Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4600) to amend Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the prohibition on junk fax transmissions, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4600) to amend Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the prohibition on junk fax transmissions, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4600, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004, bipartisan legislation which I introduced along with 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.
In 1991, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which included landmark legislation that protected consumers from receiving unwanted and unsolicited commercial faxes. For over 10 years, the FCC had interpreted that law to provide businesses with an exception to the general ban when they faxed commercial or advertising material to an existing business customer.
Then, in 2003, the FCC made a major change in their interpretation of the law. Under the new FCC rules, every business, every single one, small, large, home-based, every association, every nonprofit organization, every charity, would be required to obtain prior written approval from each individual before it sent a commercial fax.
The logistical and financial costs of the new FCC rules, particularly to small business and nonprofit associations, would be enormous.
For instance, the survey of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce suggested that the cost to the average small business would be at least $5,000 in the first year and more than $3,000 each year thereafter. The survey further indicated that it would take, on average, more than 27 hours of staff time to obtain the initial written consent from their customers, and an additional 20 hours each year to keep those forms current. A recent survey by the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors revealed that its member companies expected to pay an average of $22,500 just to obtain the consent forms. With our economy in the fragile stages of an economic recovery, I would much rather see those dollars going towards production and job creation.
Given the dramatic impact which the new rules would have, last August, just before the new rules were to go into effect, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the then chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I wrote the FCC and requested that the FCC delay the effective date of the new rules. Thankfully, the FCC did. In fact, they stayed the effective date until January of 2005.
Moreover, while the FCC currently has the new rules under reconsideration, I think it is the wisest course for Congress to step in and fix the law to resolve any lingering statutory interpretation problems which led to the FCC's new rules, and that is why we are here today.
Let me start by stating what the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004 would not do. The bill does not overturn the ban on the faxing of unsolicited advertisements. That has been outlawed since the passage of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, and this bill does nothing to change that.
This bill does not protect the senders of those annoying, unsolicited faxed advertisements which so many of us get from companies with whom we have never done business, often sent to us randomly by blast fax, and do not properly identify themselves in the fax transmission.
Rather, the bill with clearly reinstate the established business relationship exemption to allow businesses, associations, and charities to send commercial faxes to their customers and members without first receiving written permission. 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 clearly and conspicuously on the first page, of their right to opt-out of future faxes, and senders must abide by those requests. This is a level of protection that consumers never had under the FCC rules. Finally, the bill sets out the FCC reporting requirements so that Congress can monitor the FCC's enforcement activity.
The Junk Fax Prevention Act is commonsense, regulatory relief; and time is of the essence for Congress to pass it, since many businesses will very soon need to begin making arrangements to be in compliance with the new rules by January of 2005.
I want to thank my friends, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their sincere bipartisan cooperation on the bill. I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, Kelly Cole, Howard Waltzman, Pete Filon, Colin Crowell, Will Carty, and certainly Will Nordwind for all of their superb efforts.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to ensure that we get this must-pass legislation to the President's desk as expeditiously as possible this year.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004. The bill strikes a proper balance between protecting consumers from unwanted junk faxes and permitting legitimate business communications, and I would commend Chairmen Barton and Upton, and Ranking Member Markey for their bipartisan work.
H.R. 4600 is necessary because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its Do-Not-Call order last year, reversed its existing business relationship (EBR) policy regarding junk faxes. Starting in January 2005, permission to receive junk faxes
must be in writing and include the recipient's signature.
This rule will have a perverse effect on legitimate business communications. For example, under the Commission's new policy, if I would like my travel agent to send me a description of various vacation packages, I must first deliver to my agent a signed waiver requesting the fax. Likewise, my favorite restaurant would have to obtain a similar waiver in order to fax me its updated menu. Not surprisingly, commercial enterprises, especially small businesses and trade associations, are justifiably concerned about the impact of the FCC's new junk fax rules.
H.R. 4600 takes the corrective step of codifying a modified version of the FCC's current 12-year-old junk fax EBR policy that is set to end this year. To provide further protection to consumers, however, that policy will be changed to provide consumers with the right to opt out from receiving such faxes from a particular sender. Further, consumers must be provided clear and conspicuous notice of their new opt-out right. Additional protections for consumers include enabling recipients to opt out using a cost-free mechanism and giving the FCC the authority to sunset the EBR.
In an effort to focus on enforcement against those who illegally send junk faxes, the legislation requires the Commission to report to the Congress each year on the number of junk fax complaints it has received and on the enforcement actions taken against those who violate the agency's rules. This report should assist the commission in maintaining proper vigilance on those who fail to respect consumer privacy. Moreover, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to study the junk fax issue and make recommendations to the Committee on additional enforcement measures that can be taken to protect consumers from unwanted junk faxes.
Mr. Speaker, consumers are fed up with the unwanted and intrusive junk faxes that clog up their fax machines. H.R. 4600 will help protect consumers from receiving these faxes while ensuring that businesses can continue to use the fax machine to communicate with their customers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.