To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time. I regret that I have to be the skunk at the party today in opposition to this bill.

While I support innovation on the Web, I do not support it at the expense of consumer privacy. I believe we've rushed this bill to the floor without sufficient development and, consequently, without giving any thought to its implications for consumer privacy.

The bill would amend what is widely considered to be one of the strongest protections of consumer privacy records in the United States, the Video Privacy Protection Act, without receiving testimony from a single privacy expert. It also ignores the impact this bill may have on State laws providing similar or greater protections. At a time when we know that technology that's pervasive and invasive has become almost commonplace, our responsibility as policymakers is not to surrender to technology and to sacrifice the values that we have held dear since the founding of this Nation.

Technology and privacy are not incompatible. We can and should promote technological innovation while simultaneously preventing the unwarranted, uninformed dissemination of personal information. This bill falls short of that objective. The supporters of this bill point to the widespread sharing already taking place over the Internet, but they neglect to publicize the privacy lawsuits, some of which are still pending, against those video and music sites that permit their users to share their playlist.

The Video Privacy Protection Act was not only a reaction to the publication of Judge Robert Bork's rental records during his nomination proceeding to the United States Supreme Court. The committee report also noted where an attorney obtained video records in a custody dispute to demonstrate that the father was unfit to have custody of his children based largely on his video rental records. Many of the lawsuits today reflect consumer concerns with precisely this type of abuse and misuse of rental records and other equally private information.

The stated purpose of the bill is to respond to the new commercial video distribution landscape by empowering consumers to do more with their video consumption preference, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simple way. But when you really peel away the layers, you have to ask yourself one question: Who does this bill benefit? It really doesn't benefit the consumer. The consumer already has the capacity to share his or her video preferences online however she pleases.

The bill instead benefits companies by relieving them of the burden of protecting consumer records by getting a one-time universal consent to disclose users' viewing history in order to share them on social media sites. But because social media sites are often dynamic, with users' rosters of friends ever changing, a consumer's consent today to allow access to their viewing history is clearly not informed by who will be their friend tomorrow.

Today, when online bullying of teens or young adults is increasing and leading to depression or suicide, we should have greater care to ensure that their interests are not cavalierly disregarded. Allowing video service providers to release information as private as a person's viewing history, which clearly shows to the world their loves, likes, and dislikes, should not be done without careful contemplation and consideration.

In closing, I would just emphasize that I believe that technological advance and innovation are both extremely important. It is the future of America's economy. I don't question that. However, allowing the release of truly private consumer information in the name of innovation without careful consideration is reckless on our part, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding once again.

And in response to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we have in fact been trying to work out our differences. The problem is that his definition of protecting privacy is not as extensive as my definition of protecting privacy. And I think my definition of protecting privacy is more consistent with consumers, because consumers keep filing these lawsuits to try to protect themselves from the disclosure of their personal information.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has been at the forefront of ensuring privacy protections for consumers in the information age, just last week secured a victory for Facebook users when its complaint to the Federal Trade Commission resulted in a settlement requiring Facebook to establish an extensive privacy program. Analytics Company and Web video Hulu.com have been hit with another privacy lawsuit over their alleged use of supercookies to track people.

There is case after case after case of consumers' information being used, abused, and misused, and here we are making it easier for that to occur by saying you can give one time--they already have the authority to release the information when they download a movie now, but this will give one-time, universal coverage to release everything that I view on video. And that's inconsistent with what I think is necessary to protect the privacy of people in this electronic age.

Now, I understand that there are people who have an interest in this; I mean, there are people who profit from mining this kind of information. But our interest should be in protecting the rights of consumers, protecting them from having this kind of private information--I would think since the original Video Protection Act was about protecting the privacy of Judge Robert Bork and people going into his records to review his video viewing privacy, that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would be the most vigorous in trying to protect this. But here we are giving in to the interests that will make money out of this and exposing our children and our own viewing habits to this kind of intrusive action on our part, and we are doing it without the benefit of any testimony at a hearing to talk about this. We should simply not be doing this.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter dated December 5, 2012, from the Electronic Privacy Information Center in which they aggressively oppose this legislation. They say they are a nonpartisan public interest research organization.

The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988, following disclosure of the private video rental records of a Supreme Court nominee by a video rental store to a news organization. There was broad-based support for passage, and the act was signed by President Ronald Reagan. This act is considered a model privacy act in many respects. It is technology neutral.

