[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H407-H413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1600
DO-NOT-CALL IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the
House, I call up the bill (H.R. 395) to authorize the Federal Trade
Commission to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of a
``do-not-call'' registry, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 395 is as follows:
H.R. 395
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 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Tuesday, February 11, 2003, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) each will
control 30 minutes.
[[Page H408]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
General Leave
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 395.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, whatever happened to the quiet evening at home? Most
people have experienced it, that annoying ring on the phone just as
dinner goes to the table. When one answers, it is not a call from a
friend or family member or even from work, it is someone calling to
sell something, a telemarketer.
Today we have before us of a bill that will allow hundreds of
thousands of American citizens to enjoy the peace and quiet of their
own home. H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, authorizes the
Federal Trade Commission to establish a national do-not-call registry
that will allow consumers to opt out of unwanted and harassing
telemarketing calls. This landmark do-not-call list will provide
consumers with one central contact to stop unwanted telemarketing
calls. The new do-not-call list will be a free service to all American
consumers, and those telemarketers who choose to ignore the do-not-call
registry will face stiff penalties of up to $11,000 for each violation.
In order to coordinate the do-not-call programs among all of the
agencies with jurisdiction over telemarketing, H.R. 395 directs the
Federal Communications Commission to complete its pending do-not-call
rulemaking within 180 days. The bill further directs the FCC to consult
and coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that both
regulations are as similar as possible. This coordination will not only
prevent consumer confusion, but it will provide the telemarketing
industry with coordinated rules upon which to function.
Lastly, H.R. 395 sets out reporting requirements for both the Federal
Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. Without the
passage of H.R. 395, the FTC will be forced to wait until the year 2004
to implement its national do-not-call list.
I am hopeful the other body will act swiftly to pass H.R. 395 so all
Americans can enjoy the benefits of the national do-not-call list
sooner rather than later. In fact, if anyone holds this legislation up,
we are prepared to give out their home phone number to all who want to
give them a call.
Today Congress is answering the call from consumers for help in
combating annoying and harassing telemarketing calls. Therefore, to
empower the American consumer, I ask that Members support H.R. 395, the
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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.
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and ask unanimous consent
that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. STEARNS. 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
[[Page H409]]
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.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a very eloquent member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. MARKEY. 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.
{time} 1615
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.
Mr. STEARNS. 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.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to commend Subcommittee
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) of the full committee, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) of the full committee for bringing this bill to
the floor. I am a cosponsor. I think there are improvements that could
be done to the bill, but I think it is a good step in the right
direction.
I have been in the Congress for 18 years. I have been on the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for the last 16 of those 18 years. I
was one of the Congressmen who led the fight in committee to make sure
that caller ID could be used as an option for those that wished to know
who was calling them. I also helped lead the fight in committee to make
sure that if somebody was trying to call you and blocked their
identity, you could block their call, that block-the-blocker
technology. This is another step in that protection of privacy that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) talked about, so that when
you are in the privacy of your home, if you choose to not have any
unsolicited phone calls coming into your home, you can sign up for
this.
I have signed up for the do-not-call list in Texas. I have lived in
the same house for the last 14 years. I have subscribed to the Dallas
Morning News that entire time. And until recently I continued to get
solicitation calls from the Dallas Morning News asking me to subscribe
to the Dallas Morning News. Maybe with the do-not-call list in Texas
and the do-not-call list at the national level, I will not get that
call. Unfortunately, I will still get a phone call from Majority Leader
Tom DeLay. I have raised substantial sums of money for the NRCC, but I
do get solicitation calls asking me to help Majority Leader DeLay
continue to raise necessary funds for various good political causes.
That is one of the exceptions.
So there are things that we could do to improve the bill, but it is a
good step in the right direction and I hope that we pass this bill on a
bipartisan basis unanimously because it is a good piece of legislation.
Again I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for
his excellent leadership and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky) for her leadership on this necessary piece of legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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.
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I am also delighted to join my colleagues in
supporting the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. Let me commend the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), our subcommittee chairman, as
well as our newest and quite-generous-with-her-flattery new
subcommittee ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), for her leadership on this bill.
As we debate great global and national issues, this may not seem to
be such a big deal. On the other hand, if you have worked hard all day,
fought through traffic to get home to be with your wife and family to
sit down to a simple dinner and you get a phone call from someone from
Acme advertising something that you really do not want, this is a very
big deal. It is something that Congress can and, I am pleased to say,
is taking care of. We are doing something about this, the annoyance of
unwanted solicitations.
I get lots of complaints about it. I think it is a great idea that we
are addressing this issue. As an elected official, I am not usually
home at dinnertime; I am usually here in Washington or out in the
district at some event. But when I go home, when I am home
[[Page H410]]
on those rare occasions and I am trying to have dinner and I get a
call, I get quite annoyed. So I know how folks feel. But it is also
people who work at home who are trying to conduct their own business
who are interrupted. It is also seniors who are at home and are maybe
anxious or nervous or sitting alone. They get these repeatedly
aggravating calls which they have to struggle to get up to answer only
to find someone from Acme on the line.
This is a good piece of consumer legislation. Combined with what the
States have already done in 27 States and what the FCC and FTC can do,
we can have a blanket of protection around consumers from the annoyance
of unwanted calls. I am really pleased to see Congress acting so
swiftly. I thank Chairman Tauzin as well as Ranking Member Dingell for
their leadership. I think it is a great piece of legislation, I am
proud to support it, and I look forward to its rapid implementation.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, in my home State of Indiana, our own no-
call registry has been met with great success. While in Indiana there
are over 6 million people, a little over 1.2 million phone lines in
Indiana have registered to stop these unwanted telephone solicitations.
I want to thank Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter for not only his
leadership but also his persistence to succeed in this endeavor on
behalf of consumers.
I am very pleased that the Federal Government is now responding to
the concerns of consumers with legislation that will work to restrict
these unwanted callers. It is my understanding that Indiana's no-call
registry is more stringent than the Federal guidelines that are
presently being proposed. It is also my understanding that those
agencies crafting the Federal no-call guidelines, the FTC and the FCC,
have no intent to preempt State law. I would urge both agencies to
abide by this understanding.
Last July, I wrote a letter to FTC Chairman Muris asking that any
creation of a Federal do-not-call registry would clearly express that
the Federal rule would in no way preempt State law. And last month the
entire Indiana delegation sent a letter to FCC Chairman Powell making
the very same request. So while the creation of a national do-not-call
registry delivers to the consumer the assurance that they may once
again answer the phone in peace, I do hope that those States that have
created their own do-not-call registries for the benefit of consumers
will not be negatively affected in this rule-making process.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I would first
like to commend the chairman from Louisiana and the ranking member from
Michigan, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, for bringing
this important piece of legislation to the floor. As we have heard,
this bill will give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to
collect fees from telemarketers, long overdue, to implement and run the
national do-not-call list which was created by the amendment to the
telemarketing sales rule effective December 18.
The FTC has got it right. Something has to be done to protect
consumers from the many annoying calls telemarketers place at all hours
of the day and night, 7 days a week. These calls are indeed an invasion
of privacy, not to mention that many of these callers are unscrupulous
and prey on older Americans.
The Federal Trade Commission's national do-not-call list is a one-
stop shop for consumers who are fed up with annoying and often
intrusive telemarketing calls. Consumers by registering their telephone
number with the FTC's list will eliminate, we hope, about 80 percent of
all telemarketing calls.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the FTC for working closely
with me to include provisions of my ``Know Your Caller'' legislation
which makes it illegal for telemarketers to block their numbers on
caller ID devices. Consumers pay a monthly fee to subscribe to the
caller ID service because they want to protect their personal privacy
and their pocketbooks; but until now they have had little recourse to
protest intrusions on their privacy because most telemarketers
intentionally block their identity from being transmitted to caller ID
devices.
Madam Speaker, as a Member of Congress and, more importantly, as a
consumer, I applaud the FTC's amendment to the telemarketing sales
rule; and I applaud and thank the committee for sponsoring this bill.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I concur with the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey who
just spoke. I rise in support of H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act; and I would like to salute Chairman Tauzin and
Ranking Member Dingell for introducing what my colleagues will tell
you, and my constituents especially will tell you, is important
legislation. I cannot count the number of e-mails, phone calls, and
letters I receive from constituents, many of them irate, complaining
about telemarketing. The residents of my district have pleaded with me
to do something so that they can have a peaceful family dinner, not
interrupted by credit card solicitations or the latest condominium
offerings on some tropical locale. I know what they are talking about,
because frequently my dinner is interrupted by these calls, too. They
have been described as nuisances, extremely annoying, and by stronger
language.
We should not stop companies from developing and using innovative
ways to sell their products and services, but there is little question
that this kind of telemarketing is out of hand. It has become a form of
harassment. Just as citizens have the right to tell door-to-door
solicitors to leave their property, Americans should have the right to
tell telemarketers to stop calling and to make it happen.
The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act will be widely appreciated. It
does not prohibit telemarketing. It does not stop companies from using
phone solicitation to sell legitimate products and services. It
empowers individuals by creating a realistic and enforceable way for
them to get their names off telemarketing lists.
We have had do-not-call lists on the books, legislation, for more
than a decade. But when Congress first mandated such lists, the FCC
chose to leave creation and maintenance up to individual businesses,
making enforcement next to impossible. That is why the Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act is a great step forward in creating a real
nationwide do-not-call list.
Finally, Madam Speaker, people will be able to opt out of
telemarketing by registering online or making a simple phone call.
Telemarketers will face serious consequences for noncompliance. I think
a fine of $11,000, up to that amount, for each call will get their
attention. It is about time that the Federal Government protect the
citizens from this unwanted harassment. After we are successful in
implementing this, I hope we will turn our attention to electronic mail
spam.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act. We have do-not-call lists now in 21 States, but we
seem to have the calls only increasing in frequency. The fact that
these calls seem to occur at the most inopportune times and, thanks to
predictive dialing software, often result in an immediate disconnection
only adds to the frustration of consumers.
I am very pleased that the Federal Trade Commission is amending the
telemarketing sales rules to create a central do-not-call registry. As
a new member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Federal
Trade Commission, I am committing my efforts to make sure that this
effort is fully funded so that we can implement this needed
legislation.
I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, and
[[Page H411]]
also subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky for her efforts on this. I
think working together in a bipartisan way, we will ensure that the
Federal Trade Commission not only has the underlying legislation but
also the appropriations to make sure that every person's castle can be
a quiet home and that we do not have to worry about the telemarketing
barbarians at the gate every single evening.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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.
{time} 1630
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
distinguished gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate
her again for her membership on the Committee on Energy and Commerce
and her very rightful position dealing with consumer advocacy.
This is a legislative initiative that I wanted to applaud and speak
to because I live in a community that has a substantial number of
senior citizens. I have had the occasion to be engaged with these
senior citizens in town hall meetings when they have held up mail or
they have said, I got a call and how should I respond; or maybe
unfortunately some have already responded, and that is by sending
money, by buying whatever the individual was trying to sell or be
frightened for not being able to secure it.
This legislation is extremely important and balanced.
Certainly we realize that telemarketing is an industry, that people
work in telemarketing, that many of my constituents, likewise in hourly
wages, survive by being telemarketers. We want them to continue to be
able to do their work. At the same time, I think it is important that
as they do their work, they also respect those who may be intimidated
by the process.
