John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, let me respond briefly just to a couple of points there. There was a lot of discussion at the end of Senator Alexander's remarks about the credit law and scoring and the suggestion that this scores at zero. This scores at zero cost, as we stand here on the Senate floor, because no loans have been issued. So, obviously, it scores at zero. To say that, and to suggest to the American taxpayers that there won't be any liability or any cost to this program is absolutely outrageous. This is a program that does authorize, No. 1, no limit of the number of loans that could be offered; no limit in the total principal that could be put at risk. The Congressional Budget Office estimates $3.75 billion in loans over the 5 years. Yes, when you use our credit law, that would mean $400 million in appropriations. But to say it scores at nothing, as if this is a program with no cost or risk to the taxpayer, is absolutely misleading. We need to be clearer about what this program really does and does not do. There are no limits on the number of projects, no limits on the principal that could be guaranteed, and it certainly does authorize a program that puts the taxpayers at risk. At this time I yield to my cosponsor on this amendment, Senator Wyden.

Mr. SUNUNU. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, first I apologize to my colleague, Senator Schumer of New York. It was just a slip of the tongue by the Senator from Idaho, I am sure. Senator Schumer may be in trouble if he is easily confused with me when he goes back home to New York.

Mr. SUNUNU. No offense taken, but I would say, lightheartedly, that you might wish to apologize to the Senator from New York. If the owners of these powerplants were paying the risk premium, then the Congressional Budget Office would not estimate that in the year 2006 there will have to be $85 million in appropriated taxpayer resources to support this program; or, in 2007, $85 million; or 2008, $85 million; or 2009, $85 million; or 2010, $60 million. The owners of these powerplants are not picking up the risk. That money will have to be appropriated because there will be risks borne by the Federal Government, by the taxpayer, when these loans are issued. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand how the program operates. With regard to technology, let me close in response on this broad point of our concerns for technology. I also would like to see new and innovative technologies brought to the market. Only, when I talk about the importance of those new technologies, I then do not hesitate to say I have confidence in the engineers and scientists and investors and financial people, working in the solar industry and nuclear industry and coal industry, to continue to develop new ideas and new technologies. I am not so arrogant, as an elected representative, or someone here in Washington, to think that only someone working in the Department of Energy in Washington, DC, can know or understand what kind of technologies are deserving of a billion-dollar loan subsidy or a $500 million loan guarantee. That is the problem with this kind of a program. It presumes that the only people who understand technology and innovation and how it might make a contribution to our energy markets and our environment reside in Washington. That is wrong. We need more competitive markets. We need to do something about the costs of regulation, but we do not need to put the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for privately owned and operated powerplants that are operated by successful, profitable corporations. I wish them well, I want to see them compete, but I do not want to put taxpayers on the hook for the cost. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that is endorsed and supported by those concerned about the cost to the Federal budget as well as those concerned about the environment. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the winners of the 2005 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. These awards, otherwise known as the ``ED''ies, are given to those individuals and schools that have exhibited the highest standards of excellence in curriculum and instruction, teaching and learning process, student achievement, leadership and decision-making, community and parental involvement, and school climate. On June 4, 2005, 30 individuals, 2 school boards and 6 schools were recognized for their leadership and outstanding dedication in preparing their students for our rapidly changing workplace. I am honored to lend my voice to those of their colleagues, students, and communities in conveying our appreciation and respect for the professionals they are and the sacrifices and contributions they make every day in classrooms throughout the Granite State. Nominees consist of some of New Hampshire's finest teachers and community leaders. They are carefully reviewed by selection committees that apply standards developed by The Board of Directors for the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. Nominees come from elementary, middle and secondary schools, as well as higher education. Many are honored in specific categories of excellence such as art education, world languages, school nursing, counseling and technology. As a student in Salem, I was privileged to have had many great teachers at every level of my education. Today, as a parent looking back on that experience, I see even more clearly the great impact they've had on my life. Not only did they provide an environment conducive to learning, but each in their own way provided me with the direction necessary to succeed. Like the classroom heroes I knew growing up in Salem, the group of educators chosen this year for the ``ED''ies have demonstrated superior dedication and service to their students, schools and communities. They richly deserve this prestigious honor for the important roles they play in helping our children reach their goals and succeed in school. The teachers, principals, counselors, librarians and other school leaders being commended this year have provided students with the tools they need to become productive and engaged citizens, and have been some of our State's most treasured role models--setting positive examples for the children that surround them, teaching personal responsibility and hard work, and shaping the character of young minds. For these achievements, our State and our country owe them a great deal of gratitude. Since being elected to Congress in 1996, I have been ever mindful that I am a beneficiary of the State of New Hampshire's public education system. A system that is an exemplary model due in large measure to the contributions and leadership of the many educators and schools being recognized this year. I am confident that the success we enjoy in our State is due to their efforts. Mr. President, I ask that the list of the 2005 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in Record. The list follows. 2005 NH Excellence in Education Awards Recipients Londonderry School Board Seabrook School Board Dr. Marilyn Brannigan Barbara Brennan William Church MaryAnn Connors-Krikorian Kathleen Custer Cynthia Dow Deborah Gibson Heidi E. Hale Miller Elizabeth A. Hansel Kathryn G. Hanson Bernard Keenan Mary Alyce Knightly Lise Lemieux Jay Lewis Shelley Lochhead Steve Lord Suzanne Lull Meg Maroni Maria Matarazzo Terrence McKenzie Marie H. Mellin Michele Munson Jane M. Murray Dr. Charles Ott Robert Pedersen David St. Jean Barbara Szabunka Randy Wormald Linda A. Wright Dr. Phyllis Scrocco Zrzavy Schools Dover High School South Meadow Middle School Golden Brook School The Whitefield School School Finalists Holderness Central School Dunbarton Elementary School

