Please use your back button to return to the last page.

Tip:  To find a word on this page hold down the CTRL key and press F, then type the word you are looking for in the box that pops up.  Click on the Find Next button.

Mr. MARKEY.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1304) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate the use of telephones in making commercial solicitations, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:
 
H.R. 1304

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 "Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that:

(1) The use of the telephone to market goods and services to the home and other businesses is now pervasive due to the increased use of cost-effective telemarketing techniques.

(2) Over 30,000 businesses actively telemarket goods and services to business and residential customers.

(3) More than 300,000 solicitors call more than 18,000,000 Americans every day.

(4) Total United States sales generated through telemarketing amounted to $435,000,000,000 in 1990, a more than four-fold increase since 1984.

(5) Unrestricted telemarketing, however, can be an intrusive invasion of privacy and, when an emergency or medical assistance telephone line is seized, a risk to public safety.

(6) Many consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers.

(7) Over half the States now have statutes restricting various uses of the telephone for marketing, but telemarketers can evade their prohibitions through

interstate operations, therefore, Federal law is needed to control residential telemarketing practices.

(8) The Constitution does not prohibit restrictions on commercial telemarketing solicitations.

(9) Individuals' privacy rights, public safety interests, and commercial freedoms of speech and trade must be balanced in a way that protects the privacy of individuals and permits legitimate telemarketing practices.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT FOR ADVERTISING.

Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting immediately after section 226 (47 U.S.C. 226) the following new section:

SEC. 227. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT FOR ADVERTISING.

"(a) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section:

"(1) The term 'automatic telephone dialing systems' means equipment which has the capacity-

"(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator;

"(B) to dial such numbers; and
 
"(C) to deliver, without initial live operator assistance, a prerecorded voice message to the number dialed, with or without manual assistance.

"(2) The term 'telephone facsimile machine' means equipment which as the capacity to do either or both of the following: (A) to transcribe text or images (or both) from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone *10340 line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.

"(3) The term 'telephone solicitation' means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person (A) without that person's prior express invitation or permission, or (B) with whom the caller does not have an established business relationship. Such term does not include a call or message by a tax exempt nonprofit organization.

"(4) The term 'unsolicited advertisement' means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person (A) without that person's prior express invitation or permission, or (B) with whom the caller does not have an established business relationship.

"(b) RESTRICTIONS.-It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States by means of telephone-

"(1) to make any telephone solicitation in violation of the regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c);

"(2) to use, to make any telephone solicitation, any telephone facsimile machine or any automatic telephone dialing system that does not comply with the technical and procedural standards prescribed under subsection (d), or to use, to make any telephone solicitation, any telephone facsimile machine or automatic telephone dialing system in a manner that does not comply with such standards;

"(3) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement in violation of any regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to subsection (e);

"(4) to use any automatic telephone dialing system to make unsolicited calls-

"(A) to any emergency telephone line or pager of any hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; or

"(B) to any telephone number assigned to paging, specialized mobile radio, or cellular telephone service; or

"(5) to use a computer or other electronic device to send an unsolicited advertisement via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page of the advertisement or on the first page of each transmission, the date and time it is sent, an identification of the business sending the advertisement, and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business.

"(c) PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBER PRIVACY RIGHTS.-

"(1) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING REQUIRED.-Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. The proceeding shall-

"(A) compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures (including the use of electronic databases, telephone network technologies, special directory markings, industry-based or company-specific 'do not call' systems, and any other alternatives, individually or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting such privacy rights, and in terms of their cost and other advantages and disadvantages;

"(B) evaluate the categories of public and private entities that would have the capacity to establish and administer such methods and procedures;

"(C) consider whether different methods and procedures may apply for local telephone solicitations, such as local telephone solicitations of small businesses or holders of second class mail permits;

"(D) consider whether there is a need for additional Commission authority to further restrict telephone solicitations, including those calls exempted under subsection (a)(3) of this section, and, if such a finding is made and supported by the record, propose specific restrictions to the Congress; and

"(E) develop proposed regulations to implement the methods and procedures that the Commission determines are most effective and efficient to accomplish the purposes of this section.

