[Congressional Record: April 21, 1999 (Senate)]
[Page S4033-S4055]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr21ap99-180]


                  OTAY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Otay
Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999. This bill would designate an 18,500
acre portion of the Otay Mountain region in Southern California as
wilderness. The bill passed the House last week on a voice vote, with
broad bi-partisan support.
  Otay Mountain, which is located near the U.S.-Mexico border in
eastern San Diego County, is one of California's most special wild
places. The mountain is a unique ecosystem, home to 20 sensitive plant
and animal species. The endangered quino checkerspot butterfly calls
Otay Mountain home, and the only known stand of Tecate cypress, as well
as the only known population of the Mexican flannel bush, also thrive
on the mountain. For these reasons, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
first recommended Otay Mountain for wilderness designation in the
1980s.
  In addition, Otay Mountain is key to San Diego County's habitat
conservation planning efforts. The County has identified the region as
a core reserve in the multi-species habitat conservation plan that it
is currently developing.
  Otay Mountain is scenic, rugged, and beautiful. The area is well
worth preserving as wilderness for generations to come. This bill will
ensure that San Diegans, and indeed all Americans, will be able to
experience and enjoy Otay Mountain in all its unique splendor.
  Unfortunately, in recent years Otay Mountain's sensitive habitat has
been damaged by illegal immigration and narcotics activity in the area.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has worked closely with the U.S.
Border Patrol to bring these problems under control, and they have
experienced great success. This legislation would specifically allow
Border Patrol and firefighting activities to continue in the new
wilderness area, so long as they remain in accordance with the 1964
Wilderness Act. This provision in the legislation is specific to Otay
Mountain and will not apply to any other wilderness area.
  I want to thank Congressman Brian Bilbray for his leadership in
introducing the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act and guiding it through the
House of Representatives. I also want to thank Congressman Filner, who
has been a steadfast supporter of the legislation, along with the
Clinton Administration. The California Departments of Fish and Game and
Fire and Forestry Protection support the bill, as do the Endangered
Habitats League and other environmental groups. Finally, the bill has
strong support from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the
San Diego Association of Governments.
  Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will move expeditiously to
approve the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act and send the bill to the
President for signature.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 848

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Otay Mountain Wilderness Act
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the public land in the Otay Mountain region of
     California is one of the last remaining pristine locations in
     western San Diego County, California;
       (2) this rugged mountain adjacent to the United States-
     Mexico border is internationally known for having a diversity
     of unique and sensitive plants;
       (3) this area plays a critical role in San Diego's multi-
     species conservation plan, a national model made for
     maintaining biodiversity;
       (4) due to the proximity of the Otay Mountain region to the
     international border, this area is the focus of important law
     enforcement and border interdiction efforts necessary to
     curtail illegal immigration and protect the area's wilderness
     values; and
       (5) the illegal immigration traffic, combined with the
     rugged topography, present unique fire management challenges
     for protecting lives and resources.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Public land.--The term ``public land'' has the meaning
     given the term ``public lands'' in section 103 of the Federal
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
     of the Interior.
       (3) Wilderness area.--The term ``Wilderness Area'' means
     the Otay Mountain Wilderness designated by section 4.

     SEC. 4. DESIGNATION.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), there is designated as wilderness and
     as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System
     certain public land in the California Desert District of the
     Bureau of Land Management, California, comprising
     approximately 18,500 acres as generally depicted on a map
     entitled ``Otay Mountain Wilderness'' and dated May 7, 1998.
       (b) Otay Mountain Wilderness.--The area designated under
     subsection (a) shall be known as the Otay Mountain
     Wilderness.

     SEC. 5. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
     enactment of this Act, a map and a legal description for the
     Wilderness Area shall be filed by the Secretary with--
       (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
     Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Resources of the House of
     Representatives.
       (b) Force and Effect.--The map and legal description shall
     have the same force and effect as if included in this Act,
     except that the Secretary, as appropriate, may correct
     clerical and typographical errors in the map and legal
     description.
       (c) Availability.--The map and legal description for the
     Wilderness Area shall be on file and available for public
     inspection in the offices of the Director and California
     State Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) United States-Mexico Border.--In carrying out this
     section, the Secretary shall ensure that the southern
     boundary of the Wilderness Area is--
       (1) 100 feet north of the trail depicted on the map
     referred to in subsection (a); and
       (2) not less than 100 feet from the United States-Mexico
     international border.

     SEC. 6. WILDERNESS REVIEW.

       All public land not designated as wilderness within the
     boundaries of the Southern Otay Mountain Wilderness Study
     Area (CA-060-029) and the Western Otay Mountain Wilderness
     Study Area (CA-060-028) managed by the Bureau of Land
     Management and reported to the Congress in 1991--
       (1) have been adequately studied for wilderness designation
     under section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782); and
       (2) shall no longer be subject to the requirements
     contained in section 603(c) of that Act pertaining to the
     management of wilderness study areas in a manner that does
     not impair the suitability of those areas for preservation as
     wilderness.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and to
     subsection (b), the Wilderness Area shall be administered by
     the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except that for the purposes of the
     Wilderness Area--
       (1) any reference in that Act to the effective date of that
     Act shall be considered to be a reference to the effective
     date of this Act; and
       (2) any reference in that Act to the Secretary of
     Agriculture shall be considered to be a reference to the
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (b) Border Enforcement, Drug Interdiction, and Wildland
     Fire Protection.--Because of the proximity of the Wilderness
     Area to the United States-Mexico international border, drug
     interdiction, border operations, and wildland fire management
     operations are common management actions throughout the area
     encompassing the Wilderness Area. This Act recognizes the
     need to continue such management actions so long as such
     management actions are conducted in accordance with the
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and are subject to
     such conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate.

     SEC. 8. FURTHER ACQUISITIONS.

       Any land within the boundaries of the Wilderness Area that
     is acquired by the United States after the date of enactment
     of this Act shall--
       (1) become part of the Wilderness Area; and
       (2) be managed in accordance with this Act and other laws
     applicable to wilderness areas.

     SEC. 9. NO BUFFER ZONES.

       (a) In General.--The designation of the Wilderness Area by
     this Act shall not lead to the creation of protective
     perimeters or buffer zones outside the boundary of the
     Wilderness Area.
       (b) Nonwilderness Activities.--The fact that nonwilderness
     activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the
     Wilderness Area shall not, in and of itself, preclude
     nonwilderness activities or uses outside the boundary of the
     Wilderness Area.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 849. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
grant programs for youth substance abuse prevention and treatment; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page S4034]]

           youth substance abuse prevention and treatment act

  Mr. Bingaman. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Youth
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. This bill is designed to
increase access to drug prevention and treatment services for our
nation's youth. It also provides for critical training of health care
professionals who work tirelessly with young people with drug problems.

  Nationwide only 20% of the 648,000 youth with severe substance use or
dependency receive treatment. The statistics tell the tale and it is an
unacceptable story.
  Heroin use has doubled among teenagers in the 1990's.
  More than 50% of 12th graders have tried an illicit drug.
  In senior high schools across the country, 25% of students use an
illicit drug on a monthly basis, and by the 12th grade, more than
three-fourths of students have used alcohol, and over 30 percent are
binge drinkers (more than five drinks at a sitting).
  By the time they are seniors, almost one in four teens are current
marijuana users and 1 in 20 use every day and this number is on the
rise.
  Studies have also indicated that youth who have used marijuana and
other drugs in the past year were more likely than non-users to report
problem behaviors including running away from home, stealing, skipping
school, selling drugs, drunkdriving, and considering suicide.
  Over the past several months, I have had the opportunity to hear
first hand about the drug problem in New Mexico and the barriers for
providing services that confront health care professionals and families
everyday.
  Drug use seems to be more common among youth in New Mexico than
nationally. In fact, most underage teens in New Mexico drink alcohol;
over one-third of seventh grade students and over three-fourths of 12th
grade student reported drinking alcohol. Eighteen percent of 8th
graders in New Mexico used illegal drugs other than marijuana in the
past year compared to 12% nationally. In my state, ninth graders'
illicit drug use has been increasing. This trend is of great concern
because we also know that the younger people begin to use drugs or
alcohol, the greater the chance they will continue to use drugs as
adults.
  With drug and alcohol use come other problem behaviors, violence,
property damage, and threatening behavior; and in New Mexico these
behaviors occur at a greater frequency than the national rates. In
fact, nationally, the majority of teens enter substance abuse treatment
only after they have had contact with juvenile justice authorities.
  There is another significant problem confronting our nation. Illicit
drug use among Native American youth is very high. According to Bureau
of Indian Affairs officials, alcohol-related automobile accidents are
the leading cause of death among Native American youth. We must address
this issue.

  The Youth Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act provides funds
for:
  School-based community after-school prevention programs; schools and
health providers working hand-in-hand with students and families to
assure early identification and referral for at-risk students.
  This bill also provides funding for youth treatment and encourages
the use of community-based wrap around services.
  This measure also includes special provisions for youth who live in
rural areas as well as for Native Americans. These two youth
populations are particularly suffering from a serious lack of
prevention and treatment services.
  The Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, Dr. Alan
Leschner has stated that addiction is a treatable disease. While there
have been advances in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse,
dissemination of this valuable and potentially life-saving information
is not consistently getting out to grassroots health care providers.
That is why this legislation also assists healthcare professionals in
accessing the latest information on emerging drug threats and the most
recent advances in prevention and treatment techniques.
  I am especially concerned with rural and remote areas where health
care professionals may have to travel hours to attend a conference,
many times on their limited time off.
  The evidence in support of prevention and treatment is overwhelming;
both in social and economic terms. Several studies have demonstrated
that for every dollar spent on drug treatment the community gets back
anywhere from six to seven dollars in reduced crime, and other lowered
social costs. For youth especially, we see improved school attendance,
better grades, and a reduction in violent and other anti-social
behaviors.
  There is one other benefit that is derived from adequately treating
young people; when we help these young people, they are healthier and
happier. We cannot forget the personal and family tragedy associated
when youth are involved with drugs.
  I recognize that this bill does not provide the entire solution, but
it is a necessary step in addressing this national problem. I am
committed to solving the problem of inadequate access to drug
prevention and treatment services for all young people. I welcome my
colleagues to work with me to ensure that all American youth who need
access to these services, have the opportunity to pursue their dreams
and when they stumble, we are there as a community to help. That is
what this bill is all about and I ask my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Youth
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 849

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Youth Substance Abuse
     Prevention and Treatment Act''.

     SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAMS.

       Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``PART G--COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH SUBSTANCE
                   ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

     ``SEC. 581. GRANTS TO CONSORTIA.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants on a
     competitive basis to eligible consortia to enable such
     consortia to establish the programs described in subsection
     (c).
       ``(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
     the Secretary shall give priority to applications from
     eligible consortia that provide services in rural areas or
     for Native Americans.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible consortium receiving
     amounts under subsection (a) shall use such amounts to
     establish school-based substance abuse prevention and student
     assistance programs for youth, including after school
     programs, to provide services that address youth substance
     abuse, including services that--
       ``(1) identify youth at risk for substance abuse;
       ``(2) refer any youth at risk for substance abuse for
     substance abuse treatment;
       ``(3) provide effective primary prevention programing;
       ``(4) target underserved areas, such as rural areas; and
       ``(5) target populations, such as Native Americans, that
     are underserved.
       ``(d) Application.--An eligible consortium that desires a
     grant under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
     enactment of this section and annually thereafter, an
     eligible consortium receiving a grant under subsection (a)
     shall submit to the Secretary a report describing the
     programs carried out pursuant to this section.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible consortium.--The term `eligible consortium'
     means an entity composed of a local educational agency and
     community-based substance abuse prevention providers and
     student assistance providers in which the agency and
     providers maintain equal responsibility in providing the
     services described in subsection (c).
       ``(2) Local educational agency.--The term `local
     educational agency' has the meaning given such term in
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $15,000,000 for
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

     ``SEC. 582. GRANTS TO TREATMENT FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants on a
     competitive basis to inpatient and outpatient treatment
     facilities that provide the substance abuse treatment
     services described in subsection (d).

[[Page S4035]]

       ``(b) Eligible Applicant.--To be eligible to receive a
     grant under subsection (a), a treatment facility must provide
     or propose to provide alcohol or drug treatment services for
     individuals under the age of 22 years.
       ``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
     the Secretary shall give priority to applications from
     treatment facilities that provide treatment services in rural
     areas, for Native Americans, or for underserved populations.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--A treatment facility receiving amounts
     under subsection (a) shall use such amounts to provide
     substance abuse treatment services for youth, including
     community-based aftercare services that provide treatment for
     the period of time following an individual's discharge from a
     drug treatment center.
       ``(e) Application.--A treatment facility that desires a
     grant under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(f) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
     enactment of this section and annually thereafter, a
     treatment facility receiving a grant under subsection (a)
     shall submit to the Secretary a report describing the
     services provided pursuant to this section.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $15,000,000 for
     each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

     ``SEC. 583. GRANTS TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND
                   TREATMENT PROVIDERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants on a
     competitive basis to State and local substance abuse
     prevention and treatment providers to enable such providers
     to offer training to provide prevention and treatment
     services for youth.
       ``(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
     the Secretary shall give priority to applications from areas
     in which--
       ``(1) there is a demonstrated high rate of substance abuse
     by youth; and
       ``(2) the population is identified as underserved or the
     prevention and treatment providers in the area use distance
     learning.
       ``(c) Application.--A treatment provider that desires a
     grant under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
     enactment of this section and annually thereafter, a
     treatment provider receiving a grant under subsection (a)
     shall submit to the Secretary a report describing the
     services provided pursuant to this section.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $2,000,000 for
     each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 850. A bill to make schools safer by waiving the local matching
requirement under the Community Policing program for the placement of
law enforcement officers in local schools; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

                      cops in schools act of 1999

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today we are faced again with an tragedy
in one of America's schools. There are many things that schools are and
could be doing to prevent violence--and many ways the federal
government could help. But, today, I am going to speak to just one of
them.
  Under the COPS program--President Clinton's initiative to put 100,000
new police officers on our streets--local governments are required to
provide 25 percent of the funding. But, the Attorney General has the
authority to waive the local matching requirement for any reason.
  Last summer, I called on the Justice Department to establish a
blanket waiver policy for any local community that wanted to place a
law enforcement officer in a public school. To its credit, the
Department has done so in some cases, and it says it will continue to
do so on a case-by-case basis.
  But, Mr. President, that is not good enough. We need to tell our
local communities that the local match will be waived, period, for any
new police officer hired to be in the schools. I have again called on
the Administration to establish such a waiver policy--and to tell our
local communities about it. Just in case, however, I am also
introducing legislation today--the COPS in Schools Act--to require a
waiver.
  I am not advocating putting police officers in the schools just to
patrol. Nor do I want people to think our schools are or should be
jails or combat zones. Police officers in schools are important to work
with school staff to develop anti-crime policies on campus, to
implement procedures to ensure a safer school environment, and to
reassure parents that a police officer is there to deal with those
students that might cause problems.
  Children in public schools have a right to be safe, and it is our
obligation to ensure their safety. It is as fundamental as the right to
a free public education. Let's not wait for yet another tragedy to get
adequate protection for America's school children. My bill is a small
step, and it is not the only step we need to take. But, it can help to
reduce the chance of more bloodshed at yet another school.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. Moynihan)
  S. 851. A bill to allow Federal employees to take advantage of the
transportation fringe benefit provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
that are available to private sector employees; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

                FEDERAL EMPLOYEE FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator
Moynihan, the Federal Employee Flexibility Act of 1999, a bill that
would provide flexibility and choices for Federal employees.
  This flexibility was provided to private sector employees in the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA 21). We believe that these provisions provide to
employers and employees important new flexibility which should reduce
single occupant vehicle trips from our highways and therefore
contribute to reduced congestion, a cleaner environment, and increased
energy conservation.
  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century include significant changes to the way the Internal
Revenue Code treats employer-provided transportation fringe benefits.
Unfortunately, we have become aware that personnel compensation law for
Federal employees restricts implementation of this new flexibility.
  Prior to enactment of these two bills, the Federal tax code provided
that employer-provided parking is not subject to Federal taxation, up
to $170 per month. However, this tax exemption was lost for all
employees if the parking was offered in lieu of compensation for just
one employee. In other words, if an employer gave just one employee a
choice between parking and some other benefit (such as a transit pass,
or increased salary), the parking of all other employees in the company
became taxable. It goes without saying that no employers jeopardized a
tax benefit for the overwhelming majority of their employees to provide
flexibility to others. In effect, the tax code prohibited employers
from offering their employees a choice. Parking was a take-it or leave-
it benefit.
  The changes in these two laws make it possible for employers to offer
their employees more choices by eliminating the take-it or leave-it
restriction in the Federal tax code. Employees whose only
transportation benefit is parking can now instead accept a salary
enhancement, and find other means to get to work such as car pooling,
van pooling, biking, walking, or taking transit.
  Unfortunately, Federal employees will not be able to benefit from the
increased flexibility available to private sector employees, unless
Federal compensation law is modified. Current Federal law provides that
a Federal employee may not receive additional pay unless specifically
authorized by law. Therefore, a Federal employee could not ``cash out''
a parking space at work, and instead receive cash or other benefits.
  To address this limitation for transit passes and similar benefits,
the ``Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act'' enacted in 1993
allows the Federal government to provide transit benefits, bicycle
services, and non-monetary incentives to employees. However, when this
legislation was enacted, the Federal tax code prohibited the so-called
``cash out'' option discussed above, and therefore was not included in
the list of transportation-related exemptions in that statute.
  The short and simple bill we introduce today would add ``taxable cash
reimbursement for the value of an employer-provided parking space'' to
the list of benefits that can be received by Federal employees.
  This bill is very similar to a bill Senator Moynihan and I sponsored
in the 105th Congress, S. 2575 and H.R. 4777 sponsored in the House by
Representatives Norton, Nadler, Morella, and

[[Page S4036]]

Moran. These same House colleagues are today introducing a bill
identical to the bill we introduce today.
  Let me assure my colleagues and Federal employees that this bill
would not require that Federal employees lose their parking spaces, as
may be feared when there is discussion of Federal employee parking
spaces. The bill simply provides Federal employees the same flexibility
that is available to private sector employees. Employees who want to
retain their tax-free parking space would be free to do so.
  We think it is vital that the Federal government show leadership on
the application of new and innovative ways to solve our transportation
and environmental problems. I hope that my colleagues will join me in
supporting this bill and that we can act swiftly on it in this session
of Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be inserted in the
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 851