And this bill undermines this Video Privacy Act that was the model act that was designed to protect a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and was signed into law by a Republican President. And here we are in this Congress getting ready to send a bill over to the Senate-- which hopefully they won't act on; they will save us from our own ineptitude--which would undermine the key provision of the Video Protection Act, which is the right of users to give meaningful consent to the disclosure of their personal information.

This blanket consent, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center--and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The blanket consent provisions transfer control from the individual user to the company in possession of the data and diminish the control that Netflix customers would have in the use and disclosure of their personal information.

``While we recognize that other companies routinely report on the activities of their customers, we note that Facebook users have never been particularly happy about this. The history of Beacon is well known--and also that the routine disclosure of video viewing activities is not something that most Facebook users are clamoring for.''

In fact, Facebook, as we just indicated, just entered into a settlement of a privacy lawsuit. And here we are on the floor of the House saying that we value the business interests more than we value the personal privacy interests of individual citizens.

This is a bad idea. It shouldn't be here on the suspension calendar as if it's a noncontroversial clarification of

the law. This is a dramatic undermining of the Video Privacy Protection Act. We are doing a disservice to our constituents by giving this authority. They already have the authority to do it on a case-by-case- by-case basis. It may be inconvenient to the companies to get the authority given to them that way, but that's the way it should be given to them, not in some blanket authority that just allows the companies to go in and use this information willy-nilly and without regard to the privacy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding again. And I may ask him to yield again depending on what happens--oh, he says he's not going to yield to me anymore.

I just think my colleagues should vote against this bill, defeat it on suspension, and let's at least debate it under regular order on the floor of the House or send it back to the committee so we can have some hearings about the privacy implications so we can get this done.

Electronic Privacy

Information Center,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2011.

Congressman Mel Watt,

Rayburn HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Watt: Thank you for your request for

comments from the Electronic Privacy Information Center

(``EPIC'') regarding H.R. 2471, which would amend the Video

Privacy Protection Act (``VPPA''). EPIC had hoped to provide

comments at a hearing on the bill, but as the sponsors of the

legislation chose to push through the legislation without the

opportunity for public discussion, we appreciate the

opportunity to share our views in response to your request.

EPIC is nonpartisan, public interest research organization,

established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging

privacy and civil liberties issues, We maintain two of the

most popular privacy sites on the Internet--EPIC.ORG and

PRIVACY.ORG--and testify frequently in Congress. We have also

represented the interests of Facebook users over the years in

a wide range of privacy matters.

The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988

following the disclosure of the private video rental records

of a Supreme Court nominee by a video rental store to a news

organization. There was broad-based support for passage and

the Act was signed into law by President Reagan. The VPPA is

considered a model privacy law in many respects--it is

technology neutral, focusing on the obligations of businesses

and the rights of customers in the collection and use of

personal information. It makes clear the circumstances when

personal information may be disclosed and it provides a

private right of action when violations occur.

The VPPA makes no specific references to particular

technologies. First Amendment concerns are addressed in the

Act by recognizing that when the press seeks to publish

information, Congress may not limit the rights of the press.

However, businesses that collect information from their

customers have an obligation to safeguard that information

and to ensure it is used only for appropriate purposes. As

with most privacy laws, the VPPA contains a consent provision

that allows individuals to disclose their personal

information to others if they wish. There is nothing in the

Act that prevents individuals from so doing.

H.R. 2471 would undermine the key provision in the VPPA,

which is the right of users to give meaningful consent to the

disclosure of their personal information. Such blanket

consent provisions transfer control from the individual user

to the company in possession of the data and diminish the

control that Netflix customers would have in the use and

disclosure of their personal information. While we recognize

that other companies routinely report on the activities of

their customers, we note that Facebook users have never been

particularly happy about this--the history of Beacon is well

known--and also that the routine disclosure of video viewing

activities is not something that most Facebook users are

clamoring for. If anything, most Netflix users seem to be

unhappy about the company's disregard for its customers.

The proposal is particularly surprising in light of the

recent decision by the Federal Trade Commission concerning

Facebook and privacy, which found that when companies seek to

change the privacy defaults of their users, they are

essentially engaging in an unfair and deceptive trade

practice. That would be the practical impact of this

amendment--to take away control of the user's information

after the user had subscribed to the service. There is

nothing in the proposal that would ``modernize'' the Act; it

simply allows Netflix to post more information about the

activity of its customers, whether or not the customers would

choose to post such information themselves.

EPIC would therefore recommend that members of Congress

vote NO on H.R. 2471. Users remain free to disclose their

video viewing habits if they wish; there is no reason to

change the default. EPIC would also recommend a hearing on

the legislation so that all views, both for and against, can

be presented, and Members are provided an opportunity to

fully assess the proposal.

Privacy is the number one concern of Internet users today.

It would be foolish to adopt an amendment that weakens

privacy legislation already in place.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further

questions.

Sincerely,

Marc Rotenberg,

President, Electronic Privacy

Information Center (EPIC).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2471) to amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a videotape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2471, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today I am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

The VPPA was passed by Congress in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination battle, during which a local Washington, D.C., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood videotape rental store. This disclosure caused bipartisan outrage, which resulted in the enactment of the VPPA.

The commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. Back then, the primary consumer consumption of commercial video content occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes. This required users to travel to their local video rental store to pick a movie. Afterward, consumers had to travel back to the store to return the rented movie. Movies that consumers rented and enjoyed were recommended to friends primarily through face-to-face conversations. With today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes.

This bill updates the VPPA to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. Specifically, it is narrowly crafted to preserve the VPPA's protections for consumers' privacy while modernizing the law to empower consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simple way. However, it protects the consumer's control over the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt-in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or TV shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented.

It also makes clear that written, affirmative consent can be provided

through the Internet and can be withdrawn at any time.

Finally, thanks to an amendment from the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, the amended bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations.

This bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. In fact, the cochairs of the Future of Privacy Forum correctly pointed out, in an opinion piece in Roll Call on November 29, that ``the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers.''

This legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the VPPA or the definition of ``personally identifiable information.'' In addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative, written consent.

It is time that Congress updates the VPPA to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. This bill does just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, for his support for the legislation.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend from North Carolina. He and I have attempted to work together to resolve his differences. In fact, I believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) does resolve some of the concerns the gentleman had. But obviously, as he has just expressed, not all of them. So I would like to respond to what he has indicated.

Content providers, the Internet community, and consumer advocacy groups

support the bipartisan effort to enact a commonsense modernization of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Hulu, Google, Facebook, IAC, Apple, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Future of Privacy Forum are among those who see H.R. 2471 for the simple modernizing amendment that it is.

The VPPA contains a strict standard of privacy: Opt-in consent. The proposed amendment to the VPPA, H.R. 2471, keeps the opt-in standard fully intact. H.R. 2471 enhances the protection provided by the VPPA by ensuring that the opt-in consent required must be separate and distinct from any other end-user agreement. This measure further empowers consumers to make decisions about their information in a manner that is fully informed.

None of the examples provided by Mr. Watt illustrated disagreement between the commenters he highlighted with the consumer empowerment measures that H.R. 2471 provides. H.R. 2471 simply gives consumers the freedom to share what they've watched with their friends if they would like to. It grants consumers the same right to share movies and television shows that they've enjoyed, as is already possible for music, news, and books. He correctly notes that someone can right now go on Facebook or some other social media and say, I watched this movie or that television show, and I like it or don't like it. The difference, however, is that consumers do not understand why they can have an arrangement for the music they listen to to immediately go up online so that their friends can listen to the same music simultaneously, but with regard to movies they have to take additional steps that can, under circumstances, be inconvenient to them. That's why they like this convenience, and that's why consumers should have it. And that's why this bill empowers consumers in ways that they are not empowered today, and why it is a real consumer bill.

H.R. 2471 ensures that the VPPA's high standard of privacy protection remains untouched. Consumers must affirmatively opt in to share with friends the movies and television shows they've watched. A consumer can withdraw his or her consent at any time. And H.R. 2471 is narrowly tailored to update the VPPA, a 1980s law, to make it compatible with consumers' desires, with consumers' communication, with consumers' socializing on the Internet in the 21st century.

The committee has indicated in its report language that there is no intention for this clarification to negate in any way existing laws, regulations, and practices designed to protect and provide the privacy of children on the Internet. As always, however, the first line of defense to protecting a child's privacy while online is the parents.

