Do-Not-Call Registry
DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY
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.
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 telemarketwhich is a good thing when people want telemarketingthey 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.