[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H14907-H14910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT

  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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1084

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial Advertisement 
     Loudness Mitigation Act'' or the ``CALM Act''.

     SEC. 2. RULEMAKING ON LOUD COMMERCIALS REQUIRED.

       (a) Regulation Required.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 
     shall prescribe pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) a regulation that is limited to 
     incorporating by reference and making mandatory (subject to 
     any waivers the Commission may grant pursuant to

[[Page H14908]]

     subsection (b)(2)) the ``Recommended Practice: Techniques for 
     Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital 
     Television'' (A/85), and any successor thereto, approved by 
     the Advanced Television Systems Committee, only insofar as 
     such recommended practice concerns the transmission of 
     commercial advertisements by a television broadcast station, 
     cable operator, or other multichannel video programming 
     distributor.
       (b) Implementation.--
       (1) Effective date.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall prescribe that the regulation adopted pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall become effective 1 year after the date 
     of its adoption.
       (2) Waiver.--For any television broadcast station, cable 
     operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor 
     that demonstrates that obtaining the equipment to comply with 
     the regulation adopted pursuant to subsection (a) would 
     result in financial hardship, the Federal Communications 
     Commission may grant a waiver of the effective date set forth 
     in paragraph (1) for 1 year and may renew such waiver for 1 
     additional year.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``television broadcast station'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 325 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325); and
       (2) the terms ``cable operator'' and ``multichannel video 
     programming distributor'' have the meanings given such terms 
     in section 602 of Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUCHER. 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, 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.

                              {time}  1315

  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. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill, H.R. 1804, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness 
Mitigation Act, or the CALM Act, is a bill whose time has come and 
perhaps because the transition to digital has created the perfect 
opportunity for industry to take care of this. But they did not take 
care of this for some 40 years. The bill would require the Federal 
Communications Commission to issue regulations, based on industry 
standards, for loud commercial advertisements within 1 year of 
enactment. The regulation would take effect 1 year after adopted by the 
FCC.
  According to testimony at a June Energy and Commerce hearing, 
consumer complaints about loud commercials have been streaming into the 
FCC as far back as 1960 and are among the most common complaints. 
Complaints continue to come into the FCC today. In fact, in the 25 
quarterly reports on consumer complaints that have been released since 
2002, 21 have listed complaints about the, quote, abrupt changes in 
volume during transition from regular programming to commercials as 
among the top consumer grievances regarding radio and television 
broadcasting. So as we can tell, this is a top issue for consumers.
  Now this issue is a little bit more complex than it appears. Many 
different entities are responsible for producing and distributing the 
content that consumers hear and see in their living rooms. Each element 
may be recorded and provided at a different respective volume level. 
Moreover, shows and movies have a dynamic sound range to cover 
everything from a quiet scene to a huge explosion. Commercials, 
meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range. Volume levels are 
typically set for the programming, which can simply throw off the 
volume levels for the commercial. But as I pointed out earlier, now we 
have a solution in place because the transition to digital has made 
that possible.
  Two years ago, the Advanced Television Systems Committee established 
a Subgroup on Digital Television Loudness. Now it is this subgroup, 
consisting of leading experts in audio technology who participated 
together from all the major broadcast networks, cable, production and 
post-production companies, manufacturing and education; all these very 
bright, talented, highly technical people got together in this 
subgroup. They established a way to solve the problem. And since it was 
established, these audio technology experts have crafted a hard-fought 
consensus on a recommended practice that should be employed across the 
TV industry to deal with the complaint that consumers have made for 
almost 50 years. I trust the collective wisdom of these technical 
experts--it is done by the private sector--and Subgroup's hard work to 
craft a solution to the TV loudness issue should be commended.
  Let me say a few more comments about this. There are going to be some 
small cable companies, broadcasters, who are going to have a difficult 
time complying with this. Remember, now, after 1 year, the FCC is going 
to take this directive that the Advanced Television Systems Committee 
established and is going to make it industry-wide. Now some of these 
small companies are going to complain that they can't afford to 
implement it. In the bill, there is a 1-year extension for those small 
companies, and if it turns out they still can't make it, there is 
another extension. So now we have the majority of the industry able to 
do this, but we have set aside within the bill a safety hardship in 
which they just demonstrate they can't do it for financial reasons and 
they will be left to have another year to meet the standards.
  So in a sense, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a solution to a problem 
that

[[Page H14909]]

has been one of the biggest complaints with the FCC all these years; 
and so with that in mind, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1804, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  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).
  Ms. ESHOO. I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of our 
subcommittee, Mr. Boucher, for his consistent support and cooperation 
to help bring the bill through the committee. I doubt that we would be 
here today were it not for that. And I want to recognize and thank the 
ranking member of our subcommittee for the work that he has put into 
this as well and the suggestions that he made in order to bolster the 
bill and to make it imminently workable. I also want to thank, of 
course, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), for his support.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this bill which is designed to eliminate the earsplitting levels of 
television advertisements and return control of television sound 
modulation to the American consumer. I first introduced the Commercial 
Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, called the CALM Act, more than 3 
years ago. This is something that many of our constituents now refer to 
in their shorthand as the Loud Commercial Law. I have heard loud and 
clear from people across the country. We have consumers across the 
country that are with us and would like to see this accomplished.
  The premise of the bill then, as now, was really simple; and in an 
era of 1,000- or 1,800-page bills, this is a 2-page bill, and it is to 
make the volume of commercials and programming uniform so that 
consumers control the sound. The problem has existed for more than 50 
years, when television advertisers first realized that consumers often 
left the room when commercials were playing. They used the loud 
commercials as a gimmick to grab the attention of consumers, even as 
they moved to other parts of their home. But for anyone who can't get 
to the mute button fast enough, we know that we are all subjected to 
blasting ads. For those with sensory difficulties, the loud commercials 
are more than just an annoyance. Sound spikes can harm hearing and 
sometimes they are painfully loud.
  This issue, as my colleagues have referenced, is also one of the top 
complaints, consistently one of the top complaints, from consumers 
across the country to the Federal Communications Commission. This bill 
is going to bring a measure of relief to the American consumer. It is 
also, I think, an important step in identifying the need to make 
broadcasters and video providers responsible for answering to consumers 
at the most basic level. I created this bill taking into account the 
economic health of licensees and the importance of smaller stations and 
providers. The Advanced Television Systems Committee, or the ATSC, a 
body that sets technical standards for digital television, has 
developed a solution to the problem of the varied volume between 
commercials and programming, with one stream that keeps the volume 
uniform.
  The bill directs the FCC to adopt these engineering standards as 
mandatory rules within 1 year. These standards were not in the works 
until we introduced this legislation in the last Congress, so I am 
pleased to have encouraged the industry to find the answer to this 
problem so we don't have to wait another 50 years for a solution.
  I look forward to voluntary and immediate adoption of the standards 
by broadcasters, cable, satellite and all multichannel program 
providers. But the bill exists because we know that voluntary 
compliance or adherence to consumer needs has been a failure and we 
need to assure enforcement to protect the rights of consumers. The bill 
also requires cable and satellite operators to install the engineering 
fix necessary to ensure that the sound is modulated.
  The bill is not inflexible. It heeds the call by industry for a 
compliance grace period. Those affected, and I think it's very 
reasonable, will have 1 year after the FCC adopts the rule for purchase 
and installation of the ATSC standard-based equipment, and the FCC may 
grant up to two successive 1-year waivers for financial hardship. Small 
stations and cable operators certainly should be able to comply within 
3 years, plus the amount of time it takes the FCC to adopt and release 
the rules.
  I have read the minority comments that have been filed relative to 
the bill, and I want to answer directly the concerns of some of my 
colleagues about the necessity of the bill, so I want to reiterate the 
following:
  First, I think the bill is necessary because we need a mandatory 
enforcement tool, and I stated that earlier. Volunteerism hasn't worked 
for 50 years.
  Second, the bill makes the ATSC standards applicable to all FCC 
licensees, and that includes satellite and cable providers as well as 
broadcasters. The voluntary standards as written only apply to 
broadcasters.
  Thirdly, the bill matters to our constituents, and I think that 
that's what really matters the most, and it stands as proof that 
Congress can listen to their concerns.
  Fourthly, it has been said that Congress has better things to do. I 
have never suggested that this solves the great challenges that face 
our country today. As I said, it's a 2-page bill, but it is something 
that has been left unattended to for half a century and I think the 
time has come that we end the practice of consumers being blasted out 
of their seats when they're listening to their favorite programming.
  The technical fix is long overdue and under the CALM Act, as amended, 
consumers will be in the driver's seat. I look forward to the passage 
of this bill, and most importantly so do millions of other consumers 
and our constituents across the country.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just perhaps move a little further. The gentlelady from 
California mentioned that a lot of people had said, well, why does 
Congress have to get involved? That has been brought before me before. 
And I would say--and this is a compliment to the lady from California--
what she did with her bill.
  Her bill originally directed the FCC to write its own rules, but she 
reached out to industry and engaged them, which is a commendation for 
her, and asked them, Well, how can we solve this? So for those people 
who say, Why can't industry solve it?, she was an impetus to do this, 
and her bill is furthermore an impetus to do this, because now industry 
developed a subgroup, the subgroup came up with the technology to be 
able to solve the problem, and now she's saying basically, let industry 
solve the problem and let the FCC adopt what they've come up with.

                              {time}  1330

  Another thing that I think came through the process which is also, I 
think, a compliment to her was that she was willing to realize that 
some in the industry, some of the smaller companies, might have a 
financial problem with this, so she was willing to change the bill to 
allow this, I'll call it a safety valve, for those small companies that 
can't make it, that petition the SEC to get a delay so that they have 1 
year and possibly another year.
  So I think what this bill shows to those people who say why can't we 
just let the industry solve it, I think the simple fact that she went 
out and engaged them, they developed a subgroup working with the 
industry, as she did, works it in a way that industry is solving their 
own problem, but they also realize, after all these years, going back 
to the 1960s, and these complaints, something's got to be done. And I 
think many of us, in the last weekend watching football games, can 
remember that time we had to get up with the remote and turn it off. 
And you can say, well, that's fine; just turn it off. But it's 
constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the 
new bowl games coming up.
  So I think the aspect about that we all should realize is that Ms. 
Eshoo also was willing to change the bill and reach out and work with 
industry to get this done, and to also provide the safety valve. So I 
think that's an important aspect to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues, how this bill works I think in a way to help industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance 
of our time.

[[Page H14910]]

  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. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CALM 
Act.
  While I, too, would like to have someone turn down the TV when it 
gets loud, I've already given that job to my thumb. As a result, I only 
need one Member of Congress at work on this vital problem, not 435. I 
appreciate Ms. Eshoo's efforts to protect America's ears from loud 
commercials and our thumbs from arthritis brought on by overuse, but 
writing a law to do so seems a stretch.
  The bill adopts into Federal law the industry-developed standards 
that are already being implemented, and consumers do not need the 
government to function as remote volume controls for them. Simply put, 
the private sector already has acted on this noisy nuisance.
  If you're not convinced that having a reliable and fully functioning 
thumb is better for both you and the Nation than having a fully 
functioning bureaucracy to adjust your TV's sound, there's also this: 
Many entities are responsible for producing and distributing the 
content that we all see and hear. Broadcast affiliates, networks, and 
cable, satellite, and phone companies then transmit the content. Each 
element of the programming may be recorded and provided to the 
distributors at different volume levels. Moreover, shows and movies 
have a broad, dynamic sound range to cover everything from explosions 
in a car chase to lawyers whispering to juries. Commercials, meanwhile, 
tend to have a narrow sound range, and they can blare and annoy when 
they suddenly follow a movie scene that was putting you to sleep.
  The technical challenges presented by these facts are significant, 
but with the transition to digital television, industry has responded. 
On November 5, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, ATSC, 
announced the approval of the ``ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques 
for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital 
Television.'' These standards provide guidance to the industry, and 
focus on audio measurement, production and postproduction monitoring 
techniques, and methods to control loudness for content delivery.
  I want to commend my friend, Ms. Eshoo, for working with all the 
relevant parties and for amending her bill to acknowledge the 
industry's work. In my opinion, however, there is no reason for 
Congress to get between me and my remote control. On those grounds, I 
have to give this measure a thumbs down.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1084, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________