Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want to say that as I learn more and more about this legislation, part of it was because of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean). We share a media market together, me in southwest Michigan, they, of course, in Chicago, and the concern by so many in talk radio and the news is really something else. I have to say that just a couple years no one knew about the online predators like we do today, and that is why we have had a number of hearings in the Oversight Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to one of the coauthors of the bill, along with Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kirk of Illinois.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the good State of Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, who has the ability to close?

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. 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. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 150th anniversary of the founding of a storied community in Southwest Michigan, Chikaming Township. This Saturday, members of the community will come together to celebrate the township's sesquicentennial. The earliest known residents of Chikaming Township were the Miami Indians, who were first encountered by the European explorer, Father Jaques Marquette, in 1675. By the early 1820s the land was ceded to the U.S. Government and Chikaming was formally established on March 6, 1856. The first pioneers to settle there were lumbermen who harvested trees that were used to build the piers that extend out into Lake Michigan--a source of great pride for all Michiganders who reside on the lakeshore. As time passed, the first of many successful farmers and growers in Southwest Michigan took advantage of the soil and climate of Chikaming by harvesting a variety of fruits and vegetables. The magnificent weather and scenic beauty of the land attracted families to vacation on the lake's shores and continues to be a popular summer escape today. Chikaming Township has also long been an important center of commerce for Southwest Michigan. Forestry and agriculture are only two of the many industries that have strengthened Southwest Michigan's economy. The beautiful beaches and friendly residents have been bringing generations back to the township for years. I would like to congratulate the residents of Chikaming on their sesquicentennial. Know that your vital community will continue to be a blessing and an asset to our comer of Southwest Michigan for many years to come.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation Mr. Chairman, I came to the Congress in 1987--the 100th Congress. We had a number of stars in our freshman class-- Jim Bunning--A Hall of Fame baseball pitcher, Fred Grundy--an accomplished actor, Amo Houghton--The 1st CEO of a Fortune 500 Company elected to the Congress, John Lewis--a hero of the Civil Rights movement who plotted and marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As colleagues, John Lewis and I have travelled the roads back to Birmingham, Montgomery and Selma. We stopped along the way numerous times and heard the stories relived. We travelled the bus route of Rosa Parks and we stopped at the church which had been bombed killing those sweet little girls. I credit those brave Members of Congress that took action in the 1960's that addressed some of the racism and bigotry that still stain and haunt our history of a just nation. Passage of civil rights legislation which included the Voting Rights Act was the right step. Today, it's still not hard to find racism and discrimination. Yes, folks are still trying to prevent Americans from participating in our electoral process. About a year ago, I sat on the House floor with the Dean of the House and my respected colleague, John Dingell, from the great State of Michigan. We looked at the Congressional Record and the names of Members of Congress that voted for and against the different civil rights bills of the 1960's. I was surprised to see how some of our former colleagues voted. And, my bet is, that some of those that voted no then, would have the courage to vote yes now. That they would see the positive impact that those bills have brought about. Mr. Speaker, we are the Peoples House--but we cannot be the Peoples House if we construct barriers for the people to participate. The Voting Rights Act provides protections and removes the barriers. It needs to be extended.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Donald P. Lauzon of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers upon both the completion of his command as the District Engineer for the Detroit District and also upon his retirement from distinguished service with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Colonel Lauzon earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering and is a Distinguished Military Graduate from Rhode Island College, Providence, RI; a Masters of Military Operational Art and Science from the United States Air Force Air University on the historic Maxwell-Gunter AFB, AL, as well as a Masters Degree in Construction Management from Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. He was commissioned in the U.S. Army in 1986. Lauzon has served with distinction abroad in Bosnia, Iraq and Germany. His assignments include a tour in Bosnia serving on both 1st Infantry Division and 1st Armor Divisions' General Staff at Camp Eagle, Tuzla, and in Desert Shield/Storm as the Assistant Operations Officer and Battalion Battle Captain in support of the 20th Engineer Brigade. As a Lieutenant, he served as a platoon leader and Company Executive Officer of the 547th Combat Engineer Battalion, Germany. He has also served in a wide array of assignments in the U.S., including the Chief of Operations Branch, Defense Mapping School, Fort Belvoir, VA; Battalion Executive Officer, 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power); Executive Officer, Deputy Chief of Engineers, Headquarters' USACE, Washington, DC; Resident Engineer for Fort Dix/ McGuire AFB of the New York District; and as Company Commander of the 299th Engineer Battalion at both Fort Carson, Colorado and Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Immediately prior to arriving in Detroit, LTC Lauzon served as Chief of the Department of Military Training, National Geospatial and Intelligence Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Colonel Lauzon is a recipient of the Bronze Star. His other numerous citations include: the Defense Meritorious Service Medal; the Meritorious Service Medal, 4th award; Army Commendation Medal, 4th award; Army Achievement Medal, 3rd award; National Defense Service Medal; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; South-West Asia Medal with 2 stars; Kuwaiti Liberation Medal; NATO Ribbon; Armed Forces Service Ribbon and the Meritorious Unit Citation. His badges include Basic parachute and Air Assault. He served as the Commander, Detroit District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 2004 to 2006. My district, which is southwest Michigan, was fortunate to finally have a Detroit District Commander who really paid attention to the needs of the small communities on Lake Michigan. During his tenure, there was significant progress made in the dredging of the St. Joseph, Michigan harbor for the first time in many years. The entire community appreciated the diligence of Colonel Lauzon in dealing with the issues that were most important to us. I wish to personally thank Colonel Lauzon for not only his service to the country, but particularly for his assistance to the great State of Michigan over the last 2 years. I wish him much success in his future endeavors, particularly on the golf course.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add that Mr. McCrery wanted to cosponsor H.R. 5252, but was unable to do so because the bill already had been reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I certainly appreciate his interest in cosponsoring the bill nonetheless.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. At this point, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I live by an adage: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. No Internet service provider ought to be able to block access to your favorite Web sites or Internet applications, and I have to say that there are protections in this bill which preserve those rights. There is no evidence of any problem. And if they surface, we have some protections in here. Let me read what they are. This bill, Barton-Rush bill, ensures that consumers are entitled to: one, access the lawful Internet content of their choice; two, run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; three, connect their choice of legal devices that do no harm to the network; and, four, competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. We give the FCC the explicit authority to enforce those principles, in fact, a fine for up to half a million dollars for every violation. We have a 90-day time clock to make sure that they are adjudicated properly and in a timely fashion. The Internet has a great history of developing free of taxation and regulation. We want to keep it that way, and that is why we should vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined: ``U.S. lags behind in high speed Internet access, ranking slips to 12th spot among 30 nations.'' Today telecommunication providers offer a host of services, whether it be voice, data, or video. And this legislation, should it be enacted later this year like I think it will, will jump-start, jump-start that competition, as it will provide more competition, it will lower prices, probably in the range of $30 to $40 per household per month, nearly $400 for the year, and I have to tell you that that is great for America. Now, over the last year we have had plenty of hearings, lots of witnesses, input from almost every sector. It has been a fair and open process from the start. And I commend my chairman, Joe Barton. He has done a magnificent job pulling together folks from all sides of the aisle, all different sides of the issues, to put together a bipartisan bill that we debate tonight. Now, the document that we marked up in my subcommittee and then in full committee changed. It changed because of amendments that were debated and offered and accepted and voted on. And I have to tell you that after each step of that process, the bill was better. It was stronger and it was better. And the proof was in the pudding. We passed the bill in subcommittee 27-4. We passed the bill in full committee, changed, 42-12. And I would note that when we introduced H.R. 5252, after the full committee markup process was completed, there were 15 Democrats from the Energy and Commerce Committee that asked that their names be listed as cosponsors. Now, in some debate tonight we have talked about the cities, a question about right-of-way. Well, let us read the language in the bill. Page 19 says this: ``Nothing in this act affects the authority of a State or local government to manage, on a reasonable, competitively neutral, and nondiscriminatory basis, the public rights-of-way and easements that have been dedicated for compatible use. That protects the cities with rights-of-way. We protect the cities with a revenue stream. Most of them today have about a 5 percent revenue from the receipts that are collected. We add to that. It will be 6 percent, because we guarantee that that extra percent is going to go to the community access channels, what we call the PEG channels, the Public, Education, Government channels. In fact, some of the studies that have come out show that the cities will gain revenues in the neighborhood of perhaps as much as 30 percent. We added an anti-redline provision that was offered by our friend, Mr. Rush from Chicago. It was a great provision. It made the bill better. It was accepted, as I recall, on a voice vote. The bottom line is this: if you are happy with the status quo, please vote ``no'' tonight. If you like cable rates going up, if you like the regulations, vote ``no.'' But if you want change, please vote ``yes.''

