[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8813-8838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2602. A bill to provide for the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development to fund, on a 1-year emergency basis, certain requests for 
grant renewal under the programs for permanent supportive housing and 
shelter-plus-care for homeless persons; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                    homeless assistance legislation

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation 
designed to guarantee funding for Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) McKinney Act homeless assistance programs, including 
Shelter Plus Care and the Supportive Housing Program (SHP).
  The legislation I am introducing today mirrors legislation introduced 
earlier this year in the House by Representative LaFalce and included 
in the House version of the FY01 supplemental, which would renew 
existing Shelter Plus and SHP contracts and fund them under the budget 
for the HUD Section 8 housing assistance program.
  The renewals funded under this legislation would provide grant 
funding for existing programs that support assistance to some of the 
most vulnerable Americans--the homeless. Without the resources that 
this bill is designed to provide, many who receive assistance today 
will literally be left out in the cold.
  Keep in mind that these are not new programs--they are renewals. And 
they fund community initiatives already in place in cities and towns 
across the country that provide assistance to those in need. Under 
Shelter Plus and SHP, states are awarded grants for services such as 
subsidized housing for the homeless, many of whom are physically or 
mentally ill or disabled, or who suffer from substance abuse problems, 
as well as job training, shelters, health care, child care, and other 
services for this population. Some of the victims that are helped are 
children, low-income families, single mothers, and battered spouses. 
Many are also veterans.
  I have witnessed first-hand the dislocation that can be caused by 
non-renewal. In January of last year, HUD issued homeless grant 
assistance announcements to most states but denied applications 
submitted by the Maine State Housing Authority and by the city of 
Portland, Maine leaving the state one of only four not to receive any 
funds. We were alarmed to learn that this would mean that many homeless 
agencies and programs could lose funding altogether, and that in fact, 
over 70 homeless people with mental illnesses or substance abuse 
problems would lose housing subsidies.
  The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision 
to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo. HUD officials ultimately restored 
about $1 million in funding to the city of Portland, a portion of the 
city's request, but refused to restore any State homeless funding.

[[Page 8814]]

  In 1998, Maine homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 
million for HUD, and the State had simply requested $1.2 million for 
renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs in 1999. What did 
they get to meet these needs--nothing. In spite of the proven track 
record of homeless programs in Maine, including praise by Secretary 
Cuomo during an August 1998 visit to Maine, HUD completely zeroed out 
funding for Maine. Not a penny for these disadvantaged children, 
battered women, single mothers, disabled individuals, and veterans who 
sacrificed to preserve the freedoms we cherish.
  This could happen anywhere, but it shouldn't. This is why I have also 
cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Collins, to guarantee minimum funding for every state and assure a 
fairer, more equitable allocation of funding in the future. The 
legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 percent of funding 
to each state under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act.
  Without this assistance, basic subsidized housing and shelter 
programs suffer, and it is more difficult for states to provide job 
training, health care, child care, and other vital services to the 
victims of homelessness.
  In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency 
homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of 
the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135 
homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young 
people are between 5-12 with the average age being 13.
  It is vitally important that changes be made to our homeless policy 
to ensure that no state falls through the cracks in the future. As 
such, I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for 
the legislation I am proposing today. I hope this legislation will 
contribute to the dialogue under way as to how best to enhance federal 
homeless assistance initiatives, so that programs around the country 
can continue to provide vital services to the less fortunate among us.
  Lastly, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not express my 
gratitude to Senator Bond, who chairs the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee 
for his leadership and his support when HUD zeroed out funding for 
Maine's homeless programs. I am very grateful for his vision and 
leadership on issues of importance to homeless advocates nationwide. To 
that end, I am pleased that the Senate version of the fiscal year 2001 
Agriculture Department appropriations report contains language 
expressing concern about the HUD policies that resulted in a number of 
local homeless assistance initiatives going unfunded in recent years, 
and urging HUD to ensure that expiring rental contracts are renewed. 
HUD is also directed to submit a report to Congress explaining why 
projects with expiring grants were rejected during the 1999 round.
  I look forward to working with the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee as well as the Banking Committee as this year's 
legislative and appropriations process continues, and as we endeavor to 
craft a long-term solution to the homeless problem that is fiscally and 
socially responsible and improves the effectiveness of federal homeless 
programs for the future.
  Once again, I applaud the leadership of the Senate VA-HUD and Banking 
panels on this important issue, and I am confident in their commitment 
to further improvements in the program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 2605. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
income averaging to include the trade or business of fishing and to 
provide a business credit against income for the purchase of fishing 
safety equipment; to the Committee on Finance.


                Tax Legislation for Commercial Fishermen

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to help commercial fishermen navigate the often choppy waters 
of the Internal Revenue Code.
  The legislation I am introducing would make two commonsense changes 
to our tax laws. First, my legislation would extend a $1,500 tax credit 
to commercial fishermen to assist them in the purchase of important 
safety equipment.
  Commercial fishermen engage in one of the most dangerous professions 
in America. They have a higher fatality rate than even firefighters, 
police officers, truck or taxi drivers. From 1994 to 1998, 396 
commercial fishermen lost their lives while fishing. Last year, in the 
wake of catastrophic events that killed 11 fishermen over the course of 
only 1 month, the Coast Guard Fishing Vessel Casualty Task Force was 
convened. The task force issued a report that draws several conclusions 
about current fishing vessel safety. Despite the grim safety statistics 
surrounding the profession of fishing, the report concludes that most 
fishing deaths are preventable. One significant way to prevent these 
tragic deaths is to make safety equipment on commercial fishing vessels 
more widely available.
  As those of us who represent States with commercial fishing 
industries may recall, in 1988, Congress passed the Commercial Fishing 
Industry Vessel Safety Act. This act required lifesaving and 
firefighting equipment to be placed on board all fishing boats. 
Unfortunately, the cost of some of the safety equipment has proven to 
be a serious practical impediment for many commercial fishermen. The 
margin of profit for some commercial fishermen is simply too narrow and 
they simply lack the funds required to purchase the expensive safety 
equipment they require.
  Moreover, as the fishing industry has come under increasingly heavy 
Federal regulation, fishermen have often felt compelled to greatly 
increase their productivity on those days when they are permitted to 
fish. As a result, too many take dangerous risks in order to earn a 
living.
  Just this last January, in my home State of Maine, a terrible and 
tragic incident highlighted the critical importance of safety 
equipment. Two very experienced fishermen tragically drowned off Cape 
Neddick when their commercial fishing vessel capsized during a storm. 
The sole survivor of this tragedy was the fisherman who was able to 
correctly put on an immersion suit, a safety suit that the Coast Guard 
has required on cold water commercial fishing boats since the early 
1990s.
  In fact, immersion suits, liferafts, and emergency locater devices 
have been credited with saving more than 200 lives since 1993. By 
providing a $1,500 tax credit for fishermen to purchase safety 
equipment, my legislation would encourage the wider availability and 
use of safety equipment on our Nation's commercial fishing boats. We 
should take this sensible step to help ensure that fishermen do not set 
off without essential safety gear.
  The second provision of my bill would eliminate some of the perils 
that the Tax Code has that particularly affect commercial fishermen. I 
propose to allow fishermen to use income-averaging tax provisions that 
are now available to our Nation's farmers. For tax purposes, income 
averaging allows individuals to carry back income from a boom year to a 
prior less prosperous year. This tax treatment assists individuals who 
must adapt to wide fluctuations in their income from year to year by 
preventing them from being pushed into higher tax brackets in random 
good years.
  Until 1986, both farmers and fishermen were covered under the Tax 
Code's income-averaging provisions. However, income averaging 
disappeared as part of the tax restructuring undertaken in 1986. In 
1997, income-averaging provisions were again reintroduced into our Tax 
Code, but unfortunately, under the changes in the 1997 law, only 
farmers were permitted to benefit from this tax relief. The Tax and 
Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 permanently extended this tax relief 
provision, but again only for our farmers.
  Although I am very pleased that Congress has restored income 
averaging for our Nation's farmers, I do not believe our fishermen 
should be left out in the cold and excluded from using income 
averaging. The legislation that I introduce today would restore 
fairness by

[[Page 8815]]

extending income averaging to our fishermen as well as our farmers.
  Parallel tax treatment for fishermen and farmers is appropriate for 
many reasons. Currently, unlike farmers, fishermen's sole tax 
protection to handle fluctuations in income are found in the Tax Code's 
net operating loss provisions. These provisions do not provide the tax 
benefits of income averaging and are so complex in their computation 
that it often defies the ability of any individual without a CPA after 
his or her name.
  Most importantly, both farm and fishing income can fluctuate widely 
from year to year due to a wide range of uncontrollable circumstances, 
including market prices, the weather and, in the case of fishing, 
Government restrictions.
  I urge my colleagues to help our fishermen cope with the fluctuations 
in their income by restoring this important tax provision and by 
extending a safety tax credit to help protect them from the hazards 
that their fishing profession entails.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 2606. A bill to protect the privacy of American consumers; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                  the consumer privacy protection act

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
address one of the most pressing problems facing American consumers 
today--the constant assault on citizens' privacy by the denizens of the 
private marketplace. This legislation, the Consumer Privacy Protection 
Act of 2000, represents an attempt to provide basic, widespread, and 
warranted privacy protections to consumers in both the online and 
offline marketplace. On the Internet, our bill sets forth a regulatory 
regime to ensure pro-consumer privacy protections, coupling a strong 
federal standard with preemption of inconsistent state laws on Internet 
privacy. We need a strong federal standard to protect consumer privacy 
online, and we need preemption to ensure business certainty in the 
marketplace, given the numerous state privacy initiatives that are 
currently pending. Off the Internet, this bill extends privacy 
protections that are already on the books to similarly regulated 
industries or business practices, and requires a broad examination of 
privacy practices in the traditional marketplace to help Congress 
better understand whether further regulation is appropriate.
  The introduction of this legislation comes as the Federal Trade 
Commission releases its eagerly awaited report on Internet Privacy. 
Released yesterday, that report concludes that Internet industry self-
regulation efforts have failed to protect adequately consumer privacy. 
Accordingly, the report calls for legislation that requires commercial 
web sites to comply with the ``four widely accepted fair information 
practices'' of notice, consent, access, and security. The legislation 
that we introduce today accomplishes just that.
  On the Internet, many users unfortunately are unaware of the 
significant amount of information they are surrendering every time they 
visit a web site. For many others, the fear of a loss of personal 
privacy on the Internet represents the last hurdle impeding their full 
embrace of this exciting and promising new medium. Nonetheless, 
millions of Americans every day utilize the Internet and put their 
personal information at risk. As the Washington Post reported on May 
17, 2000:

       The numbers tell the story. About 44.4 million households 
     will be online by the end of this year . . . up from 12.7 
     million in 1995, an increase of nearly 250 percent over five 
     years. Roughly 55 million Americans log into the Internet on 
     a typical day. . . . Industry experts estimate that the 
     amount of Internet traffic doubles every 100 days. . . . 
     These changes are not without a price. Along with wired life 
     comes growing concern about intrusions into privacy and the 
     ability to protect identities online.

  As Internet use proliferates, there needs to be some regulation and 
enforcement to ensure pro-consumer privacy policies, particularly where 
the collection, consolidation, and dissemination of private, personal 
information is so readily achievable in this digital age. Indeed, 
advances in technology have provided information gatherers the tools to 
seamlessly compile and enhance highly detailed personal histories of 
Internet users. Despite these indisputable facts, industry has to this 
point nearly unanimously opposed even a basic regulatory framework that 
would ensure the protection of consumer privacy on the Internet--a 
basic framework that has been successfully adopted in other areas of 
our economy.
  Our bill gives customers, not companies, control over their personal 
information on the Internet. It accomplishes this goal by establishing 
in law the five basic tenets of the long-established fair information 
practices standards--notice, consent, access, security, and 
enforcement. The premise of these standards is simple:
  (1) Consumers should be given notice of companies' information 
practices and what they intend to do with people's personal 
information.
  (2) Consumers should be given the opportunity to consent, or not to 
consent, to those information practices.
  (3) Consumers should be given the right to access whatever 
information has been collected about them and to correct that 
information where necessary.
  (4) Companies should be required to establish reasonable procedures 
to ensure that consumers' personal information is kept secure.
  (5) A viable enforcement mechanism must be established to safeguard 
consumers' privacy rights.
  While the Internet industry argues that the need for these 
protections are premature, the threat to personal privacy posed by 
advances in technology was anticipated twenty three years ago by the 
Privacy Protection Study Commission, which was created pursuant to the 
Privacy Act of 1974. In 1977, that Commission reported to the Congress 
and the federal government on the issue of privacy and technology. The 
Commission's portrait of the world in 1977 might well still be used 
today. That report found that society is increasingly dependant on 
``computer based record keeping systems,'' which result in a ``rapidly 
changing world in which insufficient attention is being paid--by policy 
makers, system designers, or system users--to the privacy protection 
implications of these trends.'' The report went on to state that even 
where some privacy protections exist under the law, ``there is the 
danger that personal privacy will be further eroded due to applications 
of new technology. Policy makers must not be complacent about this 
potential. The economic and social costs of incorporating privacy 
protection safeguards into a record-keeping systems are always greater 
when it is done retroactively than when it is done at the system's 
inception.''
  Today, twenty three years later, as we enter what America Online 
chairman Steve Case calls the ``Internet Century,'' the words of the 
Privacy Commission could not be more appropriate. Poll after poll 
indicates that Americans fear that their privacy is not being 
sufficiently protected on the Internet. Last September, the Wall St. 
Journal reported that Americans' number one concern (measured at 29 
percent as we enter the 21st century was a fear of a loss of personal 
privacy. Just two months ago, Business Week reported that 57 percent of 
Americans believe that Congress should pass laws to govern how personal 
information is collected and used on the Internet. Moreover, a recent 
survey by the Federal Trade Commission found that 87 percent of 
respondents are concerned about threats to their privacy in relation to 
their online usage. And, while industry claims that self-regulation is 
working, only 15 percent of those polled by Business Week believed that 
the Government should defer to voluntary, industry-developed privacy 
standards.
  Are these fears significant enough to require federal action? 
Absolutely, particularly in light of predictions by people such as John 
Chambers, the CEO of CISCO Systems, who forecasts that one

[[Page 8816]]

quarter of all global commerce will be conducted online by 2010. As the 
Privacy Commission stated a quarter of a century ago, the ``economic 
and social costs'' of mandating pro-privacy protections will be far 
lower now than when the Internet is handling twenty five percent of all 
global commerce. Besides if John Chambers is right, the Internet 
industry should embrace, rather than resist, strong privacy policies. 
Simply put, strong privacy policies represent good business. For 
example, a study conducted by Forrester Research in September 1999 
revealed that e-commerce spending was deprived of $2.8 billion in 
possible revenue last year because of consumer fears over privacy.
  Indeed, the fears and concerns reflected in these analyses are borne 
out in study after study on the privacy practices--or lack thereof--of 
the companies operating on the Internet. Last year, an industry 
commissioned study found that of the top 100 web sites, while 99 
collect information about Internet users, only 22 comply with all four 
of the core privacy principles of notice, choice, access, and security. 
A broader industry funded survey reports that only 10 percent of the 
top 350 Web sites implement all four of these privacy principles. This 
week, our Committee will hold a hearing to receive the report of the 
Federal Trade Commission on its most recent analysis of the privacy 
policies of the Internet industry. While the industry will claim that 
they have made tremendous progress in their self-regulatory efforts, 
the FTC apparently, is not convinced--finding in its report release 
yesterday that ``only 20% of the busiest sites on the World Wide Web 
implement to some extent all four fair information practices in their 
privacy disclosures. Even when only Notice and Choice are considered, 
fewer than half of the sites surveyed (41%) meet the relevant 
standards.'' This record indicates that we should begin to consider 
passing pro-consumer privacy legislation this year. The public is 
clamoring for it, the studies justify it, and the potential harm from 
inaction is simply too great.
  It is worth noting that advocates of self-regulation often claim that 
the collection and use of consumer information actually enhances the 
consumer experience on the Internet. While there may be some truth to 
that claim, many Internet users do not want companies to target them 
with marketing based on their personal shopping habits. Those 
individuals should be given control over whether and how their personal 
information is used via an ``opt-in'' mechanism. Moreover, even those 
consumers who targeted marketing and want to ``opt-in'' to those 
practices, may not be willing to accept what happens to their 
information after it is used for this allegedly benign purpose.
  For example, should it be acceptable business behavior to sell, rent, 
share, or loan a historical record of a customers tobacco purchasing 
habits to an insurance company. Should an Internet user's surfing 
habits--including frequent visits to AIDS or diabetes, or other 
sensitive health-related websites be revealed to prospective employers 
willing to pay a fee for such information? Should online surfing habits 
that identify consumer shopping activities be merged with offline 
database information already existing on a consumer to form a highly 
detailed, intricate portrait of that individual? The answer to these 
questions most assuredly is no. And yet right now, there is no law, or 
regulation, that would prohibit these objectionable practices.
  We are already seeing evidence of these practices in the marketplace 
today. For example, on February 2, 2000, the New York Times reported on 
a study by the California HealthCare Foundation that concluded that 
``19 of the top 21 health sites had privacy policies but . . . most 
failed to live up to promises not to share information with third 
parties. . . . [N]one of the sites followed guidelines recommended by 
the Federal Trade Commission on collection and use of personal data.'' 
Despite these reports, industry continues to insist that government 
wait and see, and let self-regulation and the marketplace protect 
against these articulable harms. We say that is like letting the fox 
guard the henhouse.
  At the same time, we must not ignore those members of the industry 
who at least place some importance on protecting consumer privacy on 
the Internet. For example, in contrast to most Internet and online 
service providers, American Online does not track its millions of users 
when they venture on the Internet and out of AOL's proprietary network. 
In addition, IBM--while opposing federal legislation--refuses to 
advertise on Internet sites that do not possess and post a clear 
privacy policy. These are the types of practices that government 
welcomes. Unfortunately, they are far and few between.
  As a result, the time has come to permit consumers to decide for 
themselves whether, and to what extent, they desire to permit 
commercial entities access to their personal information. Industry will 
argue that this is an aggressive approach. They will assert that at 
most, Congress should give customers the right to ``opt-in'' only with 
respect to those information practices deemed to be ``sensitive''--such 
as the gathering of information regarding health, financial, ethnic, 
religious, or other particularly private areas. The problem with this 
suggestion is that it leaves it up to Congress and industry lawyers and 
lobbyists to define what is in fact ``sensitive'' for individual 
consumers.
  A better approach is to give consumers an ``opt-in'' right to control 
access to all personally identifiable information that might be 
collected online. This approach allows consumers to make their own, 
personal, and subjective determination as to what they do or don't want 
known about them by the companies with which they interact. If industry 
is right that most people want targeted advertising, then most people 
will opt-in. Indeed, Alta Vista, a commonly used search portal on the 
Internet, employs an ``opt-in'' approach.
  As if this evidence were not enough, we only need to look to the 
February 24, 2000, article in TheStreet.Com entitled, ``DoubleClick 
Exec Says Privacy Legislation Needn't Crimp Results.'' In that article, 
a leading Internet executive from DoubleClick, the Internet's most well 
known banner advertiser, states that his company would not ``face an 
insurmountable problem'' in attempting to operate under strict privacy 
rules. Complying with such rules is ``not rocket science,'' the 
executive stated, ``it's execution.'' He went on to state that his 
company could continue to be successful under an ``opt-in'' regulatory 
regime. This is a phenomenal admission that ``opt-in'' policies would 
not impede the basic functionality and commercial activity on the 
Internet. The admission is particularly stunning given that it comes 
from a company whose business model is to track consumer activities on 
the Internet so as to target them with specific advertising.
  Moreover, evidence in the marketplace demonstrates that ``opt-out'' 
policies will not always lead to full informed consumer choice. First 
of all, ``opt-out'' policies place the burden on the consumer to take 
certain steps to protect the privacy of their personal information. 
Under an ``opt-out'' approach, the incentive exists for industry to 
develop privacy policies that discourage people from opting out. The 
policies will be longer, harder to read, and the actual ``opt-out'' 
option will often be buried under hundreds, if not thousands of words 
of text. Consider the recent article in USA Today on this very issue. 
Entitled, ``Privacy isn't Public Knowledge,'' this May 1, 2000, article 
outlines the difficulty consumers have in opting out of the information 
collection practices of Internet companies. While consumers may be 
informed if they actually locate and read the company's privacy policy 
that they are likely to be ``tracked by name . . . only with [their] 
`permission,' '' they may not be informed up front that it is assumed 
that they have granted such permission unless they ``opt-out.'' 
Moreover, to get through the hundreds of words of required reading to 
find the ``opt-out'' option, it turns out, according to this article, 
that you need a graduate level or college education

