Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Became Public Law No: 108-10.
March 11, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in House
January 28, 2003
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
January 28, 2003
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
January 29, 2003
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 108-8.
February 11, 2003
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 5.
February 11, 2003
Mr. Diaz-Balart, L. asked unanimous consent That it be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 395, that the bill be considered as read for amendment; that it be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion. Agreed to without objection.
February 11, 2003 • 4:09 PM
Consideration initiated by previous order.
February 12, 2003 • 3:58 PM
Considered by previous order. (consideration: CR H407-413)
February 12, 2003 • 3:58 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 395.
February 12, 2003 • 3:58 PM
The previous question was ordered pursuant to a previous order of the House.
February 12, 2003 • 4:33 PM
POSTPONED ROLL CALL VOTE - The Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered and the Chair announced that further proceedings would be postponed until later in the legislative day.
February 12, 2003 • 4:33 PM
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H416)
February 12, 2003 • 5:09 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 418 - 7 (Roll no. 26).(text as passed House: CR H407)
February 12, 2003 • 5:16 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
February 12, 2003 • 5:16 PM
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 418 - 7 (Roll no. 26). (text as passed House: CR H407)
February 12, 2003 • 5:16 PM
Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2500)
February 13, 2003
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
February 14, 2003
Presented to President.
February 27, 2003
Signed by President.
March 11, 2003
Became Public Law No: 108-10.
March 11, 2003
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
20 membersWhat members said about H.R. 395 on the floor
BLD
ET
JE
EFH
CRB+15
Floor Debate
20 membersWhat members said about H.R. 395 on the floor
Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Hollings. This is an important issue, one we believed we had previously resolved only to learn that a court ruled that the Do Not…
Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Hollings. This is an important issue, one we believed we had previously resolved only to learn that a court ruled that the Do Not Call list developed by the Federal Trade Commission was ``not authorized.''
Most of us in Congress and the Senate are surprised by that. Clearly, we authorized that. But if a court needs another authorization, it is something we can certainly do on a Thursday afternoon at 4:15. So this will be done with the support of many colleagues, and I am pleased to say that this is good public policy.
Let me make a couple of comments about the substance. There may be some people who are terribly lonely and whose phone seldom rings except to have an advertiser of a credit card or a long-distance service call during meal time just wanting to visit about their product. There may be some people who welcome those calls, just talk the ear off these telemarketers. I can't say that for sure, but this country is full of very interesting people. As for me and for most of the American people, getting a telephone call in the middle of a meal or getting a telephone call at all hours of the day and night to have someone tell us that we really need a new long-distance service or a preapproved credit card gets a little annoying. Unsolicited phone calls are an intrusion on the phone line that most American people pay every month to have in their home.
I come from a sparsely populated State, a wonderful place. It is 10 times the size of the Massachusetts landmass, with 642,000 people. It is spread out. We understand the importance of communications. We understand the importance of telephones. It took a long while to get telephones to the outer reaches of our country, including rural areas. Now with modern communications, we also understand that we are not alone in our homes.
There are those who are working in large banks of employees who are randomly, with computers, calling telephone numbers from banks of telephone books, getting people on the line. And by the way, because these computers dial multiple numbers at once, when one person answers, perhaps a second person is answering a nanosecond later, no one will be on the line when they answer. That happens often. People should understand that comes from unsolicited phone calls with computer banks making calls. One person answers; the other doesn't get an answer. That is what is happening. It is enormously annoying.
Do people have an inherent right to make solicitation calls? Yes. But the other question is, Do people who pay for their telephone service each month have a right to put their name on a registry saying: I really don't want these calls; don't have them come into my telephone instrument; I pay for the instrument and I don't want to be annoyed and I don't want to be interrupted by them? Do people have that right? Of course, they do. That is what this issue is about.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs in the Commerce Committee last year, I held hearings on this. At one of the reauthorization hearings for the FTC, we had an entire panel devoted to the discussion of a do not call registry. We had a hearing in which the Federal Trade Commission came up, the Commissioners themselves, and talked to us about this issue. I had a member of the Federal Trade Commission come to Fargo, ND. We held a public hearing there on this subject. This is not a foreign or strange subject to me nor to most of my colleagues. As a result of that, we took action in reauthorizing the Federal Trade Commission to include funding to allow them to put together a Do Not Call Registry.
If you wonder whether the American people care about this, just remember these numbers. They put together a Do Not Call Registry and said to the people: If you think these unsolicited telephone calls are bothersome to you, if it is an intrusion on your family and an interruption to your life and annoying to you and you want to stop them, call and put your telephone number and your name on this registry.
Guess what. In virtually a nanosecond, 50 million Americans have said: Count me out. I don't want to be a part of this unsolicited phone call mess going on. Put my name on the list and get rid of these phone calls. In the State of North Dakota, 131,000 people said: We don't want these calls. We don't want the interruptions. We don't want the annoyance. Stop it.
Now one court has said somehow this is not operative, effective, because it is not authorized. So this afternoon the House will authorize it, the Senate will authorize it, and the bill will go to the President and be signed.
I hope this court will understand that not only was it authorized, but we were pleased this afternoon to authorize it a second time just to reinforce our determination with the American people that we believe they have the power and they ought to have the ability to stop these calls.
Let me make just a couple of additional points. Some say this is an important industry making these telephone calls, doing marketing. The answer is, sure, it is. It employs people. We are not saying with this legislation that you cannot make unsolicited phone calls. We are saying the American people, however, have a right to decide they don't want to be part of it; I don't want to receive them. This is empowering the American people.
If there are people, as I said, who are lonely, have no one to talk to, who sit around all day with a desire to visit with somebody, if they want to get these phone calls, God bless them. Let them get the phone calls, let them get the credit cards and sign up for multiple long-distance services, and let them visit until they are visited out. I assume there are a few of those people. But in most cases the American people are saying: Put my name on the list. I don't want to be interrupted. I don't want unsolicited phone calls, especially during mealtime.
There is this peculiar quality of this industry to call only when dinner or supper is ready. Lord only knows how that occurs, but it does. So today we have said we are going to authorize this explicitly once again, so that this Do Not Call list will not be interrupted. People whose names are on that list will be assured they will not receive unsolicited calls.
I say to my colleague, Senator Ensign, I know he is working on this issue and has introduced legislation, and my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and others--again, we have worked hard on this in the Commerce Committee, going back to last July--July 17, at the reauthorization hearing I chaired. I will not go through all the negotiations that went on with appropriations and the reauthorization, but suffice it to say we believed very strongly the FTC should have taken the action they did. We provided the funding. We implicitly provided authorization for it, and today we are once again reauthorizing that which we have previously done just to satisfy some court in some corner of America, and in order to give comfort to those 50 million Americans and the at least 130,000 North Dakotans who have said: Take my name off this list. The American people have that right. This legislation allows them to keep that right. It is very important.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Inouye as a cosponsor.
I was just recollecting, as the Senator from Montana was speaking, telemarketing is, of course, a legitimate business. It is an important business in many respects. But the point that my colleague, Senator Ensign, made is the American people also have their right, and their right is to put their name on a list to say, I do not want unsolicited calls.
They call almost everyone. I received a call some long while ago from a telemarketer. I answered the phone, and the telemarketer said: May I speak to Haley Dorgan please? I could tell immediately it was a telemarketer. I said: You could, but I do not think she is going to buy anything. She is 4 years old.
They get lists and they just blizzard the country with telephone calls to young and old. It is indiscriminate, and that is why this fervor has grown in this country to do something about giving the American people the right to say they do not want these unsolicited calls. That is what this legislation will do.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.
Mr. President, unless the Senator from Nevada has time he wants to consume, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added as an original cosponsor.
Might I just in less than a minute say we have not mentioned on the Senate floor, and we should, that the Federal Communications Commission took action that was complementary and action that coordinates with the Federal Trade Commission because action was needed by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to common carriers in areas under their jurisdiction to also create a do not call list, which is expansive.
So while I, with some of my colleagues, have been critical of the Federal Communications Commission on other issues on the Senate floor in recent weeks, I did want to say that the Federal Communications Commission deserves our plaudits and deserves credit for moving very quickly to fill in a gap with respect to a do not call list. All of our discussion is about the Federal Trade Commission, but, again, I think the Federal Trade Commission has contributed substantially, and I compliment them for that, with the leadership of Michael Powell and all the Commissioners.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on our side to Senator Dodd from Connecticut.
Madam Speaker, today, along with my colleagues, Mr. Upton and Mrs. Wilson, as original co-sponsors, I re-introduce the ``Telecommunications Development Fund Improvement Act.'' The Telecommunications…
Madam Speaker, today, along with my colleagues, Mr. Upton and Mrs. Wilson, as original co-sponsors, I re-introduce the ``Telecommunications Development Fund Improvement Act.''
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 included an important provision, which I co-sponsored with the former Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Fields, to expand the availability of investment capital to small businesses in the telecommunications industry working to develop new technologies to improve telecommunications services to under-served urban and rural communities. The 1996 Act created the Telecommunications Development Fund (``TDF'') and financed the Fund from interest collected on the initial deposits the FCC required of all bidders in the FCC's spectrum auctions.
Currently, in order to qualify to participate in FCC auctions of spectrum for telecommunications services, the FCC requires prospective bidders to deposit a specified dollar amount with the FCC. Under the legislation adopted in 1996, the FCC places these deposits--sometimes called ``up-front payments''--in an interest-earning account. A ``successful bidder'' is identified through the auction process. The ``deposits'' of the unsuccessful bidders that had been held by the FCC are returned to these bidders without interest. The principal amount of the successful bidder's deposit is paid to the U.S. Treasury. The interest earned on the upfront payments of all the bidders is remitted to the TDF.
Prior to the 1996 Act, tens of millions of dollars of bidders' deposits had been held in non-interest bearing accounts. By requiring that these funds be held in interest-bearing accounts, Congress provided a mechanism to finance the important goals of the TDF without any budgetary impact, without requiring any appropriations and without imposing either new taxes or fees. To date, fifty million dollars has been collected--at no cost to the taxpayer or the regulated industry-- from interest earned on spectrum bidder's deposits. But more could be done to make telecommunications products and services available to under-served communities--rural and inner city--of every kind.
Once the successful bidder has been identified through the auction, a formal licensing process gets underway. At that time, the successful bidder is required to increase the amount of the deposit held by the Federal Government to 20 percent of the amount of the successful bid. The remainder of the successful bid is payable when the license is issued. Typically, a number of months pass between when the successful bidder is identified and when the license is formally issued by the FCC. The interest that could be earned on the additional deposits-- sometimes called ``down payments''--during the licensing process represents a significant source of funding for the TDF.
Unfortunately, despite the language of the 1996 Act--which makes no distinction between bidders' ``up-front payments'' and successful bidders' ``down payments,'' referring to both simply as ``deposits,''-- the FCC has not required increased ``down payment'' deposits of initially successful bidders to also be placed in interest bearing accounts for the benefit of the TDF. As a consequence, small telecommunications companies, and the people in under-served urban and rural areas that might have been the beneficiaries of the technology these companies are working to develop, have been deprived of access to tens of millions of dollars of additional investment capital that the TDF could have made available. This additional source of investment capital would have come from the interest that could have been earned on the additional down payment deposits during the period between the identification of the successful bidder and the issuance of the license.
