John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3549, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act. S. 3549 reforms the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is more commonly known as CFIUS. CFIUS is the entity of our Federal Government charged with reviewing any type of foreign investment in the United States, and reviews all corporate transactions involving foreign-owned companies. Its top priority has always been to protect America's national security interests, and that must remain its main focus. However, this foremost concern can and must be addressed without jeopardizing foreign investment in our country--a critical economic engine. This CFIUS reform bill represents an effort by the Senate to ensure that the national security interests of the United States are protected in the context of foreign investment in U.S. industries. As a member of the Banking Committee, I supported this effort as a necessary way to restore the confidence of the American people in the CFIUS process, and I commend Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes and my colleagues on the committee for their work to date on this legislation. Though I supported Senate passage of the bill in an effort to keep this important legislation moving through the legislative process, I want to highlight two provisions in the bill with which I have significant concerns because they will have a chilling effect on foreign investment. First, the provision that potentially extends the initial 30-day review period to a 60-day period would place all foreign investors, including those of our closest allies, at a competitive disadvantage. Under current law, most transactions, foreign and domestic, require an antitrust review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act which takes a minimum of thirty days. However, the foreign investor is also, appropriately, required to undergo a 30-day CFIUS review, which may occur concurrently with the HSR review. This process allows a thorough review without putting one type of investor at a disadvantage to another. S. 3549, however, would potentially expand the 30-day CFIUS review to 60 days, creating a much longer delay and one that is disconnected from the HSR- mandated time table. This would create a substantial competitive disadvantage. Our government ought to be able to quickly identify and clarify the national security implications of a given transaction certainly within the 30 days prescribed under current law. The second provision with which I have concern would require repeated and detailed notifications about ongoing transactions to many Members of Congress and State Governors. Such notifications would only politicize transactions, do little to resolve national security concerns and undermine the CFIUS process. This bill makes a strong attempt to strike the appropriate balance between national security, sound economic policy, and appropriate oversight. The two provisions I have highlighted upset this balance, but because I support this overall effort, I look forward to continued collaboration with Senators Shelby and Sarbanes and the other members of the Banking Committee as we address these issues in conference with the House.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4848

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I very much appreciate what the Senator from Michigan is trying to do with the amendment. We have seen vivid images on television that depict the impact and destruction of the infrastructure--bridges, powerplants, the airport in Beirut, and, of course, the huge civilian toll that has been taken in Lebanon. We all understand there is going to be a real need, and an immediate need, for humanitarian assistance. The State Department has taken steps to provide resources and assistance both in funding and material in the pipeline. But there is no question that additional funding is going to be needed in order to help the Government of Lebanon and the people of Lebanon rebuild and establish normalcy once again, in addition to all the assistance and work that will be done to ensure not just a strong government but compliance with U.N. resolutions, the demilitarization of Hezbollah, which is going to be so important to that country. The Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Illinois, and others have also worked with the State Department to ensure that there are humanitarian corridors available to get assistance to those towns and villages in southern Lebanon that have been most heavily hit in terms of civilian casualties. We need resources and funding. We need material, but we also need those humanitarian corridors. I want to specifically speak a little bit about the protective status legislation that I cosponsored with Senator Durbin and others. This is essential to send the right message to the Lebanese people and to the world that we are not going to send immigrants back into a war zone simply because their immigration status has changed. This is a temporary measure but an absolutely crucial one. It is the right thing to do while the fighting in southern Lebanon rages on. We have funding needs, we have needs for humanitarian corridors, we have needs for protective status. All of these are essential if we are going to put Lebanon on the path to a peaceful resolution to their situation.

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 today to speak in favor of an extremely important provision in the pending bill. That funding provision is the $40 million to support the Counter-MANPAD program. This is a program initiated by Congress to develop technology to protect commercial aircraft from man-portable air defense systems or MANPADS, known to many as shoulder-fired missiles or portable anti- aircraft weapons. Congress originally included $110 million in funding for this program in the fiscal year 2006 budget and there is currently $40 million in the pending fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This funding will allow for the completion of Phase III of this important program. This phase includes testing of the technology in real-world operations, a final report on the findings to Congress and the termination of the program. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security has decided to complete the program and report its findings based on Phase III flight testing on cargo aircraft only. This is a decision that I question because it runs counter to the program's original objective of developing a system that would protect primarily passenger aircraft, but also protect cargo aircraft. Operations in the cargo and commercial aviation industries are very different and I believe that any final reporting or evaluation must include an assessment of the potential deployment of a Counter-MANPAD system on passenger aircraft as well as cargo aircraft. Without the actual flight testing of the Counter-MANPAD system on passenger aircraft, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the system. Moreover, future policy decisions on aircraft protection would be based on findings that many could argue are incomplete. Prior funding has already gone a long way towards approving this important technology, and adding a passenger aircraft study would validate the original objective set forth by DHS and Congress, and in no way delay any final reports from the program office. I commend the work of the subcommittee for including this funding as well as those who participated in the program through the Department of Homeland Security, phases 1, 2, and 3. I also commend the many participants in the private sector: from the scientists, engineers, to those who test the equipment to ensure that it is the strongest, most competitive, most viable system. I thank the committee for its work and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I also wish to recognize John Gonsalves, a Taunton, MA, resident whose selfless work to improve the lives of troops returning home from battle will be honored with the Daughters of the American Revolution's, DAR, Medal of Honor Award. Members of the Molly Stark Chapter of the DAR in Manchester, NH, nominated him to receive this distinction. John was one of millions of Americans who, in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, wanted to serve his Nation and fellow countrymen. Having worked extensively in different phases of the construction industry, he sought an opportunity to give back by helping wounded soldiers return to home life. Unable to find an existing organization that would allow him to volunteer his construction and homebuilding skills, John took action and founded a nonprofit organization that would--Homes for Our Troops. The group, which is based in Taunton, works to build or adapt residences across the country for injured veterans at no cost to these individuals. American soldiers have left the comfort of home for the perils of faraway battlefields to protect our country and to spread freedom in the world. It is critical that these brave men and women know that their fellow citizens support them--and will continue to do so long after their active duty service is over. John's work to establish Homes for Our Troops helps represent a solemn promise: that the American people will neither forget, nor cease to be grateful, for the courage of our heroic soldiers. By returning seriously injured veterans to the normalcy of home life as quickly as possible, we honor their enormous sacrifices for our country. Homes for Our Troops performs an invaluable role in this national effort, coordinating donations of money, labor and materials to ensure that seriously injured veterans' homes are handicapped accessible. This work, which contributes conspicuously to the quality of life for severely wounded soldiers, represents the best of the American spirit. John Gonsalves' patriotism sets an example for all Americans. I join his friends, supporters and members of the DAR's Molly Stark Chapter in commending his praiseworthy efforts on behalf of our veterans, and congratulate him on being selected to receive this prestigious award.