THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information s uch as medical and financial records and buying habits. They have made it profitable to do so. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information p rivate is being eaten away.
[Page: S4310] GPO's PDF
The impact of this erosion ranges from the merely annoying--having your mailbox flooded with junkmail--to the actually frightening--having your identity stolen or being turned down for a loan because your bank got copies of your medical records. There are thousands of ways that the loss of our privacy c an impact us. Many of them are intangible--just the discomfort of knowing that complete strangers can find out everything about you: where you shop, what books you buy, whether you have allergies, and what your credit rating is. These strangers may not do anything bad with the information, but they know all about you. I think privacy i s a value per se. Our founding fathers recognized it, and so too do most Americans.
``Liberty in the constitutional sense,'' wrote Justice William O. Douglas, ``must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy a s well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.''
Recent surveys indicate that the American public is increasingly uneasy about the degradation of their privacy. In a recent Business Week poll, 92 percent of Internet users expressed discomfort about Web sites sharing personal information w ith other sites. Meanwhile, an FTC report issued yesterday indicated that only 42 percent of the most popular Internet sites comply with the four key fair information p ractices--notice about what data is collected, consumer choice about whether the data will be shared with third-parties, consumer access to the data, and security regarding the transmission of data.
We must be vigilant that our privacy d oes not become a commodity to be bought and sold.
I would also like to point out one area of privacy p rotection that I have been deeply interested in. Last November, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy A ct. My bill would prevent telecommunications companies from using an individual's personal phone call records without their consent. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that the law does not protect them from having their phone records sold to third parties. Imagine getting a call one night--during dinner--and having a telemarketer try to sell you membership in a travel club because your phone calling patterns show frequent calls overseas. My legislation would prevent this from occurring without the individuals's permission.
This measure we introduce today also contains a provision relating to telephone privacy. It differs in at least one key respect from the legislation I previously introduced, but my hope is that as we discuss this issue over time, the differences will be resolved.
Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Senators HOLLINGS and LEAHY for their leadership on this vital issue. Senator HOLLINGS has crafted the comprehensive and thoughtful proposal that we introduce today. Senator LEAHY has led a coalition of Senators interested in this issue. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues in passing this measure.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the information h ighway began just a few years ago as a footpath and is now an unlimited lane expressway with no rush hour. People can now use the Internet to shop at virtual stores located thousands of miles away, find turn-by-turn directions to far away destinations and journey to hamlets, cities and states across the country--and indeed around the world--without ever leaving home.
While the virtual world is available to us with a few key strokes and mouse clicks, there is one area of the Internet that many are finding troublesome. It is the collection and use of personnel data. All too often web surfers are providing personal information a bout themselves at the websites they visit, without their knowledge and consent. There is so much information b eing collected every day that it would take a building the size of the Library of Congress to store it all in. That is a lot of information, much of which is very personal and I believe it must be kept that way.
Concern about one's privacy o n the Internet is keeping people from fully enjoying this marvelous technology. According to a recent survey by the Center for Democracy & Technology, consumers' most pressing privacy i ssues are the sale of personal information a nd tracking people's use of the Web. In another recent survey, 66.7 percent of online ``window shoppers'' state that assurances of privacy w ill be the basis for their making online purchases. These surveys make the same point that was made when credit cards were first introduced to the American public. Back then, credit cards did not initially enjoy widespread usage because of a fear that others could misuse the card. From these studies' findings it can be reasoned that the Internet is experiencing the same effects because of privacy c oncerns. These concerns are translating into lost opportunity, for consumers as well as electronic businesses.
Most of the Dot Com companies doing business over the Internet today are very cognizant of the fact that privacy i s a major concern for their customers. Many of these firms allow visitors to their web site to ``opt out,'' or elect not to provide data they consider private and do not wish to give. A Federal Trade Commission May 2000 Report to Congress found that 92 percent of a random sampling of websites were collecting great amounts of personal information f rom consumers and only 14% disclosed anything about how the information wo uld be used. More interesting in this report was the finding that a mere 41% of the randomly selected websites notified the visitor of their information pra ctices and offered the visitor choices on how their personal identifying information wou ld be used. These report findings seem to suggest that industry efforts by themselves are not sufficient to control the gathering and dissemination of personal data.
