[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 70 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3173-S3184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Graham).
  S. 1025. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the 
national defense through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement 
of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of 
Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency response, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National 
Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011 
along with my National Guard Caucus Co-Chair, Senator Lindsey Graham. 
Our bill builds upon earlier reforms proposed and enacted through the 
work of the Guard Caucus to give the Guard and Reserve a seat at the 
Pentagon's budget and policymaking tables and to update jurisdictional 
and operational lines of authority in Guard matters, recognizing that 
the Guard has evolved to become a front-line, 21st Century force that 
is still trapped in a 20th Century Pentagon bureaucracy. This bill 
represents a bipartisan effort to do the right thing by the men and 
women of our National Guard, and Senator Graham and I hope that it will 
receive speedy consideration and passage.
  Ten years ago, the National Guard of the United States was very 
different than the Guard protecting our country today. A young private 
joining the National Guard on September 10, 2001, was joining a force 
designed to participate in an all-out, no-holds-barred war with the 
Soviet Union, even though the Soviet Union had ceased to exist a decade 
before. When that private showed up for drill, he or she found 
facilities in disrepair, a Guard demoralized by inattention from 
Pentagon leaders, and equipment that seemed to predate the Cold War. Of 
course, the life of that private, and of our entire nation, would 
change dramatically in the days to come.
  September 11, 2001, woke us up to new realities. Yes, the United 
States still faced threats from overseas, and like the rest of us, the 
National Guard wanted to do its part. But as we began to call on the 
Guard to deploy, those of us who pay special attention to the Guard 
started to ask questions. Was the Pentagon actually going to send our 
Guard overseas to fight with its ancient and decrepit fleet of 
vehicles? What about training? Who would help get these units ready for 
the battlefield?
  Senator Graham and I wish we could say that every necessary measure 
was taken to correct these problems before our National Guard deployed. 
But we are still correcting them, and that's what this piece of 
legislation is all about. Ever since 9/11, I worked with my friend 
Senator Bond to make sure that these equipment, staffing, training, and 
other issues that our National Guard faced would be fixed. Our efforts 
culminated just a few years ago in the first National Guard Empowerment 
Act, which accomplished things like getting the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau a fourth star--and a louder voice in the Pentagon 
bureaucracy. Now Senator Graham and I are continuing that work. We will 
not rest until every soldier and airman in the Guard has the training, 
equipment, and leadership he or she needs to accomplish the mission.
  I would like to highlight a few things the bill will do. It will make 
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a statutory member of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, a change we have needed for a full decade to make sure 
Pentagon decision makers consider the unique nature of the Guard when 
making decisions. The bill authorizes appropriations for Guard domestic 
operations. It authorizes the State Partnership Program, which has had 
such great success in my home state of Vermont. The bill will also help 
our emergency response operations. During Hurricane Katrina, we saw 
military forces so confused by state and federal distinctions. This 
bill includes a section focused on a new unity of effort plan that the 
Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security have been working on 
with the Council of Governors and others. The bill will also clarify 
the relationship between the National Guard Bureau and the U.S. 
Northern and Pacific Commands and increase the Guard representation in 
U.S. Northern Command.
  Overall, this bill moves our Guard and our country forward. It makes 
our Guard more effective in accomplishing the missions assigned to it. 
We ask so much of our men and women in the Guard. Senator Graham and I 
are proud today to continue looking out for them and empowering them to 
get the job done when we call them away from civilian life to put on 
the uniform. We look forward to many of our colleagues joining us in 
this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1025

       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 ``National Guard Empowerment 
     and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION OF VICE CHIEF OF THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU AND TERMINATION OF 
                   POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF THE JOINT STAFF OF THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

       (a) Reestablishment and Termination of Positions.--Section 
     10505 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 10505. Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau

       ``(a) Appointment.--(1) There is a Vice Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau, selected by the Secretary of Defense 
     from officers of the Army National Guard of the United States 
     or the Air National Guard of the United States who--
       ``(A) are recommended for such appointment by their 
     respective Governors or, in the case of the District of 
     Columbia, the commanding general of the District of Columbia 
     National Guard;
       ``(B) have had at least 10 years of federally recognized 
     service in an active status in the National Guard; and
       ``(C) are in a grade above the grade of colonel.
       ``(2) The Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     may not both be members of the Army or of the Air Force.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an officer 
     appointed as Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau serves 
     for a term of four years, but may be removed from office at 
     any time for cause.
       ``(B) The term of the Vice Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall end within a reasonable time (as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense) following the appointment of a 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau who is a member of the 
     same armed force as the Vice Chief.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     performs such duties as may be prescribed by the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau.
       ``(c) Grade.--The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     shall be appointed to serve in the grade of lieutenant 
     general.
       ``(d) Functions as Acting Chief.--When there is a vacancy 
     in the office of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau or in 
     the absence or disability of the Chief, the Vice Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau acts as Chief and performs the duties 
     of the Chief until a successor is appointed or the absence of 
     disability ceases.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 10502 of such title is amended by striking 
     subsection (e).
       (2) Section 10506(a)(1) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``and the Director of the Joint Staff of the 
     National Guard Bureau'' and inserting ``and the Vice Chief of 
     the National Guard Bureau''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Heading amendment.--The heading of section 10502 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 10502. Chief of the National Guard Bureau: 
       appointment; advisor on National Guard matters; grade''.

