Floor Statements

Mr. President, I commend the senior Senators from Vermont and New Hampshire for the fine work that they did last week in managing H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 2008 State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act. Given how busy they were, I regret that we did not have a chance to clarify a scholarship program funded in that Act through the Middle East Partnership Initiative,

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen officer of the Epsom, NH, Police Department, Officer Jeremy Todd Charron, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office.

Born on March 18, 1973, Officer Charron was the third of five children to Bob and Fran Charron. Originally from Pittsfield, NH, Jeremy and his family moved to Hillsborough in 1977. Throughout his early life, Jeremy grew intensely goal orientated, a trait that persisted throughout his shortened life, and by the time he had reached second grade he knew his calling was to one day serve as a U.S. Marine.

Although he was an outstanding athlete in many sports, he excelled at playing defense on the soccer field. The same tenacity that Jeremy used on the soccer field, he carried with him off the field. One poignant example of Jeremy's developing leadership occurred as a friend lost his hair from cancer treatments and was teased by fellow classmates. While it may have been easier for most students to ignore the taunting of other classmates, Jeremy actively defended his friend. Throughout Jeremy's life, he stood up for what he thought was right and protected those who could not defend themselves.

During Jeremy's high school years at Hillsborough-Deering High School, he grew into a leader, quickly becoming active in all aspects of the school community. His peers voted him ``most spirited'' and elected him class president. At the same time, he had convinced 8 classmates to join the Marines with him following graduation. Together, they would dedicate their weekends to training for their future service in the Marine Corps.

After graduating high school in 1992, Jeremy entered the Marine Corps and proudly served his country for 4 years. As his enlistment term drew to a close, he had a new aspiration, which was to become a New Hampshire State Trooper, and looked forward to starting a family.

To achieve this objective, Jeremy enrolled at the New Hampshire Technical College in Concord to study Criminal Justice, and was hired by the Epsom, New Hampshire Police Department as a part-time and then full-time police officer.

Sadly, Jeremy's dream was cut short. On August 24, 1997, the morning after he attended the funerals of New Hampshire State Troopers Leslie Lord and Scott Phillips, Officer Charron was responding to a report of a suspicious car, which contained two men. Tragically, while Officer Charron questioned one of the men, the individual pulled out a gun and opened fire. Although Jeremy was wearing a bullet-proof vest, one of the bullets struck him in an unprotected area. Despite his fatal wounds, Jeremy heroically returned fire until he collapsed, forcing his two killers to abandon their car and steal a near-by truck that could be identified by police, eventually leading to their capture.

Had Jeremy's dreams not been cut short at the age of 24, he would have achieved his goals of becoming a State Trooper and having a family of his own. Jeremy's murderers stripped our Nation, the State of New Hampshire and the community of a true patriot, citizen, and role model, as well as a loving friend and family member.

Ten years have gone by since Jeremy's passing and a new generation of 7 nieces and nephews know Jeremy's stories. People of Hillsborough, NH, still have stories to share and lessons to learn from their very own American hero. As the years move forward, the citizens and future generations of Hillsborough will always remember Jeremy and share anecdotes about his life when they visit the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office Building.

Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen officer of the Epsom, NH, Police Department, Officer Jeremy Todd Charron, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office.

Born on March 18, 1973, Officer Charron was the third of five children to Bob and Fran Charron. Originally from Pittsfield, NH, Jeremy and his family moved to Hillsborough in 1977. Throughout his early life, Jeremy grew intensely goal orientated, a trait that persisted throughout his shortened life, and by the time he had reached second grade he knew his calling was to one day serve as a U.S. Marine.

Although he was an outstanding athlete in many sports, he excelled at playing defense on the soccer field. The same tenacity that Jeremy used on the soccer field, he carried with him off the field. One poignant example of Jeremy's developing leadership occurred as a friend lost his hair from cancer treatments and was teased by fellow classmates. While it may have been easier for most students to ignore the taunting of other classmates, Jeremy actively defended his friend. Throughout Jeremy's life, he stood up for what he thought was right and protected those who could not defend themselves.

During Jeremy's high school years at Hillsborough-Deering High School, he grew into a leader, quickly becoming active in all aspects of the school community. His peers voted him ``most spirited'' and elected him class president. At the same time, he had convinced 8 classmates to join the Marines with him following graduation. Together, they would dedicate their weekends to training for their future service in the Marine Corps.

After graduating high school in 1992, Jeremy entered the Marine Corps and proudly served his country for 4 years. As his enlistment term drew to a close, he had a new aspiration, which was to become a New Hampshire State Trooper, and looked forward to starting a family.

To achieve this objective, Jeremy enrolled at the New Hampshire Technical College in Concord to study Criminal Justice, and was hired by the Epsom, New Hampshire Police Department as a part-time and then full-time police officer.

Sadly, Jeremy's dream was cut short. On August 24, 1997, the morning after he attended the funerals of New Hampshire State Troopers Leslie Lord and Scott Phillips, Officer Charron was responding to a report of a suspicious car, which contained two men. Tragically, while Officer Charron questioned one of the men, the individual pulled out a gun and opened fire. Although Jeremy was wearing a bullet-proof vest, one of the bullets struck him in an unprotected area. Despite his fatal wounds, Jeremy heroically returned fire until he collapsed, forcing his two killers to abandon their car and steal a near-by truck that could be identified by police, eventually leading to their capture.

Had Jeremy's dreams not been cut short at the age of 24, he would have achieved his goals of becoming a State Trooper and having a family of his own. Jeremy's murderers stripped our Nation, the State of New Hampshire and the community of a true patriot, citizen, and role model, as well as a loving friend and family member.

Ten years have gone by since Jeremy's passing and a new generation of 7 nieces and nephews know Jeremy's stories. People of Hillsborough, NH, still have stories to share and lessons to learn from their very own American hero. As the years move forward, the citizens and future generations of Hillsborough will always remember Jeremy and share anecdotes about his life when they visit the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office Building.

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

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

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

I hope my colleagues will support me in this effort to extend these existing provisions in law, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I have three quick points. I certainly trust the Finance Committee. If the Finance Committee believes in all these tax provisions, it could send the bill back expediently, and it could move on its merry way. But the suggestion that doing the right thing on taxes is incompatible with the Senate doing its work is wrong.

Second, this is a second degree. It is a sense of the Senate that we agree with all these tax provisions. But we don't quite agree enough to actually write them into law. I think that is a little disappointing and disingenuous. I think if we believe this is good policy, it is the right thing to encourage accessibility of higher education, if it is the right thing to do for the 75 percent of filers in that $50,000 to $65,000 range to take advantage of these provisions, we should put it in this bill and pass it into law, and we should make sure these provisions continue to be accessible to the Americans who use them.

I make a point of order that this second-degree amendment is nongermane, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the point of order.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment that has been offered by Senator Dorgan and I have a second-degree amendment, which I will then offer. I also wish to speak about the broader issue before us, the Defense authorization bill, but specifically Iraq and an amendment I have cosponsored with Senators Salazar and Alexander dealing with the Iraq Study Group recommendations.

First, I rise in support of the amendment by Senator Dorgan. I certainly agree with him that it is critical we focus on the threat posed by al-Qaida--whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq, or the under leadership of al-Zawahiri or Osama bin Laden. That needs to be a focus of our intelligence and security efforts, as well as the efforts our special forces, because of the threat they pose not just to American citizens but to our allies around the world.

We cannot forget they are committed to the death and destruction of innocent civilians around the world. Under no circumstances should we allow any secure area, hideout, or haven to be reconstituted or recreated in the way it was created in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule.

So I am pleased to support his amendment. No one should underestimate the complexity of the challenge of tracking down the leaders of al- Qaida, wherever they are around the world, but the American people should know the greatest effort and the greatest commitment is being undertaken to deal with these terrorists.

Amendment No. 2184 to Amendment No. 2135

Mr. President, at this time, I would, however, like to offer a second-degree

amendment. In the drafting of Senator Dorgan's amendment, he speaks about ``the capture, or information leading to the capture,'' but I certainly believe most Americans would agree we should also provide support, assistance, and a reward if information leads to the death of al-Qaida's leadership.

To that end, my second-degree amendment would simply amend that line to ensure this amendment provides support for the capture or death or information leading to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, where the $50 million reward is allowed.

Mr. President, at this time, I send the amendment to the desk. It is a second degree to the Dorgan amendment, and I ask for its consideration.

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

The amendment, as I have described it, is a simple, single line that inserts that additional contingency. I think the reporting and the assessment of the threats that are included in this amendment make sense. Members of Congress along with members of our intelligence agencies need the most accurate information available to understand what work is being undertaken, what efforts are being made, and what progress is in tracking these terrorists. I think that, in turn, will help us make much better policy decisions.

So I am pleased to support the amendment. I hope the Senator from North Dakota will accept my second-degree amendment, and I look forward to the adoption of this change to the Defense Authorization bill.

Second, Mr. President, I wish to address the Salazar-Alexander amendment that has been filed, which we certainly hope to have a vote on next week. This is a piece of legislation that I worked with Senators Salazar and Alexander on addressing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan effort covered extensively in the media since the release of their recommendations in December 2006. I made the point at the time, 7 months ago, that those recommendations--there were over 70 different proposals and recommendations in the report--represented the most complete assessment that had been made of the situation in Iraq. That it was a comprehensive framework, and that it did not just deal with security issues but included recommendations addressing political reforms that need to take place within the country with the political dynamics of Iraq. That it included diplomatic efforts that could make a real difference in stabilizing Iraq, supporting the efforts of neighbors and other countries in the region, as well as changes that ought to be made to our intelligence-gathering operation to support not just our effort in Iraq but our effort to deal with al-Qaida in Iraq and around the world. This is something that Senator Dorgan spoke about.

