[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6089-H6093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4600) to amend Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 to 
clarify the prohibition on junk fax transmissions, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4600

       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 ``Junk Fax Prevention Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FAX TRANSMISSIONS CONTAINING 
                   UNSOLICITED ADVERTISEMENTS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Subparagraph (C) of section 227(b)(1) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or 
     other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an 
     unsolicited advertisement, unless--
       ``(i) the unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with 
     an established business relationship with the recipient, and

[[Page H6090]]

       ``(ii) the unsolicited advertisement contains a notice 
     meeting the requirements under paragraph (2)(D),

     except that the exception under clauses (i) and (ii) shall 
     not apply with respect to an unsolicited advertisement sent 
     to a telephone facsimile machine by a sender to whom a 
     request has been made not to send future unsolicited 
     advertisements to such telephone facsimile machine that 
     complies with the requirements under paragraph (2)(E); or''.
       (b) Definition of Established Business Relationship.--
     Subsection (a) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) The term `established business relationship', for 
     purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the 
     meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of the Commission's 
     regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that--
       ``(A) such term shall include a relationship between a 
     person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the 
     same terms applicable under such section to a relationship 
     between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and
       ``(B) an established business relationship shall be subject 
     to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph 
     (2)(G).''.
       (c) Required Notice of Opt-Out Opportunity.--Paragraph (2) 
     of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) shall provide that a notice contained in an 
     unsolicited advertisement complies with the requirements 
     under this subparagraph only if--
       ``(i) the notice is clear and conspicuous and on the first 
     page of the unsolicited advertisement;
       ``(ii) the notice states that the recipient may make a 
     request to the sender of the unsolicited advertisement not to 
     send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone 
     facsimile machine or machines and that failure to comply, 
     within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the 
     Commission, with such a request meeting the requirements 
     under subparagraph (E) is unlawful;
       ``(iii) the notice sets forth the requirements for a 
     request under subparagraph (E);
       ``(iv) the notice includes--

       ``(I) a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine 
     number for the recipient to transmit such a request to the 
     sender; and
       ``(II) a cost-free mechanism for a recipient to transmit a 
     request pursuant to such notice to the sender of the 
     unsolicited advertisement; the Commission shall by rule 
     require the sender to provide such a mechanism and may, in 
     the discretion of the Commission and subject to such 
     conditions as the Commission may prescribe, exempt certain 
     classes of small business senders, but only if the Commission 
     determines that the costs to such class are unduly burdensome 
     given the revenues generated by such small businesses;

       ``(v) the telephone and facsimile machine numbers and the 
     cost-free mechanism set forth pursuant to clause (iv) permit 
     an individual or business to make such a request during 
     regular business hours; and
       ``(vi) the notice complies with the requirements of 
     subsection (d);''.
       (d) Request To Opt-Out of Future Unsolicited 
     Advertisements.--Paragraph (2) of section 227(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)), as amended 
     by subsection (c) of this section, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) shall provide, by rule, that a request not to send 
     future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile 
     machine complies with the requirements under this 
     subparagraph only if--
       ``(i) the request identifies the telephone number or 
     numbers of the telephone facsimile machine or machines to 
     which the request relates;
       ``(ii) the request is made to the telephone or facsimile 
     number of the sender of such an unsolicited advertisement 
     provided pursuant to subparagraph (D)(iv) or by any other 
     method of communication as determined by the Commission; and
       ``(iii) the person making the request has not, subsequent 
     to such request, provided express invitation or permission to 
     the sender, in writing or otherwise, to send such 
     advertisements to such person at such telephone facsimile 
     machine;''.
       (e) Authority To Establish Nonprofit Exception.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227(b)(2)), as amended by subsections (c) and (d) of 
     this section, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) may, in the discretion of the Commission and subject 
     to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe, allow 
     professional or trade associations that are tax-exempt 
     nonprofit organizations to send unsolicited advertisements to 
     their members in furtherance of the association's tax-exempt 
     purpose that do not contain the notice required by paragraph 
     (1)(C)(ii), except that the Commission may take action under 
     this subparagraph only by regulation issued after public 
     notice and opportunity for public comment and only if the 
     Commission determines that such notice required by paragraph 
     (1)(C)(ii) is not necessary to protect the ability of the 
     members of such associations to stop such associations from 
     sending any future unsolicited advertisements; and''.
       (f) Authority To Establish Time Limit on Established 
     Business Relationship Exception.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     227(b)(2)), as amended by subsections (c), (d), and (e) of 
     this section, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(G)(i) may, consistent with clause (ii), limit the 
     duration of the existence of an established business 
     relationship to a period not shorter than 5 years and not 
     longer than 7 years after the last occurrence of an action 
     sufficient to establish such a relationship, but only if--

