Back when telephones were a convenience, slamming was something employed to quickly end a heated conversation. Now telephones are a necessity and slamming is a business opportunity for thieves. A worthwhile bill that would stop it easily passed in the Senate last spring, but may not make it through the House.

Slamming occurs when a phone customer’s long-distance carrier is switched without permission. In some cases, customers unwittingly agree to the switch when they are asked a question during one of those suppertime solicitations in which saying “no” gives approval. Another common tactic is a junk-mail “welcome package,” which automatically signs up a recipient unless a card is returned. It adds up to an estimated 1 million customers a year being slammed and is growing year by year.

The Senate bill was the result of eight months of work by its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, whose chairman is Sen. Susan Collins. The Senate bill contained three provisions by Sen. Collins; most importantly, it makes slamming a criminal offense, but also would remove financial incentives by allowing customers to pay their original carriers and would expand reporting requirements to give the Federal Communications Commission a better chance at acting against the lawbreakers.

Slamming has become an increasingly serious problem as it has spread and as people have relied more on their phone lines. One mom told the Senate subcommittee that the 800 number she had set up for her children to contact her in an emergency was lost through slamming. A Portland man told the subcommitte that the telephone lines for his transportation business were tied up for four days after he was slammed. Certainly, there are more agonizing problems in the world, but the facts remain that slamming is an invasion of a home or business. It is theft, and previous attempts to stop it by state and federal officials have been ineffective.

The anti-slamming bill’s biggest threat in the House is not opposition but neglect. With only a little time remaining once members of Congress return from recess, the Commerce Committee would need to pass a version of the bill, have a member of the Judiciary Committee propose on the floor an amendment to include the criminal penalties, debate and approve it, then get the package to conference to iron out differences with the Senate bill. There is still enough time to do this, but it requires commitment from House leaders.

It is inevitable that anyone with a telephone will have evenings interupted by legitimate telemarketing calls. Far worse, however, would be for Congress to allow thieves to harass the unsuspecting when a remedy awaits passage.