Social networking Web sites allow users to share personal information about themselves with their friends; but used inappropriately, personal information can be shared beyond a user's friends. Just as parents are responsible for teaching their children not to talk to strangers, the committee expects parents to play an active role in ensuring their children's proper use of social networking or any other Web sites on the Internet.

This legislation in no way changes the privacy protection for children on the Internet. And that law, as the VPPA itself, with regard to its privacy protections and its opt-in requirements, is not changed. This is simply a modern way for people to be able to communicate with their friends in ways that are convenient to them and that they already use and do not understand why, if they can use it with music, with news, with books, with other forms of communication and speech, that they can't do it with regard to their movie and television shows.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In no way does this legislation in any way undercut the principal purpose of the Video Privacy Protection Act because the power rests with the consumer.

Basically, what this legislation does is it empowers consumers to do things in the 21st century with regard to their movie and television viewing, communications with their friends that they already have with music, they already have with news, they already have with books or magazine articles that they read; and we should have that kind of consistency in the law.

The Video Protection Privacy Act remains strong, and its principal purposes remain there intact; and it has an opt-in requirement, an opt- in requirement that anyone who wants to avail themselves of this convenience has to give informed concept to do so.

I urge my colleagues to support this very bipartisan legislation. It has strong support on both sides of the aisle.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say to the gentleman from Georgia that I have good news for him. There is absolutely no way that anyone can, under this legislation, find out any of his video-viewing habits unless he consents, with informed consent, with a separate consent to allowing that information to be made known to anybody.

Again, this legislation makes good sense. It's what consumers want in the 21st century. It's how they share their information online. And those who don't want to share their information this way do not have to give this consent. Therefore, this legislation, I think, strikes the right balance.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6671) to amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6671, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today I am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

The VPPA was passed by Congress in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination battle, during which a local Washington, D.C., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood videotape rental store. This disclosure caused bipartisan outrage, which resulted in the enactment of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. Back then, the primary consumer consumption of commercial video content occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes. This required users to travel to their local video rental store to pick a movie. Afterward, consumers had to travel back to the store to return the rented movie. Movies that consumers rented and enjoyed were recommended to friends, primarily through face-to-face conversations. With today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes.

This bill is extremely similar to H.R. 2471, which passed the House overwhelmingly a year ago. This newer version incorporates provisions suggested by the Senate that allows greater consumer flexibility in their video sharing habits. I support these enhancements to the bill.

This bill updates the Video Privacy Protection Act to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. Specifically, it is narrowly crafted to preserve the VPPA's protections for consumers' privacy, while modernizing the law to empower consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simpler way. However, it protects the consumer's control over the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or TV shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented.

It also makes clear that written affirmative consent can be provided through the Internet and can be withdrawn at any time. The bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations. Companies must provide consumers with the clear and conspicuous option to withdraw their consent to share at any time. Finally, a consumer's consent to share expires after 24 months unless the consumer chooses to opt in again.

This bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. In fact, the cochairs of the Future of Privacy Forum correctly pointed out, in an opinion piece in Roll Call on November 29, 2011, that ``the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers.''

This legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the VPPA or the definition of ``personally identifiable information.'' In addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative, written consent.

It's time that Congress updates the VPPA to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. This bill does just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank both the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his longtime support, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who I'm sure will have a word to say about this as well, and also the work that the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of the subcommittee that I chair--and he has done a good job as the ranking member on--for working with us to find ground here that we could reach agreement upon.

I will also say that I have a great interest in looking at the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other privacy issues that need to be reviewed and modernized, and I hope that, in my new capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, we'll have the opportunity to work together on issues of that nature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleagues for coming together on this legislation. I believe that it is very good legislation that modernizes the use of the Internet and the use of information that people want to share with each other. It makes it feasible to do that now in ways that newer users of the Internet have become used to with music and other things they share, and now they'll be able to do that with video, television, and movies and other things like that.

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6671. Last year, I came to the floor to oppose the predecessor bill to this legislation, which we in the House passed and sent to the Senate. But today, I rise to support the amendments to the Video Privacy Protection Act contained in the bill because of important amendments to the bill that have been made in the Senate.

I said when we debated the bill before, and I say now, that while I support innovation on the Web, I do not support it at the expense of consumer privacy. I believe the Senate amendments make for a strong bill, with more robust consumer protections, and respond, in many respects, to the concerns I raised about the prior bill.