The Telecommunications Development Fund Reform Act (``TDFIA'') rectifies this drafting oversight to close the loophole created by the FCC. The TDFIA renames the bidders' initial deposits as ``up-front payments'' and preserves existing law treatment of the interest earned on these payments. The TDFIA also defines the additional deposits made by successful bidders as ``down payments'' and treats these down payments the same way as existing law treats the bidders' initial deposits/up-front payments, i.e., the down payment funds will be required to be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account and, upon issuance of the license, the interest earned will be required to be remitted to the TDF.
The amendments made by the TDFIA are purely prospective in effect, applying only to future FCC spectrum auctions. The amendments would have no effect on existing down payments held by the FCC in connection with previously conducted auctions. In particular, the TDFIA would have no effect on the controversy or pending litigation related to the so- called ``NextWave'' licenses, and would not affect any bidder's entitlement to a refund of deposited funds or any bidder's claim for payment of interest on any refund.
The FCC does not oppose these provisions of the TDFIA.
Finally, the 1996 Act requires the TDF to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (``FCRA''), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 661 et seq., prior to making loans. Except for this reference, the FCRA applies only to loans made by Federal Government agencies.
One of the purposes of the FCRA was to ``place the cost of [Federal] credit programs on a budgetary basis equivalent to other Federal spending.'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 661(2). Consistent with this purpose, among the provisions of the FCRA are requirements for ``budgetary authority'' in an appropriations act to cover the cost of new Federal loans or loan guarantees, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 661c(b), and application of budgetary accounting requirements to loans subject to the FCRA, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 661c(d). These requirements have no logical application to the TDF's funds, which are not subject to congressional appropriations or the Federal budget process. The Office of Management and Budget, to which administration and oversight of the FCRA is entrusted, concurs with this view.
Imposing the requirements of the FCRA on loans made by the TDF has erected an insurmountable barrier to the use of loans by the TDF as a financing option, notwithstanding the intent of the 1996 Act that the TDF be authorized to make loans to credit-worthy small businesses. By making TDF subject to FCRA, TDF would be required to obtain appropriations before it could make loans to prospective borrowers. Requiring the TDF to comply with the FCRA makes no sense from a policy standpoint (TDF receives no appropriated funds) and can only be explained as a drafting error.
The TDFIA repeals this requirement to enable the TDF to enjoy the same flexibility in making loans as any other non-governmental entity. The amendment to the TDF's loan authority made by the TDFIA preserves the requirement that the TDF comply with any other ``applicable'' Federal law in making loans to eligible small businesses. The amendment to the TDF's loan authority made by the TDFIA is narrowly focused and does not affect the existing substantive criteria of the 1996 Act under which the TDF is authorized to make loans.
Madam Speaker, I hope that the Commerce Committee will schedule hearings on this important technical amendment to the 1996 Telecommunications Act and report the Bill to the full House for consideration early in this Session. I invite my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation at a time when infusion of additional capital investment into struggling small telecommunications companies may help create jobs, stimulate new technology and expand telecommunications services to under-served urban and rural areas of the nation suffering from the current economic slowdown. This legislation can stimulate important economic activity without enactment of new taxes, appropriation of additional federal funds or any adverse effect on the federal budget deficit. I recommend it to my colleagues for their consideration and thank Mr. Upton and Mrs. Wilson for their support of this worthy endeavor.
Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I thank the cosponsors of our legislation, especially my chief cosponsors, Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Dorgan,…
Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, I thank the cosponsors of our legislation, especially my chief cosponsors, Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Dorgan, Senator McCain, and Senator DeWine, as well as the 47 original cosponsors. I thank them all for being original cosponsors.
The legislation, however, we are dealing with now is identical legislation sent over by the House because of a procedural matter. I am very excited that this legislation is going to be
passed in just a little over an hour from now, because I think this is very important legislation just for the peace of mind of a lot of the people at home.
People say, ``Have you heard about this from your constituents?'' A lot of people who don't follow politics are talking about this issue in the last couple of days. They have talked about it for years, but they have heard about it in the news. They are talking about it around the water cooler and they are talking about it wherever there is a coffee shop, wherever they are, because they want to make sure that on October 1, when the Do Not Call list is supposed to be starting to be enforced, that it actually happens.
There are over 50 million Americans, as was said, who have signed up for this service. I am hazarding a guess, but I would say in the coming months there are going to be tens of millions more who will sign up for this because so many people don't want to be bothered. As Senator Dorgan talked about, the people who don't mind being bothered--for them, they don't have to sign up for the Do Not Call list. If they want to continue to receive all those offers at home from telemarketers who are trying to sell a product--if people want to receive those calls at home--I don't, but a lot of people probably want them--it is their right to have that coming into their household. I know in our household we get bothered by this a lot, and you hate being rude to people when they call up on the telephone. Nobody likes to get a call during dinner. You happen to have the phone all the way across the room. You get up and you walk across the room, and all of a sudden you realize it is a telemarketer. You are a little irritated and you don't want to be mean, but at the same time you don't want to be bothered. This Do Not Call list stops that from happening because the penalties in the Do Not Call list legislation are such that these telemarketers are going to stop.
So it is, to me, very exciting that we are actually going to act very quickly after what I believe the judge did was wrong. But that is fine; the Senate and the House have quickly acted on this bill. We are going to make sure there is no question in the court's mind that this bill is authorized.
I will conclude with this, and I will yield 5 minutes to my friend from Montana. It is really summed up in the Jerry Seinfeld episode where a telemarketer calls him and he asks the telemarketer, ``Can I have your phone number?'' The telemarketer says, ``Why?'' Jerry says, ``Because I want to call you during dinnertime and bother you.'' Of course, the telemarketer doesn't want to do that. But that is how people feel. They want to call them and bug them to let them know how they feel. That is the way people feel all across America.
It is important that we pass this legislation, and it is great to see the bipartisan support for it.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Don Nickles be added as a cosponsor.
Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes talking a little more about this legislation. First of all, this chart that we have in back of us--this graphs the calls and online registering to the Do Not Call center. This started June 27, 2003, which is the far left side of the graph. In blue or purple there is the amount of e-mails that came in, the way the people registered on line.
In the middle is 1-888-382-1222, the telephone number. About 11 million came in there. In the yellow at the bottom which started in July, about 8.5 million people came in. Those were numbers that came in from the States.
There are over 31 million people just since June 27 who have registered online. So we see, for a total of a little over 50 million people, how rapidly people have signed up to say we do not want to receive telemarketing phone calls.
The key is people are saying we don't want to be bothered. Part of freedom, it seems to me, is the freedom from being bothered by people when you are in your own home. Telemarketers contend that, just as if they are sending mail, somebody who is sending mail to somebody's home, they have the right to call somebody in their home.
The American people are saying no; we don't want to receive those phone calls. Mail they can just glance at and throw away. They don't actually have to get on the telephone and speak to somebody. Telemarketers require somebody to pick up the phone. If it is ringing, you have to go because you don't want to miss an important phone call. Maybe your kids are out or something, you don't want to miss an important phone call, and it turns out to be a telemarketer.
Nowadays, because of answering machines, you have a situation where you come home and it says: Hi, this is Fred--or this is Lisa or whoever it is. Please give me a call my number is, and you don't know who it is.
Then you call the number back and you find out it is a telemarketer. So you have just now wasted the time listening to the message, and you have wasted the time making the telephone call.
So we have people stealing valuable time, and time is our most precious commodity. That is why so many people want to sign up for the Do Not Call list.
We want to remind people--and I think this is going to happen a lot-- that the telephone number is 1-888-382-1222. That is the number that people will be able to call, and can call today to sign up for when this goes into effect on October 1. They just call up, very simple, add their name, give them their telephone number, add it to the list.
If they want to register on line, it is on the World Wide Web, donotcall.gov. It is all small letters. They go on there, they sign up, put their telephone numbers in, and they are added to the list.
It is simple for people to do. I think the simplicity is why it has been so wildly successful up to this point.
On October 1, when it goes into effect, that is when people will start having some peace of mind at home. At a time where families need more time together, they need more time to talk, I think it is important, especially around dinnertime when there are so many distractions--that is a prime time for telemarketers to call, at dinner time. Families don't have enough time together as it is now. I think to have those distractions around dinnertime is even more disruptive of that important family time.
We need to encourage families to be together. This certainly will result in fewer interruptions around the dinner table. That is why I so strongly support the legislation and why I sponsored this legislation to repeal what the Federal judge did in Oklahoma.
I don't currently see anyone who wishes to speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be added as a cosponsor to S. 1655.
Mr. President, marketers assault Americans' privacy every day. Businesses track everything we buy and everything we do. It seems the marketers know more about our lives than we do ourselves. It is…
Mr. President, marketers assault Americans' privacy every day. Businesses track everything we buy and everything we do. It seems the marketers know more about our lives than we do ourselves. It is intrusive, and Americans want the tools to fight back.
But those of us who work to protect Americans' privacy are thwarted every step of the way. The marketers oppose antispam legislation. The marketers oppose decency limits on advertising to children. And the marketers oppose legislation that would allow Americans to ``opt-out'' of the sharing of their personal information, including financial records.
The one success we have had is the Do Not Call list. The public's vociferous reaction to the court decision yesterday shows the country's desire to win refuge from the marketing onslaught. The public wants the Do Not Call registry. And the public wants the registry to become active next week. We will make sure that happens.
But we have several Johnny-Come-Latelys to our cause. When I was chairman of the Commerce Committee last Congress, we worked with the FTC to create the Do Not Call Registry. But we didn't get much help from the other side. Instead we were unfairly criticized by interest groups for jeopardizing their funding.
We fought to win $18 million for the registry in the omnibus appropriations bill last year. But the House wanted language that would prohibit using that funding absent explicit Congressional authorization. The House language could have stopped the registry. Again, it was an uphill battle, and we had few allies. But we eventually got the bad language removed, giving the FTC the funds to implement the Do Not Call Registry.
Once the FTC opened the list to registration, the response from the American public was overwhelming. By yesterday, Americans had registered more than 50 million phone numbers. South Carolinians have registered 685,393 phone numbers--486,533 through the FTC Web site, 198,855 via phone, and 5 through hearing-impaired devices. The marketers argued that Americans did not want the Do Not Call list, but the American public proved them wrong. Americans want this tool. They want the assault on their privacy to stop. Once news reports showed the Do Not
Call Registry was popular, many converted to the cause. And some of them are leading the charge today. We appreciate their support now as we try to overturn a clearly flawed court decision.
To prepare for compliance on October 1, 2003, nearly 5,000 telemarketers have purchased all or parts of the list. Therefore, telemarketers acting in good faith are ready to comply next week.
A telemarketer that ignores the Do Not Call list is subject to an $11,000 fine for each call to a phone number on the Do Not Call Registry. The law requires telemarketers to search the registry every 3 months and synchronize their call lists.
Once consumers register a number on the Do Not Call list, telemarketers are prohibited from calling the number for the purpose of selling goods and services. Consumers who receive sales calls after their number has been in the registry for three months can file a complaint on the FTC web site or call 1-888-382-1222.
The Do Not Call list will not hurt charities seeking to raise money for worthy causes. Charities may still hire professional telemarketers to seek donations. But calls during which a charity or telemarketer seeks to sell something are prohibited to phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.
This Do Not Call Registry has been a long time in coming. We are going to take the final step today. The court decision yesterday may even have given the Do Not Call Registry more publicity, encouraging even more people to register their phone numbers.
Opponents of Americans' privacy should take notice: Americans want tools and choices, such as the Do Not Call Registry, to protect their precious time with their families. They also want to protect their private medical and financial information and protect their children from indecent advertising. We will keep fighting.
Mr. President, let's thank Chairman Tim Muris of the Federal Trade Commission, who came to the Commerce Committee last year. And we put in S. 2946, the Do Not Call bill, with some $5 million that was requested. Later on, we found there were well organized holds, whereby we could not even get this bill up for consideration. Yes, we reported it favorably from the Commerce Committee, but we could not get it on the floor to pass it. And it was needed.
Chairman Muris came to me and said he needed $15 million. I talked with Chairman Gregg earlier this year, and in the omnibus bill, with the Federal Trade Commission appropriations, we increased it to $18 million. We could see the demand and see the interest and see the need. So we did just that.
It is good that my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Arizona, is on the Senate floor because the opposition was that it was not authorized. I go right to my experience for over 30 some years on the State-Justice-Commerce Committee, where we have had difficulty over the years passing, for example, an FBI authorization bill.
I remember for a period of almost 20 years we had no authorization. We worked with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to make sure their wants were taken care of. But we provided the bill; the same with respect to State Department authorization.
So I would only admonish the distinguished jurist who made this ruling about authorization that, yes, the Senator from Arizona is jointly correct with respect to the rules of the Senate but not with respect to the Constitution.
Once you receive three readings in the House and three readings in the Senate, and it is signed by the President of the United States, we have no doubt that law would take effect and this order of the court would be set aside.
However, the triggering date is the first of October, next week, and so I commend my House colleagues and those on the Senate side, and my chairman, Senator McCain, in taking this up at this particular time so we can go ahead and take the House bill.
There are many interested in separate bills, and what have you. But right to the point, time is of the essence. Fifty million Americans cannot be wrong, they are all interested in stopping the calls.
With that, let me yield, then, to the distinguished chairman, and then to Senator Dorgan, who will control the time on the floor.
I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I am wondering if the Senator from California wants to speak, if we are going back and forth here. I don't want to preempt her. Mr. President, I thank…
Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I am wondering if the Senator from California wants to speak, if we are going back and forth here. I don't want to preempt her.
Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee and everybody on the committee. You are probably hearing from the core of that committee today, reacting to the disappointment that we have gotten from the Oklahoma Federal District Court preventing the Federal Trade Commission from going forward and implementing the Do Not Call list.
The Do Not Call legislation turned out to be the most popular and probably the most necessary consumer initiative we have ever passed in the history of this body. From day one, people started to sign up; that was June 26. Up until now--you have heard the figures--over 50 million people have registered, and 138,000 of those are in Montana.
So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 16, 650,000 people called up. That gives us some idea of how consumers think of these telemarketers.
The ill-considered decision yesterday by the Federal District Court in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong and its core assumption is that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the Do Not Call list.
Let us make it very clear, Congress clearly granted the FTC the authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call Implementation Act in February of this year. The act gave the agency authority to collect fees from telemarketers and to establish and enforce the list. In fact, the Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized the FTC to enforce the Do Not Call list.
Rather than waiting around for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded decision, I am certainly glad the Congress has taken action very swiftly. It did not take long. In fact, one of my good friends who does not serve in this body anymore, who served from North Carolina, said this is almost a june bug issue, and it really is. We do not have to put Americans through unwarranted intrusions into their lives by telemarketing, and so we will pass this today.
I tell my good friend from North Dakota, my wife has it all figured out about telemarketers. We both may be home; the call comes in: Is Mr. Burns there? She says: I will call him--whether I am there or not. She lays the phone down and goes off and leaves it until we hear the little disconnect: ``If you are trying to place a call, please hang up and try again.'' So that is our attitude towards that.
By any estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls daily. The implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these calls by almost 80 percent, and those are figures that are out now. So if they do not get the message by talking to a telephone that does not have an ear on the other end of it, then we will take care of it this way.
People are rightly sick and tired of this endless interruption into their private lives. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I thank my good friend from Nevada for allowing me this time, and Senator Dorgan and the chairman of the full committee for acting this swiftly, because this takes care of it.
Let's make no bones about it, they clearly had the authority. They clearly had the funds to implement it. We gave it to them in appropriations and we gave them the authority this year. The telemarketers did not choose to abide by that law. So I heartily commend my good friends for offering this legislation.
By the way, if I am not on the list, you may put me on the list.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment at the Oklahoma Federal district court decision preventing the Federal Trade Commission from going forward on implementing the Do Not Call list.
The Do Not Call list has proven to be one of the most popular and necessary consumer initiatives in history. From the day consumers have been able to sign up for the Do Not Call list on June 26, over 50 million Americans have registered, including 138,841 in Montana. So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 26, over 650,000 citizens added their numbers to the list.
Yesterday's ill-considered decision by the Federal district court in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong in its core assumption that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the Do Not Call list. In fact, Congress clearly granted the FTC the authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call Implementation Act in February of this year. This act gave the agency authority to collect fees from telemarketers to establish and enforce the list. The Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized the FTC to enforce the do not call provisions.
Rather than waiting for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded decision, we must act quickly so that Americans do not have to suffer the needless and unwarranted intrusions into their lives by aggressive telemarketing. Unwanted telemarketing calls have reached unacceptable levels in our country. By one estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls daily; implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these calls by almost 80 percent.
Americans are rightly sick and tired of these endless interruptions in their private lives, which often take place during the dinner hour, or at times when parents wish to spend uninterrupted quality time with their children. By responding rapidly to overturn this reckless and sloppy decision by the Oklahoma district court, Congress sends a clear message that this destructive hyper-marketing will no longer be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the FTC's authority to maintain and implement the Do Not Call Registry.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3161, the FTC's ratification of authority for the Do Not Call Registry, under the following conditions:…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3161, the FTC's ratification of authority for the Do Not Call Registry, under the following conditions: 45 minutes under the control of the chairman of the Commerce Committee or his designee, and 45 minutes under the control of the ranking member or his designee; of the time under the control of the ranking member, the following Senators be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes each: Senators Hollings, Dorgan, Conrad, Kohl, Pryor, Schumer, and Feinstein, with the remaining time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; further, that no amendments be in order to the bill; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. President, I will be glad for the time to be 10 minutes for Senator Hollings, but I remind my friend from Nevada, Senator Hollings will be controlling the time. So he will be granting himself as much time as he may use because the unanimous consent request is that the time will be under the control of the ranking member or his designee.
Good. But I have always proceeded under the assumption that Senator Hollings can speak whenever he wants to, for however long he wants to. I have found that it has improved our relationship.
Mr. President, does the Senator from South Carolina care to speak at this time?
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I thank Senator Hollings for all his efforts on this legislation. I think he was not a Member of the Senate when the Federal Trade Commission was created, but very close to it, and he has been heavily involved with all the issues surrounding the FTC and the good works they do.
I will speak very briefly. I would like to thank Senator Ensign and Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, Senator DeWine, and many other Senators, but particularly those including the distinguished ranking member, Senator Hollings, for all their efforts regarding this legislation and, more importantly, this issue.
Two days ago, a Federal district court in Oklahoma issued an opinion that could stall the FTC's implementation of a National Do Not Call Registry scheduled to go into effect next Wednesday. The court opined that the FTC was not authorized to create a Do Not Call Registry. I must say that opinion came as an amazing surprise to those of us who have been involved in this issue, and served as a rallying cry for tens of millions of Americans households that have signed up for the registry.
I understand the judge received so many calls from irate Americans that the FTC could not get through to the court regarding the Commission's appeal. Clearly, the court's decision was misguided.
The measure before us makes crystal clear that the Commission can and should proceed as planned with the Do Not Call list. Earlier this year, in two separate measures, Congress ratified the FTC's Do Not Call Registry by explicitly providing for the Commission to collect fees to pay for it. Today Congress is once again saying, dispositively and unambiguously, that the FTC has the authority it needs to create a National Do Not Call list.
When the FTC proposed to create this registry, I don't think they or even Members of this body had any idea how strongly it would be embraced by a public tired of having their precious leisure time filled with a seemingly incessant string of telephone solicitations.
I understand the FTC's Web site for registering on the Do Not Call list became the fastest growing Web site in history.
One of my favorite programs is ``Seinfeld.'' In one of the episodes that has become famous in reruns, Jerry Seinfeld answers the phone and it is a telemarketer. He says: I am busy right now. Can I call you back at home?
And of course the telemarketer says: No, you are not allowed to do that. You wouldn't like that. Well, neither do I. And he hung up the phone.
Obviously, the issue of telemarketing involves the free enterprise system. Nothing in this legislation would inhibit their ability from practicing that, but it also balances the right of private citizens not to be disturbed if they choose not to be.
During a peak period, the FTC's Web site received approximately 1,000 hits per second. On the first day alone, 3.4 million consumers visited the Web site. In the first 10 days, 10 million phone numbers had been registered. Within the first month, the number had risen to 28 million--quite a remarkable evolution. To date, over 50 million phone numbers have been registered, including nearly 1.2 million in my State of Arizona.
Congress is often accused of being slow to respond. Thankfully, that charge can't be leveled here. Just a few hours ago the House passed this legislation by a vote of 412 to 8. Whenever you see a number like that, you are always curious who the eight are, but the curious decision of one court should not be allowed to frustrate the clear will of Congress and the even clearer will of tens of millions of Americans.
Obviously, we urge our colleagues to support the measure, give consumers what they want by empowering them to say no to what they clearly do not want.
I thank all of my colleagues who have responded to the predictable but certainly overwhelming response to the
court's decision in the State of Oklahoma. That judge in the district court will become well known to many Americans as well.
I thank all my colleagues for coming and speaking on this issue. I thank them for their support. Although there is not a need for the yeas and nays, some of our colleagues may want to be on record. So we may want to do so depending on the desires of my friend from North Dakota, a man who understands the will of the populace especially where telecommunications issues are concerned.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that both of us are brand new in this job and this is the first time we are doing this, I want the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to know that I am pleased to…
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that both of us are brand new in this job and this is the first time we are doing this, I want the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to know that I am pleased to yield to him today and will be pleased to yield to him in days to come. I want him to stay leader; I would just like to change the designation, the adjective, but I yield to the majority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to us. I understand we are coming back at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday and leaving no later than 1 p.m. on Thursday. I know the gentleman's party has its retreat. Ours is this week, as the gentleman knows.
