[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4683-S4709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CONSUMER ANTI-SCAMMING ACT OF 1998

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1618. I ask further consent there be 
2 hours of general debate on the bill, equally divided in the usual 
form.
  I further ask consent that the only first-degree amendments, other 
than committee amendments, be the following, and that the first-degree 
amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments: Manager's 
amendment; Collins-Durbin amendment--No. 1, liability, No. 2, 
penalties, No. 3, report slamming complaints; a Rockefeller amendment 
on Telecom; a Reed amendment on slamming; Levin amendment on billing 
information, surety bonds switchless; Feingold amendment on CB 
interference; Feinstein amendment on telephone privacy; McCain 
amendment that is relevant; a Harkin amendment on telemarketing fraud; 
and a Hollings amendment that is relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a 
third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of S. 1618 
with no intervening action or debate; provided further that Senator 
Bryan be recognized further to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, did the Senator from 
Arizona note Senator Murray in his list of amendments?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend that Senator Murray and Senator Coats 
both agreed to drop their amendments on the assurance that these 
respective pieces of legislation will be brought up at a later date.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1618) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to 
     improve the protection of consumers against ``slamming'' by 
     telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with 
amendments, as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                                S. 1618

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

     SECTION 1. IMPROVED PROTECTION FOR [CONSUMERS AGAINST 
                   ``SLAMMING'' BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.] 
                   CONSUMERS.

       (a) Verification of Authorization.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--No telecommunications [carrier shall] 
     carrier or reseller of telecommunications services shall 
     submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a 
     provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service except in accordance with this section and such 
     verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.
       ``(2) Verification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In order to verify a subscriber's 
     selection of a telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service provider under this section, the telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller shall, at a minimum, require the 
     subscriber--
       ``(i) to acknowledge the type of service to be changed as a 
     result of the selection;
       ``(ii) to affirm the subscriber's intent to select the 
     provider as the provider of that service;
       ``(iii) to affirm that [the subscriber] the consumer is the 
     subscriber or is authorized to select the provider of that 
     service for the telephone number in question;
       ``(iv) to acknowledge that the selection of the provider 
     will result in a change in providers of that service; and
       [``(v) to acknowledge that the individual making the oral 
     communication is the subscriber; and]
       ``[(vi)] (v) to provide such other information as the 
     Commission considers appropriate for the protection of the 
     subscriber.
       ``(B) Additional requirements.--The procedures prescribed 
     by the Commission to verify a subscriber's selection of a 
     provider shall--
       ``(i) preclude the use of negative option marketing;
       ``(ii) provide for verification of a change in telephone 
     exchange service or telephone toll service provider in oral, 
     written, or electronic form; and
       ``(iii) require the retention of such verification in such 
     manner and form and for such time as the Commission considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Intrastate services.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude any State commission from enforcing such procedures 
     with respect to intrastate services.
       ``(4) Section not to apply to wireless.--This section does 
     not apply to a provider of commercial mobile service, as that 
     term is defined in section 332(d)(1) of this Act.''.
       (b) Resolution of Complaints.--Section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(c) Notice to Subscriber.--Whenever there is a change in 
     a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange 
     service or telephone toll service, the telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller selected shall notify the subscriber in 
     writing, not more than

[[Page S4684]]

     15 days after the change is [executed, of the change, the 
     date on which the change was effected, and the name of the 
     individual who authorized the change.] processed by the 
     telecommunications carrier or the reseller--
       (1) of the subscriber's new carrier; and
       (2) that the subscriber may request information regarding 
     the date on which the change was agreed to and the name of 
     the individual who authorized the change.
       ``(d) Resolution of Complaints.--
       ``(1) Prompt resolution.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall prescribe a period 
     of time, not in excess of 120 [days, for a] days after a 
     telecommunications carrier or reseller receives notice, for 
     the telecommunications carrier or reseller to resolve a 
     complaint by a subscriber concerning an unauthorized change 
     in the subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone 
     exchange service or telephone toll service.
       ``(B) Unresolved complaints.--If a telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller fails to resolve a complaint within the 
     time period prescribed by the Commission, then, within 10 
     days after the end of that period, the telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller shall--
       ``(i) notify the subscriber in writing of the subscriber's 
     right to file a complaint with the Commission concerning the 
     unresolved complaint, the subscriber's rights under this 
     section, and all other remedies available to the subscriber 
     concerning unauthorized changes;
       ``(ii) inform the subscriber in writing of the procedures 
     prescribed by the Commission for filing such a complaint; and
       ``(iii) provide the subscriber a copy of any evidence in 
     the carrier's or reseller's possession showing that the 
     change in the subscriber's provider of telephone exchange 
     service or telephone toll service was submitted or executed 
     in accordance with the verification procedures prescribed 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Resolution by commission.--The Commission shall 
     provide a simplified process for resolving complaints under 
     paragraph (1)(B). The simplified procedure shall preclude the 
     use of interrogatories, depositions, discovery, or other 
     procedural techniques that might unduly increase the expense, 
     formality, and time involved in the process. The Commission 
     shall issue an order resolving any such complaint at the 
     earliest date practicable, but in no event later than--
       ``(A) 150 days after the date on which it received the 
     complaint, with respect to liability issues; and
       ``(B) 90 days after the date on which it resolves a 
     complaint, with respect to damages issues, if such additional 
     time is necessary.
       ``(3) Damages awarded by commission.--In resolving a 
     complaint under paragraph (1)(B), the Commission may award 
     damages equal to the greater of $500 or the amount of actual 
     damages. The Commission may, in its discretion, increase the 
     amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 
     times the amount available under the preceding sentence.
       ``(e) Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Unless the Commission determines that 
     there are mitigating circumstances, violation of subsection 
     (a) is punishable by a fine of not less than $40,000 for the 
     first offense, and not less than $150,000 for each subsequent 
     offense.
       ``(2) Failure to notify treated as violation of subsection 
     (a).--If a telecommunications carrier or reseller fails to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (d)(1)(B), then 
     that failure shall be treated as a violation of subsection 
     (a).
       ``(f) Recovery of Fines.--The Commission may take such 
     action as may be necessary--
       ``(1) to collect any fines it imposes under this section; 
     and
       ``(2) on behalf of any subscriber, any damages awarded the 
     subscriber under this [section.''.] section.
       (g) Change Includes Initial Selection.--For purposes of 
     this section, the initiation of service to a subscriber by a 
     telecommunications carrier or a reseller shall be treated as 
     a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.
       (c) State Right-of-Action.--Section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``[(g)] (h) Actions by States.--
       ``(1) Authority of states.--Whenever the attorney general 
     of a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, 
     has reason to believe that a telecommunications carrier or 
     reseller has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice 
     of changing telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service provider without authority from subscribers in that 
     State in violation of this section or the regulations 
     prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil 
     action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such unauthorized 
     changes, an action to recover for actual monetary loss or 
     receive $500 in damages for each violation, or both such 
     actions. If the court finds the defendant willfully or 
     knowingly violated such regulations, the court may, in its 
     discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount 
     equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the 
     preceding sentence.
       ``(2) Exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.--The 
     district courts of the United States, the United States 
     courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United 
     States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction over all civil actions brought under this 
     subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also 
     have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, or orders 
     affording like relief, commanding the defendant to comply 
     with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed 
     under this section, including the requirement that the 
     defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the 
     danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent 
     or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted 
     without bond.
       ``(3) Rights of commission.--The State shall serve prior 
     written notice of any such civil action upon the Commission 
     and provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint, 
     except in any case where such prior notice is not feasible, 
     in which case the State shall serve such notice immediately 
     upon instituting such action. The Commission shall have the 
     right--
       ``(A) to intervene in the action;
       ``(B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       ``(C) to file petitions for appeal.
       ``(4) Venue; service of process.--Any civil action brought 
     under this subsection in a district court of the United 
     States may be brought in the district wherein the defendant 
     is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherein 
     the violation occurred or is occurring, and process in such 
     cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is 
     an inhabitant or where the defendant may be found.
       ``(5) Investigatory powers.--For purposes of bringing any 
     civil action under this subsection, nothing in this section 
     shall prevent the attorney general of a State, or an official 
     or agency designated by a State, from exercising the powers 
     conferred on the attorney general or such official by the 
     laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer 
     oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of 
     witnesses or the production of documentary and other 
     evidence.
       ``(6) Effect on state court proceedings.--Nothing contained 
     in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit an 
     authorized State official from proceeding in State court on 
     the basis of an alleged violation of any general civil or 
     criminal statute of such State.
       ``(7) Limitation.--Whenever the Commission has instituted a 
     civil action for violation of regulations prescribed under 
     this section, no State may, during the pendency of such 
     action instituted by the Commission, subsequently institute a 
     civil action against any defendant named in the Commission's 
     complaint for any violation as alleged in the Commission's 
     complaint.
       ``(8) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `attorney general' means the chief legal officer of a State.
       ``[(h)] (i) 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 unauthorized changes in, a subscriber's 
     selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or 
     telephone toll service.''.
       (d) Report on Carriers Executing Unauthorized Changes of 
     Telephone Service.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than October 31, 1998, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall submit to Congress a report 
     on unauthorized changes of subscribers' selections of 
     providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service.
       (2) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
       (A) A list of the 10 telecommunications carriers that, 
     during the 1-year period ending on the date of the report, 
     were subject to the highest number of complaints of having 
     executed unauthorized changes of subscribers from their 
     selected providers of telephone exchange service or telephone 
     toll service when compared with the total number of 
     subscribers served by such carriers.
       (B) The telecommunications carriers, if any, assessed fines 
     under section 258(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (as 
     added by subsection (c)), during that period, including the 
     amount of each such fine and whether the fine was assessed as 
     a result of a court judgment or an order of the Commission or 
     was secured pursuant to a consent decree.

     SEC. 2. REPORT ON TELEMARKETING PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall issue a report within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act on the telemarketing practices used by 
     telecommunications carriers or resellers or their agents or 
     employees for the purpose of soliciting changes by 
     subscribers of their telephone exchange service or telephone 
     toll service provider.
       (b) Specific Issues.--As part of the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall include findings on--
       (1) the extent to which imposing penalties on telemarketers 
     would deter unauthorized changes in a subscriber's selection 
     of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service;
       (2) the need for rules requiring third-party verification 
     of changes in a subscriber's selection of such a provider; 
     and
       (3) whether wireless carriers should continue to be exempt 
     from the verification and retention requirements imposed by 
     section 258(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 258(a)(2)(B)(iii)).
       (c) Rulemaking.--If the Commission determines that 
     particular telemarketing practices are being used with the 
     intention to mislead, deceive, or confuse subscribers and 
     that they are likely to mislead, deceive, or confuse 
     subscribers, then the Commission

[[Page S4685]]

     shall initiate a rulemaking to prohibit the use of such 
     practices within 120 days after the completion of its report.

  Mr. McCAIN addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of a 
series of bills dealing with critical issues raised by the 
transformation and rapid growth of the telecommunications industry.
  This transformation in telecommunications is being driven by constant 
changes in telecommunications technology. The small mass media universe 
of fifty years ago, occupied by a few large AM radio stations, has 
given way to an electronic marketplace teeming with alternative sources 
of information and entertainment. FM radio, TV, cable and satellite 
television, and the Internet have become sometimes competing, and 
sometimes complementary, mass media outlets. In the world of 
telecommunications, the days of Ma Bell were numbered by the advent of 
microwave radio and satellite technology. First there was competition 
for long-distance service; then wireless services appeared and 
exploded. Cellular radio, paging, and now personal communications 
services--all are now an indispensable part of everyday American life.
  For those of you old enough to remember back twenty years--and I 
think the Presiding Officer can do that--think of how different your 
life is today than it was then. Most of these changes were due to the 
growth of telecommunications. For those of you too young to remember 
that far back, I can assure you that twenty years from now, you will 
look back on today and marvel at the changes you will have seen.
  Today the driving force in telecommunications is digital technology. 
Digital technology has not only made some of today's new services 
possible--it is also causing formerly different services to converge, 
and it is promising Americans new and exciting services in the future. 
The convergence of your television and your computer is on the horizon. 
So also is a telephone that can simultaneously translate conversations 
held in different languages.
  We need no longer talk about the Information Age in the future tense. 
It's here and now, and it's reshaping our world.
  As telecommunications technology changes the way we live, our laws 
must change to keep pace. The growth of competition in the long-
distance industry now gives consumers over 500 companies to choose 
from. Because of that competition, the consumer is better off. But the 
growth in long-distance competition has also given rise to cut-throat 
marketing practices.
  The first bill we will consider and debate today is S. 1618, the 
Consumer Anti-Slamming Act of 1998. It is offered by myself and my good 
friend and distinguished colleague Senator Fritz Hollings of South 
Carolina, the distinguished Ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee. 
Joining us as cosponsors are the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator 
Lott, and Senators Frist, Bryan, Johnson, Kerry, Abraham, Shelby, 
Snowe, Feingold, and Bob Smith.
  The Consumer Anti-Slamming Act is designed to put a stop, once and 
for all, to inexcusable marketing tactics that lead to a consumers' 
long-distance telephone company being switched without consent. Right 
now two consumers are ``slammed'' every minute of every day, which 
makes slamming far and away the most pervasive consumer problem in 
telecommunications today.
  We will then shift our focus to Internet-related issues. The 
information technology industry is estimated to account for one-third 
of our real economic growth. Currently, electronic commerce is in the 
neighborhood of several billion dollars per year, but that figure is 
expected to skyrocket into hundreds of billions in only a few years 
more.
  The growth and continued expansion of the information technology 
industry has vastly increased the need for highly-skilled individuals 
to work in this industry. We need these workers, and their skills, to 
retain our nation's leadership in Information Age technology. 
Unfortunately, however, our country isn't producing them in the numbers 
needed. Therefore, temporary solutions must be found to enable our 
high-tech industries to remain competitive, while we address problems 
in the educational system that have led to our inability to produce the 
needed workforce in this country.
  S. 1723, The American Competitiveness Act of 1998, will increase the 
yearly cap on H-1B immigration visas for skilled workers, while 
creating new educational opportunities for Americans to join the 
information technology workforce that is now so critically short of the 
skilled personnel we need.
  Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. I 
commend my colleague, Senator Abraham, for his leadership on this 
issue, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill in company with 
Senators Hatch, DeWine, Specter, Grams, Brownback, Ashcroft, Hagel, 
Bennett, Mack, Coverdell, Lieberman, Burns, Senator Bob Graham of 
Florida, and Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. I would also like to 
compliment Senator Feinstein for her efforts at reaching a consensus on 
this issue with her fellow members of the Judiciary Committee.

  Should we fail to pass this measure, our industry will not be able to 
access the wealth of talent not currently available here at home. This 
reality will have a quantifiable negative impact on American jobs and 
American industry. Without passage of this bill, we are forcing 
companies to shift jobs overseas.
  A letter signed by the CEOs of fourteen leading companies, including 
Microsoft's Bill Gates, Netscape's James Barksdale, and Texas 
Instruments' Thomas Engibous, put this point well:

       Failure to increase the H-1B cap and the limits that will 
     place on the ability of American companies to grow and 
     innovate will also limit the growth of jobs available to 
     American workers * * * Failure to raise the H-1B cap will aid 
     our foreign competitors by limiting the growth and innovation 
     potential of U.S. companies while pushing talented people 
     away from our shores * * * [this] could mean a loss of 
     America's high technology leadership in the world.

  Mr. President, our competitors abroad are waiting for the opportunity 
to surpass us. They can only do this if we allow them to. We cannot 
allow our high-tech industries to be hamstrung by an arbitrary cap on 
immigration of skilled workers.
  The Internet has provided widespread access to enormous quantities of 
information. This in turn has made it necessary to update our copyright 
laws to protect the rights of copyright holders in the Information Age.
  S. 2037, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is aptly named. As 
digitization of commerce, education, entertainment, and a host of other 
online applications proceeds, international copyright agreements have 
to be maintained and updated. In addition, the rights of copyright 
owners need to be assured as technology progresses. That not only 
safeguards the copyright holder's rights, but also assures that new 
material will be freely produced and made available to all Internet 
users.
  Finally, Mr. President, while information technology has opened up 
whole new avenues for commerce, learning, and education, it has also 
opened up whole new approaches to shady dealings and unfair business 
practices, and the public should be protected from these. And while we 
continue to work to prevent these occurrences, we must also work to 
ensure that existing consumer protection laws function as they were 
intended, and do not produce unintended or unfair results against 
either consumers or companies.
  My colleague, Senator Gramm, has taken a keen interest in these 
issues as they are embodied in the Private Security Litigation Reform 
Act signed into law during the 104th Congress. Senator Gramm has led 
the Securities Subcommittee in reviewing the effectiveness of this law, 
and he and his fellow Subcommittee members have found it to be 
insufficient in some areas dealing with class-action suits, 
particularly those brought in state rather than federal courts, and 
those in which a valid cause of action has been fraudulently or 
inadequately presented.
  Although frivolous security class actions are a particular problem 
for the high-tech industry, to the extent consumers have been harmed 
the industry must be held accountable. Therefore, the issue of 
securities reform is deserving of debate in the Senate.

[[Page S4686]]

  Mr. President, these four bills, although apparently so different, do 
have a unifying thread just as old and new methods of communicating are 
united by a common concern. Whether we are talking about telephones or 
advanced computer technology, analog or digital, data or video, our 
laws must be sure that all segments of the telecommunications industry 
respond to the consumers' needs, respect consumers' rights, and provide 
the services America needs to take us into the unimaginably exciting 
and challenging future that lies before us.
  These bills are the first of a series of legislative initiatives the 
Senate will consider this session that together are intended to achieve 
these goals.
  Mr. President, with that, I conclude the overview of these four 
bills.
  Mr. President, concerning S. 1618, the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act, 
consumers across the country are unfortunately all too familiar with a 
practice known as ``slamming.'' Slamming is the unauthorized changing 
of a consumer's long-distance telephone company. It is a problem that 
continues to harm consumers despite efforts at the Federal and State 
level to fight it. That is why we need to ensure the passage of the 
slamming legislation that I have introduced. The distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, who serves as the ranking member 
of the Senate Commerce Committee, joins me in cosponsoring this bill. I 
thank him for his invaluable assistance in developing this important 
piece of legislation to restore and safeguard consumer rights. I also 
thank the other cosponsors of this bill: Senators Lott, Snowe, Reed, 
Frist, Bryan, Dorgan, Johnson, Harkin, Kerry, Inouye, Abraham, Baucus, 
Smith, and Bob Smith, for joining me in this effort.
  Mr. President, slamming isn't just persisting, it is increasing. 
Slamming complaints are the fastest growing category of complaints 
reported to the Federal Communications Commission, having more than 
tripled in numbers since 1994. Last year, 44,000 consumers filed 
slamming complaints with the FCC. That is a 175 percent increase from 
the 16,000 complaints the FCC received in 1996.
  The extent of the slamming problem is even worse than indicated by 
the number of complaints filed at the FCC. According to the National 
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, slamming is now the 
most common consumer complaint received by many State consumer 
advocates. It has been estimated that as many as 1 million consumers 
are switched annually to a different long-distance telephone company 
without their consent. The severity of the slamming problem was 
exemplified just days ago by a new report that 4,800 residents of one 
small town in Washington State, about 70 percent of the town, were 
slammed at one time.
  For several years, the FCC has attempted unsuccessfully to deter 
slamming, yet aggressive long-distance telemarketers continue to 
mislead consumers.
  On April 21st, the Federal Communications Commission imposed a $5.7 
million fine on a small long-distance company that had been slamming 
consumers for years. While this is by far the largest fine the FCC has 
ever levied for this offense, the FCC took action only after receiving 
over 1,400 complaints about this company over the course of 2 years, 
and by now the slammer has disappeared. This instance shows yet again 
that the FCC's current rules are completely ineffective in preventing 
slamming.
  S. 1618 is a bill designed to stop slamming once and for all. This 
legislation establishes stringent antislamming safeguards as well as 
stringent civil and criminal penalties that will discourage this 
practice. It prescribes definitive procedures for carriers to follow 
when making carrier changes, provides a menu of remedies for consumers 
that have been slammed and gives Federal and State authorities the 
power to impose tough sanctions, including high fines and compensatory 
punitive damages.
  Mr. President, these measures, in addition to those that the States 
may develop, will ensure that consumers are afforded adequate 
protection against slamming. In light of the seriousness and scope of 
the slamming problem, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the AARP, 
along with a Monday, May 11 article in USA Today be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                         AARP,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1998.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The American Association of Retired 
     Persons (AARP) commends you for introducing S. 1618, a bill 
     to improve the protection of consumers against the 
     unauthorized switching of long distance telephone service 
     providers. According to the FCC, this practice known as 
     ``slamming,'' is the fastest growing consumer complaint in 
     telecommunications. We believe that the provisions in your 
     bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to curtail 
     ``slamming'' are good for consumers.
       S. 1618 includes most of the elements necessary to close 
     off loopholes in the existing law that make telephone 
     subscribers vulnerable to fraudulent or deceptive practices. 
     Key provisions would:
       Define switching verification procedures--requiring the 
     telecommunications carrier to receive a series of 
     affirmations from the subscriber prior to verifying the 
     switch;
       Preclude the use of negative option marketing--ending this 
     onerous practice of switching subscribers for failure to tell 
     the carrier that they are not interested;
       Require a detailed, written notice of change to 
     subscriber--notify the subscriber in writing, within 15 days 
     after the change, of the change, the date on which the change 
     was effected and the name of the individual who authorized 
     the change;
       Award treble damages to wronged parties--providing the FCC 
     with authority in resolving a complaint to increase the 
     amount of the original award times three; and
       Punish violating carriers with severe first and second 
     offense fines--imposing fines of not less than $40,000 for 
     the first offense and not less than $150,000 for each 
     subsequent offense, a substantial deterrent to violating 
     carriers.
       AARP believes that, as competition develops throughout the 
     telecommunications industry, all telephone carriers should be 
     subject to provisions similar to these. We also believe that 
     the issues attendant to the practice of ``cramming'' need to 
     be addressed in the near future. We look forward to working 
     with you toward that goal. In the meantime, the provisions of 
     this bill move consumer protections in the right direction. 
     The Association stands ready to work with you as you seek 
     final passage of this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Horace B. Deets,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


                     [From USA TODAY, May 11, 1998]

                   Callers Fall Victim to Telcom War


            complaints of slamming, phony charges skyrocket

                          (By Steve Rosenbush)

       New York.--Jean Franklin, a Salem, Ore., homemaker, was 
     billed last year for several hundred dollars worth of adult-
     chat phone calls.
       American Billing & Collection sent the invoices to her 
     home, but the calls--which eventually totaled $1,100--were 
     billed to a telephone number she and her husband, Kenneth, 
     canceled years earlier when they moved.
       She'd been ``crammed''--billed for a phone service she 
     never bought.
       ``I was surprised, but I thought it was a mistake that 
     could be easily corrected,'' Franklin says. Instead, American 
     Billing, which declined to comment for this story, eventually 
     turned the matter over to a collection agency.
       Her credit report marred by reported bad debt, Franklin 
     complained to the California attorney general's office and 
     the Federal Trade Commission. Last month, regulators filed 
     charges in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles accusing 
     American Billing and two other phone companies of using 
     deceptive and unfair practices to bill people for adult-chat 
     services. But the bad debt is still on Franklin's record.
       It's a tale from the trenches of the telecom wars, where 
     millions of consumers like Franklin are suffering the 
     collateral damage. Armies of companies have poured into the 
     increasingly deregulated $200 billion U.S. market, 
     overwhelming the limited resources of regulators with 
     aggressive and sometimes illegal practices.
       Desperate for a tactical advantage, other companies are 
     rushing to market with innovative products and services that 
     sometimes don't work. Make an evening phone call on a 
     congested network, such as the one in Los Angeles, and seven 
     times out of 100 it won't go through on the first attempt, 
     says Bellcore, a telecommunications research company. AT&T 
     says users of its directory assistance get the number they 
     ask for only nine out of 10 times. Buy a prepaid calling 
     card, and there's a good chance the call won't go through. 
     Many of the basic services and products that people took for 
     granted in the monopoly era simply don't work--or don't work 
     well--today. Annual telephone-related complaints and 
     inquiries have soared more than tenfold since 1990; the 
     Federal Communications Commission logged 44,035 in 1997 
     alone.

[[Page S4687]]

       ``Here is the dark side of competition and choice,'' says 
     FCC Chairman William Kennard. ``Sure, life was easier when 
     they had no choice,'' Kennard says. ``But that is not what 
     consumers want.''
       Or is it?
       Long-distance rates have fallen 60% since the 1984 
     dismantling of AT&T, and consumers can choose from hundreds 
     of new carriers. ``But it was a lot easier to use the phone 
     before they broke up AT&T. And I don't think you really save 
     that much money now because companies charge you for other 
     things,'' says Alan Kohn of Woodbridge, N.J., who was 
     dismayed when he couldn't find a pay phone that accepted his 
     calling card.
       Statistics from phone companies, consumer advocates and 
     state and federal regulators don't begin to capture the depth 
     of consumer frustration with phone services.


                          headaches everywhere

       Directory assistance costs more, often requires a wait, and 
     increasingly provides wrong numbers. The toll on callers is 
     more than $50 million a year if just 5% of the 1.5 billion 
     long-distance information calls are inaccurate. Not to 
     mention the frustration of dealing with computer-generated 
     voices instead of operators. Carriers like AT&T blame local 
     phone companies that won't share their databases of names and 
     phone numbers.
       Prepaid calling cards, ``On the whole, they are worth it,'' 
     says Dan Singhani, 45, a newsstand owner in Manhattan who 
     uses them several times a week to call relatives in India and 
     Hong Kong. ``But some cards don't work. . . . Or you are 
     talking and the line is disconnected.''
       Pay phone charges. Muriel Flore thought she was using her 
     calling card when she stopped during an interstate trip to 
     call her vet and check on her sick cat. She was stunned 
     several weeks later when Oncor Communications billed her more 
     than $12 for the five-minute call. Oncor agreed to cancel the 
     bill after Flore complained to the FCC. The company did not 
     return phone calls for this story.
       Fragile phones. A micro-processor-driven telephone ruined 
     by just a drop of water that seeps through the keypad.


                              ``slammed''

       By far, the bulk of consumer complaints to the FCC are 
     about slamming: switching a customer's long-distance service 
     without permission. Last year, the FCC received more than 
     20,000 complaints. But the actual incidence of slamming is 
     much higher. AT&T alone says 500,000 of its 80 million 
     residential customers were slammed last year.
       ``I resented the fact that I had been changed without 
     notice,'' says Jim Pringle of Pittsboro, N.C. ``But what I 
     resented almost more was that somebody benefited from the lag 
     between when it occurred and when I realized it.''
       Ronald J. Carboni thinks a disgruntled neighbor, playing a 
     prank, switched his phone service from Sprint to National 
     Telephone & Communications. Carboni, 52, was charged $8.92, a 
     fee National immediately dropped once notified of the 
     problem. Records show someone had forged Carboni's name as 
     ``Batboni.'' National never confirmed the order.
       Lawmakers and regulators are cracking down, though slamming 
     complaints represent only a fraction of the 50 million 
     changes that consumers made in their long-distance service 
     last year. Last month the FCC levied the biggest slamming 
     fine in history, a $5.7 million penalty against the Fletcher 
     Cos., run by a 30-year-old fugitive named Daniel Fletcher. 
     The FCC has vowed to increase penalties and force companies 
     to return money they collect from slamming victims. In 
     California, a new law requires long-distance carriers to hire 
     a third party to authenticate every request for service 
     changes.
       The phone companies are policing themselves, too. AT&T 
     filed lawsuits in March against three independent sales 
     agents it suspected of the problem. AT&T says agents who 
     account for less than 5% of the company's consumer long-
     distance sales were responsible for about two-thirds of 
     slamming complaints against AT&T.


                           billed and bilked

       Scams are multiplying as deregulation spreads. Complaints 
     of cramming--cases like that of Jean Franklin--are the newest 
     twists, and they are soaring.
       A host of small, independent companies are billing 
     customers--sometimes on their local phone bills--for 
     information services, such as horoscopes and sports scores, 
     that they didn't order. Some people are billed at random; 
     others are the victims of carelessness and error by carriers 
     and billing companies.
       The FCC has processed 1,123 complaints of cramming since it 
     began tracking them last December. And last week, Bell 
     Atlantic cracked down on cramming, in effect saying that it 
     would no longer allow 20 smaller companies to place their 
     charges on Bell Atlantic bills.
       The company, which serves more than 41 million customers 
     from Virginia to Maine, said it is receiving hundreds of 
     complaints a day and that more than 80% are legitimate.
       Floyd Brown's cramming case is typical. Brown, 76, of 
     Carlsbad, Calif., said American billing charged his mother 
     earlier this year for $44.55 worth of information services it 
     said she had purchased over the phone. ``She had been dead 
     for a year and a half,'' Brown says.
       And Franklin and her husband are still struggling to 
     resolve their dispute with the company. The bad debt remains 
     on their credit reports, and shame has kept them from 
     applying for loans to buy a new car and a new house. ``It's 
     not going to be over until that item is removed from our 
     credit report,'' Franklin says.

  Mr. McCAIN. The AARP writes:

       The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) commends 
     you for introducing S. 1618, a bill to improve the protection 
     of consumers against the unauthorized switching of long 
     distance telephone service providers. According to the FCC, 
     this practice, known as ``slamming'' is the fastest growing 
     consumer complaint in telecommunications. We believe that the 
     provisions in your bill to amend the Communications Act of 
     1934 to curtail ``slamming'' are good for consumers.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       AARP believes that, as competition develops throughout the 
     telecommunications industry, all telephone carriers should be 
     subject to provisions similar to these. We also believe that 
     the issues attendant the practice of ``cramming'' need to be 
     addressed in the near future. We look forward to working with 
     you toward that goal. In the meantime, the provisions of this 
     bill move consumer protections in the right direction. The 
     Association stands ready to work with you as you seek final 
     passage of this important piece of legislation.

  Mr. President, yesterday there was an article in the USA Today which 
is included in the Record, and it says: ``Callers fall victim to 
telecom war, complaints of slamming, phony charges skyrocket.''

       Jean Franklin, a Salem, Ore., homemaker, was billed last 
     year for several hundred dollars worth of adult-chat phone 
     calls.
       American Billing & Collection sent the invoices to her 
     home, but the calls--which eventually totaled $1,100--were 
     billed to a telephone number she and her husband, Kenneth, 
     canceled years earlier when they moved.
       She'd been ``crammed''--billed for a phone service she 
     never bought.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Long-distance rates have fallen 60% since the 1984 
     dismantling of AT&T, and consumers can choose from hundreds 
     of new carriers. ``But it was a lot easier to use the phone 
     before they broke up AT&T . . .,'' says Allan Kohn . . . who 
     was dismayed when he couldn't find a pay phone that accepted 
     his calling card.

  Mr. President, by far the bulk of consumer complaints at the FCC are 
about slamming, switching consumers long-distance service without 
permission. And it goes on to talk about the 20,000 complaints.
  AT&T alone says 500,000 of its 80 million residential customers were 
slammed last year.

       ``I resented the fact that I had been changed without 
     notice,'' says Jim Pringle of Pittsboro, N.C. ``But what I 
     resented almost more was that somebody benefited from the lag 
     between when it occurred and when I realized it.''

  Mr. President, I recognize on the floor Senator Collins who has been 
heavily involved in this issue. And after Senator Dorgan speaks, I 
think she will seek to address her amendment. But I want to thank her 
for her involvement in this issue, the hearings that she held in her 
subcommittee and the enormous contributions she has made in causing 
this bill to progress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me add my congratulations to Senator 
Collins on the work that she has done, and certainly to the Senator 
from Arizona, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings. Senator Hollings 
has asked me to be present for him. He is tending to other Senate 
business at the moment.
  This is an important piece of legislation. We appreciate very much 
the bipartisan work that was done to bring it to the floor of the 
Senate.
  I would like to just, for a couple of moments, give an overview of 
where we are and then bring it to this piece of legislation--and I will 
be rather brief--after which I will be interested in hearing from the 
Senator from Maine as well.
  The breathtaking changes in telecommunications and in the 
telecommunications industry in recent years have been quite remarkable. 
No one could have anticipated what we would see in technology and in 
opportunities that exist from the changing technology.
  I, in a speech some while ago, held up a vacuum tube, a small vacuum 
tube that we are all familiar with, and then I held up next to it a 
little computer

[[Page S4688]]

chip that was about one-half the size of my little fingernail, and I 
said, ``The little computer chip equals 5 million vacuum tubes.'' 
Sometimes we forget to equate what is happening in these little chips 
and in their power and in their capability, but it is really quite 
remarkable what has happened to speed, storage density, memory and all 
the other things that relate to these breakthroughs.
  The CEO of one of the large companies, IBM as a matter of fact, in a 
report to the annual meeting that I had read, I guess, about 6 or 8 
months ago, talked about the research they are doing in the area of 
storage density, which kind of relates to all this technology. And I 
was struck by what he said. He said we were on the verge of a 
breakthrough with respect to storage density, such that the time was 
near, he thought, when we would be able to store all of the volumes of 
work at the Library of Congress, which represents the largest volume of 
recorded human history anywhere on Earth--we would be able to store all 
of that, 14 million volumes of work, on a wafer the size of a penny.

  Think of that--carrying around in your pocket to slip into a laptop a 
wafer the size of a penny that contains 14 million volumes of work. 
Unthinkable? No. It is where technology is heading.
  In my little high school, where I graduated in a class of nine, we 
had a library the size of a coat closet. That high school now has 
access to the largest libraries in the world through the Internet. All 
of this is made possible by the breakthroughs in technology and the 
telecommunications industry and the development of the information 
superhighway. Many of us are very concerned, as public policy develops 
in all of these areas, that we make certain that the benefits of all of 
this are available to all Americans, that the on-ramps and off-ramps 
for the information superhighway, yes, stop even in my hometown, in my 
small county.
  So as we develop legislation such as the Telecommunications Act, 
which Congress passed a couple years ago, and try to evaluate what 
kinds of policy guidance we can give as this industry grows, it is very 
important that we do this right.
  I might say, as I begin, that I am concerned about universal service, 
about the availability of universal service--especially in telephone 
service--in the years ahead, in the high-cost areas and rural areas of 
our country. I hope very much that the Federal Communications 
Commission will make a U-turn with respect to some of the policy 
decisions they have made which I think threaten universal service in 
the future. There is still time for them to make some recalculations 
and some different policy judgments. I have met with Chairman Kennard 
and others, and I hope very much that they will make some different 
judgments than what we saw from the previous Chairman of the FCC, which 
I think will implement the Telecommunications Act, which is very 
detrimental to high-cost areas and rural areas of the country. We are 
going to debate that more in the months and years ahead.
  Let me talk specifically about the telecommunications area that does 
work and works well. One of the areas that works and provides the 
fruits and benefits of competition to virtually every American is the 
competition in long-distance telephone service. This is an area--long-
distance telephone service--in which there is robust, aggressive 
competition. Anywhere you look, you will find a telephone company 
engaged in selling long-distance service. If you don't think so, just 
sit down for dinner some night, and somebody will give you a cold call 
from an office somewhere in a State far away, and they will be trying 
to sell you their long-distance service. They apparently only dial at 
mealtime--at least into our home. But I think every American is 
familiar with these telephone calls--``Won't you take our long-distance 
service?'' As I indicated, up to 500 companies are robustly competing 
for the consumer dollar. What has happened to the cost of long-distance 
service? It has gone down, down, down. That represents the fruit and 
the benefit of good competition.
  But one other thing has happened with respect to this competition. As 
is the case where there is robust competition, there are also some bad 
actors. In this case, ``bad actors'' means that people get involved in 
this business of trying to sell a long-distance service to a customer 
that already has a long-distance provider but decides they are going to 
sell it the shortcut way--they are not even going to ask the consumer 
whether they want to change providers. Through sleight of hand, they 
are going to engage in a technological stealing of sorts; they are 
going to switch someone's long-distance service and not tell them about 
it. That is, in fact, stealing; that is, in fact, a criminal act. One 
might ask, is that happening a lot? Yes, it is happening a lot.
  Here is a story about the king of slammers. I was trying to evaluate 
where this word ``slammer'' came from. Frankly, nobody knows where the 
word ``slammer'' came from. But the definition of ``slammer,'' as it is 
used in this context, is someone who goes in and changes someone else's 
long-distance carrier without telling them and without authorization. 
It is stealing. It is criminal.
  The king of slammers is Daniel Fletcher. Let me cite him as an 
example. The head of the FCC, William Kennard, said, ``This is truly a 
bad actor. He is a felon who clearly had intent to violate the FCC's 
rules, and we're hitting him hard.'' But not too hard, because they 
haven't found him. He changed a half-million people's long-distance 
carrier, and he, apparently, made $20 million. Is that stealing? Yes. 
Is that petty cash? No; that is grand theft. The fact is, that goes on 
across the country all too often.
  Yesterday, Mr. President, on the floor, I held a clipping from the 
newspaper in North Dakota. It just so happened that, coincidentally, 
the North Dakota papers had a story that said that the North Dakota 
Attorney General had been the victim of slamming. Someone had decided 
to change the attorney general's long-distance carrier without asking 
her.

  Now, am I suggesting that slammers are stupid? Well, not always. They 
certainly seem to steal a lot of money. But is it a stupid slammer that 
decides they are going to change the long-distance service of an 
attorney general of a State without telling them? Yes, that is pretty 
stupid. But this is not about being stupid or funny, it is about 
stealing. The hearings that were held by Senator Collins, and others, 
and the work done has been to respond to a very real problem that is 
significant.
  Now, the FCC complaints about this slamming--the unauthorized change 
of a long-distance service--increased from 2,000 five years ago, to 
20,000 last year. The FCC indicates that there is a substantial amount 
of slamming going on, evidenced by the complaints to the FCC. The GAO 
did a report that, in fact, was rather critical of the FCC's 
enforcement on these slamming issues, saying that the antislamming 
measures ``do little to protect the consumers from slamming.''
  We have a problem; yet, we are not able to solve that problem with 
the regulatory agency, either because it is not doing what it ought to 
do, it doesn't exert enough energy, or perhaps it doesn't have enough 
authority. But whatever the reason--and it might be a combination of 
all of those reasons --this problem is not going away; it is growing 
much, much worse.
  In 1997, with 20,000 complaints, the FCC obtained only 9 consent 
decrees from companies nationwide that paid a total of $1.2 million in 
fines because of slamming. In the same year, California, by comparison, 
suspended one firm for 3 years because of slamming, and fined it $2 
million, and ordered it to repay another $2 million to its customers. 
One State, the State of California, did far more than the FCC. I hope 
that this piece of legislation we will pass will give the FCC the 
authority, energy, and resources to join us and do what we must do to 
respond to this slamming.
  Now, let me read what the legislation does. It strengthens the 
antislamming laws and requires the FCC to establish the following 
consumer protections:
  One, it prohibits a carrier from changing a local subscriber's long-
distance service, unless the carrier follows the minimum verification 
procedures prescribed by the FCC--sets up specific procedures that must 
be followed.
  Two, it requires carriers to keep an oral, written, or electronic 
record of a subscriber authorizing a change in their carrier.

[[Page S4689]]

  Three, it requires a carrier to send a written notification to the 
consumer informing them of the changed service within 15 days of the 
change in service.
  Four, it requires carriers to provide consumers with the information 
and procedures necessary to file a complaint at the FCC.
  Five, it requires carriers to provide slammed customers with any 
evidence that authorized that change.
  It allows the complaint process to impose stiff penalties, up to 
$150,000, and a range of other important issues that I think will give 
us much more enforcement against this slamming process and the slamming 
practice across the country.
  Once again, let me conclude by saying that this is not some minor 
nuisance issue; this is an issue in which some have taken advantage of 
consumers who are the victims. It is true that the company that has 
been changed is also a victim, a company that was serving a customer 
and is now not serving the customer.
  But the ultimate victim here are the consumers who only understand 
later after they have taken a look at a bill somewhere and discover 
they are the ones that have been victimized.
  This bill also, incidentally, would prohibit some other practices 
that are deceptive. There are a whole range of practices that have 
allowed people or persuaded people to sign a coupon in exchange for 
having an opportunity or a chance to get something, or get a free door 
prize, or get some sort of free gift. So you sign this little coupon. 
On the bottom in tiny little script it tells you that despite the fact 
that you have never read it, you have just signed away and changed your 
long-distance carrier. That is cheating. Where I come from, and I think 
where all of us come from, when you cheat and steal, somebody ought to 
be after you to get you.
  That is exactly what we want to have happen with respect to the 
enforcement against this kind of behavior and practice that is making 
victims of millions of Americans all across the country.
  This one fellow took one-half million households, changed their long-
distance carrier, got $20 million into an income stream into shell 
corporations that he set up, and now he is gone. What does this mean? 
It means that one-half million Americans were cheated. This fellow 
stole from not only the companies but especially the Americans who 
expected to have a long-distance service they had contracted for and 
discovered someone else changed it.
  Let me again, as I began, say thank you to Senator Collins to Senator 
McCain, and to Senator Hollings and so many other. I am a cosponsor of 
this, as are a good number of our colleagues in the Senate, because it 
is good legislation and will do the right thing for consumers in this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dorgan for his kind 
remarks but also for his very clear and concise depiction of the issue 
that we are addressing. I think it is important that the record reflect 
the entirety of his remarks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee 
amendments be agreed to and considered as original text for purpose of 
further amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation 
that is necessary to stem the tide of one of the most annoying anti-
consumer practices, known as slamming. Slamming occurs when a preferred 
telecommunications service provider of the consumer is changed without 
the consent of the consumer. This legislation enhances the verification 
and other procedures that carriers must use to ensure that the consumer 
consents to the change in its service provider. It also enhances the 
enforcement authority of the FCC, the Department of Justice, and the 
State attorneys general and imposes greater penalties and fines to 
address the problem of slamming.
  Slamming is not a new problem. Many consumers have been victims of 
slamming, suddenly discovering that their phone service is no longer 
being provided by their carrier of choice. Instead, it is being 
provided by an unauthorized carrier. We've all had the sales calls 
interrupt us at the dinner table. Regardless of what the FCC does, the 
problem persists.
  In a recent USA TODAY article, the FCC said it received 12,000 
consumer complaints about slamming during the first half of 1997. In 
1996, it received more than 16,000 total slamming complaints. In its 
Fall 1996 Common Carrier Scorecard, the FCC stated that slamming was 
the top consumer complaint category handled by the Enforcement 
Division's Consumer Protection Branch. It also stated that slamming 
complaints were the fastest-growing category of complaints, increasing 
more than six-fold between 1993 and 1995. In its 1997 Common Carrier 
Scorecard, the FCC indicated that nine companies accused of slamming 
have entered into consent decrees and have agreed to make payments to 
the United States Treasury totaling $1,245,000. The FCC has also issued 
two Notices of Forfeitures with combined forfeiture penalties of 
$160,000. Nonetheless, slamming continues to be a significant problem.
  The provisions we introduce today will hopefully stop this practice 
of slamming once and for all. The legislation places new 
responsibilities on carriers for the benefit of consumers. For example, 
often times, a consumer is slammed and does not know it until the next 
telephone bill arrives. Sometimes, unscrupulous carriers provide 
service to slammed customers for a considerable time before the 
customer becomes aware of the unauthorized switch. To prevent this, the 
legislation requires that whenever there is a change in the 
subscriber's carrier, the carrier must notify the subscriber of the 
change within 15 days. A carrier has 120 days to resolve a slamming 
complaint. If the carrier is unable to resolve the complaint within the 
required timeframe, then the carrier must notify the consumer of his or 
her right to file a complaint with the FCC. The FCC is required to 
resolve a slamming complaint it receives within 150 days.

  The bill also requires a carrier to retain evidence of the consumer's 
authorization to switch carriers and to inform the consumer of their 
rights to pursue a resolution of the matter with the Federal 
Communications Commission and with State authorities. Requiring 
carriers to store information will make it easier to resolve slamming 
disputes that arise between the consumer and the carrier. Armed with 
information on how to resolve slamming disputes, we hope that consumers 
will pursue their available recourse and help us hold carriers 
accountable for their illegal actions.
  In addition, the bill creates a variety of causes of actions and 
imposes still penalties on carriers. If a carrier violates FCC rules, 
the FCC can award the greater of actual damages or $500 and has the 
discretion to award treble damages. If there are no mitigating 
circumstances, the FCC is required to impose on the carrier a 
forfeiture of $40,000 or more for the first offense and not less than 
$150,000 for each subsequent offense. If a company fails to pay a 
forfeiture, the FCC can limit, deny, or revoke the company's operating 
authority. Where the slammer's actions have been willful, the 
Department of Justice can bring an action to impose fines in accordance 
with Title 18, United States Code and imprison the person who submits 
or executes a change in willful violation of Section 258. In addition, 
State attorneys general can bring actions in federal court to: impose 
criminal sanctions and penalties under Title 18 U.S. Code; recover 
actual damages or $500 in damages; and recover fines of $40,000 or more 
for first offenses and not less than $150,000 for subsequent offenses 
unless there are mitigating circumstances. Finally, this bill gives the 
FCC authority to pursue billing agents when they place charges on a 
consumers bill that they know the consumer has not authorized.
  Slamming is a troublesome problem. Slamming eliminates a consumer's 
ability to chose his or her service provider. It distorts 
telecommunications markets by enabling companies engaged in misleading 
practices to increase their customer base, revenues,

[[Page S4690]]

and profitability through illegal means. Today hundreds of long 
distance carriers compete for a consumer's business. If slamming is not 
addressed effectively today, it could become much more worrisome. The 
changes in the telecommunications industry will probably result in a 
future in which local and long distance phone services are provided by 
an even greater number of carriers.
  It is therefore important that we eliminate the practice of slamming. 
Consumers have the right to choose their own phone companies when they 
choose. A consumer's choice should not be curtailed by the illegal 
actions of bad industry actors and a consumer should not have to spend 
a significant amount of time addressing issues of slamming. I expect 
that requirements placed by this bill will help to eliminate slamming. 
My actions with respect to slamming reflect my continued efforts to 
protect consumers as I have in the past supported legislation which 
successfully addressed the problem of junk fax and ensure that 
companies engage in proper telemarketing practices.
  I welcome my colleagues in joining Senator McCain and I as we address 
the problem of slamming and ensure that no one is allowed to curtail a 
consumer's choice of phone service provider.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield such time to the Senator from Maine as she may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to start by complimenting the 
chairman of the Commerce Committee for his outstanding leadership in 
dealing with a very important consumer issue, and that is telephone 
slamming.
  I also want to commend the Senator from North Dakota for his very 
eloquent explanation of the problem and the solutions.
  Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S. 1618, 
legislation that will provide America's consumers with much needed 
protection against a fraudulent practice known as slamming--the 
unauthorized switching of a customer's telephone service provider. I 
want to commend Senator McCain and Hollings for taking steps to attack 
this rapidly growing problem.
  Telephone slamming is spreading like wildfire. In Maine, complaints 
increased by 100 percent from 1996 to 1997. Nationwide, slamming is the 
number one telephone-related complaint. While the FCC received more 
than 20,000 slamming complaints in 1997, a significant increase over 
the previous year, estimates from phone companies indicate that as many 
as one million people were slammed during that 12-month period.
  Last fall, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I 
chair, undertook an extensive investigation of this problem. At a field 
hearing this past February in Portland, Maine, at which I was joined by 
Senator Durbin, one of the leaders in the fight against slamming, we 
heard from several consumers who were victimized by this practice. 
Their words reflect the public attitude toward the intentional slammer, 
as they described what happened to them as ``stealing,'' ``criminal,'' 
and ``break-in.''
  My Subcommittee recently held a second hearing, which revealed that a 
number of what are known as switchless resellers were responsible for a 
large percentage of the intentional slamming incidents. These 
operations use deceptive marketing practices and outright fraud to 
switch consumers' long distance service without their consent.
  One recent victim was a hospital in western Maine. This demonstrates 
that no one is immune from this despicable practice.
  Mr. President, our hearings presented a case that dramatically shows 
the need for tougher sanctions to deal with this problem. I refer to an 
individual by the name of Daniel Fletcher, who fraudulently operated as 
a long distance reseller under at least eight different company names, 
slamming thousands of consumers, and billing them for at least $20 
million in long distance charges. While we were struck by the ease with 
which Mr. Fletcher carried out his activities and evaded detection, we 
were shocked to learn about the absence of adequate criminal sanctions 
to deal with his activities.

  Mr. Fletcher bilked America's telephone customers out of millions of 
dollars by charging them for services they did not authorize and 
obtaining from them money to which he was not entitled. Yet, we lack a 
statute that expressly makes intentional slamming a crime, and unless 
that is corrected, we can expect many more Fletchers. Mr. President, 
the time has come for the United States Congress to disconnect the 
telephone slammers.
  Given our concern about this problem, Senator Durbin and I introduced 
slamming legislation, and I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings 
for agreeing to incorporate its three main provisions into a Manager's 
Amendment to their bill. These additions will help make a good bill 
even better.
  The first of these provisions will get tough with the outright scam 
artists by establishing new criminal penalties for intentional 
slamming. I should emphasize that these penalties will apply only to 
those who know that they are acting without the customer's 
authorization and not to those who make an honest mistake or even act 
carelessly. It's time we sent the deliberate slammer to the slammer. In 
addition, anyone convicted of intentional slamming will be disqualified 
from being a telecommunications service provider, thereby enabling us 
not only to punish past conduct but also to prevent future violations.
  The second provision is designed to remove the financial incentive 
for companies to engage in slamming by giving slammed customers the 
option to pay their original carrier at their previous rate. Under 
current law, it appears that customers are obligated to pay the slammer 
even after they discover they have been switched without their consent. 
That hardly acts as a deterrent, something that must be changed.
  The third provision will improve enforcement by requiring all 
telecommunications carriers to report slamming violations on a 
quarterly basis to the FCC. To avoid putting a burden on the carriers, 
the report need only be summary in nature, but it will enable the FCC 
to identify and move against the frequent slammer.
  Deregulation of the telephone industry may produce many benefits for 
consumers but it also has given rise to fraud where it did not 
previously exist. It was Congress who decided to deregulate the 
industry, and it is Congress that must act to stop this fraud. Senate 
bill 1618 will move us in that direction by putting a big dent in 
telephone slamming and by protecting the right of the American people 
to choose with whom they wish to do business.
  Again, I very much appreciate the cooperation of the distinguished 
chairman of the Commerce Committee and his willingness to accept the 
Collins-Durbin amendments.
  I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins again. We look 
forward to working with her on other issues that are as 
noncontroversial as these, as opposed to campaign finance reform which 
generated much more concern. But I seriously want to note the hard work 
that Senator Collins devoted in her subcommittee to this issue. It was 
very important. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 2389

   (Purpose: To provide a substitute that incorporates the Committee 
   amendments and additional changes in the bill as reported by the 
                               committee)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the incorporation at this time 
of the managers' amendment to S. 1618. I ask unanimous consent that it 
be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for himself and Mr. 
     Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 2389.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment (No. 2389) is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr President, this amendment defines ``subscriber'' in a 
way that allows the person named on the billing statement or account, 
or

[[Page S4691]]

those authorized by such a person, to consent to carrier changes.
  It clarifies that the time period the FCC prescribes for a carrier to 
resolve a slamming complaint, which is not to exceed 120 days, applies 
when a carrier receives notice directly from the subscriber of the 
complaint.
  It makes clear that if a carrier does not resolve a complaint within 
the period prescribed by the Commission, it must notify the subscriber 
in writing of the subscriber's rights and remedies only under Section 
258 of the Communications Act, not under any other law.
  It clarifies that the FCC may dispose of a slamming complaint within 
the 150-day period established in the bill by issuing a ``decision or 
ruling.'' The FCC will not be required to issue a formal ``order'' each 
time it resolves a complaint. It also clarifies that the 150-day period 
in the bill is intended to be used by the FCC to determine if slamming 
has occurred, and if slamming has occurred, the FCC has another 90 
days, if such additional time is necessary, to determine what damages 
and penalties should be assessed.
  In discussing the amount of damages that may be awarded by the FCC, 
the original bill referred to the FCC as ``resolving a complaint.'' 
This change removes that language and the implication that ``resolving 
a complaint'' requires a finding of a violation of the slamming rules. 
It states that the FCC may award damages only if slamming has occurred.
  It allows state Attorneys General to bring an action for each alleged 
slamming violation to enjoin unauthorized changes and to recover 
damages, to bring an action to seek criminal sanctions for willful 
violations, and to bring an action to seek a penalty of not less than 
$40,000 for the first slamming offense and not less than $150,000 for 
each subsequent offense. A court may reduce the amount of these 
penalties if it determines that there are mitigating circumstances 
involved. The district courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over 
all of these actions.
  It clarifies that states are not preempted from imposing more 
restrictive requirements, regulations, damages, and penalties on 
unauthorized changes in a subscriber's telephone exchange service or 
telephone toll service provider than are imposed under Section 258 of 
the Communication Act, as amended by this bill.
  It clarifies that when the FCC is resolving slamming complaints, it 
is not instituting a ``civil action.'' In addition, while a particular 
slamming compliant involving a particular carrier is pending before the 
FCC, no state may institute a civil action against the same carrier for 
the same alleged violation.
  It allows the FCC to use the fact of a carrier's nonpayment of a 
forfeiture for a slamming or billing violation as a basis for revoking, 
denying or limiting that carrier's operating authority.
  It imposes duties on all billing agents, both those that are 
telecommunications carriers that render bills to consumers and those 
that operate as billing clearinghouses for carriers. It requires any 
billing agent that issues telephone bills to follow a certain format 
for the bill. The bill must list telecommunications services separately 
from other services and must identify the names of each provider and 
the services they have provided. Billing agents also must provide 
information to enable a consumer to contact a service provider about a 
billing dispute. This provision also prohibits billing agents from 
submitting charges for a consumer's bill if they know or should know 
that the consumer did not authorize such charges or if the charges are 
otherwise improper.
  It given the Commission jurisdiction over billing agents that are not 
telecommunications carriers but provide billing services for such 
carriers or for other companies whose charges appear on telephone 
bills.
  It instructs the FCC to include in the report required by Section 6 
of the bill an examination of telemarketing and other solicitation 
practices, such as contests and sweepstakes, used by carriers to obtain 
carrier changes. The FCC also is required to study whether a third 
party should verify carrier changes and whether an independent third 
party should administer carrier changes. This provision will address 
concerns about the possibility of anti-competitive behavior by the 
local phone companies once they start to provide long-distance service. 
Enforcement of slamming rules will remain the responsibility of the 
FCC.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send, on behalf of Senator Feingold, an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the amendment to the substitute amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before asking for the reading of the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment be 
considered as original text.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2389) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2390

 (Purpose: To authorize the enforcement by State and local governments 
of certain Federal Communications Commission regulations regarding use 
                   of citizens band radio equipment)

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask now for consideration of the amendment by Senator 
Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2390.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS REGARDING CITIZENS BAND 
                   RADIO EQUIPMENT.

       Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     302) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a State or 
     local government may enforce the following regulations of the 
     Commission under this section:
       ``(A) A regulation that prohibits a use of citizens band 
     radio equipment not authorized by the Commission.
       ``(B) A regulation that prohibits the unauthorized 
     operation of citizens band radio equipment on a frequency 
     between 24 MHz and 35 MHz.
       ``(2) Possession of a station license issued by the 
     Commission pursuant to section 301 in any radio service for 
     the operation at issue shall preclude action by a State or 
     local government under this subsection.
       ``(3) The Commission shall provide technical guidance to 
     State and local governments regarding the detection and 
     determination of violations of the regulations specified in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, 
     a person affected by the decision of a State or local 
     government enforcing a regulation under paragraph (1) may 
     submit to the Commission an appeal of the decision on the 
     grounds that the State or local government, as the case may 
     be, acted outside the authority provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) A person shall submit an appeal on a decision of a 
     State or local government to the Commission under this 
     paragraph, if at all, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the decision by the State or local government 
     becomes final.
       ``(C) The Commission shall make a determination on an 
     appeal submitted under subparagraph (B) not later than 180 
     days after its submittal.
       ``(D) If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) 
     that a State or local government has acted outside its 
     authority in enforcing a regulation, the Commission shall 
     reverse the decision enforcing the regulation.
       ``(5) The enforcement of a regulation by a State or local 
     government under paragraph (1) in a particular case shall not 
     preclude the Commission from enforcing the regulation in that 
     case concurrently.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this section over devices capable of 
     interfering with radio communications.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have reviewed the amendment with Senator 
Dorgan, and it is acceptable on both sides. I encourage its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2390) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we take up this important anti-
slamming bill, which of course deals with consumer problems with 
telephone service,

[[Page S4692]]

I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to this amendment to provide a 
practical solution to the all too common problem of interference with 
residential home electronic equipment caused by unlawful use of 
citizens band [CB] radios. I want to thank the Chairman of the 
Committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, 
for agreeing to include this amendment in the slamming bill.
  The problem of CB radio interference can be extremely distressing for 
residents who cannot have a telephone conversation, watch television, 
or listen to the radio without being interrupted by a neighbor's 
illegal use of a CB radio. Unfortunately, under the current law, those 
residents have little recourse. The amendment I offered today will 
provide those residents with a practical solution to this problem.
  Up until recently, the FCC has enforced its rules outlining what 
equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, how long 
transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as 
many other technical requirements. FCC also investigated complaints 
that a CB radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with a neighbor's 
use of home electronic and telephone equipment. FCC receives thousands 
of such complaints annually.
  For the past 3 years, I have worked with constituents who have been 
bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions in 
some cases caused by unlawful use of radio equipment. In each case, the 
constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation of 
the complaint. And in each case, the FCC indicated that due to a lack 
of resources, the Commission no longer investigates radio frequency 
interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the 
FCC is able to provide only self-help information which the consumer 
may use to limit the interference on their own.
  I suppose this situation is understandable given the rising number of 
complaints for things like slamming. The resources of the FCC are 
limited, and there is only so much they can do to address complaints of 
radio interference.
  Nonetheless, this problem is extremely annoying and frustrating to 
those who experience it. In many cases, residents implement the self-
help measures recommended by FCC such as installing filtering devices 
to prevent the unwanted interference, working with their telephone 
company, or attempting to work with the neighbor they believe is 
causing the interference. In many cases these self-help measures are 
effective.
  However, in some cases filters and other technical solutions fail to 
solve the problem because the interference is caused by unlawful use of 
CB radio equipment such as unauthorized linear amplifiers.
  Municipal residents, after being denied investigative or enforcement 
assistance from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town 
government and ask them to police the interference. However, the 
Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal 
Government for the regulation of radio, preempting municipal ordinances 
or State laws to regulate radio frequency interference caused by 
unlawful use of CB radio equipment. This has created an interesting 
dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own 
ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the 
agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the 
very Federal law which preempts them.
  Let me give an example of the kind of frustrations people have 
experienced in attempting to deal with these problems. Shannon Ladwig, 
a resident of Beloit, WI has been fighting to end CB interference with 
her home electronic equipment that has been plaguing her family for 
over a year. Shannon worked within the existing system, asking for an 
FCC investigation, installing filtering equipment on her telephone, 
attempting to work with the neighbor causing the interference, and so 
on. Nothing has been effective.
  Here are some of the annoyances Shannon has experienced. Her 
answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, 
and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone 
when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During 
telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can 
frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are 
inexplicably cut off. Ms. Ladwig's TV transmits audio from the CB 
transmission rather than the television program her family is watching. 
Shannon never knows if the TV program she taped with her VCR will 
actually record the intended program or whether it will contain 
profanity from a nearby CB radio conversation.
  Shannon did everything she could to solve the problem and a year 
later she still feels like a prisoner in her home, unable to escape the 
broadcasting whims of a CB operator using illegal equipment with 
impunity. Shannon even went to her city council to demand action. The 
Beloit City Council responded by passing an ordinance allowing local 
law enforcement to enforce FCC regulations--an ordinance the council 
knows is preempted by Federal law. Last year, the Beloit City Council 
passed a resolution supporting legislation I introduced, S. 608, on 
which my amendment is modeled, which will allow at least part of that 
ordinance to stand.
  The problems experienced by Beloit residents are by no means isolated 
incidents. I have received very similar complaints from at least 10 
other Wisconsin communities in the last several years in which whole 
neighborhoods are experiencing persistent radio frequency interference. 
Since I have begun working on this issue, my staff has also been 
contacted by a number of other congressional offices who are also 
looking for a solution to the problem of radio frequency interference 
in their States or districts caused by unlawful CB use. The city of 
Grand Rapids, MI, in particular, has contacted me about this 
legislation because they face a persistent interference problem very 
similar to that in Beloit. In all, FCC receives more than 30,000 radio 
frequency interference complaints annually--most of which are caused by 
CB radios. Unfortunately, FCC no longer has the staff, resources, or 
the field capability to investigate these complaints and localities are 
blocked from exercising any jurisdiction to provide relief to their 
residents.

  My amendment attempts to resolve this Catch-22, by allowing States 
and localities to enforce existing FCC regulations regarding authorized 
CB equipment and frequencies while maintaining exclusive Federal 
jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. It is a commonsense 
solution to a very frustrating and real problem which cannot be 
addressed under existing law. Residents should not be held hostage to a 
Federal law which purports to protect them but which cannot be 
enforced.
  Now this amendment is by no means a panacea for the problem of radio 
frequency interference. It is intended only to help localities solve 
the most egregious and persistent problems of interference--those 
caused by unauthorized use of CB radio equipment and frequencies. In 
cases where interference is caused by the legal and licensed operation 
of any radio service, residents will need to resolve the interference 
using FCC self-help measures that I mentioned earlier.
  In many cases, interference can result from inadequate home 
electronic equipment immunity from radio frequency interference. Those 
problems can only be resolved by installing filtering equipment and by 
improving the manufacturing standards of home telecommunications 
equipment.
  The electronic equipment manufacturing industry, represented by the 
Telecommunications Industry Association and the Electronics Industry 
Association, working with the Federal Communications Commission, has 
adopted voluntary standards to improve the immunity of telephones from 
interference. Those standards were adopted by the American National 
Standards Institute last year. Manufacturers of electronic equipment 
should be encouraged to adopt these new ANSI standards. Consumers have 
a right to expect that the telephones they purchase will operate as 
expected without excessive levels of interference from legal radio 
transmissions. Of course, Mr. President, these standards assume legal 
operation of radio equipment and cannot protect residents from 
interference from illegal operation of CB equipment.
  This amendment also does not address interference caused by other

[[Page S4693]]

radio services, such as commercial stations or amateur stations. Mr. 
President, last year, I introduced S. 2025, a bill with intent similar 
to that of the amendment I am offering today. The American Radio Relay 
League [ARRL], an organization representing amateur radio operators, 
frequently referred to as ``ham'' operators, raised a number of 
concerns about that legislation. ARRL was concerned that while the bill 
was intended to cover only illegal use of CB equipment, FCC-licensed 
amateur radio operators might inadvertently be targeted and prosecuted 
by local law enforcement. ARRL also expressed concern that local law 
enforcement might not have the technical abilities to distinguish 
between ham stations and CB stations and might not be able to determine 
what CB equipment was FCC-authorized and what equipment is illegal.
  I have worked with the ARRL and amateur operators from Wisconsin to 
address these concerns. As a result of those discussions, this 
amendment incorporates a number of provisions suggested by the league. 
First, the amendment makes clear that the limited enforcement authority 
provided to localities in no way diminishes or affects FCC's exclusive 
jurisdiction over the regulation of radio. Second, the amendment 
clarifies that possession of an FCC license to operate a radio service 
for the operation at issue, such as an amateur station, is a complete 
protection against any local law enforcement action authorized by this 
amendment. Amateur radio enthusiasts are not only individually licensed 
by FCC, unlike CB operators, but they also self-regulate. The ARRL is 
very involved in resolving interference concerns both among their own 
members and between ham operators and residents experiencing problems.
  Third, the amendment also provides for an FCC appeal process by any 
radio operator who is adversely affected by a local law enforcement 
action under this amendment. FCC will make determinations as to whether 
the locality acted properly within the limited jurisdiction this 
legislation provides. The FCC will have the power to reverse the action 
of the locality if local law enforcement acted improperly. And fourth, 
my legislation requires FCC to provide States and localities with 
technical guidance on how to determine whether a CB operator is acting 
within the law.
  Again, Mr. President, my amendment is narrowly targeted to resolve 
persistent interference with home electronic equipment caused by 
illegal CB operation. Under my amendment, localities cannot establish 
their own regulations on CB use. They may only enforce existing FCC 
regulations on authorized CB equipment and frequencies. This amendment 
will not resolve all interference problems and it is not intended to do 
so. Some interference problems need to continue to be addressed by the 
FCC, the telecommunications manufacturing industry, and radio service 
operators. This amendment merely provides localities with the tools 
they need to protect their residents while preserving FCC's exclusive 
regulatory jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services.
  I am very pleased that this amendment has been accepted, and I hope 
it will become law along with the anti-slamming bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have, according to my understanding, an 
amendment by Senator Feinstein, that Senator Dorgan has not had a 
chance to look at but I will ask that he review, which is acceptable. 
And I understand we have an amendment by Senator Rockefeller. I do not 
believe that there are any other amendments that we need to consider 
because we have dispensed with, according to the unanimous consent 
agreement, the Collins-Durbin amendment. We have dispensed with the 
Reed amendment, the Levin amendments, Feingold amendment, and McCain 
amendment, a Hollings amendment, a Harkin amendment, which leaves us 
with the Rockefeller amendment after we dispense with the Feinstein 
amendment.
  So I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  I rise in strong support of S. 1618, the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act 
of 1998, and I particularly commend Chairman McCain and ranking member 
Hollings for the bipartisan and professional manner in which they have 
considered this legislation. I am pleased to have been part of this 
process, and I thank them very much for considering my suggestions to 
improve this legislation.
  Last July 24, again with the assistance of Senators McCain and 
Hollings, I offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which outlined the 
issue involving slamming and proposed several suggested solutions. That 
resolution passed unanimously. Today, I support S. 1681 because it goes 
forward from that resolution to incorporate very pragmatic resolutions 
to the problem of slamming that is confronting so many consumers across 
this country.
  I would also like to thank the National Association of Attorneys 
General as well as the National Association of Regulatory Utilities 
Commissioners for their assistance. These organizations and their 
members are fighting this epidemic of slamming at the State level. They 
are doing a remarkable job, and they were very helpful to me in 
preparing my legislation and helping me understand the scope of this 
problem.
  We have taken great strides in our economy by deregulating many of 
our formerly regulated utilities, particularly the telephone companies, 
but all of that deregulation is for naught if we cannot give consumers 
real valid choice. And the problem with slamming is it denies consumers 
real choice. In effect, it tricks them into making choices that are not 
beneficial to them or collectively to our society and our economy. We 
have to do something about it.
  I am very pleased that this legislation takes very pragmatic and 
effective steps to stop this curse of slamming, the illegal switching 
of telephone services. And this is an enormous problem throughout our 
economy. It threatens to rob many, many consumers of the benefits of 
deregulation and of a free market for services like telephone service. 
The Federal Communications Commission indicates that slamming is their 
No. 1 reported fraud. In my home State of Rhode Island, it is the top 
consumer issue in terms of telephone service and other consumer issues.

  Yet all of these very impressive statistics may be just the tip of 
the iceberg, because press reports indicate that many, many more people 
are victims of slamming, but they do not have either the knowledge or 
the inclination under present rules and regulations to report these 
cases of slamming. Indeed, one regional telephone carrier estimated 
that 1 in 20 changes of telephone service is a result of fraud. 
Slamming is a multimillion-dollar fraud problem, and today, under the 
leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings, we are addressing 
this problem head on.
  One of the aspects of the issue is that there are numerous consumers 
who are unaware of the fact that they are victims. Forty-one percent of 
these individuals, of those who have been affected by slamming, do not 
report the incidents to regulatory authorities or anyone. When a 
complaint is logged, it is usually logged with a local telephone 
carrier; in my case, in upper Rhode Island, it is Bell Atlantic. Now, 
these local carriers do try to resolve the problem, but often they do 
not have the tools or the ability to do so, and as a result, the 
consumer is left a victim of the slammer.
  When consumers do report these problems and try to take action, under 
the present regime it is usually a long and frustrating process to get 
any relief, if you get any relief at all.
  Now, State attorneys general and public utility commissions 
throughout this country are annually receiving hundreds of thousands of 
complaints. More than half the State attorneys general have tried to 
take steps to go to court to bring to justice these slammers using the 
fraud laws of their State. Unfortunately, these legal actions are 
cumbersome, lengthy, and often do not really reach the heart of the 
matter and bring the culprits to justice.
  A smaller percentage of victims of slamming will seek relief not at 
the State level but they will go to the Federal Communications 
Commission. Last year, 44,000 individuals brought slamming complaints 
to the FCC. That is a 175 percent increase over complaints in 1996. You 
can see this is an

[[Page S4694]]

epidemic that needs to be dealt with decisively, and I am pleased that 
we are doing that.
  Now, the FCC does investigate these complaints, but they are hampered 
by a lack of proof concerning slamming. They are hampered by not having 
the kind of record that is necessary to prove definitively that an 
individual has been a victim of slamming. This legislation goes a long 
way to ensure that all of our regulatory authorities at every level of 
Government have the tools to ensure that they can root out slamming in 
our economy.
  First, this legislation places a more stringent requirement on phone 
companies before they can switch a consumer's service. The bill 
requires verification that the consumer, first, understands service 
will be changed; second, the consumer affirms his or her intent to 
change service and also indicates that he or she is authorized to 
switch service.
  We have heard lots of evidence of phone companies--slammers, really--
calling up, finding a 12- or 13-year-old child in the house, and 
talking to that child and using that as what they claim is appropriate 
authorization to switch service. Under this legislation, those types of 
practices will not be allowed. Also, the legislation requires that the 
entire verification process must be recorded and also provided to the 
consumer upon request, so that if it is a 12-year-old in the house that 
is giving the OK to switch, the parent can quickly determine that from 
the recorded record and make a correction.
  Now, the other protection that is provided here is that the bill 
requires that carriers inform a consumer in clear and unambiguous 
language within 15 days that a switch has been authorized. Many times, 
consumers do not realize their phone service has been switched until 
they get, 30 days later, a bill from a company that they have never 
heard of claiming that they are now their primary telephone carrier.
  Now, this whole verification process will go a very long way in 
preventing the abuses that we have seen. No longer can slammers use 
ambiguous or fraudulent verification scripts, essentially tricking 
consumers into agreeing. Additionally, slammers can't go ahead and 
conjure up and splice together different bits of pieces of an 
authorization or conversation to say, ``That is the proof you agreed to 
switch your service.'' Because of the requirement for a recorded 
record, that will not be possible.
  This bill clearly says and makes as a clear standard that without 
proper verification, without a record, the carrier is in violation of 
law if they switch services and there cannot be any more assertions by 
these carriers that, ``Well, someone told us it was OK in the house, 
but we don't have the record. Someone authorized it, but we don't know 
who it was.'' They are now in a position where they have to show 
clearly that they have the verification.
  Also, this legislation provides for avenues of redress for consumers. 
First, the consumer can take the issue up with the unauthorized 
carrier, and they are required to respond appropriately, within at 
least 4 months, in terms of justifying the switch or making some type 
of amends to the consumer. Second, a slamming victim can take their 
case to the Federal Communications Commission. Now, the FCC has 
additional authority to fine and to penalize slamming. Finally, a 
consumer who is frustrated can, once again, take his petition under 
State law to State commissions. Indeed, one aspect of the legislation 
that is very positive is, there is no preemption of State laws. We 
recognize that attorneys general and utility commissioners can and must 
have the ability to work hand and hand with the Federal Government to 
root out this problem of slamming.
  Altogether, this is very important legislation that provides the 
necessary consumer protections, that makes the goal and objective of 
deregulation in a market where consumers choose a reality, and puts up 
strong barriers against those who would trick consumers and rob them of 
the choice that deregulation offers, the choice of the best service for 
them, their free choice.
  Once again, let me commend Chairman McCain and ranking member 
Hollings for their work on this. I am hopeful that we can move 
expeditiously to passage and that this bill will shortly be law and we 
can protect the American consumer against slamming.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Senator Hollings and I incorporated an amendment in the managers' 
amendment on behalf of Senator Snowe.
  This amendment prevents the FCC from taking any actions that would 
jeopardize the current ability of consumers to ``freeze'' their long-
distance carrier in place. Once the consumer elects to use a freeze, 
the long-distance carrier of choice can only be changed by the express 
authorization of the consumer to the local phone company.
  Long-distance carriers are concerned about how this amendment might 
affect their marketing efforts. But reports now show that two consumers 
are slammed every minute. Given the severity of the slamming problem, 
the interest we have in preserving safeguards that will project 
consumers against any unauthorized carrier changes certainly overrides 
any concerns the industry may have about their marketing efforts.

  I thank Senator Snowe for her amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2391

      (Purpose: To modify the exception to the prohibition on the 
interception of wire, oral or electronic communications to require that 
 all parties to communications with health insurance providers consent 
                         to their interception)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein proposes an amendment numbered 2391.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON 
                   INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Modification.--Section 2511(2)(d) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the previous sentence, it shall not be 
     unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under the 
     color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic 
     communication between a health insurance issuer or health 
     plan and a subscriber of such issuer or plan, or between a 
     health care provider and a patient, only if all of the 
     parties to the communication have given prior express consent 
     to such interception. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
     the term `health insurance issuer' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 733 of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191b), the term `health 
     plan' means a group health plan, as defined in such section 
     of such Act, an individual or self-insured health plan, the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), the medicaid program under title 
     XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), the State 
     children's health insurance program under title XXI of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.), and the Civilian Health and 
     Medical Program of the Uniformed Services under chapter 55 of 
     title 10, and the term `health care provider' means a 
     physician or other health care professional.''.
       (b) Recording and Monitoring of Communications With Health 
     Insurers.--
       (1) Communication without recording or monitoring.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health 
     insurance issuer, health plan, or health care provider that 
     notifies any customer of its intent to record or monitor any 
     communication with such customer shall provide the customer 
     the option to conduct the communication without being 
     recorded or monitored by the health insurance issuer, health 
     plan, or health care provider.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means a physician or other health care 
     professional.
       (B) Health insurance issuer.--The term ``health insurance 
     issuer'' has the meaning given that term in section 733 of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1191b).
       (C) Health plan.--The term ``health plan'' means--
       (i) a group health plan, as defined in section 733 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1191b);

[[Page S4695]]

       (ii) an individual or self-insured health plan;
       (iii) the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.);
       (iv) the medicaid program under title XIX of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
       (v) the State children's health insurance program under 
     title XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.); and
       (vi) the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer a very simple amendment to S. 
1618 that will protect the critical area of consumer health care 
privacy. This amendment provides that in communications with health 
care insurers or providers, patients have the right not to have their 
confidential conversations recorded or monitored.
  This amendment fills a loophole in existing law. Federal law 
currently provides that at least one party must consent to the taping 
or monitoring of a private conversation. The federal law allows states 
to provide even more stringent restrictions, and require that all 
parties to a conversation must consent to their taping or monitoring.
  However, this law provides no protection to patients against 
unauthorized taping or monitoring. Even when, as in my State of 
California, the state law requires all parties to consent for taping or 
monitoring, the law fails to protect them. Patients are construed to 
consent to taping or monitoring, whether they expressly consent or not, 
if they are informed of the taping or monitoring. This is most often 
accomplished by a recording at the beginning of the telephone call. If 
patients refuse to have their calls monitored, they are told to simply 
take their business elsewhere. But there is nowhere else to go.
  The confidentiality of details about our health is one of the most 
sensitive topics imaginable. Physician-patient confidentiality is a 
bedrock principle that goes back literally thousands of years.
  Not only is this an ethical issue, it is a health imperative. In 
fact, it can be a matter of life and death. Anything less than full 
confidentiality compromises the willingness of patients to provide the 
full information that treating physicians need to treat them properly. 
It can literally jeopardize their health and their life.
  We naturally assume that intimate details that we share with our 
doctor and health care professionals are strictly confidential. But 
they are not. Today, any communication we have with a health care 
professional may be taped and monitored.
  This problem is exacerbated by the rising role of health insurance 
companies in treatment. Oftentimes, it is a health insurance company, 
rather than a trusted doctor, with whom the patient must share intimate 
personal health details. That health insurance company may not have the 
same ethical and legal confidentiality obligations as the patient's 
treating physician.
  When my office contacted the top 100 health insurance providers in 
this country, we learned that most health insurance companies who 
responded tape or monitor calls from patients.
  I want to share briefly some of the responses we received. Kaiser 
Permanente is a health insurance provider that operates in 19 states 
and the District of Columbia, and provides care to more than 9 million 
members. Its practices vary from state to state, depending on 
applicable state laws.
  Among other things, Kaiser Permanente may: Monitor randomly selected 
calls, in which case it may or may not notify patients in advance; or 
tape record all or randomly selected calls, in which case it may or may 
not notify patients in advance.
  United HealthCare wrote that they did not believe that recording or 
monitoring calls presented a privacy issue. Their rationale was that 
they only randomly record calls and only after advising the caller that 
the call may be recorded.
  Great-West responded that a patient has the option of communicating 
in writing if the patient does not want to be recorded. Well, let me 
say simply--that's not good enough for me.
  Despite the two-party consent rule in my own State of California, NYL 
Care Health Plans, Inc., responded that no violation of California law 
occurs in the absence of a ``confidential communication.'' Under 
California law, the definition of a ``confidential communication'' does 
not include communications where the parties may reasonably expect that 
the call may be recorded. NYL Care asserted that, since patients were 
told that their call could be monitored, their calls were not 
confidential calls.
  In my view, NYL Care's interpretation of ``confidentiality'' turns 
its commonly understood meaning on its head. In fact, I doubt whether 
any of my colleagues would agree that communications about one's own 
health problems are not confidential.
  Finger Lakes Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Upstate New York randomly 
tapes records calls from patients and is in the process of implementing 
a front-end message to patients.
  In the case of Blue Cross Blue Shield of the National Capital Area, a 
patient receives no notice that the call may be monitored. Their 
Associate General Counsel stated that in both Maryland and the District 
of Columbia, no consent was required.
  Not only is unauthorized taping or monitoring of telephone calls just 
plain wrong, it is simply unnecessary. None of the health insurers who 
responded to my office could provide a valid reason for monitoring or 
taping incoming calls from patients.
  The standard response I received from health insurers was that they 
monitored or tape recorded calls for ``quality control.'' Yet no one 
could explain how the health insurer's record of the information 
discussed protects the patient. It's easy to see, I think, how the 
industry's practice leaves the patient disadvantaged.
  My amendment is simple. First, it requires express consent from 
patients in order to be taped or monitored by health insurance 
companies or health care providers.
  Second, it requires health insurance companies or health care 
providers to give patients the option not to be taped or monitored.
  Third, it applies only to health insurance companies or health care 
providers. It does not affect the remaining companies that tape or 
monitor customer communications.
  Mr. President, this amendment simply ensures a basic right that most 
patients believe they already enjoy. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the amendment has been 
cleared on both sides. I urge the amendment be agreed to.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2391) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I thank my 
colleague, the Senator from Arizona, for cosponsoring this bill with 
Senator Hollings.
  A little over a year ago, I received a letter in my Senatorial office 
in Illinois from a young woman who owned a business right outside the 
City of Chicago. She told a story of having her long-distance carrier 
changed without her permission, how it ended up costing her over 
$1,000, and she came to learn there was virtually nothing she could do 
about it. The recourse under the law currently available was not 
practical--that she would somehow hire an attorney and go to Federal 
court over $1,000. That wasn't going to happen. She asked me what could 
we do about it, so I prepared a piece of legislation, and a large part 
of it has been incorporated in this good bill, and I am happy to 
support this bill.
  Since then, I have come to learn that hers was not an isolated 
example. Any group of people you talk to, regardless of their walk of 
life, who have a telephone at home, will generally tell you that they 
know somebody or they personally have been victims of slamming. How do 
they end up having their long-distance carrier changed? Some of them 
might have been unsuspecting. They went to a carnival or county fair or 
neighborhood picnic, and they had a little thing handed to them. It 
said, ``Win a free trip to Hawaii. Fill in your name and address and 
check the box in

[[Page S4696]]

the bottom.'' They didn't flip it over to see the other side that said, 
``You just changed your long-distance carrier.''

  It would happen time and time again. Folks would get these 
interminable telephone calls at night saying, ``Would you consider 
moving to this new service?'' They say, ``No, no, there is no way.'' It 
turns out they were being taped. People were splicing together the 
tapes. When it was all said and done, they took the spliced tapes, and 
said the person said ``yes'' when they asked about the long-distance 
service, but the person said ``yes'' when they asked about the name.
  It turns out a lot of people were being defrauded, and it cost a lot 
of money, not just for the lady who came to see me and her business, 
but many others. This is theft. This is stealing. This is not gaming we 
are dealing with here; it is a situation where a lot of people are 
making money without the permission of those whose long-distance 
service is being changed.
  I went up to the State of Maine with my colleague, Senator Collins, 
who spoke earlier on the floor, for a hearing on the subject and found 
it was literally a national problem. From the coast of Maine to 
California and everything in between, people were going through this 
and we didn't have the laws in place to protect the consumers. That is 
why this bill is so important--because this bill finally gives to the 
consumer an opportunity to say to the person who is slamming them, 
``You are not going to get away with it.''
  One of the amendments which Senator McCain was nice enough to adopt 
and make part of the bill was offered by Senator Collins and myself. It 
said you will never be charged more than what your original long 
distance carrier would have charged you. So if somebody comes along and 
doubles your rate without your permission, you still don't have to pay 
anything more than what was in the original rate structure with your 
original long-distance carrier. I think that makes sense. I think it is 
only fair.
  The other amendment which we pushed for, the second amendment, 
creates criminal penalties which are necessary for the most egregious 
slammers. These are not little companies with little ideas; these are 
devious groups with a network of information which are trying to set up 
a network of people across the United States who will be changed to 
their long-distance service just long enough for them to make some 
money.
  You should have seen the hearing that Senator Collins had before the 
Government Affairs Committee, where she presented a bill from one of 
these companies to the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission. She posted it up on the board, and she said to the 
Chairman: ``Take a look at this long-distance bill from a slamming 
company and tell me one thing. What is the name of the company?''
  The Chairman took a look at it, and he said, ``I don't see any name 
of the company up there.'' You know what? The name of the company was 
Long Distance Charges. So, when you are going through your telephone 
bill and you are looking at your local carrier who sent it to you, and 
you get to a page which reads ``Long Distance Charges,'' it never dawns 
on you that you are no longer receiving long-distance service from your 
old carrier. You have a new carrier called Long Distance Charges, and 
you didn't notice that your long-distance bill just went up. That is 
the kind of chicanery and trickery these people are guilty of. They 
make millions of dollars at it. As a consequence, we have to treat them 
with the criminal penalty which is included in this bill.
  I want to make an additional point about the criminal penalties 
amendment. Creating a criminal statute for slamming in no way lessens 
the applicability of existing laws such as wire fraud or mail fraud 
that can help combat slamming, too. Rather, this criminal statute for 
slamming will make it easier for prosecutors, because it applies 
specifically to this crime.
  Finally, a third amendment agreed to by Senator McCain will require 
telecommunications carriers to report the number of slamming complaints 
they receive about each company to the FCC. We know the incidence of 
slamming is on the rise. We have no way of tracking them. This will 
establish it. Slamming has already caused telephone customers to become 
angry and disillusioned with the entire telecommunications industry. 
These consumers have voiced their concerns to their local phone 
companies, to their State regulatory bodies, to the FCC. But they feel 
their complaints have not been heard.
  With this legislation, we can begin to restore confidence in the 
industry and assure consumers that the deceptive practice of slamming 
will be stopped. Long-distance telephone consumers should be able to 
stand up for themselves and fight back against slammers, to let them 
know their actions will not pay.
  You have heard, during the course of this debate, lengthy statistics 
about the nature of the problem. I will not repeat them, only to tell 
you that it is a serious problem addressed in a serious way by this 
legislation.
  In closing, one small footnote: The outrage of slamming has now been 
replaced in complaints to my office by the outrage of cramming. It 
turns out in the lengthy telephone bill you received there may be an 
item which looks innocent enough for two or three dollars for something 
you never ordered. Who is going to go through the telephone bill and 
analyze every line? But unless you do, you may find yourself in a 
predicament where they are cramming in charges you never asked for.
  You are paying three bucks a month every month of the year for 
something you didn't ask for. How are you going to find it? You have to 
take the time to read through it. We want to make sure we address that 
abuse as well.
  Today, though, we are addressing in a responsible way a very serious 
problem that affects consumers across America. I salute Senator McCain, 
as well as Senator Hollings, who have joined me in this effort through 
investigations, as well as in preparation of amendments to this very 
good bill. I am happy to support it. I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I want to express my support for 
the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act, S. 1618, which addresses the 
unauthorized switching of telephone service carriers by competing 
service providers. This abusive practice has become an increasing 
problem in my home state of Colorado where slamming has grown at an 
alarming rate. Last October, Chairman Burns of the Communications 
Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 
held a field hearing in Denver on this issue. In addition to this 
hearing, anti-slamming legislation has recently passed the Colorado 
State Legislature. With Colorado as one of the nation's top five states 
in complaints-per-million customers, I intend to vote for this anti-
slamming legislation.
  I also am pleased that S. 1618 incorporates provisions from my Anti-
Slamming Bill, S. 1051 which I introduced on July 22, 1997. This 
language requires that the FCC annually report to Congress the ``Top 
Ten'' slammers for each year, as well as carriers assessed fines or 
penalties during the same period. The ``Top Ten'' list identifies those 
carriers subject to the highest number of subscriber slamming 
complaints compared to the total number of subscribers they serve. This 
ratio approach ensures that large companies are not automatically 
singled out by virtue of having a large customer base. The focus of my 
``Top Ten'' amendment is on those companies with the highest percentage 
of slamming complaints relative to their total customer base.
  This ``Top Ten'' list will give Congress an annual opportunity to 
review and publicly comment on this serious problem known as 
``slamming''. I am convinced that this approach coupled with the 
language in S. 1618, will prove valuable in deterring carriers from 
engaging in illegal tactics.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
legislation now before the Senate--S. 1618, the Consumer Anti-Slamming 
Act--and to urge for its adoption and enactment.
  This legislation--which was crafted by the distinguished Chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, John McCain, and the Ranking Member of the 
Committee, Ernest Hollings--will help eliminate a reprehensible 
practice of unscrupulous telephone companies, and I congratulate them 
for their leadership on this issue. As a member of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, I am pleased that my friend and colleague,

[[Page S4697]]

Chairman McCain, has moved rapidly to address the slamming epidemic 
that is occurring in Maine by bringing this legislation to the floor of 
the Senate.
  In addition, I would also like to thank my colleague from Maine, 
Senator Collins, for highlighting this issue by holding oversight 
hearings in her capacity as Chair of the Governmental Affairs 
Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations, including a recent hearing in 
the State of Maine--and she has also offered legislation that is 
designed to combat slamming. In case there is any doubt about the 
importance of this issue in Maine, the involvement of both Senators 
should put that to rest!
  Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, ``slamming'' is a 
term that has been used to describe any practice that changes a 
consumer's long-distance carrier without the consumer's knowledge or 
consent. A variety of tactics and techniques can be used to accomplish 
this goal, including vague or inaccurate phone solicitations; 
unsolicited ``welcome packages'' that look like an advertisement but 
automatically lead to a consumer changing phone companies unless the 
individual returns a rejection card; and ``drawings'' for giveaways 
that also serve as a means of unwittingly changing services.
  Regardless of the tactic used to slam a customer, the bottom line is 
that it's an unfair and illegal practice--and it's one that must be 
brought to a halt.
  Mr. President, phone customers expect high-quality phone service for 
a fair price. If a phone company is going to ``reach out and touch 
someone,'' it must be done legally and with fairness to the customer. 
Consumers who are slammed often receive lower-quality service or higher 
rates, and sometimes they are not even aware that they have been 
slammed until they get their bills. This is an outrageous practice and 
I think we can all agree that its demise is long overdue.
  Last year, in my home state of Maine, the number of slamming 
complaints doubled to a total of 1,000 between 1996 and 1997. 
Nationwide, more than 20,000 consumers filed slamming complaints with 
the FCC, the largest category of complaints the agency received. In 
1996, it received more than 16,000 total slamming complaints. As a 
result of these complaints, the FCC has taken enforcement action 
against 15 companies for slamming violations over the past two years, 
while assessing more than $1 million in forfeitures and consent decrees 
with another $500,000 in additional penalties pending.
  Mr. President, as these numbers clearly indicate, this is a serious 
problem that is only going to get worse. In particular, the threat 
exists that--as competition develops in other communications markets--
slamming could extend into new services and become an even more onerous 
consumer problem if it is left unchecked.
  As has been indicated, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
already has the authority to combat this practice by assessing fines 
against telephone carriers that slam. But with a 25 percent increase in 
the number of slamming complaints that were filed in just the past 
year--and even with the level of fines and penalties that have already 
been imposed on companies--it is obvious that the FCC's current 
approach is not working. And it is for this reason that the legislation 
before this body is so critical.
  Mr. President, S. 1618 will put this reprehensible practice to an end 
by providing definitive procedures for telephone companies to follow in 
changing a customers's telephone service; giving federal and non-
federal authorities the power to impose tough sanctions on companies 
that are guilty of slamming; and providing measures to ensure that 
slamming victims are fully-compensated.
  Specifically, to ensure that changes in phone service are made in a 
verifiable manner, the bill requires phone companies to obtain written, 
verbal, or electronic verification from a consumer who is changing 
providers.
  To ensure that customer complaints are dealt with in a timely manner, 
carriers accused of slamming will be required to defend their actions 
in no more than 120 days, and the FCC will have no more than 150 days 
to resolve any outstanding disputes.
  If slamming has occurred, the bill gives the FCC the authority to 
provide compensatory or punitive damages to consumers that companies 
would be required to pay within 90 days. In addition, provide a strong 
disincentive to potential slammers, the FCC would be required to impose 
fines on phone companies that are guilty of slamming of at least 
$40,000 for a first-time offense and $150,000 for repeat offenses. And 
If a company refuses to pay these fines, the bill provides that the FCC 
will also have the authority to prosecute slammers.
  Finally, if a consumer wishes to pursue redress through means other 
than the FCC, this bill allows consumers to pursue their grievances in 
court through state class-action lawsuits instead of through the FCC. 
And in the event a specific state does not believe these penalties are 
strong enough, the bill specifically retains the rights of each state 
to impose stiffer sanctions.
  This bill and the provisions it contains are based on common sense 
and good policy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. President, while this bill is a very sound approach to addressing 
the slamming epidemic, there is one additional technique that consumers 
already have at their disposal to prevent slamming from occurring, and 
I believe we should seek to fully-protect this consumer option in this 
bill.
  Specifically, if customers are concerned that they will be 
unwittingly tricked--or unknowingly forced--into changing their phone 
company, they can now ``freeze'' into place the long distance carrier 
of their choice at the local phone company. As a result, no order to 
change phone companies can be completed without the express, direct 
authorization of the customer to the local phone company.
  To ensure that this option is in no way impeded in the future, I have 
prepared an amendment that would ensure that no subsequent action by 
the FCC can be undertaken to restrict or impede the customer's ability 
to ``freeze'' in place the carrier of their choice. I understand that 
this amendment is acceptable to the manager's of the bill, and has now 
been included in the manager's amendment. Therefore, I would like to 
thank the Chairman and Ranking member for addressing this issue and 
accepting my provision.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is, slamming is a serious crime, and 
this is a serious solution. Companies engaged in slamming will no 
longer be able to hide behind the anonymity of the phone lines. Phone 
companies and their customers should reach agreements on phone 
services, but slamming destroys that relationship. Therefore, this bill 
will restore an element of trust that has been lost through this 
abhorrent practice.
  Mr. President, slamming is nothing less than high-tech extortion, and 
the law must be changed to deal with this new criminal threat, and I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, every year thousands of Americans are 
victimized by fraudulent telemarketing promotions. And, unfortunately, 
these scam artists prey most often on our senior citizens. The losses 
every year are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. My amendment 
will help law enforcement to more effectively combat these abuses.
  Today, its all too easy for telemarketing rip-off artists to profit 
from the current system. How do these rip-offs occur? Advertisements 
regarding sweepstakes, contests, loans, credit reports and other 
promotions appear in newspapers, magazines, and other direct mail and 
telephone solicitations. The operators of many of these phoney 
promotions set up a telephone boiler room for a few months in which a 
number of phones are operated to receive calls responding to their ads. 
They steal thousands--even millions--of dollars from innocent victims 
and then they simply disappear. They take the money and run--moving on 
to another location to start all over again.
  Here's just one example. Not too long ago, 30,000 Iowans received 
postcards from an organization calling itself Sweepstakes 
International, Inc. The postcard enticed recipients to call a 900-
number and they were charged $9.95 on their phone bill.
  Based on a Postal Service investigation, civil action was initiated 
in U.S. District Court in Iowa. As a result, the promotion was halted 
and $1.7 million was frozen. This represented just one

[[Page S4698]]

and a half month's revenue from the scam!
  My amendment will protect telemarketing victims by providing law 
enforcement the authority to more quickly obtain the name, address, and 
physical location of businesses suspected of telemarketing fraud. Phone 
companies would have to provide law enforcement officials only the 
name, address and physical location of a telemarketing business holding 
a phone number if the officials submitted a formal written request for 
this information relevant to a legitimate law enforcement 
investigation. It will make it easier for officers to identify and 
locate these operations. This is similar to the procedure that is 
already in place for post office box investigations.
  Mr. President, it is necessary to crack down on serious consumer 
fraud. With this change, we will have many more successful efforts to 
shut down these rip-offs artists like several recent cases in my home 
state of Iowa.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in support of the 
anti-slamming bill, S. 1618. I want to commend Senator McCain, Senator 
Hollings, and the rest of the Commerce Committee for bringing this bill 
to the floor, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill.
  Slamming is an important and widespread consumer problem, and it is 
high time that the Congress takes action to stop it. Slamming, as most 
people now know, is a practice carried out by some telecommunications 
companies to switch a consumer's long distance or local exchange 
carrier without the consumer's knowledge or consent. Only a few years 
ago this practice, while persistent and frustrating for some consumers, 
appeared limited in scope. However, in more recent years this type of 
consumer fraud appears to have grown into a common profit-making scheme 
of some telecommunications companies carried out at the consumer's 
expense.
  The rise in slamming complaints has been absolutely astonishing. The 
Federal Communications Commission reports that the 11,000 slamming 
complaints they received in 1995 represented a sixfold increase in the 
number of complaints received in 1993. By 1996, slamming complaints 
rose by an additional 42 percent over 1995, with the FCC receiving more 
than 16,000 complaints. And in 1997, the FCC received 44,000 complaints 
from consumers, nearly triple the 1996 total.
  But these numbers only begin to tell the story. In Wisconsin, 
slamming is the number one telecommunications complaint, and 
telecommunications is the single largest category of consumer 
complaints that the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection received last year. That agency reports that 
slamming complaints were up 400 percent in 1997. The National 
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates estimates that as many 
as one million consumers each year have their long distance carrier or 
local provider switched without consent.
  In September of 1997, the National Consumers League polled 
telecommunications consumers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chicago, 
Illinois, and Detroit/Grand Rapids, Michigan. The poll showed that of 
the 1500 individuals surveyed, three out of 10 reported that they, or 
someone they know, had been slammed. In Milwaukee, of those who said 
they had experience with slamming, 41% said their own telephone carrier 
had been changed without their consent. Even more disturbing, the 
survey provided evidence that slammers appear to be targeting consumers 
who have high long distance bills, raising privacy concerns regarding 
billing information.
  Mr. President, this is consumer fraud of monstrous proportions. It 
causes extra cost and inconvenience to consumers, and it also distorts 
telecommunications markets and discourages legitimate competitive 
practices. The prevalence of slamming and the lack of any strong 
disincentives against it rewards companies that use this fraudulent 
practice and penalizes those that seek new customers through legitimate 
and honest means.
  The 1996 Telecommunications Act recognized the slamming problem and 
broadened the scope of FCC's regulatory authority over slamming to 
cover all telecommunications carriers rather than just long distance 
service providers. The Act also provided that a carrier that violates 
the FCC's verification requirements is liable to the customer's 
original carrier for all charges paid by the customer after he or she 
had been slammed.
  The FCC now has rules prohibiting slamming and requires companies to 
verify the customer's authorization of any switch in carriers, but 
these rules obviously haven't done the trick. For one thing, the 
penalties for slamming just aren't tough enough. While the FCC has 
taken enforcement action against a number of telecommunications 
companies, the tremendous profit opportunities from slamming overwhelm 
the threat of FCC enforcement.
  The Consumer Anti-Slamming Act should be an effective antidote to 
this problem. It establishes minimum verification requirements for 
submitting changes in local or long distance telephone service. The 
requirements apply when service is first requested as well. The bill 
also bans so-called ``negative option'' marketing--this is where a 
company sends you a letter that says your service will be switched 
unless you send back a reply card to say no. With all the junk mail 
that people now receive, this is a particularly reprehensible business 
practice, and I am pleased that this bill outlaws it.
  The bill also addresses the problem that many people do not even know 
that when they have been slammed by requiring the new 
telecommunications company to notify a consumer within 15 days of a 
change in service. The notification must indicate the name of the 
person who requested the change and inform the consumer that he or she 
may request further information about when and how the change was 
authorized. It must also contain information about how to pursue a 
complaint if the customer believes he or she has been slammed.
  Penalties are also significantly increased in this bill. The FCC may 
award damages of $500 or the actual damages incurred, whichever is 
greater, directly to the consumer. And the FCC can fine carriers who 
violate the anti-slamming regulations $40,000 for a first offence and 
$150,000 for additional offences. These significant penalties should 
eliminate the economic incentives to engage in these illegal practices.
  Mr. President, the information age has now arrived. Technological 
advances hold out great promise for making our daily lives easier and 
more enjoyable. Competition is the driving force in bringing those 
advances to the consumer at ever more affordable prices. Allowing 
consumers to choose between competing long distance and local service 
providers should improve service and lower prices. But when 
irresponsible or even criminal elements seek to take advantage of 
unsuspecting consumers through activities like slamming, forceful 
regulation is necessary.
  The unethical and illegal practices of companies who seek to 
victimize consumers to enhance their own profits must not be tolerated. 
Protecting consumers from those who engage in these practices is one of 
my most important responsibilities as a United States Senator. I 
believe that this bill gives the FCC the tools it needs to crack down 
on the slamming problem once and for all. I am proud to vote for it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, S. 1618 is a well-crafted bill that is 
designed to prevent the unauthorized transferring of a customer's phone 
carrier. This is accomplished through a variety of provisions, 
including the threat of strong penalties on telephone companies that 
engage in slamming.
  While I strongly believe that the penalties established in this 
legislation should be fully-enforced, I would like to clarify the type 
of conduct that these penalties are being targeted to address. 
Specifically, is it the Chairman's intent that the significant 
financial penalties contained in Section 1(f) be imposed for all cases 
of unauthorized carrier changes, including changes that are accidental 
or innocent mistakes, such as when an order to change service providers 
in improperly keyed-in by a customer service agent? Or are these 
penalties designed to address cases of slamming that involve willful or 
intentional misconduct on the part of companies?
  Mr. McCain. I appreciate the questions of the Senator from Maine, and

[[Page S4699]]

believe it is important that the intent of this legislation be fully 
understood. This bill is designed to ensure that companies are deterred 
from the reprehensible practice of slamming, and that harsh penalties 
are imposed as a form of punishment if the practice is undertaken by an 
unscrupulous company. However, the penalties in this bill are not 
intended to be used for cases of innocent or accidental changes of 
carriers, such as the situation described by my colleague, Senator 
Snowe--and the language of this bill has been crafted accordingly. 
Specifically, the bill provides that the Commission can waive the 
minimum penalties if they determine that there are mitigating 
circumstances, which would include cases of innocent or accidental 
changes of carriers.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chairman for clarifying this important issue 
and for crafting language that reflects this intent. I am very 
appreciative for your leadership and efforts to curb the practice of 
slamming, and commend the Senator for crafting legislation that will 
forcefully attack this growing problem.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Consumer Anti-
Slamming Act, as it addresses a severe problem that has arisen as an 
unintended consequence of additional competition in the 
telecommunications marketplace: the unauthorized switching of 
customers' telephone service providers. I also understand that the 
managers' amendment of the bill includes language that addresses 
another serious, unintended problem posed by the growth of information 
technology: the explosion of junk e-mail, or ``spamming.''
  I congratulate Senators Murkowski and Torricelli for their hard work 
on dealing with the issue of spamming. S. 1618 as amended includes 
language that would require commercial e-mailers to identify 
themselves. This language is simply a ``Truth in Advertising 
Amendment.'' As any of us who use e-mail are finding out, millions of 
junk e-mails are sent out with fake e-mail addresses which prevent 
citizens from requesting that they not be sent any further clutter from 
the same sources. The amendment also requires that a junk e-mailer must 
honor requests from individuals to be deleted from mailing lists.
  I should add that the problem of junk e-mail is particularly 
important to customers in rural areas such as Montana. Often, rural 
residents must pay long distance charges to receive these unwanted 
solicitations, many of which contain fraudulent messages. ``Spamming'' 
is truly the bane of the information age. This problem has become so 
pervasive that entire new networks have had to be constructed to deal 
with it, when resources would be far better spent on educational or 
commercial needs. I welcome the inclusion of this language as a much-
needed step forward in dealing with this increasingly serious problem.
  I would now like to speak on an issue involving more traditional 
communications, that of slamming. I have held two field hearings in the 
Communications Subcommittee on this important topic, one in Billings 
last August and one in Denver last October.
  During the field hearing in Billings, I heard from consumers, 
industry representatives and regulators on a variety of slamming 
issues. I learned in Billings that slamming is not confined to big 
cities. It is reaching every part of our country. Consumers are falling 
prey every day to companies that intentionally mislead and deceive. 
Today, I look forward to building on the record we started in Montana.
  I should also recognize that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has 
shown real leadership on this issue through his introduction of an 
anti-slamming bill, particularly at the field hearing in Denver, which 
he attended. The bill before the Chamber today, S. 1618, incorporates 
language from S. 1051, Senator Campbell's slamming bill. The amendment 
including Senator Campbell's language was passed unanimously out of the 
Commerce Committee on March 12 of this year.
  This language requires that the FCC will annually report to Congress 
the ``Top Ten'' slammers for that year, as well as carriers assessed 
fines or penalties during the same period. The ``Top Ten'' list would 
identify those carriers subject to the highest number of subscriber 
slamming complaints compared to the total number of subscribers they 
serve. This ratio approach ensures that large companies are not 
automatically singled out by virtue of having a large customer base. 
The focus is on those companies with the highest percentage of slamming 
complaints relative to their total customer base.
  This ``Top Ten'' list represents the core of Senator Campbell's anti-
slamming bill. Having held two field hearings in the Communications 
Subcommittee on this important topic, I am convinced that Senator 
Campbell's approach will prove very valuable in deterring carriers from 
engaging in illegal tactics.
  As competition develops in new communications markets, we could see 
slamming migrate to new areas and become an even bigger problem. 
Clearly, something must be done soon to protect consumers and to 
protect good, clean competition.
  I am confident that the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act as amended will 
accomplish this goal and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the mangers' amendment included two 
amendments to S. 1618 which I authored and which I appreciate the 
managers of the bill accepting. I am joined in offering these 
amendments by cosponsors Senator Glenn and Senator Durbin.
  These amendments are the product of hearings held on slamming in the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), chaired by Senator 
Collins. Slamming, the practice of changing a consumer's long distance 
carrier without the consumer's knowledge and express consent, is the 
number one complaint received by the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC). And those FCC slamming complaints are on the rise--increasing 
almost 50% from 1995 through 1997. Slamming is also the number one 
complaint received by the Michigan Public Service Commission. And, 
Michigan has the unfortunate distinction of being in the top ten 
states, nationwide, for the number of consumers who have been slammed. 
A Louis Harris survey taken in September 1997 ranked Detroit and Grand 
Rapids among the hardest hit cities in the country. About 25% of 
telephone customers in Detroit and Grand Rapids have either had their 
telephone carrier switched without their permission or know someone who 
was illegally switched.
  Slamming leaves consumers feeling vulnerable and angry. Consumers 
have the right to use any long distance carrier they choose and to 
change carriers whenever they wish. But they want to be in control. 
Slamming takes choices away from consumers without their knowledge, and 
rewards companies that engage in deceptive and misleading marketing 
practices.
  Slammers use deceptive marketing practices such as getting 
subscribers to sign a misleading authorization form, falsifying tape 
recordings to make it appear that the consumer has verbally agreed to 
the change, or posing as the subscriber's currently authorized carrier. 
Unscrupulous carriers have been known to forge letters of authorization 
or even pull subscribers' numbers from a telephone book and submit them 
to the local exchange carrier for a long distance carrier change. 
Unscrupulous resellers generally bill higher rates once the subscriber 
is switched.
  In one case in Michigan, the slammer used the device of a contest--
the opportunity to win a trip or a car--to get consumers to sign a card 
that would then be used to change the long distance service. The 
Michigan consumer who filed a complaint with the Michigan Attorney 
General reported that her 14 year old daughter was approached several 
times in a shopping mall to sign the card under the auspices of 
participating in the contest. The daughter kept trying to resist--
telling the slammer that she was underage for the contest. The slammer 
finally prevailed, and the 14 year old daughter entered what she 
thought to be a contest or drawing. However, a week or so later, this 
constituent was notified that her long distance carrier had been 
changed--unbeknownst to her. She wrote in her letter to the Attorney 
General: ``I am very upset that this is happening not only to me but to 
others as well. It's a scam and it needs to stop now!''
  Although the large telecommunications companies, called facilities

[[Page S4700]]

based carriers because they own extensive telephone lines and 
equipment, have engaged in slamming, according to a recent GAO report, 
most intentional slamming is perpetrated by switchless resellers. 
Switchless resellers have no equipment; they purchase network 
facilities from large long distance companies at a bulk rate and resell 
the service either to consumers or to other resellers. Currently a 
switchless reseller can enter into the telecommunications business 
without any proof of financial capability. All a person has to do is 
strike a deal with a long distance carrier to use that carrier's lines 
and facilities, get a billing company to provide billing services and 
develop a customer base. The switchless reseller is then in business 
and can use unscrupulous practices to switch the long distance 
providers of innocent consumers from the carrier the consumer has been 
using to the switchless reseller. The reseller then charges higher long 
distance rates.
  Many switchless resellers operate legitimately; but there are a 
surprising number who don't. Currently there is nothing in the law that 
screens out the scam artists from the legitimate resellers. S. 1618 
increases civil penalties, creates new criminal penalties and includes 
disincentives to eliminate the profit for slammers. I am supportive of 
those provisions and ask unanimous consent that I be added as a 
cosponsor.
  But, Mr. President, we also need to try to keep the scam artists out 
of the system--to keep consumers from being slammed in the first place. 
My amendment would require switchless resellers--those resellers who 
have no switching facilities under their ownership or control--to post 
a bond with the FCC before they can engage in the business of selling 
long distance service. The bond would be in an amount set by the FCC, 
and the amendment would prohibit a billing agent of a switchless 
reseller from billing subscribers of long distances services on behalf 
of the switchless reseller unless the billing agent has confirmed that 
the reseller has furnished the bond. In this way, a switchless reseller 
cannot get someone to bill on its behalf unless it has posted a bond 
with the FCC. The proceeds of that bond can be used to pay for any 
damages to a consumer awarded by the Commission to reimburse the 
consumer for excess charges incurred as a result of slamming. The 
requirement for a bond should keep the unscrupulous resellers out of 
the business. Take for example, David Fletcher, possibly the most 
notorious slammer. He started his slamming business, apparently, with 
no resources and managed to bill up to $20 million in long distance 
services. He couldn't start his business and no billing agent or phone 
company could have contracted with him to do his billing unless he had 
posted a bond with the FCC, under my amendment.
  The other amendment which the Managers have incorporated in their 
substitute requires full disclosure of the long distance services and 
providers on the local phone bill. We learned, Mr. President, in the 
hearing on slamming that some switchless resellers go to great lengths 
to disguise the fact that they have taken over a consumer's long 
distance service. One reseller, for example, incorporated under the 
name ``Phone Calls.'' Another used the name, ``Long Distance 
Services.'' Those names, then, appeared on the consumers' phone bills, 
and no one would have paid attention to those names. Anyone looking at 
such a phone bill would have assumed those were not the names of the 
unexpectedly new long distance carriers, but the identification of the 
item being listed below --the phone calls. The consumer would continue 
to assume that his or her long distance carrier had not been switched.
  To make it perfectly clear to consumers who their long distance 
provider is, the provision requires that the local telephone bill 
explicitly state the name, address and toll-free number of the long 
distance telephone provider and the specific services provided. This 
hopefully will address the problem of hidden or disguised switching--
where a consumer gets a bill and can't tell that his or her long 
distance carrier has been switched. This provision gives the FCC the 
authority to make telephone bills absolutely clear so slammers can't 
hide behind vague or confusing phone bills.
  Mr. President, I want to commend Senator McCain and Senator Hollings 
for their good work in getting this important piece of consumer 
legislation to the floor so quickly. I also want to commend Senator 
Collins and Senator Durbin from the PSI subcommittee for their energy 
and commitment to publicizing and helping to solve this problem.
  S. 1618, with my amendments, will provide important consumer 
safeguards, Mr. President, to help keep slammers out of the system. 
Legitimate resellers will be able to conduct their businesses without 
ruthless slammers tarnishing the reseller business.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have one amendment remaining of Senator Rockefeller. We are 
awaiting his arrival on the floor. I hope that Senator Rockefeller will 
arrive pretty quickly, because we have another bill to do tonight. In 
the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to address the 
antislamming legislation before us. I believe that this bill, S. 1618, 
is a bill that we must act on quickly and decisively. I am happy that 
when the Senate concludes its business today, we will have passed the 
legislation and for good reason. The problem which this legislation 
seeks to address described, I guess, by the euphemism ``slamming,'' is 
one that is a growing concern to people in my State and, I suspect, to 
almost all the other States represented in this body.
  In Michigan, during the last year, complaints about this practice, 
which is the changing of an individual's or customer's long-distance 
service without their knowledge and approval, has risen from relative 
obscurity to becoming, next to billing problems, the second largest 
source of complaints received by Michigan's Public Service Commission.
  The nature of the complaints are, of course, pretty obvious and have 
been depicted very well by Chairman McCain and others in the discussion 
so far today. People find that through no act of their own, or 
certainly no intentional act of their own, they have had their long-
distance service changed usually with negative consequences. In our 
State, the negative consequences usually fall into two categories, 
often both happen simultaneously: On the one hand, people find that 
their service level and quality is diminished; on the other hand, they 
find that their bills are getting higher.
  The latter happens for a variety of reasons. First, because 
frequently the new company, in fact, just simply has higher bills and 
charges higher rates. In addition, they find it happens because they 
have found themselves the victim of slamming on several separate 
occasions during a billing period. They have moved from one company to 
a second and sometimes to even a third and fourth. Many of the current 
rate practices engaged in with respect to long-distance rates give 
people a reduced rate if they stay with a service a certain period of 
time.
  However, as a result of slamming, people change from one to a second 
to a third to even a fourth company during a billing period or a period 
during which a rate is being determined based on continuity of service. 
Individuals discover that their long-distance calls that they expect to 
have been charged at a very low rate are, in fact, being billed at very 
high rates.
  For all of these reasons, we need to take action now. I mentioned 
that in our State, the slamming practice has become the second most 
widely voiced complaint heard by our Public Service Commission. Our 
local telephone service carrier, Ameritech, the principal carrier in 
Michigan, reports that they are receiving complaints. People think 
somehow they are responsible. Last year alone they received 37,000 such 
complaints of slamming practices occurring.

[[Page S4701]]

  In order to find out more about this, I went back to Michigan during 
a recent recess and began meeting with individuals who were themselves 
the victims of slamming. What I discovered was that, in fact, the 
practices used by these long-distance companies border on outright 
fraud, and in some cases, go over the line to actual fraud.
  People have been called up and asked if they want ``direct billing'' 
for their long-distance service. They answer yes and find the ``Direct 
Billing'' is, in fact, the name of a new long-distance service company 
and that their answer is being used as a basis for the changing of 
their service.
  In other cases, people engage in a conversation of someone calling 
over the telephone, an innocuous conversation, but find the information 
has been rescripted in such a fashion as to give a basis for changing 
the long-distance service.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that this practice is wrong. It is 
hurting consumers across America, and we have an obligation to stop it. 
I believe the legislation before us now does so.
  I am glad we were able to pass it so quickly and so overwhelmingly 
through the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to the vote today 
where I am confident we will, once again, send a signal that we are not 
going to tolerate these practices any longer. The additional penalties 
that are part of this legislation, in my judgment, set us in the right 
direction. Not only will they send a strong message, but I believe they 
dramatically deter anyone from engaging in these practices. The 
procedures in this legislation should hopefully provide those who are 
victims with a relatively quick resolution of their problems.
  For these reasons, I rise in support of the legislation. I am a 
cosponsor and am pleased to be part of it. I thank Senator McCain and 
his staff for working not only on this legislation but other technology 
bills that we will be addressing over the next day or so. I close by 
expressing my support, once again, for S. 1618. I look forward to its 
passage today and ultimately for its passage through the Congress in 
general and it being signed into law by the President.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, we are still 
waiting for the final amendment. I hope we can get it done very 
quickly. We have another bill to address tonight, and we are still 
working on that.
  So I again suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak 
for about 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chair.


                              Junk E-Mail

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the chairman is 
including in the manager's amendment language that I offered along with 
my colleague, Senator Torricelli.
  Mr. President, one of the downsides of the technological revolution 
that is symbolized by communications today on the Internet is the 
growing multitude of junk e-mail. Junk e-mail has quickly become the 
scourge of the Internet. It clogs America's inboxes and raises costs to 
all Internet users. Among those who are regular e-mail users, junk e-
mail is known as ``spam,'' which many suggest is an insult to the 
Hormel Corporation. I originally recognized spam as a spinoff of the 
Second World War where food was given to soldiers, commonly referred to 
as C rations, that implied a mixture of food products. In any event, it 
is the name that has been adopted for junk e-mail.
  Rural residents of our Nation and my State of Alaska are forced to 
pay long-distance charges to receive these unwanted solicitations, the 
majority of which contain fraudulent or pornographic messages. Not only 
are these junk e-mails objectionable, but they so clog the transmission 
network that Internet service providers are forced to spend tens of 
millions of dollars to expand their networks to handle all of these 
messages.
  America Online reports that up to 30 percent of daily incoming e-mail 
is junk e-mail. This volume has forced it and other Internet service 
providers, the ISPs, to buy more equipment and divert staff to handle 
users' complaints. These resources could be better spent by ISPs on 
improving service or even reducing monthly fees.
  My provision, Mr. President, is a modified version of legislation 
that I introduced last year--S. 771. When I introduced the bill, I put 
it up on the Web and asked for e-mail comments on the bill. So far, I 
have received over 1,500--the vast majority of which have been 
supportive of my efforts.
  So this provision is really a Truth in Advertising provision. It will 
simply require commercial e-mailers to identify who they are, their 
addresses, and their telephone numbers. The reason we have included 
this provision is that millions of junk e-mails are sent out with phony 
e-mail addresses which make it impossible for citizens to request that 
the sender stop cluttering their e-mail boxes. Under this provision, 
citizens will know exactly who the sender is and have the option of 
turning that sender away from their inbox.
  The provision further requires that a junk e-mailer must honor the 
request of an individual who asks that his or her name be deleted from 
the mailing list permanently. It's as simple as that. I doubt if there 
is anyone among us here today who would argue against someone's wish to 
simply be left alone by junk e-mailers.
  The amendment permits the Federal Trade Commission, the State 
Attorneys General, and Internet service providers to protect consumers 
from Internet junk e-mail by allowing them to sue those junk e-mailers 
who fail to identify themselves properly or refuse to remove a person's 
name from a mailing list.
  Mr. President, junk e-mail has become so pervasive that some have 
suggested a complete ban on such unsolicited advertisements. I believe 
that Internet users should control what comes into their electronic 
mailboxes, not the government. And I wish to emphasize that. This 
debate should not be about the government controlling the content of 
individual electronic mailboxes, but about individual users taking 
control of their own mailboxes. I think my provision will sufficiently 
reduce the problems of junk e-mail, and thus show that banning is 
unnecessary.
  Finally, I thank the floor managers for their attention to this 
issue, as well as the efforts of America Online and the Center for 
Democracy and Technology.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator McCain and 
Senator Hollings for agreeing to include the Murkowski-Torricelli junk 
E-mail amendment to this bill. And I want to thank my distinguished 
colleague from Alaska for join with me in this effort.
  Last year, Senator Murkowski and I each recognized the growing threat 
to Internet commerce posed by the proliferation of unsolicited 
commercial e-mail, known by its Internet slang as ``Spam.'' Although we 
initially had somewhat different approaches to this problem, we 
recognized that something had to be done.
  The amendment we have today is the product of a good faith effort 
involving privacy groups, marketers, online service providers, and 
others to achieve a result that will rein in these destructive e-mail 
practices, while protecting the first amendment rights of all who wish 
to send and receive legitimate e-mail. Before I address what our 
amendments does, I want to briefly discuss the problem of unsolicited 
commercial junk e-mail.
  Junk E-mail, or so called spamming, is an unfortunate side effect of 
the burgeoning world of Internet communication and commerce. Like many 
other Americans, I have an account on America Online and am inundated 
with unsolicited messages, peddling every item

[[Page S4702]]

under the sun. Similarly, I receive junk e-mail daily at my official 
Senate e-mail address, as well as the complaints of dozens of 
constituents who forward me the Spam that they are sent.
  The incentive to abuse the Internet is obvious, E-mailing ten million 
people can cost as little as a couple of hundred dollars. And because 
the senders of these e-mails are generally unknown, they avoid any 
possible retribution for consumers.
  Today, unsolicited commerical e-mailers are hiding their identities, 
falsifying their return addresses and refusing to accept complaints or 
removal requests. Their actions approach fraud, but our current law 
doesn't seem strong enough to stop them.
  I have long been concerned about excessive--indeed any--government 
regulation of the Internet. Many of the best qualities of American life 
are represented and enhanced by the Internet, and I fear government 
regulation has the possibility to stifle the creativity and development 
of cyberspace.
  However, a failure to address this problem now poses a greater threat 
to the Internet than do these minimal requirements. Junk e-mail is 
estimated to take up 30 percent of all Internet traffic and is 
increasingly responsible for slowdowns, and even breakdowns, of 
Internet services. Let me be clear, this legislation is not a de facto 
regulation of the Internet. In fact, it does not go as far as some have 
suggested. It does not ban all unsolicited e-mail because we wanted to 
avoid any inference of government interference. However, it is a first 
and needed step in making cyberspace saner.
  The Murkowski-Torricelli amendment takes some important and necessary 
steps. First, it requires senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail to 
identify themselves and provide a valid return e-mail address. Second, 
it requires senders to inform recipients that they have the right to 
reply and stop any future messages by typing ``remove'' on the subject 
line. Third, it requires junk e-mail to honor any request to remove 
someone from their mailing list. Fourth, it authorizes the FTC to 
enforce these requirements with civil fines and injunctive relief. And 
finally, it requires the FTC to establish a web site to accept consumer 
complaints and list its enforcement actions.
  Put simply, our amendment strikes a balance that will help consumers 
prevent unwanted and unsolicited electronic mail, without creating a 
burdensome regulatory system or unnecessarily restricting free speech. 
It recognizes that the government should not hastily and haphazardly 
regulate pass legislation to regulate the Internet. However, it also 
recognizes that some practices are simply too destructive to ignore.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2392

 (Purpose: Require truth in billing procedures for telecommunications 
                               carriers)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, Senator 
Snowe, Senator Kerrey, and myself, Senator Dorgan, I send an amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. 
     Rockefeller, for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey and himself, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2392.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . CONSUMER TRUTH IN BILLING DISCLOSURE ACT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings--
       (1) Billing practices by telecommunications carriers may 
     not reflect accurately the cost or basis of the additional 
     telecommunications services and benefits that consumers 
     receive as a result of the enactment the Telecommunications 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) and other Federal regulatory 
     actions taken since the enactment of that Act.
       (2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was not intended to 
     allow providers of telecommunications services to 
     misrepresent to customers the costs of providing services or 
     the services provided.
       (3) Certain providers of telecommunications services have 
     established new, specific charges on customer bills commonly 
     known as ``line-item charges''.
       (4) Certain providers of telecommunications services have 
     described such charges as ``Federal Universal Service Fees'' 
     or similar fees.
       (5) Such charges have generated significant confusion among 
     customers regarding the nature of and scope of universal 
     service and of the fees associated with universal service.
       (6) The State of New York is considering action to protect 
     consumers by requiring telecommunications carriers to 
     disclose fully in the bills of all classes of customers the 
     fee increases and fee reductions resulting from the enactment 
     of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other regulatory 
     actions taken since the enactment of that Act.
       (7) The National Association of Regulatory Utility 
     Commissioners adopted a resolution in February 1998 
     supporting action by the Federal Communications Commission 
     and the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers of 
     telecommunications services by assuring accurate cost 
     reporting and billing practices by telecommunications 
     carriers nationwide.
       (b) Requirements.--Any telecommunications carrier that 
     includes any change resulting from Federal regulatory action 
     shall specify in such bill--
       (1) the reduction in charges or fees for each class of 
     customers (including customers of residential basic service, 
     customers of other residential services, small business 
     customers, and other business customers) resulting from any 
     regulatory action of the Federal Communications Commission;
       (2) total monthly charges, usage charges, percentage 
     charges, and premiums for each class of customers (including 
     customers of residential basic service, customers of other 
     residential services, small business customers, and other 
     business customers);
       (3) notify consumers one billing cycle in advance of any 
     charges in existing charges or imposition of new charges; and
       (4) disclose, upon subscription, total monthly charges, 
     usage charges, percentage charges, and premiums for each 
     class of customers (including residential basic service, 
     customers of other residential service, small business 
     customers, and other business customers).

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and 
colleague from West Virginia Jay Rockefeller, in offering the Consumer 
Protection Act as an amendment to the Consumer Anti-Slamming bill.
  Just as the slamming bill is designed to protect consumers from 
unscrupulous phone companies that change a customer's phone service 
without consent, this amendment will protect consumers from misleading 
or inaccurate billing practices by phone companies. Therefore, I urge 
that my colleges support this pro-consumer amendment that complements 
the underlying pro-consumer Anti-Slamming Act.
  Mr. President, our nation's $260 billion telecommunications industry 
is undergoing a period of rapid growth and change. This change is being 
driven by the enactment and progressive implementation of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996--a law that is gradually shifting the 
industry from being one that is heavily-regulated to one that is open 
and competitive.
  As would be expected for an industry of this size, the transition 
from a regulated environment to a competitive environment has not been 
entirely smooth, nor has it been as rapid as many of us would prefer.
  To date, there have been countless proceeding at the FCC to 
restructure the way that services are delivered to consumers and the 
way that telecommunications companies pay each other for these 
services. In response to these restructuring efforts, there have been a 
variety lawsuits filed in court by telecommunications companies, and 
members of Congress have weighed-in when they believe the new rules do 
not accurately reflect the intent of the law.
  And--as would be expected in an emerging competitive market--there is 
non-stop haggling between the telecommunications companies that are now 
able to tread on each other's turf after years of being statutorily 
limited to their own market niche. But don't get me wrong . . . that's 
not a bad thing--that's what competition is all about.
  Mr. President, during this time of rapid transition and daunting 
change,

[[Page S4703]]

it is critical that we not forget the individuals for whom the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was crafted in the first place: the 
American consumers. Afterall, this landmark law was not passed because 
Congress simply wanted to deregulate an industry--rather, it was passed 
because competition will bring consumers a wide array of new and 
advanced telecommunications services at lower prices.
  The amendment we are offering today is specifically designed to 
protect consumers during this time of transition in the 
telecommunications industry. Specifically, the Consumer Protection Act 
will require ``truth-in-billing''--a guarantee to consumers that what 
they see on their phone bills is thorough and accurate.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues have undoubtedly heard from their 
constituents--and may be experiencing themselves--there is a great deal 
of confusion being generated by new line-item charges that have been 
added to phone bills in recent months. Since January, many telephone 
companies have started to place new line-item charges on customer phone 
bills for a variety of purposes and under a variety of names, including 
``national access charges,'' ``universal service charges,'' or both. 
While the descriptions for these charges vary, the central theme is 
that these new fees are being imposed because of recent federal actions 
stemming from the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  In response to these new charges, telephone customers are 
understandably confused and angry, and want to know why Congress would 
pass a law--and the President would sign a law--that imposed a host of 
new costs on them with no apparent benefits. They were told that this 
legislation would bring competition and lower prices, but all they see 
is new charges on their phone bills. They want to know what happened to 
the benefits of deregulation!
  Mr. President, customers deserve an answer to these questions and 
they deserve to know that what they see on their phone bills is 
accurate. And the simple fact is that the implementation of the 
Telecommunications Act has brought--and will continue to bring--
countless benefits to consumers, and they deserve to know about them.
  For instance, in July 1997, access charges--which are the fees paid 
by long distance companies to local phone companies for use of their 
networks--were reduced by $1.7 billion. The long distance companies 
state that these reductions have been passed on to consumers in the 
form of reduced rates, and I  won't dispute their contention. The 
problem is that their customers don't know the first thing about this 
federal action to benefit customers--all they know is that new line-
items for various charges prescribed to the federal government have 
been added to their bills!

  By the same token, consumers have no idea that the phone companies 
stand to reap substantial benefits as new markets are opened for 
competition. As companies are allowed to enter the markets that were 
previously closed to them, those that are competitive will reap 
substantial profits that can greatly benefit their customers--but you'd 
never know this from reading a company's bill.
  To remove the confusion that these line-items have generated--and to 
ensure that companies exercise full disclosure on the impact of 
deregulation--the amendment we are offering does three things.
  First, it directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate the billing practices of 
the telecommunications industry to ensure that all fees are being 
fairly described on bills. If any company is found to be using 
misleading billing practices, these agencies would be directed to 
consider disciplinary actions against that company.
  Second, the bill ensures that if a company puts a new line-item 
charge on a phone bill that are attributed to federal actions, it must 
also include line-items that delineate the benefits of federal actions 
as well. Customers deserve to know the whole story when it comes to 
federal regulatory actions--not just the side of the story that is in 
the company's best interests.
  Third, to ensure that the federal regulator of telephone service has 
all relevant documents available for review, the bill requires that 
companies submit the same financial disclosure forms to the FCC that 
they now submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This 
requirement won't impose a new, excessive burden on phone companies--
rather, it simply requires that they make a photocopy of the forms that 
are already being sent to the SEC and mail them to the FCC.
  Overall, this bill ensures that accurate information is being 
depicted on phone bills--and that customers are told the whole story 
about federal actions, not just the side that companies would like to 
tell.
  The bottom line is that changes are occurring as part of the 
transition to a more competitive telecommunications market that will 
bring substantial benefits to consumers and phone companies alike--but 
some companies would only like to tell their customers half of the 
story. That's simply not fair.
  The amendment that we are offering is fair. It is a fair for 
companies, and fair for consumers.
  Of critical importance, our amendment does not re-regulate the 
telecommunications industry--the companies will still decide for 
themselves if they want to use line items. Our amendment simply ensures 
that if a company does want to use a line-item for costs, it also will 
include line-items for benefits. In addition, it ensures that the 
billing practices of companies are properly examined and improper 
practices are eliminated.
  I would like to thank my friend from West Virginia for offering this 
amendment today, and urge that my colleagues support this bipartisan, 
pro-consumer amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was 
clear; competition and consumer choice are to be the hallmarks of the 
new telecommunication's market. However, the transition to competition 
has been anything but clear to consumers. The growing pains of the 
telecommunications industry have proved to be very confusing to 
customers who lack full information about the various costs associated 
with telecommunications services.
  This lack of information is very troublesome for customers who are 
trying to make sense of the telecommunications market. In order to help 
consumers through this confusing morass of information, I recently 
joined Senators Rockefeller and Snowe to introduce S. 1897 the Consumer 
Protection Act. Today, Senator Dorgan joins us as cosponsor of this 
legislation in the form of an amendment to S. 1618 the Consumer Anti-
Slamming Protection Act.
  Under the provisions of this amendment, if a company chooses to 
depict charges that are linked to federal policy on their bills, then 
the company will be required to depict the benefits of that action on 
the same bill. This requirement allows customers to see what they are 
paying for so that they can gain a better understanding of the costs 
associated with a national telecommunications network.
  As we transition from the rigid world of monopoly to a competitive 
market where consumers have choice, we must make sure that customers 
have all of the facts. Competition depends upon free flowing 
information and the Consumer Protection Act gives consumers the facts 
they need to make good choices in a competitive market.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I must respectfully oppose the amendment 
offered by my good friend and colleague, Senator Rockefeller.
  Let me explain why I am opposed. I take no issue with the Senator's 
commitment to the principles of universal telephone service. And I most 
certainly take no issue with the principle that consumers have a right 
to clear and correct information about material adjustments to their 
bills. I also believe that companies have an absolute right to inform 
consumers about increases to their bills that companies have made in 
response to federal and nonfederal requirements.
  But, with all due respect, that's not what's really at issue here.
  Mr. President, what's really at issue here is an attempt to 
rationalize the rate adjustments imposed by the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996. Unlike Senator Rockefeller, I didn't vote for that act, in 
part because I thought it

[[Page S4704]]

would produce precisely the result it is producing--little competition, 
lots of consolidation, and lots of bill adjustments--mostly increases.
  If my colleague's amendment wants to give consumers facts, let's talk 
about those facts. The telephone industry is built on a very complex 
system of implicit internal subsidies. Making them explicit, while at 
the same time adjusting them for the advent of competition, makes 
adjustments in consumer bills inevitable. Now add these further facts: 
the Telecom Act creates a whole new multibillion-dollar subsidy, and it 
requires local telephone companies and interexchange companies to 
expend billions of dollars to implement the Act's supposedly pro-
competitive provisions.
  So here are the bottom-line facts. First of all, given this hideously 
convoluted situation, complete ``truthful'' disclosure of all the 
adjustments inherent in a consumer's monthly phone bill would add pages 
and pages to a bill without necessarily doing much to enlighten the 
consumer. For example, if a requirement like this were currently in 
effect, a consumer might today be reading something like this:

       Your long-distance bill might have been lower if your long-
     distance carrier's reduction in access charge payments to 
     your local carrier had been reflected in your long-distance 
     bill instead of being used to help pay for the schools' and 
     libraries' wiring subsidy. Then again, of course, the FCC, 
     your long-distance carrier, and your local carrier disagree 
     on whether your long-distance carrier is really lowering your 
     bills as much as it might, and maybe someday we'll know the 
     answer--or maybe not. In the meantime, you're being assessed 
     a per-subscriber line charge which may or may not reflect the 
     real cost of your service, but the FCC's working on it. Of 
     course, if you live in the suburbs you should also know that 
     a portion of your bill goes to subsidize rural areas and 
     another portion subsidizes low-income subscribers. And be 
     aware that starting next year there's going to be another 
     substantial increase in some local phone bills as local phone 
     companies start passing along the costs of implementing local 
     number portability, which may or may not accurately reflect 
     all their true costs, which will otherwise be recovered by * 
     * *.

And on and on and on.
  I would also note that the Senator's bill would require the FCC to 
examine the bills of all telecommunications carriers. This would not 
only require the FCC to investigate the bills of the over 500 long-
distance telephone companies that currently exist; it would also 
require them to investigate the bills rendered by the thousands upon 
thousands of wireless paging, cellular telephone, and PCS companies 
too. This would require an enormous expansion of the current FCC 
bureaucracy.
  Mr. President, you get the picture: given the complexities of pricing 
offsets in changing telephone industry economics, this attempt at so-
called truthful disclosure won't work. It will only confuse the 
consumer to no useful purpose and wind up involving the FCC and the FTC 
in neverending regulatory micromanagement in an effort to ascertain the 
unascertainable.
  If those who voted for the 1996 Telecom Act are now concerned that 
the act is unexpectedly driving prices upward, the way to solve the 
problem is to change the Act--not to present attempted excuses in the 
form of confusing additions to consumers' bills.
  Having said why it's unrealistic to try and explain every single 
thing that has an impact on every single consumer telecom bill, I 
emphatically endorse the proposition that consumers have a right to be 
told why their bills have gone up--especially when an increase is 
results from a federal or State levy. I would like to offer my own 
amendment to assure consumers have access to that information.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2392) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the 
chairman of the Commerce Committee for accepting this amendment which I 
was rushing to the floor to eloquently and brilliantly explain, and it 
has been accepted. That is really what one prays for in this 
institution. I hope it survives the conference. I am sure that it will.
  Basically, the theory of it was--and I think that the chairman 
understood it as well as the Senator from North Dakota--that we should 
be honest with consumers. A lot of people don't know what a lot of the 
prices are on the telephone long-distance bill. Charges have gone down 
from an average of 34 cents per minute since deregulation of AT&T to 
about 16 cents per minute now. We should tell them when we bill them, 
if the prices go up on certain items, they also go down on others.
  As an example, recently there was a $1.5 billion access charge 
reduction, so actually the cost to the consumer on their residential 
rate bill was going to go down, but the companies only wanted to show 
the part that had a $675 million increase--$675 million increase, $1.5 
billion decrease; obviously, the net of the decrease wins big time, but 
they are not going to be told that.
  I think this is a very useful amendment that the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee has accepted. It isn't about reregulation, it is 
about treating consumers fairly. It is also, frankly, about something 
which is very complicated that consumers don't understand, nor should 
they be expected to understand, nor do many of us understand as we 
should--things like prescribed interchange carrier charge, called PICC. 
That is a very big thing in all of this.

  Even where universal service protects high-cost areas, the whole 
concept of universal service is not understood by most voters or many 
in the Congress itself.
  We have to be fair. We have to level with them. We have to be 
straight and honest. That is what this amendment attempts to do. That 
is one of the reasons I am so glad this amendment has been accepted.
  I thank, once again, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the 
Senator from Arizona, and also my friend from North Dakota, Senator 
Dorgan.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. That completes our amendments. I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Biden
       
  The bill (S. 1618), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1618

       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 ``Anti-slamming Amendments 
     Act''.
                           TITLE I--SLAMMING

     SEC. 101. IMPROVED PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS.

       (a) Verification of Authorization.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) 
     is amended to read as follows:

[[Page S4705]]

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--No telecommunications carrier or 
     reseller of telecommunications services shall submit or 
     execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except 
     in accordance with this section and such verification 
     procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.
       ``(2) Verification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In order to verify a subscriber's 
     selection of a telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service provider under this section, the telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller shall, at a minimum, require the 
     subscriber--
       ``(i) to affirm that the subscriber is authorized to select 
     the provider of that service for the telephone number in 
     question;
       ``(ii) to acknowledge the type of service to be changed as 
     a result of the selection;
       ``(iii) to affirm the subscriber's intent to select the 
     provider as the provider of that service;
       ``(iv) to acknowledge that the selection of the provider 
     will result in a change in providers of that service; and
       ``(v) to provide such other information as the Commission 
     considers appropriate for the protection of the subscriber.
       ``(B) Additional requirements.--The procedures prescribed 
     by the Commission to verify a subscriber's selection of a 
     provider shall--
       ``(i) preclude the use of negative option marketing;
       ``(ii) provide for a complete copy of verification of a 
     change in telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service provider in oral, written, or electronic form;
       ``(iii) require the retention of such verification in such 
     manner and form and for such time as the Commission considers 
     appropriate;
       ``(iv) mandate that verification occur in the same language 
     as that in which the change was solicited; and
       ``(v) provide for verification to be made available to a 
     subscriber on request.
       ``(3) Action by unaffiliated reseller not imputed to 
     carrier.--No telecommunications carrier may be found to be in 
     violation of this section solely on the basis of a violation 
     of this section by an unaffiliated reseller of that carrier's 
     services or facilities.
       ``(4) Freeze option protected.--The Commission may not take 
     action under this section to limit or inhibit a subscriber's 
     ability to require that any change in the subscriber's choice 
     of a provider of interexchange service not be effected unless 
     the change is expressly and directly communicated by the 
     subscriber to the subscriber's existing telephone exchange 
     service provider.
       ``(5) Application to wireless.--This section does not apply 
     to a provider of commercial mobile service.''.
       (b) Liability for Charges.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) Liability for Charges.--Any 
     telecommunications carrier'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Liability for Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any telecommunications carrier or 
     reseller of telecommunications services'';
       (2) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (3) and 
     inserting at the beginning of such paragraph, as so 
     designated, the following:
       ``(3) Construction of remedies.--''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1), as designated by 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following:
       ``(2) Subscriber payment option.--
       ``(A) In general.--A subscriber whose telephone exchange 
     service or telephone toll service is changed in violation of 
     the provisions of this section, or the procedures prescribed 
     under subsection (a), may elect to pay the carrier or 
     reseller previously selected by the subscriber for any such 
     service received after the change in full satisfaction of 
     amounts due from the subscriber to the carrier or reseller 
     providing such service after the change.
       ``(B) Payment rate.--Payment for service under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be at the rate for such service charged by the 
     carrier or reseller previously selected by the subscriber 
     concerned.''.
       (c) Resolution of Complaints.--Section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(c) Notice to Subscriber.--Whenever there is a change in 
     a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange 
     service or telephone toll service, the telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller selected shall notify the subscriber in a 
     specific and unambiguous writing, not more than 15 days after 
     the change is processed by the telecommunications carrier or 
     the reseller--
       ``(1) of the subscriber's new carrier or reseller; and
       ``(2) that the subscriber may request information regarding 
     the date on which the change was agreed to and the name of 
     the individual who authorized the change.
       ``(d) Resolution of Complaints.--
       ``(1) Prompt resolution.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall prescribe a period 
     of time for a telecommunications carrier or reseller to 
     resolve a complaint by a subscriber concerning an 
     unauthorized change in the subscriber's selection of a 
     provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service not in excess of 120 days after the 
     telecommunications carrier or reseller receives notice from 
     the subscriber of the complaint. A subscriber may at any time 
     pursue such a complaint with the Commission, in a State or 
     local administrative or judicial body, or elsewhere.
       ``(B) Unresolved complaints.--If a telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller fails to resolve a complaint within the 
     time period prescribed by the Commission, then, within 10 
     days after the end of that period, the telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller shall--
       ``(i) notify the subscriber in writing of the subscriber's 
     right to file a complaint with the Commission and of the 
     subscriber's rights and remedies under this section;
       ``(ii) inform the subscriber in writing of the procedures 
     prescribed by the Commission for filing such a complaint; and
       ``(iii) provide the subscriber a copy of any evidence in 
     the carrier's or reseller's possession showing that the 
     change in the subscriber's provider of telephone exchange 
     service or telephone toll service was submitted or executed 
     in accordance with the verification procedures prescribed 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Resolution by commission.--
       ``(A) Determination of violation.--The Commission shall 
     provide a simplified process for resolving complaints under 
     paragraph (1)(B). The simplified procedure shall preclude the 
     use of interrogatories, depositions, discovery, or other 
     procedural techniques that might unduly increase the expense, 
     formality, and time involved in the process. The Commission 
     shall determine whether there has been a violation of 
     subsection (a) and shall issue a decision or ruling at the 
     earliest date practicable, but in no event later than 150 
     days after the date on which it received the complaint.
       ``(B) Determination of damages and penalties.--If the 
     Commission determines that there has been a violation of 
     subsection (a), it shall issue a decision or ruling 
     determining the amount of the damages and penalties at the 
     earliest practicable date, but in no event later than 90 days 
     after the date on which it issued its decision or ruling 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Damages awarded by commission.--If a violation of 
     subsection (a) is found by the Commission, the Commission may 
     award damages equal to the greater of $500 or the amount of 
     actual damages for each violation. The Commission may, in its 
     discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount 
     equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the 
     preceding sentence.
       ``(e) Disqualification and Reinstatement.--
       ``(1) Disqualification from certain activities based on 
     conviction.--
       ``(A) Disqualification of persons.--Subject to subparagraph 
     (C), any person convicted under section 2328 of title 18, 
     United States Code, in addition to any fines or imprisonment 
     under that section, may not carry out any activities covered 
     by section 214.
       ``(B) Disqualification of companies.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (C), any company substantially controlled by a 
     person convicted under section 2328 of title 18, United 
     States Code, in addition to any fines or imprisonment under 
     that section, may not carry out any activities covered by 
     section 214.
       ``(C) Reinstatement.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Commission may terminate the 
     application of subparagraph (A) to a person, or subparagraph 
     (B) to a company, if the Commission determines that the 
     termination would be in the public interest.
       ``(ii) Effective date.--The termination of the 
     applicability of subparagraph (A) to a person, or 
     subparagraph (B) to a company, under clause (i) may not take 
     effect earlier than 5 years after the date on which the 
     applicable subparagraph applied to the person or company 
     concerned.
       ``(2) Certification requirement.--Any person described in 
     subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), or company described in 
     subparagraph (B) of that paragraph, not reinstated under 
     subparagraph (C) of that paragraph shall include with any 
     application to the Commission under section 214 a 
     certification that the person or company, as the case may be, 
     is described in paragraph (1)(A) or (B), as the case may be.
       ``(f) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Unless the Commission determines that 
     there are mitigating circumstances, violation of subsection 
     (a) is punishable by a forfeiture of not less than $40,000 
     for the first offense, and not less than $150,000 for each 
     subsequent offense.
       ``(2) Failure to notify treated as violation of subsection 
     (a).--If a telecommunications carrier or reseller fails to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (d)(1)(B), then 
     that failure shall be treated as a violation of subsection 
     (a).
       ``(g) Recovery of Forfeitures.--The Commission may take 
     such action as may be necessary--
       ``(1) to collect any forfeitures it imposes under this 
     section; and
       ``(2) on behalf of any subscriber, to collect any damages 
     awarded the subscriber under this section.
       ``(h) Change Includes Initial Selection.--For purposes of 
     this section, the initiation of service to a subscriber by a 
     telecommunications carrier or a reseller shall be treated as 
     a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.''.
       (d) Criminal Penalty.--

[[Page S4706]]

       (1) In general.--Chapter 113A of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 2328. Slamming

       ``Any person who submits or executes a change in a provider 
     of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service not 
     authorized by the subscriber in willful violation of the 
     provisions of section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 258), or the procedures prescribed under section 
     258(a) of that Act--
       ``(A) shall be fined in accordance with this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; but
       ``(B) if previously convicted under this paragraph at the 
     time of a subsequent offense, shall be fined in accordance 
     with this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, 
     for such subsequent offense.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     113A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end thereof the following:

``2328. Slamming''.

       (e) State Right-of-Action.--Section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258), as amended by 
     subsection (c), is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(i) Actions by States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The attorney general of a State, or an 
     official or agency designated by a State--
       ``(A) may bring an action on behalf of its residents to 
     recover damages on their behalf under subsection (d)(3);
       ``(B) may bring a criminal action to enforce this section 
     under section 2328 of title 18, United States Code; and
       ``(C) may bring an action for the assessment of civil 
     penalties under subsection (f),
     and for purposes of such an action, subsections (d)(3) and 
     (f)(1) shall be applied by substituting `the court' for `the 
     Commission'.
       ``(2) Exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.--The 
     district courts of the United States, the United States 
     courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United 
     States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction over all actions brought under this section. 
     When a State brings an action under this section, the court 
     in which the action is brought has pendant jurisdiction of 
     any claim brought under the law of that State. Upon proper 
     application, such courts shall also have jurisdiction to 
     issue writs of mandamus, or orders affording like relief, 
     commanding the defendant to comply with the provisions of 
     this section or regulations prescribed under this section, 
     including the requirement that the defendant take such action 
     as is necessary to remove the danger of such violation. Upon 
     a proper showing, a permanent or temporary injunction or 
     restraining order shall be granted without bond.
       ``(3) Rights of commission.--The State shall serve prior 
     written notice of any such civil action upon the Commission 
     and provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint, 
     except in any case where such prior notice is not feasible, 
     in which case the State shall serve such notice immediately 
     upon instituting such action. The Commission shall have the 
     right--
       ``(A) to intervene in the action;
       ``(B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       ``(C) to file petitions for appeal.
       ``(4) Venue; service of process.--Any civil action brought 
     under this subsection in a district court of the United 
     States may be brought in the district wherein the subscriber 
     or defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts 
     business or wherein the violation occurred or is occurring, 
     and process in such cases may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant is an inhabitant or where the defendant 
     may be found.
       ``(5) Investigatory powers.--For purposes of bringing any 
     civil action under this subsection, nothing in this section 
     shall prevent the attorney general of a State, or an official 
     or agency designated by a State, from exercising the powers 
     conferred on the attorney general or such official by the 
     laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer 
     oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of 
     witnesses or the production of documentary and other 
     evidence.
       ``(j) State Law Not Preempted.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section or in the 
     regulations prescribed under this section shall preempt any 
     State law that imposes more restrictive requirements, 
     regulations, damages, costs, or penalties on changes in a 
     subscriber's service or selection of a provider of telephone 
     exchange service or telephone toll services than are imposed 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Effect on state court proceedings.--Nothing contained 
     in this section shall be construed to prohibit an authorized 
     State official from proceeding in State court on the basis of 
     an alleged violation of any general civil or criminal statute 
     of such State or any specific civil or criminal statute of 
     such State not preempted by this section.
       ``(3) Limitations.--Whenever a complaint is pending before 
     the Commission involving a violation of regulations 
     prescribed under this section, no State may, during the 
     pendency of such complaint, institute a civil action against 
     any defendant party to the complaint for any violation 
     affecting the same subscriber alleged in the complaint.
       ``(k) Reports on Complaints.--
       ``(1) Reports required.--Each telecommunications carrier or 
     reseller shall submit to the Commission, quarterly, a report 
     on the number of complaints of unauthorized changes in 
     providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service that are submitted to the carrier or reseller by its 
     subscribers. Each report shall specify each provider of 
     service complained of and the number of complaints relating 
     to such provider.
       ``(2) Limitation on scope.--The Commission may not require 
     any information in a report under paragraph (1) other than 
     the information specified in the second sentence of that 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Utilization.--The Commission shall use the 
     information submitted in reports under paragraph (1) to 
     identify telecommunications carriers or resellers that engage 
     in patterns and practices of unauthorized changes in 
     providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service.
       ``(l) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Attorney general.--The term `attorney general' means 
     the chief legal officer of a State.
       ``(2) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means the person 
     named on the billing statement or account, or any other 
     person authorized to make changes in the providers of 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.''.
       (f) Report on Carriers Executing Unauthorized Changes of 
     Telephone Service.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than October 31, 1998, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall submit to Congress a report 
     on unauthorized changes of subscribers' selections of 
     providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service.
       (2) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
       (A) A list of the 10 telecommunications carriers or 
     resellers that, during the 1-year period ending on the date 
     of the report, were subject to the highest number of 
     complaints of having executed unauthorized changes of 
     subscribers from their selected providers of telephone 
     exchange service or telephone toll service when compared with 
     the total number of subscribers served by such carriers or 
     resellers.
       (B) The telecommunications carriers or resellers, if any, 
     assessed forfeitures under section 258(f) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by subsection (d)), 
     during that period, including the amount of each such 
     forfeiture and whether the forfeiture was assessed as a 
     result of a court judgment or an order of the Commission or 
     was secured pursuant to a consent decree.

     SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

       Section 504 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     504) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the failure of a 
     person to pay a forfeiture imposed for violation of section 
     258(a) may be used as a basis for revoking, denying, or 
     limiting that person's operating authority under section 214 
     or 312.''.

