[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 163 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4614-H4616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DON'T BREAK UP THE T-BAND ACT OF 2020
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 451) to repeal the section of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 that requires the Federal Communications
Commission to reallocate and auction the T-Band spectrum, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 451
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 ``Don't Break Up the T-Band
Act of 2020''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO REALLOCATE AND AUCTION T-
BAND SPECTRUM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1413) is repealed.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to
section 6103.
SEC. 3. CLARIFYING ACCEPTABLE 9-1-1 OBLIGATIONS OR
EXPENDITURES.
Section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety
Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615a-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``as specified in the
provision of State or local law adopting the fee or charge''
and inserting ``consistent with the purposes and functions
designated in the final rules issued under paragraph (3) as
purposes and functions for which the obligation or
expenditure of such a fee or charge is acceptable'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``any purpose other than
the purpose for which any such fees or charges are
specified'' and inserting ``any purpose or function other
than the purposes and functions designated in the final rules
issued under paragraph (3) as purposes and functions for
which the obligation or expenditure of any such fees or
charges is acceptable''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Acceptable obligations or expenditures.--
``(A) Rules required.--In order to prevent diversion of 9-
1-1 fees or charges, the Commission shall, not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, issue
final rules designating purposes and functions for which the
obligation or expenditure of 9-1-1 fees or charges, by any
State or taxing jurisdiction authorized to impose such a fee
or charge, is acceptable.
``(B) Purposes and functions.--The purposes and functions
designated under subparagraph (A) shall be limited to the
support and implementation of 9-1-1 services provided by or
in the State or taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee or
charge and operational expenses of public safety answering
points within such State or taxing jurisdiction. In
designating such purposes and functions, the Commission shall
consider the purposes and functions that States and taxing
jurisdictions specify as the intended purposes and functions
for the 9-1-1 fees or charges of such States and taxing
jurisdictions, and determine whether such purposes and
functions directly support providing 9-1-1 services.
``(C) Consultation required.--The Commission shall consult
with public safety organizations and States and taxing
jurisdictions as part of any proceeding under this paragraph.
``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) 9-1-1 fee or charge.--The term `9-1-1 fee or charge'
means a fee or charge applicable to commercial mobile
services or IP-enabled voice services specifically designated
by a State or taxing jurisdiction for the support or
implementation of 9-1-1 services.
``(ii) 9-1-1 services.--The term `9-1-1 services' has the
meaning given such term in section 158(e) of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942(e)).
``(iii) State or taxing jurisdiction.--The term `State or
taxing jurisdiction' means a State, political subdivision
thereof, Indian Tribe, or village or regional corporation
serving a region established pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
``(4) Participation.--If a State or taxing jurisdiction (as
defined in paragraph (3)(D)) receives a grant under section
158 of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942) after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State or taxing
jurisdiction shall, as a condition of receiving such grant,
provide the information requested by the Commission to
prepare the report required by paragraph (2).
``(5) Petition regarding additional purposes and
functions.--
``(A) In general.--A State or taxing jurisdiction (as
defined in paragraph (3)(D)) may submit to the Commission a
petition for a determination that an obligation or
expenditure of a 9-1-1 fee or charge (as defined in such
paragraph) by such State or taxing jurisdiction for a purpose
or function other than a purpose or function designated under
paragraph (3)(A) should be treated as such a purpose or
function. If the Commission finds that the State or taxing
jurisdiction has provided sufficient documentation to make
the demonstration described in subparagraph (B), the
Commission shall grant such petition.
``(B) Demonstration described.--The demonstration described
in this subparagraph is a demonstration that the purpose or
function--
``(i) supports public safety answering point functions or
operations; or
``(ii) has a direct impact on the ability of a public
safety answering point to--
``(I) receive or respond to 9-1-1 calls; or
``(II) dispatch emergency responders.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Severability Clause.--If any provision of this
section or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this section
and the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON 9-1-1 FEE OR CHARGE DIVERSION.
(a) In General.--If the Commission obtains evidence that
suggests the diversion by a State or taxing jurisdiction of
9-1-1 fees or charges, the Commission shall submit such
information, including any information regarding the impact
of any underfunding of 9-1-1 services in the State or taxing
jurisdiction, to the interagency strike force established
under subsection (c).