       ``(I) the Commission determines that the existence of the 
     exception under paragraph (1)(C) relating to an established 
     business relationship has resulted in a significant number of 
     complaints to the Commission regarding the sending of 
     unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines;
       ``(II) upon review of such complaints referred to in 
     subclause (I), the Commission has reason to believe that a 
     significant number of such complaints involve unsolicited 
     advertisements that were sent on the basis of an established 
     business relationship that was longer in duration than the 
     Commission believes is consistent with the reasonable 
     expectations of consumers;
       ``(III) the Commission determines that the costs to senders 
     of demonstrating the existence of an established business 
     relationship within a specified period of time do not 
     outweigh the benefits to recipients of establishing a 
     limitation on such established business relationship; and
       ``(IV) the Commission determines that, with respect to 
     small businesses, the costs are not unduly burdensome, given 
     the revenues generated by small businesses, and taking into 
     account the number of specific complaints to the Commission 
     regarding the sending of unsolicited advertisements to 
     telephone facsimile machines by small businesses; and

       ``(ii) may not commence a proceeding to determine whether 
     to limit the duration of the existence of an established 
     business relationship before the expiration of the 3-year 
     period that begins on the date of the enactment of the Junk 
     Fax Prevention Act of 2004.''.
       (g) Unsolicited Advertisement.--Paragraph (5) of section 
     227(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     227(a)(4)), as so redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this 
     section, is amended by inserting ``, in writing or 
     otherwise'' before the period at the end.
       (h) Regulations.--Except as provided in clause (ii) of 
     section 227(b)(2)(G) of the Communications Act of 1934 (as 
     added by subsection (f) of this section), not later than 270 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall issue regulations to 
     implement the amendments made by this section.

     SEC. 3. FCC ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING JUNK FAX ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     227) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Junk Fax Enforcement Report.--The Commission shall 
     submit a report to the Congress for each year regarding the 
     enforcement of the provisions of this section relating to 
     sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile 
     machines, which shall include the following information:
       ``(1) The number of complaints received by the Commission 
     during such year alleging that a consumer received an 
     unsolicited advertisement via telephone facsimile machine in 
     violation of the Commission's rules.
       ``(2) The number of such complaints received during the 
     year on which the Commission has taken action.
       ``(3) The number of such complaints that remain pending at 
     the end of the year.
       ``(4) The number of citations issued by the Commission 
     pursuant to section 503 during the year to enforce any law, 
     regulation, or policy relating to sending of unsolicited 
     advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.
       ``(5) The number of notices of apparent liability issued by 
     the Commission pursuant to section 503 during the year to 
     enforce any law, regulation, or policy relating to sending of 
     unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.
       ``(6) For each such notice--
       ``(A) the amount of the proposed forfeiture penalty 
     involved;
       ``(B) the person to whom the notice was issued;
       ``(C) the length of time between the date on which the 
     complaint was filed and the date on which the notice was 
     issued; and
       ``(D) the status of the proceeding.
       ``(7) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture 
     penalties issued pursuant to section 503 during the year to 
     enforce any law, regulation, or policy relating to sending of 
     unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.
       ``(8) For each such forfeiture order--
       ``(A) the amount of the penalty imposed by the order;
       ``(B) the person to whom the order was issued;
       ``(C) whether the forfeiture penalty has been paid; and
       ``(D) the amount paid.
       ``(9) For each case in which a person has failed to pay a 
     forfeiture penalty imposed by such a final order, whether the 
     Commission referred such matter for recovery of the penalty.
       ``(10) For each case in which the Commission referred such 
     an order for recovery--
       ``(A) the number of days from the date the Commission 
     issued such order to the date of such referral;
       ``(B) whether an action has been commenced to recover the 
     penalty, and if so, the number of days from the date the 
     Commission referred such order for recovery to the date of 
     such commencement; and

