gives these 
needed tools to federal and state law enforcement officials to protect 
the public from those who sell prescription drugs illegally on the 
Internet. A companion bill is being introduced by Congressmen Bliley, 
Klink, and Upton in the House, and I commend Congressman Klink in 
particular for his leadership and guidance on this issue.
  Today's consumer protection laws were enacted before the development 
of the Internet. This legislation will fill the gaps in current law 
that permit these illegal sellers to evade prosecution. The bill is 
supported by the National Association of Attorneys General, the 
American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Society of Health-
System Pharmacists, drugstore.com, and the National Consumers League.
  Our legislation recognizes that states need additional enforcement 
tools to take effective action against unlawful domestic Internet 
sellers, and Federal agencies need additional enforcement tools to take 
effective action against illegal foreign sellers.
  First, the Act requires Internet sellers of prescription drugs to 
disclose on their web sites and to the appropriate state licensing 
board their street address, telephone number, and states where they are 
licensed to sell their products. Consumers have a right to know with 
whom they are dealing on the Internet, just as they do when they walk 
into their local pharmacy.
  Second, the bill authorizes a state to go to federal court to obtain 
a nationwide injunction against an unlawful Internet seller. Currently, 
a state can stop an illegal web site operator from selling drugs to 
citizens in its state, but the illegal operator is free to sell in the 
other 49 states. For many illegal sellers, the risk of a state 
injunction is merely a cost of doing business. Under this legislation, 
illegal sellers will be out of business altogether.
  The Federal Government has little authority to bring criminals in 
other countries to justice. However, it can freeze the U.S. assets of 
foreign sellers if given the proper authority. This legislation gives 
the Department of Justice the ability to stop illegal foreign operators 
from collecting payments from U.S. customers. If they can't turn a 
profit, they'll stop selling.
  As electronic commerce evolves, cooperative multinational efforts 
will be needed to assure adequate protections for consumers. Our 
proposal lays the foundation to achieve this goal. It requires the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to make recommendations to 
Congress for coordinating activities of the federal government with 
those of other countries to curb illegal Internet sales from abroad.
  Consumers also have an important role to play. Informed purchasers 
are well prepared to avoid illegal web sites. This legislation requires 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to educate the public about 
the potential dangers of buying medications online and about effective 
public and private sector consumer protections.
  This legislation is an important step toward making medications 
online a safe purchase for consumers. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to expedite its passage.
  I ask that a summary of the bill and letters of support for it be 
printed in the Record.
  The materials follow.

  Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000: Summary

       Use of the Internet to buy prescription medications is 
     growing rapidly, and many consumers can benefit from the 
     convenience and potential privacy of this new option. 
     Unfortunately, illegitimate sellers threaten patient safety 
     in this quickly evolving environment. Many of these 
     operations are fly-by-night or foreign businesses that easily 
     evade prosecution. Consumers who buy prescription drugs from 
     such web sites can be harmed from inappropriately prescribed 
     medications, dangerous drug interactions, and contaminated 
     drugs. Consumers may also be defrauded by paying money but 
     never receiving the medications they ordered or receiving 
     ineffective or counterfeit drugs. Because today's laws were 
     enacted before the development of the Internet, there are 
     gaps in current law that leave consumers vulnerable to 
     unscrupulous business practices. This bill addresses these 
     deficiencies by providing federal and state law enforcement 
     authorities with the tools they need to adequately protect 
     the public when buying medications online.


                         DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT

       Requires interstate Internet sellers of prescription drugs 
     to disclose on their web sites and to the appropriate state 
     licensing board the street address of their place of 
     business, telephone number, and states where they are 
     licensed to sell prescription medications.


                   FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STATES

       Authorizes states to go into federal court to obtain a 
     nationwide injunction against an unlawful interstate Internet 
     seller.


                        FREEZING FOREIGN ASSETS

       Grants the Department of Justice the authority to stop 
     illegal foreign operators from collecting payments from U.S. 
     customers. The bill also requires the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services to provide recommendations to Congress for 
     coordinating activities of the federal government with those 
     of other countries to curb illegal Internet sales from 
     abroad.


                            PUBLIC EDUCATION

       Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
     educate the public about the dangers of buying medications 
     online and about effective public and private sector consumer 
     protections.
                                           National Association of


                                             Attorneys General

                                 Washington, DC, October 16, 2000.
     Hon. Jim M. Jeffords,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ron Klink,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Re The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 
         2000
       Dear Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Representative 
     Bliley and Representative Klink: As the chair of the Online 
     Pharmacy Working Group for the National Association of 
     Attorneys General, I wish to express the support of my 
     colleagues for legislation you are introducing to address the 
     proliferation of illegal prescription drug sales over the 
     Internet and for your commitment to this issue as the chairs 
     and ranking members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions Committee, the House Commerce Committee and its 
     Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, respectively.
       As you know, the states have traditionally regulated the 
     practice of prescribing and dispensing medications through 
     state law and licensure requirements. This statutory and 
     regulatory structure ensures the existence of a valid 
     physician-patient or prescriber-patient relationship, the 
     accuracy of prescriptions, and the quality of 
     pharmaceuticals.
       The Internet has changed many traditional business 
     practices--including providing new opportunities for 
     consumers to purchase medications from online pharmacies. 
     While the Internet can provide a legitimate, convenient, and 
     effective means for pharmacies to transact business with 
     consumers if operated in full compliance with state laws, it 
     also provides an opportunity for businesses that are not 
     operating in compliance with state laws to reach consumers. 
     Many of these prescribe and sell drugs without a valid 
     examination by a physician, without a review of a patient's 
     medical records for adverse reactions, without valid 
     prescriptions, without compliance with state laws and 
     licensure requirements, without parental consent, etc. These 
     illegal sites can jeopardize the health and safety of 
     consumers.
       The state Attorneys General believe that online pharmacies 
     should not be treated differently than traditional ``brick 
     and mortar'' pharmacies when it comes to compliance with 
     state laws: if a pharmacy wants to transact business in a 
     certain state, then it should submit to the laws of that 
     state. If the law is broken, the offender should be

