November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10769 

bipartisan bill was put forward which 

would have given judges a long-awaited 

pay raise. The Federal Judicial Salary 

Restoration Act of 2008 would have 

brought judicial salaries more closely 

in line with what the position merits. 

Although this bill had support on both 

sides of the aisle, we were unable to 

pass it this year. We will return to that 

proposal in the very near future. 

The bill we have introduced today 

simply provides a cost-of-living increase for this year. I favor a proposal, 

included in the Salary Restoration Act, 

which would guarantee judges a costof-living adjustment every year. But at 

the very least, we must provide such an 

increase for this year. 

Between 1993 and 2001, the Federal judiciary has received only three out of 

eight proposed cost-of-living adjustments. Because of Congress’s failure to 

act, judicial pay has declined relative 

to the rest of the economy, and judicial 

independence is threatened. It is time 

we stop allowing judicial pay to diminish. 

If we are to preserve the judicial 

independence envisioned by our country’s Founders, we must not allow judicial pay to continue to ebb. Passage of 

this bill would be a small downpayment on the more meaningful steps we 

need to take to treat judges with the 

respect they deserve. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the 

very beginning of the 110th Congress, I 

joined with Senators REID, SPECTER, 

FEINSTEIN, and CORNYN to pass legislation to authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for the salaries of 

U.S. Justices and judges for fiscal year 

2007. Now as we wrap up this session, 

we are again compelled to take remedial action, because a COLA for our 

Federal judiciary was not included in 

the continuing resolution for fiscal 

year 2009. 

Earlier today, we attempted to pass a 

bipartisan bill to repeal the section of 

the U.S. Code that is a barrier to Federal judges receiving an automatic 

cost-of-living adjustment. The Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts notes that when adjusted for inflation the pay rate for Federal judges 

has declined by 25 percent since 1969. In 

1975, Congress enacted the Executive 

Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, 

intended to give judges, Members of 

Congress, and other high-ranking executive branch officials automatic 

COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. 

However, in 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97–92, mandating 

specific congressional action to give 

COLAs to judges. This action has resulted in judges failing to receive a 

cost-of-living adjustment when other 

Federal employees have received one. 

Unfortunately, there was an objection 

on the other side of the aisle that prevented passage of the measure to repeal this antiquated section and to ensure that the wages of our Federal 

judges can keep up with inflation. 

The bipartisan legislation we are now 

trying to move provides a COLA for 

Federal judges consistent with the law 

and with fairness. I hope that this 

measure, providing judges with a COLA 

for fiscal year 2009, can pass by both 

sides of the aisle by unanimous consent. I had sincerely hoped that we 

could have passed a more comprehensive judicial pay bill this Congress 

given all the work we dedicated to the 

issue in the Judiciary Committees of 

both the Senate and the House of Representatives but at a minimum we 

should not allow judicial salaries to 

slip even further behind. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a 

strong and independent judiciary is essential to the administration of justice 

in our country. 

It is my understanding that the Senate has been unable to clear bipartisan 

legislation introduced by Senators 

REID and MCCONNELL which would repeal the requirement that Congress 

specially authorize a cost-of-living increase each year for the Federal judiciary. Repealing this provision, which is 

known as section 140, would in essence 

ensure that Federal judges are treated 

in the same manner as Members of 

Congress regarding salary adjustments. 

I am disappointed that this bipartisan effort is being blocked, but I am 

pleased that the Senate is expected to 

pass another measure, which I have cosponsored, that would provide a costof-living increase to judges for at least 

the next year. Without this fix, Members of Congress will receive a COLA 

increase in January along with most of 

the Federal workforce, but not the judiciary. I don’t see any reasonable justification for giving Members of Congress and the Federal workforce a costof-living increase and denying the judiciary a similar adjustment. 

There are ongoing discussions about 

the extent we should provide for an 

overall increase in judicial compensation, but the issue we are discussing 

today isn’t about making major adjustments to judicial salaries. I support reforming judicial salaries, and I hope 

the next Congress will be able to pass 

legislation to this end, but in the 

meantime I believe it is important that 

we don’t deny the judiciary a reasonable cost-of-living increase. 

Leaving the judiciary behind would 

be wrongheaded and shortsighted. By 

denying these dedicated public servants adequate compensation, we are 

making it more difficult to attract and 

retain judges of the highest caliber. 

