DTV Delay Act

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 328) to postpone the DTV transition date, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation now pending.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today we take a highly regrettable, but necessary, step and delay the date for the digital television transition from the currently scheduled February 17 until June 12. With this delay, and the additional funding for the program which the stimulus measure will provide, we can assure a smooth transition and avoid the disruption and the loss of television service by millions of American homes that otherwise would occur.

Yesterday, the Nielsen service that surveys and reports on television viewing in America reported that more than 6 million American households that have over-the-air dependent analog television sets are completely unprepared for the transition. Those homes will lose service if analog broadcast ends on February 17. These 6 million homes do not have cable or satellite subscriptions, they depend on the use of rabbit ears or outdoor antennas in order to receive television service delivered over the air.

More than 3 million applications for converter box coupons are currently pending at the NTIA, and the program is currently out of funds. These 3 million pending coupons, therefore, cannot be honored.

It's truly unfortunate that the situation that we now confront was completely avoidable, but previous action to avoid it simply was not taken. Many of us warned years ago, when the legislation setting the February 17 DTV transition date passed, that the $1.34 billion set aside for the coupon program for converter boxes was not sufficient. We pointed out that there are 70 million analog television sets in service in the U.S. that are over-the-air dependent. These television sets receive their television signals through the use of rabbit ears or outdoor antennas. The $1.34 billion finances converter boxes for less than one half that number. It simply was not realistic to assume that more than one-half of these 70 million sets would simply be discarded.

The decision was consciously made at the outset that only $1.34 billion in revenues from the 700 megahertz auction--which itself derived more than $20 billion in revenues--would be expended in order to ease this transition and assure

that people do have over-the-air dependent analog sets could get some assistance in purchasing converter boxes. At the time, we were requesting a higher number. We suggested that approximately $2.3 billion was what was needed. And we now know that that number is closer to the mark of what the actual need is.

Beyond the problem of converter boxes and inadequate funding to finance the coupons for them, the call centers that the Federal Communications Commission is charged with operating under the statute in order to answer inquiries from people who have problems with the transition--connecting their converter boxes, or doing other things like adjusting their antenna in order to receive a digital signal--are today understaffed. These call centers do not have enough personnel to answer the many calls that are coming into the centers at the present time. And that call volume will only increase as the transition date approaches and occurs. They are understaffed today. They will be more understaffed unless additional resources are provided and time is provided for appropriate staffing.

And so today we have no alternative but to delay the transition date and provide in the stimulus measure the funding that should have been allocated for this program years ago. I regret the disadvantage that this delay will cause for the first responders and the public service agencies across the country that are awaiting access to portions of the 700 megahertz spectrum now occupied by analog broadcasting which will be vacated when analog broadcasting ends. These first responders have been counting on receiving that spectrum in order to have fully interoperable national communications first responder agency to first responder agency, and that is a clear need. Their portion of the spectrum now will not become available until June 12 under the terms of this bill.

But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a far greater public service concern is allowing this transition to go forward at a time when 6 million households will be completely unprepared for it. People rely upon over-the-air television in order to receive vital safety information, information about natural disasters that can affect that individual in that home; and that information is vital to enable people to prepare. Yes, we are going to delay the arrival of this spectrum by 4 months for public safety agencies. But the far greater public safety concern lies in not taking this step.

And I would note that the legislation we are proposing tonight has been endorsed by a variety of public service agencies that are saying today that it is important that this delay occur, and specifically, that is the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials--and these are the individuals directly responsible within these first responder agencies for their communications equipment--and also the International Association of Fire Chiefs.

I also, Mr. Speaker, regret the disadvantage of this delay for the commercial wireless service providers who bought their portion of the analog spectrum for approximately $20 billion. But I would note, Mr. Speaker, that AT&T and Verizon, the companies that purchased most of the spectrum and contributed most of that $20 billion, have endorsed the legislation that is pending tonight and have said that this delay is appropriate.

I also regret the added cost that will be imposed on the TV broadcasters who had planned to turn off their analog transmitters on February 17 and now will incur higher than expected electricity and transmitter maintenance costs until June of this year, but at this juncture we simply have no choice.

I rise in support of the bill before the House tonight and ask Members to give their approval. The measure before us was approved last night in the Senate, and that vote was unanimous. It actually passed by unanimous consent, meaning that every Member of the Senate had an opportunity to object, and not one Senator raised an objection to this measure.

In addition to changing the transition date to June 12, the bill directs that coupons for converter boxes be sent by first class mail rather than the third class mail currently used by NTIA for delivery. The bill makes eligible for new coupons households whose previously issued coupons have expired. That's an important new provision. Many homes requested coupons some time ago and did not redeem them within their stated life.