I am grateful that the legislation was thoughtful, that it seeks to
balance by providing the FTC with the responsibility of imposing user
fees on telemarketers, for establishing and maintaining a national do-
not-call list. What is wrong with consumers having a choice, being able
to be on the list? So therefore I would like to add my support to this
legislation.
And before I go to my seat, I wanted to also make sure that I
acknowledged the legislation previously on the floor regarding the POWs
and to acknowledge the 30 years after Mr. Sam Johnson of my State found
his way home and to simply say how appreciative we are of the service
of our men and women, in particular those who were willing or
understood that even though they were prisoners of war, they were never
forgotten.
So I thank him for his service, and I add my support to H.R. 395 and
to the proceeding legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I look forward to all our colleagues
supporting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the Do Not Call Implementation Act, H.R. 395, which will
authorize the Federal Trade Commission to establish a landmark national
do-not-call registry that will allow consumers to opt-out of unwanted
and harassing telemarketing calls. With passage of this bill, our
families will be able to wind down their long days by eating a peaceful
dinner without the incessant calling that so often annoys and disrupts
our time with our families.
Electronic market capabilities and strategies have become more
aggressive as technology has advanced and action needs to be taken to
protect the peace and privacy of people in their homes. I feel that
this legislation, which is similar to a Connecticut law, goes a long
way in accomplishing that. The intention of telemarketers and others
are by no means sinister, but Americans must have the means to protect
themselves from different kinds of intrusions, including the frequent
bothersome telemarketing calls interrupting a family dinner, which this
legislation would enable them to do. As different kinds of technology
continue to move forward, we must be vigilant in ensuring that the
personal privacy rights of our citizens are not being encroached upon.
The larger issue of privacy in our nation does not end with this
legislation, obviously, but rather this bill becomes one of several
tools that Congress has been able to employ to protect our citizens.
There are still other avenues of privacy that must continue to be
safeguarded including wireless services, financial information as well
as computers and communications. This legislation is certainly an
important step in this direction.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. 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.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Madam Speaker, today members of the House
will approve H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. this measure
is designed to return privacy to consumers, but more must be done to
close loopholes and fully protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing
phone calls to their home.
My main interest in the implementation of a national Do Not Call
registry is to ensure that such a list improves rather than diminishes
the laws already in place in 27 states, including my State of Missouri.
Missouri's Do Not Call list, which was implemented on July 1, 2001,
gives consumers the ability to choose whether they would like to
receive unsolicited telemarketers calls. 1,133,636 phone lines have
registered with the Missouri Attorney General's office as of this
February to avoid unsolicited phone calls, more than half of the
households in the State. These results are representative of other
states that have implemented a Do Not Call list.
More than 90 percent of the reported ``violations'' of the state law
are not illegal, which confuses consumers. This is due to freedom of
speech which enables political, charitable, and government regulated
businesses to make unsolicited phone calls. Financial services
companies and phone companies are not regulated by the Missouri
Attorney General, thus these entities can legally solicit anyone in
Missouri by phone. These loopholes, as well as others permitting
``consultations'' but not
[[Page H412]]
sales, have allowed unsolicited calling to continue, even of those
consumers who have registered on the state Do Not Call list. I urge the
Federal Trade commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to follow the spirit of H.R. 395 and restrict calls by regulated
industries such as credit card companies and phone companies which
account for a majority of the telemarketing calls. In addition, the FTC
and FCC must work to transfer state Do Not Call lists to the federal
list so that consumers who have signed up locally will not have to do
so nationally. Even though not explicitly stated in the bill, a rule to
provide this convenience will enhance the effectiveness of this effort.