[[Page 8817]]

reading ability to simply comprehend the policies in the first place. 
According to FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, ``Some sites bury your 
rights in a long page of legal jargon so it's hard to find them hard to 
understand them once you find them. Self-regulation that creates opt-
out rights that cannot be found [or] understood is really not an 
acceptable form of consumer protection.'' One thing is clear from this 
article--``self-regulation'' is not working.
  We know, however, that some companies do not collect personal 
information on the Internet. For example, some banner advertisers 
target their messages and ads to computers but not to people 
individually. They do this by tracking the Internet activity of a 
particular Internet Protocol address, without ever knowing who exactly 
is behind that address. Thus, they can never share personal information 
about a consumer's preferences, shopping, or research habits online, 
because they don't know who that consumer is. According to the chief 
technology officer of Engage--a prominent banner advertiser--``We don't 
need to know who someone is to make the [online] experience relevant. 
We're trying to strike this balance between the consumer's need for 
privacy and the marketer's need to be effective in order to sustain a 
free Internet.'' Such a business practice is an example of marketplace 
forces providing better privacy protection and my legislation 
recognizes that. Accordingly, if companies are only collecting and 
using non-personal information online they could comply with this bill 
by providing consumers with an ``opt-out,'' rather than an opt-in 
option.
  Under this legislation, companies would be required to provide 
updates to consumers notifying them of changes to their privacy 
policies. Companies would also be prohibited from using information 
that had been collected under a prior privacy policy, if such use did 
not comport with that prior policy and if the consumer had not granted 
consent to the new practices.
  In addition, the bill would provide permanence to a consumer's 
decision to grant or withhold consent, and allow the effect of that 
decision to be altered only by the consumer. Consequently, companies 
would not be permitted to let their customer's privacy preferences 
expire, thereby requiring consumers to reaffirm their prior 
communication as to how they want their personal information handled.
  Unfortunately, many privacy violations are often unknown by the very 
consumers whose privacy has been violated. Therefore, the legislation 
would provide whistleblower protection to employees of companies who 
come forward with evidence of privacy violations.
  In order to enforce these consumer protections, our bill would call 
upon the Federal Trade Commission to implement and enforce the 
provisions of the legislation applicable to the Internet. The FTC is 
the sole federal agency with substantial expertise in this area. Not 
only has the FTC conducted extensive studies on Internet privacy and 
profiling on the Internet in recent years, but it recently concluded a 
comprehensive rulemaking to implement the fair information practice of 
notice, consent, access, and security, as required by the Childrens 
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which we enacted in 1998.
  In addition, the legislation provides the attorneys general with the 
ability to enforce the bill on behalf of constituents in their 
individual states. And, while the legislation would preempt 
inconsistent state law, citizens would be free to avail themselves of 
other applicable remedies such as fraud, contractual breach, unjust 
enrichment, or emotional distress. Finally, the bill would permit 
individual consumers to bring a private right of action to enjoin 
Internet privacy violations.
  While rules are clearly needed to protect consumer privacy on the 
Internet, we recognize that information is collected and shared in the 
traditional marketplace as well. The rate of collection, however, and 
the intrusiveness of the monitoring is nowhere near as significant as 
it is online. For example, when a consumer shops in a store in a mall 
and browses through items without purchasing anything, no one makes a 
list of his or her every move. To the contrary, on the Internet, every 
browse, observation, and individual click of the mouse may be 
surreptitiously monitored. Notwithstanding this distinction, it may be 
appropriate at some time to develop privacy protections for the general 
marketplace, in addition to those set forth in this bill for the 
Internet. That is why our bill asks the FTC to conduct an exhaustive 
study of privacy issues in the general marketplace and report to the 
Congress as to what rules and regulations, if any, may be necessary to 
protect consumers.
  We are also learning that employers are increasingly monitoring their 
employees--both in and out of the workplace--on the phone, on the 
computer, and in their daily activities on the job. While employees may 
be justified in taking steps to ensure that their workers are 
productive and efficient, such monitoring raises implications for those 
workers' privacy. Accordingly, this legislation directs the Department 
of Labor to conduct a study of privacy issues in the workplace, and 
report to Congress as to what--if any--regulations may be necessary to 
protect worker privacy.
  Additionally, the legislation extends some existing privacy 
protections that we already know are working in the offline 
marketplace. For example, the bill would extend the privacy protections 
consumers enjoy while shopping in video stores to book and record 
stores, as well as to the digital delivery of those products. The bill 
would also extend the privacy protections we put forth in the Cable Act 
of 1984 to customers who subscribe to multichannel video programming 
services via satellite. And, the legislation would codify the Federal 
Communications Commission's CPNI rules, to provide privacy protection 
to telephone customers. The bill would also ask the Federal 
Communications Commission to harmonize existing privacy rules that 
apply to disparate communications technologies so that the personal 
privacy of subscribers to all communications services are protected 
equally. Finally, the legislation would clarify that personal 
information could not be deemed an asset if the company holding that 
information avails itself of the protection of our bankruptcy laws.
  The development of a strong and comprehensive privacy regime must 
also address the security of Internet-connected computers. This month, 
the world was bitten by the ``love bug,'' a computer virus that 
devastated computer systems in more than 20 countries and caused an 
estimated $10 billion in damages. One of the features of the ``love 
bug'' was an attempt to steal passwords stored on an infected hard 
drive for later use. If successful, the virus-writer could have gained 
access to thousands of Internet access accounts. The spread of the 
virus highlighted the vulnerability of interconnected computer systems 
to malicious persons intent on disrupting or compromising legitimate 
use of these systems.
  The development of technology, policies, and expertise to effectively 
protect a computer system from illegitimate users is a cornerstone of 
privacy protection because a privacy policy is worthless if the company 
cannot adequately secure that information and control its 
dissemination. While it would be impossible for the Federal government 
to protect every web site from every threat, it can help users and 
operators of web sites by researching and developing better computer 
security technologies and practices. Therefore, I have included a title 
on computer security in this bill.
  This title of the bill is an attempt to promote and enhance the 
protection of computers connected to the Internet. First, the bill 
would establish a 25-member computer security partnership council. This 
council would build on the public-private partnership proposed in the 
wake of February's denial of service attacks which shut down leading e-
commerce sites like Yahoo! and E-bay. The council would identify 
threats and help companies share solutions. It would be a major source 
of

[[Page 8818]]

public information on computer security and could help educate the 
general public and businesses on good computer protection practices. In 
addition, our bill calls on the Council to identify areas in which we 
have not invested adequately in computer security research. This study 
could be a blueprint for future research investments.
  While the private sector has put significant resources into computer 
security research, the President's Information Technology Advisory 
Council has noted that current information technology research is often 
focused on the short-term and neglects long-term fundamental problems. 
This bill would authorize appropriations for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology to invest in long-term computer security 
research needs. This research would complement private sector, market-
driven research and could be conducted at NIST or through grants to 
academic or private-sector researchers. The results of these 
investigations could power the next generation of advanced computer 
security technologies.
  Of course those technologies will not protect government, or 
companies and their customers, unless there are well-trained 
professionals to operate and secure computer systems. The problem is 
particularly acute for the Federal government. According to a May 10th 
Washington Post article, the Federal government will need to replace or 
hire more than 35,000 high-tech workers by the year 2006. The last time 
I checked, the same people who could fill those government positions 
are in high demand from Silicon Valley and the Dulles Corridor 
companies, among other. Until the government is able to offer stock 
options, we will continue to struggle to fill these positions. Our bill 
would establish an ROTC-like program to train computer security 
professionals for government service. In exchange for loans or grants 
to complete an undergraduate or graduate degree in computer security, a 
student would be required to work for the government for a certain 
number of years. This would allow students to get high-quality computer 
security training, to serve as a Federal employee for a short time, and 
then, if they desire, to enter the private sector job market.
  This legislation would also push the government to get its house in 
order and become an example for good computer security practices. It 
proposes increased scrutiny of government security practices and would 
establish an Award for Quality of Government Security Practices to 
recognize agencies and departments which have excellent policies and 
processes to protect their computer systems. The criteria for this 
award will be published by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) and should encourage government to improve security 
on its systems. In addition, these criteria could become a model for 
computer security professionals inside and outside the government.
  Finally, the bill would tie research and theory to meaningful, on-
the-ground protections for Internet users. The bill calls on NIST to 
encourage and support the development of software standards that would 
allow users to set up an individual privacy regime at the outset and 
have those preferences follow them--without further intervention--as 
they surf the web.
  This bill asks a lot of private companies in protecting the 
personally-identifiable information of American citizens. It would be 
wrong for the Congress not to apply the same standard to itself as 
well. Title IX of the bill calls for the development of Senate and 
House rules on protecting the privacy of information obtained through 
official web sites.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Consumer 
Privacy Protection Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2606

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Privacy Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The right to privacy is a personal and fundamental 
     right worthy of protection through appropriate legislation.
       (2) Consumers engaging in and interacting with companies 
     engaged in interstate commerce have an ownership interest in 
     their personal information, as well as a right to control how 
     that information is collected, used, or transferred.
       (3) Existing State, local, and Federal laws provide 
     virtually no privacy protection for Internet users.
       (4) Moreover, existing privacy regulation of the general, 
     or offline, marketplace provides inadequate consumer 
     protections in light of the significant data collection and 
     dissemination practices employed today.
       (5) The Federal government thus far has eschewed general 
     Internet privacy laws in favor of industry self-regulation, 
     which has led to several self-policing schemes, none of which 
     are enforceable in any meaningful way or provide sufficient 
     consumer protection.
       (6) State governments have been reluctant to enter the 
     field of Internet privacy regulation because use of the 
     Internet often crosses State, or even national, boundaries.
       (7) States are nonetheless interested in providing greater 
     privacy protection to their citizens as evidenced by recent 
     lawsuits brought against offline and online companies by 
     State attorneys general to protect consumer privacy.
       (8) Personal information flowing over the Internet requires 
     greater privacy protection than is currently available today. 
     Vast amounts of personal information about individual 
     Internet users are collected on the Internet and sold or 
     otherwise transferred to third parties.
       (9) Poll after poll consistently demonstrates that 
     individual Internet users are highly troubled over their lack 
     of control over their personal information.
       (10) Research on the Internet industry demonstrates that 
     consumer concerns about their privacy on the Internet has a 
     correlative negative impact on the development of e-commerce.
       (11) Notwithstanding these concerns, the Internet is 
     becoming a major part of the personal and commercial lives of 
     millions of Americans, providing increased access to 
     information, as well as communications and commercial 
     opportunities.
       (12) It is important to establish personal privacy rights 
     and industry obligations now so that consumers have 
     confidence that their personal privacy is fully protected on 
     our Nation's telecommunications networks and on the Internet.
       (13) The social and economic costs of imposing obligations 
     on industry now will be lower than if Congress waits until 
     the Internet becomes more prevalent in our everyday lives in 
     coming years.
       (14) Absent the recognition of these rights and the 
     establishment of consequent industry responsibilities to 
     safeguard those rights, consumer privacy will soon be more 
     gravely threatened.
       (15) The ease of gathering and compiling personal 
     information on the Internet, both overtly and 
     surreptitiously, is becoming increasingly efficient and 
     effortless due to advances in digital communications 
     technology which have provided information gatherers the 
     ability to seamlessly compile highly detailed personal 
     histories of Internet users.
       (16) Consumers must have--
       (A) clear and conspicuous notice that information is being 
     collected about them;
       (B) clear and conspicuous notice as to the information 
     gatherer's intent with respect to that information;
       (C) the ability to control the extent to which information 
     is collected about them; and
       (D) the right to prohibit any unauthorized use, reuse, 
     disclosure, transfer, or sale of their information.
       (17) Fair information practices include providing consumers 
     with knowledge of any data collection clear and conspicuous 
     notice of an entity's information practices, the ability to 
     control whether or not those practices will be applied to 
     them personally, access to information collected about them, 
     and safeguards to ensure the integrity and security of that 
     information.
       (18) Recent surveys of websites conducted by the Federal 
     Trade Commission and Georgetown University found that a small 
     minority of websites surveyed contained a privacy policy 
     embodying fair information practices such as notice, choice, 
     access, and security.
       (19) Americans expect that their purchases of written 
     materials, videos, and music will remain confidential, 
     whether they are shopping online or in the traditional 
     workplace.
       (20) Consumer privacy with respect to written materials, 
     music, and movies should be protected vigilantly to ensure 
     the free exercise of First Amendment rights of expression, 
     regardless of medium.
       (21) Under current law, millions of American cable 
     customers are protected against disclosures of their personal 
     subscriber information without notice and choice, whereas no 
     similar protection is available to subscribers of 
     multichannel video programming via satellite.

[[Page 8819]]

       (22) Almost every American is a consumer of some form of 
     communications service, be it wireless, wireline, cable, 
     broadcast, or satellite.
       (23) In light of the convergence of and emerging 
     competition among and between wireless, wireline, satellite, 
     broadcast, and cable companies, privacy safeguards should be 
     applied uniformly across different communications media so as 
     to provide consistent consumer privacy protections as well as 
     a level competitive playing field for industry.
       (24) Notwithstanding the recent focus on Internet privacy, 
     privacy issues abound in the traditional, or offline, 
     marketplace that merit Federal attention.
       (25) The Congress would benefit from an exhaustive analysis 
     of general marketplace privacy issues conducted by the agency 
     with the most expertise in this area, the Federal Trade 
     Commission.
       (26) While American workers are growing increasingly 
     concerned that their employers may be violating their 
     privacy, many workers are unaware that their activities in 
     the workplace may be subject to significant and potentially 
     invasive monitoring.
       (27) While employers may have a legitimate need to maintain 
     an efficient and productive workforce, that need should not 
     improperly impinge on employee privacy rights in the 
     workplace.
       (28) Databases containing personal information about 
     consumers' commercial purchasing, browsing, and shopping 
     habits, as well as their generalized product preferences, 
     represent considerable commercial value.
       (29) These databases should not be considered an asset with 
     respect to creditors' interests if the asset holder has 
     availed itself of the protection of State or Federal 
     bankruptcy laws.

     SEC. 3. PREEMPTION OF INCONSISTENT STATE LAW OR REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     Act preempts any State law, regulation, or rule that is 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act preempts--
       (1) the law of torts in any State;
       (2) the common law in any State; or
       (3) any State law, regulation, or rule that prohibits fraud 
     or provides a remedy for fraud.
       (2) Private right-of-action.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a), if a State law provides for a private right-of-action 
     under a statute enacted to provide consumer protection, 
     nothing in this Act precludes a person from bringing such an 
     action under that statute, even if the statute is otherwise 
     preempted in whole or in part under subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Preemption of inconsistent State law or regulations.
Sec. 4. Table of contents.
Title I--Online Privacy
Sec. 101. Collection or disclosure of personally identifiable 
              information.
Sec. 102. Notice, consent, access, and security requirements.
Sec. 103. Other kinds of information.
Sec. 104. Exceptions.
Sec. 105. Permanence of consent.
Sec. 106. Disclosure to law enforcement agency or under court order.
Sec. 107. Effective date.
Sec. 108. FTC rulemaking procedure required.
Title II--Privacy Protection for Consumers of Books, Recorded Music, 
              and Videos
Sec. 201. Extension of video rental protections to books and recorded 
              music.
Sec. 202. Effective Date.
Title III--Enforcement and Remedies
Sec. 301. Enforcement.
Sec. 302. Violation is unfair or deceptive act or practice.
Sec. 303. Private right of action.
Sec. 304. Actions by States.
Sec. 305. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 306. No effect on other remedies.
Sec. 307. FTC Office of Online Privacy.
Title IV--Communications Technology Privacy Protections
Sec. 401. Privacy protection for subscribers of satellite television 
              services for private home viewing.
Sec. 402. Customer proprietary network information.
Title V--Rulemaking and Studies
Sec. 501. Federal Trade Commission examination.
Sec. 502. Federal Communications Commission rulemaking.
Sec. 503. Department of Labor study of privacy issues in the workplace.
Title VI--Protection of Personally Identifiable Information in 
              Bankruptcy
Sec. 601. Personally identifiable information not asset in bankruptcy.
Title VII--Internet Security Initiatives.
Sec. 701. Findings.
Sec. 702. Computer Security Partnership Council.
Sec. 703. Research and development.
Sec. 704. Computer security training programs.
Sec. 705. Government information security standards.
Sec. 706. Recognition of quality in computer security practices.
Sec. 707. Development of automated privacy controls.
Title VIII--Congressional Information Security Standards.
Sec. 801. Exercise of rulemaking power.
Sec. 802. Senate.
Title IX--Definitions
Sec. 901. Definitions.

                        TITLE I--ONLINE PRIVACY

     SEC. 101. COLLECTION OR DISCLOSURE OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE 
                   INFORMATION.

       An Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website on the Internet may not 
     collect, use, or disclose personally identifiable information 
     about a user of that service or website except in accordance 
     with the provisions of this title.

