Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Gregg and Senator Clinton to introduce Michelle's Law. This bill mirrors the law the State of New Hampshire passed in June 2006. Michelle Morse was a 20-year-old resident of Manchester, NH, and a full-time student at Plymouth State University when diagnosed with colon cancer in December 2003. Michelle's doctors wanted her to take a medical leave of absence to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, but if she dropped out of school she would no longer be covered as a dependent under her mother's plan because she would no longer be enrolled as a full-time student. The family had the option to obtain COBRA coverage but the Morses estimated the increase in monthly premiums would have been too costly. Michelle's family decided she would remain in school full time, maintain coverage, and maintain her lifestyle as much as she could. So along with her homework and books, Michelle would attend class carrying a portable chemotherapy pump attached to her hip. She refused to let cancer and the aggressive chemotherapy treatment slow her down during the next 2 years, even while student teaching at Bakersville Elementary School in Manchester, and graduated from Plymouth State in

May 2005. However, Michelle bravely lost her battle with cancer in November 2005.

Michelle's predicament prompted her mother AnnMarie to take this woeful Catch-22 they experienced to the New Hampshire State Legislature. New Hampshire responded by passing Michelle's Law in June 2006, allowing full-time students covered under State-regulated health plans a 1-year medical leave of absence while maintaining their dependency status. The bill we introduce today affords the same medical leave of absence to full-time students covered under health plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--ERISA. Michelle's Law would allow full-time students and their families to focus solely on treating an illness as opposed to concurrently being a full-time patient and full-time student. While this bill creates an additional mandate for ERISA plans, this provision would apply to less than 1 percent of all college-aged students. Yet without this modest change, the costs and hardships may be enormous. Also, this bill does not trespass on any state's right to govern and regulate its own health insurance business.

I thank AnnMarie Morse for her tireless efforts in making sure another student does not get caught between a medical leave of absence rock and a hard place of insurance regulations. I also thank Senators Gregg and Clinton for joining me today and I hope my colleagues in the Senate join us with their support and pass Michelle's Law.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Gregg and Senator Clinton to introduce Michelle's Law. This bill mirrors the law the State of New Hampshire passed in June 2006. Michelle Morse was a 20-year-old resident of Manchester, NH, and a full-time student at Plymouth State University when diagnosed with colon cancer in December 2003. Michelle's doctors wanted her to take a medical leave of absence to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, but if she dropped out of school she would no longer be covered as a dependent under her mother's plan because she would no longer be enrolled as a full-time student. The family had the option to obtain COBRA coverage but the Morses estimated the increase in monthly premiums would have been too costly. Michelle's family decided she would remain in school full time, maintain coverage, and maintain her lifestyle as much as she could. So along with her homework and books, Michelle would attend class carrying a portable chemotherapy pump attached to her hip. She refused to let cancer and the aggressive chemotherapy treatment slow her down during the next 2 years, even while student teaching at Bakersville Elementary School in Manchester, and graduated from Plymouth State in

May 2005. However, Michelle bravely lost her battle with cancer in November 2005.

Michelle's predicament prompted her mother AnnMarie to take this woeful Catch-22 they experienced to the New Hampshire State Legislature. New Hampshire responded by passing Michelle's Law in June 2006, allowing full-time students covered under State-regulated health plans a 1-year medical leave of absence while maintaining their dependency status. The bill we introduce today affords the same medical leave of absence to full-time students covered under health plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--ERISA. Michelle's Law would allow full-time students and their families to focus solely on treating an illness as opposed to concurrently being a full-time patient and full-time student. While this bill creates an additional mandate for ERISA plans, this provision would apply to less than 1 percent of all college-aged students. Yet without this modest change, the costs and hardships may be enormous. Also, this bill does not trespass on any state's right to govern and regulate its own health insurance business.

I thank AnnMarie Morse for her tireless efforts in making sure another student does not get caught between a medical leave of absence rock and a hard place of insurance regulations. I also thank Senators Gregg and Clinton for joining me today and I hope my colleagues in the Senate join us with their support and pass Michelle's Law.

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

Mr. President, Senator Kerry spoke earlier about the importance of women's business centers. I offered an amendment at the beginning of the debate a couple of days ago that would ensure continuation of funding for some of the high-performing women's business centers across the country, one of them being in Portsmouth, NH, a small facility that manages to serve 1,300 women. It covers Maine, covers northeastern Massachusetts, as well as clients across New Hampshire. Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe offered a modification to the amendment which we have agreed to accept, I think. I hope that is going to be passed on a voice vote and then my amendment with his improvements will be voted on by voice.

I thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Ranking Member Enzi, and my dear friend from Maine, Senator Snowe for working with me to ensure that this can get done in a timely way. This continuation of funding will make a difference for, of course, dozens of business centers, but that translates into thousands of women entrepreneurs across the country. Those small firms in New Hampshire and across the country are the ones that really drive economic growth. I appreciate the work they have done, Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry.

Vote on Amendment No. 116

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

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

Mr. President, this is an important debate and important discussion, especially in regard to the points made by Senator Snowe of Maine; that is, if we raise the minimum wage, we need to understand both the potential impact on small businesses and recognize those small businesses are creating most of the job opportunities in our country. They fuel our economy. Over the long term, as those smaller entrepreneurial firms grow, they provide support for a growing wage base, for benefits, and for support of the families who depend on those small businesses for their jobs.

I welcome her amendment that deals with small business regulation. It is an important step in the right direction, and I certainly hope it continues to receive bipartisan support in the Senate. I think many of the provisions that are in the substitute that deal with support for small business will receive bipartisan support.

Senator Snowe also mentioned the importance of tax treatment for small business investments and capital spending, and that they be allowed to expense that, in turn, allowing them to find additional resources to continue that pattern of investment.

The amendment I have called up also deals with the issue of small business, entrepreneurship and job creation and a small, but important, program in our Government called the Women's Business Centers. There are about 100 Women's Business Centers across the country. There is one in Portsmouth, NH, that was among the very first created in the United States, and it deals with a range of issues from providing an incubator for women entrepreneurs just starting out a firm, to providing training and counseling, support for marketing services, information about Government procurement, so many of the issues that have already been addressed on the floor.

What this amendment does is to simply ensure that those high- performing Women's Business Centers that have continued to serve a strong, important

clientele and have supported entrepreneurship and investment in their community continue to be eligible for funding.

Under the current restrictions, some of those centers, after 5 years of sustainability grants, lose the opportunity for additional funding. My amendment would create a new program within the WBC program that allows those centers to apply for a 3-year continuation of Federal funding, provided they continue to meet high standards, serve their clients effectively, and attract sources of funding from the community.

I think it is a reasonable approach, one that makes sense. Look at the great example that has been set in Portsmouth. With the limited amount of Federal funding and other community resources, in the past year, it has served over 1,300 individual entrepreneurs. That, as we like to say in Washington, is real leverage, real performance.

This does not require additional funding. It is a straightforward way to ensure that an important need continues to be met and that this bill has the appropriate balance and support for the small business community.

I commend the work of the Senator from Maine, for her work on small business generally within the Small Business Committee. This is something they have tried to address before and the Senate has supported in the past. I hope it is something that will continue to receive bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4848

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

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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. 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.