[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3035, THE MOBILE INFORMATIONAL CALL ACT OF 2011
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 4, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-103
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-324 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JAY INSLEE, Washington
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
_____
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO MACK, California DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California Islands
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 6
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 14
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 14
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, opening statement................................. 23
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 141
Witnesses
Faith Schwartz, Executive Director, Hope Now Alliance............ 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Answers to submitted questions............................... 142
Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association........ 80
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Answers to submitted questions............................... 143
Delicia Reynolds Hand, Legislative Director, National Association
of Consumer Advocates.......................................... 87
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Answers to submitted questions............................... 144
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General, State of Indiana........... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Answers to submitted questions............................... 147
Michael Altschul, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
CTIA--The Wireless Association................................. 122
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Answers to submitted questions............................... 149
Submitted Material
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Ioana Rusu, Regulatory
Counsel, Consumers Union, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo,
submitted by Ms. Eshoo......................................... 8
Letter, dated October 27, 2011, from Americans for Financial
Reform, et al., to Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted by Ms.
Eshoo.......................................................... 11
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Jane Thielen, Collections,
Bethel University, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by
Mr. Terry...................................................... 24
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Judy Renschler, Perkins Loan
Manager, Butler University, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 25
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Donna Chrestay, Assistant
Director, Student Accounts, Carnegie Mellon University, to Mr.
Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry................... 26
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from R. Bruce Josten, Executive
Vice President, Government Affairs, Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 27
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Marianne Riddle, Bursar,
Georgetown University, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted
by Mr. Terry................................................... 28
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Floyd E. Stoner, Executive
Vice President, Congressional Relations and Public Policy,
American Bankers Association, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 29
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Tony Williams, Executive
Director, Arkansas Student Loan Authority, to Mr. Upton and Mr.
Waxman, submitted by Mr. Terry................................. 31
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Erin Klarer, Vice President,
Government Relations, Finance and Administration Cabinet,
Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority, to Mr. Guthrie,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 33
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from David A. Feitz, Executive
Director, Utah Higher Education Assistance Authority, to Mr.
Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted by Mr. Terry................... 35
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Kimberley A. Kercheval,
Executive Associate Bursar, Indiana University, to Mr. Walden
and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.......................... 36
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Jean Schloemer, Federal
Perkins Loan Coordinator, Wartburg College, to Mr. Walden and
Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.............................. 37
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Larry Rock, Director of
Student Loan Repayment, Concordia College, to Mr. Walden and
Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.............................. 38
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from William P. Killmer, Senior
Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs, Mortgage
Bankers Association, to Mr. Upton, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Walden, and
Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.............................. 39
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Jonathan M. Weisgall, Vice
President, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, MidAmerican
Energy Holdings Company, to Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted
by Mr. Terry................................................... 41
Letter, dated September 23, 2011, from American Bankers
Association, et al., to Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted by
Mr. Terry...................................................... 45
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Karla Sanderson, Loan
Coordinator, Oberlin College and Conservatory, to Mr. Walden
and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.......................... 47
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Suzanne Dominick, Accounts
Receivable Supervisor, Seton Hill University, to Mr. Walden and
Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.............................. 48
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Sharie Palmer, Director of
Collection/Planned Giving Coordinator, Valparaiso University,
to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry............ 49
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Thomas R. Kuhn, President,
Edison Electric Institute, to Mr. Terry and Mr. Towns,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 50
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Tony Bordeaux, Associate
Director, Loans Receivable and Collections, The University of
Alabama, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry... 52
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Dennis J. DeSantis,
Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Financial Services,
University of Pittsburgh, to Mr. Doyle, submitted by Mr. Terry. 54
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Susan Rose, Treasurer,
University of St. Thomas, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 56
Letter, dated November 4, 2011, from Sharon Gardner, Office of
Financial Services, Student Loan Collections, University of
South Carolina, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr.
Terry.......................................................... 57
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Vicky Degen, Otterbein
University, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry 58
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Belinda Higginbotham,
Bursar, Western Kentucky University, to Mr. Walden and Ms.
Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry.................................. 59
Letter, dated November 4, 2011, from Steve Bartlett, President
and Chief Executive Officer, The Financial Services Roundtable,
and John Dalton, President, The Housing Policy Council, to Mr.
Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry................... 60
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Dave McCurdy, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Gas Association, to Mr.
Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Terry................... 61
Letter, dated November 2, 2011, from Melanee Gallina, Educational
Loan Specialist, Biola University, to Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 62
Statement, dated November 4, 2011, of Consumer Bankers
Association, submitted by Mr. Terry............................ 63
Letter, dated November 3, 2011, from Robert A. Bergman, Vice
President, Public Affairs, UPS, to Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman,
submitted by Mr. Terry......................................... 67
H.R. 3035, THE MOBILE INFORMATIONAL CALL ACT OF 2011
----------
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:01 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns,
Shimkus, Blackburn, Bilbray, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta,
Guthrie, Barton, Eshoo, Markey, Doyle, Barrow, Towns, and
Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Nicholas Degani, FCC Detailee; Neil Fried, Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kirby Howard,
Legislative Clerk; Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; David Redl,
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alex Yergin,
Legislative Clerk; Shawn Chang, Minority Counsel; Jeff Cohen,
Minority Counsel; Roger Sherman, Minority Counsel; and Will
Wallace, Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr.Walden. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, as we open this hearing on H.R.
3035, the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for our subcommittee to
explore an age-old problem with legislation: How do we ensure
the laws on the books makes sense, given new technologies and
the evolving marketplace? I welcome that opportunity, and I
want to thank our vice chairman of the committee, Lee Terry,
and I want to thank Mr. Towns for bringing us their bipartisan
legislation, the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011.
The bill would update the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which aimed to protect telephone customers from intrusive
telephone marketing while balancing those protections against
the needs of business and nonprofits to communicate and inform
consumers. It did so, among other ways, by restricting the
ability of telemarketers to make telephone solicitations and by
prohibiting all use of automatic-dialing equipment and
prerecorded voice messages for calls to wireless phones.
But it has been 20 years since Congress passed TCPA, and
the world of telecommunications has changed. Back then, the
only person with a cell phone was probably Gordon Gekko. Today,
many Americans households have given up the landline and rely
exclusively on wireless services. Back then, wireless customers
paid higher per-minute rates to receive calls. Now, most
customers have bucket of minutes so that receiving an
additional call costs them nothing. Given these changes to the
marketplace, now seems like a good time to revisit some of the
rules the TCPA put in place.
The thrust of the TCPA was to help protect consumers from
unwanted telemarketing calls. The question now, however, is
whether the TCPA is inadvertently preventing consumers from the
convenience of getting other information that consumers do want
and while they are on the go with their mobile phones. And if
so, how can we address that? Does the TCPA prevent consumers
from receiving informational calls from their banks, like fraud
or low-balance alerts? Do the strictures of the TCPA and the
FCC's implementation of it make it too difficult for businesses
to engage their customers and provide them with valuable
services? What is the proper role for States in protecting the
privacy of telephone subscribers?
Reasonable people can disagree on the answers to all of
these questions, and I imagine we will, but I think we can all
agree that any legislation should not subject consumers to
unwanted telephone solicitations. Surely we can figure out a
way to allow consumers to receive useful informational calls
without unleashing the telemarketers. I think that is exactly
the needle that this legislation is aiming to thread.
We have before us several experts that will help us explore
these issues, and I hope we will learn something about the
consumer benefits of mobile informational calls, something
about the concerns of consumer advocates and our States'
attorney generals, and something about today's wireless
marketplace.
I think this can be a very productive discussion about ways
to improve our country's laws for the benefit of all Americans,
and I expect we will have some vigorous debate on how to do
that. That is what hearings are all about.
And I thank, again, our colleagues who have brought this
legislation forward.
And I would now yield to--well, we didn't start the clock,
so I don't know how much time I have to yield. Looks like I
have 89 minutes and 43 seconds. Since there was no objection
from my--yes.
I would yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Ms.
Blackburn, the remaining 1 minute I apparently had.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs.Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and that is about
all I need.
