Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 761, which Senator Inouye just discussed. This is the America COMPETES Act. Fifty-six Senators, including members of both parties' leadership and several committee chairmen, are cosponsors of this important legislation. When it was first brought to my attention last year, I tried to see if we could organize a joint committee of the Congress to act on this subject because I believe it is extremely important. Having read the Augustine report, I knew we had to move as quickly as possible. That was not possible last year, but I believe it is this year. Many reports have revealed the serious competitive challenges we face. In 2003, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, compared 15-year-old students living in 40 industrialized nations. For America, the results were very dire. Our students placed 16th in reading, 23rd in science, and 29th in math. Carl Sagan said it best when he wrote this: We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. Another report I mentioned before, the Augustine report, entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' contains the findings of the Commission chaired by Norman Augustine, the retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin. This study also paints an alarming picture of America's ability to compete in the 21st century. Economists informed Commission members that ``about half of the U.S. economic growth since World War II has been the result of technological innovation.'' But Commission members also discovered that our young people now spend more time watching television than they do in school or studying for school. They determined that hiring one engineer in America now carries the same cost as hiring eight engineers in India. They reported that 38 percent of the scientists and engineers with doctorates in our country were born abroad. If those young men and women choose to live and work in other countries, America will face a severe shortage of talented workers. If we are to maintain our competitive edge, we must improve the education our students receive in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. We must equip our teachers with the tools and resources they need, and we must encourage those who study in America to stay in America. This legislation we are now considering is a tremendous step forward in these efforts. S. 761 seeks to ensure our Nation remains the global leader in innovation. It would increase Federal investment in basic research, improve educational opportunities for young students to become excited about these fields, and develop an innovation infrastructure appropriate for the 21st century. The America COMPETES Act is the result of bipartisan cooperation between three committees: Commerce, Energy, and HELP. Since last year, these committees have worked together to address key concerns and solutions identified by the Council on Competitiveness and the National Academies. A number of Senators also deserve recognition for their leadership on this matter: Senators Bingaman, Alexander, Ensign, Hutchison, Domenici, Inouye, Kennedy, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Nelson. They all deserve our deepest gratitude, and I am sure there are others. Without their hard work and dedication, our bill would not have reached the Senate floor. In closing, let me say that educating the next generation of American innovators must be a priority for this Congress. Our Nation is at the crossroads, and the decisions we make today will affect us for decades to come. This bill, when enacted, will reaffirm our commitment to America's economic future. I urge each of our colleagues to support its swift passage. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am embarrassed but very grateful to my friends, our leader, Mr. McConnell, and my great friend and brother, Dan Inouye. Dan and I have been here a long time. Actually, he came to the Senate before I got here. I was downtown with the Eisenhower administration when he arrived in the Department of the Interior. I went home after that Presidency ended to Alaska and never expected to come back. But I did, and I am grateful for the outline of my service that our Republican leader has presented in the Senate. I can only say two or three things. One is that I would not be here now if it wasn't for a real understanding family. My first wife was, and my current wife, Katherine, has been supportive beyond anyone's understanding. It is a long way to go home. I remember one year I flew home 35 times--one day up and one day back, almost. But I have been away from my family a great deal. I have 6 children and 11 grandchildren and they have understood my commitment to the Senate. I do believe that it would be impossible to be here without that type of support. I also have been privileged and ask that after my remarks, I be permitted later to have printed in the Record a list of the dedicated young Alaskans who have come down and worked with me in various positions; also, those who have worked with me at home. I have had a series of distinguished chiefs of staff who have gone on to other functions and have shown what training in the Senate can do for a young person. I think over a dozen of my chiefs of staff have gone through law school working full time in my office and going to school full time. We sort of run a separate adjunct of the Senate, and that is a law school on the side, I think. I do believe I have had the honor of serving with many great people. I served with the people who were here when I came here--Senator Baker, Senator Mansfield, Senator Scott, Senator Magnuson, Senator Dole, Senator Jackson, Senator Cook, Senator Bible, Senator Bell, Senator Hollings--there are so many. I remember the time when Senator McClellan, who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, took the whole committee up to Alaska because he was tired of asking me why I was seeking so much money. He decided to take the whole committee up there. We traveled through the State for 2 weeks. That doesn't happen now. I am surrounded by friends here on both sides of the aisle, and I am still very honored to be here. Let me close by saying I really think I am here because of the mentors I had in Alaska. Two publishers--Bill Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and Bob Atwood, publisher of the Anchorage Times--urged me to come to Washington to participate in the Eisenhower administration during our fight for statehood. I was lucky enough to tie into former Senator Fred Seaton who was Secretary of the Interior. I worked with him for a period of almost 4 years and left Washington as the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, his reward to me for our working together. I was also honored to follow a good friend, a friend I got to know during the territorial days as we fought for statehood, and that was Bob Bartlett. He was my predecessor. He was, during the time we were fighting for statehood, the delegate from the Territory of Alaska as a Democrat. I think our relationship was almost as close as the relationship I have with Senator Inouye. He was a fine man, a great and distinguished public servant for Alaska. I am honored to hold what Alaskans call the Bartlett seat. I thank my colleagues again for the courtesy all have shown me. I passed a milestone only because Strom made the mistake of being a Democrat for two terms. I am honored to have this recognition today. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of family and Senate staff to which I previously referred, be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, does the Senator yield the floor at this time?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I regret I wasn't here at the commencement of the comments of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, but I am overwhelmed and honored that he would make these comments, and particularly that he would reference his relationship to our youngest daughter Lily who has great love and affection for Senator Byrd. We have come through a lot of travails, each of us, during our times in the Senate, and I have always found Senator Byrd to be a warm and great friend in times of trouble and very gracious when in times such as this. We could stand here and I would tell the Senate some of the times I have spent with Senator Byrd, including the time once in Britain when we gathered together a group of British and United States members of the British-American Parliamentary Conference and we listened to Senator Byrd tell us about his life and some of the things he had done as a child, and we listened to him recite many of the great poems he knows. He has one of the most prodigious memories I have ever known, and he is the most gracious Member of the Senate. He always has been very kind and helpful. I came here as an appointed Senator and took the position of--we called it the Bartlett seat, Senator Bob Bartlett's seat. Senator Byrd was very gracious to Senator Bartlett as Alaska's first senior Senator, and he extended greetings to me as Senator Bartlett's replacement, and throughout these nearly 40 years he has been a great friend. We have had differences of opinion, but we have never had a disagreeable word between us. God willing, that will never happen. So I thank my friend. He honors me, he honors my family, and he honors the Senate by the remarks he made about the Senate itself. We are a family. This aisle ought not to be a canyon; it ought to be very easy to step across that aisle and shake hands with a friend as I have just done. I thank the Senator for what he has said and for giving me the opportunity to be here when he said it.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to do so.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, all I can say to my friend is that I am already blessed by God to be your friend, and I thank you very much.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, I am indebted to my friend from Massachusetts. We have spent many times together and, as he says, shared a great many goals. I am very pleased that he would make these remarks. I think that it sort of reminds me of a little bit of a little too much ado about nothing, but I do appreciate him being here. Thank you very much. As Senator Kennedy leaves, I should repeat something I have told often, and that is, back in 1969, as a brandnew appointed Senator, I joined Senator Kennedy and others in going to the villages of Alaska. We found mold on the hospital walls in Bethel. When we came back, we started the process of replacing it, and it is a beautiful hospital today. But we also went to the small villages. We went down to Pilots Station, and we were walking through this little village. All of a sudden, a little boy, baby boy, came running out, had a top on, but he obviously had lost his diaper. My friend scooped him up, unzipped his parka, and put him inside. We walked around to find out where his home was. We came to this nice, small, well-kept native cabin. It was obvious that the mother was looking for her son. We went in and Senator Kennedy gave her the boy, and there on the wall of that little cabin was his brother, President Kennedy's photograph. It is a small world. I will never forget it. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I want to recognize the devoted service of Stella Wildrick, who will retire on April 27, 2007, after 15 years as Postmistress for Lake Minchumina, AK. Lake Minchumina is situated near the geographical center of Alaska, 65 miles north-northwest of our great Denali National Park. A remote and rural community accessible only by air, Lake Minchumina depends upon mail service for the delivery of food, clothing, and supplies, as well as correspondence. As Postmistress, Stella has been a very important person in this community where everything that cannot be harvested or made from the land must be flown in. Throughout the past 15 years, Stella has also been an asset to the U.S. Postal Service as a professional, friendly, dependable and always helpful representative. With advances in technology, Postmistress Wildrick has overseen many changes to the mail service in Lake Minchumina. The people of Lake Minchumina and Alaska are deeply grateful for her sacrifice and willingness to go above and beyond the usual to ensure quality mail service. I commend Postmistress Wildrick for her dedication to the Lake Minchumina community and wish her all the best in her well-deserved retirement.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I turn now to an issue that should be of concern to us all, and that is the safe transport of our civilian contractors into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. On occasion, these U.S. citizens are flying on poorly regulated charter aircraft that are ultimately paid for by funds provided by Congress to the Department of Defense and the Department of State.

