Medicare Early Detection of Cancer Promotion Act of 2007

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for his hard work on this important issue. We are so delighted, Bobby, to see you back. We look forward to continuing our work with you. Thank you so much for everything you have done, and, also, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I would to also thank our chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, the gentleman

from Michigan for his strong support of this legislation.

This passed unanimously out of the Energy and Commerce Committee in a bipartisan way and in no small part due to the people I have mentioned before. I also want to thank the dedicated majority and minority staffs of the Consumer Protection and Telecommunications subcommittees for their diligent work in crafting an excellent bipartisan, compromise bill.

Madam Speaker, the prepaid calling card market is a $4 billion industry. In a recent independent study it was found that, on average, companies failed to provide 40 percent of the minutes guaranteed by the card, costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

This fraud harms segments of the population who are least able to afford it, the poor, recent immigrants, minorities and seniors, and the companies don't stop there. They have even preyed upon our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is unconscionable and obviously un-American. This legislation would end the deception and the fraud that these people have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous companies.

Now, the bottom line for this bill is this is a consumer protection bill. If we are in favor of protecting the consumer, then we should vote for this bill, because it's very, very simple. People have a right to know that when they buy a prepaid calling card, what they see is what they get. If a card says you get 60 minutes of calling time, then that consumer who buys the card is entitled to 60 minutes of calling time.

What we find in little small print that nobody can see or understand, there are so many hidden fees. Some calling cards say that you only can get the 60 minutes if you call at certain times. But if you don't call at other times, you don't get the minutes. Then the time you get the minutes is only from 2 to 4 a.m., which is ridiculous. Some cards charge you 3 units, 3 minutes of call time if you get a busy signal. Or 3 minutes of call time if you are just connected, as for a connection charge, even if it was across the street or in the same State.

So consumers don't want to think they are being defrauded. Consumers are entitled to get what they pay for. Sometimes there are companies that are very legitimate. Most of the companies are legitimate.

If a company says that you get 60 minutes of calling card, and it's a legitimate card, and that card may be a little bit more expensive than the fraudulent card, the unsuspecting consumer will buy the cheaper card thinking that he or she will get a better deal, when, in reality, the 60 minutes may only be 30 or 32 or 35 minutes.

The bottom line is this, if you are for the consumer, if you are for truth in marketing, then you should support this bill. If you are not, and you want things to go along the way they have been, then don't vote for the bill.

I am so delighted that we have bipartisan consideration on this and that, in a bipartisan fashion, we all agree that this is something that really should pass.

Nobody, nobody should be against this, not the telecom companies, not consumer groups, not any Members of Congress.

If we want to stand for legitimacy and say that we want to protect the consumer, and that we want people to understand that when they purchase something, they know what they are getting, then we ought to all vote for this bill.

I thank my colleagues. This is a tremendous victory for the consumers in America.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for bringing up that very important point. He should know, as I am sure he does, that there is no intent to penalize mom-and-pop store owners or anybody who may sell a card of this degree without any knowledge that there is something wrong with the card.

The purpose of this legislation is to go after the companies who fraudulently manufacture and sell these cards, not to go after individual grocery stores or mom and pop stores that sell these cards. I definitely agree with the gentleman that if someone does not have a knowledge that they are selling the card that may be flawed, we should not in any way, shape or form penalize them. That is certainly not the intent of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of an excellent and sorely needed piece of legislation, H.R. 3402, the ``Calling Card Consumer Protection Act''. This bill is intended to combat the fraud and deception that is rampant in the marketing of prepaid calling cards. Many of our consumers--especially recent immigrants, the poor, students, and members of the military and their families--are vitally dependent on these prepaid cards to keep in touch with family and friends.

This bill requires providers and distributors of these cards to make full, clear, and honest disclosures on the cards, their packaging, and advertising materials. No more hidden charges. No more cards that do not deliver the minutes they promise. The bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the Act. Violators would be subject to injunctive and other equitable relief to stop them from cheating consumers. If a violation is ``knowing'', they would be subject to civil penalties. In this way, the bill ensures that retailers who sell these dirty cards are subject only to injunctive relief, unless it can be shown that retailers knew the cards were fraudulent. Thus, we get the fraudulent cards off the market without punishing innocent retailers.

This bill maximizes protections for consumers and maintains a clear line between the areas of expertise of two agencies--the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The bill provides the FTC with limited jurisdiction over common carriers, but is careful to preserve FCC's jurisdiction over common carriers for all other purposes. The bill also appropriately excludes prepaid wireless services as the record has not demonstrated a need for requiring such disclosures.

Once again, to promote uniform disclosures on cards bought across the United States, it provides a narrow preemption of State prepaid calling card disclosure requirements only. It preserves a strong enforcement role for State

Attorneys General and public utility commissions.

Finally, the bill mandates that the FTC conduct a rulemaking to ensure that all stakeholders--the calling card and telecommunications industry, States, and consumer groups--have a say in the final details of the uniform disclosure requirements that this legislation promotes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3402 is thoughtful and balanced legislation that is critical to protect some of our most vulnerable consumers. This bill has strong bipartisan support. I want to commend the author of this bill, the gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel, for his fine leadership, and I urge Members to vote yes.

I certainly want to thank Chairman Rush and the Democratic staff and the Republican staff for working so diligently to pass not only the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act, but also the Travel Promotion Act. I certainly want to congratulate Mr. Engel for bringing this matter before the House. It certainly is an important issue, and we are all delighted that this bill is moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to have a colloquy, if I could, with Chairman Rush about a couple of issues relating to this bill, and simply wanted to confirm with Mr. Rush the intent of certain provisions as they relate to small retailers that are selling these prepaid calling cards.

I guess my question, Chairman Rush, is that if a retailer sells a card but is unaware that the calling card does not make all of the disclosures required by the act, will the retail merchant be subject to monetary penalties under sections 4 or 5 of the bill?

Thank you very much, Chairman Rush.

To be clear, it is also my understanding that, obviously, to protect consumers, a retailer could be enjoined by the FTC, or State authorities, and required to stop selling fraudulent cards, which they should be required to stop, whether or not they knew the cards were fraudulent.

Such retailer would not, however, it's my understanding, and I think you pointed this out, they would not be subject to civil penalties or damages unless they knew the cards were unlawful; is that correct?

I thank the gentleman very much, and I just wanted to express once again, the pleasure of working with the chairman on this.

We appreciate your great leadership.

Once again, I want to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, sir.

We certainly appreciate that clarification and look forward to the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 3042, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act.

There is enormous fraud in the marketing and delivery of prepaid calling card services, reportedly up to as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of the industry's revenue. Prepaid card fraud is not a new problem, but has grown into a $1 billion industry that has attracted an increasing number of new providers, some better than others.

In many cases, the fraud is associated with the cards marketed to people from a specific region in the world with purported preferred rates to their country of origin. The States have responded to this problem with their own disclosure requirements and have increasingly brought enforcement actions against the bad actors, as has the Federal Trade Commission.

H.R. 3402 attempts to put the Federal Trade Commission in a strong position to go after the bad actors and to mandate proper disclosures to consumers. A national law is helpful, because it provides consistency for providers and consumers, consistency for enforcement, and it reduces confusion across this market.

In addition to preemption of State law for H.R. 3402 to be effective, it will have to apply to common carriers. We have crafted a very narrow enforcement authority for the FTC, solely for the purposes of this act, and I am glad we could do that on a bipartisan basis.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3402) to require accurate and reasonable disclosure of the terms and conditions of prepaid telephone calling cards and services, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 3402, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act, was introduced by my friend, Mr. Engel, and will help end calling card fraud that currently plagues communities across this Nation. It requires full and accurate disclosures on the fees, charges and terms that apply to calling cards, and it will go a long ways towards protecting innocent consumers.

I urge the bill's adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the author of this bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I want to assure the gentleman if the retailer knowingly sells fraudulent cards, it would be subject to FTC penalty. But if the seller, the retailer does not know that they are fraudulent cards, then the penalties would not apply, only injunctive relief.

The gentleman is correct.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and we yield back the balance of our time.