Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, 1999, the now majority leader addressed the House of Representatives with these solemn words:

``Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy.'' I quote this, Mr. Speaker, not in criticism and not for any political purpose, but because these words express my feelings tonight, just as they expressed the majority leader's when our troops were in Kosovo, a policy I supported, just as he supports the war in Iraq.

Each and every word of praise and support for our troops in this resolution I wholeheartedly endorse. As a mother, every expression of gratitude and prayer for their families I embrace. But as one who believes that this preemptive war that put these brave patriots in harm's way is unwise and unnecessary, I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that unequivocally endorses that action. I deeply love my country, and without reservation the men and women who wear our uniform, but regretfully, will not be able to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I strongly urge all Members to oppose this rule. Yesterday, Republicans on the Committee on Rules refused to make in order my amendment that would help three categories of individuals who should be given an opportunity to get back on their feet while still being obligated to take responsibility for their debts. Without my amendment, credit card companies will get more consideration than, one, men and women on active duty in uniform; two, victims of terrorism; and, three, unemployed Americans.

As we stand within hours of war, we owe it to our soldiers in uniform to think about their financial vulnerability. My amendment would have made sure that the brave men and women who serve this country will be able to file chapter 7 exempting them from the rigid means test required by H.R. 975. There is a great possibility that the families of many of the men and women who go to war in Iraq will have economic problems. This past Sunday on ``60 Minutes,'' Mrs. Vicky Wessel, whose husband is a Reservist who was sent overseas, summed it up by saying: ``Emotionally it's been tough not having a husband around, not having a father for the kids; but financially it's been really difficult because a staff sergeant's pay is a 60 percent cut in pay from what my husband's regular job pays.''

There are thousands of families like the Wessels. If we enter war with Iraq, we can expect that some of these families will be forced to file bankruptcy, and they should not be subjected to the means test.

Two, victims of international terrorism. I do not believe anyone would argue that the victims of terrorism should be subject to the means test in the bill. As we all know, many of these families have lost loved ones who were their families' primary breadwinners. After and during all of their grieving, they may find themselves as victims again of economic devastation. Minimally they deserve the protection that chapter 7 bankruptcy affords them.

Third, the unemployed. In today's economy, 10 million unemployed workers want jobs but cannot find them. More than 2 million unemployed workers have run out of their regular State-provided unemployment benefits and the emergency unemployment benefits they received under the temporary Federal program. Many of these workers now have no jobs and no means of support. Two thirds of those filing for bankruptcy report a significant period of unemployment preceding their filing. My amendment would make sure that people who exhaust their unemployment benefits would not be subject to the H.R. 975 means test. We should make sure that people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are able to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy. We should make sure they have an opportunity to regain their economic independence.

And finally let me say that we should put the interests of American families, ordinary American families, people in uniform, people who have lost their jobs, people who are victims of terrorism, before the interests of profitable credit card companies.

Oppose this rule. Vote against the underlying bill. It is a bad rule and a worse bill that could not come at a worse time.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, during rollcall vote No. 56 on H.R. 659 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 26 to condemn execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights. I want to commend my colleague, Congresswoman Betty McCollum for raising awareness of this issue by introducing this resolution. I oppose the death penalty in any instance, and I certainly oppose the cruelty of death by stoning.

Execution by stoning is particularly cruel and discriminatory in that it is often used to punish women for adultery, even in cases where women are victims of coerced prostitution or rape. Women around the world, as well as in the United States, continue to experience horrendous acts of physical and sexual violence against them. It is absolutely unacceptable that some governments would then sanction death as a punishment for being a victim of such violence. Unfortunately, this continues to be the case in some countries.

The United States has a moral obligation to speak out against violence, intolerance, hate, and discrimination throughout the world. Without clear, strong condemnation and action from the United States and all people of conscience, these violations of fundamental human rights will continue to occur.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to take a stand against all human rights abuses.

Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 5 passes, we will be committing legislative malpractice, in my view. Listen to my constituents. If you were on a jury, you just might feel they deserve more than $250,000 for the pain and suffering they have suffered and will suffer. H.R. 5 would take that right away from you and other citizens.

``On May 19, 2000,'' writes my constituent, ``I went for an outpatient surgery. During the surgery, the oxygen ignited, unbeknownst to the surgeon, the anesthesiologist and three to four other highly- trained medical personnel in the room. While the surgery continued, my entire face was burned.