I do want to let you all know that I appreciate so much
your work and Mr. Terry's work, the work of our staff, on the
Mobile Informational Call Act. I am a cosponsor of this, and I
think it does strike a reasonable balance that protects
consumers while also allowing companies to provide beneficial
information.
An example of that, when FedEx, one of our Tennessee
constituent companies, is able to provide automated
informational calls to their customers using cell phones about
future deliveries, they are able to increase their delivery
rates on a first attempt by as much as 30 percent. That is a
good thing because it reduces cost, helps the customers, and
makes things more efficient. Under current law, FedEx is
restricted in its ability to make automated calls about
deliveries to customers, and we need a commonsense way to fix
this.
I appreciate your good work, and yield back.
Mr.Walden. I thank the gentlelady.
And all time has expired on our side. I turn now to my
ranking member and friend, Ms. Eshoo from California, for 89-1/
2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms.Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, everyone. Good morning to the witnesses,
and thank you for being here.
Today's hearing revisits legislation enacted by this
committee 20 years ago. Much has changed, as the chairman said,
since that time, particularly in the way Americans communicate
with each other. An increasing number of U.S. consumers
identify their wireless device as their primary means of
communication, and many have eliminated the use of alandline
phone altogether.
And while I believe these changes in consumer behavior
warrant our review of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, I
am concerned about the potential for misuse by modifying the
act. In fact, my constituents have spoken very clearly. They
don't like this bill. I have heard from many, many
constituents, and, to a person, they don't like it. They have
written to me since this legislation was introduced, and, as I
said, they are opposed because they have a lot of concerns
about it.
We almost always have our wireless devices with us. And I
agree that, with a consumer's consent, these devices can serve
as an ideal method for communicating data breaches, fraud
alerts, drug recalls, and other important information in a
timely manner. But ``consent'' is a very important term. I am
concerned that in redefining, quote, ``prior express consent,''
as this legislation does, consumers will unknowingly be opening
themselves up to future robocalls anytime they provide a
business with their mobile number.
Furthermore, unlike landline phones, there is still a cost
associated with receiving an incoming call or text message on a
wireless device. While it is true that many consumers subscribe
to a monthly service plan, there is still a growing portion of
the population, particularly many low-income Americans, who
rely on prepaid service and pay on a per-minute or per-message
basis.
We see what happened with the banks and their debit card
fees. And I think that there are going to be a lot of consumers
in the country--if this bill were adopted in its present form,
I think the Congress will hear from an awful lot of people on
this.
Why should a consumer be subjected to an unsolicited text
message at a cost of 20 cents per message? Many consumers may
wish to opt out of receiving these informational text messages,
preferring instead to receive a phone call, an email, or other
form of communication. So these options should be available to
consumers, yet they are not considered by this legislation.
So I think that there are some real questions that need to
be answered about the legislation under consideration. I thank
each one of the witnesses for being here with us today, and I
look forward to their testimony.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit the following letters of opposition for the record.
[The letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms.Eshoo. And I would like to yield the remaining time that
I have to Mr. Doyle for the balance of the time.
Mr.Walden. Without objection.
Ms.Eshoo. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr.Doyle. I want to thank our ranking member and my good
friend, Anna Eshoo, for giving me some time to speak.
I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for
joining us today.
Mr. Chairman, only 4 years ago, I remember the Energy and
Commerce Committee's consideration of my bill to make the Do
Not Call List permanent. That legislation, which was signed
into law in 2008, allows people to opt out of receiving
unwanted telemarketing calls once and for all. The bill before
the subcommittee today presents a similar opportunity for us to
weigh the potential benefits of a business' ability to contact
its customers with the importance of consumer protections.
As a growing number of people cut the cord in favor of
wireless phone and text services, it is commendable that the
subcommittee seeks to explore the effects of these changes on
the conduct of commerce. However, my initial read of this
legislation causes me to worry that its possible harmful impact
on consumer welfare could overshadow its benevolent goals. I am
concerned about the bill's potential consequences for
individual privacy as well as its implication on consumers'
pocketbooks.
So I look forward to learning more from our witnesses about
the legislation's impacts on consumers, in addition to
businesses. I want to thank you again, to all the members of
our panel, for taking the time to help explain these complex
issues to the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience, and I yield back.
Mr.Walden. The gentleman yields back his time.
I now recognize the vice chair of the committee, Mr. Terry.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr.Terry. Thank you, Mr. Walden, for holding this hearing
today.
And this is a continuation of this committee's effort to
look at older laws and see how they need to be changed to meet
modern needs and technologies.
Now, I will admit that, after reading some articles that
have been written about this, that maybe there is a
misperception, but also the misperception can be reality, in
the sense that the essence of this bill is to ride the fine
line between unwanted and wanted communications from people
that choose to have the communication occur.
So that is the fine line that we are trying to ride here. I
make no pretense here that we have perfect language in finding
that line. And that is why I am pleased that all of our
panelists are here to help us refine the language today.
So, under current law, if a consumer like me gives my cell
phone number as my contact to an organization or business--so,
let's say, schools--already current in law is I have consented
because I physically gave them that phone number. I wrote it
down on the line that says, ``How do we contact you?'' OK?
Under the FCC, that is permission.
The issue is whether the phone number is going to be
physically dialed by somebody pushing 10 buttons or whether it
is an automated, computer-based call. And we think that needs
to be modernized. That is where the line should be drawn
between weeding out or preventing--and this bill's intent is to
never allow an unsolicited, unwanted call. That is the goal
here.
Now, you look at society today, and it is ubiquitous in our
ability to communicate with each other. I give my school my
cell phone number. I get texts when there is an emergency or
some issue that they need to communicate with--last year, it
was a certain virus that was going around the schools. We have
snow days in Nebraska. I want to know about that. The cell
phone is my only way to get that information.
Another example with some of our financial institutions is
their overdraft protection. You can sign up that they will
notify you when you get to a certain point in your checking,
let's say $20. You say, I want to be notified if I get down to
$20 so I don't write a bad check. That is an automated call
that comes out and says, your account is at $20. Under today's
law, that is not lawful, but yet it is wanted.
That is our goal here. We can go through dozens of examples
where people give their phone number as a contact, that want
the information, but it is unlawful. That is the fine line that
we are riding here today.
And I really look forward to Attorney General Zoeller. You
are particularly vociferous. I appreciate that. We want your
suggestions of how to define that line. Because I think all of
us would say, if you signed up, you want that information, you
should get it lawfully.
So, with that, what I would like to do is yield my
remaining minute, 15 to the chairman emeritus, Mr. Barton.
Mr.Barton. I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, Mr.
Terry, for yielding some time to me even though he knows that I
am in opposition to his bill. That shows great statesmanship
and tolerance on your part, and I appreciate it.
Mr.Terry. Take it back.
Mr.Walden. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr.Barton. Yes, that is way the game is played.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
I hate to be the Republican that spoils the garden party,
but the current system is in place for a reason, and that
reason is that people do protect and want to protect their
privacy.
I have a cell phone also, and the only people that have my
cell phone number are other Members of Congress, my family, my
very close friends, and my senior staff. I know that if I get a
phone call on my cell phone, it is from somebody that I know
and that they need or want to talk to me.
I have three landline phones in Texas. I know that if that
phone rings, the odds are better than even that it is a
commercial call that I don't really care to get. So about half
the time I don't even answer it, unless I am expecting a call
from somebody.
I know what Mr. Terry and Mr. Towns are attempting to do,
and I think it is noble, but I don't think you can draw that
fine line, as Mr. Terry said. Once we open the door to
automated dialing for cell phones for very reasonable reasons
such as Mr. Terry suggested, I don't see how you prevent it
being used for other, less reasonable reasons.
So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman and
Mr. Towns, I do respectfully oppose the bill. But I am glad
that we are having a hearing to air the issues.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Waxman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr.Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing on the Mobile Informational Call Act of
2011. You and Mrs. Eshoo have put together another balanced
panel, and it is appreciated.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, TCPA, was signed
into law by President Bush in 1991. In the 20 years since its
enactment, there have been dramatic changes in phone
technology. Most notably, in 1991, less than 8 million
Americans subscribed to mobile phone service. Today, there are
well over 300 million wireless subscribers. And every day, more
Americans are cutting the cord and relying on their mobile
phones exclusively.