"(2) REGULATIONS.-Not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall conclude the rulemaking proceeding initiated under paragraph (1) and shall prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for protecting the privacy rights described in such paragraph in an efficient, effective, and economic manner and without the imposition of any additional charge to telephone subscribers.

"(3) USE OF DATABASE PERMITTED.-The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the establishment and operation of a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, or to receiving certain classes or categories of telephone solicitations, and to make that compiled list available for purchase. If the Commission determines to require such a database, such regulations shall-

"(A) specify a method by which the Commission will select an entity to administer such database;

"(B) require each common carrier providing telephone exchange service, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission, to inform subscribers for telephone exchange service of the opportunity to provide notification, in accordance with regulations established under this paragraph, that such subscriber objects to receiving telephone solicitations;

"(C) specify the methods by which each telephone subscriber shall be informed, by the common carrier that provides local exchange service to that subscriber, of (i) the subscriber's right to give or revoke a notification of an objection under subparagraph (A), and (ii) the methods by which such right may be exercised by the subscriber;

"(D) specify the methods by which such objections shall be collected and added to the database;

"(E) prohibit any residential subscriber from being charged for giving or revoking such notification or for being included in a database compiled under this section;

"(F) prohibits any person from making or transmitting a telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any subscriber included in such database;

"(G) specify (i) the methods by which any person desiring to make or transmit telephone solicitations will obtain access to the database, by area code or local exchange prefix, as required to avoid calling the telephone numbers of subscribers included in such database; and (ii) the costs to be recovered from such person;

"(H) specify the methods for recovering, from persons accessing such database, the costs involved in notifying, collecting, updating, disseminating, and selling, and other activities relating to, the operations of the database that are incurred by the entities carrying out those activities;

"(I) specify the frequency with which such database will be updated and specify the method by which such updating will take effect for purposes of compliance with subsection (b);

"(J) be designed to enable and require States to use the database mechanism selected by the Commission for purposes of administering or enforcing State law;

"(K) prohibits the use of such database for any purpose other than compliance with the requirements of this section and any such State law and specify methods for protection of the privacy rights of persons whose numbers are included in such database; and

"(L) require each common carrier providing services to any person for the purpose of making telephone solicitations to notify such person of the requirements of this section and the regulations there under.

"(4) CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR USE OF DATABASE METHOD.-If the Commission determines to require the database mechanism described in paragraph (3), the Commission shall-

"(A) in developing procedures for gaining access to the database, consider the different needs of telemarketers conducting business on a national, regional, State, or local level;

"(B) develop a fee schedule or price structure for recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such differences and-

"(i) reflect the relative costs of providing a national, regional, State, or local list of phone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations;

"(ii) reflect the relative costs of providing such lists on paper or electronic media; and

"(iii) not place an unreasonable financial burden on small businesses; and

"(C) consider (i) whether the needs of telemarketers operating on a local basis could be met through special markings of area white pages directories, and (ii) if such directories are needed as an adjunct to database lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix.

"(d) TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL STANDARDS.-

"(1) TELEPHONE FACSIMILE MACHINES.-The Commission shall revise the regulations setting technical and procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines to require that any such machine which is manufactured after 6 months after the date of enactment of this section clearly marks, in a margin at the top of the bottom of each transmitted page or on the first page of each transmission, the date and time sent, an identification of the business or other entity sending the advertisement, and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business. The Commission shall exempt from such standards, for 12 months after such date of enactment, telephone facsimile machines that do not have the capacity for automatic dialing and transmission and that are not capable of operation through an interface with a computer.

"(2) AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEMS.-The Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural standards for automatic telephone dialing systems that are used to transmit any prerecorded telephone solicitation. Such standards shall require that-

"(A) all prerecorded telephone messages (i) shall, at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business or other entity initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business or other entity; and

"(B) such systems will, as soon as is technically practicable (given the limitations of the telephone exchange service facilities) after the called party hangs up, automatically *H10341 create a disconnect signal or on-hook condition which allows the called party's line to be released.

