[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 166 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8376-H8380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2009
Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
[[Page H8377]]
bill (S. 30) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
manipulation of caller identification information.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 30
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 ``Truth in Caller ID Act of
2009''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING MANIPULATION OF CALLER
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
227) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Prohibition on Provision of Inaccurate Caller
Identification Information.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States, in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to
cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information
with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain
anything of value, unless such transmission is exempted
pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
``(2) Protection for blocking caller identification
information.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to
prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability
of any caller identification service to transmit caller
identification information.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the
Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement this
subsection.
``(B) Content of regulations.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations required under
subparagraph (A) shall include such exemptions from the
prohibition under paragraph (1) as the Commission determines
is appropriate.
``(ii) Specific exemption for law enforcement agencies or
court orders.--The regulations required under subparagraph
(A) shall exempt from the prohibition under paragraph (1)
transmissions in connection with--
``(I) any authorized activity of a law enforcement agency;
or
``(II) a court order that specifically authorizes the use
of caller identification manipulation.
``(4) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the enactment
of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the Commission shall
report to Congress whether additional legislation is
necessary to prohibit the provision of inaccurate caller
identification information in technologies that are successor
or replacement technologies to telecommunications service or
IP-enabled voice service.
``(5) Penalties.--
``(A) Civil forfeiture.--
``(i) In general.--Any person that is determined by the
Commission, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be
liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. A
forfeiture penalty under this paragraph shall be in addition
to any other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of
the forfeiture penalty determined under this paragraph shall
not exceed $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount
for each day of a continuing violation, except that the
amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed
a total of $1,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.
``(ii) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under
clause (i) shall be recoverable pursuant to section 504(a).
``(iii) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be
determined under clause (i) against any person unless such
person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or
section 503(b)(4).
``(iv) 2-year statute of limitations.--No forfeiture
penalty shall be determined or imposed against any person
under clause (i) if the violation charged occurred more than
2 years prior to the date of issuance of the required notice
or notice or apparent liability.
``(B) Criminal fine.--Any person who willfully and
knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction
thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or
3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation,
in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for such a
violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the
provisions of section 501 relating to imprisonment or the
imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
``(6) Enforcement by states.--
``(A) In general.--The chief legal officer of a State, or
any other State officer authorized by law to bring actions on
behalf of the residents of a State, may bring a civil action,
as parens patriae, on behalf of the residents of that State
in an appropriate district court of the United States to
enforce this subsection or to impose the civil penalties for
violation of this subsection, whenever the chief legal
officer or other State officer has reason to believe that the
interests of the residents of the State have been or are
being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this
subsection or a regulation under this subsection.
``(B) Notice.--The chief legal officer or other State
officer shall serve written notice on the Commission of any
civil action under subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such
civil action. The notice shall include a copy of the
complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, except
that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such
prior notice, the State shall provide such notice immediately
upon instituting such civil action.
``(C) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving the notice
required by subparagraph (B), the Commission shall have the
right--
``(i) to intervene in the action;
``(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters
arising therein; and
``(iii) to file petitions for appeal.
``(D) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph
shall prevent the chief legal officer or other State officer
from exercising the powers conferred on that officer by the
laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer
oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of
witnesses or the production of documentary and other
evidence.
``(E) Venue; service or process.--
``(i) Venue.--An action brought under subparagraph (A)
shall be brought in a district court of the United States
that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under
section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.
``(ii) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subparagraph (A)--
``(I) process may be served without regard to the
territorial limits of the district or of the State in which
the action is instituted; and
``(II) a person who participated in an alleged violation
that is being litigated in the civil action may be joined in
the civil action without regard to the residence of the
person.
``(7) Effect on other laws.--This subsection does not
prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective,
or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the
United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a
State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
``(8) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Caller identification information.--The term `caller
identification information' means information provided by a
caller identification service regarding the telephone number
of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call
made using a telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice
service.
``(B) Caller identification service.--The term `caller
identification service' means any service or device designed
to provide the user of the service or device with the
telephone number of, or other information regarding the
origination of, a call made using a telecommunications
service or IP-enabled voice service. Such term includes
automatic number identification services.
``(C) IP-enabled voice service.--The term `IP-enabled voice
service' has the meaning given that term by section 9.3 of
the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 9.3), as those
regulations may be amended by the Commission from time to
time.
``(9) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this
subsection or to the regulations under this subsection.''.
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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material in the Record.
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. Madam Speaker, today we consider S. 30, the Truth in
Caller ID Act. It is the Senate companion to House legislation that was
introduced on a bipartisan basis by our colleagues, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), ranking
Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill directs the FCC to adopt the regulations prohibiting caller
ID spoofing in which a caller falsifies the original caller ID
information during the transmission of a call with the intent to
defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully to obtain anything of value. The
bill makes anyone who knowingly and willingly engages in caller ID
spoofing eligible for criminal fines.
Spoofing has been possible for many years, but generally required
expensive
[[Page H8378]]
equipment in order to change the outgoing call information. But with
the growth of voice over Internet protocol usage, spoofing has become
easier and considerably less expensive, and a number of Web sites are
now offering spoofing services. Consequently, those who want to deceive
others by manipulating caller ID can now do so with relative ease.
Spoofing threatens a number of business applications, including
credit card verifications and automatic call routing, because these
systems rely on the telephone number as identified by the caller ID
system as one piece of their verification and authentication process.
It is also commonly used in the commission of frauds of various kinds.
At other times, spoofing may be used to protect individuals. For
example, domestic violence shelters sometimes use spoofing to mask the
identity of the caller for protective purposes.
By prohibiting the use of caller ID spoofing only where the intent is
to defraud, to cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, this
measure addresses the nefarious uses of the technology while continuing
to allow legitimate uses such as use in shelters for the victims of
domestic violence.
In the rulemaking that the FCC will conduct pursuant to new
subsection 227(e)(3) of the Communications Act, the committee
anticipates that the commission will consider imposing obligations on
entities that provide caller ID spoofing services to the public. The
widespread availability of caller ID spoofing services presents a
significant potential for abuse and hinders law enforcement's ability
to investigate crime.
The prohibition in this bill on the use of those services with the
intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value
could be of limited value if entities continue to provide those
services without making any effort to verify their users' ownership of
the phone number that is being substituted.
With our action today, this measure will be forwarded to the
President for his signature. I want to thank and commend our
colleagues, Mr. Engel and also Mr. Barton, for their commitment to the
matter. And I want to commend Senator Nelson of Florida and all Members
who, on a bipartisan basis, have contributed to and supported the
legislation now before the House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1220
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which
addresses an issue that Mr. Barton and Mr. Engel and the Energy and
Commerce Committee have been working on since the 109th Congress. In
fact, back in April of this year, the House passed our version, H.R.
1258. The legislation protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive
practice of manipulating caller ID information, a practice known as
caller ID spoofing.
Everyone is now familiar with the caller ID product that provides to
a consumer the name and number of who is placing an incoming call.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, caller ID spoofing is yet another tool
available to criminals to hijack the identity of consumers.
As with other scams, the Internet is making caller ID spoofing even
easier today. There are Web sites that offer subscribers, for a nominal
fee, a simple Web interface to caller ID spoofing systems that lets
them appear to be calling from any number they so choose. Some of these
Web services have boasted that they do not maintain logs and fail to
provide any contact information. Some even offer voice scrambling
services to further the deception of the consumer.
The FCC has investigated this spoofing problem, but currently there
is no prohibition against manipulating caller ID information with the
intent to harm others. Today's bill remedies this problem.
This bill specifically prohibits knowingly sending misleading or
inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause
harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Deception with intent is
our target. We drafted and amended the language carefully to ensure
that we only prohibit those practices intending to do harm.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons why someone may need to
manipulate caller ID. For example, domestic violence shelters often
alter their caller ID information to simply protect the safety of
victims of violence. Furthermore, a wide array of legitimate uses of
caller ID management technologies exists today, and this bill protects
those legitimate business practices.
For example, caller ID management services provide a local presence
for teleservices and collection companies. These calling services
companies are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and Federal
Communications Commission, which require commercial callers to project
a caller ID that can be called back. This bill is not intended to
target lawful practices protecting people from harm or serving a
legitimate business interest.
