Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3386) to protect consumers from certain aggressive sales tactics on the Internet.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

I am pleased to rise in support this afternoon of S. 3386, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. The legislation makes essential protections to consumers in the Internet marketplace.

The rapid growth of online commerce has brought great benefits to merchants and consumers alike. Creative retailers can reach a broader market, while resourceful shoppers can compare deals and find exactly the right product for themselves. Internet commerce is now a core part of the daily lives of millions of Americans, and overall, more than one-half of all adults, at some point, have made an online purchase. But large percentages of consumers also report feeling frustrated, overwhelmed, and confused by online shopping, often because they face unfamiliar, aggressive sales tactics online.

Last year, an investigation by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee confirmed the

pervasive use of misleading tactics by even some of the Web's most prominent, trusted retailers. The committee concluded that while consumers are heavily involved in Internet commerce, they are struggling to stay free of unwanted charges on their credit cards or their debit cards.

The bill now before the House focuses on two common deceptive tactics: post-transaction marketing and ``data pass.''

Post-transaction marketing occurs when a consumer purchasing something from a trusted vendor is presented with offers from unrelated sellers promising savings on the initial transaction as well as future purchases. These third-party sellers often do not make clear that they are distinct entities and that agreeing to their offer constitutes a wholly separate transaction with an entirely new set of terms. The legislation would bring these transactions into the light and make them much easier for consumers to follow. It would also put an end to ``data pass'' during these transactions, in which the first seller shares a consumer's credit card number with the third-party seller without the knowledge or consent of the consumer. The legislation returns to consumers the power to control when and with whom their sensitive financial information is shared.

The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, as passed by the Senate, serves to protect the consumer in the online marketplace.

I want to say thank you to Senator Rockefeller, the chief sponsor of the measure in the other body, and to his staff for their determined work, as well as to Congressman Space, on our Energy and Commerce Committee, for his sponsorship of this measure in the House.

Through this legislation, consumers will be empowered to make smart decisions online and protect their bank accounts. I urge strong support for the passage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to express appreciation for the gentleman from Nebraska for those very kind comments, and I want to also say what a privilege it has been working with him. He and I together have structured a number of items of legislation.

For example, we advanced to the Energy and Commerce Committee a measure that comprehensively reforms the Federal Universal Service Fund and has obtained the endorsement of virtually all of the stakeholders who have expressed interest in that very complex subject. It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman as that work has been undertaken.

His comments are really humbling to me, and I want to thank him for saying those things and just express what a privilege it has been for me to work with the gentleman and with all members of the Energy and Commerce Committee during these 28 years. It has been a service that will certainly be the high point of my career, and I thank all members for their many courtesies.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage the passage of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the

bill (S. 30) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, today we consider S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act. It is the Senate companion to House legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis by our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), ranking Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill directs the FCC to adopt the regulations prohibiting caller ID spoofing in which a caller falsifies the original caller ID information during the transmission of a call with the intent to defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully to obtain anything of value. The bill makes anyone who knowingly and willingly engages in caller ID spoofing eligible for criminal fines.

Spoofing has been possible for many years, but generally required expensive

equipment in order to change the outgoing call information. But with the growth of voice over Internet protocol usage, spoofing has become easier and considerably less expensive, and a number of Web sites are now offering spoofing services. Consequently, those who want to deceive others by manipulating caller ID can now do so with relative ease.

Spoofing threatens a number of business applications, including credit card verifications and automatic call routing, because these systems rely on the telephone number as identified by the caller ID system as one piece of their verification and authentication process. It is also commonly used in the commission of frauds of various kinds.

At other times, spoofing may be used to protect individuals. For example, domestic violence shelters sometimes use spoofing to mask the identity of the caller for protective purposes.

By prohibiting the use of caller ID spoofing only where the intent is to defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, this measure addresses the nefarious uses of the technology while continuing to allow legitimate uses such as use in shelters for the victims of domestic violence.

In the rulemaking that the FCC will conduct pursuant to new subsection 227(e)(3) of the Communications Act, the committee anticipates that the commission will consider imposing obligations on entities that provide caller ID spoofing services to the public. The widespread availability of caller ID spoofing services presents a significant potential for abuse and hinders law enforcement's ability to investigate crime.

The prohibition in this bill on the use of those services with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value could be of limited value if entities continue to provide those services without making any effort to verify their users' ownership of the phone number that is being substituted.

With our action today, this measure will be forwarded to the President for his signature. I want to thank and commend our colleagues, Mr. Engel and also Mr. Barton, for their commitment to the matter. And I want to commend Senator Nelson of Florida and all Members who, on a bipartisan basis, have contributed to and supported the legislation now before the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chief sponsor of the House companion measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I do so to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for their kind remarks. I want to thank them for the collaboration and the friendship over the years.

Mr. Stearns and I have participated together in developing the ideas, developing the legislation, and bringing through the Communications Subcommittee all of the bills that that subcommittee acted on legislatively in this 2-year session of Congress. I appreciate so much the good ideas Mr. Stearns shared, his work with me to ensure that all of our legislation had a bipartisan foundation, and I think what we were able to do was a better product by virtue of the fact that we worked together. It has been a privilege over the years to have the opportunity to work with him. He is an outstanding legislator.

I want to commend him for the fine work that he has done, and mostly thank him for the friendship and the partnership that he and I have enjoyed together. And I want to say thank you to my friend (Mr. Barton) with whom I was privileged to work on the Energy Subcommittee when he was chairman and I was the ranking member. During the time he chaired the full committee, I had the privilege of participating with him on a whole range of undertakings, and I admire very much the leadership that he has provided as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and more recently as the ranking member.

So, thank you, gentlemen, for those kind remarks. I am humbled by them. And I appreciate your taking very much the occasion of our debate on this legislation to make those comments.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I urge support of the legislation currently pending, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Joseph C. ``Papa Joe'' Smiddy is truly a legend in southwest Virginia and beyond. Known for his folksy humor, Dr. Smiddy is widely revered for his endeavors on behalf of the University of Virginia's College at Wise (formerly known as Clinch Valley College), the college that he guided through its infancy and through years of growth as it became the outstanding institution of higher learning that it is today.

