[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 133 (Thursday, September 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8916-H8922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RATIFYING AUTHORITY OF FTC TO ESTABLISH A DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House,
I call up the bill (H.R. 3161) to ratify the authority of the Federal
Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 3161 is as follows:
H.R. 3161
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY.
(a) Authority.--The Federal Trade Commission is authorized
under section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3)(A)) to
implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry.
(b) Ratification.--The do-not-call registry provision of
the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)),
which was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission,
effective March 31, 2003, is ratified.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House,
Wednesday, September 24, 2003, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
General Leave
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, welcome to Groundhog Day, courtesy of a misguided court
decision, soon to be overthrown, I believe, were we not acting today,
but one that jeopardizes one of the most consumer-friendly regulations
ever to come out of Washington in a long time. Just several months ago,
President Bush signed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act into law. That
law authorized the funding of the Federal Trade Commission's National
Do-Not-Call registry, a concept so embraced by consumers in America
that 50 million Americans have now signed up to be on that list since
then. And, Mr. Speaker, Congress passes a law, and an agency then
implements it. Nothing wrong, right? Wrong. One can imagine our
surprise when we found out yesterday morning that a Federal court in
Oklahoma, not California, Oklahoma, invalidated the FTC's do-not-call
registry. And even more surprising was the judge's basis for the
decision. He found the FTC did not have the statutory authority to
create a national do-not-call list.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I mentioned in February
of this year, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act.
Obviously, Congress would not have funded something that it thought was
unauthorized. Indeed, back in 1994, Congress passed the Telemarketing
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, which gave the FTC power to regulate
abusive telemarketing practices. Certainly, allowing consumers to sign
up for a do-not-call list, to essentially opt out of an abusive
telemarketing practice, is well within the mandate given to the FTC.
Make no mistake. The judge in this case is dead wrong, and I am sure
his decision will, in turn, be overturned. In an abundance of caution,
however, and I make perfectly clear to any and all who may have doubts,
today we consider H.R. 3161. This bill specifically authorizes the FTC
to create a national do-not-call list and explicitly ratifies the FTC's
actions over the past year to implement that list. We should probably
call the bill ``This Time We Really Mean It Act'' to cure any myopia in
the judicial branch.
The bill leaves no doubt as to the intent of Congress. The FTC wants
this list. The President of the United States wants this list, and more
importantly, 50 million Americans, who are growing impatient about
being interrupted at mealtime by unwanted and unnecessary harassing
telemarketing calls,
[[Page H8917]]
want this list. And this Congress is going to make sure they have this
list today.
Every consumer should have the right to choose whom they want to talk
to. We allow consumers to opt out of junk mail. All they have to do is
go down to the post office and tell the Postal Service they do not want
junk mail coming to their house, and it does not come. They can choose
not to answer a knock at the door. They can decide who enters their
house and who communicates with them there. Consumers ought to have the
power to say ``no'' to unwelcomed and unwanted telemarketing calls.
Families ought to have the right to enjoy a little time together at the
end of a day and no longer come home to find their answering machines
jam filled with telemarketing calls.
Worst of all, they get that call and answer it, and there is nobody
there. These new devices that rotary dial three, four, five, maybe 20
people at a time and the first one who answers, they hang up on all the
rest, those are the worst to me. Americans are signing up to end that
kind of abusive practice, and we need to give the FTC clear authority.
I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the
ranking Democrat on our committee and the dean of our House, because he
and I have promised to do everything in our power to make sure that the
do-not-call list becomes a reality, and he is here with me today to
make sure we pass this bill.
Less than 1 week from today, on October 1, 2003, we hope to give
Americans access to precisely what they have been asking for, a
national do-not-call list, and today we are effectively hanging up on
the telemarketers who have been bothering me at that precious hour of
the day.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, unwanted telemarketing calls are less
popular than a skunk at a church picnic, and they are more persistent
and obnoxious than athlete's foot. Today we are going to bring them
under control at the request of the American people.
