Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my friend and an important supporter of this legislation, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the chairman if, after he hung up on that Ambassador's wife, if he still got the pocket fisherman or the ginsu knife, if they still might have sent that along.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation that fixes Judge Lee R. West's decision of earlier this week. I have the phone number for Judge Lee R. West. I thought maybe the 50 million folks that have decided to call the FTC and say enough is enough, maybe we ought to pass on this phone number to his office in Oklahoma. I do not know that they would get anything done for the next couple of weeks. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support. And I do not know of a family out there that has not received these awful phone calls, usually at some important moment. I can remember earlier this summer, I was finally home from a long day, and my wife and kids are ready to go with their friends down to Lake Michigan, my dog is wagging his tail. That is one of the words that he knows, ``beach.'' He is so excited. The phone rings. It is a solicitation call from a good group, I am sure. My wife has it down pat. Do you know what she does? ``It is for you.'' I get to the phone, and I have got to make sure they are not from our district, and then with that, that phone call is gone. Mr. Speaker, 50 million folks like our house have called the FTC. When you look at it, that is 50 percent of America. We have about 100 million households, so 50 million households have said hang up. We do not want this. And, yet, Judge Lee R. West, I cannot say a good guy, a guy out in Oklahoma, has said no. This legislation changes it. We are going to get it done. Let us all vote for this bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor before we pass this legislation.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I too want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) and the terrific staff for their work as we prepared this bill for the House floor tonight. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation. I have worked with a number of Head Start operations all of my years. I have been impressed with the teachers and the aides; I have been impressed with the administrators, the parents often working as volunteers; and certainly the kids themselves, not only the kids I have seen in the classrooms, but the same kids as I have watched them progress K through 12. Though tonight there has been a lot of criticism focused on title II of this bill, this is the provision that allows only eight States, only eight States, to establish a pilot program. It is important to note that those States cannot use the money that they receive for these pilot programs for other programs. It has to be dedicated solely to Head Start. They also have to dedicate more of their own State money for these programs. To me, the kids win. They get more money, particularly to see if they can make the program work even better. As I said earlier, I visited many of these Head Start facilities, and I was concerned as we developed this legislation that under title II perhaps some of those Head Start grantees may have had their funds cut. Well, I did not want to see that happen. I offered a successful amendment in committee to have a hold-harmless provision that prevents any cuts to current grantees that will now be in place for 5 years. So you cannot say that those grantees in fact are going to be cut if that State goes into a pilot program. By the end of the demonstration period, the 5 years authorization period of this bill, Congress will have an accurate perspective on the effectiveness of whether or not these pilot programs work. This is a better bill for our kids. Let us see it pass.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I too rise in strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment. I ask my colleagues about where they might have been in 1975. I know I had graduated from the University of Michigan and was on my way to Washington to work for a Congressman, David Stockman. Think about where you were, maybe sitting in your living room back in 1975. You might have been watching the ``Mod Squad'' for the first time or maybe the third season of ``M.A.S.H.'' In fact, someone told me that Strom Thurmond was only in his first or second term. The original newspaper-broadcast ownership rules were adopted in 1975, at the same time when there was little cable penetration, if any, no local cable news channels, few broadcast stations, and no Internet. The rule was based on market structure that bears almost no resemblance to the current environment. Without a doubt, there have been dramatic changes in the media marketplace since 1975 when the rule was adopted by the commission. When the rule was first adopted, there were 7,785 radio stations. There were 952 TV stations, three broadcast networks, cable television systems served 13 percent of television households, and direct broadcast satellite, DBS, providers were nonexistent, and the Internet was commercially not available. Today, there are more radio stations, 12,900; 1,600 full-powered TV stations; 2300 low-powered TV stations; 230 Class A TV stations; four major broadcast networks, along with other emerging broadcast networks; and today, cable TV systems serve almost 80 percent of the television households across the country. As required by law, the FCC factored the status of the current marketplace into the new rules. In addition to noting the dramatic transformation of the marketplace, it also noted that this type of business combination does advance the goals of localism and diversity. A key study relied upon by the FCC for these rules found that broadcasters co-owned by newspaper companies provided more than 50 percent more local news and public affairs broadcasting of better quality than nonbroadcast network-owned stations, unaffiliated with a newspaper publisher. I think about my own hometown. As I walk up to the post office in St. Joe, Michigan, there are almost a dozen different newspaper stands, whether it be the Wall Street Journal, the Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press, the local Herald Palladium, the South Bend Tribune, USA Today, and more. WGN owns the Chicago Tribune and Channel 9, which is broadcast over the air. The South Bend Tribune owns the local CBS affiliate in South Bend, Channel 22. The case has not been made that the local ownership has hurt the delivery of fair reporting by those news organizations. The Hinchey amendment would take us back to 1975 when the media marketplace was a much different place. It is working today. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the final proviso under the heading ``Federal Trade Commission salaries and expenses,'' page 84, line 15 through 85, line 3 of the bill violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House prohibiting legislation on appropriations bills. This provision bans commissioners and employees of the FTC to accept payment or reimbursement of a non-Federal entity for travel and related expenses, and would apply towards travel to a convention, conference, or meeting. The only exception provided for in the bill is if the person or corporation paying is an organization exempt from taxation pursuant to 501(c)(3) of the IRS code of 1986. In short, this language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the rules of the House, because it changes current law, and I insist on my point of order.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. UPTON. No. I think enough has been said.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Yes.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, on page 81, ``Federal Communications Commission, salaries and expenses,'' I believe that it is an authorization on an appropriations bill. It is not authorized.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald of the Michigan Air National Guard for the valiant decisions he made when his aircraft was struck by a surface-to-air missile while flying over Baghdad. On April 8, 2003 Major Ewald was leaving the Baghdad area after collecting vital intelligence about Iraqi ambush positions when he was suddenly struck by a surface-to-air missile that left his aircraft only marginally flyable. Major Ewald flew a wounded-bird for 12 minutes, while also completing several battle damage checklists, identifying critical aircraft system operations, making tentative plans for aircraft recovery, gathering important information about threats affecting future Close Air Support operations, and hastily preparing for an injury-free ejection. The quick-thinking Major then evaded potential capture and was soon rescued by fellow U.S. Army forces. While serving during Operation Iraqi Freedom he flew over 30 combat sorties. Major James Ewald entered active duty with the Air Force in January 1989 and served active duty until July 1998 when he joined the Michigan Air National Guard. During his active duty career, he flew in support of contingency operations over Bosnia, Operation Deny Flight, in support of United Nations Forces in the Republic of Korea, and over Iraq in support of Operation Southern Watch. Major Ewald and so many like him have unselfishly pledged to protect the United States. No matter the time, place, or circumstance, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces have always answered the call to duty. ``Chocks'' represents the best of the United States Armed Forces. My fellow Members of Congress, please join me in recognizing Major Ewald and all of the Armed Service members for their continued service to the American people!

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of criticism tonight about this drug bill; and I want to remind all of us as we go back to our districts, as we have heard for so many years at our town meetings and so many events, America wants and needs a prescription drug program for our seniors. I remind all of our colleagues here tonight that this program is voluntary. You do not have to participate if you do not want to, but for many Americans they will want to participate. They are going to participate. Mr. Speaker, I want to relate a little story that happened to me in my district last summer. I was at my son's little league game. A woman ran up to me as I was getting in my car and packing up the gear. She said, My mom just had a stroke. It will cost her $600 a month to survive. We never had that in our budget. We cannot afford it. Is the plan that you passed last week, this was last year, is that going to help my mom? I put my hands on her shoulders and I said, Yes, I believe that it will. She will be able to benefit from this plan. You will be able to use the assets that you have and to have her survive in a meaningful way. Yet, the other body never came back. The other body never came back with a plan and, in fact, that woman and her family were very distraught. This is a plan tonight that can pass with bipartisan support, not only in this Chamber but the other Chamber on the other side of the Capitol. The President will sign this bill. It is within the budget. No, it is not perfect. But we can take a step to help the woman that I had talked to last year as well as the thousands of people that have come to our town meetings over the course of the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Democratic substitute and, yes, support this plan that we take up a little bit later this morning.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the centennial of one of southwest Michigan's most famous landmarks: the three-story red lighthouse located in the beautiful community of South Haven. Artifacts such as this lighthouse are of tremendous historical value. These symbols of our heritage stand as a remembrance for generations to come. This 11-foot wide, 36-foot tall structure was constructed in 1903. Its red-case iron structure has always been one of its defining characteristics, making it easily identifiable to lighthouse enthusiasts and area historians. In fact, a new book has been published by the Michigan Maritime Museum depicting history of this lighthouse in honor of its 100th anniversary. As all folks who live, work, or grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan know, lighthouses provide an invaluable service to communities and commerce of the Great Lakes. I am proud that the South Haven lighthouse has reached its 100th anniversary and I am hopeful that it will survive 100 years more.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Gary Campbell, who is retiring after 34 years of service to education in Southwest Michigan. Earning his degree through Western Michigan University, the largest institution of higher education in Michigan's Sixth District, Gary has shown his commitment to the education of countless children over a four-decade span. Gary began his career at Edwardsburg Public Schools where he taught high school courses for three years. His keen intellect and strong work ethic soon propelled him to school administration. He has served as Superintendent of Lakeshore Public Schools for over 10 years. Behind the scenes, Gary has been extremely active within the communities of Southwest Michigan, becoming involved with such organizations as the Lakeshore Rotary Club, Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce, Council for World Class Communities, Community Partnership for Lifelong Learning, and the Lakeshore Excellence Foundation. Constantly working to contribute to his community, Gary has truly earned my admiration and the respect of the entire South West Michigan Community. Congratulations, Gary! We wish you continued success! Go Lancers!

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record three statements in support of this legislation: the first by the administration in their statement of administration policy; second, a strong letter of support by the Chamber of Commerce; and, third, a letter of strong support by the CTIA. Statement of Administration Policy (ThIs statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 1320, which would create a spectrum relocation fund. The Administration believes that the fund will serve as an important spectrum management tool to streamline the process for reimbursing government users, facilitate their relocation to comparable spectrum, and provide greater certainty to auction bidders and incumbents. This legislation will also expedite the opening of spectrum to commercial use for new services and technologies for consumers. The Administration is pleased that H.R. 1320 closely tracks the Administration's proposal to create a spectrum relocation fund. The Administration urges quick action by the Congress to establish a spectrum relocation fund to make the spectrum management process more effective and efficient. pay-as-you-go scoring H.R. 1320 would affect direct spending. The Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go requirements and discretionary spending caps expired on September 30, 2002. The Administration supports the extension of these budget enforcement mechanisms in a manner that ensures fiscal discipline and is consistent with the President's budget.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1320) to amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to facilitate the reallocation of spectrum from governmental to commercial users, as amended.

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

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 to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1320, bipartisan legislation called the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, otherwise known as the spectrum relocation trust fund bill. I introduced this legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Lately the subcommittee has been focused on the ailing telecommunications sector. Clearly the commercial wireless industry has not been spared from the wreckage, and we have been searching for ways to restore some hope. In my view what we need to do is get new, valuable spectrum into the hands of the commercial wireless carriers so that they can bring new, advanced wireless services to the consumer. That would be good for the wireless carriers, good for the equipment manufacturers, good for the consumer, and certainly great for the economy. In the current context, the government already has identified the 1710 to 1755 megahertz band for relocation from the government to the private sector. This spectrum, mostly encumbered by DOD, is considered valuable ``beachfront property'' due to its suitability for commercial, mobile advanced wireless services like 3G. However, the road to relocating government entities to comparable spectrum is unpaved and filled with potholes. This bumpy road creates massive uncertainty in the process and depresses interest in participating in the auction in the first place. H.R. 1320 would pave that road, establishing a spectrum relocation fund and procedures to ensure a timely, certain and privately yet fully funded relocation of Federal incumbents to comparable spectrum. H.R. 1320 requires the FCC to notify the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, 18 months before conducting an auction of relocated spectrum. The purpose of that notification is so that the NTIA, after review by the Office of Management and Budget, can provide the Commission with an estimate of relocation costs for a particular band and a time line for relocation. That information is critical because under the legislation, an FCC auction of relocated spectrum is only valid if the auction yields proceeds of at least 110 percent of the estimated relocation costs. The proceeds from auctions of eligible reallocated bands are deposited into a spectrum relocation fund which is an OMB-administered separate fund at the Department of Treasury. If any agency has any transferred money remaining when relocation is complete, the agency is required to transfer the money back to the spectrum relocation fund right away. Unexpected auction proceeds are then transferred to the Treasury no later than 8 years after the proceeds were initially deposited into the spectrum relocation fund. All the while, H.R. 1320 provides tight fiscal controls and congressional oversight, as it should, of the use of the spectrum relocation fund. Finally, the bill exempts the telecommunications development fund, TDF, from the Federal Credit Reform Act, the practical application of which has prevented TDF from making loans without first obtaining budget authority on an annual basis. The provision in H.R. 1320 will significantly enhance the TDF's ability to make loans to worthy development projects focused on rural and underserved areas. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), for his attention to this issue. I am pleased that the provision in fact is incorporated into the bill. As such, the bipartisan bill represents a win-win-win. That is good news for the private sector which craves certainty in the process and the consumer who craves the benefits which new services enabled by additional spectrum will afford them. That is good news for government agencies who know that they will be made whole when they relocate to comparable spectrum and the taxpayer who will not have to pay a dime to relocate government agencies and will know that there is tight fiscal oversight in that regard. As I indicated, all of this is great news for the economy. I should also add that we worked very closely with the administration to get where we are today and that the bill enjoys the administration's support, including the Department of Defense, the OMB and NTIA. I want to especially thank Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Price, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my good friend from the great State of Michigan, ranking member (Mr. Dingell), and certainly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), in addition to the majority and minority staff for their efforts to get us where we are today. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.