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

     SECTION 1. CASH PAYMENT TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR PARKING
                   SPACES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
     Employee Flexibility Act of 1999''.
       (b) In General.--Section 7905 of title 5, United States
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(C) by inserting ``and'' after the
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
     period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) a qualified transportation fringe as defined in
     section 132(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``and'' after the
     semicolon;
       (C) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period and
     inserting a semicolon and ``and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) taxable cash payment to an employee in lieu of an
     agency-provided parking space.''.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 852. A bill to award grants for school construction; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                  excellence in education act of 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
provide funds to build new schools. It is the Excellence in Education
Act of 1999.
  The purpose of this bill is to (1) reduce the size of schools and (2)
reduce the size of classes. The bill would create a 50-50 matching
grant program to build new schools to meet the following size
requirements:
  School size requirement:
  for kindergarten through 5th grade, not more than 500 students;
  for grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students; and
  for grades 9 through 12, not more than 1,500 students.
  Class size requirement:
  for kindergarten through grade 6, not more than 20 students per
teacher;
  for grades 7 through 12, not more than 28 students per teacher.
  The bill authorizes $5 billion each year for the next five years for
the U.S. Department of Education to award grants to local school
districts. School districts would have to match federal funds with an
equal amount. In addition to making the above reductions, school
districts would be required to terminate social promotion, provide
remedial education and require that students be subject to state
achievement standards in the core academic curriculum.
  Why do we need this bill?
  First, many of our schools are just too big, especially in urban
areas. The ``shopping mall'' high school is all too common. ``It's not
unusual to find high schools of 2,000, 3,000, or even 4,000 students
and junior high schools of 1,500 or more, especially in urban school
systems,'' writes Thomas Toch in the Washington Post. In these
monstrous schools, the principal is just a disembodied voice over the
public address system.
  Equally serious is the fact that our classes are too big. Even though
we have begun to reduce class sizes in my state, California still has
some of the largest class sizes in the U.S. The National Center for
Education Statistics says California's classrooms have the highest
pupil-teacher ratios in the nation.
  This bill will provide a new funding source for school districts or
states to match to build new schools and reduce both school size and
class size. There is no good estimate of how many schools would be
needed to reduce schools and classes to the levels specified in the
amendment, but we all know that there are many large schools and large
classes in public education today.
  The U.S. Department of Education estimates that we need to build
6,000 new schools just to meet enrollment growth projections. This
estimate does not take into account the need to cut class and school
sizes. The needs are no doubt huge.
  My state that has some of the largest schools in the country. Our
students are crammed into every available space, even in cafeterias and
libraries. Today, 20 percent of our students are in portable
classrooms. There were 63,000 relocatable classrooms in use in 1998.
Here are some examples:
  High Schools:
  Roosevelt High School (Los Angeles), 4,902;
  Huntington Park High School, 4,275;
  Roosevelt High School, Fresno, 3,692;
  Berkeley High School, Berkeley, 3,025; and
  Mt. Carmel High School, San Diego, 3,279.
  Intermediate Schools:
  Clark Intermediate School, Clovis, 2,744 students;
  Gianni Middle School, San Francisco, 1,336; and
  O'Farrell Middle School, San Diego, 1,441.
  Elementary Schools:
  Rosa Parks Elementary School, San Diego, 1,423;
  Winchell Elementary School Fresno, 1,392;
  Zamorano Elementary School, San Diego, 1,424; and
  Kerman/Floyd Elementary School, Fresno, 1,000.
  California also has some of the largest classes sizes in the nation.
In 1996-1997, California had the second highest teacher-pupil ratio in
the nation, at 22.8 students per teacher. Fortunately since 1996, the
state has significantly cut class sizes in grades K-3, but 15 percent
or 300,000 of our K-3 students have not benefitted from this reform.
And students above grade 3 have not been touched.
  Here are some examples of classes in my state:
  Fourth grade, statewide, 29 students; sixth grade, statewide, 29.5
students.
  National City Middle School San Diego, English and math, 34 to 36
students.
  Berryessa School District in San Jose--fourth grade, 32 students;
eighth grade, 31 students.
  Long Beach and El Cajon School Districts, tenth grade English, 35
students.
  Santa Rosa School District--fourth grade, 32 students.
  San Diego City Schools, tenth grade biology, 38 students.
  Hoover Elementary and Knox Elementary in E. San Diego Elementary,
grades 5 and 6, 31 to 33 students.
  Hoover High School 10th grade Algebra, 39 students.
  To add to the problem, California will have a school enrollment rate
between 1997 and 2007 of 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1
percent. We will have the largest enrollment increase of all states
during the next ten years. By 2007, our enrollment will have increased
by 35.3 percent. To put it another way, California needs to build seven
new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just to keep up with the
surge in student enrollment. The California Department of Education
says that we need to add about 327 schools over the next three years,
just to keep pace with the projected growth.
  The cost of building a high school in California is almost twice the
national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in California, it is
$27 million. In California, our costs are higher than other states in
part because our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes,
floods, El Nino and a myriad of other natural disasters. California's
state earthquake building standards add 3 to 4 percent to construction
costs. Here's what it costs to build a schools in California: an
elementary school (K-6), $5.2 million; a middle school (7-8), $12.0
million; a high school (9-12), $27.0 million.
  Studies show that student achievement improves when school and class
sizes are reduced.

[[Page S4037]]

  The American Education Research Association says that the ideal high
school size is between 600 and 900 students. Study after study shows
that small schools have more learning, fewer discipline problems, lower
dropout rates, higher levels of student participating, higher
graduation rates (The School Administrator, October 1997). The nation's
school administrators are calling for more personalized schools.

  California's education reforms relied on a Tennessee study called
Project STAR, in which 6,500 kindergartners were put in 330 classes of
different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for four years
and then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. The test scores
and behavior of students in the small classes were better than those of
children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that
smaller classes benefit students from low-income families the most.
  Take the example of Sandy Sutton, a teacher in Los Angeles's Hancock
Park Elementary School. She used to have 32 students in her second
grade class. In the fall of 1997, she had 20. She says she can spend
more time on individualized reading instruction with each student. She
can now more readily draw out shy children and more easily identify
slow readers early in the school year.
  The November 25, 1997, Sacramento Bee reported that when teachers in
the San Juan Unified School Districts started spending more time with
students, test scores rose and discipline problems and suspensions
dropped. A San Juan teacher, Ralphene Lee, said, ``This is the most
wonderful thing that has happened in education in my lifetime.''
  A San Diego initiative to bring down class sizes found that smaller
classes mean better classroom management; more individual instruction;
more contact with parents; more time for team teaching; more diverse
instructional methods; and a higher morale.
  Teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better attention,
ask more questions and have fewer discipline problems. Smaller schools
and smaller classes make a difference, it is clear.
  My state needs a total of $34 billion to build schools from 1998 to
2008. Of this, $26 billion is needed to modernize and repair existing
schools and $8 billion is needed to build schools to meet enrollment
growth. In November 1998, California voters approved state bonds
providing $6.5 billion for school construction.
  California needs to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per
class between now and 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student
population. By 2007, California will need 22,000 new classrooms.
California needs to add about 327 schools over the next three years
just to keep pace with the projected growth.
  Other bills in the Congress that I am supporting provide tax
incentives for holders of school bonds to modernize old schools and we
have many old schools. One third of the nation's 110,000 schools were
built before World War II and only about one of 10 schools was built
since 1980. More than one-third of the nation's existing schools are
currently over 50 or more years old and need to be repaired or
replaced. The General Accounting Office has said that nationally we
need over $112 billion for construction and repairs to bring schools up
to date.
  Big schools and big classes place a heavy burden on teachers and
students. They can be a stressful learning environment.
  The American public supports increased federal funding for school
construction. The Rebuild American Coalition last month announced that
82 percent of Americans favor federal spending for school construction,
up from 74 percent in a 1998 National Education Association poll.
  Every parent knows the importance of a small class where the teacher
can give individualized attention to a student. Every parent knows the
importance of the sense of a school community that can come with a
small school.
  I hope my colleagues will join me today in passing this important
education reform.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 852

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Excellence in Education Act
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS

       In this Act:
       (1) Core curriculum.--The term ``core curriculum'' means
     curriculum in subjects such as reading and writing, language
     arts, mathematics, social sciences (including history), and
     science.
       (2) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary
     school; secretary.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local
     educational agency'', ``secondary school'' and ``Secretary''
     have the meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
     8801).
       (3) Practice of social promotion.--The term ``practice of
     social promotion'' means a formal or informal practice of
     promoting a student from the grade for which the
     determination is made to the next grade when the student
     fails to meet State achievement standards in the core
     academic curriculum, unless the practice is consistent with
     the student's individualized education program under section
     614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
     U.S.C. 1414(d)).
       (4) Construction.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
     ``construction'' means--
       (i) preparation of drawings and specifications for school
     facilities;
       (ii) building new school facilities, or acquiring,
     remodeling, demolishing, renovating, improving, or repairing
     facilities to establish new school facilities; and
       (iii) inspection and supervision of the construction of new
     school facilities.
       (B) Rule.--An activity described in subparagraph (A) shall
     be considered to be construction only if the labor standards
     described in section 439 of the General Education Provisions
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) are applied with respect to such
     activity.
       (5) School facility.--The term ``school facility'' means a
     public structure suitable for use as a classroom, laboratory,
     library, media center, or related facility the primary
     purpose of which is the instruction of public elementary
     school or secondary school students. The term does not
     include an athletic stadium or any other structure or
     facility intended primarily for athletic exhibitions,
     contests, or games for which admission is charged to the
     general public.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
     Act $5,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through
     2004.

     SEC. 4. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       The Secretary is authorized to award grants to local
     educational agencies to enable the local educational agencies
     to carry out the construction of new public elementary school
     and secondary school facilities.

     SEC. 5. CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING FUNDS.

       In order to receive funds under this Act a local
     educational agency shall meet the following requirements:
       (1) Reduce class and school sizes for public schools served
     by the local educational agency as follows:
       (A) Limit class size to an average student-to-teacher ratio
     of 20 to 1, in classes serving kindergarten through grade 6
     students, in the schools served by the agency.
       (B) Limit class size to an average student-to-teacher ratio
     of 28 to 1, in classes serving grade 7 through grade 12
     students, in the schools served by the agency.
       (C) Limit the size of public elementary schools and
     secondary schools served by the agency to--
       (i) not more than 500 students in the case of a school
     serving kindergarten through grade 5 students;
       (ii) not more than 750 students in the case of a school
     serving grade 6 through grade 8 students; and
       (iii) not more than 1,500 students in the case of a school
     serving grade 9 through grade 12 students.
       (2) Terminate the practice of social promotion in the
     public schools served by the agency.
       (3) Require that students be subject to State achievement
     standards in the core curriculum at key transition points, to
     be determined by the State, for all kindergarten through
     grade 12 students.
       (4) Use tests and other indicators, such as grades and
     teacher evaluations, to assess student performance in meeting
     the State achievement standards, which tests shall be valid
     for the purpose of such assessment.
       (5) Provide remedial education for students who fail to
     meet the State achievement standards, including tutoring,
     mentoring, summer programs, before-school programs, and
     after-school programs.
       (6) Provide matching funds, with respect to the cost to be
     incurred in carrying out the activities for which the grant
     is awarded, from non-Federal sources in an amount equal to
     the Federal funds provided under the grant.

     SEC. 6. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring to
     receive a grant under this

[[Page S4038]]

     Act shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time
     and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
       (b) Contents.--Each application shall contain--
       (1) an assurance that the grant funds will be used in
     accordance with this Act;
       (2) a brief description of the construction to be
     conducted;
       (3) a cost estimate of the activities to be conducted; and
       (4) a description of available non-Federal matching funds.
                                  ____

           Summary of the Excellence in Education Act of 1999

       Funds authorized, purpose: Authorizes $20 billion over 5
     years ($5 billion each year) for the U.S. Department of
     Education to award grants to local education agencies to
     construct new school facilities from fiscal year 2000 to
     2004.
       Eligibility: Local education agencies as defined in 14101
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (public
     schools).
       Use of funds: Local education agencies are authorized to
     use funds to construct new school facilities.
       Conditions for receiving funds: As a condition of receiving
     funds, local education agencies are required to--
       Reduce school and class sizes as follows:
       Limit class size to--
       In the elementary grades to an average student-teacher
     ratio of 20 to one.
       In grades 7 through 12 to an average student-teacher ratio
     of 28 to one.
       Limit school size to--
       Elementary schools (K-5): no more than 500 students.
       Middle schools (6-8): no more than 750 students.
       High schools (9-12): no more than 1,500 students.
       Terminate the practice of social promotion;
       Require that students be subject to state academic
     achievement standards, to be determined by the states, for
     all K-12 students in the core curriculum, defined as subjects
     such as reading and writing, language arts, mathematics,
     social sciences (including history); and science;
       Test student achievement in meeting achievement standards
     periodically for advancement to the next grade, in at least
     three grades (such as the 4th, 8th and 12th grades),
     distributed evenly over the course of a student's education;
       Provide remedial education for students who fail to meet
     academic achievement standards, including tutoring,
     mentoring, summer, before-school and after-school programs;
     and
       Provide matching funds from non-Federal sources in an
     amount equal to the Federal funds provided under the grant.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 853. A bill to assist local educational agencies to help all
students achieve State achievement standards, to end the practice of
social promotion, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                    STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
end the practice of social promotion in our public schools and to
provide remedial education to help students meet academic achievement
standards. The Student Achievement Act of 1999 authorizes $500 million
for five years for local school districts to provide extended learning
time so that K-12 students can achieve.
  Social promotion is the formal or informal practice of promoting a
student from grade to grade even when the student fails to achieve a
level of achievement and proficiency in the core curriculum.
  To receive funds, schools would have to:
  Adopt a policy prohibiting social promotion;
  Require that students be subject to academic achievement standards in
the core curriculum, defined as subjects such as reading, writing,
language arts, mathematics, social sciences and science;
  Test student achievement in meeting standards at certain benchmarks,
to be determined by the states;
  Provide remedial education; and
  Have substantial numbers of low-performing students.
  I am introducing this bill because I believe that the linchpin to
educational reform is the elimination of the path of least resistance
whereby students who are failing are simply promoted to the next grade
in hopes that they will learn. The product of this practice of simply
promoting youngsters when they are failing to adequately learn has
produced a generation of young people who are below standard and high
school graduates that cannot read or write, count change in their
pockets or fill out an employment application. It is that bad.
  And my state is just about the worst. There's a steady stream of bad
news. On March 5, we learned, yet again that California ranks second to
last among 39 states in fourth-grade reading skills. Eighty percent of
my state's fourth graders are not proficient readers. For eighth
graders, California is 33rd out of 36 states and only 22 percent of
California's eighth graders are proficient readers.
  On March 24, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the state
received a grade of D+ from the American Electronics Association for
the quality and availability of an educated workforce. This conclusion
is in the state that is the home of Silicon Valley, the premier high-
tech area of the country, in a state that received an A for electronic
commerce and is number one in high tech employment. But California does
not have a school system that trains students well enough to work in
the high-paying, skilled jobs available.
  These numbers are a stunning indictment of a failing system.
  It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our
students, their parents and the public. As long as social promotion
exists and is widespread, youth who cannot read or write and who won't
be able to find jobs in the future will continue to graduate from high
school.
  I agree with the conclusion of the September 1997 study conducted by
the American Federation of Teachers:

       ``Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides
     school failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids,
     who are deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to
     be successful or get the message that achievement doesn't
     count; for teachers who must face students who know that
     teachers wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for
     the business community and colleges that must spend millions
     of dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal
     with a growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared
     to contribute productively to the economic and civic life of
     the nation.''

  There is no hard data on the extent of social promotion in our public
schools, but most authorities, in the schools and out, know that it is
happening--and in fact, in some districts it is standard operating
procedure.
  The September AFT study surveyed 85 of the nation's 820 largest
school districts in 32 states, representing one-third of the nation's
public school enrollment, about their promotion policies.
  Saying that social promotion is ``rampant,'' AFT leaders found that
school districts' criteria for passing and retaining students is vague.
Only 17 states have standards in the four core disciplines (English,
math, social studies and science) that are well grounded in content and
that are clear enough to be used.
  A January 14, 1998 Los Angeles Times article reported that four in 10
teachers said that their schools automatically promote students when
they reach the maximum age for their grade level.
  None of the districts surveyed by AFT have an explicit policy of
social promotion, but almost every district has an implicit practice of
social promotion. Almost all districts view holding students back as a
policy of last resort and many put explicit limits on retaining
students. Districts have loose and vague criteria for moving a student
from one grade to the next. This approach, concludes AFT, is implicit
approval of social promotion.
  Last fall, thankfully, former California Governor Pete Wilson signed
into law a bill to end social promotion. In July 1998, I wrote some of
California's school districts and asked about their policy on social
promotion. Here are some of the reports I got back:
  Some school districts did not have specific policies in place
regarding social promotion. Exceptions to normal progression from one
grade to another may be made when it is ``in the best interest of the
student.'' Teachers may provide recommendations but final decisions on
retention are made by the parent of the student.
  In other cases, school districts required students to earn 220
credits to receive a high school diploma so that the district feels
that ``social promotion is not an issue.''
  One school district believes that ``it is seldom desirable for a
student to be retained by reason of achievement, maturity or attendance
because research has shown that retention is likely to

[[Page S4039]]

have strong negative effects.'' Retention is therefore discouraged in
the primary grades and prohibited thereafter.
  Here's another example: Dr. Rudy Crew, Chancellor of the New York
City Schools, said in the January 25 New York Times that virtually
every student is promoted from one grade to the next, regardless of
performance on standardized tests.
  Mike Wright, a San Diegian, is an example. Cited in the February 16
San Diego Union-Tribune, Mr. Wright says he routinely got promoted from
grade to grade and even graduated from high school, even though he
failed some subjects. At age 29, he is now enrolled in a community
college program to learn to read--at age 29!
  Here are some examples of the harm of social promotion:
  In California, a December 1997 report from a state education
accountability task force estimated that at least half of the state's
students--3 million children--perform below levels considered
proficient for their grade level.
  A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers and college
professors whether they believe a high school diploma guarantees that a
student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63% of employers and
76 percent of professors said that the diploma is not a guarantee that
a graduate can read, write or do basic math.
  Nationwide, about one third of college freshmen take remedial courses
in college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private,
offer remediation, says the AFT study.
  A March 27 California State University study found that more than
two-thirds of students entering Cal State campuses in Los Angeles lack
the math or English they should have mastered in high school. At some
high schools, not one graduate going on to one of Cal State's campuses
passed a basic skills test. At Cal State Dominguez Hills, for example,
8 out of 10 freshmen enrollees last fall needed remedial English and 87
percent needed remedial math.
  Sadly, these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1997, 47
percent of freshmen enrolled at CSU needed remediation, compared to 43
percent in each of the previous three years. In math, 54 percent needed
remedial help, compared to 48 percent in 1994.