"(e) CONSIDERATION OF FACSIMILE MACHINE RESTRICTIONS.-Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to prescribe rules to restrict the use of any telephone facsimile machine or computer or other electronic device to send any unsolicited advertisement to the telephone facsimile machine of any person. In establishing such restrictions, the Commission shall consider-

"(1) the extent to which unsolicited advertisements are transmitted through telephone facsimile machines;

"(2) the extent to which recipients of such advertisements incur costs for such receipt; and

"(3) the most cost effective methods of preventing advertising abuses with telephone facsimile machines.

"(f) EFFECT ON STATE LAW.-

"(1) STATE LAW NOT PREEMPTED.-Nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits, either or both of the following:

"(A) The use of telephone facsimile machines or other electronic devices to send unsolicited advertisements.

"(B) The use of automatic telephone dialing systems to transmit prerecorded telephone solicitations.

"(2) STATE REGULATION OF TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS.-If, pursuant to subsection (c), the Commission requires the establishment of a database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations or a functionally equivalent methods or procedures of Federal regulation, a State or local authority may not develop any different database or system for use in the regulation of telephone solicitations and may not enforce restrictions on telephone solicitations in any manner that is not based upon the requirements imposed by the Commission.

"(3) STATE ENFORCEMENT PERMITTED.-Nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed under this section shall prohibit the segmentation of the database or functionally equivalent method or procedure for use by State or local authorities, nor preempt any State or local authority from creating mechanisms to enforce compliance with the database or functionally equivalent system, or a segment thereof.

"(g) EFFECTIVE DATE OF REQUIREMENTS.-The requirements of this section shall take effect 30 days after the date that regulations are prescribed under subsection (c).".

SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by striking " Except as provided" and all that follows through "and subject to the provisions" and inserting "Except as provided in sections 223 through 227, inclusive, and subject to the provisions".

SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF AM RADIO FREQUENCIES.

Section 331 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended-

(1) by striking the heading of such section and inserting the following:

"FREQUENCY ALLOCATION POLICIES";

(2) by inserting "(a) VERY HIGH FREQUENCY STATIONS.-after "Sec. 331."; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(b) AM RADIO FREQUENCIES.-It shall be the policy of the Commission, in any case in which the licensee of an existing AM daytime-only station located in a community with a population of more than 100,000 persons that lacks a local fulltime aural station licensed to that community and that is located in or adjacent to a major metropolitan market notifies the Commission that such licensee seeks to migrate to a new frequency, for the Commission to ensure that such a licensee receives an allotment or assignment to such a new frequency, if technically feasible.".

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. COLEMAN of Texas).

Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts <Mr. MARKEY> will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. RINALDO> will be recognized for 20 minutes.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts <Mr. MARKEY>.

Mr. MARKEY.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 1304, the Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act, which currently has 62 cosponsors. This legislation, which I introduced with the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. RINALDO>, will finally give the public an opportunity to just say "no" to unsolicited phone or facsimile advertisements.

Our legislation gives the public a fighting chance to start to curtail these unwanted practices by requiring the FCC to conduct a rulemaking and weigh alternative methods for protecting consumers' privacy rights and to put them in place before our home telephones become the receptacles of junk calls in the same way that junk mail often inundates our mailboxes.

Today in America, more than 300,000 solicitors make more than 18 million calls every day in the United States, while some 75,000 stock brokers make 1.5 billion telemarketing calls a year. Automatic dialing machines, on the other hand, have the capacity to call 20 million Americans during the course of a single day with each individual machine delivering a prerecorded message to 1,000 homes.

In addition, automatic dialing machines place calls randomly, meaning they sometimes call unlisted numbers or numbers for hospitals, police, and fire stations-causing public safety problems. Our bill, H.R. 1304, would prohibit advertising calls to public safety numbers as well as to paging, specialized mobile radio, and cellular equipment.