[[Page 22858]]

     prosecuted. To date, my state of Kansas and several other 
     states have taken enforcement actions against illegal 
     Internet sites prescribing and/or dispensing prescription 
     drugs to consumers in violation of state law.
       These cases are not easy ones for the state to bring. 
     Because of the low start-up costs and anonymity associated 
     with the Internet, it is often difficult for the states to 
     locate those responsible for operating an illegal online 
     pharmacy and those who prescribe and dispense the drugs to 
     consumers, hindering effective investigation and prosecution. 
     Likewise the current lack of nationwide injunctive relief 
     requires each state to separately sue a site to obtain an 
     injunction to protect its consumers, wasting valuable 
     resources.
       The bi-partisan and bi-cameral legislation you have 
     introduced will increase the effectiveness of the states' 
     ability to protect consumers. The Internet Prescription Drug 
     Consumer Protection Act of 2000 clearly provides the states 
     with the authority to obtain nationwide injunctive relief, 
     providing an opportunity for a state to obtain an injunction 
     effective in every state, while preserving the ability of 
     other states to seek restitution for their own consumers and 
     penalties and fees in their own state courts. It also 
     addresses the need to ensure we can locate the companies 
     selling prescription drugs by incorporating disclosure and 
     notification requirements that will require companies to 
     maintain accurate, accessible information about their 
     principals and location.
       Thank you, again, for your leadership on this issue.
           Sincerely
                                                Carla, J. Stovall,
     Attorney General of Kansas.
                                  ____

                                           American Pharmaceutical


                                                  Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Pharmaceutical 
     Association (APhA), the national professional society of 
     pharmacists, is pleased to support the Internet Prescription 
     Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000. This proposal is 
     commendable for building on existing State regulation of 
     pharmacy practice and prescription dispensing by other 
     providers, rather than creating a redundant Federal 
     regulation system.
       This bill is important to pharmacists as it provides our 
     patients better protection against fraudulent Internet 
     sellers. This bill also complements APhA's work to help 
     consumers know what to look for in an Internet pharmacy. I 
     have enclosed a sample of the information APhA has 
     disseminated broadly to assist consumers in choosing an 
     Internet pharmacy. We look forward to working with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug 
     Administration to educate the public about the dangers of 
     purchasing prescription drugs from unlawful Internet sources.
       APhA especially supports the provision authorizing 
     injunctions against alienation of property as a preliminary 
     step to address the significant problem of international 
     prescription drug sellers--sellers not bound to the important 
     requirements regulating domestic pharmacies and pharmacists. 
     We strongly support efforts to coordinate Federal agency 
     activity addressing interstate Internet sellers operating 
     from foreign countries. The Association and its members look 
     forward to working with you to refine this approach in 
     certain areas, such as the 75-mile exemption, and to help 
     this proposal become law.
       The American Pharmaceutical Association is the first 
     established and largest professional association of 
     pharmacists in the United States. APhA's more than 50,000 
     members include practicing pharmacists (including pharmacists 
     in legitimate Internet pharmacy practices), pharmaceutical 
     scientists, pharmacy students, and others interested in 
     advancing the profession. The Association is a leader in 
     providing professional information and education for 
     pharmacists and an advocate for improved health through the 
     provision of comprehensive pharmaceutical care.
       Please contact Susan C. Winckler, RPh., APhA's Group 
     Director of Policy and Advocacy or Lisa M. Geiger, APhA's 
     Director of State and Federal Policy, should you or your 
     staff require any assistance from APhA. Thank you for your 
     leadership in addressing this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John A. Gans,
     PharmD, Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

         American Society of Health-System Pharmacists,
                                    Bethesda, MD, October 6, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the American Society of 
     Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the 30,000-member national 
     professional association that represents pharmacists who 
     practice in hospitals, health maintenance organizations, 
     long-term care facilities, home care, and other components of 
     health care systems, I am writing to support continued 
     efforts to improve patient safety. Your legislation, the 
     ``Internet Prescription Consumer Protection Act of 2000,'' 
     provides a significant step towards ensuring that medications 
     obtained via the Internet met the same quality and assurance 
     standards as those products obtained through more traditional 
     means.
       ASHP recognizes that the majority of pharmacies selling 
     prescription drugs over the Internet are legitimate entities 
     that offer important health benefits to the patient, 
     including greater accessibility, convenience and access to 
     information. However, legislation is needed to ensure that 
     rogue sites do not exploit and endanger consumers. Current 
     state and federal regulation of Internet pharmacies, as well 
     as voluntary industry initiatives, are not sufficient to 
     ensure patient safety.
       The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act 
     meets ASHP's policy position on regulating online pharmacy. 
     The bill mandates the disclosure of important provider 
     information, works to ensure that a legitimate patient-
     prescription relationship exists, and enhances state and 
     federal enforcement authority. These important safety 
     measures will foster greater confidence in the quality of the 
     pharmaceutical products reaching the American public.
       Again, we applaud the introduction of your legislation and 
     hope the Congress will come together in a bipartisan manner 
     to address this important patient safety issue in the 
     remaining days of the 106th Congress. We also look forward to 
     working with you further to address the foreign source aspect 
     of the public health problem. Please feel free to have your 
     staff contact Kathleen M. Cantwell, ASHP's Assistant Director 
     and Counsel for Federal Legislative Affairs (301-657-3000 
     ext. 1326) if we can be of assistance.
           Sincerely,
     Henri R. Manasse, Jr., Ph.D., Sc.D.,
       Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                                drugstore.com,