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Buckeye State, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise not only as a Member, but also as the Chairman of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, and I first want to thank Chairman Dreier and Mr. Diaz-Balart for their work in crafting what I think is a fair rule in the debate we have today and perhaps tomorrow. From the start, this has been, I think, a very fair and open process. And I must note that the Barton-Rush-Upton-Pickering bill, H.R. 5252, has been fair and open from the very start. In fact, I would note that when you look at the number of cosponsors, and this bill was filed after we completed the markup in full committee, H.R. 5252, and after we completed the markup, not beforehand but after, 15 Democrats from the Energy and Commerce Committee cosponsored the legislation. That perhaps is one of the reasons why it passed in subcommittee 27-4, overwhelming; and 42-12 before the full committee. The process has been open. We have had lots of hearings, lots of discussions. We have had lots of viewpoints, lots of panels. We have heard from just about anyone with any interest at all in this legislation as it has moved through this process. We looked at a number of staff drafts, many of them with Member input. Some Members might want to decline to have Members' input, but in any case we had lots of debate and lots of issues that we looked at, starts and stops, and at the end of the day I think that the process, most Members would say, was very fair. What was the intent of what we were trying to do? It is called deregulatory parity; that is that we are going to treat all of the providers of these services equally, whether they be a cable provider, whether it be telephone or voice provider, or whether they have broadband or high speed Internet access. All of those can provide these services. All of us consumers want those services in our homes and in our businesses, and yet under existing law it is not parity. It really is weighted towards one side and against the others. So the bottom line was we wanted it to be fair, and I think we achieved that result with this legislation. What does it mean for the consumers? Well, for the consumers that have these services, it is probably going to mean about a $30 to $40 reduction per month. That comes out to about $400 per year that they will save with the enactment of this legislation. Now, I hear a lot about the cities. We wanted to protect the cities. Let me tell you that the rights-of-way are protected. They are going to be able to govern whether the streets are torn up or where the wires are going to be strung. All of that the cities retain those rights. Look at the language in the bill. It is there. The revenue stream, very important as well to the cities. Remember, that is us consumers that pay. Some would call it a hidden tax, but it is there. The revenue stream is protected. In fact, there are some studies that came out, we debated this a little earlier, perhaps a 30 percent increase to the cities revenues because you have got more providers coming into town and you are going to have more people that perhaps just have over-the-air and don't pay into that at all who are going to want these new services and it is going to be very beneficial. And we have the same standard, the same standard for accumulating those revenues that there is today. So the bottom line is this: This was a bipartisan bill. We worked hard to see it that way, and the proof is in the pudding. That is why a 27-4 vote in subcommittee, overwhelming, and then a 42-12 vote in the full committee brings this bill to the House floor. Now, earlier this morning, I had a chance to talk to Chairman Stevens on the other side of the Capitol. They are looking forward to moving legislation. I hope it is fairly close to ours. A markup yet this month and on the floor as early as next month, so that we can get a bill to conference, work together, and get this bill to the President. I am proud to say that the Barton-Rush-Upton-Pickering bill is gaining a lot of steam, a lot of momentum. This rule vote is very important. I would urge all my colleagues to support the rule, a fair rule. Let us get it done to get the consumers some money in their pockets.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, just to correct the record, I was not a big supporter of this 6 percent from the beginning. And I can point the finger at others. I was not the instigator of this. However, it is part of the bill. And, in fact, a study was put out that, according to the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, indicates that competition and the rise in the number of cable providers will cause total cable industry revenues to go up such that the 5 percent franchise fee, along with the 1 percent increase for the PEG channels, will see revenues increase by as much as 30 percent. Now, I might note, where does that 30 percent come from? It comes from us, the consumers. It is passed along. So the cities are going to actually increase revenue. They are going to still maintain the control of the right-of-way, as they should. I don't know where the CBO came up with this study. I know that I am told that they conferred with our staff. They obviously didn't listen very well. I look forward to cosponsoring the legislation along with Chairman Barton. I think that this does need to be addressed. CBO, I think, in addition, made another major mistake on the transition to digital bill that the President signed into law earlier this year when they calculated that the sale of the spectrum, the analog spectrum, would bring in only $10 billion when, in fact, we saw some private studies that it might be as much as $20 billion. So, again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support the Rules Committee and deny this motion.