     SEC. 102. NOTICE, CONSENT, ACCESS, AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Notice.--An Internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website may not collect 
     personally identifiable information from a user of that 
     service or website unless that provider or operator gives 
     clear and conspicuous notice in a manner reasonably 
     calculated to provide actual notice to any user or 
     prospective user that personally identifiable information may 
     be collected from that user. The notice shall disclose--
       (1) the specific information that will be collected;
       (2) the methods of collecting and using the information 
     collected; and
       (3) all disclosure practices of that provider or operator 
     for personally identifiable information so collected, 
     including whether it will be disclosed to third parties.
       (b) Consent.--An Internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website may not--
       (1) collect personally identifiable information from a user 
     of that service or website, or
       (2) except as provided in section 107, disclose or 
     otherwise use such information about a user of that service 
     or website,
     unless the provider or operator obtains that user's 
     affirmative consent, in advance, to the collection and 
     disclosure or use of that information.
       (c) Access.--An Internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website shall--
       (1) upon request provide reasonable access to a user to 
     personally identifiable information that the provider or 
     operator has collected after the effective date of this title 
     relating to that user;
       (2) provide a reasonable opportunity for a user to correct, 
     delete, or supplement any such information maintained by that 
     provider or operator; and
       (3) make the correction or supplementary information a part 
     of that user's personally identifiable information for all 
     future disclosure and other use purposes.
       (d) Security.--An Internet service provider, online service 
     provider, or operator of a commercial website shall establish 
     and maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the 
     security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally 
     identifiable information maintained by that provider or 
     operator.
       (e) Notice of Policy Change.--Whenever an Internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website makes a material change in its policy for 
     the collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable 
     information, it--
       (1) shall notify all users of that service or website of 
     the change in policy; and
       (2) may not collect, disclose, or otherwise use any 
     personally identifiable information in accordance with the 
     changed policy unless the user has affirmatively consented, 
     under subsection (b), to its collection, disclosure, or use 
     in accordance with the changed policy.
       (f) Notice of Privacy Breach.--
       (1) In general.--If an Internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website commits 
     a breach of privacy with respect to the personally 
     identifiable information of a user, then it shall, as soon as 
     reasonably possible, notify all users whose personally 
     identifiable information was affected by that breach. The 
     notice shall describe the nature of the breach and the steps 
     taken by the provider or operator to remedy it.
       (2) Breach of privacy.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website commits a breach of privacy 
     with respect to personally identifiable information of a user 
     if--
       (A) it collects, discloses, or otherwise uses personally 
     identifiable information in violation of any provision of 
     this title; or
       (B) it knows that the security, confidentiality, or 
     integrity of personally identifiable information is 
     compromised by any act or failure to act on the part of the 
     provider or operator or by any function of the Internet 
     service or online service provided, or

[[Page 8820]]

     commercial website operated, by that provider or operator 
     that resulted in a disclosure, or possible disclosure, of 
     that information.
       (g) Application to Certain Third-Party Operators.--The 
     provisions of this section applicable to Internet service 
     providers, online service providers, and commercial website 
     operators apply to any third party, including an advertiser, 
     that uses that service or website to collect information 
     about users of that service or website.

     SEC. 103. OTHER KINDS OF INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     provisions of sections 101 and 102 (except for subsections 
     (b), (c), and (e)(2)) that apply to personally identifiable 
     information apply also to the collection and disclosure or 
     other use of information about users of an Internet service, 
     online service, or commercial website that is not personally 
     identifiable information.
       (b) Consent Rule.--An Internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or operator of a commercial website may 
     not--
       (1) collect information described in subsection (a) from a 
     user of that service or website, or
       (2) except as provided in section 107, disclose or 
     otherwise use such information about a user of that service 
     or website,
     unless the provider or operator obtains that user's consent 
     to the collection and disclosure or other use of that 
     information. For purposes of this subsection, the user will 
     be deemed to have consented unless the user objects to the 
     collection and disclosure or other use of the information.
       (c) Application to Certain Third-Party Operators.--The 
     provisions of this section applicable to Internet service 
     providers, online service providers, and commercial website 
     operators apply to any third party, including an advertiser, 
     that uses that service or website to collect information 
     about users of that service or website.

     SEC. 104. EXCEPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Sections 102 and 103 do not apply to the 
     collection, disclosure, or use by an Internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website of information about a user of that 
     service or website--
       (1) to protect the security or integrity of the service or 
     website; or
       (2) to conduct a transaction, deliver a product or service, 
     or complete an arrangement for which the user provided the 
     information.
       (b) Disclosure to Parent Protected.--An Internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website may not be held liable under this title, 
     any other Federal law, or any State law for any disclosure 
     made in good faith and following reasonable procedures in 
     responding to a request for disclosure of personal 
     information under section 1302(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the 
     Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 to the 
     parent of a child.

     SEC. 105. PERMANENCE OF CONSENT.

       The consent or denial of consent by a user of permission to 
     an Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website to collect, disclose, or 
     otherwise use any information about that user for which 
     consent is required under this title--
       (1) shall remain in effect until changed by the user;
       (2) except as provided in section 102(e), shall apply to 
     any revised, modified, new, or improved service provided by 
     that provider or operator to that user; and
       (3) except as provided in section 102(e), shall apply to 
     the collection, disclosure, or other use of that information 
     by any entity that is a commercial successor of that provider 
     or operator, without regard to the legal form in which such 
     succession was accomplished.

     SEC. 106. DISCLOSURE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR UNDER COURT 
                   ORDER.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, an Internet service provider, online service 
     provider, operator of a commercial website, or third party 
     that uses such a service or website to collect information 
     about users of that service or website may disclose 
     personally identifiable information about a user of that 
     service or website--
       (1) to a law enforcement agency in response to a warrant 
     issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an 
     equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in 
     accordance with subsection (c); and
       (2) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding 
     granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information 
     that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--
       (A) the user to whom the information relates is given 
     reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of 
     the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and
       (B) that user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to 
     appear and contest the issuance of requested order or to 
     narrow its scope.
       (b) Safeguards Against Further Disclosure.--A court that 
     issues an order described in subsection (a) shall impose 
     appropriate safeguards on the use of the information to 
     protect against its unauthorized disclosure.
       (c) Court Orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure 
     under subsection (a)(1) may issue only with prior notice to 
     the user and only if the law enforcement agency shows that 
     there is probable cause to believe that the user has engaged, 
     is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal activity and 
     that the records or other information sought are material to 
     the investigation of such activity. In the case of a State 
     government authority, such a court order shall not issue if 
     prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order 
     pursuant to this subsection, on a motion made promptly by the 
     Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of the commercial website, may quash or modify such 
     order if the information or records requested are 
     unreasonably voluminous in nature or if compliance with such 
     order otherwise would cause an unreasonable burden on the 
     provider or operator.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This title takes effect after the Federal 
     Trade Commission completes the rulemaking procedure under 
     section 109.
       (b) Application to Pre-existing Data.--
       (1) In general.--After the effective date of this title, 
     and except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), sections 
     101, 102, and 103 apply to information collected before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Collection of both kinds of information.--Section 
     102(b)(1) and 103(b)(1) do not apply to information collected 
     before the effective date of this title.
       (3) Access to personally identifiable information.--Section 
     102(c) applies to personally identifiable information 
     collected before the effective date of this title unless it 
     is economically unfeasible for the Internet service provider, 
     online service provider, or commercial website operator to 
     comply with that section for the information.

     SEC. 108. FTC RULEMAKING PROCEDURE REQUIRED.

       The Federal Trade Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
     procedure within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act to implement the provisions of this title. 
     Notwithstanding any requirement of chapter 5 of title 5, 
     United States Code, the Commission shall complete the 
     rulemaking procedure not later than 270 days after it is 
     commenced.

 TITLE II--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS OF BOOKS, RECORDED MUSIC, 
                               AND VIDEOS

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF VIDEO RENTAL PROTECTIONS TO BOOKS AND 
                   RECORDED MUSIC.

       (a) In General.--Section 2710 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the section designation and all 
     that follows through the end of subsection (b) and inserting 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 2710. Wrongful disclosure of information about video, 
       book, or recorded music rental, sale, or delivery

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `book dealer' means any person engaged in 
     the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 
     of renting, selling, or delivering books, magazines, or other 
     written or printed material (regardless of the format or 
     medium), or any person or other entity to whom a disclosure 
     is made under subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(2), 
     but only with respect to the information contained in the 
     disclosure.
       ``(2) The term `recorded music dealer' means any person, 
     engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, of selling, renting, or delivering recorded 
     music, regardless of the format in which or medium on which 
     it is recorded, or any person or other entity to whom a 
     disclosure is made under subparagraph (D) or (E) of 
     subsection (b)(2), but only with respect to the information 
     contained in the disclosure.
       ``(3) The term `consumer' means any renter, purchaser, or 
     user of goods or services from a video provider, book dealer, 
     or recorded music dealer.
       ``(4) The term `ordinary course of business' means only 
     debt-collection activities, order fulfillment, request 
     processing, and the transfer of ownership.
       ``(5) The term `personally identifiable information' means 
     information that identifies a person as having requested or 
     obtained specific video materials or services, specific 
     books, magazines, or other written or printed materials, or 
     specific recorded music.
       ``(6) The term `video provider' means any person engaged in 
     the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 
     of rental, sale, or delivery of recorded videos, regardless 
     of the format in which, or medium on which they are recorded, 
     or similar audio-visual materials, or any person or other 
     entity to whom a disclosure is made under subparagraph (D) or 
     (E) of subsection (b)(2), but only with respect to the 
     information contained in the disclosure.
       ``(b) Video, Book, or Recorded Music Rental, Sale, or 
     Delivery.--
       ``(1) In general.--A video provider, book dealer, or 
     recorded music dealer who knowingly discloses, to any person, 
     personally identifiable information concerning any consumer 
     of such provider or seller, as the case may be, shall be 
     liable to the aggrieved person for the relief provided in 
     subsection (d).
       ``(2) Disclosure.--A video provider, book dealer, or 
     recorded music dealer may disclose personally identifiable 
     information concerning any consumer--
       ``(A) to the consumer;
       ``(B) to any person with the informed, written consent of 
     the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought;

[[Page 8821]]

       ``(C) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant 
     issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an 
     equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in 
     accordance with paragraph (4);
       ``(D) to any person if the disclosure is solely of the 
     names and addresses of consumers and if--
       ``(i) the video provider, book dealer, or recorded music 
     dealer, as the case may be, has provided the consumer, in a 
     clear and conspicuous manner, with the opportunity to 
     prohibit such disclosure; and
       ``(ii) the disclosure does not identify the title, 
     description, or subject matter of any video or other audio-
     visual material, books, magazines, or other printed material, 
     or recorded music;
       ``(E) to any person if the disclosure is incident to the 
     ordinary course of business of the video provider, book 
     dealer, or recorded music dealer; or
       ``(F) pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon 
     a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot 
     be accommodated by any other means, if--
       ``(i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the 
     person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding 
     relevant to the issuance of the court order; and
       ``(ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear 
     and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.
       ``(3) Safeguards.--If an order is granted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (C) or (F) of paragraph (2), the court shall 
     impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized 
     disclosure.
       ``(4) Court orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure 
     under paragraph (2)(C) shall issue only with prior notice to 
     the consumer and only if the law enforcement agency shows 
     that there is probable cause to believe that a person has 
     engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal 
     activity and that the records or other information sought are 
     material to the investigation of such activity. In the case 
     of a State government authority, such a court order shall not 
     issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing 
     an order pursuant to this subsection, on a motion made 
     promptly by the video provider, book dealer, or recorded 
     music dealer, may quash or modify such order if the 
     information or records requested are unreasonably voluminous 
     in nature or if compliance with such order otherwise would 
     cause an unreasonable burden on such video provider, book 
     dealer, or recorded music dealer, as the case may be.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsections (c) through (f) of section 2701 of title 
     18, United States Code, are amended by striking ``video tape 
     service provider'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``video provider''.
       (2) The item relating to section 2701 in the analysis for 
     chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

``2710. Wrongful disclosure of information about video, book, or 
              recorded music rental or sales.''.

     SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 201 take effect 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

     SEC. 301. ENFORCEMENT.

       Except as provided in section 302(b) and section 2710(d) of 
     title 18, United States Code, this Act shall be enforced by 
     the Federal Trade Commission. Except as otherwise provided in 
     this Act, a violation of this Act may be punished in the same 
     manner as a violation of a regulation of the Federal Trade 
     Commission.

     SEC. 302. VIOLATION IS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE.

       (a) In General.--The violation of any provision of title I 
     is an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed by 
     section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.--Compliance with 
     title I of this Act shall be enforced under--
       (1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
       (A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal 
     agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller 
     of the Currency;
       (B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than 
     national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks 
     (other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured 
     State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending 
     companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and 
     organizations operating under section 25 or 25(a) of the 
     Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and 611 et seq.), 
     by the Board; and
       (C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve 
     System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the 
     Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation;
       (2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818), by the Director of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, in the case of a savings association the 
     deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation;
       (3) the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) 
     by the National Credit Union Administration Board with 
     respect to any Federal credit union;
       (4) part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air 
     carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
       (5) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with 
     respect to any activities subject to that Act; and
       (6) the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) by 
     the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any Federal 
     land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal 
     intermediate credit bank, or production credit association.
       (c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the 
     exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its 
     powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a 
     violation of title I is deemed to be a violation of a 
     requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its powers 
     under any provision of law specifically referred to in 
     subsection (b), each of the agencies referred to in that 
     subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing 
     compliance with any requirement imposed under title I of this 
     Act, any other authority conferred on it by law.
       (d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall 
     prevent any person from violating title I in the same manner, 
     by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, 
     and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of 
     the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were 
     incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Any entity 
     that violates any provision of that title is subject to the 
     penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities 
     provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act in the same 
     manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 
     power, and duties as though all applicable terms and 
     provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were 
     incorporated into and made a part of that title.
       (e) Effect on Other Laws.--
       (1) Preservation of commission authority.--Nothing 
     contained in this title shall be construed to limit the 
     authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
       (2) Relation to communications act.--Nothing in title I 
     requires an operator of a website or online service to take 
     any action that is inconsistent with the requirements of 
     section 222 or 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 222 or 551, respectively).

     SEC. 303. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

       (a) Private Right of Action.--A person whose personally 
     identifiable information is collected, disclosed or used, or 
     is likely to be disclosed or used, in violation of title I 
     may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of 
     a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State--
       (1) an action to enjoin or restrain such violation;
       (2) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such 
     a violation, or to receive $5,000 in damages for each such 
     violation, whichever is greater; or
       (3) both such actions.
       (b) Willful and Knowing Violations.--If the court finds 
     that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated title I, 
     the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the 
     award available under subsection (a)(2) to $50,000.
       (c) Exception.--Neither an action to enjoin or restrain a 
     violation, nor an action to recover for loss or damage, may 
     be brought under this section for the accidental disclosure 
     of information if the disclosure was caused by an Act of God, 
     network or systems failure, or other event beyond the control 
     of the Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website if the provider or operator 
     took reasonable precautions to prevent such disclosure in the 
     event of such a failure or other event.
       (d) Attorneys Fees; Punitive Damages.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a)(2), the court in an action brought under this 
     section, may award reasonable attorneys fees and punitive 
     damages to the prevailing party.

     SEC. 304. ACTIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a 
     practice that violates title I, the State, as parens patriae, 
     may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the 
     State in a district court of the United States of appropriate 
     jurisdiction to--
       (A) enjoin that practice;
       (B) enforce compliance with the rule;
       (C) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on 
     behalf of residents of the State; or
       (D) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to 
     be appropriate.
       (2) Notice.--
       (A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph 
     (1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide 
     to the Commission--
       (i) written notice of that action; and
       (ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
       (B) Exemption.--
       (i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
     respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of 
     a State under

[[Page 8822]]

     this subsection, if the attorney general determines that it 
     is not feasible to provide the notice described in that 
     subparagraph before the filing of the action.
       (ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i), 
     the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a 
     copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as 
     the attorney general files the action.
       (b) Intervention.--
       (1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in 
     the action that is the subject of the notice.
       (2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes 
     in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
       (A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in 
     that action; and
       (B) to file a petition for appeal.
       (c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by 
     the laws of that State to--
       (1) conduct investigations;
       (2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
       (3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
       (d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an 
     action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for 
     violation of title I, no State may, during the pendency of 
     that action, institute an action under subsection (a) against 
     any defendant named in the complaint in that action for 
     violation of that rule.
       (e) Venue; Service of Process.--
       (1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be 
     brought in the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     subsection (a), process may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant--
       (A) is an inhabitant; or
       (B) may be found.

     SEC. 305. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--No Internet service provider, online 
     service provider, or commercial website operator may 
     discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with 
     respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 
     employment because the employee (or any person acting 
     pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information 
     to any Federal or State agency or to the Attorney General of 
     the United States or of any State regarding a possible 
     violation of any provision of title I.
       (b) Enforcement.--Any employee or former employee who 
     believes he has been discharged or discriminated against in 
     violation of subsection (a) may file a civil action in the 
     appropriate United States district court before the close of 
     the 2-year period beginning on the date of such discharge or 
     discrimination. The complainant shall also file a copy of the 
     complaint initiating such action with the appropriate Federal 
     agency.
       (c) Remedies.--If the district court determines that a 
     violation of subsection (a) has occurred, it may order the 
     Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     commercial website operator that committed the violation--
       (1) to reinstate the employee to his former position;
       (2) to pay compensatory damages; or
       (3) take other appropriate actions to remedy any past 
     discrimination.
       (d) Attorneys Fees; Punitive Damages.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (c)(2), the court in an action brought under this 
     section, may award reasonable attorneys fees and punitive 
     damages to the prevailing party.
       (e) Limitation.--The protections of this section shall not 
     apply to any employee who--
       (1) deliberately causes or participates in the alleged 
     violation; or
       (2) knowingly or recklessly provides substantially false 
     information to such an agency or the Attorney General.
       (f) Burdens of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof that 
     prevail under subchapter III of chapter 12 of title 5, United 
     States Code (5 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) shall govern adjudication 
     of protected activities under this section.

     SEC. 306. NO EFFECT ON OTHER REMEDIES.

       The remedies provided by this sections 303 and 304 are in 
     addition to any other remedy available under any provision of 
     law.

     SEC. 307. FTC OFFICE OF ONLINE PRIVACY.

       The Federal Trade Commission shall establish an Office of 
     Online Privacy headed by a senior level position officer who 
     reports directly to the Commission and its General Counsel. 
     The Office shall study privacy issues associated with 
     electronic commerce and the Internet, the operation of this 
     Act and the effectiveness of the privacy protections provided 
     by title I. The Office shall report its findings and 
     recommendations from time to time to the Commission, and, 
     notwithstanding any law, regulation, or executive order to 
     the contrary, shall submit an annual report directly to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce on the 
     status of online and Internet privacy issues, together with 
     any recommendations for additional legislation relating to 
     those issues.

        TITLE IV--COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PRIVACY PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 401. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR SUBSCRIBERS OF SATELLITE 
                   TELEVISION SERVICES FOR PRIVATE HOME VIEWING.

       (a) In General.--Section 631 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 551) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 631. PRIVACY OF SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION FOR SUBSCRIBERS 
                   OF CABLE SERVICE AND SATELLITE TELEVISION 
                   SERVICE.

