Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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).

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Missouri Todd Akin as the lead Republican cosponsor of the legislation. Our legislation addresses a situation that most of our constituents have faced at least once and perhaps several times. An individual rents a car from a car rental company and is told the daily rate will be about $25.00. At the end of the rental, the charges from the car rental company are closer to $35.00 or $40.00 per day. Questions inevitably arise about the source of these additional charges. A small portion of the difference between the car rental company's daily rate and the amount charged is state or local sales taxes, which consumers pay on most goods and services they purchase. Increasingly, however, the bulk of these additional charges are state and local discriminatory excise taxes on car rental consumers--local taxes imposed to build sport stadiums, convention centers, etc. No matter what the size or scope of a local project, states or localities have sought to ``export'' the burden of funding these local initiatives by taxing ``out-of-town'' visitors renting cars in their state, city, or county. These discriminatory excise taxes on travelers have become increasingly popular in recent years. In 1976, there was one such tax. Since 1990, more than 115 special rental car taxes have been enacted in 43 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, car rental customers have paid more than $7.5 billion in special taxes to fund projects with no direct connection to renting a car. In addition to stadiums, car rental customers are also footing the bill for performing arts centers and a culinary institute. A recent study found that the taxes fall disproportionately on minority households; the taxes raise auto insurance costs; and these taxes reduce purchases of cars by rental companies--an increase of 10% in tax relative to the base rental rate reduces rental demand, and, therefore, purchases of new cars by rental car companies, by approximately 12%. The End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act would impose a permanent moratorium on discriminatory excise taxes on car rental customers by declaring these taxes an undue burden on interstate commerce. In the past, Congress has enacted similar protections from discriminatory state and local excise taxes for other interstate travelers such as airline, train, and bus passengers, and for the property of interstate transportation industries such as the airlines, buses, trains, and motor freight. Our measure would extend this protection to car rental consumers. The legislation's moratorium is prospective only. The bill ``grandfathers'' existing car rental excise taxes to prevent a cut-off of funding for projects financed through these taxes that are already underway, as long as the state or local authorization for the existing taxes does not expire or governments do not try to increase the rate of the tax. And the bill would not in any way restrict the ability of local governments to enact non-discriminatory, general taxes such as sales and income taxes. Our legislation has been endorsed by a wide range of stakeholders, including the National Consumers League, UAW, and the Big Three automobile manufacturers. I hope my colleagues will join with us in enacting into law the End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act of 2009.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the customary 10 minutes to the Energy and Commerce Committee. At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, in a collaborative process, the House Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees are presenting to the House this afternoon a renewal of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, provisions of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The act enables the delivery by satellite of distant network signals to homes that cannot receive network programming from a local television station. We're taking the opportunity of this reauthorization to achieve a long-held goal of having all 210 local television markets across the Nation uplinked by satellite for retransmission of those local stations back into the market of their origination. The goal is to ensure that satellite TV subscribers everywhere will be able to receive both national television programs and local TV stations that serve their area. At the present time, there are 28 local television markets in rural areas in various places of the Nation that do not have local television signals delivered by either of the major satellite television carriers, and much of our effort this year has been directed toward finding a way to obtain satellite carriage of these 28 rural markets for local television signals. Earlier this year, following extensive discussions with the company, I received a letter from EchoStar, a company commonly known in the trade as the DISH Network, agreeing to uplink for local retransmission all 210 local television markets upon certain conditions. One condition is that the company receive the ability in our legislation to import into the markets distant network signals in order to supply the missing networks in the markets that do not have a full complement of the networks represented by local affiliates. The bill that we're presenting today grants that permission if EchoStar, in fact, provides local TV service in all 210 television markets nationwide. Another condition of the company's willingness to serve all 210 markets is that the law not impose new carriage obligations that the company would have to devote its satellite capacity in order to meet. While the bill does impose some new carriage obligations, I'm optimistic that they will not be so extreme as to prevent EchoStar from launching local TV service in all 210 local markets over the coming year. Providing local TV service in the 28 currently unserved local markets will make local TV news, sports, weather, essential emergency information, and locally originated programs available in every