[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.

                          ____________________