[Pages S10619-S10627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Dodd):

[[Page S10620]]

S. 3208. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
enhance consumer protection in the purchase of prescription drugs from
interstate Internet sellers; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.

internet prescription drug consumer protection act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to join with my
colleagues in the Senate and House in a bipartisan effort to address
the relatively new development of Internet pharmacies. The ever-
increasing cost of prescription drugs has led a growing number of
Americans to turn to Internet pharmacies to try to find savings. Our
goal with the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act is to
allow American consumers to place the same confidence and trust in
Internet pharmacies as they do in traditional brick-and-mortar
pharmacies. The bill we are introducing today is a starting point in
addressing this issue. If there is not enough time to pass this bill in
the remaining days of the session, then I hope to return to this issue
early in the next Congress and finish what we have started.
We are well aware that the explosion of Internet commerce has put all
manner of goods and services literally at our fingertips. In this
respect, health care products and prescription drugs are no different
from books, compact disks, or the many other products sold online. But
there is a potential for very serious dangers when purchasing
prescription drugs online. On March 21 of this year, I chaired a
hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to
examine this issue.
In the search for lower-priced prescription drugs, American consumers
can, unwittingly, order prescription drugs from rogue web sites that
appear to be American-based companies, but are actually overseas sites
offering low-priced prescription drugs that are unapproved,
counterfeit, contaminated, expired, mislabeled, manufactured in
unapproved facilities, or not stored or handled in a proper manner.
I believe legitimate Internet pharmacies that operate legally and
ethically can offer valuable services to many Americans and have an
important role in E-commerce. But there must be an appropriate
regulatory system that protects American consumers from illegal and
unethical behavior which can endanger lives, and which combats any
rogue Internet operators.
Our legislation contains several provisions to protect consumers. But
the most important is clearly the one that allows states to obtain
nationwide injunctive relief against unlawful Internet sellers, as
requested by the National Association of Attorneys General. Currently,
in their efforts to combat illegal actions by a few Internet
pharmacies, several states' Attorneys General have filed suit against
the same companies and the same doctors. To simply prevent those bad
actors from doing business in their state, each Attorney General has to
file an action in his or her state court. This duplication of effort
drains resources that could be utilized against other offenders. Since
the states' primary goal is to prevent rogue sites from harming
citizens, nationwide injunctive relief would allow each state to help
protect all the citizens of this nation. This power would be directly
analogous to the national injunctive relief contained in the federal
telemarketing statute.
A number of witnesses at our hearing testified that the most
prominent danger presented to consumers is the rogue pharmacies
operating in countries other than the United States. In this case, the
federal government is clearly the most appropriate entity to deal with
international rogue pharmacists, and this legislation provides
remedies. Our bill also provides for better coordination between
federal and state authorities.
Mr. President, this legislation represents a great deal of work by
Senator Kennedy and myself. Representatives Bliley, Klink, and Upton
have worked on this issue as well, and I understand that they are
introducing companion legislation in the House. I am pleased that we
have been able to work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion on such a
complicated issue. Any time Congress attempts to respond to emerging
technologies, similar challenges are faced.
I recognize that we are introducing this bill late in the session and
that several members have expressed concern with certain aspects of our
proposal. I want to assure my colleagues that this legislation is a
starting point. This will provide my colleagues with the opportunity to
make comments and suggestions on the different policy areas. We have
written this bill with bipartisan cooperation, and I look forward to
continuing in that spirit as we work to ensure the safety of Internet
pharmacies.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Internet is transforming all
aspects of our society, including health care. Web-based businesses,
such as Internet pharmacies, can offer convenience and an opportunity
for privacy for large numbers of consumers buying online. The Internet
also creates opportunities, however, for scam artists and unprincipled
suppliers to market contaminated, expired, ineffective, or counterfeit
medications to unsuspecting patients. Today, these bad actors can
easily prey on patients who turn to the Internet for easy access or
low-priced medications.
Clearly, effective oversight is needed to protect consumers using the
Internet and root out illegal operators without interfering with
legitimate Internet commerce. Americans are entitled to the same
protections on the Internet that they enjoy in other commercial
settings.
So far, existing Federal and State laws have had only limited success
in protecting consumers from unlawful Internet sellers of prescription
medications.
Today, some physicians issue prescriptions for patients they have
never seen, let alone seriously examined. Patients can purchase
prescription drugs on the Internet without adequate safeguards that the
drugs are appropriate and of high quality. Because web sites can be
easily created and designed, patients may think they have purchased
their medications from a U.S.-licensed pharmacy when, in fact, they
have not. The prescription drugs they receive may be sold out of
someone's garage or from a country with few, if any, standards for
manufacturing, storing or shipping these products.
Several states and Federal agencies have taken enforcement actions
against unlawful Internet sellers, but with limited results. While the
number of legitimate Internet pharmacies remains small, the number of
illegal sellers continues to grow. We must do more to protect patients
when they buy prescription drugs online. Patients should have the same
protections when purchasing their medications over the Internet as when
buying from a ``bricks-and-mortar'' pharmacy.
At a hearing on Internet pharmacies by the Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee in March, state and Federal regulators
asked the Committee for additional enforcement tools to combat illegal
sales of prescription drugs over the Internet. The National Association
of Attorneys General called for Federal legislation to require Internet
entities that sell prescription medications to disclose information
about their businesses, and to give the states the authority to stop
illegal sales nationwide, rather than only within their own borders. At
a hearing by the House Commerce Committee in May, the Department of
Justice asked for authority to freeze domestic assets of illegal
foreign web sites.
The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000, which
Senators Jeffords, Dodd, and I are introducing today, gives these
needed tools to federal and state law enforcement officials to protect
the public from those who sell prescription drugs illegally on the
Internet. A companion bill is being introduced by Congressmen Bliley,
Klink, and Upton in the House, and I commend Congressman Klink in
particular for his leadership and guidance on this issue.
Today's consumer protection laws were enacted before the development
of the Internet. This legislation will fill the gaps in current law
that permit these illegal sellers to evade prosecution. The bill is
supported by the National Association of Attorneys General, the
American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Society of Health-
System Pharmacists, drugstore.com, and the National Consumers League.
Our legislation recognizes that states need additional enforcement
tools to

[[Page S10621]]

take effective action against unlawful domestic Internet sellers, and
Federal agencies need additional enforcement tools to take effective
action against illegal foreign sellers.
First, the Act requires Internet sellers of prescription drugs to
disclose on their web sites and to the appropriate state licensing
board their street address, telephone number, and states where they are
licensed to sell their products. Consumers have a right to know with
whom they are dealing on the Internet, just as they do when they walk
into their local pharmacy.
Second, the bill authorizes a state to go to federal court to obtain
a nationwide injunction against an unlawful Internet seller. Currently,
a state can stop an illegal web site operator from selling drugs to
citizens in its state, but the illegal operator is free to sell in the
other 49 states. For many illegal sellers, the risk of a state
injunction is merely a cost of doing business. Under this legislation,
illegal sellers will be out of business altogether.
The Federal Government has little authority to bring criminals in
other countries to justice. However, it can freeze the U.S. assets of
foreign sellers if given the proper authority. This legislation gives
the Department of Justice the ability to stop illegal foreign operators
from collecting payments from U.S. customers. If they can't turn a
profit, they'll stop selling.
As electronic commerce evolves, cooperative multinational efforts
will be needed to assure adequate protections for consumers. Our
proposal lays the foundation to achieve this goal. It requires the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to make recommendations to
Congress for coordinating activities of the federal government with
those of other countries to curb illegal Internet sales from abroad.
Consumers also have an important role to play. Informed purchasers
are well prepared to avoid illegal web sites. This legislation requires
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to educate the public about
the potential dangers of buying medications online and about effective
public and private sector consumer protections.
This legislation is an important step toward making medications
online a safe purchase for consumers. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to expedite its passage.
I ask that a summary of the bill and letters of support for it be
printed in the Record.
The materials follow.

Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000: Summary

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

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT

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

FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STATES

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

FREEZING FOREIGN ASSETS

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

PUBLIC EDUCATION

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

Attorneys General

Washington, DC, October 16, 2000.
Hon. Jim M. Jeffords,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Klink,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Re The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of
2000
Dear Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Representative
Bliley and Representative Klink: As the chair of the Online
Pharmacy Working Group for the National Association of
Attorneys General, I wish to express the support of my
colleagues for legislation you are introducing to address the
proliferation of illegal prescription drug sales over the
Internet and for your commitment to this issue as the chairs
and ranking members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee, the House Commerce Committee and its
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, respectively.
As you know, the states have traditionally regulated the
practice of prescribing and dispensing medications through
state law and licensure requirements. This statutory and
regulatory structure ensures the existence of a valid
physician-patient or prescriber-patient relationship, the
accuracy of prescriptions, and the quality of
pharmaceuticals.
The Internet has changed many traditional business
practices--including providing new opportunities for
consumers to purchase medications from online pharmacies.
While the Internet can provide a legitimate, convenient, and
effective means for pharmacies to transact business with
consumers if operated in full compliance with state laws, it
also provides an opportunity for businesses that are not
operating in compliance with state laws to reach consumers.
Many of these prescribe and sell drugs without a valid
examination by a physician, without a review of a patient's
medical records for adverse reactions, without valid
prescriptions, without compliance with state laws and
licensure requirements, without parental consent, etc. These
illegal sites can jeopardize the health and safety of
consumers.
The state Attorneys General believe that online pharmacies
should not be treated differently than traditional ``brick
and mortar'' pharmacies when it comes to compliance with
state laws: if a pharmacy wants to transact business in a
certain state, then it should submit to the laws of that
state. If the law is broken, the offender should be
prosecuted. To date, my state of Kansas and several other
states have taken enforcement actions against illegal
Internet sites prescribing and/or dispensing prescription
drugs to consumers in violation of state law.
These cases are not easy ones for the state to bring.
Because of the low start-up costs and anonymity associated
with the Internet, it is often difficult for the states to
locate those responsible for operating an illegal online
pharmacy and those who prescribe and dispense the drugs to
consumers, hindering effective investigation and prosecution.
Likewise the current lack of nationwide injunctive relief
requires each state to separately sue a site to obtain an
injunction to protect its consumers, wasting valuable
resources.
The bi-partisan and bi-cameral legislation you have
introduced will increase the effectiveness of the states'
ability to protect consumers. The Internet Prescription Drug
Consumer Protection Act of 2000 clearly provides the states
with the authority to obtain nationwide injunctive relief,
providing an opportunity for a state to obtain an injunction
effective in every state, while preserving the ability of
other states to seek restitution for their own consumers and
penalties and fees in their own state courts. It also
addresses the need to ensure we can locate the companies
selling prescription drugs by incorporating disclosure and
notification requirements that will require companies to
maintain accurate, accessible information about their
principals and location.
Thank you, again, for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely
Carla, J. Stovall,
Attorney General of Kansas.
____

American Pharmaceutical

Association,

Washington, DC, October 10, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Pharmaceutical
Association (APhA), the national professional society of
pharmacists, is pleased to support the Internet Prescription
Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000. This proposal is
commendable for building on existing State regulation of
pharmacy practice and prescription dispensing by other
providers, rather than creating a redundant Federal
regulation system.
This bill is important to pharmacists as it provides our
patients better protection against fraudulent Internet
sellers. This bill also complements APhA's work to help
consumers know what to look for in an Internet pharmacy. I
have enclosed a sample of the information APhA has
disseminated broadly to assist consumers in choosing an
Internet pharmacy. We look forward to working with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug
Administration to

[[Page S10622]]

educate the public about the dangers of purchasing
prescription drugs from unlawful Internet sources.
APhA especially supports the provision authorizing
injunctions against alienation of property as a preliminary
step to address the significant problem of international
prescription drug sellers--sellers not bound to the important
requirements regulating domestic pharmacies and pharmacists.
We strongly support efforts to coordinate Federal agency
activity addressing interstate Internet sellers operating
from foreign countries. The Association and its members look
forward to working with you to refine this approach in
certain areas, such as the 75-mile exemption, and to help
this proposal become law.
The American Pharmaceutical Association is the first
established and largest professional association of
pharmacists in the United States. APhA's more than 50,000
members include practicing pharmacists (including pharmacists
in legitimate Internet pharmacy practices), pharmaceutical
scientists, pharmacy students, and others interested in
advancing the profession. The Association is a leader in
providing professional information and education for
pharmacists and an advocate for improved health through the
provision of comprehensive pharmaceutical care.
Please contact Susan C. Winckler, RPh., APhA's Group
Director of Policy and Advocacy or Lisa M. Geiger, APhA's
Director of State and Federal Policy, should you or your
staff require any assistance from APhA. Thank you for your
leadership in addressing this important issue.
Sincerely,
John A. Gans,
PharmD, Executive Vice President.
____

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

drugstore.com,

Bellevue, WA, October 12, 2000.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of
2000
Dear Senator Murray: We understand that legislation will be
introduced in the Senate to impose certain requirements on
interstate Internet sellers which sell prescription drugs to
consumers, and to facilitate legal action against those
sellers making illegal sales of prescription drugs over the
Internet. We have reviewed a copy of the legislation provided
by Senate staff last week. It is our opinion that the
legislation does not impose undue burdens on legitimate
Internet pharmacies, such as drugstore.com, and that it
represents a step forward in providing consumers with
information enabling them to distinguish between legitimate
pharmacies and rogue operators. The legislation also
authorizes additional law enforcement tools to facilitate the
prosecution of those rogues.
We were pleased to see the legislation's acknowledgement
that ``legitimate Internet sellers of prescription drugs can
offer substantial benefits to consumers. These potential
benefits include convenience, privacy, valuable information,
lower prices, and personalized services.'' drugstore.com is
proud to be the leading online drugstore. We believe that our
success in attracting more than 1.2 million customers is the
direct result of our commitment to provide safe, secure,
legitimate and innovative pharmacy services. We are using the
Internet to help our customers make clear, informed decisions
about their health and well-being.
As this legislation was being developed, we were concerned
that it would impose unreasonable burdens on legitimate
online pharmacies, such as drugstore.com, that are already
complying with all existing state and federal laws. However,
we believe that the Web site disclosure requirements
contained in the bill are reasonably circumscribed to avoid
such burdens. Such requirements mandate that an interstate
Internet seller disclose to consumers such fundamental
information as its address and the states in which it is
licensed. drugstore.com already discloses that and more on
its Web site, and, therefore, does not find such requirements
objectionable. We hope that the regulations promulgated by
the Department of health and Human Services under the
authority of Sec. 3(a)(6) will acknowledge the apparent
intent of the bill not to impose unreasonable burdens on
legitimate Internet pharmacies. In that regard, drugstore.com
enthusiastically supports the National Association of Boards
of Pharmacy's VIPPS (Verified Internet Pharmacy Practices
Sites) certification program. That's because we believe the
VIPPS certification helps consumers distinguish between
legitimate Internet pharmacies and illegitimate rogue sites.
We, therefore, recommend VIPPS as a model for the purpose of
promulgating regulations to implement the disclosure
requirements of this bill.
We leave to law enforcement authorities the question as to
whether the additional enforcement powers authorized by the
bill provide sufficient effective mechanisms to investigate
and prosecute questionable Internet sites. We take note of
the fact that other proposals would have imposed monetary
penalties against Internet operators who knowingly dispense a
prescription drug without a valid description--a provision
missing from this bill. Consistent with drugstore.com's
position that rogue sites should be held accountable for
their noncompliance with the law, we would have preferred
that such penalties be retained as a disincentive to those
inclined to violate the law. However, we hope that the
enforcement powers included in the bill will be used
effectively against illegal operators.
One of the greatest dangers posed to Internet consumers and
to legitimate Internet pharmacies across the country is the
problem of rogue operators domiciled overseas. Again, we
reiterate that the Federal government must exert a much
greater effort to address this problem, including working
with foreign governments and increasing import surveillance,
to deny these rogue sites a safe harbor in the United States.
Finally, we support and encourage consumer education
initiatives regarding the dangers and pitfalls of buying from
rogue sites, and are pleased to see that the bill mandates
such public education. Recently, we participated with the
Food and Drug Administration in the CybeRxSmart coalition
that is designed to educate and increase consumer awareness
on how to purchase prescription drugs safely and legitimately
via the Internet. Given the importance of Internet commerce,
both to consumers and the economy, we would have preferred
that the bill made mandatory the involvement of private
sector Internet health care providers in the development of
consumer education programs in order to draw on their
extensive expertise and enhance the support of such
activities.
In summary, we believe that, if sufficient resources are
made available to back up the will of Congress as stated in
this bill, the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection
Act of 2000 can increase consumer awareness of those unsafe
Internet sites and enforce federal and state laws against
interstate Internet sellers which mislead, and jeopardize the
health and safety of, consumers.
We appreciate your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Peter M. Neupert,
CEO and President.
____

