John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, this legislation would simply take what has already been done in the House--which is to pass a 4-year extension--and to make it permanent. A lot of good work was done in the House to strengthen the current moratorium and ban on Internet access taxes. Unfortunately, despite the fact there were over 240 Democrats and Republicans who supported this legislation, it did not receive an up-or-down vote to make the ban on Internet taxes permanent. So what we do is take the House language in this amendment and make it permanent. It provides clarification with regard to services and technologies that are dealt with and not dealt with. If you are an Internet business, you still pay property taxes and payroll taxes. You pay business income taxes. But the Government should not be allowed to levy a tax on access to the Internet for the consumers themselves. There are certain States that are affected by grandfather clauses that were included in the House language. We maintain that language. All we do is fully extend it permanently so that if you are a consumer you know the Internet will not be taxed. If you are a small business, you know your cost of Internet access will not go up. If you are doing business over the Internet, you know there will continue to be investments in the infrastructure necessary to increase broadband deployment. I think at the very least we should have an opportunity to vote on making this Internet tax moratorium permanent. I think it is a commonsense approach. We can always come back and look at the technical issues associated with the language if it needs to be modified in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years. That is what Congress does. But we should say, once and for all, we are not going to tax Internet access at the Federal level, at the State level, at the local level. Madam President, I thank you for the consideration and yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, we are moving on into the early hours of the evening, and I appreciate the work that the bill managers, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott, have done on this legislation. I am a member of the Commerce Committee as well, and there is no question that there was strong support for this legislation when we voted on it last year. As Senator Lautenberg indicated, it was a 93-to- 6 vote. I am sorry to say, at least from his perspective, I was one of the six who voted ``no.'' Despite the work that has gone into this legislation, I do think it has some real weaknesses. Both Senators Lott and Lautenberg touched on some of those weaknesses in their opening remarks--that at times Amtrak has not delivered the kind of quality service we would expect; at times they have not delivered, year after year, the kind of financial results we would hope for and expect as taxpayers who are providing the subsidies and the support for Amtrak. Since its creation well over 25 years ago, the Federal subsidies have amounted to over $20 billion. Amtrak was originally created with the intention of becoming self-sufficient. There was an Amtrak reform bill passed in 1997, recommitting to this goal, and yet it still has not happened. As a taxpayer and as a Senator, it causes me great concern we have not done better--better both in terms of performance on the service and the quality side--but also on the financial side. There was discussion of the Northeast Corridor. The Northeast Corridor does provide for a great opportunity to serve millions of people running from my State of New Hampshire all the way down to Washington, DC, and beyond--some of the more densely populated areas where it makes the most sense to have a train service. But even in the Northeast Corridor, the operation is not what we would want. I think it is fair to expect more; not just in the financial oversight that is in the legislation, not just in some of the new programs that are in the legislation, but, for example, in the long- distance train service. For the long-distance train routes--I think there are 15 or 16 now--they lose $200 per passenger. That is not acceptable. I have a couple amendments I will be offering. One deals with that huge per-passenger subsidy, to say if we are losing $200 per passenger--every single passenger: a $200 subsidy--on some of those long-distance routes, we should not continue to operate that route. There are some proposals for allowing route competition. I think that is also a good idea, but one we can build on and expand on, allowing more and different routes to be offered on a competitive basis. So I think there are ways to improve the bill that we need to take a look at, and that I hope are at least part of the debate. I do not necessarily expect to win on all of those amendments, but I think it is important we be realistic about some of the weaknesses that are in the system. I also want to address an issue that was spoken about early this evening by Senator Alexander. He discussed at some length the Internet tax moratorium and what that would mean to American consumers. Right now, we have a ban on Internet access taxes. You cannot levy an access tax on the Internet for consumers, or for businesses, for that matter. Everyone talks about the importance of broadband to our economy. Without question, the Internet is important to our economy, not just because it gives us information or brings data into our homes, but because it represents a national--in effect, a global--network for communication and for commerce. That is something that is the responsibility of Congress to protect-- to protect from onerous regulation, to protect from taxes that would discourage long-term investment that would raise costs for consumers or businesses. We have had that ban on Internet taxes in place, and I think it is important we make that tax ban permanent. Unfortunately, after introducing legislation at the beginning of this year, we have not had a single vote on this issue. We have not voted on it in the Commerce Committee or any subcommittee. They have not voted on it in the Finance Committee. We have not had a vote on it on this floor. Many of us have been trying very hard to get a vote to make this Internet tax moratorium permanent. The moratorium expires on Halloween, of all days. On that day, because the ban will no longer be in effect, States, cities, towns, and counties would be in the position to levy new taxes on Internet access. That is not right. It is not good for consumers. It is not good for the economy. It is not good for the communication system, the data system, and the commerce system we have come to count on with the Internet. A number of Senators--Senator Wyden; Senator McCain; Senator McConnell; Senator Lott and numerous House Members, such as Anna Eshoo from California--have worked very hard on making this ban permanent. For those who have listened to this debate from around the country, I am sure they wonder why it is we cannot do anything in a consistent way. We have research and development tax credits that lasts only for a year. We have a death tax that is repealed in 2011 and comes back from the dead in 2012. And we have a ban on Internet access taxes that only lasts 4 years. It ought to be made permanent for the sake of consistency. While I do not want to cause any unnecessary delay in underlying legislation, I think that addressing the Internet tax moratorium is something that is important. Amendment No. 3452 For that reason, Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk at this time and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of an amendment to address the problem on fisheries failures in New England. In November 2006, the New England Fishery Management Council imposed new regulations on groundfishing, known as Framework 42. Under these strict new rules, the number of days allowed to fish was effectively cut in half. These hardworking fishermen don't catch twice as many fish, and they don't get paid twice as much, but they are only allowed to work half as much. This is not to suggest efforts to rebuild the fisheries are not necessary or important, they are. But we must also address the impact of the regulations we impose. As a result of Framework 42, the States of Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire are seeking the declaration of a commercial fisheries failure. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which we worked so hard to reauthorize last year, allows the Secretary of Commerce to assist coastal communities hit by both natural disasters and regulatory burdens. Unfortunately, no funding has been provided in the past and there is no funding in the CJS bill for this purpose. This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Snowe, and Collins, would provide $15 million for fisheries disaster assistance. It does not dictate how or where this money would be spent. It does not interfere with the Secretary's ability to determine when fisheries failures are declared. It does ensure that fishermen and fishing communities that may be eligible for assistance under the Magnuson- Stevens Act have resources available. We sometimes romanticize life on a New England fishing boat. But in truth, it is a difficult and dangerous way to earn a living. The New England groundfishing industry has accepted strict limits as part of our effort to rebuild a fish population that has helped feed us for 500 years. When they shouldered this regulatory burden, Congress said that there would be help. This amendment provides the financial resources to meet this obligation. nasa workforce

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise today in favor of the Sanders amendment, No. 2905, to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which would establish a pilot program aimed at providing essential care and services to National Guard soldiers returning home from duty. Back in the fall of 2004, the New Hampshire National Guard was one of the first Guard units to recognize the unique difficulties encountered by guardsmen and women returning from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In response, the Guard led the way in addressing these concerns by establishing its own reunion and reentry program, which employs innovative solutions to cope with the difficult transition to life at home. Under the reentry program, soldiers and their families receive multiple counseling sessions and an introduction to the array of services available to them within the first 36 hours of returning home. The program works to ensure that servicemembers and their families recognize that they are not alone and that the Guard is committed to providing the care and assistance they need after returning from deployment. This program has proven to be enormously successful, and has become a model for other States, due in part because it removes the burden of seeking and requesting care from the individual soldier. I am proud of the leadership role New Hampshire's National Guard has taken in combating this very serious problem. I am pleased the Senate adopted the Sanders amendment to provide support that will allow other States to establish programs similar to New Hampshire's.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary organization with a membership consisting of the best and the bravest America has to offer. On Saturday, September 29, 2007, we honor the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, more commonly known as the VFW, by celebrating the organization's 108th birthday. The VFW is defined by a record of service and commitment to our country and our veterans. From initially fighting to protect our freedom overseas, to later ensuring that veterans have the compensation and care they deserve back home, the 2.3 million members in approximately 8,400 Posts worldwide deserve our thanks and recognition. Since 1899, when a group of 13 Spanish-American War veterans convened to advocate for the benefits then denied to their comrades in arms, the VFW has worked tirelessly to protect the rights of fellow veterans while continuously honoring the service of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our way of life. One of the many privileges I have in serving New Hampshire is working with representatives of the Granite State's VFW Auxiliary Posts. Never losing sight of the organization's mission or obligations, the straightforward approach of members serves as a breath of fresh air. They ask direct questions and expect direct answers. New Hampshire's VFW members should be proud of their representation. Nationally, the VFW is committed to its mission to ``honor the dead by helping the living'' through veterans' service, community service, and steadfast advocacy of a strong national defense. This dedication can be witnessed through the organization's work to create the Veterans Administration, its efforts to establish numerous memorials in memory of those who have served, and its devotion to improving the educational, health, and other benefits owed to returning veterans. Moreover, the VFW's efforts in the community, annually providing more than 13 million hours of volunteerism and donating $2.5 million in college scholarships, further endears the organization and its members to all Americans. At a time of ongoing conflict abroad, the VFW welcomes our returning servicemembers with support, guidance, and camaraderie as they readjust to life on the home front. Additionally, as they continue to serve the communities around them, VFW members act as role models whose experiences and commitment to service provide a beacon of light in today's society. For their longstanding and continued contributions, the VFW and its members deserve our immense respect and sincere gratitude.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. I fear that the State Department is severely limiting the scope of the scholarship program, including to conflict countries such as Lebanon that remain unaccompanied posts for State Department employees. To put that another way, no U.S. Government dependents are enrolled in schools in Lebanon. Moreover, I would like to suggest that the committee consider allocating $7 million for scholarships at higher education institutions, and $2 million for secondary schools.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I commend the senior Senators from Vermont and New Hampshire for the fine work that they did last week in managing H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 2008 State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act. Given how busy they were, I regret that we did not have a chance to clarify a scholarship program funded in that Act through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, MEPI. In Senate Report 110-128, the committee provides $55,000,000 for MEPI, and recommends $9,000,000 of those funds for scholarship programs for students from countries with significant Muslim populations at not- for-profit U.S. educational institutions in the Middle East. In prior year foreign aid bills, eligibility criteria for scholarship programs included those students from countries with significant Muslim populations at not-for-profit institutions of basic and higher education in the Middle East which are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education, and that are not controlled by the government of the country in which the institution is located. Those who manage the MEPI program at the State Department added additional criteria, namely that American schools in the Middle East would be eligible only if U.S. Government dependents were enrolled in respective institutions, and only for students in the seventh through twelfth grades. I would ask the senior Senators from Vermont and New Hampshire if the State Department consulted with the committee prior to establishing additional criteria for the scholarship program.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I also was at the Homeland Security markup. I am sure that anyone observing this is surprised that so many Senators in one setting, having been notified by the cloakroom, were put in a position where they missed a vote. Had I been here, like all my other colleagues, I would have voted aye. As we see, given that so many of our colleagues have to make this point to the Chair, we have now exceeded by far any time that might have been saved by cutting off the vote in an atypically short way.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen officer of the Epsom, NH, Police Department, Officer Jeremy Todd Charron, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office. Born on March 18, 1973, Officer Charron was the third of five children to Bob and Fran Charron. Originally from Pittsfield, NH, Jeremy and his family moved to Hillsborough in 1977. Throughout his early life, Jeremy grew intensely goal orientated, a trait that persisted throughout his shortened life, and by the time he had reached second grade he knew his calling was to one day serve as a U.S. Marine. Although he was an outstanding athlete in many sports, he excelled at playing defense on the soccer field. The same tenacity that Jeremy used on the soccer field, he carried with him off the field. One poignant example of Jeremy's developing leadership occurred as a friend lost his hair from cancer treatments and was teased by fellow classmates. While it may have been easier for most students to ignore the taunting of other classmates, Jeremy actively defended his friend. Throughout Jeremy's life, he stood up for what he thought was right and protected those who could not defend themselves. During Jeremy's high school years at Hillsborough-Deering High School, he grew into a leader, quickly becoming active in all aspects of the school community. His peers voted him ``most spirited'' and elected him class president. At the same time, he had convinced 8 classmates to join the Marines with him following graduation. Together, they would dedicate their weekends to training for their future service in the Marine Corps. After graduating high school in 1992, Jeremy entered the Marine Corps and proudly served his country for 4 years. As his enlistment term drew to a close, he had a new aspiration, which was to become a New Hampshire State Trooper, and looked forward to starting a family. To achieve this objective, Jeremy enrolled at the New Hampshire Technical College in Concord to study Criminal Justice, and was hired by the Epsom, New Hampshire Police Department as a part-time and then full-time police officer. Sadly, Jeremy's dream was cut short. On August 24, 1997, the morning after he attended the funerals of New Hampshire State Troopers Leslie Lord and Scott Phillips, Officer Charron was responding to a report of a suspicious car, which contained two men. Tragically, while Officer Charron questioned one of the men, the individual pulled out a gun and opened fire. Although Jeremy was wearing a bullet-proof vest, one of the bullets struck him in an unprotected area. Despite his fatal wounds, Jeremy heroically returned fire until he collapsed, forcing his two killers to abandon their car and steal a near-by truck that could be identified by police, eventually leading to their capture. Had Jeremy's dreams not been cut short at the age of 24, he would have achieved his goals of becoming a State Trooper and having a family of his own. Jeremy's murderers stripped our Nation, the State of New Hampshire and the community of a true patriot, citizen, and role model, as well as a loving friend and family member. Ten years have gone by since Jeremy's passing and a new generation of 7 nieces and nephews know Jeremy's stories. People of Hillsborough, NH, still have stories to share and lessons to learn from their very own American hero. As the years move forward, the citizens and future generations of Hillsborough will always remember Jeremy and share anecdotes about his life when they visit the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office Building.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen officer of the Epsom, NH, Police Department, Officer Jeremy Todd Charron, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office. Born on March 18, 1973, Officer Charron was the third of five children to Bob and Fran Charron. Originally from Pittsfield, NH, Jeremy and his family moved to Hillsborough in 1977. Throughout his early life, Jeremy grew intensely goal orientated, a trait that persisted throughout his shortened life, and by the time he had reached second grade he knew his calling was to one day serve as a U.S. Marine. Although he was an outstanding athlete in many sports, he excelled at playing defense on the soccer field. The same tenacity that Jeremy used on the soccer field, he carried with him off the field. One poignant example of Jeremy's developing leadership occurred as a friend lost his hair from cancer treatments and was teased by fellow classmates. While it may have been easier for most students to ignore the taunting of other classmates, Jeremy actively defended his friend. Throughout Jeremy's life, he stood up for what he thought was right and protected those who could not defend themselves. During Jeremy's high school years at Hillsborough-Deering High School, he grew into a leader, quickly becoming active in all aspects of the school community. His peers voted him ``most spirited'' and elected him class president. At the same time, he had convinced 8 classmates to join the Marines with him following graduation. Together, they would dedicate their weekends to training for their future service in the Marine Corps. After graduating high school in 1992, Jeremy entered the Marine Corps and proudly served his country for 4 years. As his enlistment term drew to a close, he had a new aspiration, which was to become a New Hampshire State Trooper, and looked forward to starting a family. To achieve this objective, Jeremy enrolled at the New Hampshire Technical College in Concord to study Criminal Justice, and was hired by the Epsom, New Hampshire Police Department as a part-time and then full-time police officer. Sadly, Jeremy's dream was cut short. On August 24, 1997, the morning after he attended the funerals of New Hampshire State Troopers Leslie Lord and Scott Phillips, Officer Charron was responding to a report of a suspicious car, which contained two men. Tragically, while Officer Charron questioned one of the men, the individual pulled out a gun and opened fire. Although Jeremy was wearing a bullet-proof vest, one of the bullets struck him in an unprotected area. Despite his fatal wounds, Jeremy heroically returned fire until he collapsed, forcing his two killers to abandon their car and steal a near-by truck that could be identified by police, eventually leading to their capture. Had Jeremy's dreams not been cut short at the age of 24, he would have achieved his goals of becoming a State Trooper and having a family of his own. Jeremy's murderers stripped our Nation, the State of New Hampshire and the community of a true patriot, citizen, and role model, as well as a loving friend and family member. Ten years have gone by since Jeremy's passing and a new generation of 7 nieces and nephews know Jeremy's stories. People of Hillsborough, NH, still have stories to share and lessons to learn from their very own American hero. As the years move forward, the citizens and future generations of Hillsborough will always remember Jeremy and share anecdotes about his life when they visit the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office Building.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I move that the applicable portions of the Budget Act be waived, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have three quick points. I certainly trust the Finance Committee. If the Finance Committee believes in all these tax provisions, it could send the bill back expediently, and it could move on its merry way. But the suggestion that doing the right thing on taxes is incompatible with the Senate doing its work is wrong. Second, this is a second degree. It is a sense of the Senate that we agree with all these tax provisions. But we don't quite agree enough to actually write them into law. I think that is a little disappointing and disingenuous. I think if we believe this is good policy, it is the right thing to encourage accessibility of higher education, if it is the right thing to do for the 75 percent of filers in that $50,000 to $65,000 range to take advantage of these provisions, we should put it in this bill and pass it into law, and we should make sure these provisions continue to be accessible to the Americans who use them. I make a point of order that this second-degree amendment is nongermane, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the point of order.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, is there time remaining on the second- degree amendment?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment that has a great deal to do with education. That is the underlying issue that we are debating tonight. We have an important bill that tries to address accessibility of higher education for millions of Americans, and my amendment addresses that very subject by extending a number of important provisions that are currently in tax law, but they expire in 2010. These are provisions that have broad bipartisan support, provisions that many in this Chamber have voted for time and again; allowing a $2,000 contribution to educational savings accounts, having an exclusion for your employer if they provide you with education assistance to encourage those employers to foster additional education for their employees; having tax exempt bonds for qualified education facilities; giving deductions, tax deductions for tuition to millions of Americans across the country seeking higher education, and allowing a deduction of student loan interest, not just for those who itemize on their taxes but for all Americans. I hope my colleagues will support me in this effort to extend these existing provisions in law, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2341 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment that has been offered by Senator Dorgan and I have a second-degree amendment, which I will then offer. I also wish to speak about the broader issue before us, the Defense authorization bill, but specifically Iraq and an amendment I have cosponsored with Senators Salazar and Alexander dealing with the Iraq Study Group recommendations. First, I rise in support of the amendment by Senator Dorgan. I certainly agree with him that it is critical we focus on the threat posed by al-Qaida--whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq, or the under leadership of al-Zawahiri or Osama bin Laden. That needs to be a focus of our intelligence and security efforts, as well as the efforts our special forces, because of the threat they pose not just to American citizens but to our allies around the world. We cannot forget they are committed to the death and destruction of innocent civilians around the world. Under no circumstances should we allow any secure area, hideout, or haven to be reconstituted or recreated in the way it was created in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule. So I am pleased to support his amendment. No one should underestimate the complexity of the challenge of tracking down the leaders of al- Qaida, wherever they are around the world, but the American people should know the greatest effort and the greatest commitment is being undertaken to deal with these terrorists. Amendment No. 2184 to Amendment No. 2135 Mr. President, at this time, I would, however, like to offer a second-degree amendment. In the drafting of Senator Dorgan's amendment, he speaks about ``the capture, or information leading to the capture,'' but I certainly believe most Americans would agree we should also provide support, assistance, and a reward if information leads to the death of al-Qaida's leadership. To that end, my second-degree amendment would simply amend that line to ensure this amendment provides support for the capture or death or information leading to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, where the $50 million reward is allowed. Mr. President, at this time, I send the amendment to the desk. It is a second degree to the Dorgan amendment, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SUNUNU. The amendment, as I have described it, is a simple, single line that inserts that additional contingency. I think the reporting and the assessment of the threats that are included in this amendment make sense. Members of Congress along with members of our intelligence agencies need the most accurate information available to understand what work is being undertaken, what efforts are being made, and what progress is in tracking these terrorists. I think that, in turn, will help us make much better policy decisions. So I am pleased to support the amendment. I hope the Senator from North Dakota will accept my second-degree amendment, and I look forward to the adoption of this change to the Defense Authorization bill. Second, Mr. President, I wish to address the Salazar-Alexander amendment that has been filed, which we certainly hope to have a vote on next week. This is a piece of legislation that I worked with Senators Salazar and Alexander on addressing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan effort covered extensively in the media since the release of their recommendations in December 2006. I made the point at the time, 7 months ago, that those recommendations--there were over 70 different proposals and recommendations in the report--represented the most complete assessment that had been made of the situation in Iraq. That it was a comprehensive framework, and that it did not just deal with security issues but included recommendations addressing political reforms that need to take place within the country with the political dynamics of Iraq. That it included diplomatic efforts that could make a real difference in stabilizing Iraq, supporting the efforts of neighbors and other countries in the region, as well as changes that ought to be made to our intelligence-gathering operation to support not just our effort in Iraq but our effort to deal with al-Qaida in Iraq and around the world. This is something that Senator Dorgan spoke about. I said at the time that, that framework and those recommendations should be embraced and implemented to the greatest extent possible, first, because it is a comprehensive effort, and second, because the Iraq Study Group proposals recognize the importance and responsibility of the Iraqi Government implementing a series of reforms. They include economic development, reconciliation, the sharing of oil revenues with peoples of all regions and ethnic groups across the country, the debaathification process--designed to bring the country closer together, to create greater unity among the different ethnic factions across Iraq. Only the Iraqi Government, given time, can accomplish these goals which are essential to improving the stability within the region, reducing the level of violence and creating the environment where our troops can be brought home as soon as possible. No American soldier should serve in Iraq a day longer than is absolutely necessary. This plan is comprehensive in its approach. It recognizes the importance and the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to take steps to improve the situation, and it places an emphasis on the coalition mission, the mission of U.S. forces, in addressing the threat of al- Qaida, focusing on the counterterrorism mission within the country, and training Iraqi security forces. This is one of the few and perhaps the only truly broad bipartisan effort we have had before us in the last several months. We have seen a series of relatively partisan votes dealing with hard withdrawal dates, criticizing the Pentagon policy in one area or another. On this legislation right now we have seven Democratic sponsors, six or seven Republican sponsors, and I think the support we would receive from both sides of the aisle is even more dramatic than that. So it is a bipartisan effort that attempts to implement or help encourage the implementation of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I think that provides a very sound and strong framework, not just for improving the situation in Iraq but for also addressing a lot of the regional problems that are contributing to its stability in the other countries in the region. I would encourage all of my colleagues to take a hard look at this legislation. I don't think anyone would agree with 100 percent of all of the recommendations in the Iraq Study Group Report, but I think we can recognize that it is the product of a great deal of effort to understand the situation, assess the climate in Iraq, and make substantive recommendations that will move us forward. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, and I wish to recognize the considerable achievements of Claira Monier, a Goffstown resident who recently announced her retirement after leading the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority for nearly two decades. Claira is a gold standard public servant. A New Hampshire native, she has devoted her life to improving her community, State and Nation. Moreover, in what limited spare time she has, Claira is someone to whom Senator Gregg and I can turn for steady counsel on policy--housing tax credits, bond caps, affordable housing--and politics. She is a rare and irreplaceable friend. Whether in the classroom or leading efforts to expand access to housing or health care, Claira has demonstrated the highest commitment to service over a 40-year period. Although her record of achievement is well-known in New Hampshire, it is worth repeating here on the floor of the Senate. From 1967 to 1974, she held teaching and administrative positions at New Hampshire College and St. Anselm College. Claira subsequently served for 5 years as the director of the New Hampshire State Council on Aging, completing her tenure in 1981. Having demonstrated uncommon competence and creativity in these roles, Claira was selected as Region I Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 1988, she began her legendary career as executive director of the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority-- an organization on which she has left an indelible mark. While working by day to support affordable housing and home ownership initiatives in New Hampshire, Claira managed to simultaneously bring her leadership skills to a number of nonprofit boards. She served as a Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston from 1990 to 1992 and was a member of its Affordable Housing Advisory Council. She also found time to serve for 2 years as chairman of then- Governor Gregg's Commission on Health Care Costs and Availability, leaving the panel in 1991. Claira was board president of the National Council of State Housing Agencies and served as cochair of the Fannie Mae Housing Impact Advisory Council. The list goes on: past chair of the Manchester Red Cross; former Southern New Hampshire University trustee; 2003 chair of the Heritage United Way Campaign; former chair of the New Hampshire Main Street Center; chair of New Hampshire's chapter of the American Lung Association; chair of the West High School endowment fund; member of the Dartmouth Hitchcock Healthcare System's assembly of overseers; and so on. It is not exactly clear when, or if, Claira had time to sleep. But this much is known: Claira is one of those special people who looks at her community and is able to see how she can make it better. She is not prone to idle thoughts. Rather than stand on the sidelines saying how the order of the world should be, Claira enters the arena with vigor and inspires people to achieve difficult objectives. The results of her work can be seen across New Hampshire. For first- time homeowners in our State--or those who thought they might never be able to own a place of their own--it is likely that Claira's leadership at New Hampshire Housing had something to do with their securing a piece of the American dream. It is difficult to imagine work that is more hopeful. There is no question that Claira leaves behind a rich legacy at New Hampshire Housing. Her successors, no doubt, share her commitment to that organization's mission and will continue the important work she has started. It should be noted, though, that Senator Gregg and I will certainly miss working with her on critical issues that impact so many New Hampshire residents. Claira may be retiring from her day job but in no way is she retiring from her community. Her knowledge of New Hampshire, her warm demeanor, and her strong leadership will continue to benefit the organizations she supports. Additionally, candidates--notably those seeking the highest office in the land--will turn to Claira for advice and counsel that only she can provide. Claira is a good, true and loyal friend. A great citizen of New Hampshire, Senator Gregg and I extend our warm regards to Claira on the occasion of her retirement. We look forward to seeing her in the communities she has served and will serve.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that will bring our Nation's insurance regulatory system into the 21st century by providing uniformity, predictability, and greater efficiency to the way insurance is regulated in this country. The National Insurance Act of 2007, which builds upon legislation Senator Johnson and I first introduced last year, provides for an optional Federal charter that would offer insurers the choice of being regulated under a new Commissioner of National Insurance or under the continued jurisdiction of the States. I am pleased that Senator Johnson once again joins me as an original cosponsor of this bill. Since we introduced the initial National Insurance Act just over a year ago, momentum has been building for the reforms called for under our legislation and the question has become not whether an optional Federal charter should be implemented, but when. In an increasingly global financial services industry, numerous studies have called for changes to the manner in which insurance is regulated in the United States as one of the ways to make our financial services sector more competitive in the worldwide economy. The bipartisan Bloomberg-Schumer report on financial services industry competitiveness, for example, states, ``One priority, in the context of enhancing competitiveness for the entire financial services sector and improving responsiveness and customer service, should be an optional federal charter for insurance, based on market principles for serving customers.'' Furthermore, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Mega-Catastrophes states, ``It (an optional federal charter for insurance) would lead to . . . consistent regulation of insurer safety and soundness, and the elimination of duplicative regulation and supervision . . .In addition, an OFC should promote greater competition that would benefit policyholders.'' In addition to the study recommendations, a number of other indicators suggest that the time is right for reform. The coalition in support of the bill continues to grow and the general acceptance of the concept of reform we have proposed is also growing. The arguments against the bill are increasingly seen for what they are: parochial in nature, rather than forward-looking and in the best interests of consumers, our financial services sector, and the strength of our overall economy. In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act--broad legislation that modernized the rules that regulate banks and securities firms and provided a foundation for the financial services industry to become more integrated, market-oriented, technologically advanced, and global in nature. Since then, consumers have benefited from improved industry competition and innovation, greater choice of financial products, and more efficient delivery of services. The insurance industry, however, has not enjoyed the same dynamic marketplace within the global economy. Long subject to a patchwork of State regulations, the sector's menu of available services is not as robust as it could be. An inefficient regulatory system spread across more than 50 different jurisdictions imposes direct and indirect costs on insurers in the form of higher compliance fees associated with non- uniform regulations and delayed market entry for new products from onerous approval barriers. With advances in technology, insurance is increasingly a global product that cries out for a more consistent and efficient regulatory environment that allows new products to be brought to market in a much quicker fashion than the current system often allows. Under the State regulatory regime new product launches are consistently delayed up to 2 years while they await the approval of an individual State regulator. A more uniform regulatory environment, mirroring the highly successful dual banking system, should substantially improve the climate in several critical ways for those who buy, sell and underwrite insurance, while also providing superior consumer protection. As the Bloomberg-Schumer report puts it, our bill would allow best- in-breed regulations to ``rise to the top'' and become national standards. A division of consumer protection, as created by the regulator, would oversee strict regulations and guard against unfair and deceptive practices by insurers and agents for the advertising, sale and administration of products. A division of insurance fraud, also created under the bill, would make insurance fraud a Federal crime. While taking these cautionary steps to protect consumers, the bill does not, however, permit the Federal regulator to set rates or price controls for insurance. Instead, the National Insurance Act appropriately relies on competitive pricing within the marketplace. Finally, the Office of National Insurance would be able to fill a vacuum and provide true national regulatory expertise and guidance on a number of issues Congress is legislating on that affect policyholders, the health of the insurance industry, and the overall economy. The only real substantive change to this year's bill in comparison with the one introduced last year is that our updated legislation includes language that would add surplus lines of insurance as a type of insurance that a person with a Federal producer's license would be authorized to sell under the Federal charter program. Other technical and clarifying changes were made, but by and large this is last year's bill, with its spirit and purpose intact. Former New York Insurance Commissioner, George Miller, who founded the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC made the following statement in 1871: ``The Commissioners are now fully prepared to go before their various legislative committees with recommendations for a system of insurance law which shall be the same in all States, not reciprocal but identical, not retaliatory, but uniform. It's now been over 135 years since that statement was made, and unfortunately we are not much closer to Mr. Miller's goal. In the months ahead, however, we look forward to making substantial progress on this legislation as we build on the momentum to modernize this country's insurance regulatory system and do what the State system has failed to do for over 135 years.