I would ask the leader, Mr. Speaker, he indicates that the conference committee report may come back on Wednesday. If that is the case, does the gentleman have any information as to when the conference might meet?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
Assuming that the conference report would be offered on Wednesday, assuming that work gets done, can the leader give us any information on the kind of rule under which that conference report would be considered? And I say that, Mr. Speaker, to the leader in the context that most members of the Committee on Appropriations, not to mention most Members of the House,
have not had the opportunity to see exactly what is in the bill. I think we just got the papers yesterday, so there has not been much consideration.
As the chairman, I am sure, knows, there will be a desire on, I am sure, both sides of the aisle, perhaps, to offer some legislative proposals to the conference committee report if they are made in order. Can the gentleman enlighten us as to what kind of rule the conference committee report might be considered under?
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me make a couple of comments.
First of all, the gentleman is almost right; we did 11 of the 13 bills. But the second largest bill, of course, as the gentleman knows, on discretionary spending, not only did we not do it, but it was not considered in subcommittee, much less in full committee, the Labor- Health bill, which is, of course, itself over $125 billion in discretionary spending, and somewhere approximately $300 billion, when we include the mandatory spending within that bill, as the gentleman recalls.
But as the gentleman makes the point, this is the most unusual procedure for the appropriations process that I have seen in my 20 years on the committee. It is the least involvement, I think, that members of the Committee on Appropriations in the House have had on the product that now is being sent to us by the Senate.
I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the Labor-Health bill introduced 2 days ago a Labor-Health alternative, which presumably will be used as a basis for that title of the bill to be conferenced. However, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I would very much hope that in light of the extraordinarily unusual circumstances under which this appropriation bill is being considered, essentially emanating from the Senate, which obviously from the House position is not what we want to see as normal practice, that the majority would very seriously consider, in the interests of democracy in this House, with a small ``d,'' and in the interest of full debate on the priorities we are going to set forth in this bill that deals with over $360 billion of discretionary spending, to have a rule that is not traditional, because we are not dealing with a traditional process.
I would hope that the leader, in discussions with the Speaker, with the majority whip, and with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), would consider a process which would allow Members to have a greater opportunity to express their views on this particular bill.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman has said; but I am sure the gentleman also understands our consternation, because we are going on a retreat for 2 days. We are leaving here tomorrow morning. I ask the gentleman when the conference is going to occur. We really do not know when the conference is going to occur.
As the gentleman knows, like himself, I am a ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. I have received no notice of a scheduled conference on this particular piece of legislation. I am one of the higher-ranking Members in the House. Therefore, I would think the gentleman and I would have access; but the more junior members of the Committee on Appropriations and those who do not serve on the Committee on Appropriations, while theoretically having some access to a conference, if the conference is never held, if there is no scheduled meeting, if they have no opportunity to participate in those deliberations, it is very difficult for them, short of acting on the floor, to consider this legislation.
So I would simply ask of the leader, Mr. Speaker, again in light of the extraordinarily unusual process that has been pursued over the last 12 months in dealing with the appropriation bills, and the fact that we did not bring the Labor-Health, one of the largest bills that our committee considers, to the floor or to full committee or to subcommittee for consideration, and yes, the chairman introduced a bill, but it was introduced by the chairman alone; it was not cosponsored by anybody else. That did not give us much input.
I will not belabor this point further, but I would hope and ask my colleagues, in light of the fact that this is the first substantive piece of legislation that we are going to consider, that it be considered with an opportunity for those of us who represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 49 percent of the people of the United States to have their voice heard meaningfully in the deliberations.
I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I appreciate his interest in changing my title, but that will not happen for another 2 years, at least. Before I discuss next week's…
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I appreciate his interest in changing my title, but that will not happen for another 2 years, at least.
Before I discuss next week's schedule, I would like to note for the gentleman and other Members of the House a very significant historical event that took place in the House of Representatives during this week back in 1815. Mr. Speaker, the Library of Congress was established back in 1800, and the Library was housed here in the Capitol, as many of us know, until 1814 when the British troops set fire to the building and destroyed most of the books in our collection. Retired President Thomas Jefferson graciously offered his personal library from Monticello as a replacement, and Congress purchased the library 188 years ago today for the sum of $23,950.
Now, after the job he did in the Louisiana Purchase, one would have thought Mr. Jefferson would have negotiated a little higher price from us, but, in any case, it was a great deal for America and a gracious gesture for our great champion of ideas.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the House will convene on Tuesday in pro forma session. On Wednesday we hope to consider the conference report on H. Res. 2, which will finish up the 2003 appropriations process. However, if the conference report is not ready for floor consideration, the House will need to consider another continuing resolution on Wednesday.
In addition, we may consider some measure under suspension of the rules. A list will be provided to all offices by Monday evening. There will be no votes in the House before 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and on Thursday we expect to consider H.R. 395, the Do Not Call Implementation Act, to restrain rampant telemarketers, and finish with legislative business for the week by 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer any questions.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, parties, both in the minority and the majority in both Houses, are speaking and talking to each other as we meet. Obviously, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the House and the chairman in the Senate will do their own scheduling when the formal conference would be held.
We are hoping that, working with the minority and the ranking Members of both Houses, and working hard through the weekend, as hard as they can, that they will come to some sort of resolution next week. That is the schedule that the House would like to see happen; but we know, as all these things happen, it could leak and we would have to do another continuing resolution for another week. Hopefully, by then all the work would be done.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, as well as this gentleman, having served on the Committee on Appropriations, understands that this is a very unusual process that we are going through. In fact, I do not think we have gone through this process anytime that I have served on the Committee on Appropriations, so we are sort of feeling our way trying to get the appropriations done.
I remind the gentleman that the Committee on Appropriations in the House passed out every one of the 13 bills out of committee, so we do have something to look at as to what at least the committee had done in the House; and they are trying to reconcile that with what the Senate did or what the other body did.
As far as bringing it back, it is the tradition of this House and has been the tradition of this House to bring back a conference report on an appropriations bill under a closed rule. To be honest, I do not know that we would want to change that.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding again. The gentleman is correct in correcting me, that we only did 11 bills out of the committee. I do remind the gentleman that the chairman introduced a Labor-HHS bill, and it is my information that that is what they are working from.
Secondly, I would say that the conference committee as named has 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats on it, so the minority is very well represented on the conference committee, and will be, obviously, consulted and worked with in as open a manner as possible.
I would also point out the fact that conference reports are privileged resolutions, and it would be highly unusual for us to change the precedent and the rules governing privileged resolutions. So we are trying the best we can to accommodate any Member that is interested in what is going on in that conference, whether they be Democrat or Republican, by opening up the process as much as possible and having a process that Members can plug into so that their voices can be heard in the consideration of the conference.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman makes a very good point. We want to be fair to all concerned. We want to have this as open a process as we possibly can make it.
I just want the Members of this body to know that we just received the paper from the other body last night, so it is going to take probably the entire time of the gentleman's retreat for the staff to go through that paper and get it ready for Members' consideration. Obviously, the Members that are interested in having an impact on this conference will probably have an opportunity, or I know they will have an opportunity, starting Sunday or Monday, to have input into that process. I offer to the gentleman that if anybody feels that they have been shut out of the process, our office is open and we are more than willing to work with them.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. It is a very important issue for people all across the country. Yesterday, I received the news that the Federal court in…
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. It is a very important issue for people all across the country.
Yesterday, I received the news that the Federal court in Oklahoma had decided that we had no authority over the Federal Do Not Call list.
I must tell you that as a United States Senator and as a former attorney general and as a lawyer and just as a citizen, I have all the respect in the world for our Federal courts and our judges and our legal system. I just happen to think they were wrong in this ruling.
At the same time, I am proud to join with my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House, in efforts to try to
make sure the courts understand that very clearly there is authority for the Federal Trade Commission to establish a National Do Not Call list.
I think it is very clear that the people have spoken on this issue. Back in February of this year, the Congress passed what we thought was the authorization and the funding for Do Not Call. Then, just a few weeks later, President Bush signed it into law.
I know a lot of people have been sharing their stories about telemarketers. I can tell you from firsthand experience, from back in 1998 when I traveled the State of Arkansas extensively, running for attorney general--that is what I did before I was elected to this august body--everywhere I went, it seemed as though every community I went into, every group I talked to, it didn't matter who they were, what they had on their mind, they wanted to talk about telemarketing. They would say: Please, is there anything you can do to have these telemarketers stop calling us?
I said: Yes. We in Arkansas had one of the first--not the very first but one of the first--State do not call systems that we passed in 1999. It had very few exceptions to it. It was something we were proud of. We had to charge $5 because, where Congress appropriated some dollars for this Federal system, we did not have a State legislative appropriation for our State system. But regardless of that, even though we charged for it, we had thousands upon thousands of Arkansans sign up for our State do not call system.
I tell you, everywhere I go in Arkansas today, people still thank me for the State's do not call system.
One thing we learned during that process was that for most people, telemarketers' calls are an annoyance. People get tired of being bothered during dinnertime, when they are trying to do the homework with the children, when they are trying to put the kids down--whatever the case may be. But for some Americans, a small percentage, telemarketing also has the element of fraud to it.
Many people in this country--mostly seniors but not all, but many people in this country are taken advantage of via the telephone. If you look at the FBI statistics--I haven't seen the most recent round, but I was familiar with them in my 4 years in the attorney general's office-- it is a small percentage of fraud, but let me tell you, it is a lot of dollars every single year. It is millions upon millions of dollars that are swindled away from people by use of the telephone.
I want to touch on something that Senator Dorgan said a few moments ago. The telemarketing industry is not evil. They are just doing their job. We understand that. We appreciate that. It is a legitimate industry. It is an industry that has a lot of hard-working people in it. They do a lot of great things. We are not critical of the industry per se.
We know there are some bad actors out there. I think a National Do Not Call program will help clear up those bad actors, just like we have been able to do on a State-by-State basis, when the States pass these kinds of provisions.
But telemarketing is, for many Americans, an annoyance that they just do not want to have. After all, we are talking about the privacy of people's homes. They should be able to have some control over the types of calls they get.
If they get solicitations, if they don't want those, there should be some mechanism where they can shut those off on the front end. That is what the Federal Do Not Call program will do. That is why I think you have seen so many people in the House and in the Senate come to the respective floors today and argue that we should take this step that we are about to take today.
One last point. In the last few weeks, ever since it was announced with toll-free numbers and Web sites that there would be a Federal Do Not Call program, and how to sign up, et cetera, there have been about 50 million phone numbers added to this list. That is an amazing number. Fifty million Americans can't be wrong.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.
Yes. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from New York.
Mr. President, we all know that fraud can be very much a problem when it comes to telemarketing, but we also know a Do Not Call registry is a very positive consumer tool against fraud. By that I mean if you signed up for the National Do Not Call plan and you still get a call, you know something is up. That ought to be your first tip that something may be amiss with this call. This is another reason I thank my friend from New York for his very wise comments.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of this legislation. In my time in the Senate, I have never seen legislation move so quickly through the…
Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise in strong support of this legislation. In my time in the Senate, I have never seen legislation move so quickly through the House and Senate for any issue.
