Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H984-H997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DTV DELAY ACT

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 108, I call up
the Senate bill (S. 352) to postpone the DTV transition date, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

S. 352

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 ``DTV Delay Act''.

SEC. 2. POSTPONEMENT OF DTV TRANSITION DATE.

(a) In General.--Section 3002(b) of the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 (47 U.S.C. 309 note)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``February 18, 2009;'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``June 13, 2009;''; and
(2) by striking ``February 18, 2009,'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``that date''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 3008(a)(1) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is
amended by striking ``February 17, 2009.'' and inserting
``June 12, 2009.''.
(2) Section 309(j)(14)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)(A)) is amended by striking ``February
17, 2009.'' and inserting ``June 12, 2009.''.
(3) Section 337(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 337(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``February 17,
2009.'' and inserting ``June 12, 2009.''.
(c) License Terms.--
(1) Extension.--The Federal Communications Commission shall
extend the terms of the licenses for the recovered spectrum,
including the license period and construction requirements
associated with those licenses, for a 116-day period.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``recovered
spectrum'' means--
(A) the recovered analog spectrum, as such term is defined
in section 309(j)(15)(C)(vi) of the Communications Act of
1934; and
(B) the spectrum excluded from the definition of recovered
analog spectrum by subclauses (I) and (II) of such section.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF DIGITAL-TO-ANALOG CONVERTER BOX
PROGRAM.

(a) Extension of Coupon Program.--Section 3005(c)(1)(A) of
the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005 (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended by striking ``March 31,
2009,'' and inserting ``July 31, 2009,''.
(b) Treatment of Expired Coupons.--Section 3005(c)(1) of
the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005 (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Expired coupons.--The Assistant Secretary may issue
to a household, upon request by the household, one
replacement coupon for each coupon that was issued to such
household and that expired without being redeemed.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3005(c)(1)(A) of the
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005
(47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended by striking ``receives, via
the United States Postal Service,'' and inserting
``redeems''.
(d) Condition of Modifications.--The amendments made by
this section shall not take effect until the enactment of
additional budget authority after the date of enactment of
this Act to carry out the analog-to-digital converter box
program under section 3005 of the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) Permissive Early Termination Under Existing
Requirements.--Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a
licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating
the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal
(and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital
television service) prior to the date established by law
under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition
and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses
for full-power television stations in the analog television
service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such
prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal
Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act, including the flexible
procedures established in the Matter of Third Periodic Review
of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the
Conversion to Digital Television (FCC 07-228, MB Docket No.
07-91, released December 31, 2007).
(b) Public Safety Radio Services.--Nothing in this Act, or
the amendments made by this Act, shall prevent a public
safety service licensee from commencing operations consistent
with the terms of its license on spectrum recovered as a
result of the voluntary cessation of broadcasting in the
analog or digital television service pursuant to subsection
(a). Any such public safety use shall be subject to the
relevant Federal Communications Commission rules and
regulations in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,
including section 90.545 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R.
Sec. 90.545).
(c) Expedited Rulemaking.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission and
the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration shall, not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, each adopt or revise its rules,
regulations, or orders or take such other actions as may be
necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions, and
carry out the purposes, of this Act and the amendments made
by this Act.

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF COMMISSION AUCTION AUTHORITY.

Section 309(j)(11) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 309(j)(11)) is amended by striking ``2011.'' and
inserting ``2012.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 108, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, we are now less than 2 weeks from the
February 17 digital television transition date, and millions of
American households remain totally unprepared. On January 22, the
Nielsen Company, which is a widely respected service that reports on
television viewing in the United States, reported that fully 6.5
million households are totally unprepared for the transition. These are
homes that rely upon antennas or rabbit ears in order to get their
television service. They do not have cable or satellite subscriptions.
And given the fact that they are totally unprepared today, if the
transition goes forward as scheduled on February 17, these 6.5 million
households will lose all of their television service, and that number
represents about 5.7 percent of the total American television viewing
public. If almost 6 percent of the nation's households lose all of
their television service, I think that most people would declare that
the digital television transition has been a failure.
At the present time, there are 3.7 million requests for converter box
coupons pending at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and since early
January, the program that funds those coupons has been out of money.
Those requests therefore, cannot be honored.
And the waiting line for coupons is growing rapidly. On Friday of
last week, the number of requests was 3.3 million, and over the
weekend, during the day on Monday, that number climbed to 3.7 million.
And I think we can expect a much larger increase in the number of
requests that are filed with the Department of Commerce over the coming
weeks.
It's clear to me that the only way to avoid a massive disruption
affecting 5.7

[[Page H985]]

percent of the entire viewing public is to delay the transition and
provide the funding in the meantime to assure that when the transition
does occur, it occurs smoothly. In recognition of that reality, the
Senate has now, on two occasions, by a unanimous vote both times,
passed legislation to delay the transition until June 12. The most
recent unanimously passed Senate bill moving the date to June the 12th
is now the measure that is before the House.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue and have argued
that if more money were provided for this program for converter boxes
during the coming week, that the problems could be solved, and they
have, in fact, put forward a proposal to do so.
But I want to make a very clear point. The provision of more money
for this program now, without moving the transition date, could not
avoid the disruption. It takes 1 week to process 1.6 million coupon
requests at the Department of Commerce. That's what the independent
contractor working for the Department of Commerce estimates its
approval numbers to be. That company is IBM, and they've been handling
this coupon program since the inception. They can process 1.6 million
coupon requests every week. And so in the 13 days remaining between now
and February 17, that backlog presently pending of 3.7 million requests
could not be processed, even if more money were provided for that
program today. And then, beyond processing the requests, more time is
required for mailing the coupons to those who have requested them, and
then more time still required for the television viewer to get the
coupon out of the mail and take that coupon to a store and redeem it
for a converter box. So even if more money were provided for the
program today, the program would still be a failure and we would still
have millions of homes dislocated in their television viewing.
Beyond the converter box program, which is at a standstill, more
resources are also needed for the Federal Communication Commission's
call center program where waiting times are long, where calls are
frequently disconnected, and it's very difficult to ever speak to a
live technical assistance representative. In fact, Commissioner
McDowell at the Federal Communications Commission reported on these
facts. He had tried himself to contact the FCC's call centers, and just
as a test, determine what the real condition of those call centers
happens to be. And he found that calls were disconnected, waiting times
were unacceptably long, and it was virtually impossible to get a live
technical assistant representative on the line.
Now, as that report reveals, the FCC's call center program is in
complete disarray, and that program is vitally important. There is a
virtual absence of technical assistance available for people to connect
their converter boxes; once they've connected them, if they still can't
get a viewable picture, get some expert advice on what further steps
they might take, testing their antenna, for example, to determine
whether or not the antenna would have to be replaced, adjusting that
antenna to determine whether or not a digital signal can, in fact, be
received. And the FCC's call centers are the only vital point of
contact and point of information that millions of people, primarily
those in rural stretches of of our Nation, are going to have available.
And that program today is in disarray.
More resources are going to be necessary in order to make that call
center program effective. Only by delaying the transition and utilizing
the $650 million that the stimulus measure provides for the DTV
transition program, can these problems be addressed and can massive
viewer disruption be avoided.
The 4-month delay that the bill before the House would accomplish has
been endorsed by a broad range of organizations representing the very
parties who could potentially be disaffected by the delay. And I'm
going to take just a moment to go through an identification of some of
these endorsing organizations.
Much has been said during the debate on the rule about public safety,
and all of us share a concern about public safety. We want to make sure
that spectrum is made available to first responders at the earliest
possible time in order to deploy advanced communications equipment so
that there will be full interoperability among first responders, police
being able to talk to fire agencies, being able to talk to rescue
agencies and to do so all across the country. That's the goal. We hope
that goal will soon be achieved.
But the organizations that represent these public safety agencies
nationwide, the great weight of them, have endorsed this delay. I'm
just going to list these. The International Association of Fire Chiefs,
the International Association of Police Chiefs, the National Emergency
Number Association, that's the voice of 911 across the country, and
also the organization that represents the information technology
professionals who work in first responder agencies, they have all
endorsed this delay.

{time} 1430

I would suggest that they recognize that the greater threat to public
safety would come in something like 6.5 million households losing all
television coverage and, therefore, not being able to get the vital
public safety information that local television broadcasters so
effectively provide, and that will happen unless the delay and the
transition are adopted. Speaking on behalf of local broadcasters, the
National Association of Broadcasters and the major networks have all
endorsed this delay and have sent letters or have made public
statements to that effect.
Speaking for the purchasers of the commercial wireless spectrum, the
two major winners in the government-sponsored auction for that
spectrum--AT&T and Verizon--have both endorsed this delay.
Now, much was said during the debate on the rule about possible
motivations for various parties having recommended the delay, including
some comments, perhaps, about the motivation of the President in asking
for this delay. It is very clear that the reason that this delay was
asked was due to the loss of television viewing that would occur across
this Nation if the delay were not accomplished. That is the real
reason. If any party is going to be disadvantaged because of this delay
on the commercial spectrum side, it would have been the major bidders
in this auction--AT&T and Verizon--and both of them have sent letters
endorsing this delay. They believe it is necessary to have a smooth
transition, and they have endorsed the delay accordingly. The Consumers
Union and the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
have also endorsed this delay.
Let me offer assurance that it will be a one-time-only delay. Our
committee will simply not entertain requests for any delay beyond the
12th of June. Our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), has been very clear about that. No requests
beyond the 12th of June for a delay will be considered.
Speaking on behalf of the subcommittee, I can say precisely the same
thing. We will have time to get this program properly structured. We
will have the resources necessary to make sure that the program can be
smooth and effective when the transition occurs in June. Under no
circumstances will we consider legislation to delay this program again.
The delay that this bill will accomplish, teamed with the stimulus
appropriation will be sufficient to ensure a smooth digital television
transition.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the measure pending before the
House, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I speak, I want to ask a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the previous voice vote, the Speaker said the
``ayes'' have it. From visual inspection, it appeared that there were
more ``no'' Congressmen on the floor than ``aye'' Congressmen. My
parliamentary inquiry is:
Under the rules of the House, is it possible to ask for a show of
hands without violating House rules or without asking for unanimous
consent?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Such a straw vote is not in order. A timely
request for a division could have been entered.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H986]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If a Member on the floor at the time the Chair
calls the question feels the Chair called the question erroneously,
then that Member would be required to ask for a rollcall vote. Is that
your remedy?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair's call of a voice vote is not
subject to challenge. Following the Chair's call a Member could request
a record vote or a vote by division.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Let me start out by stating that the majority is trying to fix a
problem that I do not think really exists. We have sent out 33 million
coupons: 22 million of those coupons have been redeemed, and 11 million
coupons are outstanding. The outstanding coupons are being redeemed, I
think, by about 500,000 a week, something like that. In my opinion, you
could keep the hard date and not have a problem, but if you think there
is a problem, it is not from lack of money.
We have appropriated $1.3 billion. About half of that is still in the
Treasury, but as I pointed out before, it cannot be released for
additional coupons because they assume that 100 percent of the coupons
are going to be redeemed. So what this means is the redemption rate is
only about 52 percent. Once you send out a coupon, you have to wait for
90 days until it is either redeemed or until it expires before you can
release an additional coupon.
If we really, really think that we need to do something, the simple
thing to do is not appropriate but to authorize $250 million at $40 a
coupon box. That is $240 million. You have authorized enough money to
send out coupons, however many you can send, to these 6.5 million
Nielsen household families that my good friend from Virginia talks
about. Yet the majority has chosen not to do that. They have insisted
that we have to delay the program.
So point one is: We have 33 million coupons that have been sent out.
Twenty-two million have been redeemed. Eleven million are outstanding.
If you want to eliminate the line, you authorize another $250 million
so you can send out the other coupons. You could also just say you do
not need a coupon. As my good friend from Nebraska has pointed out, it
is not the lack of converter boxes. You can go to any electronic store
in America and find the converter box. We could just say, ``If you have
not gotten a converter box, go get one.'' There is no means test. Under
the law, every household in America is entitled to two converter boxes.
Go get them. Pay for them. Send us the receipt. The Treasury will pay
you your money. You could do that.
My good friend talks about the technical problems. Well, I am going
to educate the country right now on the technical problems. Here is how
to do it: First, get the converter box. Second, take it out of the box.
Third, plug it in. Fourth, hook it up by cable to your TV set or to
your antenna. Fifth, turn it on. Sixth, if you have a remote control,
hit the scan button. Seventh, make sure that you tune your TV to
channel 3.
What is technical about that? It works.
Eighth, if you do all of that and it does not work, call whomever you
bought the converter box from. They will tell you, and they will walk
you through it. If you are a senior citizen, in most States, you can
dial 211, and they will even send somebody out to your house to make
sure that it is plugged in, that it is hooked up, that it is turned on,
that it is on channel 3, and that you hit the scan button. Now, that is
not all that high-tech. If a Texas Aggie like me can understand it, I
think the country can understand it.
Next, I want to point out, even though we are delaying this until
June 12 if this bill becomes law, according to the acting chairman of
the Federal Communications Commission, 61 percent of the television
stations in America are going to go ahead and convert to digital. One
hundred forty-three television stations already have converted, and in
those areas where they have converted, I am not aware that there has
been a huge problem.
As Cliff Stearns pointed out earlier in the rules debate, they did a
pilot program down in North Carolina, and it was 99 percent effective.
Regarding the time that they converted over, they had a handful of
concerns down there to see if it would work.
So we have a situation here where we have had a hard date on the
books since September of 2005. That hard date is February 17. Every
broadcaster in America is ready to go; 143 three stations have already
converted. Up to 61 percent of the remaining 1,000-some-odd stations
say they are probably going to convert. The acting chairman says that,
before June 12, probably 90 percent will. Now, to be fair, Acting
Chairman Cox does say he supports the legislation that Mr. Boucher is
bringing to the floor. He does support the delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I probably will not take the 3 minutes, but I thank
him for his leadership on the committee. As well, I thank the chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. In my district, at least, it
is very important. This is not an academic issue. It is very important.
I am pleased that we now have another chance to pass this vitally
important bill, because it has become increasingly clear that, with the
digital transition deadline looming just days away, literally millions
of Americans are at risk of being left in the dark.
With an estimated 6.5 million households still unprepared for the
digital transition, it is clear that a short delay is necessary. There
are 6,000 households on the waiting list for converter box coupons in
my district alone, and that number grows daily. So a short
implementation delay is necessary, and I do not see the problem in
granting this request.
Without a delay, many of these people would be without television
service and would be at risk in the event of a disaster or of a
national emergency. I represent a rural area where many people rely on
over-the-air television broadcasts. So this issue is particularly
important for districts like mine. People clearly need more time to
learn just what this transition will mean for them.
The distinguished ranking member of the committee says that they have
had enough time and that there are procedures in place for making it
happen, but people need more time to learn. Even my constituents who
manage to buy the box could still be left without a signal. Analog
signals travel further than digital signals, and many people may still
need a new digital antenna to receive the signal.
So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish the Energy and Commerce Committee
had the opportunity to mark up this bill, because I believe there are
still some issues that are unresolved in the legislation. However, I
strongly support this bill as it is written, and I look forward to its
swift passage this afternoon so that consumers can be given more time
to prepare for this tremendous change in their lives.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking
member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Stearns of Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. I also agree with you. I would like to have had the
opportunity to have marked up this bill. Unfortunately, we did not mark
up this bill, and I had six amendments--Mr. Barton and I, Mr. Blunt and
Mr. Walden--and they were not accepted. It would have made the bill, I
think, improved.
I rise in strong opposition to this bill because, for over 2 years,
we have been promoting February 17, 2009 as the date of the DTV
transition. Industry and government have prepared and have spent
billions of dollars. When you look at some of the statistics from Mr.
Boucher, he is using the Nielsen rating. Well, that Nielsen rating does
show that a large percentage of Americans are ready to go, and most of
the statistics he has collected are from a survey that is a month old.
So, in this case, it has changed, and another 1 million people have
already gotten coupons.
Frankly, a change in the date engenders skepticism among Americans,
confusion and a distrust of the government because here they are again
delaying something when they said for over 2 years that we are going to
have an effective date. So, for that reason, I

[[Page H987]]

think we should move ahead with the date and defeat this bill this
afternoon.
There are lots of broadcasters who have spent all of this money
preparing, and now they have unbudgeted expenditures from the private
sector that are going to have to be used. At this particular point in
our economy, which is weak, to have to take these unbudgeted amounts of
money and find this new money to make this transition is going to be a
hardship for these folks. So a delay is not necessary.
All we need to do is to give the manufacturing distribution cycle any
short change of notice that they need, give them a little bit more
money, and we can continue. The public is not served by delaying this
because, in the end, the analog spectrum that is available could be
used for first responders. Many, many carriers have already invested
nearly $20 billion in spectrum auctions, and they have been promised
the deployment of innovative, new, next-generation, wireless, broadband
services. Now, these, our Nation's first responders, direly need and
they deserve the spectrum. They paid for it. So why can't we give it to
them? Why are we delaying this another 3 or 4 months? It is only
because there is a perceived problem when there is really no perceived
problem.

{time} 1445

As Mr. Barton on the ranking side here has pointed out, there was a
demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina, in which 99
percent of the people were happy. There's always going to be a segment
that are not happy.
And on that note, we all were involved with the inauguration here. We
know we thought that it was going to go perfect; yet a lot of our
constituents could not get through to their seats because the metal
detectors broke down. Now, the question I have for the Democrats, if we
had the inauguration in place and it turned out about 3 or 4 percent of
the people could not get through because of metal detectors, would you
have shut down the swearing in of the President because of it? No, you
would not have.
Any great event will continue, and there's always going to be a small
percentage, but you can take care of those, just like they took care of
it in Wilmington, North Carolina, in the demonstration which was
totally successful.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight
and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time on
this important issue.
In the last 2 years, we've held over six hearings on this transition
to digital television and highlighted the problems that we find across
America with this transmission date and the set date of February 17 and
the need to extend the time. We need to extend the time because, in all
honesty, the Department of Commerce has made many mistakes in this
program, and to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to make
the transition and to get their converter boxes, we have to make this
delay.
The other side has argued that converter boxes are readily available.
Time and time again in my district in rural northern Michigan, we've
gone to the stores. There are no converter boxes available. Our coupons
are only good for 90 days, and then they expire, and we have got to
start the process all over again.
Even though we repeatedly warned the Department of Commerce this
would happen, they did nothing until Christmas Eve when they notified
us that they've run out of money, there's no more converter boxes, and
this is a disaster waiting to happen.
So I'm very pleased that the Obama administration has stepped
forward, and this situation has now required that we delay the
transition to allow this new administration the opportunity to properly
prepare the Nation for DTV transition.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated that a delay
would jeopardize public safety. This is simply not true.
As a former Michigan State police trooper and as a Member who's
focused on strengthening our Nation's public safety and as a founder of
the Law Enforcement Caucus way back in 1994, I've got to tell you the
rhetoric about jeopardizing public safety is misplaced. And also as a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I've worked with my
colleagues, public safety, and the FCC to promote the construction of a
national, interoperable, wireless broadband network for law
enforcement.
Congress must act quickly to modernize our public safety
infrastructure, and we can do that. Basics such as access to
television, before this transition and after the transition, we need
access to the emergency alert system, as well as news information for
local communities. This is access that's a critical component of public
safety.
As a result of this legislation and our bill here today, a number of
public safety groups support the delay of the DTV transition and have
repeatedly said it would not jeopardize public safety. This legislation
still preserves the right to make the switch, soon as you're ready, to
make a switch from analog to the digital spectrum before the new
transition date of June 12.
Public safety officials recognize that a one-time delay is necessary,
and in a letter to us from public safety officials it says,
``Specifically, the bill makes it clear that a public safety agency can
use its existing license in the 700-megahertz band to commence
operations after a broadcaster has voluntarily ceased operations on a
channel before June 12. All 50 States and some local governments have
FCC licenses for the 700-megahertz spectrum.''
It will not delay public safety. It will not jeopardize public
safety. Vote ``yes'' on the legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'd like to give 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Barton.
I was one that several years ago helped write this legislation that
we're amending today, and the reason that we did it was because we
listened to the 9/11 Commission, and their number one recommendation
was our first responders need the analog spectrum. They have got to
have that so that they can communicate with each other. The fire
fighters have got to get the same message that the police folks got on
that fateful day back in September.
In Katrina, the Coast Guard folks couldn't talk to the sheriffs as
they tried to rescue people off the roofs, and we knew that it was
because of the spectrum. They did not have the slice of the analog
spectrum necessary so they could communicate.
So the 9/11 Commission made their report, and then they did a follow-
up report a couple of years later, and they said Congress still hasn't
acted, and they took all of us on. They gave us a flunking grade, E,
and we came back and said, well, there was a number of things that had
to happen.
We had to convert the television stations from analog to digital. We
had to make sure that we stop selling analog TV sets. We had to be able
to develop the technology and be able to get it out to these converter
boxes, and we actually came up with a way that could help fund the
consumer to pay for that box so that they could get the picture over
the air.
Our broadcasters have done a marvelous job. They have spent more than
$1 billion across the country informing the Nation about the February
17 date, a date that we set, Chairman Barton and myself, more than 3
years ago.
And our broadcasters, like my Channel 22 in South Bend, Indiana,
which broadcasts in Indiana and Michigan wrote me almost a month ago
and it says, ``Anticipating the February 17 analog shutoff, WSBT is in
the process of converting our backup analog transmitter to digital.
This means there is currently no backup for our analog signal in the
event of any technical failure to the primary transmitter. We do not
stock any backup analog transmitter parts. We have been told that the
age of the parts means they are likely to fail soon and replacements
are either not in stock or exceptionally difficult and expensive to
find.''
The Fraternal Order of Police, understanding probably better than
just about anyone else is relating to the need for access to analog
spectrum,

[[Page H988]]

says this particularly with the arguments that were made by some
previous speakers in support of this bill. ``While S. 328 would still
allow broadcasters to voluntarily transition by 17 February, subject to
current FCC regulations, and allow public safety to occupy this vacated
spectrum, unless all the surrounding broadcast stations also
voluntarily transition, it is unlikely anyone can move.''
That's the point. They're ready. So are our consumers. The NTIA told
this body in November that they were going to have trouble with the
coupons, and we should have acted then to do a number of different
things in terms of figuring out how to appropriate the money.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I give the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. UPTON. If we had acted then to figure out how we could send these
coupons out, not use third-class mail but first-class mail, we could
have easily fixed this without the costs so that our consumers, our
broadcasters, and yes, our first responders would be able to have this
spectrum available on February 17.
But we didn't do that job. We didn't do it, and here we are today now
looking, after spending more than $1 billion to inform the consuming
public about February 17, we're just going to move it to June 12. Who
knows if it moves again.
Dates have meaning. Americans know about the date called April 15,
the date that we pay our taxes; yet there are still a number of folks
who don't file on time.
We need to file on time. We need this analog transition date to stick
so that if we do have another emergency, particularly in the next
couple of months, whether it be our police, our fire fighters, our EMS
folks, that they will begin to have that technology so they can
communicate to save lives.
That's what this is about. Please vote ``no.''
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher)
has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 18
minutes remaining.

General Leave

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker at this time, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members shall have 5 legislative days to insert material in the
Record, including their statements on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation and extending the DTV deadline.
As a father, I try and limit how much television my daughter watches.
However, that does not mean that I want to completely deny her access
to this very informative medium, but that's exactly what others would
have us here believe. They would have us deny access to millions of
Americans, Americans who rely on TV not only for their entertainment
but for their safety.
Mr. Speaker, two major winter storms have passed through my district
in the past 2 weeks, and thousands of people stayed off the icy roads
during these storms because of the winter advisory alerts that went out
on our local TV affiliates in Indianapolis. By having access to these
alerts, thousands of my constituents were able to remain safe.
So I would implore the minority not to politicize this issue. This is
a very serious issue that demands we act swiftly and responsibly. I
encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'd like to yield 3 minutes to a member of the
committee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this delay. I want to
run through numbers, and I know it's hard to orally talk about numbers
and have it sink in, but the Nielsen survey that was done showed there
was about 6.5 million folks or households a month ago that weren't
hooked up. And Mr. Stearns from Florida mentioned that was 30 days ago,
and many of those have already been hooked up, but let's just assume 30
days ago 6.5 million households.
Right now, out in our communities and households there's 10 million
coupons, valid, non-expired coupons. Let's assume, since each household
was allowed two, that's 5 million households. So, really, what we're
talking about is 1.5 million that would be left without resources,
evidently, on February 18.
For that, we're going to delay 4 months and also put up $650 million
to somehow say in the last 2-plus years and millions and millions and
millions of dollars of advertising, not only nationally but by our
local affiliates and broadcasters, and here's what we've been told,
it's not within the stimulus bill how that 650 will be spent, but we're
told that 90 million of it is going to be spent paying people to go
door to door, 40 million for converter boxes ostensibly for the 1.5
million which way exceeds the amount--so we have to ask if it's really
going for converter boxes or it will be slid over somewhere else--and
160 million more in consumer education. Again, to find the 1.5 million
people on February 18 that would ostensibly be left.
And the other thing that confuses me is none of the public safety
organizations of which our friend from Virginia mentioned in his
opening remarks were coming to us in Congress, either side of the
aisle, and saying, my goodness, you have to delay this.

{time} 1500

And then, frankly, nobody was coming to us saying, ``You have to
delay this'' until the President, 3 weeks ago, out of the blue, said we
should delay this because he was advised by somebody in his transition
team that the previous administration had messed it up and it's going
to take 4 months to fix. And then we find out that perhaps a person on
the transition team actually had maybe a conflict of interest that was
not relayed to the President.
But the point that's here is that none of those folks that offered
the letter had done so before the President asked for it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional
1 minute.
Mr. TERRY. So what we also need to look at here is the $650 million,
an appropriate amount for the 1.5 million.
Are we, if we delay this another 4 months, even going to be able to
find that 1.5 million? And I told a story the other day when we were
discussing this about Tom Osborne, a Nebraskan icon, an idol. When he
ran for Congress, a poll was done showing he had 95 percent name ID in
the State of Nebraska when he ran for Congress. That means after 30
years of coaching and three national championships in the State of
Nebraska, there were still 5 percent that had never heard of him.
So if the new standard is to reach 100 percent, Mr. Speaker, we're
not going to get there on February 18 or in June or June of 2010.
So I don't understand why we're delaying this.
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I do so for the purpose of placing in the Record a
series of letters that the committee has received endorsing this delay,
and among these letters are letters from the Association of Public
Safety Communication Officials International, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, the National Emergency Number Association speaking for 911. And
these are all associations that sent letters to the committee
representing the public safety community, and they represent the great
weight of public safety of first responders in the Nation endorsing
this delay.
Also included in this submission will be a letter from the National
Association of Broadcasters speaking on behalf of local broadcasters
across the Nation. We have also received letters from AT&T and Verizon,
the two major winners in the government-sponsored spectrum auction
endorsing the delay, from the Consumers Union, the National Hispanic
Media Coalition, Univision, and also the acting chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission.