I would also like to note my appreciation for the majority leader’s efforts 

to address this issue. Although attempts to repeal section 140 have 

stalled at this point, I know Senator 

REID, along with Senator LEAHY, are 

committed to ensuring that we maintain a strong judiciary and to enacting 

necessary reforms. I will continue to do 

everything I can to support these efforts. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the bill be 

read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 

table, and that any statements relating 

to the bill be printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The bill (S. 3711) was ordered to be 

engrossed for a third reading, was read 

the third time, and passed, as follows: 

S. 3711 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR 

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 

Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97– 

92, justices and judges of the United States 

are authorized during fiscal year 2009 to receive a salary adjustment in accordance with 

section 461 of title 28, United States Code. 

f 

MAKING A TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO THE PAUL WELLSTONE 

AND PETE DOMENICI MENTAL 

HEALTH PARITY AND ADDICTION 

EQUITY ACT OF 2008 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate 

proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3712 introduced earlier 

today by Senator KENNEDY. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the bill by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 3712) to make technical corrections in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the bill be 

read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 

table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related 

to the bill be printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

for a third reading, was read the third 

time, and passed, as follows: 

S. 3712 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN MENTAL 

HEALTH PARITY EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Section 512(e)(2)(B) of the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (subtitle B of 

title V of division C of Public Law 110-343) is 

amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2009’’ and 

inserting ‘‘January 1, 2010’’. 

f 

SHORT-TERM ANALOG FLASH AND 

EMERGENCY READINESS ACT 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Commerce 

Committee be discharged from further 

consideration of S. 3663 and the Senate 

proceed to its consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 

will report the bill by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 3663) to require the Federal Communications Commission to provide for a 

short-term extension of the analog television 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S10770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

broadcasting authority so that essential public safety announcements and digital television transition information may be provided for a short time during the transition 

to digital television broadcasting. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

rise today to discuss a very important 

change that is set to occur all across 

America on February 17, 2009: The final 

switch from analog to digital broadcast 

television called the DTV, or Digital 

TV, Transition. 

In many respects this is not a new 

issue. The wheels have been in motion 

on this change since 2005—spurred by 

the horrible tragedy of September 11th 

which starkly highlighted our desperate need for a national, interoperable communications network. The 

transition to digital TV will free up 

spectrum for public safety use so the 

national emergency communications 

network America needs can be put in 

place. 

But there have been serious concerns 

about our readiness to make the shift 

to digital TV, and several of my colleagues and I have been raising red 

flags about them for years now. Not because we believe the change is a mistake, but because we believe that not 

enough has been done to prepare, to 

educate, and to help American consumers so that the screens on their television sets do not go black 88 days 

from now. 

What is the change from analog to 

digital broadcast? Over-the-air broadcasters will send their signal over digital spectrum, not analog spectrum 

that is currently used. The change 

won’t affect consumers with cable or 

satellite TV or those who have a converter box for their older analog TV 

set. And the switch to digital will improve the definition and clarity of the 

TV picture. 

Why are we making this change? Primarily to modernize our airwaves and 

use the more efficient digital spectrum 

for a smarter use of our limited spectrum resources for the public good. The 

change will, again, free up critically 

needed spectrum so that we can move 

toward the nationally interoperable 

public safety communications network 

we need. It will also allow over-the-air 

broadcasters to offer new and innovative programming and provide new 

spectrum for wireless technologies. 

The DTV Act was enacted as part of 

the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It directs the Federal Communications 

Commission, FCC, to require all full 

power television stations to cease analog broadcasting following February 17, 

2009. That day is 88 days from now. 

What this means—and let me be very 

clear—is that any consumer with traditional analog televisions—regular TV 

sets that use an antenna to get a signal—will not be able to watch free, 

over-the-air television without taking 

one of three steps to adapt their TV to 

receive a digital signal. The most common and least expensive way that consumers can adapt their TV will be to 

buy a digital-to-analog converter box 

to hook up to their analog television 

set. While seemingly a highly technical 

issue to some, this is no small matter 

to the 10–13 million Americans who 

might well lose their TV signal on February 18th of next year. 

I firmly believe that our Nation is 

not ready to make this transition without substantially more involvement 

from every level of government, the entire communications industry, and 

willing community organizations 

across America. At present, most experts agree that the transition will unleash a massive amount of consumer 

confusion. And when people are cut off 

from their televisions, it is not just a 

matter of convenience, but it is a matter of public safety. We simply cannot 

stand by and let people lose access to 

emergency alerts and public safety 

communications. 

I am especially concerned because 

this transition is going to hit our most 

vulnerable citizens—the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and those with language barriers—the hardest. We risk 

leaving those who are most reliant on 

over-the-air broadcast television for 

their contact with the outside world 

literally in the dark. These consumers 

are disproportionately rural. 

In 2005, the outgoing administration 

and its proponents decided to leave almost all of the implementation of the 

transition to the private sector—broadcasters, cable and satellite companies, 

and consumer electronics retailers. 

