[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26017-26019]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          REGULATIONS ON USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2346) to authorize the 
enforcement by State and local governments of certain Federal 
Communications Commission regulations regarding use of citizens band 
radio equipment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page 26018]]

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. STATE AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATIONS ON USE OF 
                   CITIZENS BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT.

       Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     302a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a State or 
     local government may enact a statute or ordinance that 
     prohibits a violation of the following regulations of the 
     Commission under this section:
       ``(A) A regulation that prohibits a use of citizens band 
     radio equipment not authorized by the Commission.
       ``(B) A regulation that prohibits the unauthorized 
     operation of citizens band radio equipment on a frequency 
     between 24 MHz and 35 MHz.
       ``(2) A station that is licensed by the Commission pursuant 
     to section 301 in any radio service for the operation at 
     issue shall not be subject to action by a State or local 
     government under this subsection. A State or local government 
     statute or ordinance enacted for purposes of this subsection 
     shall identify the exemption available under this paragraph.
       ``(3) The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, 
     provide technical guidance to State and local governments 
     regarding the detection and determination of violations of 
     the regulations specified in paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, 
     a person affected by the decision of a State or local 
     government agency enforcing a statute or ordinance under 
     paragraph (1) may submit to the Commission an appeal of the 
     decision on the grounds that the State or local government, 
     as the case may be, enacted a statute or ordinance outside 
     the authority provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) A person shall submit an appeal on a decision of a 
     State or local government agency to the Commission under this 
     paragraph, if at all, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the decision by the State or local government agency 
     becomes final, but prior to seeking judicial review of such 
     decision.
       ``(C) The Commission shall make a determination on an 
     appeal submitted under subparagraph (B) not later than 180 
     days after its submittal.
       ``(D) If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) 
     that a State or local government agency has acted outside its 
     authority in enforcing a statute or ordinance, the Commission 
     shall preempt the decision enforcing the statute or 
     ordinance.
       ``(5) The enforcement of statute or ordinance that 
     prohibits a violation of a regulation by a State or local 
     government under paragraph (1) in a particular case shall not 
     preclude the Commission from enforcing the regulation in that 
     case concurrently.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this section over devices capable of 
     interfering with radio communications.
       ``(7) The enforcement of a statute or ordinance by a State 
     or local government under paragraph (1) with regard to 
     citizens band radio equipment on board a `commercial motor 
     vehicle', as defined in section 31101 of title 49, United 
     States Code, shall require probable cause to find that the 
     commercial motor vehicle or the individual operating the 
     vehicle is in violation of the regulations described in 
     paragraph (1).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2346.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  H.R. 2346 is an important initiative intended to improve compliance 
with the FCC rules governing citizens band radio service.
  The House passed this bill in September by a voice vote, and the 
other body made a clarifying amendment to the bill when it passed the 
bill just last month. The result is the text that we see before us 
today.
  Fundamentally, the bill is an effort to help eliminate the practices 
of the few CB radio users that have chosen to take advantage of the 
unlicensed nature of CB radios to operate outside the boundaries of the 
FCC rules. When some people choose not to follow those rules, 
unexpected and potentially harmful interference can result for users of 
other services.
  Let me take a moment to talk about the amendment that the other body 
has made to the bill. The amendment was worked out by all parties, 
including my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and 
the American Trucking Association, the sponsor of the bill; and 
obviously the trucking association is a very interested group of 
American citizens.
  First, the amendment protects against the possibility that the courts 
might construe the legislation to require a final decision in a State 
adjudication process, as distinguished from a mere final action of a 
State or a local enforcement agency, as a precondition of appeal to the 
FCC which has, of course, jurisdiction in the area.
  This would prevent lengthy court action prior to appealing a decision 
of a State or a local agency.
  The other body's amendment makes it clear that the legal standard of 
probable cause for commercial motor vehicles and operators under this 
legislation is a standard developed by the court system.
  This eliminates a protection included in the House bill to help the 
operators of commercial motor vehicles that raised some unintended 
consequences and concerns. Accordingly, we should be able to drop that 
section of the bill.
  Lastly, the amendment modifies a requirement that the FCC provide 
technical guidance to the State and local government agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), my friend, for his work on this bill and ask all Members to 
support its passage
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2346, the Citizens Band Radio 
Enforcement bill. This legislation will go a long way towards solving 
an ever-increasing and intrusive problem, the illegal operation of CB 
radios.
  To be sure and I must emphasize, the vast majority of CB operators 
are law-abiding citizens who use their radios properly. However, rogue 
operators do exist across the country who regularly operate their CB 
radios at power levels far above the legal limit. When these operators 
boost their CB power levels, it often causes bleeding into nearby 
frequencies.
  I am actually reminded of an old science fiction program, the Outer 
Limits, in which a rogue radio operator boosted his frequency above 
allowable limits creating a highway for which an alien appeared on our 
planet. In the real world, however, Americans who are unfortunate 
enough to live near these illegal CB radio stations experience only 
interference with their telephones, televisions and other electronic 
equipment, a very serious problem. Worst, these transmissions are often 
profane and occur at all hours of the night and day. This intrusive 
practice is simply not a neighborhood nuisance, it borders on trespass.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission does not have 
the power or resources to adequately police illegal CB radio operators 
around the country. As a result, victims are left helpless to defend 
against this growing intrusion to their privacy and the quiet enjoyment 
of their homes.
  The bill before us would protect the American public by allowing 
local law enforcement officials to enforce existing FCC rules regarding 
CB radios. Victims of this type of harassment can be given assistance 
by local authorities to shut down these rogue operators.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important consumer 
legislation with the improvements that have been described this 
evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the author of the 
legislation who has worked tirelessly for many years now to bring this 
legislation to final action by the House and the Senate.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) for yielding the time to me.

