John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to claim leadership time on behalf of the leadership for the following announcement.

Mr. SUNUNU. Today we will be in session for a period for morning business. We do not expect a lengthy session today. As the majority leader announced last night, no rollcall votes will occur today. This morning we are working on a couple of agreements, including a consent for the consideration of the bioshield bill. We hope to consider that bill on Monday, with a vote on passage of the bill occurring on Tuesday. Also, as a reminder to my colleagues, the next rollcall vote will occur on Monday afternoon. Under the order from last night, we will begin the Department of Defense authorization bill on Monday at 2:30. Chairman Warner is working with Senator Levin to consider amendments during Monday's session, and we expect to have an amendment scheduled for a vote Monday afternoon at approximately 5:30. Next week, all Senators can anticipate a busy week as we continue consideration of defense authorization, the bioshield bill, the medals legislation, a number of nominations, and other items that can be cleared. Senators should adjust their schedules accordingly to prepare for full sessions throughout the week.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield myself time from the majority side.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg amendment and in opposition to the Hagel-Harkin amendment. I begin by commending the leadership of my State's senior Senator, Mr. Judd Gregg, on this issue. IDEA and special education funding is an issue that has been a hallmark of the leadership provided by Senator Gregg in New Hampshire and across the country. In New Hampshire we still fund education locally. That is one of the reasons we have had historically such a strong school system. That means people really understand the shortfalls, the problems associated with education funding. In New Hampshire people have recognized we have not done our job as a Congress and as a nation in funding the original commitment made well over 20 years ago to support IDEA and special education. Since 1996, we have made enormous steps forward, again, under the leadership of Senator Gregg, Senator Jeffords, and others in this body, Congressman Charles Bass in the House, working on the Budget Committee, where I was privileged to serve as well. We have increased funding $8.7 billion for IDEA since 1996, increased funding $4.7 billion since 2001. That is the kind of leadership on meeting a funding obligation that had not been seen in this Congress in 20 years under Democratic support. I think that, to use a phrase, is putting our collective money where our mouth is, recognizing that IDEA funding needs to be a priority for American education. The President's leadership on this issue has been outstanding. Those on the other side of the aisle might not like to admit this, but it is hard to argue with the budgets that President Bush has sent up where IDEA funding is concerned. There have been historic increases year after year since President Bush took office, increases in commitments in funding for special education that put the prior administration's budget requests to shame. That needs to be recognized as well as part of the debate. We have a lot more work to do. Senator Gregg has outlined the need to continue these funding increases and, in the 2005 budget, that commitment is there, continuing the fight to meet our funding obligations. But putting the spending on autopilot, creating a new area of mandatory funding is not the solution. Even more to the point, to the Harkin amendment, this new idea where only the increases are mandatory is effectively a shell game, where current funding is left as discretionary, only the increases are mandatory. Under our current budget resolution and the 2005 budget resolution, these mandatory funding increases would require a dollar- for-dollar cut in other discretionary programs, of course, that are not specified in this legislation. That is simply wrong. Placing funding on autopilot rarely, if ever, is the answer to the problems that we wrestle with in Congress. Even more problematic, this amendment falls short on oversight. Throwing the funding on autopilot removes Congress from its oversight responsibility. Most everyone who has followed the debate on this program recognizes that more needs to be done to make sure the program works better for those parents and children who are truly in need of the program's benefits. Second, the Harkin amendment enables Congress to avoid setting priorities. That is simply wrong. It enables Congress to put the funding on autopilot, this mandatory spending idea, and then not have to make sometimes very tough but important choices around funding priorities. I ask my colleagues on the other side whether they have ever voted for amendments that actually reallocate appropriations from other programs in the Department of Education or anywhere else in the Labor-Education bill and put it into additional discretionary special education funding, much less offered such an amendment? It is not always an easy vote to take, but it is a vote that I have taken in the House to actually stand up and say: Given a current level of spending, whatever our budget is, I am willing to vote to take funding from one program and put it into special education because we recognize that it is the most important funding priority we could have at the Federal level where education is concerned. I am willing to stand up and take that vote. I am anxious to see whether the authors of this amendment bring other amendments to the Senate floor in the appropriations process that reallocate those funds. It is always easy to come to the Senate floor with an amendment that adds $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion, increasing the deficit without regard. It is a lot tougher to come to the floor with an amendment that moves funding from one area to another and show that we are willing to set priorities and make sometimes difficult choices we are elected to make when we come to serve in the Senate. I believe putting this spending on autopilot takes us away from that commitment to make tough choices and set priorities. That is why I will not support the Hagel-Harkin amendment and will stand with Senator Gregg and the important work he is trying to do as chairman of our Education and Health Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 6 minutes.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor one of the Nation's great military visionaries, the late William ``Billy'' Mitchell. My legislation would correct an injustice that has existed for almost eight decades by calling on the President to posthumously award Billy Mitchell a commission as major general in the United States Army. I would like to first recognize the support this measure has received from the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And I would also like to commend my colleague in the House, Mr. Bass, who, with the support of House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, steered identical legislation to unanimous passage in that chamber in the fall of last year. I am pleased to join my colleagues as we recognize the accomplishments of this important figure in our country's military history. Billy Mitchell joined the Army at age 18 in 1898. As he quickly rose in rank, he began to realize the incredible potential for air power in establishing military superiority. After World War I, Billy Mitchell became a brigadier general and deputy commander of the Air Service, and in this position he began pressing senior military officials and the White House for increased funding for the development of a formidable air force. In fact, he conducted a test for senior Army and Navy officials in the Chesapeake Bay in 1921 that bolstered his contention that air power represented the future of combat, while embarrassing many naysayers. Although Billy Mitchell was long on vision and foresight, he was short on tact. After the 1921 test, his relationship with his superiors deteriorated as his very public battle for Air Service funding had taken an increasingly bitter tone, and after an accident that took the lives of Navy sailors, Mitchell accused senior military leaders of ``almost treasonable administration of the national defense.'' He was court-martialed for insubordination, found guilty, sentenced to 5 years loss of pay, and demoted to the rank of colonel. Yet to the surprise of no one, Billy Mitchell continued to be a strong and effective voice in support of air power after resigning his commission in 1926 until his untimely death 10 years later. Billy Mitchell sacrificed his career to help change the way our country defends itself and projects military force across the globe to protect and preserve freedom. We have seen over time--most recently during the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq--how important air power is in achieving our military objectives. Mitchell's prognostications many years ago about the future of air power has been proven correct many times over, and it is now time for our nation to recognize the enormous contribution Billy Mitchell has made to the citizens and soldiers of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to finally give the late Billy Mitchell the rank of major general, United States Army.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor one of the Nation's great military visionaries, the late William ``Billy'' Mitchell. My legislation would correct an injustice that has existed for almost eight decades by calling on the President to posthumously award Billy Mitchell a commission as major general in the United States Army. I would like to first recognize the support this measure has received from the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And I would also like to commend my colleague in the House, Mr. Bass, who, with the support of House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, steered identical legislation to unanimous passage in that chamber in the fall of last year. I am pleased to join my colleagues as we recognize the accomplishments of this important figure in our country's military history. Billy Mitchell joined the Army at age 18 in 1898. As he quickly rose in rank, he began to realize the incredible potential for air power in establishing military superiority. After World War I, Billy Mitchell became a brigadier general and deputy commander of the Air Service, and in this position he began pressing senior military officials and the White House for increased funding for the development of a formidable air force. In fact, he conducted a test for senior Army and Navy officials in the Chesapeake Bay in 1921 that bolstered his contention that air power represented the future of combat, while embarrassing many naysayers. Although Billy Mitchell was long on vision and foresight, he was short on tact. After the 1921 test, his relationship with his superiors deteriorated as his very public battle for Air Service funding had taken an increasingly bitter tone, and after an accident that took the lives of Navy sailors, Mitchell accused senior military leaders of ``almost treasonable administration of the national defense.'' He was court-martialed for insubordination, found guilty, sentenced to 5 years loss of pay, and demoted to the rank of colonel. Yet to the surprise of no one, Billy Mitchell continued to be a strong and effective voice in support of air power after resigning his commission in 1926 until his untimely death 10 years later. Billy Mitchell sacrificed his career to help change the way our country defends itself and projects military force across the globe to protect and preserve freedom. We have seen over time--most recently during the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq--how important air power is in achieving our military objectives. Mitchell's prognostications many years ago about the future of air power has been proven correct many times over, and it is now time for our nation to recognize the enormous contribution Billy Mitchell has made to the citizens and soldiers of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to finally give the late Billy Mitchell the rank of major general, United States Army.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``International Trade and Pharmaceuticals.''

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the sessio of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a Nomination hearing.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, April 27, 2004 from 10:00 a.m-12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Tina Westby Jonas to be Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Dionel M. Aviles to Under Secretary of the Navy; and Jerald S. Paul to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Telecommunications Policy Review: Lessons learned from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in SR- 253.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony regarding sustainable, low emission, electricity generation.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 27 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1064, to establish a Commission to Commemorate The Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, and for other purposes; S. 1092, to authorize the establishment of a National Database for purposes of identifying, locating, and cataloging the many memorials and permanent tributes to America's veterans; S. 1748, to establish a program to award grants to improve and maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; S. 2046, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Everglades National Park; S. 2052, to amend the National Trails, System Act to designate El Camino Real De Los Tejas as a National Historic Trail; and S. 2319, to authorize and facilitate hydroelectric power licensing of the Tapoco Project.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 3:30 p.m., on the International Space Exploration Program, in SR-253.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have no objection to that request.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes and that it not be charged to anyone's time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on this topic to address a couple points that have been made. I appreciate the sincerity and the interests of those who oppose this bill. They have opposed it vigorously and aggressively. But I believe very strongly, having seen this debate unfold, that this is not a question of their support for an alternative as much as it is their opposition to any legislation that protects the Internet from taxation. I draw that conclusion because we are debating a motion to proceed. If there was a genuine interest in bringing different alternatives to the floor and having a vote on those alternatives or amendments, we would not be in what is effectively a stonewalling scenario, delaying tactic, if you will, to have to force a cloture vote on simply proceeding to the bill. There are a handful of people who vehemently oppose any legislation that protects the Internet from taxation. I think that is why this has taken so long to move forward. Some people do not support the underlying legislation, and it is certainly true that it would protect the Internet from taxation. But what it would not do is create special considerations for the Internet or broadband access. The legislation specifically says we will preempt, or prohibit, any discriminatory taxes, taxes that are specifically addressed to Internet service providers or broadband providers, but those businesses are still subject to State property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, and all of the other taxes that are levied broadly and uniformly within a State. Second, the suggestion was made that we are writing State law here, and that is simply wrong. This is an item and an interest and issue of interstate commerce. Just as the Federal Government exercises its prerogative to clarify legislation with regard to other interstate commerce activities, such as shipping, trucking, railroads, or aviation, the national and global Internet broadband communication system that has been established by entrepreneurs over the past 15 years ought to, at some level, be protected from multiple and discriminatory regulations and taxation because of its importance to interstate commerce. We are writing Federal law here, not State law. I think it is a little bit disingenuous to suggest we are writing State law and to raise concerns about us writing State law, when in fact, when this bill is dispensed with--and I hope passed and signed into law--the very opponents of this bill who said they are worried about us writing State law will come right back to the floor of this Senate and support legislation to authorize States to collect taxes from businesses that do not reside or have facilities or domiciles in those States. Many opponents of this bill also want the Federal Government to authorize the collection of taxation from businesses outside of their States, which is not only an intervention in States' rights or State laws, but it is effectively an authorization of taxation without representation because the residents of those States will then have to remit taxes to other States in which they do not have a voice. We will have that debate and discussion. Some will support that process; some will oppose that process. But the very opponents of this bill who raise the concern about writing State law will come back and ask for that very power to be authorized and approved by the Congress because only Congress can give States that power. I think there is a little bit of a mixed message here looking for an argument that might seem to be useful in stopping or thwarting this bill, but it is an unfair argument and an improper argument. Some people think that cities, counties, and States should have the right and the ability to tax the Internet. They want those cities and States to tax the Internet. I do not think that is right for consumers, it is not right for America, it is not right for investment, and it is not right for broadband access or deployment. If they want to take the floor and say, We don't support Internet taxes, we are looking out for the interest of these cities and States, I say think again because the whole reason they are raising the issue of the unfunded mandate and supporting a point of order against this bill because of the so-called unfunded mandate is precisely because of those States that are collecting the tax today. If you support striking this bill on the unfunded mandate, then you are effectively standing up for those States, cities, towns, and counties that are taxing the Internet today. That should not be allowed to continue. It is not good for our economy, and it is certainly not the right incentive to create if we want to ensure broadband reaches throughout the country.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes debate on the motion to proceed at 2:15 p.m., the debate time be allocated as follows: 20 minutes to Senator Alexander, 20 minutes to Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes to Senator McCain. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m., subject to the previous order.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Would they have to pay property taxes in those States where they owned property and operated facilities?

Mr. SUNUNU. If there were an Internet transaction that was selling a good within a State that had a sales tax, just like a mail order product, wouldn't they be responsible for the applicable sales taxes in those States?

Mr. SUNUNU. Would they be subject to capital gains taxes in those States where it was applicable?

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. SUNUNU. The Senator from Virginia has mentioned those 10 or 12 States that were grandfathered under the original Internet tax moratorium. I think it is important to understand--because the opponents have claimed there is an unfunded mandate--isn't the only reason the Congressional Budget Office will score an unfunded mandate because those 10 or 12 States were grandfathered in the first place? In other words, if we had not made any effort to allow those States to continue to collect some taxes on Internet access, there would be no unfunded mandate because those taxes would have been eliminated, as one might argue they should have been in the first place? But isn't that the only reason there is a so-called unfunded mandate in the first place?