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I also wish to recognize an outstanding teacher from New Hampshire who will be honored next month with the Daughters of the American Revolution's, DAR, Outstanding Teacher of American History Award. Kathleen Mirabile has taught history and social studies in Manchester, New Hampshire's public schools for nearly four decades. Through her strong commitment to lifelong learning, Mrs. Mirabile has inspired generations of students in the Queen City. Having contributed conspicuously to the life of her community, Mrs. Mirabile has earned the respect of her peers and students--which is reflected in her nomination by the DAR's Molly Stark Chapter in Manchester to receive this prestigious national award. A democratic nation such as ours requires informed, active citizens who are able to think critically about complex issues. Knowledge and understanding of American history is therefore essential to ensuring a thoughtful citizenry that is capable of the responsibility of self- government. During her long service as a teacher, at Manchester High School Central and Manchester Memorial High School, Mrs. Mirabile has worked to convey these enduring truths as part of her classroom instruction. Mindful of the necessity of being prepared to compete in today's society, Mrs. Mirabile has set high standards for her students. Although she has taught students who represent a range of academic ability--including those in her advanced placement U.S. history course--Mrs. Mirabile has consistently pushed them to achieve beyond their limits. In doing so, she has helped her students to mature as learners and as individuals. A central component of Mrs. Mirabile's approach to teaching--one that distinguishes her--has been to remain a student of history herself. As part of that commitment, she completed graduate studies at the University of New Hampshire and at Boston College; additionally, Mrs. Mirabile has pursued study through the National Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S. Department of Education, and at Harvard University. These experiences have broadened her knowledge, and have helped to make her a more thoughtful, engaging teacher. Mrs. Mirabile also brings her extensive experience working with the Manchester Historic Association, MHA, to the classroom. Manchester, which was home to the world famous Amoskeag Mills, is a city that is rich in history and culture. As an MHA leader, Mrs. Mirabile has taken her intimate knowledge of Manchester and made the City a history classroom for her students. Through such hands-on learning, Mrs. Mirabile's students are shown that history lessons are not confined to text books; that history is alive in our communities. Having distinguished herself as a talented and committed educator who has made a difference in the lives of her students, Mrs. Mirabile has set a standard to which other teachers may aspire. I am pleased to join her many friends and admirers--at Central High School, in the city of Manchester, and with the Molly Stark Chapter--in extending congratulations to her for being honored by the DAR for a long career of excellence in teaching.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Moving to Work Charter Program Act--legislation that would expand the successful Moving to Work demonstration project. Unfortunately, today's housing programs do not always meet the needs of local communities, and public housing agencies are subjected to one-size-fits-all regulations. National rent policies often times do not satisfy distinct characteristics of individual housing markets. Therefore, my legislation will increase flexibility for PHAs to address their local housing needs. Congress authorized the Moving to Work demonstration program in 1996, and the program has received temporary extensions since then. While the demonstration was originally intended to only be authorized for 3 years--its success has led to continued support from Congress. Moving to Work, or MTW, has been successful due its innovative and locally- designed approach to housing. Under the program, agencies are given appropriate flexibility to design programs that not only provide affordable housing, but aid residents in becoming self-sufficient. When MTW was established there were three main goals--achieving greater cost- effectiveness, giving housing residents tools to become self- sufficient, and increasing housing choices for low-income families. When one looks at the accomplishments of the agencies that have participated in the program, it is clear that MTW was instrumental in their success in meeting these goals. For this reason, I am eager to apply MTW's proven model to worthy agencies across the country. My legislation would establish a permanent Moving to Work Charter Program that would include up to 250 PHAs. Participating agencies would possess the same flexibility to design and implement innovative approaches as current MTW participants. While PHAs would have broader discretion, they would still be required to assist substantially the same number of low-income families they currently serve. The local flexibility and independence permitted under MTW will allow agencies to be more responsive to their local conditions, demands, and priorities. Every community has its unique housing needs that are not always best addressed by current HUD regulations. When looking at current national rent policies, it is evident we have a system in place that encourages dependency, by creating disincentives for individuals to work. Under current law, when an individual's income increases, their rent automatically increases. In essence we are punishing residents for earning more money--money that allows them to live more responsibly and independently. MTW gives agencies the ability to establish rent policies that will encourage residents to increase their income, because they can keep more of their income. In my own state of New Hampshire, the Keene Housing Authority has created a step rent program where tenant contributions to rent are increased on a yearly basis. While their income may increase, their rent will not. This creates an environment where residents are encouraged to work. Increases in tenant rent contributions are phased in each year, providing more certainty for tenants. At the same time, they are preparing residents for entry into the housing market by giving them job training support, tools for financial planning, and homeownership opportunities. This program has resulted in real income growth for residents, without a significant increase to their rents. The results speak for themselves. At the Keene Housing Authority 46 percent of families were working full time when their MTW program started. Today, 65 percent are working full time. They have also issued more section 8 subsidies than before and have assisted more families in need. MTW has allowed Keene Housing Authority to meet the immediate housing needs of their tenants, while also helping their tenants become more independent. The MTW program also gives PHAs the ability to merge their funding streams--which is ideal for modernizing or redeveloping their housing stock. PHAs can combine these funds so long as they maintain assistance to the same number of families, and use their funds to continue their efforts to provide affordable housing. Through merging funding streams, Philadelphia has been able to better leverage their federal dollars, and in turn construct hundreds of additional units. Through community partnerships and innovative thinking at the local level, the Philadelphia PHA has been able to reach more low-income residents, while at the same time reinvigorating community development initiatives. Every community has distinctive housing needs--no one knows those local needs better than the housing agencies that are working every day to provide affordable housing options for community members. MTW allows its participants to maximize efficiency and direct resources where they feel they are most needed to address specific local needs. I specifically want to thank Senator Santorum for working with me on this legislation. Obviously, he has seen first hand the success of MTW in this State of Pennsylvania, and I appreciate his input on this bill. Additionally, I would like to thank Senator Carper for his support of this legislation. He has also witnessed the benefits of the MTW program in the State of Delaware. The Delaware State Housing Authority's MTW program has been tremendously successful in providing families with the tools to become more independent while still providing affordable housing. I look forward to working with both Senator Santorum and Carper in moving this legislation forward. By bringing more PHAs into MTW under my bill, more agencies will benefit from streamlined annual reporting and administrative procedures. By doing so, PHAs can focus more of their attention on meeting the housing needs of those they serve. Redundant and burdensome reporting requirements are time-consuming and unnecessary and take the attention away from residents. Under this legislation, PHAs will be able to work with HUD to develop more appropriate reporting requirements that compliment their housing services. For example, PHAs will have the ability to merge their waiting lists, modify inspection standards, and modify lease requirements. Small PHAs and large PHAs are vastly different--HUD should be able to work in collaboration with individual PHAs to determine which requirements pertain to certain agencies. Streamlined reporting will enable PHAs to establish local benchmarks and more purposefully evaluate their programs' effectiveness in providing affordable housing. My legislation has the support of the local agencies across my State, as well as the endorsement of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. I remain committed to working with the PHAs throughout the legislative process to achieve greater flexibility, while ensuring that individuals and families have continued access to affordable housing.