Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. I continue to reserve.

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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?

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.