The bill allows television stations to turn off analog broadcasts before June 12 in markets deemed by the FCC to be transition ready. And we fully anticipate that the FCC will be very flexible in applying this provision and will actually allow the transition to occur in markets prior to the 30-day period that current FCC regulations suggest the applications must pend before they're acted upon. We think a shorter time period for this would be appropriate.

The bill also requires NTIA to provide a monthly report to the Congress from this time forward on the progress with the coupon program.

One final word, Mr. Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time. Another delay in the digital transition beyond the one contained in this bill tonight will simply not occur. I will strongly oppose any effort to delay the transition beyond June 12, and I strongly discourage anyone from requesting that another delay be provided. This delay is a one-time occurrence taking place for predictable but extraordinary reasons, and no additional delay will be considered in our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas, the ranking member of our Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Barton) for his kind remarks acknowledging the loss that my family has recently suffered. I've been away for 3 weeks. This is actually my first day back, and his kind remarks both here and in the markup session before our Energy and Commerce Committee are deeply appreciated.

I would say, in response to the gentleman's suggestion, that the real number of households that would lose television service completely if this transition occurs on February 17 is 6 million. It is not the lower number that the gentleman suggested of somewhere between, I think he said, 750,000 and 1 million. And that 6 million number is not mine. That number comes from the Nielsen service. And the Nielsen company is perhaps, well, I don't want to say the most widely respected. I don't know that for a fact. But it is a widely respected national reporting service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

It is a widely respected national reporting service that surveys television viewing habits in America. And it is based on the surveys done by the Nielsen service that, for example, television commercial rates can be set. There's that level of confidence in the reporting that Nielsen does. And Nielsen has just reported that the number of homes that are unprepared constitute fully 5.7 percent of all U.S. households; yet the actual number is 6.5 million homes, and these are homes that do not have cable or satellite connections. These homes are completely dependent on rabbit ears or outdoor antennas and receive over the air only television. These are the number of families that would lose reception if the transition takes place as scheduled in 3 weeks' time.

I don't want to delay this transition any more than the gentleman from Texas, and the last thing I wanted to be doing this week was to be here on the floor advocating a delay, but we simply have no choice. We can't permit the level of dislocation that otherwise would occur to take place.

So I do support the legislation. I think it is necessary. I think these are the best numbers that we're going to have available to us in determining how many households are truly unprepared.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 2 minutes.

I appreciate very much the always eloquently expressed thoughts of my friend from Illinois.

Let me say in response that this legislation has been endorsed by some of the same groups that I have concern about and that the gentleman has also expressed concern about. Yes, it is true that the 700 megahertz spectrum, large portions of it, were auctioned for commercial services and purchased. The two largest purchasers of that spectrum were AT&T and Verizon, and we have endorsements from both AT&T and Verizon for the legislation delaying this transition.

It is true that other portions of the spectrum will eventually go to the first-responder community. And I am concerned about that community. We have a clear need to deploy fully interoperable telecommunications on a nationwide basis so that a fire department from one community can talk to a fire department or rescue squad or law enforcement agency from another community when they all converge on an event somewhere. Today we sadly don't have that capability, at least not fully deployed, and making the spectrum available will enable that to happen, and I am concerned about the delay.

But I would note that this delay has been endorsed for necessary and sufficient reason by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, who are responsible for their telecommunications equipment, and by the International Association of Fire Chiefs. And so the very people about whom we are concerned have said this delay is okay.

It is the last thing that I wanted to have to do, but we literally, at this point, have no choice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to include this report from the Nielsen Company indicating that 6.5 million American households will lose television service completely because they don't have cable or satellite service and are simply not ready if the transition occurs on February 17.

[From nielsenmedia.com, Jan. 22, 2009]

5.7% of U.S. Households Still Unprepared for the Switch to Digital

Television

New York, NY.--More than 6.5 million U.S. households--or

5.7 percent of all homes--are not ready for the upcoming

transition to all-digital broadcasting and would be unable to

receive any television programming at all if the transition

occurred today, The Nielsen Company reported today. This is

an improvement of more than 1.3 million homes since Nielsen

reported readiness status at the end of December.

I will be happy to yield. But to keep this absolutely proper, let me yield to myself an additional minute, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Will the gentleman permit me just one moment, please. The answer is the association the gentleman identified has sent a communication to us endorsing this delay.