[[Page H6091]]

       ``(C) whether the recovery action resulted in collection of 
     any amount, and if so, the amount collected.''.

     SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF JUNK FAX ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study regarding complaints received by 
     the Federal Communications Commission concerning unsolicited 
     advertisements sent to telephone facsimile machines, which 
     shall determine--
       (1) the mechanisms established by the Commission to 
     receive, investigate, and respond to such complaints;
       (2) the level of enforcement success achieved by the 
     Commission regarding such complaints;
       (3) whether complainants to the Commission are adequately 
     informed by the Commission of the responses to their 
     complaints; and
       (4) whether additional enforcement measures are necessary 
     to protect consumers, including recommendations regarding 
     such additional enforcement measures.
       (b) Additional Enforcement Remedies.--In conducting the 
     analysis and making the recommendations required under 
     paragraph (7) of subsection (a), the Comptroller General 
     shall specifically examine--
       (1) the adequacy of existing statutory enforcement actions 
     available to the Commission;
       (2) the adequacy of existing statutory enforcement actions 
     and remedies available to consumers;
       (3) the impact of existing statutory enforcement remedies 
     on senders of facsimiles;
       (4) whether increasing the amount of financial penalties is 
     warranted to achieve greater deterrent effect; and
       (5) whether establishing penalties and enforcement actions 
     for repeat violators or abusive violations similar to those 
     established by section 4 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (15 
     U.S.C. 7703) would have a greater deterrent effect.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report on the results of the study under this section to 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4600, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and it is to make this point: That the majority worked very well with 
the minority on this issue. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and I and all the Members on our side want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for 
their cooperation on this legislation.
  I was the principal House sponsor of the original junk fax bill back 
in 1991. That bill worked quite well, but we need to update it, and 
this legislation will help to give the additional protections to 
American consumers so that they can protect themselves against the 
tsunami of unwanted junk faxes which go into their homes.
  After all, what could be worse than to have something come into your 
home, consume paper in your fax machine that you have to pay for, and 
then not have an ability to be able to stop that person from sending 
any more junk faxes into your home?
  That is what this bill will help to ensure does not occur in our 
country. The provisions in it, I think, are solid, they are sound, and 
they are the product of a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation 
reflects a compromise that was negotiated out between both Democratic 
and Republican Members over a number of weeks and I encourage Members 
to support this legislation today.
  First, let me state that I was the principal House sponsor of the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, which contained the 
original junk fax prohibition. Congress endorsed my call in 1991 for a 
general prohibition against junk faxes because of the intrusive nature 
of that form of advertising. Junk faxes represent a form of advertising 
in which the ad is essentially paid for by the recipient. The recipient 
of a junk fax pays for the fax paper and printer costs, pays in the 
form of precious lost time as the machine is tied up, and also in the 
form of the clutter in which important faxes are lost in the midst of a 
pile of junk faxes.
  I think it is important to emphasize that the bill we bring to the 
House floor today retains the general prohibition against sending junk 
faxes. In other words, sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement 
is against the law. We are not changing the law or the policy with 
respect to this--sending a junk fax was illegal and remains illegal 
under this bill. Neither are we changing any of the statutory 
enforcement mechanisms available to the FCC or consumers in this bill.
  The legislation we are proposing will address certain provisions 
affecting an exception to the general prohibition against sending junk 
faxes and will improve the bill in these areas. Since the FCC 
originally implemented the 1991 junk fax provisions of the TCPA, 
Commission regulations contained an exception for faxes that were sent 
because an ``established business relationship'' existed between the 
sender and the recipient. These regulations were in place and the 
ability to send junk faxes based upon the exception was permitted by 
the Commission for over a decade.