                                   Bellevue, WA, October 12, 2000.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Re: Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 
         2000
       Dear Senator Murray: We understand that legislation will be 
     introduced in the Senate to impose certain requirements on 
     interstate Internet sellers which sell prescription drugs to 
     consumers, and to facilitate legal action against those 
     sellers making illegal sales of prescription drugs over the 
     Internet. We have reviewed a copy of the legislation provided 
     by Senate staff last week. It is our opinion that the 
     legislation does not impose undue burdens on legitimate 
     Internet pharmacies, such as drugstore.com, and that it 
     represents a step forward in providing consumers with 
     information enabling them to distinguish between legitimate 
     pharmacies and rogue operators. The legislation also 
     authorizes additional law enforcement tools to facilitate the 
     prosecution of those rogues.
       We were pleased to see the legislation's acknowledgement 
     that ``legitimate Internet sellers of prescription drugs can 
     offer substantial benefits to consumers. These potential 
     benefits include convenience, privacy, valuable information, 
     lower prices, and personalized services.'' drugstore.com is 
     proud to be the leading online drugstore. We believe that our 
     success in attracting more than 1.2 million customers is the 
     direct result of our commitment to provide safe, secure, 
     legitimate and innovative pharmacy services. We are using the 
     Internet to help our customers make clear, informed decisions 
     about their health and well-being.
       As this legislation was being developed, we were concerned 
     that it would impose unreasonable burdens on legitimate 
     online pharmacies, such as drugstore.com, that are already 
     complying with all existing state and federal laws. However, 
     we believe that the Web site disclosure requirements 
     contained in the bill are reasonably circumscribed to avoid 
     such burdens. Such requirements mandate that an interstate 
     Internet seller disclose to consumers such fundamental 
     information as its address and the states in which it is 
     licensed. drugstore.com already discloses that and more on 
     its Web site, and, therefore, does not find such requirements 
     objectionable. We hope that the regulations promulgated by 
     the Department of health and Human Services under the 
     authority of Sec. 3(a)(6) will acknowledge the apparent 
     intent of the bill not to impose unreasonable burdens on 
     legitimate Internet pharmacies. In that regard, drugstore.com 
     enthusiastically supports the National Association of Boards 
     of Pharmacy's VIPPS (Verified Internet Pharmacy Practices 
     Sites) certification program. That's because we believe the 
     VIPPS certification helps consumers distinguish between 
     legitimate Internet pharmacies and illegitimate rogue sites. 
     We, therefore, recommend VIPPS as a model for the purpose of 
     promulgating regulations to implement the disclosure 
     requirements of this bill.

[[Page 22859]]

       We leave to law enforcement authorities the question as to 
     whether the additional enforcement powers authorized by the 
     bill provide sufficient effective mechanisms to investigate 
     and prosecute questionable Internet sites. We take note of 
     the fact that other proposals would have imposed monetary 
     penalties against Internet operators who knowingly dispense a 
     prescription drug without a valid description--a provision 
     missing from this bill. Consistent with drugstore.com's 
     position that rogue sites should be held accountable for 
     their noncompliance with the law, we would have preferred 
     that such penalties be retained as a disincentive to those 
     inclined to violate the law. However, we hope that the 
     enforcement powers included in the bill will be used 
     effectively against illegal operators.
       One of the greatest dangers posed to Internet consumers and 
     to legitimate Internet pharmacies across the country is the 
     problem of rogue operators domiciled overseas. Again, we 
     reiterate that the Federal government must exert a much 
     greater effort to address this problem, including working 
     with foreign governments and increasing import surveillance, 
     to deny these rogue sites a safe harbor in the United States.
       Finally, we support and encourage consumer education 
     initiatives regarding the dangers and pitfalls of buying from 
     rogue sites, and are pleased to see that the bill mandates 
     such public education. Recently, we participated with the 
     Food and Drug Administration in the CybeRxSmart coalition 
     that is designed to educate and increase consumer awareness 
     on how to purchase prescription drugs safely and legitimately 
     via the Internet. Given the importance of Internet commerce, 
     both to consumers and the economy, we would have preferred 
     that the bill made mandatory the involvement of private 
     sector Internet health care providers in the development of 
     consumer education programs in order to draw on their 
     extensive expertise and enhance the support of such 
     activities.
       In summary, we believe that, if sufficient resources are 
     made available to back up the will of Congress as stated in 
     this bill, the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection 
     Act of 2000 can increase consumer awareness of those unsafe 
     Internet sites and enforce federal and state laws against 
     interstate Internet sellers which mislead, and jeopardize the 
     health and safety of, consumers.
       We appreciate your attention to this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter M. Neupert,
     CEO and President.
                                  ____