  Similarly, almost 35 percent of entering freshmen at the University
of California do poorly on UC's English proficiency test and must
receive help in their first year.
  Florida spent $53 million in college on remedial education, says the
AFT study.
  In Boston, school principals estimate that half their ninth graders
are not prepared for high school work.
  In Ohio, nearly one fourth of all freshmen who attend state public
universities must take remedial math or English (Cleveland Plain
Dealer, July 7, 1997)
  Employers tell me that their new hires are unprepared for work and
they have to provide very basic training to make them employable. For
example, last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills
training.
  Fortunately, many policymakers are beginning to realize that we must
stop social promotion. President Clinton called for ending it in his
last two State of the Union speeches. Last year, he said, ``We must
also demand greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade
to grade who hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any
favors. It is time to end social promotion in America's schools.''
  Last year, California's former Governor Pete Wilson, signed into law
a bill to end social promotion in our public education system. The bill
requires school districts to identify students who are failing based on
their grades or scores on the new statewide performance tests. The
schools would have to hold back the student unless their teachers
submitted a written finding that the student should be allowed to
advance to the next grade. In such a case, the teacher would be
required to recommend remediation to get the student to the next level,
which could include summer school or after-school instruction.
  Los Angeles Unified School District is currently working to develop a
plan to end the practice of social promotion. Los Angeles Unified
School Board plans to identify those students who are at risk of
flunking and require them to participate in remedial classes. The
alternative curriculum will stress the basics in reading, language arts
and math, and special after-school tutoring. The district's plan would
take effect in the 1999-2000 school year and target students moving in
the third through sixth grades and into the ninth grade.
  In San Diego, the School Board adopted requirements that all students
in certain grades must demonstrate grade-level performance. And they
will require all students to earn a C overall grade average and a C
grade in core subjects for high school graduation, effectively ending
social promotion for certain grades and for high school graduation. For
example, San Diego's schools are requiring that eighth graders who do
not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses in summer
school.
  At least three other states--Florida, Arkansas and Texas--explicitly
outlaw social promotion.
  The Chicago Public Schools have ditched social promotion. After their
new policy was put in place in the spring of 1997, over 40,000 students
failed tests in the third, sixth, eight and ninth grades and then went
to mandatory summer school. Chicago School Superintendent calls social
promotion ``educational malpractice.'' He says from now on his schools'
only product will be student achievement.
  Cincinnati's students are now promoted based on specific standards
that define what students must know.
  The AFT study says: ``In most districts, there are no agreed-upon
explicit standards of performance to which students are held
accountable.''
  Our schools need clear, specific achievement levels for the core
academic disciplines for every student. Many states are developing
those achievement levels or standards. California's Commission for the
Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards is
developing statewide, grade-by-grade academic standards.
  Without them, we will never know (1) what our students need to learn
and (2) whether they have learned what they should learn. How, I ask,
can you measure what you have accomplished if you don't know where you
are going?
  Sixty-one percent of Californians agreed in 1998 that our schools
need a ``major overhaul,'' up from 54 percent who answered the same
question two years earlier. A mere six percent believe that schools
provide a ``quality education.''
  A poll by Policy Analysis for California Education found that only 17
percent of the public considers the state's schools ``good'' or
``excellent,'' down from about 33 percent three years ago.
  I hope my colleagues will join me today in stopping social promotion
and providing remedial education because we must stop shortchanging our
students.
  School achievement must mean something. It must mean more than
filling up a seat at a desk for 12 years. A diploma should not just be
a symbol of accumulating time in school.
  Social promotion is a cruel joke. We are fooling students. We are
fooling ourselves. Students think a high school diploma means
something. But in reality, a diploma does not mean much when we are
graduating students who cannot count change, who cannot read a
newspaper, or who cannot fill out an employment application. I hope
this bill can help.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 853

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Student Achievement Act of
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. REMEDIAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to
     award grants to high need, low-performing local educational
     agencies to enable the local educational agencies to carry
     out remedial education programs that enable kindergarten
     through grade 12 students who are failing or are at risk of
     failing to meet State achievement standards in the core
     academic curriculum.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
     may be used to provide prevention and intervention services
     and

[[Page S4040]]

     academic instruction, that enable the students described in
     subsection (a) to meet State achievement standards in the
     core academic curriculum, such as--
       (1) implementing early intervention strategies that
     identify and support those students who need additional help
     or alternative instructional strategies;
       (2) strengthening instruction and learning by hiring
     certified teachers to reduce class sizes, providing high
     quality professional development, and using proven
     instructional practices and curriculum aligned to State
     achievement standards;
       (3) providing extended learning time, such as before
     school, after school, and summer school; and
       (4) developing intensive instructional intervention
     strategies for students who fail to meet the State
     achievement standards.
       (c) Applications.--Each local educational agency desiring
     to receive a grant under this section shall submit an
     application to the Secretary. Each application shall
     contain--
       (1) an assurance that the grant funds will be used in
     accordance with subsection (b); and
       (2) a detailed description of how the local educational
     agency will use the grant funds to help students meet State
     achievement standards in the core academic curriculum by
     providing prevention and intervention services and academic
     instruction to students who are most at risk of failing to
     meet the State achievement standards.
       (d) Conditions for Receiving Funds.--A local educational
     agency shall be eligible to receive a grant under this
     section if the local educational agency or the State
     educational agency--
       (1) adopts a policy prohibiting the practice of social
     promotion;
       (2) adopts a policy requiring that all kindergarten through
     grade 12 students be subject to State achievement standards
     in the core academic curriculum at key transition points (to
     be determined by the State), such as 4th, 8th, and 12th
     grades, before promotion to the next grade level;
       (3) uses tests and other indicators, such as grades and
     teacher evaluations, to assess student performance in meeting
     the State achievement standards at key transition points (to
     be determined by the State), which tests shall be valid for
     the purpose of such assessment;
       (4) provides remedial education to all students not meeting
     the State achievement standards; and
       (5) has substantial numbers of students who are low-
     performing students.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Core academic curriculum.--The term ``core academic
     curriculum'' means curriculum in subjects such as reading and
     writing, language arts, mathematics, social sciences
     (including history), and science.
       (2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
     8801).
       (3) Practice of social promotion.--The term `practice of
     social promotion' means a formal or informal practice of
     promoting a student from the grade for which the
     determination is made to the next grade when the student
     fails to meet the State achievement standards in the core
     academic curriculum, unless the practice is consistent with
     the student's individualized education program under section
     614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
     U.S.C. 1414(d).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
     of Education.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for
     each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
                                  ____

             Summary of the Student Achievement Act of 1999

         PROVIDING REMEDIAL EDUCATION & ENDING SOCIAL PROMOTION

       Remedial Education: Authorizes $500 million for each year,
     FY 2000 to 2004, to local education agencies for remedial
     education programs to enable K-12 students to meet
     achievement standards in the core academic curriculum.
       Eligibility: Local education agencies (school districts) as
     defined in current law (public schools).
       Use of funds: Authorizes school districts to use funds to
     provide academic instruction to enable students to meet
     academic achievement standards. Funds can be used to--

       implement early intervention strategies for students at
     risk of failing;
       develop intensive instructional intervention strategies for
     low-performing students;
       hire certified teachers and provide professional
     development;
       provide extended learning time, such as before school,
     after school and summer school.

       Conditions for Receiving Remedial Education Funds: Requires
     school districts to--

       adopt a policy prohibiting the practice of social
     promotion;
       require that all K-12 students be subject to achievement
     standards, to be determined by the states, in the core
     curriculum, defined as subjects such as reading and writing,
     language arts, mathematics, social sciences, including
     history; and science; and
       test student achievement in meeting standards at certain
     benchmarks, to be determined by the states, for advancement
     to the next grade, distributed evenly over the course of a
     student's education; and
       provide remedial education for students who fail to meet
     achievement standards;
       have substantial numbers of low-performing students.
       Social Promotion Defined: The ``practice of social
     promotion is defined as ``a formal or informal practice of
     promoting a student from the grade for which the
     determination is made to the next grade when the student
     fails to meet the state achievement standards in the core
     academic curriculum, unless the practice is consistent with
     the student's individualized education program under section
     614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.''
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 854. A bill to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of
Americans, to establish standards and procedures regarding law
enforcement access to location information, decryption assistance for
encrypted communications and stored electronic information, and other
private information, to affirm the rights of Americans to use and sell
encryption products as a tool for protecting their online privacy, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

               ELECTRONIC RIGHTS OF THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, concern over privacy is reaching an all
time high. In 1978, 64 percent of Americans reported that they were
``very concerned'' or ``somewhat concerned'' about threats to their
personal privacy. By 1998, this number had skyrocketed. According to
the Center for Social and Legal Research, 88 percent of Americans
reported being ``very'' or ``somewhat concerned'' about threats to
their personal privacy. We in Congress must take this concern
seriously, and in this regard I look forward to examining the privacy
issues confronting us in hearings before the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
  Good privacy policies make good business policies. New technologies
bring with them new opportunities, both for the businesses that develop
and market them, and for consumers. It does not do anyone any good for
consumers to hesitate to use any particular technology because they
have concerns over privacy. That is why I believe that good privacy
policies make good business policies.
  Protecting privacy plays an important role in the exercise of First
Amendment rights. Ensuring that we have adequate privacy laws has a
more significant and important role in our democracy than just
fostering hi-tech businesses, however. We also must defend our on-line
free speech rights from heavy-handed content regulation. That was my
purpose in voting against the unconstitutional Communications Decency
Act that became law in 1996.
  Stopping efforts to create government censors is critical to allow
our First Amendment rights to flourish, but it is not enough. For
people to feel comfortable in exercising their First Amendment rights--
by speaking, traveling and associating freely online or in physical
space--they must be able to keep their activities confidential and
private. When Big Brother is watching, the exercise of First Amendment
rights is chilled no less than the threat of a government censor.
  It is therefore not surprising that our country has a long and
honorable tradition of keeping our identities private when we exercise
our First Amendment rights. The Federalist Papers, which is probably
the most important political document ever written about our
Constitution, was authored anonymously by James Madison, John Jay and
Alexander Hamilton and published under a pseudonym.
  Healthy advocacy and debate often rests on the ability of
participants to keep their identities private and to act anonymously.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has said, ``Anonymity is a shield from the
tyranny of the majority.''
  Healthy commerce also depends on satisfying consumers' desire to keep
their business affairs private and secure. A report I released last
month on Vermont Internet commerce is very telling on this point. The
strongest obstacle among consumers from shopping and doing business
online was their fear of the online security risks. This is why
promoting the use of encryption is so important, so that businesses and
consumers can use this technology to provide the privacy and security
they want and best suits their needs.
  The legislation I introduce today would help ensure that Americans'
Fourth Amendment rights to be secure

[[Page S4041]]

in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
government searches and seizures are given ample protection in a
networked computer environment. In addition, several provisions address
the concern Americans have about the use and handling of their
personally identifiable records and information by businesses,
satellite carriers, libraries and book sellers.
  Industry self-regulation efforts should be encouraged. In contrast to
a citizen's relationship with his or her government, consumers have a
choice of whether they want to deal or interact with those in the
private sector. In my view, this choice should be generally recognized
in the law by allowing consumers and businesses in the marketplace to
set the terms of their interaction. This is an area where the Congress
should tread cautiously before regulating. Online businesses are
engaging in serious efforts to make available to consumers information
on privacy policies so that consumers are able to make more educated
choices on whether they want to deal. I commend and applaud those
efforts.
  That being said, however, current laws do not apply privacy
principles in an even-handed manner. Video rental stores and cable
operators are subject to privacy laws to protect our right to keep our
viewing habits private, but no protections exist for the books we
borrow from the library or buy from a bookstore, or the shows we watch
via satellite. This bill would provide more uniform privacy protection
for both books and videos, no matter the medium of delivery.
  Similarly, telephone companies and cable operators are subject to
legal restrictions on how they may use personally
identifiable information about their Internet subscribers, while other
Internet and online service providers are not. The E-RIGHTS bill
promotes a more level playing field in terms of the privacy protections
available to Internet users, no matter whether they obtain their
Internet access from AOL, their cable company or their local phone
company.

  This legislation addresses a broad range of emerging hi-tech privacy
issues. For example:
  When should the FBI be allowed to use cell phones to track a user's
movements?
  Should Kosovo human rights organizations that use a Web site to
correct government misinformation be able to get a domain name without
having their names publicly available on a database? Should we have the
same ability to get an ``unlisted'' domain name (or Internet address)
as we are able to get an ``unlisted'' phone number?
  Should we allow other federal prosecutors to act like Special
Prosecutor Kenneth Starr and go on fishing expeditions with subpoenas
issued to bookstores to find out what we are reading? Should we protect
our choices of reading and viewing materials the same way we protect
our choice of videotapes that we rent from our local Blockbuster?
  Should an Internet user who maintains a calendar on Yahoo! get the
same privacy protection as people who keep their calendars on their
desk or on their PCs' hard-drive? Will people avoid certain network
services offered by Netscape or new Internet start-ups because they get
less privacy protection for the information stored on the network than
on their own PCs?
  These are all important issues, and I have worked to propose
solutions to each of these and to other questions, as well, in the E-
RIGHTS bill. This bill has the following four titles:
  Title I: Privacy Protection for Communications and Electronic
Information. This title has ten sections that propose certain Fourth
Amendment protections to guide the government's access to, or exercise
of, law enforcement's enhanced surveillance capabilities due to new
technologies. In addition, this title also contains sections that limit
how domain name registrars and Internet/Online service providers may
use information collected on Internet users.
  Network Stored Information.--The bill would require that law
enforcement give a subscriber notice of a subpoena or warrant before
seizing electronic information stored on a network service. This is the
same notice that the subscriber would get if the information were
stored on his or her own computer.
  Cell Phone Location Information.--Before law enforcement may use a
person's cell phone as a tracking device, the bill would require a
court order based on probable cause that the person is committing a
crime.
  A related provision that has already passed the House in February as
part of the ``Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,''
H.R. 438, would require wireless phone providers to inform a cell phone
user's family and emergency services of their location in emergency
situations, while requiring the prior customer consent before that
location information may be used for any other purpose.
  Pen Registers.--The bill would authorize a judge to review
information presented by a federal prosecutor to determine whether the
pen register is likely to produce information relevant to an ongoing
criminal investigation, since under current law the judge plays only a
ministerial role and must approve any order upon presentation by a
prosecutor. Current law compels judges to be only a rubber stamp.
  Conference Calls.--The FBI has claimed that the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that they be given
the capability to monitor conference calls which continue even after
the target of a wiretap order has dropped out of the call. This
provision would require that a court authorize such continued
monitoring of conference calls in the absence of the target.
  Roving Wiretaps.--A substantial change that provides easier access to
roving wiretaps was inserted without debate or hearings into last
year's Intelligence Authorization Act. With this change, the FBI is
able to get a roving wiretap whenever a person's action could have the
effect of thwarting interception. The bill would rectify this change to
permit roving wiretaps only when the person actually changes phones in
a way which has the effect of thwarting surveillance.
  Domain Name Registrars.--Internet users or businesses who get an
Internet address with a second level domain name must also provide
information about contact names, physical and E-mail addresses, network
location, and other information that is posted in a publicly available
database called WHOIS. The bill would give users registering for a
domain name/Internet address authority to prohibit disclosure of the
information, and keep the information confidential. Of course, the
registrar would be able to override the user's choice of
confidentiality and to disclose the information as necessary to provide
service or in response to a subpoena or court order.

  Internet users who want an ``unlisted'' Internet address just as they
have the choice of getting an ``unlisted'' telephone number will be
able to do so.
  Internet and Online Service Providers.--The 1986 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) set up procedures for law enforcement
to obtain records about subscribers from ``electronic communication
service providers'', but contained a blanket exemption allowing such
providers to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a
subscriber or customer to any non-governmental entity. Due to this
exemption, ISPs and OSPs may sell their subscriber lists or track the
online movements of their subscribers and sell that information--all
without the subscribers' knowledge or consent.
  The bill would cut back on this blanket exemption. The bill would
require electronic communication service providers to give their
subscribers an opportunity to prohibit disclosure of their personal
information, and enumerates the situations in which the information may
be used or disclosed without the subscriber's approval. These proposed
rules are generally analogous to restrictions already in place for
other providers of Internet services, including cable operators and
phone companies, which are restricted in how they may use personally
identifiable information about customers without the customers'
approval.
  No criminal penalties attach for violation. ECPA currently authorizes
an aggrieved person to bring a civil action.
  Title II: Promoting the Use of Encryption. This title contains three
sections: (1) prohibiting domestic controls on encryption and
government-

[[Page S4042]]

compelled key escrow encryption; (2) requiring encryption products used
by federal agencies to interoperate with commercial encryption
products; and (3) adding a chapter to the federal criminal code
detailing procedures to law enforcement and foreign government access
to decryption assistance.
  Specifically, the bill would require the release of decryption keys
or assistance to law enforcement in response to a court order based
upon a finding that the key or assistance is necessary to decrypt
lawfully intercepted encrypted messages or data.
  Title III: Privacy Protection for Library Loan and Book Sales
Records. This title would extend the privacy protection in current law
for video rental and sale records to library loan and book sale
records.
  Library.--The library provisions are a reprise of sections that were
dropped from the Video Privacy Protection Act enacted in 1988. This
provision would prohibit libraries from disclosing personally
identifiable information about patrons without the written consent of
the patron or in response to a court order to release the information
to a law enforcement agency, with prior notice to the patron, if there
is probable cause to believe a crime is being committed and the
information sought is material to the investigation.
  Booksellers.--The public outcry over Independent Counsel Kenneth
Starr's subpoena in March 1988 to Kramerbooks & Afterwords for any
books purchased by Monica Lewinsky, and the potential threat such
government fishing expeditions pose to First Amendment rights, prompted
examination of the privacy rules protecting the records maintained by
bookstores. There are no rules barring book sellers from disclosing
records about their customers.
  This section would impose the same nondisclosure rules on
booksellers--whether online or in physical spaces--that apply to video
rental stores. Generally, book sellers would be barred from disclosing
personally identifiable information concerning a book purchaser without
that purchasers' written consent given at the time the disclosure is
sought.
  Title IV: Privacy Protection for Satellite Home Viewers. In the 1984
Cable Act, Congress established a nationwide standard for the privacy
protection of cable subscribers. Since the Cable Act was adopted, an
entirely new form of access to television has emerged--home satellite
viewing--which is especially popular in rural areas not served by
cable. Yet there is no statutory privacy protection for information
collected by home satellite viewing services about their customers or
subscribers. This title fills this gap by amending the privacy
provisions of the Cable Act to cover home satellite viewing.
  The amendments do not change the rules governing access to cable
subscriber information. Instead, they merely add the words ``satellite
home viewing service'' and ``satellite carrier or distributor'' where
appropriate.
  The amendment does not address another inconsistency in the law,
which bears mentioning: should a cable company that provides Internet
services to its customers be subject to the privacy safeguards in the
Cable Act or in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which
normally applies to Internet service providers and contains obligations
regarding the disclosure of personally identifiable information to both
governmental and nongovernmental entities different from those in the
Cable Act? One court has described this as a ``statutory riddle raised
by the entrance of cable operators into the Internet services market.''
  New technologies and new uses for old technologies pose challenging
``riddles'' for privacy, but they are solvable in ways that balance
competing commerce, civil rights, and law enforcement interests. The E-
RIGHTS bill proposes balanced solutions that protect our privacy
rights. I invite others to share their ideas on these matters. There
are few matters more important than privacy in maintaining our core
democratic values, so I look forward to hearing their comments on ways
to improve this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the E-RIGHTS bill and the sectional
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 854

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Electronic
     Rights for the 21st Century Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Definitions.

     TITLE I--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC
                              INFORMATION

Sec. 101. Enhanced privacy protection for information on computer
              networks.
Sec. 102. Government access to location information.
Sec. 103. Enhanced privacy protection for transactional information
              obtained from pen registers and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 104. Privacy protection for conference calls.
Sec. 105. Enhanced privacy protection for packet networks, including
              the Internet.
Sec. 106. Privacy safeguards for information collected by Internet
              registrars.
Sec. 107. Reports concerning governmental access to electronic
              communications.
Sec. 108. Roving wiretaps.
Sec. 109. Authority to provide customer location information for
              emergency purposes.
Sec. 110. Confidentiality of subscriber information.

                 TITLE II--PROMOTING USE OF ENCRYPTION

Sec. 201. Freedom to use encryption.
Sec. 202. Purchase and use of encryption products by the Federal
              Government.
Sec. 203. Law enforcement decryption assistance.

  TITLE III--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR LIBRARY LOAN AND BOOK SALE RECORDS

Sec. 301. Wrongful disclosure of library loan and book sale records.

        TITLE IV--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR SATELLITE HOME VIEWERS

Sec. 401. Privacy protection for subscribers of satellite television
              services for private home viewing.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to promote the privacy and constitutional rights of
     individuals and organizations in networked computer systems
     and other digital environments, protect the confidentiality
     of information and security of critical infrastructure
     systems relied on by individuals, businesses and government
     agencies, and properly balance the needs of law enforcement
     to have the access to electronic communications and
     information in appropriate circumstances;
       (2) to encourage Americans to develop and deploy encryption
     technology and to promote the use of encryption by Americans
     to protect the security, confidentiality, and privacy of
     their lawful wire and electronic communications and stored
     electronic information; and
       (3) to establish privacy standards and procedures by which
     investigative or law enforcement officers and foreign
     governments may obtain decryption assistance for encrypted
     communications and stored electronic information.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the digitization of information and the explosion in
     the growth of computing and electronic networking offers
     tremendous potential benefits to the way Americans live,
     work, and are entertained, but also raises new threats to the
     privacy of the American people and the competitiveness of
     American businesses;
       (2) a secure, private, and trusted national and global
     information infrastructure is essential to promote economic
     growth, protect privacy, and meet the needs of the American
     people and businesses;
       (3) the rights of Americans to the privacy and security of
     their communications and in the conducting of personal and
     business affairs should be promoted and protected;
       (4) the authority and ability of investigative and law
     enforcement officers to access and decipher, in a timely
     manner and as provided by law, wire and electronic
     communications, and stored electronic information necessary
     to provide for public safety and national security should
     also be preserved;
       (5) individuals will not entrust their sensitive personal,
     medical, financial, and other information to computers and
     computer networks unless the security and privacy of that
     information is assured;
       (6) businesses will not entrust their proprietary and
     sensitive corporate information, including information about
     products, processes, customers, finances, and employees, to
     computers and computer networks unless the security and
     privacy of that information is assured;
       (7) America's critical infrastructures, including its
     telecommunications system, banking and financial
     infrastructure, and power and transportation infrastructure,
     increasingly rely on vulnerable information

[[Page S4043]]

     systems, and will represent a growing risk to national
     security and public safety unless the security and privacy of
     those information systems is assured;
       (8) encryption technology is an essential tool to promote
     and protect the privacy, security, confidentiality,
     integrity, and authenticity of wire and electronic
     communications and stored electronic information;
       (9) encryption techniques, technology, programs, and
     products are widely available worldwide;
       (10) Americans should be free to use lawfully whatever
     particular encryption techniques, technologies, programs, or
     products developed in the marketplace that best suits their
     needs in order to interact electronically with the government
     and others worldwide in a secure, private, and confidential
     manner;
       (11) government mandates for, or otherwise compelled use
     of, third-party key recovery systems or other systems that
     provide surreptitious access to encrypted data threatens the
     security and privacy of information systems;
       (12) a national encryption policy is needed to advance the
     development of the national and global information
     infrastructure, and preserve the right to privacy of
     Americans and the public safety and national security of the
     United States;
       (13) Congress and the American people have recognized the
     need to balance the right to privacy and the protection of
     the public safety with national security;
       (14) the Constitution of the United States permits lawful
     electronic surveillance and the use of other investigative
     tools by law enforcement officers and the seizure of stored
     electronic information only upon compliance with stringent
     standards and procedures designed to protect the right to
     privacy and other rights protected under the fourth amendment
     of the Constitution of the United States;
       (15) there is a need to clarify the standards and
     procedures by which investigative or law enforcement officers
     obtain decryption assistance from persons--
       (A) who are voluntarily entrusted with the means to decrypt
     wire and electronic communications and stored electronic
     information; or
       (B) have information that enables the decryption of such
     communications and information;
       (16) Americans are increasingly shopping online and
     purchasing books from online vendors, and expect that their
     choices of reading or viewing materials will be kept
     confidential;
       (17) protecting the confidentiality and privacy of the
     books, other written materials, and movies that a person
     chooses to read or view should be protected to ensure the
     free exercise of first amendment rights regardless of medium;
       (18) generally, under current law, telecommunications
     carriers may not disclose individually identifiable customer
     proprietary network information without their customers'
     approval, while providers of electronic communications
     services and remote computing services may make such
     disclosure to anyone other than a governmental entity and
     have no legal obligation to notify their subscribers when
     they do so;
       (19) subscribers of Internet services through facilities of
     cable operators must be given notice and an opportunity to
     prohibit disclosure before the cable operator may disclose
     any personally identifiable information, including name or
     address, about a subscriber to any other person, while
     providers of electronic communications services and remote
     computing services have no similar legal obligation to
     protect the privacy of their subscribers; and
       (20) given the convergence among wireless, wire line,
     cable, broadcast, and satellite services, privacy safeguards
     should be applied more uniformly across different media in
     order to provide a level competitive playing field and
     consistent privacy protections.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'', in the case of the United
     States Government, has the meaning given the term in section
     6 of title 18, United States Code, and includes the United
     States Postal Service.
       (2) Encrypt; encryption.--The terms ``encrypt'' and
     ``encryption'' refer to the scrambling (and descrambling) of
     wire communications, electronic communications, or
     electronically stored information using mathematical formulas
     or algorithms in order to preserve the confidentiality,
     integrity, or authenticity of, and prevent unauthorized
     recipients from accessing or altering, such communications or
     information.
       (3) Encryption product.--The term ``encryption product''
     means a computing device, computer hardware, computer
     software, or technology with encryption capabilities.
       (4) Key.--The term ``key'' means the variable information
     used in or produced by a mathematical formula, code, or
     algorithm, or any component thereof, used to encrypt or
     decrypt wire communications, electronic communications, or
     electronically stored information.
       (5) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given the
     term in section 2510(6) of title 18, United States Code.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' includes a State of the
     United States, the District of Columbia, and any
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
       (7) United states person.--The term ``United States
     person'' means any--
       (A) national of the United States; or
       (B) legal entity that--
       (i) is organized under the laws of the United States or any
     State; and
       (ii) has its principal place of business in the United
     States.

     TITLE I--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC
                              INFORMATION

     SEC. 101. ENHANCED PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR INFORMATION ON
                   COMPUTER NETWORKS.

       Section 2703(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
     by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new
     paragraph (1):
       ``(1) In general.--A governmental entity may require a
     provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents
     of any electronic communication to which this paragraph is
     made applicable by paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) pursuant to a warrant issued under the Federal Rules
     of Criminal Procedure or equivalent State warrant, a copy of
     which warrant shall be served on the subscriber or customer
     of such remote computing service before or at the same time
     the warrant is served on the provider of the remote computing
     service; or
       ``(B) pursuant to a Federal or State grand jury or trial
     subpoena, a copy of which subpoena shall be served on the
     subscriber or customer of such remote computing service under
     circumstances allowing the subscriber or customer a
     meaningful opportunity to challenge the subpoena.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (2) of that section
     is amended--
       (1) by indenting the paragraph 2 ems;
       (2) by inserting ``Applicability.--'' after ``(2)''; and
       (3) by indenting subparagraphs (A) and (B) 4 ems.

     SEC. 102. GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO LOCATION INFORMATION.

       (a) Court Order Required.--Section 2703 of title 18, United
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Disclosure of Location Information to Governmental
     Entities.--
       ``(1) Disclosure upon court order.--A provider of mobile
     electronic communication service shall provide to a
     governmental entity information generated by and disclosing
     the current physical location of a subscriber's equipment
     only if the governmental entity obtains a court order issued
     upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that
     the equipment has been used, is being used, or is about to be
     used to commit a felony offense.
       ``(2) Disclosure upon subscriber or user consent.--A
     provider of mobile electronic communication service may
     provide to a governmental entity information described in
     paragraph (1) with the consent of the subscriber or the user
     of the equipment concerned.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c)(1)(B) of that
     section is amended by striking ``(b) of this section'' and
     inserting ``(b), or wireless location information covered by
     subsection (g)''.

     SEC. 103. ENHANCED PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR TRANSACTIONAL
                   INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM PEN REGISTERS AND
                   TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

       Section 3123(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Upon an application made under section
     3122, the court may enter an ex parte order--
       ``(1) authorizing the installation and use of a pen
     register or a trap and trace device within the jurisdiction
     of the court if the court finds, based on the certification
     by the attorney for the government or the State law
     enforcement or investigative officer, that the information
     likely to be obtained by such installation and use is
     relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation; and
       ``(2) directing that the use of the pen register or trap
     and trace device be conducted in such a way as to minimize
     the recording or decoding of any electronic or other impulses
     that are not related to the dialing and signaling information
     utilized in call processing by the service provider upon whom
     the order is served.''.

     SEC. 104. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CONFERENCE CALLS.

       Section 2518 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) The interception of wire or electronic
     communications pursuant to an order under this section must
     be terminated when the facility identified in the order
     authorizing such interception is no longer being used, unless
     the judge determines on the basis of facts submitted by the
     applicant that there is probable cause to believe that an
     individual continuing as a party to the communication is
     committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular
     offense enumerated in the order and there is probable cause
     to believe that particular communications concerning that
     offense will be obtained through such continuing
     interception.''.

     SEC. 105. ENHANCED PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR PACKET NETWORKS,
                   INCLUDING THE INTERNET.

       Section 3121(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
     by striking ``other impulses'' and all that follows and
     inserting ``other impulses--
       ``(1) to the dialing and signaling information utilized in
     call processing; or
       ``(2) in the case of a packet-switched network, to the
     addressing information.''.

[[Page S4044]]

     SEC. 106. PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS FOR INFORMATION COLLECTED BY
                   INTERNET REGISTRARS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2703 of title 18, United States
     Code, as amended by section 102(a) of this Act, is further
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Records Concerning Domain Name Registration
     Service.--A provider of domain name registration service may
     disclose a record or other information pertaining to a
     subscriber or customer of such service--
       ``(1) to any person--
       ``(A) if the provider has provided the subscriber or
     customer, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the opportunity
     to prohibit such disclosure;
       ``(B) in the case of information that identifies the
     service provider hosting the website of the subscriber or
     customer; or
       ``(C) to the extent such disclosure is necessary incident
     to the provision of such service or for the protection of the
     rights or property of the provider of such service; or
       ``(2) without notice or consent of the subscriber or
     customer in response to a subpoena or warrant authorized by a
     Federal or State statute.''.
       (b) Domain Name Registration Service Defined.--Section 2711
     of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the term `domain name registration service' means a
     service to the public for the assignment and management of
     domain names and Internet Protocol addresses.''.

     SEC. 107. REPORTS CONCERNING GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO
                   ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
     section 106(a) of this Act, is further amended by adding at
     the end the following:
       ``(i) Reports.--In April each year, the Attorney General
     shall transmit to Congress a full and complete report on--
       ``(1) the number and kind of warrants, orders, and
     subpoenas applied for by law enforcement agencies of the
     Department of Justice under this section;
       ``(2) the number of such applications granted or denied;
     and
       ``(3) with respect to each warrant, order, or subpoena
     issued under this section--
       ``(A) the number and type of communications disclosed;
       ``(B) the approximate number and frequency of incriminating
     communications disclosed;
       ``(C) the offense specified in the application; and
       ``(D) the approximate number of persons whose
     communications were intercepted.''.

     SEC. 108. ROVING WIRETAPS.

       (a) Scope of Wiretaps.--Subsection (11)(b) of section 2518
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
     clauses (ii) through (iv) and inserting the following new
     clauses:
       ``(ii) the application identifies the person believed to be
     committing the offense and whose communications are to be
     intercepted and the applicant makes a showing that--
       ``(I) the person changes facilities in a way that has the
     effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility;
     or
       ``(II) the person intends to thwart interception by
     changing facilities; and
       ``(iii) the judge finds that such showing has been
     adequately made.''.
       (b) Limitation.--Subsection (12) of that section is
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``(12)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Each order and extension thereof to which the
     requirements of subsections (1)(b)(ii) and (3)(D) of this
     section do not apply by reason of subsection (11) of this
     section shall provide that the authorization to intercept
     only applies to communications to which the person believed
     to be committing the offense and named in the order is a
     party.''.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CUSTOMER LOCATION INFORMATION
                   FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES.

       (a) Use of Call Location and Crash Notification
     Information.--Subsection (d) of section 222 of the
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) to provide call location information concerning the
     user of a commercial mobile service (as such term is defined
     in section 332(d))--
       ``(A) to a public safety answering point, emergency medical
     service provider or emergency dispatch provider, public
     safety official, fire service official, law enforcement
     official, hospital emergency facility, or trauma care
     facility in order to respond to the user's call for emergency
     services;
       ``(B) to inform the user's legal guardian or members of the
     user's immediate family of the user's location in an
     emergency situation that involves the risk of death or
     serious physical harm; or
       ``(C) to providers of information or database management
     services solely for purposes of assisting in the delivery of
     emergency services in response to an emergency; or
       ``(5) to transmit automatic crash notification information
     as part of the operation of an automatic crash notification
     system.''.
       (b) Customer Approval of Use of Call Location and Crash
     Notification Information.--That section is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) Customer Approval of Use of Call Location Information
     and Crash Notification Information.--For purposes of
     subsection (c)(1), without the express prior authorization of
     the customer, a customer shall not be considered to have
     approved the use or disclosure of or access to--
       ``(1) call location information concerning the user of a
     commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in section
     332(d)), other than in accordance with subsection (d)(4); or
       ``(2) automatic crash notification information to any
     person other than for use in the operation of an automatic
     crash notification system.''.
       (c) Use of Listed and Unlisted Subscriber Information for
     Emergency Services.--That section is further amended by
     inserting after subsection (f), as amended by subsection (b)
     of this section, the following new subsection (g):
       ``(g) Subscriber Listed and Unlisted Information for
     Emergency Services.--Notwithstanding subsections (b), (c),
     and (d), a telecommunications carrier that provides telephone
     exchange service shall provide information described in
     subsection (h)(3)(A) (including information pertaining to
     subscribers whose information is unlisted or unpublished)
     that is in its possession or control (including information
     pertaining to subscribers of other carriers) on a timely and
     unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable
     rates, terms, and conditions to providers of emergency
     services, and providers of emergency support services, solely
     for purposes of delivering or assisting in the delivery of
     emergency services.''.
       (d) Definitions.--Subsection (h) of that section, as
     redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``location,'' after
     ``destination,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Public safety answering point.--The term `public
     safety answering point' means a facility that has been
     designated to receive emergency calls and route them to
     emergency service personnel.
       ``(5) Emergency services.--The term `emergency services'
     means 911 emergency services and emergency notification
     services.
       ``(6) Emergency notification services.--The term `emergency
     notification services' means services that notify the public
     of an emergency.
       ``(7) Emergency support services.--The term `emergency
     support services' means information or data base management
     services used in support of emergency services.''.

     SEC. 110. CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION.

       Section 2703(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before the period at
     the end the following: ``only if such disclosure is--
       ``(i) necessary to initiate, render, bill, and collect for
     such service;
       ``(ii) necessary to protect the rights or property of the
     provider of such service;
       ``(iii) required by law;
       ``(iv) made at the request of the subscriber or customer;
     or
       ``(v) if the provider has provided the subscriber or
     customer, in a clear and conspicuous manner, with the
     opportunity to prohibit such disclosure.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to
     prohibit a provider of electronic communication service or
     remote computing service from using, disclosing, or
     permitting access to aggregate subscriber information from
     which individual subscriber identities and characteristics
     have been removed.''.

                 TITLE II--PROMOTING USE OF ENCRYPTION

     SEC. 201. FREEDOM TO USE ENCRYPTION.

       (a) No Domestic Encryption Controls.--It shall be lawful
     for any person within the United States, and for any United
     States person in a foreign country, to use, develop,
     manufacture, sell, distribute, or import any encryption
     product, regardless of the encryption algorithm selected,
     encryption key length chosen, existence of key recovery or
     other plaintext access capability, or implementation or
     medium used.
       (b) Prohibition on Government-Compelled Key Escrow or Key
     Recovery.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), no
     agency of the United States may require, compel, set
     standards for, condition any approval on, or condition the
     receipt of any benefit on, a requirement that a decryption
     key, access to a decryption key, key recovery information, or
     other plaintext access capability be--
       (A) required to be built into computer hardware or software
     for any purpose;
       (B) given to any other person, including any agency of the
     United States or a State, or any entity in the private
     sector; or
       (C) retained by the owner or user of an encryption key or
     any other person, other than for encryption products for the
     use of the Federal Government or a State government.
       (2) Use of particular products.--No agency of the United
     States may require any person who is not an employee or agent
     of the United States or a State to use any key recovery or
     other plaintext access features for communicating or
     transacting business with any agency of the United States.

[[Page S4045]]

       (3) Exceptions.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not
     apply to--
       (A) encryption used by an agency of the United States, or
     the employees or agents of such agency, solely for the
     internal operations and telecommunications systems of the
     United States Government; or
       (B) the authority of any investigative or law enforcement
     officer, or any member of the intelligence community (as
     defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
     U.S.C. 401a)), acting under any law in effect on the date of
     enactment of this Act, to gain access to encrypted
     communications or information.
       (c) Use of Encryption for Authentication or Integrity
     Purposes.--No agency of the United States shall establish any
     condition, tie, or link between encryption products,
     standards, and services used for confidentiality purposes and
     those used for authentication, integrity, or access control
     purposes.

     SEC. 202. PURCHASE AND USE OF ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS BY THE
                   FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       To ensure that secure electronic access to the Federal
     Government is available to persons outside of and not
     operating under contract with agencies of the United States,
     the Federal Government may not purchase any encryption
     product with a key recovery or other plaintext access feature
     if such key recovery or plaintext access feature would
     interfere with use of the full encryption capabilities of the
     product when interoperating with other commercial encryption
     products.

     SEC. 203. LAW ENFORCEMENT DECRYPTION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Part I of title 18, United States Code, is
     amended by adding at the end the following:

 ``CHAPTER 124--ENCRYPTED WIRE OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND STORED
                         ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

``Sec.
``2801. Definitions.
``2802. Access to decryption assistance for communications.
``2803. Access to decryption assistance for stored electronic
              communications or records.
``2804. Foreign government access to decryption assistance.

     ``Sec. 2801. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Decryption assistance.--The term `decryption
     assistance' means assistance that provides or facilitates
     access to the plaintext of an encrypted wire or electronic
     communication or stored electronic information, including the
     disclosure of a decryption key or the use of a decryption key
     to produce plaintext.
       ``(2) Decryption key.--The term `decryption key' means the
     variable information used in or produced by a mathematical
     formula, code, or algorithm, or any component thereof, used
     to decrypt a wire communication or electronic communication
     or stored electronic information that has been encrypted.
       ``(3) Encrypt; encryption.--The terms `encrypt' and
     `encryption' refer to the scrambling (and descrambling) of
     wire communications, electronic communications, or
     electronically stored information using mathematical formulas
     or algorithms in order to preserve the confidentiality,
     integrity, or authenticity of, and prevent unauthorized
     recipients from accessing or altering, such communications or
     information.
       ``(4) Foreign government.--The term `foreign government'
     has the meaning given the term in section 1116.
       ``(5) Official request.--The term `official request' has
     the meaning given the term in section 3506(c).
       ``(6) Incorporated definitions.--Any term used in this
     chapter that is not defined in this chapter and that is
     defined in section 2510, has the meaning given the term in
     section 2510.