       ``(a) Notice to Subscribers Regarding Personally 
     Identifiable Information.--At the time of entering into an 
     agreement to provide any cable service, satellite home 
     viewing service, or other service to a subscriber, and not 
     less often than annually thereafter, a cable operator, 
     satellite carrier, or distributor shall provide notice in the 
     form of a separate, written statement to such subscriber that 
     clearly and conspicuously informs the subscriber of--
       ``(1) the nature of personally identifiable information 
     collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber 
     as a result of the provision of such service and the nature 
     of the use of such information;
       ``(2) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure 
     that may be made of such information, including an 
     identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure 
     may be made;
       ``(3) the period during which such information will be 
     maintained by the cable operator, satellite carrier, or 
     distributor;
       ``(4) the times and place at which the subscriber may have 
     access to such information in accordance with subsection (d); 
     and
       ``(5) the limitations provided by this section with respect 
     to the collection and disclosure of information by the cable 
     operator, satellite carrier, or distributor and the right of 
     the subscriber under this section to enforce such 
     limitations.
       ``(b) Collection of Personally Identifiable Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor shall not 
     use its cable or satellite system to collect personally 
     identifiable information concerning any subscriber without 
     the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber.
       ``(2) Exception.--A cable operator, satellite carrier, or 
     distributor may use its cable or satellite system to collect 
     information described in paragraph (1) in order to--
       ``(A) obtain information necessary to render a cable or 
     satellite service or other service provided by the cable 
     operator, satellite carrier, or distributor to the 
     subscriber; or
       ``(B) detect unauthorized reception of cable or satellite 
     communications.
       ``(c) Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor may not 
     disclose personally identifiable information concerning any 
     subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of 
     the subscriber and shall take such actions as are necessary 
     to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a 
     person other than the subscriber or the cable operator, 
     satellite carrier, or distributor.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--A cable operator, satellite carrier, or 
     distributor may disclose information described in paragraph 
     (1) if the disclosure is--
       ``(A) necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business 
     activity related to, a cable or satellite service or other 
     service provided by the cable operator, satellite carrier, or 
     distributor to the subscriber;
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (3), made pursuant to a court 
     order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is 
     notified of such order by the person to whom the order is 
     directed; or
       ``(C) a disclosure of the names and addresses of 
     subscribers to any other provider of cable or satellite 
     service or other service, if--
       ``(i) the cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor 
     has provided the subscriber the opportunity to prohibit or 
     limit such disclosure; and
       ``(ii) the disclosure does not reveal, directly or 
     indirectly--

       ``(I) the extent of any viewing or other use by the 
     subscriber of a cable or satellite service or other service 
     provided by the cable operator, satellite carrier, or 
     distributor; or
       ``(II) the nature of any transaction made by the subscriber 
     over the cable or satellite system of the cable operator, 
     satellite carrier, or distributor.

       ``(3) Court orders.--A governmental entity may obtain 
     personally identifiable information concerning a cable or 
     satellite subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in 
     the court proceeding relevant to such court order--
       ``(A) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that 
     the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of 
     engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought 
     would be material evidence in the case; and
       ``(B) the subject of the information is afforded the 
     opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.

[[Page 8823]]

       ``(d) Subscriber Access to Information.--A cable or 
     satellite subscriber shall be provided access to all 
     personally identifiable information regarding that subscriber 
     that is collected and maintained by a cable operator, 
     satellite carrier, or distributor. Such information shall be 
     made available to the subscriber at reasonable times and at a 
     convenient place designated by such cable operator, satellite 
     carrier, or distributor. A cable or satellite subscriber 
     shall be provided reasonable opportunity to correct any error 
     in such information.
       ``(e) Destruction of Information.--A cable operator, 
     satellite carrier, or distributor shall destroy personally 
     identifiable information if the information is no longer 
     necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and 
     there are no pending requests or orders for access to such 
     information under subsection (d) or pursuant to a court 
     order.
       ``(f) Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person aggrieved by any act of a 
     cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor in 
     violation of this section may bring a civil action in a 
     district court of the United States.
       ``(2) Damages and costs.--In any action brought under 
     paragraph (1), the court may award a prevailing plaintiff--
       ``(A) actual damages but not less than liquidated damages 
     computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation 
     or $1,000, whichever is greater;
       ``(B) punitive damages; and
       ``(C) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs 
     reasonably incurred.
       ``(3) No effect on other remedies.--The remedy provided by 
     this subsection shall be in addition to any other remedy 
     available under any provision of law to a cable or satellite 
     subscriber.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Distributor.--The term `distributor' means an entity 
     that contracts to distribute secondary transmissions from a 
     satellite carrier and, either as a single channel or in a 
     package with other programming, provides the secondary 
     transmission either directly to individual subscribers for 
     private home viewing or indirectly through other program 
     distribution entities.
       ``(2) Cable operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `cable operator' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 602.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term includes any person who--
       ``(i) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership 
     or control with, a cable operator; and
       ``(ii) provides any wire or radio communications service.
       ``(3) Other service.--The term `other service' includes any 
     wire, electronic, or radio communications service provided 
     using any of the facilities of a cable operator, satellite 
     carrier, or distributor that are used in the provision of 
     cable service or satellite home viewing service.
       ``(4) Personally identifiable information.--The term 
     `personally identifiable information' does not include any 
     record of aggregate data that does not identify particular 
     persons.
       ``(5) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier' 
     means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or 
     satellite service licensed by the Federal Communications 
     Commission and operates in the Fixed-Satellite Service under 
     part 25 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations or the 
     Direct Broadcast Satellite Service under part 100 of title 47 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, to establish and operate 
     a channel of communications for point-to-multipoint 
     distribution of television station signals, and that owns or 
     leases a capacity or service on a satellite in order to 
     provide such point-to-multipoint distribution, except to the 
     extent that such entity provides such distribution pursuant 
     to tariff under the Communications Act of 1934, other than 
     for private home viewing.''.
       (b) Notice With Respect to Certain Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor who has 
     entered into agreements referred to in section 631(a) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended by subsection (a), 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, shall provide any 
     notice required under that section, as so amended, to 
     subscribers under such agreements not later than 180 days 
     after that date.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to any agreement under which a cable operator, satellite 
     carrier, or distributor was providing notice under section 
     631(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of enactment of this Act, as of such 
     date.

     SEC. 402. CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION.

       Section 222 (c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 222 (c)(1)) is amended by striking ``approval'' and 
     inserting ``express prior authorization''.

                    TITLE V--RULEMAKING AND STUDIES

     SEC. 501. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION EXAMINATION.

       (a) Proceeding Required.--The Federal Trade Commission 
     shall--
       (1) study consumer privacy issues in the traditional, 
     offline marketplace, including whether--
       (A) consumers are able, and, if not, the methods by which 
     consumers may be enabled--
       (i) to have knowledge that consumer information is being 
     collected about them through their utilization of various 
     offline services and systems;
       (ii) to have clear and conspicuous notice that such 
     information could be used, or is intended to be used, by the 
     entity collecting the data for reasons unrelated to the 
     original communications, or that such information could be 
     sold, rented, shared, or otherwise disclosed (or is intended 
     to be sold rented, shared, or otherwise disclosed) to other 
     companies or entities; and
       (iii) to stop the reuse, disclosure, or sale of that 
     information;
       (B) in the case of consumers who are children, the 
     abilities described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A) are or can be exercised by their parents; 
     and
       (C) changes in the Commission's regulations could provide 
     greater assurance of the offline privacy rights and remedies 
     of parents and consumers generally;
       (2) review responses and suggestions from affected 
     commercial and nonprofit entities to changes proposed under 
     paragraph (1)(C); and
       (3) make recommendations to the Congress for any 
     legislative changes necessary to ensure such rights and 
     remedies.
       (b) Schedule for Federal Trade Commission Responses.--The 
     Federal Trade Commission shall, within 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a report 
     containing the recommendations required by subsection (a)(3).

     SEC. 502. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULEMAKING.

       (a) Proceeding Required.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 
     establish uniform consumer privacy rules for all 
     communications providers. The rulemaking proceeding shall--
       (1) examine the privacy rights and remedies of the 
     consumers of all online and offline technologies, including 
     telecommunications providers, cable, broadcast, satellite, 
     wireless, and telephony services;
       (2) determine whether consumers are able, and, if not, the 
     methods by which consumers may be enabled to exercise such 
     rights and remedies; and
       (3) change the Commission's regulations to coordinate, 
     rationalize, and harmonize laws and regulations administered 
     by the Commission that relate to those rights and remedies.
       (b) Deadline for Changes.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall complete the rulemaking within 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 503. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR STUDY OF EMPLOYEE-MONITORING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       The Secretary of Labor shall study the extent and nature of 
     employer practices that involving monitoring employee 
     activities both at the workplace and away from the workplace, 
     by electronic or other remote means, including surveillance 
     of electronic mail and Internet use, to determine whether and 
     to what extent such practices constitute an inappropriate 
     violation of employee privacy. The Secretary shall report the 
     results of the study, including findings and recommendations, 
     if any, for legislation or regulation to the Congress within 
     6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

    TITLE VI--PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION IN 
                               BANKRUPTCY

     SEC. 601. PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION NOT ASSET IN 
                   BANKRUPTCY.

       Section 541(b) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (4)(B)(ii);
       (2) by striking ``prohibition.'' in paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``prohibition; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) any personally identifiable information (as defined 
     in section 901(6) of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act), or 
     any compilation, or record (in electronic or any other form) 
     of such information.''.

                TITLE VII--INTERNET SECURITY INITIATIVES

     SEC. 701. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Good computer security practices are an underpinning of 
     any privacy protection. The operator of a computer system 
     should protect that system from unauthorized use and secure 
     any private, personal information.
       (2) The Federal Government should be a role model in 
     securing its computer systems and should ensure the 
     protection of private, personal information controlled by 
     Federal agencies.
       (3) The National Institute of Standards and Technology has 
     the responsibility for developing standards and guidelines 
     needed to ensure the cost-effective security and privacy of 
     private, personal information in Federal computer systems.
       (4) This Nation faces a shortage of trained, qualified 
     information technology workers,

[[Page 8824]]

     including computer security professionals. As the demand for 
     information technology workers grows, the Federal government 
     will have an increasingly difficult time attracting such 
     workers into the Federal workforce.
       (5) Some commercial off-the-shelf hardware and off-the-
     shelf software components to protect computer systems are 
     widely available. There is still a need for long-term 
     computer security research, particularly in the area of 
     infrastructure protection.
       (6) The Nation's information infrastructures are owned, for 
     the most part, by the private sector, and partnerships and 
     cooperation will be needed for the security of these 
     infrastructures.
       (7) There is little financial incentive for private 
     companies to enhance the security of the Internet and other 
     infrastructures as a whole. The Federal government will need 
     to make investments in this area to address issues and 
     concerns not addressed by the private sector.

     SEC. 702. COMPUTER SECURITY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the President's Information Technology 
     Advisory Committee established by Executive Order No. 13035 
     of February 11, 1997 (62 F.R. 7231), shall establish a 25-
     member Computer Security Partnership Council.
       (b) Chairman; Membership.--The Council shall have a 
     chairman, appointed by the Secretary, and 24 additional 
     members, appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (1) 5 members, who are not officers or employees of the 
     United States, who are recognized as leaders in the 
     networking and computer security business, at least 1 of whom 
     represents a small or medium-sized company.
       (2) 5 members, who are--
       (A) not officers or employees of the United States, and
       (B) not in the networking and computer security business,
     at least 1 of whom represents a small or medium-sized 
     company.
       (3) 5 members, who are not officers or employees of the 
     United States, who represent public interest groups or State 
     or local governments, of whom at least 2 represent such 
     groups and at least 2 represent such governments.
       (4) 5 members, who are not officers or employees of the 
     United States, affiliated with a college, university, or 
     other academic, research-oriented, or public policy 
     institution, with recognized expertise in the field of 
     networking and computer security, whose primary source of 
     employment is by that college, university, or other 
     institution rather than a business organization involved in 
     the networking and computer security business.
       (5) 4 members, who are officers or employees of the United 
     States, with recognized expertise in computer systems 
     management, including computer and network security.
       (c) Function.--The Council shall collect and share 
     information about, and increase public awareness of, 
     information security practices and programs, threats to 
     information security, and responses to those threats.
       (d) Study.--Within 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Council shall publish a report which evaluates 
     and describes areas of computer security research and 
     development that are not adequately developed or funded.
       (e) Additional Recommendations.--The Council shall 
     periodically make recommendations to appropriate government 
     and private sector entities for enhancing the security of 
     networked computers operated or maintained by those entities.

     SEC. 703. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Research and Development of Protection 
     Technologies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Institute shall establish a program 
     at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 
     conduct, or to fund the conduct of, research and development 
     of technology and techniques to provide security for advanced 
     communications and computing systems and networks including 
     the Next Generation Internet, the underlying structure of the 
     Internet, and networked computers.
       ``(2) Purpose.--A purpose of the program established under 
     paragraph (1) is to address issues or problems that are not 
     addressed by market-driven, private-sector information 
     security research. This may include research--
       ``(A) to identify Internet security problems which are not 
     adequately addressed by current security technologies;
       ``(B) to develop interactive tools to analyze security 
     risks in an easy-to-understand manner;
       ``(C) to enhance the security and reliability of the 
     underlying Internet infrastructure while minimizing any 
     adverse operational impacts such as speed; and
       ``(D) to allow networks to become self-healing and provide 
     for better analysis of the state of Internet and 
     infrastructure operations and security.
       ``(3) Matching grants.--A grant awarded by the Institute 
     under the program established under paragraph (1) to a 
     commercial enterprise may not exceed 50 percent of the cost 
     of the project to be funded by the grant.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Institute to carry out 
     this subsection--
       ``(A) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(C) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(D) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(E) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(F) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.

     SEC. 704. COMPUTER SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal agencies, shall establish a program 
     to support the training of individuals in computer security, 
     Internet security, and related fields at institutions of 
     higher education located in the United States.
       (b) Support Authorized.--Under the program established 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may provide scholarships, 
     loans, and other forms of financial aid to students at 
     institutions of higher education. The Secretary shall require 
     a recipient of a scholarship under this program to provide a 
     reasonable period of service as an employee of the United 
     States government after graduation as a condition of the 
     scholarship, and may authorize full or partial forgiveness of 
     indebtedness for loans made under this program in exchange 
     for periods of employment by the United States government.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section--
       (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       (B) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (C) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (E) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (F) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 705. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SECURITY STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 20(b) of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (4);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) to provide guidance and assistance to Federal 
     agencies in the protection of interconnected computer systems 
     and to coordinate Federal response efforts related to 
     unauthorized access to Federal computer systems; and''.
       (b) Federal Computer System Security Training.--Section 
     5(b) of the Computer Security Act of 1987 (49 U.S.C. 759 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) to include emphasis on protecting the availability of 
     Federal electronic citizen services and protecting sensitive 
     information in Federal databases and Federal computer sites 
     that are accessible through public networks.''.

     SEC. 706. RECOGNITION OF QUALITY IN COMPUTER SECURITY 
                   PRACTICES.

       Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3), as amended by section 703, 
     is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c), the following:
       ``(d) Award Program.--The Institute may establish a program 
     for the recognition of excellence in Federal computer system 
     security practices, including the development of a seal, 
     symbol, mark, or logo that could be displayed on the website 
     maintained by the operator of such a system recognized under 
     the program. In order to be recognized under the program, the 
     operator--
       ``(1) shall have implemented exemplary processes for the 
     protection of its systems and the information stored on that 
     system;
       ``(2) shall have met any standard established under 
     subsection (a);
       ``(3) shall have a process in place for updating the system 
     security procedures; and
       ``(4) shall meet such other criteria as the Institute may 
     require.''.

     SEC. 707. DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATED PRIVACY CONTROLS.

       Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3), as amended by section 706, 
     is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Development of Internet Privacy Program.--The 
     Institute shall encourage and support the development of one 
     or more computer programs, protocols, or other software, such 
     as the World Wide Web Consortium's P3P program, capable of 
     being installed on computers, or computer networks,

[[Page 8825]]

     with Internet access that would reflect the user's 
     preferences for protecting personally-identifiable or other 
     sensitive, privacy-related information, and automatically 
     execute the program, once activated, without requiring user 
     intervention.''.

       TITLE VIII--CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATION SECURITY STANDARDS.

     SEC. 801. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWER.

       This title is enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such it 
     is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, 
     but applicable only with respect to that House; and it 
     supersedes other rules only to the extent that it are 
     inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to that 
     House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as in the case of any other rule of that House.

     SEC. 802. SENATE.

       (a) In General.--The Sergeant at Arms of the United States 
     Senate shall develop regulations setting forth an information 
     security and electronic privacy policy governing use of the 
     Internet by officers and employees of the Senate in 
     accordance with the following 4 principles of privacy:
       (1) Notice and awareness.--Websites must provide users 
     notice of their information practices.
       (2) Choices and consent.--Websites must offer users choices 
     as to how personally identifiable information is used beyond 
     the use for which the information was provided.
       (3) Access and participation.--Websites must offer users 
     reasonable access to personally identifiable information and 
     an opportunity to correct inaccuracies.
       (4) Security and integrity.--Websites must take reasonable 
     steps to protect the security and integrity of personally 
     identifiable information.
       (b) Procedure.--
       (1) Proposal.--The Sergeant at Arms shall publish a general 
     notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553(b) of title 
     5, United States Code, but, instead of publication of a 
     general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
     Register, the Sergeant at Arms shall transmit such notice to 
     the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in 
     the Congressional Record on the first day on which the Senate 
     is in session following such transmittal. Such notice shall 
     set forth the recommendations of the Sergeant at Arms for 
     regulations under subsection (a).
       (2) Comment.--Before adopting regulations, the Sergeant at 
     Arms shall provide a comment period of at least 30 days after 
     publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking.
       (3) Adoption.--After considering comments, the Sergeant at 
     Arms shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of 
     such action together with a copy of such regulations to the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the 
     Congressional Record on the first day on which the Senate is 
     in session following such transmittal.
       (c) Approval of Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The regulations adopted by the Sergeant at 
     Arms may be approved by the Senate by resolution.
       (2) Referral.--Upon receipt of a notice of adoption of 
     regulations under subsection (b)(3), the presiding officers 
     of the Senate shall refer such notice, together with a copy 
     of such regulations, to the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate. The purpose of the referral 
     shall be to consider whether such regulations should be 
     approved.
       (3) Joint referral and discharge.--The presiding officer of 
     the Senate may refer the notice of issuance of regulations, 
     or any resolution of approval of regulations, to one 
     committee or jointly to more than one committee. If a 
     committee of the Senate acts to report a jointly referred 
     measure, any other committee of the Senate must act within 30 
     calendar days of continuous session, or be automatically 
     discharged.
       (4) Resolution of approval.--In the case of a resolution of 
     the Senate, the matter after the resolving clause shall be 
     the following: ``the following regulations issued by the 
     Sergeant at Arms on ---------- ----, 2------ are hereby 
     approved:'' (the blank spaces being appropriately filled in 
     and the text of the regulations being set forth).
       (d) Issuance and Effective Date.--
       (1) Publication.--After approval of the regulations under 
     subsection (c), the Sergeant at Arms shall submit the 
     regulations to the President pro tempore of the Senate for 
     publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on 
     which the Senate is in session following such transmittal.
       (2) Date of issuance.--The date of issuance of the 
     regulations shall be the date on which they are published in 
     the Congressional Record under paragraph (1).
       (3) Effective date.--The regulations shall become effective 
     not less than 60 days after the regulations are issued, 
     except that the Sergeant at Arms may provide for an earlier 
     effective date for good cause found (within the meaning of 
     section 553(d)(3) of title 5, United States Code) and 
     published with the regulation.
       (e) Amendment of Regulations.--Regulations may be amended 
     in the same manner as is described in this section for the 
     adoption, approval, and issuance of regulations, except that 
     the Sergeant at Arms may dispense with publication of a 
     general notice of proposed rulemaking of minor, technical, or 
     urgent amendments that satisfy the criteria for dispensing 
     with publication of such notice pursuant to section 553(b)(B) 
     of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Right to Petition for Rulemaking.--Any interested party 
     may petition to the Sergeant at Arms for the issuance, 
     amendment, or repeal of a regulation.

