[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H588-H591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY FEE EXTENSION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the Senate bill (S. 781) to extend the authority of the Federal Trade 
Commission to collect Do-Not-Call Registry fees to fiscal years after 
fiscal year 2007.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                 S. 781

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Do-Not-Call Registry Fee 
     Extension Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FEES FOR ACCESS TO REGISTRY.

       Section 2, of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C. 
     6101 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. TELEMARKETING SALES RULE; DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY 
                   FEES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall 
     assess and collect an annual fee pursuant to this section in 
     order to implement and enforce the `do-not-call' registry as 
     provided for in section 310.4(b)(1)(iii) of title 16, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, or any other regulation issued by the 
     Commission under section 3 of the Telemarketing and Consumer 
     Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102).
       ``(b) Annual Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall charge each person 
     who accesses the `do-not-call' registry an annual fee that is 
     equal to the lesser of--
       ``(A) $54 for each area code of data accessed from the 
     registry; or
       ``(B) $14,850 for access to every area code of data 
     contained in the registry.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Commission shall not charge a fee to 
     any person--
       ``(A) for accessing the first 5 area codes of data; or
       ``(B) for accessing area codes of data in the registry if 
     the person is permitted to access, but is not required to 
     access, the `do-not-call' registry under section 310 of title 
     16, Code of Federal Regulations, section 64.1200 of title 47, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, or any other Federal regulation 
     or law.
       ``(3) Duration of access.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall allow each person 
     who pays the annual fee described in paragraph (1), each 
     person excepted under paragraph (2) from paying the annual 
     fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under 
     section 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) of title 16, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, to access the area codes of data in the `do-not-
     call' registry for which the person has paid during that 
     person's annual period.
       ``(B) Annual period.--In this paragraph, the term `annual 
     period' means the 12-month period beginning on the first day 
     of the month in which a person pays the fee described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Additional Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall charge a person 
     required to pay an annual

[[Page H589]]

     fee under subsection (b) an additional fee for each 
     additional area code of data the person wishes to access 
     during that person's annual period.
       ``(2) Rates.--For each additional area code of data to be 
     accessed during the person's annual period, the Commission 
     shall charge--
       ``(A) $54 for access to such data if access to the area 
     code of data is first requested during the first 6 months of 
     the person's annual period; or
       ``(B) $27 for access to such data if access to the area 
     code of data is first requested after the first 6 months of 
     the person's annual period.
       ``(d) Adjustment of Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 2009.--The dollar amount described in 
     subsection (b) or (c) is the amount to be charged for fiscal 
     year 2009.
       ``(B) Fiscal years after 2009.--For each fiscal year 
     beginning after fiscal year 2009, each dollar amount in 
     subsection (b)(1) and (c)(2) shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(i) the dollar amount in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(2), 
     whichever is applicable, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for the 
     most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds 
     the baseline CPI.
       ``(2) Rounding.--Any increase under subparagraph (B) shall 
     be rounded to the nearest dollar.
       ``(3) Changes less than 1 percent.--The Commission shall 
     not adjust the fees under this section if the change in the 
     CPI is less than 1 percent.
       ``(4) Publication.--Not later than September 1 of each year 
     the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     adjustments to the applicable fees, if any, made under this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) CPI.--The term `CPI' means the average of the monthly 
     consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by 
     the Department of Labor).
       ``(B) Baseline CPI.--The term `baseline CPI' means the CPI 
     for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008.
       ``(e) Prohibition Against Fee Sharing.--No person may enter 
     into or participate in an arrangement (as such term is used 
     in section 310.8(c) of the Commission's regulations (16 
     C.F.R. 310.8(c))) to share any fee required by subsection (b) 
     or (c), including any arrangement to divide the costs to 
     access the registry among various clients of a telemarketer 
     or service provider.
       ``(f) Handling of Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The commission shall deposit and credit 
     as offsetting collections any fee collected under this 
     section in the account `Federal Trade Commission--Salaries 
     and Expenses', and such sums shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(2) Limitation.--No amount shall be collected as a fee 
     under this section for any fiscal year except to the extent 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.''.

     SEC. 3. REPORT.

