September 21, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 163 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[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     and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1413) is repealed.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.

                          ____________________