[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2683-2691]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 352, DTV DELAY ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 108 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 108

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 352) 
     to postpone the DTV transition date. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 2.  Section 2 of House Resolution 92 is amended by 
     striking ``February 4'' and inserting ``February 26''.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 108.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 108 provides for the consideration of 
Senate bill S. 352, the DTV Delay Act. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The rule waives 
all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 
10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to commit 
with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, under current law, all full-power TV stations will 
stop their analog broadcasts on February 17, 2009, and broadcast only 
digital signals. That means on February 18, millions of American 
households that have an older television and have not obtained an 
analog-to-digital TV converter box will suddenly have a blank TV.
  Survey data released by the Nielsen Company reveals that as of 
January 2009, 6.5 million American households were completely 
unprepared for transition to digital TV, meaning every TV in their home 
will be blank on February 18.
  And for a host of reasons, the Federal Government's efforts to help 
people buy the necessary converters--a disproportionate number of whom 
who are seniors, low-income households, and those in rural areas--have 
been insufficient.
  Madam Speaker, too many Americans are at risk for losing their 
television service, and we need a one-time delay to get ready for the 
digital TV transition. The bill before us today, S. 352, the DTV Delay 
Act, is very simple. It postpones the date of analog-to-digital 
television transition for 115 days from February 17, 2009, to June 12, 
2009. This will provide additional time to get coupons for the digital 
TV converter boxes to millions of American households that are at risk 
of being without television service.
  This bill unanimously passed the Senate despite being unfortunately 
blocked by the House Republicans last week. It was supported by the 
Obama administration, the FCC commissioners and has been endorsed by 
numerous groups, including the AARP, Consumers Union, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, the Coalition of Organizations for 
Accessible Technology, the National Hispanic Media

[[Page 2684]]

Coalition, the National Emergency Number Association, the Association 
of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of Broadcasters, 
AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Univision, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.
  Madam Speaker, I would close by adding that this has not been an 
ideal transition to digital television, and this is hardly a perfect 
solution to the problem. But make no mistake, without this critical 
delay, millions of Americans may no longer be able to watch their 
television on February 18; and punishing consumers is surely not the 
way we fix this problem.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have some very eloquent speakers lined up on our side to talk 
about this bill, so I'm going to speak just a short time so I can leave 
plenty of time for my colleagues who have very eloquent statements to 
make on this issue, but I do want to point out that this process began 
a very long time ago.
  It is a rather complicated issue, but even by Federal Government 
standards, this is a long time to accomplish a task. It's also, I 
think, an indication of the change that has come to Congress in the 
past 2 years.
  We want change. President Obama has said he wants change, but he 
wants change that makes government work. This is going in the wrong 
direction, in my opinion. And my colleagues are going to talk, again, 
about why this is going in the wrong direction.
  But I want to point out that in the so-called stimulus bill, the 
majority party has put another $650 million to deal with this issue. 
According to our calculation, a small percentage, less than 1 percent 
of the people who need this assistance, have not requested the coupons. 
That equates, we believe, to spending over $3,000 per household for the 
holdouts who have not gotten their converter box. That is a lot of 
money to be spending.
  I, frankly, think this is an excuse to put three times the amount of 
money that we think needs to be spent on the remainder of this program, 
and it's just another example of overreaching on the part of the 
majority.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for 
his leadership on the Rules Committee and also on the important issue 
of keeping people in their homes. Home foreclosures are mounting. 
They're an epidemic in his district, and I want our colleagues to know 
that another Member from California is noticing the leadership that he 
provides on that issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill 
to provide a one-time--let me stress--one-time delay in the DTV 
transition. I sympathize with Americans who are unprepared for this 
transition, many of whom are elderly, minorities, or residents of rural 
areas. Television is important to our lives and can serve as a vital 
resource in times of emergency. So for those reasons, I support the 
legislation.
  At the same time, we must not forget that the DTV transition's real 
purpose is to improve emergency communications capabilities for first 
responders. The lessons of 9/11 are sadly fading. Hundreds of police 
and firefighters died at the World Trade Center in part because they 
could not talk to each other on their radios.
  The key to preventing this kind of tragic communication failure is to 
build a nationwide interoperable broadband network that will allow 
rescue workers from different units to talk to each other even though 
they operate on separate radio frequencies. The foundation for this 
nationwide public safety network is the spectrum that is currently used 
for analog television broadcasting, and only after analog operations 
are cleared can that spectrum be put to its best and most important 
use.
  Madam Speaker, in a perfect world this delay would not be necessary. 
And I want to make clear, again, that further delay should not, must 
not be necessary once this period ends. But this one-time delay will 
help protect our most vulnerable citizens while we get on with 
designing the build-out of the public safety network that is our 
ultimate goal.
  It has been almost 8 years since the
9/11 attacks. Police, firefighters, and EMTs all over the country--and 
the families they protect--are counting on us to finally get this 
right.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, the ranking member of Energy and Commerce, Mr. Barton.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  Madam Speaker, we are here on the same issue that we were here on 
last week when, under the suspension of the rules, the House tried to 
pass a bill to delay the digital television transition period from 
February 17 to June 12. Wisely, the House rejected that on a bipartisan 
vote.
  Our friends in the other body slightly changed the bill and did a 
procedure called hotlining it, which brought a basically identical bill 
back to the House.
  The new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, 
has gone to the Rules Committee and asked that the bill be reported to 
the floor under a rule, which is not a bad idea. The problem is, this 
is a closed rule.
  Now, I want to point out to the newer Members of this body what a 
closed rule is. It means there can be no amendments. Now, there may be 
occasions when that's in order, but this is not one of those occasions.
  There's been no legislative hearing in the committee. There's been no 
markup in the committee. In fact, two markups have been scheduled and 
canceled in committee.
  So we have a piece of legislation. There's been no debate on it in 
the Senate, it's been hotlined, we had a suspension vote on it last 
week--which I think we had 20 minutes on each side before we had to 
vote. And so now we're under a closed rule. So no Republican amendments 
or Democrat amendments were made in order.
  I don't know if Democrats offered amendments, but there were six 
Republican amendments made in order, one of which was by myself and Mr. 
Stearns who said quite simply, ``You don't need to delay it. Just 
authorize an additional sum of money.''
  One of the things that the proponents of the delay are saying is we 
need to delay this because there is not enough money. Well, actually, 
there is enough money. But under an accounting rule by the Office of 
Management and Budget, when you send a coupon, you have to assume that 
that coupon is going to be redeemed 100 percent of the time. So of the 
$1.3 billion that has been appropriated and is in an account, about 
half that money is still in the account, but because there are coupons 
that are outstanding, they can't issue new coupons.
  The amendment that was not made in order simply said authorize 
another $250 million of coupons to be sent out because that money is 
already there and only about 52 percent of the coupons are being 
redeemed. So at the end of the game, you're going to have plenty of 
money.
  Interestingly enough, this bill doesn't approve any money. The money 
for this bill is in the stimulus package--which probably won't clear 
the Senate for another couple of weeks, probably will be a conference 
committee or maybe another closed system where there is not a real 
conference--but in any event, I doubt that stimulus package is going to 
be on the President's desk within the next month.
  So we're delaying a hard day transition today with no additional 
money nor any way to send out any additional coupons. How silly is 
that? And no amendments made in order to correct the bill.
  We had other amendments that would have exempted broadcasters from 
the delay if the cost caused by the delay was more than $100,000. That 
one

