[House Report 106-978]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-978

======================================================================



 
                 TRUTH IN TELEPHONE BILLING ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

October 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3011]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3011) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve 
the disclosure of information concerning telephone charges, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Amendment........................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     3
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings................     4
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     4
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     5
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     6
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     7
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     7
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     8
Additional Views.................................................    10

                               Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Telephone Billing Act of 
2000''.

SEC. 2. TELEPHONE BILLING PRACTICES.

  (a) Amendment.--Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 258) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsections:
  ``(c) Truth-in-Billing.--A telecommunications carrier that is 
required to contribute to, or that is otherwise assessed for, any 
support mechanism under section 254, or any other governmental 
mechanism, fund, tax, or program, shall identify on each subscriber's 
bill, in simple, plain language (of no more than one line of text per 
dollar amount)--
          ``(1) the identity of the governmental mechanism, fund, tax, 
        or program to which the contribution or assessment is made, and 
        the identity of the governmental authority whose rules require 
        or authorize the contribution or assessment;
          ``(2) the basis for the contribution or assessment (such as 
        per subscriber, per line, or percentage of some or all charges 
        or revenues); and
          ``(3) as a separate line-item, the dollar amount that is 
        being attributed to and collected from such subscriber for such 
        governmental mechanism, fund, tax, or program.
  ``(d) Prohibition of Excess Charges.--If any telecommunications 
carrier that is subject to subsection (c) discloses to its subscribers 
under paragraph (3) of such subsection a total dollar amount for any 
billing period that exceeds the total dollar amount such carrier 
contributes to or is assessed for the applicable governmental 
mechanism, fund, tax, or program for such billing period, such carrier 
shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty equal to the amount of such 
excess, in addition to any other penalties for which the carrier may be 
liable under title V. The Commission may, by rule, provide for the 
distribution of any forfeiture penalties collected under this 
subsection to the affected subscribers.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 258 is further amended by striking 
the designation and heading of such section and inserting the 
following:

``SEC. 258. BILLING PRACTICES.''.

SEC. 3. STUDY REQUIRED.

  (a) Study of Subsidy System Required.--The Comptroller General shall 
conduct a study of the implicit and explicit subsidies from the 
government, taxpayers, and consumers to providers and consumers of 
telecommunications services, including subsidies in support of 
universal service required by section 254 of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 254), the systems for the collection and distribution 
of support for rural and high cost areas, lifeline services, 
connections of schools and libraries to the Internet, and rural health 
care services.
  (b) Report.--Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report on the 
results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 3011 is to provide some accountability 
to governmental entities that impose mechanisms, taxes, funds, 
fees or charges on telecommunications industry as a way to pay 
for related and unrelated programs. The cost for these programs 
is often passed on to the consumer in one form or another. 
Today, the average consumer's telephone bill is loaded with 
these governmental added-on taxes and fees. However, given the 
governmental restrictions or unwillingness to explain to 
consumers what is included in their telephone bills, consumers 
have no idea what additional programs they are paying for and 
which government entity imposed the charge.
    H.R. 3011 will change this situation. The bill will give 
consumers valuable information including which government 
entity is sponsoring the tax or fee, what is the governmental 
authority for collecting such a tax or fee, and how are 
companies collecting the fee or tax from consumers. This 
information will be provided on consumers' telephone bills for 
open inspection and review by consumers.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    When measured by total revenue, the telecommunications 
services industry has realized exponential growth in recent 
decades. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently 
reported in its Statistics of Communications Common Carriers 
that total telecommunications revenue grew from $153.4 billion 
in 1992 to $246.4 billion in 1998. While industry growth has 
lead to substantial job creation and technological innovation, 
it has also attracted the attention of legislators and 
regulators at all levels of government. Policymakers--
particularly those at the State and local level--increasingly 
view consumers' telecommunications services as a means of 
funding a variety of government programs.
    Some taxes are historical and already appear on consumers' 
phone bills, such as the three percent Federal excise tax that 
was originally enacted in 1897 to fund the Spanish-American 
War. But many taxes and assessments are fairly recent and, in 
some cases, remain hidden from consumers because carriers 
``blend'' the tax into consumers' rates (as opposed to 
explicitly itemizing the tax). For example, at the Federal 
level, the FCC imposed an ``e-rate'' tax, which the FCC 
assesses principally on long distance and wireless carriers' 
revenues. These carriers, in turn, recover the tax from 
consumers by raising rates by an average of $12 per line, per 
year--and in many cases, fail to disclose the tax to consumers.
    Meanwhile, telephone taxes abound at the State and local 
level. While these taxes vary among localities, many State and 
local governments impose their own excise taxes, franchise 
fees, rights-of- way charges, gross receipts taxes, license 
fees, 911 fees, public utility taxes, infrastructure 
maintenance fees, and access line taxes. Moreover, State and 
local government taxation is often discriminatory; that is, 
State and local governments will typically tax wireless 
services differently than wireline services, and will tax 
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) differently than 
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).
    The consumer impact of State and local taxation on 
telecommunications services is significant. According to a 
recent analysis by the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), 
State and local governments level approximately 37 different 
types of taxes on telecommunications services--many of which 
(once again) are passed on to and hidden from consumers. The 
PFF found that, on average, 16 percent of consumers' local 
monthly service goes towards State and local taxes, and that in 
some markets, the total amount of local monthly service that is 
attributable to State and local taxes is as high as 35 percent.
    It is clear that there exists a lack of information 
available to consumer about their telephone bills, especially 
relating to the imposition of fees and taxes for governmental 
programs. Consumers will benefit from the additional 
information and knowledge gained through the passage of H.R. 
3011.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection held a hearing on H.R. 3011 on March 9, 2000. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from: Mr. Kevin Breen, Vice 
President of Consumer Operations and Billing, AT&T Mr. Jeff 
Eisenach, President, Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF); Ms. 
Kathy Hotka, Vice President for Information Technology, 
National Retail Federation; Mr. Kent Lassman, Deputy Director 
of Technology and Communications, Citizens for a Sound Economy 
(CSE); Mr. Brian Moir, Partner, Moir & Hardman (on behalf of 
the International Communications Association (ICA)); and Mr. 
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open 
markup session and approved H.R. 3011 for Full Committee 
consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. The Full Committee 
met in open markup session on October 5, 2000, and ordered H.R. 
3011 reported to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote, 
a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. 
There were no record votes taken in connection with ordering 
H.R. 3011 reported. A motion by Mr. Bliley to order H.R. 3011 
reported to the House, with an amendment, was agreed to by a 
voice vote.
    The following amendment was agreed to by a voice vote:

          An amendment by Mr. Dingell, No. 1, imposing 
        forfeiture penalties on telecommunications carriers 
        that disclose to its subscribers amounts higher than 
        what carriers has been assessed or required to 
        contribute pursuant to a governmental mechanism, fund, 
        tax, or program.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held a legislative 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report.

           Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been 
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government 
Reform.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
3011, the Truth in Billing Act of 1999, would result in an 
insignificant increase in budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 11, 2000.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3011, the Truth in 
Telephone Billing Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Ken Johnson 
(for federal costs), Shelley Finlayson (for the impact on state 
and local governments), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the impact on 
the private sector).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3011--Truth in Telephone Billing Act of 1999

    H.R. 3011 would require telecommunications carriers to 
itemize on subscribers' billing statements certain information 
about each governmental tax, fee, or payment that is levied by 
federal, state, or local governments. The bill also would 
require the General Accounting Office (GAO) to complete a study 
within one year on the subsidies to providers and consumers of 
telecommunications services. In addition, H.R. 3011 would 
punish with forfeiture penalties any telecommunications carrier 
that pays less in governmental taxes, fees, or payments during 
a billing period than it collects from subscribers for these 
purposes. The bill also would allow the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) to redistribute these collections to the 
affected subscribers.
    Based on information from GAO, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 301 would cost GAO about $1 million in 2001, 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds, to complete 
the required study. Because the bill would create new 
forfeiture penalties and direct spending, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would apply.
    Based on information from the FCC and private-sector 
sources. CBO estimates that the additional forfeiture penalties 
collected under H.R. 3011 would amount to less than $500,000 a 
year. Thus, the provision allowing the FCC to redistribute the 
forfeiture penalties back to affected subscribers would cause 
an insignificant increase in direct spending.
    H.R. 3011 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The bill would require 
telecommunications carriers, including those owned by state and 
municipal governments, to include certain information on 
government assessments on all consumer telephone bills. 
According to informal estimates by industry groups, there are 
fewer than 10 state or municipally owned telecommunications 
carriers. Based on the relatively small number of publicly 
owned telecommunications carriers, CBO estimates that the costs 
to state and local governments would not be significant and 
would not exceed the threshold established by UMRA ($55 million 
in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation).
    H.R. 3011 also contain private-sector mandates as defined 
in UMRA. CBO estimates that the total direct costs of mandates 
in the bill would not exceed the threshold for private-sector 
mandates established by UMRA ($109 million in 2000, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    H.R. 3011 would impose two mandates on telecommunications 
carriers. First, the bill would require telecommunications 
carriers to include certain information on government 
assessments on all consumer telephone bills. The bulk of the 
costs to comply with those mandates would be programming time 
to include the required information on telephone bills. 
According to the FCC statistics, an estimated 1,300 companies 
provide local telephone services and 700 companies provide 
long-distance telephone services. Each of those companies would 
need to modify their computer programs to provide the 
additional disclosures on telephone bills. According to some 
industry estimates, the cost to make those changes would be in 
the range of $15,000 to $20,000 per company. Additional minimal 
costs would be required to accommodate the maintenance and 
operational costs of administering the changes in the billing 
process.
    Second, the bill would prohibit telecommunication carriers 
from collecting excess charges as government assessments. Any 
carrier found in violation would be liable for a penalty in the 
amount of the excess and any additional penalties applicable in 
current law. Because the systems are already in place to 
collect the government assessments, CBO expects the additional 
cost to administer the system with such a prohibition would be 
small.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Ken Johnson 
(for federal costs), Shelley Finlayson (for the impact on state 
and local governments), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the impact on 
the private sector). This estimate was approved by Peter H. 
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several 
States, and with the Indian tribes.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 provides the short title of the bill, the ``Truth 
in Billing Act of 1999.''

Section 2. Telephone billing practices

    Section 2(a) adds a new section 258(c) and (d) to the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq). New 
subsection (c) requires each telecommunications carrier to 
identify on each subscriber's monthly statement: (1) the 
government program for which the carrier is being taxed, and 
the government entity imposing the tax; (2) the form in which 
the tax is assessed (e.g., per subscriber, per line, percentage 
of revenues); and (3) a separate line-item that identifies the 
dollar amount of the subscriber's bill that is being used by 
the carrier to pay for the government program. Under new 
subsection (c), the identification on each subscribers' bill is 
required to be in plain language of no more than one line of 
text per dollar amount.
    New subsection (d) imposes forfeiture penalties on 
telecommunications carriers that disclose to its subscribers 
pursuant to subsection (a) amounts higher than what carriers 
has been assessed or required to contribute pursuant to a 
governmental mechanism, fund, tax, or program. This is intended 
to prevent carriers from collecting more than they are required 
to pay in such mechanisms, fund, tax, or program. The 
Commission may, by rule, distribute any forfeiture monies 
received to the affected subscribers.
    The Committee expects that, in some instances, 
telecommunications carriers may be justified in disclosing to 
individual subscribers an amount for the assessment of 
government-imposed fees that is greater than the specific 
assessment by a governmental entity. For example, a carrier may 
disclose, and thus collect, a percentage of billed revenues 
equal to 8.6 percent for its contribution to the Universal 
Service Fund when the actual government assessment for this 
purpose is 5.6 percent. This discrepancy is permissible under 
new subsection (d), so long as the aggregate amount actually 
disclosed to the carrier's subscriber base does not exceed the 
aggregate amount actually paid to the governmental entity. For 
example, a telecommunications carrier may need to increase the 
charge to its customers in order to recover government 
assessments that are actually uncollectible from a portion of 
its subscribers. Further, a carrier may need to impose a higher 
rate if the FCC or the Universal Service Administrative Company 
bases its assessment on a carrier's prior year's revenues, and 
those revenues are higher than the carrier's actual experience 
in the current year. Subsection (d) permits such higher 
disclosures so long as it does not exceed the aggregate funds 
paid by the carrier to the government for the stated purpose of 
any particular governmental program, tax, fee, etc.
    Subsection (b) changes the title of section 258 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 from ``Illegal Changes in Subscriber 
Carrier Selections'' to ``Billing Practices.''

Section 3. Study required

    Section (3)(a) requires the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
to conduct an in-depth analysis and examination of the implicit 
and explicit subsidy mechanisms from government, taxpayers, and 
consumers to providers and consumers of telecommunications 
services. As part of this study, GAO is required to examine 
differing programs contained in the universal service support 
mechanisms as required by section 254 of the Communications 
Act.
    Subsection (b) requires GAO report its findings pursuant to 
the study conducted under subsection (a) not later than one 
year from date of enactment of H.R. 3011.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

             SECTION 258 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934


[SEC. 258. ILLEGAL CHANGES IN SUBSCRIBER CARRIER SELECTIONS.]

SEC. 258. BILLING PRACTICES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Truth-in-Billing.--A telecommunications carrier that is 
required to contribute to, or that is otherwise assessed for, 
any support mechanism under section 254, or any other 
governmental mechanism, fund, tax, or program, shall identify 
on each subscriber's bill, in simple, plain language (of no 
more than one line of text per dollar amount)--
          (1) the identity of the governmental mechanism, fund, 
        tax, or program to which the contribution or assessment 
        is made, and the identity of the governmental authority 
        whose rules require or authorize the contribution or 
        assessment;
          (2) the basis for the contribution or assessment 
        (such as per subscriber, per line, or percentage of 
        some or all charges or revenues); and
          (3) as a separate line-item, the dollar amount that 
        is being attributed to and collected from such 
        subscriber for such governmental mechanism, fund, tax, 
        or program.
  (d) Prohibition of Excess Charges.--If any telecommunications 
carrier that is subject to subsection (c) discloses to its 
subscribers under paragraph (3) of such subsection a total 
dollar amount for any billing period that exceeds the total 
dollar amount such carrier contributes to or is assessed for 
the applicable governmental mechanism, fund, tax, or program 
for such billing period, such carrier shall be liable for a 
forfeiture penalty equal to the amount of such excess, in 
addition to any other penalties for which the carrier may be 
liable under title V. The Commission may, by rule, provide for 
the distribution of any forfeiture penalties collected under 
this subsection to the affected subscribers.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We support the goal of H.R. 3011, which is intended to 
ensure that consumers know when and how much they are paying to 
support government-mandated programs. We are concerned though 
that the Dingell amendment, which was added to the bill during 
its consideration by the full Commerce Committee, overlooks two 
very important factors that impact the way in which 
telecommunications carriers seek to recover the cost of their 
contributions to the universal service fund. The first of these 
factors can, and should be addressed by the Federal 
Communications Commission; the second, however, requires that 
the Dingell amendment be redrafted or dropped from the 
legislation.
    The first problem with the Dingell amendment is that it 
fails to recognize that the Federal Communications Commission's 
current rules and regulations regarding universal service 
assessments create a competitive imbalance because they assess 
carriers on the basis of the prior year's end-user revenues 
from the provision of certain types of telecommunications. This 
backward-looking assessment has an adverse impact on any 
carrier that may be losing market share as new competitors 
enter the market and win customers. Because the present 
universal service fund collection regime is based on prior year 
revenues, a new or expanding carrier may have no revenues, or 
at least a smaller base of revenues, on which the present year 
fee is assessed. At the same time, that new or expanding 
carrier or provider has an expanding base of customers over 
which they can spread the cost of that assessment. In contrast, 
a carrier with declining market share is assessed based on the 
larger prior year revenues, yet has a smaller present base of 
customers over which to spread the cost. This problem could be 
exacerbated as the regional Bell operating companies inevitably 
gain the approvals necessary to enter the interexchange market, 
and unless the FCC acts to correct the problem caused by the 
current rules, the unfortunate result will be a competitive 
imbalance.
    Rather than continuing with the Federal Communications 
Commission's current rules and regulations regarding universal 
service assessments, the Commission should consider assessing 
carriers on the basis of its prior six month calendar year's 
revenues.
    The second problem with the Dingell amendment is that it 
fails to recognize that carriers which must contribute to the 
universal service fund incur costs as a result of collecting 
the revenues that ultimately are contributed to the fund. 
Carriers already bear the burden of collecting revenues to 
support the universal service fund; they should not also have 
to bear the administrative cost of collecting those revenues. 
To ask them to do so would be equivalent of an unfunded 
mandate. During the 104th Congress, we wisely voted to avoid 
imposing unfunded mandates on state and local governments; we 
should endeavor to follow a similar course with respect to 
businesses. For this reason, the Dingell amendment should be 
redrafted or deleted from H.R. 3011.
                                   Steve Largent.
                                   Michael G. Oxley.

                                  
