John Sununu

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.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the 2007 recipients of the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. These prestigious awards, commonly called the EDies, are presented each year to individuals and schools who demonstrate the highest level of excellence in education. The EDies were founded as a way to honor the best of the best among New Hampshire's educators. In the 14 years since, there has been a rich source of talented and successful teachers, administrators, schools, and school boards to draw from to honor at each annual event. This year was no exception. Those individuals selected have been compared against a criteria set by others in their discipline through their sponsoring organization. Schools are also chosen by experienced educators and community leaders in New Hampshire based on guidelines established by the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Board of Directors. I am proud to recognize the individuals and schools who will receive this year's awards on June 9, 2007. In addition, I would also like to recognize the many teachers who have played such an important role in my children's lives and in my own life, as well. As I serve in the Senate, I remain proud and grateful for the excellent education I received in the public education system of the State of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask that the list of the 2007 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in the Record. The list following. 2007 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards Recipients Susan E. Auerbach, Ph.D.; Officer Robert Bennett; Susan Bradley; Linda Burdick; Marjorie Chiafery; Deborah Couture; Debbra Crowder; Judith Elliott; Debbie D. Gay; William Gibson; Christina Gribben; Jack Grube; Kathleen Hill; Russell Holden; Dr. Steven Kelley; Carolyn Kelley; Dr. Beverly R. King; Joseph Kopitsky; Bruce Larson; Dr. Patricia ``Irish'' Lindberg. Shari J. Litch-Gray, Ph.D.; Constance Manchester-Bonefant; Deborah Nichols; Rosemary Nunnally; Jason Parent; William Ranauro; David Remillard; Linda Sherouse; Kathryn L. Skoglund; Marcia Trexler; Debra Vasconcellos; Karen P. Whitmore; Dr. Barbara Young-Hoffman. Ashland Elementary School; Belmont Middle School; Chichester Central School; Claremont School Board; Hampstead Central School; Hampstead Middle School; Kearsarge Regional Middle School; South Londonderry Elementary School; Adeline C. Marston School; Pembroke Academy.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I understand under the order that I will control 15 minutes, and I believe Senator Bingaman will control 15 minutes in opposition. This morning we have 30 minutes of debate on an amendment I offered yesterday afternoon. This amendment deals directly with the National Science Foundation, which I think many Members of Congress believe is the crown jewel for Federal initiatives, investment, and funding of basic scientific research--research in chemistry, mathematics, physics, material science--that provides benefits that are spread over countless areas of our economy, provides benefits over very long time horizons. This is basic research the markets don't invest in, venture capital firms don't look at. It is fundamental science carried out at the best laboratories and universities across America. I worked at one time in my career as an engineer. I studied to be a mechanical engineer. I worked as an electrical engineer. I have a little bit of an understanding of some of the scientific principles these laboratories, scientists, and graduate students work on every single day. I certainly have enough appreciation for these concepts to recognize that no Member of Congress should be telling the professional leadership, the academic leadership at the National Science Foundation, which program should be funded on any given day, month, or year. That is why the National Science Foundation has a competitive process, a peer review process where ideas are submitted and approved by panels of experts in each of these areas. As I say, it is competitive, it is free from politics, free from earmarks, the pet projects and pet policies of legislators, whether they are Democratic or Republican. They are insulated from those things, and that is why it has been so successful. Unfortunately, in the underlying bill before us, there is for the first time ever a provision to set aside some of that money for a specific area of interest. It may be an interesting area and a very valuable area--the area of human resources and education--but never before have we set aside in legislation funding in this way: over $1 billion of the approximately $6.5 billion the National Science Foundation has to spend each year being set aside for this purpose. For the first time, it guarantees a specific authorization. For the first time, the legislation would guarantee a specific increase for this particular area in outyears. For the first time, and maybe even what I think is most fundamentally wrong, it says that because of these protections, this is a more important area. We don't provide this protection to chemistry or physics or computational mathematics. They do not get a designated allocation in this bill. They do not get a specific increase in funding year on year in this bill. But we give it to the area of human resources. As I said, that is a worthwhile area for investment, the side of education, it can certainly make a difference, but when we start setting it ahead of, on top of, and at a higher priority than the physics, chemistry, computational mathematics, for which the National Science Foundation is not just designed but for which it is world renowned, we are making a huge mistake. We make a mistake not just because it is wrong to set it ahead of these other programs but it is a mistake because it sets us on the wrong path, because the next time we do legislation such as this, someone else is going to want to set aside funds for another initiative and someone else is going to want to guarantee an increase for another area of programming. Over time, we will undermine, weaken, and perhaps even destroy the integrity of the competition and peer review process that is at the heart of the National Science Foundation. Those who will oppose this amendment will say this is about human