Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman will yield, this is a civil matter, and the statute did not make this part of the U.S. Criminal Code at all, so this is entirely civil issues that do not fall under the exemption as it is presently written.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further?

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the Chair. Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous-consent agreement, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this should not be a controversial amendment. It exempts from the moratorium the proposed regulations of the Federal Trade Commission to implement the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1994. Republicans strongly supported this bill when it passed last summer. For example, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] said that the telemarketing fraud hurts both consumers and what he called legitimate honest telemarketers. He went on to say, I know that many of our State attorneys general are strongly supportive of this legislation precisely of the enhanced enforcement tools it will make available to them. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] said last summer: It is doubly important that we crack down on deception and fraud--not only to prevent injury to consumers but also to avoid further harm to legitimate businesses. He argued that the bill will vastly reduce the ability of fly-by- night telemarketing scam operators to use State lines as a basis for potential legal sanctuary. With this strong bipartisan support, the bill passed the House in the last Congress by a vote of 411 to 3 and passed the Senate by a voice vote. Numerous congressional hearings over a 7-year period have shown that telemarketing fraud was costing Americans $40 billion a year and that the elderly and small businesses are the principal victims. The hearings also showed that new legal tools were needed to stop this ripoff. The law directs the FTC to issue its final regulations by August 16, 1995. Then the law in a novel approach authorizes State attorneys general as well as the FTC to enforce these Federal regulations. H.R. 450 would seemingly bring a screeching halt to last year's bipartisan effort to stop telemarketing fraud. H.R. 450 prohibits the FTC from issuing a final rule by the statutory deadline of August 16 and even prohibits the FTC from going ahead with analyzing public comments and holding a public hearing on its proposed rule. Section 6(3)(A) of H.R. 450 makes it clear that the moratorium applies both to the issuing of a rule and to any other action taken in the course of the process of rulemaking. This amendment is supported by the Consumer Federation of America, which notes that ``Consumers, particularly senior citizens, often have been the targets for these fraudulent schemes.'' Mr. Chairman, the last Congress spoke clearly and decisively on how to stop telemarketing fraud. There is no support for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have a quick question on the issue of them being exempted. These are not criminal issues, these are civil issues, so it would seem to me they do not fall under the exemption. But I would ask the gentleman from Indiana, who is an expert on H.R. 450, if he could enlighten me.

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, on a number of votes I was unavoidably detained and not available on the floor, I ask that the Record reflect how I would have voted on those. On vote No. 160, I would have voted ``yes.'' Vote No. 161, the Slaughter amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' Vote 162, the Spratt amendment, ``yes.'' The Waxman amendment, vote No. 163, ``yes.'' And the Collins amendment, 164, ``yes.'' And on the Norton amendment, 165, I would have voted ``present.'' I ask that the Record reflect these votes.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do not intend to take up the House's time much further with this. I would like to indicate that telemarketing fraud affects all of our constituents across this country and both small businesses and senior citizens have been the victims of up to the tune of some $40 billion. This has been a matter considered in congressional hearings over a 7- year period. The Congress in both its Houses and by action of the President's signature acted last year. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of this committee, indicated in his initial remarks that he felt that this fell within the exemption. It has now been clarified by the sponsor of H.R. 450 that these regulations do not fall within that exemption and therefore it is up to us as to whether or not we want to make it clear that we want fraud, as it is being so prevalently displayed in the telemarketing field, ended in this country as soon as possible by voting in favor of my amendment and I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give favorable consideration to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the committee. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FATTAH. Fifteen seconds please, only to say that I appreciate the gentleman's candor in indicating that it does not fall under the exemption. I do understand the gentleman's sincere belief, however, that nonetheless it should be opposed. I would hope those who voted in favor, neither you nor I was a Member of the 103d Congress where it passed 411 to 3, which I indicated, would support the action to deal with this issue, and I thank the gentleman from yielding.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thought that there was an order to the proceedings that would have had me recognized next.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first start by asking a parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true as a member of the committee that I would have recognition on the floor in priority order to other Members of the House that are not members of the committee?

Mr. FATTAH. Could the Chair then enlighten this Member and the House as to the ruling previously on the motion to strike the last word?

Mr. FATTAH. The Chair was misinformed. There was an understanding that there would be one pro forma amendment, and that is the nature of the confusion. But I am trying to clarify since this has been a tradition of the House that in the future that with this tradition of honoring some civility on both sides, this would not be in the normal conduct of business that this matter would happen in that way. That is why I am entertaining this parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], for yielding time to me. (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, during the course of our deliberations on this bill, I am going to offer an amendment that would exempt from this moratorium the proposed regulations of the Federal Trade Commission to prevent telemarketing fraud. The Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 was a law that was passed in the last session. That law had broad bipartisan support in the last Congress. It passed in the House by a vote of 411 to 3. It passed the Senate by a voice vote. Numerous congressional hearings over a 7-year period have shown that telemarketing fraud was costing Americans about $40 billion a year and that the elderly and small businesses are the principal victims. The hearings also showed that new legal tools were needed to stop this rip- off. The law directs the FTC to issue its final regulations by August 16, 1995, and then the law, in a novel approach, authorizes State attorneys general as well as the FTC to enforce these Federal regulations. H.R. 450 would bring to a halt this bipartisan effort to stop telemarketing fraud. H.R. 450 prohibits the FTC from issuing a final rule by the statutory deadline of August 16, and it even prohibits the FTC from going ahead with on the proposed rule. Sections 6(3)(A) of H.R. 450 makes it clear that the moratorium applies both to the issuing of a rule and to any other action taken in the course of the process of rulemaking. This amendment should be supported hopefully by both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, the last Congress spoke clearly and decisively on telemarketing fraud. There is no reason for us to put that work on hold. I urge support for this amendment, when it comes up in the debate.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time. It was once suggested that what would it really mean if you won the world and lost your soul. It seems as though the great debate in the majority party's camp has been won by the David Duke faction. Because tonight under the guise of trying to help self-employed individuals, they want to snatch the rug out from up under a program that has been very meaningful for the tens of millions of African-Americans and Hispanic Americans throughout this country. Today in America, there are over 18,655 broadcast licenses for radio, TV, and cable. Out of these 18,000 licenses, 332 are owned by minorities. When this program was put in place in 1978, 0.5 percent of these licenses were owned by minority group members. It is now 3 percent, a sixfold increase. Three percent of the 18,000 licenses, some 300 of them, because we encouraged through the Tax Code a process in which some of the sales of radio and TV stations could move from the old boys' network to a circumstance in which other people in this country could participate. So we have this sneak attack this evening on the floor of the U.S. Congress. I guess even David Duke would not be proud because he was making it very plain about what his position was. I guess now the majority, as the chairman, as the gentleman from New York suggests, is why don't they just be more open about what it is they attempt to do. Their Presidential candidates have suggested that this is going to be a critical issue and they want to win votes by dividing our country. It is an unfortunate hour for this Congress and for our country.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be as concise as possible. The National Justice Institute, which was the subject of some of the discussion earlier, did a study a number of years ago where they sought to identify the correlation between crime, street crime, and drug use and found that in some of our Nation's largest cities that upward of 90 percent of the street crime over the course of their analysis was drug- driven. I think we all understand how the problem of drugs drives up some of the crime issues that we are trying to get at in this legislation and that there is no debate on either side of the aisle about the effectiveness of drug courts, and I would not want us to miss the opportunity. I served on a panel appointed by our State court, along with the bar association, the defenders and others in Pennsylvania, to look at this issue and to move forward on drug court as an alternative to how we have been proceeding. Given the concern that the previous gentleman spoke about in terms of a balanced budget, if we look at the costs of prison construction, law enforcement, we can see that on the prevention side drug courts could actually save us money, and the only thing that I would hasten to add, as I conclude, is that one of the points we have to understand as a body is that on the issue of crime we do not want to have to create a circumstance in which one needs a victim in order for us to do anything, and if we work on the prevention side, we alleviate a great deal of pain, not just for the first-time drug offender, but for all of the victims of what could become a hardened drug user. So, I would ask the house to sincerely and favorably consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to participate in this discussion, but I think it is important that voices be raised on this subject. Seemingly, to me, since I have come to Washington, people have spent a lot of time trying to make simple things complex. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has offered a very simple amendment that says that if there is evidence of innocence that an objective court would consider as a circumstance in which the person would probably be found innocent, then that should allow them an opportunity to bring that matter before the court. We are off talking about how quickly people should be put to death and all these other matters. Now we have the gentleman who just previously spoke talking about aunts and uncles. We should not trivialize the matter of innocence in terms of people who should not be victimized in terms of imprisoned in our land, or suffer the ultimate penalty, the death penalty, if in fact they are innocent. Mr. Chairman, just as the case has been made that there are people who have strung these things out who were obviously guilty, I think that in almost every state of the union we could find examples of people who have been found innocent who have been in prison for long periods of time, and who have been put under the death penalty. Whether we come to the floor and parade horrendous crimes that have been committed on one hand, and people seemingly have not suffered the appropriate punishment, or rather, whether we would take the time and look at the cases of people who have been jailed year in and year out, some for decades, almost lifetimes, who were absolutely innocent, that the same D.A. associations and others would be just as concerned for innocent Americans being wrongfully convicted and being locked out of an opportunity to present their cases to the court. Mr. Chairman, the preamble to our Constitution requires us to, in part, participate in the process of creating a justice system in our land. That is our responsibility. It is not our responsibility to join the mob out in front of the jailhouse asking that someone be hung, or killed that night, before a trial and a jury have found them to be absolutely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Chairman, I would say, finally, being not a lawyer, I am constantly interested in these matters, nonetheless. Reading the trade journal of the American Bar Association in January 1994, January a year ago, there were two interesting articles. One was about a young man in one of our 50 States who was on death row, and because of some procedural circumstances, could not get his case back before the court, who appeared to be innocent based on all of the evidence now available.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I come today just to take this 1 minute to talk to my fellow colleagues here in the Congress and to all those who listen out in the heartland of our Nation about the desire now among many of our leaders to raise the minimum wage. The President of the United States and many Members of this Congress and the vast majority of Americans want to see the minimum wage increased. Now we have heard from the majority that they passed a balanced budget amendment because the majority of the people in our country want that to be passed, and the line-item veto and on and on and on about how this is the people's House, and they are doing what the people want done. Well, the vast overwhelming majority of Americans have now made it known that they would like to see the minimum wage raised, and so that you do not appear to be contradicting yourself, I would ask that the majority join years for the minimum wage for millions of Americans who deserve to have their work rewarded.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a note of caution to all of those who are watching this debate and hope that throughout this land that Americans are going to watch very carefully how these votes get cast on this amendment, because what is in jeopardy here and now in this Congress is the very fabric and moral standing of our land written into the Constitution. That is the notion that Members of the U.S. Congress could not stand enthusiastically and embrace the fourth amendment, that they could not embrace the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, who simply asserts the wording of our Constitution which says we grapple with this issue about illegal searches, that we could be guided by that language, and I think that it sends a wake-up call to all of America. I heard a Member of the other body say the other day that there have been in total some 75 amendments offered to the Constitution just since January 4. We have a group of Members who have come to Washington who on the one hand profess to support the Constitution, but on the other hand are trying in a wholesale fashion to change the very makeup of that Constitution, not just through constitutional amendments, but through other statutes and other attempts such as the one before us. I hope that we as Members of the U.S. Congress forget the contract for a minute and remember our oath to protect and stand in support of the Constitution and support the Watt amendment.