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Moving to Work Charter Program Act--legislation that would expand the successful Moving to Work demonstration project. Unfortunately, today's housing programs do not always meet the needs of local communities, and public housing agencies are subjected to one-size-fits-all regulations. National rent policies often times do not satisfy distinct characteristics of individual housing markets. Therefore, my legislation will increase flexibility for PHAs to address their local housing needs. Congress authorized the Moving to Work demonstration program in 1996, and the program has received temporary extensions since then. While the demonstration was originally intended to only be authorized for 3 years--its success has led to continued support from Congress. Moving to Work, or MTW, has been successful due its innovative and locally- designed approach to housing. Under the program, agencies are given appropriate flexibility to design programs that not only provide affordable housing, but aid residents in becoming self-sufficient. When MTW was established there were three main goals--achieving greater cost- effectiveness, giving housing residents tools to become self- sufficient, and increasing housing choices for low-income families. When one looks at the accomplishments of the agencies that have participated in the program, it is clear that MTW was instrumental in their success in meeting these goals. For this reason, I am eager to apply MTW's proven model to worthy agencies across the country. My legislation would establish a permanent Moving to Work Charter Program that would include up to 250 PHAs. Participating agencies would possess the same flexibility to design and implement innovative approaches as current MTW participants. While PHAs would have broader discretion, they would still be required to assist substantially the same number of low-income families they currently serve. The local flexibility and independence permitted under MTW will allow agencies to be more responsive to their local conditions, demands, and priorities. Every community has its unique housing needs that are not always best addressed by current HUD regulations. When looking at current national rent policies, it is evident we have a system in place that encourages dependency, by creating disincentives for individuals to work. Under current law, when an individual's income increases, their rent automatically increases. In essence we are punishing residents for earning more money--money that allows them to live more responsibly and independently. MTW gives agencies the ability to establish rent policies that will encourage residents to increase their income, because they can keep more of their income. In my own state of New Hampshire, the Keene Housing Authority has created a step rent program where tenant contributions to rent are increased on a yearly basis. While their income may increase, their rent will not. This creates an environment where residents are encouraged to work. Increases in tenant rent contributions are phased in each year, providing more certainty for tenants. At the same time, they are preparing residents for entry into the housing market by giving them job training support, tools for financial planning, and homeownership opportunities. This program has resulted in real income growth for residents, without a significant increase to their rents. The results speak for themselves. At the Keene Housing Authority 46 percent of families were working full time when their MTW program started. Today, 65 percent are working full time. They have also issued more section 8 subsidies than before and have assisted more families in need. MTW has allowed Keene Housing Authority to meet the immediate housing needs of their tenants, while also helping their tenants become more independent. The MTW program also gives PHAs the ability to merge their funding streams--which is ideal for modernizing or redeveloping their housing stock. PHAs can combine these funds so long as they maintain assistance to the same number of families, and use their funds to continue their efforts to provide affordable housing. Through merging funding streams, Philadelphia has been able to better leverage their federal dollars, and in turn construct hundreds of additional units. Through community partnerships and innovative thinking at the local level, the Philadelphia PHA has been able to reach more low-income residents, while at the same time reinvigorating community development initiatives. Every community has distinctive housing needs--no one knows those local needs better than the housing agencies that are working every day to provide affordable housing options for community members. MTW allows its participants to maximize efficiency and direct resources where they feel they are most needed to address specific local needs. I specifically want to thank Senator Santorum for working with me on this legislation. Obviously, he has seen first hand the success of MTW in this State of Pennsylvania, and I appreciate his input on this bill. Additionally, I would like to thank Senator Carper for his support of this legislation. He has also witnessed the benefits of the MTW program in the State of Delaware. The Delaware State Housing Authority's MTW program has been tremendously successful in providing families with the tools to become more independent while still providing affordable housing. I look forward to working with both Senator Santorum and Carper in moving this legislation forward. By bringing more PHAs into MTW under my bill, more agencies will benefit from streamlined annual reporting and administrative procedures. By doing so, PHAs can focus more of their attention on meeting the housing needs of those they serve. Redundant and burdensome reporting requirements are time-consuming and unnecessary and take the attention away from residents. Under this legislation, PHAs will be able to work with HUD to develop more appropriate reporting requirements that compliment their housing services. For example, PHAs will have the ability to merge their waiting lists, modify inspection standards, and modify lease requirements. Small PHAs and large PHAs are vastly different--HUD should be able to work in collaboration with individual PHAs to determine which requirements pertain to certain agencies. Streamlined reporting will enable PHAs to establish local benchmarks and more purposefully evaluate their programs' effectiveness in providing affordable housing. My legislation has the support of the local agencies across my State, as well as the endorsement of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. I remain committed to working with the PHAs throughout the legislative process to achieve greater flexibility, while ensuring that individuals and families have continued access to affordable housing.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I do, however, respect the goals and the concerns that have been expressed by the Senators from Hawaii and their supporters. I certainly agree with the language used by Senator Inouye to describe the people of Hawaii. They are indeed good people. They are indeed great patriots. I think no one better exemplifies the patriotism, the support for American ideals, and the commitment to our country, than the two Senators from Hawaii, each in their service to this institution, their service to our country, and their service to our country's military. Senator Inouye discussed the need to right wrongs, and how that was one of the objectives of this legislation. Even if we concede the importance of righting wrongs, we can argue, as I do argue, that this is the wrong way to go about that. This bill does not create a sovereign state or a sovereign entity. That point was made by both Senators in their remarks. However, we cannot escape the fact that the legislation as written, on page 51, does describe very specifically the objective for Native Hawaiians to have an inherent right of self-determination and self-government. That clearly suggests a goal, whether it is short-term or long-term, of establishing self-governance; of establishing independence in some shape or form. If this isn't an objective, then certainly it ought not to be included in the legislation. This is not a question of tribal recognition. I think it is a mistake to make that analogy because there are very specific requirements for tribal recognition, and they are not met in this case. Therefore, that concern is misplaced. Most fundamentally, and I think most problematically, this legislation does create a very separate and distinct governing entity, and the participation within that governing entity is based upon racial and ethnic classification. We have to ask ourselves whether this is a principle or a policy which the American people would support, whether it is one which will further our shared goals as Americans. I believe the answer is no. It is a mistake to create two distinct privileges for participation in governance at any level that is based solely on one's racial or ethnic background. The governing power of this new entity, the Native Hawaiian governing entity, is not small nor trivial. Again quoting from the legislation: Among the general powers conferred on this governing entity are the power to negotiate or engage in negotiations designed to lead to an agreement addressing such matters as the transfer of land, natural resources and other assets, and the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction. These are not small matters. I believe the suggestion that this is a modest entity, one with only very limited powers, is mistaken. The proponents of the legislation might argue that there are intervening steps required on the part of the State government or the Federal Government to validate these negotiations. That doesn't change the fact that this governing entity has real power to negotiate that is not given to any other entity, and that the participation in that governance is based solely on one's ethnic or racial background. I believe that simply is not justified. To the extent there are constitutional questions brought to bear, they ought to be focused on due process, on whether this restriction that one only participates in this governing entity if one has a certain racial or ethnic background is an unfair limitation on an individual American's right to participate in the electoral process. Even if that were not a factor, balkanizing Americans, dispensing political power, or dispensing political recognition on the basis of ethnic or racial background is a mistake. It is bad precedent. It emphasizes differences that we might have. I believe it runs the risk of disenfranchising certain Americans and takes us in the wrong direction. If there are wrongs that need to be set right, we should have a debate about what those actions were and what specific steps ought to be taken to address them. However, this is not the right vehicle. This is not the right approach. This does not send the right message. In dealing with cases that have come before the Supreme Court which dealt with this question, the Supreme Court cited the 15th amendment, which forbids discrimination in voting based on race or ethnic background. To quote from that decision, the Court said: One of the reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities. An inquiry into ancestral lines is not consistent with respect based on the unique personality each of us possesses, a respect the Constitution itself secures in its concern for persons and citizens . . . [To do so would be] odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. It is an approach that runs contrary to those fundamental goals and objectives which are contained in the 15th amendment. I think on a more personal level, it is worth understanding the impact this can have on an individual. I wish to close by referring to several comments which were provided by residents of Hawaii themselves before the Civil Rights Commission. Quoting from one letter: . . . It is appropriate to say that I am of Hawaiian, Caucasian and Chinese descent only because it shall be noted that I am a descendent of the indigenous peoples of Hawaii and do not support the Akaka bill . . . If [the Akaka bill] comes to pass, I will no longer acknowledge my Hawaiian heritage as I will be forced to choose on which side of the fence to stand. I will choose the Anglo-American tradition of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. This will prevent me from recognizing all that is Hawaiian in me. I consider the Akaka bill to be a proposal to violate my rights . . . This is a resident of Hawaii testifying before the Civil Rights Commission. He wrote: . . . I am writing to ask for the civil rights commission to oppose the Akaka Bill on the grounds that it will divide our state among racial lines . . . I am of native American blood (Nez Pierce Indian) but cannot be considered eligible for benefits such as those desired by native Hawaiians . . . The Akaka Bill will destroy our way of life in Hawaii . . . The third letter quoted in that report to the Civil Rights Commission: . . . I am a descendant of both: Kamehameha the Great, who united the islands and people, natives and non-natives and made Hawaii a model for the world: and the Mayflower pilgrims whose ideals of individual freedom and responsibility and self-reliance shaped the most inclusive and widely shared system of government in history: American democracy . . . The Akaka Bill would dishonor the unity and equality envisioned by Kamehameha the Great and the ideal of one nation, indivisible, composed of indestructible states, envisioned by the U.S. Constitution . . . These are individual opinions of residents of Hawaii who have their own personal history and perspective. We shouldn't make decisions in Congress or anywhere else based on just anecdotal information, but I think they do reflect the difference of opinion, the difference of perspective, and the natural concerns possessed by even those who are supposed to benefit from this legislation because of the way the bill treats people--not based on the content of their character, not based on their individual rights as Americans, but based on their particular ethnic or racial background. If we can move away from the balkanization, classification, and unique treatment of people based on racial-ethnic background and move toward the consideration of every individual based on their character, their integrity, and their commitment to our shared ideals, I believe we will be a stronger and a better country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the 2006 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 recipients of the EDies are chosen based on certain criteria, including student achievement, leadership, and decisionmaking; community and parental involvement; school climate, curriculum, and instruction; and the teaching and learning process. I am proud to recognize the 34 individuals, 3 schools, 1 department, and 1 school board who will receive this distinctive honor on June 10, 2006. The EDies awarded in various categories, including school board, principal, and superintendent of the year, as well as schools of excellence at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. In addition, individuals are recognized for their contributions in specific subject areas, such as social studies, music, and business education. There is also an award in memory of New Hampshire's own Christa McAuliffe, whom we lost 20 years ago as she courageously embarked on her journey to be the first teacher in space. As an elected official, parent, and former student of the New Hampshire public school system, I have had the opportunity to meet and learn from many educators across the Granite State, including some of this year's award recipients. Their dedication to providing students with the tools they need to become productive and engaged citizens is commendable and the basis for the superior achievement of New Hampshire's schools. I am personally grateful to the teachers at every level of my own education who provided me with the guidance necessary to succeed. The EDies provide us with an opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of our State's educational community. I am pleased to recognize them here today and to convey the gratitude of my State for the role each of this year's recipients have played in the lives of New Hampshire's children. Mr. President, I ask that the list of the 2006 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners and school finalists be printed in the Record. The list follows. 2006 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award Recipients Rebecca Albert, Deborah Boisvert, Norma J. Bursaw, Marcia B. Connors, Meoghan B. Cronin, Richard Dunning, James N. Elefante, Nancy Frantz Clough, Kathleen Frick, CarolAnn Gregorious, Kimberly Kenney, Phillip K. Martin, Kathleen C. McCabe, Carole A. Smart, Emily K. Spear, Linda A. Vincent, Bruce R. Wheeler, David Alcox, Gregg M. Brighenti, Jaffrey Caron, W. Michael Cozort, Elizabeth M. Curran, Carol A. Dupuis, Mary E. Fay, Deborah Franzoni, Rick Glatz, Esther Kennedy, Lisa MacLean, Dr. Dennise Maslakowski, Thomas Prive, Deanne Soderberg, Gregory S. Superchi, Richard C. Walter, Jr., Doris E. Williams. Academy of Learning and Technology: Nashua High School North, Pennichuck Middle School Technology Department, Lafayette Regional School, Oyster River Coop. School Board. Secondary School Finalists Goffstown High School, Pembroke Academy, Prospect Mountain High School. Middle School Finalists Indian River School, Oyster River Middle School. Elementary School Finalists Hollis Primary and Upper Elementary School, South Londonderry Elementary School.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 1235, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. This legislation passed the House unanimously on Monday, and I urge my Senate colleagues to do the same. S. 1235 contains many important provisions, but I would like to focus my remarks on section 101 of the bill, which deals with adaptive housing grants. Section 101 upgrades eligibility criteria for housing assistance grants to better reflect the needs of today's veteran community and will help all disabled veterans move home from medical facilities sooner. The language in section 101 is almost identical to my bipartisan legislation, S. 1947, The Specially Adapted Housing Improvements Grants Act and a bi-partisan amendment I introduced to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act, which passed the Senate unanimously by voice vote. First, I want to acknowledge my House colleague, Representative John Boozman of Arkansas, who serves as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and has demonstrated real leadership on this issue. I am grateful to him for his considerable efforts to advance this measure in the House and I am happy to do so here in this Chamber. I also appreciate the hard work of the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee here in the Senate, Senator Craig, and the bipartisan group of Senators who cosponsored both my bill and amendment. The broad support of S. 1235 and its provisions represent a bipartisan belief on Capitol Hill that Congress must constantly evaluate veterans programs to make certain that our Nation provides responsive support to veterans. While representing New Hampshire in the House and Senate, I have worked to ensure that those who served in our armed services receive their hard-earned benefits quickly and in full. Too often, out-of-date and burdensome regulations deny qualified veterans from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Whenever possible, it is imperative that we remove red tape that does not take into account the realities faced by today's veterans. That is why I introduced legislation to reform rules that determine requirements for a Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, grant program that helps many disabled veterans make their homes suitable for occupancy. Currently, a disabled veteran must at least partly own his or her residence to receive VA housing assistance grants to perform necessary residence modifications, such as installing wheelchair ramps or railings. However, many younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet had the opportunity to become homeowners. Being ineligible for VA funding assistance to modify their homes, these veterans and their families often are compelled to either shoulder the costs of retrofitting their residences or face extended stays in VA medical facilities. Section 101 of S. 1235 will establish a 5-year pilot program to allow severely disabled veterans who live temporarily with family to receive up to $10,000 in adaptive housing assistance; less severely disabled veterans could receive a maximum of $2,000. This grant money will help ensure that all disabled veterans--regardless of whether they own property--are able to leave hospitals and return home as quickly as possible. Also, mindful that these individuals will likely purchase their own residence, the bill will allow disabled veterans to receive two additional specially adaptive housing grants to be used for homes that they own in the future. Severely disabled veterans could receive a total of $50,000 to modify residences; less severely disabled veterans would be eligible for a total of $10,000. Only one of the three total grants could be used for a temporary residence, such as a family-owned home. America's veterans have made enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation and the ideals for which it stands. Our country owes a special obligation to those men and women who have become disabled as a result of their service. Under no circumstances should these American heroes be divided into groups of ``haves'' and ``have nots.'' This Nation must do no less than to ensure that all disabled veterans are returned to the normalcy of home life as quickly and comfortably as possible. The common sense changes put forth in section 101 of S. 1235 do just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to send this bill to President Bush to sign in to law in time, fittingly, for Memorial Day.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the legislation before us and in particular to address some of the remarks that were made earlier by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. He raised concerns about the State of New Hampshire and suggested that this legislation would be bad for the State of New Hampshire and that the State of New Hampshire had already enacted legislation identical to this. I think it is wrong for someone to provide information that is not entirely accurate. I think that is inaccurate, and it is not inaccurate in some very key areas. First, the bands that were discussed that were enacted in the State of New Hampshire were much smaller than the rating bands contemplated in this legislation, and they did it in New Hampshire without any transition period. Those are two very significant, specific differences between this legislation and what was attempted in New Hampshire. Second, as with any legislation, it cuts both ways. There were some employers that saw increases in their premiums 2 and 3 years ago that some claimed were a result of the legislation in New Hampshire, but many businesses--in fact, the NFIB would suggest the majority of businesses--in New Hampshire saw some great relief because they are the smaller businesses that we are talking about, those who would be allowed to improve their negotiating position through the provisions in this bill. Moreover, this isn't a debate about one State. This is a debate about providing increased access--increased access--to plans that are negotiated by associations, by the members of small businesses and, as a result, negotiating lower prices. Finally, there was discussion about community rating and how objectionable it is that there will be an ability to differentiate on price based on a number of factors. I think the truth is, when you force that kind of price control, you force adverse selection because if I tell you that you have to charge the exact same price to anyone, no matter what region, circumstance, or situation, then the insurer will automatically market to the healthiest people because they won't want to take on the additional costs associated with those who might have significant needs that result in higher prices. So if you go to price control, which is exactly what the other side is suggesting, forcing the same price for everyone no matter who is covered, businesses will naturally--naturally--only market to those who are healthy and, as a result, reduce the accessibility and availability of health insurance to those who might need it most. It is a dramatic, unintended consequence, and that is the exact outcome that will be the result of the policies that are being suggested by the other side. We need to be accurate in what we represent. This is a good bill for small business and, as a result, it is an excellent bill for New Hampshire because in New Hampshire, small businesses make up over 95% of all firm with employees. If we want to do something about the uninsured, the majority of whom are working as self-employed or for small businesses, we need to take up the exact kind of provisions that are in this bill: Increased access of health insurance for those working in the smallest firms. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on legislation I introduced yesterday, the Small Public Housing Authorities Paperwork Reduction Act. This legislation is an important step toward alleviating some of the burden placed on our Nation's smallest public housing authorities. PHAs play an important role in meeting the housing needs of the Nation's low-income individuals, families, seniors, and the disabled. Unfortunately, they face a challenge when balancing the housing needs of those they serve with the, oftentimes, consuming and duplicative reporting requirements placed upon them. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to address just one annual report that will free up a significant amount of time and resources, allowing housing authorities to focus more attention on the individuals they serve. Specifically, this legislation would exempt PHAs with 500 or fewer public housing units and any number of section 8 vouchers from the requirement of submitting an annual plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 1992 Public Housing Reform Act required PHAs to submit separate 5-year and annual plans to HUD. The redundancy of the annual plan process creates an undue burden for small PHAs by requiring them to provide identical information to HUD every 12 months. For example, an annual plan outlines a PHA's goals, policies, eligibility guidelines, and other information that is unlikely to change from year to year. Under this bill, small PHAs would only be required to submit their 5-year plan--a more appropriate timeline for reevaluating their goals and policies--to better allow them to use scarce human and financial resources to directly serve the needs of their communities. Additionally, this bill would only exempt those PHAs that have demonstrated compliance with HUD regulations. PHAs that have been designated by HUD as troubled would not be exempted from the annual plan. It is also important to note that PHAs would still be required to conduct an annual meeting in which residents and community members are included in the planning and development of a housing authority's objectives and priorities. My legislation makes certain that residents have an opportunity to comment on any changes to the goals, objectives, and policies of the agency. Housing authorities are also required to notify tenants of any proposed changes at least 45 days before the public hearing occurs. The annual public meeting, in combination with State and local public meeting requirements, will continue to ensure that any changes made to a PHA's policies are well vetted, with particular attention paid to resident concerns. PHA directors in my State and across the country contend that this legislation is a significant step toward reducing the excessive paperwork and reporting requirements that burden their agencies. I agree, that by mitigating some of this burden, we will allow PHAs to focus more time and energy for their mission-driven service to their housing residents. Not all PHAs have the time, staff, or resources available to complete these annual plans. Some PHAs have had to hire outside consultants to complete the plans, a costly expense for these agencies. Given the fiscal constraints PHAs are facing, it is more important now than ever to give housing authorities the flexibility needed to work within these budget constraints. This legislation is one simple way Congress can assist in providing needed relief to PHAs. My colleague, Congressman Randy Neugebauer, has introduced similar legislation which passed in the House of Representatives on December 13, 2005, by a vote of 387 to 2. The overwhelming support in the House for such an initiative makes very clear the need for this type of relief. I am hopeful my colleagues in the Senate will also see the value of providing paperwork reduction for those agencies that have demonstrated their ability to comply with current regulations. Finally, I am pleased to have the support of the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority and local agencies across my State in this effort. New Hampshire's PHAs continue to do an exceptional job of providing for the housing needs of those who need it most. State and local housing agencies perform an invaluable community function by securing housing for families and individuals in need. I remain committed to working further with them throughout this legislative process and to reducing unnecessary federal regulatory burdens for housing.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to recognize an important milestone for an institution in the Middle East that brings American- style education to the region. This academic year, the American Community School at Beirut celebrates 100 years of providing quality education in Lebanon. Founded in 1905 by a group of American missionary families living in the country, and supported by the American University of Beirut and Aramco, ACS was the first American K-12 school to open in Lebanon. An independent, nonprofit, co-educational institution chartered in the State of New York, about 1,000 students are now enrolled at the school. ACS aims to provide an American education for Lebanese and international families. Similar to many schools in the United States, the school's mission clearly states that it: `` . . . seeks to educate the whole person and to lay the foundations for life-long learning . . . Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their thoughts, words and actions, to act with honor and purpose, and to make a difference in our diverse, complex global society. . . .'' The school's alumni have distinguished themselves in a range of fields, including serving the United States government and in Lebanese-American relations. ACS, which appreciates the support of Congress through U.S. Agency for International Development and ASHA grants, starts a new century with a legacy of academic excellence, committed educators, and a dedicated community. I congratulate the school on this impressive achievement, and extend my best wishes for its next 100 years.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, which will designate approximately 34,500 acres of forest land in the State of New Hampshire as wilderness. Our bill, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, will enact the recommended wilderness designations as set forth in the Forest Service Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest. Established under the Weeks Act of 1911, the White Mountain National Forest consists of nearly 800,000 acres--732,000 acres in the State of New Hampshire and 65,000 acres more in Maine. Over 6 million people visit the White Mountain National Forest annually, making it one of the most popular National Forests in the Nation. In November of 2005, the Forest Service recommended the designation of additional acreage as wilderness in its management plan for the White Mountain National Forest. The bill that Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, incorporates the recommendations of this management plan by designating some 23,700 acres in the area of the Wild River as wilderness, and adding another 10,800 acres to the existing Sandwich Range Wilderness. This land would remain as White Mountain National Forest land under the protection of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Similar legislation is to be introduced in the House of Representatives by our New Hampshire colleagues, Representative Charles Bass and Representative Jeb Bradley. With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, Congress set out to permanently preserve areas of natural beauty for the public to enjoy; areas ``where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.'' New Hampshire was one of the original States in 1964 to have wilderness designated with the establishment of the Great Gulf Wilderness, and it reflects the view in our State that Granite Staters place a premium on safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations. In New Hampshire, we presently have four wilderness areas comprising more than 102,800 acres; and with the passage of this bill, we will expand one current wilderness area and create a fifth. In New Hampshire, we have a tradition of multiple use for the consideration of our forest lands. In the White Mountain National Forest, it is generally understood that decisions affecting the forest are vetted thoroughly and that consensus is the guideline by which policies are implemented. Indeed, the development of the White Mountain National Forest Management Plan is one of the few times in the last 30 years that the final decision on how a particular National Forest will be managed over the next 15 years was not subject to an administrative appeal by concerned citizens. As my colleagues know, wilderness areas consist of Federal lands that are permanently reserved from such activities as mining, logging, road construction, vehicular traffic, and building construction. By law, the establishment of new wilderness must be approved by Congress. That presents a unique responsibility on the part of lawmakers to reflect the views of community leaders, residents, visitors and other interested parties in designating wilderness. Given the consensus approach they undertook in their decision-making process for the White Mountain National Forest, we chose to pattern our legislation on the recommendations set forth by the Forest Service. One need only experience the beauty of the White Mountain National Forest once to understand the need to preserve it for future generations. The Forest Service has done an admirable job in putting together a Forest Management Plan that all can support. I am pleased to introduce this measure with Senator Gregg, and I encourage my colleagues to give quick consideration to our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, which will designate approximately 34,500 acres of forest land in the State of New Hampshire as wilderness. Our bill, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, will enact the recommended wilderness designations as set forth in the Forest Service Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest. Established under the Weeks Act of 1911, the White Mountain National Forest consists of nearly 800,000 acres--732,000 acres in the State of New Hampshire and 65,000 acres more in Maine. Over 6 million people visit the White Mountain National Forest annually, making it one of the most popular National Forests in the Nation. In November of 2005, the Forest Service recommended the designation of additional acreage as wilderness in its management plan for the White Mountain National Forest. The bill that Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, incorporates the recommendations of this management plan by designating some 23,700 acres in the area of the Wild River as wilderness, and adding another 10,800 acres to the existing Sandwich Range Wilderness. This land would remain as White Mountain National Forest land under the protection of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Similar legislation is to be introduced in the House of Representatives by our New Hampshire colleagues, Representative Charles Bass and Representative Jeb Bradley. With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, Congress set out to permanently preserve areas of natural beauty for the public to enjoy; areas ``where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.'' New Hampshire was one of the original States in 1964 to have wilderness designated with the establishment of the Great Gulf Wilderness, and it reflects the view in our State that Granite Staters place a premium on safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations. In New Hampshire, we presently have four wilderness areas comprising more than 102,800 acres; and with the passage of this bill, we will expand one current wilderness area and create a fifth. In New Hampshire, we have a tradition of multiple use for the consideration of our forest lands. In the White Mountain National Forest, it is generally understood that decisions affecting the forest are vetted thoroughly and that consensus is the guideline by which policies are implemented. Indeed, the development of the White Mountain National Forest Management Plan is one of the few times in the last 30 years that the final decision on how a particular National Forest will be managed over the next 15 years was not subject to an administrative appeal by concerned citizens. As my colleagues know, wilderness areas consist of Federal lands that are permanently reserved from such activities as mining, logging, road construction, vehicular traffic, and building construction. By law, the establishment of new wilderness must be approved by Congress. That presents a unique responsibility on the part of lawmakers to reflect the views of community leaders, residents, visitors and other interested parties in designating wilderness. Given the consensus approach they undertook in their decision-making process for the White Mountain National Forest, we chose to pattern our legislation on