In the final analysis, a person's home is his castle. Preservation of the tranquility and privacy of that castle should compel us to avail consumers of the opportunity to place the telephone line into their home-the sanctuary from which they escape all the other trials that society (and Congress) cause them-off limits to intrusive and annoying interruptions. I believe that telemarketing can be a powerful and effective business tool but the nightly ritual of phone calls to the home from strangers and robots has many Americans fed up.

The legislation before us today incorporates a number of changes to give the Commission greater latitude in weighing alternatives for protecting consumers, such as special asterisk markings in the telephone white pages, network technologies, industry and company-based don't-call-me lists, as well as an electronic database. The aim of this legislation is not to eliminate the brave new world of telemarketing but rather to secure an individual's right to privacy that might be unintentionally intruded upon by those new technologies.

For this reason the legislation addresses unsolicited commercial telemarketing to residential subscribers. If a call is being made for purposes other than for a commercial solicitation, then it is not regulated under this bill. In the context of the legislation, a telephone solicitation is a call to encourage the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. If, for instance, an autodialer is placing calls to inform delinquent borrowers that a loan is past due, it is not considered a telephone solicitation because the call is not being placed to pitch a sale or product. Likewise, if an organization is using an autodialer to inform telephone subscribers of an impending electrical power test, or to forward a voice mail message, these are not considered commercial solicitations and therefore are not restricted in any way by this legislation.

Incorporated in the substitute is language remedying a situation that has long been a concern to the gentleman from New Jersey. Specifically, the substitute will help to ensure the provision of full time AM radio service in presently underserved markets.

I believe we have put together consensus piece of legislation, one that reflects a narrow approach to address what the committee record indicates is of greatest concern to consumers. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey < Mr. RINALDO> for his leadership, cooperation, and steadfast support for this bill. I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New

Mexico <Mr. RICHARDSON> for a colloquy.

Mr. RICHARDSON.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1304 and would like to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their work on this legislation. Their leadership has helped produce a bill that ensures that the American people will be protected from the unwelcome intrusion of unsolicited telephone advertising. I would like to thank both gentleman for crafting a final product that is balanced and protects the consumer.

There are two points, however, that I believe need some clarification. Is it your understanding that this legislation is not intended to prevent the use of automated telephone dialing systems to protect the health and safety of the public?

Mr. MARKEY.

The gentleman has raised a good point. There is no intent to prevent the use of telephone dialing systems for the public good. The use of automated dialing systems by public and private entities to alert the public to weather emergencies, chemical spills, and other public health and safety threats is desirable. This legislation will not limit the use of telephone dialing systems for this purpose.

Mr. RICHARDSON.

I thank the chairman for that clarification and would also like to ask him if it is also his understanding that this legislation is not intended to prevent automated dialing systems from notifying hospitals, and fire and police protection agencies of emergency situations.

Mr. MARKEY.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico <Mr. RICHARDSON> for helping us in the legislation, in crafting it in a fashion that ensures that those areas are in fact isolated and ensures that the telephone communications technology will be used in order to advance public health and safety interests in those instances, as opposed to the way in which the technology is often used.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the gentleman from New Mexico <Mr. RICHARDSON>, I would also like at this point to thank the gentleman from Tennessee <Mr. COOPER>, who worked long and hard with us on this legislation, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey <Mrs. ROUKEMA>, who basically approached us 2 years ago with a problem that her husband, a physician, was having with this very situation in which telephone calls would in fact make it impossible for him to be able to clear his line because they could not be interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, when I brought that problem home to my wife, who also happens to be a physician, there was a meeting of the minds, and the position of the gentlewoman from New Jersey <Mrs. ROUKEMA> immediately found acceptance in our house.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. RINALDO> for his work on this legislation. The gentleman introduced a piece of legislation 2 years ago, much of which is incorporated in this legislation as well. I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut <Mr. SHAYS>, the gentleman from California <Mr. STARK>, and the gentlewoman from the State of Washington <Mrs. UNSOELD>, all of whom have worked with us in the committee to produce this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, of course, this is a piece of legislation which the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan <Mr. DINGELL>, worked on for these 2 years as well. I think this is a tribute, once again, to the fine working relationship which does exist on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to thank once again the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. RINALDO>. This bill is a tribute to that working relationship and is further proof that, with the exception of the banking bill, the gentleman and I have seen eye to eye on every other piece of legislation coming out of the committee for 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RINALDO.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1304, the

Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act.

