[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Page 23541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          TELEPHONE RECORDS AND PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 4709 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4709) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to strengthen protections for law enforcement officers and 
     the public by providing criminal penalties for the fraudulent 
     acquisition or unauthorized disclosure of phone records.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


              telephone records and privacy protection act

  Mr. SUNUNU: Mr. President, I support passage of H.R. 4709, the 
Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006. This bill gets to 
the center of the practice known as ``pretexting''--a fraudulent 
technique to obtain access to confidential communications records--by 
imposing Federal criminal penalties on perpetrators.
  There is one point that I would like clarification and assurance. 
This bill adopts a very broad definition of an ``IP-enabled voice 
service.'' That definition is broader than just replacements for 
traditional telephone service, and sweeps in many potential new 
applications. In my view this definition would be inappropriate in many 
other contexts. For instance, the Commerce Committee crafted a narrower 
definition when considering S. 1063, the IP Enabled Voice 
Communications and Public Safety Act.
  It is my understanding--and I ask if the distinguished chairman 
shares this understanding--that this broad definition applies only to 
this bill, and is not meant to be an indication of the Congress's view 
of the appropriate scope of voice-over-Internet-Protocol or VoIP 
services for other purposes or to serve as precedent for future action. 
It is certainly not meant to suggest that the FCC adopt this definition 
as it considers the appropriate views on VoIP services. Does the 
distinguished chairman agree with my understanding?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. The definition of ``IP enabled voice service'' in 
this bill is not meant to be the universal definition of ``IP enabled 
voice service'' to be used in future legislation that involves other 
contexts. And, it should not be interpreted as a signal to the FCC that 
it should alter or change the definitions of Interconnected or IP 
enabled voice services that it has used in other contexts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third 
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and 
that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 4709) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know a number of our colleagues are 
wondering what time bills are going to be arriving from the House. I 
believe in a little bit, in the next 30 minutes or so, things will pick 
up and we will begin voting. I will come back and address this issue 
once things become a little bit clearer.

                          ____________________