Floor Statements

I have an amendment at the desk.

I offer this technical amendment to clarify language that was adopted by the Energy and Commerce Committee concerning the grant program for smart grids. This language is supported by companies across energy and technology industries, from Duke Energy to General Electric to Google.

The underlying bill directs the Department of Energy to make grants for programs that support new technologies that can help Americans use energy more wisely and more efficiently. One provision in the bill requires the Secretary to ensure that the funds are used to promote innovation in the dynamic smart grid area.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify that any sort of open protocol should be supported. Some industry participants were concerned that the language adopted by the committee would have been restricted to just Internet protocol technology. This amendment makes clear that any open protocol will be eligible for funding in order to not preclude future innovation.

This provision has support from leading companies who see our energy future shaped as much by information technology as by horsepower. This provision has won support from leading electric companies, and I have already made reference earlier to Duke and to General Electric and to Google. But those are representative companies of the wide range of corporate support for this open protocol approach.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

This urgently-needed stimulus bill funds infrastructure projects that are shovel-ready, while also supporting future-oriented projects that are circuit-ready: broadband, electronic medical records, smart grid, advanced battery technologies, and other vital priorities.

This package is a major downpayment on the clean, renewable energy future this country has been waiting for and desperately needs.

But this legislation should not be characterized by what we spend, but

rather by what we save. These smart, clean energy investments will save jobs, ensuring that windmills and solar panels are built here at home. It will save energy through efficiency measures on schools and buildings, and it will save consumers and businesses money on their heating, gas and energy bills.

With the support included in this package, wind capacity will grow from 25,000 megawatts today to 44,000 megawatts generated on a daily basis in 2012. At 220 tons of steel per wind turbine, that is nearly 3 million tons of new steel demands. Those steel jobs are blue collar jobs tinted green by the force of the clean energy revolution.

The massive investments in weatherization, State energy efficiency grants, and Federal building efficiency are some of the safest and smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form of energy savings and lower energy prices.

This energy efficiency double dividend is a proven, reliable phenomenon that our current weak economy must exploit. Working smarter, not harder, that is what this bill is all about.

The bill provides $20 billion in new health IT infrastructure to improve care, lower costs and reduce medical efforts. I am pleased that the bill includes patient privacy safeguards that I have long advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are made unreadable to unauthorized individuals. This was supported by Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton. This is an issue that we all agree on, the privacy and security of our medical records.

Today we have before us a balanced, well-thought out package that provides tax relief for 95 percent of Americans and targets investments in key areas to turn around the American economy. I strongly support these measures and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation to expand the highly successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This bill will allow the program to provide health insurance to an additional 4 million low-income children on top of the nearly 7 million who already benefit from the program.

In my home State, SCHIP enrollment is part of the reason why Massachusetts has the lowest rate of uninsured children in the country. More than 180,000 Massachusetts children receive health coverage through SCHIP, and this reauthorization will allow the state to cover even more children who currently do not have health insurance.

It is unfortunate that the previous two attempts to reauthorize SCHIP were vetoed by President Bush, who chose to side with big corporations over children. With the current economic crisis causing significant job losses,

millions of Americans also are losing their health coverage, making today's vote even more urgent.

While President Bush twice dashed the hopes of millions of low-income families in need of health care for their children, the incoming Obama administration recognizes the value of ensuring that all low-income children get the health care they need.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the hard working families who want to provide their children with the health care they need. Vote yes on this critical legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for H. Res. 34, a resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, reaffirming the United States support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

I am deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, and I am deeply saddened by the loss of innocent life on both sides. Every innocent death or injury in this conflict is a tragedy.

The United States must play a central role in bringing the parties together to stop the violence, and must forcefully engage to restart the peace process so that the dream of two states living side by side in peace finally can be made a reality. For too many years, the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from what should be its number one priority in the Middle East: bringing peace to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Finding a just, lasting, and equitable solution to the conflict is not only vital for Israelis and Palestinians; it is also very much in our national interest. I am very hopeful that the incoming Obama administration will reengage the United States at the highest levels to complete the peace process.

The resolution we are considering today appropriately recognizes the fact that Hamas has been designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. Hamas continues to reject the very right of Israel to exist and refuses to renounce violence. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars against Israeli population centers since 2001. Instead of laying the foundation for an independent state following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza more than three years ago, Hamas turned Gaza into a launch pad for rockets targeting Israeli civilians. Hamas has launched more than 6,000 rockets and mortars at Israel since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Israel has the right and obligation to protect its citizens from the thousands of rockets that have rained down on its cities and towns since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. These rocket attacks must stop.

Hamas is not only indiscriminately firing rockets at Israeli civilians; it is also damaging the future for all Palestinians who seek a normal life for themselves and their families. Peace will only result from a political process of engagement and negotiation, not from volleys of rockets.

The incoming Obama Administration has a golden opportunity to breathe new life into the peace process, and I am committed to working with President Obama to stop the violence, get the peace process back on track and establish the security that all residents of the region urgently need.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Udall- Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act, which would give permanent protection to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This legislation also honors two great American visionaries--President Dwight Eisenhower and Representative Morris Udall--by designating this pristine wild place as wilderness in their names. President Eisenhower--a Republican--began the bipartisan legacy of fighting to protect this special place for future generations of Americans when he set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. Twenty years later, in 1980, Representative Morris Udall--a Democrat--succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge and protecting even more of this untrammeled wilderness.

President Eisenhower and Rep. Mo Udall had the vision to protect a remote but very special piece of pristine wilderness. I am proud to introduce legislation today that would complete the job they began by permanently protecting the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling.

I am also proud to once again introduce this legislation under the bill number H.R. 39, a bill number with important historical significance in the fight to preserve the land within the Arctic Refuge. H.R. 39 was the bill number given to Mo Udall's Alaska Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act that became law in 1980. This Act expanded the area President Eisenhower had originally set aside and renamed it as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rep. Udall later began introducing his legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Refuge as wilderness under that same bill number. Introducing the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act under the bill number H.R. 39 offers an important reminder of the history of the fight to protect this special place.

The coastal plain is the biological heart of the Refuge and is central to the survival of many unique species of animals including polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, wolves, and over 160 species of birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. If we were to allow drilling in the Refuge it would irreparably disrupt this important ecosystem and one of our last great wild places will be forever destroyed.

We know that the Arctic is already feeling the strains of global warming. Alaska has warmed at four times the rate of the rest of the planet over the last fifty years and the impacts of a warming Arctic on iconic species such as the polar bear are disastrous. Last year, the Bush Administration listed the polar bear as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act because of melting sea ice and government scientists project that the prospects for the polar bear's survival are bleak. A team of scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey released a series of reports at the end of 2007 which concluded that by mid- century, two-thirds of all the world's polar bears could disappear and that polar bears could be gone entirely from Alaska. The USGS team also noted that based on recent observations, this dire assessment could actually be conservative.

The 111th Congress marks a time of real change for our nation's energy policy. The Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress have argued for a shortsighted energy policy of ``drill, drill, drill'' that would forever sacrifice our beaches and most pristine wilderness areas for a few short months worth of oil. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but controls only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We cannot drill our to way energy independence. But we can enact smart, green energy policies that can simultaneously grow our economy, spur technological innovation, protect our environment, reduce global warming pollution and end our addiction to oil.

There are some places in our world that are so rare and so special that we have a responsibility to protect them. The Arctic Refuge is one of those places. Protecting the Arctic Refuge will send a strong statement of our nation's intent to preserve America's pristine wilderness areas, break our dangerous addition to oil, and kick-start a green revolution to create jobs, grow the economy, and promote energy independence.

As Mo Udall said, ``In our lifetime, we have few opportunities to shape the very Earth on which our descendants will live their lives. In each generation, we have carved up more and more of our once-great natural heritage. There ought to be a few places left in the world the way the Almighty made them.'' The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act will ensure that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is forever protected for future Americans and never carved up by the big oil companies.

Madam Speaker, today I am re-introducing the ``Derivatives Market Reform Act.'' This bill is largely based on legislation that I first introduced on July 14, 1994 as H.R. 4745, and then subsequently reintroduced in 1995 (as H.R. 1063), and introduced again in 1999, as H.R. 3483.

I am reintroducing the bill again today, on the same day that Congress is passing emergency legislation to respond to the crisis caused by Wall Street's irresponsible and risky use of derivatives, because I believe that if Congress had adopted this type of legislation, we might have been able to avoid some of the turmoil that has recently affected our Nation's financial markets.

In 1992, as Chairman of the House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee, I asked the General Accounting Office to undertake an investigation into the derivatives markets, including the size of the markets for these financial instruments, their economic rationale, and associated risks. In 1994, the GAO submitted its report to the Subcommittee, entitled ``Financial Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the Financial System.'' This report contained a number of important recommendations for the financial services industry, Federal financial regulators, and for the Congress. The GAO suggested that Congress needed to extend Federal authority to currently unregulated derivatives dealers, improve coordination among Federal regulators with responsibilities over key participants in this market, and restructure the regulations applicable to the derivatives markets.