       Section 4 of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C. 
     6101 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Biennial Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2009, 
     and biennially thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission, in 
     consultation with the Federal Communications Commission, 
     shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce that includes--
       ``(1) the number of consumers who have placed their 
     telephone numbers on the registry;
       ``(2) the number of persons paying fees for access to the 
     registry and the amount of such fees;
       ``(3) the impact on the `do-not-call' registry of--
       ``(A) the 5-year reregistration requirement;
       ``(B) new telecommunications technology; and
       ``(C) number portability and abandoned telephone numbers; 
     and
       ``(4) the impact of the established business relationship 
     exception on businesses and consumers.
       ``(b) Additional Report.--Not later than December 31, 2009, 
     the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the 
     Federal Communications Commission, shall transmit a report to 
     the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce that includes--
       ``(1) the effectiveness of do-not-call outreach and 
     enforcement efforts with regard to senior citizens and 
     immigrant communities;
       ``(2) the impact of the exceptions to the do-not-call 
     registry on businesses and consumers, including an analysis 
     of the effectiveness of the registry and consumer perceptions 
     of the registry's effectiveness; and
       ``(3) the impact of abandoned calls made by predictive 
     dialing devices on do-not-call enforcment.''.

     SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.

       The Federal Trade Commission may issue rules, in accordance 
     with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as necessary 
     and appropriate to carry out the amendments to the Do-Not-
     Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 note) made by this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the bill we are considering on the House floor today, 
which is Senate 781, the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act, is 
identical to H.R. 2601, which was introduced by my friend Mr. Stearns, 
the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and 
Consumer Protection.
  On December 11 of last year, the House passed H.R. 2601 by voice 
vote, and I urge similar swift passage of S. 781 today.
  Madam Speaker, this bill extends the authority of the Federal Trade 
Commission to collect the fees that administer and enforce the 
provisions relating to the national do-not-call registry. In 2003, 
Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, which authorized 
the FTC to establish fees
sufficient to implement the national do-not-call registry as originally 
authorized by the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention 
Act of 1994. As has been said on numerous occasions, this initiative 
has proven to be one of the most popular laws in history. Consumers 
have registered more than 145 million telephone numbers since the 
registry became operational in 2003. The FTC's authority to annually 
establish the appropriate level of fees to charge telemarketers for 
access to the registry expired several months ago, in 2007, and S. 781 
restores that authority and renders it permanent. I will restate what I 
said back in December when we considered this legislation on the House 
floor. As Members of Congress, it is in our best interest to swiftly 
pass this bill in order to avoid the wrath of millions of angry 
constituents who are being called by telemarketers during dinner time. 
We need to facilitate the continuing operation of the do-not-call 
registry and vote for this bill.
  As a result of an agreement reached with the chairman of the Senate 
Commerce Committee, we are sending to the President's desk for his 
signature the Senate-passed version of the bill introduced by Senator 
Pryor. However, Senator Pryor's bill is identical to Mr. Stearns' bill, 
and my friend from Florida deserves all the credit for this fine piece 
of legislation. As is the case with the vast majority of bills passed 
out of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, of 
which I serve, this is a bipartisan measure that was crafted in 
consultation with the appropriate agency of expertise, in this case, 
the Federal Trade Commission. The original House bill passed the 
subcommittee by voice vote on October 23, and a week later on October 
30 was unanimously approved in the full Energy and Commerce Committee. 
Majority and minority committee staff worked together on this bill. I 
am so proud of how they worked together. Mr. Stearns, as well as the 
ranking member, Mr. Barton of Texas, who is the ranking member of the 
full committee, should both be commended for their cooperation with 
Chairman John Dingell and Chairman Bobby Rush. I also would like to 
congratulate and welcome the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield) as the new ranking member of the subcommittee on which we 
serve. I am positive that the track record of bipartisan cooperation 
will continue under Mr. Whitfield's leadership. Unfortunately, it is my 
understanding that Mr. Whitfield, I looked forward to seeing him on the 
floor today, but he is currently in Kentucky dealing with the 
frightening devastation wrought by last night's tornadoes. Our thoughts 
and prayers go out to him and his constituents and all those who were 
adversely affected by this tragedy, not only in that State but in other 
States as well.

[[Page H590]]

  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me thank, first of all, the discerning, clairvoyant, highly 
observant and eloquent statements from the gentleman from North 
Carolina for his kindness in recognizing that it is, indeed, my bill. I 
appreciate his very eloquent statement.
  Mr. Whitfield was supposed to be here, but, of course, with the 
tornadoes, he cannot be here. He flew back to Kentucky to take care of 
his constituents, so he is to be commended for that.
  But I rise today also in support of this bill, which is my bill which 
came through my subcommittee, the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension 
Act of 2007. The Senate bill is 781.
  As pointed out, this bill is identical to H.R. 2601 which I 
introduced and which passed this Chamber by voice vote under suspension 
of the rules on December 11, last year. As the sponsor of the companion 
legislation to the Senate bill and as the former ranking member of the 
committee with jurisdiction over consumer protection, I assured all my 
colleagues that this legislation is necessary and, of course, very 
timely. The gentleman from North Carolina mentioned that it is one of 
the most popular bills we have passed in Congress, and indeed it is.
  I can also assure each of you that it will have an immediate and 
meaningful impact on our constituents, much more so than many of the 
bills that we've passed this year.
  The Congress originally passed the Do-Not-Call Act in 2003 in 
response to the growing concern about the persistent invasion of 
unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers' homes. Now, at that point 
I was chairman of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 
Subcommittee, and I took great pride that our committee came together 
with Jan Schakowsky, who was the ranking member, to put together the 
do-not-call registry. She is to be commended today, too, for her 
support and her enabling of this legislation.
  The idea was very simple: Consumers could place their home phone 
numbers on a list, and telemarketers would then be prohibited from 
making unsolicited phone solicitation. In order to avail themselves of 
the tranquility afforded then by the registry, consumers simply call a 
toll-free number from the telephone line they wish to register, or they 
could add their number via the Internet. Telemarketers then access the 
registry at the Federal Trade Commission to obtain a list of registered 
numbers over the Internet and then remove their numbers from their call 
list. Pretty simple. These telemarketers then pay a simple fee for such 
access. It is those fees that fund the registry, including the 
maintenance and, ultimately, the enforcement of the violators of this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1700

  The program has been a huge success, as the gentleman from North 
Carolina has pointed out, with one recent polling finding there is over 
150 million active telephone numbers on the registry. My colleagues, 
that's roughly 70 percent of Americans who avail themselves of the 
registry benefit. That poll also found over 90 percent of those 
registered with the do-not-call list do indeed receive fewer 
unsolicited telemarketing calls.
  The Federal Trade Commission must also be commended for its part in 
making the registry a success. Without vigorous enforcement, a 
prohibition would be meaningless. Consumers who receive unwanted 
telemarketing calls log complaints via either a toll-free telephone 
number or the Internet. As a result, the commission has pursued 35 
cases for violations of this do-not-call provision in the bill and has 
collected $25 million combined in civil penalties and equitable relief.
  Unfortunately, the commission's authority to collect the fees 
necessary to maintain the registry expired last September. This 
legislation restores the commission's authority to collect the 
necessary fees to maintain and simply update the registry in a timely 
manner. Further, this act provides businesses with certainty into the 
future regarding the fees they pay to access the registry.
  So, my colleagues, while this bill sets specific access fees, it also 
ensures Congress will receive the information necessary to assess in 
the future whether those fees are simply sufficient and appropriate. 
The Senate bill requires the Federal Trade Commission and the SEC to 
submit two reports to Congress biennially. One report shall include 
information regarding basic registry statistics such as the number of 
consumers registered, number of persons paying for access, and the 
impact of new telecommunications technology on the registry. The second 
report addresses consumer reports of abuse of registry exceptions, 
including the recent reports of ``lead generators,'' unsolicited 
mailers, and we've all gotten those unsolicited mailers through the 
mail, used to establish a business relationship. Then once that 
business relationship is established, they can come back and call you 
or otherwise they trick you into answering these little lead 
generators. And most frequently the people who do answer them are 
seniors, who are very conscientious, and then that, in fact, involves 
waiving their do-not-call protections. As time passes and people think 
of new ways to circumvent these protections, we will want to ensure we 
have the necessary information to keep pace with these folks that are 
trying to trick our constituents, thereby protecting their original 
intent of the do-not-call registry.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, many of our constituents still express 
their gratitude for enacting the original Do-Not-Call Act, simply 
enabling them to make their home hours more peaceful without irritating 
telemarketing interruptions, especially around suppertime. The 
popularity and success of the do-not-call registry is without question. 
It is successful and it is one area in which this Congress has acted in 
a bipartisan fashion, almost unanimously on the House floor with 
approval. So I urge all my colleagues' support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, as pointed out, this has been one of the most popular 
pieces of legislation that we could pass certainly during my short 
tenure in Congress. And, Madam Speaker, I would only point out that 
with a 10 percent approval rating, it is incumbent upon us to continue 
to pass legislation that is indeed popular.
  I am an original cosponsor of the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension 
Act, and as has been pointed out, this bill will extend the Federal 
Trade Commission's authority to collect fees and to administer and 
force the do-not-call registry. This registry is popular. This 
registry's effect has been profound.
  Since the creation of this registry, as we heard testimony in our 
committee as we worked on the bill earlier this year, over 145 million 
telephone numbers have been registered. And as we heard from Ranking 
Member Stearns a little while ago, that number is now up to 150 million 
telephone numbers.
  As the Director of the Federal Trade Commission, Linda Parnes, 
eloquently stated in her testimony before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee last October, the do-not-call registry ``helps to restore the 
sanctity of the American dinner hour.''
  While I firmly believe in a free market and I believe that businesses 
should be able to and should be responsible for formulating their own 
business plans and business practices, I also believe that Americans 
have a right to privacy. People should be able to have the option of 
whether or not they want to receive telephone calls from telemarketers 
in the privacy of their homes. Thanks to the do-not-call registry, 
Americans can sign up and they are afforded this decision and this 
discretion.
  To keep the registry working in the future, it is imperative that we 
act

[[Page H591]]

swiftly and pass this important legislation to further extend the 
protection of privacy for all Americans. As Commissioner Parnes pointed 
out, let's help restore the sanctity of the American dinner hour once 
and for all.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to 
vote ``aye'' on this measure, and let's send it on to the President's 
desk.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 781, the 
``Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act,'' and I urge its swift 
adoption by the House.
  This bill is identical to H.R. 2601, which the House passed on 
December 11, 2007, to extend the authority of the Federal Trade 
Commission to collect fees to administer and enforce the provisions of 
law relating to the ever-popular national Do-Not-Call registry. The 
registry was established by Congress to enable citizens to place their 
personal phone numbers on a list that prohibits unwanted commercial 
solicitations over that number. By any measure, this program has been 
wildly successful--more than 145 million telephone numbers have been 
placed on the list, pesky phone calls from telemarketers have declined, 
and the FTC's enforcement has been vigorous--but the agency's ability 
to collect fees to fund this operation expired after September 2007. 
Therefore, we need to act.
  By agreement with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
we are sending the later Senate-passed bill to the President. At this 
time, I want to commend Representative Stearns, the sponsor of the 
House-passed bill and then Ranking Subcommittee Member, for his 
leadership on this important consumer protection issue. I also commend 
Representative Rush, a cosponsor of the House bill and Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, for 
expeditiously bringing that bill, of which I am the lead Democratic 
sponsor, to the House floor last year. We would not be here today 
without their efforts.
  I would note to the House that, as part of the agreement, the Senate 
today will take up and pass H.R. 3541, legislation also passed by the 
House on December 11, 2007, to eliminate the automatic removal of 
telephone numbers from the registry, thus clearing the bill for the 
President's signature. Current rules provide that telephone numbers be 
removed from the list after 5 years, thus requiring consumers to 
reregister their numbers in order to fend off telemarketing calls. Most 
consumers are unaware of this requirement. This places a particular 
burden on the elderly, the group most often victimized by telemarketing 
frauds. The House-passed bill contains common sense exceptions as well 
as requirements to ensure the accuracy of the list. I thank the Federal 
Trade Commission and the Direct Marketing Association for their 
improvements to the bill, and I commend Representatives Doyle and 
Pickering for their strong bipartisan leadership on this legislation.
  This strong package of bipartisan consumer protection bills will 
serve the American public well, and will stand as a testament to what 
bipartisanship and good will across the Capitol can accomplish.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 781.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________