(b) Report to Congress.--Beginning with the first report
under section 6(f)(2) of the Wireless Communications and
Public Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615a-1(f)(2)) that is
required to be submitted after the date that is 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
include in each report required under such section all
evidence that suggests the diversion by a State or taxing
jurisdiction of 9-1-1 fees or charges, including any
information regarding the impact of any underfunding of 9-1-1
services in the State or taxing jurisdiction.
(c) Interagency Strike Force to End 9-1-1 Fee or Charge
Diversion.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish
an interagency strike force to study how the Federal
Government can most expeditiously end diversion by a State or
taxing jurisdiction of 9-1-1 fees or charges. Such
interagency strike force shall be known as the ``Ending 9-1-1
Fee Diversion Now Strike Force'' (in this section referred to
as the ``Strike Force'').
(2) Duties.--In carrying out the study under paragraph (1),
the Strike Force shall--
(A) determine the effectiveness of any Federal laws,
including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary
or jurisdictional constraints regarding how the Federal
Government can most expeditiously end diversion by a State or
taxing jurisdiction of 9-1-1 fees or charges;
[[Page H4615]]
(B) consider whether criminal penalties would further
prevent diversion by a State or taxing jurisdiction of 9-1-1
fees or charges; and
(C) determine the impacts of diversion by a State or taxing
jurisdiction of 9-1-1 fees or charges.
(3) Members.--The Strike Force shall be composed of such
representatives of Federal departments and agencies as the
Commission considers appropriate, in addition to--
(A) State attorneys general;
(B) States or taxing jurisdictions found not to be engaging
in diversion of 9-1-1 fees or charges;
(C) States or taxing jurisdictions trying to stop the
diversion of 9-1-1 fees or charges;
(D) State 9-1-1 administrators;
(E) public safety organizations;
(F) groups representing the public and consumers; and
(G) groups representing public safety answering point
professionals.
(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 270 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Strike Force shall
publish on the website of the Commission and submit to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report on the findings of the
study under this subsection, including--
(A) any recommendations regarding how to most expeditiously
end the diversion by a State or taxing jurisdiction of 9-1-1
fees or charges, including actions that can be taken by
Federal departments and agencies and appropriate changes to
law or regulations; and
(B) a description of what progress, if any, relevant
Federal departments and agencies have made in implementing
the recommendations under subparagraph (A).
(d) Failure to Comply.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, any State or taxing jurisdiction identified by the
Commission in the report required under section 6(f)(2) of
the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (47
U.S.C. 615a-1(f)(2)) as engaging in diversion of 9-1-1 fees
or charges shall be ineligible to participate or send a
representative to serve on any committee, panel, or council
established under section 6205(a) of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1425(a)) or
any advisory committee established by the Commission.
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-81), or the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) shall be construed to
prevent a State or taxing jurisdiction from requiring an
annual audit of the books and records of a provider of 9-1-1
services concerning the collection and remittance of a 9-1-1
fee or charge.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) 9-1-1 fee or charge.--The term ``9-1-1 fee or charge''
has the meaning given such term in subparagraph (D) of
paragraph (3) of section 6(f) of the Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Act of 1999, as added by this Act.
(2) 9-1-1 services.--The term ``9-1-1 services'' has the
meaning given such term in section 158(e) of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942(e)).
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(4) Diversion.--The term ``diversion'' means, with respect
to a 9-1-1 fee or charge, the obligation or expenditure of
such fee or charge for a purpose or function other than the
purposes and functions designated in the final rules issued
under paragraph (3) of section 6(f) of the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, as added by
this Act, as purposes and functions for which the obligation
or expenditure of such a fee or charge is acceptable.
(5) State or taxing jurisdiction.--The term ``State or
taxing jurisdiction'' has the meaning given such term in
subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of section 6(f) of the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, as
added by this Act.
SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney) and the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
Gianforte) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 451.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 451.
I am pleased that we are finally here on the floor considering this
legislation to protect the public safety spectrum.
Since the 1970s, a band of spectrum known as the ``T-Band'' has been
utilized by local and regional public safety officials, fire companies,
and first responders. The T-Band is an indispensable radio channel that
creates the backbone of the public safety communications systems in 11
major metro areas across the United States.
Yet, the T-Band is at risk because of a provision of the law that
jeopardizes public safety and first responders' ability to continue
operations in that band.
Unless Congress acts, the Federal Communications Commission is
required by law to clear out the current T-Band users, relocate them to
a different channel, and prepare the T-Band for commercial auction.
This would be a mistake for a number of reasons.
For starters, the cost of relocating every public safety T-Band user
to a different band is roughly $5 billion to $6 billion, according to
the Government Accountability Office.
That figure is hard to justify, especially when we consider that,
under the current law, the cost of relocating all those incumbent users
are supposed to be covered by the proceeds from auctioning off the T-
Band for commercial use.
The problem there is, even the most generous estimates put the
potential T-Band auction proceeds at only $1 billion to $2 billion.
Relative to other auctions, that is not very much. There is not a lot
of demand for this kind of spectrum in the market, which means
taxpayers would be on the hook for the other $4 billion, roughly.
But make no mistake, we have heard loud and clear that the T-Band is
perfect for public safety and first responder communications. Put
simply, the T-Band is what our public safety personnel are used to,
they don't want to lose it, and letting them continue operating in that
band saves the taxpayers up to $4 billion.
With this bill, we are showing first responders and public safety
personnel operating in the T-Band, who every day serve and protect more
than 90 million Americans collectively, that we have their backs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Engel, the bill's
sponsor, for his years of leadership and persistence on this issue. I
also want to thank Ranking Member Walden for working with us to get
this bill to the floor today and appreciate his work to curb the
diversion of 911 fees by States.
This is a commonsense bill that helps public safety personnel across
the country, and it will ultimately save the taxpayers money in the
long run. I am glad to see this legislation move out of the House today
on a bipartisan basis and look forward to its consideration by the
Senate and the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 451, the Don't Break Up
the T-Band Act, as amended by the Energy and Commerce Committee to
include provisions from Republican Leader Walden's FIRST RESPONDER Act.
Today's legislation will allow first responders to retain access to a
critical band of spectrum as they continue to make plans to transition
mission-critical voice functions to the FirstNet Network.
The bill also takes a strong stand against States that divert vital
resources away from maintaining and upgrading their 911 systems by
creating strong safeguards to help prevent diversion of fees collected
for 911 operations.
Currently, States charge American consumers a monthly fee on their
phone bills to support 911 services. Yet, some States do not use the
money collected from this fee to support 911. Rather, they use it for
other State priorities unrelated to providing critical 911 services or
dispatching first responders during an emergency. In some cases, States
siphon these funds directly into their general fund, and in
[[Page H4616]]
other cases States use these fees for other public safety-type expenses
that do not directly support 911 services. Those States are currently
classified by the FCC as 911 fee diverters.
To clarify what is considered a diversion, and what is considered to
support 911 services, the bill directs the FCC to clarify its rules of
what obligations or expenditures are acceptable. These rules would be
crafted with input from States to ensure that appropriate 911 uses are
included.
Additionally, if a State has expenditures that don't fit squarely
within the eligible uses determined by the Commission, but can provide
documentation and receipts to show how those expenditures support
public safety answering point functions and operations or the ability
to dispatch emergency responders, then the States ought to have an
opportunity to challenge the acceptable nature of those expenses, and
this bill provides for that as well.
For the States that are truly bad actors, I think we can all agree
that those States should be held accountable for their shameful
practice of diverting 911 fees for programs completely unrelated to 911
services. Misleading the public on something this important to public
safety is unacceptable.
To that end, this bill sets up a strike force of State law
enforcement officers, public safety officials, and others to consider
potential criminal penalties to end fee diversion at its source. This
strike force would also study jurisdictional, budgetary, and other
barriers to ending diversion.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Engel and Chairman Pallone for
working with us to add this important language to the bill. I would
also like to thank FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, for his work on
the issue. He has been a steadfast champion on trying to address this
issue and hold States accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation by my colleagues, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minority manager, Mr. Gianforte, for
his work this afternoon in managing the floor.
The T-Band is what our first responders and public safety personnel
are used to. They don't want to lose it. And letting them continue in
that band saves the taxpayers up to $4 billion. That is why we must
pass H.R. 451.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 451, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion
are postponed.
____________________