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden in the introduction of this legislation, which is a good-faith effort to try to find that fresh approach Senator Wyden talked about, a fresh approach to deal with costs in health care, specifically in those areas where the Federal Government is directly purchasing pharmaceuticals: in the VA, where we have a very large direct purchase program that exists today, and within Medicaid, where both the Federal Government and the States are directly involved in purchasing and negotiating the pricing of drugs. We are focusing on direct-to-consumer advertising. This is an area where activity and cost have exploded over the last 6 or 7 years. Since 1997, when the Federal Government changed the regulations associated with direct-to-consumer advertising, we have seen advertising outlays for pharmaceuticals go from a little bit over $1 billion to nearly $5 billion per year this year. Those costs, as any costs would be, are passed on to consumers. In the case of these programs where the Federal Government is purchasing the pharmaceuticals in the VA and in Medicaid, that means that the cost, the impact, is disproportionately felt by the taxpayer. This is an effort to try to find a way to reduce those costs, to give the Federal Government the power to make a distinction, as they negotiate prices--to make a distinction between those drugs that are advertised directly to consumers or marketed directly to consumers and those that are not, and to provide discounts to those companies or those drugs that avoid the additional costs of advertising. This advertising, as I say, is expensive. The cost is passed on to taxpayers in these particular programs. I think there are also a lot of questions about the value that a flood of advertising might provide. We have all been inundated by different types of advertisement, on TV or in magazines. It is costly, as I mentioned, but it also carries with it some risk of overutilization; of, in some cases, encouraging or leading consumers to believe that they need or would benefit by a particular medicine when it is not necessarily the best approach for them. In some cases it is clear this advertising has been used to drive consumers away from lower priced generic drugs. I think this is one of the most problematic areas, and that has been seen and discussed at some length in the States, in their Medicaid programs. This legislation presents an opportunity to get our hands around the cost issue, to fund some important studies, to take a closer look at questions of overutilization and the substitution I described. It represents a good start, I think, opening the debate with this discussion about dealing directly with health care costs in areas of the Federal Government as the principal purchaser. There may be other options. In fact, Senator Wyden and I talked about a few other approaches that are not included in this legislation. I think I can speak for the Senator from Oregon when I say we look forward to talking to our colleagues about other ideas that might be out there. We look forward to sharing ideas and information with producers themselves who, I hope, are willing to look at ways to help save the consumers money, help save taxpayers money, and help deal with direct-to-consumer advertising in a more responsible way. We are going to do a Medicaid bill this year in the Senate. While we also deal with some issues at HHS and the VA in this bill, certainly the costs associated with Medicaid and our recommendations with regard to Medicaid are a central part of the bill. I will work with Senator Wyden and any of my interested colleagues to try to include and capture some of these ideas in Medicaid legislation this year. It is a great opportunity to look at the issue of health costs and drug costs in a fresh way, in a different way. I very much appreciate the work Senator Wyden has done in helping to craft this legislation and his willingness to lend his strong support, as a longstanding and more senior Member than I, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and as a Member of the Senate on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden in the introduction of this legislation, which is a good-faith effort to try to find that fresh approach Senator Wyden talked about, a fresh approach to deal with costs in health care, specifically in those areas where the Federal Government is directly purchasing pharmaceuticals: in the VA, where we have a very large direct purchase program that exists today, and within Medicaid, where both the Federal Government and the States are directly involved in purchasing and negotiating the pricing of drugs. We are focusing on direct-to-consumer advertising. This is an area where activity and cost have exploded over the last 6 or 7 years. Since 1997, when the Federal Government changed the regulations associated with direct-to-consumer advertising, we have seen advertising outlays for pharmaceuticals go from a little bit over $1 billion to nearly $5 billion per year this year. Those costs, as any costs would be, are passed on to consumers. In the case of these programs where the Federal Government is purchasing the pharmaceuticals in the VA and in Medicaid, that means that the cost, the impact, is disproportionately felt by the taxpayer. This is an effort to try to find a way to reduce those costs, to give the Federal Government the power to make a distinction, as they negotiate prices--to make a distinction between those drugs that are advertised directly to consumers or marketed directly to consumers and those that are not, and to provide discounts to those companies or those drugs that avoid the additional costs of advertising. This advertising, as I say, is expensive. The cost is passed on to taxpayers in these particular programs. I think there are also a lot of questions about the value that a flood of advertising might provide. We have all been inundated by different types of advertisement, on TV or in magazines. It is costly, as I mentioned, but it also carries with it some risk of overutilization; of, in some cases, encouraging or leading consumers to believe that they need or would benefit by a particular medicine when it is not necessarily the best approach for them. In some cases it is clear this advertising has been used to drive consumers away from lower priced generic drugs. I think this is one of the most problematic areas, and that has been seen and discussed at some length in the States, in their Medicaid programs. This legislation presents an opportunity to get our hands around the cost issue, to fund some important studies, to take a closer look at questions of overutilization and the substitution I described. It represents a good start, I think, opening the debate with this discussion about dealing directly with health care costs in areas of the Federal Government as the principal purchaser. There may be other options. In fact, Senator Wyden and I talked about a few other approaches that are not included in this legislation. I think I can speak for the Senator from Oregon when I say we look forward to talking to our colleagues about other ideas that might be out there. We look forward to sharing ideas and information with producers themselves who, I hope, are willing to look at ways to help save the consumers money, help save taxpayers money, and help deal with direct-to-consumer advertising in a more responsible way. We are going to do a Medicaid bill this year in the Senate. While we also deal with some issues at HHS and the VA in this bill, certainly the costs associated with Medicaid and our recommendations with regard to Medicaid are a central part of the bill. I will work with Senator Wyden and any of my interested colleagues to try to include and capture some of these ideas in Medicaid legislation this year. It is a great opportunity to look at the issue of health costs and drug costs in a fresh way, in a different way. I very much appreciate the work Senator Wyden has done in helping to craft this legislation and his willingness to lend his strong support, as a longstanding and more senior Member than I, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and as a Member of the Senate on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 3 minutes off the time controlled by the majority.

Mr. SUNUNU. I want to make sure that is all right with the minority manager.