part of the Nation, a goal that we're now very close to achieving. Serving the 28 now unserved local TV markets involves a major expenditure by EchoStar for ground-based facilities in each of the currently unserved markets and for the launch, in 2010, of a new satellite that itself will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I want to commend EchoStar for expressing a willingness to make these very substantial investments if we pass legislation that meets the conditions I have previously described, and I think our legislation does. I also commend television broadcasters and DirecTV, the other major satellite television provider, both of which groups played highly constructive roles as our negotiations proceeded. And I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a member of our Commerce Committee, for bringing to our attention in very forceful terms the need to serve all of the 28 currently unserved local television markets across our Nation. The bill before us makes other changes needed to harmonize the satellite carriage licenses with the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting, and it will result in more high-definition carriage of public broadcasting television under the terms of an amendment that was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and adopted during Commerce Committee consideration of our bill. I want to say thank you this afternoon to Chairman Conyers and his excellent staff for the cooperation with my staff and with me as our two committees structured the bill that we present to the House this afternoon. And I want to say thank you to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for the highly constructive and cooperative bipartisan role that they have played in helping us move this measure through our two committees. Madam Speaker, I urge approval of the bill, and I reserve any time I may have remaining.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. 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. As those without insurance are treated in emergency rooms, the high cost of that care is borne by those who have insurance, driving up health insurance costs for everyone. The typical family pays an extra $1,100 each year in health insurance premiums as a cost of treating the uninsured. Health insurance premiums are increasing 3.5 times as fast as 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. I hope that following a House-Senate conference on the legislation, we will be able to send to the White House the needed reform measure. But reform legislation must ensure that Southwest Virginia residents continue to have access to the high quality health care services now delivered locally. I oppose the health care reform legislation now before the House for several reasons including the continued existence of disparities in Medicare reimbursements between urban and rural areas under the House bill. Rural areas have traditionally received less under Medicare than urban areas, and while the bill makes some improvements in this regard, I would like to see more done to increase the payments to rural health care providers. Higher Medicare reimbursements would enable the attraction of more doctors to serve our medically underserved region. I also oppose the bill because of my concern that a government operated health insurance plan could place at risk the survival of our region's hospitals. Most of our hospitals are operated on a non-profit basis for the benefit of the community. While most of their receipts are from Medicare and Medicaid payments, they lose money on each Medicare or Medicaid patient they treat. These programs reimburse hospitals at rates below the actual cost of providing patient care. The financial viability of our hospitals comes from the payments they receive from privately insured patients. A government operated health insurance plan competing with private insurance will attract patients who are privately insured today, with the result that the hospitals would treat less privately insured patients and lose the critical revenues that are essential to their survival. A government operated plan would reimburse health care providers at rates approximating Medicare rates, and hospitals would lose money on each of their patients insured under the government plan. I am concerned that for these reasons the creation of a government operated insurance plan as envisioned in the House bill could result in the closure of hospitals in our region. Families depend on our community hospitals for health care services, and financially healthy hospitals are essential to the health of Southwest Virginians. Many of our hospitals are financially stressed in normal times, and two hospitals in the district I represent closed for periods of time in recent years for financial reasons. The government owned insurance plan as outlined in the House bill could push many more over the edge. I cannot support legislation that could lead to that result. I also believe that bipartisan participation is needed on a measure of this scope which affects every American. The best ideas of Democrats and Republicans alike should be drawn upon to fashion the final legislation. That did not happen as the House bill was constructed. In July, I opposed the health care reform measure when it was considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and expressed my concerns at that time. The bill passed by the House did not address those concerns. Passage of the House bill is but a first step in a long legislative process to final enactment of a reform. I look forward to future steps in that process offering an opportunity for my concerns to be resolved. Reform is needed, and I hope to support the final passage of legislation that emerges from a House-Senate conference that creates affordable access to health care for all Americans and does so in a way that enables the continued delivery of the excellent care now offered in our region.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1694) to allow the funding for the interoperable emergency communications grant program established under the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 to remain available until expended through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, before the House today is Senate 1694, a measure to enable funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program to remain available through fiscal year 2012. In the absence of this measure, the funds for the program could not be expended by the recipients of grants under the program after the end of this year. The bill before the House has been approved in the other body, and it is identical to House bills previously introduced by the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman) and by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao). The bill extends the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program that is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The funds, which are awarded as grants to first responders under the program, derive from proceeds of the auction by the Federal Communications Commission of the 700 megahertz spectrum, which became available as TV broadcasters ceased their analog television broadcasts in association with the digital television transition. The program had its genesis in recommendations by the 9/11 Commission concerning the well-acknowledged shortcomings in interoperable communications capabilities among first responders nationwide. As required by law, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General conducted an annual assessment of that Department's management of this grant program. It found that the NTIA within the Department of Commerce had met the statutory guidelines and requirements for making awards and for reviewing and approving the grantees' communications plans, but the Office of Inspector General also found that the congressional deadline which exists in current law had not allowed the States a sufficient amount of time within which by the end of this year to expend the grant funds that they receive under this program. That inability of States to expend all of these moneys by the end of this year is what necessitates the passage of the measure that is before us today. Ms. Harman's measure was approved by the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of our House Energy and Commerce Committee on the 8th of October, and her measure was approved by the full committee on October 15. It has been endorsed by, among others, the National Governors Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, the Telecommunications Industry Association, the National Emergency Management Association, and mayors of the cities of New York, Houston, and Los Angeles. S. 1694 passed the other body by unanimous consent on October 14, and we're taking up the Senate measure today so that upon approval in the House, it can go directly to the President for signature without further delay. I want to say thank you this morning to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who is the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who is the ranking member on our full committee, for the bipartisan manner in which we have processed the legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee. I commend both Ms. Harman and Mr. Cao for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, with the conclusion of these comments, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2 minutes. Let me again thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for bringing this measure before us today. It is a bipartisan measure. It is necessary that we pass this legislation in order to assure that first responders are able to expend the funds that are awarded to them under the Emergency Communications Grant Program. That program expires at the end of this year, and the Inspector General at the Department of Commerce found that awardees under that program simply within that timeframe do not have the time necessary in order to make good on these grants and expend those for communications equipment. So by extending this program until the end of fiscal year 2012, we provide the time that is necessary. It is appropriate legislation, completely bipartisan, and I encourage that the House adopt this bill.

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter before the House.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a southwest Virginia resident whose service to this Nation will long be remembered. On June 17, 2009, Darrell ``Shifty'' Powers, a distinguished World War II veteran, passed away. I would like to take this occasion to recognize his many contributions through his military service to our great Nation. Mr. Powers, who was portrayed in the HBO documentary film ``Band of Brothers,'' is a true American hero from southwest Virginia. A native of the Dickenson County, Town of Clinchco, Virginia, Mr. Powers volunteered for the United States Army during the early stages of the Second World War in 1942. He was quickly assigned to the newly formed 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment and began training at Camp Toccoa, Georgia. Each day, the new recruits would train by running 6 miles up and down the Curahee Mountain. As a result of the steadfast dedication of Mr. Powers and the other members of what came to be known as Easy Company, the regiment was quickly transformed into one of the Army's toughest fighting units. In 1943, after completion of parachute school at Ft. Benning, Georgia, the 2nd Battalion of the 506th Parachute Infantry was attached to the 101st Airborne Division and was transferred to England, where they would spend a year preparing to invade the European continent. At about 1 a.m. on June 6, 1944, Mr. Powers and the other members of Easy Company boarded a plane which transported them across the English Channel in order to parachute into Normandy behind German fortified positions. Shortly after landing, Mr. Powers and 2 fellow soldiers realized that they were a day's walk from their intended drop zone. The Airborne troops spent almost a week fighting German soldiers before they were sent back to England to prepare for an invasion of Holland. In September 1944, Mr. Powers' unit, along with Polish and English divisions, parachuted into Holland to secure a road for tanks and supply shipments to prepare for a push across the Rhine River into Germany. During the attack, the English troops landed in a German tank division and were immediately killed. Mr. Powers and the rest of Easy Company spent the following 3 months fighting for control of the same road, laying low during the day and moving at night. After securing the road and moving out of Holland, Easy Company was then ordered to defend the town of Bastogne, Belgium, when they learned that German troops had counterattacked along the Adrennes forest. For nearly a week, the undermanned and under-supplied Easy Company fought off a much larger German force. Easy Company lost 16 men during that week of fighting at Bastogne, and 34 more during fighting at Normandy and Holland. A little more than a month after Hitler's forces were pushed back in mid-January, General Dwight Eisenhower met with Mr. Powers' unit in France and awarded them the Distinguished Unit Citation for holding Bastogne. Soon after, Mr. Powers earned enough combat points to step away from the front lines of battle and return home to southwest Virginia. Mr. Powers was on his way out of combat when the truck he was riding in collided head-on with another Army truck, killing one soldier and badly injuring Mr. Powers. After recovering from these injuries he returned home to work for Clinchfield Coal Company in Dickenson County, Virginia, for 33 years. Mr. Powers rarely spoke of the horrors of the combat he faced until producers came to him with the ``Band of Brothers'' HBO miniseries idea. After the success of ``Band of Brothers,'' Mr. Powers often would receive countless expressions of support and thanks for the role he and his combat unit played in World War II. Upon Mr. Power's passing his online obituary received comments from people across the Nation and several individuals from Europe paying tribute and expressing deep appreciation for the sacrifices he made to help free Europe during World War II. In his later years, Mr. Powers dedicated a great deal of time to speak to current soldiers stationed or returning from Iraq and Afghanistan about his experiences in war and life. The outstanding dedication and sacrifice that Mr. Darrell ``Shifty'' Powers displayed during his time with the United States Army will be remembered not only by countless citizens in my congressional district in southwest Virginia but also by citizens across this country and across Europe. The effects of his service to our country will be forever lasting. I want to honor the passing of a great Virginian and a great American.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding and congratulate him on the tremendous leadership that he has shown in bringing this measure to the House floor this afternoon. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I urge its approval by the House. It achieves broad reductions in greenhouse gases, enhances America's energy security, and by placing a price on carbon dioxide emissions, will unleash investments in clean-energy technologies that will create millions of new American jobs. These energy technologies will evolve from America's laboratories; they will be deployed at home; they will be exported around the world; they will be the foundation for our next technology revolution. And it all starts here with passage today of the Clean Energy Security Act. Approximately 80 percent of the electricity in the district that I represent is coal-generated. Coal production is one of our region's major industries, and it is a major employer of our constituents. Not surprisingly, my focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal, which accounts for fully 51 percent of America's electricity generation. Both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today. Electricity rates will be only modestly affected. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that by 2020, the cost of the entire program for the typical American family will be $175 per year. The Environmental Protection Agency projects that the nearer-term cost for the typical family from all elements of this legislation will be between $80 and $110 per year; that's about 20 cents a day for the typical American family. And so the claims by the opponents that this legislation will impose enormous electricity price increases are simply wrong. The Environmental Protection Agency projects that by 2020, the usage of coal in our economy will grow as compared to today's usage. Now, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, so let me repeat that: the EPA projects that by 2020, coal usage in America, under the terms of this bill, will actually grow. As transportation electrifies and the demand for electricity increases, coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand. The claims of opponents that the CO2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use, causing an overreliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the Nation, are also simply wrong. This is a responsible measure. It is carefully balanced; it reduces greenhouse gases by 83 percent by the year 2050 as compared to 2005 levels; it keeps electricity rates affordable; it enables coal usage to grow as the demand for electricity increases nationwide; and it opens the door to a more secure energy future and the creation of millions of new jobs, innovating, deploying and exporting to the world the new, low-carbon-dioxide-emitting technologies that will power our energy future. Now, these are sound reasons to approve the bill; but for those who still harbor doubts, let me make a more practical argument to vote for passage. In March of 2007, the Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Under that ruling, and the terms of the existing Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is now effectively required to regulate CO2 emissions, and so Federal regulation for greenhouse gases is now inevitable. It is not a question of whether we are going to have regulation. The only question is whether the regulation will be our carefully balanced, congressionally adopted, economically sustainable regulation, as contained within the bill before us today, or whether we will have EPA's regulation under the blunt instrument of the Clean Air Act where economic considerations cannot be fully waived. Given that choice, and the path this bill charts for affordable electricity, for increased coal use, and for new job creation, I would urge the Members to make the reasonable decision to approve today the Clean Energy Security Act.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUCHER. I want to begin by extending my personal appreciation to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his determined effort to bring the Free Flow of Information Act to the floor of the House today and for the strong support in the last Congress and again in this Congress that he and his outstanding staff are providing to protect the public's right to know. The bill that is before the House today is identical to the bill that passed the House in the last Congress by a vote of 398-21. It is a bipartisan measure which, this year, as in the previous Congress, I was pleased to introduce and partner with our Republican colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), and 49 other cosponsors in the House. I want to acknowledge Mr. Pence's leadership and his deep commitment to protecting freedom of the press. It has been a tremendous privilege to have this opportunity to work with him toward the passage of this needed measure. I also want to thank our Virginia colleague, Bob Goodlatte, for his leadership and his strong support of the bill in this Congress. Mr. Goodlatte and I have worked together to promote a range of national policies. We cochair, for example, the Congressional Internet Caucus. It is also a pleasure to work with him in this Congress in order to promote passage of the Free Flow of Information Act. I want to comment for a moment today on the fact that in 2007 on this floor this bill received the outstanding vote of 398-21. That sweeping majority occurred by virtue of the careful work that was done by the House Judiciary Committee 2 years ago when the committee considered this legislation. Members on both sides of the aisle participated. They offered good suggestions for improving the legislation--for the addition of circumstances when disclosure of information could be compelled, including numerous provisions of compelled disclosure for the purpose of protecting the national security. Those national security protections are deeply embedded in the bill that we are considering today. It was an excellent committee process, rewarded on this House floor by a vote of 398-21 in favor. The measure was not considered on the Senate floor in the last Congress and so we begin the process again today with House consideration. The Free Flow of Information Act protects the public's right to know. This is really not about protecting journalists, as my friend from Texas would suggest. The privilege is conferred upon journalists, but it is for the purpose of protecting the public's right to know. The bill promotes the flow of information to the public about matters of large public interest where public disclosure is needed so that corrective action can be taken in order to prevent or correct a deep harm to society, so that legislation can be introduced to correct that harm, so that a lawsuit can be filed or a criminal prosecution be launched once the public is apprised of what in fact is happening that constitutes a harm to society. Journalists serve as public watchdogs, bringing sensitive matters to light, and the bill before us enables them to do a better job of it. Often, the best information that can be obtained about matters of large public interest that involve corruption in government or misdeeds in a large organization like a corporation or a large public charity will come from a person on the inside of that organization who knows what is happening, who knows about the harm to the public interest that is occurring, and feels a public responsibility to pick up a telephone and call a reporter and bring that critical information to public scrutiny. But that person has a lot of lose. If his or her identity becomes known, that person can become punished, often by the individual who is responsible for the wrongdoing inside that organization. And so, in the absence of the ability of reporters to extend a pledge of confidentiality to protect the identity of that person on the inside, that information will never come to public light, and there will never be an opportunity for the public to take corrective action. This is why we call our bill the Free Flow of Information Act. Passing this measure, conferring upon journalists a limited privilege to refrain from revealing confidential source information, will ensure that that vital information flows freely to the public so that corrective action in this Congress or in other legislative forums or in the courts can thereafter be taken. The measure extends in Federal court proceedings a qualified privilege for reporters to refrain from testifying or producing documents, and a qualified privilege to refrain from revealing the identity of confidential sources. Throughout the bill, there are provisions protecting the national security; and where it is appropriate to protect national security, disclosure of information can be compelled, disclosure of source information can be required, and reporters can in fact be required to testify in Federal court proceedings. The bill very carefully balances the need to protect the national security with the need to assure the free flow of information. Madam Speaker, it is a carefully written measure which strengthens freedom of the press and protects the public's right to know. I strongly urge its approval today by the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the vice ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, a distinguished Republican Member of this House and a good friend with whom I'm pleased to serve in the Virginia delegation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).