[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 133 (Thursday, September 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11957-S11967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3161, the FTC's ratification 
of authority for the Do Not Call Registry, under the following 
conditions: 45 minutes under the control of the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee or his designee, and 45 minutes under the control of 
the ranking member or his designee; of the time under the control of 
the ranking member, the following Senators be recognized to speak for 
up to 5 minutes each: Senators Hollings, Dorgan, Conrad, Kohl, Pryor, 
Schumer, and Feinstein, with the remaining time under the control of 
the Democratic leader or his designee; further, that no amendments be 
in order to the bill; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, 
the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on 
passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I only ask 
that the ranking member, Senator Hollings, be given up to 10 minutes 
out of the 45 minutes under his control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think everyone should be advised that if 
all the time is used, we will vote at about 5:35 on final passage of 
this most important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be glad for the time to be 10 
minutes for Senator Hollings, but I remind my friend from Nevada, 
Senator Hollings will be controlling the time. So he will be granting 
himself as much time as he may use because the unanimous consent 
request is that the time will be under the control of the ranking 
member or his designee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona, Senator 
Hollings is the ranking member, and the unanimous consent request does 
say that. However, he is going to speak and then turn the time over to 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota.
  Mr. McCAIN. Good. But I have always proceeded under the assumption 
that Senator Hollings can speak whenever he wants to, for however long 
he wants to. I have found that it has improved our relationship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3161) to ratify the authority of the Federal 
     Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, does the Senator from South Carolina care 
to speak at this time?
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, marketers assault Americans' privacy 
every day. Businesses track everything we buy and everything we do. It 
seems the marketers know more about our lives than we do ourselves. It 
is intrusive, and Americans want the tools to fight back.
  But those of us who work to protect Americans' privacy are thwarted 
every step of the way. The marketers oppose antispam legislation. The 
marketers oppose decency limits on advertising to children. And the 
marketers oppose legislation that would allow Americans to ``opt-out'' 
of the sharing of their personal information, including financial 
records.
  The one success we have had is the Do Not Call list. The public's 
vociferous reaction to the court decision yesterday shows the country's 
desire to win refuge from the marketing onslaught. The public wants the 
Do Not Call registry. And the public wants the registry to become 
active next week. We will make sure that happens.
  But we have several Johnny-Come-Latelys to our cause. When I was 
chairman of the Commerce Committee last Congress, we worked with the 
FTC to create the Do Not Call Registry. But we didn't get much help 
from the other side. Instead we were unfairly criticized by interest 
groups for jeopardizing their funding.
  We fought to win $18 million for the registry in the omnibus 
appropriations bill last year. But the House wanted language that would 
prohibit using that funding absent explicit Congressional 
authorization. The House language could have stopped the registry. 
Again, it was an uphill battle, and we had few allies. But we 
eventually got the bad language removed, giving the FTC the funds to 
implement the Do Not Call Registry.
  Once the FTC opened the list to registration, the response from the 
American public was overwhelming. By yesterday, Americans had 
registered more than 50 million phone numbers. South Carolinians have 
registered 685,393 phone numbers--486,533 through the FTC Web site, 
198,855 via phone, and 5 through hearing-impaired devices. The 
marketers argued that Americans did not want the Do Not Call list, but 
the American public proved them wrong. Americans want this tool. They 
want the assault on their privacy to stop. Once news reports showed the 
Do Not

[[Page S11958]]

Call Registry was popular, many converted to the cause. And some of 
them are leading the charge today. We appreciate their support now as 
we try to overturn a clearly flawed court decision.
  To prepare for compliance on October 1, 2003, nearly 5,000 
telemarketers have purchased all or parts of the list. Therefore, 
telemarketers acting in good faith are ready to comply next week.
  A telemarketer that ignores the Do Not Call list is subject to an 
$11,000 fine for each call to a phone number on the Do Not Call 
Registry. The law requires telemarketers to search the registry every 3 
months and synchronize their call lists.
  Once consumers register a number on the Do Not Call list, 
telemarketers are prohibited from calling the number for the purpose of 
selling goods and services. Consumers who receive sales calls after 
their number has been in the registry for three months can file a 
complaint on the FTC web site or call 1-888-382-1222.
  The Do Not Call list will not hurt charities seeking to raise money 
for worthy causes. Charities may still hire professional telemarketers 
to seek donations. But calls during which a charity or telemarketer 
seeks to sell something are prohibited to phone numbers on the Do Not 
Call Registry.
  This Do Not Call Registry has been a long time in coming. We are 
going to take the final step today. The court decision yesterday may 
even have given the Do Not Call Registry more publicity, encouraging 
even more people to register their phone numbers.
  Opponents of Americans' privacy should take notice: Americans want 
tools and choices, such as the Do Not Call Registry, to protect their 
precious time with their families. They also want to protect their 
private medical and financial information and protect their children 
from indecent advertising. We will keep fighting.
  Mr. President, let's thank Chairman Tim Muris of the Federal Trade 
Commission, who came to the Commerce Committee last year. And we put in 
S. 2946, the Do Not Call bill, with some $5 million that was requested. 
Later on, we found there were well organized holds, whereby we could 
not even get this bill up for consideration. Yes, we reported it 
favorably from the Commerce Committee, but we could not get it on the 
floor to pass it. And it was needed.
  Chairman Muris came to me and said he needed $15 million. I talked 
with Chairman Gregg earlier this year, and in the omnibus bill, with 
the Federal Trade Commission appropriations, we increased it to $18 
million. We could see the demand and see the interest and see the need. 
So we did just that.
  It is good that my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Arizona, 
is on the Senate floor because the opposition was that it was not 
authorized. I go right to my experience for over 30 some years on the 
State-Justice-Commerce Committee, where we have had difficulty over the 
years passing, for example, an FBI authorization bill.
  I remember for a period of almost 20 years we had no authorization. 
We worked with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to make sure 
their wants were taken care of. But we provided the bill; the same with 
respect to State Department authorization.
  So I would only admonish the distinguished jurist who made this 
ruling about authorization that, yes, the Senator from Arizona is 
jointly correct with respect to the rules of the Senate but not with 
respect to the Constitution.
  Once you receive three readings in the House and three readings in 
the Senate, and it is signed by the President of the United States, we 
have no doubt that law would take effect and this order of the court 
would be set aside.
  However, the triggering date is the first of October, next week, and 
so I commend my House colleagues and those on the Senate side, and my 
chairman, Senator McCain, in taking this up at this particular time so 
we can go ahead and take the House bill.
  There are many interested in separate bills, and what have you. But 
right to the point, time is of the essence. Fifty million Americans 
cannot be wrong, they are all interested in stopping the calls.
  With that, let me yield, then, to the distinguished chairman, and 
then to Senator Dorgan, who will control the time on the floor.
  I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I thank Senator Hollings for all his efforts on this 
legislation. I think he was not a Member of the Senate when the Federal 
Trade Commission was created, but very close to it, and he has been 
heavily involved with all the issues surrounding the FTC and the good 
works they do.
  I will speak very briefly. I would like to thank Senator Ensign and 
Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, Senator DeWine, and many other 
Senators, but particularly those including the distinguished ranking 
member, Senator Hollings, for all their efforts regarding this 
legislation and, more importantly, this issue.
  Two days ago, a Federal district court in Oklahoma issued an opinion 
that could stall the FTC's implementation of a National Do Not Call 
Registry scheduled to go into effect next Wednesday. The court opined 
that the FTC was not authorized to create a Do Not Call Registry. I 
must say that opinion came as an amazing surprise to those of us who 
have been involved in this issue, and served as a rallying cry for tens 
of millions of Americans households that have signed up for the 
registry.