     ``Sec. 2802. Access to decryption assistance for
       communications

       ``(a) Criminal Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--An order authorizing the interception of
     a wire or electronic communication under section 2518 shall,
     upon request of the applicant, direct that a provider of wire
     or electronic communication service, or any other person
     possessing information capable of decrypting that
     communication, other than a person whose communications are
     the subject of the interception, shall promptly furnish the
     applicant with the necessary decryption assistance, if the
     court finds that the decryption assistance sought is
     necessary for the decryption of a communication intercepted
     pursuant to the order.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Each order described in paragraph (1),
     and any extension of such an order, shall--
       ``(A) contain a provision that the decryption assistance
     provided shall involve disclosure of a private decryption key
     only if no other form of decryption assistance is available
     and otherwise shall be limited to the minimum necessary to
     decrypt the communications intercepted pursuant to such
     order; and
       ``(B) terminate on the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the authorized objective is
     attained; or
       ``(ii) 30 days after the date on which the order or
     extension, as applicable, is issued.
       ``(3) Notice.--If decryption assistance is provided
     pursuant to an order under this subsection, the court issuing
     the order shall cause to be served on the person whose
     communications are the subject of such decryption assistance,
     as part of the inventory required to be served pursuant to
     section 2518(8), notice of the receipt of the decryption
     assistance and a specific description of the decryption keys
     or other decryption assistance disclosed.
       ``(b) Foreign Intelligence Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--An order authorizing the interception of
     a wire or electronic communication under section 105(b)(2) of
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
     1805(b)(2)) shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that
     a provider of wire or electronic communication service, or
     any other person possessing information capable of decrypting
     such communications, other than a person whose communications
     are the subject of the interception, shall promptly furnish
     the applicant with the necessary decryption assistance, if
     the court finds that the decryption assistance sought is
     necessary for the decryption of a communication intercepted
     pursuant to the order.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Each order described in paragraph (1),
     and any extension of such an order, shall--
       ``(A) contain a provision that the decryption assistance
     provided shall be limited to the minimum necessary to decrypt
     the communications intercepted pursuant to such order; and
       ``(B) terminate on the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the authorized objective is
     attained; or
       ``(ii) 30 days after the date on which the order or
     extension, as applicable, is issued.
       ``(c) General Prohibition on Disclosure.--Other than
     pursuant to an order under subsection (a) or (b), no person
     possessing information capable of decrypting a wire or
     electronic communication of another person shall disclose
     that information or provide decryption assistance to an
     investigative or law enforcement officer.

     ``Sec. 2803. Access to decryption assistance for stored
       electronic communications or records

       ``(a) Decryption Assistance.--No person may disclose a
     decryption key or provide decryption assistance pertaining to
     the contents of stored electronic communications or records,
     including those disclosed pursuant to section 2703, to a
     governmental entity, except--
       ``(1) pursuant to a warrant issued under the Federal Rules
     of Criminal Procedure or an equivalent State warrant, a copy
     of which warrant shall be served on the person who created
     the electronic communication or record before or at the same
     time service is made on the keyholder;
       ``(2) pursuant to a subpoena, a copy of which subpoena
     shall be served on the person who created the electronic
     communication or record, under circumstances allowing the
     person meaningful opportunity to challenge the subpoena; or
       ``(3) upon the consent of the person who created the
     electronic communication or record.
       ``(b) Delay of Notification.--In the case of communications
     disclosed pursuant to section 2703(a), service of the copy of
     the warrant or subpoena on the person who created the
     electronic communication or record may be delayed for a
     period of not to exceed 90 days upon request to the court by
     the governmental entity requiring the decryption assistance,
     if the court determines that there is reason to believe that
     notification of the existence of the court order or subpoena
     may have an adverse result described in section 2705(a)(2).

     ``Sec. 2804. Foreign government access to decryption
       assistance

       ``(a) In General.--No investigative or law enforcement
     officer may--
       ``(1) release a decryption key to a foreign government or
     to a law enforcement agency of a foreign government; or
       ``(2) except as provided in subsection (b), provide
     decryption assistance to a foreign government or to a law
     enforcement agency of a foreign government.
       ``(b) Conditions for Cooperation With Foreign Government.--
       ``(1) Application for order.--In any case in which the
     United States has entered into a treaty or convention with a
     foreign government to provide mutual assistance with respect
     to providing decryption assistance, the Attorney General (or
     the designee of the Attorney General) may, upon an official
     request to the United States from the foreign government,
     apply for an order described in paragraph (2) from the
     district court in which the person possessing information
     capable of decrypting the encrypted communication or stored
     electronic information at issue resides--
       ``(A) directing that person to release a decryption key or
     provide decryption assistance to the Attorney General (or the
     designee of the Attorney General); and
       ``(B) authorizing the Attorney General (or the designee of
     the Attorney General) to furnish the foreign government with
     the plaintext of the communication or information at issue.
       ``(2) Contents of order.--An order described in this
     paragraph is an order directing the person possessing
     information capable of decrypting the communication or
     information at issue to--
       ``(A) release a decryption key to the Attorney General (or
     the designee of the Attorney General) so that the plaintext
     of the communication or information may be furnished to the
     foreign government; or
       ``(B) provide decryption assistance to the Attorney General
     (or the designee of the Attorney General) so that the
     plaintext of the

[[Page S4046]]

     communication or information may be furnished to the foreign
     government.
       ``(3) Requirements for order.--The court described in
     paragraph (1) may issue an order described in paragraph (2)
     if the court finds, on the basis of an application made by
     the Attorney General under this subsection, that--
       ``(A) the decryption key or decryption assistance sought is
     necessary for the decryption of a communication or
     information that the foreign government is authorized to
     intercept or seize pursuant to the law of the foreign
     country;
       ``(B) the law of the foreign country provides for adequate
     protection against arbitrary interference with respect to
     privacy rights; and
       ``(C) the decryption key or decryption assistance is being
     sought in connection with a criminal investigation for
     conduct that would constitute a violation of a criminal law
     of the United States if committed within the jurisdiction of
     the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for part I of title
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
     following:

``124. Encrypted wire or electronic communications and stored
    electronic information..................................2801''.....

  TITLE III--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR LIBRARY LOAN AND BOOK SALE RECORDS

     SEC. 301. WRONGFUL DISCLOSURE OF LIBRARY LOAN AND BOOK SALE
                   RECORDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2710 of title 18, United States
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
     subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
       (2) by striking the section designation and all that
     follows through the end of subsection (b) and inserting the
     following:

     ``Sec. 2710. Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale
       records and library loan and book sale records

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `book seller' means any person, engaged in
     the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
     of selling books, magazines, or other printed material, or
     any person or other entity to whom a disclosure is made under
     subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(2), but only with
     respect to the information contained in the disclosure.
       ``(2) The term `consumer' means any renter, purchaser, or
     subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service
     provider or book seller.
       ``(3) The term `library' means an institution that operates
     as a public library or serves as a library for any
     university, school, or college.
       ``(4) The term `ordinary course of business' means only
     debt collection activities, order fulfillment, request
     processing, and the transfer of ownership.
       ``(5) The term `patron' means any individual who requests
     or receives--
       ``(A) services within a library; or
       ``(B) books or other materials on loan from a library.
       ``(6) The term `personally identifiable information'
     includes the following:
       ``(A) Information that identifies a person as having
     requested or obtained specific video materials or services
     from a video tape service provider.
       ``(B) Information that identifies a person as having
     requested or obtained specific books, magazines, or other
     printed material from a book seller.
       ``(C) Information that identifies a person as having
     requested or obtained any materials or services from a
     library.
       ``(7) The term `video tape service provider' means any
     person, engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate
     or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of
     prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual
     materials, or any person or other entity to whom a disclosure
     is made under subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(2),
     but only with respect to the information contained in the
     disclosure.
       ``(b) Video Tape Rental and Sale and Book Sale Records.--
       ``(1) In general.--A video tape service provider or book
     seller who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally
     identifiable information concerning any consumer of such
     provider or seller, as the case may be, shall be liable to
     the aggrieved person for the relief provided in subsection
     (d).
       ``(2) Disclosure.--A video tape service provider or book
     seller may disclose personally identifiable information
     concerning any consumer--
       ``(A) to the consumer;
       ``(B) to any person with the informed, written consent of
     the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought;
       ``(C) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant
     issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
     equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in
     accordance with paragraph (4);
       ``(D) to any person if the disclosure is solely of the
     names and addresses of consumers and if--
       ``(i) the video tape service provider or book seller, as
     the case may be, has provided the consumer, in a clear and
     conspicuous manner, with the opportunity to prohibit such
     disclosure; and
       ``(ii) the disclosure does not identify the title,
     description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other
     audio visual material, or books magazines, or other printed
     material, except that the subject matter of such materials
     may be disclosed if the disclosure is for the exclusive use
     of marketing goods and services directly to the consumer;
       ``(E) to any person if the disclosure is incident to the
     ordinary course of business of the video tape service
     provider or book seller; or
       ``(F) pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon
     a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot
     be accommodated by any other means, if--
       ``(i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the
     person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding
     relevant to the issuance of the court order; and
       ``(ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear
     and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.
       ``(3) Safeguards.--If an order is granted pursuant to
     subparagraph (C) or (F) of paragraph (2), the court shall
     impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized
     disclosure.
       ``(4) Court orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure
     under paragraph (2)(C) shall issue only with prior notice to
     the consumer and only if the law enforcement agency shows
     that there is probable cause to believe that a person has
     engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal
     activity and that the records or other information sought are
     material to the investigation of such activity. In the case
     of a State government authority, such a court order shall not
     issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing
     an order pursuant to this subsection, on a motion made
     promptly by the video tape service provider or the book
     seller, may quash or modify such order if the information or
     records requested are unreasonably voluminous in nature or if
     compliance with such order otherwise would cause an
     unreasonable burden on such provider or seller, as the case
     may be.
       ``(c) Library Records.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any library that knowingly discloses, to
     any person, personally identifiable information concerning
     any patron of the library shall be liable to the aggrieved
     person as provided in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Disclosure.--A library may disclose personally
     identifiable information concerning any patron--
       ``(A) to the patron;
       ``(B) to any person with the informed written consent of
     the patron given at the time the disclosure is sought;
       ``(C) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant
     issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
     equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in
     accordance with paragraph (4);
       ``(D) to any person if the disclosure is solely of the
     names and addresses of patrons and if--
       ``(i) the library has provided the patron with a written
     statement that affords the patron the opportunity to prohibit
     such disclosure; and
       ``(ii) the disclosure does not reveal, directly or
     indirectly, the title, description, or subject matter of any
     library materials borrowed or services utilized by the
     patron;
       ``(E) to any authorized person if the disclosure is
     necessary for the retrieval of overdue library materials or
     the recoupment of compensation for damaged or lost library
     materials; or
       ``(F) pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon
     a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot
     be accommodated by any other means, if--
       ``(i) the patron is given reasonable notice, by the person
     seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding relevant to
     the issuance of the court order; and
       ``(ii) the patron is afforded the opportunity to appear and
     contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.
       ``(3) Safeguards.--If an order is granted pursuant to
     subparagraph (C) or (F) of paragraph (2), the court shall
     impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized
     disclosure.
       ``(4) Court orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure
     under paragraph (2)(C) shall issue only with prior notice to
     the patron and only if the law enforcement agency shows that
     there is probable cause to believe that a person has engaged,
     is engaging or is about to engage in criminal activity and
     that the records or other information sought are material to
     the investigation of such activity. In the case of a State
     government authority, such a court order shall not issue if
     prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order
     pursuant to this subsection, on a motion made promptly by the
     library, may quash or modify such order if the information or
     records requested are unreasonably voluminous in nature or if
     compliance with such order otherwise would cause an
     unreasonable burden on the library.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 2701
     in the analysis for chapter 121 of title 18, United States
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

``2710. Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records and
              library loan and book sale records.''.

        TITLE IV--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR SATELLITE HOME VIEWERS

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

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

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

       ``(a) Notice to Subscribers Regarding Personally
     Identifiable Information.--At

[[Page S4047]]

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

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

       ``(3) Court orders.--A governmental entity may obtain
     personally identifiable information concerning a cable or
     satellite subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in
     the court proceeding relevant to such court order--
       ``(A) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that
     the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of
     engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought
     would be material evidence in the case; and
       ``(B) the subject of the information is afforded the
     opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.
       ``(d) Subscriber Access to Information.--A cable or
     satellite subscriber shall be provided access to all
     personally identifiable information regarding that subscriber
     that is collected and maintained by a cable operator,
     satellite carrier, or distributor. Such information shall be
     made available to the subscriber at reasonable times and at a
     convenient place designated by such cable operator, satellite
     carrier, or distributor. A cable or satellite subscriber
     shall be provided reasonable opportunity to correct any error
     in such information.
       ``(e) Destruction of Information.--A cable operator,
     satellite carrier, or distributor shall destroy personally
     identifiable information if the information is no longer
     necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and
     there are no pending requests or orders for access to such
     information under subsection (d) or pursuant to a court
     order.
       ``(f) Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person aggrieved by any act of a
     cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor in
     violation of this section may bring a civil action in a
     district court of the United States.
       ``(2) Damages and costs.--In any action brought under
     paragraph (1), the court may award a prevailing plaintiff--
       ``(A) actual damages but not less than liquidated damages
     computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation
     or $1,000, whichever is greater;
       ``(B) punitive damages; and
       ``(C) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs
     reasonably incurred.
       ``(3) No effect on other remedies.--The remedy provided by
     this subsection shall be in addition to any other remedy
     available under any provision of law to a cable or satellite
     subscriber.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Distributor.--The term `distributor' has the meaning
     given that term in section 119(d)(1) of title 17, United
     States Code.
       ``(2) Cable operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `cable operator' has the
     meaning given that term in section 602.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term includes any person who--
       ``(i) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership
     or control with, a cable operator; and
       ``(ii) provides any wire or radio communications service.
       ``(3) Other service.--The term `other service' includes any
     wire, electronic, or radio communications service provided
     using any of the facilities of a cable operator, satellite
     carrier, or distributor that are used in the provision of
     cable service or satellite home viewing service.
       ``(4) Personally identifiable information.--The term
     `personally identifiable information' does not include any
     record of aggregate data that does not identify particular
     persons.
       ``(5) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier' has
     the meaning given that term in section 119(d)(6) of title 17,
     United States Code.''.
       (b) Notice With Respect to Certain Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
     cable operator, satellite carrier, or distributor who has
     entered into agreements referred to in section 631(a) of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended by subsection (a),
     before the date of enactment of this Act, shall provide any
     notice required under that section, as so amended, to
     subscribers under such agreements not later than 180 days
     after that date.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
     to any agreement under which a cable operator, satellite
     carrier, or distributor was providing notice under section
     631(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect on the
     day before the date of enactment of this Act, as of such
     date.
                                  ____

           Section-by-Section Analysis of Leahy E-Rights Act

       Sec. 1. Short Title.--The Act may be cited as the
     ``Electronic Rights (E-RIGHTS) for the 21st Century Act.''
       Sec. 2. Purposes.--The Act has three general purposes: (1)
     promoting the privacy and constitutional rights of
     individuals and organizations in networked computer systems,
     and the security of critical information infrastructures,
     while properly balancing law enforcement access needs; (2)
     encouraging Americans to develop and deploy encryption
     technology and to promote the use of encryption by Americans
     to protect the security, confidentiality and privacy of their
     lawful wire and electronic communications and stored
     electronic information; and (3) establishing privacy
     standards and procedures for law enforcement officers to
     obtain decryption assistance for encrypted communications and
     information.
       Sec. 3. Findings.--The Act enumerates twenty congressional
     findings that law enforcement investigative and electronic
     surveillance needs must be balanced with the right to privacy
     and other rights protected under the Fourth Amendment of the
     Constitution; encryption technology, which is widely
     available worldwide, is useful in protecting the privacy,
     security, and confidentiality of the national and global
     information infrastructure; Americans should be free to use,
     and American businesses free to compete and sell, encryption
     technology, programs and products; and given the convergence
     among digital media, privacy safeguards should be applied
     more uniformly to provide a level competitive playing field.
       Sec. 4. Definitions.--The terms ``agency'', ``person'' and
     ``state'' have the same meaning given those terms in
     specified sections of title 18, United States Code, except
     that the term ``agency'' also includes the United States
     Postal Service.
       Additional definitions are provided for the following
     terms:
       The terms ``encrypt'' and ``encryption'' mean the use of
     mathematical formulas or algorithms to scramble or unscramble
     electronic data or communications for purposes of
     confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity. As defined, the
     terms cover a broad range of scrambling techniques and
     applications including cryptographic applications such as PGP
     or RSA's encryption algorithms; steganography;
     authentication; and winnowing and chafing.

[[Page S4048]]

       The term ``encryption product'' includes any hardware,
     software, devices, or other technology with encryption
     capabilities, whether or not offered for sale or
     distribution.
       The term ``key'' means the variable information used in or
     produced by a mathematical formula to encrypt or decrypt wire
     or electronic communications or electronically stored
     information.
       The term ``United States person'' means any citizen of the
     United States or legal entity organized under U.S. law that
     has its principal place of business in this country.

