Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentlelady yield?

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

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

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