[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22104-22107]
[From the U.S. 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 
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.
  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.

[[Page 22105]]

  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 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

[[Page 22106]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22107]]

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. 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 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.

                          ____________________