                         TITLE IX--DEFINITIONS

     SEC. 901. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Operator of a commercial website.--The term ``operator 
     of a commercial website''--
       (A) means any person who operates a website located on the 
     Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains 
     personal information from or about the users of or visitors 
     to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such 
     information is collected or maintained, where such website or 
     online service is operated for commercial purposes, including 
     any person offering products or services for sale through 
     that website or online service, involving commerce--
       (i) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign 
     nations;
       (ii) in any territory of the United States or in the 
     District of Columbia, or between any such territory and--

       (I) another such territory; or
       (II) any State or foreign nation; or

       (iii) between the District of Columbia and any State, 
     territory, or foreign nation; but
       (B) does not include any nonprofit entity that would 
     otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (2) Disclose.--The term ``disclose'' means the release of 
     personally identifiable information about a user of an 
     Internet service, online service, or commercial website by an 
     Internet service provider, online service provider, or 
     operator of a commercial website for any purpose, except 
     where such information is provided to a person who provides 
     support for the internal operations of the service or website 
     and who does not disclose or use that information for any 
     other purpose.
       (3) Release.--The term ``release of personally identifiable 
     information'' means the direct or indirect, active or 
     passive, sharing, selling, renting, or other provision of 
     personally identifiable information of a user of an Internet 
     service, online service, or commercial website to any other 
     person other than the user.
       (4) Internal operations support.--The term ``support for 
     the internal operations of a service or website'' means any 
     activity necessary to maintain the technical functionality of 
     that service or website.
       (5) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of 
     personally identifiable information about a user of an 
     Internal service, online service, or commercial website by or 
     on behalf of the provider or operator of that service or 
     website by any means, direct or indirect, active or passive, 
     including--
       (A) an online request for such information by the provider 
     or operator, regardless of how the information is transmitted 
     to the provider or operator;
       (B) the use of a chat room, message board, or other online 
     service to gather the information; or
       (C) tracking or use of any identifying code linked to a 
     user of such a service or website, including the use of 
     cookies.
       (3) Cookie.--The term ``cookie'' means any program, 
     function, or device, commonly known as a ``cookie'', that 
     makes a record on the user's computer (or other electronic 
     device) of that user's access to an Internet service, online 
     service, or commercial website.
       (4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (5) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means collectively the 
     myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, 
     including equipment and operating software, which comprise 
     the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ 
     the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any 
     predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to 
     communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
       (6) Personally identifiable information.--The term 
     ``personally identifiable information'' means individually 
     identifiable information about an individual collected 
     online, including--
       (A) a first and last name, whether given at birth or 
     adoption, assumed, or legally changed;
       (B) a home or other physical address including street name 
     and name of a city or town;
       (C) an e-mail address;
       (D) a telephone number;
       (E) a Social Security number;
       (F) a credit card number;
       (G) a birth date, birth certificate number, or place of 
     birth;
       (H) any other identifier that the Commission determines 
     permits the physical or online contacting of a specific 
     individual; or

[[Page 8826]]

       (I) unique identifying information that an Internet service 
     provider, online service provider, or operator of a 
     commercial website collects and combines with an identifier 
     described in this paragraph.
       (7) Internet service provider; online service provider; 
     website.--The Commission shall by rule define the terms 
     ``Internet service provider'', ``online service provider'', 
     and ``website'', and shall revise or amend such rule to take 
     into account changes in technology, practice, or procedure 
     with respect to the collection of personal information over 
     the Internet.
       (8) Offline.--The term ``offline'' refers to any activity 
     regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United 
     States Code, that occurs other than by or through the active 
     or passive use of an Internet connection, regardless of the 
     medium by or through which that connection is established.
       (9) Online.--The term ``online'' refers to any activity 
     regulated by this Act or by section 2710 of title 18, United 
     States Code, that is effected by active or passive use of an 
     Internet connection, regardless of the medium by or through 
     which that connection is established.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Big Browser is watching you. Almost every 
time, you or I or an American consumer surfs the Internet, someone is 
tracking our movements. And someone is compiling a databank of 
information about our preferences and could even be profiling us.
  Maybe they're doing it to make our experience better. Most of the 
time, they probably are. But too often we are being profiled for 
profit, and at the expense of privacy.
  I am proud to co-sponsor Senator Hollings' legislation, the Consumer 
Privacy Protection Act, that would help consumers gain control of their 
most personal information. I believe that the measure we introduce 
today is a step in the right direction. It strikes the right balance. 
Privacy is protected, while critical elements of the information 
revolution are preserved. Consumer confidence in the Internet is 
bolstered, while businesses will not be overburdened by the 
requirements.
  We can enjoy the convenience of online shopping and allow e-commerce 
to thrive without putting profits over privacy. Consumers, not dot.com 
companies, should control the use of confidential information about 
buying habits, credit card records and other personal information.
  Mr. President, the time to act is now. If not, we may wake up one day 
to find our privacy so thoroughly eroded that recovering it will be 
almost impossible.
  No one denies that the rapid development of modern technology has 
been beneficial. New and improved technologies have enabled us to 
obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. Students 
can participate in classes that are being taught in other states, or 
even in other countries. Almost no product or piece of information is 
beyond the reach of Americans anymore. A farmer in Sampson County, 
North Carolina can go on the Internet and compare prices for anything 
he needs to run his business. Or he can look up critical weather 
information on the Internet. Or he can just order a hard-to-get book. 
Meanwhile, companies have streamlined their processes for providing 
goods and services.
  But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They 
have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and 
financial records and buying habits. They have made it profitable to do 
so. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information private 
is being eaten away.
  The impact of this erosion ranges from the merely annoying--having 
your mailbox flooded with junkmail--to the actually frightening--having 
your identity stolen or being turned down for a loan because your bank 
got copies of your medical records. There are thousands of ways that 
the loss of our privacy can impact us. Many of them are intangible--
just the discomfort of knowing that complete strangers can find out 
everything about you: where you shop, what books you buy, whether you 
have allergies, and what your credit rating is. These strangers may not 
do anything bad with the information, but they know all about you. I 
think privacy is a value per se. Our founding fathers recognized it, 
and so too do most Americans.
  ``Liberty in the constitutional sense,'' wrote Justice William O. 
Douglas, ``must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental 
restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository 
of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all 
freedom.''
  Recent surveys indicate that the American public is increasingly 
uneasy about the degradation of their privacy. In a recent Business 
Week poll, 92 percent of Internet users expressed discomfort about Web 
sites sharing personal information with other sites. Meanwhile, an FTC 
report issued yesterday indicated that only 42 percent of the most 
popular Internet sites comply with the four key fair information 
practices--notice about what data is collected, consumer choice about 
whether the data will be shared with third-parties, consumer access to 
the data, and security regarding the transmission of data.
  We must be vigilant that our privacy does not become a commodity to 
be bought and sold.
  I would also like to point out one area of privacy protection that I 
have been deeply interested in. Last November, I introduced the 
Telephone Call Privacy Act. My bill would prevent telecommunications 
companies from using an individual's personal phone call records 
without their consent. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that 
the law does not protect them from having their phone records sold to 
third parties. Imagine getting a call one night--during dinner--and 
having a telemarketer try to sell you membership in a travel club 
because your phone calling patterns show frequent calls overseas. My 
legislation would prevent this from occurring without the individuals's 
permission.
  This measure we introduce today also contains a provision relating to 
telephone privacy. It differs in at least one key respect from the 
legislation I previously introduced, but my hope is that as we discuss 
this issue over time, the differences will be resolved.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Senators Hollings and 
Leahy for their leadership on this vital issue. Senator Hollings has 
crafted the comprehensive and thoughtful proposal that we introduce 
today. Senator Leahy has led a coalition of Senators interested in this 
issue. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues in 
passing this measure.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the information highway began just a few 
years ago as a footpath and is now an unlimited lane expressway with no 
rush hour. People can now use the Internet to shop at virtual stores 
located thousands of miles away, find turn-by-turn directions to far 
away destinations and journey to hamlets, cities and states across the 
country--and indeed around the world--without ever leaving home.
  While the virtual world is available to us with a few key strokes and 
mouse clicks, there is one area of the Internet that many are finding 
troublesome. It is the collection and use of personnel data. All too 
often web surfers are providing personal information about themselves 
at the websites they visit, without their knowledge and consent. There 
is so much information being collected every day that it would take a 
building the size of the Library of Congress to store it all in. That 
is a lot of information, much of which is very personal and I believe 
it must be kept that way.
  Concern about one's privacy on the Internet is keeping people from 
fully enjoying this marvelous technology. According to a recent survey 
by the Center for Democracy & Technology, consumers' most pressing 
privacy issues are the sale of personal information and tracking 
people's use of the Web. In another recent survey, 66.7 percent of 
online ``window shoppers'' state that assurances of privacy will be the 
basis for their making online purchases. These surveys make the same 
point that was made when credit cards were first introduced to the 
American public. Back then, credit cards did not

[[Page 8827]]

initially enjoy widespread usage because of a fear that others could 
misuse the card. From these studies' findings it can be reasoned that 
the Internet is experiencing the same effects because of privacy 
concerns. These concerns are translating into lost opportunity, for 
consumers as well as electronic businesses.
  Most of the Dot Com companies doing business over the Internet today 
are very cognizant of the fact that privacy is a major concern for 
their customers. Many of these firms allow visitors to their web site 
to ``opt out,'' or elect not to provide data they consider private and 
do not wish to give. A Federal Trade Commission May 2000 Report to 
Congress found that 92 percent of a random sampling of websites were 
collecting great amounts of personal information from consumers and 
only 14% disclosed anything about how the information would be used. 
More interesting in this report was the finding that a mere 41% of the 
randomly selected websites notified the visitor of their information 
practices and offered the visitor choices on how their personal 
identifying information would be used. These report findings seem to 
suggest that industry efforts by themselves are not sufficient to 
control the gathering and dissemination of personal data.
  There are some Dot Coms that are not concerned about the privacy of 
their customers. These firms are successfully collecting enormous 
amounts of data about a person and in turn sell it to others or use it 
to intensify the advertising aimed at that person. At one website 
visit, a company can collect some very interesting facts about the 
person who is on the other end. While surfing the web the other day, I 
hit on a website that was designed to provide me with information about 
my PC. The report the site provided opened my eyes about the types of 
information that could be obtained from a website visitor in less one 
minute. In this small amount of time it could tell what other sites I 
had visited, what sites I would likely visit in the future, what plug-
ins are installed on my PC, how my domain is configured and a whole lot 
more information that I did not understand. Many consider this type of 
tracking capability akin to stalking. I believe that the information 
that can be collected by website administrators can create problems for 
people through a violation of trust and an invasion of privacy. Novice 
Internet users are generally unaware, as I was until visiting this 
site, of the extent of the information being collected on them. Even 
those who are aware of the capabilities of firms to collect private 
data are frightened by what can happen with the information once it is 
collected.
  I am proud to be cosponsoring the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 
2000 that was introduced today by Senator Hollings. This Act will 
legitimize the practices currently being used by many reputable firms 
who are collecting private data. Does it seem unreasonable that firms 
collecting private data should notify consumers of the firm's 
information practices, offer the consumer choices on how the personal 
information will be used, allow consumers to access the information 
that is collected on them and require the firms to take reasonable 
steps to protect the security of the information that is collected? I 
think not. Firms like Georgia-based VerticalOne are already performing 
under standards very similar to these. I believe that all firms should 
be held to the same standard and that a level playing field should be 
established for every firm that is collecting data. Taking these 
actions will translate into greater consumer confidence in the 
Internet.
  Increasing the level of protection for private information to a level 
that the people of our nation can live with should be a welcome relief 
to those firms already providing fair privacy treatment of their site 
visitors. This Act certainly will be a relief to the people who are 
visiting their sites. Passing this Consumer Privacy Protection Act will 
help prevent confusion by establishing a common set of standards for 
all firms to follow and all Americans to enjoy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2607. A bill to promote pain management and palliative care 
without permitting assisted suicide euthanasia, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                       Pain Relief Promotion Act

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
which was actually authored by Senators Nickles and Hatch, and which 
they have entitled the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' Their bill which 
I am now introducing is identical to H.R. 2260 as reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2000, as amended. Today, it has been 
referred by the Senate Parliamentarian to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
  While I remain steadfastly opposed to the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act 
of 2000,'' I am introducing this bill for one reason: to call the 
Senate's attention to the fact that a far-reaching health policy bill--
which many experts believe has the potential to sentence millions of 
sick and dying patients across the nation to needless pain and 
suffering--was mistakenly referred to a committee with insufficient 
health policy resources and no health policy jurisdiction. It is that 
bill which the Judiciary Committee reported and which, without 
consideration by the committee with health expertise, the Republican 
leadership wants to bring to the floor. The unintended consequence of 
this could be the tragic decline of the quality of pain care across our 
nation.
  Some historical context might help my colleagues and their staff 
better understand how the Senate finds itself in this unfortunate 
situation, and the important issues that are at stake. On two separate 
occasions, the State of Oregon passed a ballot measure that would allow 
terminally ill persons, with less than six months left to live, to 
obtain a physician-assisted suicide if they met a variety of safeguard 
requirements. As a private citizen, I voted twice with the minority of 
my state in opposition to that measure.
  In response to Oregon's vote, several of our congressional 
colleagues, including Senator Nickles, Senator Lieberman, and 
Congressman Henry Hyde, promptly undertook legislative and other 
efforts to overturn Oregon's law. I do not, for the purposes of today, 
debate the merits of the Oregon law, or the merits of physician-
assisted suicide, generally.
  The original ``Pain Relief Promotion Act,'' S. 1272, was introduced 
in the Senate by Senator Nickles, and referred to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on June 23, 1999. That 
committee held one inconclusive hearing on October 13, 1999, at which 
time it was reported that Senators on both sides of the aisle wished to 
investigate the matter more thoroughly before acting on the 
legislation.
  Then, on November 19, 1999, Bob Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian, 
made what he termed ``a mistake'' when he referred H.R. 2260-- the 
virtually identical House-passed version of the ``Pain Relief Promotion 
Act''--to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Over the course of my service 
in the Senate, I have come to know Mr. Dove to be a man of integrity 
and fairness, and one of the most dedicated and enduring public 
servants in Washington, D.C. When he discovered his mistake, to his 
great credit, Mr. Dove did something all-too-rare in this town; he 
simply acknowledged his error. According to an article by the 
Associated Press on December 7, 1999, Mr. Dove stated plainly that he 
had mistakenly referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee, instead of 
the HELP Committee.
  Lord knows I've made a few mistakes in my day, so I want to make 
clear that I harbor nothing but respect for Mr. Dove, and that I do not 
for one second question Mr. Dove's motives. But the mistake made on 
November 19, 1999, if left uncorrected, threatens unspeakably negative 
and long-lasting consequences for the future of health care in this 
nation.
  The jurisdiction of the HELP Committee over the ``Pain Relief 
Promotion Act'' is clear. The Senate Manual describes the jurisdiction 
of this

[[Page 8828]]

committee as including ``measures relating to education, labor, health, 
and public welfare''. The Senate Manual also describes the HELP 
Committee as having jurisdiction over aging, biomedical research and 
development, handicapped individuals, occupational safety and health, 
and public health.
  According to the Senate Manual, the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee includes bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, counterfeiting, civil 
liberties, constitutional amendments, federal courts and judges, 
government information, holidays and celebrations, immigration and 
naturalization, interstate compacts generally, judicial proceedings, 
local courts in territories and possessions, measures relating to 
claims against the United States, national penitentiaries, patent 
office, patents, copyrights trademarks, protection of trade and 
commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies, revision and 
codification of the statutes of the United States, and state and 
territorial boundary lines.
  The committee jurisdiction is not a close call, in this case. As the 
Senate's leading expert on jurisdiction has now demonstrated, this bill 
is fundamentally an issue of medical practice, which clearly is within 
the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee.
  Congress has heard conflicting messages from respected medical 
experts on both sides of this debate about whether the ``Pain Relief 
Promotion Act'' may, in fact, have a chilling effect on physicians' 
pain management, thus actually increasing suffering at the end of life. 
Under the legislation, federal, state, and local law enforcement could 
receive training to begin scrutinizing physicians' end-of-life care. 
Many believe that the legislation sends the wrong signal to physicians 
and others caring for those who are dying, noting the disparity between 
the $5 million allotted for training in palliative care and the $80 
million potentially available for law enforcement activities.
  In addition, there is considerable concern that this legislation puts 
into statute perceptions about pain medication that the scientific 
world has been trying to change. Physicians often believe that the 
aggressive use of certain pain medications, such as morphine, will 
hasten death. Recent scientific studies show this is not the case. Dr. 
Kathleen M. Foley, Attending Neurologist in the Pain and Palliative 
Care Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Professor of 
Neurology, Neuroscience and Clinical Pharmacology at the Cornell 
University, had this to say about the Nickles-Hatch legislation, ``In 
short, the underpinnings of this legislation are not based on 
scientific evidence. It would be unwise to institutionalize the myth 
into law that pain medications hasten death.''
  Renowned medical ethicist, and Director of the Center for Bioethics 
at the University of Pennsylvania, Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., also 
appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2000. He 
testified that: ``Doctors and nurses may not always fully understand 
what the law permits or does not, but when the issue requires an 
assessment of intent in an area as fraught with nuances and pitfalls as 
end of life care then I believe that this legislation will scare many 
doctors and nurses and administrators into inaction in the face of 
pain.''
  Dr. Scott Fishman, the Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine and 
Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of California 
Davis School of Medicine wrote of the Hatch substitute: ``It is ironic 
that the `Hatch substitute', which seeks to prevent physician assisted 
suicide, will ultimately impair one of the truly effective counters to 
physician assisted suicide, which is swift and effective pain 
medicine.''
  Dr. Foley, who also assisted the Institute of Medicine committee that 
wrote the report ``Approaching Death,'' further testified that, ``The 
Pain Relief Promotion Act, by expanding the authority of the Controlled 
Substances Act, will disturb the balance that we have worked so hard to 
create. Physician surveys by the New York State Department of Health 
have shown that a strict regulatory environment negatively impacts 
physician prescribing practices and leads them to intentionally 
undertreat patients with pain because of concern of regulatory 
oversight.''
  The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized against these 
legislative approaches to overturning Oregon's law out of concern for 
its impacts on pain management nationwide, saying: ``Many doctors are 
concerned about the scrutiny they invite when they prescribe or 
administer controlled substances and they are hypersensitive to `drug-
seeking behavior' in patients. Patients, as well as doctors, often have 
exaggerated fears of addiction and the side effects of narcotics. 
Congress could make this bad situation worse.''
  It is worth noting that many people and organizations with expertise 
in pain management and palliative care are both opposed to physician 
assisted suicide and opposed to the Nickles-Hatch bill. There are over 
thirty organizations representing doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and 
patients who oppose the legislation, including: American Academy of 
Family Physicians; American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 
American Academy of Pharmaceutical Physicians; American Geriatrics 
Society; American Nurses Association; American Pain Foundation; 
American Pharmaceutical Association; American Society for Action on 
Pain; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; American Society 
of Pain Management Nurses; College on Problems of Drug Dependence; 
Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association; National Foundation for the 
Treatment of Pain; Oncology Nursing Society; Society of General 
Internal Medicine; Triumph over Pain Foundation; California Medical 
Association; Massachusetts Medical Society; North Carolina Medical 
Society; Oregon Medical Association; Rhode Island Medical Association; 
San Francisco Medical Society; Indiana State Hospice and Palliative 
Care Association; Hospice Federation of Massachusetts; Kansas 
Association of Hospices; Maine Hospice Council; Maine Consortium of 
Palliative Care and Hospice; Missouri Hospice and Palliative Care 
Association; New Hampshire State Hospice Organization; New Jersey 
Hospice and Palliative Care Organization; New York State Hospice 
Organization; and, Oregon Hospice Association.
  Physician-assisted suicide is not a cry for help from people 
experiencing the failure of patents, copyrights and trademarks. 
Physician-assisted suicide is a cry for help from people who, in many 
cases, are experiencing a failure in the health system. And those 
failures occur across our nation; not just in Oregon. In one study 
reported in the August 12, 1998, issue of JAMA, over 15 percent of 
oncologists admitted to participating in physician-assisted suicide or 
euthanasia. The February 1997 New England Journal of Medicine published 
a report finding that 53 percent of physicians in a large, San 
Francisco-based AIDS treatment consortium admitted assisting in a 
suicide at least once. Personally, I am troubled and saddened that so 
many of our loved ones are so dissatisfied with their end-of-life 
options that they seek physician-assisted suicide, instead.
  Whether or not this Congress decides to overturn Oregon's law, I 
believe it is critical that whatever we do must result in a reduced 
demand for physician-assisted suicide, not only in Oregon, but across 
our nation. Many reputable experts believe the ``Pain Relief Promotion 
Act'' will cause physicians--far beyond Oregon's borders--to provide 
less aggressive pain care to their suffering and dying patients. If 
this occurs, not only will millions of our elderly and dying 
constituents suffer needlessly, we may unwittingly increase the demand 
for suicide at the end of life.
  I urge my colleagues, regardless of where they stand on the issue of 
Oregon's law, to join with me in supporting the restoration of the HELP 
Committee's jurisdiction. It would be unconscionable for the Senate to 
fail to correct an honest mistake that could contribute to a 
devastatingly significant change in health policy. With so much at 
stake, shouldn't we follow the regular order of the Senate? Shouldn't