       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1011 of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking the item relating to section 10502 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``10502. Chief of the National Guard Bureau: appointment; advisor on 
              National Guard matters; grade.''; and

       (B) by striking the item relating to section 10505 and 
     inserting the following new item:


[[Page S3174]]


``10505. Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau.''.

     SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 
                   ON THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.

       (a) Membership on Joint Chiefs of Staff.--Section 151(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 10502 of such title, as 
     amended by section 2(b)(1) of this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Member of Joint Chiefs of Staff.--The Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau shall perform the duties prescribed for 
     him or her as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under 
     section 151 of this title.''.

     SEC. 4. CONTINUATION AS A PERMANENT PROGRAM AND ENHANCEMENT 
                   OF ACTIVITIES OF TASK FORCE FOR EMERGENCY 
                   READINESS PILOT PROGRAM OF THE FEDERAL 
                   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

       (a) Continuation.--
       (1) Continuation as permanent program.--The Administrator 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall continue the 
     Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) pilot program of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a permanent 
     program of the Agency.
       (2) Limitation on termination.--The Administrator may not 
     terminate the Task Force for Emergency Readiness program, as 
     so continued, until authorized or required to terminate the 
     program by law.
       (b) Expansion of Program Scope.--As part of the 
     continuation of the Task Force for Emergency Readiness 
     program pursuant to subsection (a), the Administrator shall 
     carry out the program in at least five States in addition to 
     the five States in which the program is carried out as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Additional FEMA Activities.--As part of the 
     continuation of the Task Force for Emergency Readiness 
     program pursuant to subsection (a), the Administrator shall--
       (1) establish guidelines and standards to be used by the 
     States in strengthening the planning and planning capacities 
     of the States with respect to responses to catastrophic 
     disaster emergencies; and
       (2) develop a methodology for implementing the Task Force 
     for Emergency Readiness that includes goals and standards for 
     assessing the performance of the Task Force.
       (d) National Guard Bureau Activities.--As part of the 
     continuation of the Task Force for Emergency Readiness 
     program pursuant to subsection (a), the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau shall--
       (1) assist the Administrator in the establishment of the 
     guidelines and standards, implementation methodology, and 
     performance goals and standards required by subsection (c);
       (2) in coordination with the Administrator--
       (A) identify, using catastrophic disaster response plans 
     for each State developed under the program, any gaps in State 
     civilian and military response capabilities that Federal 
     military capabilities are unprepared to fill; and
       (B) notify the Secretary of Defense, the Commander of the 
     United States Northern Command, and the Commander of the 
     United States Pacific Command of any gaps in capabilities 
     identified under subparagraph (A); and
       (3) acting through and in coordination with the Adjutants 
     General of the States, assist the States in the development 
     of State plans on responses to catastrophic disaster 
     emergencies.
       (e) Annual Reports.--The Administrator and the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau shall jointly submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress each year a report on activities under 
     the Task Force for Emergency Readiness program during the 
     preceding year. Each report shall include a description of 
     the activities under the program during the preceding year 
     and a current assessment of the effectiveness of the program 
     in meeting its purposes.
       (f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 5. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ON 
                   UNITY OF EFFORT IN RESPONSE OF MILITARY FORCES 
                   TO DOMESTIC EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Memorandum of Understanding Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into a memorandum 
     of understanding on coordination between the Department of 
     Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, and between 
     the Departments and the States, in the use of military forces 
     in response to domestic emergencies.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the memorandum is to ensure, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, a unity of effort within 
     the Federal Government, and between the Federal Government 
     and the States, regarding the use of military forces in 
     response to domestic emergencies.
       (b) Consultation With the States.--In entering into the 
     memorandum of understanding required by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall jointly consult with the Council of Governors 
     established by Executive Order No. 13528 for purposes of 
     coordinating plans under the memorandum of understanding with 
     the plans of the States for the use of military forces of the 
     States in response to domestic emergencies.
       (c) Submittal to Congress.--Upon entry into the memorandum 
     of understanding required by subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on 
     the memorandum of understanding. The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) The memorandum of understanding.
       (2) A comprehensive description of the manner in which the 
     mechanisms set forth in the memorandum of understanding will 
     ensure a unity of effort within the Federal Government, and 
     between the Federal Government and the State or States 
     concerned, regarding the use of military forces in response 
     to domestic emergencies, including, in particular, the manner 
     in which such mechanisms will ensure a unity of such effort 
     between the Federal Government and the States in the use of 
     such forces in such response.
       (3) Such other matters as the Secretaries jointly consider 
     appropriate.
       (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriated committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security, 
     and Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COSTS OF COMPARABLE 
                   UNITS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS AND THE REGULAR 
                   COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     setting forth a comparative analysis of the costs of units of 
     the regular components of the Armed Forces with the costs of 
     similar units of the reserve components of the Armed Forces. 
     The analysis shall include a separate comparison of the costs 
     of units in the aggregate and of the costs of units solely 
     when on active duty.
       (2) Similar units.--For purposes of this subsection, units 
     of the regular components and reserve components shall be 
     treated as similar if such units have the same general 
     structure, personnel, or function, or are substantially 
     composed of personnel having identical or similar military 
     occupational specialties (MOS).
       (b) Assessment of Increased Reserve Component Presence in 
     Total Force Structure.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     report required by subsection (a) an assessment of the 
     advisability of increasing the number of units and members of 
     the reserve components of the Armed Forces within the total 
     force structure of the Armed Forces. The assessment shall 
     take into account the comparative analysis conducted for 
     purposes of subsection (a) and such other matters as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate for purposes of the 
     assessment.
       (c) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the submittal of the report required by 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     setting forth a review of such report by the Comptroller 
     General. The report of the Comptroller General shall include 
     an assessment of the comparative analysis contained in the 
     report required by subsection (a) and of the assessment of 
     the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b).
       (d) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``congressional defense committees'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 
     10, United States Code.

     SEC. 7. DISPLAY OF PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE RESERVE 
                   COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES UNDER ESTIMATED 
                   EXPENDITURES FOR PROCUREMENT IN FUTURE-YEARS 
                   DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

       Each future-years defense program submitted to Congress 
     under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, shall, in 
     setting forth estimated expenditures and item quantities for 
     procurement for the Armed Forces for the fiscal years covered 
     by such program, display separately under such estimated 
     expenditures and item quantities the estimated expenditures 
     for each such fiscal year for equipment for each reserve 
     component of the Armed Forces that will receive items in any 
     fiscal year covered by such program.

     SEC. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2012 FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD FOR 
                   CERTAIN DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Continuity of Operations, Continuity of Government, and 
     Consequence Management.--

[[Page S3175]]

       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the 
     Department of Defense amounts as follows:
       (A) For National Guard Personnel, Army, $11,000,000.
       (B) For National Guard Personnel, Air Force, $3,500,000.
       (C) For Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, 
     $11,000,000.
       (2) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by paragraph (1) shall be available to the Army 
     National Guard and the Air National Guard, as applicable, for 
     costs of personnel in training and operations with respect to 
     continuity of operations, continuity of government, and 
     consequence management in connection with response to 
     terrorist and other attacks on the United States homeland and 
     natural and man-made catastrophes in the United States.
       (b) Domestic Operations.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the 
     Department of Defense, $300,000,000 for Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-wide.
       (2) Availability.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by paragraph (1) shall be available for the Army National 
     Guard and the Air National Guard for emergency preparedness 
     and response activities of the National Guard while in State 
     status under title 32, United States Code.
       (3) Transfer.--Amounts under the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by paragraph (1) shall be available for transfer 
     to accounts for National Guard Personnel, Army, and National 
     Guard Personnel, Air Force, for purposes of the pay and 
     allowances of members of the National Guard in conducting 
     activities described in paragraph (2).
       (c) Joint Operations Coordination Centers.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the 
     Department of Defense amounts as follows:
       (A) For National Guard Personnel, Army, $28,000,000.
       (B) For National Guard Personnel, Air Force, $7,000,000.
       (2) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by paragraph (1) shall be available to the Army 
     National Guard and the Air National Guard, as applicable, for 
     costs of personnel in continuously staffing a Joint 
     Operations Coordination Center (JOCC) in the Joint Forces 
     Headquarters of the National Guard in each State and 
     Territory for command and control and activation of forces in 
     response to terrorist and other attacks on the United States 
     homeland and natural and man-made catastrophes in the United 
     States.
       (d) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsections (a), (b), and (c) for the 
     purposes set forth in such subsections are in addition to any 
     other amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2012 for the Department of Defense for such purposes.

     SEC. 9. ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE UNITED 
                   STATES NORTHERN COMMAND AND OTHER COMBATANT 
                   COMMANDS.

       (a) Commands Responsible for Support to Civil Authorities 
     in the United States.--The United States Northern Command and 
     the United States Pacific Command shall be the combatant 
     commands of the Armed Forces that are principally responsible 
     for the support of civil authorities in the United States by 
     the Armed Forces.
       (b) Discharge of Responsibility.--In discharging the 
     responsibility set forth in subsection (a), the Commander of 
     the United States Northern Command and the Commander of the 
     United States Pacific Command shall each--
       (1) in consultation with and acting through the Chief of 
     the National Guard Bureau and the Joint Force Headquarters of 
     the National Guard of the State or States concerned, assist 
     the States in the employment of the National Guard under 
     State control, including National Guard operations conducted 
     in State active duty or under title 32, United States Code; 
     and
       (2) facilitate the deployment of the Armed Forces on active 
     duty under title 10, United States Code, as necessary to 
     augment and support the National Guard in its support of 
     civil authorities when National Guard operations are 
     conducted under State control, whether in State active duty 
     or under title 32, United States Code.
       (c) Memorandum of Understanding.--
       (1) Memorandum required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commander of the 
     United States Northern Command, the Commander of the United 
     States Pacific Command, and the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, 
     jointly enter into a memorandum of understanding setting 
     forth the operational relationships, and individual roles and 
     responsibilities, during responses to domestic emergencies 
     among the United States Northern Command, the United States 
     Pacific Command, and the National Guard Bureau.
       (2) Modification.--The Commander of the United States 
     Northern Command, the Commander of the United States Pacific 
     Command, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may from 
     time to time modify the memorandum of understanding under 
     this subsection to address changes in circumstances and for 
     such other purposes as the Commander of the United States 
     Northern Command, the Commander of the United States Pacific 
     Command, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau jointly 
     consider appropriate. Each such modification shall be subject 
     to the approval of the Secretary of Defense.
       (d) Authority To Modify Assignment of Command 
     Responsibility.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     as altering or limiting the power of the President or the 
     Secretary of Defense to modify the Unified Command Plan in 
     order to assign all or part of the responsibility described 
     in subsection (a) to a combatant command other than the 
     United States Northern Command or the United States Pacific 
     Command.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     regulations for purposes of aiding the expeditious 
     implementation of the authorities and responsibilities in 
     this section.