     TITLE I--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC
                              INFORMATION

       Sec. 101. Enhanced Privacy Protection for Information on
     Computer Networks.--The Act modifies subsection (b) of
     section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, to extend
     privacy protections to electronic information stored on
     computer networks.
       When held in a person's home, records may only be seized
     pursuant to a warrant based upon probable cause, or compelled
     under a subpoena, which may be challenged and quashed. In
     both instances, the record owner has notice of the search and
     an opportunity to challenge it. By contrast, under United
     States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (customer has no
     standing to object to bank disclosure of customer records),
     and its progeny, records in the possession of third parties
     do not receive Fourth Amendment protection. A governmental
     agent with a subpoena based upon mere relevance may compel a
     third party to produce records originating with or belonging
     to another person, without notice to the person to whom the
     records pertain. The record subject may never receive notice
     or any meaningful opportunity to challenge the production.
       This lack of protection for records held by third parties
     presents new privacy problems in the information age. With
     the rise of network computing, electronic information that
     was previously held on a person's own computer is
     increasingly stored elsewhere, such as on a network server.
     In many cases the location of such information is not even
     known to the record's owner.
       Furthermore, Web-based information services are attracting
     customers by offering free storage and services accessible
     from any computer. Companies like When.com, Briefcase.com,
     Yahoo and Netscape offer calendars, address books, ``to do''
     lists, stock portfolios and storage space, while more
     targeted companies, like dietwatch.com let users keep track
     of their diets. Potential customers of such services should
     not be discouraged from subscribing due to the weaker privacy
     and confidentiality protections afforded their remotely
     stored records than if those records were stored on the
     customer's own laptop or PC.
       Under current law, these services are covered by the remote
     computing service provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703(b), which
     authorizes a governmental entity to require disclosure of
     those communications without notice to the subscriber. A
     remote computing service provides storage or computer
     processing services to customers and is not authorized to
     access the contents of the electronic communications
     created by the customer.
       The Act amends section 2703(b) to extend the same privacy
     protections to a person's records whether storage takes place
     on that person's personal computer in their possession or in
     networked electronic storage. The amendment to section
     2703(b) would authorize a governmental entity to require
     disclosure of electronic communications or records stored by
     a remote computing service pursuant to (i) a state or federal
     warrant (based upon probable cause), with a copy to be served
     on the customer or record owner at the same time the warrant
     is served on the remote computing service holding the record;
     or (ii) a subpoena that must also be served on the customer
     or record owner with a meaningful opportunity to challenge
     the subpoena.
       The penalties for violating this section would not change
     and do not currently carry criminal fines or any term of
     imprisonment. (See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2701(c) (criminal offense
     provision does not apply to ``conduct authorized . . . in
     section 2703''). Instead, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2707, a
     government agent that violates this section is subject to
     disciplinary action, and a service provider that violates
     this section is subject to civil action for appropriate
     relief.
       Sec. 102. Government Access to Location Information.--The
     Act adds a new subsection (g) to section 2703 of title 18,
     United States Code, to extend privacy protections for
     physical location information generated on a real time basis
     by mobile electronic communications services, such as
     cellular telephones. This section requires that physical
     location information generated by a wireless service provider
     may only be released to a governmental entity pursuant to a
     court order based upon probable cause.
       Location information on wireless telephones is
     fundamentally different from the type of location information
     that can be associated with a wireline telephone. Wireless
     telephones are normally directly associated with the physical
     presence of the individual user, and are carried by those
     users into places where there is a reasonable expectation of
     privacy. Tracking of cellular telephones, even more-so than
     automobiles, implicates the movements of a person going about
     his or her business and personal life.
       Should the government seek to track a person by
     surreptitiously placing a mobile tracking device on that
     person's automobile, a court order would be required based
     upon a finding of probable cause. (See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3117;
     Fed. R. Cr. P. 41; U.S. v. In re Application, 155 F.R.D. 401,
     402 (D. MA 1994)). No less should be required for use by the
     government of a wireless telephone as a tracking device.
       Civil liberties experts have noted that cellular telephone
     technology ``is proceeding in the direction of providing more
     precise location information, a trend that has been boosted
     by the rulings of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
     in its ``E911'' (Enhanced 911) proceeding, which requires
     service providers to develop a locator capability for medical
     emergency and rescue purposes.'' (Testimony of Deirdre
     Mulligan, Center for Democracy and Technology, before the
     House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and
     Intellectual Property, March 26, 1998). Specifically, the FCC
     is requiring wireless service providers to modify their
     systems to enable them to relay to public safety authorities
     the cell site location of 911 callers. Carriers must also
     take steps to deploy the capability to provide latitude and
     longitude information of wireless telephone callers within
     125 meters and, ultimately, to locate a caller within a 40-
     foot radius for longitude, latitude and altitude, to enable
     locating a caller within a tall building. (See In re Revision
     of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
     Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Sys., CC Docket No. 94-102,
     Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
     (last modified Jan. 2, 1997)).
       In a separate proceeding, the FCC in October 1998 proposed
     ruling that a location tracking capability for wireless
     telephones was required under the Communications Assistance
     for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The FCC has tentatively
     concluded that carriers must have the capability of providing
     to law enforcement a caller's cell site location at the
     beginning and termination of a call. (See In re CALEA, CC
     Docket No. 97-213, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
     (adopted October 22, 1998), 63 Fed. Reg. 63639, November 16,
     1998). Whether this capability is ultimately required by the
     FCC as part of CALEA, there is no doubt that real-time
     location information will be increasingly available to law
     enforcement agencies. Accordingly, the appropriate standard
     for law enforcement access to such location information
     should be clarified.
       Sec. 103. Enhanced Privacy Protection for Transactional
     Information Obtained From Pen Registers or Trap and Trace
     Devices.--The Act enhances privacy protections for
     information obtained from pen register and trap and trace
     devices by amending section 3123(a) of title 18, United
     States Code. Under current law, the court is relegated to a
     mere ministerial function and must issue a pen register or
     trap and trace order whenever presented with a signed
     certification of a prosecutor.
       This amendment authorize the court to review the
     information presented in the certification to determine
     whether the information likely to be obtained is relevant to
     an ongoing criminal investigation. The amendment would not
     change the standard for issuance of an ex parte order
     authorizing use of a pen register or trap and trace
     device.
       In addition, the amendment would require law enforcement to
     minimize the information obtained from the pen register or
     trap and trace device that is not related to the dialing and
     signaling information utilized in call processing.
       Currently, pen registers capture not just such dialing
     information but also any other dialed digits after a call has
     been connected. The Department of Justice has taken the
     position in connection with legislation pending in the 105th
     Congress regarding law enforcement access to clone numeric
     pagers that digits dialed and transmitted after a call has
     been placed may consist of electronic impulses but ``are the
     `contents' of the call,'' subject to more stringent privacy
     protections under the Fourth Amendment. This provision would
     provide protection for those ``contents.''
       Sec. 104. Privacy Protection for Conference Calls.--This
     section clarifies the circumstances under which the
     government may continue monitoring a three-way call or
     conference call after a facility specified in the wiretap
     order is no longer connected to the call. The Fourth
     Amendment requires the government when conducting a search
     and seizure to have a warrant ``particularly describing the
     place to be searched, and the person or things to be
     seized.'' Under the terminology of the wiretap laws, the
     place to be searched is called a ``facility,'' which has
     generally been interpreted to mean a subscriber telephone
     line.
       Modern three-way and conference calling technology allows
     an individual to initiate a three-way or conference call with
     two or more other parties and then to ``drop off'' the call
     while the other parties continue communicating. At that
     point, the telephone line specified in the order is no longer
     connected to the call. This section makes it clear that the
     government may continue monitoring the communications of
     parties remaining on a conference call when the facility
     identified in the wiretap order is no longer participating
     only if the government has shown and the authorizing judge
     has found that an individual who remains a party to the
     communication is committing, has committed or is about to
     commit a particular offense enumerated in the wiretap order
     and that communications concerning that offense will be
     obtained through the

[[Page S4049]]

     continuing interception. Since these are the basic standards
     of the wiretap law, which the government must satisfy for any
     interception, the effect of the change is to make it clear
     that the interception of the remaining parties to a three-way
     or conference call must satisfy the basic requirements of the
     wiretap law.
       Sec. 105. Enhanced Privacy Protection for Packet Networks,
     Including the Internet.--This section amends subsection
     3121(c) of title 18 to require law enforcement agencies
     conducting pen register or trap and trace investigations on
     packet communications to use reasonably available technology
     to ensure that they do not intercept the content of
     communications without a Title III order. The electronic
     surveillance laws draw a distinction between the interception
     of content, which requires a court order based on the high
     probable cause standard, and the interception of call routing
     information, which is obtained under the lower pen register
     or trap and trace authority in sections 3121-3127. The
     Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994
     requires carriers, to the extent reasonably achievable, to
     design their systems to ensure that law enforcement agencies
     conducting pen register and trap and trace investigations do
     not intercept the content of communications. Subsection
     3121(c), originally added by CALEA, imposed a mirror
     obligation on law enforcement to use pen register or trap and
     trace equipment that does not record or decode content.
       Sec. 105 amends 3121(c) to make it clear that obligation
     applies to packet switched communications, which are based on
     technology that breaks a digital message into many small
     packets, each consisting of addressing or routing information
     plus a segment of content. This change makes it clear that
     law enforcement agencies using pen registers or trap and
     trace devices in packet switched environments must, if the
     technology is reasonably available, record or decode only
     addressing information, not content.
       Sec. 106. Privacy Safeguards for Information Collected by
     Internet Registrars.--The Act would amend section 2703 of
     title 18, United States Code, to add a new subsection (g)
     protecting the privacy of records pertaining to persons who
     register for a second-level domain name, which serves as an
     Internet address. Just as consumers may, by obtaining an
     unlisted telephone number for privacy, safety or other
     reasons, keep confidential personally identifiable
     information associated with telephone numbers, such as name
     and address, Internet users should be able to get an
     ``unlisted'' Internet address. A domain name registration
     service provider that violates this section would be subject
     to civil action for appropriate relief, under 18 U.S.C.
     Sec. 2707.
       Internet domain names are the unique identifiers or
     addresses that enables businesses, organizations, and
     individuals to communicate and conduct commerce on the
     Internet.
       Until recently, pursuant to a cooperative agreement with
     the Department of Commerce, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI),
     was the exclusive registrar assigning domain names ending in
     .com, .net, .org and .edu. As a registrar, NSI enters new
     domain names into the master directory or registry.
       The U.S. government is in the process of privatizing the
     administration of the Internet domain name system (DNS) to
     increase competition in the registration of domain names.
     With the advent of competition in the DNS, NSI will continue
     to operate the .com, .net, .org registries, but other
     companies, including domain name registration resellers,
     country code registries, ISPs, and major telecommunications
     firms, may be able to offer competing registrar services or
     registry/registrar services using other top level domains.
       Normally, in order to process a request for a domain name,
     registrars and registries must collect personal information
     for billing and other purposes. The information currently
     collected by NSI includes: name, organization, address,
     country, contacts for administrative, technical and billing
     matters, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address. This
     information, along with the date on which the name was
     registered and information on the computer network used by
     the registrant to connect to the Internet, is compiled in a
     registry and made publicly available on an Internet-
     accessible ``WHOIS'' database.
       This database provides an efficient way of identifying and
     contacting persons operating Web sites for both legitimate or
     illegitimate purposes, such as online trademark and copyright
     infringement. The personally identifiable information placed
     on the WHOIS database has been misused for ``spamming'', or
     sending unsolicited and unwanted e-mail messages to the
     persons who are registered with domain names. In addition,
     this information has been used by ``cyber-squatters'' to
     appropriate domain names for resale to the rightful owners.
     Despite these misuses and abuses of the WHOIS database, this
     information is valuable to marketers, news organizations,
     governments, and intellectual property owners.
       Personally identifiable information collected by domain
     name registrars has privacy implications. For example, when
     human rights organizations obtain a domain name to use the
     Internet for political activities, disclosure of the required
     mailing and contact information may be dangerous. The
     importance of anonymity is amply demonstrated by the recent
     example of people in Kosovo, who are using anonymous remail
     services to try to maintain confidential communications and
     avoid detection by Serbian forces. (See New York Times, at
     C4, April 19, 1998). As one civil liberties organization has
     said, ``Internet users should not have to sacrifice their
     privacy and personal safety to exercise their right to free
     speech and expression.''
       The amendment seeks to balance these competing interests by
     setting procedures for access to personally identifiable
     information regarding domain name holders. The procedures
     allow continued public access to information identifying the
     service provider hosting the website of the subscriber or
     customer, and are consistent with procedures adopted by the
     Congress in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), P.L.
     105-304, 112 STAT. 2883 (1998), which authorizes copyright
     owners to obtain information identifying the operators of Web
     sites or other Internet addresses engaged in possible
     copyright infringements through use of an expedited subpoena
     process. The DMCA provides that copyright owners ``may
     request a clerk of any U.S. district court to issue a
     subpoena to a service provider for identification of an
     alleged infringer.'' 17 U.S.C. Sec.  512(h)(1).
       Sec. 107. Reports Concerning Governmental Access to
     Electronic Communications.--This section requires the
     Attorney General to provide to Congress annual reports on the
     number and nature of government interceptions of E-mail and
     other electronic communications. To provide the appropriate
     oversight, the Congress, other policy makers and the public
     need information about government practices under the law.
     While the wiretap provisions of Title III require detailed
     reports by the courts and prosecutors on the number of
     wiretap orders issued, there is no similar requirement for
     collecting and publishing information on the nature and
     extent of government access to E-mail and other electronic
     communications under section 2703. Section 107 corrects this
     deficiency by requiring the Attorney General to transmit to
     Congress on an annual basis a report on the warrants, court
     orders and subpoenas applied for and issued under section
     2703.
       Sec. 108. Roving Wiretaps.--This section amends subsection
     (11)(b) of section 2518 of title 18, United States Code,
     concerning the standard for issuance of a roving wiretap.
     This standard was modified without debate or hearing in the
     Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, P.L.
     105-272, that passed in the final days of the 105th Congress,
     to address the concern of the Department of Justice that the
     prior standard for roving taps was too difficult to meet
     because it required the government to demonstrate that the
     subjective intent of the target was to avoid surveillance.
     However, the modification eliminated virtually any standard
     at all.
       This section would amend the roving wiretap provision by
     preserving the central rationale for roving taps: that they
     are only appropriate where the subject is changing facilities
     in a way that thwarts interception. As amended by this
     section, (b)(i) does not require the government to prove
     intent; it only requires the government to show effect.
     Alternatively, under (b)(ii), the government can obtain a
     roving tap where it can show the intent of the target, e.g.,
     where an associate of the target informs the government that
     the target intends to evade surveillance by changing
     facilities.
       Sec. 109. Authority to Provide Customer Location
     Information For Emergency Purposes.--This section amends
     section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222)
     to authorize telecommunications carriers to: (1) provide
     call location information concerning the user of a
     commercial mobile service to providers of emergency
     services, to inform such user's legal guardian or family
     members of the user's location in an emergency situation
     involving the risk of death or serious bodily injury, or
     to providers of information services to assist in the
     delivery of emergency response services; and (2) transmit
     automatic crash notification system information as part of
     the operation of such a system. In addition, this
     amendment requires the express prior customer
     authorization of the use of either of the above
     information for other than the stated purposes.
       Finally, the amendment requires a telecommunications
     carrier that provides telephone exchange service to provide
     subscriber list information (including information on
     unlisted subscribers) that is in its sole possession or
     control to providers of emergency services and emergency
     support services for use solely in delivering, or assisting
     in delivering, emergency services.
       This provision was included by Representative Markey (D-MA)
     to the ``Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
     1999,'' H.R. 438, which passed the House on February 23,
     1999.
       Sec. 110. Confidentiality of Subscriber Information.--This
     section amends section 2703(c) of title 18, United States
     Code, to protect the confidentiality of information provided
     to and collected by electronic communication and remote
     computing services about their subscribers. Under current
     law, these service providers may disclose a record or other
     information pertaining to a subscriber or customer to any
     person other than a governmental entity.
       By contrast, cable operators may not release to any person,
     including the government, ``personally identifiable
     information''

[[Page S4050]]

     about a customer'' without the prior written or electronic
     consent of the subscriber concerned and shall take such
     actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to
     such information by a person other than the subscriber or
     cable operator.'' 47 U.S.C. Sec.  551(c)(1). Similarly,
     telecommunications carriers are generally barred from using,
     disclosing or permitting access to individually identifiable
     customer proprietary network information, such as the
     services used and billing information, except ``with the
     approval of the customer.'' 47 U.S.C. Sec.  222(c)(1).
     Telecommunications carriers are now offering online and
     Internet access services. In addition, digital convergence is
     allowing cable operators to provide Internet services. These
     developments only highlight the disparities in the privacy
     regimes applicable to different providers.
       This section would authorize providers of electronic
     communication and remote computing services to disclose
     records or information pertaining to their subscribers or
     customers only if such disclosure is: (1) necessary in
     connection with rendering services; (2) necessary to protect
     the rights or property of the provider; (3) required by law;
     (4) requested by the subscriber; or (5) if the provider has
     provided the subscriber with the opportunity in a clear and
     conspicuous manner, to prohibit such disclosure. In addition,
     providers of electronic communication and remote computing
     services are authorized to use aggregate subscriber
     information from which individual subscriber identities have
     been removed in any manner they wish.

               TITLE II--PROMOTING THE USE OF ENCRYPTION

       Sec. 201. Freedom To Use Encryption.
       (a) No Domestic Encryption Controls.--The Act legislatively
     confirms current practice in the United States that any
     person in this country may lawfully use any encryption
     method, regardless of encryption algorithm, key length,
     existence of key recovery or other plaintext access
     capability, or implementation selected. Specifically, the Act
     states the freedom of any person in the U.S., as well as U.S.
     persons in a foreign country, to make, use, import, and
     distribute any encryption product without regard to its
     strength or the use of key recovery, subject to the other
     provisions of the Act.
       (b) Prohibition on Government-Compelled Key Escrow or Key
     Recovery Encryption.--The Act prohibits any federal or state
     agency from compelling the use of key recovery systems or
     other plaintext access systems. Agencies may not set
     standards, or condition approval or benefits, to compel use
     of these systems. U.S. agencies may not require persons to
     use particular key recovery products for interaction with the
     government. These prohibitions do not apply to systems for
     use solely for the internal operations and telecommunications
     systems of a U.S. or a State government agency.
       (c) Use of Encryption For Authentication or Integrity
     Purposes.--The Act requires that the use of encryption
     products shall be voluntary and that no federal or state
     agency may link the use of encryption for authentication or
     identity (such as through certificate authority and digital
     signature systems) to the use of encryption for
     confidentiality purposes. For example, conditioning receipt
     of a digital certificate from a licensed certificate
     authority on the use of key recovery would be prohibited.
       Sec. 202. Purchase and Use of Encryption Products by the
     Federal Government.--The Act authorizes agencies of the
     United States to purchase encryption products for internal
     governmental operations and telecommunications systems. To
     ensure that secure electronic access to the Government is
     available to persons outside of and not operating under
     contract with Federal agencies, the Act requires that any key
     recovery features in encryption products used by the
     Government interoperate with commercial encryption
     products.
       Sec. 203. Law Enforcement Decryption Assistance.--The Act
     adds a new chapter 124 to Title 18, Part I, governing the
     procedures for governmental access, including by foreign
     governments, to decryption assistance from third parties.
       (a) In General.--New chapter 124 has four sections. This
     chapter applies to wire or electronic communications and
     communications in electronic storage, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
     Sec.  2510, and to stored electronic data. It proscribes
     procedures for law enforcement to obtain assistance in
     decrypting encrypted electronic mail messages, encrypted
     telephone conversations, encrypted facsimile transmissions,
     encrypted computer transmissions and encrypted file transfers
     over the Internet that are lawfully intercepted pursuant to a
     wiretap order, under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2518, or obtained
     pursuant to lawful process, under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2703, and
     encrypted information stored on computers that are seized
     pursuant to a search warrant or other lawful process.
       Sec.  2801. Definitions. Generally, the terms used in the
     new chapter have the same meanings as in the federal wiretap
     statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2510. Definitions are provided for
     ``decryption assistance'', ``decryption key'', ``encrypt;
     encryption'', ``foreign government'' and ``official
     request''.
       Sec.  2802. Access to decryption assistance for
     communications. In the United States today, decryption keys
     and other decryption assistance held by third parties
     constitute third party records and may be disclosed to a
     governmental entity with a subpoena or an administrative
     request, and without any notice to the owner of the encrypted
     data. Such a low standard of access creates new problems in
     the information age because encryption users rely heavily on
     the integrity of keys to protect personal information or
     sensitive trade secrets, even when those keys are placed in
     the hands of trusted agents for recovery purposes.
       Under new section 2802, in criminal investigations a third
     party holding decryption keys or other decryption assistance
     for wire or electronic communications may be required to
     release such assistance pursuant to a court order, if the
     court issuing the order finds that such assistance is needed
     for the decryption of communications covered by the order.
     Specifically, such an order for decryption assistance may be
     issued upon a finding that the key or assistance is necessary
     to decrypt communications or stored data lawfully intercepted
     or seized. The standard for release of the key or provision
     of decryption assistance is tied directly to the problem at
     hand: the need to decrypt a message or information that the
     government is otherwise authorized to intercept or obtain.
       This will ensure that third parties holding decryption keys
     or decryption information need respond to only one type of
     compulsory process--a court order. Moreover, this Act will
     set a single standard for law enforcement, removing any extra
     burden on law enforcement to demonstrate, for example,
     probable cause for two separate orders (i.e., for the
     encrypted communications or information and for decryption
     assistance) and possibly before two different judges (i.e.,
     the judge issuing the order for the encrypted communications
     or information and the judge issuing the order to the third
     party able to provide decryption assistance).
       The Act reinforces the principle of minimization. The
     decryption assistance provided is limited to the minimum
     necessary to access the particular communications or
     information specified by court order. Under some key recovery
     schemes, release of a key holder's private key--rather than
     an individual session key--might provide the ability to
     decrypt every communication or stored file ever encrypted by
     a particular key owner, or by every user in an entire
     corporation, or by every user who was ever a customer of the
     key holder. The Act protects against such over broad releases
     of keys by requiring the court issuing the order to find that
     the decryption assistance being sought is necessary. Private
     keys may only be released if no other form of decryption
     assistance is available.
       Notice of the assistance given will be included as part of
     the inventory provided to subjects of the interception
     pursuant to current wiretap law standards.
       For foreign intelligence investigations, new section 2802
     allows FISA orders to direct third-party holders to release
     decryption assistance if the court finds the assistance is
     needed to decrypt covered communications. Minimization is
     also required, though no notice is provided to the target of
     the investigation.
       Under new section 2802, decryption assistance is only
     required from third-parties (i.e., other than those whose
     communications are the subject of interception), thereby
     avoiding self-incrimination problems.
       Finally, new section 2802 generally prohibits any person
     from providing decryption assistance for another person's
     communications to a governmental entity, except pursuant to
     the orders described.
       Sec.  2803. Access to decryption assistance for stored
     electronic communications or records. New section 2803
     governs access to decryption assistance for stored electronic
     communications and records.
       As noted above, under current law third party decryption
     assistance may be disclosed to a governmental entity with
     a subpoena or even a mere request and without notice. This
     standard is particularly problematic for stored encrypted
     data, which may exist in insecure media but rely on
     encryption to maintain security; in such cases easy access
     to keys destroys the encryption security so heavily relied
     upon.
       Under new section 2803, third parties holding decryption
     keys or other decryption assistance for stored electronic
     communications may only release such assistance to a
     governmental entity pursuant to (1) a state or federal
     warrant (based upon probable cause), with a copy to be served
     on the record owner at the same time the warrant is served on
     the record holder; (2) a subpoena that must also be served on
     the record owner with a meaningful opportunity to challenge
     the subpoena; or (3) the consent of the record owner. This
     standard closely mirrors the protection that would be
     afforded to encryption keys that are actually kept in the
     possession of those whose records were encrypted. In the
     specific case of decryption assistance for communications
     stored incident to transit (such as e-mail), notice may be
     delayed under the standards laid out for delayed notice under
     current law in section 2705(a)(2) of title 18, United States
     Code.
       Sec.  2804. Foreign government access to decryption
     assistance. New section 2804 creates standards for the U.S.
     government to provide decryption assistance to foreign
     governments. No law enforcement officer would be permitted to
     release decryption keys to a foreign government, but only to
     provide

[[Page S4051]]

     decryption assistance in the form of producing plaintext. No
     officer would be permitted to provide decryption assistance
     except upon an order requested by the Attorney General or
     designee. Such an order could require the production of
     decryption keys or assistance to the Attorney General only if
     the court finds that (1) the assistance is necessary to
     decrypt data the foreign government is authorized to
     intercept under foreign law; (2) the foreign country's laws
     provide ``adequate protection against arbitrary interference
     with respect to privacy rights''; and (3) the assistance is
     sought for a criminal investigation of conduct that would
     violate U.S. criminal law if committed in the United States.

    TITLE III--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR LIBRARY AND BOOKSTORE RECORDS.

       Sec. 301. Wrongful Disclosure of Library and Bookstore
     Records.--The Act amends section 2710 of title 18, United
     States Code, to extend the privacy protections currently in
     place for video rental and sale records to library and book
     sale records, whether the transactions take place on-line or
     in a physical store.
       Section 2710(a) is amended with definitions for the
     following new terms: (1) ``book seller'' means any person
     engaged in the business of selling books, magazines or other
     printed material; (2) ``library'' means an institution which
     operates as a public, university, college, or school library;
     and (3) ``patron'' means a person who requests or receives
     services within, or books or other materials on loan from, a
     library.
       Section 2710(b) is amended by applying the same privacy
     safeguards that apply to video tape rental and sale records
     to book sale records. As amended, a book seller who knowingly
     discloses personally identifiable information about a
     consumer of such seller is liable to an aggrieved person in a
     civil action. A book seller is authorized to disclose such
     information: (1) to the consumer; (2) with the informed,
     written consent of the consumer; (3) to a law enforcement
     agency pursuant to a warrant or a court order based upon
     probable cause to believe a person is engaging in criminal
     activity and the records sought are material to the
     investigation of such activity; (4) to any person, if the
     disclosure is limited to the names and addresses of consumers
     and these consumers have been given the opportunity to
     prohibit such disclosure, which does not identify the subject
     matter of the material purchased or rented by the consumers;
     (5) to any person, if the disclosure is incident to the
     ordinary course of business; or (6) pursuant to a court order
     in a civil proceeding upon a showing of compelling need and
     if the consumer is given reasonable notice and an opportunity
     to appear and contest the claim of the person seeking
     disclosure.
       A new section 2710(c) is added to address privacy
     protections for library records. This new subsection provides
     that a library which knowingly discloses personally
     identifiable information about a patron is liable to the
     aggrieved person in a civil action. A library is authorized
     to disclose such information: (1) to the patron; (2) with the
     informed, written consent of the patron; (3) to a law
     enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant or court order based
     upon probable cause to believe a person is engaging in
     criminal activity and the records sought are material to the
     investigation of such activity; (4) to any person, if the
     disclosure is limited to the names and addresses of patrons
     and the patrons have been given the opportunity to prohibit
     such disclosure, which does not identify the subject matter
     of the library services used by the patrons; (5) to any
     person, if the disclosure is necessary for the retrieval of
     overdue materials or the recoupment of compensation for
     damaged or lost library materials; or (6) pursuant to a court
     order in a civil proceeding upon a showing of compelling need
     and if the patron is given reasonable notice and an
     opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the person
     seeking disclosure.

        TITLE IV--PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR SATELLITE HOME VIEWERS

       Sec. 401. Privacy Protection for Subscribers of Satellite
     Services for Private Home Viewing.--This section amends
     section 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (codified at 47
     U.S.C. Sec.  551), to extend the privacy protections
     currently in place for subscribers of cable service to
     subscribers of satellite home viewing services or other
     services offered by cable or satellite carriers or
     distributors.
       In the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (``Cable
     Act''), Congress established a nationwide standard for the
     privacy protection of cable subscribers. (See H.R. Rep. No.
     98-934, at 76, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4713).
     Since the Cable Act was adopted, an entirely new form of
     access to television has emerged--home satellite viewing--
     which is especially popular in areas not served by cable. Yet
     there is no statutory privacy protection for information
     collected by home satellite viewing services about their
     customers or subscribers. This title fills this gap by
     amending the privacy provisions of the Cable Act to cover
     home satellite viewing.
       The amendments do not change the rules governing access to
     cable subscriber information. Instead, they merely rewrite
     section 631 to add the words ``satellite home viewing
     service'' and ``satellite carrier or distributor'' where
     appropriate.
       The amendment does not address another inconsistency in the
     law, which bears mentioning: should a cable company that
     provides Internet services to its customers be subject to the
     privacy safeguards in the Cable Act or in the Electronic
     Communications Privacy (ECPA), which normally applies to
     Internet service providers and contains obligations regarding
     the disclosure of personally identifiable information to both
     governmental and nongovernmental entities different from
     those in the Cable Act? At least one court has noted the
     ``statutory riddle raised by the entrance of cable operators
     into the Internet services market,'' but declined ``to
     resolve such ephemeral puzzles.'' In re Application of the
     United States,--F.Supp.2d--, 1999 WL 74192 (D.Mass. Feb. 9,
     1999).
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 855. A bill to clarify the applicable standards of professional
conduct for attorneys for the Government, and other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

      PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS ACT OF 1999

       Mr. Leahy. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
     legislation that would clarify the professional standards
     that apply to federal prosecutors and identify who has the
     authority to set those standards. These are two questions
     that have cried out for answers for years, and created
     enormous tension between the Justice Department and virtually
     everyone else.
       The Citizen's Protection Act, which is also known as the
     ``McDade law,'' was passed last year to address these
     important questions. This new law was intended to make clear
     that a State -- not the Attorney General--has the authority
     to make rules of conduct for attorneys practicing before
     courts of that State. Rather than resolve the long-standing
     tensions over this issue, the new law has only exacerbated
     them. At a hearing before a Judiciary Subcommittee last
     month, a number of law enforcement officials lined up to
     criticize the new law.
       The Justice Department aggressively but unsuccessfully
     opposed passage of the McDade law last year in favor of
     continued reliance on controversial Justice Department
     regulations issued in 1994--regulations which allow contacts
     with represented persons and parties in certain
     circumstances, even if such contacts are at odds with state
     or local ethics rules.
       Independent Counsel. The debate over the professional
     standards that apply to federal prosecutors comes at a time
     of heightened public concern over the high-profile
     investigations and prosecutions conducted by independent
     counsels. Special prosecutors Kenneth Starr and Donald Smaltz
     are the ``poster boys'' for unaccountable federal
     prosecutors. They even have their own Web sites to promote
     their work. By law, these special prosecutors are subject to
     the ethical guidelines and policies of the Department of
     Justice, and all of them claim to have conducted their
     investigations and prosecutions in conformity with
     Departmental policies. Yet, in practice, even the Department
     has conceded in its March 1999 responses to my written
     questions in connection with a July 1998 oversight hearing
     that ``in general, the Department avoids commenting in any
     way on how an independent counsel conducts his or her
     investigation.''
       I am not alone in my concerns about the tactics of these
     special prosecutors and, specifically, requiring a mother to
     testify about her daughter's intimate relationships,
     requiring a bookstore to disclose all the books a person may
     have purchased, and breaching the longstanding understanding
     of the relationship of trust between the Secret Service and
     those it protects. I was appalled to hear a federal
     prosecutor excuse a flimsy prosecution by announcing after
     the defendant's acquittal that just getting the indictment
     was a great deterrent. Trophy watches and television talk
     show puffery should not be the trappings of prosecutors.
       One of the core complaints the Justice Department has
     against the McDade law is that federal prosecutors would be
     subject to restrictive State ethics rules regarding contacts
     with represented persons. Yet a letter to The Washington Post
     from the former Chairman of the ABA ethics committee pointed
     out:
       ``[Anti-contact rules are] designed to protect individuals
     like Monica Lewinsky, who have hired counsel and are entitled
     to have all contacts with law enforcement officials go
     through their counsel. As Ms. Lewinsky learned, dealing
     directly with law enforcement officials can be intimidating
     and scary, despite the fact that those inquisitors later
     claimed it was okay for her to leave at any time.''
       The McDade Law. This is not to say that the McDade law is
     the answer. This new law is not a model of clarity. It
     subjects federal prosecutors to the ``State laws and rules''
     governing attorneys where the prosecutor engages in his or
     her duties. A broad reading of this provision would seem to
     turn the Supremacy Clause on its head. Does the reference to
     ``State laws'' mean that federal prosecutors must comply with
     state laws requiring the consent of all parties before a
     conversation is recorded, or state laws restricting the use
     of wiretaps? Furthermore, by referencing only the rules of
     the state in which the prosecutor is practicing, does the new
     law remove the traditional authority of a licensing state to
     discipline a prosecutor in favor of the state in which the
     prosecutor is

[[Page S4052]]

     practicing? The new law subjects federal prosecutors not only
     to the laws and rules of the state in which the attorney is
     practicing, but also to ``local Federal court rules.'' What
     is a federal prosecutor supposed to do if the state rules and
     local federal court rules conflict? Finally, the new law does
     not address the possibility of a uniform federal rule or set
     of rules governing attorney conduct in and before the federal
     courts. Would this oversight inadvertently interfere with the
     Supreme Court's existing authority to prescribe such rules
     under the Rules Enabling Act?
       These are all significant questions and the lack of clear
     answers is a significant source of the concern expressed by
     law enforcement over implementation of the McDade law.
       S.250. At least one bill, the ``Federal Prosecutor Ethics
     Act,'' S.250, has been introduced to repeal the McDade law.
     This bill is a ``cure'' that could produce a whole new set of
     problems.
       First, this bill would grant the Attorney General broad
     authority to issue regulations that would supersede any state
     ethics rules to the extent ``that [it] is inconsistent with
     Federal law or interferes with the effectuation of Federal
     law or policy, including the investigation of violations of
     federal law.'' I am skeptical about granting such broad
     rulemaking authority to the Attorney General for carte
     blanche self-regulation.
       Moreover, any regulation the Attorney General may issue
     would generate substantial litigation over whether it is
     actually ``authorized''. For example, is a state rule
     requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory information to
     the grand jury ``inconsistent with'' federal law,
     which permits but does not require prosecutors to make
     such disclosures? More generally, must there be an actual
     conflict between the state rule and federal law or policy?
     Can the Attorney General create conflicts through
     declarations and clarifications of ``Federal policy''?
     Does a state rule ``interfere with'' the ``investigation
     of violations of Federal law'' merely by restricting what
     federal prosecutors may say or do, or is more required?
       In addition to challenges concerning whether a Justice
     Department regulation was actually authorized, violations of
     the regulations would invite litigation over whether the
     remedy is dismissal of the indictment, exclusion of evidence
     or some other remedy.
       Second, S.250 provides nine categories of ``prohibited
     conduct'' by Justice Department employees, violations of
     which may be punished by penalties established by the
     Attorney General. These prohibitions were initially proposed
     last year as a substitute for McDade's ten commandments,
     which were extremely problematic and, in the end, not
     enacted. With that fight already won, there is no useful
     purpose to be served by singling out a handful of
     ``prohibitions'' for special treatment, and it may create
     confusion. For example, one of the commandments prohibits
     Department of Justice employees from ``offer[ing] or
     provid[ing] sexual activities to any government witness or
     potential witness in exchange for or on account of his
     testimony.'' Does this mean that it is okay for government
     employees to provide sex for other reasons, say, in exchange
     for assistance on an investigation? Of course not, but that
     is the implication by including this unnecessary language.
       Although the bill states that the nine ``commandments'' do
     not establish any substantive rights for defendants and may
     not be the basis for dismissing any charge or excluding
     evidence, they would invite defense referrals to the
     Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to punish
     discovery or other violations, no matter how minimal. In
     other words, these ``prohibitions'' and any regulations
     issued thereunder could provide a forum other than the court
     for a defendant to assert violations, particularly should
     defense arguments fail in court. This could be vexatious and
     harassing for federal prosecutors. The workload could also be
     overwhelming for OPR, since these sorts of issues arise in
     virtually every criminal case.
       Two of the nine prohibitions are particularly problematic
     because they undermine the Tenth Circuit's recent en banc
     decision in United States v. Singleton that the federal
     bribery statute, 18 U.S.C Sec.  201(c), does not apply to a
     federal prosecutor functioning within the official scope of
     his office. The court based its decision on the proposition
     that the word ``whoever'' in Sec. 201(c)--``Whoever . . .
     gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person,
     for or because of [his] testimony'' shall be guilty of a
     crime--does not include the government. But the bill would
     expressly prohibit Department employees from altering
     evidence or attempting corruptly to influence a witness's
     testimony ``in violation of [18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1503 or
     1512]''--the obstruction of justice and witness tampering
     statutes. These statutes use the same ``Whoever . . .''
     formulation as Sec. 201(c). By providing that government
     attorneys are subject to Sec. Sec.  1503 and 1512, the bill
     casts doubt on the Tenth Circuit's reasoning and may lead
     other courts to conclude that Sec. 201(c) does, indeed, apply
     to federal prosecutors, thereby reopening another can of
     worms.
       Third, S.250 establishes a Commission composed of seven
     judges appointed by the Chief Justice to study whether there
     are specific federal prosecutorial duties that are
     ``incompatible'' with state ethics rules and to report back
     in one year. The new Commission's report is not due until
     nine months after the Attorney General is required to issue
     regulations. Thus, to the extent that the Commission is
     intended to legitimize the Attorney General's regulations
     exempting federal prosecutors from certain state ethics rules
     (by providing the record and basis for the exemption), its
     purpose is defeated by the timing of its report. In addition,
     the Commission's report must be submitted only to the
     Attorney General, who is under no obligation to adopt or even
     consider its recommendations in formulating her regulations.
       For these reasons and others, S.250 is not the answer to
     resolving the disputes over who sets the professional
     standards for federal prosecutors and what those standards
     should be.
       Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act of
     1999. The question of what professional standards govern
     federal prosecutors is only a small part of the broader
     question of what professional standards govern federal
     practitioners. The Justice Department has complained loudly
     about the difficulty in multi-district investigations of
     complying with the professional standards of more than one
     state. Yet, private practitioners must do so all the time. No
     area of local rulemaking has been more fragmented than the
     overlapping state, federal, and local court rules governing
     attorney conduct in federal courts.
       The Judicial Conference of the United States has been
     studying this problem for some time. I sent a letter last
     month to the Chief Justice requesting information on when the
     Judicial Conference was likely to forward its final
     recommendations to Congress concerning rules governing
     attorney conduct in federal court. The Chief Justice
     responded:

       The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and
     Procedure has appointed an ad hoc subcommittee composed of
     two members each from the Advisory Committees on Appellate,
     Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal, and Evidence Rules to make
     specific recommendations to their respective committees. The
     subcommittee meets on May 4, 1999, and will meet again later
     this summer in Washington, D.C. Consideration of any proposed
     amendments would proceed in accordance with the Rules
     Enabling Act rulemaking process. 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  2071-
     77. Under that process the subcommittee's recommendations are
     expected to be considered by the respective advisory rules
     committees at their fall 1999 meetings. The advisory
     committees' recommendations will in turn be acted on by the
     Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure at its January
     2000 meeting. If amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice
     and Procedure are approved, they would likely be published
     for public comment in August 2000.

