[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5696-H5705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           21ST CENTURY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 2006

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 5852) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance 
emergency communications at the Department of Homeland Security, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5852

       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 ``21st Century Emergency 
     Communications Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:

                ``TITLE XVIII--EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

     ``SEC. 1801. OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is in the Department an Office of 
     Emergency Communications.
       ``(b) Assistant Secretary.--The head of the office shall be 
     the Assistant Secretary for Emergency Communications.
       ``(c) Responsibilities.--The Assistant Secretary for 
     Emergency Communications shall--
       ``(1) assist the Secretary in developing and implementing 
     the program described in section 7303(a)(1) of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 
     U.S.C. 194(a)(1)), except as provided in section 314;
       ``(2) administer the Department's responsibilities and 
     authorities relating to the SAFECOM Program, excluding 
     elements related to research, development, testing, and 
     evaluation and standards;
       ``(3) administer the Department's responsibilities and 
     authorities relating to the Integrated Wireless Network 
     program;
       ``(4) coordinate, as appropriate, regarding the 
     administration of the National Communications System;
       ``(5) conduct extensive, nationwide outreach and foster the 
     development of interoperable emergency communications 
     capabilities by State, regional, local, and tribal 
     governments and public safety agencies;
       ``(6) provide technical assistance to State, regional, 
     local, and tribal officials with respect to use of 
     interoperable emergency communications capabilities;
       ``(7) facilitate the creation of Regional Emergency 
     Communications Coordination Working Groups under section 
     1805;
       ``(8) promote the development of best practices with 
     respect to use of interoperable emergency communications 
     capabilities for incident response and facilitate the sharing 
     of information on such best practices (including from 
     governments abroad) for achieving, maintaining, and enhancing 
     interoperable emergency communications capabilities for such 
     response;
       ``(9) coordinate the establishment of a national response 
     capability with initial and ongoing planning, implementation, 
     and training for the deployment of backup communications 
     services in the event of a catastrophic loss of local and 
     regional emergency communications services;
       ``(10) assist the President, the National Security Council, 
     the Homeland Security Council, and the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget in ensuring the operability of the 
     telecommunications functions and responsibilities of the 
     Federal Government, excluding spectrum management;
       ``(11) establish, in coordination with the Director of the 
     Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, requirements 
     for total and nonproprietary interoperable emergency 
     communications capabilities for all public safety radio and 
     data communications systems and equipment purchased using 
     homeland security assistance administered by the Department;
       ``(12) review, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary 
     for Grants and Training, all interoperable emergency 
     communications plans of Federal, State, local, and tribal 
     governments, including Statewide and tactical 
     interoperability plans, developed pursuant to homeland 
     security assistance administered by the Department, but 
     excluding spectrum allocation and management related to such 
     plans.
       ``(d) Performance of Previously Transferred Functions.--
     There is transferred to the Secretary the authority to 
     administer, through the Assistant Secretary for Emergency 
     Communications, the following:
       ``(1) The SAFECOM Program, excluding elements related to 
     research, development, testing, and evaluation and standards.
       ``(2) The responsibilities of the Chief Information Officer 
     related to the implementation of the Integrated Wireless 
     Network.
       ``(3) The Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance 
     Program.
       ``(e) Coordination.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     coordinate, as appropriate, with the Director of the Office 
     for Interoperability and Compatibility with respect to the 
     responsibilities described in section 314.
       ``(f) Sufficiency of Resources Plan.--
       ``(1) Report.--Not later than days 60 days after the 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the resources and staff necessary to 
     carry out the responsibilities under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Comptroller general review.--The Comptroller General 
     shall review the validity of the report submitted by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (1).   Not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which such report is submitted, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit to Congress a report containing the 
     findings of such review.

     ``SEC. 1802. NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS REPORT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Emergency Communications, shall, not 
     later than one year after the completion of the baseline 
     assessment under section 1803, and in cooperation with State, 
     local, and tribal governments, Federal departments and 
     agencies, emergency response providers, emergency support 
     responders, and the private sector, develop a National 
     Emergency Communications Report to provide recommendations 
     regarding how the United States can accelerate the deployment 
     of interoperable emergency communications nationwide.
       ``(b) Contents.--The report shall--
       ``(1) include a national interoperable emergency 
     communications inventory to be completed by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, and the 
     Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission that--
       ``(A) identifies for each Federal department and agency--
       ``(i) the channels and frequencies used;
       ``(ii) the nomenclature used to refer to each channel or 
     frequency used; and
       ``(iii) the types of communications system and equipment 
     used;
       ``(B) identifies the interoperable emergency communications 
     systems in use for public safety systems in the United 
     States; and
       ``(C) provides a listing of public safety mutual aid 
     channels in operation and their ability to connect to an 
     interoperable communications system;
       ``(2) recommend, in consultation with the Federal 
     Communications Commission and the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, a process for expediting national 
     voluntary consensus-based emergency communications equipment 
     standards for the purchase and use by public safety agencies 
     of interoperable emergency communications equipment and 
     technologies;
       ``(3) identify the appropriate interoperable emergency 
     communications capabilities necessary for Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal governments to operate at all threat 
     levels;
       ``(4) recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for 
     deploying Federal, State, local, and tribal interoperable 
     emergency communications systems nationwide, including 
     through the provision of existing and emerging technologies 
     that facilitate operability, interoperability, coordination, 
     and integration among existing emergency communications 
     systems;
       ``(5) identify how Federal Government departments and 
     agencies that respond to acts of terrorism, natural 
     disasters, and other emergencies can work effectively with 
     State, local, and tribal governments, in all States, and with 
     other entities;
       ``(6) include recommendations to identify and overcome 
     obstacles to deploying interoperable emergency communications 
     nationwide; and
       ``(7) recommend goals and timeframes for the deployment of 
     an emergency, command-level communications system based on 
     new and existing equipment across the United

[[Page H5697]]

     States and develop a timetable for deploying interoperable 
     emergency communications systems nationwide.

     ``SEC. 1803. ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTS.

       ``(a) Baseline Operability and Interoperability 
     Assessment.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section and not less than every 5 years 
     thereafter, the Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
     Secretary for Emergency Communications, shall conduct an 
     assessment of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, 
     to--
       ``(1) define the range of operable and interoperable 
     emergency communications capabilities needed for specific 
     events;
       ``(2) assess the current capabilities to meet such 
     communications needs; and
       ``(3) identify the gap between such current capabilities 
     and defined requirements.
       ``(b) Progress Reports.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this section and annually thereafter, 
     the Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for 
     Emergency Communications, shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the progress of the Department in implementing and 
     achieving the goals of this subtitle, including--
       ``(1) a description of the findings of the most recent 
     baseline assessment conducted under subsection (a);
       ``(2) a determination of the degree to which interoperable 
     emergency communications has been achieved to date and 
     ascertain the gaps that remains for interoperability to be 
     achieved;
       ``(3) an assessment of the ability of communities to 
     provide and maintain interoperable emergency communications 
     among emergency managers, emergency response providers, 
     emergency support providers, and government officials in the 
     event of acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other 
     emergencies, including Incidents of National Significance 
     declared by the Secretary under the National Response Plan, 
     and where there is substantial damage to communications 
     infrastructure;
       ``(4) a list of best practices among communities for 
     providing and maintaining interoperable emergency 
     communications in the event of acts of terrorism, natural 
     disasters, or other emergencies; and
       ``(5) an evaluation of the feasibility and desirability of 
     the Department developing, on its own or in conjunction with 
     the Department of Defense, a mobile communications 
     capability, modeled on the Army Signal Corps, that could be 
     deployed to support emergency communications at the site of 
     acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

     ``SEC. 1804. COORDINATION OF DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY 
                   COMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Coordination of Grants and Standards Programs.--The 
     Secretary, acting through Assistant Secretary for Emergency 
     Communications, shall ensure that grant guidelines for the 
     use of homeland security assistance administered by the 
     Department relating to interoperable emergency communications 
     are coordinated and consistent with the goals and 
     recommendations in the National Emergency Communications 
     Report under section 1802.
       ``(b) Denial of Eligibility for Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Grants and Planning, and in 
     consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Emergency 
     Communications, may prohibit any State, local, or tribal 
     government from using homeland security assistance 
     administered by the Department to achieve, maintain, or 
     enhance interoperable emergency communications capabilities, 
     if--
       ``(A) such government has not complied with the requirement 
     to submit a Statewide Interoperable Communications Plan as 
     required by section 7303(f) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 194(f));
       ``(B) such government has proposed to upgrade or purchase 
     new equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed any 
     applicable national voluntary consensus standards and has not 
     provided a reasonable explanation of why such equipment or 
     systems will serve the needs of the applicant better than 
     equipment or systems that meet or exceed such standards; and
       ``(C) as of the date that is three years after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, national voluntary consensus 
     standards for interoperable emergency communications 
     capabilities have not been developed and promulgated.
       ``(2) Standards.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Federal Communications Commission, the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, and other Federal departments and 
     agencies with responsibility for standards, shall support the 
     development, promulgation, and updating as necessary of 
     national voluntary consensus standards for interoperable 
     emergency communications with the goal of having such 
     standards in place to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 
     (1)(C).

     ``SEC. 1805. REGIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION.

       ``(a) In General.--There is in each Regional Office a 
     Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group 
     (in this section referred to as an `RECC Working Group').
       ``(b) Subject Matter Experts.--The RECC Working Group shall 
     consist of the following:
       ``(1) Non-federal.--Organizations representing the 
     interests of the following:
       ``(A) State officials.
       ``(B) Local officials, including sheriffs.
       ``(C) State police departments.
       ``(D) Local police departments.
       ``(E) Local fire departments.
       ``(F) Public safety answering points (9-1-1 services).
       ``(G) Communications equipment vendors (including broadband 
     data service providers).
       ``(H) Hospitals.
       ``(I) Public utility services.
       ``(J) Local exchange carriers.
       ``(K) Local broadcast media.
       ``(L) Wireless carriers.
       ``(M) Satellite communications services.
       ``(N) Emergency evacuation transit services.
       ``(O) Ambulance services.
       ``(P) HAM and amateur radio operators.
       ``(Q) State emergency managers, homeland security 
     directors, or representatives of State Administrative 
     Agencies.
       ``(R) Local emergency managers or homeland security 
     directors.
       ``(S) Cable operators.
       ``(T) Other emergency response providers or emergency 
     support providers as deemed appropriate.
       ``(2) Federal.--Representatives from the Department and 
     other Federal departments and agencies with responsibility 
     for coordinating interoperable emergency communications with 
     or providing emergency support services to State, local, and 
     tribal governments.
       ``(c) Duties.--The duties of each RECC Working Group shall 
     include--
       ``(1) assessing the survivability, sustainability, and 
     interoperability of local emergency communications systems to 
     meet the goals of the National Emergency Communications 
     Report;
       ``(2) reporting annually to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Emergency Communications on the status of its region in 
     building robust and sustainable interoperable voice and data 
     emergency communications networks and on the progress of the 
     region in meeting the goals of the National Emergency 
     Communications Report under section 1802 when such Report is 
     complete;
       ``(3) ensuring a process for the coordination of the 
     establishment of effective multijurisdictional, multi-agency 
     emergency communications networks for use during acts of 
     terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies through 
     the expanded use of emergency management and public safety 
     communications mutual aid agreements; and
       ``(4) coordinating the establishment of Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal support services and networks designed to 
     address the immediate and critical human needs in responding 
     to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other 
     emergencies.

     ``SEC. 1806. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PREPAREDNESS CENTER.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established the Emergency 
     Communications Preparedness Center (in this section referred 
     to as the `Center').
       ``(b) Operation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, the Chairman of the 
     Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Defense, 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, and the 
     heads of other Federal departments and agencies or their 
     designees shall jointly operate the Center in accordance with 
     the Memorandum of Understanding entitled, `Emergency 
     Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) Charter'.
       ``(2) Chair.--The Chair of the Center shall rotate every 
     two years between the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney 
     General, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
     Commission.
       ``(c) Functions.--The Center shall--
       ``(1) serve as the focal point for interagency efforts to 
     address operable and interoperable communications;
       ``(2) serve as a clearinghouse with respect to all relevant 
     information regarding intergovernmental efforts to achieve 
     nationwide interoperable emergency communications 
     capabilities;
       ``(3) ensure cooperation among the relevant Federal 
     Government departments and agencies to improve effectiveness 
     in the communication and implementation of the goals 
     recommended in the National Emergency Communications Report 
     under section 1802, including specifically by working to 
     avoid duplication, hindrances, and counteractive efforts 
     among the participating Federal departments and agencies;
       ``(4) prepare and submit to Congress, on an annual basis, a 
     strategic assessment regarding the efforts of Federal 
     departments and agencies to implement the National Emergency 
     Communications Report under section 1802; and
       ``(5) perform such other functions as are provided in the 
     ECPC Charter under subsection (b)(1).
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Chair shall transmit to 
     the Congress a report regarding the implementation of this 
     section, including a description of the staffing and resource 
     needs of the Center.

     ``SEC. 1807. URBAN AND OTHER HIGH RISK AREA COMMUNICATIONS 
                   CAPABILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and the 
     Secretary of Defense, and with appropriate State, local, and 
     tribal government officials,

[[Page H5698]]

     shall provide technical guidance, training, and other 
     assistance, as appropriate, to support the rapid 
     establishment of consistent, secure, and effective 
     interoperable emergency communications capabilities in the 
     event of an emergency in urban and other areas determined by 
     the Secretary to be at consistently high levels of risk from 
     acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
       ``(b) Minimum Capabilities.--The interoperable emergency 
     communications capabilities established under subsection (a) 
     shall ensure the ability of all levels of government, 
     emergency response providers, emergency support providers, 
     the private sector, and other organizations with emergency 
     response capabilities--
       ``(1) to communicate with each other in the event of an 
     emergency;
       ``(2) to have appropriate and timely access to the 
     Information Sharing Environment described in section 1016 of 
     the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (6 
     U.S.C. 321); and
       ``(3) to be consistent with any applicable State or Urban 
     Area homeland strategy or plan.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                ``TITLE XVIII--EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

``Sec. 1801. Office of Emergency Communications.
``Sec. 1802. National Emergency Communications Report.
``Sec. 1803. Assessments and reports.
``Sec. 1804. Coordination of Federal emergency communications grant 
              programs.
``Sec. 1805. Regional emergency communications coordination.
``Sec. 1806. Emergency Communications Preparedness Center.
``Sec. 1807. Urban and other high risk area communications 
              capabilities.

     SEC. 3. OFFICE OF INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPATIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 314. OFFICE OF INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPATIBILITY.

       ``(a) Clarification of Responsibilities.--The Director of 
     the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility shall--
       ``(1) assist the Secretary in developing and implementing 
     the science and technology aspects of the program described 
     in subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G) of section 7303(a)(1) 
     of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004 (6 U.S.C. 194(a)(1));
       ``(2) support the creation of national voluntary consensus 
     standards for interoperable emergency communications;
       ``(3) establish a comprehensive research, development, 
     testing, and evaluation program for improving interoperable 
     emergency communications;
       ``(4) establish, in coordination with the Assistant 
     Secretary for Emergency Communications, requirements for 
     total and nonproprietary interoperable emergency 
     communications capabilities for all public safety radio and 
     data communications systems and equipment purchased using 
     homeland security assistance administered by the Department;
       ``(5) carry out the Department's responsibilities and 
     authorities relating to research, development, testing, 
     evaluation, or standards-related   elements of the SAFECOM 
     Program;
       ``(6) evaluate and assess new technology in real-world 
     environments to achieve interoperable emergency 
     communications capabilities;
       ``(7) encourage more efficient use of existing resources, 
     including equipment, to achieve interoperable emergency 
     communications capabilities;
       ``(8) test public safety communications systems that are 
     less prone to failure, support new nonvoice services, use 
     spectrum more efficiently, and cost less than existing 
     systems; and
       ``(9) coordinate with the private sector to develop 
     solutions to improve emergency communications capabilities 
     and achieve interoperable emergency communications 
     capabilities.
       ``(b) Coordination.--The Director shall coordinate with the 
     Assistant Secretary for Emergency Communications with respect 
     to the SAFECOM program.
       ``(c) Sufficiency of Resources.--The Secretary shall 
     provide the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility the 
     resources and staff necessary to carry out the 
     responsibilities under this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the 
     items relating to title III the following:

``Sec. 314. Office of Interoperability and Compatibility.''.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROJECT 25 CONFORMITY 
                   ASSESSMENT PROJECT.

       It is the sense of Congress that in carrying out the 
     responsibilities and authorities of the Department of 
     Homeland Security relating to the SAFECOM Program, the 
     Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency 
     Communications and the Director of the Office of 
     Interoperability and Compatibility should work with the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology for the 
     purpose of implementing, as soon as possible, the Project 25 
     Compliance Assessment Program.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this legislation and insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise in support of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications 
Act of 2006.
  I would especially like to commend Representative Reichert for his 
authorship of this legislation. In addition, I want to recognize the 
efforts of both Chairman Barton and Chairman King in preparing this 
legislation for consideration on the floor today.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, this Nation has endured significant 
domestic tragedies in the past 5 years, and of course, 9/11 and 
Hurricane Katrina stand out as most catastrophic.
  While both were catastrophic, the causes were very different. The 
former a profoundly evil terrorist act, and the latter a terrible act 
of nature. But there at least is one common lesson that we learned from 
both tragedies: We learned how critically important interoperable 
communication is for our Nation's first responders during crisis 
regardless of the cause. It really is a matter of life and death.
  At its heart, H.R. 5852 is designed to improve interoperable 
communications among our Nation's first responders. Of course, this 
Congress has already paved the way by providing for an orderly digital 
television transition to be completed by February 17, 2009, at which 
point 24 megahertz of spectrum in the upper 700 megahertz band will be 
returned by the broadcasters and provided to first responders to 
facilitate interoperable radio communications. That spectrum is ideally 
suited for this purpose. Congress also earmarked $1 billion from 
upcoming spectrum auction proceeds to assist State and local 
governments in procuring interoperable communications equipment.
  But the legislation before us today mandates a National Emergency 
Communications report to recommend goals and time frames for the 
achievement of redundant, sustainable, and interoperable emergency 
communication systems. It requires a baseline assessment of current 
emergency communications capabilities and periodic assessments on 
progress in filling existing gaps, and it accelerates the development 
of national voluntary consensus standards for emergency communications 
equipment. It requires State and local governments to establish 
effective statewide interoperable communication plans before being able 
to use DHS grant funds for emergency communications. It facilitates 
coordination on emergency communications by establishing regional 
working groups comprised of Federal, State, and local officials, first 
responders, and other relevant stakeholders. And it elevates the 
importance of emergency communications within the Department of 
Homeland Security, enhancing accountability and resources to ensure 
first responders on the ground that it can communicate with one 
another.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5852 is truly an excellent bill which builds on the 
work that this Congress has already done to ensure that our Nation's 
first responders have the interoperable communications that they need 
to do their job of protecting our constituents in times of crisis. 
Again, I want to commend Representative Reichert, Chairman Barton, and 
Chairman King for their excellent work. I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While I do not oppose the substance of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century 
Emergency Communications Act of 2006, I

[[Page H5699]]