the recommendations set forth by the Forest Service. One need only experience the beauty of the White Mountain National Forest once to understand the need to preserve it for future generations. The Forest Service has done an admirable job in putting together a Forest Management Plan that all can support. I am pleased to introduce this measure with Senator Gregg, and I encourage my colleagues to give quick consideration to our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The senior Senator from New Hampshire I think has laid out a very strong case for why this amendment fails to enact the kind of basic fiscal restraint, basic fiscal responsibility that is essential-- essential in this particular time and place in our country's history, but I think essential at any time exercising that financial responsibility on the behalf of the taxpayers. I wish to talk, though, about the broad failings of this amendment, and I am concerned that we are going to see similar failings in amendment after amendment offered in this debate. This amendment fails on a number of counts. First, to pick up on the point that was made by the committee chairman, there is a complete failure to recognize the additional funds and resources that are already part of this budget, the additional funds in the education account that have been made available for vocational education, for TRIO, for Perkins, depending on what the priorities and desires and goals of the committees of jurisdiction are. By offering this amendment, the suggestion is that those resources mean absolutely nothing in this debate, that we cannot possibly get the job done with the allowances made in those areas, and I think that suggests either a lack of leadership within the Congress or the Senate on those particular areas, a lack of confidence in the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, or a lack of homework being done to understand how much has been made available in the last several years and what resources are actually available. Second, this amendment carries with it a suggestion that under no circumstances should any program in the education accounts ever be eliminated or redirected to better use those resources elsewhere. I think anyone outside of Washington who hears that statement--that no program should ever be eliminated, no funds should ever be redirected-- would think that cannot possibly be so; people within Washington, within the beltway, within the Senate cannot possibly think in those terms. But, unfortunately, this amendment makes plain they do think in those terms and, in fact, some legislation now being proposed in this very area creates 10 or 15 new education programs without looking at what exists currently and trying to find a way to better use those dollars. It is unfortunate because it does those who are in the greatest need of these kinds of programs, support, and services an injustice because we don't want to do the hard work of oversight, of looking at when programs were created and how funding can be better used. In the case of TRIO, for example, which has been mentioned, it is a worthwhile program, it is a program I have supported, but I have always made clear that I am willing to look at other programs in the Department and redirect funds and redirect resources to make sure a worthwhile effort such as TRIO gets the resources it needs. So, one, there is no regard made for the resources that are actually in the budget. Two, there is the suggestion that we couldn't possibly ever modify or eliminate a program to get more resources into the areas targeted by this amendment. Three, there is the suggestion that we couldn't possibly redirect resources in any other part of the budget to education, that we wouldn't want to touch something politically sensitive such as agricultural subsidies, such as spending subsidies for fossil fuel, oil and gas research and development, which we greatly expanded in the Energy bill that was passed last year. No effort has been made to honestly identify areas that should be a lesser priority than those targeted by this amendment. Fourth is the assumption that seems all too common, that if we want to spend more money, we should just raise taxes. We can talk about loopholes all we want, but the fact is, it is a tax increase, and they are tax increases that may have been passed in the United States Senate but were not signed into law, were not supported in the other body, and have little or no likelihood of ever making it through. So I think throwing out a tax increase in an effort to make an amendment budget neutral when you know those resources are never going to be delivered is deficit spending, pure and simple. It is wrong, it is not fiscally responsible, and it should be rejected. Budgets are about setting priorities. We can do a better job, a more honest job of setting priorities. I am always willing to look at redirecting resources, whether it is from within the Department of Education to things that should be a priority, whether it is from other programs to this. If we are not willing to do that, we shouldn't be willing to vote for amendments that blow the budget caps.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following votes in this stacked series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the bill before us, a bill that I introduced and the details of which I helped work out over a period of 5 or 6 weeks following the delay of the conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act at the end of last year. I recognize that this legislation, like almost any piece of legislation that is dealt with in Congress and in the Senate, in particular, represents a compromise. If you pursue every piece of legislation insisting that you get everything you asked for in that bill, in all likelihood you will never get anything you are seeking, and you certainly would not be able to count on the long-term support of others in this institution who might have requests or initiatives with which you might not agree. A compromise is always necessary. But I think in this case the legislation represents a substantial step forward in terms of better safeguarding our civil liberties from where we were with the current law and, equally important, allows us to lock in, to get enacted into law a number of other improvements that many of us worked very hard on in a bipartisan way. I understand that Senator Feingold doesn't support the legislation. That is certainly his right, his prerogative. But I think he shortchanges the nature of these improvements. I want to touch on the three elements of this bill so that all Senators and the public understand how these three provisions take us forward. Maybe the agreement represented in this bill does not move us as far forward as he or I or others in the Senate might like, but its moves us forward nonetheless. First, in this bill, we create an explicit review of the gag order that accompanies a 215 subpoena. He has criticized the fact that there is a 12-month waiting period for taking that gag order before a judge. In our legislation, the SAFE Act, we had a 3-month waiting period. We asked for a 3-month waiting period, and we ended up with a 12-month waiting period. That is the nature of compromise, but we did get an explicit judicial review of the gag order. I think the principle that any gag order be given an opportunity for review before a judge is not only a step forward but a victory on principle, which is extremely important in this legislation, and I think it will guide us in the future when we might deal with similar questions. Second, we struck a provision in the delayed conference report that requires the recipient of a national security letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI. That is a provision that doesn't occur anywhere else in the law. It is a provision that I think could have discouraged people from seeking legal advice. And in the case of a national security letter--a subpoena issued without the approval of a judge--we are not talking about a few dozen subpoenas or a few dozen individuals or businesses affected; we are talking about tens of thousands. Striking that requirement regarding the recipient of an NSL notifying the FBI the name of their attorney, I think, again, is a very important step forward not only in encouraging people to seek legal advice but also a very important principle to set down in this bill. A third improvement which was not even considered in the remarks of Senator Feingold is clarification that a library engaged in the traditional role of lending books, providing books to patrons in digital format, or providing access to the Internet, is not subject to a national security letter. This is an important clarification of congressional intent, an important clarification of the existing law which, unfortunately, is not clear on this point. It is not clear because the underlying law uses definitions that were written 20 years ago before the age of the Internet. I hope the Judiciary Committee will take up a full review and evaluation of the definitions and the standards regarding technology and the underlying law that is referenced here. In lieu of that, the least we can do is provide clarification as to how and when this law applies to institutions such as libraries. We have done so in a positive and meaningful way. There are two areas Senator Feingold mentioned where we had not made progress. I am more than willing to recognize we did not get everything asked for, even as we significantly improved the conference report. One is the standard of conclusive presumption which is a standard he does not support. I do not support imposing this standard of inclusive presumption for overturning the 215 and NSL gag orders, but the fact remains, as was pointed out by