I will be happy to include that for the record. We will collect whatever is appropriate and be happy to do so.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I would like to yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

I will submit for the Record a letter from the National Emergency Number Association, which I believe is the association that the gentleman from Illinois was referring to, and the chief executive officer of this association indicates support for the delay that is proposed in the legislation tonight.

I continue to reserve.

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

I want to compliment my friend from Texas, the ranking Republican member of our Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton; Mr. Stearns, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, with whom I very much look forward to working over the course of the coming 2 years, for the very cordial way in which they have handled their opposition to this measure here today. That reflects the best traditions of our committee. We sometimes disagree, but we always do so in a very agreeable manner.

That certainly has been the situation here tonight. We all have the same objective, and that is to make sure that we have a smooth digital television transition and that American households are not dislocated when the analog television broadcast ends and all of the broadcasting from that time forward is in digital.

We have one formula for doing that and my friends on the other side of the aisle have another formula for doing that. I respectfully suggest that our formula is the better way.

I did not want to be here tonight advocating a delay in this transition. The gentleman from Texas is right. That date for the transition has been a feature of our law now for a number of years. A lot of advertising has gone behind publicizing that date. Many people have been relying on that date as the date upon which the 700 megahertz spectrum that analog broadcasting will, when it stops, will make available and be delivered. There have been plans made on this. And so this is not a step we take lightly or frivolously, but when in which we think we have no choice.

There are 6.5 million households in the United States, as revealed by the best numbers we have available coming from a highly reputable and well-regarded television reporting service, that will completely lose television coverage if this transition happens on February 17. These households are unprepared. They do not have a cable or satellite connection. They rely on over-the-air television reception only.

That dislocation simply must be avoided. These homes depend upon television service for vital information. Not just entertainment, but news and information about community emergencies that typically would only reach the home by means of the broadcast media.

We have talked about the public safety community and the fact that we do not want to see a delay in their receipt of the spectrum that they intend to use for fully interoperable communication equipment. But the greater public safety concern is turning off that analog broadcast at a time when 6.5 million homes are not prepared for the transition. Denying vital public safety information to those 6.5 million homes is the greater threat.

And so the delay for that reason is necessary. That has been acknowledged by the leading associations representing the public safety community. The National Association of Chiefs of Police, the Association of Public Safety Communications officials, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, all of whom have endorsed this delay. It has been endorsed by the major recipients on the commercial side of the 700 megahertz spectrum; by AT&T, by Verizon. It has been endorsed by the networks; by ABC, NBC, and CBS.

And so among all of those who will be disadvantaged by this delay, there is a recognition that the delay is unfortunately and regrettably necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to emphasize that this is a one-time delay, and our committee simply will not entertain requests that a delay beyond the June 12 date be adopted. I would strongly oppose any further delay. The Chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has indicated his strong opposition to any delay beyond June 12, and we would strongly discourage anyone from suggesting that a delay beyond that date take place.

So the step we take tonight is necessary. None of us want to take it. I think it is the only approach we have before us at this moment that truly will assure that when this digital transition occurs, and that it occurs in a way that does not result in disruption for television viewing in America. I urge the passage of the measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and let me say that I rise in strong support of this effort to raise this point of order. And I will say to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, this 10-minute period of time is when we can debate whether or not this is, in fact, an unfunded mandate that is going to dramatically increase costs. That's what this debate is all about.

It's not about simply killing the bill, it's about utilizing a procedure that exists here in this institution, and I hope very much that our colleagues will join with our friend from Florida and ensure that we do address this very, very important issue.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. I'd simply like to inquire of him again about this procedure through which this committee went. It's my understanding that these amendments were all adopted in a bipartisan way, with a unanimous vote in support of these amendments that were later just dropped from the bill that was introduced. And then, we have this statement from the Speaker's press office, a fact sheet stating, In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 57 amendments were dropped, and 43 by Republicans, 6 of which were adopted and incorporated into the bill.

Is that correct?

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

With all due respect, for the Chair of the Committee on Rules to stand up and say we had an hour discussion on this last night, and everybody knows what happened. Madam Speaker, I don't think the author of the amendment, Mr. Stearns, was there when last night in the Rules Committee discussed this and this came forward. I just don't see that as any kind of answer.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by not only thanking the distinguished Chair on the Committee on Rules for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, I would like to associate myself with the first three sentences of her presentation.

It was in the opening remarks that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules presented that she talked about the pain that the American people are feeling as we go through one of the most serious economic downturns in our Nation's history. It is a very, very difficult time. And on that, Democrats and Republicans are in total agreement and it is absolutely imperative that we take action in this institution and that we take action that will provide the best jump start for our economy that we possibly can.