                                    National Consumers League,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 2000.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The National Consumers League, 
     America's oldest nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, is 
     pleased to support the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2000. With the increasing use of the 
     Internet to purchase prescription drugs, consumers need 
     adequate protection and information when purchasing 
     medications online. Unfortunately, there are numerous 
     websites that are willing to sell consumers prescription 
     medications without a valid prescription from a licensed 
     provider. These sellers threaten consumer and patient safety 
     and stigmatize the universe of Internet pharmacies, many of 
     which comply with state and federal regulations governing the 
     prescribing and dispensing of medications.
       This legislation will provide valuable protections for 
     consumers by addressing the deficiencies that currently exist 
     for state and federal law enforcement agencies to take action 
     against illegitimate sellers. By requiring all Internet 
     pharmacy websites to be licensed in any state that they sell 
     or ship prescription drugs, consumers will have the 
     confidence that their health and safety are being protected 
     and the purchases they make will be legitimate.
       Further, we commend the requirement of a consumer education 
     component in this legislation. Without adequate public 
     education consumers would still remain vulnerable to 
     unscrupulous Internet sites despite the enhanced enforcement 
     tools provided in the legislation.
       The National Consumers League supports this important piece 
     of legislation and commends you and the other Members of 
     Congress for helping to improve patient safety and enhance 
     consumer protections online. We look forward to working with 
     you on this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                Linda F. Golodner,

                                                President.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Kennedy and 
Jeffords in introducing the ``Internet Prescription Drug Consumer 
Protection Act of 2000,'' legislation that offers much-needed 
safeguards for consumers who purchase prescription drugs over the 
Internet. This legislation will, for the first time, require online 
sellers of pharmaceuticals to comply with the same basic standards as 
traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies and will create additional 
enforcement tools so that states and federal agencies can take 
effective action against online pharmacies that endanger the public 
safety.
  As with most of the recent advances in technology over the past 
decade, the ability to shop over the Internet has brought with it new 
benefits, as well as new worries. While many of us applaud the 
advantages that e-commerce has provided, when it comes to the purchase 
of products with a direct and immediate impact on health and safety--
such as prescription drugs--we must seriously consider the risks that 
come with convenience.
  While some online pharmacies have adopted all the safeguards of 
traditional pharmacies, such as hiring licensed pharmacists and 
requiring valid prescriptions before dispensing drugs, increasingly, 
unscrupulous companies have used the anonymity of cyberspace to hide 
from federal and state safety regulations, placing the health of their 
customers at serious risk. These unethical companies can easily take 
advantage of the fact that, as consumers, we may leave our common sense 
behind when we turn on our computers. Too often, we assume that simply 
because a business has a website, it must be legitimate.
  Consequently, we've received hundreds of reports of Internet 
pharmacies selling powerful prescription drugs to consumers simply on 
the basis of answers to a health questionnaire--without the patient 
ever setting foot in a doctor's office. This practice, which has been 
condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association, places 
patients at serious risk for misdiagnoses and dangerous drug 
interactions. Perhaps even more frightening is that some Internet 
sellers are dispensing contaminated or counterfeit drugs to their 
unsuspecting customers. And, unfortunately, the ease with which 
websites can be created and removed and the difficulty regulators have 
in determining the identity of the corporations behind the websites 
create obstacles to states and federal agencies trying to shut down 
unlawful sellers.
  This legislation would require online sellers of prescription drugs 
to dispense medications only with valid prescriptions, to notify state 
boards of pharmacy in each state in which they operate of the 
establishment of their service, and to provide full disclosure of the 
address and telephone number of the business's headquarters on their 
website. Under this bill, Internet sellers who do not adhere to these 
basic standards will risk serious legal sanctions, including permanent 
prohibition from conducting further business and the freezing of 
assets.
  While we should ensure that legitimate pharmacies can continue to 
serve their customers on the information superhighway, we need to act 
immediately to derail those who would use the Internet in unsafe or 
illicit ways. The legislation we introduce today will give state and 
federal agencies the appropriate authority to protect American 
consumers from unscrupulous Internet sellers. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Lieberman (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Biden, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
        Roth, and Mr. L. Chafee)):
  S. 3209. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 
a resource study of the approximately 600-mile route through the States 
of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New 
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, used by George 
Washington and General Rochambeau during the Revolutionary War; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)


washington-rochambeau revolutionary route national heritage act of 2000

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 219 years ago this month, a 
small army camped at the gates of a small port in

[[Page 22860]]