Chairman Specter during our original debate at the end of last year, that this is a standard that was in the Senate bill that was passed unanimously last summer. It is quite challenging tactically to try to negotiate out a provision that all Senators supported and voted for in the original Senate bill. The second issue is the most problematic, the one where I would like to have made more progress. That is in changing the standard for getting a 215 subpoena from one of mere relevance to terrorism investigation, as is the current law and the standard in the conference report, to having a clear connection to a suspected or known terrorist or foreign power. We did not succeed in getting an improvement to the standard itself. However, through the course of negotiations, because of the work done by me and Senator Feingold and others, we were able to get other requirements and criteria to be met by the government before a 215 subpoena can be issued which I will speak to in a moment. These three provisions, again, are significant steps forward from the delayed conference report. They are a step forward in the very areas that were raised as concerns at the end of the session. In conversations with Senator Feingold and Senator Craig and others after we defeated cloture on the conference report in December, we came back to the four priorities about which most of our discussions with the administration took place. We made progress on two of those priorities and added the provision clarifying the applicability of national security letters to libraries. That is a real success, indeed. It is unfortunate in this debate on the underlying bill has included language such as ``capitulation'' and ``caving.'' But it certainly does not bother me. I am very comfortable with the process we used to get these improvements. I am certainly very comfortable with the stand I took, the priorities I raised, and the end result as far as this reauthorization process goes. The conference report is a significant improvement over current law and the bill before us today is a significant improvement to the conference report. However, it is unfair to those Members who might not have had the opportunity to work directly on these issues in Judiciary or directly in our working group but feel this is a good, appropriate improvement and a good compromise, to suggest that they are only changing their vote for political reasons. There were many individuals--Democrats and Republicans--who were never willing to take a stand on this issue, even though they may have agreed with Senator Feingold, me, or others, about our concerns. They may have wished the issue would go away. There were some Members who claimed to support us but, frankly, when given the opportunity to weigh in with the administration or to help move the process forward, they chose not to. It is unfair to criticize those who worked with us--Democrats and Republicans--to push this issue forward, to make these improvements, to suddenly bring their motivation into question when they decide to support a compromise. I do not think that serves the institution of the Senate well, especially as we had before the recess a 93-to-6 vote to move forward. We have leadership on both sides of the aisle supporting this package. I think the ultimate vote on final passage of my bill and the delayed conference report will yield a very strong bipartisan agreement also. We can take issue with the level of progress that was made, we can take issue with the underlying substance of the original PATRIOT Act, the conference report, or these additional improvements, but everyone I have dealt with in this process has worked in a very direct, straightforward way. There has been a desire to find common ground, and in finding that common ground, to come to a consensus that allowed this conference report to move forward. In addition to the three improvements I described, we had previously gained improvements in a number of other areas in the conference report. I talked about the 215 standard and the fact we were not successful in changing the standard as it exists in current law. We were successful, though, in getting into the conference report the requirement that a statement of facts is provided, a statement of articulable facts supporting the 215 subpoena request. We now have minimization requirements in the conference report that require the Justice Department to eliminate extraneous information, information collected on innocent Americans, and to report to Congress exactly how that is done. We were successful in adding clarity to the roving wiretap provision so it is less likely to be abused or misused. We were able to improve the sneak-and-peek search warrant. Senator Feingold indicated we supported a 7-day notification period. In the bill we have a 30-day notification period. The original PATRIOT Act contains no specific requirement on notice other than that notice must be given to the subject of a search ``in a reasonable amount of time,'' which I think everyone would recognize leaves things to the whim of a prosecutor or a judge unnecessarily. We have 4-year sunsets for the most controversial provisions of this bill, including the 215 subpoena power, the roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf provisions. Through the work of Senator Leahy, in particular, we were able to get a criminal penalty for inadvertent disclosure of national security letters dropped from the conference report. All of these represent significant changes from the original act, significant changes included in the conference report. And in addition to the three changes in this underlying legislation, we have a better product and one that will receive strong bipartisan support. I look forward to passage of the bill. I was pleased to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this done. In doing so, in forcing us to take more time and forcing the administration to add additional protections for civil liberties to the legislation and putting together a bipartisan group willing to demand these things, we sent an important message, a message that we have a group willing to work in Congress to achieve these improvements and a message to the administration that when we are dealing with these issues, they need to be engaged and active and working toward consensus from the very beginning of the process. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today and pleased to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel on PATRIOT reauthorization, thanks to the work of Senator Durbin and others. We have legislation before us that will make the adjustments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. He specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation. As he began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current law regarding the applicability of National Security Letters to libraries. A National Security Letter is a type of administrative subpoena, a powerful tool available to law enforcement officials, to get access to documents. It is a document signed by an FBI agent that requires a business to provide certain kinds of personal records on their customers to the Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a judge before being issued. What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language that states that libraries operating in their traditional functions: lending books, providing access to digital books or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access to the Internet would not be subject to a national security letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as they do communication service providers such as a telephone company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet and send and receive e-mail. Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a national security letter, simply by virtue of making that access available to the public.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the conclusion of the Senator from Illinois is correct. A library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a National Security Letter as a result of that particular service and other services that are very much in keeping with the traditional role of libraries. Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access gives library patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail by, for example, accessing an Internet-based e-mail service. But in that case, it is the Web site operator who is providing the communication service--the Internet communication service provider itself--and not the library, which is simply making available a computer with access to the Internet. So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from Illinois and others who have worked very long and hard on this and other provisions. I think it does add clarity to the law as he described, in addition to providing other improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing law enforcement with the tools that they need in their terrorism investigations while, at the same time, balancing those powers with the need to protect civil liberties. I think, in the legislation before us, we have added clarity to the law in giving access to the courts to object to section 215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive provision dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient of a National Security Letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI. All of these are improvements to the underlying legislation, and I recognize that we had a overwhelming, bipartisan vote today to move forward on this package. I anticipate that we will have similar bipartisan votes in the days ahead to conclude work on this legislation and get a much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law.