The Republican Conference, Madam Speaker, was very privileged to welcome the President of the United States yesterday afternoon. We had lunch downstairs and a freewheeling discussion on the issue that we are here addressing at this moment. And that issue is how do we get this economy growing again. And we are in the midst of a raging debate on it. It is true that we are very concerned. And most Republicans have, since we saw this $825 billion package introduced, been opposed. But yesterday we did listen to President Obama. A number of questions were posed to the President in this freewheeling discussion.

The thing that I came away with from that meeting yesterday was we need to focus on the merits of this issue that is before us and not on politics. Pointing the finger of blame is useless. What we need to do is figure out how we can come together and put into place the very best fiscal policy that we can to be sure that we grow our economy. I agree totally with President Obama. We need to set politics aside and focus on the merits. And I think that he left us with a good feeling about his commitment to do just that.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we have seen with the development of this package, the way it was handled in the House Rules Committee, and the way that we are considering this measure on the floor, it appears that there is very little focus on the merits and that most of the attention is focused on politics. I will say that when we focus on merits, it seems to me that the wisest thing for us to do is not to listen to the words of a partisan Republican or the words of a partisan Democrat or even the words of a bipartisan Republican or bipartisan Democrat. What I believe we need to do, Madam Speaker, is to look at the message that has come to us from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Now, the Congressional Budget Office had a preliminary study which the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations dismissed. And I understand that. He made some very compelling arguments before the Rules Committee the day before yesterday on that. And frankly, I couldn't dispute them. But they did come forward yesterday with a very, very exhaustive study in which they say, and I quote, Madam Speaker, ``CBO expects that Federal agencies along with States and other recipients of the funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs.'' It goes on, Madam Speaker, to talk about the challenges of dealing with the regulatory structure that is in place. And we looked at the issue of budget authority versus outlays. And I would focus my colleagues' attention on the third-to-the-last graph on the Congressional Budget Office study in which it makes it very clear that $2.3 billion, $2.3 billion, of this package will, in fact, not be expended until after 2019. That is 2-0-1-9. That is not 2009, not 2010, not 2011. That is more than 10 years from now.

So, Madam Speaker, if we are, in fact, coming together in a bipartisan way to figure out how we can jump-start our economy immediately, this is obviously not the answer.

This is a copy of H.R. 1 that has just been given to me. It is 627 pages long. And that totals $1.18 billion for every single page in this bill, H.R. 1.

What we need to focus on, Madam Speaker, is the issue of getting the economy growing with what most economists believe and what history has shown to be stimulative: Tax relief. Growth-oriented tax relief. Now this morning I picked up the US News and World Report issue that has a ``Capital Commerce'' column from James Pethokoukis who quoted a wide range of economists making 10 points that very, very seriously raise concerns. And I would like to point to just one of them. Christina Romer, who is the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama, said that tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output. The more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.

Now, Madam Speaker, it's obvious that the kinds of tax cuts that we are talking about are those that generate economic growth, relief on job creators, making sure that we have marginal rate reduction that will benefit 100 percent of American taxpayers. These are the kinds of things that we are offering in our Republican substitute. And I hope very much that our colleagues will support it.

This package that is before us is badly flawed, as we are going to hear throughout this debate and as was pointed out yesterday. And I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule is very unfair. There were 206 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Eleven have been made in order of 206 amendments. A majority of those amendments were offered by Democrats. So obviously there is a desire to make major modifications in this legislation. And for that reason, this rule is badly flawed. I'm going to urge my colleagues to reject it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very hardworking new member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to our distinguished former Republican whip, my friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds to continue his very important argument about the issue that Ms. Foxx raised.

Madam Speaker, I tell my friend from California that her dream has come true, this bill, according to CBO, is $1.1 trillion.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Westminster, South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to a hardworking member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and to respond to his questions by saying again I would commend to him and his colleagues today's U.S. News and World Report that has just come out with an analysis from Democratic- and Republican-leaning economists, all of whom point to the fact that increasing spending dramatically, as this measure would do, in fact, will undermine the potential for what it is we're trying to do and tax cuts are the answer to get the economy growing.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to our very good friend, my junior colleague from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my good friend from California, our new father from California, to simply say that if one looks at many analyses that have been provided, it is very apparent that juxtaposing growth-oriented tax cuts to spending, those growth-oriented tax cuts can provide the immediate jump-start that is necessary for the economy, and that's why I think we should come together in support of our package.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend from Mesa an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, the majority has the ability to modify that date as they see fit, and it's a very easy procedure that can be done.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our new colleague from Peoria, Illinois, the home of Caterpillar, Mr. Schock.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.

