CALM Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2847) to regulate the volume of audio on commercials.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of a bill designed to eliminate the ear-splitting levels of television advertisements and return control of television sound modulation to the American consumer. A vote for this bipartisan bill with 90 cosponsors will send it on to the President for his signature, and when he signs it, it will bring relief to millions of television viewers across the country.

I first introduced the CALM Act more than 3 years ago in the previous Congress. The premise of the bill then, as now, was simple, to make the volume of commercials and regular programming uniform so consumers can control sound levels.

The problem with ear-splitting TV advertisements has existed for more than 50 years--not 5, 50. Television advertisers first realized that consumers often left the room during commercials, so they used loud commercials to grab their attention as they moved to other parts of their home. This has been one of the top complaints to the Federal Communications Commission for decades.

The bill directs the FCC to adopt the engineering standards recommended by the body that sets the technical standards for digital television as mandatory rules within 1 year. These standards were developed when I introduced the legislation in the last Congress.

So now we don't have to wait another 50 years for a solution. With the passage of this legislation, we will end the practice of consumers being subjected to advertisements that are ridiculously loud, and we can protect people from needlessly loud noise spikes that can actually harm their hearing. This technical fix is long overdue, and under the CALM Act, as amended by the Senate, consumers will be in the driver's seat.

I look forward to the enactment of this bill, but most importantly, so do millions of consumers across the country. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank all of the staff, both at the committee and certainly at my office, that have worked hard on

this bill over the last 3 years. And I would like to thank Mr. Terry for the remarks that he made about the legislation.

This really is a very simple bill. It started out as a one-page bill, it's now maybe two and a few lines. It was never drafted with the intent that it would solve some of the great, great challenges that are facing our country. It is a small bill, but it is consumer friendly. And it does recognize the complaints that the American people have registered with the FCC over the last 50 years; in fact, it's been the top complaint.

I want to thank the broadcasters for working with us, for those that came up with the technology, the technology standard that will be the national standard for broadcasters, satellite and cable.

Again, I would like to thank all that were involved in this and urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I think that we will have more peace in homes across the country, as Mr. Terry described it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to make permanent a number of education-related tax relief measures. My legislation also improves and makes permanent helpful provisions for 529 plans and the American Opportunity tax credit for education.

At the first hearing I held when I became Chairman of the Finance Committee in 2001, I made clear that education tax policy was a priority of mine. As Chairman, I was able to remove the 60-payment limit for deducting student loan interest and I was able to increase the income limits for that deduction. This was not the only time I fought hard to allow students to deduct their student loan interest. In 1997, I was able to re-instate the student loan interest deduction that Congress had eliminated from our tax laws. However, the 60-payment limit on the deductibility of student loan interest remained. I ensured that the 2001 tax relief bill took care of that problem. Other incentives for education that I was able to enact into law in 2001 included raising the amount that can be contributed to an education saving account from $500 to $2,000; making distributions from pre-paid college savings plans and tuition plans tax-free; and making permanent the tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance. These tax policies and many others, including those for school renovations, repairs and construction, have proven their value to Iowa students in dollars and cents, year after year. The tax relief has delivered measureable educational assistance to Iowans and students and families nationwide, making education more affordable and accessible.

One draw-back of enacting these provisions in the 2001 tax relief bill, however, is that there was a sunset provision attached to that entire piece of legislation. All of the tax relief needs to be made permanent. Especially the education-related tax provisions. That is what my bill today does. My bill makes these provisions permanent.

It is no coincidence that I am introducing my education tax bill on the day the President of the United States talked about jobs. Our economy demands well-educated workers. The popularity of education tax incentives is good news for workers who find themselves unemployed or who want to go back to school to advance, or even change, their careers. Congress is willing to consider permanent tax relief for companies to buy machinery. Why isn't Congress willing to make an investment in people? That is what tax relief for education is. An investment in our future. It is just as important as job-creating tax incentives for businesses. Some will say we can't afford this, but we really can't afford to lose billions of dollars of help for Americans working hard to educate their kids.

Education has made this country great. We should not let this opportunity pass us by. We should not let these education-related tax provisions expire. We should also continue to help make education affordable for families and students. This makes education accessible for all. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passing this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

How many times a night does this scenario play out: You're on your couch and you're watching a nice program. The program has people conversing and it's getting to that pinnacle point in the show and it fades, and the commercial comes on and it's really loud. You reach for your remote and you can't find the remote. Your spouse in the other room, with her impatient voice, says, Turn that down, but you can't find the remote. You say, where is that blankedy-blank remote. Then you look between the cushions and there it is. You hit the mute button, and peace and calm is now restored in the living rooms of thousands of American households.

Several of my colleagues, people in this House, have said that this act isn't needed, but for that living room on that night it was sure helpful to restore calm. The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation, or CALM Act, is why we are here today. Some say, and especially coming on the heels of the last bill, a Diabetes Awareness Month bill, that maybe there are more important issues to deal with; well, not for that family in that living room on that night.

I do want to point out one thing here in that the industry has recognized that there is an issue with the loudness of the commercials. On November 5, 2009, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, ATSC, announced the approval of an industry standard, the ``ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television,'' which provides guidance to creators and distributors of TV content focusing on audio measurement, audio monitoring techniques, and methods to control loudness. It's not as easy as we may think to control that, especially when you come off of a calm commercial or a show into a more boisterous commercial.

Now this bill has been amended in the Senate to codify that standard that has been developed by the experts. The industry will move to solve the purported concerns by simply moving to comply with that consensus standard. Furthermore, the act would create a kind of ``safe harbor'' by deeming an operator that installs, utilizes and maintains the appropriate equipment and software in compliance with the act.

Now while many Members may feel that there are more important issues for this Congress to deal with, this is the issue at hand. And as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee where this went through regular order of subcommittee and committee, we stand in support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, as you are undoubtedly aware, the U.S. is an arctic Nation. As such, the U.S. must ensure that not only its economic and environmental interests in the region are protected, but also its national defense and homeland security interests. While the U.S. maintains a strong working relationship with the 7 other arctic nations--Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden--these nations also have their own interests to protect in the arctic region. Despite those relationships, the U.S. cannot assume that these nations will protect our interests in the region. The ability for the U.S. to project its territorial claims and protect its economic interests in the arctic will become increasingly important as the arctic shipping lanes become more accessible as the seasonal arctic ice decreases. With the high potential for increased and industrial and commercial activity in the arctic region, the U.S. must ensure that it is prepared to protect human life as well as the vulnerable arctic environment.

With an expected increase in arctic activity on the horizon, the U.S. cannot wait until our interests in the region are threatened before we act. In that light, the Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 is a major step towards protecting vital U.S. interests in the region. The Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a deep water port in the arctic to protect U.S. strategic interests in the region. As the lead Departments for National Defense and Homeland Security initiatives for the U.S., the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, while working alongside their subordinate agencies, are best suited for determining and implementing policy decisions that protect U.S. sovereignty and national security.

This two-year study is designed to determine what strategic capabilities a deep water port could provide as well as an optimal location that would provide protection for a wide spectrum of U.S. initiatives. While studying the infrastructure needs for such a port, this study will also endeavor to determine the resource and timeframe needs to establish such a port, given the complex environmental constraints that the arctic marine environment provides. Upon completion of this study, the U.S. will be better positioned to understand the resource and development needs for the arctic region that are required to protect our interests in the region.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act of 2009--the CALM Act. I want to thank my original cosponsor Senator Schumer for his support of this straightforward and commonsense legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to limit the volume of television advertisements to a level no louder than the average volume level of the programs during which the advertisements appear. This time for this Act is overdue. All too often over the years, Americans, sitting down after a long workday or workweek to enjoy their favorite television shows, have been assaulted by commercials at volumes that are degrees of magnitude louder than the shows themselves. The FCC first received enough complaints from viewers to look into the problem in the 1960s--when television was in its earliest stages--but technology did not exist to fix the problem. Each decade, as consumer complaints piled up, the FCC had to reexamine the loudness issue. Unfortunately, it took no action

even with the technology improved. The complaints continue to this day; in the 25 quarterly reports on consumer complaints released by the FCC since 2002, 21 have listed as a top complaint the loudness of television commercials.

But now, with the digital transition complete and new broadcast technology available, we can finally take this long-overdue action. We now have a common digital platform used by all broadcasters, which presents a terrific opportunity to standardize the loudness of the ads broadcast into our living rooms. As Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumers Report has stated, in testimony before the House of Representatives, ``the CALM Act provides an elegant and commonsense solution to finally ending a forty-five year consumer complaint in the United States.''

The House has already begun its consideration of companion legislation, and I applaud the leadership of Representative Eshoo on this issue. The television industry has been deeply involved in the drafting of this legislation, and the standards it adopts are practicable, affordable, and effective. I hope my Senate colleagues will act quickly to pass the CALM Act and finally put an end to this longstanding irritation.