Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point. Surplus, surplus, everywhere man cries surplus--paraphrasing Patrick Henry. But there is no surplus. I know not, of course, what others may say, but as for me, I want to pay down the debt rather than engage in this shabby charade. As a result, the only way to do that and pay down the debt is stop this sweetheart deal of giving a little on spending increases and giving a little again, of course, on tax cuts. We do not have a surplus to divide. That is the point of my particular amendment. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Colorado giving me these few moments, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the Public Debt to the Penny, issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, dated as of last Friday, July 14, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I see the distinguished Senator from Colorado is supposed to take over the time. I ask unanimous consent to be yielded 5 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, since the beginning of the fiscal year, the national debt has increased, not decreased. Since we have been running a deficit and there is no surplus, any tax cut or loss of revenues only increases the debt rather than paying down the debt. Accordingly, I oppose the telephone tax cut, and I oppose this estate tax cut. As John Mitchell used to say, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' We say pay down the debt but we increase it.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize South Carolina's peach farmers for their hard work and their delicious peaches. Today, peaches from my home State have been delivered to offices throughout the Senate and the U.S. Capitol. Thanks to South Carolina's peach farmers, those of us here in Washington will be able to cool off from the summer heat with delicious peaches. For a relatively small State, South Carolina is second in the Nation in peach production. In fact, this year farmers across my State planted more than 16,000 acres of peaches. As my colleagues can attest, these are some of the finest peaches produced anywhere in the United States. As we savor the taste of these peaches, we should remember the work and labor that goes into producing such a delicious fruit. While Americans enjoy peaches for appetizers, entrees and desserts, most do not stop to consider where they come from. Farmers will be laboring all summer in the heat and humidity to bring us what we call the ``perfect candy.'' What else curbs a sweet tooth, is delicious, nutritious and satisfying, but not fattening? The truth is, Mr. President, our farmers as too often the forgotten workers in our country. Through their dedication and commitment, our nation is able to enjoy a wonderful selection of fresh fruit, vegetables and other foods. In fact, our agricultural system, at times, is the envy of the world. Mr. President, as Senators and their staff feast on these delicious peaches, I hope they will remember the people in South Carolina who made this endeavor possible: The South Carolina Peach Council, David Winkles and the entire South Carolina Farm Bureau. They have all worked extremely hard to ensure that the U.S. Senate gets a taste of South Carolina. I am sure everyone in our Nation's Capitol will be smiling as they enjoy these delicious South Carolina peaches.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their attention to this matter and will keep them appraised of future developments. medicare integrity program

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of importance to the people of South Carolina with my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Iowa. In January of 1999, South Carolina enhanced its Medicaid drug program to provide eligible adults with four prescriptions a month instead of three. This was a much needed change that HCFA had encouraged South Carolina to make over a number of years. Unfortunately, South Carolina improperly notified HCFA of the coverage change. Instead of filing a State Plan amendment, South Carolina distributed a Medicaid Bulletin to relevant parties--including three officials at HCFA's Atlanta regional office, believing that to be sufficient. The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services brought their oversight to HCFA's attention. South Carolina and HCFA are currently involved in discussions regarding whether South Carolina should receive federal funds for 4th prescription expenditures that occurred between January 1, 1999 and September 30, 1999. At this time, a legislative remedy does not appear necessary to allow HCFA to impose suitable fines on states that provide notice of Medicaid coverage changes but do not properly file State Plan amendments. I am encouraged by the response officials in South Carolina have received from HCFA and hopeful that a resolution can be reached in a manner agreeable to all parties. Nevertheless, I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee and inform them that I may revisit this issue at a later date if necessary.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce at the request of the Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Consumer Product Safety Commission Enhanced Enforcement Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to enhance the authority of the CSPC to prevent the manufacture and sale of defective products. The legislation seeks to accomplish this goal in two significant ways. First, it proposes to remove the cap that exists under current law on the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed to companies that market products in violation of federal consumer product safety regulations. Currently, the maximum civil penalty that can be assessed to companies that violate consumer product safety laws is $1,650,000, a figure that is less than the amount that generally could be assessed by the CPSC. According to the agency, in many instances, it seeks penalties against very large companies, which likely are not deterred by the $1,650,000 cap. Second, the legislation proposes to increase the CPSC's authority over recalls by authorizing the Commission to determine the manner in which a defective product is to be corrected. Currently, a company that has marketed a defective product has the right to determine the remedy that is offered to the public, regardless of whether the selected remedy is the most effective solution. The proposed legislation alters this situation by permitting the CPSC to choose the remedy that is best suited to protect the public as opposed to the company. For these reasons, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this act on behalf of the Administration and the CPSC.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is with the most heartfelt sadness that I rise today to commemorate the life of Dr. Nancy Foster, who passed away Tuesday at her home in Baltimore, Maryland. As I stand here today I recall that only a year ago I spoke to you about Dr. Foster's outstanding work as head of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The news of her passing was bitter pill. Not only was Dr. Foster a dedicated and visionary public servant, but she was also universally admired and loved. I know that her creativity, boundless energy, and compassion will be sorely missed both here and at NOAA. Dr. Foster's efforts in my home state of South Carolina both as head of NOS and then at NOAA's Fisheries Service were testaments to her skill at bringing groups together to solve incredibly complex coastal problems, from protecting our sea turtles to conserving and understanding our precious coastal resources. The world is a better place for her having served here with us. Dr. Foster came to NOAA in 1977 and spent her career promoting programs to explore, map, protect and develop sustainably our Nation's coastal and fishery resources. She helped create the National Marine Sanctuary Program and Estuarine Research Reserve Program. These programs preserve America's near shore and offshore marine environments in the same manner as do the better known national parks and wildlife refuges on land. Nancy went on to serve as the Director of Protected Resources at NOAA's Fisheries Service, where she managed the Government's programs to protect and conserve whales, dolphins, sea turtles and other endangered and protected species. After that, Dr. Foster was named the Deputy Director of the Fisheries Service, where she forged alliances between fishing and conservation groups to ensure both the protection of our living marine resources and the sustainability of our human resources. I particularly recall her special efforts in South Carolina, where she worked hand in hand with our shrimpers to help them devise ways of keeping sea turtles out of their nets. In 1977, Commerce Secretary Bill Daley