``After a year of failed treatment to deal with the scarring, essentially I lost my entire upper lip, the front of my nose, the floor of the nose and immediate interior of my nose. I was referred to a specialist in Boston for reconstructive treatment. For these past three years I have been in a mask covering my face and I have nasal tubes to stent open my nose for 23 hours a day. With my mask on, I can only drink through a straw. My breathing was entirely cut off for almost 2 years, and is still not stable due to the scarring inside my nose. I have to travel to Boston monthly. I have been through eight surgeries and have two to four more pending, plus oral surgery and orthodontics.

``My claim is not frivolous, in spite of the rhetoric of the medical insurance and political spokespersons favoring legislation to cap awards for pain and suffering at $250,000.

``Legislation to cap damages fundamentally punishes again the victims of these horrendous medical mistakes. It is astonishing that federally proposed legislation would first target the victims of these errors before addressing the errors themselves.''

The other one is from a grieving father of Rabbi Josef Yitzchak Lefkowitz, 28-years-old, who went into the hospital for an adjustment to his bite. In the recovery, the breathing tube fell out of his nose, but his jaw was wired shut and they could not find wire cutters to open his mouth. He died an agonizing and painful death.

These are not lottery winners. These are not people who won the jackpot. They deserve better than H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 342, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act. This is a particularly important issue in my state of Illinois and for my district, both of which have been disproportionately impacted by West Nile Virus--more so than almost any other part of the country.

The latest survey shows that Illinois is suffering the highest numbers of human cases of West Nile in the country, 877 cases and 62 deaths. Over 630 cases of these cases were in Suburban Cook County and the Greater Chicago area, leading to 37 deaths. Compared with nationwide data, these numbers reveal an uncommonly high outbreak ratio in the Chicago Metro region.

H.R. 342, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act will help Illinois and other states across the nation prevent any more outbreaks from occurring. Among other things, the act will provide grants to states to help them coordinate mosquito control programs to prevent and control mosquito-borne diseases. The bill also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide training and technical assistance to states and localities for the planning, development, and operation of assessments and plans regarding control programs. We cannot afford to lose more lives to West Nile Virus. I urge my colleagues to support

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Bush announced his prescription drug proposal for Medicare beneficiaries. Rather than using this opportunity to promote a quality drug benefit that would be dependable and guaranteed for seniors and persons with disabilities on Medicare, the President instead announced his intention to provide a financial benefit to pharmaceutical and insurance companies. By pushing seniors into HMOs--the path to Medicare privatization--and doing nothing to lower drug prices, the Bush policy would enrich industry instead of reducing the financial burden on beneficiaries.

Fortunately, an alternative plan, tailored to meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries, would provide a comprehensive benefit that is both affordable and guaranteed. I support that plan, outlined by Leader Nancy Pelosi, Whip Steny Hoyer, and Representatives Dingell, Rangel and others, because it puts the needs of Medicare beneficiaries first.

There is no benefit specified in the President's proposal. President Bush proposes that seniors enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program would be eligible for catastrophic loss coverage, a discount drug card, and a $600 subsidy for those in the lowest income bracket. We don't know how much the catastrophic limit would be-- $5,000, $7,000, or more. A drug card and a requirement that you spend thousands and thousands of dollars out-of-pocket is not a benefit.

There are several major problems with the President's proposal.

First, a catastrophic-only benefit will help very few beneficiaries. The average Medicare beneficiary spends $2,500 a year for prescription drugs, meaning that they would get no benefit. For example, if the cap for catastrophic coverage is set at $6,000, it would only cover 8 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. This enormous out-of-pocket expense is on top of existing Medicare cost-sharing requirements, which are already high.

Second, the Bush administration continues to promote drug cards, even when evidence shows the cards provide little assistance. Seniors would purchase the card for approximately $25 and then receive only 10 percent to 15 percent off their prescription drugs. In other words, an average beneficiary with $2,500 in drug bills would pay $2,125 to

$2,250 under the Bush plan. In contrast, drug companies receive about $25 per person, per year from any number of the over 40 million current Medicare beneficiaries. Drug cards are marketed by private companies, and herein lies the true motivation to promote them.

Not only do the cards provide a financial windfall for private companies, but they fail to offer meaningful assistance to Medicare beneficiaries. Even with the card, there is no guarantee that needed prescription drugs would be covered. Likely, drugs would have to be on a pre-approved list to be covered.

Third, a $600 subsidy for Medicare recipients who are living at the poverty level is simply inadequate. Low-income elderly and disabled persons do not have the resources to purchase their medicine. Too often, they are forced to skip taking their necessary prescription because they can't afford it. President Bush's plan would offer the poorest Medicare beneficiaries a way to get $600 more worth of medicine, but unless they are eligible for Medicaid, they are still left to pay the rest of their costs on their own.

Catastrophic coverage, discount cards, and a possible subsidy constitute the extent of the President's plan unless beneficiaries move out of the traditional Medicare program and into a private plan, such as a PPO or HMO. Currently 89 percent of Medicare's beneficiaries are enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service program where they can choose their physician. President Bush is effectively pushing them out of that program and into a private plan, where they would supposedly receive an actual drug benefit. However, the details of the actual drug benefit--the premium level, cost-sharing requirements, and value of the benefit itself--are not delineated in the President's proposal. The lack of detail present throughout the proposal is extremely disconcerting.

Medicare+Choice is a haunting reminder of how private plans under Medicare can leave beneficiaries without choice, benefits, and providers. The plans not only lowered benefits and raised cost-sharing, but in many places pulled out of the market altogether. The drug benefit that Medicare+Choice initially offered has since largely dissipated. In 1999, only 11 percent of Medicare+Choice enrollees had a drug cap of $500 or less, meaning that plan would only cover up to $500 of drug costs. By 2002, that percentage exploded, leaving 50 percent of enrollees with a drug cap of less than $500. Since 1999, 2.4 million beneficiaries have been dropped from the Medicare+Choice program completely. In over 30 years, the Medicare program has never dropped a beneficiary from coverage.

The Administration wants to use the drug benefit as a carrot to lure beneficiaries into private plans. This forces elderly and disabled populations to choose between doctors they know and trust and the medications they know they need. We are not fooled by what the administration is doing. They have no intention of offering a drug benefit to Medicare recipients. The reason why President Bush is pushing this approach is because he is attempting to privatize the entire Medicare program.

It is imperative that we critically examine the risks involved in pushing beneficiaries into private plans, even though the list of concerns is long and daunting. Private insurance plans are inherently risky and unstable. Covered benefits would vary from plan to plan, from state to state, from one year to the next--leaving millions of beneficiaries with unstable coverage, if any at all. Private insurance plans are not available in every city or state, can drop coverage at any time, occasionally go bankrupt, and can be taken over by other HMOs that later change the rules. Under Medicare, the same basic package is available everywhere.

In addition to reducing benefits, private plans could raise premiums, increase copayments, restrict formularies, and limit choice of doctors or pharmacies in order to offset costs. Between 2001 and 2002, average monthly premiums increased 40 percent for Medicare+Choice enrollees. Enrollees in these plans have also been subjected to rising copayments for both generic and prescription drugs. Private plans can restrict formularies thereby dictating and restricting covered drugs. In fact, some private plans have completely eliminated coverage of brand-name prescription drugs. This is especially troubling, considering that of the 50 drugs the elderly most commonly use, 40 are brandname drugs, and only eight of these are available in a generic version. Private plans restrict beneficiaries to those doctors or pharmacies included in a particular plan. Even though the elderly and persons with disabilities often choose their physicians or their pharmacies based on nearness and accessibility, private plans would not take this into account.

I am not willing to compromise the health and well-being of senior citizens and people with disabilities so that private companies can get rich. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a real and substantive drug benefit regardless of the Medicare plan they are enrolled in. For those reasons, I support the House Democratic prescription drug proposal, the Medicare Rx Drug benefit and Discount Act of 2003.

The House Democratic proposal adds a new Part D in Medicare that provides voluntary prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries beginning in 2006. Those wanting the benefit would pay a $25 monthly premium and a $100 deductible for drug coverage. Medicare would pay 80 percent of drug costs, 100 percent after beneficiaries spent $2000 out of their own pockets on prescriptions. Full coverage of premiums and assistance would be provided for persons with incomes below 150 percent of poverty and sliding scale premiums would be in effect for those persons between 150 percent and 175 percent of the poverty level.

Under the Democratic proposal, strong measures will be implemented to keep drug-prices down. First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would use the collective bargaining clout of more than 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate fair drug prices. Second, drug companies will be prevented from extending patents that allow them to use their monopoly power to block competition and keep prices artificially high.

The Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act of 2003 offers a real benefit to Medicare beneficiaries as opposed to drug companies. Bush's proposal is served up as a gift to drug and insurance companies that have financed Republican elections and agendas. If the President has his way, insurance and drug companies will profit, but millions of Medicare beneficiaries will still lack affordable, comprehensive coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 342, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act. This is a particularly important issue in my state of Illinois and for my district, both of which have been disproportionately impacted by West Nile Virus--more so than almost any other part of the country.

The latest survey shows that Illinois is suffering the highest numbers of human cases of West Nile in the country, 877 cases and 62 deaths. Over 630 cases of these cases were in Suburban Cook County and the Greater Chicago area, leading to 37 deaths. Compared with nationwide data, these numbers reveal an uncommonly high outbreak ratio in the Chicago Metro region.

H.R. 342, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act will help Illinois and other states across the nation prevent any more outbreaks from occurring. Among other things, the act will provide grants to states to help them coordinate mosquito control programs to prevent and control mosquito-borne diseases. The bill also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide training and technical assistance to states and localities for the planning, development, and operation of assessments and plans regarding control programs. We cannot afford to lose more lives to West Nile Virus. I urge my colleagues to support

Madam Speaker, you will hear throughout this Stop Violence Week the horrifying statistics of how many women are abused by their partners in their own homes, how many women are raped by men that they know, and how many women and girls worldwide face violence on a daily basis. Yet, despite this crisis at home and abroad, the administration's budget cuts funding for Violence Against Women programs by nearly $20 million.

There continues to be no funding for transitional housing for victims who are fleeing violence and need services and support to get back on their feet. The Department of Justice has yet to establish a strong and independent Violence Against Women Office, despite the fact that Congress passed legislation in the last Congress requiring this. And now the Attorney General wants to establish new regulations making it harder for women who face gender-based persecution in their countries to seek asylum in the United States.

We must work hard to end all violence against women, and it is time that we dedicate the resources needed to achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the House floor because I felt that I needed to come down here and speak before this body about my opposition to the war that seems to be pending in Iraq.

I come to the floor today to say that war is not inevitable; that this great Nation, whose power and hegemony is not disputed, can assert its leadership without the terrible destruction of a preemptive all-out war.

I come to the floor today to pay tribute to the millions and millions of everyday people all around the world, including throughout the United States, who have expressed so clearly their conviction that a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is not the answer.

I come to pay tribute to the city of Chicago, one of about 100 U.S. cities whose elected leaders, responding to their citizens, voted ``no'' to a preemptive war. In Chicago it was by a vote of 46 to 1.

We are on the brink of the first war in history started by the United States against a country that has not threatened violence against the United States. We are on the brink of implementing a new policy of preemptive war, and ushering in not a new world order but a world of unprecedented disorder.

Let us examine the facts: Iraq is led by a tyrannical dictator, one who may have, who probably has, chemical and biological weapons; one who violates human rights and oppresses his people; the same tyrannical dictator, by the way, who was our ally in the 1980s when Iraq was at war with Iran; the same dictator to whom we sent chemical and biological materials in the eighties; the same dictator who we now charge with using chemical and biological weapons, but at the time, the United States refused to support a U.N. resolution condemning Iraq.

The same Saddam who was in place in 1998 when the Haliburton Company, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, was doing business in Iraq. The same dictator that has onerous characteristics that can be applied to many other countries, many of which we call ally, friends and coalition partner. And can be applied to countries like North Korea and Iran, who pose an even greater danger to the United States.

So why Iraq and why now? I stand here today as a patriot and particularly resentful, not only for myself, but all of my constituents who oppose this war because we deeply love this country. But we believe that this war fails to meet the threshold test. Will it make us citizens and residents of the United States safer? Will it make the Middle East, and of particular concern to me, Israel, safer? Will it make the world safer?

I say the answer is, and I feel in my heart, a resounding no.

The Central Intelligence Agency reports that Saddam is likely to use chemical and biological weapons only if we attack. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, or at the time, Osama bin Laden, despite desperate attempts by this administration to link them. But an attack on Iraq now could meld an unlikely coalition of terrorist organizations and fundamental Muslim organizations that will be a real threat to the United States and other countries around the globe.

Most importantly, we have real options to disarm Saddam Hussein. The way this debate has been shaped is you are either for all-out war, or you are for nothing and that could not be further from the truth.

Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and no one disagrees with that. And we have a structure for doing that. The United Nations was set up for that, is ready to do that and with the mighty leadership that the United States could exert, can do an even better job to make sure that Saddam Hussein who has, in fact, been violating resolutions, will comply now with disarmament. We can be part of a large and growing coalition of civilized nations who says that in this 21st century, where the technology allows for chemical and biological and even nuclear weapons to proliferate around the globe, and it will be hard given this century and this knowledge to stop that, unless we have a coalition of civilized nations that will surround and isolate rogue states and rogue nations.

We should lead in developing that coalition. We do not have to go to war now. I say no war on behalf of my constituents and to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a mother and as a grandmother to honor Fred McFeely Rogers, known to millions of children and their parents simply as ``Mister Rogers.''

Since first broadcasting ``Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'' on Pittsburgh's public television station in 1966, Mister Rogers brought his message that ``everybody's special'' to children and adults around the world. Fred Rogers spoke to thousands of children every day, gently teaching each of them about the importance of acceptance--acceptance of others and acceptance of themselves. No matter what challenge children face in their lives it is always ``a beautiful day in the neighborhood'' that Mr. Rogers created for them.

Mister Rogers also acted as a role model for parents, suggesting creative ways for parents to listen--and to listen--to their children. Fred Rogers did not rely on fast-paced cuts and high-budget thrills to keep a child's attention. He wrote the scripts, was the host, operated the puppets, and even wrote the songs for each show. Mister Rogers' formula for making kids care about what he had to say was to listen to them.

Mister Rogers' co-workers at PBS honored his memory by carrying on his work. They quickly updated his website to offer advice to parents on how they can constructively talk to their children about his death. We can all honor his memory in much the same way: by carrying on his message, ``There's only one person in the world like to you,'' and then respecting those differences that make each of us so unique.

My condolences go out to Fred Rogers' family and I thank him for his work to improve the lives of children.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution supporting the goals of International Women's Day. International Women's Day is celebrated each year on March 8 by the United Nations and millions of people around the world in recognition of the contributions of women and men throughout history who have worked for gender equality and in acknowledgement of the work that has yet to be done.

I am proud to be joined in this effort by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentlewoman from California, our distinguished Democratic Leader (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from California, the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee (Mr. Lantos), and several other members. I also want to acknowledge the assistance my colleague from Illinois, the distinguished Chairman of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde), has given me.

Women all over the world contribute to the security and well-being of their communities, families, and nations. Yet, women still have yet to achieve full political and economic equality and millions of women continue to face discrimination, abuse, and violence in their daily lives. International Women's Day serves as a time to recognize this reality and to join together across cultures, languages, nations, ethnicities, and income levels to celebrate a common commitment for equality and justice.

It is my hope that this Resolution will find unanimous support in the House of Representatives as a demonstration of the commitment members share to working for fairness and justice for all people around the world.

I urge the House leadership to schedule this measure for a vote next week so that the members of the House may join our international partners in recognition of International Women's Day.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534 and in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute. H.R. 534 squashes the hopes of parents and their families who wake up every day hoping cures to the ailments for which they suffer will have been found.

I speak for Teresa, a mom from my district who urged me to support ongoing somatic cell nuclear transfer research. She told me about her 13-year-old son, Andrew, with type I diabetes who has to check his blood sugar level and inject himself with insulin repeatedly throughout the day and night. ``Even with the most vigilant care, he is bound to suffer traumatic complications from this horrible disease. No child should have to deal with a condition like this.''

I speak for my dear friend, Bonnie Wilson, and her daughter, Jennifer, who also lives every day with juvenile diabetes.

Fortunately, doctors are learning more every day about how to treat and eventually cure diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Yet, H.R. 534 aims to take away these research opportunities, and in the end, take hope from Teresa and Andrew, Bonnie and Jennifer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute and the Mink properly named substitute, which both take a giant leap forward in addressing the needs of the poor.

Let us talk about jobs. President Bush and the Republicans want to eliminate a tax on dividends when the only work involved in that is opening up an envelope. People who go to work every single day, who earn the same amount of money, now they are going to have to pay taxes on that. And let us try and instill then a work ethic in poor people.

Well, I want to say, poor people want to work. Where are those jobs? Poor people want to take care of their children. Where is the money for the child care? We want to invest in families. Poor people want to better themselves. They do not want just a job. They want to be out of poverty, and that should be our goal too.

That is what we do. We expand opportunity for education, provide $11 billion in child care funding, restore benefits to legal immigrants, include poverty reduction, not just simply caseload reduction as a new purpose of TANF.

I would contend that H.R. 4 grossly underfunds child care. It would cost $7 billion over the next 5 years just to keep up with inflation. It is an unfunded mandate to the States when, again, the plan by the Republicans does not help the States.

That is bad bill. Support the substitutes.

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.