[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5262-H5265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 714) to amend section 227 of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) relating to the prohibition on junk fax 
transmissions.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 714

       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 
     2005''.

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

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 227(b)(1)(C) 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;
       ``(ii) the sender obtained the number of the telephone 
     facsimile machine through--

       ``(I) the voluntary communication of such number, within 
     the context of such established business relationship, from 
     the recipient of the unsolicited advertisement, or
       ``(II) a directory, advertisement, or site on the Internet 
     to which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make available 
     its facsimile number for public distribution,

     except that this clause shall not apply in the case of an 
     unsolicited advertisement that is sent based on an 
     established business relationship with the recipient that was 
     in existence before the date of enactment of the Junk Fax 
     Prevention Act of 2005 if the sender possessed the facsimile 
     machine number of the recipient before such date of 
     enactment; and
       ``(iii) 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.--
     Section 227(a) 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:
       ``(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 title 47, Code 
     of Federal 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.--Section 
     227(b)(2) 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:
       ``(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

[[Page H5263]]

       ``(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 at any time 
     on any day of the week; and
       ``(vi) the notice complies with the requirements of 
     subsection (d);''.
       (d) Request To Opt-Out of Future Unsolicited 
     Advertisements.--Section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)), as amended by subsection (c), 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(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.--Section 
     227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     227(b)(2)), as amended by subsections (c) and (d), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(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)(iii), except that the Commission may take action under 
     this subparagraph only--
       ``(i) by regulation issued after public notice and 
     opportunity for public comment; and
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that such notice 
     required by paragraph (1)(C)(iii) 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.--Section 227(b)(2) 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:
       ``(G)(i) may, consistent with clause (ii), limit the 
     duration of the existence of an established business 
     relationship, however, before establishing any such limits, 
     the Commission shall--
       ``(I) determine whether 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) determine whether a significant number of any 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) evaluate the costs to senders of demonstrating the 
     existence of an established business relationship within a 
     specified period of time and the benefits to recipients of 
     establishing a limitation on such established business 
     relationship; and
       ``(IV) determine whether with respect to small businesses, 
     the costs would not be unduly burdensome; 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-month 
     period that begins on the date of the enactment of the Junk 
     Fax Prevention Act of 2005.''.
       (g) Unsolicited Advertisement.--Section 227(a)(5) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as so redesignated by subsection 
     (b)(1), is amended by inserting ``, in writing or otherwise'' 
     before the period at the end.
       (h) Regulations.--Except as provided in section 
     227(b)(2)(G)(ii) of the Communications Act of 1934 (as added 
     by subsection (f)), not later than 270 days after the date of 
     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:
       ``(g) Junk Fax Enforcement Report.--The Commission shall 
     submit an annual report to Congress regarding the enforcement 
     during the past year of the provisions of this section 
     relating to sending of unsolicited advertisements to 
     telephone facsimile machines, which report shall include--
       ``(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 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;
       ``(3) 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;
       ``(4) for each notice referred to in paragraph (3)--
       ``(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;
       ``(5) 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;
       ``(6) for each forfeiture order referred to in paragraph 
     (5)--
       ``(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;
       ``(7) 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; 
     and
       ``(8) 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
       ``(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 
     study 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 
     subsection (a)(4), 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 under section 1037 of title 18, United States 
     Code, would have a greater deterrent effect.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report on the results of the study under this section to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives.

  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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H5264]]

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 714.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 714, the Junk Fax Prevention 
Act of 2005, legislation very similar to the bill which this House 
passed in the last Congress that had been sponsored by me, 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, not 
only last year, but this year as well.
  I also want to thank the House leadership for agreeing to expedite 
consideration of this very important legislation, because June 30, 
later this week, is when the sands of the hourglass were about to run 
out on the current stay of the FCC's new junk fax rules which this 
legislation fixes. No doubt time is of the essence and passage of this 
legislation is long overdue, that is for sure.
  It is important to note that this bill does not overturn the ban on 
the faxing of unsolicited advertisements which has been outlawed since 
the passage of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. So this 
bill does not protect the senders of those annoying, unsolicited faxes 
which so many of our constituents get that advertise purported 
investment opportunities, mortgage refinancing opportunities, vacation 
packages, who knows what, always sent by unfamiliar firms with whom our 
constituents have never done business.
  I presume these firms are at best fly-by-night outfits, or at worst 
scam artists. In all events, they appear to be nuisances and violators 
of the Federal junk fax law, and this bill does not change that. 
Rather, the bill would clearly reinstate the FCC's previous rules which 
permitted businesses and associations to send faxes to those with whom 
they had ``an established business relationship'' without first having 
to get written permission slips from them.
  If we do not reinstate the FCC's previous rules, the cost of 
complying with the FCC's new rules will be enormous, and it will 
severely hamper legitimate fax communications between businesses and 
their consumers and between associations and their members.
  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 of their right to opt 
out of future faxes and senders must abide by such requests. That is an 
additional level of protection that consumers do not have under the 
current law.
  This Junk Fax Prevention Act is commonsense regulatory relief. I want 
to thank again the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) for their bipartisan cooperation on this bill; and I would urge 
all of my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this 
legislation. I begin with my congratulations and thanks to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the subcommittee. 
He and I worked in the last session, along with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 
other members of our committee, in order to draft legislation, which is 
very similar to the legislation which we are passing here today.
  I would like, if it is permissible within the rules, to also thank 
the Democrat and Republican Members of the other body for their work on 
this legislation as well. We truly passed this legislation in a 
bicameral, bipartisan fashion.
  First, let me state that back in ancient, prehistoric political 
times, back in 1991, that I was the principal House sponsor of the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which contained the original junk 
fax prohibition. In 1991, that legislation passed this body and this 
general prohibition against junk faxes became law because of this 
intrusive form of advertising.
  Every time someone junk faxes you, it is your paper that is coming 
out of the machine. You are paying for that paper. Your machine is tied 
up. It is just absolutely one of the most irritating things to people, 
to have to pay for someone else coming into your home or your business 
when you do not want them there. It is essentially a tax which is paid 
by the recipient of something that they never asked for in the first 
place.
  This is something that ultimately takes up precious time as well. The 
machine is tied up, there is too much clutter that is associated with 
it, and important faxes are lost in the midst of the pile of junk 
faxes. How many people have just taken a pile of junk faxes, thrown it 
away, and in the middle of it was a fax you really wanted from someone, 
but you were just so ticked off by this generally unwanted clutter 
which has come into your home or your business.
  So 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 it remains illegal 
under this bill.
  Neither are we changing any of the statutory enforcement mechanisms 
available to the Federal Communications Commission or to the individual 
consumers themselves 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.

                              {time}  1045

  I think that it cannot be emphasized enough how this bill is the 
product, again, of the bipartisan work that both parties have engaged 
in over the last 2 or 3 years to reach today's final product, and I 
urge the House to adopt unanimously this legislation today.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation 
builds upon legislation that was passed by the House in the last 
Congress and which this year was negotiated out between both Democratic 
and Republican members in the other body over a number of months. 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 this 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 demonstrate 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

[[Page H5265]]

and therefore changed its regulations. The new rules proposed by the 
Commission require ``written'' permission from consumers and these new 
rules have been stayed from going into effect until June 30th of this 
year, just a few short days away.
  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 to established 
customers or customers requesting such faxes. This has been done by 
reputable business entities presumably without complaints from the 
recipients of such faxes.
  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, 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 upon 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 and fax number for consumers to 
transmit a request not to receive future faxes.
  Third, the substitute 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 complaints 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 an ``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.
  Fourth, 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. Fifth, in this legislation the Commission is tasked with 
exploring additional mechanisms by which a consumer might opt-out, such 
as in person or by email or regular mail, and also requests that the 
Commission establish 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. 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.
  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.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, let me just say that I welcome my friend's comments. I 
would only say that we can now refer to ``the other body'' as ``the 
Senate.'' We changed the rules beginning with this Congress, so we do 
not need to damn the other side by saying ``the other body;'' we can 
now thank them for their efforts, and this is maybe the first time that 
has ever happened. But we applaud their efforts led by Chairman Stevens 
and others in the Senate.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, because 
this is an incantation which I have never actually been able to make 
legally under the rules of the House in my 29 years in this body, so I 
would like for the first time to utter the phrase: I would like to 
thank the Senate for its work on this legislation. It is much 
appreciated.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I thought the gentleman might want to 
revise and extend since we had something so gracious coming from the 
other body now called the Senate. But I want to thank them as well on a 
bipartisan basis for getting this legislation expedited to the floor. 
Madam Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 714, 
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.
  The FCC's recent proposal to require written permission to send 
commercial fax messages created a great deal of controversy, and I 
support this small amendment to the Junk Fax law that will make the 
larger law work better.
  I am a strong supporter of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and 
its ban on unsolicited commercial faxes, which place an undue financial 
burden on small business and individual recipients.
  It's one thing to have to receive a unsolicited telemarketer's call--
it's even worse to have to pay for it by having to replace the paper 
from your fax machine.
  However, I agree that the explicit, written notification requirement 
contemplated by the FCC in its proposed rulemaking is problematic for 
some situations like trade associations, realtors, and others who 
already have existing business relationships.
  As a result, I am pleased to join the bipartisan leadership of the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee in supporting S. 714, the Junk Fax 
Prevention Act of 2005.
  This Act corrects the FCC's rule and allows for businesses to 
communicate with other businesses with whom they have an established 
business relationship, as long as they allow business to ``opt-out'' of 
future faxes.
  This new law will not weaken protections for residential consumers or 
protection for businesses from unsolicited ads for printer toner, 
vacation deals, and other sales pitches that cost consumers money.
  This new law will prevent businesses and realtors from having to fill 
out paperwork to communicate with each other about an existing business 
relationship.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bill and urge its adoption by the full 
House.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 714.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________