National Consumers League,

Washington, DC, October 10, 2000.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The National Consumers League,
America's oldest nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, is
pleased to support the Internet Prescription Drug Consumer
Protection Act of 2000. With the increasing use of the
Internet to purchase prescription drugs, consumers need
adequate protection and information when purchasing
medications online. Unfortunately, there are numerous
websites that are willing to sell consumers prescription
medications without a valid prescription from a licensed
provider. These sellers threaten consumer and patient safety
and stigmatize the

[[Page S10623]]

universe of Internet pharmacies, many of which comply with
state and federal regulations governing the prescribing and
dispensing of medications.
This legislation will provide valuable protections for
consumers by addressing the deficiencies that currently exist
for state and federal law enforcement agencies to take action
against illegitimate sellers. By requiring all Internet
pharmacy websites to be licensed in any state that they sell
or ship prescription drugs, consumers will have the
confidence that their health and safety are being protected
and the purchases they make will be legitimate.
Further, we commend the requirement of a consumer education
component in this legislation. Without adequate public
education consumers would still remain vulnerable to
unscrupulous Internet sites despite the enhanced enforcement
tools provided in the legislation.
The National Consumers League supports this important piece
of legislation and commends you and the other Members of
Congress for helping to improve patient safety and enhance
consumer protections online. We look forward to working with
you on this bill.
Sincerely,
Linda F. Golodner,

President.<bullet>

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

By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Lieberman (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Biden, Mr. Moynihan, Mr.
Roth, and Mr. L. Chafee)):
S. 3209. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out
a resource study of the approximately 600-mile route through the States
of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, used by George
Washington and General Rochambeau during the Revolutionary War; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)

washington-rochambeau revolutionary route national heritage act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 219 years ago this month, a
small army camped at the gates of a small port in Virginia. And turned
the world upside down. This collection of often poorly fed, poorly
paid, and poorly armed men made a sacrifice from which we all benefit
today. In October 1781, a few thousand American and French soldiers
laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of Cornwallis and his
British regulars, and won American independence.
Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose
sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget
that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when
two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences
and worked together for a common purpose.
It is my opinion that no single monument or battlefield would do
justice to the scope of this event. That is why I, along with my
colleagues, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Biden, Roth, Schumer, Moynihan,
Sarbanes, and Chafee, am privileged to call for a national
commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the
end of the American Revolution. We have been strongly supported in this
effort by the work of dedicated volunteers across the country--members
of the Sons of the American Revolution in all of our states. I would
especially like to acknowledge the help of Albert McJoynt and Win
Carroll, for their work with my staff on this important project.
The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Road is 600 miles of history,
winding from Providence, Rhode Island to Yorktown, Virginia. In the
opinion of my colleagues and I, it is well worthy of designation as a
National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and
towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great nation
of ours. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance
and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean
Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau to preserve that
alliance in the face of seemingly unsurmountable odds. Let us create a
National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause and remember
these men and women, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's
beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and
Providence, Rhode Island, into New York where he joined Washington's
troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its
culmination at the gates of Yorktown.
The story of the alliance and the march is like many in our history--
full of heroic characters, brave deeds, and political intrigue.
Hollywood should take note: it would make for a blockbuster--and
uplifting--adventure. The story unfolds through seven states and
countless towns and stars the men and women of the march who left their
mark wherever they went.
Each of the towns on the trail makes its own unique contribution to
the tale of the journey. Hartford and Wethersfield, in my own state of
Connecticut--where the two generals met and through a translator
planned their

