Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 352) to postpone the DTV transition date.

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.

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. 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

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.

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. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

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.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman from Texas yield to me?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

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.

I would be pleased to yield.

The gentleman has under the rule as much time as is allotted to him--and still remains--for his time allotted.

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.

Let me ask the gentleman if he would like to recognize his speakers at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit.

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.

If I have time remaining after I finish my statement, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak, I want to ask a parliamentary inquiry.

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?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

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?

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.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Stearns of Florida.

I'd like to give 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I give the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I'd like to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side, please, Mr. Speaker?

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. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

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?

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.

That's your answer?

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.

If we accept unanimous consent that we have 3 minutes equally divided.

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.

Parliamentary inquiry.

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?

So the minority has to be recognized to make the unanimous consent request?

I reserve my time.

If the gentleman will yield.

I have two additional speakers plus myself to close, and that would probably take 8 minutes, but I could do it in less.

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.

We will expedite things on this side. We won't use all of our time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

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.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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.

In the Rules Committee yesterday we had several amendments.

If I may address that. The Energy and Commerce Committee actually had nine hearings on this very matter.

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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.

You can read the transcript.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

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.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides, please?

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.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.