Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. I thank all concerned.

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 522, S. 2464.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent S. 3861 be star printed, and the changes are at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.