Livestock Marketing Fairness Act

Mr. President, today Senator Vitter and I are introducing legislation to ensure and protect the jobs of thousands of individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities and provide important services to the U.S. Government and taxpayers alike.

In 1938, during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration, Congress passed the Wagner-O'Day Act to help provide employment opportunities for people who are blind. At the time, most of the work the Wagner-O'Day Act created was in manufacturing mops and brooms that would be sold for use in Federal Government buildings and facilities.

In 1971, under the leadership of New York Republican Senator Jacob Javits, Congress amended the act to include people with significant disabilities and expand the program to also include services provided to the Federal Government.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program eventually changed its name to ``AbilityOne.'' Today, this expanded work program for people who are blind or have significant disabilities provides Federal customers, including the U.S. Senate, with a wide array of products, like wall mounted clocks, paint, military uniforms, hardware and cleaning supplies. AbilityOne also helps put people to work in service positions, like call center operations, grounds-keeping, food service, administration and processing positions, and vehicle fleet maintenance.

People who are blind or have significant disabilities struggle particularly hard to find work. While the current job climate is challenging for all Americans, the employment rate for individuals in this group hovers around 30 percent. Oftentimes these individuals must rely on taxpayer funded government entitlement programs like Medicaid, SNAPS--food stamps--supplemental security income, and subsidized housing. AbilityOne helps these Americans find jobs and alleviates the expenditures of these entitlement programs.

Recent independent studies of the AbilityOne Program found that in just the four business lines analyzed, the AbilityOne Program saved the Government $34 million in both reduction of

entitlements and increases in income and payroll taxes.

AbilityOne provides nearly 48,000 people who are blind or who have significant disabilities with quality job opportunities, to earn a living which provides a pathway towards increased independence.

There are nearly 600 nonprofit organizations across the country working to find job opportunities for people who are blind or have significant disabilities, through the AbilityOne program. With Maryland's proximity to the seat of the Federal Government, AbilityOne creates considerable job opportunities in the service sector for Marylanders with disabilities.

However, there is a growing trend among Federal facilities that is undoing the progress that the AbilityOne Program has made and in turn is contributing to the growth of unemployment for Americans with disabilities. The bill Senator Vitter and I are introducing today aims to address this problem.

More and more Federal facilities are moving out of federally owned and operated properties and into leased space in privately owned buildings and facilities. The General Services Administration estimates that the Federal Government leases more than 7,300 buildings in more than 2,000 communities across the country. When GSA has sought lease space in Maryland I have generally supported these moves.

Federally leased properties create terrific economic opportunities for the business districts they come to. Federally leased properties bring revenues for State and local governments, increase the tax base of the regions they come to and often provide the backbone for small business growth and consulting services around the federally leased facilities.

The economic opportunities a Federal lease on private real estate provides for a community are great for everyone except for service workers with disabilities who are no longer helped by AbilityOne because federally leased space falls outside the scope of the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Act.

As the law is written, Javits-Wagner-O'Day only applies to federally owned and operated facilities.

Our bill makes a simple and practical fix to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to apply the AbilityOne Program services to federally leased space. My bill states that when the Federal Government occupies 60 percent or more of the usable space within a private building or facility that the Federal Government, the lessor, or property manager must comply with the service contract procurement requirements of the Javits-Wagner- O'Day Act.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, and the thousands of men and women who have found employment opportunities through the AbilityOne Program, have a proven track record of success in terms of providing exceptional services and products for the Federal Government at rates that make for very sound spending of taxpayer dollars.

Finding job opportunities has always been a challenge for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. We must maintain the Federal Government's commitment to these hard working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Vitter and me in cosponsoring the AbilityOne Improvements Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011.

While this bill bears Sergei Magnitsky's name in honor of his sacrifice, the language addresses the overall issue of the erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Russia. It offers hope to those who suffer in silence, whose cases may be less known or not known at all.

While there are many aspects of Sergei's and other tragic cases which are difficult to pursue here in the United States, there are steps we can take and an obvious and easy one is to deny the privilege of visiting our country to individuals involved in gross violations of human rights. Visas are privileges not rights and we must be willing to see beyond the veil of sovereignty that kleptocrats often hide behind. They do this by using courts, prosecutors, and police as instruments of advanced corporate raiding and hope outsiders are given pause by their official trappings of office and lack of criminal records. Further, we must protect our strategic financial infrastructure from those who would use it to launder or shelter ill-gotten gains.

Despite occasional rhetoric from the Kremlin, the Russian leadership has failed to follow through with any meaningful action to stem rampant corruption or bring the perpetrators of numerous and high-profile human rights abuses to justice.