Virginia. And turned the world upside down. This collection of often 
poorly fed, poorly paid, and poorly armed men made a sacrifice from 
which we all benefit today. In October 1781, a few thousand American 
and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of 
Cornwallis and his British regulars, and won American independence.
  Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose 
sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget 
that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when 
two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences 
and worked together for a common purpose.
  It is my opinion that no single monument or battlefield would do 
justice to the scope of this event. That is why I, along with my 
colleagues, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Biden, Roth, Schumer, Moynihan, 
Sarbanes, and Chafee, am privileged to call for a national 
commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the 
end of the American Revolution. We have been strongly supported in this 
effort by the work of dedicated volunteers across the country--members 
of the Sons of the American Revolution in all of our states. I would 
especially like to acknowledge the help of Albert McJoynt and Win 
Carroll, for their work with my staff on this important project.
  The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Road is 600 miles of history, 
winding from Providence, Rhode Island to Yorktown, Virginia. In the 
opinion of my colleagues and I, it is well worthy of designation as a 
National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and 
towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great nation 
of ours. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance 
and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean 
Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau to preserve that 
alliance in the face of seemingly unsurmountable odds. Let us create a 
National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause and remember 
these men and women, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's 
beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and 
Providence, Rhode Island, into New York where he joined Washington's 
troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its 
culmination at the gates of Yorktown.
  The story of the alliance and the march is like many in our history--
full of heroic characters, brave deeds, and political intrigue. 
Hollywood should take note: it would make for a blockbuster--and 
uplifting--adventure. The story unfolds through seven states and 
countless towns and stars the men and women of the march who left their 
mark wherever they went.
  Each of the towns on the trail makes its own unique contribution to 
the tale of the journey. Hartford and Wethersfield, in my own state of 
Connecticut--where the two generals met and through a translator 
planned their strategy. In Phillipsburg, New York, the French and 
American armies first joined together and faced off against the British 
in New York City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high 
risk strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing 
hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British 
army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing 
supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march 
towards Cornwallis in Virginia, to confuse the British. They moved on 
through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial 
victories against great odds.
  But the march itself is only part of the story. The unprecedented 
alliance between France and America was cemented during this journey. 
Elite troops from one of the great European powers stood with the 
ragtag but spirited Continental Army to face and defeat the British 
Empire. Men who shared no common language and had in many cases been 
enemies in previous wars, shared clothing and food and cultures in 
order to achieve their goal. And as a proud member of the Armed 
Services Committee I am pleased to say this was a successful Joint and 
Coalition operation.
  The trail goes through Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--then capital of 
the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside 
town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through 
town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental 
Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new 
European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very 
uncertain time.
  A few days later in Chester, Pennsylvania, Washington, the normally 
reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he 
learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the 
British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the 
colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, Delaware 
and Elkton, Maryland, where American troops were finally paid for some 
of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army 
from General Rochambeau.
  There are two central characters to this drama, without whom the 
march, siege, and victory would have never happened--Rochambeau and 
Washington. French ministers hand-selected the celebrated and 
experienced Rochambeau for the unique ``Expedition Particuliere'' 
because of his patience and professionalism. Lieutenant General 
Rochambeau had a distinguished military career. More importantly, he 
understood the need for America to play the leading role in the war. 
With dignity and respect, he subordinated himself and his men to 
Washington and his patchwork forces. While avoiding intrigue and 
scandal, he overlooked improprieties and affronts, and provided needed 
counsel, supplies, and money to Washington and his men. He is 
undoubtedly one of the key forces helping Washington to victory at 
Yorktown, and has rightly been called ``America's Neglected Founding 
Father.''
  Our nation's capital region also played its part in this story. 
Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some 
crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, 
Virginia. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to 
Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along 
the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army 
and events swirling around them. Within this national commemoration, we 
should let each tell its own story in its own way.
  The force that held it all together throughout the march and on to 
victory was General Washington. This was not a new role for him. Before 
the war, Washington was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies and 
one of its few military heroes. Only he, with his public standing and 
incredible resolve, could have held together the fledgling Continental 
Army, the divided loyalties of the American people, a meddling 
Congress, disloyal generals, and an international alliance, for the six 
years leading up to the Yorktown Campaign. He overcame his own distrust 
and doubt and invited his old enemies, the French--who had held him 
prisoner in an earlier war--to field a European army in the colonies 
while he was working with all his energy to evict another one. Over the 
years, he had used his own money and credit to pay and feed his men. 
And he carefully balanced the need to combine his new nation's 
independence with delicate European sensibilities to forge a winning 
alliance. In these months in 1781, he took a grand risk and won the 
war. Although the march is not his most famous hour, in many ways it is 
his finest.
  The armies marched on through Williamsburg, Virginia until they 
reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and 
Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. The 
rest is history. We should work today to ensure that this history, in 
all its rich detail, is not forgotten. We have the support of many 
state and local and private and public historic preservation groups in 
our efforts to establish this trail. We

[[Page 22861]]

should use their momentum and enthusiasm to make it a reality. This 
bill begins that process, by directing the Secretary of the Interior to 
perform a resource study on the establishment of this trail, in 
coordination with their activities and other Congressionally mandated 
programs. In a time when it seems we have few heroes, let us take the 
time to better remember the heroes of our past. Those who sacificed so 
much for our freedom today deserve no less.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. SESSIONS:
  S. 3210. A bill to amend chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to 
provide for greater fairness in the arbitration process for consumers 
and employees; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


          the consumer and employee arbitration bill of rights

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to sent to the desk a bill 
entitled, ``The Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights.'' 
This bill begins the multi-year legislative process necessary to 
improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will be a cost-effective 
means of resolving disputes. This bill of rights will provide 
procedural protections to consumers and employees to ensure that their 
claims will be resolved under due process of law, in a speedy and cost 
effective manner.
  Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served 
us as well for three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the 
parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains 
a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in 
court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a 
contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve 
any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker, 
generally selected by a non-profit arbitration organization. The 
parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel. 
And the decision-makers will apply the relevant state law in resolving 
the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than 
going to court.
  In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration 
process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly 
and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more 
important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require 
large contingent fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal 
legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe the time has come 
for a comprehensive review of how arbitration works and what we can do 
to enhance its effectiveness.
  The approach of reforming arbitration, rather than abandoning the 
arbitration process provides several benefits. Arbitration is one of 
the best means of dispute resolution and one that most consumers and 
employees can afford. Consumers and employees generally cannot afford a 
team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big 
enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a 
50 percent contingent fee. Thus, the consumer or employee is faced with 
having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate for his claim. If he can afford to 
pay the hourly rate, he must decide whether it makes financial sense to 
pay a lawyer several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court for 
a broken television that cost $700 new. If this is what consumers and 
employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their 
claim. This is not right. It is not fair.
  This is where arbitration can give the consumer or employee a cost 
effective forum to assert their claim. Thus, before we make exceptions 
to the Federal Arbitration Act for some of the most well to do 
corporations in our society, I think it is our duty to consider how we 
can improve the system for those less financially able.
  A letter I recently received from the National Arbitration Forum 
contained some interesting comments about the importance of 
arbitration: the ABA has calculated that 100 million Americans are 
locked out of court by high legal costs, and that most lawyers will not 
begin a lawsuit worth less than $20,000, while arbitration serves as an 
accessible forum for dispute resolution; consumer class actions 
increasingly generate little more than coupons for consumers, while 
contractual arbitration gives a consumer the ability to get his or her 
case before a neutral party at a reasonable price and in a reasonable 
amount of time; a recent Roper Study indicates that 59 percent of 
Americans would choose arbitration over a lawsuit to resolve a claim 
for money.
  Thus, the benefits for customers and employees are readily apparent. 
Can we improve this system? Yes, but we must take a balanced approach.
  Further, arbitration promotes the freedom of parties to make 
contracts. I was recently contacted by Professor Stephen Ware of the 
Cumberland School of Law, who reminded us that the promotion of 
contractual freedom regarding arbitration has long been a primary goal 
of the Federal Arbitration Act. In any contract, the parties agree to 
all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This 
includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the 
basic principle upon which the Federal Arbitration Act has been 
supported for 75 years.
  But this is not always the case. In certain situations, consumers or 
employees are not treated fairly. That is what the Consumer and 
Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights is designed to correct.
  The bill will maintain the cost benefits of binding arbitration, but 
would grant several specific ``due process'' rights to consumers and 
employees. The bill is based on the consumer and employee due process 
protocols of the American Arbitration Association and have broad 
support. The bill provides the following rights:
  No. 1, notice--Under the bill an arbitration clause, to be 
enforceable, would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would 
have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a 
source that the consumer or employee could contact for more 
information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims 
court.
  This will ensure that consumers who receive credit card notices in 
the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is printed in 
fine print. Further, it will give consumers and employees a means to 
obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the 
clause would explain that if a consumer's claims could otherwise be 
brought in small claims court, he is free to do so. Small claims court, 
unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick 
means of dispute resolution.
  No. 2, independent selection of arbitrators--The bill will grant 
consumers and employees the right to have potential arbitrators 
disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and 
employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in 
selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who 
sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself, 
because the consumer or the employee with a grievance will have the 
right to nominate potential arbitrators too. As a result, the final 
arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both 
parties to the dispute. This means the arbitrator will be a neutral 
party with no allegiance to either the seller or the consumer.
  No. 3, choice of law--The bill grants consumers and employees the 
right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would 
apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in 
which the consumer resided at the time the contract was entered into. 
This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a 
court where the consumer or employee resides at the time of making the 
contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from 
the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois 
company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois 
law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place 
the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator will 
use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in 
determining whether Alabama or Illinois law will govern the arbitration 
proceedings.

[[Page 22862]]

  No. 4, representation--The bill grants consumers and employees the 
right to be represented by counsel at his own expense. Thus, if the 
claim involves complicated legal issues, the consumer or employee is 
free to have his lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such 
representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in 
court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of 
arbitration.
  No. 5, hearing--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to 
a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer 
or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring a 
consumer or employee to travel across the country to arbitrate his 
claim and to expend more in travel costs than his claim may be worth.
  No. 6, evidence--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to 
conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the 
arbitrator will have all the facts before him prior to making a 
decision.
  No. 7, cross examination--The bill grants consumers and employees the 
right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the other party at the 
hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other 
party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator 
is correct.
  No. 8, record--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to 
hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record. 
This right is key to proving later that the arbitration proceeding was 
fair.
  No. 9, timely resolution--The bill grants consumers and employees the 
right to have an arbitration proceeding to be completed promptly so 
that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim 
resolved. Under the bill a defendant must file an answer within 30 days 
of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the 
answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision 
within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in 
extraordinary circumstances.
  No. 10, written decision--The bill grants consumers and employees the 
right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution 
of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes 
a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he 
won or lost.
  No. 11, expenses--The bill grants consumers and employees the right 
to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in 
the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of 
arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to 
take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even 
afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator 
can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer 
or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require.
  No. 12, small claims opt out--The bill grants consumers and employees 
the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that 
court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed 
$50,000.
  The bill also provides an effective mechanism for consumers and 
employees to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or 
employee believes that the other party violated his rights, he may ask 
and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim 
plus attorneys fees. For example, if the company fails to provide 
discovery to the employee, the employee can make a motion for fees. The 
amount of fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of 
cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from 
the company. This principle is taken from Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 37.
  After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights 
granted to him by the Act have been violated, he may file a petition 
with the Federal district court. If the court finds by clear and 
convincing evidence that his rights were violated, it may order a new 
arbitrator appointed. Thus, if a consumer or employee has an arbitrator 
that is unfair and this causes him to lose the case, the consumer or 
employee can obtain another arbitrator.
  Mr. President, this bill is the first step to creating a constructive 
dialog on arbitration reform. This bill of rights will ensure that 
those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive 
arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration 
carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly, 
promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers and employees who 
agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be afforded due 
process of law.
  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. 3210

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer and Employee 
     Arbitration Bill of Rights''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

       (a) Consumer and Employment Contracts.--Chapter 1 of title 
     9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 17. Consumer and employment contracts