Mr. STEVENS. I am also informed that the aircraft, air carriers, and air charter providers being used to provide the charters for our contractors in Iraq are, in some cases, using poorly trained crews to fly outdated and poorly maintained aircraft. The Senate Armed Services Committee will most likely address this matter during their consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill. We should consider requiring that air charter operates in Iraq and Afghanistan, funded either directly or indirectly by congressional appropriations, meet safety and maintenance standards equal to those required by charters in the U.S.and European Union.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today seeks to codify the initiatives announced by President Bush in January of this year in his Executive order to strengthen Federal environmental, energy, and transportation management. The bill would require the head of agencies to improve their agency's energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of energy intensity by 3 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2014 or by 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2014. The bill would require that at least half of an agency's statutorily required renewable energy consumed in a fiscal year come from a new renewable source and allows agencies, to the extent possible, to implement renewable energy generation projects on agency property. The bill would also set energy efficiency goals for water consumption, acquisition of goods and services, operation of Government vehicles, and the acquisition of electronic products. This bill would put the Federal Government at the forefront of the Nation's efforts to improve our energy efficiency and ultimately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. A September 2002 report from the U.S. Department of Energy entitled, U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate, states that 38 percent of all energy consumed in the United States is used to generate electricity and that lighting consumes 22 percent of all the electricity produced in the United States. Lighting consumes a significant percentage of the Nation's energy production. Because of this consumption, the bill would also require the Federal Government to take the lead in the use of energy efficient light bulbs. The bill does not specify any particular technology, but would define energy efficient light bulbs as those with an efficiency rating of not less than 30 lumens per watt. This definition would change from 30 lumens per watt to 45 lumens per watt in the year 2018. The replacement of low energy efficient light bulbs to more energy efficient light bulbs on Federal properties would be required to be completed within the next 5 years. Many of the new energy efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs, contain mercury. The bill would require that a disposal plan be developed to support the use of these bulbs and their proper disposal. As the Nation looks to take advantage of the new energy efficient light bulbs at significant savings to individual households and businesses, the Federal Government should lead the way. The Government should be setting the standard for energy efficiency. This bill would mandate Federal Government leadership in this area with substantial savings in our energy consumption. I urge my colleagues to support these legislative concepts.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Commerce Committee I concur with my good friend and colleague. I applaud the administration for moving the process forward but I echo Senator Inouye's concerns with the proposal. I look forward to working with him and our colleagues on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to craft a Committee proposal in the coming weeks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today seeks to codify the initiatives announced by President Bush in January of this year in his Executive order to strengthen Federal environmental, energy, and transportation management. The bill would require the head of agencies to improve their agency's energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of energy intensity by 3 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2014 or by 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2014. The bill would require that at least half of an agency's statutorily required renewable energy consumed in a fiscal year come from a new renewable source and allows agencies, to the extent possible, to implement renewable energy generation projects on agency property. The bill would also set energy efficiency goals for water consumption, acquisition of goods and services, operation of Government vehicles, and the acquisition of electronic products. This bill would put the Federal Government at the forefront of the Nation's efforts to improve our energy efficiency and ultimately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. A September 2002 report from the U.S. Department of Energy entitled, U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate, states that 38 percent of all energy consumed in the United States is used to generate electricity and that lighting consumes 22 percent of all the electricity produced in the United States. Lighting consumes a significant percentage of the Nation's energy production. Because of this consumption, the bill would also require the Federal Government to take the lead in the use of energy efficient light bulbs. The bill does not specify any particular technology, but would define energy efficient light bulbs as those with an efficiency rating of not less than 30 lumens per watt. This definition would change from 30 lumens per watt to 45 lumens per watt in the year 2018. The replacement of low energy efficient light bulbs to more energy efficient light bulbs on Federal properties would be required to be completed within the next 5 years. Many of the new energy efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs, contain mercury. The bill would require that a disposal plan be developed to support the use of these bulbs and their proper disposal. As the Nation looks to take advantage of the new energy efficient light bulbs at significant savings to individual households and businesses, the Federal Government should lead the way. The Government should be setting the standard for energy efficiency. This bill would mandate Federal Government leadership in this area with substantial savings in our energy consumption. I urge my colleagues to support these legislative concepts.