Why? There are three reasons. The first is, of course, the need for this legislation. Fifty million people have signed up on a registry and are expecting it to work October 1. We should fulfill those expectations. None of us, me included, because this has happened to my family when we sit down to dinner all the time, hopping up and down like jackrabbits to answer the phone and then hear someone on the phone trying to sell you something. It drives you crazy. No. 1 is the need.
No. 2 is the fact the court decision was so goofy. The bottom line is, if you read the legislative language, if you read the statutes, in my judgment, there is no question we granted authority. I think the judge went out of his way to try to throw out this list. This may be an example of judges making law rather than interpreting law that we have talked about for so long. On this, we all agree that we do not want the judge making law, particularly making law that so goes against the will of this Congress and the American people.
The bottom line is, our intent was clear from the language of the February 13, 2003, statute called the Do Not Call Implementation Act. I cannot understand how a court would conclude Congress would have directed the FTC to implement the registry if it had not assumed that it had authorized the FTC to make the registry, either in previous law or through the implementation act itself.
If this were not enough to demonstrate Congress's intent on this issue, on February 20, 2003, the Omnibus Appropriations Act was signed into law which authorized the FTC to ``implement and enforce the do not call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Act.''
That is as clear as the nose on your face. The court's decision is based on an overly technical view that ignores the clear intent of Congress. So the second reason we are moving so quickly is this law was so poorly interpreted by the judge.
The third is this has a consensus behind it. It is needed. There are a lot of laws that are needed but do not have a consensus. It was thrown out by a court in a strange decision. There is almost a universal consensus that this is the right thing to do.
The telemarketing industry feels badly about this. I understand there are many people who work in this industry. They are going to have to find a way to telemarket--which is a good thing when people want telemarketing--they will have to refine their processes. I would not mind refining this list and allowing people to file, if we could technically, to say I only want to get calls about mortgages or I only want to get calls about garden tools, but not to subject everyone to answer the phone, particularly at dinner time and evening time when the family is home alone and relaxing. This has happened in my family. It does not make any sense.
It is a good law. I wish there were more days in Congress that we do important things in a bipartisan way without tarrying. Let's savor it while we can.
I make one additional point. This approach can also work for another problem facing American consumers very similar to the annoying telemarketing call: e-mail spam. As in telemarketing calls, spam traffic is also growing at a geometric rate. It has become more than an annoyance. It is now a real danger to the future of the e-mail part of the Internet. Fifty percent of all e-mail is spam. What was a simple annoyance last year has become a major concern this year and could cripple one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century next year if nothing is done. We should be doing the same thing against spam.
Admittedly, it is easier to cut off a telemarketer than a spammer, but the same basic concept applies and the telemarketing provisions worked. The anti-e-mail spam provisions are the best we have to deal with spam right now.
This morning the Judiciary Committee passed the Criminal Spam Act of 2003. I was proud to cosponsor that along with my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. For the first time that will criminalize some of the spammer's favorite tricks. Those that repeatedly use predatory practices to evade filtering software will face stiff punishment, including the potential of jail time, but we should add the registry to those provisions. I did not do that in committee today, but I hope we can do it on the floor when it comes forward.
A spam registry such as the Do Not Call Registry has broad consumer support. It has bipartisan support. Senator Graham of South Carolina and I are the lead sponsors. The registry provides parents with the unique opportunity to register their children's e-mail addresses to prevent unwanted advertisements that go to our children for pornography and lots of things the kids should not see.
I commend my colleagues for moving so quickly to defend consumers against unwanted telemarketing calls. Fifty million people cannot be wrong. I hope we will do the same and move with the same speed and urgency when we deal with e-mail spam and create an anti-e-mail spam registry as well.
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I come to the floor because I have just learned of a decision made by an Oklahoma district judge that the National Do-Not-Call registry is invalid. This is amazing to me. This is the…
Madam President, I come to the floor because I have just learned of a decision made by an Oklahoma district judge that the National Do-Not-Call registry is invalid. This is amazing to me.
This is the result, apparently, of a lawsuit filed by the Direct Marketing Association, U.S. Security, Chartered Benefit Services, Global Contact Services, and in InfoCision Management Corporation challenging the Federal Trade Commission's authority to implement the wishes of millions of
Americans who have gone on the Federal Trade Commission's web site and signed up to say to telemarketers they don't want to be called.
I would like to read into the Record a statement of FTC Chairman Timothy Muris. He said:
Late last year, the Federal Commission issued rules
creating the National Do Not Call Registry under the
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act. On
February 13, 2003 the Congress passed the Do Not Call
Implementation Act, which authorized the FTC to collect fees
from sellers and telmarketers to ``implement and enforce the
provisions relating to the `do-not-call' registry.'' The
President signed this bill on March 11, 2003. Moreover, on
February 20, 2003, the President signed the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, which authorizes the FTC to ``implement
and enforce the do-not-call provisions of the Telemarketing
Sales Rule.''
Despite this clear legislative direction, the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has ruled that the
FTC exceeded its authority in creating the National Do Not
Call Registry.
This decision is clearly incorrect. We will seek every
recourse to give American consumers a choice to stop unwanted
telemarketing calls.
This registry is due to go into effect in a week. A Federal judge has essentially prevented it from going into effect. In a week, tens of millions of Americans who have registered their names not to be called by telemarketers are going to find out that it is all a myth. They are going to get called in any event. I think they are going to be very angry.
I also believe this decision strikes a blow against the basic privacy interests of millions of Americans. Presently, these people are subjected to unwanted marketing calls to their homes at all times of the day, including the dinner hour. The FTC's Registry will give Americans who want to avoid these unsolicited sales pitches an option to stop their telephone from ringing.
As I mentioned, tens of millions of Americans have registered more than 50 million phone numbers for this program. Ultimately, the Federal Trade Commission expects 60 percent of the Nation's households with approximately 60 million home phone lines to sign on to the registry. This registry is crucial because it puts consumers in charge of the number of telemarketing calls they receive. Telemarketers who disregard the Registry could be fined up to $11,000 per call.
The district court today ruled that the Do Not Call Registry is ``invalid''--that is the word the judge used in his decision--because it was created without congressional authority.
This conclusion I find surprising since Congress passed H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act on February 13th of this year. The legislation clearly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to collect fees sufficient to implement the Registry. And the Appropriations Committee granted $18 million for the program.
I also note that the FTC's rule came after the most extensive deliberations. The FTC announced its plan to proceed with the Registry on December 18, 2002, after receiving 64,000 comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments favored the creation of the Registry. Millions of Americans were promised protection from annoying, unwanted telemarketing calls starting October 1. They are truly going to be outraged by this.
There are two ways of going about this. The first is to let the FTC appeal the case, which they have just said they are going to be in the process of doing. The other is to perhaps unanimously adopt and pass legislation which clearly authorizes, specifically authorizes--and in bold letters authorizes so that no Federal judge can misunderstand it-- and get this done as quickly as we can. I have asked my Judiciary counsel to prepare this legislation. We will be submitting it before the end of the day.
I would like to invite all of my colleagues to join as cosponsors. Then, hopefully, we will be able to move this through very quickly, particularly in view of the fact that we believed we did authorize it earlier, the President did sign it earlier this year, and we believed it was a concluded issue.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the judgment of the Western District Court of Oklahoma which finds that the portion of the final amended rule that pertains to the National Do Not Call Registry is invalid.
Madam President, I have concluded within the 10 minutes. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address the judicial action that would temporarily prevent the National Do Not Call Registry from going into effect. This privacy-oriented program was…
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address the judicial action that would temporarily prevent the National Do Not Call Registry from going into effect.
This privacy-oriented program was recently implemented by the Federal Trade Commission and was supposed to go into effect by October 1. That is just about a week away.
I am proud to join my colleague from Nevada, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Ensign, in cosponsoring this bill. This bill ratifies the authority of the FTC to establish the National Do Not Call Registry and allows the program to go into effect as drafted by the FTC.
As you may or may not know, Alaska is about a 4-hour time difference from Washington, DC. It seems like just about my dinner hour in Alaska when telemarketers throughout the country get kicked into full gear. I know when my family and I are interrupted at the dinner table by these calls, we feel invaded. I can only imagine that my other friends and neighbors are equally upset. Sometimes we are outraged that our right to privacy is invaded every night when we are sitting down to have dinner with our families. Our lives are busy enough throughout the day with work, school, homework, and just catching up with one another and preparing for the next day. The last thing in the world we want when we sit down for the quiet time is to be interrupted by the telemarketing company that believes it is their right to disturb us during our few minutes of family time.
Those who seek to stop the implementation of this program assert that they are protected by the right to free speech. I say it is the people who have the right to decide that they do not want to be hounded by telemarketers and those who would interrupt the sanctity of their homes.
The entire purpose of the FTC's National Do Not Call Registry program is to allow Americans to opt out of receiving these annoying phone calls. In my judgment, the court's decision to stop this program tilts the privacy rights out of balance in favor of those telemarketing companies.
In June, the Anchorage Daily News--which is my hometown newspaper-- published an editorial supporting the National Do Not Call Registry. They wrote about an Alaskan by the name of Ron Hammett who says he sometimes gets two or three calls a day. Mr. Hammett is a 76-year-old retiree who spent more than 2 hours waiting to get through the registration process once the FTC rule came out. Now he is going to wake up today--or he woke up this morning--to find out that his time and the time of many other Alaskans was wasted.
In just a few short months since the FTC adopted these rules, nearly 50 million people have registered to stop these phone calls.
My State of Alaska has its own do not call program that was created in 1996--it is called the Black Dot Program--which allows telephone subscribers to elect to have a black dot placed next to their name in the Alaska phone books.
A computerized version of the list is made available to the telemarketers, but the problem is they are not required to use it. If they call any telephone customer with a black dot next to his or her name, they are subject to a fine of up to $5,000, whether the telemarketer uses the list or not.
The problem with Alaska's statute is that there has been only one complaint filed since it was implemented. Most of the telemarketers are located outside the State of Alaska, and the State law doesn't have the teeth that the FTC rule contains to go after these outside groups. Alaskans, quite honestly, are looking forward to the implementation of this FTC rule to give them the peace and the quiet they have sought for so long. We need this FTC rule to protect our citizens and their privacy.
Americans have spoken. They don't like to be disturbed by unwanted and harassing phone calls from people selling products over the phone. Through this legislation we can have that peace and privacy within our own homes.
I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. I hope the body will act quickly on this measure. I am very pleased to see us moving so rapidly at this point.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that following the next vote on passage of the Do Not Call legislation, the Senate immediately proceed to executive session and two consecutive votes on the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 359 and 360.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the second and third vote; further, that following the votes, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.
I yield back all time on our side.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank…
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. I would ask the distinguished majority leader, when does he expect the conferees will complete their work on the omnibus? Does the gentleman have any idea?
I notice the gentleman says, ``if it is available.'' Does the gentleman have any information on when it may be available and completed?