[[Page S10624]]

strategy. In Phillipsburg, New York, the French and American armies
first joined together and faced off against the British in New York
City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk
strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing
hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British
army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing
supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march
towards Cornwallis in Virginia, to confuse the British. They moved on
through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial
victories against great odds.
But the march itself is only part of the story. The unprecedented
alliance between France and America was cemented during this journey.
Elite troops from one of the great European powers stood with the
ragtag but spirited Continental Army to face and defeat the British
Empire. Men who shared no common language and had in many cases been
enemies in previous wars, shared clothing and food and cultures in
order to achieve their goal. And as a proud member of the Armed
Services Committee I am pleased to say this was a successful Joint and
Coalition operation.
The trail goes through Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--then capital of
the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside
town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through
town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental
Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new
European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very
uncertain time.
A few days later in Chester, Pennsylvania, Washington, the normally
reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he
learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the
British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the
colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, Delaware
and Elkton, Maryland, where American troops were finally paid for some
of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army
from General Rochambeau.
There are two central characters to this drama, without whom the
march, siege, and victory would have never happened--Rochambeau and
Washington. French ministers hand-selected the celebrated and
experienced Rochambeau for the unique ``Expedition Particuliere''
because of his patience and professionalism. Lieutenant General
Rochambeau had a distinguished military career. More importantly, he
understood the need for America to play the leading role in the war.
With dignity and respect, he subordinated himself and his men to
Washington and his patchwork forces. While avoiding intrigue and
scandal, he overlooked improprieties and affronts, and provided needed
counsel, supplies, and money to Washington and his men. He is
undoubtedly one of the key forces helping Washington to victory at
Yorktown, and has rightly been called ``America's Neglected Founding
Father.''
Our nation's capital region also played its part in this story.
Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some
crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria,
Virginia. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to
Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along
the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army
and events swirling around them. Within this national commemoration, we
should let each tell its own story in its own way.

The force that held it all together throughout the march and on to
victory was General Washington. This was not a new role for him. Before
the war, Washington was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies and
one of its few military heroes. Only he, with his public standing and
incredible resolve, could have held together the fledgling Continental
Army, the divided loyalties of the American people, a meddling
Congress, disloyal generals, and an international alliance, for the six
years leading up to the Yorktown Campaign. He overcame his own distrust
and doubt and invited his old enemies, the French--who had held him
prisoner in an earlier war--to field a European army in the colonies
while he was working with all his energy to evict another one. Over the
years, he had used his own money and credit to pay and feed his men.
And he carefully balanced the need to combine his new nation's
independence with delicate European sensibilities to forge a winning
alliance. In these months in 1781, he took a grand risk and won the
war. Although the march is not his most famous hour, in many ways it is
his finest.
The armies marched on through Williamsburg, Virginia until they
reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and
Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. The
rest is history. We should work today to ensure that this history, in
all its rich detail, is not forgotten. We have the support of many
state and local and private and public historic preservation groups in
our efforts to establish this trail. We should use their momentum and
enthusiasm to make it a reality. This bill begins that process, by
directing the Secretary of the Interior to perform a resource study on
the establishment of this trail, in coordination with their activities
and other Congressionally mandated programs. In a time when it seems we
have few heroes, let us take the time to better remember the heroes of
our past. Those who sacificed so much for our freedom today deserve no
less.<bullet>
______

Mr. SESSIONS:
S. 3210. A bill to amend chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to
provide for greater fairness in the arbitration process for consumers
and employees; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the consumer and employee arbitration bill of rights

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to sent to the desk a bill
entitled, ``The Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights.''
This bill begins the multi-year legislative process necessary to
improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will be a cost-effective
means of resolving disputes. This bill of rights will provide
procedural protections to consumers and employees to ensure that their
claims will be resolved under due process of law, in a speedy and cost
effective manner.
Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served
us as well for three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the
parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains
a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in
court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a
contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve
any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker,
generally selected by a non-profit arbitration organization. The
parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel.
And the decision-makers will apply the relevant state law in resolving
the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than
going to court.
In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration
process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly
and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more
important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require
large contingent fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal
legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe the time has come
for a comprehensive review of how arbitration works and what we can do
to enhance its effectiveness.
The approach of reforming arbitration, rather than abandoning the
arbitration process provides several benefits. Arbitration is one of
the best means of dispute resolution and one that most consumers and
employees can afford. Consumers and employees generally cannot afford a
team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big
enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a
50 percent contingent fee. Thus, the consumer or employee is faced with
having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate for his claim. If he can afford to
pay the hourly rate, he must decide whether it makes financial sense to
pay a lawyer several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court for
a broken television that cost $700 new. If this is what consumers and
employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their
claim. This is not right. It is not fair.