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last December, the Civil Air Patrol completed its 65th year of distinguished service to our Nation. I've come to the floor today to pay tribute to the brave men and women who helped this important organization reach this milestone. In the late 1930s, Gill Robb Wilson, General Henry ``Hap'' Arnold, and other American aviation leaders recognized the need for a civilian group which could complement air operations undertaken by our military. Their vision led to the establishment of the Civil Air Patrol on December 1, 1941. Less than a week later, Pearl Harbor was attacked and the United States was drawn into World War II. The newly formed Civil Air Patrol played a vital role in keeping America safe during this dark period in our history. CAP members kept watch for enemy submarines, assisted the Army Air Corps with training exercises, and helped transport military personnel and cargo. They rescued hundreds of crash survivors and helped force the Nazis to withdraw U-boat operations from our East Coast. In total, thousands of CAP volunteers flew more than 500,000 hours and 24 million miles during the war. The tremendous accomplishments and potential of this organization did not go unnoticed. After World War II, President Truman signed a law designating the Civil Air Patrol as a nonprofit, benevolent corporation and an ``instrumentality of the United States.'' Two years later, Congress passed legislation establishing CAP as a volunteer auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Today, the three principal missions of the Civil Air Patrol are to administer cadet training programs, provide aerospace education, and perform operations related to homeland security and emergency services. This organization has exceeded all expectations in each of these areas. Approximately 750,000 American children have learned important life and leadership lessons from CAP's cadet programs. More than 300,000 teachers--and some eight million students--have received training and instructional materials through CAP's aerospace education program. CAP volunteers have now flown more than one million hours of search and rescue operations, and thousands of lives have been saved as a result. As an Alaskan, I am particularly appreciative of these efforts--since 2004, the Civil Air Patrol has saved at least 57 lives in our State. And, I served as a Legal Officer for the Civil Air Patrol in Fairbanks, AK, in the 1950s. Today, the Civil Air Patrol is a nationwide organization of nearly 57,000 volunteers. CAP wings can be found in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The organization's members--all volunteers--fly approximately 120,000 hours each year as they assist with border patrol, terrorism preparedness, the War on Drugs, and natural disaster responses. The Civil Air Patrol also submits an annual report to Congress. In 2005, this report was titled ``Everyday Heroes . . . The Faces of the Civil Air Patrol.'' In part, the word ``hero'' is defined as ``a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.'' Mr. President, I can think of no title more fitting for the members of the Civil Air Patrol. The men and women of this organization have volunteered their time and resources in the service of others for the past 65 years. Each is truly an ``everyday hero'' and worthy of our Nation's deepest gratitude. In honor of the Civil Air Patrol's 65th anniversary, Senators Inouye, Domenici, Crapo, Murkowski, Wyden, Sanders, Snowe, Collins, Warner, Inhofe, and I have introduced S. Res. XX. I encourage each Member of the Senate to support this resolution.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Landrieu in introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2007. This legislation will build on the existing Federal telework program to ensure maximum participation in the program among those in the Federal workforce. This measure will improve the cost-efficiency of the Federal Government and will also serve to reduce traffic congestion and thereby save fuel and greenhouse gas emissions. It will also enhance efforts by the Federal Government with respect to continuity of operations, COOP, provide employee incentives to attract and retain highly skilled Federal personnel, and provide a model for the private sector. In 2000, the key legislation affecting telework in the Federal Government was signed into law as part of that year's highway bill. The enacted provision provided that ``each executive agency . . . establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance.'' The measure was intended to apply to 25 percent of the Federal workforce, and to an additional 25 percent of the workforce each year thereafter. The objective of that measure, as outlined in the bill's conference report, was to ``reduce traffic congestion'' and to allow Federal employees to telework to the maximum extent possible. The Report also made clear that each Federal agency was to establish telework criteria, and remove any ``managerial, logistical, organizational, or other barriers to full implementation and successful functioning of the policy. . . and provide for adequate administrative, human resources, technical, and logistical support for carrying out the policy.'' The lead agencies that have carried out this telework mandate are Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and the General Services Administration, GSA. Together these agencies formed a common Web site www.telework.gov to facilitate the advancement of the program, which has had a degree of success. As of 2004, of the 1.7 million Federal employees in the 82 agencies, 752,337 had been deemed eligible for telework, which was an increase from 521,542 in 2001. But despite a very loose definition of ``telework,'' which only requires that an employee work from home 1 day per week to be considered a ``teleworker,'' 140,694, or 19 percent of those eligible, were deemed as having teleworked in 2004. Critics argue that this low percentage of teleworkers comparable to the much larger pool of telework-eligible employees can be attributed to insufficient employee education, program coordination, and workforce culture issues. While OPM and GSA should be commended for the strides they have made in implementing the Federal telework program, there are several enhancements to the program that can be made legislatively to facilitate the original goal of maximizing telework among eligible Federal employees. The bill we introduce today would, among other things: invert the telework eligibility presumption to make all Federal employees eligible unless expressly determined otherwise; revise the definition of ``telework'' to be an arrangement where the employee regularly works at an alternate site at least 2 business days per week in order to reduce his/her commute, the current definition only requires 1 day; require that each agency designate a full-time Telework Managing Officer, TMO, within the agency's chief administrative office, or comparable agency office, to oversee the respective agency's telework program; require that the TMO coordinate the telework policy for the agency or office, serve as the liaison between employees and managers, and keep employees informed of their telework eligibility; require the TMO to work to expand the agency's telework program, oversee the COOP program, and develop a telework performance and accountability system; require the TMO to submit a report to the head of the agency annually with an analysis of measures in place to carry out the telework policy; and require the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to evaluate each agency's telework policy, and publish a report that rates each policy and the level of employee participation. The events of September 11, 2001, the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly thereafter, and the recent severe weather experienced across the country have focused our attention on the importance of energy independence, as well as our need to be prepared in the event of a disaster. This legislation would be a step toward achieving these broader national strategic objectives, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Landrieu in introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2007. This legislation will build on the existing Federal telework program to ensure maximum participation in the program among those in the Federal workforce. This measure will improve the cost-efficiency of the Federal Government and will also serve to reduce traffic congestion and thereby save fuel and greenhouse gas emissions. It will also enhance efforts by the Federal Government with respect to continuity of operations, COOP, provide employee incentives to attract and retain highly skilled Federal personnel, and provide a model for the private sector. In 2000, the key legislation affecting telework in the Federal Government was signed into law as part of that year's highway bill. The enacted provision provided that ``each executive agency . . . establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance.'' The measure was intended to apply to 25 percent of the Federal workforce, and to an additional 25 percent of the workforce each year thereafter. The objective of that measure, as outlined in the bill's conference report, was to ``reduce traffic congestion'' and to allow Federal employees to telework to the maximum extent possible. The Report also made clear that each Federal agency was to establish telework criteria, and remove any ``managerial, logistical, organizational, or other barriers to full implementation and successful functioning of the policy. . . and provide for adequate administrative, human resources, technical, and logistical support for carrying out the policy.'' The lead agencies that have carried out this telework mandate are Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and the General Services Administration, GSA. Together these agencies formed a common Web site www.telework.gov to facilitate the advancement of the program, which has had a degree of success. As of 2004, of the 1.7 million Federal employees in the 82 agencies, 752,337 had been deemed eligible for telework, which was an increase from 521,542 in 2001. But despite a very loose definition of ``telework,'' which only requires that an employee work from home 1 day per week to be considered a ``teleworker,'' 140,694, or 19 percent of those eligible, were deemed as having teleworked in 2004. Critics argue that this low percentage of teleworkers comparable to the much larger pool of telework-eligible employees can be attributed to insufficient employee education, program coordination, and workforce culture issues. While OPM and GSA should be commended for the strides they have made in implementing the Federal telework program, there are several enhancements to the program that can be made legislatively to facilitate the original goal of maximizing telework among eligible Federal employees. The bill we introduce today would, among other things: invert the telework eligibility presumption to make all Federal employees eligible unless expressly determined otherwise; revise the definition of ``telework'' to be an arrangement where the employee regularly works at an alternate site at least 2 business days per week in order to reduce his/her commute, the current definition only requires 1 day; require that each agency designate a full-time Telework Managing Officer, TMO, within the agency's chief administrative office, or comparable agency office, to oversee the respective agency's telework program; require that the TMO coordinate the telework policy for the agency or office, serve as the liaison between employees and managers, and keep employees informed of their telework eligibility; require the TMO to work to expand the agency's telework program, oversee the COOP program, and develop a telework performance and accountability system; require the TMO to submit a report to the head of the agency annually with an analysis of measures in place to carry out the telework policy; and require the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to evaluate each agency's telework policy, and publish a report that rates each policy and the level of employee participation. The events of September 11, 2001, the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly thereafter, and the recent severe weather experienced across the country have focused our attention on the importance of energy independence, as well as our need to be prepared in the event of a disaster. This legislation would be a step toward achieving these broader national strategic objectives, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for working with the Commerce Committee to include important security measure in the bill that passed the Senate yesterday. And, I thank my longtime friend Senator Inouye for his willingness to work in committee and on the Senate floor on a bipartisan basis to develop and pass these measures. We have made tremendous strides to secure our Nation since the horrific attacks of September 11, particularly with respect to the security of our Nation's transportation systems, and ensuring interoperable communications needed most during times of crisis. As the debate over this bill demonstrates, our job is far from over, for there are still more improvements to be made and gaps to close. In matters of security, we must not become complacent; as our enemies adapt, so must we. The Commerce Committee's aviation and surface transportation legislation, which have been included in S. 4 will significantly enhance the ability of the Department of Homeland Security DHS, and the Transportation Security Administration TSA, 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 effect such regulations may have on the Nation's economy and the movement of goods. The aviation provisions incorporated into S. 4 were reported by the 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 U.S. by sea be 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 particularly important in Alaska. Anchorage is the No. 1 airport in the U.S. for landed weight of cargo, and it is No. 3 in the world for cargo throughput. Our provision requires TSA to develop and implement a system to provide for the screening of all cargo being carried on passenger aircraft. To address on-going concerns about passenger prescreening procedures, the legislation requires DHS 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 the 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. Mr. President, the bill passed by the Senate today also contains the provisions of S. 184, the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007, which also was developed and reported on a bipartisan basis by the 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 surface transportation network presents unique security challenges. The vastness of these systems requires targeted allocation of our resources based on 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 Congress, as well as in the 108th Congress. Each time, however, the House of Representatives has not found the need to address rail, pipeline, motor carrier, hazardous materials, and over-the-road bus security. The time has come to get these provisions to the President's desk. The substitute also contains the provisions of the Commerce Committee-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 achieving interoperability. With this $1 billion program that 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 the public safety issues that have been brought to the Commerce Committee's attention. It also creates a $100 million fund to establish both Federal and State strategic technology reserves that will restore communications quickly in disasters equal in scale to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Added as amendments to the bill were a number of additional Commerce Committee items, for which I thank the managers of the bill, as well as Chairman Inouye for their support. Included among those provisions was a measure that represents an important step forward for public safety because it approved the 9-1-1 modernization Act, which was reported last month by the Commerce Committee. I offered this measure with Senators Clinton, Inouye Hutchison, Snowe, Smith, and Vitter. The amendment provides advanced borrowing authority so that $43.5 million can be made available for 9-1-1 upgrades which are desperately needed throughout the country--especially in rural America. Congress previously allocated these funds in the digital television transition legislation, but without the borrowing authority language, public safety would have to wait until after the digital transition auction before they could receive these important funds. Also added was an amendment sponsored by Chairman Inouye that I cosponsored that establishes a national registered armed law enforcement program for law enforcement officers who need to be armed while traveling by air. This law enforcement provision builds upon mandates in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. An additional amendment was sponored by Chairman Inouye with my cosponsorship that enhances the canine provisions in the underlying bill by expanding the national explosives detection canine team training program. Beyond increasing the training capacity at the current facility at Lackland Air Force Base as provided in the underlying bill, the amendment adopted would require DHS to explore options of creating a standardized TSA-approved canine program that private sector entities could utilize to meet the ongoing need for canines. We must not politicize national security. The Commerce Committee initiatives included in the pending bill were achieved only because of bipartisanship. I am pleased that the development and passage of the bill was conducted by the bill managers in that same spirit. And while some provisions contained within the bill need to be further developed--as many of our colleagues have highlighted over the past few weeks--I voted in favor of the bill as I support the preponderance of its contents.