House panel votes to create new privacy commission

Pointing to increasing public concern about the security of medical records, financial data and other personal information, a House Government Reform subcommittee voted Tuesday to establish a 17-member federal commission to conduct a comprehensive study of privacy issues and make recommendations to Congress and the President. "Today, only a few keystrokes on a computer can yield a quantity of information that was unimaginable when the Privacy Act of 1974 became law 27 years ago," said Rep. Steve Horn, R-Calif., who chairs the Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee. The bipartisan "Privacy Commission Act" (H.R. 583), which cleared the subcommittee by voice vote, would require the commission to hold hearings throughout the nation, examine information practices in the public and private sectors, and study a broad range of legislative proposals aimed at protecting consumers' privacy in the Information age. The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., and James Moran, D-Va., would require the commission to report back to Congress and the President within 18 months, making recommendations on how best to protect individual's personal data while still allowing "appropriate uses" of that information. "This nation needs a coherent privacy policy, not a patchwork of conflicting laws," Horn said. But Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, opposed the bill, arguing that a new federal commission would create "an illusion of progress on privacy," while delaying or obstructing current federal and state legislative efforts to protect consumers' privacy. Rather than calling for a study on the issue, Schakowsky maintained, Congress should move forward with such legislative initiatives as prohibiting banks from sharing their customers' personal information with unaffiliated third parties without their consent. "Enacting H.R. 583 could put a halt to these initiatives for several years," Schakowsky warned. "The public should not be lulled into a false sense of security regarding privacy." The 17-member commission would include two members appointed by the President, four members appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, and four appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Senate and House minority leaders would appoint three members each under the bill. The final member, who would serve as the commission's chairperson, would be appointed jointly by the President, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House. Horn said the legislation is similar to a measure that cleared the full Government Reform Committee last year as H.R. 4049, but failed to win House approval under a suspension of the rules. But Horn noted that this year's bill would reduce, from four to two, the number of commission members appointed by the President, and increase the House and Senate Minority Leaders' appointees from two to three each. But Schakowsky cautioned that even with those changes, the commission still would be lopsided in favor of Republicans. She noted that since Republicans now control both the White House and both chambers of Congress, the commission would consist of 11 Republicans and six Democrats. Schakowsky offered an amendment to balance out that ratio, but withdrew it after Horn and Hutchinson promised to work to address her concerns before the full committee takes up the bill. "I think there are some ways we can work together on that," said Hutchinson, who is not a member of the Government Reform panel but appeared before the subcommittee Tuesday to answer members' questions about his bill. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., also offered, then withdrew, an amendment that would apply the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Congress and the White House. Maloney noted that the full committee incorporated a similar provision into last year's bill through report language. Schakowsky supported Maloney's amendment, noting that elected officials--such as those that sit on the Government Reform Committee--often have access to financial documents, transcripts of private telephone conversations, and other personal information "that should not be released" to the public. "They should be held accountable when there's an inappropriate release from their office," Schakowsky said. Hutchinson said he had no "strong opposition" to Maloney's amendment, but wanted time to work with her on it, to ensure that it would not drive away any of the bill's current broad base of support. Maloney then withdrew her amendment with the understanding that she would work with Hutchinson, Horn and other members before the bill goes to the full committee.