There are some Dot Coms that are not concerned about the privacy of their customers. These firms are successfully collecting enormous amounts of data about a person and in turn sell it to others or use it to intensify the advertising aimed at that person. At one website visit, a company can collect some very interesting facts about the person who is on the other end. While surfing the web the other day, I hit on a website that was designed to provide me with information abo ut my PC. The report the site provided opened my eyes about the types of information tha t could be obtained from a website visitor in less one minute. In this small amount of time it could tell what other sites I had visited, what sites I would likely visit in the future, what plug-ins are installed on my PC, how my domain is configured and a whole lot more information tha t I did not understand. Many consider this type of tracking capability akin to stalking. I believe that the information tha t can be collected by website administrators can create problems for people through a violation of trust and an invasion of privacy. No vice Internet users are generally unaware, as I was until visiting this site, of the extent of the information bei ng collected on them. Even those who are aware of the capabilities of firms to collect private data are frightened by what can happen with the information onc e it is collected.
I am proud to be cosponsoring the Consumer Privacy Pro tection Act of 2000 that was introduced today by Senator HOLLINGS. This Act will legitimize the practices currently being used by many reputable firms who are collecting private data. Does it seem unreasonable that firms collecting private data should notify consumers of the firm's information pra ctices, offer the consumer choices on how the personal information wil l be used, allow consumers to access the information tha t is collected on them and require the firms to take reasonable steps to protect the security of the information tha t is collected? I think not. Firms like Georgia-based VerticalOne are already performing under standards very similar to these. I believe that all firms should be held to the same standard and that a level playing field should be established for every firm that is collecting data. Taking these actions will translate into greater consumer confidence in the Internet.
Increasing the level of protection for private information to a level that the people of our nation can live with should be a welcome relief to those firms already providing fair privacy tre atment of their site visitors. This Act certainly will be a relief to the people who are visiting their sites.
[Page: S4311] GPO's PDF
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2607. A bill to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide euthanasia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Ed ucation, Labor, and Pensions.
PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which was actually authored by Senators NICKLES and HATCH, and which they have entitled the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' Their bill which I am now introducing is identical to H.R. 2260 as reported out of the Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2000, as amended. Today, it has been referred by the Senate Parliamentarian to the Committee on Health, Ed ucation, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
While I remain steadfastly opposed to the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000,'' I am introducing this bill for one reason: to call the Senate's attention to the fact that a far-reaching health pol icy bill--which many experts believe has the potential to sentence millions of sick and dying patients across the nation to needless pain and suffering--was mistakenly referred to a committee with insufficient health pol icy resources and no health pol icy jurisdiction. It is that bill which the Judiciary Committee reported and which, without consideration by the committee with health exp ertise, the Republican leadership wants to bring to the floor. The unintended consequence of this could be the tragic decline of the quality of pain care across our nation.
Some historical context might help my colleagues and their staff better understand how the Senate finds itself in this unfortunate situation, and the important issues that are at stake. On two separate occasions, the State of Oregon passed a ballot measure that would allow terminally ill persons, with less than six months left to live, to obtain a physician-assisted suicide if they met a variety of safeguard requirements. As a private citizen, I voted twice with the minority of my state in opposition to that measure.
In response to Oregon's vote, several of our congressional colleagues, including Senator NICKLES, Senator LIEBERMAN, and Congressman HENRY HYDE, promptly undertook legislative and other efforts to overturn Oregon's law. I do not, for the purposes of today, debate the merits of the Oregon law, or the merits of physician-assisted suicide, generally.
The original ``Pain Relief Promotion Act,'' S. 1272, was introduced in the Senate by Senator NICKLES, and referred to the Committee on Health, Ed ucation, Labor and Pensions (HELP) on June 23, 1999. That committee held one inconclusive hearing on October 13, 1999, at which time it was reported that Senators on both sides of the aisle wished to investigate the matter more thoroughly before acting on the legislation.
Then, on November 19, 1999, Bob Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian, made what he termed ``a mistake'' when he referred H.R. 2260-- the virtually identical House-passed version of the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act''--to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Over the course of my service in the Senate, I have come to know Mr. Dove to be a man of integrity and fairness, and one of the most dedicated and enduring public servants in Washington, D.C. When he discovered his mistake, to his great credit, Mr. Dove did something all-too-rare in this town; he simply acknowledged his error. According to an article by the Associated Press on December 7, 1999, Mr. Dove stated plainly that he had mistakenly referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee, instead of the HELP Committee.
Lord knows I've made a few mistakes in my day, so I want to make clear that I harbor nothing but respect for Mr. Dove, and that I do not for one second question Mr. Dove's motives. But the mistake made on November 19, 1999, if left uncorrected, threatens unspeakably negative and long-lasting consequences for the future of health car e in this nation.