I said at the time that, that framework and those recommendations should be embraced and implemented to the greatest extent possible, first, because it is a comprehensive effort, and second, because the Iraq Study Group proposals recognize the importance and responsibility of the Iraqi Government implementing a series of reforms. They include economic development, reconciliation, the sharing of oil revenues with peoples of all regions and ethnic groups across the country, the debaathification process--designed to bring the country closer together, to create greater unity among the different ethnic factions across Iraq. Only the Iraqi Government, given time, can accomplish these goals which are essential to improving the stability within the region, reducing the level of violence and creating the environment where our troops can be brought home as soon as possible. No American soldier should serve in Iraq a day longer than is absolutely necessary.

This plan is comprehensive in its approach. It recognizes the importance and the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to take steps to improve the situation, and it places an emphasis on the coalition mission, the mission of U.S. forces, in addressing the threat of al- Qaida, focusing on the counterterrorism mission within the country, and training Iraqi security forces.

This is one of the few and perhaps the only truly broad bipartisan effort we have had before us in the last several months. We have seen a series of relatively partisan votes dealing with hard withdrawal dates, criticizing the Pentagon policy in one area or another. On this legislation right now we have seven Democratic sponsors, six or seven Republican sponsors, and I think the support we would receive from both sides of the aisle is even more dramatic than that. So it is a bipartisan effort that attempts to implement or help encourage the implementation of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I think that provides a very sound and strong framework, not just for improving the situation in Iraq but for also addressing a lot of the regional problems that are contributing to its stability in the other countries in the region.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to take a hard look at this legislation. I don't think anyone would agree with 100 percent of all of the recommendations in the Iraq Study Group Report, but I think we can recognize that it is the product of a great deal of effort to understand the situation, assess the climate in Iraq, and make substantive recommendations that will move us forward.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, and I wish to recognize the considerable achievements of Claira Monier, a Goffstown resident who recently announced her retirement after leading the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority for nearly two decades.

Claira is a gold standard public servant. A New Hampshire native, she has devoted her life to improving her community, State and Nation. Moreover, in what limited spare time she has, Claira is someone to whom Senator Gregg and I can turn for steady counsel on policy--housing tax credits, bond caps, affordable housing--and politics. She is a rare and irreplaceable friend.

Whether in the classroom or leading efforts to expand access to housing or health care, Claira has demonstrated the highest commitment to service over a 40-year period. Although her record of achievement is well-known in New Hampshire, it is worth repeating here on the floor of the Senate.

From 1967 to 1974, she held teaching and administrative positions at New Hampshire College and St. Anselm College. Claira subsequently served for 5 years as the director of the New Hampshire State Council on Aging, completing her tenure in 1981.

Having demonstrated uncommon competence and creativity in these roles, Claira was selected as Region I Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 1988, she began her legendary career as executive director of the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority-- an organization on which she has left an indelible mark.

While working by day to support affordable housing and home ownership initiatives in New Hampshire, Claira managed to simultaneously bring her leadership skills to a number of nonprofit boards.

She served as a Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston from 1990 to 1992 and was a member of its Affordable Housing Advisory Council. She also found time to serve for 2 years as chairman of then- Governor Gregg's Commission on Health Care Costs and Availability, leaving the panel in 1991. Claira was board president of the National Council of State Housing Agencies and served as cochair of the Fannie Mae Housing Impact Advisory Council.

The list goes on: past chair of the Manchester Red Cross; former Southern New Hampshire University trustee; 2003 chair of the Heritage United Way Campaign; former chair of the New Hampshire Main Street Center; chair of New Hampshire's chapter of the American Lung Association; chair of the West High School endowment fund; member of the Dartmouth Hitchcock Healthcare System's assembly of overseers; and so on.

It is not exactly clear when, or if, Claira had time to sleep.

But this much is known: Claira is one of those special people who looks at her community and is able to see how she can make it better. She is not prone to idle thoughts. Rather than stand on the sidelines saying how the order of the world should be, Claira enters the arena with vigor and inspires people to achieve difficult objectives.

The results of her work can be seen across New Hampshire. For first- time homeowners in our State--or those who thought they might never be able to own a place of their own--it is likely that Claira's leadership at New Hampshire Housing had something to do with their securing a piece of the American dream. It is difficult to imagine work that is more hopeful.

There is no question that Claira leaves behind a rich legacy at New Hampshire Housing. Her successors, no doubt, share her commitment to that organization's mission and will continue the important work she has started. It should be noted, though,

that Senator Gregg and I will certainly miss working with her on critical issues that impact so many New Hampshire residents.

Claira may be retiring from her day job but in no way is she retiring from her community. Her knowledge of New Hampshire, her warm demeanor, and her strong leadership will continue to benefit the organizations she supports. Additionally, candidates--notably those seeking the highest office in the land--will turn to Claira for advice and counsel that only she can provide.

Claira is a good, true and loyal friend. A great citizen of New Hampshire, Senator Gregg and I extend our warm regards to Claira on the occasion of her retirement. We look forward to seeing her in the communities she has served and will serve.

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

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

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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.

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

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.