and NOAA Under Secretary Jim Baker tapped Nancy to take over the National Ocean Service. Not only was she the first woman to direct a NOAA line office, but she was given one of the most senior levels a career professional can achieve; in other agencies or bureaus, such a position would be reserved for at least an Assistant Secretary-level official. NOS has the longest running mission of all the NOAA line offices--coastal mapping traces its lineage back to 1807--and she pioneered a reinvention effort that has made the Ocean Service one of the most modern and effective of the line offices. A proven innovator, she directed the total modernization of NOAA's essential nautical mapping and charting programs. In addition, along with Dr. Sylvia Earle she created a ground-breaking partnership with the National Geographic Society to launch a 5-year undersea exploration program called `Sustainable Seas Expedition.' to rekindle our nation's interest in the oceans, and especially the national marine sanctuaries. This effort has sparked the kind of enthusiasm about the oceans that Jacques Cousteau created when I first came to the Senate. While the Federal Government frequently recognized Dr. Foster's contributions through numerous important awards, she was also a person whom the rank and file employees at NOAA--the marine biologists, researchers, and managers--trusted and admired. She was a strong and enthusiastic mentor to young people and a staunch ally to her colleagues. She has, and always will, serve as a role model for professional women everywhere, especially those who work in the sciences. Nancy Foster was that rare official whom we in the Congress looked to for leadership, candor, and sensitivity, and we will all feel her loss deeply for years to come. I would like to offer my deepest appreciation for Dr. Foster's outstanding contribution to the Nation and send my sincerest condolences to her family and friends.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in Saturday's Washington Post business section there is a headline story: German Phone Giant Seeks U.S. Firm. The concluding paragraph: But Hedberg stressed that a joint venture will not, under any circumstances, be considered as the means of crafting an offering for multinationals: Deutsche Telekom wants full control of whatever course it pursues. Accordingly, on behalf of Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Kerry, and myself, we introduce legislation to clarify the rules governing the takeover of U.S. telecommunications providers by overseas companies owned by foreign governments. The original rules in this area were established by statute in the 1930's, and while the law has not changed, the FCC's interpretation of this statute has. It is time to revisit this matter to ensure that current policy is consistent with efforts to promote vigorous domestic competition, maintain a secure communications system for National Security while meeting our International Trade Obligations. The statute expressly prohibits the transfer of a license to any corporation owned 25 percent or more by a foreign government, but allows the FCC to waive this prohibition if doing so would be in the public interest. Unfortunately, the FCC in previous rulemaking has found that the public interest is satisfied solely on the basis of whether the foreign government owned company is based in a WTO country. If the country is a member of the WTO, the FCC assumes that the public interest standard has been met. The legislation we introduce today will bar outright the transfer or issuance of telecommunications licenses to providers who are more than 25 percent owned by a foreign government. We would not be alone in taking this step. Governments across the globe have prevented government owned telecommunications providers from purchasing assets in their countries. In the last month, the Spanish government prevented KPN, the Dutch provider, from purchasing Telefonica de Espana because of the Netherlands government's stake in KPN. They were not alone; the Italian and Hong Kong governments have recently thwarted takeover attempts by Deutsche Telekom, of Telecom Italia, and Singapore Tel, of Hong Kong Telecom, for just such reasons. Recent comments by Deutsche Telekom are particularly disturbing. During a recent press conference in New York, DT's CEO, Rom Sommer, stated ``that the market cap of Deutsche Telekom today vs. any American potential acquisition candidate means that nobody is out of reach.'' DT is approximately 59 percent government owned, has approximately 100 million euros in cash and operates essentially from a protected home market. NTT, the Japanese Government owned provider and France Telecom, the French Government owned provider are similarly situated. Since 1984, U.S. telecommunications policy has encouraged vigorous domestic competition. The modified final judgment and the 1996 Telecommunications Act are key examples of our efforts in this area. While our efforts to foster competition have benefited consumers, these efforts have depressed the earnings and stock prices of U.S. domestic providers. But in ``Promoting competition'' here at home we may be facilitating the ease by which foreign protected players may emerge with key U.S. assets. So for example, regulated European monopolists Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom, both majority foreign government owned--and subject to considerably less domestic competition, are reportedly eyeing U.S. companies. For more than fifty years, U.S. international trade policy has encouraged governments to separate themselves from the private or commercial sector. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Government encouraged various privatizations of foreign government-owned commercial ventures. With the end of the Cold War and the rise of global capitalism, we can justifiably claim an enormous amount of success in these efforts. Unfortunately, these efforts are far from complete. Around the globe, some of the world's most important sectors remain shackled with government-owned competitors. These government owned companies distort competition and undermine the concept of private capitalism. To allow these government-owned entities to purchase U.S.-based assets would undermine longstanding and successful U.S. policy. Moreover, allowing these competitors into the United States could potentially undercut our efforts to ensure competition in our domestic telecommunications market and in markets abroad. Government ownership of commercial assets results in significant marketplace distortion. Companies owned by governments have access to capital, capital markets and interest rates on more favorable terms than companies not affiliated with national governments. Many lenders may assume, correctly, that individual governments would not allow these companies to fail. In addition, companies competing with these providers may suffer from increased costs as a result of the entrance of such providers into the market. Lenders may conclude that the difficulty in competing with a government-owned company will increase the likelihood of failure. As a result, the entrance of a government supported provider into a market raises troubling anti-competitive issues. Many of these anti- competitive effects can be relieved merely by the elimination of government-owned stakes. Finally, with regard to foreign markets, it is troubling to permit companies to be regulated by the governments that own them. While there is little we can do to effect this situation, we can take care to see that it is not exacerbated. These companies may use profits from these anticompetitive markets to unfairly subsidize U.S. operations. I must raise the national security concerns that trouble me greatly. We can all agree that telecommunications services are important for national security concerns. To permit a foreign government to own such assets would raise too many troubling questions. The United States government--for national security purposes--created and nurtured the Internet in the 1960s and 1970s to ensure redundancy in communications. To permit foreign government owned companies to purchase the infrastructure necessary to support the Internet would undercut the very success of these efforts. This bill is timely for one additional reason. In recent days we have seen an increase in European Union antitrust scrutiny in the telecommunications area. Much of that activity has focused on two high profile proposed mergers, WorldCom-Sprint and Time Warner-AOL, despite the limited impact that these mergers will have on the European Union. This trend has become so pronounced that it received coverage in last weeks Washington Post in a story entitled, ``EU Resists Big U.S. mergers.'' This increased antitrust activity is particularly troublesome because