[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S920-S921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
   S. 2624. A bill to regulate political robocalls, to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall 
Privacy Act of 2008, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Specter, 
Senator Inouye and Senator Durbin. This is a simple, straight-forward 
bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded 
phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by 
calls all through the day and night.
  In recent years, we have seen an unparalleled development of new 
technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters.
  This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and should be 
protected. The vast majority of these technological developments 
bolster the Democratic process, promoting an interchange of information 
and ideas.
  One of these is the so-called robocall, in which a prerecorded 
message can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost 
through computer automation.
  With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these 
prerecorded calls can play an important role alerting voters to a 
candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.
  A recent Pew Foundation poll found that 80 percent of Iowans in the 
recent primaries received automated political robocalls. A high level 
of sophistication goes into these robocalls--they are targeted and 
specific software dictates who is called, and when.

[[Page S921]]

  But the process can be abused. And we all have heard stories about 
people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the 
day and night.
  I believe this is wrong. Not only is it interfering with the privacy 
rights of Americans, but it can turn people away from the political 
process itself.
  Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade 
Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list--with millions of individuals 
subscribing. But political calls were specifically exempted from that 
list.
  Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. 
Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some 
safeguards without halting the practice altogether.
  The Robocall Privacy Act of 2008 bans political robocalls to any 
person from 9 p.m. in the evening and a.m. in the morning.
  It also bans more than two political robocalls from each campaign to 
the same telephone number per day, bans the caller from blocking the 
``caller identification'' number, and requires an announcement at the 
beginning of the call identifying the individual or organization making 
the call and the fact that it is a pre-recorded message. This is to 
prevent misinformation about the caller.
  The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on 
stopping the worst of these calls. The bill creates a civil fine for 
violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully 
violate the law.
  The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, 
but not receive money damages. A judge can order violators of the law 
to stop these abusive calls.
  Why are these provisions so important? Let me briefly describe some 
recent incidents:
  Hundreds of robocalls woke voters up at 2 in the morning during a 
2007 New York election--because of a software programming error. The 
calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m.
  In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters 
complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, 
containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim 
that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against 
him.
  In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that 
one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded 
voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. 
Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to 
complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually 
identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters 
had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing 
voters she had not made that call.
  The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue--
has indicated voters receive many calls a day. They have reported as 
much as 37 political phone calls in one day for one voter. That same 
organization reports that 40 percent of its membership indicated it 
received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season.
  In a recent Texas campaign, a negative robocall was sent to voters 
early in the morning--supposedly from one of the candidates. That 
candidate immediately protested it was not done on his behalf--but 
instead was an attempt to smear him by using his name. Voters became 
furious at the call.
  In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents 
received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and 
Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That 
candidate lost the election, and enraged voters about the false, late-
night call.
  Repeated robocalls to Tennessee resident Jonathan Gregory caused him 
to complain to The Tennessean newspaper: ``It's extremely annoying, and 
it's like getting telemarketing calls at work. . . . I think they 
should have some type of limit on how many times they can call the same 
number.''
  A February 1 Letter to the Editor of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, 
from a woman from East Pennsboro, PA, indicated that she received many 
political robocalls to her personal cell phone and was billed for each 
call.
  I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for 
political speech and I want to encourage the free exchange of 
information about candidates.
  But I also believe people should have a right to be protected from 
the most egregious forms of abuse.
  However, the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their 
homes by forcing them to answer calls and listen again and again. 
Something must be done.
  The bill does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable 
framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions.
  I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act 
of 2008.

                          ____________________