     SEC. 103. OBLIGATIONS OF BILLING AGENTS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of title II of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end thereof the following:

     ``SEC. 231. OBLIGATIONS OF TELEPHONE BILLING AGENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A billing agent, including a 
     telecommunications carrier or reseller, who issues a bill for 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service to a 
     subscriber shall--
       ``(1) state on the bill--
       ``(A) the name and toll-free telephone number of any 
     telecommunications carrier or reseller for the subscriber's 
     telephone exchange service and telephone toll service;
       ``(B) the identity of the presubscribed carrier or 
     reseller; and
       ``(C) the charges associated with each carrier's or 
     reseller's provision of telecommunications service during the 
     billing period;
       ``(2) for services other than those described in paragraph 
     (1), state on a separate page--
       ``(A) the name of any company whose charges are reflected 
     on the subscriber's bill;
       ``(B) the services for which the subscriber is being 
     charged by that company;
       ``(C) the charges associated with that company's provision 
     of service during the billing period;
       ``(D) the toll-free telephone number that the subscriber 
     may call to dispute that company's charges; and
       ``(E) that disputes about that company's charges will not 
     result in disruption of telephone exchange service or 
     telephone toll service; and
       ``(3) show the mailing address of any telecommunications 
     carrier or reseller or other company whose charges are 
     reflected on the bill.
       ``(b) Knowing Inclusion of Unauthorized or Improper Charges 
     Prohibited.--A billing agent may not submit charges for 
     telecommunications services or other services to a subscriber 
     if the billing agent knows, or should know, that the 
     subscriber did not authorize the charges or that the charges 
     are otherwise improper.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to bills to subscribers for telecommunications 
     services sent to subscribers more than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

[[Page S4707]]

     SEC. 104. FCC JURISDICTION OVER BILLING SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       Part III of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 271 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 277. JURISDICTION OVER BILLING SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       ``The Commission has jurisdiction to assess and recover any 
     penalty imposed under title V of this Act against an entity 
     not a telecommunications carrier or reseller to the extent 
     that entity provides billing services for the provision of 
     telecommunications services, or for services other than 
     telecommunications services that appear on a subscriber's 
     telephone bill for telecommunications services, but the 
     Commission may assess and recover such penalties only if that 
     entity knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this 
     Act or any rule or order of the Commission.''.

     SEC. 105. REPORT; STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall issue a report within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act on the telemarketing and other 
     solicitation practices used by telecommunications carriers or 
     resellers or their agents or employees for the purpose of 
     changing the telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service provider of a subscriber.
       (b) Specific Issues.--As part of the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall include findings on--
       (1) the extent to which imposing penalties on telemarketers 
     would deter unauthorized changes in a subscriber's selection 
     of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service;
       (2) the need for rules requiring third-party verification 
     of changes in a subscriber's selection of such a provider and 
     independent third party administration of presubscribed 
     interexchange carrier changes; and
       (3) whether wireless carriers should continue to be exempt 
     from the requirements imposed by section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258).
       (c) Rulemaking.--If the Commission determines that 
     particular telemarketing or other solicitation practices are 
     being used with the intention to mislead, deceive, or confuse 
     subscribers and that they are likely to mislead, deceive, or 
     confuse subscribers, then the Commission shall initiate a 
     rulemaking to prohibit the use of such practices within 120 
     days after the completion of its report.

     SEC. 106. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN RECORDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF 
                   TELEMARKETING FRAUD.

       Section 2703(c)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (2) striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) submits a formal written request relevant to a law 
     enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for 
     the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or 
     customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is 
     engaged in telemarketing (as such term is in section 2325 of 
     this title).''.
                     TITLE II--SWITCHLESS RESELLERS

     SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR SURETY BONDS FROM 
                   TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS OPERATING AS 
                   SWITCHLESS RESELLERS.

       Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.), as amended by section 103 of this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 232. SURETY BONDS FROM TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS 
                   OPERATING AS SWITCHLESS RESELLERS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--Under such regulations as the 
     Commission shall prescribe, any telecommunications carrier 
     operating or seeking to operate as a switchless reseller 
     shall furnish to the Commission a surety bond in a form and 
     an amount determined by the Commission to be satisfactory for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(b) Surety.--A surety bond furnished pursuant to this 
     section shall be issued by a surety corporation that meets 
     the requirements of section 9304 of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       ``(c) Claims Against Bond.--A surety bond furnished under 
     this section shall be available to pay the following:
       ``(1) Any fine or penalty imposed against the carrier 
     concerned while operating as a switchless reseller as a 
     result of a violation of the provisions of section 258 
     (relating to unauthorized changes in subscriber selections to 
     telecommunications carriers).
       ``(2) Any penalty imposed against the carrier under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Any other fine or penalty, including a forfeiture 
     penalty, imposed against the carrier under this Act.
       ``(d) Resident Agent.--A telecommunications carrier 
     operating as a switchless reseller that is not domiciled in 
     the United States shall designate a resident agent in the 
     United States for receipt of service of judicial and 
     administrative process, including subpoenas.
       ``(e) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Suspension.--The Commission may suspend the right of 
     any telecommunications carrier to operate as a switchless 
     reseller--
       ``(A) for failure to furnish or maintain the surety bond 
     required by subsection (a);
       ``(B) for failure to designate an agent as required by 
     subsection (d); or
       ``(C) for a violation of section 258 while operating as a 
     switchless reseller.
       ``(2) Additional penalties.--In addition to suspension 
     under paragraph (1), any telecommunications carrier operating 
     as a switchless reseller that fails to furnish or maintain a 
     surety bond under this section shall be subject to any 
     forfeiture provided for under sections 503 and 504.
       ``(f) Billing Services for Unbonded Switchless Resellers.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--No common carrier or billing agent may 
     provide billing services for any services provided by a 
     switchless reseller unless the switchless reseller--
       ``(A) has furnished the bond required by subsection (a); 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of a switchless reseller not domiciled in 
     the United States, has designated an agent under subsection 
     (d).
       ``(2) Penalty.--
       ``(A) Penalty.--Any common carrier or billing agent that 
     knowingly and willfully provides billing services to a 
     switchless reseller in violation of paragraph (1) shall be 
     liable to the United States for a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $50,000.
       ``(B) Applicability.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     provision of services to any particular reseller in violation 
     of paragraph (1) shall constitute a separate violation of 
     that paragraph.
       ``(3) Commission authority to assess and collect 
     penalties.--The Commission shall have the authority to assess 
     and collect any penalty provided for under this subsection 
     upon a finding by the Commission of a violation of paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(g) Return of Bonds.--
       ``(1) Review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission may from time to time 
     review the activities of a telecommunications carrier that 
     has furnished a surety bond under this section for purposes 
     of determining whether or not to retain the bond under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Standards of review.--The Commission shall prescribe 
     any standards applicable to its review of activities under 
     this paragraph.
       ``(C) First review.--The Commission may not first review 
     the activities of a carrier under subparagraph (A) before the 
     date that is 3 years after the date on which the carrier 
     furnishes the bond concerned under this section.
       ``(2) Return.--The Commission may return a surety bond as a 
     result of a review under this subsection.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Billing agent.--The term `billing agent' means any 
     entity (other than a telecommunications carrier) that 
     provides billing services for services provided by a 
     telecommunications carrier, or other services, if charges for 
     such services appear on the bill of a subscriber for 
     telecommunications services.
       ``(2) Switchless reseller.--The term `switchless reseller' 
     means a telecommunications carrier that resells the switched 
     telecommunications service of another telecommunications 
     carrier without the use of any switching facilities under its 
     own ownership or control.
       ``(i) Detariffing Authority Not Impaired.--Nothing in this 
     section is intended to prohibit the Commission from adopting 
     rules providing for the permissive detariffing of long-
     distance telephone companies, if the Commission determines 
     that such permissive detariffing would otherwise serve the 
     public interest, convenience, and necessity.''.
                          TITLE III--SPAMMING

     SEC. 301. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSMISSIONS OF 
                   UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

       (a) Information To Be Included in Transmissions.--
       (1) In general.--A person who transmits an unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail message shall cause to appear in 
     each such electronic mail message the information specified 
     in paragraph (2).
       (2) Covered information.--The following information shall 
     appear at the beginning of the body of an unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail message under paragraph (1):
       (A) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, 
     and telephone number of the person who initiates transmission 
     of the message.
       (B) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, 
     and telephone number of the person who created the content of 
     the message, if different from the information under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (C) A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who 
     initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no 
     cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating 
     electronic mail address with the word ``remove'' in the 
     subject line.
       (b) Routing Information.--All Internet routing information 
     contained within or accompanying an electronic mail message 
     described in subsection (a) must be accurate, valid according 
     to the prevailing standards for Internet protocols, and 
     accurately reflect message routing.
       (c) Effective Date.--The requirements in this section shall 
     take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 302. FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL 
                   ELECTRONIC MAIL.

       (a) Transmissions.--
       (1) In general.--Upon notice from a person of the person's 
     receipt of electronic mail in violation of a provision of 
     section 301 or 305, the Commission--
       (A) may conduct an investigation to determine whether or 
     not the electronic mail was transmitted in violation of such 
     provision; and
       (B) if the Commission determines that the electronic mail 
     was transmitted in violation of such provision, may--

[[Page S4708]]

       (i) impose upon the person initiating the transmission a 
     civil fine in an amount not to exceed $15,000;
       (ii) commence in a district court of the United States a 
     civil action to recover a civil penalty in an amount not to 
     exceed $15,000 against the person initiating the 
     transmission;
       (iii) commence an action in a district court of the United 
     States a civil action to seek injunctive relief; or
       (iv) proceed under any combination of the authorities set 
     forth in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii).
       (2) Deadline.--The Commission may not take action under 
     paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a transmission of electronic 
     mail more than 2 years after the date of the transmission.
       (b) Administration.--
       (1) Notice by electronic means.--The Commission shall 
     establish an Internet web site with an electronic mail 
     address for the receipt of notices under subsection (a).
       (2) Information on enforcement.--The Commission shall make 
     available through the Internet web site established under 
     paragraph (1) information on the actions taken by the 
     Commission under subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (3) Assistance of other federal agencies.--Other Federal 
     agencies may assist the Commission in carrying out its duties 
     under this section.

     SEC. 303. ACTIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--Whenever the attorney general of a State 
     has reason to believe that the interests of the residents of 
     the State have been or are being threatened or adversely 
     affected because any person is engaging in a pattern or 
     practice of the transmission of electronic mail in violation 
     of a provision of section 301 or 305, the State, as parens 
     patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of its residents 
     to enjoin such transmission, to enforce compliance with such 
     provision, to obtain damages or other compensation on behalf 
     of its residents, or to obtain such further and other relief 
     as the court considers appropriate.
       (b) Notice to Commission.--
       (1) Notice.--The State shall serve prior written notice of 
     any civil action under this section on the Commission and 
     provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint, except 
     that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such 
     prior notice, the State shall serve written notice 
     immediately on instituting such action.
       (2) Rights of commission.--On receiving a notice with 
     respect to a civil action under paragraph (1), the Commission 
     shall have the right--
       (A) to intervene in the action;
       (B) upon so intervening, to be heard in all matters arising 
     therein; and
       (C) to file petitions for appeal.
       (c) Actions by Commission.--Whenever a civil action has 
     been instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for 
     violation of a provision of section 301 or 305, no State may, 
     during the pendency of such action, institute a civil action 
     under this section against any defendant named in the 
     complaint in such action for violation of any provision as 
     alleged in the complaint.
       (d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing a civil action 
     under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall prevent 
     an attorney general from exercising the powers conferred on 
     the attorney general by the laws of the State concerned to 
     conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations 
     or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary or other evidence.
       (e) Venue; Service of Process.--Any civil action brought 
     under subsection (a) in a district court of the United States 
     may be brought in the district in which the defendant is 
     found, is an inhabitant, or transacts business or wherever 
     venue is proper under section 1391 of title 28, United States 
     Code. Process in such an action may be served in any district 
     in which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which the 
     defendant may be found.
       (f) Actions by Other State Officials.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to prohibit an authorized State 
     official from proceeding in State court on the basis of an 
     alleged violation of any civil or criminal statute of the 
     State concerned.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Attorney general.--The term ``attorney general'' means 
     the chief legal officer of a State.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the 
     Republic of Palau, and any possession of the United States.

     SEC. 304. INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       (a) Exemption for Certain Transmissions.--
       (1) Exemption.--Section 301 or 305 shall not apply to a 
     transmission of electronic mail by an interactive computer 
     service provider unless--
       (A) the provider initiates the transmission; or
       (B) the transmission is not made to its own customers.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be 
     construed to require an interactive computer service provider 
     to transmit or otherwise deliver any electronic mail message.
       (b) Actions by Interactive Computer Service Providers.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other remedies 
     available under any other provision of law, any interactive 
     computer service provider adversely affected by a violation 
     of a provision of section 301 or 305 may, within 1 year after 
     discovery of the violation, bring a civil action in a 
     district court of the United States against a person who 
     violates such provision. Such an action may be brought to 
     enjoin the violation, to enforce compliance with such 
     provision, to obtain damages, or to obtain such further and 
     other relief as the court considers appropriate.
       (2) Damages.--
       (A) In general.--The amount of damages in an action under 
     this subsection for a violation specified in paragraph (1) 
     may not exceed $15,000 per violation.
       (B) Relationship to other damages.--Damages awarded for a 
     violation under this subsection are in addition to any other 
     damages awardable for the violation under any other provision 
     of law.
       (C) Cost and fees.--The court may, in issuing any final 
     order in any action brought under paragraph (1), award costs 
     of suit, reasonable costs of obtaining service of process, 
     reasonable attorney fees, and expert witness fees for the 
     prevailing party.
       (3) Venue; service of process.--Any civil action brought 
     under paragraph (1) in a district court of the United States 
     may be brought in the district in which the defendant or in 
     which the interactive computer service provider is located, 
     is an inhabitant, or transacts business or wherever venue is 
     proper under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code. 
     Process in such an action may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which the 
     defendant may be found.
       (c) Interactive Computer Service Provider Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``interactive computer service provider'' 
     has the meaning given the term ``interactive computer 
     service'' in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)(2)).

     SEC. 305. RECEIPT OF TRANSMISSIONS BY PRIVATE PERSONS.

       (a) Termination of Transmissions.--A person who receives 
     from any other person an electronic mail message requesting 
     the termination of further transmission of commercial 
     electronic mail shall cease the initiation of further 
     transmissions of such mail to the person making the request.
       (b) Affirmative Authorization of Transmissions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a person may 
     authorize another person to initiate transmissions of 
     unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the person.
       (2) Availability of termination.--A person initiating 
     transmissions of electronic mail under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, with each transmission of such mail to a person 
     authorizing the transmission under that paragraph, the 
     information specified in section 301(a)(2)(C).
       (c) Constructive Authorization of Transmissions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a 
     person who secures a good or service from, or otherwise 
     responds electronically to, an offer in a transmission of 
     unsolicited commercial electronic mail shall be deemed to 
     have authorized the initiation of transmissions of 
     unsolicited commercial electronic mail from the person who 
     initiated the transmission.
       (2) No authorization for requests for termination.--An 
     electronic mail request to cease the initiation of further 
     transmissions of electronic mail under subsection (a) shall 
     not constitute authorization for the initiation of further 
     electronic mail under this subsection.
       (3) Availability of termination.--A person initiating 
     transmissions of electronic mail under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, with each transmission of such mail to a person 
     deemed to have authorized the transmission under that 
     paragraph, the information specified in section 301(a)(2)(C).
       (d) Effective Date of Termination Requirements.--
     Subsections (a), (b)(2), and (c)(3) shall take effect 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 306. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Commercial electronic mail.--The term ``commercial 
     electronic mail'' means any electronic mail that--
       (A) contains an advertisement for the sale of a product or 
     service;
       (B) contains a solicitation for the use of a telephone 
     number, the use of which connects the user to a person or 
     service that advertises the sale of or sells a product or 
     service; or
       (C) promotes the use of or contains a list of one or more 
     Internet sites that contain an advertisement referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) or a solicitation referred to in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (3) the term ``initiate the transmission'' in the case of 
     an electronic mail message means to originate the electronic 
     mail message, and does not encompass any intervening 
     interactive computer service whose facilities may have been 
     used to relay, handle, or otherwise retransmit the electronic 
     mail message, unless the intervening interactive computer 
     service provider knowingly and intentionally retransmits any 
     electronic mail in violation of section 301 or 305.

[[Page S4709]]

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS REGARDING CITIZENS BAND 
                   RADIO EQUIPMENT.

       Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     302) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a State or 
     local government may enforce the following regulations of the 
     Commission under this section:
       ``(A) A regulation that prohibits a use of citizens band 
     radio equipment not authorized by the Commission.
       ``(B) A regulation that prohibits the unauthorized 
     operation of citizens band radio equipment on a frequency 
     between 24 MHz and 35 MHz.
       ``(2) Possession of a station license issued by the 
     Commission pursuant to section 301 in any radio service for 
     the operation at issue shall preclude action by a State or 
     local government under this subsection.
       ``(3) The Commission shall provide technical guidance to 
     State and local governments regarding the detection and 
     determination of violations of the regulations specified in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, 
     a person affected by the decision of a State or local 
     government enforcing a regulation under paragraph (1) may 
     submit to the Commission an appeal of the decision on the 
     grounds that the State or local government, as the case may 
     be, acted outside the authority provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) A person shall submit an appeal on a decision of a 
     State or local government to the Commission under this 
     paragraph, if at all, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the decision by the State or local government 
     becomes final.
       ``(C) The Commission shall make a determination on an 
     appeal submitted under subparagraph (B) not later than 180 
     days after its submittal.
       ``(D) If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) 
     that a State or local government has acted outside its 
     authority in enforcing a regulation, the Commission shall 
     reverse the decision enforcing the regulation.
       ``(5) The enforcement of a regulation by a State or local 
     government under paragraph (1) in a particular case shall not 
     preclude the Commission from enforcing the regulation in that 
     case concurrently.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this section over devices capable of 
     interfering with radio communications.''.

     SEC. 402. MODIFICATION OF EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON 
                   INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Modification.--Section 2511(2)(d) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the previous sentence, it shall not be 
     unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under the 
     color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic 
     communication between a health insurance issuer or health 
     plan and a subscriber of such issuer or plan, or between a 
     health care provider and a patient, only if all of the 
     parties to the communication have given prior express consent 
     to such interception. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
     the term `health insurance issuer' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 733 of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191b), the term `health 
     plan' means a group health plan, as defined in such section 
     of such Act, an individual or self-insured health plan, the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), the medicaid program under title 
     XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), the State 
     children's health insurance program under title XXI of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.), and the Civilian Health and 
     Medical Program of the Uniformed Services under chapter 55 of 
     title 10, and the term `health care provider' means a 
     physician or other health care professional.''.
       (b) Recording and Monitoring of Communications with Health 
     Insurers.--
       (1) Communication without recording or monitoring.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health 
     insurance issuer, health plan, or health care provider that 
     notifies any customer of its intent to record or monitor any 
     communication with such customer shall provide the customer 
     the option to conduct the communication without being 
     recorded or monitored by the health insurance issuer, health 
     plan, or health care provider.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means a physician or other health care 
     professional.
       (B) Health insurance issuer.--The term ``health insurance 
     issuer'' has the meaning given that term in section 733 of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1191b).
       (C) Health plan.--The term ``health plan'' means--
       (i) a group health plan, as defined in section 733 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1191b);
       (ii) an individual or self-insured health plan;
       (iii) the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.);
       (iv) the medicaid program under title XIX of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
       (v) the State children's health insurance program under 
     title XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.); and
       (vi) the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 403. CONSUMER TRUTH IN BILLING DISCLOSURE ACT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Billing practices by telecommunications carriers may 
     not reflect accurately the cost or basis of the additional 
     telecommunications services and benefits that consumers 
     receive as a result of the enactment of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) and other 
     Federal regulatory actions taken since the enactment of that 
     Act.
       (2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was not intended to 
     allow providers of telecommunications services to 
     misrepresent to customers the costs of providing services or 
     the services provided.
       (3) Certain providers of telecommunications services have 
     established new, specific charges on customer bills commonly 
     known as ``line-item charges''.
       (4) Certain providers of telecommunications services have 
     described such charges as ``Federal Universal Service Fees'' 
     or similar fees.
       (5) Such charges have generated significant confusion among 
     customers regarding the nature of and scope of universal 
     service and of the fees associated with universal service.
       (6) The State of New York is considering action to protect 
     consumers by requiring telecommunications carriers to 
     disclose fully in the bills of all classes of customers the 
     fee increases and fee reductions resulting from the enactment 
     of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other regulatory 
     actions taken since the enactment of that Act.
       (7) The National Association of Regulatory Utility 
     Commissioners adopted a resolution in February 1998 
     supporting action by the Federal Communications Commission 
     and the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers of 
     telecommunications services by assuring accurate cost 
     reporting and billing practices by telecommunications 
     carriers nationwide.
       (b) Requirements.--Any telecommunications carrier that 
     includes any change resulting from Federal regulatory action 
     shall specify in such bill--
       (1) the reduction in charges or fees for each class of 
     customers (including customers of residential basic service, 
     customers of other residential services, small business 
     customers, and other business customers) resulting from any 
     regulatory action of the Federal Communications Commission;
       (2) total monthly charges, usage charges, percentage 
     charges, and premiums for each class of customers (including 
     customers of residential basic service, customers of other 
     residential services, small business customers, and other 
     business customers);
       (3) notify consumers one billing cycle in advance of any 
     changes in existing charges or imposition of new charges; and
       (4) disclose, upon subscription, total monthly charges, 
     usage charges, percentage charges, and premiums for each 
     class of customers (including residential basic service, 
     customers of other residential service, small business 
     customers, and other business customers).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________