Mr. SUNUNU. For the timing of the next amendment to be offered. I thought I might be speak for up to 3 minutes to ensure that everything has been----

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly to the concerns raised by the previous speaker, and in particular the three grave concerns with regard to Social Security. I take issue with those three items. The first one of the three items was that any Social Security reform proposal, modernization proposal as envisioned by the President, would result from massive amounts of debt. That is wrong in part but, even worse, it is misleading. The reason to take up Social Security reform legislation, which I have introduced in the previous session and will introduce again, is so we avoid $12 trillion of unfunded debt that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with if we don't act now. To suddenly say we can't deal with Social Security because we are worried about debt is simply a smokescreen, and it is a smokescreen that refuses to recognize the reality that under the current structure we have a huge unfunded debt our children and grandchildren will be stuck with. Second, there was a suggestion that personal accounts for younger workers, an optional system of personal accounts would result in huge administrative costs. This is absolutely ridiculous, and every bit of evidence from any similar plan, similar account, similar fund argues against such a suggestion. The Thrift Savings Plan, which is probably the best model of the kind of personal accounts envisioned by the President in legislation that I have introduced, has 3.5 million members. Under Social Security, there would be significantly more than that. The administrative costs are less than two-tenths of 1 percent. So to suggest that administrative costs would be exorbitantly high--I see numbers of 1 percent or 2 percent thrown out--is wrong. There is no evidence, no model to suggest that would be even close to the truth. Third, the suggestion that any kind of a personal account proposal would require deep benefit cuts is again at best misleading, but at worst it is an effort to scare retirees and those who are near retirement. It is simply wrong. I have introduced legislation which is scored by the Social Security actuary that makes the system solvent, is scored as bringing the system into balance permanently and has significant personal accounts and does not require benefit cuts. There are a lot of proposals out there that involve changes to the current system, or even changes to benefits for, say, those at the higher income level, but to suggest that deep cuts are required is simply misleading the American public. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Kennedy amendment. I appreciate very much the Senator's remarks and his commitment and passion on this issue, but I did want to make a couple of brief points before Senator Santorum, who is offering an alternative, has a chance to talk about the provisions of his amendment. While I appreciate the belief of the Senator from Massachusetts, I do think it is important to take a step back and allow this debate to include a sense of what the deeply held concerns are about raising the minimum wage, because it is not all a single-sided story. I do not support the Kennedy amendment because I do not support raising the minimum wage, and the reason is as follows: When the minimum wage is raised, workers are priced out of the market. That is the economic reality that seems to be missing, at least so far, from this discussion. When the minimum wage is raised, some workers are priced out of the labor market, and we could have a discussion about how many are priced out of the market, what mechanisms we might have to deal with that fact, but it is an economic fact and the proponents of raising the minimum wage like to dismiss this by saying, well, we have a hard time measuring it, or the economy is large, or we have not been able to measure significant increases in inflation as a result of increasing the minimum wage. I am not talking about inflation necessarily or economic growth. I am talking about the workers themselves who are priced out of the market, and if one does not believe that or they want to dismiss the economics, think about this: If there was not an economic impact, why are we not debating raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour? Well, the answer is obvious. Because if the minimum wage were raised to $20 an hour, even the proponents of the Kennedy amendment would have to admit it would be cost prohibitive. Thousands, if not millions, of people would be priced out of the market. The number of jobs would shrink. Certainly the number of entry level jobs would be reduced. Oh, but they say, we are not proposing raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour because we know that is not a good idea. Well, then why are they not proposing to raise it to $10 an hour? Because at $10 an hour they would still have to admit the negative economic effects on prices and on the total number of jobs, especially those at the entry level that would be priced out of the market. So instead they seek a lower level where the negative consequences are much more difficult to measure but they still exist, because it is an economic fact of life that when the minimum wage is raised, people are being priced out of the markets. The same economic fact is true for $8, $7, or $6 an hour. People are being priced out of the market. I think this is most disturbing because those priced out of the market are the very ones who most need the opportunity. They are entry level workers. They are first-time job seekers. They are people making the transition from welfare to work and they are teenagers experiencing their first time in the labor force. They are the ones who most need that job opportunity to build a foundation to develop the experience that will enable them to earn even more money in the future. If one does not believe that, they can go to any small business and ask them if they are hiring in at minimum wage--and there are very few firms that do hire in at minimum wage, but if they do, how long those employees actually earn at the minimum wage level. It is not long because once a person has shown 3, 4 or 6 months of ability in a role with an employer, their value has been proven and they are very quickly going to move above whatever the entry level threshold was. Those who are going to be priced out of the labor market by an increase in the minimum wage are those who most need that first job opportunity, and that is why I strongly disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts and his amendment. The impact may be small, and our economy is $11 trillion. It may only be 10 jobs that are affected or 20,000 or 30,000 who never get that first job opportunity at a job. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to measure 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 jobs in an economy the size of America's, but it is there. The economic consequences are real. Again, if one does not believe it, if they believe there are no economic consequences, then they should be willing to step down to the Senate floor and offer an amendment to raise the minimum wage to $20 or $30. Or why even stop there? One final point I do want to make is in regard to a phrase that was used by the Senator from Massachusetts. It was a question or a phrase about rewarding work. The question was whether we were willing to stand up in the Congress or, I suppose, the Senate in particular, and reward work by supporting an increase in the minimum wage. I have a concern about this phrase because it suggests that as Federal legislators it is our job to reward work. That may sound nice, but it suggests that it is our job to set prices, that it is our job to set wages, that it is our job to decide whether the work any citizen is doing in the economy, in the private sector, is worth a particular amount of money, whose work is worth more than someone else's and what kind of rewards does the Federal Government give the taxpayer for doing their job. That is not the role of the Federal Government. We should not be deciding who gets rewarded for work, whose work is of value and whose work is not of value. In fact, there are few countries left on Earth where the central government has the responsibility of rewarding work in and of itself, and those are countries such as Cuba and North Korea that decide only the federal government should be able to determine what one earns or does not earn, how much one can charge and or not charge for a given good. Our job is to pass good legislation that creates an economic environment where people have incentives to commit capital to start businesses to create economic opportunity and to create jobs and a good quality of life. It sounds nice to say we should reward work in the Senate, but the only way to do that in passing Federal legislation is to start and to try to set wages, to try to set prices, and to try to control the levers of the economy. We have seen where that slippery slope can be taken. We do not have to look farther than the former Soviet Union and the former eastern European countries that have rejected that kind of centralized state economy. I appreciate the passion and the commitment of those on the other side. I think they are wrong on the economics because the economics hurt the very individuals who most need these entry level, first-time job opportunities. They are certainly wrong with the idea that setting prices for labor, setting prices for goods and deciding whose work has value and whose work does not have value should start in Washington, D.C. That is not the way our market economy works. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SUNUNU. I believe the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators both endorsed the Senate version of this language over the House version because, among other things, the Senate version provided the flexibility and partnership between the Federal and State governments. Is this an accurate portrayal of their position?

Mr. SUNUNU. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SUNUNU. I would also like to ask a follow-up question to the Senator from Connecticut. Although the conference report does not specify any particular group or organization to be included on the rulemaking committee, it is certainly expected that privacy and civil liberties groups, along with organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators would play an important role in the rulemaking process. I would ask my colleague from Connecticut if I understand this provision correctly?

Mr. SUNUNU. I thank the Chair. It is a pleasure to stand in support of the intelligence reform bill. In my remarks today in support of the bill, I want to first emphasize that there is no real way we can know exactly and precisely what all of the benefits might eventually occur due to the reforms made by this bill. I think both the House and Senate went through a good-faith effort to try to develop a better, a better intelligence organization, better rules for sharing information than we currently have, changes that conform in many ways to some of the difficulties identified, and recommendations made by the September 11 Commission. But the real motivator for reform I think began even prior to September 11. I think the impetus for change in our intelligence organization begins with the fall of the Iron Curtain, the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of terrorism--now the greatest national security threat that faces America and our allies--and concerns over the proliferation of weapons technology to terrorists around the world. That was obviously brought to the forefront with the attacks of September 11. But the fact that we have a new set of threats and a new set of risks to American security is what calls on us to review the structure of our intelligence agencies and to make the recommendations for change that are embodied in this bill. With this legislation, we will improve the budget process for intelligence agencies by giving more power and authority to the Director of National Intelligence, the DNI. The DNI will coordinate where the funds and resources should be allocated among the 15 various agencies that have responsibility for intelligence gathering in the United States and around the globe. We reform the standard of accountability by having an independent Director of National Intelligence. I think there is, to borrow a phrase from the previous speaker, a clearer chain of command for responsibility and accountability in setting priorities and setting goals for the President of the United States and all of those in the Government who rely on our intelligence-gathering operation. We reform the process of coordinating between these 15 agencies. We have a new counterterrorism Center that will be the central focus for gathering information threats from law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the country. We now have a much better understanding of the degree with which critical pieces of information can come from local or State law enforcement, and not just from the sophisticated apparatus of a national intelligence organization. We have to coordinate and collect that information and then disseminate it and do a better job of sharing that information. A final area of reform I would underscore is that with this legislation we set clear guidelines, a clearer process, and in many ways an easier process, for getting key pieces of information to the decisionmakers that will act on that information. We saw, unfortunately, time and again in the wake of September 11 moments where there existed important information, but for a variety of reasons that information wasn't placed in the right hands at the right time. So information sharing, as simple as it may sound, is a critical piece of the reform element in this bill. For all of those reasons, I am very pleased to support the legislation because I think it will create a much better framework for understanding where we are successful and where we need to continue to improve our intelligence gathering. Not every objective, not every goal, will be attained in the next year or the next 2 years. But this organizational structure, the rules for intelligence sharing, this budget process, all will make our intelligence organization much more effective. A lot of concerns have been raised about the legislation. A lot of people point out the obvious--that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. I don't think anyone has ever come to the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives claiming they had finally written the perfect piece of legislation. But a lot of those criticisms as well are on a weak foundation; concerns, for example, about the process, the speed and the timing with which this legislation was written. The suggestion was made earlier last month that the Senate had rushed through this piece of legislation, that we moved it through too quickly, that there was not enough time taken for deliberations and hearings. I think of all the criticisms, that is probably the weakest I have heard. The Chair well knows through a number of hearings we collected information--not just from the September 11 Commission and all the work they did on these issues, not just from the families of those who were lost on September 11, but from intelligence-gathering organizations, from the FBI, from local law enforcement, information that was critical to developing legislation before the Senate today. The criticism of the process that somehow the conference between the House and Senate was done in secret is simply without foundation. The conference negotiations were extremely inclusive. In many ways I argue they were inclusive because they included me. When the conference negotiations and the discussion about the final legislative language is inclusive enough to make available a role for the 95th most senior Member of the Senate, it is a pretty inclusive process. There were Democrats in the room at the most sensitive times as well as Republicans. It was bipartisan discussion and negotiation. Obviously, not everyone got everything they wanted in the final bill. When the process is criticized for being exclusive or it was rushed, that criticism is most often made by someone who just did not quite get everything they wanted in the bill. There is a criticism that we should have included more immigration or law enforcement provisions. This bill does deal with immigration in a direct and substantive way: increasing customs agents and beds for detainees; better information sharing that will make a huge difference for the INS and for others engaged in securing our borders. But it does not have every provision recommended by the House of Representatives, so it should come as no surprise we will deal with many of these issues, perhaps with a more comprehensive immigration reform bill, in the next session of Congress. What is in the bill improves the status quo, improves the current situation. That is something for which we can all be pleased. We have a lot of work to do on oversight in the coming session. We have a lot of work to do to make sure this legislation does what we intended it to do. But it is an outstanding effort. I commend the work of the chairman and the ranking member on the Governmental Affairs Committee as well as the House conferees.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Senator Alexander, as well as Senators Wyden and Allen, who have worked on the consensus legislation that was touched on in earlier remarks, a final piece of the legislation necessary to ensure that we do not tax Internet access. The reason we do this, the reason we think this legislation is so important is, first and foremost, because these are national and global broadband networks. They are interstate and global in nature. I believe the responsibility for both determining the tax status and the regulatory status of these networks falls on the Federal Government. I do believe taxation is merely an extension of regulatory power, in that it has the ability to shape the playing field, to weight the competition among ideas or technology in one direction or another. As was said many years ago, when you tax something, you get less of it. If that is not a form of regulation, I don't know what is. The issue of broadband voice, of Internet protocol voice services was also mentioned. I do want to be clear, at least in expressing an opinion if not declaring it absolute fact: The Internet tax legislation that we passed was silent on this issue. It doesn't allow or disallow, per se, the taxation on Internet protocol, IP voice service, or broadband voice service. But what it does is protect Internet access, access to that broadband pipe from taxation. We will discuss and debate in greater detail in the coming year the nature of these broadband voice services--broadband access, spectrum regulations--as we develop telecom legislation in 2005, beginning with hearings and work in the Commerce Committee. I think in many ways the FCC has already set the direction for this process in a recent ruling that they made, which was to say that broadband voice services using the Internet protocol are interstate in nature and that they should be regulated on a national level for many of the reasons that Senator Alexander has outlined. We want clarity; we want consistency; we don't want it weighted toward one technology or another. There are lots of ways to get access to these national and global broadband networks. You can get them through wireless systems, DSL, cable. You can get them even through satellite. And there are probably more technologies that will come to give customers and consumers access. We want to be careful that we do not distort the marketplace of ideas, either through subsidies for one form of technology relative to another--which was mentioned by Senator Alexander--or regulatory regimes on one form of broadband network relative to another. It will be a challenging debate. I think Senator Alexander has been very helpful in this debate in bringing the perspective of a Governor. I think we do need to be very sensitive to the rights and the powers of the States. But where we have something that is interstate, national, or global in nature, then I think it does make sense to try to find a light regulatory touch, as Senator Alexander has described, but one that is clearly defined and that will keep the competitive playing field as open and vigorous as possible. If we have a strong economy, then I think the governments at the local level, the State level, and the Federal level will do fine so far as revenue collection is concerned. I look forward to participating in this debate with other members on the Commerce Committee and all of the Members in the Senate in order to make sure that we have a regulatory system that is designed for, so to speak, the 21st century, these new technologies, and not just take a regulatory system that was designed for a copper circuit switch phone system, invented by Alexander Graham Bell--don't take that regulatory system and try to force it on emerging technologies for the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise at this time as we head toward a vote on final passage to voice my strong support for this legislation. But equally important, I wish to pay tribute to the work of Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins in fashioning this legislation in a bipartisan way. I am pleased to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee with both of them. This has been put together in a way that reflects the core recommendations of the September 11 Commission. It takes our intelligence-gathering system and creates a strong intelligence director but gives that director the kind of budget and personnel responsibility that will enable him to be effective as we continue to fight a long war on terrorism--a global fight the length of which we can't determine right now but whose priority and importance is undisputed. It takes all of the assets of our intelligence-gathering network--the assets that serve our national intelligence operation but puts them under the national intelligence director--and gives that director the authority and the flexibility that is going to be necessary to be effective. It deals with important issues such as border security and transportation today under the responsibility of the Commerce Committee. It creates a counterterrorism center--something that has already been done. But it is important that we authorize the counterterrorism center which is going to be responsible for putting together all of our efforts in dealing with terrorist threats, collecting and distributing that to law enforcement officials, and making sure that our objective of identifying threats to this country, whether it is through financing or the movement of personnel and materials, is done effectively. While this legislation responds to the September 11 Commission recommendations, I think it is also important to recognize that the September 11 Commission report dealt with the weaknesses that led to the attacks in New York City and Washington and the downing of the plane in Pennsylvania. In order for this legislation to be effective, we need to continue to make sure all of our intelligence assets are focused on the future. There are going to be new threats and new challenges in what will be an evolving fight. The counterterrorism center is going to have to evolve over time to deal with new threats from different parts of the world. We are going to have to improve our techniques for information sharing. We are going to have to develop new technologies for information gathering around the world. We will have to continue to improve our human intelligence system--something that was, unfortunately, lacking in the years which led up to September 11. This is going to be a continuing process of change. I think it is most important that this legislation creates the infrastructure and a culture and a leadership structure that can respond to these changes which can evolve with the times and that can deal with the unexpected. If there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that the fighting of terrorism around the world will include many unexpected, unpredictable events. But if we are to succeed, we want to make sure our intelligence-gathering operation has all the tools and the support that is necessary. This is a very strong piece of legislation. It was put together in a bipartisan way, but it is not strong because it is bipartisan. I think it is receiving the bipartisan support because it is a strong, thoughtful piece of legislation. We have a lot of work left to do. We are going to go to a conference with the House, and that in and of itself will be a long process to overcome any differences in the legislation. But I hope in the end and I believe in the end this will be a bill that makes our intelligence- gathering capability and our ability to fight terrorism around the world stronger and which will meet with the core and the thrust of the September 11 Commission report. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, to introduce the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004. This legislation, which is modeled after the successful 50-State quarter program, would add the image of U.S. Presidents to the circulating dollar coin. I believe this bill, when enacted, will prompt more widespread usage of the dollar coin, earn significant funds for the U.S. government and spark new interest in the history of the leaders of our Nation. The United States Government currently issues a dollar coin. Unfortunately, many Americans don't know about the coin and most don't use them. In fact, the dollar coin has never lived up to its promise to become a primary component of the American economy. I believe as policy makers, it is our job to ask what this costs our economy and our government, why the dollar coin is not widely used, and what can be done to remedy it. With a one-dollar coin in general circulation, our economy will be more efficient, and our government will reap the significant benefits that a fully circulating coin will generate. To illustrate, millions of low-dollar transactions occur in our country every day. Bringing even the smallest efficiency to each would result in significant savings to the economy. For example, the vending machine industry estimates that the effect of a widely circulated dollar coin in its sector alone could be as much as $1 billion in savings: $300 million in increased sales and $700 million in reduced maintenance costs. Add to that the savings that businesses would realize by experiencing lower handling costs-- it's simply much more expensive to sort and count bills than coins--and one begins to get a sense of the economies that could be achieved if our dollar coin program were more of a success. In the public sector, the savings are hardly less dramatic. Informed estimates put the effect of a fully circulating dollar coin at as much as a $500 million annual infusion to the Treasury general fund. These funds are created by the difference between what it costs to make a coin or bill and what it's worth. For a dollar coin, the difference, which is called seigniorage, is about 80 cents. While there is no direct comparison for a dollar bill, as the accounting methods are different, the gain to the general fund is much less. Another savings comes from the fact that a coin can do its work for 30 years, while a dollar bill has a lifespan of only about 18 months before it wears out and needs to be replaced. With such clear advantages on the side of the dollar coin why doesn't the American public use the coin? The answers are fairly well known and were documented by the GAO in a 2002 report to Congress. Let me address some of the problems outlined by the GAO. First, there is the so-called ``network effect.'' This interdependency of demand is described by the GAO this way-- ``Increasing the use of the coin is especially difficult because retailers will not stock the dollar coin until they see the public using it, the public is unlikely to use the coin until they see retailers stocking it, and banks and armored carriers are reluctant to invest in new equipment to handle the coin until there is wide demand for it.'' Second, there is a lack of public information about the savings to the government from using the dollar coin. Third, business users found difficulty in getting the newer ``golden'' dollar coins in a useable form--they are not rolled like other coins and because they are generally commingled with the older Susan B. Anthony dollars. Fourth, design mistakes made with the Susan B. Anthony dollar led many to confuse the coin with the quarter and spend it at a 75-cent loss. Finally, the most difficult problem of all, Americans prefer the dollar bill to the dollar coin because they can get an adequate supply of them, and they are readily accepted everywhere. The GAO summed it up with this conclusion in its 2002 report, ``. . . until individuals can see that the coin is widely used by others and that the government intends to replace the dollar bill with the dollar coin, they will be unlikely to use the coin in everyday transactions.'' The bill I am introducing today will address many of these problems. It will do so by getting the dollar coin in people's hands and pockets. It will provide the information that Americans need to make rational decisions and it takes steps to eliminate other barriers to circulation of the coin. Although this legislation does not take the dollar bill out of circulation, it is well known that continued circulation of the dollar bill is expensive to businesses and consumers alike. Therefore, I am today writing the GAO asking that it carefully examine this issue and update its findings from its last comprehensive review made in 1990. Now, I turn to the specifics of my legislative proposal. Beginning in 2006, the bill would cause the images of four U.S. Presidents to appear on the dollar coin a year, each in the order of their service, until all are so honored. The reverse of the coin would feature the Statue of Liberty. The edge of the coin would hold important information, such as the date and the so-called mintmark. It is important to note that coins bearing the image of Sacagawea, who currently appears on the face of the dollar coin, will continue to be issued during the period of the Presidential Coin Program established by this bill. I draw my colleague's attention to the fact that her image will be joined by the images of U.S. Presidents, not displaced by them. This is only appropriate, especially as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of which she was such an important part. To complement the Presidential Coin Program, my bill would also create a new puregold bullion coin to honor presidential spouses. At the same time each president's image appears on the circulating dollar coin, the spouse's image would appear on a one-half ounce pure gold coin. It is my hope that together the Presidential coin and the Spouse coin will spark excitement and interest in the dollar coin and get it into circulation. These coins will appeal both to collectors and to investors. As I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Coin Program is modeled after the wildly successful 50-state quarter program. As all my colleagues know, that program has aroused new interest in coins, coin collecting and the history of our nation's states. Before it began, the U.S. Mint was producing about $400 million in quarters a year. Demand in the first year of the quarter program shot up to $1.2 billion in quarters that year. Seigniorage from the quarter halfway through the 50-state program has surpassed all expectations, amounting to more than $4 billion, close to the $5 billion that was predicted for the whole 10-year program. I believe that the Presidential Coin Program will have a similar effect on the dollar coin, creating interest and familiarity with the dollar coin and revenues for the U.S. government. The bill I am introducing with Senator Reid would also take other important steps toward getting Americans used to the dollar coin and removing barriers to its circulation. For example, it would cause the Federal Government to use the dollar coin in all its retail operations. Incredibly, this is not the case now. Except for the U.S. Postal Service, few other Federal agencies make use of the coin. Also, the bill would take the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin out of circulation, ending the problem--identified by many business owners--of commingling of the new and old dollar coins. There would be, however, no problem for the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars to circulate at the same time, as they both would be of the attractive ``golden'' color. The bill also would cause the dollar coins to be available in convenient forms, including rolls and small bags, so that businesses can use them easily. Now, it's hard to get dollar coins except in pillow-sized bags, from which they must be counted before they can go into cash registers. Finally, this legislation will create a new, pure-gold bullion, one- ounce coin with the image of the so-called ``Indian Head'' or ``Buffalo'' nickel. Here, I must note that the design is so popular that when our colleague Senator Campbell, authored legislation to re- create that design as a limited-edition silver dollar to benefit the National Museum of the American Indian now under construction on the Mall, all half-million copies allowed sold out within two weeks. This will be an opportunity for collectors to get a pure-gold copy of the coin, but it will also be an opportunity for investors to buy an investment-grade coin. Other countries, including the People's Republic of China, make this kind of pure-gold investment vehicle available to their citizens, but to date the U.S. Mint gold investment-grade coins have only been about 90 percent pure. I'm certain that with the quality work of the Mint and the imprimatur of the United States Government, this coin will be well-accepted into the market. Let me conclude, by saying that I believe the bill I am introducing today will put the dollar coin on the map and in the pockets of Americans. That's good for commerce and it's good government.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, to introduce the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004. This legislation, which is modeled after the successful 50-State quarter program, would add the image of U.S. Presidents to the circulating dollar coin. I believe this bill, when enacted, will prompt more widespread usage of the dollar coin, earn significant funds for the U.S. government and spark new interest in the history of the leaders of our Nation. The United States Government currently issues a dollar coin. Unfortunately, many Americans don't know about the coin and most don't use them. In fact, the dollar coin has never lived up to its promise to become a primary component of the American economy. I believe as policy makers, it is our job to ask what this costs our economy and our government, why the dollar coin is not widely used, and what can be done to remedy it. With a one-dollar coin in general circulation, our economy will be more efficient, and our government will reap the significant benefits that a fully circulating coin will generate. To illustrate, millions of low-dollar transactions occur in our country every day. Bringing even the smallest efficiency to each would result in significant savings to the economy. For example, the vending machine industry estimates that the effect of a widely circulated dollar coin in its sector alone could be as much as $1 billion in savings: $300 million in increased sales and $700 million in reduced maintenance costs. Add to that the savings that businesses would realize by experiencing lower handling costs-- it's simply much more expensive to sort and count bills than coins--and one begins to get a sense of the economies that could be achieved if our dollar coin program were more of a success. In the public sector, the savings are hardly less dramatic. Informed estimates put the effect of a fully circulating dollar coin at as much as a $500 million annual infusion to the Treasury general fund. These funds are created by the difference between what it costs to make a coin or bill and what it's worth. For a dollar coin, the difference, which is called seigniorage, is about 80 cents. While there is no direct comparison for a dollar bill, as the accounting methods are different, the gain to the general fund is much less. Another savings comes from the fact that a coin can do its work for 30 years, while a dollar bill has a lifespan of only about 18 months before it wears out and needs to be replaced. With such clear advantages on the side of the dollar coin why doesn't the American public use the coin? The answers are fairly well known and were documented by the GAO in a 2002 report to Congress. Let me address some of the problems outlined by the GAO. First, there is the so-called ``network effect.'' This interdependency of demand is described by the GAO this way-- ``Increasing the use of the coin is especially difficult because retailers will not stock the dollar coin until they see the public using it, the public is unlikely to use the coin until they see retailers stocking it, and banks and armored carriers are reluctant to invest in new equipment to handle the coin until there is wide demand for it.'' Second, there is a lack of public information about the savings to the government from using the dollar coin. Third, business users found difficulty in getting the newer ``golden'' dollar coins in a useable form--they are not rolled like other coins and because they are generally commingled with the older Susan B. Anthony dollars. Fourth, design mistakes made with the Susan B. Anthony dollar led many to confuse the coin with the quarter and spend it at a 75-cent loss. Finally, the most difficult problem of all, Americans prefer the dollar bill to the dollar coin because they can get an adequate supply of them, and they are readily accepted everywhere. The GAO summed it up with this conclusion in its 2002 report, ``. . . until individuals can see that the coin is widely used by others and that the government intends to replace the dollar bill with the dollar coin, they will be unlikely to use the coin in everyday transactions.'' The bill I am introducing today will address many of these problems. It will do so by getting the dollar coin in people's hands and pockets. It will provide the information that Americans need to make rational decisions and it takes steps to eliminate other barriers to circulation of the coin. Although this legislation does not take the dollar bill out of circulation, it is well known that continued circulation of the dollar bill is expensive to businesses and consumers alike. Therefore, I am today writing the GAO asking that it carefully examine this issue and update its findings from its last comprehensive review made in 1990. Now, I turn to the specifics of my legislative proposal. Beginning in 2006, the bill would cause the images of four U.S. Presidents to appear on the dollar coin a year, each in the order of their service, until all are so honored. The reverse of the coin would feature the Statue of Liberty. The edge of the coin would hold important information, such as the date and the so-called mintmark. It is important to note that coins bearing the image of Sacagawea, who currently appears on the face of the dollar coin, will continue to be issued during the period of the Presidential Coin Program established by this bill. I draw my colleague's attention to the fact that her image will be joined by the images of U.S. Presidents, not displaced by them. This is only appropriate, especially as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of which she was such an important part. To complement the Presidential Coin Program, my bill would also create a new puregold bullion coin to honor presidential spouses. At the same time each president's image appears on the circulating dollar coin, the spouse's image would appear on a one-half ounce pure gold coin. It is my hope that together the Presidential coin and the Spouse coin will spark excitement and interest in the dollar coin and get it into circulation. These coins will appeal both to collectors and to investors. As I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Coin Program is modeled after the wildly successful 50-state quarter program. As all my colleagues know, that program has aroused new interest in coins, coin collecting and the history of our nation's states. Before it began, the U.S. Mint was producing about $400 million in quarters a year. Demand in the first year of the quarter program shot up to $1.2 billion in quarters that year. Seigniorage from the quarter halfway through the 50-state program has surpassed all expectations, amounting to more than $4 billion, close to the $5 billion that was predicted for the whole 10-year program. I believe that the Presidential Coin Program will have a similar effect on the dollar coin, creating interest and familiarity with the dollar coin and revenues for the U.S. government. The bill I am introducing with Senator Reid would also take other important steps toward getting Americans used to the dollar coin and removing barriers to its circulation. For example, it would cause the Federal Government to use the dollar coin in all its retail operations. Incredibly, this is not the case now. Except for the U.S. Postal Service, few other Federal agencies make use of the coin. Also, the bill would take the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin out of circulation, ending the problem--identified by many business owners--of commingling of the new and old dollar coins. There would be, however, no problem for the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars to circulate at the same time, as they both would be of the attractive ``golden'' color. The bill also would cause the dollar coins to be available in convenient forms, including rolls and small bags, so that businesses can use them easily. Now, it's hard to get dollar coins except in pillow-sized bags, from which they must be counted before they can go into cash registers. Finally, this legislation will create a new, pure-gold bullion, one- ounce coin with the image of the so-called ``Indian Head'' or ``Buffalo'' nickel. Here, I must note that the design is so popular that when our colleague Senator Campbell, authored legislation to re- create that design as a limited-edition silver dollar to benefit the National Museum of the American Indian now under construction on the Mall, all half-million copies allowed sold out within two weeks. This will be an opportunity for collectors to get a pure-gold copy of the coin, but it will also be an opportunity for investors to buy an investment-grade coin. Other countries, including the People's Republic of China, make this kind of pure-gold investment vehicle available to their citizens, but to date the U.S. Mint gold investment-grade coins have only been about 90 percent pure. I'm certain that with the quality work of the Mint and the imprimatur of the United States Government, this coin will be well-accepted into the market. Let me conclude, by saying that I believe the bill I am introducing today will put the dollar coin on the map and in the pockets of Americans. That's good for commerce and it's good government.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, as Americans gather in our Capitol and across the country to remember and pay tribute to President Ronald Reagan, we have been provided a very special opportunity to reflect on his great achievements as our Commander in Chief, as well as the tremendous personal strength which he brought to the Oval Office. But as we salute President Reagan for his leadership, his integrity, and his vision, I am struck by the very personal nature of so many of these memories and stories. Whether here in Washington or out across the country, whether it is a U.S. Senator or a teacher in a small school, it seems that so many of these recollections begin with phrases such as, ``I remember seeing him during his first visit to our State,'' or ``I shook his hand when he visited our factory,'' or ``I recall a story that President Reagan loved to tell,'' or even ``because of Ronald Reagan, I chose to run for office.'' These recollections are enormously personal, but I think they are a testament to the way he touched people in a very deep and unique way. He affected the lives of millions of people in America and around the world in countless encounters. Many of these encounters may have been for only a moment or two in a life that spanned decades, but his gift was in his ability to make a strong connection that had real power, the power to bridge generations, the power to last a lifetime, and the power to change a life as well. We remember his touch, his smile, and his encouragement, not simply because when he walked into a room Ronald Reagan conveyed a great personal warmth. That was certainly special in and of itself, and something that anyone who had the chance to meet him or see him in person would always remember, but it was because this personal connection conveyed a sense of purpose, a sense of kindness, and an enormous love for public service. That was the power of the Great Communicator, the power of the personal connection that he made. I consider this the greatest tribute of all. Despite the myriad and extraordinary legislative and foreign policy victories of President Reagan such as cutting taxes and reforming the code, rebuilding our Nation's defenses, turning back the Soviets in Afghanistan, or leading the West to a lasting victory in the cold war--despite the enormous substance of these achievements, Ronald Reagan, in the end, is not remembered first and foremost as a clever politician with great machinations of political strategy or hardball political tactics. Instead, the descriptive words that we heard here and across the country over and over again are integrity, character, courage, and leadership. These are qualities that transcend politics and qualities that transcend time. They are qualities that inspire the young and comfort the aged. They are the qualities of heroes. Ronald Reagan was fond of describing the heroes he saw in audiences at every speech he made or heroes he would see as he traveled across the country in every corner of America and coming from every walk of life. He saw in these men and women the very strength of character, courage, integrity, and leadership that he knew made our country unique and which kept our country prosperous and free. But by bringing these very same qualities to the Oval Office and drawing on them time and time again to guide our Nation through demanding and even dark times, he left a legacy that shined like the city on a hill which he knew America could be and would again become. It is a heroic legacy, and it is the legacy of a great American. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate this year's winners of the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. The ``ED''ies are awarded to those individuals, schools and educational programs that have made significant contributions to public education and have met the highest standards of excellence. Educators and schools who are selected have demonstrated a high standard in areas such as curriculum and instruction, teaching and learning process, student achievement, leadership and decisionmaking, community and parental involvement, and school climate. On June 5, 2004, the leadership and achievement of these 33 individuals and 12 schools in New Hampshire will receive acknowledgment. I add my voice on behalf of the citizens I represent in similarly recognizing our appreciation and respect for these professionals who make countless sacrifices and contributions in our schools. The ``ED''ies are presented in various categories of excellence, such as math and science teaching, curriculum development, and environmental education. The specific criteria for the ``ED''ies, which is developed by the board of directors for the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards, has been applied to elementary, middle, and secondary schools, along with teachers, administrators and other education professionals performing at each of these levels, as well as higher education. The selection committees consist of some of New Hampshire's finest educators and community leaders who have the responsibility of applying these standards and evaluating the nominees. The committees make their selections after careful review of the nominees, school applications and assessments based on on-site visitations. The teachers recognized here have clearly had a profound impact on their students just as many of my own teachers had on me. The teachers for whom I have the fondest memories created a positive learning environment and necessary direction that were key elements to my growth as a person and as a public servant. They impressed upon me the importance of one's contribution at the community level and the important role a sound public education plays in our society. Now, as a parent, I can more fully appreciate how delicate the task of educating can be, and understand more now than ever the vital resource our schools and teachers provide to the parents in the towns and cities of New Hampshire. The educators and community leaders chosen this year to receive ``ED''ies have demonstrated superior dedication to their students, schools and communities. They deserve this prestigious honor for the important roles they play in helping our children reach their goals and succeed in school. The individuals and schools being commended this year have provided students with the tools they need to become productive and engaged citizens, and are our State's most treasured role models--setting positive examples for the children that surround them, teaching personal responsibility and hard work, and shaping the character of young minds. For these achievements, our State and our country owe them a great deal of gratitude. Since first elected to Congress in 1996, I have made improving education a legislative priority of mine. I am cognizant of the fact that the men and women on the front lines of our classrooms tackle the toughest of challenges and enable students to reach their full potential. We, in New Hampshire, enjoy an outstanding education system that is a true model for the country. This success is due in large measure to the contributions and leadership of the many educators and schools recognized here today. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the 2004 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in the Record.