[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 33 (Monday, March 3, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DO-NOT-CALL IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. TED STRICKLAND

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 12, 2003

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 395, 
the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. This bill will authorize 
the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from the telemarketing 
industry in order to implement and enforce a Do-Not-Call registry. The 
1994 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act directed 
the FTC to include in any rulemaking a requirement to curb unsolicited 
telephone calls that are coercive or abusive to a consumer's right to 
privacy. The FTC has interpreted this direction to create the Do-Not-
Call List. Let me say in the beginning that I support the concept of a 
national do-not-call list. I support the notion that we should not have 
to leave our phones off the hook if we don't want to be disturbed 
during dinner time. However, I fear the Do-Not-Call List proposed by 
the Federal Trade Commission is far from perfect; in some instances it 
leaves gaping holes in its protection of consumers, and in others it is 
far too damaging to an industry that employs tens of thousands of 
workers all across this country.
  Telemarketing firms employ approximately a thousand people in my 
congressional district. They provide jobs to parents of young children 
who require flexible hours; they provide jobs to our young people who 
want to be part of the work force while they develop necessary skills 
for other occupations. In Gallipolis, Ohio, one call center is the 
second largest employer in the town, with workers coming across the 
Ohio River from West Virginia to make calls. Elsewhere in Ohio, in 
Marietta and Boardman, I have heard from constituents who depend on 
these jobs for a steady salary and health benefits. These jobs are 
already threatened by stiff competition from overseas. With the falling 
cost of international calls, call centers are sprouting up in countries 
such as India and the Philippines.
  I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to the 
economic impact that the FTC's proposed registry will have on many 
communities across the United States. The FTC has indeed investigated 
the impact of telemarketing on consumers. But I am concerned that 
adequate attention has not been given to the importance of 
telemarketing jobs, especially to economically distressed communities. 
I do not agree with forecasters who are spelling a doomsday scenario 
for the industry if the registry goes into effect, but I am concerned 
that some of the provisions of the FTC rule do not pass the common 
sense test. A prime example is the maximum $11,000 fine that the FTC 
may levy on a company for calling someone on the list.
  I also have other concerns about the viability of a National Do-Not-
Call List, that is not truly national, but interstate, and not truly a 
Do-Not-Call List if a business falls outside the jurisdiction of the 
FTC. I am pleased, though, that the bill includes provisions that will 
hopefully reconcile the cross-jurisdiction of the FTC, the Federal 
Communications Commission, and the States.
  However, there is a glaring loophole in the FTC's Do-Not-Call List 
with which I cannot reconcile myself. Calls soliciting political 
contributions are not covered by the FTC's Do-Not-Call List. With the 
statutory requirement to prevent ``coercive and abusive'' telephone 
calls, I can't think of a greater omission to a Do-Not-Call list than 
leaving out harassing campaign calls. I had planned to offer an 
amendment when this bill was before the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, on which I sit, that would have made such political calls 
non-exempt from the FTC's registry, but calls of a political nature are 
outside of the FTC's jurisdiction and the bill before us was not the 
best vehicle to address the larger problems of the FTC's jurisdictional 
limits.
  Despite my support for the concept of a national do-not-call list, I 
cannot support an authorization to collect fees for the FTC's proposed 
list. I doubt that the issues that I have raised will receive much 
attention as this bill is rushed through the legislative process. 
However, I hope that the problems with the FTC's proposed Do-Not-Call 
list will be revisited by Congress in its oversight of the agency. 
Specifically, I note that the bill before us requires the FTC to 
analyze the registry and report to Congress. I sincerely hope that any 
such report will include analyses of the impact these new regulations 
will have on legitimate businesses and the economic impact on the 
communities in which those businesses operate.

                          ____________________