Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 95, I call up the bill (H.R. 310) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Energy and Commerce Committee brings its first major bill of the 109th Congress to the floor, H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. This is a bill that we brought up in the last Congress and passed in the last Congress, but were not able to conference successfully with the Senate. We passed it in the last Congress with a vote of 391 to 22, so we are going to bring this up as our first major bill this year. This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back again into their living rooms. After the year-before-last Super Bowl half-time show, an unprecedented 500,000 citizens filed complaints with the FCC, 500,000. The level of disgust in the use of our public airwaves was then at an all-time high. The 2004 Super Bowl crystallized the notion that something needs to be done. Today, we are going to answer those calls. H.R. 310 gives the FCC all of the tools necessary to encourage broadcasters to take these fines seriously. For too long, broadcasters have pushed the envelope. In light of the paltry fines under current law, broadcasters have been willing to take the risk that programming may be deemed indecent. Currently, the most the FCC may fine a broadcaster is $32,500. It is a mere drop in the bucket, a slap on the wrist. This bill would raise the stakes by giving the FCC the ability to fine a maximum of $500,000 for an indecent broadcast infraction. A $500,000 penalty gets people's attention. The bill also takes the additional step to address the performers who may exploit the airwaves to promote their own popularity. Under H.R. 310, if a performer, and I quote, ``willfully and intentionally makes an indecent statement or action that he or she knows will be broadcast, that performer can be held personally liable for up to $500,000.'' There is a clear need to hold a performer responsible for his or her own actions, and this bill does that in a reasonable manner. The goal is not to bankrupt anyone, but rather make the penalties do what they are supposed to do, provide a disincentive to utter indecent material on broadcast television and radio. Additionally, H.R. 310 would allow the FCC to use remedies other than fines. For instance, if a broadcaster is found liable for three separate indecency violations during an 8-year license term, the bill requires the FCC to hold a revocation hearing to consider revoking the broadcaster's license. It is not an automatic revocation, but the FCC would have to hold the hearing to consider revocation. Today, the FCC has the power to hold a license revocation hearing only after one indecency offense, but rarely uses it. H.R. 310 would make it clear that after three such offenses, it is time to examine the license. Again, this is a penalty that will make the broadcasters sit up and take notice. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the full committee; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their hard work on this bill. It is a good bill. It is firm, it is fair, and it is reasonable. Most importantly and unfortunately, it is necessary. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 310. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and I ask unanimous consent for him to control the floor debate on the majority time on this bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 310.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the 109th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted Rules on February 2, 2005, and amended the Rules on February 9, 2005, both in meetings that were open to the public. Rules for the Committee on Energy and Commerce Rule 1. General Provisions. (a) Rules of the Committee. The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereinafter the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as is applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, is nondebatable and privileged in the Committee and its subcommittees. (b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the Rules of the House, shall be binding on each subcommittee of the Committee. Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings. (a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration of bills, resolutions, and other business, if the House is in session on that day. If the House is not in session on that day and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House is again in session. The chairman of the Committee may, at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required under this section, after consultation with the ranking minority member. (b) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call of the chairman. ( c) Vice Chairmen; Presiding Member. The chairman shall designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are not present at any meeting or hearing, the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting or hearing. (d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Except as provided by the Rules of the House, each meeting of the Committee or any of its subcommittees for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, and each hearing, shall be open to the public including to radio, television and still photography coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. Rule 3. Agenda. The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee meeting (other than a hearing), setting out the date, time, place, and all items of business to be considered, shall be provided to each member of the Committee at least 36 hours in advance of such meeting. Rule 4. Procedure. (a)(l) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall be announced at least one week in advance of the commencement of such hearing, unless the Committee or subcommittee determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner. (2)(A) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session, shall be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in advance of the commencement of such meeting. (3) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24 hours), and to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution if printed copies are available shall be decided without debate. (B) Other Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of a meeting (other than a hearing or a meeting to which subparagraph (A) applies) shall be announced at least 72 hours in advance of the commencement of such meeting. (b)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as determined by the chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to provide to members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of the argument. The chairman of the Committee or of a subcommittee, or the presiding member, may waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof. (2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any federal grant (or sub grant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. (c)(l) Questioning Witnesses. The right to interrogate the witnesses before the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has had an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a witness until each member of the Committee present has been recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee or subcommittee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the interrogation of witnesses, the chairman shall recognize in order of appearance members who were not present when the meeting was called to order after all members who were present when the meeting was called to order have been recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be. (2) Questions for the Record. Each member may submit to the Chairman of the Committee or the subcommittee additional questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the Committee no later than ten business days following a hearing. The Chairman shall transmit all questions received from members of the Committee or the subcommittee to the appropriate witness, and include the transmittal letter and the responses from the witnesses in the hearing record. (d) Explanation of Subcommittee Action. No bill, recommendation, or other matter reported by a subcommittee shall be considered by the full Committee unless the text of the matter reported, together with an explanation, has been available to members of the Committee for at least 36 hours. Such explanation shall include a summary of the major provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary of the need for the legislation. All subcommittee actions shall be reported promptly by the clerk of the Committee to all members of the Committee. (e) Opening Statements. (1) All written opening statements at hearings conducted by the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall be made part of the permanent hearing record. (2) Statements shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the chairman and ranking minority member (or their respective designee) of the Committee or subcommittee, as applicable, and 3 minutes each for all other members. With the consent of the Committee, prior to the recognition of the first witness for testimony, any Member, when recognized for an opening statement, may completely defer his or her opening statement and instead use those three minutes during the initial round of questioning. (3) At any hearing of the full Committee, the chairman may limit opening statements for Members (including, at the discretion of the Chairman, the chairman and ranking minority member) to one minute. At any hearing conducted by any subcommittee, the chairman of that subcommittee, with the consent of its ranking minority member, may reduce the time for statements by members or defer statements until the conclusion of testimony. Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Layover Requirements. Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by a majority of those present and voting (a majority being present) of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be. Rule 6. Quorum. Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing at which there are present not fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee in question. A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a subpoena, or of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)). For the purposes of taking any action other than those specified in the preceding sentence, one-third of the members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. Rule 7. Official Committee Records. (a)(1) Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show those present at each meeting, and include a record of the vote on any question on which a record vote is demanded and a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition voted. A copy of the journal shall be furnished to the ranking minority member. (2) Record Votes. A record vote may be demanded by one- fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one member. No demand for a record vote shall be made or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a record vote or in the apparent absence of a quorum. The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made available in the Committee office for inspection by the public, as provided in Rule XI, clause 2(e) of the Rules of the House. (b) Archived Records. The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any member of the Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking minority member on any communication from the Archivist of the United States or the Clerk of the House concerning the disposition of noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of the Rule. Rule 8. Subcommittees. There shall be such standing subcommittees with such jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party caucus prior to the start of the process for establishing subcommittee chairmanships and assignments. Rule 9. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of the chairman of the Committee with a view toward assuring the availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. Rule 10. Reference of Legislation and Other Matters. All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate jurisdiction within two weeks of the date of receipt by the Committee unless action is taken by the full committee within those two weeks, or by majority vote of the members of the Committee, consideration is to be by the full Committee. In the case of legislation or other matter within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee, the chairman of the Committee may, in his discretion, refer the matter simultaneously to two or more subcommittees for concurrent consideration, or may designate a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction and also refer the matter to one or more additional subcommittees for consideration in sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations), either on its initial referral or after the matter has been reported by the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction. Such authority shall include the authority to refer such legislation or matter to an ad hoc subcommittee appointed by the chairman, with the approval of the Committee, from the members of the subcommittee having legislative or oversight jurisdiction. Rule 11. Ratio of Subcommittees. The majority caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of majority to minority party members for each subcommittee and the chairman shall negotiate that ratio with the minority party, provided that the ratio of party members on each subcommittee shall be no less favorable to the majority than that of the full Committee, nor shall such ratio provide for a majority of less than two majority members. Rule 12. Subcommittee Membership. (a) Selection of Subcommittee Members. Prior to any organizational meeting held by the Committee, the majority and minority caucuses shall select their respective members of the standing subcommittees. (b) Ex Officio Members. The chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee shall be ex officio members with voting privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not assigned as members and may be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum in such subcommittees. Rule 13. Managing Legislation on the House Floor. The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which member shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to the House. Rule 14. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff Appointments. (a) Delegation of Staff. Whenever the chairman of the Committee determines that any professional staff member appointed pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, who is assigned to such chairman and not to the ranking minority member, by reason of such professional staff member's expertise or qualifications will be of assistance to one or more subcommittees in carrying out their assigned responsibilities, he may delegate such member to such subcommittees for such purpose. A delegation of a member of the professional staff pursuant to this subsection shall be made after consultation with subcommittee chairmen and with the approval of the subcommittee chairman or chairmen involved. (b) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority member of the Committee and not to the chairman of the Committee, shall be assigned to such Committee business as the minority party members of the Committee consider advisable. (c) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee shall be entitled to make such appointments to the professional and clerical staff of the Committee as may be provided within the budget approved for such purposes by the Committee. Such appointee shall be assigned to such business of the full Committee as the chairman of the Committee considers advisable. (d) Sufficient Staff. The chairman shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee. (e) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of Committee Staff. The chairman shall ensure that the minority members of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of Committee staff. (f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services. Any contract for the temporary services or intermittent service of individual consultants or organizations to make studies or advise the Committee or its subcommittees with respect to any matter within their jurisdiction shall be deemed to have been approved by a majority of the members of the Committee if approved by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee. Such approval shall not be deemed to have been given if at least one-third of the members of the Committee request in writing that the Committee formally act on such a contract, if the request is made within 10 days after the latest date on which such chairman or chairmen, and such ranking minority member or members, approve such contract. Rule 15. Supervision, Duties of Staff. (a) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the chairman who, in consultation with the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines appropriate. (b) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the minority members of the Committee, who may delegate such authority as they determine appropriate. Rule 16. Committee Budget. (a) Preparation of Committee Budget. The chairman of the Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall for the 109th Congress prepare a preliminary budget for the Committee, with such budget including necessary amounts for professional and clerical staff, travel, investigations, equipment and miscellaneous expenses of the Committee and the subcommittees, and which shall be adequate to fully discharge the Committee's responsibilities for legislation and oversight. Such budget shall be presented by the chairman to the majority party caucus of the Committee and thereafter to the full Committee for its approval.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Joe F. Colvin, who is retiring as president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Over his long and distinguished career, Mr. Colvin has played a key role in ensuring that America will continue to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy. Mr. Colvin began his career more than 40 years ago as a submarine officer in the U.S. Navy. After leaving the Navy, he held many different leadership positions in the nuclear energy industry. Over the past nine years as head of NEI, Mr. Colvin has led the industry through a period of extraordinary change. When he began, the future of nuclear energy was by no means certain as many expected that most of America's reactors would close. Recent events have proven dramatically different. Today, our country's 103 reactors are essential to the stability of our electricity supply and our clean air. Instead of closing, reactors are renewing their licenses and extending their operation. Now, several companies have begun to explore possibilities for licensing new nuclear power plants in the United States. This transformation is a testament to Mr. Colvin's vision and diligence. Mr. Colvin has testified numerous times before the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other congressional committees, and has represented his industry well. In doing so, he has guided important policy initiatives, advanced numerous regulatory and legislative issues and cultivated a favorable investor climate for the industry that NEI represents. Mr. Colvin's dedication and commitment to the industry he served will be missed, as will his enthusiasm and good nature. He will be missed also by his many friends in Congress. Hence, I extend to him best wishes for his retirement, and on behalf of the House of Representatives, thank him for his contributions.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for helping to expedite this piece of legislation. They could not be on the floor, so we have the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who is going to control their floor time, and I want to thank him for his help. I am reluctantly doing this this evening, not because of the merits of the bill. I support the merits of the bill, but I do not support the procedure under which we are doing this and the reluctance of the other body to find a way to help pay for what we are about to do. This Congress should be taking serious steps to address our budget problems and our growing Federal debt. The President who just won reelection, 52 percent of the vote, has told America that deficit reduction will be one of his highest priorities, and I would like to have the other body begin to join this body and the President of the United States in making that a reality. Senate 2618 is a good bill. It will extend for one year additional funding for the Medicare Qualified Individual Program, better known as the QI program. This program will allow approximately 160,000 low- income beneficiaries enrolled in the program to continue to receive assistance to pay for their Medicare part B premium which is optional. That is fair and appropriate. We began to help subsidize those premium payments back in 1997, so we have been doing it now for the last 7 years. I support that. I think it is appropriate to help our low-income seniors help pay for their Medicare option part B coverage, but I also think we ought to have a way to help pay for that subsidy. This bill does not do that. I think we need to begin to address the problem of mandatory automatic entitlement growth, and to extend a program like this where we could have an offset to pay for it, in my opinion, is inexcusable. It has been said that nobody notices a deficit until its weight finally collapses the government. I do not intend to ever let that happen, and we could be taking a small step to lessen that load today. Regrettably we are not. Let me state what we have done in the last 2 weeks. Again, the underlying bill that we are passing is a good piece of legislation, and I support that. The Speaker of the House supports it. The majority leader supports it. The ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the ranking member on the subcommittee, the subcommittee chairman, the full committee chairman, we all support it; but we found a way to pay for this bill. We found out that under existing law people that receive prescription drug benefits that are paid for by Medicare, the person that actually provides a prescription can file paperwork to get an automatic rebate from the drug manufacturer. It is in the law. We do not force the person who is providing the prescription to actually apply for the rebate. So we have some providers of prescriptions who for whatever reason do not fill out the necessary paperwork to get the automatic rebate that has already been negotiated. The offset that we came out with in the House was to simply say that if there was a drug rebate that had already been negotiated, you had to file for it and receive it so you could give that rebate to the State and the Federal Government. That would save approximately $140 million over the life of the extension. The White House supported it. CNS supported it. The House supported it, but the other body did not support it. They wanted to extend the program but not provide an offset to help pay for the extension. Now, I offered this afternoon to pull this bill back and try to work out something that when we first got back in the next Congress we could do the offset. The Speaker and the majority leader felt like we needed to go ahead and pass this bill this evening, and I am going to go ahead and do that. It is a good bill. It needs to be passed. We need to provide this additional supplemental assistance for low-income seniors to pay for their part B prescription drug benefit. But this is the last time as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that I am going to extend an entitlement program without some sort of an offset. So for tonight we can say that this is the beginning of the Barton doctrine. I hope in the next year or so it becomes the Bush-Hastert- Frist, even the Pelosi, redoctrine, that we can work on a bipartisan basis, bicameral with the administration, that as we extend the existing entitlement programs and create new ones, we come up with a way to pay for them. But for this evening I rise to support the passage of this bill. It will provide much needed assistance for 160,000 low-income seniors for the next year. In the next year, I am going to work with interested parties in the administration, the other body and this body to come up with reforms that continue these necessary benefits but also come up with a way to pay for them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2618) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend medicare cost-sharing for the medicare part B premium for qualifying individuals through September 2005.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following remarks for the Record. We have before us H.R. 4518, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004'' (SHVERA). The bill will also be known as ``The W.J. `Billy' Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004,'' in honor of our former House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. Naming this bill after Chairman Tauzin is only fitting, as he has done so much to foster the growth of satellite television, increase television service competition, and improve choices for consumers. Chairman Tauzin is currently recovering from a bout with cancer. My understanding is that he is doing so with his characteristic vigor and good humor, and is faring well. I am sure all join me in wishing him a speedy recovery. H.R. 4518 reauthorizes certain expiring communications and copyright act provisions that govern the retransmission of broadcast television signals by direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers such as DirecTV and EchoStar. It also modernizes other provisions to enhance consumer choice, increase parity between satellite and cable operators, and further promote competition. Because the bill implicates both communications and copyright issues, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee have worked closely in drafting the legislation. Indeed, pursuant to a compromise between the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 4518 has now been amended to combine its copyright provisions with the Communications Act provisions of H.R. 4501. H.R. 4501 resulted from an extensive examination of satellite television issues in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on March 10, 2004, and a legislative hearing on April 1, 2004. The Subcommittee then marked up legislation on April 28, 2004, and the full Committee marked up legislation on June 3, 2004. That legislation became H.R. 4501. The Committee filed a report on H.R. 4501 (H. Rept. 108-634) on July 22, 2004. What follows is a section-by-section analysis of some of the Communications provisions in Title II of H.R. 4518, as amended, that have changed from the provisions that originated in H.R. 4501. Mr. Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, also will address some of the changes. Section 202. Cable/satellite comparability Section 340(a) authorizes a satellite operator to retransmit an out- of-market signal to a subscriber in a community if the signal is significantly viewed over the air in the community. A satellite operator may carry such a signal whether or not the station is affiliated with a network, as evidenced by section 340(a)'s reference to the carriage of ``the signal of any station located outside the local market'' that is significantly viewed, as opposed to any ``network station'' (emphasis added). In the cable context, the FCC allows a cable operator to carry the digital signal of a broadcast station as significantly viewed once the FCC has ruled that the analog signal of the station is significantly viewed. In re Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals, CS Docket No. 98-120, First Report and Order & Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-22, at para. 100. In implementing Section 340, the FCC should treat satellite operators in a comparable fashion to cable operators to the greatest extent possible with respect to carriage of significantly viewed stations, in terms of both current and future significantly viewed rulings. Section 340(a) also provides that a satellite operator may carry an unlimited number of significantly viewed signals, just as a cable operator may. Section 340(a) does so by explicitly stating that satellite operators may retransmit such signals ``[i]n addition to the broadcast signals that subscribers may receive under section 338 [governing carriage of local signals] and 339 [governing carriage of distant signals].'' This clarification for significantly viewed signals is necessary because section 339 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 339) prohibits a satellite carrier from providing a household with the signals of more than two distant affiliates of a particular network per day. Section 340(a)(1) provides that satellite operators are allowed to carry as significantly viewed any signal that the FCC has previously determined to be significantly viewed for purposes of cable carriage subject, however, to the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. Satellite carriers are authorized upon enactment of SHVERA to carry such signals. Section 340(a)(2) provides that satellite operators may also carry as significantly viewed any signals that the FCC determines in the future to be significantly viewed, so long as the FCC applies the same criteria to determine whether a signal is significantly viewed for purposes of both cable and satellite carriage. The FCC may also make significantly viewed determinations in areas without cable service, again, so long as it uses the same criteria as it applies in determining whether a signal is significantly viewed for purposes of cable carriage. Because current regulations provide only for cable carriage of significantly viewed signals, the FCC now bases significantly-viewed determinations on cable communities. In areas of the country that do not have cable service, there is no cable community. Section 340(a)(2) is intended to allow satellite operators to carry a significantly viewed signal in a community where no cable franchise exists so long as the signal is significantly viewed in the community based on the same quantitative criteria as currently apply to cable operators. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.5(i), 76.54. Section 340(i)(3) authorizes the FCC to define what constitutes a satellite community for these purposes. Any signal the FCC determines to be significantly viewed for purposes of satellite carriage in an area where cable is not present would also be significantly viewed for cable carriage should a cable operator enter the community in the future. The FCC shall maintain a unified list of significantly viewed stations and communities, which will apply to both cable and satellite operators. Section 340(b)(1) provides that a satellite operator may retransmit a significantly viewed analog signal of a distant network station to a subscriber in a local market only if the subscriber also receives local-into-local service under section 338 of the Communications Act. Similarly, section 340(b)(2)(A) conditions retransmission to a subscriber of a significantly viewed digital signal of a distant network broadcast station on retransmission to that subscriber of a digital signal broadcast by a local affiliate of the same network. Section 340(b)(2)(B) prevents the satellite operator from retransmitting a local affiliate's digital signal in a less robust format than a significantly viewed digital signal of a distant affiliate of the same network, such as by down-converting the local affiliate's signal but not the distant affiliate's signal from high- definition digital format to analog or standard definition digital format. Section 340(b)(2)(B)(i) requires carriage of the ``equivalent bandwidth'' to recognize, for example, that a local affiliate may be multicasting while a distant affiliate of the same network may be broadcasting in high-definition, and to ensure that the local affiliate's choice to multicast does not prevent the satellite operator from retransmitting a significantly viewed signal of a distant affiliate of the network that chooses to broadcast in high-definition. Section 340(b)(2)(B)(ii) requires carriage of the ``entire bandwidth'' to ensure that a satellite operator may still retransmit a distant significantly viewed digital signal of a network affiliate in a more robust format than a digital signal of a local broadcaster of the same network so long as the satellite operator is carrying the digital signal of the local affiliate in its original format. For example, if a local broadcaster chooses to transmit only a single, standard definition digital broadcast stream, the satellite operator may still retransmit multicast or high-definition streams from a distant affiliate of the same network if the satellite operator carries the local broadcaster's standard definition stream and meets the other conditions for the provision of significantly viewed signals. Section 340(i)(4) directs the FCC to define ``equivalent bandwidth'' and ``entire bandwidth'' by regulation. Section 340(b)(2)(B) is not intended to prevent a satellite operator from using compression technology; to require a satellite operator to use the identical bandwidth or bit rate as that used by the local or distant broadcaster whose signal it is retransmitting; or to require a satellite operator to use the identical bandwidth or bit rate for a local broadcaster as it does for a distant broadcaster. Nor is section 340(b)(2)(B) intended to affect a satellite operator's carry-one, carry-all obligations, or the definitions of ``program related'' and ``primary video.'' The limitations of section 340(b)(1) and section 340(b)(2) specifically apply only to carriage of ``network stations.'' Non- network broadcast stations by definition do not belong to a network. Thus, the limitations in section 340(b)(1) and section 340(b)(2) do not restrict a satellite operator's carriage of a significantly viewed signal of a non-network broadcast station. Section 340(b)(3) provides that the absence of an affiliate of a particular network in a local market does not prevent a satellite operator from retransmitting a significantly viewed signal of a distant broadcast station from that network. Many markets do not have a full complement of network affiliates. This provision allows a satellite provider to retransmit into such a market a distant significantly viewed analog signal of a network broadcast station even though the market does not have a local affiliate from the same network. Similarly, it allows a satellite operator to retransmit into a market a distant significantly viewed digital signal of a network broadcast station if the market does not have a local affiliate from the same network. Section 340(b)(4) allows a local network affiliate to waive the limitations in sections 340(b)(1) or 340(b)(2) as they apply to the retransmission, into the local affiliate's local market, of a significantly viewed signal of a distant station affiliated with the same network. The waiver can be as broad or as narrow as the affiliate wants. For example, a local affiliate can waive the application of sections 340(b)(1) or 340(b)(2) to one or more consumers in the local market, with respect to one or more specific distant affiliates of the same network, and with respect to one or more satellite operators. The broadcaster may do so as part of a negotiated agreement and for any reason, including common ownership among the stations. This is intended to be a private negotiation, not one over which the FCC or any other governmental body must preside; nor must any governmental body grant or approve the waiver. Whether to grant a waiver is a decision to be made solely based on the broadcaster's own business judgment, although a broadcaster may grant a waiver as part of an agreement made with a satellite operator or other parties. A broadcaster is also not required to execute any particular document as part of the waiver process, although parties who intend to rely on such a waiver or any attendant agreement will likely want to reduce the waiver and the agreement to writing, so that they have something to refer to should any dispute arise in the future. Such waivers are distinct from the waivers referred to in section 339(c)(2) of the Communications Act, although broadcasters are free to execute both types of waivers in tandem or with a single document. Unlike the section 339(c)(2) waivers, broadcasters must affirmatively grant section 340(b)(4) waivers; they shall not be deemed granted by the broadcaster just because the broadcaster has not responded to a request within a certain amount of time. Nor are section 340(b)(4) waivers or agreements subject to the section 325 good-faith negotiation requirement. Section 340(b)(4) will facilitate agreements that provide consumers with more viewing choices. Section 340(c)(1) gives the FCC 60 days from enactment of SHVERA to publish a consolidated list of the current stations and the communities in which they are significantly viewed, as well as to commence a rulemaking proceeding to implement new section 340. The FCC will have one year from enactment of SHVERA to complete the rulemaking. Section 340(c)(2) requires the FCC to make the significantly-viewed list publicly available in electronic form, and to update it within 10 business days of any modifications. Ways it may do so include posting the list on the Internet or making an electronic file of the list available for download. Section 340(c)(3) makes clear that satellite operators may petition the FCC to add stations or communities to the significantly-viewed list as well as to have the network nonduplication or syndicated exclusivity rules applied in certain communities to stations on the list. Section 340(d)(1) makes clear that carriage in a local market of a distant significantly viewed signal is not mandatory. Cable operators are under no obligation to carry in a local market a distant significantly viewed signal, and satellite carriage of such a distant signal in a local market is to be similarly voluntary. Section 340(d)(1) also makes clear that any right of a station to have its signal carried in a local market under the carry-one, carry-all provisions of section 338 is not affected by the significantly viewed status of the signal in another market. Section 340(d)(2) provides that the status of a distant signal as significantly viewed does not affect whether a satellite operator must get retransmission consent to carry that signal into a local market. Cable operators must obtain retransmission consent to carry distant significantly viewed signals into a local market and the same obligation shall apply to satellite operators. If the satellite operator is exempt from having to obtain retransmission consent for other reasons, however, then retransmission consent would not be necessary. For example, a satellite operator is exempt under section 325(b) (47 U.S.C. Sec. 325(b)) from having to obtain retransmission consent when providing a distant signal of a network to an unserved subscriber who cannot receive an adequate over-the-air signal from an affiliate of the same network. The satellite operator would still be exempt from having to negotiate retransmission consent when providing a significantly viewed signal if it was providing it as a distant signal to an unserved consumer. Section 340(e) allows the FCC to apply its network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to ``remove'' stations from the significantly viewed list as applied to satellite operators in a similar manner as it currently does with cable operators. Many, if not all, broadcast stations enter into contracts to be the sole providers of particular network or syndicated programming within a certain geographic radius. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.93, 76.103. When broadcast stations do so, the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules generally require cable operators to black out the duplicative programming when they retransmit signals from distant stations into the protected areas. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.92, 76.101. If the FCC determines that a distant signal is significantly viewed in a community, the FCC exempts the signal from the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules so that the cable operator can carry the distant signal, including the duplicative programming, into the local market. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.92(1), 76.106(a). If the signal ever loses viewership such that it no longer qualifies as significantly viewed, the FCC does not literally remove the signal from the significantly viewed list, but parties can petition the FCC to re-impose the blackout obligations. In the satellite context, however, the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules ordinarily apply only to retransmission of nationally distributed superstations. See 47 C.F.R. 76.120(b), Sec. Sec. 76.122, 76.123. They do not currently apply to retransmission of distant signals of network stations or non-network stations that are not superstations. Section 340(e)(1) is intended to give the FCC authority to apply the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to distant signals of network or non-network stations in a way that replicates, where and when appropriate, the way the FCC ``removes'' signals from the significantly viewed list for cable. Section 340(e)(2) makes clear that section 340(e)(1) does not authorize the FCC to apply the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to other lawful retransmissions of distant signals of network or non-network stations, such as when a consumer is unserved over the air.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2896) to modify and extend certain privatization requirements of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2896 and urge swift passage of this noncontroversial legislation. Earlier this week, the Senate passed S. 2896, to extend the deadline by which INTELSAT and Inmarsat are required to conduct an initial public offering (IPO) under the ORBIT Act and to further broaden the options available to these companies to divest their government shareholders. I commend my colleagues in the Senate for expeditiously addressing this important issue. The ORBIT Act was enacted in March 2000 to promote a competitive market for satellite communications through the privatization of inter- governmental organizations. To achieve that competitive satellite marketplace, the ORBIT Act called on Inmarsat and INTELSAT to conduct an initial public offering (IPO) by a date certain--December 31, 2001. The purpose of this IPO requirement was to ensure independence by substantially diluting the ownership of these privatized companies by their former owners, many of which were foreign governmental entities. Such dilution would facilitate a more competitive satellite marketplace devoid of the perverse influences associated with government ownership and control. However, due to volatility in the financial markets, and the telecommunications sector specifically, Congress has repeatedly been forced to grant additional time for these companies to conduct their statutorily mandated IPOs. Unfortunately, the market conditions have not improved. Today, these companies, instead of going to the public equity markets, have opted to use private equity deals to divest themselves of government ownership. I fully supported the goal of independence and competition when we enacted the ORBIT Act, and I still do today. Indeed, the action we take today is fully consistent with this policy objective. This bill, while it does not eliminate the IPO requirement, allows other methods, which are currently being used in the marketplace to show ``substantial dilution.'' This bill makes the ORBIT Act consistent with what is happening today in the real world. There are certainly other issues in the ORBIT Act that deserve to be explored and I intend to ask Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton to hold a hearing on the Act early next year to examine what further needs to be accomplished. But today, I fully support S. 2896 and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the way to get valuable spectrum promptly into the hands of public safety officials without shutting off consumers' televisions is to enact comprehensive, hard-deadline digital television legislation. The Senate-passed 9/11 bill, however, requires the return of only a portion of that spectrum, rather than all the spectrum that broadcasters are currently using for analog broadcasts. Broadcasters estimate that these provisions would shut off as many as 75 stations. Many of these broadcasters carry major networks in major markets. Because the Senate bill does not require the other broadcasters to vacate their analog spectrum, there will be nowhere to relocate these 75 stations. By waiting until the 109th Congress set a date-certain for all broadcasters to clear the spectrum they use for analog broadcasts, we can turn spectrum over to public safety sooner, and all broadcasters will be able to move to their final digital channels. The remaining spectrum can be auctioned for advanced commercial services, such as wireless broadband. Some of the billions of dollars generated can then be used for digital-to-analog converter boxes so that households relying on over-the-air analog broadcasts can continue to use their analog televisions. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing the Sense of the Congress that the responsible policy should be to address this issue comprehensively through regular order, not in a piecemeal fashion on a bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I look forward next year to working with Ranking Minority Member Dingell, Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Markey, along with all of the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to pass hard-deadline legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that public safety gets its needed spectrum without making televisions go dark.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2896.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will focus on what the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) asked me to focus on, which is title II of H.R. 4518 which addresses a communications provision that originated in H.R. 4501. Before I do that, I do want to say how appreciative I am that we have all agreed to name this after the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). It really is a tribute to him. He was an expert in telecommunications. He took a personal interest in telecommunications acts, and I am proud that my House colleagues have agreed that we can name the bill in his honor. I would also like to inform the House that another of our colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, did have a lung implant last evening, and he is doing well today in the hospital. When he came out from anesthesia, his first question was was his staff at work today. So he was obviously doing well. Let me go to the issue at hand. Current law authorizes direct broadcast satellite operators, such as DirecTV and EchoStar, to provide the signals of distant broadcast network stations to a consumer who cannot receive an over-the-air signal from the local network stations. The Communications Act exempts satellite operators from having to obtain consent from a distant broadcaster to carry the signal into the local market. That exemption expires at the end of this year. The bill before us would extend that exemption to December 31, 2009. Cable operators currently may carry certain out-of-market signals into a local market if the signals can be viewed by a significant number of people in the local market using over-the-air antennas. The bill would extend to satellite operators the authority to carry such significantly viewed signals on comparable terms as cable operators. EchoStar currently uses two satellite dishes in some markets to provide local broadcast stations. Some broadcasters argue that this harms the ratings of stations on the second dish because not all customers are aware of, or want to install, that second dish. The bill before us would give EchoStar 1 year from date of enactment to provide all local stations in a market on a single satellite dish. The bill would also require satellite operators to stop offering distant signals in markets where they carry local signals. It does, however, grandfather certain existing subscribers. Although broadcasters are starting to transmit in digital, their digital signals do not yet reach all consumers over the air. As a result, many consumers could not receive a digital signal over the air even if they had a digital television. Once the digital television transition is complete, analog broadcasts will cease. At that time, it will be important for satellite operators to be able to provide distant digital signals to consumers in so-called ``white areas,'' who cannot receive local digital signals over the air, just as satellite operators currently offer distant analog signals to subscribers who are unserved over the air. The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit a report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce at the end of 2005 on how it would propose to implement a digital white air area once the DTV transition ends. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to bring before the House today H.R. 4518, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004'', SHVERA. The bill will also be known as ``The W.J. `Billy' Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004,'' in honor of our former House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. He has done so much to foster the growth of satellite television, increase television service competition, and improve choices for consumers that it is only fitting that we name this bill after him. Chairman Tauzin is currently recovering from a bout with cancer. My understanding is that he is doing so with his characteristic vigor and good humor, and is faring well. I am sure all join me in wishing him a speedy recovery. The bill reauthorizes certain expiring provisions in the communications and copyright acts regarding satellite television. It also increases parity and enhances competition between satellite and cable operators by modernizing other provisions. Because the bill implicates both communications and copyright issues, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee have worked closely in drafting the legislation. Indeed, pursuant to a compromise between the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 4518 has now been amended to combine its copyright provisions with the Communications Act provisions of H.R. 4501, which my committee reported 3 months ago. H.R. 4501 resulted from an extensive examination of satellite television issues. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on March 10, 2004, and a legislative hearing on April 1, 2004. The subcommittee then marked up the legislation on April 28, 2004, and the full committee marked up the bill on June 3, 2004. I will focus the remainder of my remarks to title II of H.R. 4518, as amended, which addresses the Communications Act provisions that originated in H.R. 4501. Current law authorizes direct broadcast satellite, DBS, operators, such as DirecTV and Echostar, to provide the signals of distant broadcast network stations to a consumer who cannot receive an over- the-air signal from the local network stations. The Communications Act exempts satellite operators from having to obtain consent from a distant broadcaster to carry the signal into the local market. That exemption expires at the end of this year. The bill would extend it to December 31, 2009. Cable operators currently may carry certain out-of-market signals into a local market if the signals can be viewed by a ``significant number'' of people in the local market using over-the-air antennas. The bill would extend to satellite operators the authority to carry such significantly viewed signals on comparable terms as cable operators. Echostar currently uses two satellite dishes in some markets to provide local broadcast stations. Some broadcasters argue that this harms the ratings of stations on the second dish because not all customers are aware of, or want to install, the second dish. The bill would give Echostar 1 year from enactment to provide all local stations in a market on a single satellite dish. The bill also requires satellite operators to stop offering distant signals in markets where they carry local signals. It does, however, grandfather certain existing subscribers. Although broadcasters are starting to transmit in digital, their digital signals do not yet reach all consumers over the air. As a result, many consumers could not receive a digital signal over the air even if they had a digital television. Once the digital television transition is complete, analog broadcasts will cease. At that time, it will be important for satellite operators to be able to provide distant digital signals to consumers in ``white areas'' who cannot receive local digital signals over the air, just as satellite operators currently offer distant analog signals to subscribers who are ``unserved'' over the air. The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit a report to the House Energy and Commerce Committee at the end of 2005 on how it would propose to implement a digital white area once the LTV transition ends. Since its introduction about a decade ago, satellite television service has become a significant facilities-based competitor to cable service. Satellite retransmission of broadcast programming is responsible for much of the growth. Satellite-delivered television service started as a way to serve consumers, particularly in rural areas, who could not get adequate over-the-air reception and did not have access to cable. But DBS does more than serve otherwise unserved areas. Its nationwide coverage allows it to compete against cable operators, and in so doing it improves consumer options. Indeed, the presence of satellite operators has caused cable operators to upgrade their infrastructure to allow consumers to receive high-quality video and more channels, as well as interactive, broadband, video-on-demand, and Internet telephony services. By extending the expiring provisions, increasing parity, and promoting further competition, this legislation will continue to enhance service to consumers. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished subcommittee chairman, control the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, do we have the time allocated equally on both sides, or do I need to yield time to the minority?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) have 10 minutes?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that perhaps I needed to yield time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), but apparently not, so I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 34, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to support the bill of the gentlewoman from Missouri, but I also, as we wrap up, want to reflect on what we have just seen on the House floor. We have just debated nine bills on suspension that have come out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in a year in which a lot of the public thinks that all we do is fight each other on the House floor and get enraged at each other and confront each other, I want the country to know that there is another side to this Congress. We can have equality and cooperation. We have seen that today. We have just had nine bills put on the suspension calendar. When it goes on the suspension calendar, what it means is that the majority and the minority both at the committee level and at the leadership level agree to put the bill on the floor. It also means that you have to get a two-thirds vote to pass. In the nine bills that we have just debated, some of them are substantive bills. We have a bill that deals with asthma that I consider to be very substantive. We had a bill that deals with islet cell transplantation that is very substantive. We have a reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Control Screening Act by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that is obviously substantive. We have a brand new patient navigator bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) put together. We have a bill for defibrillation that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has authored. We have a prescription drug monitoring bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) have worked together on in a bipartisan basis. These are substantive bills. It shows that we can cooperate. It shows that we can work together. We also had, it is not a health-related bill but the spyware bill that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) worked on shows that, in the area of technology, we can work together. I hope that we showed the country that the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the ``e'' and ``c'' does stand for equality and cooperation, and that this is a precursor of what is to come in the next Congress. I urge support of the McCarthy bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) for sponsoring this legislation. I think its basic intent, that is, as a Nation we need to do more ourselves to promote healthy lifestyles, is extremely sound. I know insurance companies are already doing just that in this area. I believe that what the insurance companies are doing is being very constructive. I also know there are limitations on what we can legitimately expect insurance companies to do. Individual and family responsibility remains the key and cannot be replaced by laws and resolutions. Having said that, I would like to take a moment to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), for her service to this House and her leadership on this issue. She will be leaving us after the conclusion of this Congress, and she will be missed. She has been a valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Her brightness and her willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion across the aisle have helped move numerous pieces of legislation, and we will certainly miss her as we hopefully start the next Congress. Today, we are here to support her as she brings this important resolution to the floor of the House of Representatives. She has been a tireless leader on this issue, and I think it is a fitting tribute to her that we bring this bill to the floor. The people of the Fifth District of Missouri should be very grateful for her service to the country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 34) expressing the sense of the Congress that private health insurance companies should take a proactive role in promoting healthy lifestyles, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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