Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13 at 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nominations of John Ray Correll to be director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Mark Myers to be director of the United States Geological Survey, and David Longly Bernhardt to be solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Housing Bubble and its Implications for the Economy.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Challenges Facing Today's Federal Prosecutors,'' on Wednesday, September 13, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in SD226. Witness list Panel I: Mike Battle, Director, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Susan Brooks, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Indiana, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: William Shockley, Former President, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Lake Ridge, VA.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, this reflects an agreement between the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Ohio. It is my understanding that it has been cleared on both sides, and I ask for its adoption.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of the Senator from New Jersey in which he advocates for 100 percent scanning. He says, for example, that is the only way we can be safe, that we would never scan just 5 percent of the people coming to the White House. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how the current system works, so let me start with an explanation of the layered system of security we have at our ports right now. First, all cargo manifests are submitted to authorities 24 hours before ships pull into ports. The automated targeting system is a sophisticated analysis that looks at where did the cargo come from, what is its destination, what is the cargo, who are the shippers involved, who is the retailer or other recipient of the cargo. Through a classified system, those and other factors are considered, and the cargo is assigned scores depending on this analysis. Let me first be very clear. Every single container goes through that step, and that is called screening. There is a lot of confusion among the terms ``screening,'' ``scanning,'' ``integrated scanning,'' and ``inspection.'' So what I have described is the screening process that uses this automatic targeting system to identify at-risk containers. After the at-risk containers are identified, they are supposed to be scanned or even physically searched by Customs and Border Protection. However, an investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee, which Senator Coleman led, indicated that this system didn't always result in an inspection of the high-risk container, despite it being identified. Senator Coleman is going to be offering an amendment shortly that will ensure 100 percent scanning of those high-risk or at-risk containers. So that is one aspect of the system we have now. Another layer is the Container Security Initiative. Under this program, our American Customs and Border Patrol officers are stationed at foreign ports. The CSI program is currently operational in 44 ports which cover approximately 75 percent of containerized cargo heading for the United States by sea. What we do is we work with the host government, and again, the process is to push hazards away from our shores, identify the high-risk cargo, and make sure it is never loaded onto our ships in the first place. In addition, there is another system, which is that many containers are also scanned for radiological material at U.S. ports. When I visited, with the Senator from Washington State, the Seattle Port, we saw the radiation portal monitors that do this kind of scanning. Our bill requires that by the end of 2007, the largest U.S. ports must have radiation scanners which will ensure that 98 percent of inbound containers are scanned. There is also a Department of Energy program called the Megaports Initiative that is currently scanning containers in foreign ports for radiological material. Yet another layer of security is the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, the so-called C-TPAT Program. This is a program whereby manufacturers, retailers, and shippers secure the supply chain so that security is assured from the factory door to when the container arrives at our shores. Every step of the supply chain is secured. Senator Murray has improved upon that concept with her GreenLane concept which will give additional benefits to shippers who undertake even stronger security measures. This involves making sure, for example, that containers are sealed with electronic seals that can reveal whether they have been tampered with or opened en route. In other words, this is a risk-based approach to enhancing the security of our containers. At the same time--and this is the approach our bill builds upon--the layered approach to security allows the maritime cargo industry in the United States, which moves more than 11 million containers per year, to function efficiently. That is important. I have seen the giant VACIS machines that do these x-ray screenings. It is not that quick a process. It takes a while. It takes probably 4 minutes or so for them to go around the container, and then the analysis of those images can take up to 15 minutes. With 11 million containers entering the U.S. seaports every year, the delay caused by screening all containers would cause a massive backlog of cargo at the ports. That doesn't mean that someday--someday soon, I believe--we are not going to have the technology that will allow us to do an integrated scan, both in x ray and a scan for radiological material, in a far more efficient way and have a method of triggering an additional review if something is found. The Washington Post said it very well in an editorial yesterday when they said: The ``inspect all containers'' mantra is a red herring that exploits America's fears about what might slip through in order to score political points, ignoring the fact that there are much more cost and time effective ways of keeping dangerous cargo out of the country. Our bill we have brought before the Senate would do just that by strengthening and improving upon the existing programs. I believe with Senator Coleman's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor along with the Senator from Alaska, we can even improve it further and set the stage when someday--soon, I hope--we do have the technology that allows us to do 100 percent integrated scanning. The Senator from New Jersey just calls for scanning, so I don't know whether he doesn't want an integrated system which includes the radiological scan. But in any event, it has an integrated scanning system that will work and allow us to move cargo quickly. That is where we should be headed. We can't ignore the reality that we don't have the technology yet to do that effectively and efficiently now but that we can put in place a layered system that gives us greater protections than we have today. We have to realize also that we have limited resources. I remember an expert in port security once telling me that if you inspect everything, you inspect nothing. You have to focus on risk and you have to come up with systems that build a layered approach, starting with securing the supply chain, working with the governments of foreign ports, having radiological scanning, making sure we put into place a layered security system. I would note two other issues that I see in the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey. First, much to my surprise, the language on page 2 of his bill suggests that all outbound cargo from the United States would have to be scanned. I can't imagine what the impact on trade would be. They would be using the same equipment as the inbound containers, so it would cause a tremendous backlog in scanning containers. Second, he has some troubling language where he calls for a description of the consequences to be imposed on foreign ports or U.S. ports that don't meet the benchmarks described in his language, which may include the loss of access to U.S. ports and fines. What are we saying--that we are going to threaten ports with fines rather than working with them? That kind of language just invites retaliation by foreign governments, and I think it is misguided in the extreme. So I think the bill is a very good bill that we have brought before our colleagues and a balanced bill to deal with this issue, but I think we can strengthen it further, improve it further by adopting the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, which I am proud to support and cosponsor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, then I am going to have to object to the Senator proceeding at this time because we have proposed that all three amendments that deal with the scanning or screening of cargo be considered together, including the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. If we can get an agreement where we could consider and debate all three amendments and then have three consecutive votes on those amendments, then I would not object. But if we cannot get that agreement, then I do object.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it would be helpful if the Democratic manager of the bill or the sponsor of the amendment gave us some idea as to the subject of the amendment and whether the Senator from New Jersey is seeking a full debate on it or just wants to call it up briefly--or what his intentions are. The Senator from New Jersey has an amendment that we are trying to put in a block of amendments to deal with the issue of scanning cargo. There are three such amendments that are pending: the amendment of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer; the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey; and the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. I need more information about the Senator's intentions, given he has filed more than one amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, has all time expired under the time agreement?

Ms. COLLINS. And without checking with the managers of the bill. We have a great number of Senators who are seeking to bring up their amendments or speak on the bill, and it would be helpful if the Senator from New York would work through the managers of the bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I raise a point of order against the Reid amendment because it violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

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

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. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his clarification. With that understanding, I am pleased to recommend that the Senate adopt his amendment. I yield to the Democratic manager of the bill to see if we could clear this amendment.

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

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?

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield time to the Senator from South Carolina, depending on how much time he needs.

Ms. COLLINS. That will be fine. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Coleman amendment No. 4982, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Menendez amendment No. 4999, with no amendment in order to either amendment prior to the vote; finally, that the time until the vote be equally divided between the two managers or their designees, and that there will be 2 minutes equally divided of debate prior to each vote.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I understand that this is directly related to the fiscal transparency, Google For Good Government, bill of the Senator from Oklahoma. I hope this will clear the way for its passage.