This bill addresses widespread concern about the increasing abuses associated with automatic dialers, junk fax machines, and unwanted telephone solicitations. Under H.R. 1304, those who use automatic dialers would be prohibited from using those dialers to make computer-generated calls to emergency lines or pagers at health care facilities, fire protection, or law enforcement agencies, and any paging or cellular telephone number.

In addition to addressing these serious health and safety concerns, the bill would enable consumers to avoid unwanted, unsolicited calls from autodialers. The bill directs the commission to consider the most effective and efficient method of allowing telephone subscribers to avoid such calls. Specifically, the commission must consider an electronic data base, special directory markings, industry-based or company-specific do-not-call systems, as well as other alternative solutions to the problem of unsolicited calls.

In considering this important legislation, the subcommittee realized that many legitimate businesses use autodialers and fax machines without annoying consumers. Thus, the bill makes particular exceptions to the requirements. For example, the bill exempts businesses that have a preestablished relationship with a customer.  It also exempts nonprofit organizations. In addition, whatever solution the FCC selects would be limited to residential customers because the record developed in the Energy and Commerce Committee demonstrated that these undesired telephone solicitations are particularly prevalent and intrusive in residences.

To ensure a uniform approach to this nationwide problem, H.R. 1304 would preempt inconsistent State law. From the industry's perspective, preemption has the important benefit of ensuring that telemarketers are not subject to two layers of regulation.

Finally, this bill promotes the allocation of fulltime AM radio channels to medium-sized cities located in or adjacent to major metropolitan markets and which lack a fulltime AM station.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1304 represents a proconsumer response to an increasingly nettlesome problem: Unsolicited calls from autodialers, junk fax machines, and unsolicited commercial callers.

I would like to particularly thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts <Mr. MARKEY>, for once again the majority and minority worked very closely together to fashion this piece of legislation. It was only through his dedication, his very hard efforts, that we were able to come to grips with this problem in a manner that benefits all the affected parties.

I feel it is a very, very good bill. We worked closely together on it.

I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan <Mr. DINGELL>, and the ranking minority member, my other good friend, the gentleman from New York <Mr. LENT>, for their work in this important bipartisan piece of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Jersey <Mrs. ROUKEMA>, a distinguished colleague from my home State who has really exhibited a tremendous amount of leadership on this issue, who brought the problem to the attention of our subcommittee, and who is one of the Members who were in on this project very early on and has been very conscientious and unrelenting in her desire to see this situation resolved.

(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. ROUKEMA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1304, the Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Mr. MARKEY, and the distinguished ranking member, my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. RINALDO, for their persistence on this issue and for bringing this much-needed legislation again before the House.

Telecommunications and computer technology advances have made information exchange easier, and brought our Nation and the world closer together. However, as with any vital technology, telecommunications and computer equipment may be used in a counterproductive and abusive fashion.

Today, we unfortunately find that automatic-dialing-recorded-message players are being used in record numbers to systematically solicit unsuspecting and unwilling residential and commercial telephone subscribers. This practice is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and it can be dangerous and life threatening. This Congress can no longer stand by the wayside and allow telephones to become a potential health hazard.

I am sure my colleagues have heard many complaints about computer-generated phone calls from their constituents. In my case, I have been contacted by a number of physicians in my district who have justifiably complained that their office emergency lines, typically reserved for critical cases, are being clogged with unsolicited computer calls. One of these physicians also happens to be my husband, Dr. Richard W. Roukema, who has repeatedly suffered this problem on his phone lines reserved for emergency calls from the hospital. I especially appreciate the support of Chairman MARKEY in this respect. His wife, also a practicing physician, understood the problem immediately.
 