While there are claims that hundreds 

of millions of private sector dollars 

have been spent making Americans 

aware of the DTV transition, it seems 

that most Americans have no idea 

what it really is even if they have 

heard of it. New surveys suggest more 

consumers are growing aware of the 

transition, but that consumers remain 

confused about what steps they need to 

take to get ready for it. Consumer Reports has found that 63 percent have 

major misconceptions about what steps 

they need to take to prepare. 

The recent DTV transition test market of Wilmington, NC demonstrated 

that, even with extraordinary levels of 

outreach, some still did not know anything about the DTV transition. I 

would note that Wilmington received 

far more attention than any market in 

West Virginia is likely to receive, or 

any other part of the country for that 

matter. 

Even in the test market, several 

thousand people called into the FCC for 

assistance—they could not set up their 

converter box, they could not receive 

certain digital signals, or their antennae needed adjustment—just to name a 

few of the problems. Consumers, especially the elderly and those with limited English proficiency, are going to 

need help in managing the transition. 

On February 18, 2009, those thousands 

of calls will become millions. 

There is no question the transition to 

DTV could have and should have been 

far better managed and far better 

planned. But at this point, we must 

focus on fixing it, not laying blame. 

Last night, I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to take up S. 3663, 

the Short-term Analog Flash and 

Emergency Readiness Act, as amended. 

This piece of legislation will help make 

sure those consumers who fail to make 

the DTV transition by February 17, 

2009 are not left without access to 

emergency information. This bill will 

also allow those consumers to understand what steps they need to take in 

order to restore their television signals 

by allowing an analog signal to continue to be broadcast in each regional 

market for an additional 30 days past 

February 17th. 

Let me be clear: This bill is far from 

a silver bullet that will fix all the problems associated with the transition. 

I can assure my colleagues that the 

new Democratic leadership in Congress 

and the White House is committed to 

protecting the American consumer. 

Over the next few months, I will work 

with my colleagues on a more comprehensive plan of action to make sure 

millions of Americans receive the support and assistance they need to make 

this transition. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that a Rockefeller 

substitute amendment which is at the 

desk be agreed to; the bill be read a 

third time and passed; the motions to 

reconsider be laid upon the table, with 

no intervening action or debate; and 

any statements related to the bill be 

placed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment (No. 5698) was agreed 

to, as follows: 

(Purpose: To provide for the short-term 

partial extension of analog broadcasting) 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Short-term 

Analog Flash and Emergency Readiness 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED. 

(a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission shall, not later 

than January 15, 2009, develop and implement a program to encourage and permit, to 

the extent technically feasible and subject to 

such limitations as the Commission finds to 

be consistent with the public interest and 

the requirements of this Act, the broadcasting in the analog television service of 

only the public safety information and digital transition information specified in subsection (b) during the 30-day period beginning on the day after the date established by 

law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 

2005 for termination of all licenses for fullpower television stations in the analog television service and the cessation of broadcasting by full-power stations in the analog 

television service. 

(b) INFORMATION REQUIRED.—The program 

required by subsection (a) shall provide for 

the broadcast of— 

(1) emergency information, including critical details regarding the emergency, as 

broadcast or required to be broadcast by fullpower stations in the digital television service; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10771 

(2) information, in both English and Spanish, and accessible to persons with disabilities, concerning— 

(A) the digital television transition, including the fact that a transition has taken 

place and that additional action is required 

to continue receiving television service, including emergency notifications; and 

(B) the steps required to enable viewers to 

receive such emergency information via the 

digital television service and to convert to 

receiving digital television service, including 

a phone number and Internet address by 

which help with such transition may be obtained in both English and Spanish; and 

(3) such other information related to consumer education about the digital television 

transition or public health and safety or 

emergencies as the Commission may find to 

be consistent with the public interest. 

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS. 

In designing the program required by this 

Act, the Commission shall— 

(1) take into account market-by-market 

needs, based upon factors such as channel 

and transmitter availability; 

(2) ensure that broadcasting of the program specified in section 2(b) will not cause 

harmful interference with signals in the digital television service; 

(3) not require the analog television service signals broadcast under this Act to be retransmitted or otherwise carried pursuant to 

section 325(b), 338, 339, 340, 614, or 615 of the 

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b), 

338, 339, 340, 614, or 615); 

(4) take into consideration broadcasters’ 

digital power levels and transition and coordination plans that already have been 

adopted with respect to cable systems and 

satellite carriers’ systems; 

(5) prohibit any broadcast of analog television service signals under section 2(b) on 

any spectrum that is approved or pending approval by the Commission to be used for public safety radio services, including television 

channels 14-20; and 

(6) not include the analog spectrum between channels 52 and 69, inclusive (between 

frequencies 698 and 806 megahertz, inclusive) 

reclaimed from analog television broadcasting pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)). 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act, the term ‘‘emergency 

information’’ has the meaning such term has 

under part 79 of the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (47 C.F.R. 

part 79). 

