House Democrats Oppose Kelsey Smith Act, Citing Privacy Concerns

“Democrats continue to support the intention behind this bill … but we cannot support this effort to force this bill through without including the common-sense consumer protections that resulted from strong bipartisan work in the last Congress,” Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., said Monday on the House floor. He said Democrats had backed the Kelsey Smith Act, which would compel telecom companies give location information in certain public safety situations, in the last Congress when the measure had more privacy protections built in, “specific protections for consumers’ privacy closer in line with what is required under the Fourth Amendment.” House Republicans this Congress didn't include those same protections, which “disregards the hard work” in negotiating that “good deal” last Congress, he said. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., was reluctant to take up the old version “because it was not completely consistent with the law in his home state,” which Democrats had tried to address but “were rebuffed,” Sarbanes said.

Opposing the Kelsey Smith Act “is simply wrong and shameful,” countered Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., the bill’s sponsor. Yoder touted his attention to privacy issues in pressing for the Email Privacy Act (HR-699), which passed the House unanimously this year. “This bill strikes the right balance,” Yoder said of the Kelsey Smith Act. “It doesn’t even give you GPS tracking.”

“I’m of course disappointed that the Democrats cannot support this in its present form,” Walden said on the floor, calling the bill “very narrowly written” and arguing that states could add privacy protections they want. “In the meantime, can’t we just save lives?” Walden had spoken at length on the floor about the bill’s merits, showcasing a photo of the deceased Kelsey Smith for whom the bill is named. “There were no voices of objection” in full committee markup, he said. House Democrats, during subcommittee and committee markup, had pressed Republicans about keeping to the old bipartisan agreement.

Legislation considered under suspension of the rules is typically reserved for uncontroversial bills. The method limits opportunity for amendments and debate time and requires a higher threshold for bills to pass -- two-thirds. Voting will begin 6:30 p.m. Monday. A GOP Commerce Committee spokesman didn't comment on expectations for the vote.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., introduced S-2770 as the Kelsey Smith Act companion, referred to the Commerce Committee. Roberts has spoken with Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., “and is hopeful that the Senate Commerce Committee will take up the bill in the near future,” a Roberts spokeswoman told us Monday. She cited recent letters of support from the National Fraternal Order of Police and expects Roberts to speak on the Senate floor Wednesday on the legislation, pegged to National Missing Children’s Day.

The other three measures didn’t encounter the same disagreement and were poised for easy passage. Walden requested a roll call House vote on the Securing Access to Networks in Disasters (Sandy) Act. The other two measures didn’t pass Monday afternoon by voice vote due to objections from Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., regarding the lack of a necessary quorum.

“There needs to be consistency across our great land,” Walden said of Kari’s Law Act, stressing the need for a federal law despite voluntary industry efforts. He lauded Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., “for making this bill an even better one.” Pallone announced “general support” for the legislation, which would compel direct 911 dialing for multi-line telephone systems, and urged Democratic backing due to a commitment from Walden to address through separate legislation location accuracy in such direct 911 dialing instances. “We should not delay taking the next step, and that is providing location information to first responders,” Pallone said. “We should act immediately to correct this problem, too.” Eshoo originally had attempted to address such location accuracy requirements by amending the Kari’s Law Act and has introduced stand-alone legislation since then. Bill sponsor Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also spoke on the floor. “Emotion runs high at this point,” Gohmert said in praise of Walden’s advocacy.

Walden and Pallone, in backing HR-3998, spoke in favor of the recent voluntary adoption of a wireless roaming agreement involving CTIA (see 1604270035). Pallone “led the industry’s voluntary adoption of this framework,” Walden said. “The Sandy Act lets us build on that accomplishment, as there are some changes that only the government can make.” Pallone is the bill’s backer and said it’s “part of a larger effort to keep us safe in emergencies.”

Both Walden and Pallone also backed HR-2589. “The bill is targeted at the FCC’s struggle to make its newly adopted rules available to the public in a timely fashion,” Walden said. The agency often does this in a “reasonable” fashion but less so on controversial items, he argued. The text of the FCC’s Lifeline item, approved at its March 31 meeting, was “not available for 27 days – nearly a month!” Walden said. Pallone said the bill is much better than in its first form, with tweaks that do not force conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced S-2553 as the bipartisan Kari’s Law Act companion in February, referred to Commerce and cleared as part of the FCC Reauthorization Act. Pallone’s HR-3998 lacks a standalone Senate companion, but Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., unsuccessfully sought to attach a companion version as an amendment during an April Commerce Committee markup. The provisions “would provide much needed certainty,” Booker said then, expressing confidence that the committee could advance the measure somehow. HR-2589 lacks a Senate companion.