[[Page 2685]]

was not ruled in order. We had an amendment that said the broadcasters 
in rural areas would have to go ahead with the hard day if they were 
sitting on spectrums that were allocated to provide broadband to rural 
areas. That wasn't made in order. Not one amendment was made in order.
  And to top it off, myself and Mr. Stearns sent a letter to the new or 
the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Committee saying, 
``How many TV stations do you think are going to go ahead and go 
forward even though it's not mandated?'' You know what the answer is? 
Sixty-one percent of the 1,000 television stations in America are 
probably going to go forward. And believe it or not, 143 already have. 
They've already gone digital.
  So, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, when you have a closed rule, 
no amendments made in order, no legislative hearing, no markup, no 
debate in the other body, I think we could defeat this rule; I think we 
could bring an open rule to the floor, let some amendments be made in 
order, let the body work its will; and if that passes, send that to the 
other body and try to work it out.
  We on the Republican side want digital television transmission to go 
forward. We want the spectrum to be released for the first responders. 
We want the television stations to see the benefit of savings, but we 
do not need this delay, and we do not need a closed rule.
  Please vote ``no'' on the closed rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Colorado will manage the time of the gentleman from California.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I served on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 14 
years, and much of that time in the Telecommunications Subcommittee was 
spent dedicated to digital transition. So I have been around this issue 
for a while.
  After all of the oversight, after all of the work, after all of the 
hearings, it's become unfortunately clear that we're unprepared to 
transition on February 17. Many consumers never received their coupons 
because the coupons were lost in the mail and they were prevented from 
reapplying.
  Other consumers' coupons expired because they could not find 
converter boxes before they expired, and we know that problems in the 
education program for the DTV transition probably left many families 
uncertain about what to do with their coupons.
  And coupons were mailed third class. Now, I don't know what genius 
came up with that in the department, but it was really, totally 
mishandled and bungled.
  Seven and a half million households are prepared for the transition, 
and there are over 2.7 million coupons representing more than 1.5 
million households on a waiting list right now today.

                              {time}  1330

  Every Member should have received a letter detailing how many of 
their constituents are on the list. I have 2,346 of them without 
coverage. The Department of Commerce now estimates that the demand for 
converter boxes may exceed the supply of boxes by over 2 million units. 
And it's estimated that it will take 6 to 8 weeks after new boxes are 
ordered before they will appear on store shelves.
  So we are not ready for this transition. We can fix these problems. 
We can minimize the catastrophe if we pass today's legislation. There 
are dollars in the recovery legislation that will cover what needs to 
be done, and pay for that. So the resources are there. They will not 
only do better consumer education, including call centers, and fix many 
of the problems.
  If you vote for this, it's a vote not to go dark for your 
constituents. Thank you.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I rise in opposition to this rule. I'm trying to figure 
out what it is the majority fears about open debate, either in 
committee or on the floor.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, who's 
managing the rule, if you would like to tell me why no amendments were 
allowed.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Thank you, sir.
  This was discussed in the Rules Committee the other day. And there is 
a need for expediency here. We are talking about televisions that are 
going out and people losing the ability to view it.
  Mr. WALDEN. Reclaiming my time; we are only talking maybe 5 minutes 
on an amendment. This bill has had no hearings in any committee in the 
House, correct?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. In the Rules Committee yesterday we had 
several amendments.
  Mr. WALDEN. Reclaiming my time; but you're not the substantive 
committee. Energy and Commerce is the substantive committee. Our 
committee was not allowed to have a hearing on this issue, including 
the ramifications of it, on this bill.
  We had no opportunity to offer an amendment. You heard our ranking 
member, Mr. Barton, suggest there are alternatives that wouldn't cost 
the taxpayers enormous amounts of money.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. If I may address that. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee actually had nine hearings on this very matter.
  Mr. WALDEN. Reclaiming my time; not on this bill. There was no 
hearing on this bill. We've had hearings along the way about this 
issue, but not on this bill before us today--at least no markup on this 
bill. So our only alternative to help the taxpayers prevent--who's 
going to loan us this money, by the way? $650 million more we're going 
to ask to borrow to pay for converter boxes. And yet, only half the 
money has been spent.
  There's an affordable, efficient alternative we could have at least 
allowed the Members here to vote on that said, Change the accounting a 
bit, allow them to go ahead and move forward and issue the coupons as 
those expired, that aren't used, because not every coupon is being 
used. There's only a 52.5 redemption rate. Then that money will flow 
back in at the end.
  Putting money in the stimulus means it's not available until April or 
May. Now you have got a June deadline. So even that money is not going 
to flow out there. I urge defeat of the rule. We can legislate in a 
much better way than this.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  A brief discussion of some of the many hearings and discussions that 
occurred on this matter. March 28, 2007, the subcommittee held its 
first hearings on the status of the DTV transition; October 17, 2007, 
second hearing on the status of DTV transition, at which the NTIA 
Assistant Secretary Kneuer testified.
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. No, I have to complete this. October 31, 2007, 
subcommittee holds a third hearing on status of the DTV transition; 
February 13, 2008, a fourth hearing. It continues. There were a total 
of nine hearings at which this matter was discussed extensively. Those 
who wanted to be heard were able to be heard at that point.
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. I don't believe the gentleman was a Member of the 
Congress when most of those hearings were held. So you wouldn't have 
had benefit of those hearings. But my question is: If they did all 
those hearings, why didn't they have a markup to fix it then, if this 
was such a problem? Was there a single markup on this bill in a 
substantive committee?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. This bill had extensive discussion. In the 
absence of acting soon, there will be millions of people who will not 
have TV, and they won't be very happy.
  Mr. WALDEN. But the question here is, was there a single hearing or 
markup on this bill?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. You can read the transcript.

[[Page 2686]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado controls the 
time.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker and Members, can you imagine February 18, 
when millions of households will have their TVs go dark, and not 
understand why? Yes, it would be great if everyone had received their 
coupons, if everybody understood the transition to digital. But they 
don't.
  I cannot understand why the Members of Congress would not be generous 
enough to have an appreciation for the fact that people are going to be 
terribly inconvenienced. Seniors who depend on their friend, the TV, 
let alone all of those televisions that will go dark without people 
understanding why. We could have a national emergency and our first 
responders would not have the opportunity to have an interoperative 
system where they could talk to each other.
  I don't care about whether or not amendments have not been heard by 
either side. This bill has been debated ad nauseam in committee over a 
long period of time. And so, Members of Congress, if you want your 
telephones ringing off the hook, if you want 911 tied up, if you want 
people knocking on the door of their neighbors and others, trying to 
find out what is wrong, you act irresponsibly and not support this 
legislation, and let all hell break loose, because we will have a 
crisis on our hands.
  I would ask the Members: be responsible. Don't nickel and dime this 
legislation. Don't create an unnecessary bureaucracy. Just vote the 
bill out so that we can support the average American in having their 
television not go on dark on February 18.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank my colleague from North Carolina.
  To just set the record straight, to my colleague who just spoke, 
there was no hearing on this bill in committee. There was no markup on 
this bill in committee. There has never been an opportunity to amend 
this bill on this floor or in committee. I serve on the committee, I 
serve on the subcommittee.
  Further, if she's concerned about interoperability, then you free up 
the spectrum. Delay of transition to DTV means the analog transmitters 
here and the digital transmitters here--and they are both going. Until 
the analog is gone, the spectrum is not freed up for that 
interoperability she pleads for. Maybe if there was a hearing, she 
would better understand the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my esteemed colleague 
from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have been in the House for 8 years, and I 
have been a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, although on 
leave of absence, for 6. But before I came here, for two decades I was 
in the electronics industry, was part of the annual consideration of 
over a million dollars of private funding to help move digital 
television. We did so not just to sell televisions or to improve 
people's pictures, but in fact because of the efficiency of spectrum 
and what it would do. I have been a supporter of digital transition.
  Today, I am here as the ranking member of Government Reform, sounding 
an alarm that I hope will be heard by my colleagues. President Obama 
did only one thing before he became President. Only once did he violate 
his ``one President at a time'' statement, and that was in fact on 
asking for a delay in the digital transition. I believe he did so 
because in fact he was misled.
  It is clear that there is doubt as to whether a gentleman named 
Gerard Salemme, who is in fact a highly compensated $300,000-plus a 
year individual with a company which is behind today--behind in their 
technology rollout for using this new spectrum--was on his transition 
team, although he is still the executive vice president of a company 
called Clearwire.
  To me, it appears as though the process behind closed doors in the 
transition team that led to the decision to delay digital television 
was clearly tainted by someone who, as an opportunist, may have been 
trying to gain those extra 4 months to make their technology 
competitive with those that are already rolled out. That, to me, is the 
first of many tragedies. You have heard many others.
  Additionally, having been in the consumer electronics industry for 
over 20 years, I'm well aware that the cost of these digital boxes are 
about $40. So even if you claim that you have 6 million people who 
haven't received them, you do $40 times 6 million and pretty soon you 
figure out that it's $200 million-some that we would have to authorize 
with this delay in order to fully fund getting people their boxes.
  No money is attached to this bill. As a result, this will simply 
cause a delay, giving certain companies an opportunity perhaps to catch 
up in technology, advancing one company over another, something we said 
we wouldn't do when we set a hard deadline. More importantly, we are 
not solving the basic problem here. It only takes $240 million or less 
dollars to fix this problem where $18 billion worth of spectrum is 
being held ransom.
  This is bad business. It's bad for American technologies that are 
emerging, it's bad for all the services that will be granted. I came 
from high tech. I know what we are doing is forcing us to stay in horse 
and buggy for months longer.

