October 3, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10807 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, Gary 

Mitchell 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (KS) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murphy, Tim 

Murtha 

Musgrave 

Myrick 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor 

Paul 

Payne 

Pearce 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Peterson (MN) 

Peterson (PA) 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe 

Pomeroy 

Porter 

Price (GA) 

Price (NC) 

Pryce (OH) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rahall 

Ramstad 

Rangel 

Regula 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renzi 

Reyes 

Reynolds 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross 

Rothman 

Roybal-Allard 

Royce 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Ryan (WI) 

Salazar 

Sali 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Saxton 

Scalise 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schmidt 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Sensenbrenner 

Serrano 

Sessions 

Sestak 

Shadegg 

Shays 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Snyder 

Solis 

Souder 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stearns 

Stupak 

Sullivan 

Tancredo 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Tierney 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Turner 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walberg 

Walden (OR) 

Walsh (NY) 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch (VT) 

Weldon (FL) 

Weller 

Westmoreland 

Wexler 

Whitfield (KY) 

Wilson (NM) 

Wilson (OH) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman (VA) 

Wolf 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—22 

Bilbray 

Carter 

Cubin 

Everett 

Gallegly 

Gilchrest 

Gingrey 

Gohmert 

Harman 

Hastings (FL) 

Hobson 

Kingston 

LaHood 

Marchant 

McCrery 

Miller, George 

Pickering 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sires 

Stark 

Sutton 

Wamp 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on this vote. 

b 1329 

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the 

Senate bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES ORGAN 

TRANSPLANT AUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2008 

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent to take from 

the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 6469) 

to amend the Public Health Service 

Act to authorize increased Federal 

funding for the Organ Procurement and 

Transplantation Network, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its 

immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

MOTION OFFERED BY MS. DE GETTE

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Speaker, I 

have a motion at the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Ms. DeGette moves that the House concur 

in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6469. 

The text of the Senate amendment is 

as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stephanie 

Tubbs Jones Organ Transplant Authorization 

Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE ORGAN 

PROCUREMENT AND TRANSPLANTATION NETWORK. 

Section 372(a) of the Public Health Service Act 

(42 U.S.C. 274(a)) is amended by striking 

‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3. REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

Human Services shall request that the Executive 

Director of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network submit to Congress, not 

later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, a report that shall include— 

(1) the identity of transplant programs that 

have become inactive or have closed since the 

heart allocation policy change of 2006; 

(2) the distance to the next closest operational 

heart transplant center from such inactivated or 

closed programs and an evaluation of whether 

or not access to care has been reduced to the 

population previously serviced by such inactive 

or closed program; 

(3) the number of patients with rural zip codes 

that received transplants after the heart allocation policy change of 2006 as compared with the 

number of such patients that received such 

transplants prior to such heart allocation policy 

change; 

(4) a comparison of the number of transplants 

performed, the mortality rate for individuals on 

the transplant waiting lists, and the post-transplant survival rate nationally and by region 

prior to and after the heart allocation policy 

change of 2006; and 

(5) specifically with respect to allosensitized 

patients, a comparison of the number of heart 

transplants performed, the mortality rate for individuals on the heart transplant waiting lists, 

and the post heart transplant survival rate nationally and by region prior to and after the 

heart allocation policy change of 2006. 

(b) LIMITATION ON FUNDING.—The increase 

provided for in the amendment made by section 

2 shall not apply with respect to contracts entered into under section 372(a) of the Public 

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274(a)) after the 

date that is 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act if the Executive Director of the 

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network fails to submit the report under subsection 

(a). 

The motion was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

GENERAL LEAVE 

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill 

just passed by the House. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? 

There was no objection. 

f 

CHILD SAFE VIEWING ACT OF 2007 

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be 

discharged from further consideration 

of the Senate bill (S. 602) to develop the 

next generation of parental control 

technology, and ask for its immediate 

consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the Senate 

bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? 

There was no objection. 

The text of the Senate bill is as follows: 

S. 602 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Safe 

Viewing Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Video programming has a direct impact 

on a child’s perception of safe and reasonable 

behavior. 

(2) Children may imitate actions they witness on video programming, including language, drug use, and sexual conduct. 

(3) Studies suggest that the strong appeal 

of video programming erodes the ability of 

parents to develop responsible attitudes and 

behavior in their children. 

(4) The average American child watches 4 

hours of television each day. 

(5) 99.9 percent of all consumer complaints 

logged by the Federal Communications Commission in the first quarter of 2006 regarding 

radio and television broadcasting were because of obscenity, indecency, and profanity. 

(6) There is a compelling government interest in empowering parents to limit their 

children’s exposure to harmful television 

content. 

(7) Section 1 of the Communications Act of 

1934 requires the Federal Communications 

Commission to promote the safety of life and 

property through the use of wire and radio 

communications. 

(8) In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

Congress authorized Parental Choice in Television Programming and the V-Chip. Congress further directed action on alternative 

blocking technology as new video technology 

advanced. 

SEC. 3. EXAMINATION OF ADVANCED BLOCKING 

TECHNOLOGIES AND EXISTING PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT TOOLS. 

(a) INQUIRY REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Federal Communications Commission 

shall initiate a notice of inquiry to consider 

measures to examine— 

(1) the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications devices 

or platforms; 

(2) methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the 

packaging or pricing of a content provider’s 

offering; and 

(3) the existence, availability, and use of 

parental empowerment tools and initiatives 

already in the market. 

(b) CONTENT OF PROCEEDING.—In conducting the inquiry required under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider 

advanced blocking technologies that— 

(1) may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including 

wired, wireless, and Internet platforms; 

(2) may be appropriate across a wide variety of devices capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio programming, including television sets, DVD players, VCRs, cable 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE