A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to grant a license or construction permit through a system of competitive bidding.

Madam President, I rise today to ask a unanimous consent request on S. 650. This is a bill that I have introduced with Senator Hirono that would extend the Federal Communications Commission's spectrum auction authority until the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2023.

Currently, this authority is set to expire tomorrow night. Our legislation would prevent this expiration and allow the Department of Defense and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to focus on a statutorily required study which is to be completed by September of this year. This will define DOD spectrum requirements and articulate the risks should the Department lose access to portions of the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz frequencies that are home to systems that are used to defend our country from attack.

The extension of this authorization until September 30 would allow time for the DOD and the NTIA to complete their study which, as I say, is expected in September.

We cannot allow potential authorizing spectrum legislation to affect any decision making related to the lower 3 gigahertz band before the DOD and the NTIA release their study, which is expected, as I say, in September.

The FCC's spectrum auction authority was previously extended less than just 3 months ago. Unfortunately, each time this auction authority expires at short and arbitrary intervals, we find additional language being proposed that would modify the current process by which any sharing of this spectrum would be determined. The Department of Defense finds itself responding to proposals that include offering up for auction critical bands of spectrum before this study has been completed.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 requires the Department of Defense to conclude the spectrum study by September 2023. Importantly, the study mandates examination of the feasibility of DOD sharing the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz band of spectrum, which is a very limited resource with the industry.

The extension which I call up today would make certain that the analysis of the study is completed before taking action or before actions could be taken which may potentially harm the national security of the United States.

While the development of 5G networks is important to both the economic prosperity and national security of the United States, the premature auction of spectrum must not jeopardize the systems that depend on radars and other critical sensors to protect our troops and our citizens from air or missile attacks.

Many of the reasons that make an extension until the end of the fiscal year vital simply can't be discussed here on the Senate floor because they need to be taken in a classified setting.

Over the past several months, I hosted a series of classified and unclassified briefings for my colleagues, their congressional staff members, the telecom industry, and the defense industry. These briefings were delivered by both the Department of Defense and the

Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from Vermont for his comments.

I think we all want the same thing. We want the auction authority to be able to move forward. I do believe that it is very appropriate because there are negotiations which are ongoing, but none of them can be completed until the report, the study, is completed on September 30.

If we did a short-term extension, we would simply be back here again. But once again, the Department of Defense finds itself in a position to where once again they are being asked to modify the appeals process in this existing statute, which we already have on the books, and we find ourselves under, as the Senator from Vermont indicates, a very serious time constraint to try to get this done within 60 days.

My question is, If 60 days is good enough, wouldn't it be better to go until the end of the year when we would actually have the data available to make a good decision about whether or not there is the availability of additional spectrum for a sharing or a sale that could be used, perhaps, for 5G, but at the same time, we could be assured would not impact our national defense priorities?

With that, I thank my colleague from Vermont.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the Senator is working very diligently to achieve a goal that all of us share. The basic question right now is going to be whether to have a 60-day extension that has been agreed to by the House or to have an extension, as the Senator is proposing, until the end of the fiscal year.

The bottom line--and it is the judgment of many--is that sticking with the 60-day extension is beneficial to achieving the goal of having the parties who are now negotiating come to a longer term resolution even beyond the end of the fiscal year. We have got to extend, ultimately, the spectrum authority beyond 60 days or beyond the end of the fiscal year. We really have to extend it for a much greater period of time in order to achieve the goals that are shared between all of us.

Senator Rounds' bill, of course, as I mentioned, would extend things until September 30. We think that is going to take pressure off negotiators, and we have some confidence that if we keep that 60-day status, we are going to get to that long-term goal.

Further, the House has made it clear that they are not going to take up any bill that moves the date to September 30. So that is just the reality we have to deal with. Others may agree with Senator Rounds to push it to September 30, but the best information we have is that the other body has no intention of taking up that bill. If that were the case and we were to pass a bill extending to September 30 but the House doesn't take it up, then the spectrum authority expires, and that is bad for everybody. It sends the wrong signal, obviously, as well, to our allies and our competitors.

We just can't afford to risk a lapse of authority. Given the reality of the time constraints we are under, even if the Senate were to pass Senator Rounds' bill, we would have a situation where it would be rejected by the House--that is our best judgment--and there would be a lapse in authority, which would be very threatening to the well-being of all of us concerned.

So, on that basis, I offer this objection to the unanimous consent request of my colleague from South Dakota.