Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Missouri Todd Akin as the lead Republican cosponsor of the legislation.

Our legislation addresses a situation that most of our constituents have faced at least once and perhaps several times. An individual rents a car from a car rental company and is told the daily rate will be about $25.00. At the end of the rental, the charges from the car rental company are closer to $35.00 or $40.00 per day. Questions inevitably arise about the source of these additional charges.

A small portion of the difference between the car rental company's daily rate and the amount charged is state or local sales taxes, which consumers pay on most goods and services they purchase. Increasingly, however, the bulk of these additional charges are state and local discriminatory excise taxes on car rental consumers--local taxes imposed to build sport stadiums, convention centers, etc. No matter what the size or scope of a local project, states or localities have sought to ``export'' the burden of funding these local initiatives by taxing ``out-of-town'' visitors renting cars in their state, city, or county.

These discriminatory excise taxes on travelers have become increasingly popular in recent years. In 1976, there was one such tax. Since 1990, more than 115 special rental car taxes have been enacted in 43 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, car rental customers have paid more than $7.5 billion in special taxes to fund projects with no direct connection to renting a car. In addition to stadiums, car rental customers are also footing the bill for performing arts centers and a culinary institute. A recent study found that the taxes fall disproportionately on minority households; the taxes raise auto insurance costs; and these taxes reduce purchases of cars by rental companies--an increase of 10% in tax relative to the base rental rate reduces rental demand, and, therefore, purchases of new cars by rental car companies, by approximately 12%.

The End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act would impose a permanent moratorium on discriminatory excise taxes on car rental customers by declaring these taxes an undue burden on interstate commerce. In the past, Congress has enacted similar protections from discriminatory state and local excise taxes for other interstate travelers such as airline, train, and bus passengers, and for the property of interstate transportation industries such as the airlines, buses, trains, and motor freight. Our measure would extend this protection to car rental consumers.

The legislation's moratorium is prospective only. The bill ``grandfathers'' existing car rental excise taxes to prevent a cut-off of funding for projects financed through these taxes that are already underway, as long as the state or local authorization for the existing taxes does not expire or governments do not try to increase the rate of the tax. And the bill would not in any way restrict the ability of local governments to enact non-discriminatory, general taxes such as sales and income taxes.

Our legislation has been endorsed by a wide range of stakeholders, including the National Consumers League, UAW, and the Big Three automobile manufacturers.

I hope my colleagues will join with us in enacting into law the End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the customary 10 minutes to the Energy and Commerce Committee.

At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, in a collaborative process, the House Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees are presenting to the House this afternoon a renewal of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, provisions of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The act enables the delivery by satellite of distant network signals to homes that cannot receive network programming from a local television station.

We're taking the opportunity of this reauthorization to achieve a long-held goal of having all 210 local television markets across the Nation uplinked by satellite for retransmission of those local stations back into the market of their origination. The goal is to ensure that satellite TV subscribers everywhere will be able to receive both national television programs and local TV stations that serve their area.

At the present time, there are 28 local television markets in rural areas in various places of the Nation that do not have local television signals delivered by either of the major satellite television carriers, and much of our effort this year has been directed toward finding a way to obtain satellite carriage of these 28 rural markets for local television signals.

Earlier this year, following extensive discussions with the company, I received a letter from EchoStar, a company commonly known in the trade as the DISH Network, agreeing to uplink for local retransmission all 210 local television markets upon certain conditions. One condition is that the company receive the ability in our legislation to import into the markets distant network signals in order to supply the missing networks in the markets that do not have a full complement of the networks represented by local affiliates. The bill that we're presenting today grants that permission if EchoStar, in fact, provides local TV service in all 210 television markets nationwide.

Another condition of the company's willingness to serve all 210 markets is that the law not impose new carriage obligations that the company would have to devote its satellite capacity in order to meet. While the bill does impose some new carriage obligations, I'm optimistic that they will not be so extreme as to prevent EchoStar from launching local TV service in all 210 local markets over the coming year.

Providing local TV service in the 28 currently unserved local markets will make local TV news, sports, weather, essential emergency information, and locally originated programs available in every part of the Nation, a goal that we're now very close to achieving. Serving the 28 now unserved local TV markets involves a major expenditure by EchoStar for ground-based facilities in each of the currently unserved markets and for the launch, in 2010, of a new satellite that itself will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I want to commend EchoStar for expressing a willingness to make these very substantial investments if we pass legislation that meets the conditions I have previously described, and I think our legislation does. I also commend television broadcasters and DirecTV, the other major satellite television provider, both of which groups played highly constructive roles as our negotiations proceeded. And I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a member of our Commerce Committee, for bringing to our attention in very forceful terms the need to serve all of the 28 currently unserved local television markets across our Nation.

The bill before us makes other changes needed to harmonize the satellite carriage licenses with the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting, and it will result in more high-definition carriage of public broadcasting television under the terms of an amendment that was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and adopted during Commerce Committee consideration of our bill.

I want to say thank you this afternoon to Chairman Conyers and his excellent staff for the cooperation with my staff and with me as our two committees structured the bill that we present to the House this afternoon. And I want to say thank you to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for the highly constructive and cooperative bipartisan role that they have played in helping us move this measure through our two committees.

Madam Speaker, I urge approval of the bill, and I reserve any time I may have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Health care reform is needed. More than 36 million American citizens do not have health insurance, and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford to pay for the medical care they need. As those without insurance are treated in emergency rooms, the high cost of that care is borne by those who have insurance, driving up health insurance costs for everyone. The typical family pays an extra $1,100 each year in health insurance premiums as a cost of treating the uninsured. Health insurance premiums are increasing 3.5 times as fast as the rate of increase in family incomes.

This status quo is unsustainable, and finding a way for everyone to afford health insurance is necessary to benefit both the uninsured and those who have insurance. I hope that following a House-Senate conference on the legislation, we will be able to send to the White House the needed reform measure.

But reform legislation must ensure that Southwest Virginia residents continue to have access to the high quality health care services now delivered locally.