[[Page 8829]]

we insist that the Senate's best qualified health policy experts fully 
consider the complex policy implications before taking such an 
extraordinary risk for our constituents, our friends, and our families?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2607

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in the first decade of the new millennium there should 
     be a new emphasis on pain management and palliative care;
       (2) the use of certain narcotics and other drugs or 
     substances with a potential for abuse is strictly regulated 
     under the Controlled Substances Act;
       (3) the dispensing and distribution of certain controlled 
     substances by properly registered practitioners for 
     legitimate medical purposes are permitted under the 
     Controlled Substances Act and implementing regulations;
       (4) the dispensing or distribution of certain controlled 
     substances for the purpose of relieving pain and discomfort 
     even if it increases the risk of death is a legitimate 
     medical purpose and is permissible under the Controlled 
     Substances Act;
       (5) inadequate treatment of pain, especially for chronic 
     diseases and conditions, irreversible diseases such as 
     cancer, and end-of-life care, is a serious public health 
     problem affecting hundreds of thousands of patients every 
     year; physicians should not hesitate to dispense or 
     distribute controlled substances when medically indicated for 
     these conditions; and
       (6) for the reasons set forth in section 101 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801), the dispensing and 
     distribution of controlled substances for any purpose affect 
     interstate commerce.

         TITLE I--PROMOTING PAIN MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE

     SEC. 101. ACTIVITIES OF AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND 
                   QUALITY.

       Part A of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 903. PROGRAM FOR PAIN MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE 
                   RESEARCH AND QUALITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (e) and (f) of 
     section 902, the Director shall carry out a program to 
     accomplish the following:
       ``(1) Promote and advance scientific understanding of pain 
     management and palliative care.
       ``(2) Collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based 
     practices regarding pain management and palliative care, with 
     priority given to pain management for terminally ill 
     patients, and make such information available to public and 
     private health care programs and providers, health 
     professions schools, and hospices, and to the general public.
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `pain 
     management and palliative care' means--
       ``(1) the active, total care of patients whose disease or 
     medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or 
     whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced 
     disease; and
       ``(2) the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management 
     of primary and secondary pain, whether acute, chronic, 
     persistent, intractable, or associated with the end of life;
     the purpose of which is to diagnose and alleviate pain and 
     other distressing signs and symptoms and to enhance the 
     quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.''.

     SEC. 102. ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Part D of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 754 through 757 as sections 
     755 through 758, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 753 the following:

     ``SEC. 754. PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PAIN 
                   MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 
     may award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to 
     health professions schools, hospices, and other public and 
     private entities for the development and implementation of 
     programs to provide education and training to health care 
     professionals in pain management and palliative care.
       ``(b) Priority.--In making awards under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall give priority to awards for the 
     implementation of programs under such subsection.
       ``(c) Certain Topics.--An award may be made under 
     subsection (a) only if the applicant for the award agrees 
     that the program to be carried out with the award will 
     include information and education on--
       ``(1) means for diagnosing and alleviating pain and other 
     distressing signs and symptoms of patients, especially 
     terminally ill patients, including the medically appropriate 
     use of controlled substances;
       ``(2) applicable laws on controlled substances, including 
     laws permitting health care professionals to dispense or 
     administer controlled substances as needed to relieve pain 
     even in cases where such efforts may unintentionally increase 
     the risk of death; and
       ``(3) recent findings, developments, and improvements in 
     the provision of pain management and palliative care.
       ``(d) Program Sites.--Education and training under 
     subsection (a) may be provided at or through health 
     professions schools, residency training programs and other 
     graduate programs in the health professions, entities that 
     provide continuing medical education, hospices, and such 
     other programs or sites as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(e) Evaluation of Programs.--The Secretary shall 
     (directly or through grants or contracts) provide for the 
     evaluation of programs implemented under subsection (a) in 
     order to determine the effect of such programs on knowledge 
     and practice regarding pain management and palliative care.
       ``(f) Peer Review Groups.--In carrying out section 799(f) 
     with respect to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     the membership of each peer review group involved includes 
     individuals with expertise and experience in pain management 
     and palliative care for the population of patients whose 
     needs are to be served by the program.
       ``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `pain 
     management and palliative care' means--
       ``(1) the active, total care of patients whose disease or 
     medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or 
     whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced 
     disease; and
       ``(2) the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management 
     of primary and secondary pain, whether acute, chronic, 
     persistent, intractable, or associated with the end of life;
     the purpose of which is to diagnose and alleviate pain and 
     other distressing signs and symptoms and to enhance the 
     quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations; Allocation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 758 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is 
     amended, in subsection (b)(1)(C), by striking ``sections 753, 
     754, and 755'' and inserting ``sections 753, 754, 755, and 
     756''.
       (2) Amount.--With respect to section 758 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of 
     this section), the dollar amount specified in subsection 
     (b)(1)(C) of such section is deemed to be increased by 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 103. DECADE OF PAIN CONTROL AND RESEARCH.

       The calendar decade beginning January 1, 2001, is 
     designated as the ``Decade of Pain Control and Research''.

     SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

 TITLE II--USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTROLLED 
                             SUBSTANCES ACT

     SEC. 201. REINFORCING EXISTING STANDARD FOR LEGITIMATE USE OF 
                   CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 303 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i)(1) For purposes of this Act and any regulations to 
     implement this Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the 
     usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical 
     purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of 
     a controlled substance that is consistent with public health 
     and safety, even if the use of such a substance may increase 
     the risk of death. Nothing in this section authorizes 
     intentionally dispensing, distributing, or administering a 
     controlled substance for the purpose of causing death or 
     assisting another person in causing death.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     in determining whether a registration is consistent with the 
     public interest under this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     give no force and effect to State law authorizing or 
     permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
       ``(B) Paragraph (2) applies only to conduct occurring after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     alter the roles of the Federal and State governments in 
     regulating the practice of medicine. Regardless of whether 
     the Attorney General determines pursuant to this section that 
     the registration of a practitioner is inconsistent with the 
     public interest, it remains solely within the discretion of 
     State authorities to determine whether action should be taken 
     with respect

[[Page 8830]]

     to the State professional license of the practitioner or 
     State prescribing privileges.
       ``(4) Nothing in the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000 
     (including the amendments made by such Act) shall be 
     construed--
       ``(A) to modify the Federal requirements that a controlled 
     substance be dispensed only for a legitimate medical purpose 
     pursuant to paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) to provide the Attorney General with the authority to 
     issue national standards for pain management and palliative 
     care clinical practice, research, or quality;
     except that the Attorney General may take such other actions 
     as may be necessary to enforce this Act.''.
       (b) Pain Relief.--Section 304(c) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c) Before'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Procedures.--
       ``(1) Order to show cause.--Before''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Burden of proof.--At any proceeding under paragraph 
     (1), where the order to show cause is based on the alleged 
     intentions of the applicant or registrant to cause or assist 
     in causing death, and the practitioner claims a defense under 
     paragraph (1) of section 303(i), the Attorney General shall 
     have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, 
     that the practitioner's intent was to dispense, distribute, 
     or administer a controlled substance for the purpose of 
     causing death or assisting another person in causing death. 
     In meeting such burden, it shall not be sufficient to prove 
     that the applicant or registrant knew that the use of 
     controlled substance may increase the risk of death.''.

     SEC. 202. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       Section 502(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     872(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) educational and training programs for Federal, State, 
     and local personnel, incorporating recommendations, subject 
     to the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of section 902 
     of the Public Health Service Act, by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, on the means by which investigation and 
     enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may better 
     accommodate the necessary and legitimate use of controlled 
     substances in pain management and palliative care.
     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the 
     roles of the Federal and State governments in regulating the 
     practice of medicine.''.

     SEC. 203. FUNDING AUTHORITY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the operation 
     of the diversion control fee account program of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration shall be construed to include 
     carrying out section 303(i) of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 823(i)), as added by this Act, and subsections 
     (a)(4) and (c)(2) of section 304 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 824), as amended by this Act.

     SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Roth):
  S. 2608. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the treatment of certain expenses of rural letter carriers; to the 
Committee on Finance.


      legislation regarding the taxation of rural letter carriers

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides 
a vital and important communication link for the Nation and the 
citizens of my state of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role 
and have a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery 
of our mail. Rural Carriers first delivered the mail with their own 
horses and buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their 
own vehicles. They are responsible for maintenance and operation of 
their vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the 
winter, snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting 
snow and ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these 
quite adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3 
million miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 
routes.
  Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the 
horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has, as the 
Nation's mail volume has continued to increase throughout the years, 
the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion pieces of 
mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces of mail a 
day to about 500 addresses. Most recently, e-commerce has changed the 
type of mail rural carriers deliver. This fact was confirmed in a 
recent GAO study entitled ``U.S. Postal Service: Challenges to 
Sustaining Performance Improvements Remain Formidable on the Brink of 
the 21st Century,'' dated October 21, 1999. As this report explains, 
the Postal Service expects declines in its core business, which is 
essentially letter mail, in the coming years. The growth of e-mail on 
the Internet, electronic communications, and electronic commerce has 
the potential to substantially affect the Postal Service's mail volume. 
First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal 
Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters 
will decline in the next few years. However, e-commerce is providing 
the Postal Service with another opportunity to increase another part of 
its business. That's because what individuals and companies order over 
the Internet must be delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and 
often by rural carriers. Currently, the Postal Service has about 33% 
percent of the parcel business. Carriers are now delivering larger 
volumes of business mail, parcels, and priority mail packages. But, 
more parcel business will mean more cargo capacity will be necessary in 
postal delivery vehicles, especially in those owned and operated by 
rural letter carriers.
  When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the 
Internet, Rural Letter Carriers use vehicles they currently purchase, 
operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from 
the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment 
Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognizes that providing a 
personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use. 
So, when a rural carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to 
have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage, 
extraordinary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right-
hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance 
from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail 
carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. That 
provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was 
involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to 
compute their business use mileage deduction as 150% percent of the 
standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative, 
rural carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense 
method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the 
vehicle, plus depreciation). If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle 
expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of 
the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the 
extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous 
itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted 
gross income.
  The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns 
of rural letter carriers. This act permits the EMA income and expenses 
``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be 
reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for 
approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the 
option of filing the actual expense method for employee business 
vehicle expenses.
  The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic changes the 
Internet has and will have on the mail, specifically on rural carriers 
and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress can and must 
address.
  The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has, 
understandably, encouraged rural carriers to purchase larger right-hand 
drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), to handle the 
increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than 
traditional vehicles, so without the ability to use the actual expense 
method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their salaries to 
cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed 
11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers 
receive no EMA.
  These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the 
historical congressional intent of using

[[Page 8831]]

reimbursement to fund the government service of delivering mail, and 
also has created an inequitable tax situation for rural carriers. If 
actual business expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses 
should be allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill 
today, along with Senator Roth, that would reinstate the ability of a 
rural letter carrier to choose between using the actual expense method 
for computing the deduction allowable for business use of a vehicle, or 
using the current practice of deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses.
  Rural carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face many 
changes and challenges in this new Internet era. Let us make sure that 
these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they 
perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate 
of binding the Nation together.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roth and myself in supporting 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 2609. A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to enhance the 
funds available for grants to States for fish and wildlife conservation 
projects, and to increase opportunities for recreational hunting, bow 
hunting, trapping, archery, and fishing, by eliminating chances for 
waste, fraud, abuse, maladministration, and unauthorized expenditures 
for administration and implementation of those acts, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  THE WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2000

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation along with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, that 
will eliminate government waste, conserve wildlife, and provide hunter 
safety opportunities.
  We are all familiar with the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson 
funds which impose an excise tax on firearms, archery equipment, and 
fishing equipment to conserve wildlife and provide funds to states for 
hunter safety programs. These funds were created decades ago with the 
support of both the sportsmen who pay the tax and the states who 
administer the projects.
  The federal government collects the tax, which amounts to around 
half-a-billion dollars a year, and is authorized to withhold a 
percentage of the funds for administration of the program. This is how 
it should be. However, thanks to the thorough oversight of the program 
by Mr. Young of Alaska, Chairman of the House Committee on Resources, 
it was uncovered that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency 
charged with administering the program, abused the vagueness of the law 
in exactly what constituted an administrative expense.
  Under current law, the Service is authorized to withhold 
approximately $32 million a year to administer the program and, quite 
frankly, the law leaves it up to the Service as to what is an 
appropriate administrative expense. Mr. Young discovered that the 
Service was spending this money on expenses that were outside the 
spirit of the law. These tax dollars paid by hunters and fishermen were 
being used for everything from foreign travel to grants to anti-hunting 
groups to endangered species programs that work against the interests 
of hunters. In addition, they created unauthorized grant programs, some 
of which have merit and are authorized in our bill, but all of which 
were created outside of the law.
  Mr. President, I am not going to rehash all of the hearings that were 
held in the House on this issue. What I will say is that it was an 
embarrassment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and, not until all 
but two members of the House supported legislation to fix the problems 
did the Service begin cooperating with Congress and admitting there 
were actions at the Service which they are not proud of.
  In response to the waste, fraud, and abuse uncovered by his 
Committee, Mr. Young introduced legislation to fix the problems. His 
legislation caps the administrative expenses at around half of the 
currently authorized level, sets in stone what is an authorized 
administrative expense, provides some specific money for hunter safety, 
authorizes a multi-state grant program, and creates a position of 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. 
His bill, H.R. 3671, passed the House on April 5th with an overwhelming 
vote of 423-2.
  Mr. President, Senator Crapo and I have taken the lead of the House 
by using their bill as a model and simply strengthened it for the 
sportsmen who pay the excise tax. By providing more money, $15 million 
per year, for hunter safety programs and providing a total of $7 
million per year, $2 million more than the House, for the Multi-State 
Conservation Grant Program, this bill ensures that the money that 
sportsmen pay for wildlife conservation and hunter safety is actually 
used for those purposes.
  Mr. President, this is a win-win for everyone--for wildlife and for 
tax payers--and I urge my colleagues to support it and work for its 
quick enactment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000 with my 
colleague, Senator Larry Craig, to bring accountability back to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's administration of the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish 
Restoration Act. For years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 
apparently misused millions of dollars from these accounts, betraying 
the trust of America's sportsman.
  Congressional investigations and a General Accounting Office audit of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have revealed that, contrary to 
existing law, money has been routinely diverted to administrative slush 
funds, withheld from states, and generally misused for purposes 
unrelated to either sportfishing or wildlife conservation. In addition, 
the GAO called the Division of Federal Aid, ``if not the worst, one of 
the worst-managed programs we have encountered.'' As an avid 
outdoorsman, I am particularly disturbed by this abuse.
  Since 1937, sportsman have willingly paid an excise tax on hunting, 
and later fishing, equipment. These hunters, shooters, and anglers paid 
this tax with the understanding that the money would be used for state 
fish and wildlife conservation programs. This partnership has been 
instrumental in providing generations of Americans a quality 
recreational experience. Through the years, it has been an experience 
that I have enjoyed with both my parents and my children.
  The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, commonly known as 
the Pittman-Robertson Act, provides funding for wildlife habitat 
restoration and improvement, wildlife management research, hunter 
education, and public target ranges. Funds for the Pittman-Robertson 
Act are derived from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms, 
ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns.
  The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program, often referred to 
as the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux Acts, is funded through a 10 
percent excise tax on fishing equipment and a 3 percent tax on electric 
trolling motors, sonor fish finders, taxes on motorboat fuels, and 
import duties on fishing and pleasure boats. Through the cost 
reimbursement program, states use these funds to enhance sport fishing. 
These enhancements come through fish stocking, acquisition and 
improvement of habitat educational programs, and development of 
recreational facilities that directly support sport fishing, such as 
boat ramps and fishing piers.
  Under the law, revenue from these taxes are expected to be returned 
to state and local fish and game organizations for programs to manage 
and enhance sport fish and game species. The Fish and Wildlife Service 
is supposed to deduct only the cost of administering the programs, up 
to 8 percent of Pittman-Robertson revenues and 6 percent of Dingell-
Johnson funds.
  Unfortunatly, these funds have been misdirected and misused by the 
Fish