     SEC. 10. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO NATIONAL GUARD OFFICERS IN 
                   CERTAIN COMMAND POSITIONS.

       (a) Commander of Army North Command.--The officer serving 
     in the position of Commander, Army North Command, shall be an 
     officer in the Army National Guard of the United States.
       (b) Commander of Air Force North Command.--The officer 
     serving in the position of Commander, Air Force North 
     Command, shall be an officer in the Air National Guard of the 
     United States.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in assigning officers to the command positions specified in 
     subsections (a) and (b), the President should afford a 
     preference in assigning officers in the Army National Guard 
     of the United States or Air National Guard of the United 
     States, as applicable, who have served as the adjutant 
     general of a State.

     SEC. 11. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS UNDER STATE PARTNERSHIP 
                   PROGRAM FOR ADDITIONAL NATIONAL GUARD CONTACTS 
                   ON MATTERS WITHIN THE CORE COMPETENCIES OF THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, modify the 
     regulations prescribed pursuant to section 1210 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
     (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2517; 32 U.S.C. 107 note) to 
     provide for the use of funds available pursuant to such 
     regulations for contacts between members of the National 
     Guard and civilian personnel of foreign governments outside 
     the ministry of defense on matters within the core 
     competencies of the National Guard such as the following:
       (1) Disaster response and mitigation.
       (2) Defense support to civilian authorities.
       (3) Consequence management and installation protection.
       (4) Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear event 
     (CBRNE) response.
       (5) Border and port security and cooperation with civilian 
     law enforcement.
       (6) Search and rescue.
       (7) Medical matters.
       (8) Counterdrug and counternarcotics activities.
       (9) Public affairs.
       (10) Employer and family support of reserve forces.
       (11) Such other matters within the core competencies of the 
     National Guard and suitable for contacts under the State 
     Partnership Program as the Secretary of Defense shall 
     specify.
       (b) Funding for Fiscal Year 2012.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the 
     Department of Defense for the National Guard, $50,000,000 to 
     be available for contacts under the State Partnership Program 
     authorized pursuant to the modification of regulations 
     required by subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. 
        Grassley, and Mr. Tester).
  S. 1026. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyard Act, 1921, to 
prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ENZI. 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

[[Page S3176]]

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.
  By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Brown of 
Massachusetts):
  S. 1029. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 
of 1978 to provide electric consumers the right to access certain 
electric energy information, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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

[[Page S3177]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1029

       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 ``Electric Consumer Right to 
     Know Act'' or the ``e-KNOW Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) improving consumers' understanding of and access to the 
     electric energy usage information of the consumers will help 
     consumers more effectively manage usage;
       (2) consumers have a right of access to the electric energy 
     usage information of the consumers;
       (3) the right of access to electric energy usage 
     information should be based on the need to have access to the 
     information rather than on a specific type of smart metering 
     technology and, as a result, all usage information platforms 
     can compete and innovation will be fostered;
       (4) utilities should provide electric energy usage 
     information based on the best capabilities of the metering 
     technology currently deployed in the respective service areas 
     or, on upgrade, based on standards recognized by the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology;
       (5) consumers should have the ability to access unaudited 
     usage information directly from the electric meters of the 
     consumers or from sources independent of the electric meters, 
     and from sources independent of the utilities of the 
     consumers;
       (6) consumers should retain the right to the privacy and 
     security of electric energy usage information of the 
     consumers created through usage;
       (7) consumers should have the right to control the electric 
     energy usage information of the consumers and the right to 
     privacy for the information when third party aggregators of 
     data are involved in creation, management, or collection of 
     the information; and
       (8) consumers should have the right to know how the 
     authorized third-party data manager of the consumers will 
     manage the retail electric energy information of the 
     consumers once the manager has accessed the information.

     SEC. 3. ELECTRIC CONSUMER RIGHT TO ACCESS ELECTRIC ENERGY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC CONSUMER RIGHT TO ACCESS ELECTRIC ENERGY 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Retail electric energy information.--The term `retail 
     electric energy information' means--
       ``(A) the electric energy consumption of an electric 
     consumer over a defined time period;
       ``(B) the retail electric energy prices or rates applied to 
     the electricity usage for the defined time period described 
     in subparagraph (A) for the electric consumer;
       ``(C) the cost of usage by the consumer, including (if 
     smart meter usage information is available) the estimated 
     cost of usage since the last billing cycle of the consumer; 
     and
       ``(D) in the case of nonresidential electric meters, any 
     other electrical information that the meter is programmed to 
     record (such as demand measured in kilowatts, voltage, 
     frequency, current, and power factor).
       ``(2) Smart meter.--Except as provided in subsection (e), 
     the term `smart meter' means the device used by an electric 
     utility that--
       ``(A)(i) measures electric energy consumption by an 
     electric consumer at the home or facility of the electric 
     consumer in intervals of 1 hour or less; and
       ``(ii) is capable of sending electric energy usage 
     information through a communications network to the electric 
     utility; or
       ``(B) meets the guidelines issued under subsection (h).
       ``(b) Consumer Rights.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each electric consumer in the United 
     States shall have the right to access (and to authorize 1 or 
     more third parties to access) retail electric energy 
     information of the electric consumer in--
       ``(A) an electronic form, free of charge, in conformity 
     with nationally recognized open standards developed by a 
     nationally recognized standards organization; and
       ``(B) a manner that is timely and convenient and provides 
     adequate protections for the security of the information and 
     the privacy of the electric consumer.
       ``(2) Smart meters.--In the case of an electric consumer 
     that is served by a smart meter that can also communicate 
     energy usage information to a device or network of an 
     electric consumer or a device or network of a third party 
     authorized by the consumer, the consumer shall, at a minimum, 
     have the right to access (and to authorize 1 or more third 
     parties to access) usage information in read-only format 
     directly from the smart meter.
       ``(3) Provider of information.--The information required 
     under this subsection shall be provided by the electric 
     utility of the consumer or such other entity as may be 
     designated by the applicable electric retail regulatory 
     authority.
       ``(c) Information.--The right to access retail electric 
     energy information under subsection (b) includes, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(1)(A) in the case of an electric consumer that is served 
     by a smart meter, the right to access retail electric energy 
     information--
       ``(i) in machine readable form, not more than 48 hours 
     after consumption has occurred; or
       ``(ii) in accordance with the guidelines issued under 
     subsection (h); or
       ``(B) in the case of an electric consumer that is not 
     served by a smart meter, the right to access retail electric 
     energy information in machine readable form as expeditiously 
     after the time of receipt in a data center (including 
     information provided by third party services) as is 
     reasonably practicable and as prescribed by the applicable 
     electric retail regulatory authority; and
       ``(2) except as otherwise provided in subsection (d)--
       ``(A) in the case of an electric consumer that is served by 
     a smart meter, data at a granularity that is--
       ``(i) not less granular than the intervals at which the 
     data is recorded and stored by the billing meter in use at 
     the premise of the electric consumer; or
       ``(ii) in accordance with the guidelines issued under 
     subsection (h); and
       ``(B) in the case of an electric consumer that is not 
     served by a smart meter, data at granularity equal to the 
     data used for billing the electric consumer, or more precise 
     granularity, as prescribed by the applicable electric retail 
     regulatory authority.
       ``(d) Electric Energy Information Retention.--An electric 
     consumer shall have the right to access the retail electric 
     energy information of the consumer, through the website of 
     the electric utility or other electronic access authorized by 
     the electric consumer, for a period of at least 13 months 
     after the date on which the usage occurred, unless a 
     different period is prescribed by the applicable electric 
     retail regulatory authority.
       ``(e) Data Security.--Access described in subsection (d) 
     shall not interfere with or compromise the integrity, 
     security, or privacy of the operations of a utility and the 
     electric consumer, in accordance with the guidelines issued 
     by the Commission under subsection (h).
       ``(f) Cost Recovery.--An electric utility providing retail 
     electric energy information in accordance with otherwise 
     applicable regulation of rates for the retail sale and 
     delivery of electricity may recover in rates the cost of 
     providing the information, if the cost is determined 
     reasonable and prudent by the applicable electric retail 
     regulatory authority.
       ``(g) Additional Available Information.--The right to 
     access electric energy information shall extend to usage 
     information generated by devices in or on the property of the

[[Page S3178]]

     consumer that is transmitted to the electric utility.
       ``(h) Guidelines for Electric Consumer Access.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Commission shall (after 
     consultation with State and local regulatory authorities, 
     including the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
     Commissioners, the Secretary of Energy, other appropriate 
     Federal agencies, including the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, consumer advocacy groups, 
     utilities, and other appropriate entities, and after notice 
     and opportunity for comment) issue guidelines that establish 
     minimum national standards for implementation of the electric 
     consumer right to access retail electric energy information 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(2) State and local regulatory action.--In issuing the 
     guidelines, the Commission shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, be guided by actions taken by State and local 
     regulatory authorities to ensure electric consumer access to 
     retail electric energy information, including actions taken 
     after consideration of the standard under section 111(d)(17).
       ``(3) Content.--The guidelines shall provide guidance on 
     issues necessary to carry out this section, including--
       ``(A) the timeliness and granularity of retail electric 
     energy information;
       ``(B) appropriate nationally recognized open standards for 
     data;
       ``(C) a definition of the term `smart meters'; and
       ``(D) protection of data security and electric consumer 
     privacy, including consumer consent requirements.
       ``(4) Revisions.--The Commission shall periodically review 
     and, as necessary, revise the guidelines to reflect changes 
     in technology and the market for electric energy and 
     services.
       ``(i) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Enforcement by state attorneys general.--If the 
     attorney general of a State, or another official or agency of 
     a State with competent authority under State law, has reason 
     to believe that any electric utility that delivers electric 
     energy at retail in the applicable State is not complying 
     with the minimum standards established by the guidelines 
     under subsection (h), the attorney general, official, or 
     agency of the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil 
     action against the electric utility, on behalf of the 
     electric consumers receiving retail service from the electric 
     utility, in a district court of the United States of 
     appropriate jurisdiction, to compel compliance with the 
     standards.
       ``(2) Safe harbor.--
       ``(A) In general.--No civil action may be brought against 
     an electric utility under paragraph (1) if the Commission 
     has, during the 2-year period ending on the date of the 
     determination, determined that the electric utility adopted 
     policies, requirements, and measures, as necessary, that 
     comply with the standards established by the guidelines under 
     subsection (h).
       ``(B) Procedures.--The Commission shall establish 
     procedures to review the policies, requirements, and measures 
     of electric utilities to assess, and issue determinations 
     with regard to, compliance with the standards.
       ``(3) Effective date.--This subsection takes effect on the 
     date that is 2 years after the date the guidelines under 
     subsection (h) are issued.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 is amended by 
     adding at the end of the items relating to title II the 
     following:

``Sec. 215. Electric consumer right to access electric energy 
              information.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 1033. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
project, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the 
construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. 
The bill is identical to legislation which passed the House of 
Representatives in the previous Congress, by voice vote, and which was 
reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without 
opposition last year.
  The reason for involving the Bureau in this project is quite simple. 
Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau-authorized West 
Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water 
per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This 
will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in 
the Hermiston area.
  The Hermiston project has gotten the sign off at every level from the 
local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The City and the Bureau 
have completed the required feasibility report and the Bureau of 
Reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the 
requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office 
of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a 
biological opinion approving the project. The City and the West 
Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding 
to work together to develop the project. The Bureau has concluded its 
environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to the 
District and issued a finding of no significant impact or FONSI.
  Although the Bureau will be sharing in the cost of the project, I 
want my colleagues to know that the City, not the Bureau, will be 
responsible for the bulk of the expense. CBO has estimated that the 
Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just 
over one-quarter of the cost.
  The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also 
recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits 
include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to 
the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat 
during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse 
construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement 
Project and the City's effort to obtain federal funding.
  This project will increase agricultural production while improving 
the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to complete action on this 
legislation after it had advanced so far in the last Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 1036. A bill to amend title 40, United States Code, to ensure that 
job opportunities for people who are blind and people with significant 
disabilities are met by requiring the application of the Javits-Wagner-
O'Day Act to certain lease agreements entered into by the Federal 
Government for private buildings or improvements; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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

[[Page S3179]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1036

       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 ``AbilityOne Improvements 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF JAVITS-WAGNER-O'DAY ACT.

       Section 585(a) of title 40, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Applicability of javits-wagner-o'day act.--A lease 
     agreement for space under this section for the accommodation 
     of a federal agency as described in paragraph (1) that is 
     issued or renewed after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph shall require the federal agency, lessor, or 
     property manager to comply with provisions of the Javits-
     Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46 et seq.) that are applicable 
     to federal buildings if--
       ``(A) the lease is for 60 percent or more of the useable 
     space on the property or improvement in which 1 or more 
     federal agencies are to be accommodated, as determined by the 
     Administrator; or
       ``(B) the federal agency to be accommodated under the lease 
     is, as of the date of the lease, required to contract 
     pursuant to that Act for services being transitioned to the 
     leased space.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 1038. A bill to extend the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until June 1, 2015, and for other 
purposes; read twice.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1038

       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 ``PATRIOT Sunsets Extension 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. SUNSET EXTENSIONS.

       (a) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
     2005.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C. 
     1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is 
     amended by striking ``May 27, 2011'' and inserting ``June 1, 
     2015''.
       (b) Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004.--Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 
     U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking ``May 27, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``June 1, 2015''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Begich, 
        Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
        Wicker):
  S. 1039. A bill to impose sanctions on persons responsible for the 
detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the conspiracy to 
defraud the Russian Federation of taxes on corporate profits through 
fraudulent transactions and lawsuits against Hermitage, and for other 
gross violations of human rights in the Russian Federation, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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

[[Page S3180]]

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--

[[Page S3181]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1039

       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 ``Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law 
     Accountability Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States supports the people of the Russian 
     Federation in their efforts to realize their full economic 
     potential and to advance democracy, human rights, and the 
     rule of law.
       (2) The Russian Federation--
       (A) is a member of the United Nations, the Organization for 
     Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe, 
     and the International Monetary Fund;
       (B) has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other 
     Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the 
     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 
     United Nations Convention against Corruption; and
       (C) is bound by the legal obligations set forth in the 
     European Convention on Human Rights.
       (3) States voluntarily commit themselves to respect 
     obligations and responsibilities through the adoption of 
     international agreements and treaties, which must be observed 
     in good faith in order to maintain the stability of the 
     international order. Human rights are an integral part of 
     international law, and lie at the foundation of the 
     international order. The protection of human rights, 
     therefore, particularly in the case of a country that has 
     incurred obligations to protect human rights under an 
     international agreement to which it is a party, is not left 
     exclusively to the internal affairs of that country.
       (4) Good governance and anti-corruption measures are 
     instrumental in the protection of human rights and in 
     achieving sustainable economic growth, which benefits both 
     the people of the Russian Federation and the international 
     community through the creation of open and transparent 
     markets.
       (5) Systemic corruption erodes trust and confidence in 
     democratic institutions, the rule of law, and human rights 
     protections. This is the case when public officials are 
     allowed to abuse their authority with impunity for political 
     or financial gains in collusion with private entities.
       (6) The Russian nongovernmental organization INDEM has 
     estimated that corruption amounts to hundreds of billions of 
     dollars a year, an increasing share of the gross domestic 
     product of the Russian Federation.
       (7) The President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry 
     Medvedev, has addressed corruption in many public speeches, 
     including stating in his 2009 address to Russia's Federal 
     Assembly, ``[Z]ero tolerance of corruption should become part 
     of our national culture. . . . In Russia we often say that 
     there are few cases in which corrupt officials are 
     prosecuted. . . . [S]imply incarcerating a few will not 
     resolve the problem. But incarcerated they must be.''. 
     President Medvedev went on to say, ``We shall overcome 
     underdevelopment and corruption because we are a strong and 
     free people, and deserve a normal life in a modern, 
     prosperous democratic society.''. Furthermore, President 
     Medvedev has acknowledged Russia's disregard for the rule of 
     law and used the term ``legal nihilism'' to describe a 
     criminal justice system that continues to imprison innocent 
     people.
       (8) The systematic abuse of Sergei Magnitsky, including his 
     repressive arrest and torture in custody by the same officers 
     of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation 
     that Mr. Magnitsky had implicated in the embezzlement of 
     funds from the Russian Treasury and the misappropriation of 3 
     companies from his client, Hermitage, reflects how deeply the 
     protection of human rights is affected by corruption.
       (9) The politically motivated nature of the persecution of 
     Mr. Magnitsky is demonstrated by--
       (A) the denial by all state bodies of the Russian 
     Federation of any justice or legal remedies to Mr. Magnitsky 
     during the nearly 12 full months he was kept without trial in 
     detention; and
       (B) the impunity of state officials he testified against 
     for their involvement in corruption and the carrying out of 
     his repressive persecution since his death.
       (10) Mr. Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009, at the age of 
     37, in Matrosskaya Tishina Prison in Moscow, Russia, and is 
     survived by a mother, a wife, and 2 sons.
       (11) The Public Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow 
     for the Control of the Observance of Human Rights in Places 
     of Forced Detention, an organization empowered by Russian law 
     to independently monitor prison conditions, concluded, ``A 
     man who is kept in custody and is being detained is not 
     capable of using all the necessary means to protect either 
     his life or his health. This is a responsibility of a state 
     which holds him captive. Therefore, the case of Sergei 
     Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the right to life. 
     The members of the civic supervisory commission have reached 
     the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing both 
     psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the 
     conditions in some of the wards of Butyrka can be justifiably 
     called torturous. The people responsible for this must be 
     punished.''.
       (12) According to the Financial Times, ``A commission 
     appointed by President Dmitry Medvedev has found that Russian 
     police fabricated charges against an anti-corruption lawyer 
     [Sergei Magnitsky], whose death in prison in 2009 has come to 
     symbolise pervasive corruption in Russian law enforcement.''.
       (13) The second trial and verdict against former Yukos 
     executives Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev evokes 
     serious concerns about the right to a fair trial and the 
     independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation. The 
     lack of credible charges, intimidation of witnesses, 
     violations of due process and procedural norms, falsification 
     or withholding of documents, denial of attorney-client 
     privilege, and illegal detention in the Yukos case are highly 
     troubling. The Council of Europe, Freedom House, and Amnesty 
     International, among others, have concluded that they were 
     charged and imprisoned in a process that did not follow the 
     rule of law and was politically influenced. Furthermore, 
     senior officials of the Government of the Russian Federation 
     have acknowledged that the arrest and imprisonment of 
     Khodorkovsky were politically motivated.
       (14) According to Freedom House's 2011 report entitled 
     ``The Perpetual Battle: Corruption in the Former Soviet Union 
     and the New EU Members'', ``[t]he highly publicized cases of 
     Sergei Magnitsky, a 37-year-old lawyer who died in pretrial 
     detention in November 2009 after exposing a multimillion-
     dollar fraud against the Russian taxpayer, and Mikhail 
     Khodorkovsky, the jailed business magnate and regime critic 
     who was sentenced at the end of 2010 to remain in prison 
     through 2017, put an international spotlight on the Russian 
     state's contempt for the rule of law. . . . By silencing 
     influential and accomplished figures such as Khodorkovsky and 
     Magnitsky, the Russian authorities have made it abundantly 
     clear that anyone in Russia can be silenced.''.
       (15) Sergei Magnitsky's experience, while particularly 
     illustrative of the negative effects of official corruption 
     on the rights of an individual citizen, appears to be 
     emblematic of a broader pattern of disregard for the numerous 
     domestic and international human rights commitments of the 
     Russian Federation and impunity for those who violate basic 
     human rights and freedoms.
       (16) The tragic and unresolved murders of Nustap 
     Abdurakhmanov, Maksharip Aushev, Natalya Estemirova, Akhmed 
     Hadjimagomedov, Umar Israilov, Paul Klebnikov, Anna 
     Politkovskaya, Saihadji Saihadjiev, and Magomed Y. Yevloyev, 
     the death in custody of Vera Trifonova, the disappearances of 
     Mokhmadsalakh Masaev and Said-Saleh Ibragimov, the torture of 
     Ali Israilov and Islam Umarpashaev, the near-fatal beatings 
     of Mikhail Beketov, Oleg Kashin, Arkadiy Lander, and Mikhail 
     Vinyukov, and the harsh and ongoing imprisonment of Mikhail 
     Khodorkovsky, Alexei Kozlov, Platon Lebedev, and Fyodor 
     Mikheev further illustrate the grave danger of exposing the 
     wrongdoing of officials of the Government of the Russian 
     Federation, including Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, or of 
     seeking to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote 
     internationally recognized human rights and freedoms.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Admitted; alien.--The terms ``admitted'' and ``alien'' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 101 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate.
       (3) Financial institution; domestic financial agency; 
     domestic financial institution.--The terms ``financial 
     institution'', ``domestic financial agency'', and ``domestic 
     financial institution'' have the meanings given those terms 
     in section 5312 of title 31, United States Code.
       (4) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence to the United States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a 
     foreign branch of such an entity.

[[Page S3182]]

     SEC. 4. IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 
                   DETENTION, ABUSE, AND DEATH OF SERGEI 
                   MAGNITSKY, THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE 
                   RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF TAXES ON CERTAIN 
                   CORPORATE PROFITS, AND OTHER GROSS VIOLATIONS 
                   OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall 
     publish a list of each person the Secretary of State has 
     reason to believe--
       (1)(A) is responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of 
     Sergei Magnitsky;
       (B) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability 
     for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky; or
       (C) committed those frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky, 
     including conspiring to defraud the Russian Federation of 
     taxes on corporate profits through fraudulent transactions 
     and lawsuits against the foreign investment company known as 
     Hermitage and to misappropriate entities owned or controlled 
     by Hermitage; or
       (2) is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or 
     other gross violations of human rights committed against 
     individuals seeking--
       (A) to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of 
     the Government of the Russian Federation; or
       (B) to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally 
     recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of 
     religion, expression, association, and assembly and the 
     rights to a fair trial and democratic elections.
       (b) Updates.--The Secretary of State shall update the list 
     required by subsection (a) as new information becomes 
     available.
       (c) Notice.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (1) to the extent practicable, provide notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing to a person before the person is 
     added to the list required by subsection (a); and
       (2) remove a person from the list if the person 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the 
     person did not engage in the activity for which the person 
     was added to the list.
       (d) Requests by Members of Congress.--Not later than 30 
     days after receiving a written request from a Member of 
     Congress with respect to whether a person meets the criteria 
     for being added to the list required by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of State shall inform that Member of the 
     determination of the Secretary with respect to whether or not 
     that person meets those criteria.

     SEC. 5. INADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN ALIENS.

       (a) Ineligibility for Visas.--An alien is ineligible to 
     receive a visa to enter the United States and ineligible to 
     be admitted to the United States if the alien is on the list 
     required by section 4(a).
       (b) Current Visas Revoked.--The Secretary of State shall 
     revoke, in accordance with section 221(i) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)), the visa or other 
     documentation of any alien who would be ineligible to receive 
     such a visa or documentation under subsection (a).
       (c) Waiver for National Interests.--The Secretary of State 
     may waive the application of subsection (a) or (b) in the 
     case of an alien if the Secretary determines that such a 
     waiver is in the national interests of the United States. 
     Upon granting such a waiver, the Secretary shall provide to 
     the appropriate congressional committees notice of, and a 
     justification for, the waiver.

     SEC. 6. FINANCIAL MEASURES.

       (a) Special Measures.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall investigate money laundering relating to the 
     conspiracy described in section 4(a)(1)(C). If the Secretary 
     of the Treasury makes a determination under section 5318A of 
     title 31, United States Code, with respect to such money 
     laundering, the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct 
     domestic financial institutions and domestic financial 
     agencies to take 1 or more special measures described in 
     section 5318A(b) of such title.
       (b) Freezing of Assets.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall freeze and prohibit all transactions in all property 
     and interests in property of a person that are in the United 
     States, that come within the United States, or that are or 
     come within the possession or control of a United States 
     person if the person--
       (1) is on the list required by section 4(a); or
       (2) acts as an agent of or on behalf of a person on that 
     list in a matter relating to the activity for which the 
     person was added to that list.
       (c) Waiver for National Interests.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury may waive the application of subsection (a) or (b) 
     if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is in the 
     national interests of the United States. Upon granting such a 
     waiver, the Secretary shall provide to the appropriate 
     congressional committees notice of, and a justification for, 
     the waiver.
       (d) Enforcement.--
       (1) Penalties.--A person that violates, attempts to 
     violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of this 
     section or any regulation, license, or order issued to carry 
     out this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth 
     in subsections (b) and (c) of section 206 of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) 
     to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act 
     described in subsection (a) of such section.
       (2) Requirements for financial institutions.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall prescribe regulations to require each financial 
     institution that is a United States person--
       (i) to perform an audit of the assets within the possession 
     or control of the financial institution to determine whether 
     any of such assets are required to be frozen pursuant to 
     subsection (b); and
       (ii) to submit to the Secretary--

       (I) a report containing the results of the audit; and
       (II) a certification that, to the best of the knowledge of 
     the financial institution, the financial institution has 
     frozen all assets within the possession or control of the 
     financial institution that are required to be frozen pursuant 
     to subsection (b).

       (B) Penalties.--The penalties provided for in sections 
     5321(a) and 5322 of title 31, United States Code, shall apply 
     to a financial institution that violates a regulation 
     prescribed under subparagraph (A) in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as such penalties would apply to any person 
     that is otherwise subject to such section 5321(a) or 5322.
       (e) Regulatory Authority.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall issue such regulations, licenses, and orders as are 
     necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State and 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on--
       (1) the actions taken to carry out this Act, including--
       (A) the number of times and the circumstances in which 
     persons described in section 4(a) have been added to the list 
     required by that section during the year preceding the 
     report; and
       (B) if few or no such persons have been added to that list 
     during that year, the reasons for not adding more such 
     persons to the list; and
       (2) efforts to encourage the governments of other countries 
     to impose sanctions that are similar to the sanctions imposed 
     under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1040. A bill to enhance public safety by making more spectrum 
available to public safety entities, to facilitate the development of a 
public safety broadband network, to provide standards for the spectrum 
needs of public safety entities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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

[[Page S3183]]

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. McCAIN. 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.

[[Page S3184]]



                          ____________________