[[Page S10625]]

This is where arbitration can give the consumer or employee a cost
effective forum to assert their claim. Thus, before we make exceptions
to the Federal Arbitration Act for some of the most well to do
corporations in our society, I think it is our duty to consider how we
can improve the system for those less financially able.
A letter I recently received from the National Arbitration Forum
contained some interesting comments about the importance of
arbitration: the ABA has calculated that 100 million Americans are
locked out of court by high legal costs, and that most lawyers will not
begin a lawsuit worth less than $20,000, while arbitration serves as an
accessible forum for dispute resolution; consumer class actions
increasingly generate little more than coupons for consumers, while
contractual arbitration gives a consumer the ability to get his or her
case before a neutral party at a reasonable price and in a reasonable
amount of time; a recent Roper Study indicates that 59 percent of
Americans would choose arbitration over a lawsuit to resolve a claim
for money.
Thus, the benefits for customers and employees are readily apparent.
Can we improve this system? Yes, but we must take a balanced approach.
Further, arbitration promotes the freedom of parties to make
contracts. I was recently contacted by Professor Stephen Ware of the
Cumberland School of Law, who reminded us that the promotion of
contractual freedom regarding arbitration has long been a primary goal
of the Federal Arbitration Act. In any contract, the parties agree to
all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This
includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the
basic principle upon which the Federal Arbitration Act has been
supported for 75 years.
But this is not always the case. In certain situations, consumers or
employees are not treated fairly. That is what the Consumer and
Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights is designed to correct.
The bill will maintain the cost benefits of binding arbitration, but
would grant several specific ``due process'' rights to consumers and
employees. The bill is based on the consumer and employee due process
protocols of the American Arbitration Association and have broad
support. The bill provides the following rights:
No. 1, notice--Under the bill an arbitration clause, to be
enforceable, would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would
have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a
source that the consumer or employee could contact for more
information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims
court.
This will ensure that consumers who receive credit card notices in
the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is printed in
fine print. Further, it will give consumers and employees a means to
obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the
clause would explain that if a consumer's claims could otherwise be
brought in small claims court, he is free to do so. Small claims court,
unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick
means of dispute resolution.
No. 2, independent selection of arbitrators--The bill will grant
consumers and employees the right to have potential arbitrators
disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and
employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in
selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who
sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself,
because the consumer or the employee with a grievance will have the
right to nominate potential arbitrators too. As a result, the final
arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both
parties to the dispute. This means the arbitrator will be a neutral
party with no allegiance to either the seller or the consumer.
No. 3, choice of law--The bill grants consumers and employees the
right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would
apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in
which the consumer resided at the time the contract was entered into.
This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a
court where the consumer or employee resides at the time of making the
contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from
the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois
company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois
law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place
the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator will
use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in
determining whether Alabama or Illinois law will govern the arbitration
proceedings.
No. 4, representation--The bill grants consumers and employees the
right to be represented by counsel at his own expense. Thus, if the
claim involves complicated legal issues, the consumer or employee is
free to have his lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such
representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in
court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of
arbitration.
No. 5, hearing--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to
a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer
or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring a
consumer or employee to travel across the country to arbitrate his
claim and to expend more in travel costs than his claim may be worth.

No. 6, evidence--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to
conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the
arbitrator will have all the facts before him prior to making a
decision.
No. 7, cross examination--The bill grants consumers and employees the
right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the other party at the
hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other
party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator
is correct.
No. 8, record--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to
hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record.
This right is key to proving later that the arbitration proceeding was
fair.
No. 9, timely resolution--The bill grants consumers and employees the
right to have an arbitration proceeding to be completed promptly so
that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim
resolved. Under the bill a defendant must file an answer within 30 days
of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the
answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision
within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in
extraordinary circumstances.
No. 10, written decision--The bill grants consumers and employees the
right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution
of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes
a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he
won or lost.
No. 11, expenses--The bill grants consumers and employees the right
to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in
the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of
arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to
take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even
afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator
can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer
or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require.
No. 12, small claims opt out--The bill grants consumers and employees
the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that
court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed
$50,000.
The bill also provides an effective mechanism for consumers and
employees to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or
employee believes that the other party violated his rights, he may ask
and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim
plus attorneys fees. For example, if the company fails to provide
discovery to the employee, the employee can make a motion for fees. The
amount of fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of
cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from
the company. This principle is taken from Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37.
After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights
granted to him

[[Page S10626]]

by the Act have been violated, he may file a petition with the Federal
district court. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence
that his rights were violated, it may order a new arbitrator appointed.
Thus, if a consumer or employee has an arbitrator that is unfair and
this causes him to lose the case, the consumer or employee can obtain
another arbitrator.
Mr. President, this bill is the first step to creating a constructive
dialog on arbitration reform. This bill of rights will ensure that
those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive
arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration
carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly,
promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers and employees who
agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be afforded due
process of law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3210

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

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

``Sec. 17. Consumer and employment contracts

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `consumer contract' means any written,
standardized form contract between the parties to a consumer
transaction;
``(2) the term `consumer transaction' means the sale or
rental of goods, services, or real property, including an
extension of credit or the provision of any other financial
product or service, to an individual in a transaction entered
into primarily for personal, family, or household purposes;
and
``(3) the term `employment contract'--
``(A) means a uniform, employer promulgated plan that
covers all employees in a company, facility, or work grade,
and that may cover legally protected rights or statutory
rights; and
``(B) does not include any individually negotiated
executive employment agreements.
``(b) Fair Disclosure.--In order to be binding on the
parties to a consumer contract or an employment contract, an
arbitration clause in such contract shall--
``(1) have a printed heading in bold, capital letters
entitled `arbitration clause', which heading shall be printed
in letters not smaller than \1/2\ inch in height;
``(2) explicitly state whether participation within the
arbitration program is mandatory or optional;
``(3) identify a source that a consumer can contact for
additional information on costs and fees and on all forms and
procedures necessary for effective participation in the
arbitration program; and
``(4) provide notice that all parties retain the right to
resolve a dispute in a small claims court, if such dispute
falls within the jurisdiction of that court and the claim is
for less than $50,000 in total damages.
``(c) Procedural Rights.--If a consumer contract or
employment contract provides for the use of arbitration to
resolve a dispute arising out of or relating to the contract,
each party to the contract shall be afforded the following
rights, in addition to any rights provided by the contract:
``(1) Competence and neutrality of arbitrator and
administrative process.--
``(A) In general.--Each party to the dispute (referred to
in this section as a `party') shall be entitled to a
competent, neutral arbitrator and an independent, neutral
administration of the dispute.
``(B) Arbitrator.--Each party shall have an equal voice in
the selection of the arbitrator, who--
``(i) shall comply with the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators
in Commercial Disputes of the American Arbitration
Association and the State bar association of which the
arbitrator is a member;
``(ii) shall have no personal or financial interest in the
results of the proceedings in which the arbitrator is
appointed and shall have no relation to the underlying
dispute or to the parties or their counsel that may create an
appearance of bias; and
``(iii) prior to accepting appointment, shall disclose all
information that might be relevant to neutrality, including
service as an arbitrator or mediator in any past or pending
case involving any of the parties or their representatives,
or that may prevent a prompt hearing.
``(C) Administration.--The arbitration shall be
administered by an independent, neutral alternative dispute
resolution organization to ensure fairness and neutrality and
prevent ex parte communication between parties and the
arbitrator.
``(2) Applicable law.--In resolving a dispute, the
arbitrator--
``(A) shall be governed by the same substantive law that
would apply under conflict of laws principles applicable in a
court of the forum in which the consumer or employee resided
at the time the contract was entered into; and
``(B) shall be empowered to grant whatever relief would be
available in court under law or equity.
``(3) Representation.--Each party shall have the right to
be represented by an attorney, or other representative as
permitted by State law, at the expense of that party.
``(4) Hearing.--
``(A) In general.--Each party shall be entitled to a fair
arbitration hearing (referred to in this section as a
`hearing') with adequate notice and an opportunity to be
heard.
``(B) Electronic or telephonic means.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), in order to reduce cost, the arbitrator may
hold a hearing by electronic or telephonic means or by a
submission of documents.
``(C) Face-to-face meeting.--Each party shall have the
right to require a face-to-face hearing, which hearing shall
be held at a location that is reasonably convenient for the
party who is the consumer or employee, unless in the interest
of fairness the arbitrator determines otherwise, in which
case the arbitrator shall use the process described in
section 1391 of title 28 to determine the venue for the
hearing.
``(5) Evidence.--With respect to any hearing--
``(A) each party shall have the right to present evidence
at the hearing and, for this purpose, each party shall grant
access to all information reasonably relevant to the dispute
to the other parties, subject to any applicable privilege or
other limitation on discovery under applicable State law;
``(B) consistent with the expedited nature of arbitration,
relevant and necessary prehearing depositions shall be
available to each party at the direction of the arbitrator;
and
``(C) the arbitrator shall--
``(i) make reasonable efforts to maintain the privacy of
the hearing to the extent permitted by applicable State law;
and
``(ii) consider appropriate claims of privilege and
confidentiality in addressing evidentiary issues.
``(6) Cross examination.--Each party shall have the right
to cross examine witnesses presented by the other parties at
a hearing.
``(7) Record of proceeding.--Any party seeking a
stenographic record of a hearing shall make arrangements
directly with a stenographer and shall notify the other
parties of these arrangements not less than 3 days in advance
of the hearing. The requesting party or parties shall pay the
costs of obtaining the record. If the transcript is agreed by
the parties, or determined by the arbitrator to be the
official record of the proceeding, it shall be provided to
the arbitrator and made available to the other parties for
inspection, at a date, time, and place determined by the
arbitrator.
``(8) Timely resolution.--Upon submission of a complaint by
the claimant, the respondent shall have 30 days to file an
answer. Thereafter, the arbitrator shall direct each party to
file documents and to provide evidence in a timely manner so
that the hearing may be held not later than 90 days after the
filing of the answer. In extraordinary circumstances, the
arbitrator may grant a limited extension of these time limits
to a party, or the parties may agree to an extension. The
arbitrator shall file a decision with each party not later
than 30 days after the hearing.
``(9) Written decision.--The arbitrator shall provide each
party with a written explanation of the factual and legal
basis for the decision. This written decision shall describe
the application of an identified contract term, statute, or
legal precedent. The decision of the arbitrator shall be
final and binding, subject only to the review provisions in
subsection (d).
``(10) Expenses.--The arbitrator or independent arbitration
administration organization, as applicable, shall have the
authority to--
``(A) provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees to the
claimant, in whole or in part, as part of the remedy in
accordance with applicable law or in the interests of
justice; and
``(B) waive, defer, or reduce any fee or charge due from
the claimant in the event of extreme hardship.
``(11) Small claims opt out.--Each party shall have the
right to opt out of binding arbitration and into the small
claims court for the forum, if such court has jurisdiction
over the claim. For purposes of this paragraph, no court with
jurisdiction to hear claims in excess of $50,000 shall be
considered to be a small claims court.
``(d) Denial of Rights.--
``(1) Denial of rights by party misconduct.--
``(A) In general.--At any time during an arbitration
involving a consumer contract or employment contract, any
party may file a motion with the arbitrator asserting that
the other party has deprived the movant of 1 or more rights
granted by this section and seeking relief.
``(B) Award by arbitrator.--If the arbitrator determines
that the movant has been deprived of a right granted by this
section by the other party, the arbitrator shall award the
movant a monetary amount, which shall not exceed the
reasonable expenses incurred