The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in reaction to the unauthorized release of Judge Robert Bork's rental history during his contentious confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court and stands today as the gold standard for privacy protection.

The amendments made by this bill would allow a video service provider to obtain universal, ongoing electronic consent from consumers to share their viewing history across social media like Facebook. The consumer would have to affirmatively opt in, and the service must provide a clear and conspicuous opportunity to withdraw the consent to share video viewing information at any time. Finally, advance consent may be valid for no longer than 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied that the amendments made in the Senate, before which I testified in opposition to the original bill, have adequately addressed the privacy-related concerns I expressed.

Opt-in consent is widely regarded by privacy advocates as a vigorous protection for consumers. The requirement that the consumer must revisit the decision to share his video history reinforces the protections provided in the initial consent.

And finally, the bill now allows what I suggested during the Judiciary Committee markup in the House, that the consumer be provided the option to give consent on a video-by-video basis, or in advance for all views until that consent is withdrawn, or until the expiration of 24 months.

Because of these important changes, I support the chairman in his effort to assist online companies to initiate creative options on behalf of their subscribers. While these are welcome improvements that allow me to support this bill, I remain concerned that the bill fails to provide needed updates to the Video Privacy Protection Act, in particular, and fails to consider implications for the ongoing national debate on privacy laws governing digital privacy.

I continue to believe that the underlying Video Privacy Protection Act must be updated to address destruction of records in the online environment. Also, the damages provision should be updated to ensure that consumers are adequately compensated when harmed and that online companies are not unfairly penalized because of the reach of their media.

Finally, I firmly believe that the provision in the Video Privacy Protection Act that requires a warrant for law enforcement to obtain consumer records must be preserved and that future debates on electronic consumer privacy reforms must not undercut those protections.

I understand that the incoming chair of the Judiciary, my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, agrees with most of these observations and will work with me to ensure that the Judiciary Committee, next year, tries to address some of these concerns.

So, Madam Speaker, my concerns are not so much about what's in this bill as much as they are concerns about what is not in the bill. So I'm agreeing not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

I, therefore, ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill, but I also ask them to join me, in the next term of Congress, to protect consumer privacy and to update the outdated provisions of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers.

I yield such time as she may consume to a valued member of our Intellectual Property Subcommittee and a valued member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the bill and working with us next year to address the things that are not in the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6671 makes a minor, overdue change to update the Video Privacy Protection Act. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

The Video Privacy Protection Act prohibits video stores from disclosing certain ``personally identifiable information'' of their customers.

In the event of an unauthorized disclosure, an individual can sue in civil court for damages. But the law has always allowed some personally identifiable information to be released in limited circumstances, such as in response to a court order or when the customer gives their prior, written consent.

However, the technologies of entertainment are changing. Today, consumers are just as likely to stream a movie from the Internet as they are to rent a movie from a video store. And when people view entertainment on the Internet, often they like to share their activities with friends through social media like Facebook and Twitter.

Under current law, the social media sites would have to obtain written consent each time someone wishes to share their video choices.

H.R. 6671 does not change the prohibition on disclosure of personal information or expand the exceptions when information can be disclosed. It does not change the requirement for informed, written consent by a consumer. It simply allows the consumer to consent once before using new social media programs to share their movie or TV show preferences.

An earlier version of this bill passed the House last year, by a vote of 303 to 116. In the Senate, two amendments were adopted to make the bill even more consumer friendly. This new version adopts these amendments to accommodate concerns about consumer choice and privacy.

H.R. 6671 adopts an amendment proffered in mark-up by Congressman Nadler, which requires the consumer consent agreement to be in a completely separate form apart from the other contract details.

In addition, H.R. 6671 adopts two Senate amendments that place limitations on how consent is obtained from consumers. The bill now limits the disclosure agreement to 2 years.

The bill also requires the video provider to give consumers easy options to end the sharing agreement. These changes will ensure that consumers are aware they are sharing information and are voluntarily taking part.

Rather than dramatically alter the Act's existing provisions, H.R. 6671 keeps the vast majority of the Act in place and simply modernizes the way in which consumers can give their informed consent. This bill brings the Video Privacy Protection Act into the 21st century. And the changes adopted made from the previous bill increase consumer protection from the beginning of the process to its end.

I again thank my colleague from Virginia, the Chairman-Elect of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for his work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.