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `consumer contract' means any written, 
     standardized form contract between the parties to a consumer 
     transaction;
       ``(2) the term `consumer transaction' means the sale or 
     rental of goods, services, or real property, including an 
     extension of credit or the provision of any other financial 
     product or service, to an individual in a transaction entered 
     into primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; 
     and
       ``(3) the term `employment contract'--
       ``(A) means a uniform, employer promulgated plan that 
     covers all employees in a company, facility, or work grade, 
     and that may cover legally protected rights or statutory 
     rights; and
       ``(B) does not include any individually negotiated 
     executive employment agreements.
       ``(b) Fair Disclosure.--In order to be binding on the 
     parties to a consumer contract or an employment contract, an 
     arbitration clause in such contract shall--
       ``(1) have a printed heading in bold, capital letters 
     entitled `arbitration clause', which heading shall be printed 
     in letters not smaller than \1/2\ inch in height;
       ``(2) explicitly state whether participation within the 
     arbitration program is mandatory or optional;
       ``(3) identify a source that a consumer can contact for 
     additional information on costs and fees and on all forms and 
     procedures necessary for effective participation in the 
     arbitration program; and
       ``(4) provide notice that all parties retain the right to 
     resolve a dispute in a small claims court, if such dispute 
     falls within the jurisdiction of that court and the claim is 
     for less than $50,000 in total damages.
       ``(c) Procedural Rights.--If a consumer contract or 
     employment contract provides for the use of arbitration to 
     resolve a dispute arising out of or relating to the contract, 
     each party to the contract shall be afforded the following 
     rights, in addition to any rights provided by the contract:
       ``(1) Competence and neutrality of arbitrator and 
     administrative process.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each party to the dispute (referred to 
     in this section as a `party') shall be entitled to a 
     competent, neutral arbitrator and an independent, neutral 
     administration of the dispute.
       ``(B) Arbitrator.--Each party shall have an equal voice in 
     the selection of the arbitrator, who--
       ``(i) shall comply with the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators 
     in Commercial Disputes of the American Arbitration 
     Association and the State bar association of which the 
     arbitrator is a member;
       ``(ii) shall have no personal or financial interest in the 
     results of the proceedings in which the arbitrator is 
     appointed and shall have no relation to the underlying 
     dispute or to the parties or their counsel that may create an 
     appearance of bias; and
       ``(iii) prior to accepting appointment, shall disclose all 
     information that might be relevant to neutrality, including 
     service as an arbitrator or mediator in any past or pending 
     case involving any of the parties or their representatives, 
     or that may prevent a prompt hearing.
       ``(C) Administration.--The arbitration shall be 
     administered by an independent, neutral alternative dispute 
     resolution organization to ensure fairness and neutrality and 
     prevent ex parte communication between parties and the 
     arbitrator.
       ``(2) Applicable law.--In resolving a dispute, the 
     arbitrator--
       ``(A) shall be governed by the same substantive law that 
     would apply under conflict of laws principles applicable in a 
     court of the forum in which the consumer or employee resided 
     at the time the contract was entered into; and

[[Page 22863]]

       ``(B) shall be empowered to grant whatever relief would be 
     available in court under law or equity.
       ``(3) Representation.--Each party shall have the right to 
     be represented by an attorney, or other representative as 
     permitted by State law, at the expense of that party.
       ``(4) Hearing.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each party shall be entitled to a fair 
     arbitration hearing (referred to in this section as a 
     `hearing') with adequate notice and an opportunity to be 
     heard.
       ``(B) Electronic or telephonic means.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (C), in order to reduce cost, the arbitrator may 
     hold a hearing by electronic or telephonic means or by a 
     submission of documents.
       ``(C) Face-to-face meeting.--Each party shall have the 
     right to require a face-to-face hearing, which hearing shall 
     be held at a location that is reasonably convenient for the 
     party who is the consumer or employee, unless in the interest 
     of fairness the arbitrator determines otherwise, in which 
     case the arbitrator shall use the process described in 
     section 1391 of title 28 to determine the venue for the 
     hearing.
       ``(5) Evidence.--With respect to any hearing--
       ``(A) each party shall have the right to present evidence 
     at the hearing and, for this purpose, each party shall grant 
     access to all information reasonably relevant to the dispute 
     to the other parties, subject to any applicable privilege or 
     other limitation on discovery under applicable State law;
       ``(B) consistent with the expedited nature of arbitration, 
     relevant and necessary prehearing depositions shall be 
     available to each party at the direction of the arbitrator; 
     and
       ``(C) the arbitrator shall--
       ``(i) make reasonable efforts to maintain the privacy of 
     the hearing to the extent permitted by applicable State law; 
     and
       ``(ii) consider appropriate claims of privilege and 
     confidentiality in addressing evidentiary issues.
       ``(6) Cross examination.--Each party shall have the right 
     to cross examine witnesses presented by the other parties at 
     a hearing.
       ``(7) Record of proceeding.--Any party seeking a 
     stenographic record of a hearing shall make arrangements 
     directly with a stenographer and shall notify the other 
     parties of these arrangements not less than 3 days in advance 
     of the hearing. The requesting party or parties shall pay the 
     costs of obtaining the record. If the transcript is agreed by 
     the parties, or determined by the arbitrator to be the 
     official record of the proceeding, it shall be provided to 
     the arbitrator and made available to the other parties for 
     inspection, at a date, time, and place determined by the 
     arbitrator.
       ``(8) Timely resolution.--Upon submission of a complaint by 
     the claimant, the respondent shall have 30 days to file an 
     answer. Thereafter, the arbitrator shall direct each party to 
     file documents and to provide evidence in a timely manner so 
     that the hearing may be held not later than 90 days after the 
     filing of the answer. In extraordinary circumstances, the 
     arbitrator may grant a limited extension of these time limits 
     to a party, or the parties may agree to an extension. The 
     arbitrator shall file a decision with each party not later 
     than 30 days after the hearing.
       ``(9) Written decision.--The arbitrator shall provide each 
     party with a written explanation of the factual and legal 
     basis for the decision. This written decision shall describe 
     the application of an identified contract term, statute, or 
     legal precedent. The decision of the arbitrator shall be 
     final and binding, subject only to the review provisions in 
     subsection (d).
       ``(10) Expenses.--The arbitrator or independent arbitration 
     administration organization, as applicable, shall have the 
     authority to--
       ``(A) provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees to the 
     claimant, in whole or in part, as part of the remedy in 
     accordance with applicable law or in the interests of 
     justice; and
       ``(B) waive, defer, or reduce any fee or charge due from 
     the claimant in the event of extreme hardship.
       ``(11) Small claims opt out.--Each party shall have the 
     right to opt out of binding arbitration and into the small 
     claims court for the forum, if such court has jurisdiction 
     over the claim. For purposes of this paragraph, no court with 
     jurisdiction to hear claims in excess of $50,000 shall be 
     considered to be a small claims court.
       ``(d) Denial of Rights.--
       ``(1) Denial of rights by party misconduct.--
       ``(A) In general.--At any time during an arbitration 
     involving a consumer contract or employment contract, any 
     party may file a motion with the arbitrator asserting that 
     the other party has deprived the movant of 1 or more rights 
     granted by this section and seeking relief.
       ``(B) Award by arbitrator.--If the arbitrator determines 
     that the movant has been deprived of a right granted by this 
     section by the other party, the arbitrator shall award the 
     movant a monetary amount, which shall not exceed the 
     reasonable expenses incurred by the movant in filing the 
     motion, including attorneys' fees, unless the arbitrator 
     finds that--
       ``(i) the motion was filed without the movant's first 
     making a good faith effort to obtain discovery or the 
     realization of another right granted by this section;
       ``(ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, failure to 
     respond, response, or objection was substantially justified; 
     or
       ``(iii) the circumstances otherwise make an award of 
     expenses unjust.
       ``(2) Denial of rights by arbitrator.--A losing party in an 
     arbitration may file a petition in the district court of the 
     United States in the forum in which the consumer or employee 
     resided at the time the contract was entered into to assert 
     that the arbitrator violated 1 or more of the rights granted 
     to the party by this section and to seek relief. In order to 
     grant the petition, the court must find clear and convincing 
     evidence that 1 or more actions or omissions of the 
     arbitrator resulted in a deprivation of a right of the 
     petitioner under this section that was not harmless. If such 
     a finding is made, the court shall order a rehearing before a 
     new arbitrator selected in the same manner as the original 
     arbitrator as the exclusive judicial remedy provided by this 
     section.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``17. Consumer and employment contracts.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any consumer contract or employment contract 
     entered into after the date that is 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing 
     in this Act may be construed to be the basis for any claim in 
     law or equity.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 3211. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to provide 
grants to develop technologies to eliminate functional barriers to full 
independence for individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                  THE TECHNOLOGY FOR ALL AMERICANS ACT

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Technology 
for All Americans Act. This Act will maximize our country's potential 
by helping to close the Digital Divide for people with disabilities. In 
doing so, it will increase their independence and self-sufficiency and 
further strengthen our economy and society by enabling the greatest 
possible number of us to contribute our abilities.
  As we celebrate the Americans with Disabilities Act's 10th 
Anniversary, we are entering a new millennium; one that will be defined 
by technology. But technology can be a double-edged sword for people 
with disabilities, who continue to fight for the freedom to live 
independently.
  If the Internet and other technologies are accessible, they will 
offer people with disabilities unprecedented opportunities for 
independence and self-sufficiency. But if they are not accessible, they 
simply will create new barriers to full participation of people with 
disabilities in our society and our economy.
  Although new technologies have improved the lives of many Americans 
with disabilities, there remains a significant ``Digital Divide'' 
between Americans with and without disabilities. Although people with 
disabilities are nearly twice as likely as people without disabilities 
to say that the Internet has improved their lives significantly, they 
are barely one-quarter as likely to use the Internet and less than half 
as likely to have access to a computer at home.
  The Technology for All Americans Act will begin to bridge this gap. 
The Act provides incentives for public and private researchers to use 
universal design and accessibility principles in new technologies, and 
to develop technologies to eliminate functional barriers to full 
independence for people with disabilities. It will increase public 
access to technology by providing grants to States to make public 
libraries, including those in elementary and secondary schools, 
technology accessible. It will increase the development and use of 
accessible technology by providing grants to colleges and universities 
to establish model curricula incorporating the design and use of 
accessible technology into academic and professional programs. And it 
will help children with disabilities maximize

[[Page 22864]]

their potential in school and after graduation by ensuring their access 
to technology. In a nutshell, this Act will help ensure that people 
with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in society.
  But, this act is not just for people with disabilities. It is, as 
it's name says, for all Americans. When people with disabilities 
succeed in school, join the workforce, and participate in day-to-day 
life, we all benefit from their abilities.
  History also demonstrates that research on accessible technology 
benefits everyone. How many people know that the typewriter was 
invented for an Italian countess who was blind? In 1990, the Television 
Decoder Circuitry Act, which I introduced, required closed captioning 
for most television sets so that people who are deaf could watch TV. 
But today millions of people who are not deaf use closed captioning at 
home, at work, at gyms, and at sports bars, to name a few. And, 
millions of people use voice-activated technology at work or in car 
phones and cell phones. That technology also was intended primarily for 
people with disabilities.
  This trend will accelerate as the Technology Revolution moves 
forward. The technologies that make things accessible for people with 
disabilities have applications for all of us.
  More and more each day, every American's ability to participate in 
society is determined by how well they are able to use technology. This 
Act will help us take the greatest advantage of technology for the 
benefit of the greatest number of Americans. This must be one of our 
priorities as we move into the new millennium.
  So I ask my colleagues, people with disabilities, educators, 
technology experts, and others who are interested to share their ideas 
with me about this bill and about the issue of making technology 
accessible to every American, so that next Congress we can ensure that 
every American has access to the tools that will shape our 
future.

                          ____________________