Amendments to Target Kelsey Smith Act, Kari's Law During House Markup

Pallone invoked the bipartisan deal that House lawmakers reached on the Kelsey Smith Act last Congress, clearing the bill from the Commerce Committee then. “Democrats and Republicans came together to reach consensus on a way forward that would get law enforcement the location information they need quickly while still safeguarding consumer privacy,” Pallone said. “Most of these safeguards go into place after a search is over, and the record indicates these kinds of safeguards would not hamper an investigation. For some reason, however, the Republicans decided to walk away from their own deal. Instead we have H.R. 4889 -- a version of the bill that drops all of the consumer safeguards the Republicans agreed to in the last Congress.” A Democratic amendment would restore the version from last Congress, Pallone said.

Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., also plans an amendment of his own for the Kelsey Smith Act, as expected. “I will offer an amendment tomorrow that will make sure that a carrier’s customer service representative isn’t faced with making a decision about whether complying with a request from law enforcement opens the company or individual up to liability,” Walden said in his opening statement Monday. “When every second counts, this type of decision shouldn’t be left to someone who isn’t trained to make it. Let’s not get in the way of law enforcement trying to do their jobs.” Walden’s amendment would speak to a concern that CTIA outlined at last week’s legislative hearing.

“While privacy concerns were raised at our hearing last week, there are safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the law and the potential to help is so much greater than the potential for harm,” said Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., in his opening statement. The American Civil Liberties Union had objected and offered several recommendations for changing the bill, which Walden addressed Monday: “While I know these concerns are shared by some members here, I believe the law as drafted creates a sufficiently narrow set of circumstances in which law enforcement can access this type of data, as well as a very small subset of data that they are able to access,” Walden said. “The bill seeks to balance all interests by protecting the privacy of users while still providing access when the situation demands it.”

Kari’s Law, which addresses direct 911 dialing, “can be even stronger,” Pallone argued, despite voicing his support for the legislation. “With minor changes, it can save more lives,” he said. “Last week, we heard that another problem with these multi-line systems is that they do not deliver precise location information to first responders. … When every second counts, crucial minutes would tick by as first responders scramble to track down the call. That is why I urge my colleagues to support a Democratic amendment that would direct the FCC to address this problem.”

"There's room for improvement" on Kari's Law and the Kelsey Smith Act, Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said in her opening statement. She raised the same concern as Pallone on the Kelsey Smith Act and will introduce the amendment to Kari's Law requiring a location accuracy proceeding at the FCC, she said.

“We have the opportunity to make sure that this confusion never contributes to a tragedy again, with a legislative fix that is both easy and inexpensive,” Walden said Monday of Kari’s Law. “Hotels have made significant progress in addressing this problem, but without a uniform, consistent law across the country, those efforts will not eliminate the potential for another caller to try and fail to reach emergency responders when they’re needed most.”

The one piece of legislation Republicans and Democrats remain entirely at odds on is the Controlling the Unchecked and Reckless Ballooning (CURB) of the Lifeline Fund Act (HR-4884), which would place a $1.5 billion budget cap on the Lifeline program. “The changes this bill would make don’t end the program, and they don’t require the FCC to turn people away,” Walden said, defending the measure. “All we are asking is for fiscal discipline. If there is a budget in place, the FCC will be forced to undergo a more serious examination of the problems plaguing the system.”

HR-4884 would “effectively rip these essential lifesaving devices from the hands of the people who need help the most,” Pallone countered. He and several subcommittee Democrats oppose a hard cap on the program and slammed the measure last week. The Lifeline cap bill will have "severe consequences for low-income Americans," Eshoo said. "I'm strongly opposed to it." Consumer Action also wrote to the subcommittee leaders Monday opposing that bill. "We strongly oppose the CURB Act’s attempt to impose a cap on the Lifeline fund and to phase out wireless voice services in two years," Executive Director Ken McEldowney said. "The CURB Act would undercut both the goals of the Lifeline program and the principles for Lifeline modernization."

The other measures on deck are the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act (HR-4111), Anti-Swatting Act (HR-2031), Securing Access to Networks in Disasters Act (HR-3998) and Spectrum Challenge Prize bill (HR-4190), all of which have received less scrutiny and criticism. Pallone introduced HR-3998 and backs the other three bills, he said. HR-3998 “would recognize the critical role that all communications providers -- broadcasters, cable, and telecommunications -- serve in emergencies, but most notably, the bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service even if their particular wireless network goes down,” Pallone said. “We need to be better prepared because no one should be left with silence on the other end of the call when they dial 911.”