  I understand the judge received so many calls from irate Americans 
that the FTC could not get through to the court regarding the 
Commission's appeal. Clearly, the court's decision was misguided.
  The measure before us makes crystal clear that the Commission can and 
should proceed as planned with the Do Not Call list. Earlier this year, 
in two separate measures, Congress ratified the FTC's Do Not Call 
Registry by explicitly providing for the Commission to collect fees to 
pay for it. Today Congress is once again saying, dispositively and 
unambiguously, that the FTC has the authority it needs to create a 
National Do Not Call list.
  When the FTC proposed to create this registry, I don't think they or 
even Members of this body had any idea how strongly it would be 
embraced by a public tired of having their precious leisure time filled 
with a seemingly incessant string of telephone solicitations.
  I understand the FTC's Web site for registering on the Do Not Call 
list became the fastest growing Web site in history.
  One of my favorite programs is ``Seinfeld.'' In one of the episodes 
that has become famous in reruns, Jerry Seinfeld answers the phone and 
it is a telemarketer. He says: I am busy right now. Can I call you back 
at home?
  And of course the telemarketer says: No, you are not allowed to do 
that. You wouldn't like that. Well, neither do I. And he hung up the 
phone.
  Obviously, the issue of telemarketing involves the free enterprise 
system. Nothing in this legislation would inhibit their ability from 
practicing that, but it also balances the right of private citizens not 
to be disturbed if they choose not to be.
  During a peak period, the FTC's Web site received approximately 1,000 
hits per second. On the first day alone, 3.4 million consumers visited 
the Web site. In the first 10 days, 10 million phone numbers had been 
registered. Within the first month, the number had risen to 28 
million--quite a remarkable evolution. To date, over 50 million phone 
numbers have been registered, including nearly 1.2 million in my State 
of Arizona.
  Congress is often accused of being slow to respond. Thankfully, that 
charge can't be leveled here. Just a few hours ago the House passed 
this legislation by a vote of 412 to 8. Whenever you see a number like 
that, you are always curious who the eight are, but the curious 
decision of one court should not be allowed to frustrate the clear will 
of Congress and the even clearer will of tens of millions of Americans.
  Obviously, we urge our colleagues to support the measure, give 
consumers what they want by empowering them to say no to what they 
clearly do not want.
  I thank all of my colleagues who have responded to the predictable 
but certainly overwhelming response to the

[[Page S11959]]

court's decision in the State of Oklahoma. That judge in the district 
court will become well known to many Americans as well.
  I thank all my colleagues for coming and speaking on this issue. I 
thank them for their support. Although there is not a need for the yeas 
and nays, some of our colleagues may want to be on record. So we may 
want to do so depending on the desires of my friend from North Dakota, 
a man who understands the will of the populace especially where 
telecommunications issues are concerned.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senator McCain 
and Senator Hollings. This is an important issue, one we believed we 
had previously resolved only to learn that a court ruled that the Do 
Not Call list developed by the Federal Trade Commission was ``not 
authorized.''
  Most of us in Congress and the Senate are surprised by that. Clearly, 
we authorized that. But if a court needs another authorization, it is 
something we can certainly do on a Thursday afternoon at 4:15. So this 
will be done with the support of many colleagues, and I am pleased to 
say that this is good public policy.
  Let me make a couple of comments about the substance. There may be 
some people who are terribly lonely and whose phone seldom rings except 
to have an advertiser of a credit card or a long-distance service call 
during meal time just wanting to visit about their product. There may 
be some people who welcome those calls, just talk the ear off these 
telemarketers. I can't say that for sure, but this country is full of 
very interesting people. As for me and for most of the American people, 
getting a telephone call in the middle of a meal or getting a telephone 
call at all hours of the day and night to have someone tell us that we 
really need a new long-distance service or a preapproved credit card 
gets a little annoying. Unsolicited phone calls are an intrusion on the 
phone line that most American people pay every month to have in their 
home.
  I come from a sparsely populated State, a wonderful place. It is 10 
times the size of the Massachusetts landmass, with 642,000 people. It 
is spread out. We understand the importance of communications. We 
understand the importance of telephones. It took a long while to get 
telephones to the outer reaches of our country, including rural areas. 
Now with modern communications, we also understand that we are not 
alone in our homes.
  There are those who are working in large banks of employees who are 
randomly, with computers, calling telephone numbers from banks of 
telephone books, getting people on the line. And by the way, because 
these computers dial multiple numbers at once, when one person answers, 
perhaps a second person is answering a nanosecond later, no one will be 
on the line when they answer. That happens often. People should 
understand that comes from unsolicited phone calls with computer banks 
making calls. One person answers; the other doesn't get an answer. That 
is what is happening. It is enormously annoying.
  Do people have an inherent right to make solicitation calls? Yes. But 
the other question is, Do people who pay for their telephone service 
each month have a right to put their name on a registry saying: I 
really don't want these calls; don't have them come into my telephone 
instrument; I pay for the instrument and I don't want to be annoyed and 
I don't want to be interrupted by them? Do people have that right? Of 
course, they do. That is what this issue is about.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs in the Commerce 
Committee last year, I held hearings on this. At one of the 
reauthorization hearings for the FTC, we had an entire panel devoted to 
the discussion of a do not call registry. We had a hearing in which the 
Federal Trade Commission came up, the Commissioners themselves, and 
talked to us about this issue. I had a member of the Federal Trade 
Commission come to Fargo, ND. We held a public hearing there on this 
subject. This is not a foreign or strange subject to me nor to most of 
my colleagues. As a result of that, we took action in reauthorizing the 
Federal Trade Commission to include funding to allow them to put 
together a Do Not Call Registry.
  If you wonder whether the American people care about this, just 
remember these numbers. They put together a Do Not Call Registry and 
said to the people: If you think these unsolicited telephone calls are 
bothersome to you, if it is an intrusion on your family and an 
interruption to your life and annoying to you and you want to stop 
them, call and put your telephone number and your name on this 
registry.
  Guess what. In virtually a nanosecond, 50 million Americans have 
said: Count me out. I don't want to be a part of this unsolicited phone 
call mess going on. Put my name on the list and get rid of these phone 
calls. In the State of North Dakota, 131,000 people said: We don't want 
these calls. We don't want the interruptions. We don't want the 
annoyance. Stop it.
  Now one court has said somehow this is not operative, effective, 
because it is not authorized. So this afternoon the House will 
authorize it, the Senate will authorize it, and the bill will go to the 
President and be signed.
  I hope this court will understand that not only was it authorized, 
but we were pleased this afternoon to authorize it a second time just 
to reinforce our determination with the American people that we believe 
they have the power and they ought to have the ability to stop these 
calls.
  Let me make just a couple of additional points. Some say this is an 
important industry making these telephone calls, doing marketing. The 
answer is, sure, it is. It employs people. We are not saying with this 
legislation that you cannot make unsolicited phone calls. We are saying 
the American people, however, have a right to decide they don't want to 
be part of it; I don't want to receive them. This is empowering the 
American people.
  If there are people, as I said, who are lonely, have no one to talk 
to, who sit around all day with a desire to visit with somebody, if 
they want to get these phone calls, God bless them. Let them get the 
phone calls, let them get the credit cards and sign up for multiple 
long-distance services, and let them visit until they are visited out. 
I assume there are a few of those people. But in most cases the 
American people are saying: Put my name on the list. I don't want to be 
interrupted. I don't want unsolicited phone calls, especially during 
mealtime.
  There is this peculiar quality of this industry to call only when 
dinner or supper is ready. Lord only knows how that occurs, but it 
does. So today we have said we are going to authorize this explicitly 
once again, so that this Do Not Call list will not be interrupted. 
People whose names are on that list will be assured they will not 
receive unsolicited calls.
  I say to my colleague, Senator Ensign, I know he is working on this 
issue and has introduced legislation, and my colleague, Senator 
Feinstein, and others--again, we have worked hard on this in the 
Commerce Committee, going back to last July--July 17, at the 
reauthorization hearing I chaired. I will not go through all the 
negotiations that went on with appropriations and the reauthorization, 
but suffice it to say we believed very strongly the FTC should have 
taken the action they did. We provided the funding. We implicitly 
provided authorization for it, and today we are once again 
reauthorizing that which we have previously done just to satisfy some 
court in some corner of America, and in order to give comfort to those 
50 million Americans and the at least 130,000 North Dakotans who have 
said: Take my name off this list. The American people have that right. 
This legislation allows them to keep that right. It is very important.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I thank the cosponsors of our legislation, especially 
my chief cosponsors, Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Dorgan, 
Senator McCain, and Senator DeWine, as well as the 47 original 
cosponsors. I thank them all for being original cosponsors.
  The legislation, however, we are dealing with now is identical 
legislation sent over by the House because of a procedural matter. I am 
very excited that this legislation is going to be

[[Page S11960]]

passed in just a little over an hour from now, because I think this is 
very important legislation just for the peace of mind of a lot of the 
people at home.
  People say, ``Have you heard about this from your constituents?'' A 
lot of people who don't follow politics are talking about this issue in 
the last couple of days. They have talked about it for years, but they 
have heard about it in the news. They are talking about it around the 
water cooler and they are talking about it wherever there is a coffee 
shop, wherever they are, because they want to make sure that on October 
1, when the Do Not Call list is supposed to be starting to be enforced, 
that it actually happens.
  There are over 50 million Americans, as was said, who have signed up 
for this service. I am hazarding a guess, but I would say in the coming 
months there are going to be tens of millions more who will sign up for 
this because so many people don't want to be bothered. As Senator 
Dorgan talked about, the people who don't mind being bothered--for 
them, they don't have to sign up for the Do Not Call list. If they want 
to continue to receive all those offers at home from telemarketers who 
are trying to sell a product--if people want to receive those calls at 
home--I don't, but a lot of people probably want them--it is their 
right to have that coming into their household. I know in our household 
we get bothered by this a lot, and you hate being rude to people when 
they call up on the telephone. Nobody likes to get a call during 
dinner. You happen to have the phone all the way across the room. You 
get up and you walk across the room, and all of a sudden you realize it 
is a telemarketer. You are a little irritated and you don't want to be 
mean, but at the same time you don't want to be bothered. This Do Not 
Call list stops that from happening because the penalties in the Do Not 
Call list legislation are such that these telemarketers are going to 
stop.
  So it is, to me, very exciting that we are actually going to act very 
quickly after what I believe the judge did was wrong. But that is fine; 
the Senate and the House have quickly acted on this bill. We are going 
to make sure there is no question in the court's mind that this bill is 
authorized.
  I will conclude with this, and I will yield 5 minutes to my friend 
from Montana. It is really summed up in the Jerry Seinfeld episode 
where a telemarketer calls him and he asks the telemarketer, ``Can I 
have your phone number?'' The telemarketer says, ``Why?'' Jerry says, 
``Because I want to call you during dinnertime and bother you.'' Of 
course, the telemarketer doesn't want to do that. But that is how 
people feel. They want to call them and bug them to let them know how 
they feel. That is the way people feel all across America.
  It is important that we pass this legislation, and it is great to see 
the bipartisan support for it.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I am 
wondering if the Senator from California wants to speak, if we are 
going back and forth here. I don't want to preempt her.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There is no problem. I merely wanted to thank 
everybody. We heard about this through my Judiciary counsel, who 
follows the courts, and we came to the floor and indicated we were 
going to put this together and we got a number of cosponsors. It was 
really Senator Dorgan who worked out all of the protocols involved.
  I thank the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings, 
for their work on this issue. I didn't realize the depth of involvement 
that had existed. I find the court's decision so out of whack with what 
has happened. So I am very pleased and I thank the Senator from Montana 
for his courtesy.
  I am glad to see that so many of our fellow colleagues, from both 
sides of the aisle, have joined us in this important and urgent effort, 
and that we were able to take up this legislation so quickly, in record 
time. It was only about 24 hours ago that I first raised this issue on 
the Senate floor.
  Our bill is identical in language to the bill introduced in the House 
of Representatives, and we expect one or both of the bills to pass 
today.
  The bill simply confirms what we all already thought was true, that 
the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to implement a ``Do-Not-
Call'' Registry.
  We in Congress must act quickly, because this registry is due to go 
into effect in just 1 week on October 1. Literally tens of millions of 
Americans have registered their phone numbers not to be called by 
telemarketers.
  I have rarely seen an issue where so many millions of Americans have 
made their strong preferences known.
  Are we going to simply tell them that this was all a myth? Or is 
Congress going to act to honor our earlier commitments and to protect 
this important right to privacy? These citizens expect us to act--and I 
believe that the momentum is clearly on our side.
  If allowed to stand, the decision made by an Oklahoma district court 
judge that the National Do-Not-Call-Registry would strike a powerful 
blow against the basic private interests of millions of Americans.
  Right now, these people are subjected to unwanted and annoying 
marketing calls to their homes at all times of the day, including the 
dinner hour.
  According to industry estimates, about 60 million telemarketing calls 
are made daily. With advances in technology and declining telephone 
costs, consumers would face the prospect of an unprecedented barrage of 
calls. And this is why the registry is so important.
  The FTC's registry will give Americans who want to avoid these 
unsolicited sales pitches a chance to stop annoying intrusions into 
their home.
  As we know, tens of millions of Americans have registered more than 
50 million phone numbers for this program. In the end, the Federal 
Trade Commission expects 60 percent of the Nation's households with 
approximately 60 million home phone lines to sign on to the registry.
  This registry is crucial because it puts consumers in charge of the 
number of telemarketing calls they receive. Telemarketers who disregard 
the registry could be fined up to $11,000 per call.
  The Oklahoma district court yesterday ruled that the Do Not Call 
Registry is ``invalid''--that is the word the judge used in his 
decision--because it was created without congressional authority.
  I find this conclusion surprising since Congress passed H.R. 395, the 
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act on February 13 of this year. The 
legislation clearly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Federal Communications Commission to collect fees sufficient to 
implement the registry. And the Appropriations Committee granted $18 
million for the program.
  I also note that the FTC's rule came after an exhaustive comment 
period. The FTC announced its plan to proceed with the registry on 
December 18, 2002, after receiving 64,000 comments. The overwhelming 
majority of these comments favored the creation of the registry.
  Millions of Americans were promised protection from annoying, 
unwanted telemarketing calls starting October 1. They are outraged--and 
so are we--by this setback.
  Congress must move now and unanimously adopt and pass legislation 
which grants the authority to the FTC, clearly and unequivocally--so 
that no Federal judge can misunderstand it.
  Many of us were taken by surprise yesterday, but by putting this 
legislation to a vote now, we are doing the right thing. On October 1, 
let's make sure that the millions of Americans who want their privacy 
protected from these telemarketers are not disappointed.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee and everybody on the committee. You are probably hearing from 
the core of that committee today, reacting to the disappointment that 
we have gotten from the Oklahoma Federal District Court preventing the 
Federal Trade Commission from going forward and implementing the Do Not 
Call list.

[[Page S11961]]

  The Do Not Call legislation turned out to be the most popular and 
probably the most necessary consumer initiative we have ever passed in 
the history of this body. From day one, people started to sign up; that 
was June 26. Up until now--you have heard the figures--over 50 million 
people have registered, and 138,000 of those are in Montana.
  So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that 
in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 16, 650,000 people called 
up. That gives us some idea of how consumers think of these 
telemarketers.
  The ill-considered decision yesterday by the Federal District Court 
in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect 
next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong and its core assumption is 
that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and 
administering the Do Not Call list.
  Let us make it very clear, Congress clearly granted the FTC the 
authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call 
Implementation Act in February of this year. The act gave the agency 
authority to collect fees from telemarketers and to establish and 
enforce the list. In fact, the Omnibus Appropriations Act in February 
also authorized the FTC to enforce the Do Not Call list.
  Rather than waiting around for an appeals court to overturn this 
wrongheaded decision, I am certainly glad the Congress has taken action 
very swiftly. It did not take long. In fact, one of my good friends who 
does not serve in this body anymore, who served from North Carolina, 
said this is almost a june bug issue, and it really is. We do not have 
to put Americans through unwarranted intrusions into their lives by 
telemarketing, and so we will pass this today.
  I tell my good friend from North Dakota, my wife has it all figured 
out about telemarketers. We both may be home; the call comes in: Is Mr. 
Burns there? She says: I will call him--whether I am there or not. She 
lays the phone down and goes off and leaves it until we hear the little 
disconnect: ``If you are trying to place a call, please hang up and try 
again.'' So that is our attitude towards that.
  By any estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls 
daily. The implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these 
calls by almost 80 percent, and those are figures that are out now. So 
if they do not get the message by talking to a telephone that does not 
have an ear on the other end of it, then we will take care of it this 
way.
  People are rightly sick and tired of this endless interruption into 
their private lives. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I thank my good friend from Nevada for allowing me this time, and 
Senator Dorgan and the chairman of the full committee for acting this 
swiftly, because this takes care of it.
  Let's make no bones about it, they clearly had the authority. They 
clearly had the funds to implement it. We gave it to them in 
appropriations and we gave them the authority this year. The 
telemarketers did not choose to abide by that law. So I heartily 
commend my good friends for offering this legislation.
  By the way, if I am not on the list, you may put me on the list.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Inouye as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was just recollecting, as the Senator from Montana was 
speaking, telemarketing is, of course, a legitimate business. It is an 
important business in many respects. But the point that my colleague, 
Senator Ensign, made is the American people also have their right, and 
their right is to put their name on a list to say, I do not want 
unsolicited calls.
  They call almost everyone. I received a call some long while ago from 
a telemarketer. I answered the phone, and the telemarketer said: May I 
speak to Haley Dorgan please? I could tell immediately it was a 
telemarketer. I said: You could, but I do not think she is going to buy 
anything. She is 4 years old.
  They get lists and they just blizzard the country with telephone 
calls to young and old. It is indiscriminate, and that is why this 
fervor has grown in this country to do something about giving the 
American people the right to say they do not want these unsolicited 
calls. That is what this legislation will do.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Yesterday, a Federal judge in Oklahoma voided the Federal 
Trade Commission's national Do Not Call list that was set to go into 
effect next week. This action frustrates the wishes of more than 48 
million Americans who have signed up for the list.
  I am pleased that we will overturn that judge's questionable decision 
today. Americans have spoken very clearly on this issue and it is our 
responsibility to respond. Though a judge ruled that the FTC lacked 
congressional authority to create this national Do Not Call Registry, I 
strongly disagree and believe that earlier this year Congress 
explicitly granted the Commission both the authority and the funding to 
create the registry.
  Indeed, absent congressional action, the FTC's Do Not Call initiative 
would have failed to become a reality this year. I discussed the matter 
with FTC Chairman Tim Muris at a hearing before the Antitrust 
Subcommittee last September. He asked me for help in getting 
congressional authority in order to raise fees necessary to implement 
the Do Not Call list. We were able to grant the Commission this 
authority in the consolidated appropriations resolution which passed in 
February of this year. We further authorized the FTC's list in the Do 
Not Call Implementation Act on March 11, 2003.
  These actions more than authorized the FTC's rulemaking in my view. 
That said, this bill will make it crystal clear that Congress endorses, 
supports, and authorizes the FTC to create a national Do Not Call 
Registry.
  I commend the FTC's hard work to create a national Do Not Call list. 
Such action was long overdue. The deluge of telemarketing sales calls 
is the number one consumer complaint in this country. It is a problem 
that has gotten out of control. The average American receives two to 
three telemarketing calls per day. Some estimate that the telemarketing 
industry is able to make 560 calls per second or roughly 24 million 
calls per day. No wonder people feel like they are under siege in their 
own home.
  Wisconsin recently implemented a similar, statewide Do Not Call list 
last year. During the first 3-month registration period, more than 2 
million residents placed their phone numbers on the list, which is 40 
percent of Wisconsin's population. Such a positive response demands 
further action at the Federal level. That is why we in Congress acted 
earlier this year to ensure that the FTC's Do Not Call list became a 
reality. Should we need to do more to overcome a court's objections, we 
can and shall do it today. Providing consumers the option to stop 
telemarketing calls is something on which we can all agree.
  Given the enormous response of nearly 50 million Americans who have 
signed up in less than 3 months, the Do Not Call list is clearly 
needed. Though I am troubled by the court's decision, we can set the 
record straight and authorize the FTC's action. I urge quick passage of 
this legislation so that the Do Not Call list can start up as scheduled 
on October 1, 2003.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Nevada has time he 
wants to consume, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. 
Pryor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work 
on this issue. It is a very important issue for people all across the 
country.
  Yesterday, I received the news that the Federal court in Oklahoma had 
decided that we had no authority over the Federal Do Not Call list.
  I must tell you that as a United States Senator and as a former 
attorney general and as a lawyer and just as a citizen, I have all the 
respect in the world for our Federal courts and our judges and our 
legal system. I just happen to think they were wrong in this ruling.
  At the same time, I am proud to join with my colleagues, both in the 
Senate and in the House, in efforts to try to

[[Page S11962]]

make sure the courts understand that very clearly there is authority 
for the Federal Trade Commission to establish a National Do Not Call 
list.
  I think it is very clear that the people have spoken on this issue. 
Back in February of this year, the Congress passed what we thought was 
the authorization and the funding for Do Not Call. Then, just a few 
weeks later, President Bush signed it into law.
  I know a lot of people have been sharing their stories about 
telemarketers. I can tell you from firsthand experience, from back in 
1998 when I traveled the State of Arkansas extensively, running for 
attorney general--that is what I did before I was elected to this 
august body--everywhere I went, it seemed as though every community I 
went into, every group I talked to, it didn't matter who they were, 
what they had on their mind, they wanted to talk about telemarketing. 
They would say: Please, is there anything you can do to have these 
telemarketers stop calling us?
  I said: Yes. We in Arkansas had one of the first--not the very first 
but one of the first--State do not call systems that we passed in 1999. 
It had very few exceptions to it. It was something we were proud of. We 
had to charge $5 because, where Congress appropriated some dollars for 
this Federal system, we did not have a State legislative appropriation 
for our State system. But regardless of that, even though we charged 
for it, we had thousands upon thousands of Arkansans sign up for our 
State do not call system.
  I tell you, everywhere I go in Arkansas today, people still thank me 
for the State's do not call system.
  One thing we learned during that process was that for most people, 
telemarketers' calls are an annoyance. People get tired of being 
bothered during dinnertime, when they are trying to do the homework 
with the children, when they are trying to put the kids down--whatever 
the case may be. But for some Americans, a small percentage, 
telemarketing also has the element of fraud to it.
  Many people in this country--mostly seniors but not all, but many 
people in this country are taken advantage of via the telephone. If you 
look at the FBI statistics--I haven't seen the most recent round, but I 
was familiar with them in my 4 years in the attorney general's office--
it is a small percentage of fraud, but let me tell you, it is a lot of 
dollars every single year. It is millions upon millions of dollars that 
are swindled away from people by use of the telephone.
  I want to touch on something that Senator Dorgan said a few moments 
ago. The telemarketing industry is not evil. They are just doing their 
job. We understand that. We appreciate that. It is a legitimate 
industry. It is an industry that has a lot of hard-working people in 
it. They do a lot of great things. We are not critical of the industry 
per se.

  We know there are some bad actors out there. I think a National Do 
Not Call program will help clear up those bad actors, just like we have 
been able to do on a State-by-State basis, when the States pass these 
kinds of provisions.
  But telemarketing is, for many Americans, an annoyance that they just 
do not want to have. After all, we are talking about the privacy of 
people's homes. They should be able to have some control over the types 
of calls they get.
  If they get solicitations, if they don't want those, there should be 
some mechanism where they can shut those off on the front end. That is 
what the Federal Do Not Call program will do. That is why I think you 
have seen so many people in the House and in the Senate come to the 
respective floors today and argue that we should take this step that we 
are about to take today.
  One last point. In the last few weeks, ever since it was announced 
with toll-free numbers and Web sites that there would be a Federal Do 
Not Call program, and how to sign up, et cetera, there have been about 
50 million phone numbers added to this list. That is an amazing number. 
Fifty million Americans can't be wrong.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added 
as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Might I just in less than a minute say we have not 
mentioned on the Senate floor, and we should, that the Federal 
Communications Commission took action that was complementary and action 
that coordinates with the Federal Trade Commission because action was 
needed by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to common 
carriers in areas under their jurisdiction to also create a do not call 
list, which is expansive.
  So while I, with some of my colleagues, have been critical of the 
Federal Communications Commission on other issues on the Senate floor 
in recent weeks, I did want to say that the Federal Communications 
Commission deserves our plaudits and deserves credit for moving very 
quickly to fill in a gap with respect to a do not call list. All of our 
discussion is about the Federal Trade Commission, but, again, I think 
the Federal Trade Commission has contributed substantially, and I 
compliment them for that, with the leadership of Michael Powell and all 
the Commissioners.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Don Nickles be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes 
talking a little more about this legislation. First of all, this chart 
that we have in back of us--this graphs the calls and online 
registering to the Do Not Call center. This started June 27, 2003, 
which is the far left side of the graph. In blue or purple there is the 
amount of e-mails that came in, the way the people registered on line.
  In the middle is 1-888-382-1222, the telephone number. About 11 
million came in there. In the yellow at the bottom which started in 
July, about 8.5 million people came in. Those were numbers that came in 
from the States.
  There are over 31 million people just since June 27 who have 
registered online. So we see, for a total of a little over 50 million 
people, how rapidly people have signed up to say we do not want to 
receive telemarketing phone calls.
  The key is people are saying we don't want to be bothered. Part of 
freedom, it seems to me, is the freedom from being bothered by people 
when you are in your own home. Telemarketers contend that, just as if 
they are sending mail, somebody who is sending mail to somebody's home, 
they have the right to call somebody in their home.
  The American people are saying no; we don't want to receive those 
phone calls. Mail they can just glance at and throw away. They don't 
actually have to get on the telephone and speak to somebody. 
Telemarketers require somebody to pick up the phone. If it is ringing, 
you have to go because you don't want to miss an important phone call. 
Maybe your kids are out or something, you don't want to miss 
an important phone call, and it turns out to be a telemarketer.

  Nowadays, because of answering machines, you have a situation where 
you come home and it says: Hi, this is Fred--or this is Lisa or whoever 
it is. Please give me a call my number is, and you don't know who it 
is.
  Then you call the number back and you find out it is a telemarketer. 
So you have just now wasted the time listening to the message, and you 
have wasted the time making the telephone call.
  So we have people stealing valuable time, and time is our most 
precious commodity. That is why so many people want to sign up for the 
Do Not Call list.
  We want to remind people--and I think this is going to happen a lot--
that the telephone number is 1-888-382-1222. That is the number that 
people will be able to call, and can call today to sign up for when 
this goes into effect on October 1. They just call up, very simple, add 
their name, give them their telephone number, add it to the list.
  If they want to register on line, it is on the World Wide Web, 
donotcall.gov. It is all small letters. They go on there, they sign up, 
put their telephone numbers in, and they are added to the list.

[[Page S11963]]

It is simple for people to do. I think the simplicity is why it has 
been so wildly successful up to this point.
  On October 1, when it goes into effect, that is when people will 
start having some peace of mind at home. At a time where families need 
more time together, they need more time to talk, I think it is 
important, especially around dinnertime when there are so many 
distractions--that is a prime time for telemarketers to call, at dinner 
time. Families don't have enough time together as it is now. I think to 
have those distractions around dinnertime is even more disruptive of 
that important family time.
  We need to encourage families to be together. This certainly will 
result in fewer interruptions around the dinner table. That is why I so 
strongly support the legislation and why I sponsored this legislation 
to repeal what the Federal judge did in Oklahoma.
  I don't currently see anyone who wishes to speak. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address 
the judicial action that would temporarily prevent the National Do Not 
Call Registry from going into effect.
  This privacy-oriented program was recently implemented by the Federal 
Trade Commission and was supposed to go into effect by October 1. That 
is just about a week away.
  I am proud to join my colleague from Nevada, the ranking member of 
the Commerce Committee, Senator Ensign, in cosponsoring this bill. This 
bill ratifies the authority of the FTC to establish the National Do Not 
Call Registry and allows the program to go into effect as drafted by 
the FTC.
  As you may or may not know, Alaska is about a 4-hour time difference 
from Washington, DC. It seems like just about my dinner hour in Alaska 
when telemarketers throughout the country get kicked into full gear. I 
know when my family and I are interrupted at the dinner table by these 
calls, we feel invaded. I can only imagine that my other friends and 
neighbors are equally upset. Sometimes we are outraged that our right 
to privacy is invaded every night when we are sitting down to have 
dinner with our families. Our lives are busy enough throughout the day 
with work, school, homework, and just catching up with one another and 
preparing for the next day. The last thing in the world we want when we 
sit down for the quiet time is to be interrupted by the telemarketing 
company that believes it is their right to disturb us during our few 
minutes of family time.
  Those who seek to stop the implementation of this program assert that 
they are protected by the right to free speech. I say it is the people 
who have the right to decide that they do not want to be hounded by 
telemarketers and those who would interrupt the sanctity of their 
homes.

  The entire purpose of the FTC's National Do Not Call Registry program 
is to allow Americans to opt out of receiving these annoying phone 
calls. In my judgment, the court's decision to stop this program tilts 
the privacy rights out of balance in favor of those telemarketing 
companies.
  In June, the Anchorage Daily News--which is my hometown newspaper--
published an editorial supporting the National Do Not Call Registry. 
They wrote about an Alaskan by the name of Ron Hammett who says he 
sometimes gets two or three calls a day. Mr. Hammett is a 76-year-old 
retiree who spent more than 2 hours waiting to get through the 
registration process once the FTC rule came out. Now he is going to 
wake up today--or he woke up this morning--to find out that his time 
and the time of many other Alaskans was wasted.
  In just a few short months since the FTC adopted these rules, nearly 
50 million people have registered to stop these phone calls.
  My State of Alaska has its own do not call program that was created 
in 1996--it is called the Black Dot Program--which allows telephone 
subscribers to elect to have a black dot placed next to their name in 
the Alaska phone books.
  A computerized version of the list is made available to the 
telemarketers, but the problem is they are not required to use it. If 
they call any telephone customer with a black dot next to his or her 
name, they are subject to a fine of up to $5,000, whether the 
telemarketer uses the list or not.
  The problem with Alaska's statute is that there has been only one 
complaint filed since it was implemented. Most of the telemarketers are 
located outside the State of Alaska, and the State law doesn't have the 
teeth that the FTC rule contains to go after these outside groups. 
Alaskans, quite honestly, are looking forward to the implementation of 
this FTC rule to give them the peace and the quiet they have sought for 
so long. We need this FTC rule to protect our citizens and their 
privacy.
  Americans have spoken. They don't like to be disturbed by unwanted 
and harassing phone calls from people selling products over the phone. 
Through this legislation we can have that peace and privacy within our 
own homes.
  I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. I hope the body will act 
quickly on this measure. I am very pleased to see us moving so rapidly 
at this point.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor 
be added as a cosponsor to S. 1655.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Yes. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from New 
York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. In my time in the 
Senate, I have never seen legislation move so quickly through the House 
and Senate for any issue.
  Why? There are three reasons. The first is, of course, the need for 
this legislation. Fifty million people have signed up on a registry and 
are expecting it to work October 1. We should fulfill those 
expectations. None of us, me included, because this has happened to my 
family when we sit down to dinner all the time, hopping up and down 
like jackrabbits to answer the phone and then hear someone on the phone 
trying to sell you something. It drives you crazy. No. 1 is the need.
  No. 2 is the fact the court decision was so goofy. The bottom line 
is, if you read the legislative language, if you read the statutes, in 
my judgment, there is no question we granted authority. I think the 
judge went out of his way to try to throw out this list. This may be an 
example of judges making law rather than interpreting law that we have 
talked about for so long. On this, we all agree that we do not want the 
judge making law, particularly making law that so goes against the will 
of this Congress and the American people.
  The bottom line is, our intent was clear from the language of the 
February 13, 2003, statute called the Do Not Call Implementation Act. I 
cannot understand how a court would conclude Congress would have 
directed the FTC to implement the registry if it had not assumed that 
it had authorized the FTC to make the registry, either in previous law 
or through the implementation act itself.
  If this were not enough to demonstrate Congress's intent on this 
issue, on February 20, 2003, the Omnibus Appropriations Act was signed 
into law which authorized the FTC to ``implement and enforce the do not 
call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Act.''
  That is as clear as the nose on your face. The court's decision is 
based on an overly technical view that ignores the clear intent of 
Congress. So the second reason we are moving so quickly is this law was 
so poorly interpreted by the judge.

[[Page S11964]]

  The third is this has a consensus behind it. It is needed. There are 
a lot of laws that are needed but do not have a consensus. It was 
thrown out by a court in a strange decision. There is almost a 
universal consensus that this is the right thing to do.
  The telemarketing industry feels badly about this. I understand there 
are many people who work in this industry. They are going to have to 
find a way to telemarket--which is a good thing when people want 
telemarketing--they will have to refine their processes. I would not 
mind refining this list and allowing people to file, if we could 
technically, to say I only want to get calls about mortgages or I only 
want to get calls about garden tools, but not to subject everyone to 
answer the phone, particularly at dinner time and evening time when the 
family is home alone and relaxing. This has happened in my family. It 
does not make any sense.
  It is a good law. I wish there were more days in Congress that we do 
important things in a bipartisan way without tarrying. Let's savor it 
while we can.
  I make one additional point. This approach can also work for another 
problem facing American consumers very similar to the annoying 
telemarketing call: e-mail spam. As in telemarketing calls, spam 
traffic is also growing at a geometric rate. It has become more than an 
annoyance. It is now a real danger to the future of the e-mail part of 
the Internet. Fifty percent of all e-mail is spam. What was a simple 
annoyance last year has become a major concern this year and could 
cripple one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century next year if 
nothing is done. We should be doing the same thing against spam.

  Admittedly, it is easier to cut off a telemarketer than a spammer, 
but the same basic concept applies and the telemarketing provisions 
worked. The anti-e-mail spam provisions are the best we have to deal 
with spam right now.
  This morning the Judiciary Committee passed the Criminal Spam Act of 
2003. I was proud to cosponsor that along with my colleagues, Senator 
Hatch and Senator Leahy. For the first time that will criminalize some 
of the spammer's favorite tricks. Those that repeatedly use predatory 
practices to evade filtering software will face stiff punishment, 
including the potential of jail time, but we should add the registry to 
those provisions. I did not do that in committee today, but I hope we 
can do it on the floor when it comes forward.
  A spam registry such as the Do Not Call Registry has broad consumer 
support. It has bipartisan support. Senator Graham of South Carolina 
and I are the lead sponsors. The registry provides parents with the 
unique opportunity to register their children's e-mail addresses to 
prevent unwanted advertisements that go to our children for pornography 
and lots of things the kids should not see.
  I commend my colleagues for moving so quickly to defend consumers 
against unwanted telemarketing calls. Fifty million people cannot be 
wrong. I hope we will do the same and move with the same speed and 
urgency when we deal with e-mail spam and create an anti-e-mail spam 
registry as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we all know that fraud can be very much a 
problem when it comes to telemarketing, but we also know a Do Not Call 
registry is a very positive consumer tool against fraud. By that I mean 
if you signed up for the National Do Not Call plan and you still get a 
call, you know something is up. That ought to be your first tip that 
something may be amiss with this call. This is another reason I thank 
my friend from New York for his very wise comments.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator yielding 
to me. We are in the position of being able to yield back all of our 
time except 6 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask 
unanimous consent that following the next vote on passage of the Do Not 
Call legislation, the Senate immediately proceed to executive session 
and two consecutive votes on the following nominations on today's 
Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 359 and 360.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the second 
and third vote; further, that following the votes, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield back all time on our side.
  Mr. REID. As soon as Senator Dodd arrives, we will use the remainder 
of our time. We have been told he is on his way--from where, we do not 
know.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on our side to 
Senator Dodd from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut has 6 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am confident my colleague from North 
Dakota will probably want to use 5 minutes of that 6 minutes. He 
probably has not exhausted every thought on the subject matter. I will 
be happy to yield back some of my time to him.
  I wish to add my voice and thanks to the managers of this proposal 
and to commend the other body for their efforts in acting as quickly as 
they have on the subject matter. I am familiar enough with it because I 
introduced legislation about 2 years ago in this area. Connecticut was 
one of the early States--I know there have been a number of States that 
have adopted a do not call list--to adopt a do not call list in the 
year 2000. In December 2001, I introduced a bill very similar to the 
one Connecticut has produced. Either since then or before then, other 
States--including Alabama, Alaska, the home of the distinguished 
Senator Murkowski, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, and 
others--have also enacted legislation.
  This is a very positive outcome. Clearly, what has happened is, as we 
are talking about the use of the telephone, the telemarketing idea, 
America has phoned in and said to please give them some relief. We just 
would like a few minutes of privacy and quiet. It is hard enough to get 
a family together with all the pressures on them today. When you might 
just be able to get them to sit down for a meal, that phone starts 
ringing. What they are saying is: Give me the choice of saying I don't 
want to be bothered and buy this. They ought to have that right.
  The obvious problem with this bill--I say it is a problem, but I am 
confident we can correct it; it is the difference between the bill I 
introduced several years ago and the one before us today--is the 
loophole that allows any prior business relationship to be an exception 
to the otherwise clear prohibition supported by this legislation.
  As was pointed out in one news account in the last day or so, there 
has been a tremendous surge of telemarketing in the last number of 
weeks by businesses trying to establish a ``prior business 
relationship'' with a customer base in this country which would then 
allow them to become part of the exception even under this legislation.

  The point I am making is, even though we will pass this bill--and I 
am very glad we are doing so; again, I commend the authors for moving 
as rapidly as they are on this legislation--we have not heard the end 
of this issue. There are going to be people coming back, once they 
discover that any prior business relationship pretty much will allow 
the exception to occur, which means you will have that phone continue 
to ring. And I presume they are going to be asking us to come back and 
even close the loophole down further.
  Much as we have in Connecticut and as other States are doing this. As 
I've

[[Page S11965]]

said, Connecticut has enacted legislation and the bill I introduced 
mirrors my State's efforts in that regard.
  Justice Brandeis said it so eloquently years and years ago, as he 
always could, this wonderful, brilliant mind of a Supreme Court 
Justice. He always had the ability of taking a difficult concept and 
simplifying it in terms that were so understandable by everyone. He 
said: Privacy is nothing more than the simple right to be left alone. 
That is what we are really talking about. He couldn't have imagined, 
when he said that, the technology that would make it possible for 
telemarketing to occur. But the right to be left alone is really at the 
heart of what we are talking about--the right to say to someone: You 
don't have the right to call me anytime you want. I should have some 
ability to control that intrusive invasion in the privacy of my 
family's life.
  I am glad the Federal Trade Commission acted. It certainly made a 
difference. But clearly we need to respond to the court's decision in 
this matter, and we are doing that by adopting this legislation.
  I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor. I implore my colleagues 
in their respective committees to take a look at the bill I have 
introduced. I know others have introduced legislation, but take a look 
at this bill. Let's monitor what happens over the coming months to see 
if we are achieving the desired results that this legislation is 
designed to achieve. If not, we may have to go a bit further along the 
lines I have suggested. I am sure others have as well.
  With that, I am pleased to be a part of this effort and congratulate 
the authors of it.
  I yield back the remainder of the time.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Oklahoma declared the Federal Trade 
Commission's national Do-Not-Call registry invalid after concluding 
that the Commission lacked the authority to implement the rule. Today, 
I stand here with my colleagues to set the record straight--H.R. 3161, 
which the House passed earlier this morning by a vote of 412-8, 
provides congressional authorization for the creation and 
implementation of the Do-Not-Call registry.
  The Do-Not-Call registry provides a very important service--
preventing undue intrusions from marketers. Citizens should have the 
right not to be disturbed by unsolicited calls in their own homes and 
the Do-Not-Call registry empowers citizens to stop these calls.
  Support for the registry is unprecedented. To date, after only four 
months, the registry contains over 50 million phone numbers. In Maine 
alone, over 241,000 phone numbers have been registered and this number 
is growing everyday. Ultimately, the Federal Trade Commission expects 
60 percent of the Nation's households to sign onto the registry 
potentially blocking eighty percent of telemarketing calls.
  Specifically, the Federal registry will supplement State Do-Not-Call 
lists. It works by requiring telemarketers to search the registry every 
3 months and synchronize their call lists with the phone numbers on the 
registry. If you don't want to be disturbed by marketing calls, you 
simply register online with the FTC or call a toll free number and 
request that your telephone number be added to the registry. More 
importantly, this law has enforcement power--a telemarketer who 
disregards the national Do-Not-Call registry could potentially be fined 
up to $11,000 for each call.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment 
at the Oklahoma Federal district court decision preventing the Federal 
Trade Commission from going forward on implementing the Do Not Call 
list.
  The Do Not Call list has proven to be one of the most popular and 
necessary consumer initiatives in history. From the day consumers have 
been able to sign up for the Do Not Call list on June 26, over 50 
million Americans have registered, including 138,841 in Montana. So 
urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in 
the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 26, over 650,000 citizens 
added their numbers to the list.
  Yesterday's ill-considered decision by the Federal district court in 
Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next 
Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong in its core assumption that the 
FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the 
Do Not Call list. In fact, Congress clearly granted the FTC the 
authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call 
Implementation Act in February of this year. This act gave the agency 
authority to collect fees from telemarketers to establish and enforce 
the list. The Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized 
the FTC to enforce the do not call provisions.
  Rather than waiting for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded 
decision, we must act quickly so that Americans do not have to suffer 
the needless and unwarranted intrusions into their lives by aggressive 
telemarketing. Unwanted telemarketing calls have reached unacceptable 
levels in our country. By one estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 
105 million calls daily; implementation of the Do Not Call list would 
reduce these calls by almost 80 percent.
  Americans are rightly sick and tired of these endless interruptions 
in their private lives, which often take place during the dinner hour, 
or at times when parents wish to spend uninterrupted quality time with 
their children. By responding rapidly to overturn this reckless and 
sloppy decision by the Oklahoma district court, Congress sends a clear 
message that this destructive hyper-marketing will no longer be 
tolerated. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would 
leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the FTC's authority to maintain 
and implement the Do Not Call Registry.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I was disappointed to learn that early 
this week a Federal district judge issued a ruling to delay the October 
1 implementation of the national Do Not Call Registry.
  Sign-up for the national Do Not Call list began June 27. To date, the 
registry has grown to 50 million Americans who submitted their 
telephone numbers and unequivocally said they do not want to receive 
business solicitation calls.
  There has been near unanimity that the Oklahoma Federal judge simply 
got it wrong when he found that Congress did not give the Federal Trade 
Commission the requisite statutory authority to create and implement a 
nationwide Do Not Call Registry.
  To clarify the matter once and for all, the pending bill explicitly 
authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to compile and implement a Do 
Not Call Registry, pursuant to the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 
Abuse Prevention Act.
  The bill also ratifies the relevant provisions of the Telemarketing 
Sales Rules promulgated by the Commission early this year.
  A nationwide Do Not Call Registry is particularly important to the 
citizens of New Jersey. Although 27 States already have local do not 
call lists, some States, such as my home State of New Jersey, have not 
yet enacted do not call legislation.
  A New Jersey State law is expected to go into effect next spring, but 
the residents of New Jersey and the other 23 States deserve the 
protection that the FTC rule provides.
  The FTC's rules are reasonable. They require telemarketers to check 
the Do Not Call list every 3 months to see who does not want to be 
called. Those who call listed people face fines up to $11,000 for a 
violation. Consumers would be allowed to file complaints to an 
automated phone or online system.
  There are about 166 million residential phone numbers in the United 
States and an additional 150 million cell-phone numbers. The FTC 
expects 60 percent of the Nation's households to sign onto the 
registry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill which ratifies the FTC's Do 
Not Call Registry, permitting implementation of the registry on October 
1.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of this important measure, which will likely pass the House and Senate 
by an overwhelming margin and in record speed. This bill makes it 
perfectly

[[Page S11966]]

clear that the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, has the authority to 
implement and enforce the Do Not Call program that until yesterday's 
court ruling was scheduled to go into effect on October 1. I am usually 
not in favor of quick legislative reaction to lower court decisions. We 
have an appellate process to determine if a lower court is mistaken, as 
this one surely was, and that process serves us well. However, this 
case is different, and I am pleased that this Congress is prepared to 
react so quickly and so decisively.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the FTC has the authority to create 
the Do Not Call program. It is true that the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act, TCPA, passed in 1991, allowed the Federal 
Communications Commission, FCC, not the FTC, to create a national 
database of telephone numbers from Americans who wanted to avoid 
telephone solicitation. But in 1995, in the Telemarketing and Consumer 
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, TCFAPA, Congress also directed the FTC 
to establish rules on telemarketing activities. The FCC and the FTC 
have jurisdiction over different telemarketers, so it makes sense that 
there is some overlapping authority.
  The FTC initially promulgated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TSR, 
which contained a variety of restrictions on telemarketing, such as 
prohibiting such calls between the hours of 9 pm and 8 am and requiring 
telemarketers to cease making calls to consumers who specifically 
request not to be contacted again. Complaints about telemarketing 
continued and in 2000, the FTC began a proceeding to consider revisions 
to the TSR. That led to the adoption of the national Do Not Call 
Registry. The FTC announced the final rule on December 18, 2002.
  Just a few months ago, in March 2003, Congress passed and the 
President signed Do Not Call Implementation Act, DNCIA. That statute 
authorized the FTC to collect fees sufficient to create and administer 
the database. The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed a month 
earlier also authorized the FTC to collect fees for the enforcement and 
implementation of the program, estimated at $18.1 million for fiscal 
year 2003. With this history, it is as clear as day that Congress has 
at least ratified the FTC's view of its statutory authority to create 
the Do Not Call list. Simply put, the district court decision yesterday 
was wrong.
  Mr. President, the public response and support for the Do Not Call 
program have been tremendous. Americans have voluntarily registered 
over 50 million phone numbers on the database. They have waited a long 
time for this measure to finally be implemented. Months ago, they began 
adding their phone numbers to the list with the expectation that on 
October 1, finally, the calls would stop. That is why we must act 
decisively to reverse the court decision. It adversely affects millions 
of people. It thwarts a good program that has received overwhelming 
public support and participation. And it ignores clear evidence of 
congressional authorization. Even the few months that it would take to 
reverse the decision, and I am convinced it ultimately would be 
reversed, would be too long. The time has come for the national Do Not 
Call program to go into effect, and for Americans to be able to eat 
dinner or watch TV with their families free of interruptions by 
telephone solicitors. I am proud to support this bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the FTC's authority to establish 
a Do Not Call Registry, I find myself in good and widespread company. 
Many in the Senate, like many of my constituents in Vermont, share the 
frustration that I have with the recent district court decision 
striking down the Do Not Call Registry established at the Federal Trade 
Commission. Apparently we in Congress need to make things a little more 
clear, and this is what we are doing with this legislation: We 
authorize the FTC to set up and operate such a registry.
  Vermont has been a leader in protecting the privacy and peace of its 
households from unwanted telemarketing calls. Federal law currently 
requires individual companies to remove consumers from their calling 
lists if the consumers ask them to do so. There is also a national 
``telephone preference service'' registry to which consumers can submit 
their names and which telemarketers can consult to avoid calling those 
who do not wish to hear from them--but industry compliance is entirely 
voluntary. Two years ago, Vermont enacted a law which gives consumers a 
private right of action against companies that continue to call after 
being requested to cease. Vermonters can also sue if they are called by 
a telemarketer after they have put their name on the national 
``telephone preference service'' registry. The FTC has expressed no 
intention of attempting to pre-empt such state systems, and I hope that 
federal agencies continue to respect the efforts and institutions 
established at the state level. Federal agencies should not be in the 
business of undercutting state efforts that are pursuing these same 
goals.
  Those goals are simple and laudable. People should be able to enjoy 
the peace and quiet of their own homes, undisturbed by unsolicited 
sales calls. Of course, some consumers welcome such calls, and they 
certainly should be able to receive them. But for the thousands of 
Vermonters, and the millions of other Americans, who do not want to 
receive such calls, the FTC's Do Not Call Registry is a long-awaited 
relief. I understand that more than 50 million households have signed 
up, many of them, on-line, to be included in the Do Not Call Registry, 
which is set to begin its operations next week. This is an astonishing 
number of people, and this overwhelming response to the FTC's 
announcement is the best possible affirmation of the need for and of 
the good sense of the plan.
  The Do Not Call Registry should also appeal to enlightened 
telemarketers. They do not, of course, want to waste time and effort 
talking to people who do not wish to hear from them, for whatever 
reason. Once the registry is operational--and I hope that this bill 
will meet with speedy approval and make that so--telemarketers will be 
able to focus their resources, their time and personnel, on the 
households for which they provide a useful service. Consumers will be 
better served, the companies seeking to make sales will be better off, 
and telemarketers will be more effective for both their corporate 
clients and the potential customers they contact.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, H.R. 
3161. The national Do Not Call Registry is a sensible way to protect 
the privacy of the American people. It deserves our support, and it 
deserves this effort to allow the registry to begin serving the public.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 3161) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 365 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici

[[Page S11967]]


     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The bill (H.R. 3161) was passed.

                          ____________________