I oppose the health care reform legislation now before the House for several reasons including the continued existence of disparities in Medicare reimbursements between urban and rural areas under the House bill. Rural areas have traditionally received less under Medicare than urban areas, and while the bill makes some improvements in this regard, I would like to see more done to increase the payments to rural health care providers. Higher Medicare reimbursements would enable the attraction of more doctors to serve our medically underserved region.

I also oppose the bill because of my concern that a government operated health insurance plan could place at risk the survival of our region's hospitals. Most of our hospitals are operated on a non-profit basis for the benefit of the community. While most of their receipts are from Medicare and Medicaid payments, they lose money on each Medicare or Medicaid patient they treat. These programs reimburse hospitals at rates below the actual cost of providing patient care.

The financial viability of our hospitals comes from the payments they receive from privately insured patients. A government operated health insurance plan competing with private insurance will attract patients who are privately insured today, with the result that the hospitals would treat less privately insured patients and lose the critical revenues that are essential to their survival.

A government operated plan would reimburse health care providers at rates approximating Medicare rates, and hospitals would lose money on each of their patients insured under the government plan.

I am concerned that for these reasons the creation of a government operated insurance plan as envisioned in the House bill could result in the closure of hospitals in our region. Families depend on our community hospitals for health care services, and financially healthy hospitals are essential to the health of Southwest Virginians.

Many of our hospitals are financially stressed in normal times, and two hospitals in

the district I represent closed for periods of time in recent years for financial reasons. The government owned insurance plan as outlined in the House bill could push many more over the edge. I cannot support legislation that could lead to that result.

I also believe that bipartisan participation is needed on a measure of this scope which affects every American. The best ideas of Democrats and Republicans alike should be drawn upon to fashion the final legislation. That did not happen as the House bill was constructed.

In July, I opposed the health care reform measure when it was considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and expressed my concerns at that time. The bill passed by the House did not address those concerns.

Passage of the House bill is but a first step in a long legislative process to final enactment of a reform. I look forward to future steps in that process offering an opportunity for my concerns to be resolved.

Reform is needed, and I hope to support the final passage of legislation that emerges from a House-Senate conference that creates affordable access to health care for all Americans and does so in a way that enables the continued delivery of the excellent care now offered in our region.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1694) to allow the funding for the interoperable emergency communications grant program established under the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 to remain available until expended through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before the House today is Senate 1694, a measure to enable funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program to remain available through fiscal year 2012. In the absence of this measure, the funds for the program could not be expended by the recipients of grants under the program after the end of this year.

The bill before the House has been approved in the other body, and it is identical to House bills previously introduced by the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman) and by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao). The bill extends the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program that is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The funds, which are awarded as grants to first responders under the program, derive from proceeds of the auction by the Federal Communications Commission of the 700 megahertz spectrum, which became available as TV broadcasters ceased their analog television broadcasts in association with the digital television transition. The program had its genesis in recommendations by the 9/11 Commission concerning the well-acknowledged shortcomings in interoperable communications capabilities among first responders nationwide.

As required by law, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General conducted an annual assessment of that Department's management of this grant program. It found that the NTIA within the Department of Commerce had met the statutory guidelines and requirements for making awards and for reviewing and approving the grantees' communications plans, but the Office of Inspector General also found that the congressional deadline which exists in current law had not allowed the States a sufficient amount of time within which by the end of this year to expend the grant funds that they receive under this program. That inability of States to expend all of these moneys by the end of this year is what necessitates the passage of the measure that is before us today.

Ms. Harman's measure was approved by the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of our House Energy and Commerce Committee on the 8th of October, and her measure was approved by the full committee on October 15. It has been endorsed by, among others, the National Governors Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, the Telecommunications Industry Association, the National Emergency Management Association, and mayors of the cities of New York, Houston, and Los Angeles. S. 1694 passed the other body by unanimous consent on October 14, and we're taking up the Senate measure today so that upon approval in the House, it can go directly to the President for signature without further delay.

I want to say thank you this morning to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who is the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who is the ranking member on our full committee, for the bipartisan manner in which we have processed the legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee. I commend both Ms. Harman and Mr. Cao for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, with the conclusion of these comments, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2 minutes.

Let me again thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for bringing this measure before us today. It is a bipartisan measure.

It is necessary that we pass this legislation in order to assure that first responders are able to expend the funds that are awarded to them under the Emergency Communications Grant Program. That program expires at the end of this year, and the Inspector General at the Department of Commerce found that awardees under that program simply within that timeframe do not have the time necessary in order to make good on these grants and expend those for communications equipment. So by extending this program until the end of fiscal year 2012, we provide the time that is necessary.

It is appropriate legislation, completely bipartisan, and I encourage that the House adopt this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within

which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter before the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a southwest Virginia resident whose service to this Nation will long be remembered. On June 17, 2009, Darrell ``Shifty'' Powers, a distinguished World War II veteran, passed away. I would like to take this occasion to recognize his many contributions through his military service to our great Nation. Mr. Powers, who was portrayed in the HBO documentary film ``Band of Brothers,'' is a true American hero from southwest Virginia.

A native of the Dickenson County, Town of Clinchco, Virginia, Mr. Powers volunteered for the United States Army during the early stages of the Second World War in 1942. He was quickly assigned to the newly formed 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment and began training at Camp Toccoa, Georgia. Each day, the new recruits would train by running 6 miles up and down the Curahee Mountain. As a result of the steadfast dedication of Mr. Powers and the other members of what came to be known as Easy Company, the regiment was quickly transformed into one of the Army's toughest fighting units.

In 1943, after completion of parachute school at Ft. Benning, Georgia, the 2nd Battalion of the 506th Parachute Infantry was attached to the 101st Airborne Division and was transferred to England, where they would spend a year preparing to invade the European continent.

At about 1 a.m. on June 6, 1944, Mr. Powers and the other members of Easy Company boarded a plane which transported them across the English Channel in order to parachute into Normandy behind German fortified positions. Shortly after landing, Mr. Powers and 2 fellow soldiers realized that they were a day's walk from their intended drop zone. The Airborne troops spent almost a week fighting German soldiers before they were sent back to England to prepare for an invasion of Holland.

In September 1944, Mr. Powers' unit, along with Polish and English divisions, parachuted into Holland to secure a road for tanks and supply shipments to prepare for a push across

the Rhine River into Germany. During the attack, the English troops landed in a German tank division and were immediately killed. Mr. Powers and the rest of Easy Company spent the following 3 months fighting for control of the same road, laying low during the day and moving at night.

After securing the road and moving out of Holland, Easy Company was then ordered to defend the town of Bastogne, Belgium, when they learned that German troops had counterattacked along the Adrennes forest. For nearly a week, the undermanned and under-supplied Easy Company fought off a much larger German force. Easy Company lost 16 men during that week of fighting at Bastogne, and 34 more during fighting at Normandy and Holland.

A little more than a month after Hitler's forces were pushed back in mid-January, General Dwight Eisenhower met with Mr. Powers' unit in France and awarded them the Distinguished Unit Citation for holding Bastogne.

Soon after, Mr. Powers earned enough combat points to step away from the front lines of battle and return home to southwest Virginia. Mr. Powers was on his way out of combat when the truck he was riding in collided head-on with another Army truck, killing one soldier and badly injuring Mr. Powers.

After recovering from these injuries he returned home to work for Clinchfield Coal Company in Dickenson County, Virginia, for 33 years. Mr. Powers rarely spoke of the horrors of the combat he faced until producers came to him with the ``Band of Brothers'' HBO miniseries idea. After the success of ``Band of Brothers,'' Mr. Powers often would receive countless expressions of support and thanks for the role he and his combat unit played in World War II. Upon Mr. Power's passing his online obituary received comments from people across the Nation and several individuals from Europe paying tribute and expressing deep appreciation for the sacrifices he made to help free Europe during World War II. In his later years, Mr. Powers dedicated a great deal of time to speak to current soldiers stationed or returning from Iraq and Afghanistan about his experiences in war and life.

The outstanding dedication and sacrifice that Mr. Darrell ``Shifty'' Powers displayed during his time with the United States Army will be remembered not only by countless citizens in my congressional district in southwest Virginia but also by citizens across this country and across Europe. The effects of his service to our country will be forever lasting. I want to honor the passing of a great Virginian and a great American.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding and congratulate him on the tremendous leadership that he has shown in bringing this measure to the House floor this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I urge its approval by the House. It achieves broad reductions in greenhouse gases, enhances America's energy security, and by placing a price on carbon dioxide emissions, will unleash investments in clean-energy technologies that will create millions of new American jobs.

These energy technologies will evolve from America's laboratories; they will be deployed at home; they will be exported around the world; they will be the foundation for our next technology revolution. And it all starts here with passage today of the Clean Energy Security Act.

Approximately 80 percent of the electricity in the district that I represent is coal-generated. Coal production is one of our region's major industries, and it is a major employer of our constituents. Not surprisingly, my focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal, which accounts for fully 51 percent of America's electricity generation. Both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today.

Electricity rates will be only modestly affected. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that by 2020, the cost of the entire program for the typical American family will be $175 per year. The Environmental Protection Agency projects that the nearer-term cost for the typical family from all elements of this legislation will be between $80 and $110 per year; that's about 20 cents a day for the typical American family. And so the claims by the opponents that this legislation will impose enormous electricity price increases are simply wrong.

The Environmental Protection Agency projects that by 2020, the usage of coal in our economy will grow as compared to today's usage. Now, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, so let me repeat that: the EPA projects that by 2020, coal usage in America, under the terms of this bill, will actually grow.

As transportation electrifies and the demand for electricity increases, coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand. The claims of opponents that the CO2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use, causing an overreliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the Nation, are also simply wrong.

This is a responsible measure. It is carefully balanced; it reduces greenhouse gases by 83 percent by the year 2050 as compared to 2005 levels; it keeps electricity rates affordable; it enables coal usage to grow as the demand for electricity increases nationwide; and it opens the door to a more secure energy future and the creation of millions of new jobs, innovating, deploying and exporting to the world the new, low-carbon-dioxide-emitting technologies that will power our energy future.

Now, these are sound reasons to approve the bill; but for those who still harbor doubts, let me make a more practical argument to vote for passage.

In March of 2007, the Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Under that ruling, and the terms of the existing Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is now effectively required to regulate CO2 emissions, and so Federal regulation for greenhouse gases is now inevitable. It is not a question of whether we are going to have regulation. The only question is whether the regulation will be our carefully balanced, congressionally adopted, economically sustainable regulation, as contained within the bill before us today, or whether we will have EPA's regulation under the blunt instrument of the Clean Air Act where economic considerations cannot be fully waived.

Given that choice, and the path this bill charts for affordable electricity, for increased coal use, and for new job creation, I would urge the Members to make the reasonable decision to approve today the Clean Energy Security Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

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

I want to begin by extending my personal appreciation to

the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his determined effort to bring the Free Flow of Information Act to the floor of the House today and for the strong support in the last Congress and again in this Congress that he and his outstanding staff are providing to protect the public's right to know.

The bill that is before the House today is identical to the bill that passed the House in the last Congress by a vote of 398-21. It is a bipartisan measure which, this year, as in the previous Congress, I was pleased to introduce and partner with our Republican colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), and 49 other cosponsors in the House.

I want to acknowledge Mr. Pence's leadership and his deep commitment to protecting freedom of the press. It has been a tremendous privilege to have this opportunity to work with him toward the passage of this needed measure.

I also want to thank our Virginia colleague, Bob Goodlatte, for his leadership and his strong support of the bill in this Congress. Mr. Goodlatte and I have worked together to promote a range of national policies. We cochair, for example, the Congressional Internet Caucus. It is also a pleasure to work with him in this Congress in order to promote passage of the Free Flow of Information Act.

I want to comment for a moment today on the fact that in 2007 on this floor this bill received the outstanding vote of 398-21. That sweeping majority occurred by virtue of the careful work that was done by the House Judiciary Committee 2 years ago when the committee considered this legislation.

Members on both sides of the aisle participated. They offered good suggestions for improving the legislation--for the addition of circumstances when disclosure of information could be compelled, including numerous provisions of compelled disclosure for the purpose of protecting the national security. Those national security protections are deeply embedded in the bill that we are considering today.

It was an excellent committee process, rewarded on this House floor by a vote of 398-21 in favor. The measure was not considered on the Senate floor in the last Congress and so we begin the process again today with House consideration.

The Free Flow of Information Act protects the public's right to know. This is really not about protecting journalists, as my friend from Texas would suggest. The privilege is conferred upon journalists, but it is for the purpose of protecting the public's right to know.

The bill promotes the flow of information to the public about matters of large public interest where public disclosure is needed so that corrective action can be taken in order to prevent or correct a deep harm to society, so that legislation can be introduced to correct that harm, so that a lawsuit can be filed or a criminal prosecution be launched once the public is apprised of what in fact is happening that constitutes a harm to society.

Journalists serve as public watchdogs, bringing sensitive matters to light, and the bill before us enables them to do a better job of it.

Often, the best information that can be obtained about matters of large public interest that involve corruption in government or misdeeds in a large organization like a corporation or a large public charity will come from a person on the inside of that organization who knows what is happening, who knows about the harm to the public interest that is occurring, and feels a public responsibility to pick up a telephone and call a reporter and bring that critical information to public scrutiny. But that person has a lot of lose.

If his or her identity becomes known, that person can become punished, often by the individual who is responsible for the wrongdoing inside that organization. And so, in the absence of the ability of reporters to extend a pledge of confidentiality to protect the identity of that person on the inside, that information will never come to public light, and there will never be an opportunity for the public to take corrective action.

This is why we call our bill the Free Flow of Information Act. Passing this measure, conferring upon journalists a limited privilege to refrain from revealing confidential source information, will ensure that that vital information flows freely to the public so that corrective action in this Congress or in other legislative forums or in the courts can thereafter be taken.

The measure extends in Federal court proceedings a qualified privilege for reporters to refrain from testifying or producing documents, and a qualified privilege to refrain from revealing the identity of confidential sources.

Throughout the bill, there are provisions protecting the national security; and where it is appropriate to protect national security, disclosure of information can be compelled, disclosure of source information can be required, and reporters can in fact be required to testify in Federal court proceedings. The bill very carefully balances the need to protect the national security with the need to assure the free flow of information.

Madam Speaker, it is a carefully written measure which strengthens freedom of the press and protects the public's right to know. I strongly urge its approval today by the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is a deeply bipartisan measure with bipartisan participation in the construction, committee consideration and drafting of the legislation.

I am pleased now to recognize for 5 minutes the principal Republican sponsor of the measure, who has long been committed to freedom of the press and promoting the public's right to know, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the vice ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, a distinguished Republican Member of this House and a good friend with whom I'm pleased to serve in the Virginia delegation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge the passage of the Free Flow of Information Act. It is legislation which confers upon reporters a privilege either to refrain from testifying in certain circumstances or to refrain from revealing confidential information sources. But the purpose of our legislation is not to protect reporters. It is to protect the public's right to know, to ensure that sensitive information that can only come from an inside source reporting on something that is happening to the disadvantage of government, because of corruption in a bureau or agency, or a harm to society that is occurring because of misdeeds in a large organization like a corporation or a large public charity can, because of an act of conscience by that inside person, come to public scrutiny in a way that the public can then take corrective action by passing a statute, by initiating a lawsuit, or by initiating a criminal prosecution. And if that inside person is not assured confidentiality, if there is an opportunity for that person's identity to be exposed, that person is going to be very reluctant to share information with a reporter to bring that information to public light. That person has a tremendous amount to lose if his or her identity is revealed. That person can be punished by firing from his or her job or through more subtle means.

So, in the absence of the ability of the reporter to extend the pledge of confidentiality, there is the very real risk that that vital information will never come to public light.

This legislation is carefully balanced. It has protections for the national security which are deeply embedded within the measure. And those were placed there through the careful bipartisan work of the House Judiciary Committee when we had our extensive markup of this measure 2 years ago. The bill before us today is identical to that measure. It passed the House 2 years ago by a vote of 398-21. And it is deserving today of the same strong support by the House of Representatives.

So, Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage the passage of the Free Flow of Information Act. I thank the bipartisan cosponsors and all of those who have participated with us as this measure has been written.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2009, a measure with far-reaching consequences for businesses throughout our nation.

Traditionally, states and localities have levied corporate income, franchise and other taxes only on those businesses that have a physical presence in the taxing jurisdiction. The growth of the Internet and interstate business transactions has made it possible for businesses to conduct transactions without the constraints of geopolitical boundaries. As a result, recently some states have attempted to expand their tax base by assessing business activity taxes against out-of- state companies that have customers but no property or employees in the taxing state. Both large and small companies are facing an increasingly unpredictable tax environment for businesses, which hinders business expansion and threatens the continued development of e-commerce.

The legislation we are introducing today, which I am pleased to champion with my colleague and good friend Mr. Goodlatte--as well as Mr. Artur Davis, Ms. Bachmann, Ms. Herseth-Sandlin, Mr. Jones, Mr. Bobby Scott, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Pence and Mr. Joe Wilson--will bring certainty to today's increasingly chaotic tax environment for businesses by clarifying that the states cannot

attempt to tax the income of a company that has no physical presence within the taxing state's borders.

Our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Generally, a business must use employees or services in a state for more than 15 days in a calendar year before it is liable to pay business activity taxes to that jurisdiction.

The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act also modernizes legislation which Congress enacted 50 years ago that set clear, uniform standards for when states could tax out-of-state businesses for the solicitation of orders for sales. Like the economy of its time, the scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to income taxes on tangible personal property. Our nation's economy has changed dramatically over the past half-century, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized to apply equally to the sale of intangible property and services, and to other business activity taxes.

I want to emphasize that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act does not diminish the ability of states and localities to collect tax revenue. Rather, it rationalizes and makes more predictable the process of doing so.

The lack of clarity in current law has led to sometimes absurd results. A collection agent with the New Jersey Department of Taxation stopped a refrigerated truck on the New Jersey turnpike, loaded with product belonging to Smithfield Foods, a company headquartered in my state of Virginia. The agent held the truck and its driver for several hours and demanded that, to release the truck, Smithfield had to wire $150,000 immediately to the New Jersey Department of Taxation. The agent claimed that he had the right to hold the truck and its contents because Smithfield had failed properly to file New Jersey tax returns.

Smithfield informed the New Jersey agent that his claim was unfounded. It explained that Public Law 86-272 protected it from New Jersey income taxation because it only engaged in solicitation in New Jersey and had no physical operations in the state. The agent refused to accept this explanation; however, he finally agreed to release the truck and its driver in return for $8,000.

Smithfield appealed this aggressive and incorrect application of Public Law 86-272 to the New Jersey State tax commissioner. Ultimately, New Jersey accepted Smithfield's contention that it has no physical presence in the state and is not subject to New Jersey income tax. It issued Smithfield a refund and an apology for its roadside justice system, but not before Smithfield had invested much time and expense in resolving a situation which should not have arisen under current law. Our measure will help avoid such scenarios in the future by clarifying the physical presence standard embodied in Public Law 86-272.

New Jersey has used similar tactics against out-of-state companies selling intangible goods to its residents, a situation not covered by 86-272. It has argued that a mom-and-pop South Carolina software company with no physical presence in any states other than South Carolina and Georgia, owes a minimum of $600 per year in corporate income taxes and fees based only on the sale of licensed software to a New Jersey entity, and that the company would owe such tax every year that its software was in use in the state, even for those years in which the company had no income from any customer in New Jersey.

The Louisiana Department of Revenue has threatened to assess business activity taxes on several out-of-state companies based merely on the fact that they broadcast programming into the state, arguing that the companies are exploiting the Louisiana market because the programming is seen or heard by individuals in Louisiana.

Several states attempt to assess business activity taxes on out-of- state credit card companies based on the fact that their customers reside in the taxing jurisdiction and on arguments that the credit card company has engaged in the ``substantial privilege of carrying on business'' in the state.

The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act offers Members the opportunity to put an end to nonsensical situations like these. In doing so, we will provide certainty to both U.S. businesses and to states, thereby fostering economic growth and development. I thank Mr. Goodlatte and the original cosponsors of the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act for their support, and I urge each of my colleagues to assist us in enacting this much needed bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join with Congressman Mike Pence in introducing the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009. We are joined by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Judiciary Committee Vice Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte, and 35 other original cosponsors.

Our bipartisan legislation provides a privilege in federal court proceedings for reporters to refrain from revealing their confidential sources of information.

The privilege is similar in nature to that currently offered by 36 states and the District of Columbia. Such broad-based support for assuring the confidentiality of journalists' sources at the state level lays bare the glaring lack of similar protection at the federal level.

The ability to assure confidentiality to people who provide information is essential to effective news gathering and reporting on highly sensitive and important issues.

Typically, the best information about corruption in government or misdeeds in a private organization will come from someone on the inside who feels a responsibility to bring the information to light.

But that person has a lot to lose if his or her identity becomes known. In many cases, the person responsible for the corruption or the misdeeds can punish the source through dismissal or more subtle forms of punitive action if the source's identity becomes known.

It is only by assuring anonymity to the source that a reporter can gain access to the information in order to bring it to public scrutiny.

I have long thought that the ability to protect the confidentiality of sources is so essential to

effective news gathering that a privilege to refrain from revealing sources should be interpreted to be extended to reporters by the 1st Amendment.

Unfortunately, to date the 1st Amendment has not been so interpreted. Furthermore, in the past few years more than thirty reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned in federal court proceedings about confidential sources, and several have been handed or threatened with jail sentences. The time has clearly arrived for the Congress to enact this statutory privilege to address the increasing use of subpoenas to extract confidential source information from reporters.

Our legislation sets criteria which must be met to compel the disclosure of information from reporters in any federal criminal or civil matter, with heightened protection for the identities of confidential sources. While extending a broad privilege, we have included some exceptions for instances in which source information can be disclosed where a strong public interest compels the disclosure. Provisions have been incorporated to allow disclosure to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm, to determine who has disclosed trade secrets or personal health or personal financial information in violation of law, and to assure that national security interests are protected.

An exception to the privilege will only apply if the court determines that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in the gathering and dissemination of news and information.

The bill is a carefully constructed measure which will provide a broad new and much needed privilege for reporters to refrain from revealing confidential sources.

The measure protects the public's right to know, and its passage should be a priority in this Congress. The measure we are reintroducing today is identical to the measure which passed the House in 2007 by a large, bipartisan majority of 398 to 21.

I want to commend Mike Pence who has devoted substantial personal time and attention to this effort.

He has done much to bring the need for the privilege to public attention, and he is a highly effective advocate for the cause.

It was a pleasure coauthoring a similar bill with Mike in the last two Congresses and in writing with him the bill we are introducing today.

I also want to thank Chairman Conyers for his helpful suggestions and his support in moving the bill through the Judiciary Committee.

Given the broad bipartisan support this measure enjoys, I am optimistic that we will be able to enact the legislation into law during the course of this Congress.

I hope my colleagues will join with us in enacting into law the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 108, I call up the Senate bill (S. 352) to postpone the DTV transition date, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now less than 2 weeks from the February 17 digital television transition date, and millions of American households remain totally unprepared. On January 22, the Nielsen Company, which is a widely respected service that reports on television viewing in the United States, reported that fully 6.5 million households are totally unprepared for the transition. These are homes that rely upon antennas or rabbit ears in order to get their television service. They do not have cable or satellite subscriptions. And given the fact that they are totally unprepared today, if the transition goes forward as scheduled on February 17, these 6.5 million households will lose all of their television service, and that number represents about 5.7 percent of the total American television viewing public. If almost 6 percent of the nation's households lose all of their television service, I think that most people would declare that the digital television transition has been a failure.

At the present time, there are 3.7 million requests for converter box coupons pending at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and since early January, the program that funds those coupons has been out of money. Those requests therefore, cannot be honored.

And the waiting line for coupons is growing rapidly. On Friday of last week, the number of requests was 3.3 million, and over the weekend, during the day on Monday, that number climbed to 3.7 million. And I think we can expect a much larger increase in the number of requests that are filed with the Department of Commerce over the coming weeks.

It's clear to me that the only way to avoid a massive disruption affecting 5.7

percent of the entire viewing public is to delay the transition and provide the funding in the meantime to assure that when the transition does occur, it occurs smoothly. In recognition of that reality, the Senate has now, on two occasions, by a unanimous vote both times, passed legislation to delay the transition until June 12. The most recent unanimously passed Senate bill moving the date to June the 12th is now the measure that is before the House.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue and have argued that if more money were provided for this program for converter boxes during the coming week, that the problems could be solved, and they have, in fact, put forward a proposal to do so.

But I want to make a very clear point. The provision of more money for this program now, without moving the transition date, could not avoid the disruption. It takes 1 week to process 1.6 million coupon requests at the Department of Commerce. That's what the independent contractor working for the Department of Commerce estimates its approval numbers to be. That company is IBM, and they've been handling this coupon program since the inception. They can process 1.6 million coupon requests every week. And so in the 13 days remaining between now and February 17, that backlog presently pending of 3.7 million requests could not be processed, even if more money were provided for that program today. And then, beyond processing the requests, more time is required for mailing the coupons to those who have requested them, and then more time still required for the television viewer to get the coupon out of the mail and take that coupon to a store and redeem it for a converter box. So even if more money were provided for the program today, the program would still be a failure and we would still have millions of homes dislocated in their television viewing.

Beyond the converter box program, which is at a standstill, more resources are also needed for the Federal Communication Commission's call center program where waiting times are long, where calls are frequently disconnected, and it's very difficult to ever speak to a live technical assistance representative. In fact, Commissioner McDowell at the Federal Communications Commission reported on these facts. He had tried himself to contact the FCC's call centers, and just as a test, determine what the real condition of those call centers happens to be. And he found that calls were disconnected, waiting times were unacceptably long, and it was virtually impossible to get a live technical assistant representative on the line.

Now, as that report reveals, the FCC's call center program is in complete disarray, and that program is vitally important. There is a virtual absence of technical assistance available for people to connect their converter boxes; once they've connected them, if they still can't get a viewable picture, get some expert advice on what further steps they might take, testing their antenna, for example, to determine whether or not the antenna would have to be replaced, adjusting that antenna to determine whether or not a digital signal can, in fact, be received. And the FCC's call centers are the only vital point of contact and point of information that millions of people, primarily those in rural stretches of of our Nation, are going to have available. And that program today is in disarray.

More resources are going to be necessary in order to make that call center program effective. Only by delaying the transition and utilizing the $650 million that the stimulus measure provides for the DTV transition program, can these problems be addressed and can massive viewer disruption be avoided.

The 4-month delay that the bill before the House would accomplish has been endorsed by a broad range of organizations representing the very parties who could potentially be disaffected by the delay. And I'm going to take just a moment to go through an identification of some of these endorsing organizations.

Much has been said during the debate on the rule about public safety, and all of us share a concern about public safety. We want to make sure that spectrum is made available to first responders at the earliest possible time in order to deploy advanced communications equipment so that there will be full interoperability among first responders, police being able to talk to fire agencies, being able to talk to rescue agencies and to do so all across the country. That's the goal. We hope that goal will soon be achieved.

But the organizations that represent these public safety agencies nationwide, the great weight of them, have endorsed this delay. I'm just going to list these. The International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the National Emergency Number Association, that's the voice of 911 across the country, and also the organization that represents the information technology professionals who work in first responder agencies, they have all endorsed this delay.

I would suggest that they recognize that the greater threat to public safety would come in something like 6.5 million households losing all television coverage and, therefore, not being able to get the vital public safety information that local television broadcasters so effectively provide, and that will happen unless the delay and the transition are adopted. Speaking on behalf of local broadcasters, the National Association of Broadcasters and the major networks have all endorsed this delay and have sent letters or have made public statements to that effect.

Speaking for the purchasers of the commercial wireless spectrum, the two major winners in the government-sponsored auction for that spectrum--AT&T and Verizon--have both endorsed this delay.

Now, much was said during the debate on the rule about possible motivations for various parties having recommended the delay, including some comments, perhaps, about the motivation of the President in asking for this delay. It is very clear that the reason that this delay was asked was due to the loss of television viewing that would occur across this Nation if the delay were not accomplished. That is the real reason. If any party is going to be disadvantaged because of this delay on the commercial spectrum side, it would have been the major bidders in this auction--AT&T and Verizon--and both of them have sent letters endorsing this delay. They believe it is necessary to have a smooth transition, and they have endorsed the delay accordingly. The Consumers Union and the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission have also endorsed this delay.

Let me offer assurance that it will be a one-time-only delay. Our committee will simply not entertain requests for any delay beyond the 12th of June. Our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has been very clear about that. No requests beyond the 12th of June for a delay will be considered.

Speaking on behalf of the subcommittee, I can say precisely the same thing. We will have time to get this program properly structured. We will have the resources necessary to make sure that the program can be smooth and effective when the transition occurs in June. Under no circumstances will we consider legislation to delay this program again. The delay that this bill will accomplish, teamed with the stimulus appropriation will be sufficient to ensure a smooth digital television transition.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the measure pending before the House, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker at this time, I ask unanimous consent that all Members shall have 5 legislative days to insert material in the Record, including their statements on this bill.

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I do so for the purpose of placing in the Record a series of letters that the committee has received endorsing this delay, and among these letters are letters from the Association of Public Safety Communication Officials International, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Emergency Number Association speaking for 911. And these are all associations that sent letters to the committee representing the public safety community, and they represent the great weight of public safety of first responders in the Nation endorsing this delay.

Also included in this submission will be a letter from the National Association of Broadcasters speaking on behalf of local broadcasters across the Nation. We have also received letters from AT&T and Verizon, the two major winners in the government-sponsored spectrum auction endorsing the delay, from the Consumers Union, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Univision, and also the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

January 30, 2009.

Hon. Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Waxman: We understand that the House of

Representatives may soon consider S. 352, the DTV transition

extension bill that passed in the Senate yesterday.

The bill the Senate passed yesterday included language to

address the impact on public safety of a DTV transition

delay. We expressed support for this language in a letter we

sent on January 27, 2009, to Senate Commerce Committee

Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison.

Specifically, the bill makes it clear that a public safety

agency can use its existing license in the 700 MHz band to

commence operations after a broadcaster has voluntarily

ceased operations on a channel before June 12. All 50 states

and some local governments have FCC licenses for 700 MHz

spectrum, and are waiting for the DTV transition date to

modernize their communications systems and ensure public

safety.

Although we have concerns about the impact of delaying the

transition date on public safety, since this language is now

included in the final version of the bill we support passage

of this legislation.

We thank you and your colleagues for taking into account

the concerns of public safety while considering this matter.

Respectfully,

Chris Fischer,

President, Association of Public-Safety Communications

Officials-International.

Russell B. Laine,

President, International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Larry J. Grorud,

President, International Association of Fire Chiefs.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman from Texas yield to me?

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

In view of the fact that we have no further requests for time on this side and I do intend to close debate, at this time I would ask the gentleman from Texas if he has other speakers that he would like to recognize, or if he is prepared to close on his side.

I would be pleased to yield.

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

Well, reclaiming my time, I probably have about a 4- minute closing statement, and that is all the time we intend to consume on this side. If the gentleman would be amenable to a unanimous consent request that would limit his time to that same amount, I'm sure we would find that to be acceptable.

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

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

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

I want to say just a few words in response to a couple of the arguments that were raised by my friends on the other side of the aisle. First, there was an effort to suggest that the Nielsen survey, which reports that 6.5 million homes are totally unprepared for the digital television transition, was an old survey. That it was a month old. In fact, that survey was taken the week of January 18. So it's only a bit more than 2 weeks old at this point. And, for practical purposes, those are very current numbers.

The argument also was made that more money could perhaps be provided for the converter box program during the coming week, and that that would solve the problem. That does not solve the problem for two very important reasons. Given the processing time for the request for coupons at the Department of Commerce, there literally is not enough time in the 13 days remaining between now and transition date to clear the backlog of 3.7 million coupon requests that are currently pending, much less the time it would take to mail the coupons to the TV viewers and the time it would then take for the TV viewers to take the coupons to a store and redeem them for converter boxes. So even if money were provided today for the converter box program, there would still be massive dislocation on February 17.

Beyond the converter box program, the call centers operated by the FCC are also in disarray. Long waiting times, busy signals, calls frequently disconnected. Virtually impossible to get a live technical assistance representative on the phone. These were facts reported on by one of the FCC commissioners, Commissioner McDowell, who called the call centers and found that that is the state of affairs.

More resources will be needed in order to appropriately staff the call centers and make sure that that vital point of information is available for the millions of Americans who are going to need that assistance when the conversion occurs.

Wilmington, North Carolina, where a test was conducted of an early shutoff of the analog signal did produce a good result, but there were very important circumstances at play in Wilmington that are simply not at play across the rest of the country.

First of all, a massive amount of advertising money was expended in advising people that the cutoff was coming, and telling them exactly what they had to do to prepare. The Federal Communications System set up a special field office in Wilmington. The FCC paid firefighters in that city to provide in-home technical assistance to people who were having problems. Most importantly of all, Wilmington is flat terrain-- very different from the mountainous rural areas of America, where the primary problems with the transition are going to occur. So, yes, a good result did obtain in Wilmington, but Wilmington is very different from the rest of the country where the major problems are going to arise.

It was also mentioned by some in argument that the Department of Commerce has been saying for some time that it was running out of money for its converter box program. In fact, not until Christmas Eve-- December 24--did the Department of Commerce send notice that the coupon program was out of money. Of course, Congress was in recess. And we have acted as expeditiously as we could since reconvening in order to correct the problem. And we are doing that now by proposing a delay.

This delay is absolutely necessary. It will be for one time only. It will ensure, in conjunction with the $650 million to be provided in the stimulus legislation, that the problems that confront this program can successfully be addressed. Converter boxes can be supplied. The call centers can be staffed.

We can assure that when the transition occurs on June 12, that it does so smoothly, and for the benefit of the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the primary reason that I am opposing this motion to commit is that it simply is unnecessary. And I want to address that in just a moment; but before I do that, I think a factual clarification is necessary. The Department of Commerce did not notify the Congress that the converter box program was out of money until Christmas Eve. Congress was in recess at that time. Ever since we have been back in session, we have been working to address the problem that that program running out of money has caused, and we have done that as expeditiously as the congressional schedule permits.

In November, in the communication to which the gentleman from Oregon referred, the Department of Commerce indicated that it was having to reschedule in a certain way the provision of coupons, but it also said that it had ample money to continue the program to successful conclusion at that time. The Department of Commerce said nothing about the program potentially running out of money. That message did not come until December 24th.

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

The motion to commit would essentially require the broadcasters in the four channels that will be devoted to public safety and in a buffer zone around those four channels to terminate their analogue broadcast. That is the essence of what the motion accomplishes. And it simply is not necessary.

The first point to be made is that there are very few public safety agencies that immediately are even prepared to start using that spectrum for advanced communications. And that fact comes to us from David Furth, who is the official at the FCC, Acting Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, who has told us that very few public safety agencies could even utilize the spectrum immediately.

We have placed in this legislation a provision that says that if broadcasters elect to turn off their analogue transmitters and vacate the spectrum prior to the transition date of June 12, they may do so; and, if they decide to do so, then public safety agencies that are prepared to begin to utilize the spectrum may have access to it, in accordance with standard Federal Communication Commission procedures. And so many broadcasters probably will take that option. I think numbers were provided on the other side about how many are likely to do that, and in those areas public safety agencies can go forward.

Beyond that, we have a very large list of endorsements for this delay coming from the associations that represent the great bulk of public safety agencies across the United States, and they are saying that there is a greater risk in shutting television off and having people lose vital public safety information that television provides than there is in delaying for a brief period the arrival of the spectrum for the use of public safety agencies. Letters have been received from the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Emergency Number Association, all speaking for public safety agencies and endorsing this delay.

As I indicated, there is a great public safety concern if people are not able to get the emergency information that is delivered so effectively by local broadcast stations. And kicking those stations out of the four channels in which they are broadcasting today to make room for public safety agencies that themselves are not prepared to utilize that spectrum simply is not a good policy. And so, Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons I oppose the motion to commit and ask that it be rejected by the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 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.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

I want to commend Chairman Peterson for his leadership on this measure which will broaden the reach of the Commodity Exchange Act in order to restrict excessive speculation in the energy and agricultural markets.

The concern that I am raising in this colloquy is of particular interest to the electricity sector. I would ask the gentleman if he would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with regard to this matter.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has responsibility for regulating natural gas and electricity markets within its jurisdiction. That jurisdiction includes Financial Transmission Rights which are financial instruments which entitle the holders to receive compensation for transmission congestion charges that arise when the transmission grid is congested in the day-ahead market. These rights are traded through an auction and secondarily, through bilateral trading.

The FERC currently regulates these electricity transmission rights through the independent system operators and through the regional transmission organizations across the Nation. The FERC's governance of the sale and use of these rights is important to the FERC's governance of the ISOs and the RTOs.

Is it the intention of the chairman that anything in H.R. 6604 would limit or conflict with the legal authority of the FERC to carry out its regulatory responsibility with regard to financial transmission rights?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. We hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues. Of the four House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all Private Bills are referred. Private Bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only.

Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were Private Laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 Private Laws, as compared with 434 Public Laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 Private Laws and 443 Public Laws--a better than three to one ratio.

Private bills were referred to the Committee of the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935. When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was transferred from rule XXIV, clause 6 to rule XV, clause 5.

A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills: first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream; or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record. This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and cold war flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 Private Laws, as compared with 594 Public Laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws.

Under rule XV, clause 5, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two- thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House.

On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the Committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained.

Bills un-objected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole. On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection. Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately.

Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order. When the previous question is ordered on a Private Calendar bill, the bill comes up for disposition on the next legislative day.

Madam Speaker, we would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors Committee, the system the House has established to deal with the great volume of Private Bills. The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any Private Bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Seated near them to provide technical assistance are the majority and minority legislative clerks. Should any Member have a doubt or question about a particular Private Bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their clerks, or from the Member who introduced the bill.

The great volume of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six Objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement, adopted on July 10, 2008, the Members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 110th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) days, excluding the day the bill is reported and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days.

It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement. This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended.

This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

We feel confident that we speak for our colleagues when we request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance consideration to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary.

Rick Boucher.

Adam Schiff.

Raul Grijalva.

Lamar Smith.

Steve King.

Randy Forbes.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, in support of this measure which will ease the transition next February to exclusively digital over-the- air television broadcasting. The bill makes funds available in a timely manner for low-power television transmitters to make the transition to digital, and it makes approximately $7 million available for public education, technical assistance, and the converter box program. While this new support is welcome, I'm deeply concerned that a truly smooth transition will require that this Congress do much more.

The total funding for the public education component of our program remains miniscule. While polls show that more than one half of the population has heard about the digital TV transition, most who know about it are confused about how it will apply to them and what they may need to do in order to prepare themselves effectively for it.

The need for technical assistance installing converter boxes and analyzing reception problems that may be experienced in the home will be vast. This bill makes little provision to meet that need which will be acute among our elderly population and in rural and low-income areas of the Nation.

In the United Kingdom, which has carried out their transition in some regions of the nation, as many as 10 percent of the external antennas and rabbit ears had to be replaced in order to receive a digital signal. Our experience with antennas will be no different, and we still have no public funding in order to meet that need.

The antenna replacement problem will be magnified by the lack of technical assistance. Viewers who correctly install their converter box may still not receive a digital signal, and without technical help will have great difficulty determining that the problem is an antenna that could receive an analog signal but is too far away from the transmitter to receive digital service. That viewer will lose TV reception on February 17. When he later finds that the antenna has to be replaced, he will have to shoulder that replacement cost on his own.

This Congress should do more to assure a smooth transition. If we don't, I fear that millions of Americans will lose the vital lifeline that television service represents next February.

We might want to consider instituting a program similar to the help scheme that has been employed in the United Kingdom. For a payment of the American equivalent of $40, TV households receive on-site technical support and, if necessary, hardware, including antenna replacement. Such a program in the United States would ensure a successful transition and would prevent the vital lifeline that television represents from being lost by millions of Americans who I otherwise fear will lose that service next February.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I share his belief that the demonstration project that we are going to have in Wilmington, North Carolina, sometime later this year will yield valuable information. My concern is that whatever information we receive from that demonstration, should it indicate that

additional steps need to be taken for technical assistance, for public education, for the replacement of either rabbit ears or external antennas, will not be information that is very useful to us in the absence of funding in order to carry out whatever steps that information suggests should be appropriate.

So my recommendation today is that we begin to have a conversation about how we could use information collected from the Wilmington experience, how we could use information that we can gain very usefully from the larger experience they've already had in the United Kingdom and put that information to work to make sure that our transition is as smooth here in the United States as it has been in the U.K.