My legislation was aimed at responding to the GAO's recommendations by providing a framework for improved supervision and regulation of previously unregulated derivatives dealers, assuring appropriate protections for their customers, and establishing certain reporting requirements for hedge funds. During the 103rd Congress, the Subcommittee held five oversight hearing on key issues relating to the derivatives market. As Chairman of the legislative Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Securities and Exchange Commission, it was my intention to move forward with derivatives legislation in the 104th Congress.

Unfortunately, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2004 elections, and the new Republican Majority that took control of the House in January of2005 had little interest in increasing financial regulation. Indeed, one of the first bills that the House passed as part of Speaker Newt Gingrich's ``Contract with America'' was H.R. 1058, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. This legislation was ostensibly aimed at curbing ``frivolous'' securities class action lawsuits, but in fact was drafted in such a way to make it more difficult for defrauded investors to sue those whose fraud or recklessness had caused them harm. During House floor consideration of that bill, I offered an amendment (House Amendment 270), which would have exempted securities fraud cases involving derivatives from the bill's harsh restrictions. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated by a voted of 162-261.

Following the derivatives-related collapse of the hedge fund Long- Term Capital Management, I joined with Senator Byron Dorgan to ask the GAO to undertake another investigation into the derivatives markets, focusing this time on the role that derivatives played in the collapse of the hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management. The GAO's report on this matter, entitled, ``Long-Term Capital Management: Regulators Need to Focus Greater Attention on System Risk,'' identified a need for Federal financial regulators to better coordinate their efforts to identify and respond to risks across markets and industries, and has called for Federal oversight over currently unregulated derivatives dealers who may have significant risk exposure to hedge funds and other highly leveraged entities. These recommendations came in addition to those made by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets earlier in 1999 that legislation be adopted which would require some public reporting by hedge funds regarding their investments.

The ``Derivatives Dealers and Hedge Fund Disclosure Act of 1999'' that Senator Dorgan and I are introduced back then responded to GAO's and the regulators' recommendations for reforms in the aftermath of the LTCM affair.

Again, the Republican-controlled Congress took no action to strengthen derivatives regulation. Instead, Congress passed two bills that made the situation worse. First, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 effectively tied the SEC's hands when it came to overseeing the derivatives activities of banks. Second, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 largely exempted derivatives from any effective oversight or regulation by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

And so, with no action on legislation to strengthen derivatives regulation, with Congress instead taking steps to make it more difficult for federal financial regulators to oversee these markets, the foundation was set for our current crisis.

This crisis was, of course, exacerbated by the failure of the financial regulators to effectively use the tools that they still had at their disposal to avert a meltdown. In recent weeks we have read how the Federal Reserve turned a blind eye to the growing systemic threat facing our financial system. We have read how the SEC failed to use its broker-dealer holding company risk authority to oversee and respond to this crisis. We have read about how they weakened capital rules that allowed securities firms to take on far too much leverage. And in the weeks and months to come, we will all learn a lot more about the causes and consequences of this crisis.

The bill that I am reintroducing today is aimed at opening a dialogue on solutions. I have made some modifications in the text to try to address some of the harmful deregulatory provisions enacted into law in recent years. But I know that the bill may need further refinement. I offer it as a baseline for how we might begin thinking about fixing the mess on Wall Street. There may be additional ideas that could improve the bill. There may be changes needed to ensure that these provisions are fully effective. I look forward to talking with my colleagues, and with outside stakeholders, about how we can begin to address this problem. Because we do need to act.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1492) to improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability and quality of broadband services and to promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of the Nation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1276) to establish a grant program to facilitate the creation of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

When the markets go up, Wall Street cleans up. When the markets go down, Main Street gets cleaned out.

Nobody wants to do this. Nobody wants to clean up the mess created by Wall Street recklessness. Nobody thinks this is perfect. But, if we don't act now, we won't just punish Wall Street, but punish innocent people on Main Street who will get cleaned out.

This is the greatest threat to those people since the Great Depression. This bill, because of Barney Frank, protects taxpayers, prevents golden parachutes, and limits excessive CEO compensation, helps prevent home foreclosures, provides strong, independent oversight and transparency. Not just Main Street, but the whole world is looking at us. Our very system of capitalism is under assault.

We must pass this today. We must give support to this. We must protect Main Street across this entire country. Vote ``yes'' on this protection of citizens of our country.

I rise in support of this bill.

After careful consideration of the bill to provide emergency assistance to stabilize our economy, I have decided to support this bill.

For years, I have fought hard for tougher oversight and regulation of Wall Street. I fought for tougher laws against insider trading, market manipulation, and other financial fraud; I fought to give the SEC expanded powers to obtain risk assessment reports regarding the risks posed by derivatives and other risky investments; I fought against efforts to deregulate Wall Street and make it tougher for defrauded investors to sue the scam artists who have ripped them off.

But 12 years of Republican-led deregulation and lax controls have fueled Wall Street's greed and recklessness in an inexcusable manner. I don't like having to vote for this kind of legislation. Still, I believe that a failure to act now wouldn't merely punish Wall Street, but also would put hardworking Americans at risk of losing their homes, their jobs, and their savings.

When the Bush administration presented its plan to Congress a week ago, I believed it did not contain the safeguards needed to protect taxpayers from billions of dollars in losses that could result from this rescue plan.

But over the past week, as a result of round-the-clock negotiations with the Bush Administration, essential taxpayer protections were added. For example, the plan now:

Protects taxpayers by requiring a plan for full repayment of all funds used to assist troubled financial firms;

Helps prevent home foreclosures by granting the Government authority to work with loan servicers to change the terms of mortgages to keep Americans in their homes;

Prevents golden parachutes by limiting excessive compensation for CEOs and executives of firms selling assets to the Government as part of the plan;

Creates strong, independent oversight and transparency to prevent waste and fraud and protect taxpayers.

I believe that failure to take action now would mean considerable risk of serious economic pain for America. The pain would not be limited to Wall Street bankers who made risky bets that didn't pay off.

Without relief now, Americans across the country struggling to pay their mortgages would be at greater risk of losing their homes. Responsible companies seeking credit to keep their businesses afloat already have seen financing dry up--if the Government fails to intervene now, more companies could close their doors, putting more Americans out of work.

The bill provides tough oversight and commits Congress and the President to the principle that whatever the ultimate cost is, it will be borne by the financial services industry directly, not taxpayers in general.

Our economy is facing the biggest Wall Street crisis since the Great Depression. Congress must respond to stop further declines that could wipe out savings accounts and hurt everyday Americans around the country if the crisis spreads even further.

Our entire economy depends on this critical legislation, but the taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay for risky business on Wall Street and lax oversight by the Bush administration. The taxpayers' insurance guarantee in the bill is one of the many taxpayer protections Democrats included to improve the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1492) to improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability and quality of broadband services and to promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of the Nation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1492, the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This is companion legislation to H.R. 3919, the Broadband Census of America Act of 2007, which passed the House unanimously last November.

Madam Speaker, an overarching telecommunications policy goal for the United States is achieving ubiquitously available, competitive, high speed, affordable broadband service for all Americans. Such broadband service capability is indispensable to various aspects of the United States economy, including public safety, education, entrepreneurial investment, innovation, job creation, health care delivery and energy efficiency.

The ability of the United States to promote and achieve a competitive, high speed broadband infrastructure will also be a key factor in determining our nation's success in the fiercely competitive global economy. International competitors to the United States are achieving progress in broadband deployment and adoption. Many countries have broadband service capability superior to the United States in terms of choice, speed, and price.

For the United States, offering broadband service capability at ever higher transmission speeds could spur new growth and investment in cutting-edge applications, services, and technologies that utilize higher bandwidth functionality.

The Senate bill contains several provisions which directly stem from H.R. 3919, including the international comparison and the consumer survey. While I wish the Senate bill contained the more rigorous data collection and disclosure that was contained in the House-passed bill, I believe the Senate bill makes sorely-needed progress in bolstering the data collection needed for policymakers to have a better sense of America's progress, or lack thereof, in broadband deployment, speed, and affordability.

Without question, ascertaining whether the Nation is achieving its broadband policy, goals has been stymied by a significant lack of data about the nature and extent of broadband service deployment and adoption throughout the country. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a May 2006 report, assessed the available data about broadband deployment and concluded that while such deployment is present in some form across the Nation, it remains difficult to decipher which geographic areas are un-served or underserved. Also difficult to determine is the type of service, the speed, and the price of broadband service capability available in discrete urban, suburban, and rural areas of the country.

More and better data about the nature and extent of broadband deployment and adoption is clearly needed and this legislation is a first step in getting the better data policymakers need. Indeed, the dearth of basic information available to the public and policymakers concerning availability, speed, price, and type of broadband service technology is highly problematic for a nation which ostensibly has competitive, affordable broadband service for every citizen as its highest telecommunications policy goal.

The fact that such information has not been obtained and is not readily available adversely affects the ability of policymakers to make sound decisions. For instance, the Federal Government could achieve significantly better performance from its multibillion dollar grant and subsidy programs, and effectively reform them, if better and more comprehensive data were readily available. Discerning which parts of the country are served by broadband service capability and which parts are un-served has proven elusive to policymakers.

This goal of this legislative effort from the start was the creation of a nationwide map of broadband data. I believe the Secretary of Commerce should create a Web site through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, depicting broadband inventory maps of all the States as outlined in the House- passed bill. The House-passed bill provides a roadmap for the ideal type of searchable map and the mechanisms by which the NTIA could achieve this objective. NTIA has authority today to pursue this worthwhile endeavor and the Bush administration should have sought to implement this idea long ago, using information readily available from public sources, from the States, from the FCC, or from industry participants or organizations themselves. At a minimum, and as a first step, the pending legislation would require that the Secretary of Commerce should create a

Web site to depict such nationwide data by including those maps created by grant recipients where appropriate. Ideally, grant recipients for State-wide efforts will be found in all the States and much of the rudimentary data to begin creating a truly robust national map can be developed at the state level and simply uploaded or linked to the Web site map or maps that NTIA creates.

In addition, a concomitant goal of this legislative effort from the beginning was to improve the quantity and quality of broadband data collected by and available to the Federal Communications Commission. When we began this effort, the FCC's available data was woefully inadequate with respect to broadband deployment, availability, speed, price and other metrics. Worse, the data collected was in a form that often misrepresented the reality of broadband deployment in the country. The FCC took action this year to improve the data it collects but it did not go far enough in my opinion. This legislation also does not go far enough and certainly is not as thorough and complete with respect to the collection and reporting of data as the House-passed bill. Yet it does represent additional progress. Obviously nothing in this bill is designed or should be construed to in any way limit the ability of the FCC to collect better and more accurate data, or to utilize such data internally, or to publicly report such data in a way that is conducive to wise policymaking or otherwise consistent with its precedents for making non-proprietary data public.

Again, this bill represents an important step in developing an overarching blueprint for broadband policy in the United States. As such, it is worthy of passage. Enacting this bill will also avail lawmakers of the opportunity to jump right into developing broader legislation early next year. By not having to re-pass this measure all over again, we will be able to more immediately pursue additional concrete broadband policy proposals legislatively, including those to promote greater broadband and voice competition, to rekindle the prospects for broadband innovation, affordability, and consumer choice, and to ensure that architectural openness and consumer privacy are hallmarks of our Nation's broadband policy.

The legislation also includes language on Internet child safety. This is language that is similar to provisions spearheaded by our House colleague Representative Melissa Bean and we are pleased that her multi-year efforts have resulted in the inclusion of this language in the bill.

I again want to thank Mr. Barton, Chairman Dingell, Mr. Stearns, and Mr. Upton for their cooperation in working on this bill. I again want to commend Senator Inouye and his staff, Jessica Rosenworcel, Margaret Cummisky, and Alex Hoehn-Saric, and the staff for the House Republican side, Neil Fried, David Cavicke, and Courtney Reinhard, and on the Democratic side I want to salute the excellent work of Amy Levine, Tim Powderly, Mark Seifert, and David Vogel. I urge members of the House to support the bill.

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed by the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1276) to establish a grant program to facilitate the creation of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill that just passed the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 3399) to prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine, be rereferred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition, to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act.'' This legislation will assure consumers that they have seamless access to free, over-the-air digital radio in key consumer electronic devices. It will also help to safeguard the viability of free, over-the-air radio into the future. I am pleased to introduce this bipartisan legislation today with Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues Representatives Lee Terry (R-NE), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX), Doug Walden (R-OR), Joe Wilson (R-SC), and Dan Burton (R-IN).

Madam Speaker, millions of Americans today rely on local broadcast radio for news, public safety bulletins, sports, weather, traffic and other information. The broadcast radio industry is increasingly migrating to digital broadcasting technology that will avail radio stations of the ability to transmit CD-quality digital content and offer multiple streams of service. This legislation is designed to ensure that consumers are able to readily receive such free service through consumer electronics systems that are otherwise receiving satellite digital audio radio and traditional AM or FM stations.

The recent merger of the only two satellite radio providers, XM and Sirius satellite radio, has underscored the importance of ensuring consumer access to a diversity of sources for digital radio content, in particular the free radio content originating in their local communities. This bill therefore simultaneously seeks to address the long-term competitive health of local radio while ensuring that their local, digital services are readily received by radio consumers.

With the 110th Congress in its final days of session, this legislation will obviously have to wait until the next Congress for action. I look forward to continuing to work with the original cosponsors of this bill as well as other Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues and other interested members of the House.