[[Page S10627]]

by the movant in filing the motion, including attorneys'
fees, unless the arbitrator finds that--
``(i) the motion was filed without the movant's first
making a good faith effort to obtain discovery or the
realization of another right granted by this section;
``(ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, failure to
respond, response, or objection was substantially justified;
or
``(iii) the circumstances otherwise make an award of
expenses unjust.
``(2) Denial of rights by arbitrator.--A losing party in an
arbitration may file a petition in the district court of the
United States in the forum in which the consumer or employee
resided at the time the contract was entered into to assert
that the arbitrator violated 1 or more of the rights granted
to the party by this section and to seek relief. In order to
grant the petition, the court must find clear and convincing
evidence that 1 or more actions or omissions of the
arbitrator resulted in a deprivation of a right of the
petitioner under this section that was not harmless. If such
a finding is made, the court shall order a rehearing before a
new arbitrator selected in the same manner as the original
arbitrator as the exclusive judicial remedy provided by this
section.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

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

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing
in this Act may be construed to be the basis for any claim in
law or equity.
______

Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3211. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to provide
grants to develop technologies to eliminate functional barriers to full
independence for individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

THE TECHNOLOGY FOR ALL AMERICANS ACT

<bullet> Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Technology
for All Americans Act. This Act will maximize our country's potential
by helping to close the Digital Divide for people with disabilities. In
doing so, it will increase their independence and self-sufficiency and
further strengthen our economy and society by enabling the greatest
possible number of us to contribute our abilities.
As we celebrate the Americans with Disabilities Act's 10th
Anniversary, we are entering a new millennium; one that will be defined
by technology. But technology can be a double-edged sword for people
with disabilities, who continue to fight for the freedom to live
independently.
If the Internet and other technologies are accessible, they will
offer people with disabilities unprecedented opportunities for
independence and self-sufficiency. But if they are not accessible, they
simply will create new barriers to full participation of people with
disabilities in our society and our economy.
Although new technologies have improved the lives of many Americans
with disabilities, there remains a significant ``Digital Divide''
between Americans with and without disabilities. Although people with
disabilities are nearly twice as likely as people without disabilities
to say that the Internet has improved their lives significantly, they
are barely one-quarter as likely to use the Internet and less than half
as likely to have access to a computer at home.
The Technology for All Americans Act will begin to bridge this gap.
The Act provides incentives for public and private researchers to use
universal design and accessibility principles in new technologies, and
to develop technologies to eliminate functional barriers to full
independence for people with disabilities. It will increase public
access to technology by providing grants to States to make public
libraries, including those in elementary and secondary schools,
technology accessible. It will increase the development and use of
accessible technology by providing grants to colleges and universities
to establish model curricula incorporating the design and use of
accessible technology into academic and professional programs. And it
will help children with disabilities maximize their potential in school
and after graduation by ensuring their access to technology. In a
nutshell, this Act will help ensure that people with disabilities have
an equal opportunity to participate in society.
But, this act is not just for people with disabilities. It is, as
it's name says, for all Americans. When people with disabilities
succeed in school, join the workforce, and participate in day-to-day
life, we all benefit from their abilities.
History also demonstrates that research on accessible technology
benefits everyone. How many people know that the typewriter was
invented for an Italian countess who was blind? In 1990, the Television
Decoder Circuitry Act, which I introduced, required closed captioning
for most television sets so that people who are deaf could watch TV.
But today millions of people who are not deaf use closed captioning at
home, at work, at gyms, and at sports bars, to name a few. And,
millions of people use voice-activated technology at work or in car
phones and cell phones. That technology also was intended primarily for
people with disabilities.
This trend will accelerate as the Technology Revolution moves
forward. The technologies that make things accessible for people with
disabilities have applications for all of us.
More and more each day, every American's ability to participate in
society is determined by how well they are able to use technology. This
Act will help us take the greatest advantage of technology for the
benefit of the greatest number of Americans. This must be one of our
priorities as we move into the new millennium.
So I ask my colleagues, people with disabilities, educators,
technology experts, and others who are interested to share their ideas
with me about this bill and about the issue of making technology
accessible to every American, so that next Congress we can ensure that
every American has access to the tools that will shape our
future.<bullet>

____________________