       Any ethics legislation dealing with the particular problem
     of federal prosecutors should be sensitive to the broader
     issues and not foreclose reasonable solutions to these issues
     on recommendation of the Judicial Conference.
       Furthermore, while I respect this Attorney General and the
     government attorneys at the Department of Justice, I am not
     alone in my unease at granting the Department authority to
     regulate the conduct of federal prosecutors in any area the
     Attorney General may choose or whenever prosecutors confront
     federal court or State ethics rules with which they disagree.
       Therefore, the bill I introduce today would make clear
     that, with respect to conduct in connection with any matter
     in or before a federal court or grand jury, attorneys
     employed by the federal Government are subject to the
     professional standards established by the rules and decisions
     of the relevant federal court. For other conduct, government
     attorneys are subject to the professional standards
     established by the States in which they are licensed to
     practice. Beyond this, and consistent with the Rules Enabling
     Act, this legislation would ask the Supreme Court to
     prescribe a uniform national rule for government attorneys
     relating to contacts with represented persons, taking into
     consideration the special needs and interests of the United
     States in investigating and prosecuting violations of Federal
     criminal and civil law.
       How would this bill work in practice? It would, for the
     most part, simply codify existing practices and common-sense
     choice-of-law principles patterned on Rule 8.5(b) of the
     American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rules of Professional
     Conduct. Consider as an example the three stages of a federal
     criminal prosecution. Under this legislation, a federal
     prosecutor who is handling an indicted case before a federal
     district court would be subject to the standards of attorney
     conduct established by the rules and decisions of that
     district court. A prosecutor who is conducting or preparing a
     federal grand jury presentation would be subject to the
     standards of the district court under whose authority the
     grand jury was impanelled. In other circumstances, where no
     court has clear supervisory authority over particular
     conduct, a prosecutor would be subject to the standards of
     the licensing State in which he or she principally practices.
       Of course, every one of the 94 federal districts has its
     own local rules and its own body of judicial decisions
     interpreting those rules. Some districts have adopted their
     state's ethics standards; some have adopted

[[Page S4053]]

     model standards developed by the ABA; some have taken other
     approaches. As I mentioned, the Judicial Conference has been
     studying this balkanization among federal court ethics
     standards, and it may soon recommend changes. Nothing in this
     bill would interfere with this process; rather, the bill
     simply makes clear that, in most circumstances, government
     attorneys are subject to local court rules and decisions,
     whatever they may be.
       Nor would anything in this bill disturb the traditional
     authority of the state courts to discipline attorneys,
     including government attorneys, who are licensed to practice
     in their jurisdictions. The issue here is what standards
     apply, not who gets to enforce them.
       The bill also makes clear that the Department of Justice
     does not have the authority it has long claimed to write its
     own ethics rules. This authority properly belongs with the
     federal courts, and that is where it would stay under this
     legislation. With one exception, where there is a
     demonstrated need for a uniform federal rule, the courts
     would retain their current authority to prescribe rules of
     professional conduct for the attorneys who practice before
     them.
       It has become clear, in recent years, that effective
     federal law enforcement is impeded by the proliferation of
     local rules, and the resulting uncertainty, in the area of
     contacts with represented persons and parties. Rule 4.2 of
     the ABA's Model Rules and analogous rules adopted by state
     courts and bar associations place strict limits on when a
     lawyer may communicate with a person he knows to be
     represented by another lawyer. These ``no contact'' rules
     preserve fairness in the adversarial system and the integrity
     of the attorney-client relationship by protecting parties,
     potential parties and witnesses from lawyers who would
     exploit the disparity in legal skill between attorneys and
     lay people and damage the position of the represented person.
     Courts have given a wide variety of interpretations to these
     rules, however, creating uncertainty and confusion as to how
     they apply in criminal cases and to government attorneys. For
     example, courts have disagreed about whether these rules
     apply to federal prosecutor contacts with represented persons
     in non-custodial pre-indictment situations, in custodial pre-
     indictment situations, and in post-indictment situations
     involving the same or different matters underlying the
     charges.
       We need to ensure that government attorneys can participate
     in traditionally accepted investigative techniques without
     undue fear of ethical sanctions arising from perceived
     violations of the ``no contact'' rule. Absent clear statutory
     authority to engage in communications with represented
     persons--when necessary and under limited circumstances
     carefully circumscribed by law--the government will be
     significantly hampered in its ability to detect and prosecute
     federal offenses.
       The ``no contact'' rule has been a focus of controversy,
     study and debate for many years. Given the advanced stage of
     dialogue among the interested parties--the federal and state
     courts, the ABA, the Department of Justice, and others--I am
     confident that a satisfactory uniform federal rule governing
     contacts with represented persons by government attorneys can
     be developed, through the Rules Enabling Act, within the time
     frame established by this bill. Until then, government
     attorneys would be well advised to seek court approval before
     engaging in contacts with represented persons, at least in
     jurisdictions where the relevant standards are uncertain.
       The problems posed to federal law enforcement
     investigations and prosecutions by the McDade law may be
     real, but resolving those problems in a constructive and fair
     manner will require thoughtfulness on all sides.

  I ask unanimous consent that my full statement, the bill, and the
sectional summary of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 855

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

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Professional Standards for
     Government Attorneys Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEYS FOR THE
                   GOVERNMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 530B of title 28, United States
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 530B. Professional standards for attorneys for the
       Government

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `attorney for the Government' means any
     attorney described in section 77.2 of part 77 of title 28 of
     the Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
     enactment of the Professional Standards for Government
     Attorneys Act of 1999) and includes any independent counsel,
     or employee of such a counsel, appointed under chapter 40;
       ``(2) the term `court' means any Federal, State, or local
     court or other adjudicatory body, including an administrative
     board or tribunal; and
       ``(3) the term `State' means a State of the United States,
     the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or
     possession of the United States.
       ``(b) Choice of Law.--Subject to any uniform national rule
     prescribed by the Supreme Court under chapter 131, the
     standards of professional conduct governing an attorney for
     the Government shall be--
       ``(1) with respect to conduct in connection with a
     proceeding in or before a court, the standards established by
     the rules and decisions of that court;
       ``(2) with respect to conduct in connection with a pending
     or contemplated grand jury proceeding, the standards
     established by the rules and decisions of the court under
     whose authority the grand jury was impanelled;
       ``(3) with respect to all other conduct--
       ``(A) the standards established by the rules and decisions
     of the State in which the attorney is licensed to practice;
     or
       ``(B) if the attorney is licensed to practice in more than
     1 State--
       ``(i) the standards established by the rules and decisions
     of the licensing State in which the attorney principally
     practices; or
       ``(ii) if the conduct has a predominant effect in another
     State in which the attorney is licensed to practice, the
     standards established by the rules and decisions of the
     licensing State so affected.
       ``(c) Uniform National Rule.--(1) In order to encourage the
     Supreme Court to prescribe, under chapter 131, a uniform
     national rule governing attorneys for the Government with
     respect to communications with represented persons and
     parties, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
     the Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act of
     1999, the Judicial Conference of the United States shall
     submit to the Chief Justice of the United States a report,
     which shall include recommendations with respect to amending
     the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure to provide
     for such a uniform national rule.
       ``(2) In developing the recommendations included in the
     report under paragraph (1), the Judicial Conference of the
     United States shall take into consideration, as appropriate--
       ``(A) the needs and circumstances of multiforum and
     multijurisdictional litigation;
       ``(B) the special needs and interests of the United States
     in investigating and prosecuting violations of Federal
     criminal and civil law; and
       ``(C) practices that are approved under Federal statutory
     or case law or that are otherwise consistent with traditional
     Federal law enforcement techniques.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
     construed to abridge, enlarge, or modify the power of the
     Supreme Court or of any court established by an Act of
     Congress, under chapter 131 or any other provision of law, to
     prescribe standards of professional conduct for attorneys
     practicing in and before the Federal courts, including
     attorneys for the Government.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
     chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended, in
     the item relating to section 530B, by striking ``Ethical''
     and inserting ``Professional''.
                                  ____

Summary of the ``Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act of
                                 1999''

       The Professional Standards for Federal Professional Ethics
     Act of 1999 would clarify the professional standards that
     apply to Government attorneys and identify who has the
     authority to set those standards. Consistent with the Rules
     Enabling Act, this legislation would further ask the Supreme
     Court to prescribe a uniform national rule for Government
     attorneys in an area that has created enormous tension
     between the Justice Department and virtually everyone else--
     contacts with represented persons and parties.
       More specifically, this bill would substitute for the
     ``McDade law''--enacted at the end of the last Congress as
     part of the omnibus appropriations bill--a new 28 U.S.C.
     Sec. 530B governing professional standards for Government
     attorneys. The new section 530B consists of four subsections:
       Subsection (a) defines the term ``attorney for the
     Government'' in the same manner as it is defined in the
     McDade law, by reference to existing Federal regulations. It
     also provides simple definitions for the terms ``court'' and
     ``State''.
       Subsection (b) establishes a clear choice-of-law rule for
     Government attorneys with respect to standards of
     professional conduct. Modeled on Rule 8.5(b) of the ABA Model
     Rules of Professional Conduct, this subsection simply
     codifies existing practice: for conduct in connection with
     any matter in or before a court or grand jury, Government
     attorneys are subject to the professional standards
     established by the rules and decisions of the relevant court;
     for all other conduct, Government attorneys are subject to
     the professional standards established by rules and decisions
     of the States in which they are licensed to practice.
       Because this subsection addresses what standards apply, not
     who gets to enforce them, nothing in this subsection would
     disturb the traditional authority of the State courts to
     discipline attorneys, including Government attorneys, who are
     licensed to practice in their jurisdictions.
       Subsection (c) directs the Judicial Conference of the
     United States to submit to the Supreme Court a proposed
     uniform national rule governing the conduct of Government
     attorneys with respect to communications with represented
     persons and parties. The Judicial Conference is directed to
     take various law enforcement concerns into consideration when
     crafting a proposed rule, and to complete its work within one
     year.

[[Page S4054]]

       Subsection (d) provides that nothing in the bill would
     interfere with the Federal courts' existing authority, under
     the Rules Enabling Act or any other provision of law, to
     prescribe standards of attorney conduct for Federal
     practitioners.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 856. A bill to provide greater options for District of Columbia
students in higher education; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

expanded options in higher education for district of columbia students
                              act of 1999

<bullet> Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing today--along
with Senators Hutchison and Warner--the ``Expanded Options in Higher
Education for District of Columbia Students Act of 1999.'' The purpose
of this measure is to provide citizens of the District with a greater
range of options in pursuing postsecondary education by having the
Federal government offer support that, in other areas of the country,
is provided by State governments.
  Our legislation takes a three-pronged approach toward meeting this
objective:
  First, it offers a broader array of choices available to students who
wish to attend public institutions of higher education by picking up
the difference in cost between in-state and out-of-state tuition for DC
residents who attend public postsecondary institutions in Maryland and
Virginia.
  Second, it provides additional support to the one public
postsecondary education institution in the District, the University of
the District of Columbia (UDC), by authorizing funds for the
strengthening activities outlined in Part B of Title III of the Higher
Education Act.
  Third, it offers support to those students choosing to attend private
institutions in the District and neighboring counties by providing
grants of up to $2,000 to help defray tuition costs.
  With respect to public postsecondary education, students exploring
their options find they have a more limited set of choices than any
other group of students in the country. A student in any of the 50
states who wishes to attend a public institution of higher education
has a number of institutions among which to choose. That student can
base his or her decision on considerations such as the size of the
institution and the strengths of the various programs it offers. A
student in the District of Columbia finds that only one public
institution is available.
  As a practical matter, the District cannot expand its boundaries, nor
can it establish a system of public higher education that can offer the
diversity of offerings available in the various states. Every State
provides support for higher education from which their residents
benefit through lower in-state tuition, while out-of-state residents
pay a premium to attend. I believe it is appropriate for the Federal
government to assume the role of the State, effectively pushing the
boundaries to a point where District students are placed on an equal
footing in terms of the public education choices available to them.
  The legislation also makes additional support available to the
District's public institution, UDC. Although UDC is a Historically
Black College and University (HBCU), it has been precluded from
obtaining the support made available to other HBCUs under Part B of
Title III of the Higher Education Act. Part B funds are designed to
enable institutions to strengthen their programs through activities
such as acquisition of laboratory equipment, renovation
and construction of instructional facilities, faculty exchanges,
academic instruction, purchase of educational materials, tutoring,
counseling, and student activities. The funds made available to UDC
under my legislation are to be used for activities authorized under
Part B.

  Finally, the legislation recognizes that many District residents
choose to attend one of the many private postsecondary institutions in
the DC area. Many of these institutions have made extraordinary efforts
to enable District residents to succeed in their pursuit of advanced
education. A number of states have developed programs, such as the
Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG), to assist students at private
institutions in defraying costs. The program authorized in this bill is
modeled after these initiatives.
  An investment in education is one of the most important investments
we as a society and we as individuals can make. There are boundless
opportunities in the DC area for individuals with education and
training beyond high school. DC residents should not be left behind in
obtaining the capacity to take advantage of these opportunities.
  There is a need at every level of the education system to improve the
opportunities available to District students. Throughout my career in
Congress, I have made support for education one of my top priorities,
and I have regarded the education of DC students as being an important
component of my efforts.
  The legislation we are introducing today complements not only those
programs such as ``Everybody Wins!'' and the Potomac Regional Education
Partnership (PREP) with which I have been directly involved, but also
the many other initiatives undertaken by individuals and institutions
who work tirelessly to nurture the potential of the children of our
Nation's capital. Members of the business community have recently
launched a program known as the D.C. College Access Program (DC-CAP)
which will offer both financial support for students pursuing
postsecondary education and assistance to high school students to
assure they are prepared to tackle the challenges of higher learning.
  I am encouraged by the positive response which I have received in
discussing this concept and which has greeted similar legislation put
forward by Representative Tom Davis. I look forward to working with all
my colleagues in advancing this proposal.
  Mr. President, I ask that a summary of my legislation appear in the
Record.
  The material follows:

Expanded Options in Higher Education for District of Columbia Students
                   Act of 1999--Summary of Provisions

                 public institution tuition provisions

       The Secretary of Education is authorized to make payments
     to public institutions of higher education located in
     Maryland and Virginia to cover the difference between in-
     state and out-of-state tuition charged to residents of the
     District of Columbia attending those institutions. The
     legislation does not alter in any way the admissions policies
     or standards of those institutions.
       Students eligible to participate in the program include DC
     residents who begin postsecondary study within 3 years of
     high school graduation (excluding periods of service in the
     military, Peace Corps, or national service programs) and who
     are pursuing a recognized educational credential on at lease
     a half-time basis.
       Individuals who have already obtained an undergraduate
     baccalaureate degree or whose family income exceeds the level
     at which eligibility for the Hope Scholarship tax credit is
     set are not eligible to participate.
       The program will be administered by the Secretary of
     Education, in consultation with the Mayor of the District of
     Columbia. The Secretary is authorized to delegate the
     administration of the program to another public or private
     entity if he determines it would be more efficient to do so.
     The Secretary will report annually to Congress regarding the
     operation of the program.
       Funding of $20 million in fiscal year 2000 and ``such sums
     as may be necessary'' for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
     years are authorized for the program.

                 University of the District of Columbia

       Funding of $20 million in fiscal year 2000 and ``such sums
     as may be necessary'' for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
     years authorized to enable UDC to carry out activities
     authorized under Part B of Title III of the Higher Education
     Act.

                     Private Institution Provisions

       The Secretary of Education is authorized to make awards of
     up to $2,000 per academic year on behalf of students to help
     defray tuition costs for attendance at private postsecondary
     education institutions.
       The student eligibility requirements are identical to those
     provided for the public institution tuition program.
       Private postsecondary education institutions which are
     eligible to participate in the program include non-profit
     institutions of higher education and degree-granting
     proprietary institutions which are located in the District of
     Columbia or in neighboring counties.
       The program will be administered by the Secretary of
     Education, in consultation with the Mayor of the District of
     Columbia. The Secretary is authorized to delegate the
     administration of the program to another public or private
     entity if he determines it would be more efficient to do so.
       Funding of $10 million in fiscal year 2000 and ``such sums
     as may be necessary'' for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
     years are authorized for the program.<bullet>

<bullet> Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original
cosponsor

[[Page S4055]]

of this important legislation offered by Senator James Jeffords,
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions. Through this proposal, we seek to significantly expand post-
secondary educational opportunities for high school graduates residing
in the District of Columbia through the provision of financial aid to
compensate for non-resident tuition rates at colleges and universities
in Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  This legislation is comparable in many ways to the highly innovative
bill put forth in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Davis
of the 11th Congressional District of Virginia. Mr. Davis' bill, H.R.
974, is different in scope, with national rather than regional college
access, but our intent is the same. District of Columbia high school
students need a broader horizon of more affordable public colleges and
universities.
  We would assist those students who have been admitted on the basis of
their own academic achievement, and once admitted, as an example, to
George Mason University or James Madison University, the U.S.
Department of Education would make funding available so that the
student's net cost would be the same as that of an in-state resident. I
want to stress that these students would not receive preference in
anyway in the admissions procedure.
  I believe this is an exciting concept for the youth of the nation's
capital, and one which has already been embraced by a number of
important local community figures who wish to further strengthen the
program with private donations.
  Mr. Davis' legislation is on a fast track in the House Government
Reform Committee, and I understand that our bill will be referred to
the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. I look forward to working
with our Senate Chairman Fred Thompson, our D.C. Subcommittee Chairman
George Voinovich, as well as D.C. Appropriations Chairman Kay Bailey
Hutchison as we work our way through the legislative process.
  I believe if we can all keep our focus on the common goal of
improving college access for D.C. students, our local youth will turn
up winners. I commend Senator Jeffords and Congressman Davis for their
leadership in this endeavor, and I look forward to a healthy and
productive debate as we hammer out the final form of the
legislation.<bullet>
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
        Ashcroft, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
        Schumer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Crapo, Mrs.
        Murray, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Collins, Mr. DeWine, and
        Mr. McCain):
  S.J. Res. 21. A joint resolution to designate September 29, 1999, as
``Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Day''; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

           veterans of foreign wars of the United States day

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint
resolution honoring the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United
States.
  This resolution designates September 29, 1999, as Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States Day, and urges the President to issue a
proclamation in observance of this important day. September 29, 1999
marks the centennial of the VFW. As veterans of the Spanish American
War and the Philippine Insurrection of 1899 and the China Relief
Expedition of 1900 returned home, they drew together in order to
preserve the ties of comradeship forged in service to their country,
forming what we know today as the VFW.
  Mr. President, when many of us think about war veterans, we think
about the tremendous sacrifices these defenders of freedom made to
safeguard the democracy we cherish, especially those who made the
ultimate sacrifice. My resolution recognizes those contributions and
sacrifices. It also recognizes the contributions that VFW members
continue to make day-in and day-out in our communities--the youth
activities and scholarships programs, the Special Olympics, homeless
assistance initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in
need, national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all
Americans, and others too numerous to mention. Over the last 100 years,
members of the VFW have contributed greatly to our nation both in and
out of uniform in many ways.
  I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their
country. This is an opportunity to honor the men and women and their
families who have served this country with courage, honor and
distinction. They answered the call to duty when their country needed
them, and this is a small token of our appreciation.
  The centennial of the founding of the VFW presents all Americans with
an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the more than two million
active members of the VFW and to all veterans, as well as to the ideals
for which many made the ultimate sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to
join me in a strong show of support and an expression of appreciation
for the VFW and all veterans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my colleague,
the Senator from Maine, Mrs. Snowe, in introducing a resolution
honoring the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United States and
commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the founding of the VFW, by
declaring September 29, 1999 as Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States Day.
  Since its inception after the Spanish-American War in 1899, the VFW
has dedicated itself and its members to improving twentieth century
America. The value of the contributions that members of the VFW and its
Ladies Auxiliary have made to their communities and to this nation
cannot be overstated. After returning home from foreign service during
times of war and armed conflict, these men and women have continued to
give of themselves to ensure that this nation protects and maintains
the democratic ideals upon which it was founded, and that the veterans
and their dependents are cared for. From providing services for
veterans and their families, to sponsoring community action and charity
projects, the VFW strengthens not only its members, but each and every
American as well.
  On a personal note, I have had the unique pleasure of sharing the
floor of the United States Senate with several decorated veterans, as
well as enjoying the privilege of having several veterans of American
conflicts on my own staff. I've also enjoyed the ongoing opportunity of
meeting and working with the very patriotic citizens of Delaware whom
this resolution honors. Throughout my entire tenure in the United
States Senate, the members of Delaware's VFW have been, for me, a
continued source of knowledge, insight, and inspiration.
  Particularly with the members of our armed forces currently serving
in the Balkans in mind, whom I just visited, I offer my humble
recognition to all of those who have so bravely and selflessly served
America in the past. I sincerely trust that my colleagues will join me
in acknowledging the courage, the sacrifice, and, frequently, the sheer
bravery of our members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose
contributions to this country will be reaped for generations to come. I
want to both demonstrate and convey to them my profound gratitude.

                          ____________________