resources and education and we care about those things. Well, I care about those things also, but it is still wrong to carve up the National Science Foundation funding in this way. Moreover, if we care about the education initiatives for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, we should be looking at the report of the Competitiveness Council that categorized over 106 different science, technology, education, and math programs in 8 or 10 different agencies, and 34 of them are within the National Science Foundation, but a dozen are within the Department of Agriculture, 13 in the Department of Commerce, 9 in the Department of Education, 9 in the Department of Defense, 6 in the Department of Transportation, and so on. Where in this bill did we look at these 106 programs to make them work better? Where in this legislation did we review which of these programs is most effective and most focused on encouraging students to pursue careers in science, technology, and mathematics? Rather than do that, the authors of this particular provision, section 4002, say, well, the National Science Foundation does work in these areas, so let's make sure they are guaranteed $1 billion a year and guaranteed increases over time. I think that is the wrong approach to take. It is the wrong approach to take for the National Science Foundation. The scientists who are supported by that foundation have visited me in my office--I am sure they have visited with many other Members of Congress--and time and time again they have said, protect the peer review process, protect the investment in basic science and mathematics. That is what I intend to do as a Senator, and that is why I have offered this amendment to strike that provision that sets aside funds, that guarantees an increase, because it is not the right way to deal with the National Science Foundation. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am happy to respond. First, I would certainly be more comfortable if the guaranteed increases were struck from the bill, because that is a protection, a consideration for this area of funding that isn't given to other areas of funding. I would have concern about that allocation in past years, again because it puts this particular area in effect ahead of the different disciplines of chemistry, math, or physics. It treats it somewhat uniquely. To the response on the point about appropriations, Senator Bingaman is absolutely right. Each year we do an appropriations bill that is much more specific than this, where, ultimately, allocations are made in the specific areas of research, chemistry, or physics. That is based, however, on a request by the National Science Foundation itself in front of that Appropriations Committee. It is based on an exchange for that given year. I would agree with you, the peer review process needs to be protected. We shouldn't be specifying in authorizing language--even if you make the point it is not meaningful because it is only an authorization--we shouldn't be specifying how much money we are going to allocate to superconducting materials in 2008 or how much funding we are going to authorize for plasma physics in 2009. We should be much more responsive than that, not prejudge what the needs of the National Science Foundation are going to be in the outyears.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, let me use a portion of my time to address a particular point; that is, equipment. I fully recognize that equipment is different from funding for specific research. Capital equipment, infrastructure, buildings--those are going to receive separate allocations year on year, and they are going to receive separate authorization numbers. But I come back to this issue of whether we are going to treat the human resources area differently by protecting annual increases and whether we are going to ensure that in the future we maximize the resources available to the National Science Foundation for its core mission of research, of investment in math, science, and engineering research projects. I understand the education role. I understand that is part of the mission of the National Science Foundation, and I support that effort. But I think we need to be very careful before creating long-term setasides for an area such as this. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, in closing, let me thank the Senator from New Mexico for his points. I certainly appreciate the commitment I have heard from everyone who has spoken this morning about the value of the peer-review process, the commitment to this critical role of research, basic research within the National Science Foundation, the desire to make sure we are not giving special treatment, unique treatment to any particular area within the National Science Foundation, notwithstanding the fact that in this legislation, there are guaranteed proportional increases for human resources in the educational area. Of course, I have to take every Senator at their word, but I very much appreciate the word and commitment given here to continue to champion and protect the integrity of the peer-review process moving forward. Second, I reiterate that there is very little done that I can see in the legislation to look at the existing science, technology, education, and math programs within our Government. There is support for those programs and even creation of some new programs in this legislation, but very little is done to follow up on findings we have in front of us about weaknesses and duplication and overlap in these programs and the need to make them work better for those math, science, and engineering students whom they are intended to benefit. I encourage my colleagues to continue to pursue these very questions as this bill moves off the floor and into conference. I understand there were a lot of sensitive issues and committee jurisdictions and tradeoffs that had to be made in constructing the legislation. I understand the managers of the bill are not going to support my amendment. But I think the message this amendment carries is an extremely important one. I hope it will be heeded, not just in deliberations over the coming year when we are dealing with math and science and the National Science Foundation, to protect what makes it work, but also as this legislation moves to conference. I yield any time I have remaining.

Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise to speak on the legislation in general terms. As the Senator from Tennessee indicated, I filed three different amendments. I certainly wish to call at least one of those amendments up at the appropriate time. They address a number of concerns I have with the underlying legislation. But let me begin by saying I do appreciate the complexity of the challenge the Senator from Tennessee has undertaken in trying to assemble from different committees of jurisdiction the components of this bill. I think, unfortunately, dealing with this legislation has laid to bare some of the weaknesses and problems with the way we are organized in Congress because it has been, unfortunately, an inefficient process in many ways. There are five or six different committees that have jurisdiction in different areas of this legislation. They all want to try to leave their mark on the legislation. As a result, the Senator from Tennessee and others have had to deal with duplication and overlap in many cases with initiatives begun by different committees that have effectively the same goal and the same end. Over the past 12 or 18 months, I think they have eliminated a number of these problems from the legislation but many remain. I am one of the only, if not the only, engineer in the Senate. At least I was an engineer; I worked as an engineer during my previous work experience. I would like to think that I am still employable as an engineer perhaps someday in the future. I do value very much this experience and this background in science and technology when we are dealing with problems on the Commerce Committee having to do with telecommunications or spectrum allocation or policies on environmental issues with particulate matter or pollution standards. I like to think it helps to have at least some grounding in a lot of the technical matters that underlie the basic legislation. I think it is essential, when we are looking at policy to encourage and inspire students to pursue science and mathematics and to try to improve our competitiveness in fields of science and engineering, that we focus on a few core principles. I begin with the basic objective of maximizing research in the most basic areas of math and science. In this effort we are talking about the funds that go to the National Science Foundation and the funds that go to the National Institutes of Health. These are investments in basic sciences: in the case of the National Science Foundation, in physics, chemistry, physical science, and computational mathematics. They are peer-reviewed, which is intended to insulate them from political forces, legislative forces, and allow those with expertise in these areas to decide what sorts of research projects and programs receive funding in any given year. It is essential we maintain that independent peer review process at the National Science Foundation, just as it is important at the National Institutes of Health because if we allow politics to enter this process, we are going to do these areas a great injustice. Commensurate with that focus on physical sciences and computational mathematics as we pursue research in science and engineering, it is also important that we avoid policies that try to pick winners or losers within our economy. Here I point to various programs that over the years have subsidized product development for profitable companies, product development for products being introduced into the existing marketplace today that effectively picks one firm and one firm's products at the expense of others. Some people would say, well, that is research. But it certainly isn't the kind of peer-reviewed research that does and should take place at the National Science Foundation. It is product development work. Any time we start subsidizing product development for companies that are competing in the marketplace selling goods and services to consumers, we distort the marketplace, we provide unnecessary subsidies, and in programs like the advanced technology program we have done just that time and time again. The companies that have received these subsidies are good firms with good employees, but I think putting funds in this area at the expense of physics and chemistry and mathematics at the National Science Foundation is a grave mistake. We need to maximize that research, make sure it is peer-reviewed, don't pick winners and losers in private industry, and focus on educational programs where it can make the biggest difference in inspiring young students in these careers in math and science. I look back on my own experience and ask the very basic question: What led me to pursue a degree in mechanical engineering when I was an undergraduate in college? I didn't make that decision when I was a freshman in college. I didn't even make that decision to pursue interests in math and science when I was in high school. I would argue for most students it happens in sixth and seventh and eighth grade. They realize they have an interest in math and science. More often than not it is because they have had a strong, credible, inspirational teacher in math and science, and my experience is no different. Jane Batts and Blake Richards, my math and science teachers in fourth and fifth grade, I think set me on that path that ultimately brought me to a mechanical engineering degree. So if we are going to look at educational programs that are meant to inspire students in math and science, they had better be focused on those key years: sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. Finally--this is a point that Senator Coburn was speaking to--we need to look at the programs that are already in place and ask honest questions about how effective they are. How many do we have that deal with these areas of math and science education? How many do we have that deal with the areas of research? And, in particular, I think we should look to the work done by the American Competitiveness Council. What they found is that in the areas of science, technology, education--science, technology, engineering and mathematics--stem programs--there are 106 different programs within 8 or 10 different agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, 35 at the National Science Foundation, 12 at the Department of Agriculture. In this legislation before us we do ourselves a disservice if we don't look at these programs and ask the questions: How effective are these programs? How can they be improved? How can they become more focused or better focused on inspiring those young students? As the American Competitiveness Council looked at these programs, they came up with a series of recommendations and findings. They made that very argument: that there was overlap in these science, technology, engineering, and math educational programs; that communication and coordination among agencies could be improved; and that current programs tended to be focused on short-term support rather than longer term impact. Those are the very findings we should be trying to implement and execute as part of this legislation, but I don't see it in the underlying bill. So the amendments I have focused on, first, the overlap and duplication and lack of focus within those educational programs, to try to strengthen them, measure their effect, and ensure that they have a greater impact on those students; and, second, to make sure we are appropriately focused on basic, fundamental research within the National Science Foundation and that we are maintaining its independence and that we ensure the peer review process is what determines how and where funds are allocated. I know we are working on an agreement on the Senate floor, so I am not able to offer my amendment at the moment, but let me speak to what it attempts to do. I have an amendment that strikes section 4002 of this legislation. Section 4002 does two things within the National Science Foundation that I think set the wrong precedent. First, it establishes a set-aside, a minimum allocation for educational and human resources within the National Science Foundation of $1.05 billion. I recognize the educational initiatives within the National Science Foundation are important, but I certainly can't say, and I don't think any Member of the Senate can say, whether $1.05 billion is exactly the right number. But more important, we shouldn't be mandating in law that the National Science Foundation direct a specific amount of money to any area. We should, to the greatest of our ability, allow those decisions to be set on a yearly basis by the experts and the leadership of the National Science Foundation. If we think they are not doing a good job, they should probably be replaced. But they are hired specifically because they have the best and most advanced understanding of what our needs are, what the most valuable areas of research are, and what the best kinds of partnerships might be for education related to physics, chemistry, mathematics, and material science. So I would strike that set-aside, not because we don't think any money should be going to this area--of course, money should be going to this area--but because it is a dangerous precedent for legislators to start carving up pieces of the National Science Foundation for specific initiatives. Second, this particular section of the legislation mandates--it requires--that there be a specific percentage increase in this one particular area each year between now and 2011. While I don't know whether that percentage increase will turn out to be the right amount or the wrong amount over the next several years, I think it is a bad precedent to require as part of the legislation that a designated portion of money go to any of the specific areas supported by the National Science Foundation. Once we move away from the peer review process, once we move away from independence within the National Science Foundation to allocate funds as the leadership there sees fit, then I think we run the risk of undermining the great strength that the National Science Foundation has represented over the past several years. I began speaking about doubling resources for the National Science Foundation 4 or 5 years ago because it has been so successful in providing resources for basic research in key areas of physical sciences, and I am extremely concerned that if we adopt the provisions of section 4002 and start carving out pieces we think are politically popular at a particular point in time, we will dramatically undermine its effectiveness and have the unintended consequence of weakening the organization's ability to inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists. I look forward to offering these amendments at the appropriate time, and I thank you, Madam President, for the time this afternoon. I yield the floor. Entitlement Programs

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise to speak for a few minutes on the topic that was being covered by Senators Specter, Graham, Lieberman, and others, and that is the right of detainees--in particular, detainees at Guantanamo Bay--to petition the court system through what we refer to as habeas corpus and question the specific details that have led to their confinement, to their definition or status as an enemy combatant. This is an important issue. Naturally people get excited when they are debating this issue. Senator Graham is no exception. But one thing that he mentioned I think must be addressed, and that is this is about letting people out of jail, letting people go free who might attack the United States at a later date. I feel very strongly that this isn't about letting people out of jail, and it isn't even necessarily about letting people object to the conditions of their confinement, because I believe Congress can and should address the habeas issue without necessarily allowing any frivolous petition regarding conditions to go forward. But it is about the rights of these individuals to question the determination that they are an enemy combatant. The U.S. military or other forces operating on behalf of our coalitions overseas have captured and detained individuals and determined that they are enemy combatants and, therefore, they can be detained indefinitely on the basis of that determination. The situations that arose in previous conflicts were also brought up. What about similar situations in the Second World War, the First World War, or other engagements of the U.S. military in our past? I rise today, most importantly, to emphasize that there is a significant difference between this war and those conflicts. There are differences in some very important ways that make this right or this ability to petition against your definition as an enemy combatant very important. First, this is not a war where we have troops lined up or engaged on a battlefield in uniform. These are very different combatants, very different enemies we face, by that definition, not always easily recognized and sometimes incredibly difficult to recognize those who are planning to kill U.S. citizens or our allies around the world. They are not on a specific battlefield and certainly not in uniform. Second, these enemy combatants--and there are many thousands of enemy combatants the United States faces around the world--could be almost anywhere in the world. It makes this very different than past conflicts. They could be here in the United States, they could be in Pakistan, they could be in Somalia, they could be in Kenya, they could be in Germany, they could be in Spain, or they could be in the United Kingdom. As a result, we could have an individual in any one of these countries captured, detained, and placed into our incarceration in Guantanamo Bay or another facility and designate them as an enemy combatant. That is highly unusual when compared to past conflicts or past battles and, I think, as a result could naturally cause significant problems in relations with other military organizations that are supporting our efforts, other countries' diplomatic affairs, all of which are important to our success in this effort. So because these are individuals who could be captured and detained from anywhere around the world, we have to take extra consideration to make sure they are dealt with in a straightforward way that respects principles of due process. Third, a third important distinction in this conflict is because of the nature of the conflict, these individuals could be held indefinitely without any clear prospect of being released through the processes that would often bring a conclusion to hostilities, negotiation, a cease-fire, or surrender. We all recognize this conflict is very different in that regard. When constituents back home in New Hampshire ask me, When is this struggle against terrorism going to end? You certainly can't give a definitive answer in terms of time, but you also are very hard pressed to give a definitive answer in terms of specific objectives--when we capture this individual, when we destroy this organization, when we bring stability to this part of the world that is traditionally encouraged or fermented jihadists. So we have for these individuals--many of whom are evil individuals who have plotted and planned against the United States and our allies around the world--indeterminate, unlimited detention at the hands of the United States. Given those differences that set this conflict apart from past military conflicts in our history, I think it is in keeping with our standards of due process to ensure that when someone finds themselves indefinitely held by the United States in this conflict, they can at a minimum petition, object to their status or the determination of their status as an enemy combatant, and at least argue on appeal the facts of the case, make an argument as to why they should not be classified as an enemy combatant. Senator Specter and others made the argument when we were considering the Detainee Treatment Act that this ought to be done in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I think the exact time, place, and manner of this appeal can and should be determined by an act of Congress. But I think what is most important is that we not simply say because commanders on the battlefield decided--when I use the word ``battlefield,'' I mean in this modern sense--commanders somewhere in the field, somewhere around the world, after you were arrested or detained or captured, decided you were an enemy combatant, that we are going to let that determination stand without appeal, without objection, without petition. At the very least, again, it is consistent with the principles of due process that are so important to this country that we give that detainee at least one opportunity to object in a court to the specifics that led to him being determined an enemy combatant. This is an important issue, but I think it is not just important because it affects our security, which we all want to protect to the greatest extent possible, but because it speaks to our own citizens and it speaks to people around the world as to what kind of a society we are and what principles we hold to be dearest. This is an issue that deserves thorough debate in the Senate. I look forward to hearing more from both sides and working with Senator Specter to try to move forward a process that addresses these concerns, that doesn't necessarily have to grant all rights and all privileges accorded to every U.S. citizen to those who are determined to be enemy combatants, but at least gives them the fundamental right to challenge that determination which could and, in many cases, should lead to their indefinite incarceration at Guantanamo Bay. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that was raised by the amendment offered by Senator Collins to this homeland security bill dealing with the REAL ID Program, a program that is ostensibly designed to improve standards for security and eligibility for a driver's license. One of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, was that America needs to find a way to improve the issuance of driver's licenses, a process which takes place daily in States all across the country and produces a form of identification used for various purposes, in order to ensure that this system is as secure and consistent as it can possibly be. I very much support those recommendations. In fact, in 2004, Congress sent to the President an intelligence reform bill that included a new, strong, well-defined process for improving those standards for security and eligibility, a negotiated rulemaking process, that brought the interested parties together. Who are the interested parties? States that issue the driver's licenses, the motor vehicle departments we have all visited from time to time, the privacy advocates, the Department of Homeland Security, and other groups. All those entities that have a shared interest in improving the way driver's licenses are issued, improving the standards for eligibility, improving standards for security and verification so that fraudulent activity is more easily identified and prevented. It was a good process, a sound process, but, unfortunately, as Senator Collins and others have pointed out in this debate, back in 2005, during a debate on an appropriation bill, there was a provision included that struck down this negotiated process, that cut the States out of the process, that superceded all those efforts and simply said to the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Government, you decide the standards, you decide the criteria, and then simply require the States to comply. In Washington ``speak,'' that is called a big unfunded mandate, a mandate from the Federal Government for the States to do something without any support of funds to actually implement the decision. It is never a good idea to impose such a stark unfunded mandate. Equally important, that kind of federalized process takes away an important responsibility that the States have historically had and I believe they should maintain. We shouldn't be taking away the responsibility of the States to issue driver's licenses. We shouldn't be taking away the responsibility for managing this information. We want to make this a better process, we want to improve those standards, but we should not be cutting the States out and moving toward a national identity card system, which I think is fundamentally unnecessary. Senator Collins, recognizing these flaws in the REAL ID Program, came forward with an amendment that at least moves us back toward a rulemaking that listens to the States, that listens to local stakeholders, that listens to the departments of motor vehicles across the country. I think at the end of the day that kind of an inclusive process will result in better standards that are less costly, that are more easily implemented, and that ultimately can be carried though more quickly than any unfunded Federal mandate ever could. Senator Akaka and I have introduced legislation to fully repeal the REAL ID Act and bring us back to the negotiated rulemaking that we had in 2004. I think that would be the best solution because the applicable provisions of that 2004 intelligence reform bill were well crafted, well thought out, supported by both the States and the Federal Government, and made great progress. But what Senator Collins has proposed, in delaying the implementation of these rules and bringing back State participants, privacy advocates, and other stakeholders, is certainly a step in the right direction. I very much hope the administration is committed and sincere in the statements they have made that they understand that States need to be a part of this process. I support very much what Senator Collins is trying to do. I hope as our colleagues listen to this debate they recognize that improving security and eligibility standards for driver's licenses does not mean that we have to take rights and responsibilities away from the States. It does not mean that we have to create a national ID card. It does not mean that we have to have a national database on every driver in America. We can do these things in a way that respects the rights of States, that makes us all more secure, and that is consistent with the 9/11 Commission report. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for allowing me the time to speak. I certainly hope that we continue to proceed to adopt the Collins amendment or provisions similar to the Collins amendment, and I will certainly continue to speak out on this issue with my colleagues, such as Senator Akaka and Senator Alexander and others, who recognized, not this year or last year but back in 2005 when this program was forced upon us, that REAL ID simply does not take America in the right direction.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the two amendments I have at the desk be considered en bloc.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I offer this morning two amendments that expand on the work we did in the Commerce Committee dealing with the implementation of September 11 recommendations; in particular, in the area of interoperability, meaning, quite simply, the continued effort of State, local, and Federal law enforcement to put in place communications systems that work reliably, effectively, robustly, and that work effectively with one another. The first amendment deals with the grant programs which have been established in law already and which are expanded under the legislation before us. Those grant programs support the purchase of equipment to expand and improve our interoperability for homeland security purposes. It is essential that we make sure that to the greatest extent possible, we look at all available technologies for meeting these goals--in particular, we make sure we don't preclude any funding from going to the Internet-based or IP-enabled services and software and communications systems that are more and more a part of our daily lives. Members of the Senate are often seen roaming the hallways of the Capitol with their Blackberrys, for example. More and more, these devices operate like a Palm or a Treo, using IP-enabled systems. These systems are improving. They are getting more robust. They are becoming ever more reliable. The language I offer today simply states that those IP-enabled technologies which can help improve interoperability should not be precluded from receiving funds under any of the grant programs in this legislation. We have such language already that applies to the NTIA which is under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, but I want to make sure that language is included throughout the bill. I don't think we should be picking technological winners and losers, but we want to make sure some of the most promising technologies out there at least are put on a level playing field with older alternatives. The second amendment I offer deals with the issue of cross-border interoperability, which simply means communications in areas of the country where we border a foreign country. The northern part of the country--New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, New England States--shares a border with our neighbor Canada, and there are certainly issues in the southern part of the country with our neighbor Mexico. But there are always questions about awarding or distributing spectrum channels for communication that would be used by State or local homeland security or law enforcement issues in those border areas because we don't want to engage in policies that unnecessarily interfere with the efforts of the communication of our foreign neighbors. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of delays in making spectrum available in those cross-border areas. We have language again in part of the bill that I included in the Commerce Committee that applies to the FCC to look at the issues associated with awarding spectrum for cross-border interoperability, to find out why there have been delays, find out what can be done to accelerate this process, so in those parts of the country that are affected by cross-border interoperability, we can serve law enforcement effectively. We have some reporting requirements to look at this issue within the FCC. My second amendment would extend that language to ask the State Department, which has obvious responsibility in maintaining and improving our relations with foreign countries, to also look at these questions. So these are the two amendments. They expand on work that was accepted in a broad, bipartisan consensus in the Commerce Committee. I hope my colleagues will have an opportunity today to look at these amendments. I sincerely ask for their support. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Gregg and Senator Clinton to introduce Michelle's Law. This bill mirrors the law the State of New Hampshire passed in June 2006. Michelle Morse was a 20-year-old resident of Manchester, NH, and a full-time student at Plymouth State University when diagnosed with colon cancer in December 2003. Michelle's doctors wanted her to take a medical leave of absence to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, but if she dropped out of school she would no longer be covered as a dependent under her mother's plan because she would no longer be enrolled as a full-time student. The family had the option to obtain COBRA coverage but the Morses estimated the increase in monthly premiums would have been too costly. Michelle's family decided she would remain in school full time, maintain coverage, and maintain her lifestyle as much as she could. So along with her homework and books, Michelle would attend class carrying a portable chemotherapy pump attached to her hip. She refused to let cancer and the aggressive chemotherapy treatment slow her down during the next 2 years, even while student teaching at Bakersville Elementary School in Manchester, and graduated from Plymouth State in May 2005. However, Michelle bravely lost her battle with cancer in November 2005. Michelle's predicament prompted her mother AnnMarie to take this woeful Catch-22 they experienced to the New Hampshire State Legislature. New Hampshire responded by passing Michelle's Law in June 2006, allowing full-time students covered under State-regulated health plans a 1-year medical leave of absence while maintaining their dependency status. The bill we introduce today affords the same medical leave of absence to full-time students covered under health plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--ERISA. Michelle's Law would allow full-time students and their families to focus solely on treating an illness as opposed to concurrently being a full-time patient and full-time student. While this bill creates an additional mandate for ERISA plans, this provision would apply to less than 1 percent of all college-aged students. Yet without this modest change, the costs and hardships may be enormous. Also, this bill does not trespass on any state's right to govern and regulate its own health insurance business. I thank AnnMarie Morse for her tireless efforts in making sure another student does not get caught between a medical leave of absence rock and a hard place of insurance regulations. I also thank Senators Gregg and Clinton for joining me today and I hope my colleagues in the Senate join us with their support and pass Michelle's Law.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Gregg and Senator Clinton to introduce Michelle's Law. This bill mirrors the law the State of New Hampshire passed in June 2006. Michelle Morse was a 20-year-old resident of Manchester, NH, and a full-time student at Plymouth State University when diagnosed with colon cancer in December 2003. Michelle's doctors wanted her to take a medical leave of absence to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, but if she dropped out of school she would no longer be covered as a dependent under her mother's plan because she would no longer be enrolled as a full-time student. The family had the option to obtain COBRA coverage but the Morses estimated the increase in monthly premiums would have been too costly. Michelle's family decided she would remain in school full time, maintain coverage, and maintain her lifestyle as much as she could. So along with her homework and books, Michelle would attend class carrying a portable chemotherapy pump attached to her hip. She refused to let cancer and the aggressive chemotherapy treatment slow her down during the next 2 years, even while student teaching at Bakersville Elementary School in Manchester, and graduated from Plymouth State in May 2005. However, Michelle bravely lost her battle with cancer in November 2005. Michelle's predicament prompted her mother AnnMarie to take this woeful Catch-22 they experienced to the New Hampshire State Legislature. New Hampshire responded by passing Michelle's Law in June 2006, allowing full-time students covered under State-regulated health plans a 1-year medical leave of absence while maintaining their dependency status. The bill we introduce today affords the same medical leave of absence to full-time students covered under health plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--ERISA. Michelle's Law would allow full-time students and their families to focus solely on treating an illness as opposed to concurrently being a full-time patient and full-time student. While this bill creates an additional mandate for ERISA plans, this provision would apply to less than 1 percent of all college-aged students. Yet without this modest change, the costs and hardships may be enormous. Also, this bill does not trespass on any state's right to govern and regulate its own health insurance business. I thank AnnMarie Morse for her tireless efforts in making sure another student does not get caught between a medical leave of absence rock and a hard place of insurance regulations. I also thank Senators Gregg and Clinton for joining me today and I hope my colleagues in the Senate join us with their support and pass Michelle's Law.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I recognize that all or nearly all time under control has expired, but I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on an amendment on which the chairman and ranking member have come to agreement.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, Senator Kerry spoke earlier about the importance of women's business centers. I offered an amendment at the beginning of the debate a couple of days ago that would ensure continuation of funding for some of the high-performing women's business centers across the country, one of them being in Portsmouth, NH, a small facility that manages to serve 1,300 women. It covers Maine, covers northeastern Massachusetts, as well as clients across New Hampshire. Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe offered a modification to the amendment which we have agreed to accept, I think. I hope that is going to be passed on a voice vote and then my amendment with his improvements will be voted on by voice. I thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Ranking Member Enzi, and my dear friend from Maine, Senator Snowe for working with me to ensure that this can get done in a timely way. This continuation of funding will make a difference for, of course, dozens of business centers, but that translates into thousands of women entrepreneurs across the country. Those small firms in New Hampshire and across the country are the ones that really drive economic growth. I appreciate the work they have done, Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry. Vote on Amendment No. 116

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 112 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this is an important debate and important discussion, especially in regard to the points made by Senator Snowe of Maine; that is, if we raise the minimum wage, we need to understand both the potential impact on small businesses and recognize those small businesses are creating most of the job opportunities in our country. They fuel our economy. Over the long term, as those smaller entrepreneurial firms grow, they provide support for a growing wage base, for benefits, and for support of the families who depend on those small businesses for their jobs. I welcome her amendment that deals with small business regulation. It is an important step in the right direction, and I certainly hope it continues to receive bipartisan support in the Senate. I think many of the provisions that are in the substitute that deal with support for small business will receive bipartisan support. Senator Snowe also mentioned the importance of tax treatment for small business investments and capital spending, and that they be allowed to expense that, in turn, allowing them to find additional resources to continue that pattern of investment. The amendment I have called up also deals with the issue of small business, entrepreneurship and job creation and a small, but important, program in our Government called the Women's Business Centers. There are about 100 Women's Business Centers across the country. There is one in Portsmouth, NH, that was among the very first created in the United States, and it deals with a range of issues from providing an incubator for women entrepreneurs just starting out a firm, to providing training and counseling, support for marketing services, information about Government procurement, so many of the issues that have already been addressed on the floor. What this amendment does is to simply ensure that those high- performing Women's Business Centers that have continued to serve a strong, important clientele and have supported entrepreneurship and investment in their community continue to be eligible for funding. Under the current restrictions, some of those centers, after 5 years of sustainability grants, lose the opportunity for additional funding. My amendment would create a new program within the WBC program that allows those centers to apply for a 3-year continuation of Federal funding, provided they continue to meet high standards, serve their clients effectively, and attract sources of funding from the community. I think it is a reasonable approach, one that makes sense. Look at the great example that has been set in Portsmouth. With the limited amount of Federal funding and other community resources, in the past year, it has served over 1,300 individual entrepreneurs. That, as we like to say in Washington, is real leverage, real performance. This does not require additional funding. It is a straightforward way to ensure that an important need continues to be met and that this bill has the appropriate balance and support for the small business community. I commend the work of the Senator from Maine, for her work on small business generally within the Small Business Committee. This is something they have tried to address before and the Senate has supported in the past. I hope it is something that will continue to receive bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments. Obviously, I just called up the amendment. I don't expect him to endorse it wholeheartedly. I think he will find he has supported it in the past and many in the Chamber have supported it in the past and it is worthy of our consideration.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this afternoon we will resume consideration of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. We will be voting later this afternoon. Once a vote is scheduled, we will notify Senators as to the exact timing of that vote. As it stands now, we are looking at a late afternoon vote as the first vote of the day. If we can expedite floor consideration with a handful of relevant amendments, it is our hope we should be able to finish this important spending bill today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.