Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield half of the time in opposition to Senator Toomey.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1491

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1485 Withdrawn

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased the Senator from California has agreed to modify her amendment to apply it to the executive branch. I thank her very much for her cooperation, and I would suggest the amendment be adopted, as modified, by a voice vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this is a very good amendment that Senator Enzi has offered. It recognizes the fact that we do not control trades that happen within mutual funds. Thus, there is not a need for reporting every 30 days; rather, we should keep the annual reporting requirement. It has been cleared by both sides. I do not believe it requires a rollcall vote. I would suggest that we vitiate any rollcall vote that was suggested and adopt it by a voice vote, with the concurrence of the chairman of the committee.

Mrs. COLLINS

Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1511

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1487

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, let me commend the chairman of our committee, Senator Lieberman. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with him to produce this bill. I also wish to commend the author of the bill, Senator Scott Brown, who was the first to introduce this legislation in the Senate, and also praise the work of the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, for her contributions. The STOCK Act is intended to affirm that Members of Congress are not exempt from our laws prohibiting insider trading. There are disputes among the experts about whether this legislation is necessary, but we feel we should send a very strong message to the American public that we understand Members of Congress are not exempt from insider trading laws, and that is exactly what this bill does. We need to reassure a skeptical public that we understand elective office is a place for public service, not for private gain. Underscoring that important message is clearly the purpose of this bill, and that is why I support it. I thank the Chair. Amendments Nos. 1478, 1477, 1474, 1476, 1490, 1492, and 1503 Withdrawn

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too am opposed to the amendment offered by Senator Paul. I do think the idea of a certification is a good one, but, unfortunately, Senator Paul's amendment would strike the provisions of the bill that affirm the duty we have to the American people and that scholars who testified before the committee said was necessary.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, I wish to commend Senator Paul and Senator Shelby for raising the issue of extending these requirements to the executive branch. I agree with them. I supported the amendment offered by Senator Lieberman, but I also encourage my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator Shelby. It would take in the independent regulatory agencies, and it goes a little bit deeper into the executive branch. So I think both principles are correct--that the kind of disclosures we are going to be required to make should also apply to high-level executive branch employees. I thank both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Alabama for their leadership.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the next amendment is one from Senator Portman. It is No. 1505. It is truly a technical amendment. I do not believe it needs a rollcall vote. I would suggest, with the concurrence of the chairman, that we vitiate the yeas and nays and adopt it by a voice vote.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1510 to Amendment No. 1470

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me make the point to the Senator from California, I am a cosponsor of the STOCK Act. I cosponsored Senator Brown's bill, so it is not that I do not think legislation is needed in this area. I am a cosponsor on this bill and have commended him for his work. But the fact remains that in our committee markup the bill was changed. I know the Senator was distracted when I answered that question. The bill was changed in committee to extend to the executive branch. It is in the bill that is before us now. The Senator was misinformed in that regard. The bill was changed to make very clear that the insider trading prohibition applied to the executive branch and that executive branch members have a duty to their agencies, to the government. We make that explicit. That was changed in committee. The Senator is not correct that the bill that was brought to the floor only applied to Congress. It does not. It applies to the executive branch. The second point I will make is this is not a partisan issue. We have bills on both sides of the aisle. We have amendments on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, we have disclosure amendments that apply to the executive branch coming from both sides of the aisle. Senator Wyden has a disclosure amendment that is similar to that of Senator Shelby's. We are working with both of those offices right now to try to work those out. I do not know how this all of a sudden became a partisan debate or a debate about the Bush administration or anything. This is a debate about good government and how we can best assure the American people that, regardless of whether public officials are in the executive branch or the legislative branch, they are putting the public's interests ahead of their private interests and that they are not profiting from insider information, nonpublic information that is not available to the public which they are using inappropriately--if, in fact, that is even happening--for personal gain. I did wish to clarify that the bill, as reported from committee, does apply to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, that the statement made by the Senator was inaccurate in that regard, and that we have amendments on both sides of the aisle that we are working on right now to extend the disclosure requirements, the reporting requirements to the executive branch. Those are amendments coming from both Democrats and Republicans. I would like to yield at this point to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I do not know why the Senator from California, first of all, is assuming I am somehow opposed to her amendment. I have not said that. What I raised was a very legitimate question of asking whether she had considered extending it to the executive branch. Then her response seems to be an attack; that if I have information that there are problems and sweetheart deals in the executive branch, I should prove them. I am not making allegations. I do not make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals. What I was trying to tell the Senator from California is that the issue of the scope and applicability of this bill has come up over and over. It came up in committee. We changed the bill in committee to make it clear that the prohibition against insider trading and a duty applied to the executive branch as well as to the legislative branch. I have not criticized her amendment in any way. I asked a series of questions about the scope of her amendment because this issue has come up repeatedly, on both sides of the aisle. It came up in committee during our markup. It has come up on the Senate floor repeatedly as far as what the disclosure requirements should be and to whom they should apply. I am the one who is baffled by the response of the Senator from California, since I have not indicated any opposition whatsoever to her amendment. I have merely brought up the fact that the issue of the scope of this bill has come up repeatedly, so I was curious why she chose to have such a narrow bill rather than applying it to executive branch officials who filed the same kinds of disclosure.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the reason I am raising this issue--I realize the Senator from California has not had the misfortune I have had, of being constantly on the floor listening to the debate on this bill--but a major issue we have been grappling with is parity in the rules. This issue has not just come up with regard to the amendment of the Senator from California, it has come up over and over. I am not in any way singling out the Senator from California to raise this issue. This has come up on every single issue we have been tackling on the floor, which is, if we are going to have more disclosure for the legislative branch, should we not have the exact same or comparable disclosures for high-ranking executive branch officials? The issue I raised, I wish to assure the Senator from California, is no means unique to her amendment. It has come up over and over and, indeed, the first amendment that we were supposed to have voted on last night was an amendment by Senator Paul, making clear that this bill applied to the executive branch and then Senator Shelby had an amendment to make sure there was online disclosure by the executive branch. This is an issue that has permeated the entire debate on the STOCK Act. It is not unique to the issue that has been raised by the Senator from California.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for clarifying that issue and answering my question. I guess my further question would be, why would we only apply it to Members of Congress and not apply it to members of the executive branch? For example, I would argue that if there are conflict of interest issues or allegations of a sweetheart deal for mortgages that might be revealed by this disclosure, that that would apply equally to, say, Treasury officials--in fact, even more so to Treasury officials or bank regulators--as it would Members of Congress. I wonder if the Senator's intent is to make sure that Members are not getting sweetheart deals on their mortgages--which obviously no Member should be receiving a sweetheart deal on a mortgage--why that same logic would not apply to executive branch officials, particularly since arguably they have far more direct influence and jurisdiction and regulatory authority over financial institutions than do Members of Congress.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I support the intent of the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama. I think he is right, we need parity, as much as possible, in the disclosure requirements. I also believe he is correct the disclosure reports should be online so they are easily accessible. So the intent of his amendment is one I wholeheartedly support. As Senator Lieberman does, I have some questions about the universe of Federal employees who would be covered by the amendment of the Senator from Alabama. We have been working successfully with the Senator from Kentucky, who first brought up this issue of parity, to make sure the scope of coverage is appropriate. It seems to me one way to solve these issues is to use a similar scope as we have agreed on with Senator Paul in the amendment that Senator Shelby has brought forth. We would then have a certain consistency that we had vetted the universe of Federal employees that should be covered. That seems to me to be a very appropriate and relatively easy fix to this issue. I do want to emphasize that I agree with Senator Shelby that those Federal employees should be required to file in the same timeframes as Members of Congress and their staffs, and that certainly those reports should be accessible online. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from California to the legislation written by Senator Brown. Senator Gillibrand has a similar bill as well, and I want to explain to our colleagues what the state of the current law is, which I think would be helpful. Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, there is an exemption from disclosure for mortgages secured by real property that are the personal residence of the reporting individual or his spouse. Under the liabilities section of that same report, which we now file annually, liabilities in excess of $10,000 must be reported that are owed by the Member, the spouse, or the dependent child to any one creditor during any time during the reporting period. Credit card debts, for example, are reported. Other kinds of loans are reported. Mortgages held on investment properties--properties, for example, that are rented--are reported. The exemption only goes to the personal residence of the Member and/or the Member's spouse. I am unclear, and need to get clarification from Senator Boxer and also the Office of Government Ethics, whether her amendment would extend the new disclosure requirement that she is proposing to executive branch employees or whether it would only apply to the legislative branch. As I read her amendment, it looks as though it only applies to the legislative branch and perhaps only to Members. I would ask, through the Chair, if the Senator from California could clarify for me--this is truly an informational question--whether she is intending this new requirement to apply to congressional staff and whether she is intending this new requirement to apply to executive branch members who are currently required to file an annual financial disclosure form.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no other speakers who plan to come to the floor before we are scheduled, under the previous order, to recess at 12:30. So I suggest that we might want to move up the recess time by a couple moments.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2044 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that the health of American travelers is not placed at possible risk as our airport security technology evolves. I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Coburn, Scott Brown, and Levin, who are cosponsoring this bill. Our bill has two major components. First, it would require the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, in consultation with the National Science Foundation, to commission an independent study on the possible health effects of the x-ray radiation emitted by some of the scanning machines we see and pass through in our airports. Second, it would give airline passengers, especially those passengers in sensitive groups such as pregnant women, clear notice of their ability to choose another screening option in lieu of exposure to ionizing radiation. Some advanced-imaging technology--or AIT--machines rely on x-ray backscatter technology. Time and time again, I have expressed my concern over their use, particularly since there is an alternative screening technology available. While the TSA has repeatedly told the public that the amount of radiation emitted from these machines is extremely small, passengers and some scientific experts have raised legitimate questions about the impact of repeated exposure to this radiation. Last November, during a hearing on aviation security before our Homeland Security Committee, the TSA Administrator, John Pistole, agreed to my call for an independent study to address the lingering health concerns and questions about this additional and repeated exposure to radiation. Shortly thereafter, however, he appeared to back away from this commitment, suggesting that a forthcoming report by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general might be a sufficient substitute for a new, completely independent, thorough study. Chairman Joe Lieberman and I wrote to the Administrator to press for more details about TSA's plans for an independent study. Two weeks later, having received no reply, I sent another letter to Administrator Pistole asking why he believed the IG report on TSA's use of backscatter machines was a sufficient substitute for an independent study of the health impacts. TSA's response lacked any detail as to why the agency no longer believes an independent study on the health effects of x-ray backscatter machines is warranted, nor did it explain how the IG's review would be a sufficient substitute for an independent study. That is why I have introduced this bill today. Late last year, the European Commission announced that ``in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety,'' it would only authorize the use of passenger scanners in the European Union that do not use x-ray technology. This prohibition gives even more need and justification for an independent study of the safety of the AIT machines. Some respected experts have warned Congress and the administration of the potential negative public health risks posed by the x-ray backscatter machines. They note that while the risk that someone might develop cancer because of his or her exposure to radiation during one screening by such an AIT machine is very small, we simply do not truly know the risk of this radiation exposure over multiple screenings for frequent flyers, those in vulnerable groups, or TSA employees themselves who are operating these machines. When a person is scanned by these machines, they receive a dose of radiation--what experts in the field call a direct dose. During the scan, some of the radiation is not absorbed but is scattered in random directions from the person being scanned. Experts call this the scatter dose. Some experts point to anomalies between the scatter dose reportedly associated with these scanners and the scatter dose associated with comparable medical technology. Specifically, the scatter doses for these AIT machines are higher in relative terms than scatter doses for comparable medical devices. What is troubling is that the experts are not sure why the AIT scatter doses are higher. They point to possible deficiencies with the testing equipment or the poor placement of the testing equipment as possible explanations. Overall, they say this anomaly could point to higher direct dose rates and should be yet another impetus for an independent study. Additionally, some experts note that the safety mechanisms in these machines that would prevent them from malfunctioning have never been independently tested. This means that if a machine malfunctions and the safety features designed to shut the machine down in such an instance do not work, a traveler could receive a higher dose of radiation. Pregnant women, children, the elderly, and as much as 5 percent of the adult population are more sensitive to radiation exposure. At a minimum, this suggests the need for further independent study. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a tragic episode involving the daughter of two of my constituents. She underwent screening at the airport with a backscatter x-ray AIT. She was pregnant and directed by TSA to a line for a backscatter x-ray AIT machine. She was completely unaware that she was entering into an x-ray emitting machine before she stepped into it. She thought it was the more traditional magnetometer. Afterward, she was distressed to know she had exposed her unborn child to x-ray radiation. Had she realized ahead of time, she clearly would have opted for the alternative screening methods. Only 2 weeks later, she suffered a miscarriage which she attributes to the radiation she received from this scan. We will never know for certain the cause of this family's loss, but they believe in their hearts that the backscatter radiation is to blame. Clearly, at a minimum, this young woman should have been informed by a prominent sign that an alternative means of screening was available. That is why my bill also requires TSA to have larger, understandable signs at the beginning of the screening process, not later when it is only noticed, if at all, after a lengthy wait in line. Signs should alert passengers that pregnant women, children, and the elderly can be more sensitive to radiation exposure. These signs should also make clear that passengers can opt out of this type of scanning. I have urged TSA to move forward using only radiation screening technology, but in the meantime, an independent study is needed to protect the public and to determine which technology is worthy of taxpayer dollars. Surely passengers should be well informed of their screening options. We Americans have demonstrated our willingness to endure enhanced security measures at our airports if those measures appear to be reasonable and related to real risks. But travelers become frustrated when security measures inconvenience them without cause, cause privacy or health concerns, or when they appear to be focused on those who pose little or no threat. On this particular issue, Senators Akaka, Coburn, Scott Brown, Levin, and I agree that we are past the time when an independent review of the scanning technology that emits radiation must be undertaken. I urge my colleagues to join us in quickly passing this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thought I would bring our colleagues up to date on what is going on this evening, as it is getting late. We are close, I believe, to working out an agreement for a vote on an amendment that was offered by Senator Paul earlier. It has to do with extending to executive branch officials the same kind of reporting requirement to ban insider trading that would apply to Members of Congress and their staffs. It is an amendment that enjoys the support of both managers and the principal authors of this bill. We are trying to make sure, however, that we narrow the amendment so that it applies to top-level Federal employees and not to low-level Federal employees, who have no policy responsibilities. So we were looking at limiting it to Senate-confirmed positions. The problem with that is it brings in all of the military appointments that are Senate confirmed, so we want to make sure we exclude those individuals who are clearly not the target of the amendment. We continue to work--the managers, the sponsors of the bill, and the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Paul--in order to refine his amendment. It is still our hope that we can reach that compromise and have a rollcall vote tonight. We will keep our colleagues informed about whether it will be possible to complete the drafting that would be needed to modify his amendment. Amendment No. 1490 In the meantime, I want to talk very briefly about an amendment Senator Paul filed, his amendment No. 1490. This is an amendment that would require former Members of Congress to forfeit their Federal retirement benefits if they work as a lobbyist or even engage in any lobbying activity--regardless, I might say, of whether they served 40 years in this body. I also note that the language in this amendment is extraordinarily broad. For example, the definition of remuneration includes salaries, any payment for services not otherwise identified as salary, such as consulting fees, honoraria, and paid authorship. Think about that. As I read the language, a former Member of Congress who writes a book would be in danger of forfeiting his or her pension. In other words, this is going to apply to authors. It mentions honoraria, so if a former Member of Congress gives a speech and receives $1,000 for giving that speech, that former Member is going to forfeit his or her pension--earned pension? I don't even know that this would pass constitutional muster. But there is certainly a fairness issue, it seems to me. I don't know if the intent of the Senator from Kentucky was to draft this as broadly as he did to include and define as remuneration paid authorship. In other words, if you wrote a book--and it would not even have to be a book; what if you wrote a newspaper article or an op-ed for the Washington Post and received $250 for that? Do you forfeit the Federal pension? What if you worked in the private sector for a number of years, worked in State government for a number of years, and then worked for a few years serving the people of this country in Congress? Would you then forfeit your pension if you provided some lobbying activities? If you wrote a book? If you gave a speech for money? This is extraordinarily broad. I see the Senate majority leader is on the floor, so I will stop discussing this amendment. I did want our colleagues to actually read the text of this amendment before we ever vote on it. It defines remuneration not just as salary or payment for services not otherwise identified as salary, but consulting fees, honoraria, and paid authorship. In other words, if after being in Congress you wrote a book or you wrote an op-ed for which you were paid, you forfeit your Federal pension because you did some lobbying activities? This strikes me as a very sweeping amendment that does not belong on this bill.