Floor Statements

The Senator's understanding is correct. The Parliamentarian's office has indicated to my staff that the wireless alert capability language in the act does not preclude the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee from considering legislation next year to address FEMA's role with respect to the emergency alert system, and I commit to working with you to develop a bill that will set forth FEMA's role with respect to new emergency alert capabilities.

The Senator from Vermont is correct. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are now in the process of developing the rules needed to implement this initiative. The State Department is proposing an alternate form of documentation to be accepted for land border crossings known as a passcard. The passcard would be slightly less expensive than a passport but would still require the same adjudication and background check as a passport and could only be used for land travel between our country, Canada and Mexico.

Many of my constituents travel to Canada every day. I believe each Senator from Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,

New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington will agree it is imperative that the travel requirements between Canada and the United States be implemented in a manner that does not adversely affect Americans. To date, the construction and price of the passcards have not been established. Passcards are essential to ensure the flow of travel and business activities between the United States and other countries is not hindered.

I am also concerned with the looming date of implementation for WHTI. The administration's current plan is to implement the air and sea portion of the initiative by January 2007, this coming January. This means that in just 3 months all U.S. citizens traveling by air and sea from Canada and Mexico or the Caribbean will need a passport to enter this country.

The intent of language included in the Homeland bill is in no way meant to indefinitely delay the implementation of this initiative. Securing our borders is important, and I support these efforts. I want to make sure the State Department is prepared to adjudicate the large number of requests for passports and passcards this initiative will produce.

Our language also creates a single implementation date for land and sea crossings. Families often take a cruise to Alaska, and continue their vacations in Canada. In order to avoid confusion to these travelers, we must have one date in which they are expected to have new documentation, rather than the current plan to implement sea this January and land in January 2008. Further, they should be able to use the passcard for both land and sea crossings, rather than requiring a passport for the sea portion of a vacation.

I believe DHS and the State Department are operating under an unrealistic timeframe. We must ensure they have enough time to properly test and implement this system, which includes biometrics and new border security equipment. We must also clearly set out guidelines we expect to be met before this initiative can be implemented. This is what we hope to achieve with the language we included in the Homeland bill.

These are just some of the issues which must be considered before implementing this plan. In addition, the lack of public outreach to inform citizens of the new requirements concerns me.

I see the potential for a disaster at our borders if regulations are hastily imposed. There is just too much at stake to implement a travel system that has not been properly tested, and this is why Senators Leahy, Gregg, Byrd, I worked together with House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rogers to craft bipartisan language to extend the WHTI implementation date. Our language simply gives the State Department and DHS more time to make sure this is done right.

Mr. President, today I recognize the accomplishments and efforts of Bill Woolf, a longtime Senate staffer and tireless advocate for Alaska's interests. Bill will retire at the conclusion of this Congress and move to his family home on Marrowstone Island in Washington State.

For nearly 30 years, Bill has been an advocate for and friend to Alaska's fishermen. A former resident of Juneau, he began work in 1977 at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In 1983, Bill moved on to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, where he became familiar with our State's fishing industry. Bill quickly established a far-reaching bond with those affected by and working in this important industry.

For the past 20 years, Bill has worked in the U.S. Senate as a legislative aide--serving on the staffs of both Frank Murkowski and Senator Lisa Murkowski. Staff members like Bill are the backbone of this institution. They meet and work with the administration, State officials, and constituents, and they help those elected to Congress pursue initiatives which will serve their State and our Nation well.

During the two decades that he has worked in the Senate, Bill has been a vigorous advocate for the people and communities of Alaska. Those who have worked with him have the deepest respect for his commitment and contributions.

On behalf of our Alaska congressional delegation and all Alaskans, I extend our appreciation to Bill for his service. We wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join more than 35 of our colleagues in support of the National Competitiveness Investment Act.

Our country's success is the direct result of our advancements in science and technology. Throughout our history, our scientists and engineers have created new industries--and their efforts have ensured our country's competitiveness in the global economy. Two key reports now raise serious concerns about our ability to continue this tradition.

The ``Innovate America'' report by the Council on Competitiveness and the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, also known as the ``Augustine Report,'' both conclude advancements in science and technology are our country's best hope for the future. They identify serious problems with our efforts in these areas. Sadly, this week the World Economic Forum announced our country has dropped from first to sixth place in its ``global competitiveness index.''

Our comprehensive legislation addresses several of these issues, and all of us owe a great debt to Senator Ensign, who has shown tremendous leadership in the drafting of this bill. As the new chairman of the Commerce Committee, I asked Senator Ensign to chair our Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness. Over the past 2 years, he has held a series of hearings on this issue. He also introduced S. 2802, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, which the Commerce Committee passed without opposition in May. Senator Ensign has worked on a bipartisan basis with our colleagues on the HELP and Energy Committees.

This act is the culmination of these efforts. It will help our country remain competitive by increasing Federal investment in basic research and improving student opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and math. This bill also develops the infrastructure we need to foster innovation in the 21st century.

While this bill alone will not solve all of our challenges, it is an important first step.

I urge each of our colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and vote in favor of its passage.

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, we have been engaged in a long fight to bring international fishing up to the standards we have here in the United States under the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Senate passed this important measure by unanimous consent this past June. One of the most important sections of the bill deals with destructive fishing practices conducted by foreign vessels on the high seas that are not subject to any kind of international regulation and control.

The high seas comprise more than half of the planet's surface, yet only 25 percent of this area is regulated by any regional fishery management organization. Management of fishing on the high seas is patchy at best. Some areas like the donut hole in the Bering Sea off my State of Alaska have adopted strict and effective management measures. However, too many areas have not, and without an effective management regime, destructive fishing practices will continue to be conducted by foreign fleets.

In the United States our fishermen must adhere to an extensive set of management and conservation requirements which are laid out in the Magnuson Stevens Act. The eight regional councils located around the United States and the Caribbean Islands are a model of innovative and effective management approaches.

In contrast, management internationally and especially with respect to high seas bottom trawling is sadly lacking. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as well as expanding industrial foreign fleets and high bycatch levels are monumental threats to sustainable fisheries worldwide. These unsustainable and destructive fishing practices on the high seas threaten the good management that takes place in U.S. waters.

One of the proudest moments of my Senate career was going to the United Nations to fight and end the use of large scale driftnets on the high seas. We now have the opportunity to influence the effects of unregulated high seas bottom trawling. The outlines of an agreement on unregulated bottom trawling on the high seas will be discussed at the UN beginning on October 4th. There is clear political consensus that action is needed and the United States should take the lead in protecting our oceans.

The bipartisan resolution I am introducing today with our co-chairman Senator Inouye and 16 other Senators calls on the United Nations to put an end to unregulated fishing practices on the high seas. It is my hope that the United States will work to secure adoption of a United Nations General Assembly Resolution calling on nations to stop their vessels from conducting illegal, unreported, and unregulated destructive high seas bottom trawling until conservation and management measures to regulate it are adopted.

Mr. President, the passage of this port security legislation marks the first time three Senate committees and their House counterparts have merged their collective expertise and crafted a truly comprehensive approach to port security. A bipartisan group of Members from both Chambers of Congress dedicated several months to developing this bill to better secure America. It is a credit to the Senate and the House that each committee involved agreed to pool their resources, put aside jurisdictional issues, and reach consensus on this bill.

This act strengthens security at our land and sea ports, improves our maritime transportation security strategy, and enhances communication between the Department of Homeland Security and transportation security stakeholders. It includes a plan to get our trade activities up and running again in the event of a transportation security incident. And it creates a pilot program which will study the feasibility of scanning each of the containers--100 percent of the containers--entering our ports.

This legislation will enhance the collection and analysis of information about cargo destined for our ports, and this bill aims to increase awareness of the operations at domestic and foreign ports. Once those in industry share important information about cargo in the international supply chain, we must analyze it quickly. This legislation expedites that process and ensures it begins earlier in the supply chain--before containers even reach our shores. This act requires information about cargo be provided and analyzed before the cargo is loaded on a vessel in a foreign port and shipped here.

This bill also expands several initiatives with a proven track record of success. There are currently five interagency operations centers up and running throughout our country. These centers bring together Federal, State, and local security enforcement officials to ensure communication among them. This act expands this effort to each of the major seaports, and places the Coast Guard in charge of these centers.

This act also builds upon the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, past cooperation with foreign governments. The container security initiative, CSI, contained within this bill enables the Department, working in partnership with host government customs services, to examine high-risk containerized cargo at foreign seaports before it is loaded on vessels destined for the United States.

The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-T PAT), a voluntary public-private partnership, is also strengthened in this bill. The Commissioner of Customs and border protection will now be able to certify that a business's supply chain is secure from the point of manufacture to the product's final U.S. destination. Under this legislation, whether cargo crosses our border at Laredo or arrives on a ship from Hong Kong, participating companies' supply chains will undergo a thorough security check. This will add another layer of security to the C-T PAT initiative. Since this is a voluntary system, we have also included provisions which encourage those in industry to go above and beyond the security requirements already in place. These new incentives include expedited clearance of cargo.

Mr. President, while I was disappointed earlier this year by the negative public reaction to foreign investment in our Nation's port terminals, we learned a great deal from hearings held by the Commerce Committee on this matter. As a result of those hearings, this bill requires DHS to conduct background checks on all port personnel. Current law only requires the Transportation Security Administration to perform checks on those workers directly tied to transportation at the port, or involved in its security. From the Commerce Committee hearings, it was evident that a more stringent requirement was needed.

To prevent future attacks, we must secure our ports. This bill is a major step forward in this effort. Senator Inouye is my co-chairman on the Commerce Committee, and I thank him and Senators Grassley, Baucus, Coleman, Collins and Lieberman for their leadership in drafting this bill, as well as the House committee leaders who were involved. I would also like to thank the staff members on each of the committees--they have worked tirelessly on this bill.

Our country's ports have become enormous operations. To fully address security of our ports, it is important that we appreciate the impacts security requirements might have on economic efficiencies in transportation

and trade. We must strive to be a secure state without becoming a security state.

Each of the Senate and House committees involved in this bill has jurisdiction over an area vital to the safety of our ports. Working together, our committees have developed a comprehensive bill which will help shield our Nation from future terrorist attacks. It is my hope our colleagues will support this act and move quickly to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate I proceed to the immediate consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 5631, the Defense appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the majority and minority, with that debate time not counting against the 30 hours postcloture, and that a vote on adoption of the conference report occur at 10 a.m. on Friday, September 29.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present the Defense appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2007 with my colleague from Hawaii, our cochairman, Senator Inouye.

Two nights ago, in a strong measure of bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform, the House of Representatives passed this bill. There are only 4 days left in the fiscal year. The 2007 Defense appropriations conference report must be signed into law by the President before Saturday at midnight.

Finishing debate on this bill tonight and passing it tomorrow morning will ensure that this bill will get to the President in time so there will be no lapse in money available to our men and women in uniform to conduct the ongoing activities throughout the world.

This bill includes the continuing resolution for those appropriations bills which have not been completed. This continuing resolution, or CR, as we call it, was negotiated on a bicameral, bipartisan basis. It is what we call a clean CR. There is no other problem associated with this CR. It has been supported on both sides of the aisle, and we are grateful to the Members in both the House and the Senate for that approval.

Our conference report represents a balanced approach to fulfilling the financial needs of the Department for fiscal year 2007. It provides $436.5 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense. This amount also includes $70 billion in emergency spending for early fiscal year 2007 costs associated with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war against terrorism.

The bill fully funds the 2.2 percent across-the-board military pay raise as proposed in the President's budget.

This conference agreement also provides $17.1 billion for additional fiscal year 2007 reset funding for the Army and $5.8 billion for the Marine Corps. These are specific amounts identified by the services as necessary to meet their fiscal year 2007 equipment requirements.

The additional reset funding provides for the replacement of aircraft lost in battle and the recapitalization and production of combat and tactical vehicles, ammunition, and communications equipment.

In addition, the conference report provides $1.1 billion for body armor and personal protection equipment and $1.9 billion to combat improvised explosive devices.

The bill also provides $1.5 billion for the Afghanistan security forces fund and $1.7 billion for the Iraq security forces fund. These funds will continue the training of indigenous security forces and provide equipment and infrastructure essential to developing capable security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The bill does not address the funding for basic allowance for housing within the military personnel accounts, sustainment, readiness and modernization funds contained in the operation and maintenance accounts, environmental funding, or Defense Health Program funding. These accounts will be conferenced later this year with the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for those accounts. They are separate from this bill.

Finally, I would like to note that the bill provides more than $3 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment to improve their readiness in combat operations as well as their critical role in our Nation's response to natural disasters.

I urge all Members of the Senate to support this bill. It supports the men and women in uniform who risk their lives for our country each day. By voting for this measure, we show our support for what they do.

I also wish to thank my cochairman again, Senator Inouye, for his support and invaluable counsel on the bill.

And before I recognize him, I would like to allocate 10 minutes of the time on our side to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. But I yield to my friend from Hawaii.

Mr. President, the television, cable, and satellite industries recently launched the ``Be the Boss of What Your Kids Watch'' campaign. This campaign, which is headed up by my good friend Jack Valenti, educates parents about how to protect their children from inappropriate television programming.

When Senator Inouye and I first became co-chairmen of the Senate Commerce Committee, several groups and individuals approached us; they were concerned about decency in media content. In November 2005, our Committee began the process of bringing each of these groups together. We convened an Open Forum on Decency and held hearings. In all, more than 30 groups and individuals shared their concerns and insights with us.

The ``Be the Boss'' campaign is one noteworthy initiative which developed from these efforts. Surveys show that only three percent of Americans know how to use the V-chip, a feature in every television set which enables parents to block programs based on ratings. This $300 million ad campaign seeks to teach parents how to use this--and other-- blocking technologies and will help them better monitor television programs.

In July, Jack Valenti and Peggy Conlon, the president of the Ad Council, kicked off the ``Be the Boss'' campaign when they showed our committee their first two public service announcements. Thanks to these announcements, and the campaign web site, www.thetvboss.org. parents now have information about the V-chip, cable and satellite controls, and television ratings.

Earlier this week, kits containing information about this campaign were delivered to every Member of Congress. I urge my colleagues to share these valuable resources with their constituents, and I thank Jack Valenti and his colleagues for their leadership on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Coast Guard nominations beginning with Paul S. Szwed and

ending with Brigid M. Pavilonis, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on September 20, 2006.

Coast Guard nominations beginning with Margaret A. Blomme

and ending with Rickey D. Thomas, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on September 21, 2006.

Coast Guard nominations beginning with Meredith L. Austin

and ending with Werner A. Winz, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on September 21, 2006.

Coast Guard nominations beginning with Joyce E. Aivalotis

and ending with Jose M. Zuniga, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on September 21, 2006.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006. I am joined by my colleagues from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Inouye, Lott and Lautenberg.

Pipelines are one of the safest forms of transportation, and in most cases their safety record has been steadily improving. Unfortunately however, as recent events in my State demonstrate, there is still much to be done. This bill addresses the problems that have occurred in Alaska and other safety issues that have been brought to the Committee's attention.

The bill reauthorizes the pipeline safety programs of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010.

Highlights of the bill include:

Increased Department of Transportation Resources Dedicated to Overseeing Pipeline Safety--The bill provides an additional 45 Federal inspectors (a 50 percent increase) over the 4 years of the bill at a cost of $6 million in Fiscal Year 2010. Currently PHMSA has 90 inspectors, but the DOT Inspector General has stated in the past that these relatively low staffing levels are a matter for concern. Ninety inspectors translate to one inspector for every 18,000 miles of pipeline in this country.

Strengtened Programs to Reduce Construction Related Damage to Pipelines--The bill includes new civil enforcement authority against excavators and pipeline operators responsible for third-party damage incidents and provides grants to states that have damage prevention programs in place. Construction related damage, such as damage caused by excavation for a highway project, is the greatest cause of pipeline accidents that result in death or injury. This occurs most often on the distribution systems that run through the neighborhoods where people live and work. These incidents have increased by 49 percent since 1996.

Applying DOT Safety Standards to the Currently Unregulated Low Stress Pipelines--On August 31, the DOT announced proposed rules to cover low stress pipelines in unusually sensitive areas. Pipeline operators will have to meet new safety requirements, including cleaning and continuous monitoring, along more than 1,200 miles of pipelines. However, low- stress lines that aren't in such sensitive areas would continue to be unregulated. The bill goes further than the regulation and requires DOT oversight of all low-stress pipelines.

Increased Accountability of Pipeline Company Officials--The bill includes a provision that would require senior officials at pipeline companies to certify that the information they are providing to regulators is accurate.

Enhanced Pipeline Research--The bill would also boost PHMSA's research and technology development budget for pipeline safety issues such as corrosion by $10 million over the length of the bill.

A Study of Pipelines Critical to Energy Supply--The bill includes a study of oil pipelines that are critical to the nation's energy supply in order to determine if there are sufficient safety regulations in place to ensure their safety.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are also working on pipeline safety legislation. I hope that our three Committees can work together over the next month while the Congress is out of session to develop a joint legislative product that we can pass and have signed into law when we return in November. Many of the provisions in the three bills are similar and we should have enough common ground to achieve this goal.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006. I am joined by my colleagues from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators Inouye, Lott and Lautenberg.

Pipelines are one of the safest forms of transportation, and in most cases their safety record has been steadily improving. Unfortunately however, as recent events in my State demonstrate, there is still much to be done. This bill addresses the problems that have occurred in Alaska and other safety issues that have been brought to the Committee's attention.

The bill reauthorizes the pipeline safety programs of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010.

Highlights of the bill include:

Increased Department of Transportation Resources Dedicated to Overseeing Pipeline Safety--The bill provides an additional 45 Federal inspectors (a 50 percent increase) over the 4 years of the bill at a cost of $6 million in Fiscal Year 2010. Currently PHMSA has 90 inspectors, but the DOT Inspector General has stated in the past that these relatively low staffing levels are a matter for concern. Ninety inspectors translate to one inspector for every 18,000 miles of pipeline in this country.

Strengtened Programs to Reduce Construction Related Damage to Pipelines--The bill includes new civil enforcement authority against excavators and pipeline operators responsible for third-party damage incidents and provides grants to states that have damage prevention programs in place. Construction related damage, such as damage caused by excavation for a highway project, is the greatest cause of pipeline accidents that result in death or injury. This occurs most often on the distribution systems that run through the neighborhoods where people live and work. These incidents have increased by 49 percent since 1996.

Applying DOT Safety Standards to the Currently Unregulated Low Stress Pipelines--On August 31, the DOT announced proposed rules to cover low stress pipelines in unusually sensitive areas. Pipeline operators will have to meet new safety requirements, including cleaning and continuous monitoring, along more than 1,200 miles of pipelines. However, low- stress lines that aren't in such sensitive areas would continue to be unregulated. The bill goes further than the regulation and requires DOT oversight of all low-stress pipelines.

Increased Accountability of Pipeline Company Officials--The bill includes a provision that would require senior officials at pipeline companies to certify that the information they are providing to regulators is accurate.

Enhanced Pipeline Research--The bill would also boost PHMSA's research and technology development budget for pipeline safety issues such as corrosion by $10 million over the length of the bill.

A Study of Pipelines Critical to Energy Supply--The bill includes a study of oil pipelines that are critical to the nation's energy supply in order to determine if there are sufficient safety regulations in place to ensure their safety.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are also working on pipeline safety legislation. I hope that our three Committees can work together over the next month while the Congress is out of session to develop a joint legislative product that we can pass and have signed into law when we return in November. Many of the provisions in the three bills are similar and we should have enough common ground to achieve this goal.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his comments and hope more people will listen to him. He is certainly on the right track as far as this Senator is concerned.

Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to remind the Senate that the Senate Commerce Committee reported to the Senate a bipartisan bill, the Senate communications bill, and it is critical that the Senate consider this bill on the floor.

It is a bill that is good for the consumer. This bill seeks to reduce phone rates for our troops overseas. This bill makes available immediately $1 billion for our first responders. That is money that has been held in the Treasury since last December awaiting authorization for this money to be released.

This money will be used to train, coordinate, and provide interoperable equipment to those first responders. This is money they absolutely must have.

This bill creates caches of emergency communications equipment which will be located throughout our Nation, equipment that is absolutely necessary in the event of an emergency, particularly emergencies caused by terrorist activity in the future.

This bill encourages broadband deployment for consumers. We are behind the world in deployment of broadband. This bill reduces consumer cable rates, a step that is vital to assure that our people can continue to expand the use of cable in terms of communication.

This bill creates choices for consumers for both video and phone service. It is a bill to level the playing field between the various providers of communications capability for all Americans.

This bill will broaden the base for universal service. This is a concept that makes communications available to rural America which is critical, and it is critical to consider a way to make it more affordable and to make sure that the contribution required from users of our communications system is as small as possible, but at the same time meets the needs so that every American can have available communications.

I believe availability of communications is a new right for American citizens. Everyone must have the ability to learn of emergencies and have the ability to communicate.

This bill exempts the Universal Service Fund from the Antideficiency Act. That will be good for our Nation's schools and libraries that rely on universal service funding. It is necessary because of the fluctuations in the use of this fund, and it should not be considered under the Antideficiency Act.

This bill permits municipalities to provide broadband service throughout

America in both urban and rural communities. The so-called Wi-Fi concept will be expanded.

The bill expands access for the blind and hearing impaired to the voice over the Internet. VOIP is a brandnew system. It must be available to those with disabilities, as well as all other Americans.

There is wide support for the Senate communications bill. Several days ago, a letter that was signed by over 100 companies sent to our leaders was made available. These are companies involved in the manufacture, design, and construction of telecommunications networks. These 100 companies express support for our bill because it encourages broadband deployment. They support the bill's lighter regulatory approach to the concepts of net neutrality.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, I want to read this. The letter is addressed to Senator Bill Frist and Senator Harry Reid, the two leaders of our parties in the Senate. It says:

Dear Senators Frist and Reid:

As leaders in the networking and communications industries

striving to produce new technologies for our nation and the

world, we are pleased to support the Advanced

Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act (H.R. 5252)

as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. It is our hope

that the full Senate will approve this legislation in the

very near future.

We are particularly pleased that an Internet Consumers Bill

of Rights has been incorporated into this bill to address the

so-called ``network neutrality'' issue. We believe this

approach to net neutrality will ensure that consumers have

access to the content of their choice.

We are strongly opposed to the adoption of mandated net

neutrality regulation sought by large Internet content

businesses for a number of reasons. First, the Internet has

benefited greatly from the relative absence of regulatory

restrictions, which has allowed content businesses to grow

and prosper. Congress has wisely refrained from burdening

this still-evolving medium with regulations, except in those

cases where the need for policy action has been clear, and it

can be narrowly tailored. This is not the time to deviate

from this posture.

Second, it is too soon to enact network neutrality

legislation. The problem that the proponents of net

neutrality seek to address has not manifested itself in a way

that enables us to understand it clearly. Legislation aimed

at correcting a nebulous concern may have severe unintended

consequences and hobble the rapidly developing new

technologies and business models of the Internet. Third,

enacting network neutrality ``placeholder laws'' could have

the unintended effect of dissuading companies from investing

in broadband networks.

We believe Congress would benefit from objective and

unbiased analysis of the claims made on both sides of this

debate, and that protecting consumer access while requiring

the FCC to study the issue is a reasonable way to proceed.

Thank you for your leadership on this legislation. We stand

ready to build the world-class products that will be

available to consumers as a result of the increased

investment this bill will promote.

It is signed, as I said, by 100 companies.

By supporting this bill, because it encourages broadband deployment, they support the lighter regulatory approach to net neutrality, as I said. There has been much debate on this issue in the Senate Commerce Committee, in the House committees, on the House floor, in newspapers, and in the ``blogosphere,'' as it is called now. But some Senators still prevent full debate on this issue on the Senate floor. It is time now for the Senate to allow debate on this bill to start. America needs this bill.

Exhibit 1

September 19, 2006.

Hon. Bill Frist,

Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Frist and Reid: As leaders in the networking

and communications industries striving to produce new

technologies for our nation and the world, we are pleased to

support the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities

Reform Act (H.R. 5252) as approved by the Senate Commerce

Committee. It is our hope that the full Senate will approve

this legislation in the very near future.

We are particularly pleased that an Internet Consumers Bill

of Rights has been incorporated into the bill to address the

so-called ``network neutrality'' issue. We believe this

approach to net neutrality will ensure that consumers have

access to the content of their choice.

We are strongly opposed to the adoption of mandated net

neutrality regulation sought by large Internet content

businesses for a number of reasons. First, the Internet has

benefited greatly from the relative absence of regulatory

restrictions, which has allowed content businesses to grow

and prosper. Congress has wisely refrained from burdening

this still-evolving medium with regulations, except in those

cases where the need for policy action has been clear, and it

can be narrowly tailored. This is not the time to deviate

from this posture.

Second, it is too soon to enact network neutrality

legislation. The problem that the proponents of network

neutrality seek to address has not manifested itself in a way

that enables us to understand it clearly. Legislation aimed

at correcting a nebulous concern may have severe unintended

consequences and hobble the rapidly developing new

technologies and business models of the Internet. Third,

enacting network neutrality ``placeholder laws'' could have

the unintended effect of dissuading companies from investing

in broadband networks.

We believe Congress would benefit from objective and

unbiased analysis of the claims made on both sides of this

debate, and that protecting consumer access while requiring

the FCC to study the issue is a reasonable way to proceed.

Thank you for your leadership on this legislation. We stand

ready to build the world-class products that will be

available to consumers as a result of the increased

investment this bill will promote.

Sincerely,

2 Wire, Inc., 3M Company; AC Data Systems, Inc.; AC

Photonics, Inc.; Actiontec Electronics, Inc.; Active

Optical Mems, Inc.; ADC Telecommunications, Inc.;

Adtran, Inc.; AFL Telecommunications LLC; Agilent

Technologies, Inc.; Aktino, Inc.; Alcatel North

America; Allot Communications; Amedia Networks, Inc.;

Anda Networks; Anue Systems, Inc.; Applied

Optoelectronics, Inc.; Argent Associates, Inc.; Arnco

Corp.; Atlantic Engineering Group; Axerra Network.

BaySpec, Inc.; Berry Test Sets, Inc.; BTECH Inc.; Carlon,

Lamson & Sessions; CBM of America, Inc.; Charles

Industries, Ltd.; Ciena Corporation; Cisco Systems,

Inc.; CoAdna Photonics, Inc.; Condux International,

Inc.; Conklin-Intracom; Corning Incorporated;

Communication Technology Services; Dantel, Inc.; Ditch

Witch (The Charles Machine Works, Inc.); DSM Desotech

Inc.; Dura-Line Corp.; Electrodata, Inc.; Ellacoya

Networks, Inc.; Enhanced Telecommunications, Inc.

Entrisphere, Inc.; FiberControl; FiberSource, Inc.;

Finisar Corp.; Hammerhead Systems Inc.; Hatteras

Networks, Inc.; Hitachi Telecom (USA) Inc.; Howell

Communications; Independent Technologies Inc.;

Katolight Corp.; KMM Telecommunications, Inc.;

Leapstone Systems, Inc.; Lightel Technologies, Inc.;

Lucent Technologies Inc.; MasTec Inc.; MBE Telecom,

Inc.; Metrotel Corp.; Microwave Networks Inc.;

Motorola, Inc.; MRV Communications, Inc.

NeoPhotonics Corp.; Neptco, Inc.; Norland Products Inc.;

Nortel Networks Corporation; NorthStar Communications

Group, Inc.; NSG America, Inc.; Nufern; OFS; Omnitron

Systems Technology, Inc.; OnTrac, Inc.; Optical Zonu,

Inc.; PECO II, Inc.; Preformed Line Products, Inc.;

Prysmian Communications Cables and Systems USA, LLC;

Qualcomm Inc.; Quanta Services, Inc.; Redback Networks

Inc.; Roebbelen; Sheyenne Dakota, Inc.; Sigma Designs

Inc.

SNC Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Sumitomo Electric

Lightwave Corp.; Sunrise Telecom, Inc.; Suttle

Apparatus Corp.; Symmetricom, Inc.; Team Alliance; Team

Fishel; Telamon Corp.; Telcobuy.com, LLC; Telesync,

Inc.; Tellabs, Inc.; Tyco Electronics Corp.; US Conec

Ltd.; Valere Power, Inc.; Vermeer Manufacturing

Company; Wave7 Optics, Inc.; White Rock Networks, Inc.;

Xecom, Inc.; Xponent Potonics Inc.; Zoomy

Communications, Inc.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk for myself, Senator Grassley and Senator Snowe.

There is a Wyden amendment, No. 5001, at the desk.

Mr. President, the Wyden amendment is on the definition of change, my amendment pertains to anchor handling, the Snowe amendment is with regard to a conveyance extension, and the Grassley amendment is with regard to technical corrections.

These were erroneously left out of the managers' package which we processed last evening.

I ask unanimous consent that these four amendments be considered as additions to the managers' package, that they be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to lay on the table be agreed to.

I thank the Chair. I thank all concerned.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have another so-called managers' package, a series of amendments that have been cleared by the managers on both sides. There are three committees involved. They have been cleared on a bipartisan basis.

I will send to the desk the amendments and I will present them at this time.

I have the DeMint amendment No. 4970, as amended by amendment No. 5007. It is at the desk. I have the Lautenberg amendment No. 4942, as modified; the Vitter amendment No. 4952, as modified; the Vitter amendment No. 4961, as modified; the Rockefeller amendment No. 4966, as modified; the Menendez amendment No. 4997, as modified; and the Schumer amendment No. 4983, as modified.

This is a package that has been cleared totally. That is my understanding. I ask the amendments be presented en bloc, they be considered en bloc, they be agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is this amendment germane?

I make a point of order that it is not germane.

Mr. President, before that time commences, I want to answer the Senator from California. Canine teams are the most effective way to screen cargo transporter and passenger planes. Dogs can screen large quantities of cargo more quickly than any other available methods. One dog team can screen all the cargo on a 777 in 13 minutes.

Now, there is just no reason for these containers that the Senator from California wants to use, no reason to permit high-risk cargo aboard an aircraft. The hardened containers would only be able to contain a blast of limited quality of explosive material and would only be available for wide-body aircraft.

That amendment is not pertinent to this bill. This is not an airplane bill. This is not an aircraft bill. It is not an airline bill. It is a port and railroad security bill. That is why I objected. And I thank the Chair for ruling it was not germane.

I agree and I commit to working with the Senator to see that we do our best to make this law.

Amendment No. 4930, as Modified

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

There is 10 minutes equally divided to make final statements on this bill?

I ask unanimous consent that each side have 5 minutes, jointly, to make final statements on this bill.

Mr. President, securing our ports is vital to our economy. More than 11 million cargo containers enter our country every day, and waterborne cargo contributes more than $742 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product. But our ports are not isolated commercial operations. Our waterways and ports are linked to 152,000 miles of railway, 460,000 miles of underground pipelines, and 40,000 miles of interstate highways. The bill the Senate will pass today not only strengthens security at our land and seaports, it addresses trucking, railroad, and pipeline security. I believe this is the most comprehensive approach to border security we have taken to date. The provisions of this bill will help ensure the safety of our Nation, our cities, and our system of commerce.

Mr. President, the passage of this port security legislation by the Senate today will mark the end of a long Senate bipartisan, 3-committee process of which we all may be proud. The Commerce, Homeland, and Finance Committees have tremendous knowledge about our ports and the programs which protect and secure the international supply chain. It is a credit to this Senate that each committee agreed to pool their resources, put aside jurisdictional issues, and develop a strong and comprehensive piece of legislation.

I thank Senator Collins for her steadfast dedication to this bill, as well as Senators Murray, Lieberman, Grassley, Baucus, and Coleman. And I particularly thank my great friend and Commerce Committee cochairman, Senator Inouye, for his lasting commitment to securing our Nation's ports.

As I said, securing our ports is vital to our economy. More than 11 million cargo containers enter our country every day, and waterborne cargo contributes more than $742 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product.

But our ports are not isolated commercial operations. Our waterways and ports link to 152,000 miles of railways, 460,000 miles of underground pipelines, and 45,000 miles of interstate highways. The bill the Senate will pass today not only strengthens security at our land and seaports; it addresses trucking, railroad, and pipeline security. I believe this is the most comprehensive approach to border security we have taken to date. The provisions in this bill will help ensure the safety of our Nation, our citizens, and our system of commerce.

This bill enhances current programs designed to gather and analyze information about cargo destined for U.S. ports, and significantly expands on the current program for randomly scanning containers. This bill moves us toward 100 percent scanning of all cargo containers entering our country once the process becomes feasible.

This bill is essential to the security of our Nation. It is my hope that the House and Senate will make this a priority and get it to the President soon.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the dedicated staff who worked so hard with all of us, and I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I want to be as constrained as possible on this concept, but I do want to talk about this amendment of Senator Reid's. It is a 500-plus-page amendment to be added to our port security bill, and most of the provisions are totally unrelated to port security. It covers Iraq policy; intelligence reform; all of the 9/11 Commission reforms; troop redeployment concepts; Iraqi contractor provisions; a section regarding detainees, such as those people at Guantanamo Bay; immigration and border security; and a whole section on transportation.

Now, I do not know if the Senate realizes, but the port security bill that our committee, the Commerce Committee, reported was originally Senator Inouye's bill. As a matter of fact, we took it and reviewed it and made some minor modifications to it, and Senator Inouye suggested that my name go first since I was chairman. We are cochairmen of the committee. As a matter of fact, it was the Inouye, Stevens, Collins, Lieberman, Grassley, Baucus, Coleman, Murray amendment that we were talking about when we finally got to the floor and put everything together.

We worked on trying to make this bill before the Senate a bipartisan bill, and what does my good friend--he is my good friend--the Democratic leader, do? He brings us a bill, 500 pages, totally partisan. There is no bipartisanship in that bill at all. In each instance, it is the minority's position on these very controversial subjects.

We have worked 18 months to come to the floor with bills from three committees--a bipartisan approach--and

we are at the last minute supposed to vote on an amendment with 500- plus pages on a whole series of things.

I remember people used to say: It's everything but the kitchen sink. Do you know what I mean? There is so much in this bill that is totally partisan--it is awesome--when we are working to try to finish up this year and trying to reach out and be bipartisan. Above all bills, this bill we brought to the floor was bipartisan--three separate committees on a bipartisan basis. And from all three committees, the ranking members and the chairmen signed that bill.

Now, I cannot think of anything that has been done to destroy the bipartisanship we seek to have to deal with issues such as security other than this bill. Why should we be forced to have a cloture vote or raise a point of order against a bill like that? It should not have been brought to the floor.

Now, it is time we settled down and started thinking about: How can we get our work done? There are going to be elections soon, and it is a tough period for everybody. One-third of the Senate is up for election. I know that. We all know that. And we try to understand, on a bipartisan basis, we should do some things and not be offensive to people who are up for election.

I hope I am not being offensive to my friend from Nevada. But I am telling him he should not, as a leader, do this. And it is time we thought about how we can settle problems like the security at our ports. The bill we brought to the floor could have been passed with one or two amendments in a few hours. As a matter of fact, we thought that was going to happen. We really did. Because of the cooperation that was there from each committee and the work we did literally through our staffs and through the members of consolidating the work of three different committees on a bipartisan basis, we thought we had this subject covered. But the amendments that are being brought to us now have nothing to do with port security.

We thought we would emphasize port security. At the suggestion of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, we put rail security in. It, too, is so interlocked with port security, it was justifiable. And, again, that portion of the bill was bipartisan. No question about it. That was part of the work of our committee on railroad and rail security.

But I say to the Senate, time is now a commodity before the election. There is very little of it left. I would hope we don't have any more of these amendments. And if we do, I think we ought to face the question of just immediately tabling them. Let's stay directed toward what our work demands of us; and that is, to take the action that is necessary to assure security in the different modes of transportation that our people must use. I hope we will have no more of these amendments.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the time situation between the two parties?

Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Is that a vote subject to reconsideration?

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4975

The Biden amendment is now the pending business?

Madam President, I wish to discuss this for a few minutes.

I call to the attention of the Senate that this, too, is an all- inclusive amendment. It restores the cuts for law enforcement. It deals with all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It deals with requiring 100 percent screening of cargo containers, which is our objective. But we cannot do it all at once. It seeks to bring about screening technologies for liquid explosives and other hazardous materials. It has some interoperable language in it.

This represents a 32-percent annual increase over the current allocation of funds for the Department of Homeland Security. It requires a substantial addition to the Department of Homeland Security.

The interesting thing--and my friend from Delaware is innovative in terms of this--is it does not appropriate the money, but it requires the committee to come forward with a bill to provide $53 billion additional for the Department of Homeland Security.

It is a very interesting amendment, there is no question about that. This is another one of those things everyone would like to do if they had the money to do it. Beyond that, the way it is done, it is a difficult amendment to deal with.

It is not necessary to carry out the port security bill or the real portion of this bill. It deals with an enormous number of issues beyond the scope of the bill. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to move to table this amendment. I give my friend from Delaware a chance if he wishes to make a final statement. I move to table the Senator's amendment, but I ask that there be consideration of a period of time prior to voting on that so the Senator may express his point of view; I would say 4 minutes equally divided, or something like that, before the vote.

I have been requested to state that we would like to have that vote take place at 2 p.m. today and prior to the vote have 4 minutes equally divided, with no amendments or other motions in order, and the motion to table subject only to the provision of 4 minutes before a vote is taken on that motion.

I object. Just a minute. We do not want to have a whole schedule here through one Senator having the floor.

What amendment is now pending before the Senate?

Is the Senator from New York yielding time on Senator Schumer's amendment?

What is the request for time limitation on this amendment?

I am not objecting to her setting aside the Schumer amendment. She has made a request beyond that for a limitation of time on some amendment.

I don't know who has the floor. I think the Senator from New York does.

Madam President, we are perfectly willing to enter into a time agreement on the Senator's amendment, but we want some allocated to this side, too. We would like to know what the request is for time.

We have no objection to the Senator requesting time for herself and the Senator from Massachusetts. I just don't think it is right to have a time allocation without consideration of the Senators, that is all.

Mr. President, I would like to take 1 minute and reserve 1 minute. I make this motion to table because I believe this amendment is so comprehensive, it really doesn't belong on this bill. The concept of the funding for the activities recommended by the Biden amendment is the amendment mandates the committee to bring out a bill to provide the funding. It would be an increase of $32.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department; that is a 19-percent increase over the amount that has already been allocated. We do not need that. This is not the place to consider that, anyway. This deals with restoring the cuts that have taken place in law enforcement areas. It is looking at liquid explosives and hazardous materials concepts. It has a whole series of things in here that deal with funding--money for more FBI agents, more money for Justice Assistance grants, more money for Customs agents. A whole series of things are involved. It is two pages long.

The money that would be authorized by the funds that the Biden amendment would mandate we provide under the appropriate procedures.

Being essentially a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it is difficult to deal with, but that kind of resolution becomes a mandate in the next year.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What happens if the Senator does not arrive and the time comes?

Let me use the remainder of my other minute, then.

I point out to the Senate that this amendment would create a new trust fund, and into that trust fund would go the moneys that would come from the mandate to the Finance Committee to reduce the scheduled and existing income tax reductions enacted since the taxable year 2001 with respect to what taxpayers earn in excess of $1 million a year. That is a laudable thing, but this is not just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution; it is a mandate to the Senate to do this.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, at another time I might discuss this subject, Net neutrality, with the Senator from Oregon. I think what I will do is send him a copy of all the letters I have received from his constituents who agree with me. But I thank him very much for his comments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.