[[Page 26019]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this 
legislation. It has taken a considerable amount of work over several 
years to reach this point.
  It initially arose when a constituent contacted me; he was extremely 
frustrated, because they were unable to use their radios, television 
sets, and their cordless telephones, because a neighbor near them was 
blasting away at 100 watts of CB power when the legal limit is only 5 
watts. He had illegally attached a high power amplifier to his CB 
system.
  This person, my constituent, had contacted the police. They were 
unable to help. They simply said, we do not have jurisdiction. He had 
contacted State agencies. They also could not help. In both cases, he 
was told to contact the Federal Communications Commission. When he did 
so, they said, yes, this person is breaking the law, but we do not have 
the personnel to go everywhere in the country to take care of this 
matter. As a result of this situation I have introduced this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I initially thought this constituent's problem was a 
rather isolated incident. Once I introduced the bill, I heard from 
individuals and organizations across the country that were encountering 
the same problem. Since I had apparently hit a hot nerve with a number 
of members of the public, I decided this bill was worth pursuing.
  The Senate has made minor changes to the bill which clarify it and 
which take care of some concerns of the truckers who, as my colleagues 
know, use CBs very heavily. They were worried about perhaps being 
harassed by improper use of this law, but we have taken care of that. I 
believe it is now in very, very good shape and will serve the purpose 
for which it was intended.
  There will not be any further complications with it; therefore, I 
urge the Members of the House to concur in the Senate amendments and 
pass this bill.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to commend the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
and another original cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for the efforts to bring this bill to the floor 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say thank you to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn), my friend, who has always demonstrated, as the 
Committee on Commerce often does, a bipartisan spirit to improve the 
condition of our consumer protection laws.
  This certainly is not a bill that is going to reshape the economy of 
Louisiana or America or Michigan or Maryland, but it nevertheless is an 
unusually important bill to neighbors who cannot use their telephones 
and their television sets.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my friend.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Chairman Tauzin) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank the members of the Committee on 
Commerce, especially the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), 
who has been very helpful in this, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn), and the ranking member (Mr. Dingell), and, of course, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), who has also been involved 
in this. I appreciate their help in all aspects of this bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out, even while we are going through 
an awfully hotly contested election and waiting to find out who our 
next President may be, we are still working here and still improving 
the state of our Nation's laws and this small, but important area 
making sure that consumers enjoy their televisions and their radios and 
their mobile telephone sets in their homes.
  This is an important bill that helps American families in a very 
special way when they run into this problem. It will give them local 
redress so they do not have to come all the way to Washington to get 
help.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), my friend, for persevering all this year to bring this to 
final action in this House. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Bliley), because without the assistance of the gentleman from 
Virginia, obviously, we would not have moved the bill to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, for 
their extraordinarily bipartisan cooperation on this and so many 
communication bills that our committee works on.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn), my friend, for being here to help us finalize this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would only like to say the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has put a good perspective on this bill. It does 
not shake the Earth, but yet it is very important to our constituents 
to show that we are, in fact, here working, carrying out the public's 
business.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2346.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________