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I concur with my chairman, Senator Inouye. The Commerce Committee has worked for over a decade to improve transportation security and has had to deal with the inertia of the Federal Government as well as fight entrenched interests to change the way we secure our transportation system. As far back as 1996 we began discussing the security advantages of transferring security functions from the airline industry to the Federal Government. Similarly, we initiated action on the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 prior to 9/11 in order to address a broad range of criminal activity at our ports. The attacks of 9/11 created sufficient public pressure for Congress to fundamentally change the way the Federal Government secures our aviation system and ports. In particular, Aviation and Transportation Security Act, ATSA, Public Law 107-71, established the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, within the Department of Transportation to be ``responsible for security in all modes of transportation, including: carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil aviation security, and related research and development activities; and security responsibilities over other modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department of Transportation.'' The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, HSGAC, did not alter TSA's authority or the Commerce Committee's subject matter jurisdiction. The Senate engaged in a healthy debate on the floor and made clear that the authority being transferred to the HSGAC under S. Res. 445 did not affect the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional authority over transportation security programs, the Coast Guard and communications matters conducted through the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, and the Department of Commerce. In large part, the debate focused on the difficulty of separating transportation safety issues from transportation security issues. It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate safety and security issues from general transportation policy. To consider security without understanding the impacts of the safety and market position of a mode of transportation could lead to unrealistic, contradictory, and counterproductive policies. Those tasked with the responsibilities of securing our transportation system need to understand the complexity of the systems operations from safety standards to market place realities. The two cannot be separated and the Senate vote effectively affirmed those arguments.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, since 2001, we have heard a growing cry from public safety officials that police, firefighters, and emergency medical response personnel throughout the country need help to achieve interoperability in today's communications world. Sadly, this problem actually predated September 11. More than a decade ago, the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration formed the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to examine the communications needs of first responders and public safety officials. That report called for more spectrum, technological solutions, and more funding, and was filed 5 years to the day before the tragedy of 9/11. It called for those improvements to save lives on a daily basis. These solutions are not geared just for the huge disasters but are also geared for the everyday tragedies that can be avoided with better communications and better interoperability. Thanks to the work of the last Congress, public safety stands ready to finally receive the help that the FCC and NTIA called for more than 10 years ago. Last year, the Congress set a hard date for broadcasters to turn over 24 megahertz of spectrum to public safety for communications and interoperability. Right now, the FCC is examining proposals to maximize the broadband potential of that spectrum, which will bring great new services and capabilities to policemen, firefighters, and other emergency personnel. In addition, Congress created a $1 billion interoperability grant program with the funds that will be received from the auctioning off of the rest of the spectrum recovered from broadcasters. That program originated out of our Senate Commerce Committee. The Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together in this regard. Additionally, at the very end of the Congress last year, we accelerated the granting of the awards as part of what was called the Call Home Act. Therefore, by law, the interoperability grants which are available must be awarded by September 30, 2007. Public safety has been waiting for a very long time for these funds, and they finally have a date-certain when the interoperability grants will be awarded. Having worked with the FCC and the NTIA over the last decade, our Senate Commerce Committee has watched as the public safety communications market has evolved, and we have heard about a number of technological solutions that may address both near-term and long-term interoperability needs. Internet protocol systems can be used as bridges between otherwise incompatible communications systems now. Strategic technological reserves can be created to quickly replace infrastructure that is destroyed in large-scale disasters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated the need for portable wireless systems that are readily deployed when a disaster destroys the existing communications infrastructure. Standards development and dedicated interoperability channels facilitate planning and incident management between agencies. All of these solutions can be achieved now and are provided for by the provisions of the Commerce Committee's interoperability provisions. Unfortunately, the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, would delay all of these solutions. That would be unfortunate for public safety and very harmful to the public. The Homeland Security Committee has created its own interoperability program that is separate from the Commerce $1 billion program. However, that program is a separate one. It is focused on the long term, after additional planning is done, and would still be several years away from even awarding grants, let alone implementing them. It is time we finally deliver on our promises to the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Those around the country really believe us, and we believe we can deliver the technological reserves and interoperability communications that will help first responders now by moving forward with the $1 billion public safety grant program, administered by NTIA. We really should not wait any longer. We cannot plan indefinitely. It has been over 10 years, as I have said. These solutions take time to implement. We should move forward on these programs now. With the Commerce program, 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. We are able to come across some really interesting innovations, too. Through the NTIA's program, it is possible to use communications concepts and bring about interoperability without a large expenditure for new equipment. This first $1 billion will stretch real far if it is used on the plans of the NTIA. If it is delayed--unfortunately, I think that is what the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma would do. It will really put us in the position where we cannot implement what has been done now. These people--first responders--have been planning now for 3 years to get this money, and it is going to be paid out this year under the program we have already enacted into law. I urge my friend from Oklahoma: Don't delay that $1 billion. I understand there may be some concerns about the $3 billion in this bill. Even that, though, is money that will be planned--it will be several years before it will be made available. The money we have, the $1 billion that is already provided by law, is available as soon as it comes in. I think it will go a long way to meeting the immediate needs of first responders. So I hope the Senator will not really persevere with his amendment. I understand his concerns, and we share the concerns of the use of money. I do believe, if you study the technology now, it is possible to put together--we have one program where the National Guard has a mobile unit that is equipped with interoperability concepts that came about through software. Using the software on that vehicle, they can bring about interoperability with any system anyone uses in the first- responder era today. If we move forward on those things we can do now, immediately, with interoperability--brought about through the use of technology--it will save us a lot of money in the long run. I believe this $1 billion will demonstrate we can do this, make this interoperability capability available to our first responders at a lot less money than other people believe. I think this $1 billion is needed, and it will go a long way.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think the Senate should be sure of what the Coburn amendment does. In the first place, it repeals the section of the Call Home Act that was enacted in the last Congress that makes this $1 billion available to NTIA immediately upon receipt. Secondly, it says the payments that are made under that $1 billion allocation must be made under the terms of section 1809 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Then it has this section, subsection (c) on page 2 of the amendment, which limits the awards under that section to $300,000 in 2007, $350,000 in 2008, and $350,000 in 2009. Existing law makes that $1 billion available as of September 30 of this year. So the Senator is not only changing the manner in which the money can be used as opposed to what we enacted in the last Congress, but he is putting limitations on the grants that can be made out of the $1 billion so that only $300 million is available this year--$300 million for the whole Nation to meet the immediate needs for interoperability. We had before our committee the so-called siren call proposal to take over the whole of the spectrum and turn it over to a trust and let that trust sell some of this so they could make even more money available in the first year. We have spoken about that, and it is a no-brainer to do that. That would create a trust that is equivalent to compete with the FCC on the sale of the first spectrum and it would reduce the money that is coming in on the first sale, so we could get enough money to pay the $1 billion. But the $1 billion has been promised to these first responders as of September 30 under the memorandum of agreement between Homeland Security and the NTIA. It can be administered and it will be administered. It will be used for a whole series of things. But again, I emphasize, it can be used for software, for systems to make current systems interoperable without buying a whole bunch of new equipment, wherever it is made, whether it is made in Oklahoma or California. It is not going to be made in Hawaii or Alaska, I can tell you that. But as a practical matter, what we are interested in is making every entity in the country that is involved with interoperability problems to be able to make an application for these grants immediately after September 30. The Senator from Oklahoma would limit that in this fiscal year to $300,000. By the way, none of it is even going to be available until September 30. So it is one of those things that is sort of difficult to understand. We can't have much available in fiscal year 2007. We can have money available this year, in the calendar year 2007, under the existing law. I urge the Senate not to repeal existing law, to make this money available. It is in a memorandum of understanding between these two agencies. We are not trying to usurp the functions of Homeland Security. We are trying to meet the needs of communications. That is our job. We have done our job. The existing law will make $1 billion available as of September 30. I do not think it should be repealed.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to make a motion to table. I have discussed it with the leader. I think he would like to have that vote take place at 6:15. Would the majority floor staff confirm that.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I make a motion to table the Coburn amendment No. 345 and ask unanimous consent that the vote commence at 6:15 this evening.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 299.