My colleagues, this is a good piece of bipartisan consumer protection
legislation. And while I normally hesitate to take the Senate's work
product without some kind of amendment on our side, I want to thank my
friends on both sides of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle here
in the House of Representatives, including the many chairmen over the
years, including Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, and
Mr. Boucher, as well as Mr. Upton, who was also chairman of this
subcommittee. I also want to thank this Congress' lead sponsor and
hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good
friend, Eliot Engel from New York.
I support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chief sponsor
of the House companion measure.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding to me. I want
to thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his kind words, and
also the kind words of the gentleman from Virginia.
I rise today in strong support of my legislation, the Truth in Caller
ID Act. This is about as bipartisan as a bill can be. We have passed
this bill several times in the House only to have it not move through
the other body, and I am delighted that for the first time we have had
it passed in the other body. So now when we pass this bill, hopefully
the President will sign it into law and we will finally have a stoppage
of this fraud which is being perpetrated on the American people.
I originally read an article in the newspaper on a plane talking
about what was going on with spoofing, and I remember thinking, This is
ridiculous. How could this be legal? How could we just turn a blind eye
to it? And then I realized we needed to have legislation.
We have been supported every step of the way, again, bipartisan, by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton). We have all worked on this legislation together.
I introduced the bill because we need an immediate change in our laws
to help prevent identity theft, to crack down on fraudulent phone
calls, and to protect legitimate uses of caller ID technology. We have
seen, as my colleagues have mentioned, a large number of cases of
caller ID fraud leading to illegal or even violent activities.
Last year, the New York City Police Department uncovered a massive
identity theft ring where criminals stole more than $15 million from
over 6,000 people. They were able to perpetrate this fraud in many
instances by using caller ID spoofing. In another case, a person in New
York called a pregnant woman who she viewed as a romantic rival,
spoofing the phone number of the woman's pharmacist. She tricked the
woman into taking a drug used to cause abortions.
Caller ID fraud has even been used to prank call the constituents of
a Member of this body, with the caller ID readout saying it came from
that Member's office. Just imagine if people committed this fraud in
the days leading up to a close election. You could see it. You spoof a
number of your political opponent. You call someone at 3 o'clock in the
morning. You say something obnoxious on the phone, and then the
constituents are angry and are not going to vote for that person. This
is all perfectly legal, up until the passage of this bill.
[[Page H8379]]
I have said again and again that one of the most troubling aspects of
caller ID spoofing is not simply that it is legal. What disturbs me is
how incredibly easy it is to carry out caller ID fraud. Criminals use a
tool called a spoof card to change their outgoing caller ID; so you
could look at it and see a phone number, any phone number that that
person wants to put down, they can do it, and the person getting the
call has totally no idea where it is coming from or thinks it is coming
from a place where obviously it is not.
This technology can even be used to disguise someone's voice in order
to trick people. If it is a man doing it, he can change the voice to
sound like a woman, and vice versa. So it can be done completely to
trick people.
This can trick people, corporations, or even banks. Imagine senior
citizens who see the number of their bank put up when they take a look
and see who is calling and it is fraudulent, or their doctor or their
pharmacist or a close family member or a close family friend. This is
terrible, and this tool is available to anyone with access to a Web
browser. So, as was pointed out, the technology has gotten easier and
easier for someone to perpetrate this fraud.
This legislation will outlaw caller ID spoofing when the intent is to
defraud, cause harm, or lawfully obtain anything of value. And, let me
say, we have had many, many hearings on this bill.
The reason why this outlaws caller ID spoofing when the intent is to
defraud or cause harm, as my colleagues have pointed out, we put that
in the bill based on the hearings we had because we don't want some
legitimate reasons to use this technology to be outlawed. So it is only
outlawed when the intent is to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully
obtain anything of value.
We won't be challenging the rulings for legitimate uses of this
technology. For example, domestic abuse shelters will still be able to
change the number on caller ID to protect the occupants of the shelter.
We have some scrambling right here in the Capitol, as a result, to
protect very important private numbers. That won't be changed.