competitors to both companies are owned by European governments including the German, French and Dutch governments. Moreover, several of these government owned companies are widely reported to be interested in purchasing the remnants of Sprint that may be separated as a result of this investigation. In fact, according to a recent Financial Times story, as a result of aggressive antitrust enforcement, a strong American competitor--MCI WorldCom may fall prey to one of these government owned-competitors. For the United States Justice Department to take this step is one matter--these mergers involve American companies, primarily doing business in the United States. For the EU to take this step--when it is likely to assist European Companies owned by its member governments--is quite another. Moreover, this is not the first time that the EU has intervened in a U.S. merger to protect European government owned companies. Several years ago, the EU objected to the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger in order to protect the government owned Airbus consortium. In conclusion, this legislation establishes all of the correct incentives. It does not prohibit foreign investment; rather, it prohibits foreign government investment. Many companies have expressed a desire to enter the U.S.; ours is a lucrative market. By encouraging additional privatization of the government-owned telecommunications providers interested in providing services in the United States we will further the ideals of international capitalism.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in Saturday's Washington Post business section there is a headline story: German Phone Giant Seeks U.S. Firm. The concluding paragraph: But Hedberg stressed that a joint venture will not, under any circumstances, be considered as the means of crafting an offering for multinationals: Deutsche Telekom wants full control of whatever course it pursues. Accordingly, on behalf of Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Kerry, and myself, we introduce legislation to clarify the rules governing the takeover of U.S. telecommunications providers by overseas companies owned by foreign governments. The original rules in this area were established by statute in the 1930's, and while the law has not changed, the FCC's interpretation of this statute has. It is time to revisit this matter to ensure that current policy is consistent with efforts to promote vigorous domestic competition, maintain a secure communications system for National Security while meeting our International Trade Obligations. The statute expressly prohibits the transfer of a license to any corporation owned 25 percent or more by a foreign government, but allows the FCC to waive this prohibition if doing so would be in the public interest. Unfortunately, the FCC in previous rulemaking has found that the public interest is satisfied solely on the basis of whether the foreign government owned company is based in a WTO country. If the country is a member of the WTO, the FCC assumes that the public interest standard has been met. The legislation we introduce today will bar outright the transfer or issuance of telecommunications licenses to providers who are more than 25 percent owned by a foreign government. We would not be alone in taking this step. Governments across the globe have prevented government owned telecommunications providers from purchasing assets in their countries. In the last month, the Spanish government prevented KPN, the Dutch provider, from purchasing Telefonica de Espana because of the Netherlands government's stake in KPN. They were not alone; the Italian and Hong Kong governments have recently thwarted takeover attempts by Deutsche Telekom, of Telecom Italia, and Singapore Tel, of Hong Kong Telecom, for just such reasons. Recent comments by Deutsche Telekom are particularly disturbing. During a recent press conference in New York, DT's CEO, Rom Sommer, stated ``that the market cap of Deutsche Telekom today vs. any American potential acquisition candidate means that nobody is out of reach.'' DT is approximately 59 percent government owned, has approximately 100 million euros in cash and operates essentially from a protected home market. NTT, the Japanese Government owned provider and France Telecom, the French Government owned provider are similarly situated. Since 1984, U.S. telecommunications policy has encouraged vigorous domestic competition. The modified final judgment and the 1996 Telecommunications Act are key examples of our efforts in this area. While our efforts to foster competition have benefited consumers, these efforts have depressed the earnings and stock prices of U.S. domestic providers. But in ``Promoting competition'' here at home we may be facilitating the ease by which foreign protected players may emerge with key U.S. assets. So for example, regulated European monopolists Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom, both majority foreign government owned--and subject to considerably less domestic competition, are reportedly eyeing U.S. companies. For more than fifty years, U.S. international trade policy has encouraged governments to separate themselves from the private or commercial sector. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Government encouraged various privatizations of foreign government-owned commercial ventures. With the end of the Cold War and the rise of global capitalism, we can justifiably claim an enormous amount of success in these efforts. Unfortunately, these efforts are far from complete. Around the globe, some of the world's most important sectors remain shackled with government-owned competitors. These government owned companies distort competition and undermine the concept of private capitalism. To allow these government-owned entities to purchase U.S.-based assets would undermine longstanding and successful U.S. policy. Moreover, allowing these competitors into the United States could potentially undercut our efforts to ensure competition in our domestic telecommunications market and in markets abroad. Government ownership of commercial assets results in significant marketplace distortion. Companies owned by governments have access to capital, capital markets and interest rates on more favorable terms than companies not affiliated with national governments. Many lenders may assume, correctly, that individual governments would not allow these companies to fail. In addition, companies competing with these providers may suffer from increased costs as a result of the entrance of such providers into the market. Lenders may conclude that the difficulty in competing with a government-owned company will increase the likelihood of failure. As a result, the entrance of a government supported provider into a market raises troubling anti-competitive issues. Many of these anti- competitive effects can be relieved merely by the elimination of government-owned stakes. Finally, with regard to foreign markets, it is troubling to permit companies to be regulated by the governments that own them. While there is little we can do to effect this situation, we can take care to see that it is not exacerbated. These companies may use profits from these anticompetitive markets to unfairly subsidize U.S. operations. I must raise the national security concerns that trouble me greatly. We can all agree that telecommunications services are important for national security concerns. To permit a foreign government to own such assets would raise too many troubling questions. The United States government--for national security purposes--created and nurtured the Internet in the 1960s and 1970s to ensure redundancy in communications. To permit foreign government owned companies to purchase the infrastructure necessary to support the Internet would undercut the very success of these efforts. This bill is timely for one additional reason. In recent days we have seen an increase in European Union antitrust scrutiny in the telecommunications area. Much of that activity has focused on two high profile proposed mergers, WorldCom-Sprint and Time Warner-AOL, despite the limited impact that these mergers will have on the European Union. This trend has become so pronounced that it received coverage in last weeks Washington Post in a story entitled, ``EU Resists Big U.S. mergers.'' This increased antitrust activity is particularly troublesome because competitors to both companies are owned by European governments including the German, French and Dutch governments. Moreover, several of these government owned companies are widely reported to be interested in purchasing the remnants of Sprint that may be separated as a result of this investigation. In fact, according to a recent Financial Times story, as a result of aggressive antitrust enforcement, a strong American competitor--MCI WorldCom may fall prey to one of these government owned-competitors. For the United States Justice Department to take this step is one matter--these mergers involve American companies, primarily doing business in the United States. For the EU to take this step--when it is likely to assist European Companies owned by its member governments--is quite another. Moreover, this is not the first time that the EU has intervened in a U.S. merger to protect European government owned companies. Several years ago, the EU objected to the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger in order to protect the government owned Airbus consortium. In conclusion, this legislation establishes all of the correct incentives. It does not prohibit foreign investment; rather, it prohibits foreign government investment. Many companies have expressed a desire to enter the U.S.; ours is a lucrative market. By encouraging additional privatization of the government-owned telecommunications providers interested in providing services in the United States we will further the ideals of international capitalism.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, here we go again, treating foreign trade as foreign aid, failing to compete, and giving away our technology and production. The permanent normal trade relations with China--PNTR--vote is not about access to China. The agreement doesn't provide open access, and even as a member of the WTO, China's market doesn't become open. Japan has been a member of the WTO for 5 years and her market remains closed. PNTR is certainly not about jobs in America, but about production and jobs in China. As headlined in the Wall Street Journal, corporate America is in a foot race to invest and produce in China. PNTR is not about exports. Today's $70 billion deficit in the balance of trade with China is bound to increase. Nor will PNTR maintain our ``lead'' in technology. Already we have a $3.2 billion deficit in technology trade with China that threatens to reach $5 billion this year. PNTR is not about environment and labor. It took the democratic United States 200 years to get around to labor and environmental protections. Emerging countries, like us in the beginning, will sacrifice labor and environment to produce and build. PNTR is not about human rights. Human rights will be abused by a communist government in order to control a population of 1.3 billion. PNTR is not about undermining the communist regime in China. The communist regime knows what it's doing and unanimously favors PNTR. Finally, PNTR is not about China obeying its agreements, but the United States enforcing ours. We are in a desperate circumstance. For 50 years we have readily sacrificed our manufacturing sector to spread capitalism and defeat communism. But our security rests as if on a three legged stool. The one leg of values is strong. America is admired the world around for its stand for human rights and individual freedom. The second leg of military power is unquestioned. The third leg of economic strength has become fractured. We have gone from 41% of our work force in manufacture at the end of World War II to 14 percent. Manufacture provides the salary and benefits that produce a middle class. This middle class is not only the strength of an economy, but the strength of a democracy. As Akio Morita of Sony stated: ``That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.'' ``Permanent'' is the objectionable part of PNTR. The issue is not whether we will trade with China--we will. But the annual renewal of our trade relations affords us an opportunity to once more get the attention of our leadership as to an impending disaster. It's not just trade. The U.S. influence in world diplomacy is threatened. The 6th Fleet and the hydrogen bomb are no longer a threat. Today, economic power counts. Money talks. The domestic market is the principal weapon in the global competition. We have the richest, but refuse to use it, all because of some nonsense that a trade war may ensue. We are in a trade war and don't know it. It shows the lack of understanding of the global economy, of the global competition. To begin with, the global competition is keen. With the fall of the Wall, 4 billion people have entered the work force. With technology transferred on a computer chip, financed by satellite, one can produce anything anywhere. In the age of robots, skilled production is readily available. The most productive automobile plant in the world, according to J.D. Power, is not in Detroit, but in Mexico. Years ago as Governor, I was admonished to let the emerging countries produce the textiles and the shoes; the United States would produce the airplanes and computers. Today, the competition produces the textiles, the shoes, the airplanes and the computers. All countries have as a goal obtaining technology and producing technology. All protect their domestic agriculture. All, except the United States, protect their local market from foreign imports. And all, except the United States, enjoy government financing. The European aircraft sold in the United States is government financed. The Japanese car taking over the United States market is financed and protected--and sold for less than cost. Most importantly, the goal of U.S. trade is profits. The goal of global competition is market share. While the competition cares little about a standard of living, the U.S. burdens its production with a high standard. Before ``Jones Manufacturing'' can open its doors it must have a minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air, clean water, a safe working place, safe machinery, plant closing notice, parental leave--and almost ergonomics. Corporate taxes in the U.S. are a cost of production; whereas, the competition's value added tax is rebated at export. The global competition saves while we consume. They willingly pay $4.50 for a gallon of gasoline but we go ``ape'' when a gallon reaches $2.00. The global competition is organized and directed. We are totally disorganized. There are 28 agencies and departments engaged in trade decisions and we have allowed the financing of our debt to control trade decisions. Former Prime Minister of Japan, Hashimoto, threatened one afternoon at Columbia University to stop buying our bonds if we insisted on enforcing our dumping laws. The stock market fell 200 points within an hour and the dumping law against Japan was not enforced. Finally, all countries in international trade use access to their markets as a bargaining chip. Refusing to compete, we cry, ``be fair; be fair; level the playing field''. Moral suasion has little affect in business. We continue to lose our technology and production. It has gotten so bad that the foreign corporation in a controlled economy now preys on the domestic bloodied from open competition. Volvo buys Mack Truck. Daimler-Benz seizes Chrysler. And the European Union denies the MCI-Sprint merger so the Deutsche Telekom can buy Sprint. As the United States moves now to set the parameters of trade with 1.3 billion producers of agriculture and products, we need time. We need understanding. The $300 billion trade deficit, costing the economy 1% growth, must be reversed. The PNTR vote is not against China, but to get the attention of the United States. We need to set trade policy and start competing. We need to realize that we are competing with ourselves. In the early 1970s our banks financing foreign investment began making a majority of their profits outside of the United States. They organized think-tanks, consultants, and entities such as the Trilateral Commission to promote the ``free trade'' line. Corporate America, making a bigger profit on foreign production, changed from nationals to multinationals. The campuses, sustained by corporate multinationals, all teach ``free trade''. The retailers, enjoying a bigger profit on the imported article, shout ``free trade''. The newspaper editorialists, financed by retail advertising, exhault ``free trade''. And then there's the lawyer. One country, Japan, pays their lawyers more to lobby Congress than the combined salaries of all the Members of Congress. By way of pay, Japan is better represented in Washington than the people of the United States. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides ``that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations'', but this power has been forsaken to the multinationals and foreign competition. PNTR will only continue this outrage. Trade with China will continue. But the only leverage we have left with China, the only chance for Congress to assume its responsibility for trade, is this annual review. ``Permanent'' must be stricken from Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate passage of S. 2327, the Oceans Act of 2000. The bill calls for an action plan for the twenty-first century to explore, protect, and make better use of our oceans and coasts. Its passage is, quite simply, the most important step we can take today to ensure an effective, coordinated and comprehensive ocean policy to guide us into the new millennium. I thank my colleagues in the Commerce Committee for their support, in particular, Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Stevens, for their cosponsorship and their efforts over the last several weeks to bring this bill to the floor. Following in the Commerce Committee tradition with respect to ocean issues, this has been a bipartisan process. I also thank the other cosponsors of the legislation, Senators Breaux, Inouye, Boxer, Lautenberg, Murkowski, Lieberman, Akaka, Feinstein, Cleland, Moynihan, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Schumer, Wyden, Landrieu, Murkowski, Chafee, and Roth for their continued support. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to the numerous industry, environmental, and academic groups who agree that the time has come for this bill. Mr. President, it is critical that we enact the Oceans Act of 2000 this year as we pass through the gateway to a new millennium. The oceans are again beginning to receive the attention they received in 1966 when we enacted legislation to establish a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the Stratton Commission for its chairman Julius Stratton) to recommend a comprehensive national program to explore the oceans, develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the sea. The Stratton Commission's report and recommendations have shaped U.S. ocean policy for three decades, and resulted in the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under Presidential Reorganization Plan Number Four, as well as most of the major marine conservation status NOAA implements. These include the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Where the Stratton Commission performed its work with vision and integrity, the world has changed in myriad ways since 1966. Ocean and coastal issues are growing more popular day by day, but we are able to make the necessary headway to ensure they get the attention and priority they deserve. Consider the following quote from the National Research Council's report entitled Striking a Balance, Improving Stewardship of Marine Areas: The findings of the Marine Board studies have revealed a strong interest in the nation's coastal and marine areas by present and potential offshore industries, coastal states responsible for resource development and environmental preservation of their offshore regions, and the ocean research community. Little has been done, however, to devise a comprehensive regulatory or management framework for current or future activities in federal and state waters or on or under the seabed in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. The need for a regulatory and management framework is likely to increase in the future . . . No mechanism exists for establishing a common vision and a common set of objectives . . . . Establishing an independent national Ocean Commission in the year 2000 could comprehensively evaluate concerns that cannot be viewed effectively through current federal processes or through privately- commissioned studies. These include concerns about providing appropriate priority and funding for critical ocean conservation and management issues, as well as whether the ocean management regimes that have developed over the last 30 years are duplicative and uncoordinated, resulting in costly or time-consuming requirements that may provide little incremental environmental benefit. The essential elements of the legislation before the Senate today remain the same as the Committee-reported version, with further amendments to reinforce the importance of science in supporting the Commission's activities. The Oceans Act of 2000 would establish a 16- member high level national Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. The Commission members would be selected from individuals nominated by majority and minority representatives in both houses of Congress. Eligible individuals include a truly balanced group of experts representing state and local governments, academia, ocean-related industries and public interest groups. The Act would become effective at the end of this year, enabling the current Administration to complete the interagency ocean initiative resulting from the hard work done by the ocean community for the 1998 International Year of the Ocean. It will also allow the incoming Administration time to evaluate the Commission nominees and make appointments. Once the Commission completes its recommendations to the President and to Congress, it will then be the President's turn to report to Congress how he will respond to these recommendations. As in 1966, the real work will begin after the Commission completes its report. History has taught us that Congressional support and participation is essential to ensuring the long-term success of this truly national ocean effort. We are off to a very good start. The current bill enjoys wide support in the Senate and from industry, conservation groups, scientists, and states, all of whom have sent numerous letters of support over the past several months. Most recently, we have received letters of support from the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, the fifty- three member institutions that are part of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, as well as fourteen major telecommunications and information technology groups. Mr. President, this legislation is both appropriate and long overdue. By the end of this decade about 60% of Americans will live along our coasts, which account for less than 10% of our land area. I am amazed that in this era, when we've invested billions of dollars in exploring other planets, we know so little about the ocean and coastal systems upon which we and other living things depend. Large storms events like Hurricane Floyd and Hugo, driven by ocean-circulation patterns, pose the ultimate risk to human health and safety. El Nino-related climate events have led to increased incidence of malaria in some countries. Harmful algal blooms have been linked to deaths of sea lions in California and manatees in Florida, and we are still searching to understand their effects on humans. The oceans are home to 80% of all life forms on Earth, but only 1% of our biotechnology R&D budget will focus on marine life forms. Mr. President, the oceans are integral to our lives but we are not putting a high enough priority on finding ways to learn more about them, and what they may hold for our future. The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for food and raw materials, its position and influence in the world community, and the quality of the environment in which its people live.'' Those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago. It is time to look towards the next 30 years. As a nation, we must consider the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and ensure the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal policy to deal with them well into the next millennium. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, It has been over 30 years since I set off on my hunger tour of South Carolina, where I observed first-hand the shocking condition of health care and nutritional habits in rural parts of my state. The good news is, we have come a long way since then. The bad news is, there is still much work to be done. Like the ``hunger myopia'' I described in my book The Case Against Hunger, we suffer today from a sort of ``health care myopia'', a condition in which a booming economy and low unemployment rates mask a reality--that many Americans eke out a living in society's margins, and most of them lack health insurance. Ironically, as the stock market soars, so do the numbers of uninsured in our country, at a rate of more than 100,000 each month; 53 million Americans are expected to be uninsured by 2007. The health care debate swirls around us, reaching fever pitch in Congress, where I have faith that we will soon reach an agreement on expanding coverage and other important issues. However, I see a need to immediately address the health care concerns of these left-behind and sometimes forgotten citizens. They cannot and should not have to wait for Congress to hammer out health care reform in order to receive the medical care so many of us take for granted. That's why I am sponsoring, along with Senator Bond, this amendment to provide an additional $50 million for health centers in this bill. Fifty-seven cosponsors have joined us in working toward our objective. I would like to thank subcommittee chairman Sen. Specter and ranking member Sen. Harkin for their advocacy on behalf of community health centers. I look forward to working with them as the bill moves to conference so that we may ensure health centers across the nation receive the support they deserve. While ideas about health care have changed dramatically, community health centers have remained steadfast in their mission, quietly serving their communities and doing a tremendous job. Last year, community health centers served 11 million Americans in decrepit inner- city neighborhoods as well as remote rural areas, 4.5 million of which were uninsured. It's no wonder these centers have won across-the-board, bipartisan support. They have a proven track record of providing no- nonsense, preventive and primary medical services at rock-bottom costs. They're the value retailers of the health care industry, if you will, treating a patient at a cost of less than $1.00 per day, or about $350 annually. Let me emphasize that this measure is a cost-saving investment, not an increase in spending. Not only are these centers providing care at low costs, but they are saving precious health care dollars. An increased investment in health centers will mean fewer uninsured patients are forced to make costly emergency room visits to receive basic care and fewer will utilize hospitals' specialty and inpatient care resources. As a consequence, a major financial burden is lifted from traditional hospitals and government and private health plans. Every federal grant dollar invested in health centers saves $7 for Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance: $6 from lower use of specialty and inpatient care and $1 from reduced emergency room visits. The value of community health centers can be measured in two other significant ways. First of all, the centers' focus on wellness and prevention, services largely unavailable to uninsured people, will lead to savings in treatment down the road. And secondly, health centers foster growth and development in their communities, shoring up the very people they serve. They generate over $14 billion in annual economic activity in some of the nation's most economically-depressed areas, employing 50,000 people and training thousands of health professionals and volunteers. It should also be noted that community health centers are just that-- community-based. They are not cookie cutter programs spun from the federal government wheel, but area-specific, locally-managed centers tailored to the unique needs of a community. They are governed by consumer boards composed of patients who utilize the center's services, as well as local business, civic and community leaders. In fact, it is stipulated that center clients make up at least 51% of board membership. This set-up not only ensures accountability to the local community and taxpayers, but keeps a constant check on each center's effectiveness in addressing community needs. In South Carolina, community health centers have a long history of meeting the care requirements of the areas they serve. The Beaufort- Jasper Comprehensive Health Center in Ridgeland, the Franklin C. Fetter Family Health Center in Charleston, and Family Health Centers, Inc. in Orangeburg were among the first community health centers established in the nation. The Beaufort-Jasper Center was very innovative for its day, in the late 1960s, tackling not only health care needs, but related needs for clean water, indoor toilets and other sanitary services. Today, the number of South Carolina health centers has grown to 15. They currently provide more than 167,000 people, 38% of which are uninsured, with a wide range of primary care services. Yet despite the success story, a need to throw a wider net is obvious. Of the 3.8 million South Carolinians, nearly 600,000 have no form of health insurance. That means roughly 15% of the state population is uninsured. Another 600,000 residents are ``underinsured,'' meaning that they do not receive comprehensive health care coverage from their insurance plans and must pay out-of-pocket for a number of specialty services, procedures, tests and medications. South Carolina's statistics are mirrored nationwide. The swelling ranks of the uninsured are outgrowing our present network of community health centers. Adopting this amendment will ensure the reach of community health centers expands to meet increasing demand. It is our responsibility to continue providing our neediest citizens with a basic health care safety net. What better way to do that than by building on a program with a record of positive, fiscally responsible results? Everyone can benefit and take pride in such a worthwhile investment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to congratulate The Rev. and Mrs. Morgan Dukes of Summerville, S.C. who recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. During the past 50 years, Morgan and Marie Dukes have lived throughout South Carolina and in Washington, D.C. After Morgan graduated from the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, the couple moved to Bath, S.C. where Morgan led the congregation at First Baptist Church. He served as Director of Religious Activities at Furman University from 1958-1965 and then as pastor of First Baptist Church in Walhalla. In 1970, Morgan and Marie moved to Washington, D.C., where Morgan was pastor of Brookland Baptist Church and later joined the staff of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. For 15 years Marie worked as a secretary in the office of the Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. They returned to South Carolina in 1990 to assist homeless men at the Star Gospel Mission in Charleston, a position from which Morgan retired in 1997. Marie worked for 10 years as a realtor in Summerville. The Dukes have accomplished a great deal in their 50 years of marriage and have enriched many communities in South Carolina and here in our nation's capital. Peatsy and I join with their friends and family, including their children Vicki, Betty Ann and David and granddaughter, Lauren, in celebrating this important milestone in their life together.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I will vote with against tabling Senator Dodd's amendment which creates a commission to evaluate United States policy with respect to Cuba. Contrary to the opinion of some in this Chamber, this amendment does not represent a seachange in our country's position toward Cuba or the Castro regime. The Castro regime remains totalitarian and profoundly anti-democratic. My contempt for Castro and his despotic rule over Cuba has not changed; I remain committed to spreading democracy to our island neighbor to the south. As Chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, I was a leading supporter of TV Marti and Radio Marti since their inception. Just last year as ranking member of this subcommittee, I fought a House attempt to ground TV Marti. I have supported spreading democratic ideas to the Cuba people during my entire career in public policy. However, much to my display and disappointment, our Cuba policy to this point has not yielded the desired results. As I look for answers that explain why this policy has failed, I believe creating a commission may provide the key to understanding. I want an expert panel to review our policy towards Cuba to search for the facts. Only then can we accurately determine what policy changes, if any, should be pursued. Many of my colleagues will remember the revolution in Cuba and the overthrow of the Batista regime. I remember it well. I also remember the United States at the brink of nuclear war in October 1962. American U-2 planes spotted Russian ballistic missiles sites on Cuba and tested the resolve of the young American President to respond to the threat. Many Americans, including this Senator, were hardwired to despise the Cuban regime as a result of these two tumultuous events. In the 1970s and 1980s the Cuban regime destabilized Central America with inflammatory revolutionary rhetoric and aided socialist movements in the region. Cuban revolutionaries exported their vitriol to faraway Bolivia and Angola in Africa. The national security risk posed to our shores by Castro during the Cold War was palpable and I challenge anyone who believes otherwise. The hardline policies that successive administrations put in place to counter and neutralize the Castro regime were a necessary and appropriate response to that risk. The political landscape is very different now. Just today I read about our thawing of relations with North Korea. The Clinton administration has formally eased ``wide-ranging sanctions'' imposed on North Korea nearly 50 years ago. This is something that I did not believe would happen for many years given the security concerns on the peninsula and the heavy presence of the United States military. This action is curious to me especially given our characterization of North Korea as a ``rogue'' state. It was reported in today's Washington Post that Secretary Albright has replaced the ``rogue state'' designation with the less confrontational term--``states of concern.'' Maybe this explains our departure in policy toward North Korea. Regardless, we are engaging a country that has the capability to threaten the United States in ways that Cuba will never be able to do. My support for Senator Dodd's Cuba amendment is a vote for a comprehensive review of U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba. This amendment is not flimflam election-year politicking. To the contrary, the commission makes recommendations to the next President of the United States and not the Clinton administration. The amendment provides for a commission composed of a dozen experts from a wide range of disciplines, half to be appointed by the President and half by the Congress. The commission will be bipartisan and should include heavyweights in American foreign policy--Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and Howard Baker, for example--to provide distinction to the policy recommendations. This panel would also make United States policy recommendations with respect to the indemnification of losses incurred by U.S. certified claimants with confiscated property in Cuba. Should we achieve the goal of political reform in Cuba, the United States government needs to prepare itself for the resulting confusion and complex legal questions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The regime in Cuba has been constant for many years but nonetheless we should be ready for an abrupt internal political change in Cuba. To refuse to plan for a post- Castro Cuba, indeed the current endgame of American foreign policy towards Cuba, is myopic. We need to be prepared for developments in Cuba and this Commission is an important first step. It has been argued that the United States is not on trial here, and that the Castro government needs a public policy review. I do not take exception to this but rather believe that the commission should look at changes for the Cuban government to adopt. As a Senator charged with making foreign policy for this country, I support this amendment because it provides our President with a road map of how to achieve its foreign policy goals with respect to Cuba. The President can accept or refuse the recommendations, whatever they may be. It would be the President's prerogative.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the passage of the conference report on S. 761, the electronic signatures bill. This legislation was originally considered and reported by the Commerce Committee. The initial purpose of the legislation was to legalize the use of digital signatures for contracting electronically, mostly via the internet. The States for several years had been working on adopting a model law--the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (UETA)--which was to be adopted by the States for the purpose of creating uniformity. This process was to be akin to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). However, a number of industries, most notably those in the high-tech field, felt that it could take years for all States to adopt the model law. Thus, they sought Federal preemption. Bills eventually were introduced in both Chambers. Senator Abraham introduced the legislation in the Senate, and Congressman Bliley introduced legislation in the House (H.R. 1714). As noted, the Senate bill--introduced on March 25, 1999--was referred to and considered by the Commerce Committee. After holding a hearing on May 27, 1999, the committee reported the bill on June 23, 1999. At that time, we were advised that the general purpose of the bill was to establish a Federal temporary and backup law, so as to ensure the national use of electronic signatures until the model law was adopted by the States. During the committee's consideration of S. 761, I indicated that I did not have a problem with establishing uniformity; however, because the legislation ultimately affects State contract law, I was concerned about preserving the right of States to adopt their own laws, given that States already were working on the adoption of a model law. In the field of commercial law, the States had a similar experience with the UCC. Thus, I saw no reason to prevent the States from adhering to the same process with respect to digital signatures. I made it clear to Senator Abraham that I would not support the bill--in fact, that I would seek to block its passage--if the legislation did not preserve the autonomy of States to adopt the model law that they were considering. I also sought to make sure States were able to adopt the model law in a manner consistent with their consumer protection laws. Senator Abraham and I were able to come to an agreement so as to ensure that the legislation, as reported by the committee, was consistent with these principles. The legislation was unanimously reported by the committee on June 23, 1999. Once reported, Senator Leahy worked to procure a number of changes designed to ensure the non-applicability of the bill to certain agreements, including marital and landlord tenant relationships. The legislation was passed by the Senate on November 19, 1999. I should note that before final passage of the bill, I objected to its passage by unanimous consent because of the inclusion of language providing that the legislation applied to the business of insurance. I objected because that language was not in the Senate bill as reported by the Commerce Committee, but more significantly, I objected because insurance companies are regulated by the States. Because the matter had not been addressed by the Commerce Committee, and because insurance is under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, I wanted some clarification on the issue, and assurance that the issue of State insurance regulation would be addressed in the legislative conference on the bill. Senator Abraham, through a colloquy, agreed that the issue would be addressed during conference discussions. The House bill--H.R. 1714--was passed last November as well. It, however, was more extensive, and severe, than the Senate bill. It did not provide regulatory flexibility to the States to allow them to adopt the model law in conformance with their consumer protection laws; it included provisions regarding Government electronic filing and record keeping--which was beyond the original purpose of the legislation; and provisions specifying the manner in which consumers' consent could be obtained for the use of electronic signatures. Reservations and opposition to the bill were heard from state officials and the consumer community. These groups had a right to be concerned about the bill. The legislation, pursuant to its ``consent provisions'' would have allowed consumers to be easily induced into giving their consent to contract electronically, even if they didn't own or have access to a computer. In other words, pursuant to certain inducements by a commercial entity--i.e., through an offer that the consumer could get the product cheaper if he or she agreed to a transaction electronically--consumers could have been placed in positions whereby they walked away from a commercial agreement in person without any paper or documentation and potentially no means of accessing the actual contents of the agreement later, including any additional notices or disclosures they're required to receive with consumer purchases. With respect to the record retention requirements that states impose on commercial entities, such as insurance companies, the legislation, would have substantially undermined the ability of States to ensure that businesses retained important documents, such as financial statements and records, and that States retained access to those documents. The conference discussions on the bill began between the Senate and House immediately after the Senate conferees were appointed in March of this year. Subsequently, however, the majority staff of the Senate and House began to convene among themselves. On May 15, the majority presented a draft conference agreement to the Democratic Members. After reviewing the document, I made it clear that not only would I not support the proposal, but if offered up, I would do all I could to kill the measure. I should note, however, that every other Democratic Member of the conference--Senators Leahy, Sarbanes, Wyden, Kerry, Inouye, and Rockefeller as well as Congressman Dingell and Congressman Markey--in addition to the administration, opposed the measure. In light of this opposition, the majority Members, and the high-tech industry, knew they would not achieve passage of the proposal. The problems with the draft include the following: Similar to the House bill, it would have allowed businesses to induce consumers into signing and consummating contracts electronically even in face to face transactions. Consequently, a person could walk away from a major agreement without any paperwork. The actual agreement would have been e-mailed to the purchaser. In that situation, however, the consumer would have no way of proving that the document that he or she received by e-mail is the deal that he or she actually agreed to. Moreover, there would be no paperwork on warranties and no guarantee that a person could access the documents if that person doesn't own a computer or doesn't have the proper computer software of hardware. Additionally, the draft provided that after a consumer consented, in the event a company changed the hardware or software that prevented the consumer from receiving or reviewing the document, the burden would have been on the consumer, not the company to purchase the correct hardware and software. The draft also included the onerous record retention provisions of the House bill. After the draft was rejected by the Democratic Members, I suggested to my friend, Tom Bliley, the chairman of the Conference, that the only way a bill was going to pass this year was that it had to be an agreement of a bipartisan nature. Given that Congressman Bliley's bill was so far different from where most Democrats were, I knew that if we could come to an agreement, we could achieve a bipartisan measure. He agreed. I suggested that he meet with a group of Democratic Members and the representatives of the administration to develop a bipartisan draft to present to the conference. He agreed to this recommendation as well. Subsequently, his staff met with Democratic staff members and representatives of the administration and eventually constructed a bipartisan Conference draft. That document included major revisions of the consumer consent, preemption and record retention provisions. Those provisions provided significantly more protections to consumers and protections of state regulatory authority. When the draft was first presented to the conference, there were objections. However, it led to a second bipartisan discussion between the Democratic Members, along with the Administration and the two Republican principals, Congressman Bliley and Senator McCain--who also recognized the need for a bipartisan consensus. Through the efforts of Senator McCain, we eventually were able to agree on a final draft of the bipartisan measure. I am proud to say that the final conference report includes major protections for consumers and the States. Does it include all I would have liked for it to? Of course not. However, it does represent a commendable effort by Republican and Democratic conferees to put forth a law that accomplishes the original goal of establishing a legal framework for the new digital world, while maintaining important protections for American consumers. I have joined with Senators Sarbanes and Wyden introducing an explanatory statement of the legislation, which details how the bill affects consumers and State governments. I would, however, like to highlight a few important provisions: (1) The agreement ensures that consumers, when giving consent to do a transaction electronically, before their consent can be valid, must be informed of their right to receive records in paper, and of the right to withdraw their consent once given, and that there be some demonstration that the consumer can actually access and retain the document. (2) It ensures that consumers are able to withdraw consent to receive their required notices under the contract in the event the provider changes the hardware or software in a manner which prevents the consumer from accessing and retaining the document, without costs and fees. (3) It preserves state unfair and deceptive trade practices laws, so as to ensure that the use of electronic signatures and electronic transactions cannot be used to evade the requirements and prohibitions of these laws. (4) It preserves important aspects of Federal and State record retention laws and requirements, and gives States some reasonable time to conform their regulations in light of the legislation's affirmation of electronic record retention by regulated industries. Mr. President, I would like to commend Congressman Bliley, and Senator McCain for their efforts to forge an agreement on the legislation. I also want to commend all my Democratic colleagues and their staff, and the representatives of the administration for their admirable work on this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a group of students from R.B. Stall High School in Charleston, S.C. who recently participated in the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, D.C. They tested their knowledge of American constitutional government against 50 other student groups from across the country in a familiar format to those of us in the Senate--a congressional hearing. During the simulated hearing, students testified as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. Nineteen students, led by their teacher Karen Cabe Gibson, represented Stall High School at the competition. They were: Prerna Bihari, Amy Boller, Philip Brooks, Michael Brown, Adam D'Alessandro, Chad Gleaton, Mario King, Morwen Mansfield, Sharon Martin, Jackie Mixon, Katie Mixon, Thang Nguyen, James Nick, C.J. Parks, Shirkerah Robinson, Tamiko Robinson, Johnathan Tufts, Paula Weinreich and Toni Wiser. I commend these students for their impressive performance in the We the People . . The Citizen and the Constitution program administered by the Center for Civic Education. Their interest in the foundation of our government is refreshing and will prepare them to become active, responsible citizens and community leaders.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the couple behind one of the U.S. Senate's longstanding unofficial institutions--The Monocle on Capitol Hill. Connie and Helen Valanos opened The Monocle back in 1960 and served as impeccable hosts to generations of Senators, their staffs, friends and family. Now, their son, John, is carrying on that proud tradition. Peatsy and I will not be able to attend Connie and Helen's 50th wedding anniversary celebration. However, we send them our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude for their many years of service to the Senate.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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 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 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 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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 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 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 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced by Senator Sessions, S. 2581, the Historically Women's Public Colleges or Universities Historic Building Restoration and Preservation Act. There were seven historic women's public colleges or universities founded in the United States between 1884 and 1908 to provide industrial and vocational education for women who at the time, could not attend other public academic institutions. These schools are now coeducational but retain some of the significant historical and academic features of those pioneering efforts to educate women. Let me take this time to tell you about one of these schools, Winthrop University, located in South Carolina. Winthrop's history dates back to 1886 when 21 students gathered in a borrowed one-room building in Columbia, S.C. David Bancroft Johnson, a dedicated and gifted superintendent of schools, headed up the fledgling institution whose mission was the education of teachers. Winthrop has changed considerably since moving to its permanent Rock Hill, S.C. home in 1895, growing from a single classroom to a comprehensive university of distinction. The institution became coeducational in 1974 and assumed university designation in 1992. Like similar institutions founded as historically women's colleges and universities, the Winthrop University campus hosts numerous historic buildings--buildings that are expensive to adapt and/or maintain for modern-day uses essential to public higher education in the 21st century. Also, like similar institutions, many of Winthrop's alumni were women of modest means who were unable to make the kind of substantial private donations that would have enabled the University to build a strong endowment throughout its history. Nonetheless, this campus is significant and is worthy of federal support to assure that its distinctive role in U.S. history is not lost.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I commend the Senator.