The jurisdiction of the HELP Committee over the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act'' is clear. The Senate Manual describes the jurisdiction of this committee as including ``measures relating to education, labor, health, an d public welfare''. The Senate Manual also describes the HELP Committee as having jurisdiction over aging, biomedical research and development, handicapped individuals, occupational safety and health, an d public health. < p> According to the Senate Manual, the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee includes bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, counterfeiting, civil liberties, constitutional amendments, federal courts and judges, government information, ho lidays and celebrations, immigration and naturalization, interstate compacts generally, judicial proceedings, local courts in territories and possessions, measures relating to claims against the United States, national penitentiaries, patent office, patents, copyrights trademarks, protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies, revision and codification of the statutes of the United States, and state and territorial boundary lines.
The committee jurisdiction is not a close call, in this case. As the Senate's leading expert on jurisdiction has now demonstrated, this bill is fundamentally an issue of medical practice, which clearly is within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee.
Congress has heard conflicting messages from respected medical experts on both sides of this debate about whether the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act'' may, in fact, have a chilling effect on physicians' pain management, thus actually increasing suffering at the end of life. Under the legislation, federal, state, and local law enforcement could receive training to begin scrutinizing physicians' end-of-life care. Many believe that the legislation sends the wrong signal to physicians and others caring for those who are dying, noting the disparity between the $5 million allotted for training in palliative care and the $80 million potentially available for law enforcement activities.
In addition, there is considerable concern that this legislation puts into statute perceptions about pain medication that the scientific world has been trying to change. Physicians often believe that the aggressive use of certain pain medications, such as morphine, will hasten death. Recent scientific studies show this is not the case. Dr. Kathleen M. Foley, Attending Neurologist in the Pain and Palliative Care Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Professor of Neurology, Neuroscience and Clinical Pharmacology at the Cornell University, had this to say about the Nickles-Hatch legislation, ``In short, the underpinnings of this legislation are not based on scientific evidence. It would be unwise to institutionalize the myth into law that pain medications hasten death.''
Renowned medical ethicist, and Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., also appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2000. He testified that: ``Doctors and nurses may not always fully understand what the law permits or does not, but when the issue requires an assessment of intent in an area as fraught with nuances and pitfalls as end of life care then I believe that this legislation will scare many doctors and nurses and administrators into inaction in the face of pain.''
Dr. Scott Fishman, the Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine and Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of California Davis School of Medicine wrote of the Hatch substitute: ``It is ironic that the `Hatch substitute', which seeks to prevent physician assisted suicide, will ultimately impair one of the truly effective counters to physician assisted suicide, which is swift and effective pain medicine.''
Dr. Foley, who also assisted the Institute of Medicine committee that wrote the report ``Approaching Death,'' further testified that, ``The Pain Relief Promotion Act, by expanding the authority of the Controlled Substances Act, will disturb the balance that we have worked so hard to create. Physician surveys by the New York State Department of Health hav e shown that a strict regulatory environment negatively impacts physician prescribing practices and leads them to intentionally undertreat patients with pain
[Page: S4312] GPO's PDF
The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized against these legislative approaches to overturning Oregon's law out of concern for its impacts on pain management nationwide, saying: ``Many doctors are concerned about the scrutiny they invite when they prescribe or administer controlled substances and they are hypersensitive to `drug-seeking behavior' in patients. Patients, as well as doctors, often have exaggerated fears of addiction and the side effects of narcotics. Congress could make this bad situation worse.''
It is worth noting that many people and organizations with expertise in pain management and palliative care are both opposed to physician assisted suicide and opposed to the Nickles-Hatch bill. There are over thirty organizations representing doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and patients who oppose the legislation, including: American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Academy of Pharmaceutical Physicians; American Geriatrics Society; American Nurses Association; American Pain Foundation; American Pharmaceutical Association; American Society for Action on Pain; American Society of Health-Sys tem Pharmacists; American Society of Pain Management Nurses; College on Problems of Drug Dependence; Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association; National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain; Oncology Nursing Society; Society of General Internal Medicine; Triumph over Pain Foundation; California Medical Association; Massachusetts Medical Society; North Carolina Medical Society; Oregon Medical Association; Rhode Island Medical Association; San Francisco Medical Society; Indiana State Hospice and Palliative Care Association; Hospice Federation of Massachusetts; Kansas Association of Hospices; Maine Hospice Council; Maine Consortium of Palliative Care and Hospice; Missouri Hospice and Palliative Care Association; New Hampshire State Hospice Organization; New Jersey Hospice and Palliative Care Organization; New York State Hospice Organization; and, Oregon Hospice Association.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents