Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2013

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2013. This legislation would protect millions of American consumers and businesses from unauthorized charges on their wireline telephone bills.

In 2011, the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, completed a year-long investigation into unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills, a practice commonly referred to as ``cramming.'' The investigation confirmed that third-party billing through wireline telephone bills had likely cost American consumers and businesses billions of dollars in unauthorized charges.

This legislation will put an end to cramming on wireline bills once and for all.

Unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills have plagued consumers for years. Cramming first emerged in the 1990s. Following the breakup of AT&T and the detariffing of ``billing and collection services'' by the Federal Communications Commission, telephone companies opened their billing and collection systems to third-party companies offering a variety of services, some of which were completely unrelated to telephone services.

For the first time, telephone numbers worked like credit card numbers. Consumers could purchase services with their telephone numbers and the charges for these services would later appear on their telephone bills.

There has been much debate over the extent to which telephone companies were required to allow third parties to place charges on customers' phone bills, but the last of any Federal obligations ended in 2007. Since that time, with the exception of a few state requirements, telephone companies have been free to allow, or not allow, whatever companies they choose to place third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills. The telephone companies chose to allow all sorts of companies to place charges for all sorts of services.

Throughout the 1990s, state and federal law enforcement saw a dramatic increase in complaints about unauthorized charges on telephone bills. In response, the Federal Communications Commission and the telephone industry created voluntary guidelines to combat cramming.

Throughout this same period, Congress also convened hearings on the issue, and each time, the telephone industry used these voluntary guidelines to argue that congressional action on cramming was not needed. Several bills were introduced, but none were adopted. Now we find ourselves, over a decade later, still discussing cramming. We cannot make the same mistake again.

In 2010, I opened the Committee's investigation into cramming to better understand the scope of the cramming problem. The investigation showed that over the past decade, cramming caused extensive financial harm to all types of wireline telephone customers, from residences and small businesses, to government agencies and large companies. All the while, the largest telephone companies were making large profits, likely generating over $1 billion in revenue by placing third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills.

It was shocking to learn that many third-party vendors that were placing charges on telephone bills were illegitimate and appeared to have been created solely to exploit a broken system. Consumers reported being charged $10 to $30 a month for so-called ``services'' that they never authorized. These included weekly e-mail messages with ``celebrity gossip'' and ``fashion tips,'' and others completely unrelated to wireline telephone services--such as ``online photo storage'' and ``electronic facsimile.'' In some of the most egregious examples, unauthorized charges had been added to the bills for telephone lines dedicated to fire alarms, security systems, bank vaults, elevators, and 911 services.

The Committee investigation also determined that many of the services being charged to consumers' telephone bills seemed to serve no legitimate purpose, frequently did not function properly, and were often available elsewhere for free.

The investigation involved a review of thousands of consumer complaints and interviews with more than 500 individuals and business owners whose

telephone bills included charges from third parties. Not one of these individuals or entities believed they had authorized the charges.

Further, many of these consumers complained that when they found unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, they were unable to get the money refunded, either from the carrier or from the third-party vendor. That is unacceptable.

In response to the Committee's investigation, the three largest wireline telephone companies--AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink--took positive steps to eliminate cramming on wireline telephone bills, including a decision to stop allowing the placement of most third-party charges on wireline telephone bills.

The Fair Telephone Billing Act will ensure that all wireline telephone companies and providers of interconnected VoIP services are required to take the same steps so that cramming on telephone bills never happens again.

In short, the bill would prohibit any local exchange carrier or provider of interconnected VoIP services from placing any third-party charge on a customer's bill, unless the charge is for a telephone- related service or a ``bundled'' service that is jointly marketed or sold with a company's telephone service.

Under the bill, a telephone company that places prohibited charges on a customer's bill is responsible for refunding to the customer any charge for services the customer did not authorize.

The bill also includes a narrow exception for two categories of third-party billing services: telephone-related services, such as collect calls; and ``bundled'' services, such as satellite television services offered together with phone service. This bill recognizes that such legitimate types of billing offer substantial benefit to consumers.

In recent years, increasing numbers of consumers have transitioned from traditional wireline telephone service to interconnected VoIP services and more are expected. Since consumers likely do not see a distinction between traditional wireline service and interconnected VoIP services, I believe these services need to be included. It is important to ensure that all telephone customers are offered the same protections from unauthorized charges.

It also has become clear that cramming now extends to wireless bills. When I introduced a similar bill last year, I included provisions that would have directed the Federal Communications Commission to create rules to prevent cramming on wireless telephone bills. Since that time, the Senate Commerce Committee has been examining cramming on wireless bills, and I believe this issue demands additional attention. I do not want to see in a few years that cramming has simply migrated from wireline to wireless. It is important that we examine the extent to which third-party wireless billing practices raise any issues distinct from third-party wireline billing practices, so we can best determine appropriate policies for protecting against consumer abuses in this context.

Cramming has likely already cost consumers and businesses billions. The Fair Telephone Billing Act would stop practices that Congress, regulators, and consumers agree are nothing more than a cover for fraud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2013. This legislation would protect millions of American consumers and businesses from unauthorized charges on their wireline telephone bills.

In 2011, the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, completed a year-long investigation into unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills, a practice commonly referred to as ``cramming.'' The investigation confirmed that third-party billing through wireline telephone bills had likely cost American consumers and businesses billions of dollars in unauthorized charges.

This legislation will put an end to cramming on wireline bills once and for all.

Unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills have plagued consumers for years. Cramming first emerged in the 1990s. Following the breakup of AT&T and the detariffing of ``billing and collection services'' by the Federal Communications Commission, telephone companies opened their billing and collection systems to third-party companies offering a variety of services, some of which were completely unrelated to telephone services.

For the first time, telephone numbers worked like credit card numbers. Consumers could purchase services with their telephone numbers and the charges for these services would later appear on their telephone bills.

There has been much debate over the extent to which telephone companies were required to allow third parties to place charges on customers' phone bills, but the last of any Federal obligations ended in 2007. Since that time, with the exception of a few state requirements, telephone companies have been free to allow, or not allow, whatever companies they choose to place third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills. The telephone companies chose to allow all sorts of companies to place charges for all sorts of services.

Throughout the 1990s, state and federal law enforcement saw a dramatic increase in complaints about unauthorized charges on telephone bills. In response, the Federal Communications Commission and the telephone industry created voluntary guidelines to combat cramming.

Throughout this same period, Congress also convened hearings on the issue, and each time, the telephone industry used these voluntary guidelines to argue that congressional action on cramming was not needed. Several bills were introduced, but none were adopted. Now we find ourselves, over a decade later, still discussing cramming. We cannot make the same mistake again.

In 2010, I opened the Committee's investigation into cramming to better understand the scope of the cramming problem. The investigation showed that over the past decade, cramming caused extensive financial harm to all types of wireline telephone customers, from residences and small businesses, to government agencies and large companies. All the while, the largest telephone companies were making large profits, likely generating over $1 billion in revenue by placing third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills.

It was shocking to learn that many third-party vendors that were placing charges on telephone bills were illegitimate and appeared to have been created solely to exploit a broken system. Consumers reported being charged $10 to $30 a month for so-called ``services'' that they never authorized. These included weekly e-mail messages with ``celebrity gossip'' and ``fashion tips,'' and others completely unrelated to wireline telephone services--such as ``online photo storage'' and ``electronic facsimile.'' In some of the most egregious examples, unauthorized charges had been added to the bills for telephone lines dedicated to fire alarms, security systems, bank vaults, elevators, and 911 services.

The Committee investigation also determined that many of the services being charged to consumers' telephone bills seemed to serve no legitimate purpose, frequently did not function properly, and were often available elsewhere for free.

The investigation involved a review of thousands of consumer complaints and interviews with more than 500 individuals and business owners whose

telephone bills included charges from third parties. Not one of these individuals or entities believed they had authorized the charges.

Further, many of these consumers complained that when they found unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, they were unable to get the money refunded, either from the carrier or from the third-party vendor. That is unacceptable.

In response to the Committee's investigation, the three largest wireline telephone companies--AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink--took positive steps to eliminate cramming on wireline telephone bills, including a decision to stop allowing the placement of most third-party charges on wireline telephone bills.

The Fair Telephone Billing Act will ensure that all wireline telephone companies and providers of interconnected VoIP services are required to take the same steps so that cramming on telephone bills never happens again.

In short, the bill would prohibit any local exchange carrier or provider of interconnected VoIP services from placing any third-party charge on a customer's bill, unless the charge is for a telephone- related service or a ``bundled'' service that is jointly marketed or sold with a company's telephone service.

Under the bill, a telephone company that places prohibited charges on a customer's bill is responsible for refunding to the customer any charge for services the customer did not authorize.

The bill also includes a narrow exception for two categories of third-party billing services: telephone-related services, such as collect calls; and ``bundled'' services, such as satellite television services offered together with phone service. This bill recognizes that such legitimate types of billing offer substantial benefit to consumers.

In recent years, increasing numbers of consumers have transitioned from traditional wireline telephone service to interconnected VoIP services and more are expected. Since consumers likely do not see a distinction between traditional wireline service and interconnected VoIP services, I believe these services need to be included. It is important to ensure that all telephone customers are offered the same protections from unauthorized charges.

It also has become clear that cramming now extends to wireless bills. When I introduced a similar bill last year, I included provisions that would have directed the Federal Communications Commission to create rules to prevent cramming on wireless telephone bills. Since that time, the Senate Commerce Committee has been examining cramming on wireless bills, and I believe this issue demands additional attention. I do not want to see in a few years that cramming has simply migrated from wireline to wireless. It is important that we examine the extent to which third-party wireless billing practices raise any issues distinct from third-party wireline billing practices, so we can best determine appropriate policies for protecting against consumer abuses in this context.

Cramming has likely already cost consumers and businesses billions. The Fair Telephone Billing Act would stop practices that Congress, regulators, and consumers agree are nothing more than a cover for fraud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Blunt in the introduction of the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, by 2020, there will be a shortage of 91,000 physicians. Approximately half of the shortage, 45,000, will be in primary care.

Individuals and families living in underserved areas, urban and rural, will continue to be those most disadvantaged by this shortage. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Medicare every day through 2030. The most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office predict that 27 million individuals will gain access to health insurance by 2017 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. With an aging population and increasing number of individuals with health insurance, the gap between patients and providers is expected to widen. The Affordable Care Act took steps to address this shortage, but we can do more.

The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would authorize programs that would grow the overall number of health care providers, as well as encourage providers to pursue careers in geographic and practice areas of highest need.

Building on the success of the National Health Service Corp, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs, and State Loan Repayment Program, this legislation would establish a state scholarship program. Like the NHSC State Loan Repayment Program, States would be able to receive a dollar-for-dollar match to support individuals that commit to practicing in the State in which the scholarship was issued after completing their education and training. At least 50 percent of the funding would be required to support individuals committed to pursuing careers in primary care. The States would have the flexibility to use the remaining 50 percent to support scholarships to educate students in other documented health care professional shortages in the state that are approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would also authorize grants to medical schools to develop primary care mentors on faculty and in the community. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, graduating medical students consistently state that role models are one of the most important factors affecting the career path they choose. Building a network of primary care mentors in the classroom and in a variety of practice settings will help guide more medical students into careers in primary care.

The legislation would couple these mentorship grants with an initiative to improve the education and training offered by medical schools in competencies most critical to primary care, including patient-centered medical homes, primary and behavioral health integration, and team-based care.

It would also direct the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study and make recommendations about ways to limit the administrative burden on providers in documenting cognitive services delivered to patients. Primary care providers treat patients in need of these services almost exclusively, and as such, spend a significant percentage of their day documenting. That is not the case for providers who perform procedures, like surgeries. This IOM study would help uncover ways to simplify documentation requirements, particularly for delivering cognitive services, in order to eliminate one of the potential factors that may discourage medical students from pursuing careers in primary care.

I am pleased that providers across the spectrum of care recognize that this bipartisan legislation is part of the solution to addressing the looming health care workforce shortage and have lent their support, including: the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, the American Association of College of Osteopathic Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, the Association of Academic Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Society of General Internal Medicine.

I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act in order to help ensure patients have access to the health care they need.