CALM Act

I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Boucher, for his consistent support and cooperation to help bring the bill through the committee. I doubt that we would be here today were it not for that. And I want to recognize and thank the ranking member of our subcommittee for the work that he has put into this as well and the suggestions that he made in order to bolster the bill and to make it imminently workable. I also want to thank, of course, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for his support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill which is designed to eliminate the earsplitting levels of television advertisements and return control of television sound modulation to the American consumer. I first introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, called the CALM Act, more than 3 years ago. This is something that many of our constituents now refer to in their shorthand as the Loud Commercial Law. I have heard loud and clear from people across the country. We have consumers across the country that are with us and would like to see this accomplished.

The premise of the bill then, as now, was really simple; and in an era of 1,000- or 1,800-page bills, this is a 2-page bill, and it is to make the volume of commercials and programming uniform so that consumers control the sound. The problem has existed for more than 50 years, when television advertisers first realized that consumers often left the room when commercials were playing. They used the loud commercials as a gimmick to grab the attention of consumers, even as they moved to other parts of their home. But for anyone who can't get to the mute button fast enough, we know that we are all subjected to blasting ads. For those with sensory difficulties, the loud commercials are more than just an annoyance. Sound spikes can harm hearing and sometimes they are painfully loud.

This issue, as my colleagues have referenced, is also one of the top complaints, consistently one of the top complaints, from consumers across the country to the Federal Communications Commission. This bill is going to bring a measure of relief to the American consumer. It is also, I think, an important step in identifying the need to make broadcasters and video providers responsible for answering to consumers at the most basic level. I created this bill taking into account the economic health of licensees and the importance of smaller stations and providers. The Advanced Television Systems Committee, or the ATSC, a body that sets technical standards for digital television, has developed a solution to the problem of the varied volume between commercials and programming, with one stream that keeps the volume uniform.

The bill directs the FCC to adopt these engineering standards as mandatory rules within 1 year. These standards were not in the works until we introduced this legislation in the last Congress, so I am pleased to have encouraged the industry to find the answer to this problem so we don't have to wait another 50 years for a solution.

I look forward to voluntary and immediate adoption of the standards by broadcasters, cable, satellite and all multichannel program providers. But the bill exists because we know that voluntary compliance or adherence to consumer needs has been a failure and we need to assure enforcement to protect the rights of consumers. The bill also requires cable and satellite operators to install the engineering fix necessary to ensure that the sound is modulated.

The bill is not inflexible. It heeds the call by industry for a compliance grace period. Those affected, and I think it's very reasonable, will have 1 year after the FCC adopts the rule for purchase and installation of the ATSC standard-based equipment, and the FCC may grant up to two successive 1-year waivers for financial hardship. Small stations and cable operators certainly should be able to comply within 3 years, plus the amount of time it takes the FCC to adopt and release the rules.

I have read the minority comments that have been filed relative to the bill, and I want to answer directly the concerns of some of my colleagues about the necessity of the bill, so I want to reiterate the following:

First, I think the bill is necessary because we need a mandatory enforcement tool, and I stated that earlier. Volunteerism hasn't worked for 50 years.

Second, the bill makes the ATSC standards applicable to all FCC licensees, and that includes satellite and cable providers as well as broadcasters. The voluntary standards as written only apply to broadcasters.

Thirdly, the bill matters to our constituents, and I think that that's what really matters the most, and it stands as proof that Congress can listen to their concerns.

Fourthly, it has been said that Congress has better things to do. I have never suggested that this solves the great challenges that face our country today. As I said, it's a 2-page bill, but it is something that has been left unattended to for half a century and I think the time has come that we end the practice of consumers being blasted out of their seats when they're listening to their favorite programming.

The technical fix is long overdue and under the CALM Act, as amended, consumers will be in the driver's seat. I look forward to the passage of this bill, and most importantly so do millions of other consumers and our constituents across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1084) to require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe a standard to preclude commercials from being broadcast at louder volumes than the program material they accompany, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or in short, the CALM Act. It sets standards on the permissible volume levels for commercials aired on television, and it is patroned by our colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). It addresses in an appropriate manner a major consumer complaint.

We have all experienced the frustration of TV commercials blaring well above the volume levels of the programs that accompany them on broadcast television. After scrambling for the remote control and after turning down the volume on the commercials, we then have to pick up the remote again in order to restore the volume when the program that the commercial attends resumes. It is very frustrating. It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it.

Other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Israel, the United Kingdom and France all have regulations addressing the volume on television commercials, and with the bill that is now before the House, we have the opportunity to confer on American TV viewers a similar benefit.

We can take this step in a way that the industry finds acceptable. The television industry-based Advanced TV Systems Committee has developed the technical standards that are appropriate to control variations in commercial loudness. The industry has approved that standard and the bill before us directs the Federal Communications Commission to incorporate that standard in a rulemaking.

A waiver from the rule is available for any television station that can show financial hardship in making the changes to its equipment needed in order to comply with the terms of the rule.

Some may say that there is no need to take this step, but I think that the American public is going to react very differently and in a very supportive way. In fact, I think that the CALM Act has the potential to rival in popularity the Do Not Call List that was adopted by this Congress several years ago. That act, as most will recall, protected against unwanted commercial telephone calls. This will protect against intrusive higher volume levels that attend television commercials.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from California. She has shown great leadership in bringing this measure before the House. She has worked with the industry and the members of our subcommittee as we have revised the bill in order to achieve the broad consensus that it enjoys today.

It is my privilege to encourage approval by the House of the CALM Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to take this time to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for the bipartisan way in which we have processed this measure through our committee, and for his strong support of the measure that we bring to the floor this afternoon. The work on this bill is reflective of the best traditions of our committee, where we work out problems, we resolve concerns within the confines of the committee process, and we do so in a collaborative way, with people on both sides of the aisle participating in that effort. And in no matter has that spirit of cooperation been better reflected than in the way we have processed and handled this bill today. So I want to thank Mr. Stearns and his colleagues on the Republican side for that outstanding bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, we also have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of our time and urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill, H.R. 1804, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or the CALM Act, is a bill whose time has come and perhaps because the transition to digital has created the perfect opportunity for industry to take care of this. But they did not take care of this for some 40 years. The bill would require the Federal Communications Commission to issue regulations, based on industry standards, for loud commercial advertisements within 1 year of enactment. The regulation would take effect 1 year after adopted by the

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just perhaps move a little further. The gentlelady from California mentioned that a lot of people had said, well, why does Congress have to get involved? That has been brought before me before. And I would say--and this is a compliment to the lady from California-- what she did with her bill.

Her bill originally directed the FCC to write its own rules, but she reached out to industry and engaged them, which is a commendation for her, and asked them, Well, how can we solve this? So for those people who say, Why can't industry solve it?, she was an impetus to do this, and her bill is furthermore an impetus to do this, because now industry developed a subgroup, the subgroup came up with the technology to be able to solve the problem, and now she's saying basically, let industry solve the problem and let the FCC adopt what they've come up with.

Another thing that I think came through the process which is also, I think, a compliment to her was that she was willing to realize that some in the industry, some of the smaller companies, might have a financial problem with this, so she was willing to change the bill to allow this, I'll call it a safety valve, for those small companies that can't make it, that petition the SEC to get a delay so that they have 1 year and possibly another year.

So I think what this bill shows to those people who say why can't we just let the industry solve it, I think the simple fact that she went out and engaged them, they developed a subgroup working with the industry, as she did, works it in a way that industry is solving their own problem, but they also realize, after all these years, going back to the 1960s, and these complaints, something's got to be done. And I think many of us, in the last weekend watching football games, can remember that time we had to get up with the remote and turn it off. And you can say, well, that's fine; just turn it off. But it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up.

So I think the aspect about that we all should realize is that Ms. Eshoo also was willing to change the bill and reach out and work with industry to get this done, and to also provide the safety valve. So I think that's an important aspect to bring to the attention of my colleagues, how this bill works I think in a way to help industry.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CALM Act.

While I, too, would like to have someone turn down the TV when it gets loud, I've already given that job to my thumb. As a result, I only need one Member of Congress at work on this vital problem, not 435. I appreciate Ms. Eshoo's efforts to protect America's ears from loud commercials and our thumbs from arthritis brought on by overuse, but writing a law to do so seems a stretch.

The bill adopts into Federal law the industry-developed standards that are already being implemented, and consumers do not need the government to function as remote volume controls for them. Simply put, the private sector already has acted on this noisy nuisance.

If you're not convinced that having a reliable and fully functioning thumb is better for both you and the Nation than having a fully functioning bureaucracy to adjust your TV's sound, there's also this: Many entities are responsible for producing and distributing the content that we all see and hear. Broadcast affiliates, networks, and cable, satellite, and phone companies then transmit the content. Each element of the programming may be recorded and provided to the distributors at different volume levels. Moreover, shows and movies have a broad, dynamic sound range to cover everything from explosions in a car chase to lawyers whispering to juries. Commercials, meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range, and they can blare and annoy when they suddenly follow a movie scene that was putting you to sleep.

The technical challenges presented by these facts are significant, but with the transition to digital television, industry has responded. On November 5, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, ATSC, announced the approval of the ``ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television.'' These standards provide guidance to the industry, and focus on audio measurement, production and postproduction monitoring techniques, and methods to control loudness for content delivery.

I want to commend my friend, Ms. Eshoo, for working with all the relevant parties and for amending her bill to acknowledge the industry's work. In my opinion, however, there is no reason for Congress to get between me and my remote control. On those grounds, I have to give this measure a thumbs down.