My legislation simply says if you commit gross violations of human rights don't expect to visit Disneyland, Aspen, or South Beach and expect your accounts to be frozen if you bank with us. This may not seem like much, but in Russia the richer and more powerful you get the more danger you are exposed to from others harboring designs on your fortune and future.

Thus many are standing near the doors and we can certainly close at least one of those doors. I know that others, especially in Europe and Canada are working on similar sanctions.

I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky while he was still alive

when his client William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital, testified at a hearing on Russia that I held as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in June 2009.

At the Helsinki Commission we hear so many heartbreaking stories of the human cost of trampling fundamental freedoms and it's a challenge not to give up hope and yield to the temptation of cynicism and become hardened to the suffering around us or to reduce a personal tragedy to yet another issue. While we use trends, numbers, and statistics to help us understand and deal with human rights issues, we must never forget the face of the individual person whose reality is the issue and the story of Sergei Magnitsky is as unforgettable as it is heartbreaking.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian tax lawyer employed by an American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax fraud in Russian history. After discovering this elaborate scheme, Sergei Magnitsky testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million and naming the names of those officials involved. Shortly after his testimony, Sergei was arrested by subordinates of the very law enforcement officers he had implicated in this crime. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under torturous conditions. He developed severe medical complications, which went deliberately untreated and he died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.

Sadly, Sergei Magnitsky joins the ranks of a long list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle and for truth. These ranks include Natalia Estemirova a brave human rights activist shot in the head and chest and stuffed into the trunk of a car, Anna Politkovskaya an intrepid reporter shot while coming home with an arm full of groceries, and too many others.

Often in these killings there is a veil of plausible deniability, gunmen show up in the dark and slip away into the shadows, but Sergei, in inhuman conditions, managed to document in 450 complaints exactly who bears responsibility for his false arrest and death. We must honor his sacrifice and do all we can to learn from this tragedy that others may not share his fate.

Few are made in the mold of Sergei Magnitsky, able to withstand barbaric deprivations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to the test. A man of such character is fascinating and in some ways disquieting because we suspect deep down that we might not have what it takes to stay loyal to the truth under such pressure. Magnitsky's life and tragic death remind us all that some things are more valuable than success, comfort, or even life itself--truth is one of those things. May his example be a rebuke to those whose greed or cowardice has blinded them to their duties, an inspiration to still greater integrity for those laboring quietly in the mundane yet necessary tasks of life, and a comfort to those wrongly accused.

The Wall Street Journal described Sergei Magnitsky's death as a ``slow-motion assassination,'' while the Moscow Prison Oversight Committee called it a ``murder to conceal a fraud.'' Pulitzer Prize- winning reporter Ellen Barry writing in the New York Times stated that, ``Magnitsky's death in pretrial detention at the age of 37 . . . sent shudders through Moscow's elite. They saw him--a post-Soviet young urban professional, as someone uncomfortably like themselves.''

Outside the media, President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek noted that ``Sergei Magnitsky was a brave man, who in his fight against corruption was unjustifiably imprisoned under ruthless conditions and then died in jail without receiving appropriate medical care.'' While Transparency International observed that, ``Sergei did what to most people seems impossible: he battled as a lone individual against the power of an entire state. He believed in the rule of law and integrity, and died for his belief.''

One might have thought that after the worldwide condemnation of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, torture, and death in the custody, the Russian government would have identified and prosecuted those responsible for this heinous crime. Instead, the government has not prosecuted a single person and many of the key perpetrators went on to receive promotions and the highest state honors from the Russian Interior Ministry. Moreover, the officers involved feel such a sense of impunity that they are now using all instruments of the Russian state to pursue and punish Magnitsky's friends and colleagues who have been publicly fighting for justice in his case.

They have forced the American founding partner of Magnitsky's firm, Jamison Firestone, to flee Russia in fear for his safety in the months following his colleague's death after learning that the same people were attempting to take control of an American client's Russian companies and commit a similar fraud. And they have used the same criminal case that was used to falsely arrest Magnitsky to indict Sergei's client Bill Browder. They have opened up retaliatory criminal cases against many of Hermitage's employees and all of its lawyers, who were forced to leave Russia to save their own lives. These attacks have only intensified since my colleague and friend Congressman Jim McGovern introduced the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2011, a similar measure in the House of Representatives, last month.

In the struggle for human rights we must never be indifferent. On this point, I am reminded of Elie Wiesel's hauntingly eloquent speech, The Perils of Indifference which he delivered at the White House in 1999. On this ever-present danger and demoralizer he cautions us, ``Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.''

Speaking of our humanity, I offer the following words as a contrast. They are from Russian playwright Mikhail Ugarov who created One Hour Eighteen, which is the exact amount of time it took for Sergei Magnitsky to die in his isolation cell at Moscow's Matrosskaya Tishina prison. Ugarov asks, ``When a person puts on the uniform of a public prosecutor, the white lab coat of a doctor, or the black robe of a judge, does he or she inevitably lose their humanity? Do they lose their ability to--even in a small way--empathize with a fellow human being? In the case of Sergei Magnitsky, each of the people who assumed these professional duties in the case left their humanity behind.''

The coming year will be a significant moment in the evolution of Russian politics. With Duma elections scheduled for the end of 2011 and presidential elections for early 2012, there is an opportunity for the Russian government to reverse what has been a steady trajectory away from the rule of law and respect for human rights and toward authoritarianism.

Private and even public expressions of concern are not a substitute for a real policy nor are they enough, it's time for consequences. The bill I introduce today sends a strong message to those who are currently acting with impunity in Russia that there will be consequences for corruption should you wish to travel to and invest in the United States. Such actions will provide needed moral support for those in Russia doing the really heavy-lifting in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law, but they will also protect our own interests--values or business related.

We see before us a tale of two Russias, the double headed eagle if you will. To whom does the future of Russia belong? Does it belong to the Yevgenia Chirikovas, Alexey Navalnys, Oleg Orlovs and countless other courageous, hard working, and patriotic Russians who expose corruption and fight for human rights or those who inhabit the shadows abusing and stealing from their fellow citizens?

Let us not put aside our humanity out of exaggerated and excessively cautious diplomatic concerns for the broader relationship. Let us take the long view and stand on the right side--

and I believe the wise side--with the Russian people who have suffered so much for the cause of liberty and human dignity. They are the ones who daily risk their safety and freedom to promote those basic principles enshrined in Russian law and many international commitments including the Helsinki Final Act. They are the conscience of Russia. Let us tell them with one voice that they are not alone and that concepts like the rule of law and human rights are not empty words for this body and for our government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue, energy consumption. Do each of us know how much energy we actually consume? How much does our energy use affect our pocketbooks? Consumers should be able to answer these questions. That is why I am introducing the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act today.

This legislation takes a common-sense step toward broadening consumers' access to data about their electricity usage. I first began working on this issue while serving in the Colorado General Assembly back in 1997, when I introduced a bill that would have given consumers information about the price, water consumption, pollutants, and emissions used to generate the electricity they were sold. However, I am proud to say that this refined transparency bill--which gives consumers access to their energy use and price--was developed directly from the input of Coloradans who participated in my energy jobs summit in Denver in February 2010.

In today's marketplace, consumers have a clear understanding of what their car mileage means for their wallet. They also have ready access to the number of minutes remaining on their cell phone. However, consumers lack clear, timely data about their electricity use and its price. Providing increased transparency will help consumers with their decisions about electricity usage in their homes or businesses.

The Electric Consumer Right to Know Act, or E-Know Act, would provide this transparency by establishing consumers' clear right to access data on their own electricity usage. This right is an important step toward a more effective, reliable and efficient electric grid, and a step toward helping consumers use electricity more efficiently and save money on their electric bills.

For the past two years, I have been traveling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs. I also hosted an Energy Jobs Summit in Denver in February 2010. As part of this summit, we asked experts in energy policy and business to join us for a conversation about how we can better position Colorado and the United States to lead in the 21st century clean energy economy and win the global economic race.

We heard from U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, then-Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Ed Perlmutter. But, more importantly, we heard from Coloradans who came to share their views on what the federal government can do, or in some instances not do, to support job creation and transition to cleaner and more efficient energy use.

One consumer participant at the summit noted that even though he had a smart meter at his home, his power company would not let him access his electrical meter readings to learn how he was using electricity. If he could access those readings, he could better understand his energy use, learn how to be more energy efficient and save money. That is why I am reintroducing E-Know Act today, to improve communication between the consumers and their utility and spur innovation in developing creative technologies that will save energy.

The bill directs the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission to convene an open, extensive and inclusive stakeholder process to work through the details of this measure to ensure that implementing the consumers' right to access their information also retains consumer privacy, and ensures the integrity and reliability of the grid.

The outcome of this process will create national guidelines establishing the right of consumers to access their electricity data, including minimum national standards that utilities must meet to ensure that right of access. In developing those minimum standards, the FERC will take into consideration the ongoing and important work at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology in developing a smart grid roadmap, as well as the innovative state and local programs already being developed across the country to integrate smart meters into the electrical grid, including Colorado, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and others.

In my home state of Colorado, Xcel Energy has been working with the city of Boulder on a pilot program called SmartGridCity to develop a community-scale smart grid with over 20,000 residents participating. In Fort Collins, Colorado, the business community and utilities have teamed up to form the FortZED project with the goal of turning the downtown into a net zero energy district using smart technology. I am proud to see Coloradans and others around the country taking important steps together in learning how to make the grid more reliable, efficient, and help save everyone money.

Finally, part of ensuring the right to access your data includes the right to retain the privacy of your data. When consumers gain access to their data, they will also need to clearly understand how it will be used, especially when consumers grant third-party access to it. This is why this bill states that the FERC will establish, among other important measures, guidelines for consumer consent requirements. Retaining privacy is critical to building consumer trust in the smart grid and facilitating the transition of the smart grid to an integral part of everyday life for every American family.

I look forward to working with my colleagues from both parties and all interested stakeholders in establishing this right, defining it in a way that eliminates unintended consequences, and enforcing this right in a way that promotes the efficient use of electrical energy.

This bill is an important first step in implementing smart meters across the country, moving us toward an electrical grid that is more reliable and more efficient, a ``smart grid,'' if you will. There are several pieces of the puzzle that will be required to realize that future, and one critical part of that puzzle is the right of consumers to access their electricity data. I urge my colleagues of both parties to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our Nation's first responders that is secure, interoperable and resilient.

As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that is just wrong.

Today, we introduce the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Peter T. King and Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, APCO International, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of State EMS Officials, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

I am pleased that President Obama has pledged his commitment to reserve

the D Block for public safety. I also look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, who has championed this cause and has signaled his determination to see a bill move through Congress this year.

Today, public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications.

Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina.

But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. A police officer at the scene of a crime would be able to feed video back to headquarters. Emergency response officials would be able to exchange data with hospitals while treating patients at the scene of an accident.

I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, proposed in its National Broadband Plan, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.

The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011 would ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing the network and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of different bands of spectrum to commercial carriers. By dedicating those auction revenues to the public safety network, we can help public safety officials build the system they need without adding to the deficit.

Under our bill, the FCC would set rules for the public safety network, ensuring interoperability across the nationwide system. The rules would also allow public safety to share spectrum with other governmental and private entities, as long as public safety services retain priority access to the spectrum. This authority would help hold down costs of the system by allowing public safety to leverage existing infrastructure.

The grants to build and maintain the public safety network would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security and would be awarded directly to States and municipalities, who are in the best position to know how to deploy the network in their jurisdictions.

Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. We should not let the 10th anniversary of 9/11 pass without legislating to remedy that failure. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission, the Honorable Thomas H. Kean and the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, appeared before our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in March and urged the immediate allocation of the D Block to public safety, bluntly, and rightfully, delivering a message to Congress that further delay is intolerable. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Tim Johnson, Grassley, and Tester. Without their support this bill would not be possible. We have always enjoyed bipartisan support on this issue and I want to thank them for their work in making sure that our livestock markets remain competitive.

Our Nation's ranchers and family farmers aren't looking for handouts when they take their animals to the auction barn, they simply expect that they will receive the price they deserve for the quality they produce. However, there is evidence that there are bad actors out there who stack the deck when it comes to the prices they use in livestock contracts. The Packers & Stockyards Act was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law since that time has provided protection and remedy from manipulative market practices but the growth

of our markets in recent decades has opened up opportunities for new abuses that the original law never could have expected.

These opportunities for manipulation have developed as our markets have become increasingly more consolidated. The top four firms control over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic doesn't even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry in recent years. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed.

The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti-competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. Some livestock markets already do this to ensure transparency but there are others who allow transactions to happen behind closed doors.

The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders.

I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem, large packers owning captive supplies, by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements.

This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. All our livestock producers are asking for is a level playing field and this bill helps them do what they do best, continue producing the finest meat in the world.

Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2011. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005, month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.

Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center?

In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC had announced its intention to auction this spectrum to a commercial provider. Thankfully, the White House announced late last year that it now supports the spectrum being provided to first responders for the construction of a nationwide public safety network, as did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents more than three dozen national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington.

Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our Nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.

As we approach the 10 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11th and the six year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is a disgrace that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance.

Providing ten megahertz of spectrum to public safety, as this bill does, is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

We have slightly more than one hundred days until the ten year anniversary of the horrific events of 9/11. I hope over the next 100 days the Senate Majority Leader will consider bringing this bill to the floor for full consideration and that at that time my colleagues will join me and Senator Lieberman in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives in danger each and every day to protect all of us.