  This concept of an ``established business relationship'' permitted a 
commercial entity to invoke its ability to prove such a relationship 
with a consumer in order to contact that consumer in spite of the 
general prohibitions of the law. The FCC has more recently determined 
that the term ``established business relationship'' was not 
specifically included in the provisions addressing junk faxes in the 
TCPA and therefore changed its regulations. The new rules require 
``written'' permission from consumers and these new rules have been 
stayed from going into effect until January of 2005.
  The legislation before us is designed to put specific language into 
the statute permitting an ``established business relationship'' 
exception to the general prohibition against junk faxes. Many 
businesses have complained that written permission is too onerous a 
regulatory requirement for many of the faxes that they stipulate are 
routinely sent in the ordinary course of business, presumably without 
complaints from the recipients of such faxes. The draft bill is 
responsive to these complaints.
  We must recognize, however, that many small businesses and 
residential consumers find many of these unsolicited faxes, including 
those faxes sent because a valid claim of an ``established business 
relationship'' was being asserted in order to send them, to be a 
considerable irritant and strongly object to receiving them. The 
legislation, therefore, addresses additional issues, including putting 
into the statute an ``opt-out'' ability for consumers to object to 
receiving junk faxes, even when such faxes are sent to them based on an 
established business relationship. For the decade that the original FCC 
regulations were in place, many consumers simply were not aware of the 
FCC's established business relationship exception, nor did very many 
know they had an ability to stop these faxes or any clear way in which 
to effectuate such a request.

  The bill the House is considering includes new provisions requiring 
an ``opt-out'' notice and policy that we will add to the statute. The 
bill requires junk faxes to include, on the first page, a clear and 
conspicuous notice to consumers that they have the right not to receive 
future junk faxes from the sender. Second, the notice must include a 
domestic contact telephone number an fax number for consumers to 
transmit a request not to receive future faxes. Third, the bill 
stipulates that consumers must be able to make such requests during 
normal business hours. Fourth, the bill requires the notice to conform 
with the Commission's technical and procedural standards for sending 
faxes under Section 227(d) of the law, which include the requirement to 
identify the entity sending the facsimile advertisement.
  This is an important provision because one of the biggest complains 
from the FCC at the hearing, and with other law enforcement entities 
and aggrieved consumers, is that they have had difficulty legally 
identifying the source of many of the unsolicited faxes. In addition, 
there were some senders of junk faxes who evidently and falsely 
believed that simply because they were sending an unsolicited fax based 
upon their ability to prove they had a ``established business 
relationship'' with a consumer, and thus did not have to abide by the 
general prohibition against such faxes, that this also meant they did 
not have to abide by the other FCC and statutory technical rules. These 
statutory and regulatory rules include requirements that junk fax 
senders identify themselves in such faxes. Law enforcement entities and 
consumers need to be able to find the legal business name or widely 
recognized trade name of the entity sending a junk fax in violation of 
the rules in order to pursue enforcement actions.

  Fifth, this bill makes it clear that a consumer can ``opt-out'' of 
receiving faxes to multiple machines, if they have more than one, 
rather than opting out solely for the particular machine that received 
the junk fax. Sixth, in this