[[Page 8832]]

and Wildlife Service. Through their investment in the Federal Aid 
program, America's hunters and fisherman have proved themselves to be 
our nation's true conservationists. Through its misuse of these funds, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service has proven itself to be a negligent 
steward of the public trust.
  The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act, 
would restore accountability to the administration of Federal Aid 
funds. By limiting the amount of revenue that may be used on 
administration, and the accounts that these funds may be used for, this 
bill will reign in the opportunities for misuse by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Our legislation will also make legal a multi-state 
conservation grant program to allow streamlined funding for projects 
that involve multiple states. Additionally, the bill will increase 
funding for firearm and bow hunter safety programs.
  This bill seeks to re-establish a trust between the hunters and 
anglers who pay the excise taxes and the federal government. It is an 
opportunity to repair a system that has been lauded as one of the 
nation's most successful conservation efforts. I hope my colleagues 
will join with us in a bipartisan effort to restore accountability and 
responsibility to the Federal Aid programs and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Feingold):
  S. 2610. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve the provision of items and services provided to Medicare 
beneficiaries residing in rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.


           the medicare fairness in reimbursement act of 2000

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
my colleagues, Senator Thomas, Senator Craig and Senator Feingold, to 
introduce the ``Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000.'' This 
legislation addresses the terrible unfairness that exists today in 
Medicare payment policy.
  According to the latest Medicare figures, Medicare payments per 
beneficiary by state of residence ranged from slightly more than $3000 
to well in excess of $6500. For example, in Iowa, the average Medicare 
payment was $3456, nearly a third less than the national average of 
$5,034. In Wyoming the situation is worse, with an average payment of 
approximately $3200.
  This payment inequity is unfair to seniors in Iowa and Wyoming, and 
it is unfair to rural beneficiaries everywhere. The citizens of my home 
state pay the same Medicare payroll taxes required of every American 
taxpayer. Yet they get dramatically less in return.
  Ironically, rural citizens are not penalized by the Medicare program 
because they practice inefficient, high cost medicine. The opposite is 
true. The low payment rates received in rural areas are in large part a 
result of their historic conservative practice of health care. In the 
early 1980's rural states' lower-than-average costs were used to 
justify lower payment rates, and Medicare's payment policies since that 
time have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost states.
  Mr. President, late last year I wrote to the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA) and I asked them a simple question. I asked their 
actuaries to estimate for me the impact on Medicare's Trust Funds, 
which at that time were scheduled to go bankrupt in 2015, if average 
Medicare payments to all states were the same as Iowa's.
  I've always thought Iowa's reimbursement level was low. But HCFA's 
answer suprised even me. The actuaries found that if all states were 
reimbursed at the same rate as Iowa, Medicare would be solvent for at 
least 75 years, 60 years beyond their projections.
  I'm not suggesting that all states should be brought down to Iowa's 
level. But there is no question that the long-term solvency of the 
Medicare program is of serious national concern. And as Congress 
considers ways to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program, the 
issue of unfair payment rates needs to be on the table.
  The bill we are introducing today, the ``Medicare Fairness in 
Reimbursement Act of 2000'' sends a clear signal. These historic wrongs 
must be righted. Before any Medicare reform bill passes Congress, I 
intend to make sure that rural beneficiaries are guaranteed access to 
the same quality health care services of their urban counterparts.
  Mr. President, our legislation does the following:
  Requires HCFA to improve the fairness of payments under the original 
Medicare fee-for-services system by adjusting payments for items and 
services so that no state is greater than 105% above the national 
average, and no state is below 95% of the national average. An 
estimated 30 states would benefit under these adjustments, based on 
1998 data from the Ways and Means Green Book.
  Requires improvements in the collection and use of hospital wage data 
by occupational category. Experts agree the current system of 
collecting hospital data ``lowballs'' the payment received by rural 
hospitals. Large urban hospitals are overcompensated today because they 
have a much higher number of highly-paid specialists and sub-
specialists on their staff, while small rural hospitals tend to have 
more generalists, who aren't as highly paid.
  Ensures that beneficiaries are held harmless in both payments and 
services.
  Ensures budget neutrality.
  Automatically results in adjustment of Medicare managed care payments 
to reflect increased equity between rural and urban areas.
  This legislation simply ensures basic fairness in our Medicare 
payment policy. I urge my Senate colleagues, no matter what state 
you're from, to consider our bill and join us in supporting this common 
sense Medicare reform. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2610

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Fairness in 
     Reimbursement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVING FAIRNESS OF PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE 
                   FEE-FOR-SERVICE PROGRAM.

       (a) Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sections:


 ``improving fairness of payments under the original medicare fee-for-
                            service program

       ``Sec. 1897. (a) Establishment of System.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary shall establish a 
     system for making adjustments to the amount of payment made 
     to entities and individuals for items and services provided 
     under the original medicare fee-for-service program under 
     parts A and B.
       ``(b) System Requirements.--
       ``(1) Adjustments.--Under the system described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary (beginning in 2001) shall make 
     the following adjustments:
       ``(A) Certain states above national average.--If a State 
     average per beneficiary amount for a year is greater than 105 
     percent (or 110 percent in the case of the determination made 
     in 2000) of the national average per beneficiary amount for 
     such year, then the Secretary shall reduce the amount of 
     applicable payments in such a manner as will result (as 
     estimated by the Secretary) in the State average per 
     beneficiary amount for the subsequent year being at 105 
     percent (or 110 percent in the case of payments made in 2001) 
     of the national average per beneficiary amount for such 
     subsequent year.
       ``(B) Certain states below national average.--If a State 
     average per beneficiary amount for a year is less than 95 
     percent (or 90 percent in the case of the determination made 
     in 2000) of the national average per beneficiary amount for 
     such year, then the Secretary shall increase the amount of 
     applicable payments in such a manner as will result (as 
     estimated by the Secretary) in the State average per 
     beneficiary amount for the subsequent year being at 95 
     percent (or 90 percent in the case of payments made in 2001) 
     of the national average per beneficiary amount for such 
     subsequent year.
       ``(2) Determination of averages.--
       ``(A) State average per beneficiary amount.--Each year 
     (beginning in 2000), the Secretary shall determine a State 
     average per beneficiary amount for each State which shall be 
     equal to the Secretary's estimate of

[[Page 8833]]

     the average amount of expenditures under the original 
     medicare fee-for-service program under parts A and B for the 
     year for a beneficiary enrolled under such parts that resides 
     in the State
       ``(B) National average per beneficiary amount.--Each year 
     (beginning in 2000), the Secretary shall determine the 
     national average per beneficiary amount which shall be equal 
     to the average of the State average per beneficiary amounts 
     determined under subparagraph (B) for the year.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Applicable payments.--The term `applicable payments' 
     means payments made to entities and individuals for items and 
     services provided under the original medicare fee-for-service 
     program under parts A and B to beneficiaries enrolled under 
     such parts that reside in the State.
       ``(B) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 210(h).
       ``(c) Beneficiaries Held Harmless.--The provisions of this 
     section shall not effect--
       ``(1) the entitlement to items and services of a 
     beneficiary under this title, including the scope of such 
     items and services; or
       ``(2) any liability of the beneficiary with respect to such 
     items and services.
       ``(d) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this section.
       ``(2) Protecting rural communities.--In promulgating the 
     regulations pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     give special consideration to rural areas.
       ``(e) Budget Neutrality.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the provisions contained in this section do not cause the 
     estimated amount of expenditures under this title for a year 
     to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of 
     expenditures under this title that would have been made in 
     such year if this section had not been enacted.


       ``improvements in collection and use of hospital wage data

       ``Sec. 1898. (a) Collection of Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish procedures 
     for improving the methods used by the Secretary to collect 
     data on employee compensation and paid hours of employment 
     for hospital employees by occupational category.
       ``(2) Timeframe.--The Secretary shall implement the 
     procedures described in paragraph (1) by not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of the Rural Health 
     Protection and Improvement Act of 2000.
       ``(b) Adjustment to Hospital Wage Level.--By not later than 
     1 year after the date of enactment of the Rural Health 
     Protection and Improvement Act of 2000, the Secretary shall 
     make necessary revisions to the methods used to adjust 
     payments to hospitals for different area wage levels under 
     section 1886(d)(3)(E) to ensure that such methods take into 
     account the data described in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(c) Limitation.--To the extent possible, in making the 
     revisions described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     ensure that current rules regarding which hospital employees 
     are included in, or excluded from, the determination of the 
     hospital wage levels are not effected by such revisions.
       ``(d) Budget Neutrality.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     any revisions made under subsection (b) do not cause the 
     estimated amount of expenditures under this title for a year 
     to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of 
     expenditures under this title that would have been made in 
     such year if the Secretary had not made such 
     revisions.''.

 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues 
in introducing the ``Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000,'' 
which specifically addresses the current payment inequities of the 
Medicare program. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
Craig, and Mr. Feingold in crafting this bill for rural Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services to establish a payment system for Medicare's Part A and B fee-
for-service programs that guarantees each state's average per 
beneficiary amount is within 95 percent and 105 percent of the national 
average. The reason for this seemingly drastic action is because the 
current payment disparities between states is unacceptable. According 
to 1998 data, Wyoming's per beneficiary spending is 36 percent below 
the national average of $5,000 while some other states receive almost 
36 percent above the national average.
  Mr. President, I understand that there are some legitimate cost 
differences among states in providing health care services to our 
seniors, but I do not believe there is justification for an inequity of 
this size. Seniors in Wyoming and other rural states have paid the same 
Medicare tax over the years as beneficiaries residing in urban states. 
However, the current Medicare payment system does not reflect the equal 
contributions made by all seniors.
  The other section of this legislation requires the Secretary to make 
adjustments to the hospital wage index under the prospective payment 
system after developing and implementing improved methods for 
collecting the necessary hospital employee data.
  I believe this legislation is an important piece of the overall 
Medicare reform puzzle. I feel strongly that any final legislation 
approved by the Senate to ensure Medicare is financially stable for 
current and future generations must also ensure all beneficiaries are 
treated fairly and equitably. Mr. President, the current system is not 
only far from long-term solvency, it is far from fair, especially to 
seniors living in rural states such as Wyoming.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 2611. A bill to provide trade adjustment assistance for certain 
workers; to the Committee on Finance.


                TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
that will close a loop hole in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program 
for employees of the Copper Range Company, formerly the White Pine 
Company, a copper mine in White Pine, Michigan. My legislation will 
extend TAA benefits to those employees who were responsible for 
performing the environmental remediation that was required to close the 
facility.
  My legislation is needed because these employees were unfairly 
excluded from the TAA certification that applied to other workers at 
the facility simply because the service they provide, environmental 
remediation, does not technically support the production of the article 
that the mine produced: copper. My legislation simply extends TAA 
coverage to those few workers who remained at the facility with 
responsibility for the environmental remediation necessary to close the 
facility.
  The Copper Range Company received NAFTA-TAA certification in 1995 
when it began closing down. The company was still in the process of 
closing down in 1997 and received re-certification at that time. As of 
the end of 1999, there were still workers at the plant engaged in the 
final stages of closing down. Their work consisted of environmental 
remediation. When the plant applied for re-certification in September 
for purposes of covering these workers, the Department of Labor (DoL) 
denied the request because DoL said that the remaining workers were not 
performing a job ending because of transplant to another NAFTA country; 
they were performing environmental remediation, not production of 
copper.
  Mr. President, this is an unfair catch-22 situation that must be 
rectified legislatively. The legislation I am introducing today would 
provide those few employees involved in the final stages of closing 
down the mine with the same TAA benefits their co-workers received. The 
total number of workers at issue is small and my legislative fix is 
straightforward. I hope this legislation can be adopted quickly so that 
these Michigan workers who have fallen through the cracks can access 
the TAA benefits they rightfully deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2611

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

     SECTION 1. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Certification of Eligibility for Workers Required for 
     Closure of Facility.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any decision by the Secretary of Labor denying 
     certification or eligibility for certification for adjustment 
     assistance under title II of the Trade Act of 1974, a 
     qualified worker described in paragraph (2) shall be 
     certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for 
     adjustment assistance under such title II.
       (2) Qualified worker.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     ``qualified worker'' means a worker who--

[[Page 8834]]

       (A) was determined to be covered under Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance Certification TA-W-31,402; and
       (B) was necessary for the environmental remediation or 
     closure of a copper mining facility.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Biden, 
        and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 2612. A bill to combat Ecstasy trafficking, distribution, and 
abuse in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


               the ecstasy anti-proliferation act of 2000

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my 
colleagues, to introduce the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000--
legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and 
abuse of MDMA, a drug commonly known as Ecstasy.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy's Year 2000 Annual Report 
on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of 
Ecstasy is on the rise in the United States, particularly among 
teenagers and young professionals. My state of Florida has been 
particularly hard hit by this plague. Ecstasy is customarily sold and 
consumed at ``raves,'' which are semi-clandestine, all-night parties 
and concerts. Young Americans are lulled into a belief that Ecstasy, 
and other designer drugs are ``safe'' ways to get high, escape reality, 
and enhance intimacy in personal relationships. The drug traffickers 
make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth.
  Mr. President, I want to be perfectly clear in stating that Ecstasy 
is an extremely dangerous drug. In my state alone, 189 deaths have been 
attributed to the use of club drugs in the last three years. In 33 of 
those deaths, Ecstasy was the most prevalent drug, of several, in the 
individual's system. Seven deaths were caused by Ecstasy alone. In the 
first four months of this year there have already been six deaths 
directly attributed to Ecstasy. This drug is a definite killer.
  Numerous data also reflect the increasing availability of Ecstasy in 
metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In a speech to the 
Federal Law Enforcement Foundation earlier this year, Customs 
Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated that in the first few months of 
fiscal year 2000, the Customs Service had already seized over four 
million Ecstasy tablets. He estimates that the number will grow to at 
least eight million tablets by the end of the year which represents a 
substantial increase from the 500,000 tablets seized in fiscal year 
1997.
  The lucrative nature of Ecstasy encourages its importation. 
Production costs are as low as two to twenty-five cents per dose while 
retail prices in the U.S. range from twenty dollars to forty-five 
dollars per dose. Manufactured mostly in Europe--in nations such as The 
Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain where pill presses are not controlled 
as they are in the U.S.--Ecstasy has erased all of the old routes law 
enforcement has mapped out for the smuggling of traditional drugs.
  Under current federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is 
equivalent to only 35 grams of marijuana. In contrast, one gram of 
methamphetamine is equivalent to two kilograms of marijuana. This 
results in relatively short periods of incarceration for individuals 
sentenced for Ecstasy-related crimes. When the potential profitability 
of this drug is compared to the potential punishment, it is easy to see 
what makes Ecstasy extremely attractive to professional smugglers.
  Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 addresses 
this growing and disturbing problem. First, the bill increases the base 
level offense for Ecstasy-related crimes, making them equal to those of 
methamphetamine. This provision also accomplishes the goal of 
effectively lowering the amount of Ecstasy required for prosecution 
under the laws governing possession with the intent to distribute by 
sending a message to Federal prosecutors that this drug is a serious 
threat.
  Second, by addressing law enforcement and community education 
programs, this bill will provide for an Ecstasy information campaign. 
Through this campaign, our hope is that Ecstasy will soon go the way of 
crack, which saw a dramatic reduction in the quantities present on our 
streets after information of its unpredictable impurities and side 
effects were made known to a wide audience. By using this educational 
effort we hope to avoid future deaths like the one columnist Jack 
Newfield wrote about in saddening detail.
  It involved an 18-year-old who died after taking Ecstasy in a club 
where the drug sold for $25 a tablet and water for $5 a bottle. 
Newfield speaks of how the boy tried to suck water from the club's 
bathroom tap that had been turned off so that those with drug induced 
thirst would be forced to buy the bottled water.
  Mr. President, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 can only 
help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. We urge our 
colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by 
cosponsoring this bill.
 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my 
colleague, Senator Graham, to cosponsor the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation 
Act of 2000. This legislation is vital for the safety of our children 
and our nation. Around the country, Ecstasy use is exploding at an 
alarming rate from our big cities to our rural neighborhoods. According 
to Customs officials, Ecstasy is spreading faster than any drug since 
crack cocaine. This explosion of Ecstasy smuggling has prompted Customs 
to create a special task force, that focuses exclusively on the 
designer drug.
  Along with my colleague Senator Graham, I believe it is important 
that we act to stop the spread of this drug. I join with Senator Graham 
in urging our colleagues to support the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act 
of 2000, and pass this measure quickly. By enacting this important 
bill, we will get drug dealers out of the lives of our young people and 
alert the public to the dangers of Ecstasy.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is a new drug on the scene--Ecstasy, 
a synthetic stimulant and hallucinogen. It belongs to a group of drugs 
referred to as ``club drugs'' because they are associated with all-
night dance parties known as ``raves.''
  There is a widespread misconception that Ecstasy is not a dangerous 
drug--that it is ``no big deal.'' I am here to tell you that Ecstasy is 
a very big deal. The drug depletes the brain of serotonin, the chemical 
responsible for mood, thought, and memory. Studies show that Ecstasy 
use can reduce serotonin levels by up to 90 percent for at least two 
weeks after use and can cause brain damage.
  If that isn't a big deal, I don't know what is.
  A few months ago we got a significant warning sign that Ecstasy use 
is becoming a real problem. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the 
Future survey, a national survey measuring drug use among students, 
reported that while overall levels of drug use had not increased, past 
month use of Ecstasy among high school seniors increased more than 66 
percent.
  The survey showed that nearly six percent of high school seniors have 
used Ecstasy in the past year. This may sound like a small number, so 
let me put it in perspective--it is just slightly less than the 
percentage of seniors who used cocaine and it is five times the number 
of seniors who used heroin.
  And with the supply of Ecstasy increasing as rapidly as it is, the 
number of kids using this drug is only likely to increase. By April of 
this year, the Customs Service had already seized 4 million Ecstasy 
pills--greater than the total amount seized in all of 1999 and more 
than five times the amount seized in all of 1998.
  Though New York is the East Coast hub for this drug, it is spreading 
quickly throughout the country. Last July, in my home state of 
Delaware, law enforcement officials seized 900 Ecstasy pills in 
Rehoboth Beach. There are also reports of an Ecstasy problem in Newark 
among students at the University of Delaware.
  We need to address this problem now, before it gets any worse. That 
is why I

[[Page 8835]]

am pleased to join Senators Graham, Grassley and Thomas to introduce 
the ``Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000'' today. The legislation 
takes the steps--both in terms of law enforcement and prevention--to 
address this problem in a serious way before it gets any worse.
  The legislation directs the federal Sentencing Commission to increase 
the recommended penalties for manufacturing, importing, exporting or 
trafficking Ecstasy. Though Ecstasy is a Schedule I drug--and therefore 
subject to the most stringent federal penalties--not all Schedule I 
drugs are treated the same in our sentencing guidelines. For example, 
selling a kilogram of marijuana is not as serious an offense as selling 
a kilogram of heroin. The sentencing guidelines differentiate between 
the severity of drugs--as they should.
  But the current sentencing guidelines do not recognize how dangerous 
Ecstasy really is.
  Under current federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is 
treated like 35 grams of marijuana. Under the ``Ecstasy Anti-
Proliferation Act'', one gram of Ecstasy would be treated like 2 
kilograms of marijuana. This would make the penalties for Ecstasy 
similar to those for methamphetamine.
  The legislation also authorizes a major prevention campaign in 
schools, communities and over the airwaves to make sure that everyone--
kids, adults, parents, teachers, cops, clergy, etc. --know just how 
dangerous this drug really is. We need to dispel the myth that Ecstasy 
is not a dangerous drug because, as I stated earlier, this is a 
substance that can cause brain damage and can even result in death. We 
need to spread the message so that kids know the risk involved with 
taking Ecstasy, what it can do to their bodies, their brains, their 
futures. Adults also need to be taught about this drug--what it looks 
like, what someone high on Ecstasy looks like, and what to do if they 
discover that someone they know is using it.
  Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the United States Senate 
on numerous occasions to state what I view as the most effective way to 
prevent a drug epidemic. My philosophy is simple: the best time to 
crack down on a drug with uncompromising enforcement pressure is before 
the abuse of the drug has become rampant. The advantages of doing so 
are clear--there are fewer pushers trafficking in the drug and, most 
important, fewer lives and fewer families will have suffered from the 
abuse of the drug.
  It is clear that Ecstasy use is on the rise. Now is the time to act 
before Ecstasy use becomes our next drug epidemic. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this legislation and passing it quickly so 
that we can address the escalating problem of Ecstasy use before it 
gets any worse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 2614. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide for duty-free treatment on certain manufacturing 
equipment; to the Committee on Finance.


   TO SUSPEND THE DUTY ON CERTAN EQUIPMENT USED IN THE MANUFACTURING 
                                INDUSTRY

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
will suspend the duties imposed on certain manufacturing equipment that 
is necessary for tire production. Currently, this equipment is imported 
for use in the United States because there are no known American 
producers. Therefore, suspending the duties on this equipment would not 
adversely affect domestic industries.
  This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on tire manufacturing 
equipment required to make certain large off-road tires that fall 
between the sizes currently fabricated in the United States. These 
tires would be used primarily in agriculture.
  Mr. President, suspending the duty on this manufacturing equipment 
will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing 
these products. In addition to permitting new production in this 
country, these duty suspensions will allow U.S. manufacturers to 
maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope 
the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2614

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

     SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN MANUFACTURING 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subheadings 9902.84.79, 9902.84.83, 
     9902.84.85, 9902.84.87, 9902.84.89, and 9902.84.91 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``4011.91.50'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``4011.91'';
       (2) by striking ``4011.99.40'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``4011.99''; and
       (3) by striking ``86 cm'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``63.5 cm''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 15 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 2615. A bill to establish a program to promote child literacy by 
making books available through early learning and other child care 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                           the book stamp act

 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, literacy is the foundation of 
learning, but too many Americans today are not able to read a single 
sentence. Nearly 40 percent of the nation's children are unable to read 
at grade-level by the end of the third grade. In communities with high 
concentrations of at-risk children, the failure rate is an astonishing 
60 percent. As a result, their entire education is likely to be 
derailed.
  In the battle against literacy, it is not enough to reach out more 
effectively to school-aged children. We must start earlier--and reach 
children before they reach school. Pediatricians like Dr. Barry 
Zuckerman at the Boston Medical Center have been telling us for years 
that reading to children from birth through school age is a medical 
issue that should be raised at every well child visit, since a child's 
brain needs this kind of stimulation to grow to its full potential. 
Reading to young children in the years before age 5 has a profound 
effect on their ability to learn to read. But too often the problem is 
that young children do not have access to books appropriate to their 
age. A recent study found that 60 percent of the kindergarten children 
who performed poorly in school did not own a single book.
  The Book Stamp Act that Senator Hutchison and I are introducing today 
is a step to cure that problem. Our goal is to see that all children in 
this country have books of their own before they enter school.
  Regardless of culture or wealth, one of the most important factors in 
the development of literacy is home access to books. Students from 
homes with an abundance of reading materials are substantially better 
readers than those with few or no reading materials available.
  But it is not enough to just dump a book into a family's home. Since 
young children cannot read to themselves, we must make sure that an 
adult is available who interacts with the child and will read to the 
child.
  In this day of two-parent working families, young children spend 
substantial time in child care and family care facilities, which 
provide realistic opportunities for promoting literacy. Progress is 
already being made on this approach. Child Care READS!, for example, is 
a national communications campaign aimed at raising the awareness of 
the importance of reading in child care settings.
  The Book Stamp Act will make books available to children and parents 
through these child care and early childhood education programs.
  The act authorizes an appropriation of $50 million a year for this 
purpose. It also creates a special postage stamp, similar to the Breast 
Cancer Stamp,

[[Page 8836]]

which will feature an early learning character, and will sell at a 
slightly higher rate than the normal 33 cents, with the additional 
revenues designated for the Book Stamp Program.
  The resources will be distributed through the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant to the state child care agency in each state. 
The state agency then will allocate its funds to local child care 
research and referral agencies throughout the state on the basis of 
local need.
  There are 610 such agencies in the country, with at least one in 
every state. These non-profit agencies, offer referral services for 
parents seeking child care, and also provide training for child care 
workers. The agencies will work with established book distribution 
programs such as First Book, Reading is Fundamental, and Reach Out and 
Read to coordinate the buying of discounted books and the distribution 
of the books to children.
  Also, to help parents and child care providers become well informed 
about the best ways to read to children and the most effective use of 
books with children at various stages of development, the agencies will 
provide training and technical assistance on these issues.
  Our goal is to work closely with parents, children, child care 
providers and publishers to put at least one book in the hands of every 
needy child in America. Together, we can make significant progress in 
early childhood literacy, and I believe we can make it quickly.
  We know what works to combat illiteracy. We owe it to the nation's 
children and the nation's future to do all we can to win this battle.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
and the accompanying letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2615

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Book Stamp Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Literacy is fundamental to all learning.
       (2) Between 40 and 60 percent of the Nation's children do 
     not read at grade level, particularly children in families or 
     school districts that are challenged by significant financial 
     or social instability.
       (3) Increased investments in child literacy are needed to 
     improve opportunities for children and the efficacy of the 
     Nation's education investments.
       (4) Increasing access to books in the home is an important 
     means of improving child literacy, which can be accomplished 
     nationally at modest cost.
       (5) Effective channels for book distribution already exist 
     through child care providers.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Early learning program.--The term ``early learning'', 
     used with respect to a program, means a program of activities 
     designed to facilitate development of cognitive, language, 
     motor, and social-emotional skills in children under age 6 as 
     a means of enabling the children to enter school ready to 
     learn, such as a Head Start or Early Head Start program 
     carried out under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et 
     seq.), or a State pre-kindergarten program.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (4) State agency.--The term ``State agency'' means an 
     agency designated under section 658D of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858b).

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATE AGENCIES.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and carry out a program to promote child literacy 
     and improve children's access to books at home and in early 
     learning and other child care programs, by making books 
     available through early learning and other child care 
     programs.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary 
     shall make grants to State agencies from allotments 
     determined under paragraph (2).
       (2) Allotments.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     allot to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to 
     the total of the available funds for the fiscal year as the 
     amount the State receives under section 658O(b) of the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858m(b)) for the fiscal year bears to the total amount 
     received by all States under that section for the fiscal 
     year.
       (c) Applications.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under this section, a State shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       (d) Accountability.--The provisions of sections 658I(b) and 
     658K(b) of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858g(b), 9858i(b)) shall apply to States 
     receiving grants under this Act, except that references in 
     those sections--
       (1) to a subchapter shall be considered to be references to 
     this Act; and
       (2) to a plan or application shall be considered to be 
     references to an application submitted under subsection (c).
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``available 
     funds'', used with respect to a fiscal year, means the total 
     of--
       (1) the funds made available under section 416(c)(1) of 
     title 39, United States Code for the fiscal year; and
       (2) the amounts appropriated under section 9 for the fiscal 
     year.

     SEC. 5. CONTRACTS TO CHILD CARE RESOURCE AND REFERRAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       A State agency that receives a grant under section 4 shall 
     use funds made available through the grant to enter into 
     contracts with local child care resource and referral 
     agencies to carry out the activities described in section 6. 
     The State agency may reserve not more than 3 percent of the 
     funds made available through the grant to support a public 
     awareness campaign relating to the activities.

     SEC. 6. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Activities.--
       (1) Book payments for eligible providers.--A child care 
     resource and referral agency that receives a contract under 
     section 5 shall use the funds made available through the 
     grant to provide payments for eligible early learning program 
     and other child care providers, on the basis of local needs, 
     to enable the providers to make books available, to promote 
     child literacy and improve children's access to books at home 
     and in early learning and other child care programs.
       (2) Eligible providers.--To be eligible to receive a 
     payment under paragraph (1), a provider shall--
       (A)(i) be a center-based child care provider, a group home 
     child care provider, or a family child care provider, 
     described in section 658P(5)(A) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n(5)(A)); 
     or
       (ii) be a Head Start agency designated under section 641 of 
     the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836), an entity that receives 
     assistance under section 645A of such Act to carry out an 
     Early Head Start program or another provider of an early 
     learning program; and
       (B) provide services in an area where children face high 
     risks of literacy difficulties, as defined by the Secretary.
       (b) Responsibilities.--A child care resource and referral 
     agency that receives a contract under section 5 to provide 
     payments to eligible providers shall--
       (1) consult with local individuals and organizations 
     concerned with early literacy (including parents and 
     organizations carrying out the Reach Out and Read, First 
     Book, and Reading Is Fundamental programs) regarding local 
     book distribution needs;
       (2) make reasonable efforts to learn public demographic and 
     other information about local families and child literacy 
     programs carried out by the eligible providers, as needed to 
     inform the agency's decisions as the agency carries out the 
     contract;
       (3) coordinate local orders of the books made available 
     under this Act;
       (4) distribute, to each eligible provider that receives a 
     payment under this Act, not fewer than 1 book every 6 months 
     for each child served by the provider for more than 3 of the 
     preceding 6 months;
       (5) use not more than 5 percent of the funds made available 
     through the contract to provide training and technical 
     assistance to the eligible providers on the effective use of 
     books with young children at different stages of development; 
     and
       (6) be a training resource for eligible providers that want 
     to offer parent workshops on developing reading readiness.
       (c) Discounts.--
       (1) In general.--Federal funds made available under this 
     Act for the purchase of books may only be used to purchase 
     books on the same terms as are customarily available in the 
     book industry to entities carrying out nonprofit bulk book 
     purchase and distribution programs.
       (2) Terms.--An entity offering books for purchase under 
     this Act shall be present to have met the requirements of 
     paragraph (1), absent contrary evidence, if the terms include 
     a discount of 43 percent off the catalogue price of the 
     books, with no additional charge for shipping and handling of 
     the books.
       (d) Administration.--The child care resource and referral 
     agency may not use more

[[Page 8837]]

     than 6 percent of the funds made available through the 
     contract for administrative costs.

     SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report on the implementation of the activities carried out 
     under this Act.

     SEC. 8. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS FOR CHILD LITERACY.

       Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 416. Special postage stamps for child literacy

       ``(a) In order to afford the public a convenient way to 
     contribute to funding for child literacy, the Postal Service 
     shall establish a special rate of postage for first-class 
     mail under this section. The stamps that bear the special 
     rate of postage shall promote childhood literacy and shall, 
     to the extent practicable, contain an image relating to a 
     character in a children's book or cartoon.
       ``(b)(1) The rate of postage established under this 
     section--
       ``(A) shall be equal to the regular first-class rate of 
     postage, plus a differential of not to exceed 25 percent;
       ``(B) shall be set by the Governors in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Governors shall by regulation prescribe (in 
     lieu of the procedures described in chapter 36); and
       ``(C) shall be offered as an alternative to the regular 
     first-class rate of postage.
       ``(2) The use of the special rate of postage established 
     under this section shall be voluntary on the part of postal 
     patrons.
       ``(c)(1) Of the amounts becoming available for child 
     literacy pursuant to this section, the Postal Service shall 
     pay 100 percent to the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.
       ``(2) Payments made under this subsection to the Department 
     shall be made under such arrangements as the Postal Service 
     shall by mutual agreement with such Department establish in 
     order to carry out the objectives of this section, except 
     that, under those arrangements, payments to such agency shall 
     be made at least twice a year.
       ``(3) In this section, the term `amounts becoming available 
     for child literacy pursuant to this section' means--
       ``(A) the total amounts received by the Postal Service that 
     the Postal Service would not have received but for the 
     enactment of this section; reduced by
       ``(B) an amount sufficient to cover reasonable costs 
     incurred by the Postal Service in carrying out this section, 
     including costs attributable to the printing, sale, and 
     distribution of stamps under this section,
     as determined by the Postal Service under regulations that 
     the Postal Service shall prescribe.
       ``(d) It is the sense of Congress that nothing in this 
     section should--
       ``(1) directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total 
     funds received by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, or any other agency of the Government (or any 
     component or program of the Government), below the level that 
     would otherwise have been received but for the enactment of 
     this section; or
       ``(2) affect regular first-class rates of postage or any 
     other regular rates of postage.
       ``(e) Special postage stamps made available under this 
     section shall be made available to the public beginning on 
     such date as the Postal Service shall by regulation 
     prescribe, but in no event later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       ``(f) The Postmaster General shall include in each report 
     provided under section 2402, with respect to any period 
     during any portion of which this section is in effect, 
     information concerning the operation of this section, except 
     that, at a minimum, each report shall include information 
     on--
       ``(1) the total amounts described in subsection (c)(3)(A) 
     that were received by the Postal Service during the period 
     covered by such report; and
       ``(2) of the amounts described in paragraph (1), how much 
     (in the aggregate and by category) was required for the 
     purposes described in subsection (c)(3)(B).
       ``(g) This section shall cease to be effective at the end 
     of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which special 
     postage stamps made available under this section are first 
     made available to the public.''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
                                  ____

                                          Children's Defense Fund,


                                                E. Street, NW,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The Children's Defense Fund welcomes 
     the introduction of the Book Stamp Act. This legislation make 
     books available in early learning/child care programs for 
     young children and their parents. Reading to young children 
     on a regular basis is a first step to ensure that they become 
     strong readers. This bill gives parents access to books to 
     make it more likely for them to read to their children. Thank 
     you for recognizing how important reading is for our youngest 
     children.
           Sincerely yours,
     Marian Wright Edelman.
                                  ____

                                                      4 To 14.Com,


                                                     Broadway,

                                       New York, NY, May 23, 2000.
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I sincerely commend you on your sponsoring 
     the ``Book Stamp'' legislation.
       As the CEO of a dot-com designed to help children learn, I 
     am very aware of the ``digital divide'' that separates 
     children from wealthier families from those growing up in 
     poorer households. That disparity--that difference in 
     opportunity--doesn't begin when children start using the 
     computer and exploring the Internet. Rather, it starts much 
     earlier, when very young children should have their first 
     exposure and access exposed to books.
       Unfortunately, far too many children--particularly children 
     from lower income families--simply do not have books to call 
     their own. They need books, lots of them, for brain 
     development, to develop the basis and ``habit'' of reading, 
     and to share in one of the true joys of childhood.
       Ensuring that all children--particularly those under five 
     years of age--have access to good books that they can call 
     their own, is an essential ingredient of a healthy childhood. 
     This legislation will help make that a reality.
       As Susan Roman of the ALA once pointed out, ``Books are the 
     on-ramp to the information super-highway.''
       I commend you and Senator Hutchison for being real leaders 
     in this crusade to make all children ready to meet the 
     challenges of the 21st century.
       Please let me know how I can help.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Steve Cohen,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           Association of American


                                             Publishers, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: The American publishing industry enthusiastically 
     supports the ``Book Stamp Act'' introduced by you and Senator 
     Hutchison today. This important and timely legislation 
     acknowledges the fact that young minds need as much 
     nourishing as young bodies.
       Every September, some 40 percent of American children who 
     start school are not literacy-ready and, for most, that 
     educational gap never closes. From a growing body of 
     research, we have begun to understand how important it is for 
     very young children to have books in their lives. At BookExpo 
     America on June 3, for the first time, a distinguished group 
     of early literacy experts, pediatricians, child-development 
     professionals and children's publishers will come together to 
     explore ways of improving access to quality books for the 13 
     million pre-school-age children in daycare and early 
     education programs. The ``Book Stamp Act'' couldn't come at a 
     better time.
       We congratulate you on the introduction of the ``Book Stamp 
     Act,'' and look forward to working with you to ensure its 
     passage.
       With warmest regards,
           Sincerely,
     Patricia S. Schroeder.
                                  ____

                                      National Association for the


                                  Education of Young Children,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kennedy and Hutchison: The National 
     Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 
     representing over 100,000 individuals dedicated to excellence 
     in early childhood education, commends you for your 
     leadership in promoting early childhood literacy through the 
     Book Stamps legislation you will introduce today.
       Learning to read and write is critical to a child's success 
     in school and later in life. One of the best predictors of 
     whether a child will function competently in school and go on 
     to contribute actively in our increasingly literate society 
     is the level to which the child progresses in reading and 
     writing. Although reading and writing abilities continue to 
     develop throughout the life span, the early childhood years--
     from birth through age eight--are the most important period 
     for literacy development. It is for this reason that the 
     International Reading Association (IRA) and NAEYC joined 
     together to formulate a position statement regarding early 
     literacy development.
       We are pleased that this bipartisan legislation will expand 
     young children's access to books and support parent 
     involvement in early literacy. By making books more 
     affordable and accessible to young children in Head Start, in 
     child care settings, and in their homes, we can help them not 
     only learn to read and write, but also foster and sustain 
     their interest in reading for their

[[Page 8838]]

     own enjoyment, information, and communication.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Adele Robinson,
     Director of Policy Development.
                                  ____



                                 Reading Is Fundamental, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2000.
       Dear Senator: Reading Is Fundamental's Board of Directors 
     and staff urge you to support the passage of the Kennedy-
     Hutchison Book Stamp Act to help bridge the literacy gap for 
     the nation's youngest and most at-risk children.
       Educators, researchers and practitioners in the literacy 
     arena have increasing focused on the 0-5 age range as the key 
     to helping the nation's neediest children enter school ready 
     to read and learn. We know that focus and attention will give 
     them a far better chance at succeeding in life than many of 
     their parents and older siblings had.
       At RIF, we have increased our focus on providing books and 
     literacy enhancing programs and services in recent years and 
     we are actively pursuing working relationships and 
     partnerships with the childcare community. We have launched a 
     pilot program to create effective training system, called 
     Care to Read for childcare providers and other early 
     childhood caregivers. That program is now ready to help these 
     caregivers provide appropriate environmental and literacy 
     enhancing experiences for children. We are anxious to engage 
     with NACCRA in working out ways to link this training with 
     the Book Stamp Act initiative and share RIF's resources to 
     help make this program effective.
       RIF now provides books and essential literacy services to 
     nearly 1,000,000 children and we know the need is critical 
     for significant infusions of books and services to help 
     reduce illiteracy among this at-risk population. We urge your 
     strong support.
           Yours truly,
                                                 Richard E. Sells,
     Senior VP and Chief Operating Officer.

                          ____________________