I thank the gentleman for that answer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, and as I said last week, because of the process we are pursuing Members are not as knowledgeable, perhaps, as they otherwise would be on exactly what is going on. Can the majority leader inform me as to how much time he would expect to give Members, A, to review the conference report, and then to have consideration of it on the floor, and what procedures might be available to them on the floor?
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Appropriations is now very upset with the gentleman for that recommendation.
The staff clearly is overwhelmed because they are trying to move ahead, covering 11 appropriation bills, in a short period of time.
I appreciate the gentleman's observation that there is going to be an attempt made to give the Members sufficient time when the report is issued, when the conference report is issued from the committee, to at least have 24 hours to review it and come to grips with what is in it. Because, again, the process has been one in which we have not had many of the bills, as the gentleman knows, on the floor for consideration in the House in the first instance, much less the conference reports, while the Senate, obviously, had a fuller debate on most of the pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman again, I would like to ask him about the Welfare Reform Reauthorization Act which he indicates may be on the floor next Thursday. If it comes on the floor next Thursday, can the gentleman tell me how whether it is going to go to committee, to the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration, or whether it will go directly to the Committee on Rules and be reported out by the Committee on Rules?
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for that information with reference to how it is going to be considered.
As the gentleman, as the leader will recall, and I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Rules will recall, when last considered, the Democrats, the minority, was given a substitute, and a waiver was given with respect to that substitute as well. We would hope that that would be repeated again this year.
Again, notwithstanding the accelerated consideration, clearly we would hope that we would be able to offer, with an appropriate waiver, an alternative to the proposal that emanates from the Committee on Rules.
Could the leader tell me whether that is the intention?
Reclaiming my time just briefly, Mr. Leader, we do not have time to debate that issue; but I will yield back to the gentleman.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was considered the chairman will recall a waiver was given because of the budget objections that might lie.
Would the chairman contemplate a similar waiver being offered?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, as some know, I was one of those who voted for the welfare reform bill.
I believe that we have made great strides. I believe that there are, obviously, different times that confront us at this point in time; but I think, given where we are, that both sides may still be pretty much in the same position they were in last time.
I would, without asking further questions, urge my friends on the majority side to provide for that full and open debate and not allow a technicality which would result from a lack of waiver to preclude a substantive alternative to be debated on this floor and the different perspectives that Members might have being aired.
I think that is good for the American public, I think it is good for the House of Representatives, and I think it is good for the final product. I would hope that would be done. We certainly anticipated the gentleman's announcement, and we will be offering a substitute in a timely fashion on Tuesday next, as I understand the chairman will announce.
I do not want to announce it for the gentleman, but I appreciate it. I appreciate the comments of the leader and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Show 11 more
There is no problem. I merely wanted to thank everybody. We heard about this through my Judiciary counsel, who follows the courts, and we came to the floor and indicated we were going to put this…
There is no problem. I merely wanted to thank everybody. We heard about this through my Judiciary counsel, who follows the courts, and we came to the floor and indicated we were going to put this together and we got a number of cosponsors. It was really Senator Dorgan who worked out all of the protocols involved.
I thank the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings, for their work on this issue. I didn't realize the depth of involvement that had existed. I find the court's decision so out of whack with what has happened. So I am very pleased and I thank the Senator from Montana for his courtesy.
I am glad to see that so many of our fellow colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, have joined us in this important and urgent effort, and that we were able to take up this legislation so quickly, in record time. It was only about 24 hours ago that I first raised this issue on the Senate floor.
Our bill is identical in language to the bill introduced in the House of Representatives, and we expect one or both of the bills to pass today.
The bill simply confirms what we all already thought was true, that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to implement a ``Do-Not- Call'' Registry.
We in Congress must act quickly, because this registry is due to go into effect in just 1 week on October 1. Literally tens of millions of Americans have registered their phone numbers not to be called by telemarketers.
I have rarely seen an issue where so many millions of Americans have made their strong preferences known.
Are we going to simply tell them that this was all a myth? Or is Congress going to act to honor our earlier commitments and to protect this important right to privacy? These citizens expect us to act--and I believe that the momentum is clearly on our side.
If allowed to stand, the decision made by an Oklahoma district court judge that the National Do-Not-Call-Registry would strike a powerful blow against the basic private interests of millions of Americans.
Right now, these people are subjected to unwanted and annoying marketing calls to their homes at all times of the day, including the dinner hour.
According to industry estimates, about 60 million telemarketing calls are made daily. With advances in technology and declining telephone costs, consumers would face the prospect of an unprecedented barrage of calls. And this is why the registry is so important.
The FTC's registry will give Americans who want to avoid these unsolicited sales pitches a chance to stop annoying intrusions into their home.
As we know, tens of millions of Americans have registered more than 50 million phone numbers for this program. In the end, the Federal Trade Commission expects 60 percent of the Nation's households with approximately 60 million home phone lines to sign on to the registry.
This registry is crucial because it puts consumers in charge of the number of telemarketing calls they receive. Telemarketers who disregard the registry could be fined up to $11,000 per call.
The Oklahoma district court yesterday ruled that the Do Not Call Registry is ``invalid''--that is the word the judge used in his decision--because it was created without congressional authority.
I find this conclusion surprising since Congress passed H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act on February 13 of this year. The legislation clearly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to collect fees sufficient to implement the registry. And the Appropriations Committee granted $18 million for the program.
I also note that the FTC's rule came after an exhaustive comment period. The FTC announced its plan to proceed with the registry on December 18, 2002, after receiving 64,000 comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments favored the creation of the registry.
Millions of Americans were promised protection from annoying, unwanted telemarketing calls starting October 1. They are outraged--and so are we--by this setback.
Congress must move now and unanimously adopt and pass legislation which grants the authority to the FTC, clearly and unequivocally--so that no Federal judge can misunderstand it.
Many of us were taken by surprise yesterday, but by putting this legislation to a vote now, we are doing the right thing. On October 1, let's make sure that the millions of Americans who want their privacy protected from these telemarketers are not disappointed.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m.…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules at that time. There will be no votes in the House before 6:30 p.m. next Tuesday.
On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m.; and we expect to consider H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, to restrain rampant telemarketers. Additionally, we hope to consider the conference report on House Joint Resolution 2, which will finish up the 2003 appropriations process. However, if the conference report is not ready for floor consideration, the House will need to consider another continuing resolution.
On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We expect to consider the Welfare Reform Reauthorization Act.
I am happy to answer any questions the gentleman may have.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. He is working all through the weekend.
As the gentleman may know, the Republican Caucus is going to spend this weekend in retreat. The chairman and some of the conference members are not going on that retreat so they can work through the weekend. They hope to be able to have a formal conference meeting Monday, Monday evening, and start the formal process at that time, hopefully getting the conference report to the floor by Wednesday.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the gentleman on what procedures may be available to them on the floor.
As the gentleman knows, the conference report is a privileged motion not subject to amendment. The Members, I do not know about the gentleman's side of the aisle, but my side of the aisle are very aware that the appropriations process is ongoing. I have been overwhelmed with requests and issues that are in that bill, as the chairman has, and Members are working as hard as they can to make sure their concerns are taken care of in the appropriations bill and in that process.
We are hoping that the Members will have sufficient time. This is, again, an unusual process, and the bill itself is huge, but we are hoping that we can give the Members sufficient time to review the bill. But if Members are interested, they ought to be consulting with the staff of the Committee on Appropriations right now as to what is in the bill and what might come to the bill so they might be prepared for voting on it on Wednesday.
I retract that remark.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, we intend to use an unusual procedure to bring the bill straight to the floor because of many reasons, not the least of which is that reforming welfare, as the gentleman knows, has been an incredible success. The reauthorization was vitally important; and many of these programs, these successful programs, are working under short-term extensions. We think it is vitally important to get this program reauthorized and, most importantly, get to the Senate.
I might remind the gentleman that we passed the welfare reform I think 2 years ago and never got through the Senate and sat on the desk, and it never was considered by the Senate. That bill, by the way, has had more than 20 hearings and multiple markups, and we feel that Members have had plenty of opportunity to consider the bill. We want to expedite the process and not jeopardize the great success that we have seen over the time of the welfare reform.
As far as the Committee on Rules is concerned, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it will go straight to the Committee on Rules discharging from the committees. The chairman is standing right beside me. I would anticipate very soon that he will announce a filing deadline for amendments this evening and will meet sometime next week to consider those amendments.
If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, I have watched the chairman of the Committee on Rules work for many years now, going on 9 years as chairman of the Committee on Rules, I believe. The whole time that he has been chairman he has, I think, treated the minority with utmost and extreme fairness.
I think that he is ultimately fair and will treat the minority fairly as it comes to the welfare reform bill.
To be serious about it, I think the minority deserves to be heard on welfare reform, especially welfare reform, and the chairman will treat them fairly.
Mr. President, I am confident my colleague from North Dakota will probably want to use 5 minutes of that 6 minutes. He probably has not exhausted every thought on the subject matter. I will be happy…
Mr. President, I am confident my colleague from North Dakota will probably want to use 5 minutes of that 6 minutes. He probably has not exhausted every thought on the subject matter. I will be happy to yield back some of my time to him.
I wish to add my voice and thanks to the managers of this proposal and to commend the other body for their efforts in acting as quickly as they have on the subject matter. I am familiar enough with it because I introduced legislation about 2 years ago in this area. Connecticut was one of the early States--I know there have been a number of States that have adopted a do not call list--to adopt a do not call list in the year 2000. In December 2001, I introduced a bill very similar to the one Connecticut has produced. Either since then or before then, other States--including Alabama, Alaska, the home of the distinguished Senator Murkowski, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, and others--have also enacted legislation.
This is a very positive outcome. Clearly, what has happened is, as we are talking about the use of the telephone, the telemarketing idea, America has phoned in and said to please give them some relief. We just would like a few minutes of privacy and quiet. It is hard enough to get a family together with all the pressures on them today. When you might just be able to get them to sit down for a meal, that phone starts ringing. What they are saying is: Give me the choice of saying I don't want to be bothered and buy this. They ought to have that right.
The obvious problem with this bill--I say it is a problem, but I am confident we can correct it; it is the difference between the bill I introduced several years ago and the one before us today--is the loophole that allows any prior business relationship to be an exception to the otherwise clear prohibition supported by this legislation.
As was pointed out in one news account in the last day or so, there has been a tremendous surge of telemarketing in the last number of weeks by businesses trying to establish a ``prior business relationship'' with a customer base in this country which would then allow them to become part of the exception even under this legislation.
The point I am making is, even though we will pass this bill--and I am very glad we are doing so; again, I commend the authors for moving as rapidly as they are on this legislation--we have not heard the end of this issue. There are going to be people coming back, once they discover that any prior business relationship pretty much will allow the exception to occur, which means you will have that phone continue to ring. And I presume they are going to be asking us to come back and even close the loophole down further.
Much as we have in Connecticut and as other States are doing this. As I've
said, Connecticut has enacted legislation and the bill I introduced mirrors my State's efforts in that regard.
Justice Brandeis said it so eloquently years and years ago, as he always could, this wonderful, brilliant mind of a Supreme Court Justice. He always had the ability of taking a difficult concept and simplifying it in terms that were so understandable by everyone. He said: Privacy is nothing more than the simple right to be left alone. That is what we are really talking about. He couldn't have imagined, when he said that, the technology that would make it possible for telemarketing to occur. But the right to be left alone is really at the heart of what we are talking about--the right to say to someone: You don't have the right to call me anytime you want. I should have some ability to control that intrusive invasion in the privacy of my family's life.
I am glad the Federal Trade Commission acted. It certainly made a difference. But clearly we need to respond to the court's decision in this matter, and we are doing that by adopting this legislation.
I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor. I implore my colleagues in their respective committees to take a look at the bill I have introduced. I know others have introduced legislation, but take a look at this bill. Let's monitor what happens over the coming months to see if we are achieving the desired results that this legislation is designed to achieve. If not, we may have to go a bit further along the lines I have suggested. I am sure others have as well.
With that, I am pleased to be a part of this effort and congratulate the authors of it.
I yield back the remainder of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. This bill will authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from the telemarketing industry…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. This bill will authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from the telemarketing industry in order to implement and enforce a Do-Not-Call registry. The 1994 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act directed the FTC to include in any rulemaking a requirement to curb unsolicited telephone calls that are coercive or abusive to a consumer's right to privacy. The FTC has interpreted this direction to create the Do-Not- Call List. Let me say in the beginning that I support the concept of a national do-not-call list. I support the notion that we should not have to leave our phones off the hook if we don't want to be disturbed during dinner time. However, I fear the Do-Not-Call List proposed by the Federal Trade Commission is far from perfect; in some instances it leaves gaping holes in its protection of consumers, and in others it is far too damaging to an industry that employs tens of thousands of workers all across this country.
Telemarketing firms employ approximately a thousand people in my congressional district. They provide jobs to parents of young children who require flexible hours; they provide jobs to our young people who want to be part of the work force while they develop necessary skills for other occupations. In Gallipolis, Ohio, one call center is the second largest employer in the town, with workers coming across the Ohio River from West Virginia to make calls. Elsewhere in Ohio, in Marietta and Boardman, I have heard from constituents who depend on these jobs for a steady salary and health benefits. These jobs are already threatened by stiff competition from overseas. With the falling cost of international calls, call centers are sprouting up in countries such as India and the Philippines.
I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to the economic impact that the FTC's proposed registry will have on many communities across the United States. The FTC has indeed investigated the impact of telemarketing on consumers. But I am concerned that adequate attention has not been given to the importance of telemarketing jobs, especially to economically distressed communities. I do not agree with forecasters who are spelling a doomsday scenario for the industry if the registry goes into effect, but I am concerned that some of the provisions of the FTC rule do not pass the common sense test. A prime example is the maximum $11,000 fine that the FTC may levy on a company for calling someone on the list.
I also have other concerns about the viability of a National Do-Not- Call List, that is not truly national, but interstate, and not truly a Do-Not-Call List if a business falls outside the jurisdiction of the FTC. I am pleased, though, that the bill includes provisions that will hopefully reconcile the cross-jurisdiction of the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission, and the States.
However, there is a glaring loophole in the FTC's Do-Not-Call List with which I cannot reconcile myself. Calls soliciting political contributions are not covered by the FTC's Do-Not-Call List. With the statutory requirement to prevent ``coercive and abusive'' telephone calls, I can't think of a greater omission to a Do-Not-Call list than leaving out harassing campaign calls. I had planned to offer an amendment when this bill was before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on which I sit, that would have made such political calls non-exempt from the FTC's registry, but calls of a political nature are outside of the FTC's jurisdiction and the bill before us was not the best vehicle to address the larger problems of the FTC's jurisdictional limits.
Despite my support for the concept of a national do-not-call list, I cannot support an authorization to collect fees for the FTC's proposed list. I doubt that the issues that I have raised will receive much attention as this bill is rushed through the legislative process. However, I hope that the problems with the FTC's proposed Do-Not-Call list will be revisited by Congress in its oversight of the agency. Specifically, I note that the bill before us requires the FTC to analyze the registry and report to Congress. I sincerely hope that any such report will include analyses of the impact these new regulations will have on legitimate businesses and the economic impact on the communities in which those businesses operate.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and, I am proud to…
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and, I am proud to say, my chairman as a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), chairman of the subcommittee; and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who strongly supports this legislation, for their outstanding leadership in advancing this proconsumer bill.
As a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and as ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement this important measure.
Madam Speaker, we all appreciate the precious time we have at home with our families after a long day of work, but who has not had that time interrupted by commercial telemarketers? We all know from personal experience how intrusive these calls can be. I hear complaints from many of my constituents who are tired of receiving telemarketing calls at home. They should be able to stop these calls, if they so choose, and the FTC's creation of a national list will make it easier for people to enjoy peace and quiet at home.
This proconsumer legislation authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from telemarketers to create a national do-not-call registry. Consumers who do not wish to be solicited at home can put themselves on the registry. Telemarketers are required to check the database every 3 months and remove names that appear on the list from their call list.
In December, the FTC amended the Telemarketing Sales Rules to create a national do-not-call list. This legislation will help the FTC implement this important initiative. I am pleased that the FTC's proposal will protect the First Amendment rights of telemarketers. Telemarketers will be able to continue to solicit consumers who do not put themselves on the list. Telemarketers will still be allowed to call those who are on the do-not-call list when an existing business relationship exists. However, all solicitors who qualify for this exception have to honor requests from individuals if they ask not to be contacted in the future.
It is my understanding that the FTC hopes to have the list up and running within the next few months. And this legislation protects the ability of legitimate charities and not-for-profit organizations to make calls, and they are not regulated by this legislation. However, even if in those circumstances any person asks not to be called again by that organization, that request must be honored.
So, again, I support this legislation. I urge all Members to vote in favor of its passage. I also want to urge appropriators to provide full funding for this program in the omnibus appropriations bill. I hope that they will consider incorporating the text of this legislation in the conference report.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a very eloquent member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), a great consumer advocate and member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who is not only a distinguished member of our class to the House of Representatives but the only Member of Congress who is a rocket scientist.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has stood up for the rights of consumers so many times on this floor.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to all our colleagues supporting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.
Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 346) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving certain proscribed acts or…
Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 346) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving certain proscribed acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster declared by the President, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 3 of that Act.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material in the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the weeks since September 11, 2001, this Nation has mourned, has been angry, has been anxious, and has been very generous in response to the needs of those who were affected. This American spirit has reached record levels and now stands as symbolic as this Nation's greatness and ability to support a just cause, the relief of the victims and their families.
But we have also seen the darker side of humanity. Reports of people using this tragedy and the generous American spirit for their own gain have appeared. Scam artists and frauds know that in the aftermath, Americans are all too eager to help. They also appear in the wake of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other such similar disasters.
The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the States' attorneys general already have some powers to prosecute those engaged in fraud and deceptive practices, but we must make it clear that we will severely punish those who aim to take advantage of America's charity or an organization's good name during such an emergency.
Congress must also make sure that consumers are not inundated with false and deceptive claims about goods and services that would exploit the circumstances of an emergency or of such a disaster. Whether it is selling Cipro and other drugs under false information or offering fraudulent terrorist insurance, these practices must carry a penalty commensurate with their nature. We cannot let stand the detestable actions of so few that mar the pride and patriotism we all share over the phenomenal generosity and outpouring of support from across the United States and world. And we cannot let the fear and anxiety of our citizens be preyed upon by scam artists peddling their cheats and their swindles.
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the victims of any tragedy, their families and their friends and all Americans are as humbled as I am with the response of this country to disasters. Now we need to ensure that those who would abuse this determined American spirit are equally staggered at our response.
The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act would double the penalties that the Federal Trade Commission would levy during times of presidentially declared emergencies and disasters if the offending action aims to exploit the crisis.
These times, Madam Speaker, sadly occur more often than one might think, and the attempts to profit from them follow just as regularly. All hope of profit and gain must be removed from the equation for these people.
I personally would like to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for taking the initiative on this very important bill authoring H.R. 346, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure, which will likely pass the House and Senate by an overwhelming margin and in record speed. This bill makes it…
Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure, which will likely pass the House and Senate by an overwhelming margin and in record speed. This bill makes it perfectly
clear that the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, has the authority to implement and enforce the Do Not Call program that until yesterday's court ruling was scheduled to go into effect on October 1. I am usually not in favor of quick legislative reaction to lower court decisions. We have an appellate process to determine if a lower court is mistaken, as this one surely was, and that process serves us well. However, this case is different, and I am pleased that this Congress is prepared to react so quickly and so decisively.
There is no doubt in my mind that the FTC has the authority to create the Do Not Call program. It is true that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, TCPA, passed in 1991, allowed the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, not the FTC, to create a national database of telephone numbers from Americans who wanted to avoid telephone solicitation. But in 1995, in the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, TCFAPA, Congress also directed the FTC to establish rules on telemarketing activities. The FCC and the FTC have jurisdiction over different telemarketers, so it makes sense that there is some overlapping authority.
The FTC initially promulgated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TSR, which contained a variety of restrictions on telemarketing, such as prohibiting such calls between the hours of 9 pm and 8 am and requiring telemarketers to cease making calls to consumers who specifically request not to be contacted again. Complaints about telemarketing continued and in 2000, the FTC began a proceeding to consider revisions to the TSR. That led to the adoption of the national Do Not Call Registry. The FTC announced the final rule on December 18, 2002.
Just a few months ago, in March 2003, Congress passed and the President signed Do Not Call Implementation Act, DNCIA. That statute authorized the FTC to collect fees sufficient to create and administer the database. The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed a month earlier also authorized the FTC to collect fees for the enforcement and implementation of the program, estimated at $18.1 million for fiscal year 2003. With this history, it is as clear as day that Congress has at least ratified the FTC's view of its statutory authority to create the Do Not Call list. Simply put, the district court decision yesterday was wrong.
Mr. President, the public response and support for the Do Not Call program have been tremendous. Americans have voluntarily registered over 50 million phone numbers on the database. They have waited a long time for this measure to finally be implemented. Months ago, they began adding their phone numbers to the list with the expectation that on October 1, finally, the calls would stop. That is why we must act decisively to reverse the court decision. It adversely affects millions of people. It thwarts a good program that has received overwhelming public support and participation. And it ignores clear evidence of congressional authorization. Even the few months that it would take to reverse the decision, and I am convinced it ultimately would be reversed, would be too long. The time has come for the national Do Not Call program to go into effect, and for Americans to be able to eat dinner or watch TV with their families free of interruptions by telephone solicitors. I am proud to support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has outlined the reason for this bill, and obviously I support it. It is under the…
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has outlined the reason for this bill, and obviously I support it. It is under the jurisdiction of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to collect the needed fees to maintain such a national registry. It is a very important bill, and as such, I seek all of my colleagues' support this afternoon.
I commend the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission for taking the initiative on this issue, and its hard work in promulgating the recent amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Specifically, the do-not- call amendments. As a Member that has championed consumer information privacy legislation for the past 2 years in my subcommittee, and we have had six hearings on it, I think a national do-not-call list is important. Although small, it is a step towards further enhancing consumers' privacy.
There is no question that I, along with most of my constituents, welcome any effective measure designed to protect us from unwanted telephone solicitations. A national do-not-call list goes a long way in fulfilling our want for a little peace and quiet at the family dinner table. It is important that the national do-not-call list truly be a one-stop shopping experience for the consumer.
As directed by H.R. 395, the Federal Trade Commission must work to ensure harmonization among the myriad of States and Federal telemarketing rules and do-not-call lists. That is not an easy job. As it now stands, I understand that 28 States have their own do-not-call lists, and the Federal Communications Commission may be considering another.
I strongly encourage the FTC chairman, Chairman Muris, to work very closely with the FCC on its national do-not-call registry proposed rulemaking so that if the FCC was to promulgate its own rule, it is substantially harmonized and in agreement
with the Federal Trade Commission rule.
For American consumers to enjoy one-stop shopping when seeking to protect him- or herself from unwanted telephone solicitation, there ought to be a single national registry governed by one set of Federal rules. I think we need a single national list for all interstate calls so there is only one toll-free number or one Web site address and one government agency we, as consumers, need to remember and go to for assistance. Passage of H.R. 395 is an important step in making that possible.
In closing, I reiterate my strong support for an effective national do-not-call list. I think the Federal Trade Commission's do-not-call amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule creating a national registry is a giant step in the right direction and, as such, deserves our support. I urge Members to support the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I support the FTC's authority to establish a Do Not Call Registry, I find myself in good and widespread company. Many in the Senate, like many of my constituents in Vermont, share the…
Mr. President, I support the FTC's authority to establish a Do Not Call Registry, I find myself in good and widespread company. Many in the Senate, like many of my constituents in Vermont, share the frustration that I have with the recent district court decision striking down the Do Not Call Registry established at the Federal Trade Commission. Apparently we in Congress need to make things a little more clear, and this is what we are doing with this legislation: We authorize the FTC to set up and operate such a registry.
Vermont has been a leader in protecting the privacy and peace of its households from unwanted telemarketing calls. Federal law currently requires individual companies to remove consumers from their calling lists if the consumers ask them to do so. There is also a national ``telephone preference service'' registry to which consumers can submit their names and which telemarketers can consult to avoid calling those who do not wish to hear from them--but industry compliance is entirely voluntary. Two years ago, Vermont enacted a law which gives consumers a private right of action against companies that continue to call after being requested to cease. Vermonters can also sue if they are called by a telemarketer after they have put their name on the national ``telephone preference service'' registry. The FTC has expressed no intention of attempting to pre-empt such state systems, and I hope that federal agencies continue to respect the efforts and institutions established at the state level. Federal agencies should not be in the business of undercutting state efforts that are pursuing these same goals.
Those goals are simple and laudable. People should be able to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own homes, undisturbed by unsolicited sales calls. Of course, some consumers welcome such calls, and they certainly should be able to receive them. But for the thousands of Vermonters, and the millions of other Americans, who do not want to receive such calls, the FTC's Do Not Call Registry is a long-awaited relief. I understand that more than 50 million households have signed up, many of them, on-line, to be included in the Do Not Call Registry, which is set to begin its operations next week. This is an astonishing number of people, and this overwhelming response to the FTC's announcement is the best possible affirmation of the need for and of the good sense of the plan.
The Do Not Call Registry should also appeal to enlightened telemarketers. They do not, of course, want to waste time and effort talking to people who do not wish to hear from them, for whatever reason. Once the registry is operational--and I hope that this bill will meet with speedy approval and make that so--telemarketers will be able to focus their resources, their time and personnel, on the households for which they provide a useful service. Consumers will be better served, the companies seeking to make sales will be better off, and telemarketers will be more effective for both their corporate clients and the potential customers they contact.
So I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, H.R. 3161. The national Do Not Call Registry is a sensible way to protect the privacy of the American people. It deserves our support, and it deserves this effort to allow the registry to begin serving the public.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of privacy protections for consumers nationwide as we consider the Do-Not- Call Implementation Act. My home state of Oregon is one of a growing number of states…
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of privacy protections for consumers nationwide as we consider the Do-Not- Call Implementation Act. My home state of Oregon is one of a growing number of states that have recognized the growing importance of protecting consumer privacy. Oregon's legislature has parlayed its respect for individual privacy into legislation regulating telemarketing calls. Like those in more than two dozen other states, Oregon's lawmakers have seen fit to compile a list of individuals who no longer wish to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls. And, they have vested the attorney general with the power to levy harsh sanctions on those firms who call listed consumers anyway. Oregon's law is powerful and effective because it allows for the local enforcement of telemarketing rules with narrow exceptions. Only political organizations and a few not-for-profit groups are exempt from the restrictions on calls placed to listed consumers.
It is important to me that Federal legislation authorizing the creation of a national ``do not call'' registry does not unnecessarily widen the carefully carved exceptions of state laws like Oregon's. States that have developed strong protections on privacy should not see their rules watered down. I sincerely hope and expect that FTC will show deference to determinations made by states as it coordinates the national ``do not call'' registry with existing state lists. Consumers deserve the continued benefit of well-designed state laws. Though Oregon has a strong ``do not call'' system in place, I realize that many consumers live in places without state law protections. It is for these consumers that creation of a national ``do not call'' database is most vital. In Oregon, more than 125,000 people have added their names to the state managed ``do not call'' list. This is evidence of the widespread public appeal of being able to vastly reduce the number of sales calls to which one is subjected. Subsequently, I have no doubt that many Americans would consider a national ``do not call'' list a welcome weapon in fending off nightly invasions of their peace and privacy by telemarketers.
In short, a national ``do not call'' registry would extend to all Americans the benefits already realized by subscribers to similar lists in varying states. I've heard firsthand from Oregonians about the success of their ``do not call'' list. I would very much like the expanded opportunity for privacy of ``do not call'' lists to be available nationwide. In the twenty-first century, our names, addresses, phone numbers and spending habits have all become commodities for commercial trade. Our telephones often function as much as a marketing tool for salesmen as a tool for our convenience. As a rule, unwanted sales calls come at the most inopportune time, steal our time from our families and children, and reduce the quality of our lives. We should make sure that Americans have real tools for mitigating the damage that telemarketing calls can have. That is why I support a national ``do not call'' registry that respects strong state privacy protections. That's why I support the recognition of those state lists by the FTC. And that's why I support the rights of consumers to control telemarketer access to their phones.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.…
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and all of the members of the majority and minority for coming together to work out a very important piece of legislation.
This is a bill which I think is long overdue and is going to be very well received in every single home across our country, because the legislation authorizes the Federal Trade Commission, after its recent decision, to create a national telemarketing do-not-call database. This do-not-call database proposal is a winner for millions of consumers who are plagued by unsolicited commercial telemarketing calls at home or on their mobile phones, and it is important that we give the Federal Trade Commission the support it needs to implement this new policy as soon as possible, and that is what we are doing today here on the House floor.
The bill the House considers today permits the Federal Trade Commission to proceed on a timely basis and begin implementation of the database process this year while also ensuring that the Federal Communications Commission finally gets its regulatory task done so that no major corporate telemarketing loopholes remain.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Every Member who has worked on this legislation deserves a lot of credit. After having first proposed a national do-not-call database registry in legislation that the Congress successfully enacted in 1991, I believe its implementation is action that is long overdue. Consumers across the country will finally be able to put an effective ``no soliciting'' sign on their home phone or cell phone and bring to a halt the seemingly nightly ritual of phone calls interrupting dinner or precious family time. Those telephone rings invade the tranquility of the home and the do-not-call database will help consumers restore peace.
Rather than having consumers act as veritable slaves of those rings, forced to get up and to answer insistent and incessant telemarketing calls time after time, the do-not-call database will effectively make consumers the ``Lord of the Rings.'' They can put an end to those calls. They can protect their own domain.
Consumers have waited a long time for the benefits of the same digital and telecommunications technology that has so advanced the ability of telemarketers to efficiently and cost-effectively reach consumers to also be harnessed on behalf of consumers to help them address legitimate privacy concerns.
I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) over there. There are Members on the left and right, Democrat and Republican, that want privacy in their own homes. This has no ideology. Every American believes they have that inherent right.
Finally, I want to commend Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris for his pro-consumer action in promulgating the FTC's recent do- not-call rules, as they will give the consumers who are often plagued by unwanted, intrusive, unsolicited telemarketing a powerful new tool in which to battle such intrusions. Again my congratulations to everyone who worked on this important legislation.
Bill Text
6 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 395 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
H.R.395
One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the seventh day of January, two thousand and three
An Act
To authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees for the
implementation and enforcement of a ``do-not-call'' registry, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Do-Not-Call Implementation Act''.
SEC. 2. TELEMARKETING SALES RULE; DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY FEES.
The Federal Trade Commission may promulgate regulations
establishing fees sufficient to implement and enforce the provisions
relating to the ``do-not-call'' registry of the Telemarketing Sales
Rule (16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), promulgated under the Telemarketing and
Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.). Such
regulations shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States Code. Fees may be collected pursuant to this
section for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, and shall be deposited and
credited as offsetting collections to the account, Federal Trade
Commission--Salaries and Expenses, and shall remain available until
expended. No amounts shall be collected as fees pursuant to this
section for such fiscal years except to the extent provided in advance
in appropriations Acts. Such amounts shall be available for expenditure
only to offset the costs of activities and services related to the
implementation and enforcement of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and
other activities resulting from such implementation and enforcement.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DO-NOT-CALL REGULATIONS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Federal Communications Commission shall issue a final rule pursuant
to the rulemaking proceeding that it began on September 18, 2002, under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.). In
issuing such rule, the Federal Communications Commission shall consult
and coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission to maximize
consistency with the rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission
(16 CFR 310.4(b)).
SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Report on Regulatory Coordination.--Within 45 days after the
promulgation of a final rule by the Federal Communications Commission
as required by section 3, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal
Communications Commission shall each transmit to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report which
shall include--
(1) an analysis of the telemarketing rules promulgated by both
the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications
Commission;
(2) any inconsistencies between the rules promulgated by each
such Commission and the effect of any such inconsistencies on
consumers, and persons paying for access to the registry; and
(3) proposals to remedy any such inconsistencies.
(b) Annual Report.--For each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, the
Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission
shall each transmit an annual report to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report which shall
include--
(1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the ``do-not-call''
registry as a national registry;
(2) the number of consumers who have placed their telephone
numbers on the registry;
(3) the number of persons paying fees for access to the
registry and the amount of such fees;
(4) an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation
and enforcement of the ``do-not-call'' registry with similar
registries established and maintained by the various States;
(5) an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation
and enforcement of the ``do-not-call'' registry with the
enforcement activities of the Federal Communications Commission
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et
seq.); and
(6) a review of the enforcement proceedings under the
Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 CFR 310), in the case of the Federal
Trade Commission, and under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.), in the case of the Federal Communications
Commission.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.