This is harassment.

Computer calls are also harassing police and fire emergency numbers.  This problem is particularly serious when the computer-generated call will not disconnect and free-up the phone line until after its message has been completed. Mr. Speaker, this practice must stop before lives are lost.

H.R. 1304 contains a provision which prohibits computer-generated calls to emergency phone lines or pagers at hospitals, physicians' or medical service officers, health care facilities, and fire protection and law enforcement agencies.

Yet, as alluded to earlier, it is not just calls to doctors' offices or police and fire stations that pose a public health hazard. I have previously recounted the story of a New York mother who tried to call an ambulance for her injured child, and the sheer terror she experienced when she picked up her phone only to find occupied by a computer call that would not disconnect. Luckily, this story had a happy ending, and the injured child survived, but Mr. Speaker, let us not wait for next time.

H.R. 1304 also contains a provision requiring computer-generated calls to disconnect as soon as the receiver seeks to terminate the message. This is a commonsense provision which ensures the safety of telephone customers, who may have received unsolicited and unwanted computer-generated calls.

H.R. 1304 protects the privacy of telephone subscribers by allowing those citizens who object to receiving computer-generated phone calls to add their names to a national data base, or a comparable substitute as determined by the FCC. This is a key provision, which finally guarantees telephone subscribers freedom from unwanted intrusions into their privacy.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, computers, telephones, cellular telephones, fax machines, and automatic-dialing-recorded-message-player systems are here to day. However, these technologies must not become a threat to the privacy, safety, and well-being of the public. H.R. 1304 takes a major step forward in this regard, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this desperately needed legislation.

Mr. RINALDO.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York <Mr. FISH>.

Mr. FISH.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1304, the Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act.

Over the years, I have heard an increasing number of complaints from constituents who have been harassed by unsolicited sales calls using automatic- dialer-recorded-message players. I can most certainly understand their objection to this type of solicitation-it is an intrusion into the privacy of one's home.

In one of the worst accounts I have heard, one woman in my district told me that "she hung up, but the machine didn't." The machine kept dialing until she was forced to take her phone off the hook. Without question, this is annoying, but it can also be dangerous when the line being dialed is at a police or fire department, or an emergency line at a health care facility.

H.R. 1304 addresses this problem by prohibiting automatic-dialer-recorded- message players from making unsolicited calls to these emergency lines. In addition, this bill provides some relief to private consumers by prohibiting such calls to beepers and cellular phones, and requiring all ADRMP and fax users to clearly identify themselves to the receiver. The FCC is also required to establish a plan for recording names and addresses of individuals who object to receiving unsolicited calls and faxes, and assessing penalties to companies which continue to contact them.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the use of automatic-dialer- recorded-message players be regulated. H.R. 1304 is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to give this bill their strong support.

Mr. MARKEY.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee <Mr. COOPER>.

Mr. COOPER.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding time to me.

I would like to add my congratulations on his outstanding leadership in this important piece of consumer legislation. I would also like to thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. RINALDO> for his great contribution to this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I would like to engage the subcommittee chairman in a brief colloquy to clarify three points.

Before I do, let me say that I'm sure nearly everyone in this Chamber and most of the people we represent have been bothered by an unwanted, unsolicited, annoying telemarketing call-probably at dinner. At the same time, there are some incoming telemarketing calls we may not have minded so much and some that were even helpful. The unwanted calls are tainting the wanted ones, making some consumers skeptical about answering the phone around dinnertime. This is becoming a classic case of the bad apples spoiling the whole barrel.

Under Chairman MARKEY's able leadership, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance crafted this bill in an attempt to protect consumers from the annoying calls but not restrict their ability to get the calls they want. I'm hopeful that our bill gives the Federal Communications Commission the tools it needs to do this job. And I want to make sure we do not send them confusing signals on how to implement this statute.