           R. Gerard Salemme's Interests in Clearwire and ICO


                               Clearwire

       (Data current through most recent Definitive Proxy, Oct. 9, 
     2008)
       Executive Vice President of Strategy, Policy and External 
     Affairs
       Annual Compensation: $336,812
       Stock Options: 1.15 million
       Total Value of Options: $6.468 million


                                  ICO

       Consultant, ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Ltd.
       Director, ICO North America, Inc.
       Owns: As of Apr. 25, 2008, owned 699,474 shares of Class A 
     Common Stock of ICO Global.
       Acquired: Received 110,619 shares of ICO Global 
     Communications on Dec. 1, 2008, worth $125K.
                                  ____


                     Biography of R. Gerard Salemme


    Executive Vice President--Strategy, Policy and External Affairs

       As executive vice president--strategy, policy and external 
     affairs, Gerard Salemme oversees Clearwire's spectrum 
     strategy, acquisition and development, public policy agenda 
     and local, state, federal, and international regulatory 
     affairs and advocacy. Prior to assuming his current role at 
     Clearwire, Salemme served as vice president and corporate 
     secretary from November 2003 to April 2004. As the company's 
     senior policy executive, Salemme brings more than 30 years of 
     telecommunications, government affairs, federal regulatory 
     and public policy expertise to Clearwire. Salemme has held 
     key executive positions at XO Communications, AT&T Corp., 
     McCaw Cellular, and GTE Corporation/Sprint Corporation. At 
     AT&T, Salemme directed the company's federal regulatory 
     public policy organization, including participation in the 
     FCC's narrowband and broadband PCS auctions. In addition, 
     Salemme has served as the senior telecommunications policy 
     analyst for the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 
     Telecommunications and Finance, as chief of staff to 
     Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and as a lecturer of 
     economics at the University of Massachusetts at Salem. He is 
     currently a principal of ERH, a vice president of ERI, and a 
     director of and consultant to ICO and ICO North America.

  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise in 
support of this bill. I am just amazed at what I am hearing from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. I have been on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee for the past 13 years, and I have been on the 
Telecommunications Subcommittee for most of that time. We have had 
hearing after hearing after hearing involving the DTV transition. It 
may be technically true that we haven't had a specific hearing on this 
bill, but we have had hearings ad nauseam on the whole issue.
  And what are we talking about? We are talking about a 115-day delay. 
We are not talking about a 10-year delay. We are saying 115 days--3 
months, 4 months--to give us time to put our house in order so that 
people's televisions don't go blank. I don't think

[[Page 2687]]

that is so unreasonable. I am amazed at the opposition to 115 days.
  Now, I support this bill. I do it reluctantly because the transition 
to DTV will offer great benefits to our Nation. In recent weeks, it has 
become crystal clear that what I have been saying for years on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee is true--that we have not provided nearly 
enough resources or education for this transition to be successful. So, 
if we wait 115 days so it will be more successful, what is the problem?
  For the past two Congresses I have introduced the Digital Television 
Consumer Education Act. The legislation would have avoided the problems 
we are seeing right now. It would have educated the public about the 
transition, and it would provide additional funding for the converter 
box coupon program which, as we all know, is out of money.
  Currently, there are almost 2 million people on a waiting list for 
converter box coupons. This means 4,000 people in my district are 
waiting for coupons. It would be unacceptable for us to force the 
transition upon so many of my constituents and your constituents and 
those of everybody else in this Chamber, when it's clear they are not 
ready.
  If we continue with the transition, millions upon millions of 
television screens in this country will simply go dark.
  Again, I don't support an indefinite delay. This is a finite delay. 
This is a one-time delay. I won't support a further delay. But 115 days 
is not so terrible. When the transition occurs, which we know it needs 
to occur, TV pictures nationwide will become crystal clear; technology 
companies will be able to roll out new-generation wireless services 
that far outpace what we have today and, most importantly, as was 
mentioned, first responders will be able to carry interoperable 
communication devices that they badly need right now.
  So, the benefits to the transition to digital are clear. The harm, 
however, that we would cause by forcing the transition on an unprepared 
Nation is equally clear. So let's wait the 115 days, let's do it right, 
and let's support S. 352.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  First, I rise in opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to 
the underlying bill. Let me say to my colleague from New York, we have 
spent over 2 years planning for this date of February 17, 2009. All the 
broadcasters, all the engineers, all the people that put up the towers, 
they are all ready to go. In fact, PBS pointed out that if they delay, 
it's going to cost them $22 million. That's just the tip of the 
iceberg.
  The hearings we've had were to determine how to run the program and 
give the Department of Commerce the money they need to implement the 
coupon program. But we never had a hearing on this bill. That's why I 
submitted six amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday. It would 
vastly improve the final product. In fact, as Mr. Issa pointed out, 
with the people that supposedly need the coupons, the $250 million 
allotment back in January, back in December, would have taken care of 
this problem. But, for some reason, it was not taken care of.

                              {time}  1345

  But we have never had a hearing, not one, on delaying the digital TV 
transition. We have had hearings, I agree, on how to implement the 
program, but not delaying and what the implications are. And, 
incredibly enough, this bill has never gone through any kind of markup 
where we could air out some of the contentious issues: What is it going 
to cost the broadcasters, the people implementing the towers, and so 
forth?
  Now, a Member on that side talked about national security and about 
delaying in reference to 9/11. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a 
letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police. The National 
Fraternal Order of Police has come out strongly against this delay. And 
why would they come out against this delay? That is because this delay 
could mean that national security, the first responders, would be 
affected, would not have the information they need, and could not 
notify citizens in the case of an emergency.
  But none of the six amendments I offered on behalf of my colleagues, 
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Barton, were accepted. And so, really, 
we had no opportunity to make this bill better.
  So when we transitioned on February 17, June 12, or whatever it is 
going to be, and you have no guarantee that this will be the last 
delay, we have to realize that, to put into perspective, it is going to 
cost money, it is going to increase our risk for first responders. And, 
when you think about it, no matter what date you establish, there is 
always going to be somebody who doesn't get the message. In fact, the 
demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina in September to see 
if it would work was 99 percent effective.
  So the question I would have for you: If the demonstration project 
was so effective in September, 5 months later surely it is going to be 
effective on February 17, 2009. Tens of thousands of people will not 
lose their television because the coupons would be available. I urge 
defeat of the rule.

                                                National Fraternal


                                             Order of Police,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 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.

[[Page 2688]]

     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. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, this delay is a one-time delay 
only. And given the national security issues and increasing number of 
natural disasters we face, I can think of no time in our history when 
having access to television is more critical than it is now. Absent 
this extension, millions of television sets will go dark in 13 days.
  This legislation contains specific language recommended by public 
safety organizations. It explicitly preserves the ability of public 
safety entities to use the DTV spectrum before the new transition date 
subject to existing FCC rules, and under no circumstances will there be 
any disruption of spectrum currently used for public safety 
communications.
  As I said before, this bill has the support of leading public safety 
organizations, including the Association of Public Safety 
Communications Officials International, the International Associations 
of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and 
the National Emergency Number Association.
  I would add that allowing the 6.5 million households estimated by 
Nielsen that are completely unprepared for the DTV transition to go 
dark is in and of itself a legitimate public safety issue. Those homes 
will not be able to continue to rely on local broadcast stations for 
news about natural disasters, evacuations, terrorist attacks, or other 
public safety announcements. A one-time delay of 115 days is a 
reasonable response to a very difficult problem that millions of 
Americans would face in 2 weeks absent this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of this rule for 
a variety of different reasons. But let me engage in one of the first 
reasons, is I am not sure that a delay is necessary. Are there some 
hiccups or concerns? I am not going to agree with a couple of my 
colleagues and friends from the other side that talked about 
catastrophes. September 11th is a catastrophe. Delaying this is not, or 
February 17th is not. But let me run through what some of the concerns 
are.
  Some of the concerns is that we are not 100 percent ready. Some of 
the concerns is there is a waiting list; although, there are 10 million 
coupons issued today that are valid, representing 5 million homes, so 
those are people that were going to probably go in the next 13 days and 
buy one of the set-top boxes. I have gone into my electronics stores 
over the last week, and there are mountains. And I am not exaggerating, 
there were piles almost up to my neck in every one of the electronics 
stores that I went into.
  So what are the appropriate responses here? Is a delay necessary? We 
have had hearings, granted, on the merits of DTV hard date. We have not 
been able to have a discussion in this Congress whether, A, it is 
necessary to delay this for 4 months; or, whether there are appropriate 
responses that don't require a delay, like, for example, if we would 
have put up a suspension last week that said that the expiration dates 
aren't in existence anymore. So if you had one that expired, you could 
go out and use it. We could have changed an accounting rule that would 
have fixed the so-called money problem, although as the past chairman 
of this committee pointed out there really isn't a money problem.
  The amazing part about this to me is that with these simple solutions 
that both sides could have agreed upon, we could have had this done a 
couple weeks ago. But for some reason, 3 weeks ago just completely out 
of the blue our new President said we need to delay this. No 
discussion. When President Obama came to our conference a week or so 
ago, he was asked about why. And the response was, simply, because the 
past administration messed up. And he said, quote, ``Our people are 
telling me that we need 4 months.'' Then we find out that one of the 
people supposedly maybe that the President was referring to, a member 
of the transition team that was discussing with the transition team 
technology issues that owns a company called Clear Channel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Salemme owns a business called Clearwire that actually 
will benefit from a delay because it puts his company into an 
advantageous position. Maybe that is why we are now talking about a 
delay of 4 months without any hearing. I would respectfully request 
that our committee oversight look into it. The ranking member of the 
oversight committee of Congress has asked for it, and I think it is a 
good idea to do.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, there are many Americans that 
don't realize that they have not made the transition to digital TV, 
absent this bill, in 13 days; with this bill, of a 115-day extension.
  Mr. TERRY. Would the gentleman yield for one question?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. There was a poll that was brought out last week that said 
that 95 percent of the homes are ready. So if 95 percent are ready 
today, what is the number then that we have to be at to implement the 
hard date? Would it be 100 percent, 99.5 percent?
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Nebraska has in his very own district 3,401 people who have not made 
the transition; I have in my district 3,671. There are a number of 
people across the country, particularly elderly people and people who 
aren't as aware of the technology. Now, Nielsen has estimated that 6.5 
million remain. And it is critical that, again, this is something that 
a lot of people don't realize as they go about their everyday lives. We 
realize this in this body. We talk about it, those involved with 
technology do.
  Another issue is, for instance, many of the coupons were sent out via 
third-class mail, taking 4 to 8 weeks to deliver. Some of those, as is 
inevitable when things get mailed, actually get lost in the mail; when 
they arrive, some of them arrived after their expiration date, which 
was only a 90-day expiration date. One of the provisions in the bill 
would actually allow consumers to reapply for coupons when their 
coupons expired.
  So, again, for these reasons there would be a lot of difficulty in 
explaining to any of our constituents whose televisions will go off in 
13 days why we didn't act to be able to allow them to continue to watch 
their television and give them time to see this transition through with 
this one-time delay.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I am trying to figure out, why are we 
spending another $650 million on television coupons when Americans need 
jobs? Why is Congress continuing on this path of wasteful Washington 
spending when we can do much, much better?
  The current economic mess that we are in right now was created by 
spending and borrowing money that doesn't exist. So why are we doing 
more of the same? People are hurting. Many people have lost their jobs, 
and Americans are genuinely worried about the future. Last week, we 
considered a stimulus bill of $819 billion in a so-called stimulus; 
actually, it is over $1 trillion when you think of the debt payments 
that are included. This is enough to give every family in the country 
close to $11,000. And what is this money for? $600 million to buy new 
cars for government workers; $150 million for honey bee insurance. And, 
of course, $650 million for television coupons. And the list goes on 
and on.
  I am asking my constituents, is this how you would spend your hard-
earned taxpayer money? I don't think so. It is no wonder that the 
American public is growing weary of this economic plan, and polls show 
a declining support. And