[[Page H6092]]

legislation the Commission is tasked with exploring additional 
mechanisms by which a consumer might opt-out, such as in person or by 
e-mail or regular mail, and also requests that the Commission 
established cost-free ways by which consumers can opt-out. These notice 
and opt-out requirements all represent new provisions to the law for 
which existing enforcement remedies will apply.
  This legislation also includes the ability for the FCC to limit the 
duration of an established business relationship notwithstanding the 
fact that the law would include an opt-out notice and ability which 
avails consumers of the right to opt-out of receiving faxes at any 
point in time. I believe this is an important concept and one which 
deals with the legitimate expectations of consumers. If a consumer buys 
something from a store, consumers might expect to hear from that store 
within a reasonable period of time under the notion that they have an 
established business relationship and the store was sending an 
unsolicited fax based upon that fact. Over time however, a consumer's 
expectation changes and there is a time after which the established 
business relationship can be said to have lapsed.
  There are some who believe that no time limit is necessary, in light 
of the fact that we are now adding a clear way by which consumers may 
opt-out of receiving junk faxes at any time. There are others who 
believe that a time limit is necessary for consumer protection, and 
many of us have different views over what period of time is reasonable. 
While it is not the preferred resolution for any of us, the bill 
contains a new provision which tries to bridge the gap between our 
different perspectives on this issue. The legislation will permit the 
Commission to put in place a sunset of the established business 
relationship, after the FCC implements the new opt-out policy and it 
gets a track record on what is happening in the marketplace. In 
particular, the Commission will examine consumer complaints to the 
agency during this period with an analysis as to whether junk faxes 
from entities with whom consumers have an established business 
relationship constitute a significant number of complaints. If so, the 
Commission may establish a limit, between 5 and 7 years, for the 
duration of an established business relationship. If it does so, then 
after the limit, entities would not be able to send junk faxes because 
they can prove an established business relationship with a consumer. In 
other words, the relationship would end for purposes of the exception 
and the policy would revert back to the general prohibition against 
sending the junk fax for that consumer.

  Finally, I think it is important to take a comprehensive look at 
overall enforcement of the junk fax law. I am concerned that some of 
the most egregious junk fax operations, the entities that broadcast 
such faxes to millions, often escape enforcement. They may be found 
guilty, cited by the FCC and sometimes fined--but often it appears as 
if they either ignore the fines, skip town, or live overseas. For these 
reasons the bill includes provisions that will give us an annual 
accounting of the FCC's enforcement activities as well as a GAO 
analysis of what additional enforcement tools may be necessary to 
provide sufficient deterrent, especially to the most egregious and 
abusive junk fax senders.
  Again, I want to commend Chairman Upton and Chairman Barton for their 
work on this bill, and in particular for their willingness and openness 
in working with me and Mr. Dingell in crafting the compromises needed 
to achieve consensus. I encourage all the members to support it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 
2004, bipartisan legislation which I introduced along with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I want to 
thank those Members for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation.
  In 1991, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which 
included landmark legislation that protected consumers from receiving 
unwanted and unsolicited commercial faxes. For over 10 years, the FCC 
had interpreted that law to provide businesses with an exception to the 
general ban when they faxed commercial or advertising material to an 
existing business customer.
  Then, in 2003, the FCC made a major change in their interpretation of 
the law. Under the new FCC rules, every business, every single one, 
small, large, home-based, every association, every nonprofit 
organization, every charity, would be required to obtain prior written 
approval from each individual before it sent a commercial fax.