FTC Chairman Timothy Muris told the Energy and Commerce Committee
that the Federal Do Not Call list is to be funded by the telemarketers
who must purchase an updated Federal Do Not Call list every three
months, ensuring protection to consumers. The text of H.R. 395 does not
explicitly state this, thus the measure leaves room for loopholes for
specific telemarketers. I look forward to studying the required FTC &
FCC reports to Congress ensuring that H.R. 395 successfully protects
those who choose not to receive telemarketer calls. H.R. 395 should
follow the original intent of state Do Not Call laws and use Federal
jurisdiction to close loopholes that states cannot.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House
is taking action today on H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act,
to help establish a national do-not-call registry. I strongly support
this important legislation that will greatly benefit consumers by
providing them with a simpler, more effective and efficient way to
notify telemarketers that they do not want to receive unsolicited phone
calls.
According to the FTC, consumer complaints regarding unwanted
telemarketing calls increased over one thousand percent between 1998
and 2002. Although telemarketers are currently already required to
maintain do-not-call lists, the FTC's decision to create a national do-
not-call registry is a critical step towards further decreasing the
hundreds of annoying and unwanted telemarketing calls that consumers
receive each year. The do-not-call registry would allow consumers to
list their phone numbers to notify all telemarketers that they no
longer want to receive unsolicited calls, rather than having to contact
each telemarketer individually.
Among other provisions, H.R. 395 provides a five-year authorization
for the FTC to collect offsetting fees from telemarketers to pay for a
National ``do-not-call'' registry, which is estimated to cost $16
million annually. It also requires important consultation and
coordination between the FTC and FCC to maximize consistency of its
rules. both of these provisions, and passage of this bill, are
important steps toward making a national do-not-call registry a
reality.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important
legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, H.R. 395, the ``Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act,'' authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to
collect fees to fund its national do-not-call registry. Unwanted sales
calls have become a nuisance that many consider an invasion of privacy.
A national do-not-call registry will allow consumers to limit these
unwanted intrusions and once again answer their telephones without
aggravation.
Consumers, charities, telemarketing companies, local governments and
other interested parties, have voiced their complaints and communicated
their concerns. In the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act, passed in 1994, we gave the FTC the discretion to
create a national do-not-call program. Based on that authority, the FTC
has considered a wide range of complicated issues and has produced a
reasoned result. I urge the appropriations in the Omnibus
Appropriations Conference to include full funding of this program now.
In fact, I have no objection under these circumstances to inserting
H.R. 395 itself into the Conference Report.
As the FTC launches the do-not-call registry, we must monitor its
progress closely. By any measure, coordinating the efforts of the
Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and
state authorities into one national system will be a challenge. The
rewards, however, can be great. As these many parts work together as
one, we can achieve a comprehensive program that will empower consumers
without unnecessarily burdening industry.
This is an important issue to consumers across the nation that should
not be delayed any further.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
395, the Do-No-Call Implementation Act of 2003. This legislation
authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to collect fees from
telemarketers for the implementation and enforcement of a national do-
not-call registry. This legislation also requires that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) finalize its rules for such a list in
coordination with the FTC to ensure there are no inconsistencies in the
regulations.
Unfortunately, we have all experienced those annoying unsolicited
phone calls as we sit down to enjoy dinner with our families. A
national registry will help limit unwelcome phone calls and restore a
sense of control over the telephone where it belongs, with the
consumer. The FTC's decision to develop such a registry comes after
nearly a year of analysis, in which more than 60,000 public comments
were received, the overwhelming majority of which supported a national
do-not-call list. A national list will provide consumers with a quick
and efficient mechanism to remove their names from telemarketing lists.
Consumers will be able to register for free online or by calling a
toll-free number. This will be less burdensome than forcing consumers
to make such requests on a company-by-company basis, and will work in
concert with states such as Illinois that either have or are
implementing such lists.
I have received numerous messages from my constituents in the 12th
District of Illinois concerning their frustrations with telemarketers.
A national do-not-call list will answer a long-felt consumer need for
better control over telemarketing calls to the home. I urge my
colleagues to support this pro-consumer legislation.
Mr. TOWNS. 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.
[[Page H413]]
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. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). All time having expired,
pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, February 11, 2003, the
bill is considered read for amendment and the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________