Congress enacted the TCPA based on the bipartisan premise
that residential telephone subscribers consider automated or
prerecorded telephone calls, regardless of the content or the
initiator of the message, to be a nuisance and an invasion of
privacy. Although mobile phone usage has skyrocketed, I
expected most Americans still have a high degree of concern
about unwanted telephone calls, regardless of where they
receive them. Indeed, congressional actions to protect
Americans from unwanted phone solicitation have proven wildly
popular.
Fundamentally, we need to look at this issue from the
perspective of the wireless consumer. By amending the law, as
H.R. 3035 proposes, are we modifying consumer control over
wireless phones? Are we changing expectations regarding
privacy? Are we increasing costs?
Although some consumers have unlimited texting and calling
plans, millions do not. Will consumers have a clear ability to
avoid unwanted calls and texts on their wireless phones when
such communications increase their costs?
Will consumers understand that, when they turn over their
wireless phone number to the auto dealership, they are agreeing
to receive future autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts
about recalls, warranty updates, scheduled oil changes, or even
from third-party bill collectors?
We also need to understand whether existing law already
allows consumers to receive calls on their wireless phones from
businesses and others. Several experts have suggested that this
is permissible under existing law. For example, if a school
wants to use an automated dialer or prerecorded message to call
parents' cell phones or send them text messages about a snow
day, this is permissible under existing law with a parent's
prior express consent. Similarly, autodialed and prerecorded
updates from power companies, airlines, banks, and cable
companies are all allowed with the prior express consent of
their customers.
Finally, H.R. 3035 appears to preempt a variety of existing
State laws in a significant way. The bill would amend the TCPA
to preempt all State laws about faxed advertisements,
autodialers, and artificial or prerecorded voice messages. I
know the preemption of State laws can sometimes be good for
businesses, but it is not clear to me how preemption would help
consumers or deter telemarketing abuses.
I look forward to our hearing, and I wish to yield the
balance of my time to Mr. Towns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr.Towns. Thank you very much.
You know, I am proud to stand with President Obama, who
included this in his jobs proposal because of the opportunity
it offers to assist with deficit reduction, something that we
all are concerned about.
I look forward to learning from the witnesses how this
legislation can impact consumers' daily lives in a positive
way. Again, I thank the subcommittee and my colleagues for
holding this hearing. As we move forward in the legislative
process, I will work with my colleagues to shape the bill to
keep the important benefits the bill would provide to consumers
while at the same time ensuring that it has strong consumer
protection to prevent and punish abuse.
Critics of the bill have said that the bill will open the
door to nuisance and abusive calls that impose unacceptable
costs to people's cell phone bills. While I don't think the
incentives are there for this to happen to consumers, I look
forward to learning and hearing from the witnesses to see in
terms of how we can move forward and hoping that, as we move
forward, some of the things that have been said, that we will
be able to clear them up.
And, on that note, I want to thank the ranking member of
the full committee for yielding to me.
And, on that note, I don't have anything to yield back, but
I will yield back.
Mr.Terry [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Towns.
And I ask unanimous consent to submit 29 letters in
support, the majority of which are from universities so they
can contact their students. So I will submit those for the
record, without objection.
[The letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Terry. So, at this time, we would like to hear from our
witnesses. We will go from my left to right, with Ms. Schwartz.
You may begin. And if I could say, limit your comments to 5
minutes. And I will lightly tap at 5 minutes. So, it is not
being rude, just kind of notice.
Go ahead.
STATEMENTS OF FAITH SCHWARTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOPE NOW
ALLIANCE; STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, CARGO AIRLINE
ASSOCIATION; DELICIA REYNOLDS HAND, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES; GREGORY F. ZOELLER,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF INDIANA; MICHAEL ALTSCHUL, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CTIA
STATEMENT OF FAITH SCHWARTZ
Ms.Schwartz. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, Vice
Chair Terry, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Faith Schwartz, and I am the executive director
of the Hope Now Alliance, a nonprofit foreclosure-prevention
effort. And I am the cofounder of Hope LoanPort, which is a
nonprofit Web-based tool which is a public utility for
borrowers and counselors to submit loan-workout packages to
loan servicers for free.
I have served in a leadership capacity at Hope Now since
2007, during which time I worked closely with members and
partners of the Alliance, including mortgage servicers,
investors, nonprofit housing counseling partners, government
agencies, and regulators to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
Before my time with Hope Now, I served in various capacities in
the housing finance industry for 28 years.
The comments I make today are my own and reflect my
experience in the mortgage business and, in particular, working
with servicers and counselors attempting to help at-risk
homeowners. These comments do not necessarily reflect all the
views of Hope Now.
I am here today to speak to you specifically about our
ongoing foreclosure-prevention efforts and the difficulties of
reaching borrowers in financial distress.
The financial services industry and its nonprofit and
government partners remain committed to using all the tools
that are available to assist homeowners. Since 2007, the
mortgage industry has completed an estimated 5 million
permanent loan modifications--and we know this because we
measure it every month from that date--based on 37 million
loans. In total, the industry has provided 14 million solutions
for homeowners that include loan mods, short-term solutions
such as repayment plans and forbearance, unemployment options
such as short sales and deed in lieu, that provide alternatives
to foreclosure.
Hope Now has held 117 face-to-face events across the
country since 2008. In fact, today we are in Houston, Texas,
holding such an event with the United States Treasury, Making
Home Affordable, and our nonprofit partner, NeighborWorks
America. Without question, the outreach events have improved
the experience of many customers trying to resolve their
mortgage difficulties through face-to-face meeting with their
loan servicer or counseling through a nonprofit agency. But our
exit surveys continue to show that at least 30 percent of those
attending had never had contact with their servicer before the
meeting, despite multiple attempts from the servicer.
The single greatest obstacle to keeping a delinquent
borrower in their home is the inability to contact them and
make aware the workout options that are available. The breadth
and the complexity of options, both government programs and
proprietary solutions--a full list of which I have included in
my written testimony--makes it imperative that homeowners be in
contact with their servicers. But we know from experience that
often borrowers in financial distress do not open mail, they
cancel their landline service, and increasingly rely on
wireless phones as their primary or exclusive communications
device.
As we see these numbers ever increasing, with cell phones
and text messaging becoming the primary means of communication,
it has become clear that the current Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, TCPA, is hindering effective communications
between homeowners and loan servicers. H.R. 3035, the Mobile
Informational Call Act of 2011, would modernize TCPA by
eliminating restrictions on informational calls to mobile
phones.
For 20 years, the TCPA has permitted automated
informational calls to be delivered to consumers' wireline
phone numbers but not their wireless numbers. H.R. 3035 would
allow automated commercial calls to mobile phone numbers as
long as they do not include marketing messages.
Currently, our primary means of contact ourlandlines and
mailing invitations to foreclosure-prevention outreach events.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to efficiently and
effectively reach approximately 40 percent of consumers who
rely on wireless phones as their primary communication vehicle.
Consumers reap significant benefits when financial
institutions are able to reach them quickly and efficiently.
Using the autodialers or a prerecorded message, such as the
bill allows, is not only a quicker, more cost-effective way, it
would also free up loss-mitigation specialists to spend time
working with individual borrowers rather than making repetitive
manual calls.
While this bill is not a panacea and it certainly will not
end every foreclosure, it will, without a doubt, increase our
contact rate. And the more people we contact, the more
solutions we offer. The equation is very simple: If you
increase the amount of customers you reach, you increase the
number of workouts and you decrease the number of foreclosures.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in the area of foreclosure
prevention, the Mobile Informational Call Act is a positive for
consumers and for those working to keep them in their homes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schwartz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Terry. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.
Mr. Alterman?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN
Mr.Alterman. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and
members of the subcommittee. My is Steve Alterman, and I am
president of the Cargo Airline Association. We appreciate the
opportunity to testify today in support of the provisions of
H.R. 3035, the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011, and we
request that our written testimony be made part of the record.
The Cargo Airline Association is the nationwide trade
organization representing the interests of the United States
all-cargo air transportation industry. That is companies such
as FedEx, UPS, DHL, and all those that deliver packages.
