[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8763-H8765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KNOW YOUR CALLER ACT OF 2001
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 90) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
telemarketers from interfering with the caller identification service
of any person to whom a telephone solicitation is made, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 90
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 ``Know Your Caller Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE WITH CALLER
IDENTIFICATION SERVICES.
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
227) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Prohibition on Interference With Caller
Identification Services.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States, in making any telephone
solicitation--
``(A) to interfere with or circumvent the capability of a
caller identification service to access or provide to the
recipient of the telephone call involved in the solicitation
any information regarding the call that such service is
capable of providing; and
``(B) to fail to provide caller identification information
in a manner that is accessible by a caller identification
service, if such person has capability to provide such
information in such a manner.
For purposes of this section, the use of a telecommunications
service or equipment that is incapable of transmitting caller
identification information shall not, of itself, constitute
interference with or circumvention of the capability of a
caller identification service to access or provide such
information.
``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the
enactment of the Know Your Caller Act of 2001, the Commission
shall prescribe regulations to implement this subsection,
which shall--
``(A) specify that the information regarding a call that
the prohibition under paragraph (1) applies to includes--
``(i) the name of the person or entity who makes the
telephone call involved in the solicitation;
``(ii) the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the
solicitation is made; and
``(iii) a valid and working telephone number at which the
person or entity on whose behalf the telephone solicitation
is made may be reached during regular business hours for the
purpose of requesting that the recipient of the solicitation
be placed on the do-not-call list required under section
64.1200 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 64.1200) to
be maintained by such person or entity; and
``(B) provide that a person or entity may not use such a
do-not-call list for any purpose (including transfer or sale
to any other person or entity for marketing use) other than
enforcement of such list.
``(3) Private right of action.--A person or entity may, if
otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State,
bring in an appropriate court of that State--
``(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or
the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin
such violation;
``(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from
such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such
violation, whichever is greater; or
``(C) both such actions.
If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly
violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under
this subsection, 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 subparagraph (B)
of this paragraph.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Caller identification service.--The term `caller
identification service' means any service or device designed
to provide the user of the service or device with the
telephone number of an incoming telephone call.
``(B) Telephone call.--The term `telephone call' means any
telephone call or other transmission which is made to or
received at a telephone number of any type of telephone
service and includes telephone calls made using the Internet
(irrespective of the type of customer premises equipment used
in connection with such services). Such term also includes
calls made by an automatic telephone dialing system, an
integrated services digital network, and a commercial mobile
radio source.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECT ON STATE LAW AND STATE ACTIONS.
(a) Effect on State Law.--Subsection (f)(1) of section 227
of the Communications
[[Page H8764]]
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(f)(1)), as so redesignated by
section 2(1) of this Act, is further amended by inserting
after ``subsection (d)'' the following: ``and the prohibition
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (e),''.
(b) Actions by States.--The first sentence of subsection
(g)(1) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(g)(1)), as so redesignated by section 2(1) of this
Act, is further amended by striking ``telephone calls'' and
inserting ``telephone solicitations, telephone calls,''.
SEC. 4. STUDY REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF CALLER IDENTIFICATION
INFORMATION.
The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct a study
to determine--
(1) the extent of the capability of the public switched
network to transmit the information that can be accessed by
caller identification services;
(2) the types of telecommunications equipment being used in
the telemarketing industry, the extent of such use, and the
capabilities of such types of equipment to transmit the
information that can be accessed by caller identification
services; and
(3) the changes to the public switched network and to the
types of telecommunications equipment commonly being used in
the telemarketing industry that would be necessary to provide
for the public switched network to be able to transmit caller
identification information on all telephone calls, and the
costs (including costs to the telemarketing industry) to
implement such changes.
The Commission shall complete the study and submit a report
to the Congress on the results of the study, not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
General Leave
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 90, the Know Your Caller Act, by my good friend the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), deals with the
controversial business practice of telemarketing.
There are thousands of reputable telemarketing companies and they
provide a benefit to the public by offering a broad range of consumer
products and business opportunities. These companies employ hundreds of
thousands of citizens across this country and they fuel this economy
with literally billions of dollars.
Increasingly, however, telemarketers are the cause of complaints.
Consumers are concerned that telemarketers are intruding into their
homes, and we continue to hear stories about telemarketing schemes that
separate consumers from their hard-earned money.
In fact, telemarketing complaints lodged with the Federal Trade
Commission seem to support these consumer concerns. In 1997, for
example, there were 2,260 complaints. In 2000, there were 36,804
complaints, a significant increase.
H.R. 90 takes these consumer complaints seriously. With the excellent
work of the author, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen),
we can remove the cloak of secrecy that fraudulent telemarketers use to
swindle their victims. No longer will telemarketers be able to hide
behind the anonymous telephone call.
H.R. 90 prohibits telemarketers from blocking the transmission of
caller ID information. In addition, this bill requires telemarketers to
send caller ID information if their equipment is capable to do so. What
this means is that the flashing signals on caller ID boxes, ``caller
unknown,'' or ``out of area'' will no longer protect the scam artist.
The transmission of caller identification information is so important
to consumers, not only for safety and privacy reasons, but also because
it provides the consumer with a telephone number that can be used to
place the consumer on what is known as a telemarketer's ``do-not-call''
list. You see, if you know who is calling you and you do not want them
to call him again, under the law, you can put a call in and say do not
call me anymore; I do not want to be bothered anymore. By being placed
on a do-not-call list, the telemarketer is prohibited from calling back
for the next 10 years. That will protect you for a while.
Additionally, the bill takes steps to prevent the sale of do-not-call
lists, which is currently allowed under the law.
I have worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on
bipartisan amendment efforts to clarify this point. To remedy this
loophole, H.R. 90 prohibits telemarketers from selling, leasing or
receiving anything of value for these do-not-call lists. Few things are
more offensive than being asked to be placed on a do-not-call list,
only to have your name sold to another direct mail company.
This amendment respects and protects the privacy requests of the
consumer and should prevent an increase in unwanted telephone
solicitations.
I believe this bill strikes a good balance between the consumers'
right to privacy and safety and the telemarketers' legitimate business
interests. It protects consumers as well as the very thriving
commercial industry and, indeed, protects the good players from the bad
consequences of bad actors.
I support this bill and urge support from the House as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the sponsor of H.R. 90, who did excellent
work here in crafting this legislation.
Consumers who want to exercise their right to be placed on a do-not-
call list, or to take a telemarketer to small claims court after being
called, are often frustrated when they cannot get the caller ID
information from the telemarketer to identify them.
This legislation prohibits telemarketers from interfering with or
circumventing the capability of caller ID services. Telemarketers who
solicit the public in their homes for commercial gains should not be
permitted to evade the purpose and function of caller ID services. This
bill will prevent the telemarketers from doing so, while further
empowering consumers to control the communications going to and from
their home.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the telecommunications revolution
gives enormous opportunities for telemarketers, but it also gives
opportunities for consumer power. These powers should include the
ability, by using caller ID, to prevent information from going to their
family which they deem and believe is inappropriate.
I think this information strikes a good balance between the rights of
consumers to protect their privacy and the rights of telemarketers to
practice their trade. This bill allows consumers to use the best
available technology to protect their privacy but does not allow
telemarketers to start a de facto race to outsmart this technology.
I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the
author of the legislation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin) for yielding me the time, and I want to commend him and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and all
Members for their assistance in getting this bill to the floor,
particularly the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who has been
very helpful. He has been very supportive, and he has been personally
very interested in this bill. H.R. 90 would not be here without his
support and the way that he has helped me along the way.
Mr. Speaker, the Know Your Caller Act will provide a simple but
important consumer protection. Many consumers purchase and pay for
caller ID service and caller ID equipment for several reasons: In the
first instance, to protect their privacy; secondly, they provide for
their personal security by identifying incoming calls and allow them
the opportunity to decide before picking up the receiver, whether or
not to answer the call.
[[Page H8765]]
Guess what, some of the most frequent calls, those from
telemarketers, not all telemarketers but many, appear with a message
Out of the Area or Caller Unknown. Mr. Speaker, telemarketing is a
commercial enterprise. As such, what would be the reason for not
disclosing a business telephone number? There simply is no reason.
I believe that all commercial enterprises that use the telephone to
advertise or sell their services to encourage the purchase of property
or goods or for any other good commercial purposes should be required
to have the name of their business and their business telephone number
disclosed on caller ID boxes. Some telemarketing enterprises purposely
block out caller ID devices; yet these same companies know a person's
name, address, and telephone number. Is it not only fair that they
share their company name and their telephone number so a person can
make sure that they are a legitimate company, that they are who they
say they are?
Also, if my colleagues are like me and politely ask to have their
name removed from their list, I think we should also be able to track
the name and number of these telemarketing callers to ensure that they
do not call back again. My legislation will simply require any person
making a telephone solicitation to clearly identify themselves on these
devices.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help separate legitimate
telemarketers from fraudulent ones. While the majority of telemarketers
are legitimate business people attempting to sell a product or service,
there are some unscrupulous individuals and companies violating
existing telemarketing rules and scamming many customers.
Consumers pay a monthly service fee to subscribe to the caller ID
service because they want to protect their personal privacy and their
pocketbooks, but they have little recourse to protest intrusions on
their privacy because most telemarketers intentionally block their
identity from being transmitted to caller ID devices.
Mr. Speaker, we already require telemarketers to identify themselves
over the telephone and via telephone fax transmission. This bill simply
extends the protection to consumers with caller ID devices.
Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks for this opportunity. This bill
passed unanimously in the last session; and again, I thank the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his support of it.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I say in closing that this is a good bill. I especially appreciate
the ability of individuals and the private cause of action that is in
the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) for his absolute perseverance in seeing to it that this
bill is passed again this year. Hopefully, it will become law and
consumers will be much better off for it and he will be a hero. A lot
of Americans have been troubled by this, and I commend this bill to the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 90, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________