                              {time}  1900

  The logistical and financial costs of the new FCC rules, particularly 
to small business and nonprofit associations, would be enormous.
  For instance, the survey of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce suggested 
that the cost to the average small business would be at least $5,000 in 
the first year and more than $3,000 each year thereafter. The survey 
further indicated that it would take, on average, more than 27 hours of 
staff time to obtain the initial written consent from their customers, 
and an additional 20 hours each year to keep those forms current. A 
recent survey by the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors 
revealed that its member companies expected to pay an average of 
$22,500 just to obtain the consent forms. With our economy in the 
fragile stages of an economic recovery, I would much rather see those 
dollars going towards production and job creation.
  Given the dramatic impact which the new rules would have, last 
August, just before the new rules were to go into effect, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the then chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and I wrote the FCC and requested that the FCC 
delay the effective date of the new rules. Thankfully, the FCC did. In 
fact, they stayed the effective date until January of 2005.
  Moreover, while the FCC currently has the new rules under 
reconsideration, I think it is the wisest course for Congress to step 
in and fix the law to resolve any lingering statutory interpretation 
problems which led to the FCC's new rules, and that is why we are here 
today.
  Let me start by stating what the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004 
would not do. The bill does not overturn the ban on the faxing of 
unsolicited advertisements. That has been outlawed since the passage of 
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, and this bill does 
nothing to change that.
  This bill does not protect the senders of those annoying, unsolicited 
faxed advertisements which so many of us get from companies with whom 
we have never done business, often sent to us randomly by blast fax, 
and do not properly identify themselves in the fax transmission.
  Rather, the bill with clearly reinstate the established business 
relationship exemption to allow businesses, associations, and charities 
to send commercial faxes to their customers and members without first 
receiving written permission. Additionally and importantly, the bill 
would establish new opt-out safeguards to provide additional 
protections for fax recipients. Under the bill, senders of faxes must 
alert recipients clearly and conspicuously on the first page, of their 
right to opt-out of future faxes, and senders must abide by those 
requests. This is a level of protection that consumers never had under 
the FCC rules. Finally, the bill sets out the FCC reporting 
requirements so that Congress can monitor the FCC's enforcement 
activity.
  The Junk Fax Prevention Act is commonsense, regulatory relief; and 
time is of the essence for Congress to pass it, since many businesses 
will very soon need to begin making arrangements to be in compliance 
with the new rules by January of 2005.
  I want to thank my friends, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their sincere bipartisan cooperation on the 
bill. I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, Kelly 
Cole, Howard Waltzman, Pete Filon, Colin Crowell, Will Carty, and 
certainly Will Nordwind for all of their superb efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to ensure 
that we get this must-pass legislation to the President's desk as 
expeditiously as possible this year.
   Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4600, the Junk 
Fax Prevention Act of 2004. The bill strikes a proper balance between 
protecting consumers from unwanted junk faxes and permitting legitimate 
business communications, and I would commend Chairmen Barton and Upton, 
and Ranking Member Markey for their bipartisan work.
   H.R. 4600 is necessary because the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC), as part of its Do-Not-Call order last year, reversed its 
existing business relationship (EBR) policy regarding junk faxes. 
Starting in January 2005, permission to receive junk faxes

[[Page H6093]]

must be in writing and include the recipient's signature.
   This rule will have a perverse effect on legitimate business 
communications. For example, under the Commission's new policy, if I 
would like my travel agent to send me a description of various vacation 
packages, I must first deliver to my agent a signed waiver requesting 
the fax. Likewise, my favorite restaurant would have to obtain a 
similar waiver in order to fax me its updated menu. Not surprisingly, 
commercial enterprises, especially small businesses and trade 
associations, are justifiably concerned about the impact of the FCC's 
new junk fax rules.
   H.R. 4600 takes the corrective step of codifying a modified version 
of the FCC's current 12-year-old junk fax EBR policy that is set to end 
this year. To provide further protection to consumers, however, that 
policy will be changed to provide consumers with the right to opt out 
from receiving such faxes from a particular sender. Further, consumers 
must be provided clear and conspicuous notice of their new opt-out 
right. Additional protections for consumers include enabling recipients 
to opt out using a cost-free mechanism and giving the FCC the authority 
to sunset the EBR.
   In an effort to focus on enforcement against those who illegally 
send junk faxes, the legislation requires the Commission to report to 
the Congress each year on the number of junk fax complaints it has 
received and on the enforcement actions taken against those who violate 
the agency's rules. This report should assist the commission in 
maintaining proper vigilance on those who fail to respect consumer 
privacy. Moreover, the bill requires the Government Accountability 
Office to study the junk fax issue and make recommendations to the 
Committee on additional enforcement measures that can be taken to 
protect consumers from unwanted junk faxes.
   Mr. Speaker, consumers are fed up with the unwanted and intrusive 
junk faxes that clog up their fax machines. H.R. 4600 will help protect 
consumers from receiving these faxes while ensuring that businesses can 
continue to use the fax machine to communicate with their customers. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hensarling). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4600, 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.

                          ____________________