[[Page 2689]]

do you know why? Because the American public is smart.
  But why does a broken Congress continue to move on the same path, to 
spend hard-earned taxpayer money on the same old deficit plans that do 
little to create jobs and get our economy going?
  Madam Speaker, I think we can do better. I think we must do better. 
Let's heed the President's call for swift bipartisan action, a plan 
that would provide immediate real stimulus to create jobs in this 
economy, not one that explodes the budget deficit on wasteful programs. 
Let's help families and small businesses with tax relief. Congress is 
focused on the wrong priorities with this bill. Spending $650 million, 
deficit spending $650 million, is the wrong priority. We should focus 
on job creation.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. As testimony to the demand for the need to 
change, there are currently pending about 2 million requests for 
coupons. This bill, as passed, would finally allow for some of those 
coupons to be reissued by allowing consumers to reapply for those 
coupons and help ensure that those who need coupons can still get them 
and their televisions do not go dark.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  On the debate before us today, this has been a discussion that has 
been going on in the country for 3 years now. It was mentioned earlier 
that there were people who didn't know that this date was pending. I 
don't know how you could possibly be watching television and not know 
that this date was coming up. This has been the most broadcast, the 
most communicated date in the history of broadcasting. And if you don't 
know that this date is coming up, you're probably not watching 
television. And if you're not watching television, you probably won't 
know on February 18 whether it occurred or not.
  There are really three important reasons not to pass this rule and 
not to pass this bill. One is first responders. The 9/11 Commission, in 
discussion after discussion since then and before then, has talked 
about getting all of our first responders on one level where they could 
communicate. All you have to do is have a flood, a tornado or an ice 
storm in your area to know that when the first responders come in to 
help, no matter how well your own first responders are communicating, 
when the first responders come in to help, they could be much more 
helpful if they could all communicate together immediately. And they 
cannot do that until the last person gets off the spectrum that is 
allocated to them. Many of them are ready to do it on February 18. 
Others might be on March 1. But it doesn't matter. We're saying they 
can't communicate because we're not going to take people off the 
spectrum.
  Also, is a 3-year plan better than a 115-day plan? The truth is, my 
friends, the people who win today, and I assume the majority will win 
since they had a majority of votes on suspension, the people who win 
will lose this argument in mid-June. In mid-June, there will be 
problems, just like there will be a few problems on February 18. In my 
district, the speculation is 99 percent of the people are ready for 
this transition. The original bill said that we would automatically 
make the transition when 85 percent were ready. The number was used a 
minute ago that 95 percent are ready in the whole country now. There 
are going to be problems in mid-June. And some of these problems are 
going to be because of what we do here today. There have been people 
contracted for 2 years, in some cases almost 3 years, to come in on 
February 17, to be there until a time certain on February 18, to make 
this transition happen. Those same people aren't going to be available 
to be contracted for whatever this day is in June.
  And of course the third reason is we sold the spectrum. I was 
originally skeptical. I thought, well, maybe we should keep the 
spectrum longer so it gets worth more. One thing, it actually brought 
more in the auction than had been anticipated, two things, in the time 
since we made this decision and today, we went from number 2 in 
broadband communication in the world to number 16 or number 19.
  We need to move on with this. We sold the spectrum. We cashed the $20 
billion in checks, and now we say we're not going to deliver what we 
agreed to deliver. The government needs to keep its word on this and 
every other item.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. In case we haven't noticed and the American people 
haven't noticed, what we're going to be spending the next year or so 
doing is digging out of the mess created by our Republican friends. 
We're trying to deal with the economy. We're trying to deal with 
digital TV. The fact remains, and it's obvious based on any matrix you 
can imagine, that this program is horribly administered and poorly 
thought through. Don't ask me that. Ask the 2 million people that are 
on a waiting list waiting for a coupon. Ask the 7 million people that 
Nielsen estimates are still unwired for digital TV.
  The fact remains that we on this side didn't write this bill. In 
fact, if you look at people like Congressman Markey who have been 
saying for months that the way this program is being administered was 
poorly conceived. Let me give you an example. Right now, you sign up 
for a coupon and they send it to you third-class mail. And then if you 
don't redeem it within a certain amount of time, then they have to wait 
for several months before they can reissue it. This program was 
destined to be a failure because that's the way you wrote it.
  Now you may think, what difference does it make that there are 2 
million people waiting or 7 million people waiting? Let me ask you 
something. To the hundreds of thousands of people that are in your 
State that are not wired, what if there was an emergency tomorrow? What 
if there was a tornado? What if there was, God forbid, some kind of a 
fire and they needed to notify people quickly? People rely upon their 
television sets. Whom do you think you're punishing by standing in the 
way of this extension? You're punishing--let me just pose a couple 
more, and then you can answer them all at once on your own time. You're 
punishing senior citizens who, by and large, have those rabbit ears, 
who despite the previous speakers, might not be reading about digital 
TV or reading ``Digital TV Today'' or reading the sets. They think 
their television is fine because the outreach that was necessary for 
this program was never done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WEINER. What difference does it make if 2 million people are now 
on a waiting list to get the voucher? What difference does it make to 
those citizens? What difference does it make when you hear the Nielsen 
Survey, not Democrat, not Republican, say that there are 7 million 
Americans not hooked up. You are going to say, ``oh, it serves them 
right. We're going to stick to the guidelines. It serves them right.'' 
Well, the fact of the matter is we're trying to do good policy.
  Let me make one final point because the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri alluded to this. It is interesting that nobody except people 
speaking on your side today seem to be opposed to this. The people that 
bought the spectrum say that they're fine and that they're in no urgent 
hurry to get it. The people that are in the business of emergency 
response say, ``we need people wired for television. That is even more 
important than getting access to spectrum.'' So all you're doing is 
what

[[Page 2690]]

you did last week, saying, ``no, no, no,'' as we try to fix your mess.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's always fun to hear my friend from New 
York come down on the floor. And I enjoy his passion.
  A couple of points. This movement of the spectrum was directed and 
suggested by the 9/11 Commission years ago. Those of us on the 
subcommittee worked diligently to comply with the movement of the 
spectrum because we had 9/11, which was very serious. We had--and 
Anthony, you know this, we had firefighters that didn't know that the 
buildings were falling. We couldn't talk to them. Well then came along 
Katrina. And Katrina rolls in. And we've got National Guardsmen on one 
side of the flood who can't talk to the police officer or the disaster 
team going into New Orleans. So that is where a lot of us come from on 
this.
  Now we know the Fraternal Order of Police are not supportive of this 
movement. We know that the Sheriffs' Association is not. We do know 
that other public service agencies have, at the cajoling and the 
encouragement of the majority, said, ``we don't need this.'' But I will 
tell you one thing for sure is that I do not want to be the Member of 
Congress who delays the ability of the spectrum for first-line 
responders.
  Now when we had this debate last week, my good friend and colleague, 
Rick Boucher, was quoted and said, and I'm going to paraphrase, it will 
not be extended again. And we will hold the majority to that. Because 
not only is it a life-and-death issue on our first-line responders to 
get them to communicate, but it's also as important to make sure that 
we move to this new era.
  Now many of my colleagues have done what I have done. I spent 8 
months in my district going to senior centers promoting this movement 
on February 17. I pray that we don't move it past June 12.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentleman.
  I think that, in fact, it is very important that we do make this 
transition. But do have two competing safety imperatives. One is the 
imperative of when this bandwidth is then used for emergency 
responders, which is not going to happen immediately. It's going to 
take a little time. The other is our obligation to the citizens of 
Illinois and New York immediately. They are going to lose the most 
important connection to the outside world and to emergency response, 
the television. And unlike when your channel, your knob is a little 
crooked, when we go to digital television, it's going to go completely 
black. And a lot of people rely on the television to get that kind of 
information.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. The other caveat I have is that we are already sending 
money to first-line responders based upon the promise of selling the 
spectrum. So we are already trying to move to help the first-line 
responders. But if we delay, the cost-benefit analysis of the spectrum 
is in question.
  Mr. WEINER. There is no doubt that the premise of your remarks and 
mine is the same. The past administration screwed up the administration 
of this program. There is no doubt about it. We should not be where we 
are today. That is why we need to pass this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina for yielding.
  And indeed we are having a robust debate on this issue today. And I 
rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. I support moving 
forward for this transition. Just to correct the record a little bit, 
Mr. Speaker, on some of the things that have been said. We hear all of 
this, well, 95 percent of America is ready for this transition to take 
place. On January 22, 95 percent of this country was ready. That is the 
day that that number was released, January 22. Now we are coming up on 
the February 17 date. We know that over 300,000 people per week are 
coming off the list waiting for that coupon. And they are moving 
forward with readiness. Their expectation is that the Federal 
Government is going to make good on their promise. And they are going 
to move forward with this on February 17. Now it is important to our 
broadcasters. Talk to any of our broadcasters out there. They will tell 
you that they are running two systems. They are running their digital, 
and they are running their analog. And they are ready to move that 
spectrum out. My goodness, you all are so concerned about climate 
change, they are using all this electricity to run these two systems 
paying extra bills. They are telling us, ``We need this to take 
place.'' We are hearing from first responders. And the gentleman from 
New York said that those that have acquired the spectrum at auction are 
not upset about the delay, that they're fine with the delay. Indeed, 
Mr. Speaker, that is not what we hear. They are very concerned that in 
good faith they moved forward through the auction process, in good 
faith they have acquired this spectrum, in good faith they are 
preparing for jobs, and we're all concerned about jobs growth, jobs 
that will be going into place as we move to digital and analog moves 
into a new area for abuse. It is time for us to move forward on this 
and keep our word to the American people.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Chair of the appropriate subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), has indicated that he will not support an 
additional delay in the implementation of the change as have several of 
the other speakers who have advocated on this side of the issue as 
well. Again, the urgent need for a one-time delay is simply in the fact 
that 6.5 million people's televisions will go black in 13 days absent 
this very simple change that gives them more time.
  To show the ongoing urgent need for this, just yesterday 135,464 
coupons were added to the waiting list. Two point one million 
households are now on the waiting list for coupons. These are people 
who did everything right, and they are on the waiting list. And if we 
pass this bill many of them will, in fact, be eligible for coupons as 
well.
  Again, this is a one-time delay only. Given the critical nature of 
television in today's society, that is why this has been supported by a 
number of national public safety organizations including the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, the Association 
of Chiefs of Police, the Association of Fire Chiefs and the National 
Emergency Managers Association.
  Television is an important way to communicate with people. We all 
have constituents that this affects. And that is why it's important to 
pass this bill today.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to Mr. Weiner from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I just think this debate has been instructive. I would 
say that on one side you have people who are advocating for the 2 
million people who are waiting without coupons and for the 7 million or 
so people that Nielsen says is in this universe of people who don't 
have coverage. On the other side it is people that are advocating for 
who bought the spectrum at literally billions of dollars and for the TV 
broadcasters because they have to run to their transponders. No doubt 
about it. There are equities on both sides. But I think someone should 
stand for the 2 million people that are waiting for coupons. That is 
us. Someone should stand for the 7 million Americans who don't have the 
service. That is us. Who are you standing for?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady.
  If I may inquire of the majority manager, I have a question regarding 
section 2 of the rule. This provision changes the date by which the 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations must file explanatory 
materials

[[Page 2691]]

related to the omnibus appropriations bill. It is my understanding that 
the date change in section 2 of the rule is necessary because the text 
of the omnibus is not available at this time.
  May I confirm for the record that it is still the majority's intent 
to make this material available at the same time the omnibus bill is 
introduced?
  I will yield to the gentleman for an answer.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  We originally thought that the omnibus would be ready today, so we 
required a previous rule that Chairman Obey file a statement by today 
explaining the bill. The bill is delayed potentially until after the 
recess so the rule changes the statement deadline to February 26. It is 
our intention to file the statement when the bill is introduced.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. So I want to confirm this. You will file it 
today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I give the gentleman 10 seconds.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I think it's a crying shame that the majority's 
not using regular order. We wouldn't have this if we were using regular 
order on this bill and many others. And I suggest that the majority 
start using regular order for all these bills.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I don't have any further speakers at this 
point, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to reserve the right to close 
until the gentlewoman has closed for her side and has yielded back her 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. May I inquire exactly how much time we have left, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 50 seconds remaining on 
her side. The gentleman from Colorado has 7 minutes remaining on his 
side.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the need 
for debate on this bill, and I want to say that Mr. Hoyer has said 
himself, our committees and Members are served on both sides of the 
aisle by pursuing regular order. Regular order gives to everybody the 
opportunity to participate in the process in a fashion which will 
affect, in my opinion, the most consensus and best product.
  I agree with my colleagues that this has been a terrible process. We 
have not debated the extension of this deadline.
  I also want to say that June 17 is a Friday. We're going into tornado 
season March 1st, hurricane season June 1st. We have the potential for 
harming the very people the majority says that it wants to help because 
they will not be able to get the help they need.
  The numbers they have been throwing around are exaggerated and, in 
some cases, absolutely wrong. There are 10 million coupons out there, 
and the numbers were January 22 numbers. I want to urge defeat of the 
rule and say, again, we should be doing this under regular order.
  I yield back.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 1927, Philo 
Farnsworth flipped a switch and brought television into the world. 
Nothing has been the same since.
  We can all remember our childhood, our growing up experiences with 
television, those of the next generation. It's had an impact 
culturally, both positive and negative. It's brought us closer together 
and yet further apart. And yet we have grown to rely on television for 
so much of our news and so much of our communication as well.
  Mr. Speaker, without this bill, in just 13 days, television will no 
longer work for millions of Americans. This will not only come as quite 
a surprise to them, but will also create even further gaps within our 
society.
  This is a one-time delay only. I can think of no time in our history 
when having access to television is more critical than now with the 
global emergency and the threat of terrorism. We can't stand by and 
allow millions of televisions across America to go dark.
  Yes, this delay was necessary because of the bungled implementation 
of this project, and no, it is not expected that there will need to be 
additional delays, and many people have spoken to the fact that they 
will not support additional delays in the conversion.
  I encourage all Members of this body to follow the Senate's lead and 
support this bill on the floor today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule 
and the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________