Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. This amendment has been cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Inouye, Smith, Snowe, and Hutchison. Mr. President, 911 calls provide the first line of defense in the safety of our citizens and is critical to public safety personnel. Technological advances now allow 911 calls to provide more information, such as the caller's location and telephone number. In too many parts of the country, the public safety community doesn't have the technology needed to receive location or other information. They need funding help to upgrade their equipment so this is possible. Congress previously allocated $43.5 million as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for E-911 grants, so the 911 system can be upgraded. However, as it currently stands, the grants cannot be awarded until after the digital television proceedings are completed. Our amendment would add the 911 Modernization Act, S. 93, to this bill, which passed unanimously out of the Commerce Committee several weeks ago. This would allow the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to borrow $43.5 million from the Treasury to fund the Enhance 911 Act Grant Program in advance of the spectrum auction. Because these funds are only advanced, the CBO has informed us that this amendment does not score. The National Emergency Number Association that focuses on 911 recently announced that more than 20 percent of the country doesn't have enhanced 911 capability. That 20 percent is in rural America and covers 50 percent of the counties of our country. There is a matching fund requirement in the underlying law to ensure that this money is spent wisely by public safety entities that are committed to improve the 911 calling capability of the citizens. This means that local governments must match under the law, and this enables us to know there is local support for the activities that would be financed by this money. The amendment has the support of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers International and the National Emergency Numbering Association. I will submit a letter from these two premier 911 public safety organizations for the Record. With this borrowing authority, the NTIA could get the money out to the public safety community now. The funds will be replaced, and enhanced 911 calls can begin saving lives in more of rural America. This is absolutely essential. Again, 50 percent of our counties do not have the ability to move forward unless this money is made available. Borrowing the money now, so it will be repaid out of the spectrum auction, is the best way to proceed. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I mentioned be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to report the 2007 National Collegiate Men's and Women's Rifle Championships will be held in Fairbanks, AK on March 9 and 10. Forty-eight student-athletes will participate in this exciting competition. Although rifle is relatively new as an NCAA sport, 44 colleges and universities now sponsor rifle teams. Nationwide, hundreds of student- athletes compete in this sport. These young men and women are tremendously skilled--to score a bull's-eye in the smallbore competition, for instance, shooters must strike a target the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Remarkably, they are able to consistently hit this mark from a distance of 50 feet. Like more traditional sports, rifle has a positive impact on its participants. Marsha Beasley, the former head coach of West Virginia University's team, once observed: ``Rifle provides a wonderful opportunity to learn many life skills such as self-discipline, concentration, the ability to relax under pressure, goal-setting, sportsmanship and teamwork.'' Just as important, rifle teaches participants how to handle guns in a safe, responsible manner. It is also one of the few sports where men and women compete against each other as equals. Rifle competition has a great history in our State, and Alaskans are honored the NCAA has chosen Fairbanks as this year's host. The timing of this event is particularly fitting--2007 marks the 70th anniversary of the University of Alaska Fairbanks' first rifle team. Over the years, UAF has found great success in this sport. The university is the NCAA's reigning rifle champion and has claimed the national title in 7 of the past 8 years. Since 1988, 39 Nanooks have been selected as All-Americans in rifle. Seven of these competitors have won individual rifle championships. Rifle's popularity is also apparent throughout our state. Today, Fairbanks is one of several Alaska cities with a robust rifle community, and many high schools in our state now sponsor rifle teams as well. Mr. President, while I will be rooting for the home team, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, I wish each participant the best in this competition. The names of each team and individual selected for the 2007 National Collegiate Men's and Women's Rifle Championships are as follows: Team Qualifiers: Jacksonville State University, Murray State University, Texas Christian University, United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Kentucky, University of Nebraska. Individual Qualifiers (Smallbore Three-Position): Matthew Hamilton--United States Military Academy, Lee Lemenager-- University of Nevada, Reno, Layne Lewis--University of Alaska Fairbanks, Jennifer Lorenzen--University of Mississippi, Meghann Morrill--University of Nevada, Reno. Individual Qualifiers (Air Rifle): Erica Burnham--Tennessee Technological University, Wesley Hess--United States Military Academy, Ashley Jackson--University of Kentucky, Keegan Singleton--University of Memphis, Leah Wilcox--University of Texas at EI Paso, Shannon Wilson--University of Mississippi.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Collins, for working with the Commerce Committee to include important security measures in this bill. I am grateful to my great friend, Senator Inouye, for his willingness to work in our committee on a bipartisan basis to develop and report these measures. In the 5\1/2\ years since the horrific events of September 11, we have made many good improvements in the security of our Nation's transportation infrastructure and ensuring communications interoperability. Our job, however, is far from over, for there are still more improvements to be made and gaps to close. In matters of security, we cannot become complacent; as our enemies adapt, so must we. The Commerce Committee's aviation and surface transportation legislation, which has been included in S. 4, will significantly enhance the ability of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration to fulfill their missions. These provisions were developed by the Commerce Committee while mindful of the delicate balance between implementing tough security measures and the effects such regulations may have on the Nation's economy and the movement of goods. The aviation provisions incorporated in S. 4 were reported by our Commerce Committee on February 13 as S. 509, the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 2007. The provisions incorporate aviation-related 9/ 11 Commission recommendations and provide TSA with additional tools to carry out its layered approach to security. To do this, the aviation security provisions dedicate continued funding for the installation of in-line explosive detection systems utilized for the enhanced screening of checked baggage at our Nation's airports. We all recognize the importance of screening 100 percent of cargo transported to and within the United States. Last year, in the Safe Port Act, Congress acted to ensure that all cargo arriving in the United States by sea is screened. In S. 4, we ensure that 100 percent of air cargo also is screened. The U.S. air cargo supply chain handles over 50,000 tons of cargo each day, of which 26 percent is designated for domestic passenger carriers. Screening is of particular importance in Alaska. Anchorage, my home, is the No. 1 airport in the United States for landed weight cargo, and it is No. 3 in the world for cargo throughput. Our provision would require TSA to develop and implement a system to provide for screening of all cargo being carried by passenger aircraft. To address ongoing concerns about passenger prescreening procedures, the legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to create an Office of Appeals and Redress to establish a timely and fair process for airline passengers who believe they have been misidentified against the ``no-fly'' or ``selectee'' watchlists. TSA's layered approach to security relies not only upon equipment and technological advances but also upon improved security screening techniques employed by TSA screeners as well as the use of very effective canines. This legislation calls for TSA's National Explosives Detection Canine Team to deploy more of these valuable resources across the Nation's transportation network. The bill we are considering also contains the provisions of S. 184, the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007, which was also developed and reported on a bipartisan basis by our Commerce Committee. While the aviation industry has received most of the attention and funding for security, the rail and transit attacks in Britain, Spain, and India all point to a common strategy utilized by terrorists. The openness of our transportation system, our surface transportation network, presents unique security challenges. The vastness of these systems requires targeted allocation of our resources based upon risk. Most of the surface transportation security provisions in the bill before the Senate today have been included previously as part of other transportation security bills introduced by Senator Inouye, Senator McCain, and myself. Many of the provisions in the substitute amendment passed the Senate unanimously last year as well as in the 108th Congress. Each time, however, the House of Representatives did not agree to the need to address rail, pipeline, motor carrier, hazardous materials, and other over-the-road bus security. The time has come to send these provisions to the President's desk. We are hopeful that the House will agree this time. The substitute also contains provisions of the Commerce Committee's reported measure, S. 385, the Interoperable Emergency Communications Act. Since 2001, we have heard the cries of public safety officials that the police, firefighters, and emergency medical response personnel throughout the country need help in achieving interoperability. With this $1 billion program which helps every State, public safety will be able to move forward with real solutions and begin addressing the problems that have plagued our Nation's first responders for too long. The legislation addresses all of the public safety issues which have been brought to the attention of the committee. It also includes $100 million to establish both Federal and State strategic technology reserves to help restore communications quickly in disasters equal in scale to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We should not politicize national security. The Commerce Committee's initiatives included in this bill are very important, and I urge their adoption. Again, I appreciate very much the cooperation of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. We achieved the reported bills I mentioned from the Commerce Committee because of the bipartisanship in our committee. I hope this debate on this important bill before the Senate will continue in that same spirit. The American people really expect and deserve nothing less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what happens to the time I am allocated under those circumstances?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, with great respect for my friend from West Virginia, the reason we are here is because the new majority refuses to debate. They refuse to allow us to take up the amendments that should be considered during this debate. We have before us now a proposal drafted by the Rules Committee of the House, presented to the House without debate and brought to us without debate, and we are told we are to be limited on the number of amendments that will be considered to this measure. It is an important subject to be debated, but why Saturday? This is the start of the President's Day recess that was announced 6 weeks ago. In order to try to embarrass the Members of this side--21 of us up for reelection--the leadership decided to have this debate today on a nonbinding resolution, which wouldn't accomplish anything, wouldn't bring any troops home, wouldn't announce our support for the troops, just to see whether we come back to vote. The real problem is how do we get together in a Senate that has a majority of one? Do we do it on the basis that every time something comes from the House we are to be told no amendments will be in order? We can't debate this question of whether we support the troops? We can't support any other amendment to this resolution? We are to take the matter that came from the House without debate from the Rules Committee? It was not changed all the way through the House. How many Senators on that side want to be a rubberstamp for the House? That is what you are starting. This is the third bill to come before us with the idea of no minority amendments are going to be considered unless the leadership on that side decides they should be considered. Again, I tell you, Madam President, this is a defining moment of the Senate. This is a debating society. We should not be limited on the number of amendments that are considered, any more than we are limited on the CR. When I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 2001, there were 11 bills pending that had not been passed by the former majority. We brought them before the Senate in an omnibus bill, and every single bill was considered, one by one. What did we do this time? We had one resolution which came over from the House, and we passed it without any amendments. That is a formula for the death of the Senate. There are people in this country who think we should have a unicameral legislature.

Mr. STEVENS. I share the Senator's opinion because I would like to debate him on some of these subjects but not on a nonbinding resolution. Let's bring up a resolution that supports the troops. I directly contradict my good friend from West Virginia. The American people support our troops in the field----

Mr. STEVENS. ----and do not want us challenging them and trying to find some way to deviate money from their support or deny them the support they deserve. I would love to stand here and talk for hours and hours with my friend about how to support the troops. You don't do it by asking them to disobey the President of the United States. You don't do it by urging the Senate and the House not to support the President of the United States. You do it by trying to get together and working on a bipartisan basis to solve our problems. None of us like war. I said the other day I hate war. I have been involved in the consideration of too many wars in my life, but clearly those people wearing our uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan need to know we support them 100 percent, and we don't stand here and talk about how we should find ways so they would not get their support, so we force the President of the United States to bring them home. We will bring them home with the new commander there and the new plan we are going to put into effect, a plan that requires a surge for the safety of the people there, to move in the country to carry out the plan. I support the President, and I urge the Senate to do the same.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time was I allocated?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this morning I got up and I went to get on an airplane and the plane was delayed because of mechanical issues. Then I got the word that the leader said we should come vote on questions being discussed, just as I heard now. I am here to participate in a charade. This is nothing but a charade. It is a nonbinding resolution. We are coming back to vote on Saturday on a nonbinding resolution that the American public doesn't support. As a matter of fact, as I read in The Hill newspaper and as I see on the front page, there is the majority leader's photograph and a story about how the majority is trying to embarrass the 21 of us who are up for election in 2008. I think the majority--current majority, former minority--ought to look at that paper. Inside it, after giving the majority leader credit for this charade, is a poll. It is an online poll, and this was a question: Does debate on a nonbinding Iraq resolution help or harm Americans? Harm: 57 percent; help, 43 percent. Nothing at all will be accomplished tomorrow, even if we got cloture. We would vote on a nonbinding resolution that is an embarrassment to the troops that are wearing our uniforms in Iraq. What we should be doing is voting on cloture on a series of votes which would include Senator Gregg's resolution or amendment that declares our support for our troops. The reason we face this situation today is the new majority, with one vote--a majority of one vote--went over to the House and negotiated a resolution--a nonbinding, nothing resolution--and brought it over here and said: You are going to vote on this resolution and nothing else. If we do this, we become a lower body of the House. The House, in responding to the Rules Committee, had no chance to offer any amendments to that bill. Over here, the majority leader says: You cannot offer any amendments to this because I am the leader. Well, it is time we showed this leader the processes of the Senate are here for the purpose of allowing debate. The House represents the population of a whole series of congressional districts. We represent our States. The national viewpoint is settled in the Senate. This is the place where debate is supposed to take place and it should not be limited. If we voted for cloture on this resolution tomorrow, we would not be allowed to vote on the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment: Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions. What is wrong with that? Why won't the leader let us vote on that? You know why? Because it would carry. It would carry. Because Senators on that other side of the aisle know they must support the forces in the field. Senator Gregg's amendment goes on to say: Whereas under Article II, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the President is the ``commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States'', and in such capacity the President has the command of the Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime. Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and adequately provide funding for the United States military forces, especially when they are at war and are defending our Nation; and Whereas the United States military forces are in harm's way and are protecting our country, Congress and the Nation should give them all the support they need in order to maintain their safety and to accomplish their assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government. Senator Gregg goes on to say this: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring)-- And they have to concur if we send it back to them-- That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. It is nothing but a charade to say an amendment that does nothing should not have a resolution such as this attached to it. That is our purpose. That is our job. It is our constitutional responsibility to support the forces in the field. I am ashamed the Senate is taking action to prevent the voting on a resolution, once again, establishing the principle. Our duty is to support our forces in the field. I have a chart to show, but it is difficult for many to understand why we need surge forces. This whole concept we are talking about is safety. Senator Gregg's resolution deals with safety of our forces. This is a chart that shows the Iraqi Army and national police with lead responsibility for counterinsurgency operations in their areas. In May of 2006 this was their deployment, fairly small. By February of 2007, this is their deployment. We are now in the process of going forward on the new plan to deal with the fact that we have trained a great many of these forces now, but they have not been moved into the areas of real combat, and those are the white spaces on this chart. The whole idea now is to start moving these forces into those areas. By the way, the hot spots are also on arterial highways in Iraq. This demonstrates where it is. The white areas are occupied by American forces and coalition forces. We want to give them a chance now to move them into those areas. As such, forces will be moving all over this country. In that period of time, these additional surge forces are necessary in order to provide the safety for the people whom they are going to be moving. They are our forces, they are their forces. Secretary Gates has said he does not think they will be there too long. He made a point to make that statement. They will come out as soon as they are no longer needed. Safety is a problem. To those people who say: Let's get ready to withdraw, if we try to withdraw right now, there would be mass murder in this country. Think of what happened to the Russians and the Soviets when they tried to get out of Afghanistan--and multiply it by factors of 10 to 20. We are spread out all over this place and so are the Iraqis because that was the problem, we were providing for the defense until they were ready to move in and take care of their defense. This is a chart that shows the current position of forces in Iraqi Freedom. We can see various operations, Japanese and coalition forces, including the British, around the periphery. We are there, in Baghdad, on the major highways. We are in the white spaces on the chart. To get the Iraqi forces in there, we have a new scheme where we will have Iraqi brigades--not divisions but brigades--with an embedded battalion in each brigade move in. Our people will be along with them to make sure their training is carried out and they do the job of defending themselves. As a practical matter, in order to do that, we need the increased safety of movement in this country. I fully support the plan. It was an Iraqi plan improved on by Secretary Gates, the President, and his staff. Very clearly, the whole program is so they can provide the basic defense for themselves in areas where there is key opposition. Assume the other side, the side who wants to withdraw, would get approval of the Congress and had some way to mandate the President to withdraw forces. The first thing that would have to be done would be to move the Iraqi forces in there where they can defend themselves and hold back the insurgents currently combatting our forces. I am not a general, I am not even an armchair general, but I have been around wars for almost all my life now starting out when I was 19. I have seen a great many wars, and I have seen a great many problems with war. Coming back from overseas, I talked to some of my friends and I decided I was going to become an aeronautical engineer to try to find out what caused wars. I hate wars. But I know my duty is to support the military and to support those people carrying out our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense of this country. In my opinion, this is the common defense of our country. We have taken on the task of trying to stop a movement that could very well destroy the world. I do believe we should stop these incessant debates on resolutions that mean nothing. Why would we spend all this time and come back on Saturday in order to vote on a nonbinding resolution that would not do a thing? It would not do a thing at all for anyone in that conflict, not one thing. It is nothing but a charade, a charade. It embarrasses me to have to say that. The whole reason for it, pick up The Hill newspaper, back to where I started, to provide a challenge to the 21 Members, Republicans, up for election in 2008, 3 on that side of the aisle. The whole idea is to try to see if we cannot force them to come back on Saturday in order to say to our State constituents: They were not here to vote. I am here to vote. I happened to get off the airplane because I was pretty irritated when I read that story. I am still irritated. I remember Steve Syms in 1986, when everyone was trying to embarrass people up for election, he said: I am going home and I am going to talk to my constituents, and he did not get sucked back into the debates such as this. He was reelected. What these people do not know is, we are going to stand up and speak up. We are going to call a spade a spade. This is a charade. I have not been home since January. And I got off that plane to come back and complain about this. I have a right to go home once in a while. I live 4,500 miles from here. As a matter of fact, I am stopping off on my way home to see a very sick relative before I get to Alaska on Monday. Leadership is leadership, and I have been in leadership in this Senate. I was not elected leader, but that is another story. As a practical matter, I have seen leaders come and I have seen leaders go. My friend from Nevada has been my friend for a long time. I am saying I am not going to be embarrassed to come out and say this is nothing but a charade. We should not come back tomorrow to vote on a nonbinding resolution to see if we would vote on a resolution that doesn't tell the story that America wants us to tell, and that story is we support our forces in the field, we support what they are doing. We want them to do what we said we would do, move the forces in that are now trained in Iraq. Let them show how they can defend themselves and we then pull out our embedded battalions and we will be in a position to figure out what is the long-term plan now for this new democracy we have helped establish. What does this nonbinding resolution do to people in the field? What does it do to the Iraqis? What is it selling them? People are telling me now we should find some way to take the money the President has asked for, the supplemental, and to use it for something else--not to use it to support the people in the field. There is what is called the Food and Forage Act of the United States. I hope the Senate understands that act. I have been involved in defense appropriations now for over 25 years. The President of the United States has the authority to take money from wherever it is to support forces in the field. We will never abandon our people in the field. We will support them in every way possible. That is why the current majority does not want to vote on the resolution of Senator Gregg. They do not want to be put in a position of saying no to Senator Gregg because if they vote, if they support that resolution, they are continuing the concepts that have been embodied in my life and in the Senate's life as long as I have known it. That is, we support our forces in the field. We are not going to divert money they need for their support, and we are not going to waste our time on nonbinding resolutions that do not do anything to help anybody. We have a lot of things we could be working on, immigration, energy, global climate change. What are we doing? We are spending our time coming back on Saturday to debate whether we should vote on a bill that was started in the House of Representatives, with not one amendment, and brought over here, not one amendment, and expresses a point of view that the American public does not approve of. I hope we can get to a debate one of these days, and people will stay around after they make comments such as I heard before I came in. I guarantee, in my heart and in my mind, I know what it means to be in uniform, what it means to be in a position to feel it is necessary to have support at home. I spent some time last night talking to Colin Powell, one of the famous generals of this country, and reminded him once when we were talking years ago, he told me about the time when he was sent into Laos as a young captain with about 12 days' rations and how when you get up on the morning of the 12th day and realize a drop mission is coming to give you your rations for the next 12 days, how you realize what it means to rely on people, to understand that people in the United States are behind their military, to know you can eat those rations because the supplies are going to come in when they are supposed to come in. That is support to people in the field. Another concept I speak of is our people have a doctrine that hardly any armies or military in the world has had--we never abandon our forces in the field. What these people are doing now if you listen to them on this other resolution, they are saying, we are going to take and divert this money and put it somewhere else. Not this Senator. If they need that money over there to carry out the commands of the Commander in Chief, I am going to support it. The Senate should support it. We should stop this business of trying to embarrass people who are up for election and demanding they come back and vote on Saturday. This recess was announced a month ago. Those who live a long distance from here rely on that. The Senate has to start keeping its commitments to our Members whether they are up for election or not. This is political posturing at its worse. I will be here to vote tomorrow to represent some of those people who could not get back. I stayed to vote so I could come and say this: Political posturing has no place in the Senate of the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for a parliamentary inquiry? What is the time situation? The Senator has 3 more minutes. What follows the Senator?

Mr. STEVENS. I have been around for a little while. I would like to see if I could have 3 minutes following the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have not been here as long as my good friend from West Virginia, but I am the senior Member of this side. I cannot remember a time when we tied together the concept of filing a first-degree amendment, then a second-degree amendment, with cloture so it entirely shut off any participation by the minority. It has been stated here it has happened. I do not recall that. I do recall back in the days of the Clinton administration, Senator Byrd had a proposal, a similar proposal, but we had a big ruckus. I am sure the Senator remembers. Senator Dole was our minority leader then. This is a defining moment for the Senate. Because as the Senator from Pennsylvania has indicated, if the majority of one can go to the House and negotiate a bill and bring it back and there are not going to be any amendments, we are going to file a first-degree amendment, a second-degree amendment, and have cloture or else--the Senate is totally irrelevant. Having been in the minority and in the majority, I think the majority ought to think twice. There is only one vote difference here right now, two votes when our good friend from South Dakota comes back. But as a practical matter, the rights of the minority--really the whole country--depend upon the minority in the Senate having an opportunity to voice some of the concerns about what has happened in the House. I say, in all sincerity, this is a defining moment. I believe the message we are trying to send on this Iraq resolution is wrong. I think it is harming the people who represent us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Afghanistan is coming back. We are going to have to send a new group, the 175th, over there to deal with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, again. Our people need support, and we need to be able to articulate the reasons why we support them. If we follow the outline of the majority leader, we will not have that chance except by talking and talking. But no amendments. It is not right. It is not the Senate. I do not intend to stand by and see the Senate lose its role under the Constitution to be the second House of the Congress. This is not a rubberstamp for the House. That is what we will be if we follow the intention of the majority leader now.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have come to the floor to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Bennett of Utah. In 2000, Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, came to many Members of this Chamber with an urgent request. He wanted to begin preserving important cultural works which existed only in digital format. Soon after, Congress approved the creation of the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, which is also referred to as ``NDIIPP.'' Those of us in Congress secured $100 million over 10 years to start this program. With the Library's guidance, NDIIPP quickly became a broad-based coalition of Federal agencies, universities, non-profit organizations, and companies in the science and technology industries. Today, the NDIIPP partnership includes 67 public and private organizations nationwide. But the future of this effort is in serious jeopardy. The House-passed fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution rescinds $47 million in NDIIPP funds--effectively destroying a program essential to our increasingly digital world. If funding for NDIIPP is not restored, the Library of Congress risks losing the resources which have already been invested--and the important work already completed--with regard to digital preservation. The Library's partners in the private sector have committed $37 million in matching funds to this effort. If NDIIPP is eliminated, these funds will also be lost. NDIIPP is essential to our ability to identify, preserve, and provide access to digital content. This program is helping to ensure future generations will be able to access information needed for research and policymaking. Madam President, our choice is clear. A number of digital works have already disappeared. Many Web sites launched before 2000, for instance, were never preserved and will never be recovered. If funding for NDIIPP is eliminated, many future works will likewise be lost forever. If funding for NDIIPP is restored, we can help ensure these works do not suffer a similar fate. This project holds great possibilities, and I will work with my colleagues to assure it receives the funding it deserves.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Utah for his commitment to this important program. Revised Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, January marked the 48th anniversary of the day Alaska achieved statehood. Earlier this week, Senator Murkowski and I introduced S.J. Res. 49, a resolution commemorating our State's 50th anniversary. We will reach this milestone on January 3, 2009. Alaska's path to statehood was a long one. In 1867, Secretary of the Treasury William Seward convinced President Andrew Johnson to purchase Alaska for $7.2 million. At the time, this purchase was often derided as ``Seward's Folly,'' and many wondered what the United States would do with what some called its new ``Polar Bear Garden.'' While history shortly proved the critics wrong, statehood for Alaska did not come easily. It took more than 90 years for Alaska to become a state. The first Alaska statehood bill was introduced by James Wickersham, our territorial delegate, in 1916. Over the years, seven Congresses considered legislation regarding Alaska's admission to our Union. Between 1946 and 1957 alone, statehood hearings held by the House and Senate spanned more than 3,500 pages in the printed record. Alaskans tirelessly advocated for statehood. On November 8, 1955, 55 men and women assembled at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks for Alaska's Constitutional Convention. These delegates worked for 75 days, and their efforts produced a precedent-setting constitution. Thanks to the dedication of George Lehleitner of Louisiana and C.W. Bill Snedden, the publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, our constitution included Alaska's version of the ``Tennessee Plan''. Under this plan, our territory elected a congressional delegation without federal approval. Our constitution--and this plan--ultimately became the basis for congressional approval of statehood. Alaskans also made countless trips to Washington, DC, to testify in support of statehood. These visits were critical to our success--in 1957, the House Insular Affairs Committee reported, ``Alaska is in all ways ready for statehood.'' Forty-two years after the introduction of the first statehood bill, our long wait finally ended. On May 12, 1958, Representative Clair Engle moved to bring the Alaska statehood bill to the floor of the House. He sought and received a special privileged status which is reserved for statehood bills. This status allowed him to circumvent the Rules Committee, which had blocked statehood legislation for more than 11 months. Right up until the end, statehood for Alaska faced fierce opposition. In the Senate, a small group of opponents prolonged the debate for 5 long days and nights. I was among the many Alaskans who gathered in the viewing galleries above this Chamber on June 30, 1958, waiting for the historic vote. At 8:02 pm, the Senate passed the Alaska statehood bill by a vote of 64 to 20. Six months later, on January 3, 1959, we officially became the 49th State in the Union. I come to the floor today to pay tribute to the Alaskans who fought for statehood and our good friends in Congress who supported them. Bob Bartlett, our State's delegate in the House, worked on statehood for 14 years. He was assisted by men like Leo O'Brien of New York, who chaired the Territories Subcommittee; John Saylor of Pennsylvania, who led the floor fight for Republican supporters; Clair Engle of California, who chaired the Insular Affairs Committee; and Sam Rayburn, the Speaker of the House. In the Senate, Alaskans found a good friend in Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson of Washington State, who was chairman of Territories on the Interior Committee. Senator Jackson helped plan the successful strategy that put the vote for statehood over the top. Twenty-five years later, Senator Jackson cosponsored a resolution celebrating the silver anniversary of Alaska's statehood. Earlier this week, Senator Murkowski and I offered a similar resolution, this time to commemorate our State's golden anniversary in 2009. Alaskans also found many good friends outside of the Halls of Congress. President Eisenhower, President Truman, and Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton each supported our campaign for statehood. It was my great privilege to know and serve with many of these men. I am particularly indebted to Secretary Seaton, who asked me to serve as his legislative counsel, Assistant to the Secretary, and ultimately the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior during the Eisenhower administration. These positions gave me the opportunity to work on the Alaska Statehood Act. History has proven those who criticized Seward's purchase--and those who opposed statehood--wrong. When William Seward purchased Alaska from Russia, he paid $7,200,000--less than 2 cents per acre. With the full rights and opportunities granted to the states in our Union, Alaska has more than made good on this investment--the Federal revenue from the development of our resources has repaid this investment hundreds of times over. The list of our State's opportunities remains promising. We have vast coal reserves and enormous potential in oil and gas both on and off our shores. Trillions of feet of gas hydrates lie beneath our permafrost. Our State's 34,000 miles of shoreline are the gateway to some of our Nation's most promising tidal and ocean energy prospects. Our forests contain much of the Nation's timber and pulp. Sixty percent of our country's commercial fish harvest is caught in the waters off of our State's shores. Our geographic location was a vital asset during World War II and the Cold War, and it continues to offer our Armed Forces important strategic advantages. Our location has also helped boost our Nation's trade with Canada, Russia, and nations throughout Asia. Our State's greatest resource, however, will always be our people. Alaskans are resourceful, enterprising, and fiercely independent. Our pioneer spirit runs deep. And the traditions and heritage of our Alaska Native people have greatly contributed to our country's cultural life. The list of our State's opportunities is long, but we are still a young State. For each of our opportunities, there is a challenge to overcome. The Federal Government owns more than 60 percent of our lands. We have only 14,000 miles of roads. Seventy percent of our towns, villages, and cities can be reached only by boat or air. If we are to fulfill our potential, we will need greater understanding of these facts. Forty-eight years is not a long time. In fact, our State is younger than all but eight of the Members who serve in this Senate. Our ability to fulfill our potential depends on the willingness of those who serve in Congress to provide us with the opportunities and support given to other States when they were in similar stages of their development. On this anniversary of statehood, Alaskans honor those who made this milestone possible. And we share our hope that--once again--we will find friends in Congress and elsewhere that will help us fulfill our State's potential.

Mr. STEVENS

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be put in place with the time charged equally against each side.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment before he speaks?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have tried to work out a problem dealing with our State regarding aircraft. It is my understanding that the agreed to amendment has been modified. Apparently, the decision of the majority is that we should use more taxpayer money to meet our needs. I am not going to persist in my attempt to work out our problems in this manner. It is my understanding that somebody talked about my jet amendment. It had nothing to do with jets until I modified it to accommodate some of the problems of majority members. I withdraw amendment No. 40.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I have an amendment to offer.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. I intend to explain it at a later date. There may be a technical change I have to make to this amendment.