Before Clinch Valley College was established in 1954, there were no public colleges in Virginia west of Radford, which made higher education out of reach for most residents of southwest Virginia. The only 4-year, state-supported college in far southwest Virginia, the University of Virginia's College at Wise is also the only branch of the University of Virginia in southwest Virginia. Under Dr. Smiddy's tutelage, the college became a 4-year institution in 1970 with the awarding of Bachelor of Arts degrees. Bachelor of Science degrees were awarded in 1973, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Nursing were first awarded in 1996. U.S. News & World Report ranks the college as one of the south's top public liberal arts colleges. Dr. Smiddy's name and efforts will forever be linked to the success of the University of Virginia's College at Wise.

A native of Jellico, Tennessee, Dr. Joseph C. Smiddy began his career as an educator as a biology and chemistry teacher and band director. Later, he became a high school principal in Lee County, Virginia, after honorably serving his country as a member of the United States Army during World War II in New Caledonia and the Philippines. Dr. Smiddy was the first biology instructor at Clinch Valley College in 1954, continuing to teach there until 1984. He served as dean and director of the college before being named chancellor in 1968. Dr. Smiddy was forward-thinking in admitting African-American students to the college at a time when not many others were, and Clinch Valley College was co- educational a decade before the University of Virginia admitted women.

Since his retirement in 1985, Dr. Smiddy has continued to serve as ambassador for the University of Virginia's College at Wise and to work tirelessly on its behalf. Because of his efforts, innumerable students who would otherwise not have been able to do so have acquired a college education.

The numerous awards which Dr. Smiddy has received include the University of Virginia's College at Wise Alumni Association's Meritorious Achievement Award, the Wise County Outstanding Citizen Award, the Wise County Outstanding Educator Award, and the Kanto Award. He has been included in the Virginia Hall of Fame, and in 1981, he was named a laureate of the Virginia Cultural Laureate Center. Dr. Smiddy has received honorary doctorates from Lincoln Memorial University, his alma mater (1970); the University of Richmond (1975); and The College of William and Mary (1985).

Dr. Smiddy recently achieved an important milestone by celebrating his ninetieth birthday. He remains a vibrant member of the community of Wise where he lives with his wife, Reba. His daughter, the Honorable Elizabeth Smiddy Wills, is a juvenile and domestic relations court judge for the 30th judicial district of Virginia. His son, Dr. Joe Frank Smiddy, M.D., is a pulmonologist in Kingsport, Tennessee. An active Kiwanian for decades, Dr. Smiddy is also a lifetime deacon of Wise Baptist Church. He uses his gifts as musician and storyteller to share the music and history of the Appalachian Mountains with others not only in Virginia but across the United States and in several foreign countries. His renown as an educator will forever endear Joseph C. Smiddy to the citizens of far southwest Virginia and to all those whose lives have been touched by the institution to which he has dedicated himself, the University of Virginia's College at Wise.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1132) to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation now under consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010.

In 2004 the Congress approved the bipartisan Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows qualified retired and current law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the United States. The law requires that retired officers maintain appropriate firearms training and be current in that training.

Since enactment of the law, qualified retired officers have faced varying and inconsistent certification procedures from State to State, and that complicates their ability to carry a firearm and be properly certified to do so.

The bill that is before the House tonight was introduced in the other body by the Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Leahy, and it was introduced here in the House by my Virginia colleague (Mr. Forbes).

It modernizes the existing law in these very necessary respects. It will reduce from 15 to 10 the number of years a law enforcement officer must serve to be eligible to carry a firearm as a retiree with full privileges under the existing law. The 15-year requirement in current law inappropriately excludes many qualified retirees who go into law enforcement as a second career, often following their first career in the Armed Forces.

It will give retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification to carry a firearm, while still maintaining rigorous standards for retirees who apply for this benefit. Our measure will clarify that a retiree can meet the qualifications requirement using either the standards of the agency at which the retiree formerly served, or those of the State in which the retiree currently resides.

It will also allow a certified firearms instructor qualified under State law to conduct the firearms qualification test for retired law enforcement officers.

It ensures that law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve, and the executive branch of the Federal Government are authorized to carry firearms under the law. And it also eliminates the requirement that retirees have nonforfeitable retirement benefits in order to qualify. That requirement unfairly excludes retirees from many of the smaller law enforcement agencies around the country which do not offer these retirement benefits.

Allowing the trained active and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms on a nationwide basis enhances public safety by ensuring that officers have not only the means to defend themselves, but also the means to defend innocent victims from acts of violence. It also appropriately honors the men and women who so well protect our neighborhoods and protect our communities and our way of life.

The measure before us this evening was approved unanimously by the Senate in July. It is a commonsense, bipartisan measure that will ensure that retired law enforcement officers who have served honorably will be able to obtain the benefits conferred by the 2004 law. I urge approval of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of the introduction of the ``Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act of 2010.'' This measure will give the Federal Communications Commission the authority to implement a crucial aspect of the National Broadband Plan. It will help ensure that new spectrum can be made available for commercial wireless services by permitting the Commission to conduct incentive- based spectrum auctions in which a spectrum holder voluntarily relinquishes its spectrum in return for a portion of the auction proceeds.

Wireless communications services are rapidly growing. Each year, millions of users graduate from basic cell phones to smart phones that employ a range of data services. Those services require far greater bandwidth than traditional cell phones. And the data services offered through smart phones are becoming ever more sophisticated, often employing full motion video.

The combination of greater smart phone use and far more elaborate applications is placing unprecedented demands on our limited wireless spectrum availability. To meet these growing demands, the National Broadband Plan calls for making 500 MHz of spectrum newly available for broadband use within the next 10 years.

That is a worthy goal, though attaining it may not be easy. The National Broadband Plan identifies some potential spectrum candidates, including spectrum in the Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band, the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) bands and the Mobile Satellite Spectrum (MSS).

The National Broadband Plan also suggests that the Federal Communications Commission initiate a rulemaking to reallocate 120 MHz of spectrum currently in the hands of television stations from television broadcast to wireless broadband use. The Plan suggests that the Commission, among other things:

Update its rules on television service areas and distance separations to ensure the most efficient allocation of channels to broadcasters, including packing broadcast channels more tightly together.

Increase the efficiency of spectrum use in the television broadcast bands, including by setting a deadline for low-power stations to transition to digital and addressing poor VHF-reception issues.

Establish a licensing framework that would allow two or more stations to share a single 6 MHz broadcast channel.

Determine rules for auctioning broadcast spectrum reclaimed through repacking and voluntary channel sharing or channel surrender, including a way for stations to receive a share of the proceeds for spectrum they contribute to the auction.

The National Broadband Plan's recommendation concerning incentive- based auctions, with broadcasters sharing in the proceeds from the auction of spectrum they voluntarily return to the Federal Communications Commission, requires legislation. Today, my colleague Cliff Stearns, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, and I are introducing the requisite legislative measure.

Our goal is to ensure that any incentive auctions the Federal Communications Commission conducts are truly voluntary. Only in instances in which television broadcasters or other spectrum holders willingly enter into agreements with the FCC for the surrender of their spectrum in return for a portion of the auction revenues would the transaction be deemed to be voluntary. And ``truly voluntary'' means neither directly nor constructively involuntary. For example, an effort by the FCC to impose a spectrum fee that would make some licensees financially unable to keep their spectrum would make the spectrum surrender constructively involuntary and would be impermissible under the terms of our legislation.

The Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act takes the right approach to incentive-based spectrum auctions. The right approach is for the FCC to work with television broadcasters and other licensees to identify the spectrum they now hold that on a purely consensual basis could be repurposed for commercial wireless use. Licensees who surrender spectrum would receive compensation in exchange for a voluntary spectrum transfer. I do not support, nor would the Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act of 2010 permit, any action by the FCC requiring broadcast stations or others to give up spectrum involuntarily.

The right approach is the one specified in this legislation--enter into conversations with broadcasters and others about surrendering a portion of their spectrum on a voluntary basis, determine rules for incentive-based auctions that are truly voluntary and conduct the auctions in accordance with the agreement.

It is also important that the Commission treat broadcasters that are required to relocate due to repacking fairly. Broadcasters just over one year ago completed the highly successful transition to digital television. That transition freed up substantial amounts of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for commercial wireless use.

To complete the digital television transition successfully, many broadcasters made significant investments in new equipment, including antennas and other items that are tailored to their current channel assignments. Therefore, broadcasters that are required to relocate as part of a repacking plan deserve fair compensation for the costs of that relocation. It is also important that the Commission ensure that broadcasters that relocate due to repacking do not lose over-the-air viewers as a result of that move.

Madam Speaker, again, I am pleased to join with my colleague Mr. Stearns in offering this important measure to make available more spectrum for innovative wireless broadband services while assuring fair treatment for existing spectrum holders that facilitate that process by voluntarily returning some or all of their spectrum.

Madam Speaker, today the House takes up a very important measure introduced by our colleague Mr. Markey that seeks to update the laws governing access to communications services by individuals with disabilities. Floor consideration of this measure marks the end of two years of effort by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I commend him for his dedication to this critical issue.

I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, who is presiding over the House of Representatives for the first time today. Mr. Langevin co-chairs the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus and has been a champion of efforts to make the Capitol complex, including the Speaker's rostrum, accessible. It is therefore fitting that he is in the Chair as we consider this bipartisan, historic measure to make much needed updates to our communications laws.

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a significant milestone, and we have come a long way in the two decades since 1990.

We have also seen significant technological change since Congress enacted the ADA, including the emergence of the Internet as a core communications infrastructure; the daily use by many Americans of email, text messaging and video conferencing both at home and at work; and increasing use of the Internet to view video programming.

It is therefore timely to update our communications laws to ensure that new technologies are accessible to individuals with visual or hearing impairments.

As we learned at a legislative hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet on this measure last this month, there are close to one million Americans who have severe or profound hearing loss and more than one million who are legally blind. Four percent of our population has great difficulty hearing, and an additional three percent are visually impaired.

Moreover, as much as some of us might not want to admit it, Americans are aging. There are approximately 40 million people over the age of 65 living in the United States today, or 13 percent of the population. One estimate shows that by 2050, that number will more than double to 88.5 million, or an estimated one-fifth of the population. Naturally, this growth will be accompanied by an increase in the number of Americans who are vision or hearing-impaired and who will need accessible communications products and services.

With the explosion in Internet-delivered services, both the variety of information and entertainment offerings and the complexity and variety of the devices that receive those services have multiplied. Our challenge is to assure that all Americans can benefit from those advances, including individuals with vision or hearing impairments.

The measure we take up today:

Requires that advanced communications services, including voice over Internet protocol, electronic messaging and video conferencing services, are accessible to the disabled if doing so is achievable.

Sets forth a list of factors the Federal Communications Commission shall consider to determine if making a product or service accessible is achievable, including whether the manufacturer or service provider makes available a range of accessible products with varying functionality and offered at different price points. A manufacturer or service provider may make a product accessible either by embedding accessibility in the device or relying on third-party applications that are available to consumers at nominal cost. To avoid stifling innovation, H.R. 3101 also allows the Commission to waive the accessibility requirements for small entities.

Requires the closed captioning of video programming on the Internet that has been displayed on television.

Reinstates Commission regulations regarding the provision of video described video programming that were previously invalidated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on jurisdictional grounds and allows for future expansion of the video description requirements.

Requires that emergency information, such as screen crawls, be made accessible to persons with disabilities.

Ensures that Internet browsers on smart phones enable the disabled to navigate the Internet, if doing so is achievable.

Ensures that the Commission does not, in implementing the requirements of the Act, mandate the use of any technology that might result in one entity unfairly profiting from such a mandate or requirement.

These and other provisions in this measure will help ensure that persons with disabilities are not left behind as communications technology continues to advance.

I appreciate all of the stakeholders who have been working diligently with myself, Chairman Waxman, Mr. Markey, Ranking Members Barton and Stearns and our staffs on a bipartisan basis to reach consensus on this measure. I look forward to our continued work together to promote accessibility and innovation, as well as to House passage of this historic legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas Lamar Smith, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, as the lead Republican cosponsor of the legislation.

Presently, consumers and businesses engaged in digital commerce may be subject to multiple, confusing and burdensome taxation because of inconsistent rules across the thousands of state and local jurisdictions. Disparate treatment of digital goods and services across these jurisdictions creates further confusion for consumers and businesses.

Digital commerce extends far beyond the digital music, movies and games downloaded by consumers to the electronic delivery of professional services, educational services and health care services.

The existing sales and use tax laws are inadequate and ill-equipped to address today's digital economy. The borderless marketplace and complex nature of digital transactions create new problems that must be addressed uniformly and on a national level to avoid double taxation and to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of digital goods and services.

Unfair, multiple and inconsistent taxation of these digital goods and services will increase costs for U.S. businesses and make them less competitive in the global economy. The additional costs will also hinder investment by high-tech businesses in the broadband networks used to provide new and innovative digital goods and services.

Unfair taxes on digital goods and services also discourage lower- income consumers from using innovative digital services and technologies.

The first state tax on digital goods was imposed in 2007. One year later, eleven additional states considered legislation to impose new taxes on digital goods, and in 2009 fourteen states considered legislation addressing the taxation of digital goods and services. Several states have attempted to impose telecommunication-specific taxes on downloaded music sold by communication providers, taxes which would not be imposed on similar products sold by non-communication companies.

A consistent, national framework for the state and local taxation of digital goods and services is therefore needed to ensure the fair, consistent and equitable taxation of these goods and services.

The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act addresses this clear need by establishing a uniform national framework for the taxation of digital goods and services.

Our measure prohibits state and local jurisdictions from imposing multiple or discriminatory taxes on the sale or use of digital goods and services, ensuring that digital goods and services are not taxed differently from their physical counterparts.

It provides that taxes may only be imposed on the retail sale or use of digital goods or services, preventing repeated taxation of digital goods and services at multiple stages of the transaction.

The legislation also ensures that only the jurisdiction encompassing the customers' tax address may impose taxes on digital goods and services, preventing the consumer from being taxed by multiple states. For example, a consumer who lives in Virginia could download a digital application from a server in Washington while on vacation in Idaho. Without our national framework, all three states could potentially try and impose taxes on this transaction.

Our measure also prevents state and local tax administrators from retroactively construing taxes imposed on tangible personal property to also apply to digital goods and services through administrative rulings or regulations.

Finally, in recognition of the critical role that online health, energy management and education services play in our economy, our measure exempts these services from all state and local taxes.

Our legislation has been endorsed by a wide range of stakeholders, including the Recording Industry Association of America, Verizon, Apple, Time Warner and Electronic Arts, among others.

I hope my colleagues will join with us in enacting into law the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2010.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Elizabeth A. ``Betsy'' Moler and congratulate her on her upcoming retirement. Betsy has been a preeminent voice on energy policy throughout her career and her knowledge, thoughtfulness, and kindness will be sorely missed.

Betsy began her career of public service in the office of Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska where she started out as a staff assistant. She went on to serve on the staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as Counsel for both Chairman Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson of Washington and Chairman J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana. During her time on the Committee, she was the principal staff member responsible for all natural gas issues and helped craft the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. While on the Committee, Betsy became a resource not only to the Chairmen, but also to the other members of the Committee.

In 1988, at the urging of all nineteen members of the Committee, President Ronald W. Reagan nominated her to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. She was reappointed to the Commission by Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. President Clinton designated her to serve as the Commission's Chair in 1993. Betsy is the longest serving member of FERC and the only member appointed by three different Presidents. During her tenure as Chair of FERC, Moler led the effort that resulted in the successful restructuring of both the interstate natural gas industry under Order No. 636 and the wholesale electricity industry under Order Nos. 888 and 889. These latter landmark orders required utilities to open their transmission lines on an equal access basis to their competitors, which ushered in a new era of robust competition in wholesale electricity markets. This achievement is perhaps Betsy's greatest professional legacy.

President Clinton again turned to Betsy to serve, this time nominating her to be Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE. While at DOE, she was the principal architect of the Clinton Administration's Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act, which was presented to the Congress in June 1998.

In 2000, Betsy joined Exelon Corporation, formerly Unicom, to head the Washington, DC office where she served as Executive Vice President, Government & Environmental Affairs and Public Policy. In this last position, Betsy remained a vital resource to those concerned about energy policy, testifying before Congress and FERC on numerous occasions. Most importantly, Betsy remained available to share her wise counsel with those seeking to improve our nation's energy and environmental laws. We thank her for her service and many contributions.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we take the final step in adopting legislation that will ensure the continued satellite delivery of network television programming to rural homes that cannot receive that programming by means of an outdoor antenna or rabbit ears from a local television station.

Over the course of the last year, the House and Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees have closely cooperated in a bipartisan process to revise and to modernize the law, and I want to say thanks to all of the members of the four committees who have been involved in this effort and have worked together in order to achieve the result and the success that we celebrate this morning.

My major goal in reforming the Satellite Home Viewer Act has been to bring to all 210 local television markets across the Nation what we refer to as local-into-local television service through which local television signals are transmitted by satellite to homes in the market where those television signals originate. With the passage of the bill that is now under consideration, we will achieve that goal.

Today, 28 of the 210 local television markets around the Nation do not have the benefit of local-into-local satellite service. And those local signals are tremendously important. Families routinely rely on local television to bring news about emergency weather conditions, to bring news about school closings and other events in the community, the timely knowledge of which is very important to the families that watch television in order to receive that information. And there are 28 rural markets across the United States where those very valuable local television signals are not available through satellite delivery. These are very rural markets, and most of them do not have a full complement of network-affiliated local television stations within the market. We call these short markets because they are missing one or more of the major network affiliates--ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX--and in virtually all of these markets, one or more of those network programs are not available by means of a local television station.

Until today, their short-market status has made it economically unattractive for the satellite carriers to provide local television signals in these markets. So those markets currently are without that service, and that will soon change.

Last year I spoke to the chief executive officer of EchoStar, also known as DISH Network, one of the two major providers of satellite- based TV services across the United States. I asked him if working together we could find a way for his company to serve the 28 rural markets that do not have local television service at the present time. He responded that if we revise the law to enable DISH to import distant network signals from stations located outside of these rural markets to the extent necessary to supply the network signals that are missing in those markets, DISH would then commit to serve all 210 local TV markets across the Nation.

The legislation before the House today makes that key change. Its passage means that in the near future EchoStar will begin serving the 28 rural markets that lack vital local television signals at the present time. The satellite necessary to deliver those services has been launched, the plans to uplink the signals of the stations and import distant network signals to the extent necessary to provide a full complement of network affiliates in those markets have been made. All that is now waiting is the passage of this bill in the House and its signature into law by the President.

And so with the act that we take today, we can be assured that in the very near future, all 210 local television markets across the country will receive this important service.

I want to commend the leadership of DISH Network for making the commitment. Millions of homes in America's most rural regions will be the beneficiaries.

I also want to say special thanks to Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee and to our friend Mr. Smith from Texas for their tremendous work and cooperation as our two committees together have fashioned this revision of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. It is an important step that we take.

And Mr. Speaker, I urge that the House approve this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor and for yielding this time to me today, and I extend thanks also to the gentlelady from Illinois for her assistance with this measure. And I thank both of my colleagues for their very generous statements on behalf of Radford University this afternoon.

H.R. 1182 is bipartisan legislation congratulating Radford University on its 100th anniversary. The resolution is cosponsored by eight members of our Virginia House delegation, and Senators Webb and Warner have introduced companion legislation which previously has been approved in the Senate.

For a century, Radford University has provided students with an outstanding education, and the university richly deserves congratulations, which we extend today, on that achievement. In that century, nearly 70,000 students have received a Radford education, many of whom have gone on to become leaders in business and government and education, health care, the arts and other areas.

Radford University was chartered on March 10, 1910, as the State Normal and Industrial School for Women at Radford with the mission of preparing teachers; and it was renamed in 1924 as Radford State Teachers College, in 1944 as the Women's Division of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and in 1964 as Radford College. The school became Radford University in 1979, the name that it proudly bears today.

Today, Radford University is known for its strong leadership and relationships between faculty and students and the commitment to service that exists and pervades the student body. The school offers 153 undergraduate and graduate programs and strong research, service learning, and preprofessional programs.

Radford University is located in my congressional district, but its achievements bring pride not just to our region but to citizens across Virginia.

The university graduates reside in communities throughout the Nation, who share in the congratulations which the Congress today formally extends to Radford University on its 100th anniversary.

I thank my colleagues for their assistance in bringing this measure to the floor, and I urge its approval by the House.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1258) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation currently under consideration.

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

Today the House considers H.R. 1258, the Truth in Caller ID Act. This measure was introduced by our colleagues Mr. Engel and Mr. Barton, the ranking member of our Committee on Energy and Commerce. It would direct the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit caller ID spoofing, through which a caller falsifies the original caller ID information during the transmission of a call with the intent to defraud or to deceive.

Typically, caller ID spoofing involves a caller changing the number that would show on the call recipient's caller ID when that call is received. Spoofing has been possible for a number of years, but it has generally required very expensive equipment in order to change the outgoing call information. But with the growth of voice over IP telephoning, spoofing has become easier, and it has become less expensive, and a number of Web sites now are offering spoofing services. So its prevalence, unfortunately, is growing. That growth and the volume of spoofing makes necessary the legislation under consideration presently.

The proliferation of spoofing technologies and services means that those who want to deceive others by manipulating caller ID can now do so with relative ease. Spoofing threatens a number of existing business applications, including credit card verification and automatic call routing, because these systems rely on the telephone number as identified by the caller ID system as one piece of verification and authentication information.

At other times, however, spoofing may be used to protect individuals. I would note an example of domestic violence shelters that sometimes use spoofing to mask the identity of the caller in order to protect that caller's safety. By prohibiting the use of caller ID spoofing only where the intent is to defraud or deceive, this measure will address nefarious uses of the technology while continuing to allow those legitimate uses. In the domestic violence shelter situation, there is no intent to cause harm, which is an element of the crime of deception. Therefore, using caller ID spoofing to protect the location of a victim of domestic violence is not deceptive, and would be allowed under the provisions of the bill now under consideration.

This measure on previous occasions, in fact in the two previous Congresses, has been approved in the House on the suspension calendar. A similar measure in this Congress has been approved by the Senate. I look forward to advancing this legislation today, and I want to say thank you to Mr. Engel, to Mr. Barton, to my colleague and friend on the Commerce Committee, Mr. Stearns, and other members of our committee who on a bipartisan basis have contributed to the construction of this measure and advancing it to the floor today. I urge approval of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the primary author of the legislation, one of our Commerce Committee colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to commend my colleagues on the Republican side for their bipartisan cooperation in bringing this much-needed measure before the House. Our committee performs best when it works in a bipartisan mode, and we have done that with regard to this measure. We will do it with regard to the measure that will shortly be considered.

I also want to commend the gentleman from New York for his persistence in bringing this important measure to the House now for the third time. I very much hope, as I know he does, that we will be successful in having the measure pass through and signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3125) to require an inventory of radio spectrum bands managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members will have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the measure now under consideration and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Wireless communications services are rapidly growing. Each year, millions of users graduate from basic cellular telephone services to Smart telephones that employ a broad range of data services. Those services require far greater bandwidth than traditional cellular telephones; and the data services that are offered through Smartphones are becoming ever more sophisticated, often employing full-motion video as part of the range of applications that can be made available through the Smartphones.

The combination of greater Smartphone use and far more elaborate applications is placing unprecedented demands on our limited wireless spectrum availability. To meet these growing needs, in the near future more spectrum must be made available for commercial wireless communications services, and that new spectrum would be made available for auction to the successful wireless bidders.

Even the launch later this year of the fourth generation of the wireless services by the major cellular service providers using the spectrum that was previously occupied by the television broadcasters for their analog television transmissions will only provide a brief respite with regard to these ever-rising demands for additional spectrum, and so we clearly are compelled to act.

Responding to this need, last July I joined with Chairman Waxman; our full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton); and my friend and colleague on the subcommittee, our subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Stearns, in introducing the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, which is before the House this morning.

It directs the NTIA and the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission to undertake a comprehensive survey of the Nation's spectrum and report to us on current spectrum utilization, and include recommendations of which, if any, of the least utilized blocks of spectrum could be reallocated for commercial use or subjected to spectrum sharing with commercial users.

The measure is a thoughtful approach to meeting the extraordinary spectrum demands that our Nation will soon face. It will produce a timely blueprint for our future decisions about which spectrum should be reallocated for auctions to commercial service providers.

Under the bill, within 1 year of the date of enactment, the NTIA and the FCC would also create a Web site to make the spectrum inventory publicly available. They would report the results of the inventory to the House and Senate Commerce Committees within 2 years of the date of enactment, and that report would include a description of the information that could not be made publicly available for national security reasons.

The agencies would also, within 2 years, submit to the House and Senate Commerce Committees a reallocation report that would include a recommendation of which spectrum should be reallocated or otherwise made available for shared access. That recommendation should be updated by the agencies in follow-on reports to the committees, which are to be submitted every other year following the submission of the initial report. Those follow-on reports may be updates to the initial report and not necessarily be top-to-bottom reviews.

I want to express appreciation to our colleagues on a bipartisan basis--Mr. Waxman, Mr. Barton, Mr. Stearns, other members of the subcommittee--who, in our hearing and markup sessions in the subcommittee, contributed richly to our dialogue and to structuring the legislation that we have before us this morning. It is a bipartisan measure. All of the committee members have been involved in this constructive exercise, and I want to thank them for their participation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and principal author of this measure, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

The gentlelady controls the time. I will be happy to engage in the colloquy with the gentlelady.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

There is no doubt that more spectrum is needed to meet our Nation's rising demand for wireless services. Conducting the spectrum inventory that this legislation requires is an essential first step. It will offer a clear path and a road map for the next steps in making available adequate spectrum by giving the Congress and the FCC a baseline of the location and use of our spectrum resources. That baseline should inform the Congress and the commission on decisions regarding spectrum use and possible spectrum reallocation.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

As to the first matter, I agree with her that a thorough scientific examination of spectrum use must be the core of the inventory that this measure requires. I also agree that the right approach is for the FCC to work with television broadcasters to identify the spectrum they now hold that on a purely consensual basis could be repurposed for commercial wireless use. Broadcasters who surrender spectrum would receive compensation in exchange for a voluntary spectrum transfer. I would not support the commission's requiring stations to give up spectrum involuntarily.

The right approach is that specified in this legislation--learn where we are, understand thoroughly how current spectrum is used, identify that part that is perhaps underutilized that could be reallocated or submitted to spectrum sharing through the new spectrum sharing technologies and then to the extent that based on that inventory it would be appropriate for broadcasters to enter into conversations about surrendering a portion of their spectrum on a voluntary basis, that would obviously be an appropriate step. It would not be an appropriate step to require that broadcasters engage in the surrender of any part of the spectrum they hold.

And I thank the gentlelady for raising these very important questions

that help illuminate the debate this morning.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank all Members who have participated on a bipartisan basis in bringing this measure to the floor. Many Members have contributed to its construction. It is the right path to take.

This will bring us to a point where we are in a position to decide how to meet the rising spectrum demands that inevitably we will confront within just a few years. It is the right approach, and I commend this measure to the House and urge its approval.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, health care reform is needed. More than 36 million American citizens do not have health insurance, and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford to pay for the medical care they need. Those who have health insurance are finding that health care costs and health insurance premiums are rapidly rising. In fact, health insurance premiums are increasing 3.5 times faster than the rate of increase in family incomes.

This status quo is unsustainable, and finding a way for everyone to afford health insurance is necessary to benefit both the uninsured and those who have insurance. It is also essential that health insurance reform control health care costs and prevent rapid increases in health insurance premiums. But reform legislation must also ensure that the residents of my district in Southwest Virginia continue to have access to the high quality health care services that are now delivered locally.

After reading and carefully reviewing the legislation, I oppose passage of the health care measure before the House today. My concern largely centers on the dramatic reductions in Medicare funding required by the legislation. Over the next 10 years, the bill requires that Medicare funding be reduced by $450 billion. In fact, in April of this year, doctors in our region and across the nation will have their Medicare payments reduced by 21 percent. Over the next several years, additional reductions in payments to doctors will occur. Other health care providers will also experience substantial reductions in their Medicare reimbursements. These Medicare payment reductions are fully accommodated by and expected to occur in order to achieve the $450 billion Medicare payment reduction required by the reform legislation.

The population of the Ninth Congressional District is more elderly than in the typical congressional district. Most senior citizens in our region depend upon Medicare to pay their medical bills. Therefore, these Medicare funding cuts will be far more harmful to the population of our region than to the population of the typical congressional district. The dramatic cuts in Medicare funding that would be required by the health reform bill would adversely affect the quality of health care for senior citizens and other Medicare recipients.

Because Medicare is paying less, doctors, hospitals and other health care providers would increase charges to patients who have health insurance to make up for what they are not receiving from Medicare. This cost shifting of some substantial portion of the Medicare cuts would raise health insurance premiums for those who have insurance.

While it is important that means be found to enable everyone, including those who are currently uninsured, to be able to afford health insurance, achieving that goal cannot occur at the expense of people who are currently insured. Having concluded that these dramatic Medicare cuts would both decrease the quality of health care that is delivered to our region's senior citizens and result in increases in health insurance premiums for the currently insured, I simply cannot lend my support to passage of the bill.

I am also concerned about the unsavory deal-making that occurred in the United States Senate when the health care bill was considered in December. Some states received special benefits at the expense of other states. While the measure before the House today removes several of the special benefits, others remain and were not removed by the legislation. For example, the states of Louisiana, Tennessee, Connecticut and Montana have each received special benefits in the health care reform legislation not made available to other states. I simply cannot countenance this kind of deal-making which goes well beyond the bounds of normal legislative negotiations.

In my view, the legislation does not do enough to eliminate the historical disparity in Medicare funding between urban areas and rural areas under which rural areas receive less than the urban regions of the country. There is no justification for Medicare paying less for medical procedures performed in our region than in the cities.

The bill also fails to achieve the tort reform which is necessary to control health care costs. Virginia's tort reform law, which was adopted when I was a member of the Virginia General Assembly, has worked well, and I have urged that it be a model for national application. Unfortunately, the reform bill fails to include this needed provision.

I deeply regret that the legislation does not have a bipartisan foundation. On a matter of this scope, affecting every American citizen, the best ideas of both political parties should be drawn upon in crafting balanced legislation that well serves the public interest. That did not happen as the reform bill was constructed.

Reform is needed, but the measure being debated in the House today falls short. Because of massive funding reductions for Medicare, it would adversely affect the quality of care received by Southwest Virginia senior citizens. It would result in health insurance premium increases for those who have insurance. It contains unacceptable special benefits for some states at the expense of the others. It does not correct the unwarranted disparities in Medicare reimbursements that penalize rural areas. It does not contain meaningful tort reform, and it lacks the necessary bipartisan foundation.

The reform legislation contains many helpful provisions; however, in my view its shortcomings outweigh its merits. I will cast my vote accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1147) to implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is the Local Community Radio Act of 2009. It was introduced by Representatives Doyle and Terry, and it will provide additional opportunities to create new low-power FM radio stations by allowing their operation on third adjacent channels to the full-power radio stations.

Low-power stations, which are community-based nonprofits which operate at 100 watts or less of power and which have a broadcast reach, typically, of only a few miles, play a unique role in our media. They are far more likely than their full-power counterparts to be owned by women or minorities, and they are an important forum for local clergy, for educational institutions, and for a wide array of community leaders to have a say on important local issues.

I want to commend the cooperative work of our colleagues Mr. Doyle and Mr. Terry and of radio broadcasters who are significant stakeholders in this matter, as we have resolved the concerns of local public broadcasting stations that have a special need to protect the numerous translator stations that they operate from any local channel interference. Amendments that we adopted in the subcommittee consideration of the bill achieve that protection.

Among other provisions, the bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to allow the operation of low-power FM stations on third channel adjacencies to the full-power FM stations and FM translator and booster stations. It retains the FCC's existing minimum distance separation requirements for FM stations that provide radio reading services for the visually impaired.

At the same time, the bill provides for remediation of interference complaints between low-power FM stations and full-power stations as well as FM translator and booster stations. The measure directs the FCC to conduct an economic study of the effect of low-power FM stations on full service commercial stations and to submit those findings to the Congress within 1 year.

I want to thank Mr. Doyle for his tireless work on this measure. He has introduced this bill several times, and this is the first Congress in which it has been brought to the House floor. I tremendously appreciate his work and the work of Mr. Terry, his partner in this exercise. With the various stakeholders and with members of our subcommittee, collectively, their work has resulted in our being able to present this bill to the House today.

I also want to commend the bipartisan approach that we have taken in our subcommittee and full committee in processing this measure. I commend Chairman Waxman and Ranking Members Barton and Stearns for the highly cooperative manner in which we have altogether advanced this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

MR. DOYLE. I want to thank Chairman Boucher and Chairman Waxman for strongly supporting my bill, which will give local communities across this country access to their airwaves. I am grateful for the support that this bill has from both sides of the aisle, including from the bill's lead cosponsor, my good friend Lee Terry from Omaha.

When the Federal Communications Commission created the low-power FM

radio service, they sought to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local schools, churches and other community- based organizations to provide programming that would be responsive to local community needs and interests.

Congress, however, passed the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act in 2000, and many of those organizations were prevented from communicating to their members, supporters, and residents on the FM radio dial. That bill called for a field study performed by the MITRE Corporation and for the FCC to recommend to Congress what we should do.

In 2004, on a unanimous, bipartisan basis and for a second time in November 2007 and for a third time, once again, in September of 2009, all five FCC commissioners agreed that Congress should lift the restrictions on LPFM stations and should allow the FCC to license new stations in more communities. The bill we debate today, the Local Community Radio Act of 2009, does just that.

Where they are allowed to exist under current law, LPFM stations have proved to be a vital source of information during local or national emergencies. These stations promote the arts and education from religious organizations, community groups, organizations promoting literacy, and from many other civically oriented organizations.

Stations like KOCZ in Opelousas, Louisiana, which is operated by the Southern Development Foundation, is a group active in the African American community. This station broadcasts public affairs shows, religious programming, hip-hop, and zydeco music 24 hours a day. Zydeco music is central to the cultural heritage of the Acadiana region, but it has recently disappeared from the airwaves that have been dominated by commercial radio.

WQRZ, in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, remained on the air during Hurricane Katrina and served as the emergency operations center for Hancock County during the worst storm there in a century.

Congress has to act on the commission's recommendations; otherwise, similar stations will be prevented from operating in communities across America--in communities like mine, which are too large to have any slots for new LPFM stations at fourth adjacent, but could fit several at third adjacent.

Stations like Lightning Community Radio and WMKP's ``The Roar'' at Penn State's Greater Allegheny campus wanted to serve the McKeesport area in my district. The current law relegates them to Webcasting, but they want to simulcast on the air as well. We must pass this bill today to make sure that that can happen.

My bill has undergone some changes from the full committee, and the National Association of Broadcasters, as well as National Public Radio, have removed their objections and do not oppose the bill. This bill has broad support, and I will be adding into the Record these letters from almost a dozen leaders from Catholic and Protestant faiths, like the United Church of Christ and the National Association of Evangelicals; a letter from two dozen national and local public interest, civil rights and local groups; another letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and, finally, a letter from the National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the Prometheus Radio Project, all of whom strongly support the Local Community Radio Act.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Congress to rewrite the law. The time has come to make the airwaves available to the people they serve. The time has come to bring low-power to the people. I ask my colleagues to support the Local Community Radio Act.

My legislation makes a number of changes from the version reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Some of these changes clarified intent, others came at the request of large commercial broadcasters. Indeed, this version of the bill did not draw the opposition of the largest group of commercial broadcasters because they contributed several ideas that are included in this legislation. While I believe that the previous versions of the bill already provided strong protections for incumbent broadcasters, I accepted this compromise language because it will finally lay their objections to rest.

In exchange for dropping their opposition to my bill, incumbent broadcasters received a significant new form of protection for their signals. This compromise requires LPFM stations to fix any instance of interference to full power stations on the third adjacent channel, even outside an incumbent station's legally protected coverage area, also known as their contour.

I accepted this extremely unusual obligation to remediate interference outside of the broadcaster's legal coverage area, working with experts at the FCC, I know that harmful interference is extremely unlikely to occur in the real world.

I would not have accepted them if I believed they harmed the Low- Power FM radio service, and I will be sincerely disappointed if the Commission does so with mistaken interpretations.

Among the several changes, I'd like to explain two of them, I accepted a request that the FCC complete a study looking into the low- power FM radio service's financial impact on full-power commercial broadcasting. I know that the FCC has already looked into this issue and I understand that the Senate sponsor's intent is not to let this study delay implementation of the bill and licensing LPFM stations while this study is underway.

Second, in Section 5, I added the word ``new'' to make clear that that section applies to new licensing. While this refers to licensing new stations, I do not believe that this language should discourage the FCC from readdressing the relationship between LPFMs and translators should it conclude that it is in the public interest.

I have to thank the many people who have worked on this issue for over a decade. First, and foremost, this bill would not have happened without the work of Pete Tridish and Hannah Sassaman and Cory Fischer Hoffman of the Prometheus Radio Project, Cheryl Leanza now at the United Church of Christ, Office of Communications, Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition, and Carol Pierson of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters.

Additionally, I must also thank the dozens of dedicated people who have long cared about their community's ability to access their airwaves. That so many different groups support the bill is a testament to their dedication. Their hard work will hopefully reap true rewards. Thanks are due to Katherine Grincewich of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Amanda Huron, Diane Foglizzo, Sakura Saunders, Brandy Doyle, Jeanette Forman, Autumn Chacon, John Wenz, Sara Cederburg, Halimah Marcus, Ian Smith, Anthony Mazza, and Scott Pinkelman of the Prometheus Radio Project, artists Kendall Nordin and Nicole Atkins, and Amy Ray and Emily Saliers of The Indigo Girls, Gary Galloway, Director of the Newton County Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, Tim Stone of Portsmouth Community Radio, Parul Desai, Kamilla Kovacs and Andy Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, Beth McConnell, Chance Williams and Hannah Miller of the Media and Democracy Coalition, Candace Clement, Ben Scott and Joe Torres at Free Press, Corrine Yu at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and all others who have worked so hard to get the Local Community Radio Act so far.

Low-Power FM Radio: Supporting Media Diversity 2009 Local Community

Radio Act (H.R. 1147)

Dear Colleague: We urge you to join us in support of media

diversity by supporting H.R. 1147, the Local Community Radio

Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation will increase the

diversity of voices on our nation's radio airwaves by

creating hundreds of low-power, community radio stations in

cities, towns and suburbs across the United States.

According to a report released by the non-partisan media

advocacy group Free Press, people of color own just 7.7

percent of all full-power AM and FM stations, yet they make

up 33 percent of the U.S. population. Currently, African

Americans own 3.4 percent; Latinos, 2.9 percent; Asian

Americans, 0.9 percent; and Native Americans, 0.3 percent of

all full-power stations. In addition, despite making up 51

percent of the U.S. population, women only own 6 percent of

all radio stations. The study found the more concentrated a

local market, the less likely there will be a minority or

female owner. In 2008, the Minority Media &

Telecommunications Council (MMTC) Road Map for

Telecommunications Policy found that minority employment at

non-minority owned, English language radio news operations is

about 0.4% or statistically zero, which is about where it

stood in 1950. As a uniquely local outlet, low-power FM

(LPFM) stations directly serve the needs of their communities

by making stations possible for churches, schools, civil

rights organizations and other community groups. LPFMs

provide a forum to discuss local issues and provide essential

emergency services during times of crisis. The following

LPFMs have shown their potential to bring vibrant, diverse

programming to the airwaves:

On WSBL-LP (98.1), in South Bend, Indiana the local League

of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) chapter broadcasts

Spanish-language programming and music, public

safety announcements, and English vocabulary lessons.

In Sacramento, KDEE-LP (97.7), licensed to the California

Black Chamber of Commerce, broadcasts extensive local news

and community affairs, providing an opportunity for local

community leaders to get on the air.

Marianne Knorzer, station manager at KRBS-LP in Oroville,

California coordinates 50 volunteers to offer local

programming to its rural community, including everything from

Hmong language programming to Reggae.

KAPU-LP (104.7), in Watsonville, CA, prides itself on being

the only radio station on the U.S. mainland that broadcasts

Hawaiian music 24 hours a day.

Additional examples include: Radio Sur Sangam, in Hayward,

CA south of Oakland, which broadcasts using shortwave radio

signals to South Asians. The community hoped for a LPFM but

Congress limited the service from densely populated areas

such as Hayward. The Society for the Preservation of Korean

Culture and Language wanted a LPFM in the Chicago area.

LPFM offers an important alternative to the narrow terms of

public debate that are all too often promoted by large

broadcasters. Given these trends, LPFM is an important means

of transmitting the views of historically underrepresented

voices. A recent report by the Leadership Conference on Civil

Rights titled, Low Power Radio: Lost Opportunity or Success

on the Dial, concluded that LPFM ``represents the best

opportunity in years for diversity in radio broadcasting and

ownership.''

In 2003, a congressionally authorized study by the FCC

determined that LPFM service could be expanded without

causing significant interference to full-power FM radio

stations. As a result, the FCC urged Congress to repeal the

restrictions it placed on licensing LPFM stations and

recently voted unanimously in support of this position.

Supporters of H.R. 1147 include: the National Association

of Evangelicals; United Church of Christ; U.S. Conference of

Catholic Bishops; NAACP; National Hispanic Media Coalition;

National Bar Association; AFL-CIO; and emergency management

agency directors.

We encourage you to support the Local Community Radio Act

(H.R. 1147) when it comes to the floor for a vote. By doing

so, you will support localism, choice, and diversity on the

radio. If you have any questions, please contact Kenneth

DeGraff with Rep. Mike Doyle at 5-2135 or Brad Schweer with

Rep. Lee Terry at 5-4155.

Nydia M. Velazquez.

Mr. Speaker, we also have no further requests for speakers, and 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. 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.