Members of our association are in the business of picking up,
transporting, and delivering packages throughout the world to
meet our customers' needs.
At times, our members may need to notify these package
recipients of scheduled deliveries or failed attempts to
deliver specific packages. Typically, such notifications
involve shipments where a signature is required, notifications
that shipments are being held for pickup at specified
locations, and COD shipments. These calls merely provide
customer service and do not contain any solicitation or product
marketing.
In today's world, with more and more individuals relying
solely on mobile phones, it is becoming even more important to
permit informational calls to mobile devices. Indeed, anecdotal
evidence in our industry indicates that upwards of 50 percent
of all contact numbers provided are, in fact, cell phone
numbers. Faced with these facts, the Association and its member
companies have a significant interest in the passage of H.R.
3035.
The Association supports the intent of the TCPA in that it
aims to restrict unsolicited telemarketing calls to residential
and cellular telephones. At the same time, we agree that the
TCPA properly grants to the FCC the regulatory authority to
enact limited exemptions from this general ban. It has done so
to permit non-telemarketing informational calls to landline
equipment. And the time has now come to expand that to cell
phones.
It is also important to point out that, in the case of
customer service calls made by the Cargo Airline Association
members, phone numbers are not randomly generated or
sequentially generated but are given to the carriers by the
package senders, who receive them from the purchasers,
presumably so they or the intended recipient can be contacted
in the event that they need to be called with information about
the package delivery.
By giving the shipper a contact number, the recipient
should be found to have authorized calls that to number,
whether by the shipper or any other member of the supply chain.
For example, if a customer orders an item online and provides a
mobile number as the contact number, the consumer obviously
consents to the retail merchant contacting with regard to their
order, as well as to other parties that facilitate the
fulfillment and delivery of that order. This information
exchange is purely transactional, and, from the carrier
perspective, the consent significantly boosts the ability to
deliver packages efficiently and effectively.
Finally, we believe that it is important that any
legislation recognize, to the extent possible, the advancing
technology of the modern world. Therefore, to avoid any issues
or questions in the future, we respectfully request that the
proposed legislation be amended to specifically provide that
text messages, in addition to phone calls, be included in the
scope of the calls allowed to be made to mobile devices under
the terms of H.R. 3035.
In view of all these circumstances, the Association urges
the enactment of H.R. 3035 to permit purely informational
calls, including text messages, to mobile phones by automated-
recording devices. Such action will retain the intended ban on
so-called telemarketing calls while authorizing informational
calls that are clearly in the public interest.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alterman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Terry. Thank you, Mr. Alterman.
And Ms. Hand? Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DELICIA REYNOLDS HAND
Ms.Hand. Thank you.
Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, Vice Chair Terry,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on the subject of H.R. 3035, the Mobile
Informational Call Act of 2011.
I am the legislative director of the National Association
of Consumer Advocates. NACA is a nonprofit association of
consumer advocates and attorney members who represent hundreds
of thousands of consumers victimized by fraudulent, abusive,
and predatory business practices.
My testimony today expresses the sentiments of the 12
national consumer protection, civil rights, and privacy
organizations who oppose the bill and recently submitted a
letter opposing H.R. 3035 to this committee. This letter is
included as an attachment to my written testimony.
H.R. 3035 will allow entities to use the automatic
telephone dialing system, unaffectionately known as
``robocalls,'' and automated messages on consumer cell phones
under the guise of consent, even though the consumer could
never have envisioned such use. Under this new bill, any
transaction or relationship will constitute consent to
repeatedly call the consumer's cell phone in perpetuity, even
if the consumer does not give out her cell phone number and
regardless of whether the consumer asks that she not be called.
Imagine if, after you leave today's hearing, you stop by a
local pharmacy on your way home. While at the counter making
your payment, you absentmindedly hand over your phone number.
This transaction alone would now suffice as consent to receive
a robocall on your cell phone under H.R. 3035.
You have forgotten about this transaction, and a few days
later, while you are out at dinner with your family, you
receive a call on your cell phone with a robotic voice at the
other end thanking you for your recent purchase and verifying
that the prescription you picked up is the one you actually
wanted. You hang up the phone, but 2 minutes later, from a
different number, the same robotic voice is on the line. You
hang up again. Two minutes later, yet from a different number,
the same voice is on the line. Two minutes later, again the
same thing. You get the idea.
This is the reality of thousands of Americans whose cell
phone numbers have been entered into the smart-dialer
technology that knows when you are likely to answer the phone
due to estimating when you are most available.
Currently, the largest debt collectors make more than a
million calls in 1 day to consumer cell phones. If H.R. 3035
becomes law in its present form, harassing robocalls on
consumer cell phones will become the new norm.
Today, we respectfully urge committee members to be wary of
the bill proponents' motives for the following reasons.
First, debt-collection agencies, creditors, airlines,
utilities, and other businesses may already robodial any
telephone number, including cellular phones, if the number was
provided to them by the consumer.
Second, robocalling is also permitted in case of
emergencies such as hurricanes and other natural disasters. For
example, recently, in the wake of Hurricane Irene, technologies
to notify residents of emergency preparedness measures through
mass-notification systems were used by municipalities up and
down the east coast.
Third, the proponents want to completely gut the important
privacy and consumer protections found in the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. They want to strip consumers of any
choice as to what phone numbers companies with which they do
business may contact them. They want to remove all prohibitions
against using robocalls by redefining automatic telephone
dialing systems to include only antiquated technology that does
not exist in the real world today.
In fact, under the definition provided in H.R. 3035,
telemarketers, the original target of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, would now able to robocall consumer cell phones
because most telemarketers do not use random or sequential
dialers; they predictively dial cell phones. They want to
prevent consumers from enforcing the demands that unwanted
robocalls stop and to prevent State laws and attorneys general
from further restricting and enforcing laws regarding these
robotic calls.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I urge this
subcommittee not to open Pandora's box of the many unforeseen
harmful consequences that will result if H.R. 3035 becomes law
in its present form.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hand follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Terry. Attorney General Zoeller?
STATEMENT OF GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Mr.Zoeller. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
I appreciate Congressman Terry pointing me out as having
spoken out on this in the newspaper. It recognizes that it is
very important to the State of Indiana and the people I
represent.
I think particularly our focus of concern on H.R. 3035
deals with the proposed areas that deal with preemption. And
``preemption'' is one of those words that gets the attention of
attorneys general. Just in the last day, I have received
contacts from the attorney general's office in Connecticut,
Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada,
Oregon, and Tennessee, immediately upon learning that I was
coming here. So I recommend to all the Members to please
contact your attorneys general in your home States and kind of
listen to the boots on the ground that have to represent the
consumers of your State.
Over the last 20 years, Indiana has had a very unique
experience under our own sense of privacy among Hoosiers. We
had an autodialer statute that prevented the use of the
technology since 1988, well before it was seen as a problem. We
had a do-not-call statute in 2001 that does not allow the
exemption of prior business relationships. So, unlike the
experience of the Congressman from Texas who says he won't
answer the home phone, in Indiana you can still answer your
phone because it will not be a telemarketer.
We had a do-not-fax statute in 2006. In this past
legislative session, we allowed for cell phones to be added
specifically to our do-not-call list. We now have over 2
million lines registered on our do-not-call statute. This past
session, after the General Assembly allowed the cell phones, we
had 189,000 immediately, within a very short period, sign up
for the Do Not Call My Cell Phone.
So, the autodialer law is particularly one where we have
the biggest problem. In Indiana, if you get a robocall, it is a
scam. And everybody knows it is a scam because it is
prohibited. It is the one State where, if you ask the Members
of Congress, your colleagues from Indiana, where they do not
use robocalling even for the tele-townhalls.
So it recognizes that in Indiana we have a certain
appreciation for privacy that may not be common in all 50
States. They are subject to the Federal do-not-call statute
that allows for the exemption of the prior business
relationship, which I think has desensitized a lot of people,
or as your colleague from Texas just simply doesn't answer the
phone.
So, due to the success of our laws, the people of Indiana
have been very sensitive to this. And, quite frankly, when I
have toured the State talking about my trip out here, I heard
very specifically some of their passion on this issue.
Another point that I would make is that, in 2010,
recognizing that there are questions about political free
speech, I asked the three major parties in Indiana to a
``Treaty of 2010'' where they all agree not to use or encourage
the use of telemarketing. And I can report that that treaty was
not broken during the 2010 election cycle.
If you look at the history of the Federal statute, starting
in 1934, it was really meant to focus on the services and
facilities and not really the use in the States. So one of the
things that we are asking--and it is not that big an ask--
having recently had a Federal court preempt the use of our own
State statutes prohibiting autodialing, I would like to ask the
committee to take a hard look at the use of the word
``intrastate,'' which was exactly what the court found allowed
for the preemption of things that were interstate.
So, again, having recognized the problems of this case that
we submitted in our written testimony, I would ask your staff
to take a good, hard look at that case where, 2 weeks ago,
Indiana's robocall statute has now been preempted by the very
act of Congress that I see again here in front of us.
So I would grant back the 5 seconds that I have left.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zoeller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Terry. That is appreciated.
Mr. Altschul?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ALTSCHUL
Mr.Altschul. Good morning. And thank you, Mr. Terry,
Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. On
behalf of CTIA, I thank you for the opportunity to participate
in this morning's hearing.
CTIA was here and proud to support the original TCPA 20
years ago, and we welcome the introduction of this bill, H.R.
3035, as we believe it helps illustrate how profoundly the
wireless industry has changed over the past 20 years.
A number of you in your statements have talked about the
phenomenal growth and acceptance of wireless. I thought for
show-and-tell I would bring the state-of-the-art phone from
1992. And 1 month after the TCPA was passed into law,
Motorola's MicroTac Lite was introduced to the public in
January. This claimed to be the first phone that you could fit
into your pocket--it required quite a pocket--and cost as much
as $2,500. And, by the way, service prices in 1992, on a
permanent basis, were 10 times higher than they are today.
So, obviously, over the past 20 years, there has been
phenomenal change and growth in the industry and Americans'
acceptance of wireless. We have gone, as you know, from 7
million to over 300 million subscribers. And we are proud as an
industry that America now leads the world in delivering next-
generation wireless services at a lower price per minute of use
than in any other country in the developed world.
For the purposes of today's hearing, it is perhaps this
point--how wireless has been adopted as the primary source of
communications for millions of Americans--that may justify a
fresh look at the TCPA restrictions on the delivery of
informational calls to mobile devices and the challenge we all
face in crafting a law that will permit wanted commercial
communications while preventing unwanted communications.
Others have noted how more than 25 percent of Americans
have cut the cord. In some locations, the numbers are
substantially higher, as high as 40 percent. Obviously, this
shift creates challenges for companies and government agencies
that want to provide informational calls to individuals who are
not reachable in any other way and may value timely
notifications of the kinds of alerts and information that
others on the panel have described.
I want to focus the remainder of my time on three issues of
unique importance to the wireless industry.
First--and it is a personal peeve of mine--along with
customers, wireless carriers are victimized by violations of
the TCPA by unscrupulous boiler-room operators seeking to sell
extended car warranties and the like. In cases where they can
locate and identify the source of these messages, wireless
carriers have vigorously brought suit to shut down these scams.
And we are proud that we have cooperated with State attorney
generals and the Federal Trade Commission in investigating and
prosecuting TCPA cases.
Unfortunately, while we do all we can to identify and shut
down TCPA violations, the FCC continues to catalog TCPA reports
as wireless complaints. We believe it is unfair for the
Commission to count these complaints, which originate outside
the wireless network and have nothing to do with wireless
carriers' conduct and behavior, as wireless complaints in their
quarterly reports. And, for this reason, we urge the
subcommittee to compel the FCC to disaggregate TCPA data from
reporting of wireless complaints.
Second, the FCC has an open proceeding in which it has
sought comment on proposals to harmonize its TCPA rules with
the FTC's telemarketing sales rules. In this proceeding, we are
concerned that requiring wireless carriers to obtain their
customers' express written consent to receive autodialed or
prerecorded non-marketing calls could overturn the Commission's
precedent permitting wireless carriers to send free-to-the-end-
user calls and messages to their customers without additional
consent.
As you may know, the industry has recently committed to
deliver usage notifications to wireless users when they near
plan thresholds to prevent bill shock and overage or
international roaming charges, and we don't want anything to
interfere with our ability to do that.
Third and finally, there have been a series of class-action
lawsuits filed against Twitter; Facebook; banks, including
Barclays and American Express, that threaten the industry's
efforts to protect privacy and comply with the Mobile Marketing
Association's consumer best practices. These suits allege that
the best practice of sending a text message to confirm receipt
and acceptance of a customer's request to quit or stop violates
the TCPA. It is unreasonable, and it is another matter we would
like this committee to look into.
So thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Altschul follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr.Terry. Thank you for your testimony, and all of you for
your testimony.
At this time, we are going to begin our questions.
Attorney General Zoeller, I am going to start with you. And
this is friendly. But I am concerned about State preemption,
too. So what I would like to ask you is if you would help us
work with language that would make States feel comfortable that
we are not preempting your individual State laws.
I want to point out the flip side and why we need to work
together on this. One is, as I understand, one of the laws in
Indiana specifically allows autodialed calls from schools.
Well, the FCC, if that school is texting about a snow day,
whether it is a university or just a public school, may be in
violation with an autodialer, subject to, as Mr. Altschul said,
a $500 fine per student. So we have to work that--I wanted to
point that out.
Would you be able to help us draft some language that would
protect Indiana and States' laws, at the same time making sure
that when they comply with the State law they are not in
violation of Federal rules and regulations?
Mr.Zoeller. Absolutely. No, we have no concerns about how
the rest of the country and the Federal Government regulates.
It is our experience, though--and I think if it sounds like I
have reservations about the promises--that we were here
representing the State of Indiana when the TCPA was enacted,
and there were assurances that there would be no preemption.
And, 2 weeks ago, a Federal court struck down an Indiana
statute on preemption grounds.
So we would be very willing to work with the committee----
Mr.Terry. Good.
Mr.Zoeller (continuing]. But recognize that we worked last
time, and the same people who supported this bill have been
attacking our statutes for the last decade until they finally
preempted our statute.
Mr.Terry. OK.
Ms. Hand, you raise some concerns, and, frankly, just like
Ranking Member Eshoo's constituent did and some reporters as
well, that this is opening up the Pandora's box. And, in your
comments, you said that our intent was to cause that. And I
just want to place on the record, we worked with leg staff
specifically saying, let's draft language that prohibits the
unsolicited marketing, teleservices, random calls like you were
talking about. We worked hard to make sure that wasn't true. So
I got to tell you, I took a little offense when you said that
was my intent in drafting this. It is completely the opposite.
So you have a concern, Ms. Eshoo has a concern, I have
heard concerns from people back home when they read about this
bill about getting the unwanted telemarketing. Will you work
with me to develop language so that we can have language that
is clear that bans or continues to ban--I still think our
language still bans those type of calls. Would you work with us
on that?
Ms.Hand. Certainly. We want to be a part of the
conversation, and we want to work with you to ensure that
consumers continue to be protected. So we appreciate you
extending that.
Mr.Terry. OK. We want to make sure that our intent here is
that people, when they want information, are able to receive
that without the sender being subject to lawsuits and fines,
and continue to ban unwanted calls. So I appreciate your
willingness to work with us on it.
At this time, I am going to yield back my time and
recognize the ranking member, Anna Eshoo.
Ms.Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again to the panel. I think the collective
testimony has been instructive, and I thank you for it.
To Attorney General Zoeller, it is an honor to have an AG
here. The TCPA sets a floor, and not a ceiling, allowing States
to experiment and give consumers more protections, should they
wish to do so. And I think that you have spoken very clearly
about the wishes of your constituents and the actions that your
State has taken, and I salute you for that.
Now, by contrast, this bill would take away the States'
ability to provide additional protections to your consumers by
prohibiting any State laws addressing the subject matters
regulated in the bill. Is that your view of it?