[[Page H989]]

January 30, 2009.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Waxman: We understand that the House of
Representatives may soon consider S. 352, the DTV transition
extension bill that passed in the Senate yesterday.
The bill the Senate passed yesterday included language to
address the impact on public safety of a DTV transition
delay. We expressed support for this language in a letter we
sent on January 27, 2009, to Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison.
Specifically, the bill makes it clear that a public safety
agency can use its existing license in the 700 MHz band to
commence operations after a broadcaster has voluntarily
ceased operations on a channel before June 12. All 50 states
and some local governments have FCC licenses for 700 MHz
spectrum, and are waiting for the DTV transition date to
modernize their communications systems and ensure public
safety.
Although we have concerns about the impact of delaying the
transition date on public safety, since this language is now
included in the final version of the bill we support passage
of this legislation.
We thank you and your colleagues for taking into account
the concerns of public safety while considering this matter.
Respectfully,
Chris Fischer,
President, Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International.
Russell B. Laine,
President, International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Larry J. Grorud,
President, International Association of Fire Chiefs.
____

National Emergency

Number Association,

Arlington, VA, February 2, 2009.
Re: digital television transition.

Hon. Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton: I am
writing on behalf of the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), the leading professional non-profit
organization dedicated to the advancement of 9-1-1 emergency
communications issues, as a follow up to our earlier letter
regarding the digital television (DTV) transition. On behalf
of NENA's 7,000 members, we again wish to thank you for your
efforts to ensure that a significant element of the debate to
extend the DTV transition date addresses the needs of public
safety. NENA supports the Senate approach recently adopted in
S352 that addresses public safety spectrum needs and we
encourage the House to quickly adopt the measure.
While NENA again wishes to underscore the substantial
importance of public safety access to this valuable spectrum
and your willingness to work with public safety, we also are
mindful of the greater societal debate and the impact on
millions of consumers if the DTV transition is not properly
handled. If there is a delay in the transition, then it is
very important that public safety agencies have the option to
gain expedited access to channels that have been vacated by
broadcasters before the new DTV transition deadline, an
important aspect of the legislation adopted by the Senate
that you are now preparing to consider.
Thank you again for your commitment to consider the
potential impact on public safety of an extension of the DTV
transition
Sincerely,
Brian Fontes,
CEO.
____

National Association

of Broadcasters,

Washington, DC, February 2, 2009.
Hon. Henry Waxman,
House of Representatives, House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rick Boucher,
House of Representatives, House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Waxman and Chairman Boucher: On behalf of
America's broadcasters and the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) Television Board of Directors, thank you
for working to ensure that millions of Americans are able to
successfully switch to digital television (DTV) and for your
efforts to help consumers receive converter box coupons prior
to the transition date.
As you know, America's full-power television stations have
been working for the last two years to educate Americans
about the switch to all-digital broadcasting. The DTV
transition is the highest television priority of NAB, as
broadcast networks and television stations across the country
have contributed more than $1 billion to educate Americans on
the impending switch.
Free over-the-air broadcasting is important part of
American life. Broadcasters understand this as well as the
need to ensure that Americans are both prepared and equipped
to make the switch to digital. To this end, we support your
efforts to give viewers and the federal government more time
to get ready for all-digital broadcasting. As you know, many
Americans are already enjoying the benefits of digital
television. Indeed, some markets have already commenced
digital-only operations, some stations are already digital-
only and other stations will need to cease analog operations
on February 17 or sometime before June 12.
It is important that stations have the flexibility to go
all digital before the new cutoff date. We understand that
Congress does not intend to require stations to continue
analog broadcasting just because the date is changing. Nor
does it intend to have the Federal Communications Commission
impose additional requirements on stations by either changing
the current streamlined procedures for notifying the agency
that the station is terminating analog service or insisting
on 30 day notification for stations that would not have been
required to provide notice if the date had not changed.
We appreciate your focus on flexibility for stations so
that they can determine how best to provide the vital news,
weather alerts and emergency information that free, local
television provides to its viewers.
We hope the House will pass the legislation that was
unanimously approved by the Senate. Thank you for your
continued attention to this important matter.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
David K. Rehr,
President and CEO.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, and thank you
for the leadership that has been given by a number of our committees in
Energy and Commerce, and thank you very much, President Obama, for
listening to the real reason for having this legislation, and that is
that actually we had run out of money for these vouchers that are
needed for many of the individuals who are economically in need. In
actuality, there is a waiting list.
In my own community, there are 7,298 in the 18th Congressional
District in Houston, Texas, and an increase of over 600 since we've
indicated the possibility of being able to get these additional
vouchers or to get in line.
My mother is 83 years old and has a television that needs this
adaptation. And I can tell you the difficulty for seniors. That is why
AARP is supporting this extension, this configuration. When you're
ready, get on line. But if you're not ready, then you will not be in
the dark until, of course, this extension. It makes sense.
Many times a television is a lifeline of a person living alone, a
disabled person, a senior person, and frankly, I want to work with the
FOP. We all have good relations with them, and I believe down the road
we can work that out.
But the International Fire Chiefs are for this, the public safety
officers are for this. We want to have interoperability. We want to be
able to communicate, unlike the tragedy that occurred in 9/11. But at
the same time, we can be multitasked. We can, in essence, do two things
at once to ensure that we have a process that doesn't turn the lights
out on a predominant number of Americans who cannot help being on a
list with a coupon system that does not work. They were not able to get
the coupons. If we don't do this bill, February 9 is D-day. It is a D-
day in terms of what happens to many Americans.
I think this is a positive approach. It is an effective approach, and
it will help us move the process forward. And let me thank the network
stations for working as hard as they could locally, but they need help.
This bill will help.
I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, today I speak in strong support of S. 352, and I also
want to thank my colleague Senator Jay Rockefeller for authoring this
insightful resolution.
The digital television transition is an unnecessary burden to be
passed onto the American people at a time when the pressures of day to
day life are heavy and growing.
To assist consumers through the conversion, the Department of
Commerce through its National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) division handled requests from households for up
to two $40 coupons for digital-to-analog converter boxes beginning
January 1, 2008 via a toll free number or a website.
However, the Commerce Department has run out of funds to cover the
cost of coupons

[[Page H990]]

ad there are millions of Americans who have yet to receive the boxes.
These Americans should not be expected to purchase the converter box
without the aid of the government, seeing as the entire nation is under
extraordinary economic pressure caused by the recession.
Last week, President Obama's team joined a chorus of concerned voices
requesting a delay because the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), which is to provide education and
$40 vouchers for people to buy digital TV converter boxes, ran out of
money on January 4. There is also concern that many people, especially
poorer and more rural areas, have not yet heard that they will need a
converter and a larger antenna.
Older homes can not be easily wired for cable. The house walls might
be made of concrete, brick, or stone that is difficult to wire through.
This has caused some local residents to opt for analog over-the-air TV
instead of cable or FIOS. Other people have decided to only wire their
living room, and still use analog over-the-air in other rooms. The old
construction can also cause problems running an antenna to a window,
roof, or attic. These older homes are generally owned by lower income
families that are being hit particularly hard by the current economic
recession.
On January 22, The Nielsen Company said 6.5 million Americans had not
prepared for the switch, a startling number considering the Commerce
Departments inability to assist these Americans in the purchase of the
converter boxes. TV stations would face extra expenses, which is burden
that they also cannot be expected to take on in times like these.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the long-term effects of this
transition will benefit the American people and support the eventual
transition. Madam Speaker we are in a recession at best. Our seniors
can barely afford their prescriptions and we are asking them to pay
another 40-50 dollars for a convertor box. To some of us that may not
seem like much but for many it is a small fortune. Especially for our
senior population who may have only the television as company.
I ask that my colleagues support this legislation and give Americans
more time to properly prepare for the conversion.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire as to the time remaining on each
side, please, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished former ranking member of the Ag Committee and the former
chairman of that committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me this time and for his leadership on this very important issue. And I
rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, February 17, 2009, I bet if we took a poll we would find
that 90 percent of the American people know the date that's been set
for the digital transition. February 17, as has already been noted, the
television stations of the country have spent $1 billion in
advertising, the government has spent huge sums of money promoting
transfer, and 98 or 99 percent--depending on who you talk to--the
American people are ready.
If you're connected to a cable system, you're ready. If you're
connected to satellite, you're ready. If you have a digital-ready
television set, you're ready. Or if you're like a million of the people
who listened to this message, went out and got the converter box,
you're ready to make the transition now.
There is a much simpler solution to the problem of those who do not
have the coupons today. We could fix it today. We could fix it right in
this room today by simply saying, ``Go buy the converter box. Save your
receipt. When you get the coupon, return it with the receipt and you
will get your $40 back.''
There are plenty of ways of solving this problem without a 4-month
delay, and look at the consequences of that delay.
First of all, we have television stations today that are having to
maintain two systems that are having to pay for the electricity of two
systems. It's estimated that the 1,758 U.S. TV stations may face up to
$141 million in additional electric bills because of the delay.
Imagine the amount of CO2 gas emissions that are occurring
because we're going to extend this for 4 months and require most of
those stations to continue to broadcast in both of these services.
Secondly, we have to reeducate the voters. Who knows what date it is
in June that this is being extended until? The people don't know the
answer to that question. And we shouldn't have to reeducate them and
expend any more dollars reminding them that that deadline is coming up.
We have a problem with the fact that billions of dollars have been
invested in this country in new equipment to take advantage of this
spectrum by emergency responders--police, fire, emergency rescue
organizations--all of which will have to delay the use of that
equipment by 4 months because they don't have the ability to use this
spectrum.
And then we have the companies that have bid billions of dollars to
buy other portions of the spectrum to bring generation 3 and generation
4 wireless technology.
We're talking about a stimulus package. We're trying to stimulate the
economy and create jobs. This is an anti-stimulus bill that would delay
the efficiency and growth in our economy that comes about when you go
ahead and stick to the date that this Congress voted for a long time
ago.
It is time to move ahead, and I hope that my colleagues will join me
in opposing this bad idea.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute
to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
Mr. HARE. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 352, the DTV Delay
Act. The deadline for the transition from analog to digital television
is just weeks away and yet millions of Americans are still on a waiting
list with the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to receive coupons for converter boxes.
It's highly unlikely that 3,000 of my constituents will receive their
coupons before the February 17 deadline. Both the coupon program and
other consumer education programs implemented by the former
administration have clearly fallen short leaving many vulnerable
populations--especially the elderly, low-income, and those living in
the rural communities--at risk of seeing their TV screens go blank.
In an effort to protect American consumers and allow the time for
more Americans to receive coupons and prepare for this important
transition, it is essential to push back the date to June 12.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have just been informed that my friends on the
majority side want to go to the White House for the SCHIP signing
ceremony and we have to finish the debate in the next 10 minutes. What
does ``finish the debate'' mean? Actually call for a rollcall vote in
the next 10 minutes, or actually have the vote finished in the next 10
minutes?
Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I've got a parliamentary inquiry. I don't know
how to address this.
If the Chair would advise, then I will address it in the appropriate
way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not control the program or
the time that is remaining in the pending debate.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That's your answer?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then I would ask unanimous consent for an
additional 3 minutes, equally divided, to engage in a dialogue with the
distinguished Member from Virginia who's controlling the time on the
majority side.
Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman from Texas yield to me?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If we accept unanimous consent that we have 3
minutes equally divided.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain that request only
from the majority manager.

[[Page H991]]

Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to propound that request?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry.
Since when has it been the rules of the House that the minority
cannot ask a unanimous consent request? When did that rule get changed?
We're fixing to have a real problem here.
Now the majority can object to unanimous consent, but I at least have
the right to offer a unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair would look to the majority manager for any request
regarding the extension of time in debate.
The Chair recognized the gentleman from Texas for a parliamentary
inquiry, but a unanimous consent request to extend the time of debate
should be offered by the majority manager.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. What are the limits of a unanimous consent
request? Unanimous consent means it requires unanimous consent of the
House.
I asked for a unanimous consent request for 3 additional minutes.
What rule did I violate of the House in asking for a unanimous consent
request as a member of the minority?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman did not violate a rule. The
gentleman was not recognized for a unanimous consent request to extend
time in debate. Only the majority manager will be recognized for
extensions of time in debate.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. So the minority has to be recognized to make the
unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. To extend debate, the majority manager must
offer the unanimous consent request.
The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I reserve my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 9 minutes.
The gentleman from Texas has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOUCHER. In view of the fact that we have no further requests for
time on this side and I do intend to close debate, at this time I would
ask the gentleman from Texas if he has other speakers that he would
like to recognize, or if he is prepared to close on his side.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. BOUCHER. I would be pleased to yield.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have two additional speakers plus myself to
close, and that would probably take 8 minutes, but I could do it in
less.

{time} 1515

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman has under the rule as much time as is
allotted to him--and still remains--for his time allotted.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am just trying to facilitate the majority's
request to go to the White House. Trying to be a good guy. I have now
been muzzled on the House floor. We may decide to stay here all night.
Mr. BOUCHER. Well, reclaiming my time, I probably have about a 4-
minute closing statement, and that is all the time we intend to consume
on this side. If the gentleman would be amenable to a unanimous consent
request that would limit his time to that same amount, I'm sure we
would find that to be acceptable.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We will expedite things on this side. We won't
use all of our time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Let me ask the gentleman if he would like to recognize
his speakers at this time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
I want to talk to this measure. I think part of the frustration those
of us on the Republican side of the aisle feel is this: We are being
asked to truncate the time to debate this bill, which was already
limited to no amendments under a closed rule, a bill that has never had
a hearing in this House or before the Energy and Commerce Committee or
the subcommittee.
The Republicans were completely denied the opportunity to offer any
amendment at any time. Now I am trying to figure out how that's
democracy in action and how that is change for a better day. And now we
are being asked to basically cut it quick, be quiet, go back to our
offices so they can go to the White House for a media show.
Let me talk to this bill. Delaying the DTV date from February 17 to
June puts it right in the middle of hurricane season, tornado season,
and all that. It doesn't open up the spectrum any sooner for law
enforcement to deal with the issues that the public safety community
identified 5 years to the day of 9/11. Five years before, they said,
You have got to give us some more spectrum so we can have
interoperability. That is back in 2001. We are that to here. Now we are
going to delay it some more.
For broadcasters in my State of Oregon, they are going to get to pay
$500,000 to $1 million more in energy costs to run two transmitters,
when they should only, and had counted on, only running one. So to keep
their analog--most likely, a tube-driven transmitter fired up--that
will add 4 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere at a time when I
thought the majority and others in this Congress wanted to do something
about carbon emissions.
So, it will cost $1 million, it will cost jobs. You will burn more
energy. They will have to have engineers keep old transmitters hobbled
together. We had a transmitter across the river in Washington State, an
analog transmitter, burn up 2 weeks ago. Their analog transmitter. It's
off the air. They switched. And they haven't had any real pushback from
the community.
``The provisions in this new bill, according to Communications
Daily,'' that purport to provide a safety valve for public safety
agencies that want to make use of the 700 megahertz spectrum before the
revised deadline are worse than provisions that raised public safety
objections,'' industry officials said Friday. ``This bill is totally of
no value to public safety,'' said an industry official.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this report from Communications
Daily into the Record so that Americans and our colleagues can see
this.
Under the bill, a public safety agency can go on the air if a TV
station vacates its channel in compliance with the various rules. And
yet, it's so complicated in here, that isn't going to happen. We had
Members say, Gee, we have got to do something to help public safety.
This just delays that.
So you're going to burn more power, you're going to cost jobs. Then,
most Americans, 93, 94, probably pushing up higher than that, have
already made the conversion, that we know of. A million people have
come off the waiting list for the coupons in the last 4 weeks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. WALDEN. A simple change in the law to allow budget authority of
$250 million to NTIA would allow them to flow these coupons out. The
stimulus bill spends $600 million more on the coupon conversion
program, and yet that money isn't going to be out the door until April
at the soonest.
So I am trying to figure out how if you move this to the middle of
June, and you don't get the money out the door until April or May. I am
not sure you have solved the coupon problem.
In closing, the Fraternal Order of Police, who represent a couple
hundred thousand law enforcement officers, are opposed to moving this
date. And so am I, Mr. Chairman. I think it's unnecessary and it's
expensive.

[From Communications Daily, Feb. 2, 2009]

House To Vote on DTV Delay Bill, but Opposition Remains

(By Anne Veigle and Howard Buskirk)

The House is set to vote on a revised DTV transition delay
bill this week, following unanimous Senate passage Thursday
night. The bill would set a new analog cutoff date of June 12
instead of Feb. 17. The House is expected to take the bill up
under different rules than last week, when an earlier version
failed to secure a two-thirds majority needed to suspend the
normal rules. Opposition remains among Republican leaders,
who could still try to block the bill, but Democrats believe
they have enough votes for passage.
``I am hopeful they will pass this bill so we can send it
to President Obama,'' said Senate

[[Page H992]]

Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., in a
statement after the Senate passed an amended version (S-352)
of its previous bill (S-328). ``I have no doubt this is going
to go through,'' Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said on C-
SPAN's The Communicators, which airs Saturday on C-SPAN and
Monday on C-SPAN 2. Klobuchar, who co-sponsored the
Rockefeller bill, said the converter box coupon program's
ballooning wait list ignited political momentum to delay the
transition. ``We thought let's give this new administration
some time to fix the problems'' with the coupons, she said.
The technical changes in S-352 clarify that households can
get replacement coupons for those that expired without being
redeemed once budget authority approval of new money for the
converter box program is granted. House and Senate economic
stimulus bills each propose $650 million for the converter
box program, and there has been no challenge to that proposal
so far.
Until the money is appropriated, the converter box program
will continue to grapple with a backlog of coupon requests.
S-328 would have allowed emergency funds to kick in
immediately. S-352 also makes clear that broadcasters wishing
to shut down analog operations before June 12 can do so, and
in cases where stations have made the switch, public safety
can begin using the vacated spectrum.

Public Safety Concerns

The provisions in the new bill that purport to provide a
safety valve for public safety agencies that want to make use
of the 700 MHz spectrum before the revised deadline are worse
than provisions that raised public safety objections,
industry officials said Friday. Public safety officials
declined comment.
``The bill is totally of no value to public safety,'' said
an industry official: ``Some of these things could be fixed,
but they would just require the House to vote again and the
Senate to vote again.'' Public safety concerns have figured
prominently in Hill debate. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in
particular had said he couldn't support the legislation
unless sponsors addressed public safety concerns.
Public safety officials had objected to a requirement in
the original version of the bill which passed the Senate
which required them to file an application to make use of the
700 MHz spectrum they'll get anyway after the transition.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., proposed an alternative that
doesn't require public safety agencies to file an
application. But it does require agencies to work within a
relatively arcane and little utilized section of the FCC's
rules--section 90.545--before they can use the airwaves.
Under the bill, a public safety agency can go on the air if
a TV station vacates its channel in compliance with both a
Dec. 31, 2007, FCC order and section 90.545 of the FCC's
rules. But the TV station must air notices for at least 30
days prior to its shut down. Over the past week, numerous TV
stations have filed requests to shut down by airing notices
for fewer than 30 days. Under the legislation, the FCC would
have no discretion to grant the requests.
In addition, under section 90.545 a public safety agency
could go on the air only if its transmitters are sufficiently
far away from those TV stations still on the adjacent
channels--public safety agencies can't use the spectrum just
because one station shuts down. But the separation
requirement would be difficult to meet. As an alternative,
the public safety agencies could negotiate agreements with TV
stations, but they would have to submit the applications for
FCC approval. A prior version of the legislation required the
FCC to rule within 14 days. The Senate-passed version has no
such requirement, and there's no requirement in the FCC rule.
In addition, public safety agencies can submit engineering
studies, but again, the FCC would have to approve the
studies, and there's no timetable for a FCC ruling. ``They
tried to fix something, but the fix actually made it worse,''
an industry official said.
Meanwhile, House Republicans continue to oppose the delay.
``Moving back the date would put a financial burden on
industry that will be hard for it to swallow in this
difficult economic climate,'' Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.,
ranking member of the House Telecom Subcommittee, wrote in a
Friday Washington Times Op-Ed. Stearns has co-sponsored a
bill with Commerce ranking member Joe Barton, R-Texas, that
would keep the February cutoff date while providing $250
million for the converter box coupon program.
But Democratic leadership hasn't responded to Barton's
plan, believing it can pass the extension bill despite
Republicans' surprise blockage last week (CD Jan 29 p1).
Thirteen Democrats voted with Republicans in Wednesday's 258-
168 vote. Bypassing the rules requires a super-majority vote.
But 22 Republicans joined with Democrats in favor of moving
the DTV delay bill. Republicans may try to kill the bill by
making a ``motion to recommit,'' which, if approved, would
send the bill back to committee. But a straight majority vote
is required to do that, and most observers believe Democrats
have a sufficient margin to defeat that procedure. The bill
will go before the Rules Committee Tuesday to determine time
limits and rules for amending the bill on the floor, Hill and
industry officials said.
____

National Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, 23 January 2009.
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Representative Boehner, I am
writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of
Police to express our concerns regarding S. 328, the ``DTV
Delay Act,'' as it relates to public safety access to
spectrum.
Many of the arguments being made in favor of delaying this
transition were made during the consideration of the Digital
Transition and Public Safety Act in 2005. This is not a new
issue, and was first recognized in a public safety report
issued in September 1996. In 1997, Congress granted public
safety access to this portion of spectrum under Title III,
Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which
directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
authorize broadcasters currently occupying the spectrum to
remain there until 2006. Public safety access to this area of
spectrum was repeatedly pushed back until the enactment of
the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act in 2005, which
set a hard deadline of 17 February for analog broadcasters to
allow public safety access to 24 MHZ of spectrum on the
700MHz band. We are concerned that the staggered transition
which would result if S. 328 is signed into law may
jeopardize the channels that Congress promised to law
enforcement and other public safety officers more than a
decade ago.
For public safety to use the spectrum they have been
promised, broadcast stations must stop analog broadcasts on
those channels. Broadcast stations on the adjacent channels
must also stop analog broadcasts to avoid interfering with
the public safety communications we are trying to enable. For
all those broadcast stations to have somewhere to go,
additional broadcast stations must stop their analog
transmission. It is this chain of events that makes the hard
deadline of 17 February 2009 the most realistic and
responsible option for clearing the spectrum for public
safety's use.
While S. 328 would still allow broadcasters to voluntarily
transition by 17 February, subject to current FCC
regulations, and allow public safety to occupy this vacated
spectrum, unless all the surrounding broadcast stations also
voluntarily transition, it is unlikely anyone can move.
Moreover, under current FCC regulations, broadcasters
generally would not be permitted to transition even
voluntarily until three months before the delayed transition
date, and even then the FCC has the discretion to refuse them
authorization.
The American public has asked broadcasters to take
difficult, time consuming, and costly steps to enable better
public safety communications. These broadcasters have
admirably risen to the call and say they are ready for 17
February. If this delay goes into effect, it opens the door
for future delays. More than a decade of work has gone by
since Congress authorized public safety communications to
expand on the spectrum, and we are very close to achieving
our goal. I urge you not to bring all of this progress to a
halt less than thirty days from the finish line.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the views of
the more than 327,000 members of the Fraternal Order of
Police. Our communications are our lifeline and we need to
know that they will function properly at all times. If I can
provide any additional information on this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in
my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
This is, again, as we are standing here today, just quite an amazing
debate that we are having. How interesting it is that we get down to
the finish line of something that has been in the works for years and
the Federal Government wants to call a time out and say, Let's push it
off for another 4 months.
Of course, we all know that one of the reasons appears to be giving
one company a competitive advantage. We find that very unfortunate that
you have someone who is reported as a lobbyist for a company, and they
have been an advisor for the administration on this situation, and it
is about a competitive advantage.
One of the things that I do want to mention is so much has been said
about the national organizations that are supporting this. I find it
very interesting, Mr. Speaker. When I am talking to my local law
enforcement community, when I am talking to my local broadcasters, they
are much in opposition to what we hear being expressed as the opinion
of the national organizations.

[[Page H993]]

But isn't that the way it goes on issue after issue? You have got the
D.C. way and then you have got, as we say, the Tennessee way. The local
way. And your local broadcasters have committed incredible resources to
this. They have worked with their communities.
Seniors are prepared. We know that according to Nielsen. Seniors are
more prepared than just about anybody for this. We know that the
American public is ready for this to take place and we know that our
first responders are saying let's get this done so that we have that
interoperability that was missing on 9/11, we have interoperability
that was missing at Katrina. We have a readiness and a timetable for
solving a problem that the American people have said we want to see
some action on this.
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to delay this. Let's show the American
people that the Federal Government can keep their word on something,
and it is making this transition.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to say just a few words in response to a couple of the
arguments that were raised by my friends on the other side of the
aisle. First, there was an effort to suggest that the Nielsen survey,
which reports that 6.5 million homes are totally unprepared for the
digital television transition, was an old survey. That it was a month
old. In fact, that survey was taken the week of January 18. So it's
only a bit more than 2 weeks old at this point. And, for practical
purposes, those are very current numbers.
The argument also was made that more money could perhaps be provided
for the converter box program during the coming week, and that that
would solve the problem. That does not solve the problem for two very
important reasons. Given the processing time for the request for
coupons at the Department of Commerce, there literally is not enough
time in the 13 days remaining between now and transition date to clear
the backlog of 3.7 million coupon requests that are currently pending,
much less the time it would take to mail the coupons to the TV viewers
and the time it would then take for the TV viewers to take the coupons
to a store and redeem them for converter boxes. So even if money were
provided today for the converter box program, there would still be
massive dislocation on February 17.
Beyond the converter box program, the call centers operated by the
FCC are also in disarray. Long waiting times, busy signals, calls
frequently disconnected. Virtually impossible to get a live technical
assistance representative on the phone. These were facts reported on by
one of the FCC commissioners, Commissioner McDowell, who called the
call centers and found that that is the state of affairs.
More resources will be needed in order to appropriately staff the
call centers and make sure that that vital point of information is
available for the millions of Americans who are going to need that
assistance when the conversion occurs.
Wilmington, North Carolina, where a test was conducted of an early
shutoff of the analog signal did produce a good result, but there were
very important circumstances at play in Wilmington that are simply not
at play across the rest of the country.
First of all, a massive amount of advertising money was expended in
advising people that the cutoff was coming, and telling them exactly
what they had to do to prepare. The Federal Communications System set
up a special field office in Wilmington. The FCC paid firefighters in
that city to provide in-home technical assistance to people who were
having problems. Most importantly of all, Wilmington is flat terrain--
very different from the mountainous rural areas of America, where the
primary problems with the transition are going to occur. So, yes, a
good result did obtain in Wilmington, but Wilmington is very different
from the rest of the country where the major problems are going to
arise.
It was also mentioned by some in argument that the Department of
Commerce has been saying for some time that it was running out of money
for its converter box program. In fact, not until Christmas Eve--
December 24--did the Department of Commerce send notice that the coupon
program was out of money. Of course, Congress was in recess. And we
have acted as expeditiously as we could since reconvening in order to
correct the problem. And we are doing that now by proposing a delay.
This delay is absolutely necessary. It will be for one time only. It
will ensure, in conjunction with the $650 million to be provided in the
stimulus legislation, that the problems that confront this program can
successfully be addressed. Converter boxes can be supplied. The call
centers can be staffed.
We can assure that when the transition occurs on June 12, that it
does so smoothly, and for the benefit of the American public.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this measure.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The DTV Delay Act.
Two weeks from today, all full-power television broadcast stations
are required to terminate analog signals and transmit only in digital.
Congress mandated the transition to digital in response to requests by
police, firefighters, and emergency personnel for the increased radio
spectrum necessary for reliable, interoperable communications.
To help Americans prepare for the transition and to offset the
associated cost for consumers, Congress established the TV Converter
Box Coupon Program. But the program underestimated the number of
requests for coupons and ran out of money. As a result, many Americans
have not received coupons and are unprepared for transition.
Today 1.8 million households are on a waiting list to receive more
than 3.3 million converter box coupons. Though funding was inserted in
the Stimulus Package to pay for more coupons, unless the February 17th
conversion date is delayed, few of these Americans will be able to
receive their coupons and purchase their converter boxes in time.
The DTV Delay Act will help the Coupon Program to honor requests for
coupons and enable those whose coupons may have expired, to receive new
ones.
The bill does this by delaying the transition date to June 13th, 2009
and extending the period that the Coupon Program may operate until July
31st 2009.
According to the Nielsen Company, 6.5 million households will lose
all TV reception on February 17, 2009. Television is the leading source
Americans use to receive critical public safety information, news and
entertainment. Yet millions of Americans, including many of the
country's most vulnerable groups like seniors, the poor and minorities,
still need to take steps to prepare for transition.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of The DTV Delay Act.
The country is not yet prepared for digital transition. This bill will
provide the time we need to ensure that all Americans are able to enjoy
the full benefits that transition to digital can provide.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 352, the DTV
Delay Act, which postpones the date of the analog-to-digital television
transition from February 17, 2009, to June 12, 2009.
Over the last several months I have received call after call and
letter after letter from my constituents who rely on their analog
televisions for news, emergency information and entertainment. They are
very concerned that they have been unable to obtain the converter box
they need for the upcoming digital transition.
My constituents tell me that they applied for coupons well in advance
of the deadline, only to be told that coupons were no longer available
or that the coupons they received had already expired. My constituents
who live in group homes and single room occupancy buildings have also
voiced concern that they have been denied coupons because they live in
housing that does not fit the program's narrow definition of a
``household.''
My constituents are not the only ones affected by arbitrary
expiration dates, coupon shortages or ineligibility. According to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, as of
January 28, 2009, more than 14 million coupons have expired. The result
is that millions of Americans will lose their television signal because
they will be unable to purchase the equipment necessary for the
transition. The NTIA also reported in early January that the $1.34
billion that Congress appropriated for the coupons had run out. To date
more than 3 million people are on the waiting list. This number
includes nearly 7,000 of my constituents, who need these coupons before
the transition takes effect and they lose their main source of
communication.
It is clear that this country is not prepared for the February 17
transition. I am pleased that the DTV Delay Act postpones the digital
transition for 115 days and will permit consumers holding expired
coupons to reapply for replacement coupons. This bill is badly needed
to help ensure that millions of Americans

[[Page H994]]

do not lose a critical communications safety net when our country
transitions from analog to digital television.
I urge the Energy and Commerce Committee and the NTIA to use this
additional time to address the needs of Americans who are currently
considered ineligible for the converter box program, such as those that
live in single room occupancy buildings and other group homes across
the nation. These are people who need the coupons most because they
will not be able to afford converters without the help of this program.
They are entitled to the same access to the digital converter program
as all other Americans. Let's ensure that no Americans find themselves
in the dark when the transition occurs.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 352, the DTV Delay
Act.
I am a strong supporter for a delay in the Digital Television, DTV,
transition set to occur on February 17, 2009, because I believe that
without a postponement many families and individuals will be left
behind. Without this delay, millions of Americans may see their
televisions ``go dark'' on February 18th, with a disproportionate
impact on low-income, rural, and elderly Americans.
I am particularly concerned with this issue given the unique DTV
transition challenges that exists in my congressional district and
along the U.S.-Mexico border. Households on the U.S.-Mexico border
already have low rates of cable or satellite television subscription.
However, unlike other parts of the country, televisions in the border
region will continue to work after the February transition, as viewers
in the U.S.-Mexico border will maintain analog transmissions from
Mexico. This presents a major obstacle for those trying to prepare
analog-only viewers for this transition because many of these Spanish-
speaking viewers will have little incentive to purchase the required
digital converter box once they discover their television still works.
In addition, I am very concerned about the circumstances surrounding
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's, NTIA,
implementation of the TV Converter Box Coupon Program. Specifically, I
am troubled by the NTIA's creation of a wait list after issuing the
maximum amount of coupons allowed under its budget.
According to Commerce Department data, in just the last two business
days, the size of this waiting list has grown by 200,000 households.
There are now more than two million households on the waiting list for
coupons. In my congressional district alone, the waiting list numbers
have grown from 5,605 on January 30th to 6,013 on February 2nd.
These developments raise serious questions as to the actual ability
of many households to comply with the February deadline. As the
transition date has drawn near, it has become increasingly apparent to
me that the government programs to support the transition are
insufficient and that the transition should be delayed.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for quickly putting
this Senate legislation, once again, before the House for immediate
consideration.
In several weeks, without immediate action, millions of Americans may
remain unprepared for the digital television transition. Mr. Speaker,
as you know, I have had a long interest in the digital television
transition. I held the very first hearing on ``High Definition TV'' in
October of 1987--more than 20 years ago. In 1990, I battled hard and
successfully as then-Chairman of the House Telecommunications and
Finance Subcommittee to get the Federal Communications Commission to
switch from pursuing an ``analog'' HDTV standard to a ``digital''
standard.
Moreover, I fought to build into the Telecomm Act in 1996 the
appropriate way in which broadcasters could utilize ``spectrum
flexibility'' to multiplex the digital signal into several video
programming channels or offer wireless interactive television or
information services. And I pushed unsuccessfully in the context of the
1997 budget battles to prohibit the sale of ``analog-only'' televisions
by the year 2000--an amendment that was opposed by every Republican in
our Committee markup in 1997. The result was over a hundred million
analog-only sets were sold into the marketplace even as the government
was stipulating it intended to turn off the analog TV signal. The
failure to mandate ``dual tuner'' TVs sooner has compounded the
difficulty of this transition immeasurably by increasing the base of TV
receivers that need converter boxes to receive digital TV signals.
Most recently, for the last two years as the Telecommunications and
Internet Subcommittee Chairman, I convened six DTV hearings, requested
and received three Government Accountability Office, GAO, reports, and
wrote numerous oversight letters to the FCC, to NTIA, and to industry
and consumer representatives in headlong pursuit of ensuring a
successful digital television transition on February 17th.
At the last DTV hearing that we held the second week of September--
just after the Wilmington, North Carolina switch-over test--the GAO
testified:

NTIA is effectively implementing the converter box subsidy
program, but its plans to address the likely increase in
coupon demand as the transition nears remain unclear. . . .
With a spike in demand likely as the transition date nears,
NTIA has no specific plans to address an increase in demand;
therefore, consumers might incur significant wait time before
they receive coupons as the transition nears and might lose
television service during the time they are waiting for the
coupons.

In response, I asked the Acting NTIA Administrator to give the
Subcommittee a contingency plan for dealing with the expected surge in
coupons within 30 days. Now, that contingency plan did not arrive in 30
days. Instead, it arrived to us on November 6th--just after Election
Day. The NTIA's ``Final Phase'' plan did not echo the GAO's alarm
bells, but rather stated the following:

This Plan demonstrates that the Coupon Program has both
sufficient funds and system processing capabilities to
achieve this goal . . . and to do so without the creation a
large backlog. Also, NTIA has built flexibility into the
Program to respond to various or unexpected events. Moreover,
based on actual, cumulative redemption data, NTIA would not
exhaust the authorized $1.34 billion in coupon funding
despite increased demand leading up to the analog shut-down,
on February 17th, and, in fact, may return as much as $340
million to the U.S. Treasury.

That's from the NTIA just over two months ago. ``No problem,'' the
agency is saying. In essence the agency is telling Congress, ``We have
a plan to deal with the surge and we don't need any more money. No
large backlog. And we'll have hundreds of millions of dollars left
over.''