strongly oppose the process by which this bill has been brought to the 
floor today.
  H.R. 5852 was introduced July 20, 5 days ago, and was referred to the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. The committee has held no hearings on 
this bill nor did the subcommittee or full committee ever mark up this 
bill. The last hearing the committee held on this issue was September 
2005, and the focus was public safety communications after Hurricane 
Katrina. Now, a month before the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the 
majority party is bringing up a bill that is not nearly enough to help 
our first responders on the ground.
  This is no way to bring public safety legislation to the floor, and 
this process does a disservice to all our public safety officers 
throughout America.
  Since the bill was not subject to any hearings in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, I will not spend a lot of time talking about the 
bill's substance. I will say that the Department of Homeland Security 
should have taken these steps months and years ago. This bill gives the 
Department of Homeland Security the ability to deny grants to States 
and localities that don't have interoperability plans completed and 
don't meet minimum standards.
  Let me be clear. I support accountability for the money spent from 
the Department of Homeland Security grant programs. However, we have 
not heard from the States and localities, because they did not have a 
hearing on this bill. I suspect that some States and localities may 
consider these provisions to be unfunded mandates.
  The bill calls for periodic baseline surveys on the level of 
interoperability across the country. I support efforts to measure our 
progress towards interoperable public safety communications; however, I 
have little faith that the Department of Homeland Security is going to 
complete these surveys. We heard in committee that while the first 
survey was supposed to be finished by 2005, the Department had only 
recently agreed on methodology and had no start time in mind.
  A bill that holds DHS's feet to the fire is a good thing. The 
administration could certainly use some prodding. DHS testified in 
September that it is the administration's goal to achieve 
interoperability within the next 20 years, by 2023. We don't have 20 
years to become interoperable as a Nation. Our first responders are on 
the front lines in the war against terror today. They need the help 
now. Without adequate funding, the benchmarks and planning in this bill 
will not be implemented in our communities. Last year, the Republican 
Congress cut the DHS grant programs that fund interoperable 
communications by almost $600 million and slashed the Department of 
Justice interoperability grant program by $82 million, effectively 
eliminating it.
  My colleagues may not know that this bill is based very closely on a 
bill introduced by my colleague, Ms. Lowey, which has the support of 
Democrats. There is one glaring difference, Ms. Lowey's bill would have 
established an interoperability grant program at the Department of 
Homeland Security to help our communities. In the closed door 
negotiations, the Republican majority removed the grant program. No 
money, no program.
  This has become a pattern of the majority: Take a good Democratic 
bill, copy it in theme only, rush it to the floor without any hearings, 
send out a press release, and then quietly never fund the program. We 
have seen this time and time again.
  Mr. Speaker, we ask more of our first responders than ever before. 
They are on the front lines in the war against terror. They must be 
prepared to respond to chemical disasters, rail disasters, natural 
disasters. We saw during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina that public safety 
communications are critical in any emergency, but without adequate 
funding, the bill's worthy goals may never be achieved.
  Are new interoperable radios more important than replacing out-of-
date fire trucks or creating a meth crime task force? These are the 
real choices that communities across this Nation must make every day, 
and they receive no help from Washington. Their choices are becoming 
harder and harder as the Bush administration and Republican budgets ask 
them to make more with less and less.
  The real reason why I think the Republicans have brought the bill 
before us today is because they don't want to face any funding 
amendments that may come up. In committee last fall, I offered an 
amendment to create a $5.8 billion trust fund for first responder 
communications. My amendment failed on a tie vote. Homeland Security 
Committee Democrats have forced similar votes. Why is this bill on 
suspension today? Because the majority wants to avoid votes on 
amendments that would invest in public safety communication grants for 
our communities.
  My colleagues should vote for this bill because it will bring some 
accountability to the Department of Homeland Security and focus more 
attention on the urgent need of interoperable communications. But my 
colleagues should not be under any false illusion that this bill will 
make it easier for first responders to acquire modern equipment. This 
bill will not provide the necessary interoperable equipment this 
country needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield as much time as 
he may consume to Sheriff Reichert, the sponsor of this legislation and 
the chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support as a sponsor 
of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006. 
Although I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Michigan, I 
would like to first address before I get into my formal statement some 
of his comments.
  There have been several hearings, four hearings and a joint hearing, 
held on the issue of interoperability and operability under the 
umbrella of the Homeland Security Committee and, more specifically, 
through the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee that I chair.
  I have only been in Congress 18 months. I was a police officer for 33 
years. The last 8 years of that I was the sheriff. So I know a little 
bit about interoperability. I know a little bit about the inability for 
police officers to communicate. I know a little bit about life and 
death, and the ability to be in touch with your communications center 
or not to be in touch with your communications center, or not to have a 
partner present, or wait for a partner when you are facing someone with 
a gun. And I understand, too, the gentleman from Michigan has some 
experience in law enforcement and hopefully understands the importance 
of this bill.
  I would also like to point out that between 2003 and 2005, $2 billion 
have been spent by the Federal Government across this Nation for 
interoperability without any national plan, without any national 
standards. And that is what this bill addresses today, and that is why 
it is so important for first responders across this country.
  So there have been hearings. And not only have there been hearings, 
but these hearings have been held with people in attendance like 
firefighters, police officers, emergency management, people on the 
ground, people doing the job. We are not just hearing from politicians 
and mayors and CEOs of police departments and sheriff's offices, we are 
hearing from cops and firefighters, and they are supporting this bill 
110 percent.
  So, I would like to thank Mr. Pascrell, my ranking member on my 
subcommittee, and I would like to thank Mr. Thompson, the ranking 
member of the full committee, and all those who serve on both 
committees, the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and 
Technology and the full Homeland Security Committee, who supported this 
bill.
  When people look at Congress, they say what are we doing? Why are we 
not working together? On this particular issue, we did work together. 
This was a combined effort, this was a team effort, and it was 
congenial and it was an effort that was well respected by every member 
and every staff member on both the subcommittee and the committee.
  Protecting our Nation should never be an issue where Democrats and 
Republicans cannot come together and recognize the need for our 
cooperation, especially on behalf of our first responders to ensure 
that our communities stay safe.

[[Page H5700]]

  The Committee on Homeland Security did not just develop a bipartisan 
legislation overnight. Rather, it is the product of a series of 
hearings on the state of public safety energy communications. I 
presided over these hearings as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology, as well as held 
countless meetings on the topic with first responders, government 
officials, and other interested stakeholders. Last fall, Chairman King 
appointed me to serve as the chairman of the Emergency Preparedness 
Subcommittee. I know the importance of finding solutions to this 
problem. That is precisely why I made interoperability the 
subcommittee's number one priority.
  Until the events of September 11, 2001, many people in this Nation 
believed and assumed that first responders from different disciplines 
and jurisdictions could actually talk to each other. It wasn't 
happening. It is still not happening today. Unfortunately, that was not 
the case then, and, as demonstrated by the inadequate responses to 
Hurricane Katrina, that is not the case today. In fact, inability of 
first responders to communicate with one another effectively led to the 
loss of many lives in New Orleans and in other gulf coast communities. 
This is simply unacceptable. It is intolerable that our Nation's law 
enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical services personnel 
still confront many of the same emergency communication problems that I 
did as a rookie cop when I started in 1972.
  To many, the word ``interoperability'' means little. It is a little 
confusing term that police officers, firefighters, and first responders 
use. But I want to just share a personal story.
  Back in the early 1970s when I was a deputy in a police car, I 
responded to a call where a young man 17 years old was high on drugs 
and alcohol, and he was able to gain access to his father's .308 
Winchester rifle and he came from his house and he began to shoot at 
the neighborhood. I was the first car to arrive. A shot was fired over 
my police car. He ran out the back door of his house. We lost him for a 
while. We were able to surround the area. I was one of the officers on 
the perimeter. My radio didn't work, and a neighbor who saw the young 
man with the rifle pointed at three Seattle police officers who were 
coming to help the sheriffs office in the south end of the county 
called the neighbor across the street because she was afraid to leave 
her house. The neighbor across the street ran across the street to my 
police car and told me what was going on, because the person saw this 
young man ready to fire on three police officers.
  I grabbed my police radio and I tried to get through the 
communications center, and I couldn't. No one heard me. A rifle pointed 
at three police officers, and I could not communicate back in 1974, 
1975.

                              {time}  1115

  Three police officers' lives are now in danger. The only choice I had 
was to holster my weapon because there were people in the house peeking 
out of the window, watching the young man with the rifle pointed at the 
police officers, and run across the yard. That is what I did, holstered 
my gun, radio would not work, ran across the yard, jumped on the back 
of the 17-year-old with the .308 Winchester rifle and now was in a 
fight for my life.
  Interoperability is a life and death matter. This bill matters to the 
police officers, firefighters and first responders working in our 
country today.
  As I said earlier, the legislation before us today is based on the 
record made during four separate hearings, and during those hearings, 
the subcommittee heard testimony from a wide variety of parties 
including first responders, public works, utilities, hospitals, State 
and local officials, standards-setting organizations, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, the Federal 
Communications Commission, and other Federal Departments.
  During these hearings, the witnesses identified the same problems 
over and over again. We heard about the lack of an accountable senior-
level official in the Department of Homeland Security to oversee 
interoperability. When I first came here, I was told at one of my first 
hearings that the Federal Government has been dealing with the problem 
of interoperability for 10 years; and as I have just shared with you, 
we have been dealing with it as police officers for over 30 years. 
Something needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.
  The absence of national voluntary consensus standards to help State 
and local governments to make wise decisions when purchasing 
communications equipment is something we heard over and over again.
  We also heard about the failure of the Department to condition the 
use of grant funds by State and local governments on approved statewide 
communications plans and the absence of effective coordination between 
Federal Departments with shared responsibility for emergency 
communications.
  H.R. 5852 will solve these and other problems that hinder the rapid 
deployment of interoperable emergency communication systems in our 
Nation.
  H.R. 5852 enjoys broad support from members of the Committee on 
Homeland Security. It is almost identical to the provisions of H.R. 
5351, the National Emergency Management Reform and Enhancement Act of 
2006, a comprehensive Katrina lessons-learned legislation that the 
Committee on Homeland Security passed 28-0.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to send a message to our Nation's 
first responders that we support them in their efforts to protect us. 
Passage of H.R. 5852 would send such a message. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of H.R. 5852.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I will include in the Record at this 
point letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and 
the Committee on Science regarding jurisdiction over this bill, and I 
thank the Science Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee for their 
input on this important legislation.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Peter T. King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters 
     being considered in H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency 
     Communications Act of 2006. The Science Committee 
     acknowledges the importance of H.R. 5852 and the need for the 
     legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a 
     valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I agree not to 
     request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
     legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral 
     waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your 
     response will be included in the Congressional Record when 
     the bill is considered on the House Floor.
       The Science Committee also asks that you support our 
     request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have 
     jurisdiction during House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Science Committee's jurisdictional interest in 
     H.R. 5852. I appreciate your willingness not to seek a 
     sequential referral in order to expedite proceedings on this 
     legislation. I agree that, by not exercising your right to 
     request a referral, the Science Committee does not waive any 
     jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 5852. In addition, I agree 
     to support representation for your Committee during the 
     possible House-Senate conference meetings on provisions 
     determined to be within your Committee's jurisdiction.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your cooperation as we work toward the enactment of 
     H.R. 5852.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to just respond to 
the gentleman from Washington.
  I repeat, I know you have been in Congress for a limited amount of 
time, but there have been no hearings in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee on this bill, the committee with primary jurisdiction.
  You talked about your law enforcement career. Well, back when you 
were

[[Page H5701]]

deputy in the early 1970s, I was a city police officer, went on to 
Michigan State Police, where I served until I was injured in the line 
of duty.
  I am the founder of the Law Enforcement Caucus, and I hope you will 
join our caucus someday.
  Law enforcement and first responders, what we are doing here today is 
giving them false hope and promises. The gentleman from Washington 
claims interoperability is a life and death issue. Then let us fund 
interoperability and not put law enforcement with a death penalty 
because they did not get the equipment they need.
  I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), 
the ranking member of the Energy Preparedness Subcommittee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5852, the 
21st Century Emergency Communications Act.
  As an original sponsor with my good friend Congressman Reichert, this 
is long-overdue legislation. It is bipartisan legislation and really 
sends a message throughout the entire Congress of the United States 
that we can work together if we place the needs of our families and 
neighborhoods ahead of partisan politics.
  When the 9/11 Commission released its final report, it found that the 
inability of our first responders to talk with each other and their 
commanders resulted in a loss of life. This is very, very important to 
America.
  The 9/11 Commission identified a problem that has been in existence, 
Mr. Speaker, for decades. It identified a problem that many 
policymakers have known for some time.
  In fact, in 1996, 10 years ago, Congress asked a blue ribbon 
committee, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, to examine 
the issue of interoperable communications. It concluded 10 years ago 
that public safety agencies did not have the sufficient interoperable 
communications ability to do their jobs.
  Five years later, on September 11, 2001, public safety officers were 
still ill-equipped in this regard. Now, this is unconscionable. Five 
years after the
9/11 catastrophe, the 30 major cities in the United States of America 
still cannot communicate.
  In 2002, the National Task Force on Interoperability convened several 
meetings with various national associations representing public safety 
officials to discuss the challenges of interoperable communications. 
They explicitly identified the key challenges that must be addressed if 
we are to move forward on the issue: incompatible aging equipment, 
fragmented planning in general, and a lack of coordination and 
cooperation from all the different stakeholders.
  So we have known about the problems that exist, Mr. Speaker. Many 
have explored the possible remedies. Yet many in Congress sit, after 9/
11, after Katrina, wondering why no real progress has been made.
  And although I may take difference with my good friend and brother 
from Michigan, his point must be well taken, that these cannot be empty 
commitments. We must fund the very process that we have identified and 
voted on today.
  The bottom line is that H.R. 5852 will improve the capability of 
first responders to communicate during times of emergencies. I am proud 
to work with a bipartisan allotment of Members. We have had hearings, 
and I am sorry that one of the major problems in this Congress is 
jurisdiction and we have not addressed that, and I hope that we can do 
this and not air our linen. I hope that we can come to agreement, but 
the fact is that homeland security is at the center of the stage in 
trying to make a terrible situation much better.
  In an era when information can be sent instantaneously anywhere, it 
is utterly nonsensical that our Nation's police, the fire, and EMS 
personnel cannot consistently communicate with each other.
  First, this bill elevates the importance of improved emergency 
communication. For the first time, we are going to finally have a 
central office within the Department of Homeland Security that does 
just that. We will create an Office of Emergency Communications within 
the Department where the Assistant Secretary for Emergency 
Communications is directed to force the development of interoperable 
emergency communications capabilities by States and territorial, local 
and tribal and public safety agencies. This is absolutely critical.
  Elevating the status and standing, that standing of interoperability, 
within the Department is a key first step to ensuring the Department 
focuses at the proper time, has the staff, has the resources.
  This office will be charged with a variety of long-overdue critical 
endeavors, including preparing a baseline report.
  H.R. 5852 ensures that the appropriate staffing and resources are 
available to carry out the obligations charged.
  Mr. Speaker, our legislation compels the Department of Homeland 
Security to create a national emergency communications plan. Common 
sense must prevail here. This bill, I know, does not address the grant 
funding; but it is interesting to note, and I would ask my brothers and 
sisters on both sides of the aisle just to listen to this one statement 
that I have if you listen to nothing else: a one-time expenditure, 
equivalent to 3 days of what we spend in the Iraq war, will do one 
thing. It will pay for making emergency radio systems interoperable 5 
years after 
9/11.
  This bill is important, Mr. Speaker. This bill affects every 
American.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
Reichert for his outstanding leadership on this important piece of 
legislation, which, in my view, will ultimately save lives.
  Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year, the Nation witnessed 
emergency response problems at all levels of government, especially 
with interoperability between our first responders. After Katrina and 
Rita, like on September 11, first responders and military personnel on 
the scene could not communicate effectively with each other.
  This crucial piece of legislation will work to improve 
interoperability for our first responders by bolstering the national 
standards for emergency communications equipment. The bill also gives 
incentives to the States to improve their emergency communications 
plans and creates regional working groups to help Federal first 
responders better coordinate with their State and local counterparts.
  Prior to coming to Congress, I served as chief of terrorism and 
national security in the U.S. Attorney's office in Texas. I also led 
the joint terrorism task force charged with detecting, deterring and 
preventing terrorist activity. I have worked with first responders for 
most of my professional career and have learned through experience that 
the ability to communicate between the Federal, State and local levels 
means saving lives, whether it is a terrorist attack or destruction at 
the hands of Mother Nature.
  The time to fix and improve communications for our first responders 
is now, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), a former first responder and a volunteer 
firefighter for 26 years.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support 
of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006.
  As the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. This bill 
amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance and improve the 
capability of first responders to communicate during times of 
emergency. It does so by improving the coordination of Federal, State, 
territorial, local and tribal governments as it relates to voice, data 
and other emerging technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security has heard from more 
than 25 witnesses in the more

[[Page H5702]]

than six hearings held on the interoperable challenges of emergency 
communications. We heard from Governors, mayors, first responders, 
emergency support responders, the heads of Federal agencies with 
responsibilities for promulgating emergency communication capabilities, 
as well as experts in the technology sectors of interoperable emergency 
communications.
  All in all, Mr. Speaker, the message from the witnesses was twofold: 
the need for leadership and funding for the deployment of an 
interoperable emergency communications system.
  Today, Congress has finally decided to show one of these two things 
by placing this legislation on the calendar. The timing, days before 
Members go home before the August recess and only a couple of months 
before fall elections, does not escape me.

                              {time}  1130

  Despite the convenience of timing, I am grateful that we are moving 
forward and finally are doing something to help the men and women on 
the front lines of our homeland security efforts. This has been a long 
time coming.
  When Air Florida Flight 90 crashed in the Potomac Basin in 
Washington, D.C. on January 13, 1982, Congress learned that there were 
no provisions for communication interoperability in place.
  On April 19, 1995, when the white supremacist and homegrown terrorist 
Timothy McVeigh rammed his flammable truck into the Murrah Federal 
Building in downtown Oklahoma City, the post-investigation revealed 
that the 117 local, State, and Federal agencies, with more than 1,500 
personnel on the scene, were forced to rely on runners to disseminate 
critical, time sensitive information.
  Congress must respond. Now, in less than 2 months, this Nation will 
mark the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001. On that fateful day, 
Americans learned that the Nation was vulnerable and unprepared for an 
attack that killed almost 3,000 people. Among the dead were 343 New 
York City Fire Department members and 23 New York City Police 
Department officers.
  As a volunteer firefighter of 26 years, Mr. Speaker, my heart dropped 
when I heard of the radio communication failures of that day. Lack of 
inoperable communication impeded a lot of help that could have gone to 
those individuals.
  Four years later, Mr. Speaker, as Hurricane Katrina and Rita struck 
the gulf coast, the same story emerged. Firefighters and police along 
the gulf coast didn't have the means to communicate.
  This legislation will move us closer to fixing the interoperability 
crisis facing our Nation. As I noted earlier, leadership is only half 
the solution for the interoperability crisis. All our efforts here 
today will be for naught if we do not provide funding for the 
development and deployment of a nationwide emergency communication 
system. My colleague, Representative Nita Lowey of New York, has 
repeatedly raised this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this legislation.
  In less than two months, this Nation will mark the fifth anniversary 
of the Al Qaida's attack on the United States. On Tuesday, September 
11, 2001, millions of Americans watched in shock and horror as American 
Airline Flight 11 and United Airline Flight 75 torpedoed into the Twin 
Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City at 8:46 AM and 9:20 
AM respectively. Within 17 minutes, the public learned that American 
Airlines Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon. Twenty-six minutes later, 
United Airlines Flight 93 plummeted into a field in Shankville, PA 
after passengers attempted to deter the terrorists' attempt to fly the 
plane to Washington, D.C. Al Qaida's villainous assault on American 
soil killed almost 3,000 people. Among the dead were 343 New York City 
Fire Department Firefighters and 23 New York City Police Department 
officers.
  Americans were startled to learn of the United States' 
vulnerabilities and lack of preparedness on September 11th. As a former 
volunteer firefighter of 26 years, I understood instinctively the radio 
communication challenges the firefighters and police officers faced in 
New York City. As one who experienced the threat of collapsing 
buildings and other dangers in the line of duty, I was heartbroken to 
learn that New York City firefighters never received the police warning 
to evacuate the North Tower after the South Tower's collapse because 
their system was not interoperable with the police communication 
systems. Lack of interoperable communication also impeded the relay of 
the message that an open stairwell in the South Tower free of debris 
and obstruction could be used for evacuation.
  Interoperable or emergency communication capabilities became catch-
phrases to the public because of September 11th. However, first 
responders face the challenge of emergency communications in everyday 
emergencies and high-profiled public safety events. Members of Congress 
also know of these challenges. When Air Florida Flight 90 crashed in 
the Potomac Basin in Washington, D.C. on January 13, 1982, Congress 
learned that there were no provisions for communication 
interoperability in place. On April 19, 1995, when white supremacist 
Timothy McVeigh rammed his flammable truck into the Murrah Federal 
Building in downtown Oklahoma City, the post-investigation revealed 
that the 117 local, state, and federal agencies with more than 1,500 
personnel on the scene were forced to rely on runners to disseminate 
critical, time sensitive information.
  In 1996, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), a 
blue ribbon committee created by Congress to examine the issue of 
interoperable communication, concluded that public safety agencies did 
not have sufficient radio spectrum to communicate with each other when 
they responded to emergencies. Responding to the PSWAC report, Congress 
included a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which called 
for the Federal Communications Commission to allocate portions of the 
700 Mhz spectrum for public safety use by December 31, 2006.

  The catastrophic Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated, yet again, 
the critical need for operable and interoperable communication. Despite 
the high-profiled events and everyday challenges facing first 
responders, Congress extended the date for freeing the much-needed 
public safety spectrum to February 17, 2009.
  Interoperability directly impacts the first responder community which 
consists of over 61,000 public safety agencies including 960,000 
firefighters, 830,000 EMS personnel, and 710,000 Law Enforcement 
Officers. The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) conducted a survey of 
192 cities regarding their interoperable communications systems in 2004 
and found:
  --Of the cities with a major chemical plant, 97% reported that they 
did not have interoperable communications capability between the 
chemical plant, police, fire and emergency medical services;
  --60% of the cities reported that they did not have interoperable 
communications capability with state emergency operations centers; and
  --75% of the cities pointed out that limited funding was preventing 
achieving full interoperable communications capability.
  Despite the pressing need for effective emergency communications 
capabilities, the Department of Homeland Security has incredibly 
assigned a full-time staff of only four to seven employees to provide 
grant guidance, develop standards and methodology, implement pilot 
programs and the expansion of the Rapidcom program, research and 
development, conduct a national interoperability baseline study, and 
disaster management and emergency communication at the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  The 9/11 Commission said a rededication to preparedness is perhaps 
the best way to honor the memories of those we lost that day [September 
11]. This is why I join my fellow original cosponsors to introduce the 
21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006. H.R. 5852 will 
improve the country's preparedness and emergency communications 
capability by (1) creating, for the first time, a central office within 
the Department for the administration and policy consideration for 
emergency communications; (2) ensuring appropriate staffing and 
resources commitment to improve emergency communication capabilities; 
(3) compelling DHS to create a national emergency communications plan 
and inventory of the Nation's emergency  communications system and 
capabilities; and, (4) seeking accountability regarding the use of DHS 
funds and governance.

  The bill would establish an Office of Emergency Communications within 
the Department where the Assistant Secretary for Emergency 
Communications would be directed to foster the development of 
interoperable emergency communications capabilities by State, 
territorial, local, tribal, and public safety agencies. The Office 
would prepare a baseline report that provides a snapshot of the current 
state of emergency communications capabilities; follow-up with periodic 
assessment reports regarding Federal efforts to address existing gaps 
and identify best-practices models; coordinate the capability to deploy 
backup communications services in the event of system failures during 
an emergency; create regional working groups made up of public and 
private sector emergency communication experts that would assess and 
report on the state of emergency communication networks nationwide;

[[Page H5703]]

provide technical assistance to state and local governments; and, 
develop a plan to ensure the operability of the Federal governments 
communications systems.
  The legislation would require the Secretary to report to Congress on 
the resources and staff necessary to carry out the responsibilities of 
the Office of Emergency Communications not later than 60 days after the 
enactment of the bill. Within 30 days of the Secretary's report to 
Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is to review, 
assess, and report on the findings submitted by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security.
  The bill would also call a National Emergency Communications Strategy 
to expedite an effective nationwide emergency communications system and 
conduct a national inventory of the channels, frequencies, and the 
types of communication systems and equipments. The plan would also 
identify and make recommendations regarding both short-term and long-
term obstacles and solutions to achieving emergency communication 
capabilities at all levels of government; set goals and timeframes for 
achieving nationwide emergency communication capabilities; and, 
accelerate the development of national standards for emergency 
communications equipment.
  To improve the accountability and good governance, State and local 
governments would be required to establish effective statewide 
interoperable communications plans before being able to use Department 
of Homeland Security grant funds for emergency communications. The 
Department's grant guidelines would also have to be coordinated and 
consistent with the goals of the national strategy for emergency 
communications.
  Finally, this legislation would establish an Emergency Communications 
Preparedness Center to act as a clearinghouse for the Federal 
Government's efforts to achieve nationwide interoperability; ensure 
cooperation among the relevant departments and agencies to implement 
the goals of the emergency communications strategy, and prepare and 
submit to Congress, on an annual basis, a strategic assessment 
regarding efforts of Federal departments and agencies to implement the 
emergency communications strategy.
  The 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 will take 
substantial steps to provide the leadership that is needed on emergency 
communication. I hope this Congress moves quickly to pass this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), who really wrote this bill that the majority 
presents here today in theme only.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman, and I thank Ranking Member 
Thompson and Ranking Member Pascrell. It is a pleasure for us to be 
here. And thank you, Chairman Reichert, for bringing this bill to the 
floor. We have been talking about this issue for a very long time, and 
I rise in strong support of the legislation. I strongly support the 
emergency communications provisions, particularly the interoperability 
strategy I first proposed more than 2 years ago.
  It is really unfortunate that we waited 6 years into the 21st century 
to adopt the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act. Communications 
failures, as has been referenced by my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, plagued the response in Oklahoma City in 1995, Columbine in 
1999, New York in 2001, and in the gulf region following Hurricane 
Katrina. In all of these cases, first responders had to use many of the 
same communications as Paul Revere.
  The lack of interoperability was deadly on September 11. Of the 58 
firefighters who escaped the north tower of the World Trade Center and 
gave oral histories to the Fire Department of New York, only three 
heard radio warnings that the north tower was in danger of collapse. 
Three. So as these brave firefighters were running up, the majority of 
people were coming down. And many of the 343 firefighters who died that 
day would have likely been saved had they carried effective, 
interoperable radios.
  The interoperability strategy in this bill is desperately needed, as 
is an adequate number of employees at DHS to solve this crisis and to 
validate manufacturers' claims that equipment meets widely accepted 
standards. So I am pleased, and I thank the chairman and the ranking 
members for bringing this bill to the floor.
  However, the bill has one critical flaw. Despite the testimony of the 
Director of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, Dr. David 
Boyd, that it will cost over $100 billion to overhaul communication 
systems across the country, the bill does not provide any funding for 
State and local governments to plan, to implement, or to maintain 
communication networks.
  However, while this bill is not perfect, the bill is a vast 
improvement over the lack of current policy. Right now, as we know, the 
Office of Interoperability and Compatibility has only five employees 
and a budget of less than one-half of 1 percent of the total DHS 
budget.
  We cannot wait for the next disaster before we take action, and I 
urge your support.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, who has the ability to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. STUPAK. How much time do we have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Pascrell.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think that those who have come before us 
today have highlighted how critical this legislation is to the American 
people. In the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Emergency 
Preparedness for our police, our fire and EMS, we believe that unless 
the Homeland Security Department puts more emphasis and boots on the 
ground than those people who are there every day and every night, that 
we are never going to get this right in protecting America.
  This bill seeks to do that, and, hopefully, within a very short 
period of time, we will look and find the funding, and I have suggested 
one place today, so that we will take care of those needs of homeland 
security and protecting our families.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, Democrats on this side, we will support the 
bill. It does create some accountability at the Department of Homeland 
Security. It will provide the cities and counties with guidance and 
standards 5 years after 9/11. But the real critical need is, we need 
funding.
  Public safety interoperability should be an urgent priority for this 
country. As a former police officer, I understand clearly the 
importance of adequate funding for homeland security programs. The bill 
solves half the problem. We create the standards, but there is no 
funding. Let us provide funding and not continue to give false hope to 
our first responders that interoperability will finally arrive. It will 
never arrive until we provide adequate funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and at 
this point I want to include a number of letters as part of the Record: 
Two from Chairman Barton, one from Mr. Boehlert and one from Mr. Young.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
     5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5852 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a 
     number of provisions in the bill, I do not intend to request 
     referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual 
     understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision 
     to forego the referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects 
     the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
     asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference. I would appreciate it if you would include 
     a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our 
     jurisdictional interest as part of the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of the bill by the House.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page H5704]]