In 1994 this body passed the Telemarketing Act to protect consumer
privacy and to curb abusive and abrasive telemarketing. Through that
law, the Federal Trade Commission created a national do-not-call
registry, and over 50 million American consumers have registered their
numbers on that list. They do not want to be called.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
with my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), the chairman of the committee. That bill was passed by both
Chambers by an overwhelming majority. It provided necessary funding so
that the do-not-call list could go into effect on time. It also was
said in the hearings by the Federal Trade Commission that no additional
authority was needed by that body to issue this do-not-call list.
Well, the telemarketers are back. Despite our previous efforts, an
erroneous decision made in Oklahoma agreed with the Direct Marketing
Association that we did not give the Federal Trade Commission authority
to create the list. That decision was in remarkable error, and we are
today going to overrule it.
Last night I, once again, in concert with my distinguished friend and
the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, introduced
legislation to settle this question for good and all. That legislation
is now before us. It unequivocally states that the FTC is authorized to
create and to enforce a national do-not-call registry, and it
officially ratifies the existing list.
I commend and congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin), the chairman, for his splendid work on this matter. I
urge my colleagues to vote for that legislation.
The registry is scheduled to go into effect in less than one week.
And we are here to make sure that it stays on schedule. I encourage my
colleagues in both Chambers to pass this legislation swiftly. And I
hope the President will heed the call of consumers and sign this
legislation into law.
Mr. Speaker, 50 million Americans cannot be wrong. They want this
legislation, they deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to enact the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I ask unanimous consent
that he may be permitted to yield time on behalf of this side of the
aisle. He has had much experience with this and has been a great leader
in the matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
gentleman from Massachusetts will control the time of the gentleman
from Michigan.
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation
that fixes Judge Lee R. West's decision of earlier this week. I have
the phone number for Judge Lee R. West. I thought maybe the 50 million
folks that have decided to call the FTC and say enough is enough, maybe
we ought to pass on this phone number to his office in Oklahoma. I do
not know that they would get anything done for the next couple of
weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support. And I do not know of a family
out there that has not received these awful phone calls, usually at
some important moment. I can remember earlier this summer, I was
finally home from a long day, and my wife and kids are ready to go with
their friends down to Lake Michigan, my dog is wagging his tail. That
is one of the words that he knows, ``beach.'' He is so excited. The
phone rings. It is a solicitation call from a good group, I am sure. My
wife has it down pat. Do you know what she does? ``It is for you.'' I
get to the phone, and I have got to make sure they are not from our
district, and then with that, that phone call is gone.
Mr. Speaker, 50 million folks like our house have called the FTC.
When you look at it, that is 50 percent of America. We have about 100
million households, so 50 million households have said hang up. We do
not want this. And, yet, Judge Lee R. West, I cannot say a good guy, a
guy out in Oklahoma, has said no.
This legislation changes it. We are going to get it done. Let us all
vote for this bill.
{time} 1145
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, we had a very unfortunate ruling in Oklahoma
City, one that we are going to undo today.
This reminds me a lot about back in the days before I was in
Congress. I was in the insurance business, and we used to do a lot of
cold calling to make insurance calls. They always told us as they were
training us that you had to get nine noes in order to get a yes; but if
you kept calling, that every time a person said no to you, not to lose
faith, because you were one step closer to the yes.
So today we are doing a tremendous favor for the telemarketers in
America, something that I wish they had done for me when I first
started in the insurance business. We are giving them the list of the
noes up front, so they do not have to make these nine calls to get a
yes. We are telling them up front the people that do not want to talk
to them, and now all they have to do is call the people that want to
hear from them, that want to buy their products.
I think it is a wonderful thing which we do today for the
telemarketers, and it is a wonderful thing we do for the 50 million
Americans that do not want to have to pick up that phone at dinnertime.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the
excellent comments and argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of
[[Page H8918]]
Oklahoma ruled that the Federal Trade Commission did not have the
authority to create a national ``do-not-call'' registry.
While the Court can and did make legal arguments to support its
ruling, what it cannot and should not deny is the will of the people.
And the will of the people when it comes to a national ``do not call
list'' is strong and vigilant.
Since June, when the registry was first opened, over 50 million phone
numbers have been submitted to the FTC registry. People are simply fed
up with telemarketers interrupting their meals by offering vacations or
more credit cards.
In my home state of Indiana, almost 1.5 million phones are registered
for the Telephone Privacy program. That represents almost 58 percent of
our state, meaning that 3.5 million Hoosiers have chosen to reduce
unwanted telemarketing calls. A survey in Indiana found that those on
the Indiana Telephone Privacy list had their calls reduced from an
average of twelve per week to only one per week. Indiana's Telephone
Privacy law works.
One important feature of the Indiana law is that it contains very few
exemptions. In fact, Indiana's law has fewer exemptions than the FCC
and FTC rules.
While we have permitted these agencies to provide more exemptions on
the Federal level, it must be made clear that Congress does not intend
to interfere with statutes, like Indiana's, that choose to tighten
these loopholes. Indeed, efforts like Indiana's that inspired the
Federal ``do not call'' program, demonstrate the critical role that
States can play in achieving creative solutions to serious problems.
Such efforts should not be discouraged.
It is my understanding that Congress has no intention of preempting
State laws that provide protections greater than those provided by our
Federal ``do not call'' program. Furthermore, I also understand that
Congress has no intention of permitting the FCC or FTC to preempt, by
regulation or otherwise, State statutes that provide greater
protections than the Federal ``Do Not Call'' program provides.
The FCC and FTC should be reminded that the mandate from Congress is
create a ``do not call'' program that provides a nationwide minimum
standard of protection for all Americans. States that choose to exceed
that standard should in no way be prohibited from doing so.
I am pleased by the swift action of the Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee. H.R. 3161 will allow the will of
the people to prevail in light of the judicial interference from
yesterday.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me again emphasize this is extraordinary. The court
decision came out yesterday. The leadership of this House authorized
this bill to the floor today. We are about to pass this bill, I believe
the Senate is about to do the same thing, and, in all likelihood, we
will have a bill on the President's desk this afternoon.
This Congress has often been called a slow and cumbersome beast, but
I think you can see how fast this Congress is prepared to move when 50
million Americans are angry, and I cannot imagine more anger now, when
50 million Americans found out the national do-not-call list was put in
jeopardy by a single judge in Oklahoma somewhere.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, but, more importantly, today I thank him for his nearly decade-
long leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the
full committee ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell), for their outstanding leadership in quickly advancing
this pro-consumer legislation.
Yesterday's decision by the Federal District Judge blocking the FTC
from implementing its national do-not-call registry was, I believe,
incorrect. Earlier this session we passed the National Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. The new law
explicitly gave the FTC the authority to collect fees and create a
national do-not-call list.
I am actually confident that the court's decision would have
eventually been overturned on appeal. But, fortunately, we are not
waiting for that process to occur. Today we are removing any
uncertainty about Congress' intent. With the passage of this
legislation, the Federal Trade Commission will be able to add more
people to their list, and they will be able to implement its do-not-
call registry without interruption or delay.
Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate the very precious time that we have at
home with our families after a long day at work, but who has not been
interrupted by an unwanted telemarketer? We all know from personal
experience how intrusive these calls can be.
I think it is important to note that it will not block the calls from
companies with whom you already do business. I received a telemarketing
call from a credit card company offering me a deal that could lower my
rate, et cetera. I was happy to get that call, and we actually made
that change. Those calls will be able to continue.
But we all know the calls. My last name is ``Schakowsky.'' My key is
when they say, ``Is Mrs. Schakowsky home,'' or all kinds of funny
names, I just say ``no,'' and hang up. We all have our strategies for
dealing with those.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this pro-consumer
legislation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
senior gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and
strong supporter of the chairman from Louisiana's bill and commend him
for taking swift action against the ruling of the District Court in
Oklahoma City.
Over the years through my Know-Your-Caller Act, I have worked with
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the FTC to bring
consumers greater protection from the many unwanted annoying calls that
telemarketers placed at all hours of the day and night, seven days a
week. These calls are an invasion of privacy, not to mention that many
of these callers are unscrupulous and prey on older American senior
citizens.
The FTC, Congress, and the American consumers have got it right, and
this district court has got it completely wrong. This is the most
incorrect and outrageous ruling I have seen in a long time. It is a
direct shot at every consumer. Millions of them have registered to get
their names on the list, who receive these annoying calls during dinner
with their families, in the middle of the night, and then again early
in the morning.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and commend the chairman for his
leadership and quick action.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
As a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and as a
cosponsor of this bill, I really want to thank the judge. We ought to
have more court rulings like this, because I have never seen one that
brings this Congress closer together the whole year. This has often
been a contentious Congress that clashes on issues. Here everyone
agrees. I want to thank the judge for making us all love each other.
We do it because 50 million Americans have signed up to not be
bothered by telemarketers. That is a phenomenal amount of people in a
very short time. So if there was ever an issue on which everyone
agrees, this is the issue.
Everyone has been bothered at the dinner table with these annoying
calls. This morning as I was leaving to come here to the Capitol, the
phone rang. I picked it up, and there it was, another telemarketer
asking kind of sneaky questions, intrusive questions, trying to get you
to give them some information in a very sneaky way. People are just fed
up with it.
There are no first amendment rights here. All of the things that have
been said about why this law should be blocked are ridiculous. Again,
in all my years in Congress, I have hardly ever seen anything with
which everyone agrees.
So, again, I want to thank the judge for bringing us together. I rise
in strong support of the legislation, and as a cosponsor, I commend the
chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). That
is why this is such a great committee; we all agree on so many
important things.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
[[Page H8919]]
do something very unusual on the House floor. As the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) knows, every now and then, we are accused of
voting for bills we have not totally read. I am going to read the whole
bill.
I want all the judges of America to pay close attention. I want you
to tune in good. Turn up the volume a little bit and turn off your
telephone and listen real carefully, because I am going to read the
whole bill to you. Every judge in America, here it comes:
``(a) AUTHORITY. The Federal Trade Commission is authorized under
section 3(a)3(A) of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(A)(3)(A)) to implement and enforce a
national do-not-call registry.''
Do you hear me? To implement and enforce a do-not-call registry.
``(b) RATIFICATION. The do-not-call registry provision of the
Telemarketing Sales Rule, (16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), which was
promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003,
is ratified.''
Did you hear me, judges? Ratified.
When this bill passes today, when the Senate does the same thing,
none of you judges ought to have any doubt. We really mean it, do you
understand? We really mean it. We want the national do-not-call list to
become law on October 1.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this bill, and I rise in
strong commendation for the chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and for our ranking
member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has brought this bill out
at such a rapid pace that I believe that this legislation has set the
Congressional land speed record for legislating in the aftermath of a
terrible Oklahoma court decision, and I want to congratulate the
gentleman from Louisiana. I think this record, like Roger Bannister's
breaking of the four-minute mile, will be viewed as a landmark for all
future legislation in the history of our country.
This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can
hang up on a telemarketer at dinner time. I mean, the gentleman just
did a phenomenal job in ensuring that we are able to protect the
American people, because we need this bill in order to ensure that by
Christmastime, the only ringing bells consumers will hear are jingle
bells and sleigh bells, not the jangling phone ruining people's family
holidays.
Now, if we do not pass this legislation, the judge in Oklahoma will
have to put his own courthouse phone number on a do-not-call list,
because he will have millions of phone calls from complaining Americans
demanding that this decision be reversed. So we are doing the judge a
big favor today. We are saving him from the same headache that tens of
millions of Americans feel that they are subjected to on a daily basis
by the phone calls that come into their homes on an unwanted basis.
What is our purpose? The gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from
Michigan, all the Members of Congress, all we are trying to do is to
make the Direct Marketing Association, these telemarketers, more
efficient. How efficient is it to know exactly who is receptive to your
hundreds of calls a year than for us to put together a list for you of
all of the people in America who want to get these calls?
Now, I do not happen to be one of them. I actually signed up at 12:01
a.m. on the first day that it was available to end these calls coming
in to my own home, personally, and I threw my cell phone in as well.
Those 50 million other phone numbers that are on that list, I was
trying to be number one in that land speed race to end it once and for
all.
What we have got now on our hands is, in my opinion, a very efficient
telemarketing industry, one which can now use their huckster sales
pitch to address just those Americans who kind of enjoy having people
call them at all hours of the day, and we know there are people out
there that really do like it.
If a salesman comes to your front door and knocks on the front door,
you do not have to answer. That is your way of dealing with them. But
if someone calls you on the phone, that phone just keeps ringing until
you have to answer it. That is the difference between a door-to-door
salesman and someone who calls you on the phone. That person can ruin
your supper, can ruin your day. So this do-not-call database proposal
is a winner for the millions of consumers who are plagued by those
unsolicited commercial telemarketing calls.
The bill which we consider today permits the FTC to proceed on a
timely basis, so that by October 1, consumers can begin to see a
reduction in unwanted telemarketing calls.
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 have clearly voted in favor of signing up for the database,
indicating by the millions that they want an effective ``no
soliciting'' sign on their home phone or cell phone.
{time} 1200
They want this national database to help to bring a halt to the
seemingly nightly ritual of phone calls, interrupting dinner or
precious family time.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill with the
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin). Again, I want to commend
the chairman for his alacrity in bringing this bill to the floor so
soon after the court decision. He and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) and all of the Members who worked on this and the staff who
worked on this overnight deserve an enormous amount of credit.
Finally, I want to commend FTC Chairman Timothy Muris for his pro-
consumer action in creating the Federal Trade Commission do-not-call
rules. This do-not-call database will be a powerful new tool for
consumers to combat unwanted telemarketing intrusions. It is a landmark
day in the history of consumer legislation in our country. Tim Muris
deserves a lot of credit, the rest of the FTC, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell),
and all of the other Members.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Massachusetts
for his compliments and, most importantly, for his extraordinary long-
standing support for actions to protect consumers in America, and this
is just one more step in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3161, I
stand here today to express my strong opposition to yesterday's
decision by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma.
As of September of this year, 16 percent of all Oregonians, that is
541,117 citizens, have made the decision to be on the do-not-call list;
16 percent. These citizens have expressed their rights to uninterrupted
free speech at the dinner table and the breakfast table and the lunch
table, and the middle of the night.
Earlier this year, I received a call from Mr. Chad De Gennaro of
Grants Pass, Oregon, that best summarizes the frustration that I think
all of us have felt after getting these unsolicited phone calls in our
homes when we did not want them. Chad said, ``As only one person, I
cannot single-handedly defend myself against telemarketing companies
with banks of telephones and hundreds of phone solicitors. No matter
how many times I say that I do not want to be called again, sure
enough, I wind up getting called again, and at all times of the day.''
Mr. Speaker, 541,117 Oregonians looked to the Federal Government, to
us, to protect them from these unsolicited phone calls and trusted that
this list would allow them some peace and quiet in their homes. That is
what the FTC's list would have provided on October 1.
Here in Congress, we understood from the FTC that they had the
authority to prepare and implement this list. The FTC believed they had
the right to create this list; and more importantly, the
[[Page H8920]]
citizens of Oregon and across America knew and believed that the FTC
was going to protect them by implementing this list and this
legislation. Only the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma thought
otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, I join my chairman and my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle today in support of this legislation. I appreciate the quick
action of our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), in
moving this bill forward so that we can protect ourselves from calls we
do not want coming into our phones and into our homes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time to speak
on this important bill, so I will continue to reserve my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I applaud his stunningly quick action with alacrity to speak
on behalf of the elected representatives of the American people on this
subject.
Mr. Speaker, one unelected Federal judge in Oklahoma took it upon
himself to strike down a law passed by Congress, actioned by the
executive branch, and two appropriations acts, and the action of 40
million Americans to sign a do-not-call registry. Never in history has
so much been screwed up by such a small number of people: one judge.
Protecting telemarketers under the first amendment is like protecting
the classroom bully who insists that it is his first amendment right to
harass all of the other children in class. I think the judge in this
case has wondered if the Congress has been clear in this case. Well,
Congress is going to be blisteringly clear; and we are going to follow
this up, if this bill does not pass the Senate quickly, with
appropriations action to make sure that in this Congress, in this year,
we keep the do-not-call registry online, that we do not force any other
Americans to reregister, that we keep those who signed up on the list,
and that we protect that sacred zone of privacy in Americans' homes so
that they can have dinner with their wives and kids and not be harassed
by these calls.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the ranking member and the chairman for this
quick action, and I urge rapid adoption of this legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, with compliments to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and to the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking
Member Dingell), and to all of the Members who worked on this
legislation, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In summation, let me again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their
extraordinary bipartisan cooperation in moving this as rapidly as we
have. It is the sort of cooperation we always seem to get from our
members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Energy and
Commerce when we have a problem that clearly faces our country that is
neither Democrat nor Republican, but is American. This is an American
problem, and we are solving it as Americans in this House, and that is
always a proud moment in this House when that occurs. I want to thank
my colleagues for all of the courtesies and the help that we have
gotten in moving this legislation forward.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was correct in
complimenting the chairman of the FTC, Mr. Muris. I want to also join
in that compliment. The Federal Trade Commission, as the gentleman
knows, took on what the FCC would not take on. We had originally given
this authority to the Federal Communications Commission which declined
to put together a national do-not-call list. Mr. Muris and the Federal
Trade Commission decided to go forward with it with our help. So we
authorized the money for them to proceed with the list. Only this judge
seems to want to stand in the way of it, and this Congress now makes it
very clear today that we want to give Americans this right.
I want to make a public apology. These harassing phone calls that
come to us in the middle of the precious time we have with our family
have gotten to a point of, I know, such aggravation that some of us
react very badly to a call we get at a most inappropriate moment, and
sometimes we are pretty ugly to a telemarketer who is bothering us or
interrupting us. I hung up on the Ambassador's wife from Norway one
day, thinking she was a telemarketer. She belongs to an international
club with my wife, and we had to make great apologies afterwards
because I thought I was being harassed by a telemarketer. Those sorts
of things ought not happen in America. We ought not be caught in these
awful circumstances where we are so aggravated that we are impolite to
someone as important as an Ambassador's wife who was trying to make a
call to my wife, and I apologize both to my wife and to her again
publicly for my impatience.
But Americans are impatient, and they are tired of this kind of
problem, and they want it fixed; and this legislation will fix it
today. We have heard some of the passion on this floor. The passion
that we feel about this issue is the passion that Americans feel about
this issue. When 50 million Americans sign up as fast as they have,
that tells us how passionately Americans feel about a national do-not-
call list, and it is time to be implemented.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chair for his rapidity
in bringing this to the floor. I just want to say there is total
bipartisan agreement that Americans are sick and tired of having their
dinners interrupted by these calls, and today that is going to stop.
I just want to answer the people who have raised freedom-of-speech
issues here, which I do not believe apply to this, because there is
also a freedom not to listen. What we are saying today is Americans
have the right not to listen to these telemarketing calls. This is in
the finest tradition of the Constitution which said we, the people, in
order to assure the common defense and assure domestic tranquility, and
we are standing up for domestic tranquility today. This is a good day
to do it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for those comments. In fact, we have been asked so many times, is this
a free-speech issue. The United States Constitution gives you the right
to speak; it does not give you the right to be heard. None of us have
an obligation to listen if we do not want to. As a courtesy, we listen
to one another in this House, hopefully we do, but nobody has an
obligation to listen. The fact that Americans have the right not to be
bothered by some speech they do not want to listen to is a right we
ought to protect too. That is what we do today.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the chairman if, after he
hung up on that Ambassador's wife, if he still got the pocket fisherman
or the ginsu knife, if they still might have sent that along.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can only tell the
gentleman it was an embarrassing moment and, again, I apologize to both
of them. But the gentleman knows we have heard this bill in committee,
and he knows how absolutely aggravated people get with these calls.
They seem to come at the worst moment. When you are just leaving the
house, you are trying to get everything in the car and the phone rings,
it could be your mother calling, your daughter, your son, somebody
important; and you rush back in and it is one of these doggone calls.
They always come at the exact wrong moment. I am not saying
telemarketers are bad people. There are many good telemarketing firms,
and for folks who want to receive these calls and take advantage of
them, they will have that right under the bill. But it is just going to
end the ones we do not want, the ones that aggravate us to the point
where we do something as stupid as I did, for which I have apologized
today a few times.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the Do-Not-Call Registry was crafted as a
balance between
[[Page H8921]]
the rights of businesses to market their products and the right of
consumers to avoid unnecessary harassment. Today, due to a judicial
decision, we are back here on the House floor to reaffirm the validity
of the registry.
Telemarketers have, like everyone else in this country, the right to
free speech. They have the right to say what they want. What they don't
have is the right to force Americans to listen to their sales pitches.
Americans, on the other hand, should have the right to a little peace
and quiet. They should have the right to not have to get unwanted
advertising pitches over the phone during dinnertime.
Telemarketers already have the tools they need to exercise their
right to free speech--they have autodialing computers, prerecorded
messages, phone registries, and legions of operators. In creating the
Do-Not-Call Registry, the FTC was merely trying to provide consumers
with the power to truly exercise this right. The Do-Not-Call Registry
is just one simple, effective tool that will give consumers the ability
to exercise their right to a little peace and quiet.
Unfortunately, Judge Lee R. West of the Western District of Oklahoma
recently ruled that Congress did not give the FTC explicit authority to
create the do-not-call list. Of course, Judge West has the right to
make that ruling, if he thinks that is the correct interpretation of
the law. Congress then has the responsibility to clarify that it has
indeed given the FTC authority to protect consumers by creating the
registry, as we are doing today.
While I strongly support the continued implementation of the Do-Not-
Call Registry, I should mention that the FTC left some loopholes. If
you've bought, leased, or rented something from a company in the past
18 months, they can still call you until you say, ``Stop.'' They can
also call you if you've applied or inquired with them over the past
three months--even something as mundane as asking for a store's hours.
Telemarketers have jumped to these loopholes, showing the lengths
that many of them will go to in order to call people during dinnertime
with unwanted ads. The FTC should revisit its rules and see if these
loopholes can be closed.
Even still, it's critical that we reaffirm the validity of the do-
not-call list. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member
Dingell, and all the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for
bringing this clarifying legislation to the floor. I'm sure my
constituents will be pleased to see this body reacting so quickly.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill so it can be signed
into law and we can avoid delaying implementation of the do-not-call
list.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Chairman Tauzin and
Ranking Member Dingell have moved so quickly to address this week's
decision by the Federal district court in Oklahoma that the FTC did not
have authority to implement the national Do Not Call list.
It is not often that we can move forward with such speed in a
bipartisan manner in both bodies, but this action only proves that
Congress intends this list to go into effect, despite what Judge West
in Oklahoma may think.
This list was to have gone into effect on October 1, and millions of
consumers were looking forward to getting some relief from
telemarketers.
I am somewhat amazed by the decision of the court, given that
Congress clearly expressed its intent to provide the FTC with the
authority to implement the list by passing the Do Not Call
Implementation Act.
I do not know how much more clear we could have been--we gave the
agency funding to set up the list, but yet the court managed to find
that no authority existed from Congress.
This bill will make things clear, and I am pleased at this quick
response to the ruling. I am a cosponsor of this bill and look forward
to its quick passage.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
legislation to clarify that Congress specifically authorizes the
Federal Trade Commission to establish a Do Not Call Registry.
During debate last year on the Do Not Call Registry, I had initially
preferred that Congress enact even stronger language.
But, in voting for the registry, I never thought that the language we
enacted wouldn't be sufficient enough to withstand judicial review.
Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken.
They want the power to reduce the number of annoying telemarketing
calls that too often interrupt the precious, yet increasingly limited,
time that they spend with their families.
The response has been tremendous
I've joined over 50 million Americans who have already signed up for
the registry, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet.
The Do Not Call Registry is a popular consumer protection tool that
needs to be implemented.
The FTC has moved swiftly on behalf of consumers, and we should do
the same.
If the FTC needs this specific authority, then let's pass this bill
today, get it to the President and make sure that there is no
disruption in the FTC's ambitious timeline to make the Do Not Call
Registry a reality for millions of American consumers.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Wednesday, September 24, 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. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on H.R. 3161 will be followed by 5-minute votes on the
motion to instruct on H.R. 1, by the yeas and nays; and the motion to
instruct on H.R. 1588, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 8, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 521]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
[[Page H8922]]
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--8
Bishop (UT)
Cannon
Flake
Meek (FL)
Paul
Ryan (OH)
Strickland
Terry
NOT VOTING--14
Bishop (GA)
Gephardt
Gibbons
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Nadler
Pastor
Pombo
Reyes
Shays
Watt
Weldon (PA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1233
Mr. TERRY and Mr. RYAN of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________