Chairman MARKEY, my first point is to clarify the intent of section 3(c) of the bill. It directs the Commission to utilize the regulatory program most cost-effective in solving telemarketing problems. Under subsection (c)(1), the FCC will compare and evaluate electronic databases, telephone network technologies, special directory markings, industry-based or company-specific do-not-call systems, as well as other mechanisms or combinations of systems. Then under subsection (c)(2), the FCC must implement the best of the regulatory programs it has evaluated.

The next subsection of the bill gives the Commission some detailed guidance on just how the electronic database option is envisioned to work. It was my understanding that this detail was not added so as to prejudice the Commission so that it would pick the electronic database option. I, for one, think the national database has serious shortcomings for consumers when compared to the do-not-call option. Is the intent here to give the Commission full latitude to consider every option and not to prejudge the solution?

Mr. MARKEY.

If the gentleman will yield, I would say to the gentleman that the intent here is to allow the Commission to evaluate and utilize every tool that it needs to protect consumers the most cost-effectively. The intent is that the FCC select the method that is the most effective, efficient, and economic.

Mr. COOPER.

I mention this because I am worried that the committee report, in its zest for explaining the electronic database option, might be misread to presume a preference for that option. The database certainly has some advantages, but it has its drawbacks, too. It is a far-reaching approach, which would not enable consumers to get calls from telemarketers unless they have an established business relationship. This approach makes the consumer stop calls from all those companies with which they have no connection, even if the consumer might want such calls. The company-specific do-not-call options do not have this shortcoming. They maximize consumer choice, and they can be implemented much more quickly. Given the magnitude of consumer anger on this issue, I think speed is of the essence.

My second point relates specifically to the company-specific do-not-call list option. It gives consumers the freedom to choose which types of calls they want to receive and which they do not. Companies would be required to retain in-house lists of consumers who do not wish to be called again. If this approach is mandatory, I want to clarify that it would be functionally equivalent to the national database for purposes of preemption. This is important from the consumer perspective, again, for getting speedy resolution of these problems.

Mr. MARKEY.

As to the second point, the gentleman describes some of the merits of the do-not-call lists. This is right that if the preemptive effect would be the same.

Mr. COOPER.

Finally, I want to address the provision that authorizes the Commission to adopt special methods and procedures for local telephone solicitations such as small businesses and holders of second-class mail permits. I strongly support this provision.

While the committee cites two specific examples of who might fit this description, am I correct is my understanding that any company conducting a primarily local telephone solicitation might be included in this category? For example, a fine Tennessee company, Olen Mills, has numerous photography studios in different States. However, each location generally conducts it solicitations directly from the studio on a local basis. These businesses are part of the local community. Nearly all of their calls are local in nature, and rarely cross State boundaries unless the studio is located in a community near a State line. Am I correct in believing that this is also the kind of business meant by the committee to be considered under this provision?

Mr. MARKEY.

Once again, if the gentleman will yield, Yes, he is correct in his analysis.

Mr. COOPER.

Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this very important consumer issue, and with these clarifications I certainly urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the bill.

Mr. LENT.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1304, the Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act.

This is an important piece of legislation designed to address various consumer concerns without unnecessarily burdening the telemarketing industry. I recognize the telemarketers concern that Congress should not, in effect, throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In most cases, telemarketing is an effective means of reaching many consumers in a legitimate fashion. Recognizing the legitimacy of the industry, the bill exempts certain types of telemarketing. For example, the bill exempts businesses that have a preestablished relationship with a customer. The bill also exempts nonprofit organizations. Essentially, I believe this legislation represents a fair and equitable solution to a problem that continues to grow.

While the telemarketing industry is legitimately concerned about being subject to excessive regulation, I also believe that the Nation's consumers have a legitimate concern regarding privacy. H.R. 1304 balances both of these concerns, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.

Mr. RINALDO.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. COLEMAN of Texas).

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts < Mr. MARKEY> that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1304, as amended.

The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Please use your back button to return to the last page.