     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2006.
     Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
     Chairman, Committee on Science,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boehlert: Thank you for your letter in 
     regards to H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency 
     Communications Act of 2006.
       I acknowledge and appreciate your willingness not to 
     exercise your jurisdiction on the bill. In doing so, I agree 
     that your decision to forgo further action on the bill will 
     not prejudice the Committee on Science with respect to its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on this legislation or similar 
     legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request 
     conferees on those provisions within the Committee on 
     Science's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a House-
     Senate conference on this or similar legislation.
       I will include your letter and this response in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters 
     being considered in H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency 
     Communications Act of 2006. The Science Committee 
     acknowledges the importance of H.R. 5852 and the need for the 
     legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a 
     valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I agree not to 
     request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
     legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral 
     waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your 
     response will be included in the Congressional Record when 
     the bill is considered on the House Floor.
       The Science Committee also asks that you support our 
     request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have 
     jurisdiction during House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2006.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: Thank you for your letter in regards 
     to H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act 
     of 2006.
       I acknowledge and appreciate your willingness not to 
     exercise your referral on the bill. In doing so, I agree that 
     your decision to forgo further action on the bill will not 
     prejudice the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this 
     legislation or similar legislation. Further, I recognize your 
     right to request conferees on those provisions within the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdiction 
     should they be the subject of a House-Senate conference on 
     this or similar legislation.
       I will include your letter and this response in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would urge all my colleagues to 
support this bill. I would remind my colleagues that it was clearly a 
bipartisan bill. It passed 28-0. I want to particularly thank Mr. 
Pascrell, Mr. Thompson, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Reichert. This has 
bipartisan spirit behind it from the start.
  I would just note that interoperability is very important. We saw 
with 9/11 that our firefighters didn't get the message, they stayed in 
the buildings, and they died. With Katrina, we saw the Coast Guard 
folks couldn't communicate with the law enforcement folks at the bottom 
of the helicopter ladders.
  It needs to change. That is why we reserved part of the spectrum, as 
part of the reconciliation bill earlier this year, to retrieve it from 
the broadcasters and to be able to sell it so that, in fact, that 
analog spectrum will be available. In addition, of course, we had $1 
billion that was part of that sale that was reserved specifically on 
matching grants to first responders across the country. It is very 
important.
  It is not the end. We need to do more. I realize it, and we are 
prepared to do such. So I was pleased to see that legislation move 
forward. This is yet another step. It passed 28-0 in committee. I would 
like to think that when we have a vote on this later this afternoon, it 
might be able to pass 433-0, knowing that we have two vacancies in the 
House at this point.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. Almost 
three years ago, I joined Representative Stupak and Representative 
Fossella in offering legislation to create an interoperability trust 
fund. Mr. Stupak is a former state trooper in Michigan. Mr. Fossella 
and I are from the one place in the United States that has twice been a 
victim of terrorism. Furthermore, as members of the Telecommunications 
subcommittee we are well aware of the needs of our first responders for 
radio equipment that works seamlessly for police, fire, and medical 
personnel as well as for local, state, and federal officials.
  So I am disheartened that this legislation has not followed regular 
procedure in that the Energy and Commerce Committee did not hold 
hearings or a markup on this bill. We are three Members of Congress 
that have spent a great deal of time working on this very issue and yet 
today we have a bill that we cannot try to improve. We can only vote 
Yes or No.
  I will vote ``yes.'' There are good things in this legislation. It 
has an emphasis on high level personnel at the Department of Homeland 
Security to do outreach, provide technical assistance and coordinate a 
national response capability that can provide backup services for lost 
local and regional services.
  But I believe that with any legislation, if proper procedure were 
followed, this could be a better bill.
  I see the most glaring omission is that there is no new money to aid 
our states and localities. In the digital television transition 
provisions of the Budget Resolution, we included $1 billion for 
Interoperability equipment grants to states and localities. We knew at 
the time that $1 billion is a drop in the bucket. The estimates are 
more in the $15 to $20 billion range.
  And before someone stands up and complains that I am just a Democrat 
looking to spend more money without having a way to pay for it, let me 
be clear--the Bush tax cuts are why the federal government doesn't have 
the resources it needs to fully fund programs like this. Reverse the 
tax cuts for the wealthiest among us so that we can secure our country.
  So I rise in support of the bill, but believe that it could be better 
and urge my Chairman to convene hearings on this vital matter.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5852, the 
21st Century Emergency Communications Act.
  This legislation would create a new emergency communications office 
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a 
standardized radio system for first-responders during disasters.
  Two years ago, the 9/11 Commission recommended placing all first-
responders on the same radio frequencies to facilitate communications.
  Similar provisions to this legislation are included in legislation 
Carolyn Maloney and I have introduced, H.R. 1794, the 9/11 Can You Hear 
Me Now Act. This legislation would instruct DHS to provide the New York 
Fire Department (FDNY) with a communication system that must be capable 
of operating in all locations and under the circumstances we know 
firefighters face and will continue to face when responding to an 
emergency in New York City.
  Under the bill, a communication system including three components--
radios, dispatch system and a supplemental communication device--would 
be required to work in all buildings and in all parts of the city, 
something that the radios unbelievably do not now do. This bill could 
and should serve as an example for what needs to be done on a Federal 
level.
  We also introduced H.R. 5017, the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/11 
Commission Report Act. H.R. 5017 brings renewed focus to the core 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and holds the Administration and 
relevant executive agencies accountable to carry out and document the 
successful implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report's policy goals.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
5852, the ``21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006.'' I 
support H.R. 5852 because it will improve the capability of first 
responders to communicate during times of emergency by improving the 
coordination of among Federal, State, territorial, local and tribal 
governments as it relates to voice, data, and other emerging 
technologies. I support H.R. 5852 for several reasons:
  1. Elevates the importance of improved emergency communications by 
creating, for the first time, a central office within the Department 
for the administration and policy consideration for emergency 
communications.
  H.R. 5852 creates an Office of Emergency Communications within the 
Department of

[[Page H5705]]

Homeland Security headed by an Assistant Secretary for Emergency 
Communications responsible for developing interoperable emergency 
communications capabilities by State, territorial, local, tribal, and 
public safety agencies. Among other things, the Office of Emergency 
Communications will:
  Prepare a baseline report that provides a ``snap shot'' of the 
current state of emergency communications capabilities;
  Follow-up with periodic assessment reports regarding Federal efforts 
to address existing gaps and identify best-practices models;
  Coordinate the capability to deploy backup communications services in 
the event of system failures during an emergency;
  Create regional working groups made up of public and private sector 
emergency communication experts that would asses and report on the 
state of emergency communication networks nationwide;
  Provide technical assistance to State and local governments; and,
  Develop a plan to ensure the operability of the Federal Government's 
communications systems
  2. Ensures appropriate staffing and resources commitment to improve 
emergency communication capabilities.
  H.R. 5852 requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the 
resources and staff necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the 
Office of Emergency Communications not later than 60 days after the 
enactment of the bill. Within 30 days of the Secretary's report to 
Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is to review, 
assess, and report on the findings submitted by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security.

  3. Compels DHS to create a national emergency communications plan and 
inventory of the Nation's emergency communications system and 
capabilities.
  H.R. 5852 adopts a ``bottoms-up'' approach by directing the Assistant 
Secretary for Emergency Communications to develop a national strategy 
to expedite an effective nationwide emergency communications system.
  The strategy will be developed with the cooperation of State, local 
and tribal governments, Federal departments and agencies, emergency 
response providers, emergency support providers, and the private 
sector.
  The plan will be developed within one year of the completion of the 
baseline study.
  H.R. 5852 mandates a national inventory of the channels, frequencies, 
and the types of communication systems and equipment. The plan must:
  Identify and make recommendations regarding short-term and long-term 
obstacles and solutions to achieving emergency communication 
capabilities at all levels of government;
  Set goals and timeframes for achieving nationwide emergency 
communication capabilities; and
  Accelerate the development of national standards for emergency 
communications equipment.
  4. Seeks accountability regarding the use of DHS funds and 
governance.
  H.R. 5852 requires State and local governments to establish effective 
statewide interoperable communications plans before being able to use 
DHS grant funds for emergency communications. In addition, H.R. 5852 
requires that the Department's grant guidelines are coordinated and 
consistent with the goals of the national plan for emergency 
communications.
  H.R. 5852 establishes an Emergency Communications Preparedness Center 
to act as a clearinghouse for the Federal Government's efforts to 
achieve nationwide interoperability; ensure cooperation among the 
relevant departments and agencies to implement the goals of the 
emergency communications strategy, and prepare and submit to Congress, 
on an annual basis, a strategic assessment regading efforts of Federal 
departments and agencies to implement the emergency communications 
strategy.
  For these reasons, I support H.R. 5852 and urge my colleagues to 
support it also.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5852.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________