The bill (S. 3663), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and 

passed. 

f 

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF 

EMANCIPATION HALL 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate 

proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 435 received from 

the House. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 435) 

authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on 

December 2, 2008, for ceremonies and activities held in connection with the opening of 

the Capitol Visitor Center to the public. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the concurrent 

resolution. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 

table, and that any statements related 

to the concurrent resolution be printed 

in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. 

Res. 435) was agreed to. 

f 

THE ADOPTION OF BLUEFIN TUNA 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Commerce 

Committee be discharged from further 

consideration of S. Res. 709 and the 

Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the resolution by 

title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A resolution (S. Res. 709) expressing the 

sense of the Senate that the United States 

should pursue the adoption of bluefin tuna 

conservation and management measures at 

the 16th Special Meeting of the International 

Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tunas. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the resolution. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the resolution 

be agreed to, the preamble be agreed 

to, the motions to reconsider be laid 

upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in 

the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The resolution (S. Res. 709) was 

agreed to. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

The resolution, with its preamble, 

reads as follows: 

S. RES. 709 

Whereas Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is 

valuable commercially and recreationally in 

the United States and many other countries; 

Whereas the International Convention for 

the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas entered 

into force on March 21, 1969; 

Whereas the Convention established the 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to coordinate international research and develop, implement, 

and enforce compliance of the conservation 

and management recommendations on the 

Atlantic bluefin tuna and other highly migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean and 

the adjacent seas, including the Mediterranean Sea; 

Whereas in 1974, the Commission adopted 

its first conservation and management recommendation to ensure the sustainability of 

Atlantic bluefin tuna throughout the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, while allowing for the maximum sustainable catch 

for food and other purposes; 

Whereas in 1981, for management purposes, 

the Commission adopted a working hypothesis of 2 Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks, with 1 

occurring west of 45 degrees west longitude 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘western Atlantic stock’’) and the other occurring east 

of 45 degrees west longitude (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock’’); 

Whereas, despite scientific recommendations intended to maintain bluefin tuna populations at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable yield and ensure the future of the stocks, the total allowable catch 

quotas have been consistently set at levels 

significantly higher than the recommended 

levels for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock; 

Whereas despite the establishment by the 

Commission of fishing quotas based on total 

allowable catch levels for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery 

that exceed scientific recommendations, 

compliance with such quotas by parties to 

the Convention that harvest that stock has 

been extremely poor, most recently with 

harvests exceeding such total allowable 

catch levels by more than 50 percent for each 

of the last 4 years; 

Whereas insufficient data reporting in 

combination with unreliable national catch 

statistics has frequently undermined efforts 

by the Commission to assign quota overharvests to specific countries; 

Whereas the failure of many Commission 

members fishing east of 45 degrees west longitude to comply with other Commission recommendations to conserve and control the 

overfished eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock has been an ongoing 

problem; 

Whereas the Commission’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics noted in 

its 2006 report that the fishing mortality rate 

for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean 

stock may be more than 3 times the level 

that would permit the stock to stabilize at 

the maximum sustainable catch level, and 

continuing to fish at the level of recent 

years ‘‘is expected to drive the spawning biomass to a very low level’’ giving ‘‘rise to a 

high risk of fishery and stock collapse’’; 

Whereas the Standing Committee’s 2008 report recommended that the annual harvest 

levels for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna be reduced from 32,000 

metric tons to 15,000 metric tons or less to 

halt decline of the resource and initiate rebuilding; 

Whereas the Standing Committee has stated that time and area closures could greatly 

facilitate the implementation and monitoring of rebuilding strategies and recommended a closure of the Mediterranean 

Sea in May, June, and July, as well as a minimum size limit of 25 kilograms; 

Whereas in 2006, the Commission adopted 

the ‘‘Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for 

Bluefin Tuna in the eastern Atlantic and 

Mediterranean’’ containing a wide range of 

management, monitoring, and control measures designed to facilitate the recovery of 

the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean 

bluefin tuna stock; 

Whereas the Recovery Plan is inadequate 

and allows overfishing and stock decline to 

continue, and initial information indicates 

that implementation of the plan in 2007 by 

many eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean 

bluefin tuna harvesting countries has been 

poor; 

Whereas since 1981, the Commission has 

adopted additional and more restrictive conservation and management recommendations for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna 

stock, and these recommendations have been 

implemented by Nations fishing west of 45 

degrees west longitude, including the United 

States; 

Whereas despite adopting, fully implementing, and complying with a science-based 

rebuilding program for the western Atlantic 

bluefin tuna stock by countries fishing west 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE