Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am compelled to object because we have another Senator coming over shortly for an amendment. I have promised the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Montana that they would have a few minutes to talk about their amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, a point of order does lie against this amendment because it is not germane postcloture. Prior to objecting to the Senator's unanimous consent request, I am happy to withhold so that the Senator from Montana may address this issue.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I do object to the request of the Senator from Nebraska.

Ms. COLLINS. It will come out of the time of the Senator from Nebraska because we have the Senator from New York coming at 12:45 for his amendment. I have no objection with that understanding--that it will come out of the time of the Senator from Nebraska.

Ms. COLLINS. I am very sympathetic to the concerns of both Senators but, unfortunately, this does not belong on the port security bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to make the following point of order, en bloc. I make a point of order that the following amendments are not germane postcloture: amendment No. 4967, offered by Senator Stabenow; amendment No. 4957, offered by Senator Clinton; amendment No. 4943, offered by Senator Clinton; and amendment No. 4958, offered by Senator Clinton.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I so modify my request.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there are two amendments that have been cleared on both sides, the Isakson amendment No. 4923, as modified, and the Baucus amendment No. 4986, as modified. I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to en bloc.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, very shortly we will be voting on cloture on the Port Security Act. I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion. We hope to be able to complete action on this bill by 5 o'clock this afternoon. We are working toward that goal. Senator Murray and I are happy to talk to our colleagues, but we will be moving through the amendments at a very rapid pace after cloture is invoked, as I hope it will be. We have made great progress on this bill. It is an important bill for our homeland security, and I urge all of our colleagues to support the cloture motion.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business immediately after the cloture vote.

Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to withhold.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to have the Chair recognize the Senator from Georgia.

Ms. COLLINS. No objection, and I so modify my request.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we have had a lot of amendments offered on the Democratic side, and there are Republican Senators who are eager to come to the floor--Senator Coburn, Senator DeMint, Senator Voinovich--to complete the action on their amendments. I thought we had an understanding that we were going back and forth, but instead we seem to be doing Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment. So until I get some clarification on how we are going to proceed, I do object.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to reconsider the vote on the Menendez amendment No. 4999 at this time.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is interesting to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the 9/11 Commission and then imply that the Reid amendment would finish the job of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, over 100 pages of the 507-page Reid amendment already are law. They are the foreign policy and public diplomacy recommendations that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission and included in the Intelligence Reform Act which became law 2 years ago--2 years ago. Many of the other recommendations of the 9/11 Commission were enacted as part of that legislation. Now, there is one area where the 9/11 Commission did recommend changes that have not been completely made, and that is in the area of congressional oversight and the reorganization of committees. Instead, the Senate and the House adopted some, but not all, of those recommendations. But, ironically, the amendment proposed by the Democratic leader does not deal with that unfinished recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. So I don't want to leave the impression that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations are what are largely found in this amendment; they are not, other than the more than 100 pages on the foreign policy and public diplomacy recommendations, which are already law and have been for almost 2 years. The fact is, our country has made tremendous progress in strengthening our security since 9/11. We have taken many actions, and if we talk to the experts, they will all tell us that those actions have made a difference. Are we completely safe? Of course not. We can never say that we are completely safe, but we are clearly safer than we were 5 years ago due to actions taken by this Congress, this administration, and State and local law enforcement. We have a ways to go, and the underlying bill on port security will help advance the security of this country. So for the reasons I have already spoken on extensively today, I hope that our colleagues will vote to sustain the point of order which I will shortly be raising against Senator Reid's amendment. It does violate the Budget Act, and I will be raising a point of order against it. But aside from the budget issues, the procedural objections, I hope my colleagues will actually look at the Reid amendment and look at what it does contain. If they do, they will find only one reference in it to port security--only one reference in it to maritime and cargo security. They will instead find page after page of policy that this Senate has already rejected with regard to our engagement in Iraq and the policy on the formula for homeland security grants. They will also find legislation that is already law, and they will find amendments that we have already adopted having to do with rail and mass transit security. So, unfortunately--and I mean this--sadly, this amendment is simply a partisan hodgepodge of provisions that have been cobbled together. I hope we can dispense with it quickly and then move back to the port security bill, an enormously important bill, a bill that many of us have worked on for years, a bill that has been bipartisan from the very start in both the House and the Senate. That is unusual, as the Presiding Officer knows. This bill is an exception to the rule. But, apparently, we couldn't quite get through the floor debate without having a partisan bomb lobbed at this bill, and I think that is unfortunate. But I hope once we get through this, we can go back to bipartisan consideration of relevant and germane amendments and we can get this work done. This is a gap in our homeland security. When we talk to the experts, they all tell us they are worried about the security of our seaports and the 11 million shipping containers that come into this country each year. We have a carefully crafted, balanced bill that strikes the right balance between the need to strengthen security and the need to facilitate trade. Again, I recognize the work that Senator Murray has done on this bill. She originated a lot of the concepts in this bill. It has been that kind of bipartisan partnership that has brought us to where we are today. So let's get this partisanship out of the way, and let's return to a bipartisan debate. This bill is so important to the security of people living near our seaports, to those working on our seaports, to the retailers in this country that rely on the cargo brought into our seaports, to our farmers who rely on shipping their crops out of our seaports. Let's remember the impact of this bill on communities not just on our coasts where the seaports are located but communities all across this country that rely on the products brought to our shores by cargo ships, or rely on the cargo ships to export these products. So I hope we can return to the underlying bill. It is a good bill, and it deserves continued bipartisan support. Could the Presiding Officer inform me how many minutes are remaining on our side?

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, and I retain a minute for myself.