Now, why is this important? It is important because we were actually
in session in November. We could have acted during the ``lame duck''
session if the Bush Administration had said, ``yes, we will likely have
a shortfall'', or ``please, Congress, let's err on the side of caution
and budget a couple hundred million more just in case . . .''. Yet NTIA
told us all just the opposite. The agency said everything was fine and
they didn't need additional money for coupons.
In late December, I asked for an urgent status update on the program.
That's when NTIA wrote back to me--on December 24th--stating that a
waiting list was going to begin in January of this year because the
coupon program was hitting its funding ceiling. The agency indicated
that to solve this issue and spend up to the $1.34 billion in the
underlying statute for coupons that another 250 million dollars at a
minimum might be needed. And that amount would not necessarily reflect
the actual demand for coupons the agency was newly projecting. The
waiting list now represents approximately 3 million coupons.
In an attempt to respond quickly, I reached out the first week we
returned here in January to Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-TX, and said
if we work together on an accounting fix we could start to address the
waiting list issue and get the coupons flowing to consumers again and
buy some time. I want to thank Rep. Barton for his willingness to
proceed on such a bill.
But that effort has simply become overtaken by events. If we passed
it and also gave NTIA a couple hundred million dollars for additional
coupons in a measure that passed through the House and through the
Senate today, and arrived to the President's desk this evening, we
simply wouldn't be able to address the backlog and get coupons out to
people who have requested them by February 17th.
Not every media market will be as unprepared as others on February
17th. I know that in the Boston market, our local commercial and
noncommercial broadcasters, as well as our local cable operators, have
worked diligently to be ready on February 17th and I commend them for
their model efforts. Yet even in Boston, it is important to note that a
recent test brought a flood of calls to consumer call centers from
citizens confused about or unprepared for the switchover. Many other
media markets, in part due to the demographic makeup of such markets,
will have an even greater risk of significant dislocation without
immediate action. The Bush Administration has simply left us with so
little time to make the needed adjustments on a national basis absent a
short, one-time delay.
So, although this is the last place we all wanted to be, and in spite
of the fact that we toiled mightily to make this effort work, it is my
judgment that a short delay is in the public interest in order to
protect consumers. I urge passage of this emergency DTV legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 108, the Senate bill is considered read
and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.

[[Page H995]]

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.

Motion to Commit

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Barton of Texas moves to commit the bill (S. 352) to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 6. CLEARANCE OF PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM, ADJACENT
CHANNELS, AND OTHER CHANNELS CAUSING
INTERFERENCE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any
amendments made by this Act, or any revision to any rule,
regulation, or order pursuant to this Act or such amendments,
no full-power television broadcast station shall be
permitted, after February 17, 2009, to continue
broadcasting--
(1) in the television service on channels 63, 64, 68, or 69
(764-806 megahertz, inclusive);
(2) on any channels adjacent to the channels described in
paragraph (1), if cessation of broadcasting on such channels
is determined by the Federal Communications Commission to be
necessary to prevent interference with public safety
communications; and
(3) on any other channel, if cessation of broadcasting on
such channel is determined by the Federal Communications
Commission to be necessary to ensure that--
(A) all public safety radio service licensees can relocate
onto and begin operation on their respective licensed
spectrum; or
(B) no full-power television broadcast station is subject
to unacceptable interference or has its coverage area
significantly reduced.

Mr. BARTON of Texas (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this as succinct
as possible. The motion to commit before us says that notwithstanding
any other provision in the bill that is before us, those stations that
have spectrum that is going to be used by public safety officials and
first responders have to relinquish that spectrum on February 17. If
there's any station whose spectrum is adjacent to the public safety
spectrum that would interfere with the public safety spectrum, those
stations also have to relinquish their spectrum on February 17.
So what this motion to commit does is simply say that for first
responders and public safety officials who have been waiting patiently
for almost 7 years, they will get their spectrum on February 18. That
is all it does.
I would point out that it's been brought to my attention that the
entire State of Hawaii has been digital now for an entire month. They
went digital to protect migrating birds who would be interfered with if
they waited until February 17 to move one or two particular
transmitters.
So, in the State of Hawaii, they have been all digital for a month,
and there's been no problem; 143 stations on the mainland have already
gone digital. There has been no problem.
The Acting FCC Chairman says that about 60 percent, and maybe as many
as 90 percent of the TV stations, are going to go digital between
February 17 and June 12. So I don't think there's a reason for the
delay. But the motion to commit simply says that if we are going to
pass the underlying bill, let's at least put the first responders at
the front of the line to go ahead and get their spectrum on February
18.
With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) in
support of the motion to commit.

{time} 1530

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, let's get this down.
On November 6, NTIA notified us that they may have a problem with
money. At the end of December, they said they have got to start a
waiting list. And today is February 4. So you had December, January,
and now February, 3 months to work this out, and there was a simple
accounting fix that could have been done early on that would have
solved this problem. So at a minimum we could have addressed this
earlier had the majority wanted to. Right now, our biggest concern,
frankly, should be with law enforcement and our emergency services.
Five years to the day before America was attacked on September 11,
2001, the law enforcement community said: We need you to free up this
spectrum, make this transition, and get it done; because if we have an
attack or a problem in this country, we don't have the interoperable
capability to communicate. And, unfortunately, we will learn the sad,
tragic, and deadly reality of that failure to communicate as rescue
workers tried to do their jobs in New York City.
So all this motion to commit says is that let's have the FCC make
sure that we are not going to further hamper our emergency services
personnel and their ability to have interoperable communications, so
that fire and police can talk to each other when there is an emergency.
That is all this says: FCC, make sure this gets done right; and, if
there is a problem, move these stations so that we put the safety of
our firefighters, the safety of our police first and the safety of our
communities. Because, Lord knows, we may be the subject of another
attack.
We all hope that does not occur. But if it does, there will be
another commission that says: How come you guys waited? Why didn't you
do what we told you to do when we had the last commission, the 9/11
Commission? Why didn't you listen to the public service folks 5 years
before the attack on 9/11? Why didn't you step up and do your job?
There is a simple accounting fix that initially there was reportedly
even bipartisan for, until the transition team said, oh, no, let's just
move the date. Then everything crumbled, and that is where we are
today.
Last night my wife and I were watching TV, and here comes the ad on
Comcast that says that: Congress has passed a law that says February
17, 2009, the analogue signal goes away, and you just subscribe to us
or you do this converter box.
We are still having these folks advertise as of last night what the
law is today. People, are confused. You think confusion? They are still
being told, here is what you are supposed to do. And this is why people
don't trust the government, because you get everybody marching, doing
what they are supposed to do, the broadcasters, the industries that
supply the boxes, everything else, and then we move the goalposts. And
I don't think that makes sense. In this case, it doesn't have to
happen. We can work through this process. You could make a simple
accounting change; you would be $250 million just authorized and you
get the coupons out the door.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, the primary reason that I am opposing this
motion to commit is that it simply is unnecessary. And I want to
address that in just a moment; but before I do that, I think a factual
clarification is necessary. The Department of Commerce did not notify
the Congress that the converter box program was out of money until
Christmas Eve. Congress was in recess at that time. Ever since we have
been back in session, we have been working to address the problem that
that program running out of money has caused, and we have done that as
expeditiously as the congressional schedule permits.
In November, in the communication to which the gentleman from Oregon
referred, the Department of Commerce indicated that it was having to
reschedule in a certain way the provision of coupons, but it also said
that it had ample money to continue the program to successful
conclusion at that time. The Department of Commerce said nothing about
the program potentially running out of money. That message did not come
until December 24th.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. If I have time remaining after I finish my statement, I
will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

[[Page H996]]

The motion to commit would essentially require the broadcasters in
the four channels that will be devoted to public safety and in a buffer
zone around those four channels to terminate their analogue broadcast.
That is the essence of what the motion accomplishes. And it simply is
not necessary.
The first point to be made is that there are very few public safety
agencies that immediately are even prepared to start using that
spectrum for advanced communications. And that fact comes to us from
David Furth, who is the official at the FCC, Acting Chief of the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, who has told us that very few
public safety agencies could even utilize the spectrum immediately.
We have placed in this legislation a provision that says that if
broadcasters elect to turn off their analogue transmitters and vacate
the spectrum prior to the transition date of June 12, they may do so;
and, if they decide to do so, then public safety agencies that are
prepared to begin to utilize the spectrum may have access to it, in
accordance with standard Federal Communication Commission procedures.
And so many broadcasters probably will take that option. I think
numbers were provided on the other side about how many are likely to do
that, and in those areas public safety agencies can go forward.
Beyond that, we have a very large list of endorsements for this delay
coming from the associations that represent the great bulk of public
safety agencies across the United States, and they are saying that
there is a greater risk in shutting television off and having people
lose vital public safety information that television provides than
there is in delaying for a brief period the arrival of the spectrum for
the use of public safety agencies. Letters have been received from the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International,
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Emergency Number
Association, all speaking for public safety agencies and endorsing this
delay.
As I indicated, there is a great public safety concern if people are
not able to get the emergency information that is delivered so
effectively by local broadcast stations. And kicking those stations out
of the four channels in which they are broadcasting today to make room
for public safety agencies that themselves are not prepared to utilize
that spectrum simply is not a good policy. And so, Mr. Speaker, for all
of these reasons I oppose the motion to commit and ask that it be
rejected by the House.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to commit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of
S. 352, if ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 738, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 242, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 51]

YEAS--180

Akin
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Peters
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--242

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Aderholt
Alexander
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Flake
Kissell
McKeon
Schock
Simpson
Stark

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1604

Messrs. SCOTT of Georgia, SHERMAN, HONDA, ELLISON, SCHRADER,
MELANCON, KUCINICH, MORAN of Virginia, THOMPSON of Mississippi,
OBERSTAR, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Ms. SOLIS of
California and Ms.

[[Page H997]]

PINGREE of Maine changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, LEWIS of California, PERRIELLO and SAM
JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 51, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264,
nays 158, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 52]

YEAS--264

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--158

Adler (NJ)
Akin
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dreier
Ehlers
Fallin
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Aderholt
Alexander
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Flake
Kissell
McKeon
Paul
Simpson
Stark

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.

{time} 1612

Ms. FOXX changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 52, I inadvertently voted
``nay.'' I would like the Record to show that I meant to vote ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 52, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''

____________________