So, again, I am pleased this bill passed the House in the 109th and
110th Congress. This is now the 111th. We are about to pass it. The
Senate has done it for the first time. So I look forward to the
President signing this bill into law.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Truth in Caller ID Act
to outlaw this type of fraud once and for all. I thank my colleagues
again for their support.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy), the distinguished Member who also has
been active in this, in fact has had a separate bill, so he was sort of
a forerunner on this issue.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague.
I rise to speak about S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009,
addressing the serious problem of caller ID fraud that allows a caller
to hide his true identity. They do this through Web sites that will let
you choose any number to show up on the caller ID. The Web sites even
offer options to disguise your voice, such as making a man or woman's
voice appear as the opposite gender.
I am glad to see the Senate is finally acting on this issue that I
first raised in 2006 when I introduced H.R. 5304, known as the PHONE
Act, or the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement
Act.
{time} 1230
My bill passed the full House on December 9, 2006, and while it
didn't make it through the Senate, several Members of the House pressed
on. Congressman Bobby Scott and I reintroduced this legislation in the
110th and 111th Congresses. The House passed the bill in March of 2007
by a vote of 413-1. And I would like to thank my colleagues in this
session of Congress for overwhelmingly voting in favor of the Murphy-
Scott Phone Act a year ago tomorrow by a vote of 418-1.
Caller ID can have legitimate uses to protect victims or when law
enforcement are trying to track down criminals. However, here we are
concerned about illegitimate uses.
When I first introduced the PHONE Act, several problems were already
beginning to emerge. On one level friends were using it to prank
others, and just to annoy them. On another level, there were famous or
infamous cases where the harassment involved well-known personalities,
* * *.
But caller ID is also employed for more sinister reasons. My own
office experienced this when an organization used a phony caller ID
system to make it appear as though my congressional office was calling
constituents. Constituents were understandably puzzled and annoyed when
bombarded by these calls. Unfortunately, we were not able to track down
the perpetrators. In total, at least 42 House Republicans from 14
States were targeted in their home districts by similar harassing phone
calls using call spoofing. Although I believe that action alone
constitutes a fraud in posing as a Federal elected official's office,
that is not the worst case.
In several cases, police and FBI have been subjected to so-called
``swatting'' calls when a caller uses another person's caller ID to
phone the authorities, report a fake crime in progress, which draws a
police and SWAT team response. Luckily, no one has been harmed in these
cases, but you can imagine the potential tragedy when a team of police
with guns drawn respond to the scene of what they believe is a
dangerous ongoing crime. It is more than just a false alarm to a fire
department. It can lead to serious injury for police and the community,
and that is why we must pass this bill before someone gets hurt.
Here are some other reports. A woman from Pennsylvania discovered her
phone number was appearing on other people's caller ID, and it was
being used as a vehicle to harass people.
In the wake of the Haitian earthquake, the Virginia State Police
warned citizens to be vigilant against scam artists using phony caller
ID numbers to obtain donations. Under such circumstances, perpetrators
can pose as a legitimate charity to fool others into donating to an
illegitimate account.
We have heard of cases where a county courthouse number appears as
citizens are told they missed jury duty and are asked to give their
credit card number to pay a fine.
Last December, another case in Pennsylvania occurred when a woman
claimed to have shot her baby. It turned out to be a hoax. The police
and detectives were forced to spend their Christmas Day wasting
valuable resources investigating what was presented as a gruesome crime
that was never committed.
These are just a few examples, and if we do not enact this
legislation into law, I worry we will read about many more cases of
call spoofing, including some that will inevitably end in tragedy.
Because of these, I am still a supporter of enhanced penalties when
caller ID spoofing is used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, we
should not stop with this legislation. The Truth in Caller ID Act
provides for civil penalties under the Communications Act of 1934. My
legislation, the PHONE Act, which has already passed the full House,
provides for criminal penalties under the U.S. criminal code.
But I want to thank Congressman Engel and Congressman Barton for
being leaders on this issue in the House of Representatives in
introducing their version. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Truth
in Caller ID Act, and let's hope in the future we can pass enhanced
criminal penalties such as those in my PHONE Act bill. Together these
pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive set of civil and
criminal penalties to enable us to effectively combat caller ID
spoofing.
Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise for two reasons. One is to support this
bill. I actually thought it had passed and become law because we pass
it every Congress, and it goes to the other body and falls in the black
hole over there. So it is good to know they are bringing it
[[Page H8380]]
back. I am told there is a two-word difference between the bill we sent
to them and the bill they sent back to us. I guess we can accept a two-
word difference. It is long overdue. I want to compliment Mr. Engel for
his hard work and perseverance. And Mr. Stearns, Mr. Murphy, and others
on our side, and of course Mr. Boucher for this bill.
The primary reason I am speaking, though, is I want to say some
heartfelt words about Mr. Boucher. Sooner or later this Congress is
going to mercifully adjourn--and I hope sooner rather than later--and
so I don't know how many more times we are going to be on the floor,
but I wanted to say in his presence what an honor it has been to serve
with him. He is a workhorse Member; he is not a show horse. He doesn't
get involved in many, many issues, but when he does get involved, he is
meticulous in his preparation and understanding of the issue and his
detail. His word is gold. It is always good.
On the rare occasions when I have disagreed with him, I have always
been impressed with the merit of his argument. He will be missed. He is
one of the Members who makes the institution work. He does it behind
the scenes. He is always thoughtful and prepared and just a joy to work
with.
I had the privilege to work with him when I was the subcommittee
chairman and he was my ranking member, and I have had the privilege to
work with him while he has been in the majority as a subcommittee
chairman. The work he and Congressman Stearns have done on privacy is
work that will bear fruit in the coming Congress I hope. The work he
has done on energy issues and telecommunications issues, his work will
stand the test of time.
I do want to support the pending legislation, but I also wanted to
give the gentleman from Virginia my very best wishes. I look forward to
working with him in whatever endeavors he pursues in the future. It has
really been an honor to serve with you in the House of Representatives.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just would echo the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) about Mr. Boucher. Having worked with Mr. Boucher, he and I
have cosponsored many bills across the spectrum. Recently, obviously,
we worked on privacy together. And also, we tried to hammer out some
kind of compromise on net neutrality. Net neutrality was difficult
because the FCC was attempting to move it to title II. We finally got
them to stop that. In fact, the court stopped them. Again, Mr. Boucher
and I met with the stakeholders across the board to try and see if
there was some compromise. We both agreed it should be under the
jurisdiction of the Congress and not the FCC acting unilaterally, as it
appears they are going to do on December 21 when they vote for net
neutrality, which I am against. But I have to admire Mr. Boucher's
perseverance, his stick-to-it-ness, whether it is trying to reach
compromise on legislation, or his reach-out to stakeholders. For
example, on the privacy, he had a comment period on his privacy bill
that I cosponsored, which is unusual around here. A lot of times we say
we don't have an opportunity to even read the bills before they are
voted on, but in fact, under Mr. Boucher's leadership as chairman of
the Telecommunications Subcommittee, he took his bill and offered it as
a draft to get stakeholders' comments. That is a credit to his
leadership.
As Mr. Barton pointed out, we are going to miss him. He provides
strong, competent leadership, and we wish him well and thank him for
his service.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I do so to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) and my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for
their kind remarks. I want to thank them for the collaboration and the
friendship over the years.
Mr. Stearns and I have participated together in developing the ideas,
developing the legislation, and bringing through the Communications
Subcommittee all of the bills that that subcommittee acted on
legislatively in this 2-year session of Congress. I appreciate so much
the good ideas Mr. Stearns shared, his work with me to ensure that all
of our legislation had a bipartisan foundation, and I think what we
were able to do was a better product by virtue of the fact that we
worked together. It has been a privilege over the years to have the
opportunity to work with him. He is an outstanding legislator.
{time} 1240
I want to commend him for the fine work that he has done, and mostly
thank him for the friendship and the partnership that he and I have
enjoyed together. And I want to say thank you to my friend (Mr. Barton)
with whom I was privileged to work on the Energy Subcommittee when he
was chairman and I was the ranking member. During the time he chaired
the full committee, I had the privilege of participating with him on a
whole range of undertakings, and I admire very much the leadership that
he has provided as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and
more recently as the ranking member.
So, thank you, gentlemen, for those kind remarks. I am humbled by
them. And I appreciate your taking very much the occasion of our debate
on this legislation to make those comments.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I urge support of
the legislation currently pending, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 30.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________