I thank my friend for yielding and let me say I completely concur with several points that he has made which I think are very important. His first point that President Obama has reached out in a bipartisan way, it is nearly unprecedented, very unprecedented that he came and met, as he and the gentleman and I discussed yesterday privately, right here in this Capitol with Republican members.

The second, the fact you said we have, in fact, seen bipartisanship from the other side, there were 94 amendments submitted by Republicans and 104 amendments submitted by Democrats. A grand total of 11 amendments have been made in order. When you have so many Democrats and so many Republicans who have been cut out of the process, it's very unfortunate.

The third point that the gentleman makes, which I think is a very valid one, we need to have a bold, strong package here rather than doing nothing. That's why I believe passionately that growth-oriented tax rates, as has been stated by economist after economist, are the way to the future, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself an additional 30 seconds and engage in a discussion with my colleague on this.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that economist after economist has pointed to the fact that if we focus on spending, which the gentleman has talked about, there is a lag time. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis has indicated that spending will go as far as beyond the 10 years from now.

So the gentleman is absolutely right, Madam Speaker, we need to immediately stimulate the economy. And more than a few of these economists, including the President's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, pointed to the fact that tax cuts are, in fact, the way to provide that immediate stimulus.

We have got a limited time. I have already yielded my friend an additional minute. Maybe Ms. Slaughter might yield the gentleman a minute so that he could respond.

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 15 seconds to simply say to my colleague that yesterday we had a great discussion about Clayton County. I appreciate the fact that he has several shovel-ready projects.

I still point to the fact that the CBO analysis points out that getting those dollars immediately is, in fact, not going to happen in fact as fast as the gentleman from Clayton County and I would like to see happen.

At this point I would like to yield, Madam Speaker, 1\1/2\ minutes to our very hardworking friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I think at this juncture we have a couple of speakers remaining.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side, Madam Speaker.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very, very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to another member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, our new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker again how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on the 9th of January, then President-elect Obama made it very clear. He said, There is no disagreement. That we need action by our government; a recovery plan that will jump-start our economy. And there is total agreement on that. Total agreement on that.

We all know, both sides of the aisle, that in our districts, whether it's Georgia, New York, California, our constituents are hurting. We are all feeling the pain of this economic downturn. The question is: What action will we take? Are we going to put into place a bill that is 627 pages long, $1.18 billion for every single page of that bill, with spending that will go beyond the next 10 years as we seek to immediate immediately jump-start our economy, or are we going to do what so many economists from both sides of the aisle have indicated we need to do-- put into place strong growth-oriented tax cuts that can provide the fast-acting jump-start that we all seek. That is the choice that we have here.

Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this rule, this rule does not allow the kind of debate the Democrats and Republicans deserve: 206 amendments offered to the Rules Committee, most of them amendments from Democrats. Ninety-four of those 206 came from Republicans. Yet, only 11 were made in order.

That is why this rule is unfair, and it's unfair to the American people. We need to have a growth-oriented package, and we are going to come forward with that, but we also need to have a number of these other creative, thoughtful proposals that so many of our colleagues have offered come before us.

This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will exceed $1.1 trillion if you take into consideration the interest payments. That is going to impose a tremendous burden on future generations, and it is not going to provide the jump-start that President Obama has talked about.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation. But when we do have our opportunity to provide a balanced, growth-oriented package, I hope the Democrats and Republicans can come together to provide that immediate jump-start that we need.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Technically this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. In reality, it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. I think that is wrong and hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we consider this important legislation on its merits and not kill it on a procedural motion.

We have a long day ahead. Let's not waste more time on dilatory measures. Those who oppose this bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass H.R. 1 today.

I have the right to close, and, in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

We had a thorough airing of this last night, Madam Speaker. Everybody knows what happened here. It had nothing at all to do with the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, let me correct what Mr. Dreier thinks I said. I said we had a thorough airing of this issue last night at Rules. Although it is not our job to explain why the Speaker's press office--

I will not.

Certainly, by now, we know a red-herring when we see one. This is one of the reddest I have seen in such time that I have been here. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on a motion to consider so that we can get about the business of the United States, debate, and pass this important piece of legislation that over 80 percent of the people want us to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Madam Speaker, nothing is on the minds of Americans more than the sad state of our economy. At dinner tables and water coolers across this great Nation, Americans are concerned not only about our economy, but their own well-being. Will they have a job next week, will they be able to retire when they plan to, will they be able to afford the mortgage, the rent, and their child's education.

Madam Speaker, the Bush administration left us with the worse economy we have faced since World War II. The economic downturn is no longer subject to debate. In the last 4 months, this country has lost 2 million jobs. And, unfortunately, is expected to lose another 3 to 5 million in the next year alone. In fact, 2008 was the worst year for job loss since 1945 while unemployment has skyrocketed to the highest level in 15 years.

This week, major corporations from Caterpillar to Sprint, Nextel to Home Depot announced that they were cutting 62,000 jobs.

Fortunately, it is not too late to turn things around, but the time is almost gone. We must act now. If nothing is done, our economy will continue this downward spiral, and we must take action to boost this economy and to start putting America back to work.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a critical and necessary investment that will create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, will jump start our economy and begin the process of transforming it for the 21st century with $550 billion in carefully targeted priority investments.

Madam Speaker, this plan helps to strengthen Main Street and the middle class, not Wall Street. In order to improve the plight of hardworking Americans, we will provide immediate, direct tax relief to over 95 percent of Americans.

Not only will the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan create jobs and grow the economy, it makes a significant investment in our future.

By doubling clean, renewable energy production, we will put people to work in the short term while freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil in the long run.

By renovating public buildings and homes to make them more energy efficient, we will create jobs that can't be exported while curbing global warming at the same time.

By rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and improving our roads, bridges, and schools, we will strengthen our path forward.

And by investing in our health care system, we will cut red tape, prevent mistakes, and save countless dollars and lives.

I am particularly proud that this bill contains funding for AmeriCorps, which will provide recent college graduates with jobs, sending them into struggling communities to help turn them around, much like the Civilian Conservation Corps did after the Great Depression.

Finally, we will assist those who have been impacted most by the crisis by increasing food stamp and unemployment benefits, and making it easier for those who have lost their jobs to keep their health insurance. And these are just a few highlights of this comprehensive bill.

Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting. They are also justifiably concerned whether government spending in such difficult times is correct. I want them to know that this bill contains strict accountability measures to ensure the maximum return for every tax dollar invested. Americans will be able to go on the web to see how their tax dollars are being spent and to provide public comment.

The bill contains no earmarks and ensures that funds to help small businesses will not go to entities that already receive money from the financial rescue package.

Furthermore, the legislation doesn't waste any time. It will immediately help to put people to work and begin to stabilize our economy.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, three-quarters of the overall package will be spent in the first 18 months. And in an independent analysis, economist and former McCain adviser Mark Zandi found that 41 percent of the funding in this bill will be spent this year alone to jump start our economy and result in 4 million new jobs by 2010.

Madam Speaker, our economic woes will not be solved overnight, but we did not get into this mess overnight. This bill alone will not solve all of our economic challenges. We know that the road back to economic stability and prosperity will require hard work over time to truly turn things around. But America has faced great challenges before and turned crises into opportunity. This legislation is critical to build a foundation for long-term prosperity.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and by doing so, to restore confidence, to strengthen our economy, and lift up our hardworking citizens from coast to coast.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Matsui.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We appreciate your thoughtfulness, Mr. Flake, and the good work that you do in the House. But we don't have the capacity to change the date for that report. Otherwise, we would have been happy to consider it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I can yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds but no more.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how many speakers he has remaining?

Madam Speaker, not anyone in the Rules Committee last night would ever have guessed that

I was importuned more than once to make sure there weren't too many amendments out here today; that there were pending trips, things that people had to go to.

The hypocrisy of it sometimes gets the better of me, and I must admit that even mentioning it is somewhat petty on my part. But, nonetheless, I think it needs to be said.

I would be happy to stay here tomorrow and continue to debate this. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can go home this weekend and look in the faces of our constituents and look at the young people, as one of my neighbors said, who had to be pulled from college because he couldn't afford it; for people who don't know if they are going to be working next week; for people who absolutely don't know if they have any future, how do we continue this cold and bitter winter in upstate New York, where the heating prices go up every single day, and where absolutely too many people don't know where the next meal is coming from at the same time as the community kitchens are running out of food.

We are in a very serious condition here, Madam Speaker. This is no time for politics. Everybody says it, but so few people mean it. I mean it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, and hope that we can do one today that will begin to rebuild the country we love, America.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of the rule.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all points of order against the provisions in the bill and amendments made in order by the rule and, therefore, it is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

I will be using most of my arguments from the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate dated January 26, 2009. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting the provisions in division B would reduce revenues by $76 billion in fiscal year 2009, by $131 billion in fiscal year 2010, and by a net of $212 billion over the 2009-2010 period.

So combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, the CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase the Federal budget deficit by over $170 billion over the remaining months of the fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in the year 2010 and $174 billion in 2011, and it continues on, $816 billion over the period 2009 to 2019.

There is a wide range of Federal programs here which increase the benefits payable under the Medicaid unemployment compensation nutrition assistance program, and the legislation would also reduce individual and corporate income tax collections and make a variety of other changes to tax laws. This is basically an unfunded mandate.

CBO anticipates that this bill would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years. Following long- standing congressional budget procedures, this

estimate does not address the potential budget effects of such changes in economic outlook. But the point that the CBO is making is that this is a huge unfunded mandate, particularly in the Medicaid and unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance program.

So with that, Madam Speaker, in light of the provisions in the bill and the amendments made in order by the rule, are, therefore, in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act, I do, Madam Speaker, raise this point of order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, if I may continue, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee has indicated that this point of order would eliminate debate and not offer the opportunity to Members to really discuss the rule at all. But I would like to say to her, and she was in the Rules Committee when I came out to present my amendment, when the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up that portion of the stimulus package, we were in session for 12 hours. During that time we had six amendments accepted on the Republican minority side.

It turns out that all six of these amendments were agreed to unanimously by the majority. When the bill went to print and when I went to the Rules Committee, I found my amendment was not included, and neither was the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy's or Mr. Blunt's. Three of the amendments were not included, and we questioned how could this be that out of a full markup of Energy and Commerce Committee, we passed six amendments and only three were put in. Yet the Speaker's office had a sheet, a fact sheet, which indicated that all six amendments were put in the bill and all six of these amendments show the bipartisan-ness of this stimulus package.

Now I think what happened on the Energy and Commerce Committee happened in the Ways and Means Committee and it happened in Appropriations Committee. So this, in fact, stimulus package is not bipartisan.

Reading from the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her fact sheet of January 27, 2009, she says this is a bipartisan, open and transparent legislative process. It is not, Madam Speaker. The amendments that came out of Energy and Commerce, 50 percent were dropped arbitrarily, capriciously, without any comment from the minority.

Now one of those amendments, which was mine, indicated if you are going to give federal subsidies for COBRA, which is unemployment compensation for individuals in America, why give them to people who have a net worth of $1 million or $100 million?

There was no threshold in this bill. So, I basically said, if you're going to give COBRA subsidies, that is you're asking to have the taxpayers pay 65 percent of the COBRA for anybody unemployed, including a man who, for example, left Lehman Brothers or Bernie Madoff; all those people who, under the Democrats' position in the stimulus package, would be able to apply for COBRA subsidies and have the taxpayers in my home county have to pay for their health benefits.

They are asking the taxpayers to pay 65 percent almost indefinitely. And I basically said this should not apply to people that are making $100 million, $10 million, or have a net worth of that amount. And, Mr. Waxman, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce, was kind enough to say, I agree with you, and that should be part of the bill. So my amendment was agreed to.

Yes, I'll be glad to yield.

I thank the distinguished Member. That is absolutely true. And I think, as he clearly points out, I think we should really ask the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, why were, in this case, three amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce, why were they dropped from the print?

And, perhaps if she can't, then I think really the Speaker, whose office this fact sheet came from, should clearly tell us why she dropped amendments that were passed through the democratic process here in the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Yet, they have a fact sheet saying they are still in here. She uses the word ``bipartisan'' when you can't say it's bipartisan if, in my case, my amendment is not in there. It was agreed upon. And others in the Energy and Commerce, their amendments are not here as well.

So I would be glad to yield time to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee to find out why these amendments, after they were passed overwhelmingly in the Energy and Commerce Committee, are not in the print.

The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, does she wish to answer?

I'd be glad to yield.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, it's clear she has no response to the rhetorical question: Why were amendments that were agreed upon in the Energy

and Commerce dropped capriciously and arbitrarily from the print. And I think we will just let that as a question remain in the House of Representatives and point out to all the Members that when the Speaker puts out a sheet, a fact sheet, in which she says it's a bipartisan bill, it's open and transparent, well, that obviously is not true.

There's no one on the Democrat side here this morning to explain how amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce were dropped, and perhaps the same was true of the Ways and Means, and also the Appropriations Committee.

And, for those Members, like myself, who came up and asked why my amendment that was accepted was not included as an amendment to the stimulus package, and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee cannot even answer the simple question of why were amendments not included, when in fact they were passed overwhelmingly in Energy and Commerce.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 328, introduced earlier today by Senator Rockefeller.

Mr. President, on February 17, 2009--less than 1 month from today--our Nation is scheduled to make the transition to digital television, or DTV. On this day, full-power television stations across the country will stop broadcasting in analog and switch to digital signals.

The way I see it, right now we have a choice. We can do the DTV transition right or we can do it wrong. Doing it right would mean that as many as 21 million households across this country do not lose access to news, information and emergency alerts. Doing it right would mean that every consumer who relies on over the-air television is aware of the steps they need to take to ensure continued reception and receive the assistance they need to prepare for the transition in their home. And doing it right means that no one across this land wakes up on February 18 to find that their television set has gone dark.

But the shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right. We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong--and leaving consumers with the consequences. It is no secret that the outgoing administration grossly mismanaged the digital television transition. The coupon program that was designed to help consumers defray the cost of converter boxes to ensure the continued functioning of their analog television sets has a waiting list of over 2 million. This number will multiply to millions more in the weeks ahead. Making a difficult situation even worse, we also face the frightful specter of converter box shortages.

On top of this, consumers are aware of the transition, but confused about its consequences. One study suggests that while recognition of the transition is widespread, an alarming 63 percent have major misconceptions about just what steps they need to take to prepare. Calling centers at the Department of Commerce and Federal Communications Commission are ill-equipped to deal with the avalanche of calls that are expected on February 17 and in the days and weeks after. Consumers will be on their own, forced to navigate through the messy rubble of a botched transition.

I believe we can and should do better. Doing better means more than cobbling together the failed efforts of the last administration. Doing better requires more attention and more resources. But above all, it will require more time--to get the DTV transition right.

This is why last week I introduced the DTV Delay Act. I asked the Senate to delay the date of the transition from February 17 to June 12, 2009. This will give us the time we need to develop an approach that puts consumers first and provides them with the assistance they need.

In the interim, I have been working with the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senator Hutchison, to modify and improve

the language of my earlier bill in an effort to broaden support and speed its passage.

I rise again today to introduce, now with my good friend Senator Hutchison, an amended version of the DTV Delay Act. This version incorporates adjustments to help manage the transition in affected communities, including a provision that makes clear that despite this date change the transition needs of broadcasters and public safety officials will be respected.

Let me be clear. This legislation is not perfect. But it represents a turning point--a start. The record will reflect that I have spent years advocating a different course. I voted against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which set this hard date for the transition deep in the winter. I voted against this bill in both the Commerce Committee and during its consideration by the full Senate because it fell short of a real plan for minimizing consumer disruption. I voted against this bill because it failed to spend any resources building a national interoperable public safety communications network in the spectrum vacated by analog broadcasting. Voting no was by no means a popular thing to do. In fact, I was one of only three ``no'' votes in the Commerce Committee.

Last year, I introduced and the Congress passed the SAFER Act. This legislation provided the Federal Communications Commission with authority to extend analog television broadcasting so that essential public safety announcements and DTV transition could be viewed in the days following the February 17 transition. I now believe that this is not enough. It is a meaningful bandage, but the situation we face requires more intensive care.

The DTV Delay Act will not fix all of the problems associated with the transition. More work needs to be done to ensure that consumers are aware of the transition and get the help they need. But it gives us all the time to do the transition right. Time to develop a new plan, time to implement a new set of ideas to manage the transition, and time to make sure that in the switch to digital signals no American is left behind. Senator Hutchison and I are committed to making sure every American is able to manage the DTV transition without undue hardship. We are working on initiatives to be included in the economic recovery package. If we are able to make substantial progress on the administration of the transition this should be the last delay we have to seek. Barring unforeseen emergencies, we should not have another delay. I know the Obama administration shares our commitment to getting this right so that we can avoid any further delays.

So we have a choice, we can proceed with the DTV Delay Act or weeks from today we can survey the wreckage of a failed effort to transition to digital broadcasting, complete with angry consumers, converter box troubles, and calling centers overwhelmed with consumer complaints. Worse, should a tragedy strike, we face the prospect of millions of consumers without access to television, without a lifeline for news and information that may be necessary to protect them from harm.

Again, we have a choice. And I know what I choose. I choose that we delay this transition because I believe we owe the American people a successful migration to digital television. Today will be the second time that the majority leader has sought consent on the DTV Delay Act. We simply can't keep coming back again and again to delay as time is running out. We must act now because we will not have the ability to address consumer needs if we wait much longer.

I ask my colleagues to do the same. I warn those who would stand in the way, who dismiss my sense of urgency, that should they force us to keep to our current course, it is the American public who will bear the brunt of their opposition. We owe our citizens so much more than this. So I ask my colleagues to join me and support the DTV Delay Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Rockefeller-Hutchison substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.