Mr.Zoeller. Well, the particular concern is the use of the
word ``intrastate,'' which is exactly how in the lawsuit----
Ms.Eshoo. And you said that in your testimony. Uh-huh.
Mr.Zoeller. So, the fact that it says ``intrastate'' has
been read by the Federal courts to allow the argument that we
are preempted on interstate. So, really, I heard the floor and
not the ceiling, but when we are preempted, we are preempted.
So it was the floor and the ceiling.
Ms.Eshoo. Thank you.
And to Ms. Hand, as currently written, I understand that
this bill would narrow the TCPA's definition of an automatic
telephone dialing system. And based on your reading of the
bill, wouldn't this create a loophole that enables live
telemarketing calls?
Ms.Hand. Yes, this is correct. As currently defined in the
bill, the bill proposes to define automatic telephone dialing
systems as machines that randomly or sequentially generate
telephone numbers. And so what this would do, in effect, is
that the industry standard for dialers would not be included.
It would exclude what is known as predictive dialers, which are
predominantly used by telemarketers and debt collectors.
So it would, in effect, reverse the original intent of the
Cell Phone Consumer Protection Act, so it is very concerning.
Ms.Eshoo. And I think that this is a closely held value
that came out of the TCPA legislation. So I think that is where
an awful lot of upset is coming from.
Ms. Schwartz, thank you for your testimony. As I noted in
my opening statement, prior express consent, those are really
important words. They have an important meaning to consumers.
If you have the express consent to reach a customer's mobile
phone, what prevents you from delivering them these important
informational messages today under existing law?
Ms.Schwartz. I think you are right about the prior--pardon
my voice; I woke up without one this morning.
Nothing prevents you when you have prior consent. Sometimes
there are new accounts and then people have changed behavior
and they have closed down their landlines.
So my whole focus is reaching people, sharing information
that is pertinent to them keeping their homes, and engaging
with them when they have been reluctant to do so or want to do
so but have not been effective. So, on both sides----
Ms.Eshoo. But what prevents you from doing that today under
existing law, what you are describing, what you want to do
with, you know, the work of your organization?
Ms.Schwartz. Well, we go to landlines and we go to mail to
get to borrowers, but we don't go to cell phones because we
don't have that prior consent or have sought to violate it.
Ms.Eshoo. I wanted to ask a question of the chairman. Is
the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals
supporting the bill? Does anyone know?
Mr.Terry. I didn't look at the 29 letters there.
Ms.Eshoo. OK.
To Mr. Altschul from the Wireless Association, thank you.
And I think that it is wonderful that you brought the old set
and talked about the changes that have taken place. It is
nothing short of stunning, the changes that have taken place in
a short period of time.
You noted that prices, on a permanent basis, were 10 times
higher in 1991 than they are today. But text messaging is one
feature that didn't exist 20 years ago. Would you agree that it
is fairly common for consumers to pay on a per-message basis?
And what is the average cost of receiving such a message today?
Mr.Altschul. I don't know that information. I would be
happy to provide it. I know that there was a hearing about 2
years and a couple of our member carriers did provide
information to Congress.
The overwhelming majority, if I recall their testimony
correctly, the overwhelming majority of customers do have some
kind of bucket of texts. But there still are customers, like my
mother, who don't and would have an a-la-carte charge for
receiving a text message.
Ms.Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr.Terry. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns, you are recognized.
Mr.Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was the author of the Do Not Call List when I was
chairman of the Commerce and Consumer Protection--at that
point, it was Trade. And then, once we passed that, then we had
to, the next session of Congress, pass another law to make sure
to extend it. And I have found that it is the most popular bill
that I have ever passed, and it is perhaps one of the most
popular bills that has ever passed Congress because everybody
was just lauding it.
So I think, when we move into this, we have to understand
some of the nuances between the land-based lines and the cell
phone. So let me just go across the panel and ask this
question, yes or no. I think many of us don't want to allow
intrusive telemarketing calls to consumers any more than many
of you do. And we just want to make sure that you don't have
your cell phone being answered time and time again with a
computerized call, telemarketing.
Do you think there are ways we can clarify thatautodialers
and prerecorded voice messages should not be used to make
telemarketing calls to consumers?
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms.Schwartz. Yes, we support that clarification, that you
should not be subjected to telemarketing calls.
Mr.Stearns. So you think we can clarify and make that. OK.
And Mr. Alterman?
Mr.Alterman. Absolutely, I agree.
Mr.Stearns. OK.
Ms. Hand?
Ms.Hand. Well, I think while there might be some
clarifications that can be made, I would like to reiterate that
current law currently allows contact with the consumer, and
there is a very bright line here with respect to consent.
Mr.Stearns. So, technically, you think between autodialers
and prerecorded voice messages we can make a clarification so
that these don't end up beingtelemarketing calls. Do you think
we can do that?
Ms.Hand. Yes, we can do that, but consumer consent should
absolutely be preserved.
Mr.Stearns. And how would we do that?
Ms.Hand. Well, I am happy to continue working with staff to
work out the technical languages. But we just want to make sure
that consumers have an absolute ability to opt out of receiving
any prerecorded or----
Mr.Stearns. By calling the Federal Trade Commission on a
toll-free number and saying----
Ms.Hand. I am sorry?
Mr.Stearns. They could call the Federal Trade Commission
and ask them to make sure that my number is not included in
that? Is that one suggestion?
Ms.Hand. Potentially. I mean, we would have to think about
it, and we would have to work with staff.
Mr.Stearns. OK.
Go ahead, Mr. Zoeller. Your comment?
Mr.Zoeller. I think the key would be as long as States were
allowed to have additional restrictions.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr.Altschul. Prohibition on telemarketing calls has worked
well and is broadly supported.
Mr.Stearns. OK.
Ms. Hand, your testimony suggests that current law empowers
a consumer to demand that incessant calls stop and that the
proposed legislation removes that protection.
Can you point to me specifically to where that protection
exists today for, say, landline calls and what provision
specifically eliminates that protection?
Ms.Hand. Well, it is actually what is not included in the
bill. And so, I refer to an FCC ruling, a 2008 ruling by the
FCC in January of 2008, where the FCC recognizes--and the
specific language, if I may just point to it--the FCC
recognizes the right of consumers to request calls to stop. And
so, the FCC in the 2008 ruling said that, absent instructions
to the company, persons who knowingly release their phone
numbers have, in effect, given an invitation or a permission to
be called. So, in other words, consumers have the right to ask
to stop receiving calls.
The bill doesn't address that, and so, in essence, there is
no enforcement mechanism. If a consumer were to receive a
robocall, they could ask to stop, but there currently would be
no enforcement mechanism to stop those calls under the current
language of H.R. 3035.
Mr.Terry. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr.Stearns. Sure, I would be glad to.
Mr.Terry. Yes, that is a great point that you bring up and,
Ms. Hand, you bring up, and Mr. Markey has brought it up. And
that is one of the areas that we are willing to work on.
Ms.Hand. Thank you.
Mr.Stearns. Ms. Hand, another question. Do you agree that
consumers benefit from the informational calls discussed by Ms.
Schwartz and Mr. Alterman? And how can the proposed legislation
be modified to allow such calls without opening the door to
harassing--and I think you have touched on that.
But, Mr. Alterman and Ms. Schwartz, do you agree with what
Ms. Hand is saying in this area of changing the legislation?
Ms.Schwartz. I think abusive and repetitive calls should
not be permitted, just as they are already under protection on
the FDCPA. But I think it is very important to be allowed, if
you already have a business relationship, to alert people of
opportunities to fix their loan before they go to foreclosure
by a cell phone.
Mr.Stearns. OK.
Mr. Alterman?
Mr.Alterman. Yes, let me make one thing perfectly clear: We
do not want to make repetitive calls, and we would absolutely
have no problem with language that would do that.
I would like to make one comment, because a comment was
made earlier that airlines already have the ability to notify
people by this. And our industry, unfortunately, is one step
removed. The phone numbers that are given are given to
retailers, such as L.L.Bean. We get the phone numbers from them
as part of the same transaction, but it is unclear--I could
with a straight face argue that that constitutes consent, but
it is unclear.
And this bill would make it clear that--we would like this
bill to make it clear that--that is all we want to do; we just
want to tell someone there is a package ready.
Mr.Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.Terry. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle?
Mr.Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said in my opening remarks, I think the bill was well-
intentioned, but obviously I think we have a lot of work to do
here.
As I read this bill, if a person provides their phone
number as a means of contact at any point during a business
relationship with a company, then that constitutes prior
express consent.
I just bought a washer and dryer 2 weeks ago at an
appliance store, and they wanted to give me, like, a 40-minute
notice before they were going to arrive at my house so that
somebody would be there. And they asked me for my phone number,
and I gave it to them.
Now, I don't ever want to hear from that appliance store
anymore if they have TVs on sale or computers or whatnot, and I
certainly don't want to start getting text messages from that
company.
So I guess what I want to ask Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Alterman
and Mr. Altschul is, why do you think the mere giving of a
phone number in a business relationship, you know, like the
example I have just cited, why do you think that should imply
that I want to hear from those companies in the future?
Ms.Schwartz. Well, sir, that is an interesting analogy. I
look at this completely from the mortgage experience. When you
take out a 30-year mortgage and have a relationship with your
bank or loan servicer, you should figure out the effective ways
to communicate with each other. And if you don't have a
landline and you don't communicate, you will go to foreclosure
if you are not making your payments and you don't have an
opportunity to talk to your counterparty to understand all of
the options available to avoid that.
Mr.Doyle. But isn't it as simple as--you know, people want
to know how can we do this. It is simple: Ask. I mean, why
don't you just--I mean, right now, TCPA and FCC rules allow
people to say upfront, ``I want you to be able to contact me.''
And so it seems to me that, you know, your constituencies, you
know, the mortgage business and whatever, you should just ask
the consumer when you have that first contact with them, will
you give us permission--or, do you give us permission to
contact you if we have some information about our products or
our services? And the person says, yes, I give you my
permission. And I think that solves the problem. Just ask the
consumer if they want to hear from people, and if the consumers
say yes, case closed.
But I have to tell you--and I especially worry about young
people. Now, my kids, they can't afford these high bundled
plans, Mr. Altschul, so they have these prepaid phones. And
they don't talk on the phone anymore. If I want to talk to one
of my kids, I have to text them or they don't answer me back,
OK? I can't send emails or call their phone numbers; they just
don't respond.
But I know the plans. It is like you have so many texts you
are allowed for one price, and then it goes--you know, because
we end up paying every time they go over their text messages
and they call crying to us that they don't have the money to
pay their phone bill.
The industry has already voluntarily said, you know, they
are going to start notifying people when they are getting close
to using up their plans so that they don't have the sticker
shock, you know, when their bill comes. I mean, imagine----
Mr.Altschul. We have done that on a free-to-the-end-user
basis, by the way, so it won't generate usage calls----
Mr.Doyle. Exactly. But imagine the calls you are going to
start to get when these young kids start to get these text
messages from these telemarketers that they don't want and it
starts to run their bill up, either over their prepaid plan--
and they are going to be calling your companies complaining,
you know, that they owe all this money for calls that they
don't want to accept.
So, I mean, Lee, I think this is simple. I think we just
ask consumers if they want to hear from these folks. And if
they indicate they do--I know when I go online and order a
product, there is always a box there that says, would you like
to hear from us on any future sales our company has? And I get
to check the box, and then I get emails from that company.
But I am saying, to me, I think it is pretty
straightforward. Just ask people if they want to hear from you,
and if they say yes, then they want to hear from you. If they
say no, they don't want to hear from you, and don't call them.
And I think that would solve the problem.
Mr.Terry. We would appreciate working with you.
Ms.Schwartz. May I follow up with that, sir?
Mr.Doyle. Yes, sure. I have 40 seconds.
Ms.Schwartz. My only point is, when you buy a house 4 or 5
years earlier and your life changes and you are not in
contact--and there are millions of people who are not in
contact on their home loan today who are in trouble. And so any
effective tool to reach them and have an effective conversation
and invite them to participate is a meaningful way to----
Mr.Doyle. And I think if you would say to that consumer
when they buy the house, if there is a situation where we could
provide different options for you if you have financial
trouble, would you like us to be able to tell you what those
things are, people can make that choice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.Terry. Mr. Chairman?
Mr.Walden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
chairing this hearing and bringing this issue to our attention.
Obviously, there are a lot of views on how you might get this
done. And I know it is not your intent to open the door to
random telemarketing calls. That is not what this is about.
Mr.Terry. No.
Mr.Walden. I have found it interesting, though--and I have
been in the back in some meetings but also trying to keep an
ear to the testimony--that there does seem to be this
persistent issue about the way technology has changed. There
are now more cell phones than there are citizens of this
country in use in this country. People are cutting their
landlines, and there are some legacy rules here.
Now, I don't want random text messages from companies just
to market to me. I don't want random cell phone calls. But I
did note when our colleague from Tennessee talked about just
the nature of FedEx being able to automate the call that says,
``We are going to deliver the package to your house,'' I have
encountered that where they call our landline but nobody is
home, and so you get the call later and they couldn't leave the
package, so now I have to call them, trace them down, figure
out where to go get it and go through this drill. If there were
a way that they could have just called my cell phone, then I
would know, OK, I can run back to the house, or whatever is my
home life.
And so I am trying to figure out, is there a way to thread
this needle that we don't open this door that I don't think
anybody on this committee wants to open, on sort of random
telemarketing calls to cell phones, but that allows that
understanding of how technology has changed? Because if I
understand this right, if there is a human dialing the number,
that is OK. But if I pull it up on a computer screen and push a
button, that is not OK.
Now, I got to tell you--and I realize it is probably the
race between gray and gone, the loss of memory, but I have
trouble remembering people's phone numbers anymore because I
pull out one of these devices and right here are my favorite
phone numbers and my friends, family, or staff, and I just
push, you know, ``Brian'' or ``Ray'' or whomever and it dials
it automatically.
Now, would that kind of a--is that an automatic dialer? It
is not. Some of you say it is not; some say it is. Right? OK.
Well somewhere, though, if I had to reach 30 people, I
might have a system and basically say, call Bill, Ed, Ray,
whoever is available, and I will talk to the first one you
find. Is that the autodialer we are talking about here? So it
is just--if they are all my friends or whatever. I don't know.
So I think there is a way to get at modernizing the law
without opening the door to unwanted solicitations and
informational calls and all that stuff.
So, anyway, I would yield to the chairman.
Mr.Terry. All right, thank you. And I do think you hit on
probably the ultimate point here. We focus on the technology
change from wirelines to wireless, but the reality is the trap
we are in is the technology of an operator dialing versus
manually dialing versus clicking and having a computer program
that would automatically dial, like, the school notices or all
of that.
So that is the technology that is hanging up the TCPA right
now and is the good and the bad, and we have got to figure out
how to draw that line. So I appreciate that.
At this point, Mr. Barrow.
Mr.Barrow. I yield my time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr.Markey. I thank the gentleman very much.
So I am the House author of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, which is amended by this act. And I
feel as strongly today as I did 20 years ago that consumers
should not be subject to intrusive calls from telemarketers,
whether they are at home or on their mobile phones.
So we were looking, at that time, about people who were
just ticked off that they were getting called just every night
just around dinnertime. Just an amazing coincidence that they
didn't call at 2:00 in the afternoon or 11:00 in the morning,
but it was always just as people were sitting down to dinner,
when parents were reading to their kids, when people were
trying to unwind from a long day. And that is when everyone
just started to call and the phone would just start ringing.
So we banned autodialing and prerecorded calls to land
lines and mobile phones, with certain exceptions. And we
established the Do Not Call List, the law creating a zone of
privacy that remains hugely popular with consumers to this day.
So here is my question. Maybe, Ms. Hand or Attorney
General, maybe you could help me with this. As we discuss this,
let's just say Members of Congress get home late from wherever
they go, OK, and they just start calling whatever their local
takeout taxi is. And one day they are calling to have Italian
food sent over; another day, Chinese, Ethiopian. Well, let's
just say, by the end of the year they have called 20 different
restaurants to have takeout taxi bring it over--you know,
pizza, whatever.
Now, under this proposed change, what would the
relationship now be between those 20 restaurants and you at
home, in terms of their ability to call you with the good news
that the pu pu platter is now on sale or, you know, the new
eggplant parmesan? Would that now make it possible for them to
call you with all the great news that each one of the 20 have,
even though you wanted a one-time relationship with them on the
cheese pizza or, you know, the Chinese or other food?
So help me with that. What happens under this proposed
change in terms of my relationship with the restaurants in the
greater Boston area?
Ms.Hand. Well, Mr. Markey, you raise a really good point.
Under the language of the bill as it currently is, this would
now qualify as an established business relationship.
Mr.Markey. That one-time call?
Ms.Hand. That one time. You have called, you have made a
purchase, and you have provided contact information. This would
suffice to be an established business relationship for the
purpose of receiving robocalls on your cell phone.
Mr.Markey. Is that correct?
Mr.Zoeller. Yes. And what I would like to point out is, in
Indiana, we did not include a prior-business-relationship
exception. So, in Indiana, you would not continue to get any
other calls. They don't have a prior-business-relationship
exemption so you don't get--when you are listed on our Do Not
Call, you don't get calls.
Mr.Markey. Would that be a nightmare situation for
families, where every night they get a call in a different
language letting them know that their favorite food----
Mr.Zoeller. Well, I can tell you, in Indiana, if you would
have not allowed for that prior-business-relationship exemption
in the original act, you would have been much more popular than
you are today.
Mr.Markey. Yes. Yes.
So if you give over your phone number--so now it is just
your phone number, you know, is handed over to someone just to
even get information. Now, under this proposed change, would
just handing over your phone number now create a pre-existing
business relationship for all purposes, even though you might
not have even purchased something?
Mr.Zoeller. Well, under the Federal statute. But, again, as
long as we are not preempted, it would not create--because we
don't have the exemption in Indiana. If you preempt us, though,
and we have to follow the Federal model, Indiana would get the
12, on average, calls per week that most people in the country
do that have a Federal Do Not Call but not a tough law like we
have in Indiana.
Mr.Markey. So what is your answer to that, Ms. Schwartz?
How do we protect it? You know, you want mortgage information
because the individual's largest single, you know, investment
in their lives could be at stake. But you hear all the other
stuff that could now happen coming in under that exemption.
So what would you do to protect against the tsunami of
calls that would inundate people's cell phones? And people
would have to pay for the right to have the text or have the
phone call coming into them because it is on their bill.
Ms.Schwartz. I am certainly not an expert on the breadth of
the complex legal side of this, although it sounds like
telemarketing to me. And I thought that was explicitly not--or
that there was a protection against that in this bill. So I
would thread the needle a little more closely to make sure that
doesn't happen.
Mr.Terry. Thank you, Mr. Markey.
Mr.Markey. OK, that is great. Now, could I be recognized on
my own time? I have been using----
Mr.Shimkus. Reserving the right to object.
Mr.Terry. Why don't we come back?
Mr.Markey. All right, I will wait for my turn to come back.
Mr.Terry. Mr. Shimkus?
Mr.Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a good
panel and a great discussion because I think you can see where
we are all trying to wrestle with this.
Everyone has stories. I am from rural America. Propane is
the heating fuel of choice. I have a constituent who dropped
their landline. And the system was, with the propane industry,
that when you would go low on propane, they would then dial you
and say, hey, you are running low, you better fill up your
propane. But since they dropped the landline, they couldn't get
notified. And so, in the middle of the night, they ran out of
propane, and, you know, that was not a good time to run out of
propane, in the middle of the night in mid-December.
So I think we are talking about making consent easier,
where we understand the business relationship more defined so
that, as Michael Doyle said--and I am glad he finally got a
washer and a dryer. I have been hoping he would buy one for the
last 10 years here. But, as he said, we want to make sure we
establish a business relationship--if there is a business
relationship and they opt in and say, ``We want to continue to
have this communication,'' then we need to have this. And these
constituents of mine want the propane company to be able to
call them on their cell phone if their propane is running low.
And so, that is what this is about.
I have two questions, but I want to go to the attorney
general first, because his story in answer to a question is
really encompassing, kind of, our debate here in Washington.
And maybe you want to restate it. You said you were pretty
well promised that the State of Indiana would have been left
alone in your ability to deal with this. However, the courts
got involved; is that right? Can you explain that real quickly
again?
Mr.Zoeller. Well, the case of--I think the telemarketing
companies had a client named the Patriotic Veterans
Association, and they were wanting to blast out these robocalls
to literally hundreds of thousands of people in Indiana because
they had their numbers. They had given money to various
charities over the years. They wanted to blast out these
prerecorded phone calls.
And the court, looking at the language of the TCPA,
recognized that, just as this bill does, says that it is not to
be preempted for intrastate. Therefore, since they did not
mention interstate, if they choose to use robocalling equipment
outside of our domestic robocallers in Indiana, they are free
to do so because the Federal Government, although well-intended
by Mr. Markey and others, had opened up the door to preemption.
Mr.Shimkus. Right.
Mr.Zoeller. So, after a decade of fighting us, they finally
got a Federal judge to preempt our enforcement of our own
statute.
Mr.Shimkus. And that is a continuing debate we have here,
about the unintended consequences. Going to the court and then
changing the intent of the law, and then we have to come back
and refine it. And that is a good thing to have on record on
other issues that we debate here in Washington, D.C. And I
enjoyed that--I will use that example in the future.
Ms. Hand, Indiana's law allows autodialed calls from
schools to parents and does not distinguish between calls to
landlines and calls to cell phones. Do you think Indiana's law
is unreasonable?
Ms.Hand. Absolutely not. I think if the State legislature
determines what is appropriate for its residents, that should
hold and the State's law should not be preempted.
Mr.Shimkus. Yes.
And my time is running and we have votes, so, Mr. Alterman,
talk about the benefit of text messaging. I have young kids
still. Texting is the communication mode now. It was emails, it
was phones, now it is texting. So talk about the importance of
text messages.
Mr.Alterman. I think that it is just--as things develop, as
technology develops and the way our society develops, it is
just becoming a more basic way of communicating. And some
people like phones, some people like text messages. Text
messages are a little less intrusive sometimes because nothing
rings and you can answer them whenever. So it is becoming more
of a way of contacting people.
Mr.Shimkus. Although I think I woke up my son at 5:00 a.m.
This morning because it vibrated. Kids sleep with their phones
these days.
So, anyway, thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.Terry. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.
And we do have votes on the floor, which is--timing is
perfect. Mr. Barrow, I--well, I recognize Mr. Markey.
Mr.Markey. I thank the Chair.
So I guess what we all want is, kind of, some commonsense
rule here that doesn't have your phone ringing all night long,
huh?
Mr.Terry. Agreed.
Mr.Markey. And if, you know, looking back 20 years at all
the changes that have taken place, you know, we might want to
tweak it here or there, that is one thing. But I think people
love the peace and quiet of their home. And I also think that,
when you are talking about people's new devices, since they
have to pay for the right to have all of these communications--
and it is a little bit of a safety zone for people right now.
That is, the only people who know your cell phone number are
the people you give it to. You know, it is not in the phone
book, it is not for everyone to know. And you can walk around
not thinking that you are back at home, that this phone is
going off 40 or 50 times because it is just some kind of
public, you know, phone booth.
So I think if we can work together to accomplish, kind of,
the limited goals that people might have but not to open this
thing wide but still to preserve for the attorney general and
others the right to be able to give Hoosiers a little bit of
additional protection if they would want to do so because of
the independent nature of that State, that they just might want
to give a little bit more protection to their consumers. And
that is----
Mr.Terry. Those are all things we would agree with, I would
agree with.
Mr.Markey. Beautiful.
Mr.Terry. So let's work together. Appreciate that, Mr.
Markey.
And, Mr. Barrow, do you have any questions?
Mr.Barrow. No, sir. I gave my time to Mr. Markey.
Mr.Terry. Yes, twice.
So thank you all. I think it has been a very productive
hearing and gives us a path forward, with your advice and
counsel.
So, at this time, we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]