[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.''

                          ____________________