Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate has spent much of this week debating S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2006. I commend my good friend and colleague from Wyoming for all of his hard work on this legislation, which is intended to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to join together to purchase association-based small business health plans. Despite my support for the goal of this bill, I think its approach is fundamentally flawed. Let me explain my concerns. One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured. Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker. Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 percent of uninsured workers either work for a small firm or are self-employed. Taking a look at the problems faced by small businesses is, therefore, a good place to start as we attempt to reduce the numbers of uninsured. Small businesses want to provide quality health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high. So I am totally in agreement with the underlying goal of this legislation, which is to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and their employees. To that end, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to help employers cope with rising costs by creating new tax credits for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable and by providing grants to States to assist with the development and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives to increase the clout of small businesses in their negotiations with insurers. I do, however, have a number of very real concerns about S. 1955, as it was reported out of the Senate HELP Committee. First, the legislation preempts the States' traditional authority to regulate insurance and allows not just small business health plans but all health insurers to exclude important benefits like cancer screenings, mental health coverage, and diabetes care that currently are guaranteed under many State laws. States have had the primary responsibility for the regulation of health insurance since the 1940s, and based on my experience in overseeing the Maine Bureau of Insurance for five years, I believe that States have generally done a good job of responding to the needs and concerns of their citizens. As the founder and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I also am all too aware of the tremendous emotional and economic toll that this devastating disease takes on an estimated 21 million Americans and their families. I am particularly concerned that the bill would preempt as many as 46 State laws guaranteeing coverage for the medications, equipment, services, and supplies that people with diabetes need to manage their disease and prevent costly and potentially deadly complications. This simply is penny wise and pound foolish. Diabetes currently costs our Nation more than $132 billion annually. Eighty percent of those costs are due to the complications associated with diabetes-- complications that, absent a cure, can only be prevented through prevention and proper management of the disease. If cloture is invoked, I will be offering an amendment with Senators Bingaman and Domenici to preserve State laws requiring coverage for comprehensive diabetes care. Both the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation have endorsed our amendment. I am also concerned that the bill would preempt State rating rules and establish a new national standard. Proponents of the legislation contend that the application of this new national standard may not cause much disruption in many states. In Maine, however, which uses modified community rating, it could alter the market substantially. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that one-quarter of all small businesses will actually pay higher premiums if this bill is passed. It is therefore likely that many small employers in Maine--particularly those with an older workforce--will wind up paying more, and in some cases substantially more, under this bill. This bill is no panacea, even for those small employers who will see savings. The CBO estimates that health care premiums will only average about 2 to 3 percent lower if S. 1955 is passed. Many small business owners have been told that the bill will cut their costs by from 12 to 20 percent. Even those employers who do see savings are likely to be disappointed that they are not as great as they had been led to believe. Finally, I am concerned that the bill, as reported by the committee, could allow health plans to exclude a class of health care providers, solely on the basis of their license or certification, restricting patients' access to qualified health professionals. This is a particularly important issue in rural areas like Maine, where there may not be a sufficient supply of physicians to provide the care that the health plan has promised to cover. For example, virtually all health plans cover medically necessary primary care services. Many rural Americans use a physician assistant or nurse practitioner as their primary care provider because there simply isn't an adequate supply of physicians where they live. In these areas, if a plan only covers primary care services offered by a physician, patients will either have to drive great distances to receive the care they need or pay out of pocket for services that are supposed to be covered benefits. If cloture is invoked, I will be offering an amendment to maintain the application of all existing State laws prohibiting health insurers from discriminating against health providers who are acting within their scope of practice under State law, solely on the basis of their license or certification. Mr. President, I do plan to vote for cloture. Congress should be taking action to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses, and I believe that this debate should go forward. I do not, however, believe that we need to preempt the good work that States have done in the area of patient's rights and protections in order to help our small businesses. I would, therefore, oppose the current bill on final passage unless it is substantially changed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a change to the Stafford Act that, in some cases, could facilitate recovery from natural disasters. Governments on the local, State and Federal level have a primary and critical responsibility when it comes to responding to natural disasters. A wide variety of private organizations also play an important role in the recovery process that complements and facilitates public response efforts. In the case of private utility companies, their work to restore normal telecommunications, power, and other services in a disaster area can greatly speed the recovery process. Our investigation into the response to Hurricane Katrina has shown that a number of utility companies were hampered in their recovery efforts by shortages of fuel, transportation, equipment, and other resources in the afflicted areas. In some cases, we also found that FEMA had supplies of scarce resources, received requests to share those resources but lacked the legal authority to do so. What this bill would do is provide FEMA authority to share its resources during a disaster--at FEMA's discretion and for full compensation. This would allow FEMA--in those cases where it has sufficient resources to share--to advance the recovery process in the wake of a disaster at no expense to the Government. Mr. President, I am introducing this commonsense legislation because it will incrementally improve our capacity to respond to disasters without additional costs to the Government. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a change to the Stafford Act that, in some cases, could facilitate recovery from natural disasters. Governments on the local, State and Federal level have a primary and critical responsibility when it comes to responding to natural disasters. A wide variety of private organizations also play an important role in the recovery process that complements and facilitates public response efforts. In the case of private utility companies, their work to restore normal telecommunications, power, and other services in a disaster area can greatly speed the recovery process. Our investigation into the response to Hurricane Katrina has shown that a number of utility companies were hampered in their recovery efforts by shortages of fuel, transportation, equipment, and other resources in the afflicted areas. In some cases, we also found that FEMA had supplies of scarce resources, received requests to share those resources but lacked the legal authority to do so. What this bill would do is provide FEMA authority to share its resources during a disaster--at FEMA's discretion and for full compensation. This would allow FEMA--in those cases where it has sufficient resources to share--to advance the recovery process in the wake of a disaster at no expense to the Government. Mr. President, I am introducing this commonsense legislation because it will incrementally improve our capacity to respond to disasters without additional costs to the Government. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will modify the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire county so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be fully realized in northern Maine. The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little Federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program represents a long-term partnership between the Federal Government and rural communities so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax relief. Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the county has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15- percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base. In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. They have attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone will help ensure its future economic prosperity. However, the restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefiting from this tremendous program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the county in the Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the county will not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the county simply to take advantage of Empowerment Zone benefits. Senator Snowe and I introduced this legislation during the 108th Congress. In fact, we were successful in getting this legislation passed in the Senate by attaching it to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this language was removed during conference negotiations with the House. Senator Snowe and I remain committed to bringing the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to all of Aroostook County's residents and will work to pass this legislation in both Chambers during this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to correct the record regarding conservation funding I secured last year under the Forest Legacy Program. During debate on the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations Act, I worked with Senator Olympia Snowe to obtain $4.5 million to protect 37,000 acres of forested land in my home state of Maine. I was very pleased that these crucial resources were allocated for this section of the 100-mile wilderness, which in addition to its natural beauty provides critical habitat to a variety of species, providing vital breeding, feeding, and resting grounds. The site of a long-deserted factory, Katahdin Ironworks, marks the gateway to this treasured expanse of wooded land. It was from this notable Piscataquis County landmark that project supporters generated the name ``Katahdin Ironworks Forest Legacy Program'' to refer to this effort to protect and preserve this stretch of forest. As the old adage goes, so much is in a name. And this name has sparked unfounded criticism from colleagues and outside interest groups who have jumped to the assumption that funding secured for this project was to be utilized for the upkeep of an abandoned building. Today, I wish to set the record straight and assure my fellow Senators and other interested parties that this highly competitive program funding will be used to ensure the survival of thousands of acres of precious forest. There are many things that make America great, but it is our commitment to safeguarding our open spaces and wooded lands that make us unique as an industrialized Nation. Sadly, the growing trend of urban sprawl, along with the increased pressure to exploit our natural resources, has placed the survival of these invaluable lands in jeopardy. General agreement that we must undertake conservation efforts to ensure the preservation of these precious natural landscapes for future generations has lead to the development of conservation programs like Forest Legacy. This initiative has afforded us a needed mechanism to facilitate the survival of these lands. Supported by the Wilderness Society, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and other respected environmental protection groups, the Forest Legacy Program enjoys a wide range of support among organizations committed to natural preservation causes. Sadly, limited resources preclude our ability to defend all endangered wilderness areas through this program, and it thus remains appropriately competitive. For this reason, I was extremely pleased that both the President's budget and the Senate Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of maintaining this pristine wilderness in my home state, and included funding to protect it through tight Forest Legacy Program dollars. In fact, this project was recognized as one of the most meritorious in the country by a distinguished panel of experts at the United States Forest Service. I am hopeful that through increased understanding of the Forest Legacy Program and a more accurate depiction of the Katahdin Ironworks project that my colleagues will appropriately recognize and appreciate my commitment to preserving our wooded lands.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will modify the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire county so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be fully realized in northern Maine. The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little Federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program represents a long-term partnership between the Federal Government and rural communities so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax relief. Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the county has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15- percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base. In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. They have attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone will help ensure its future economic prosperity. However, the restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefiting from this tremendous program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the county in the Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the county will not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the county simply to take advantage of Empowerment Zone benefits. Senator Snowe and I introduced this legislation during the 108th Congress. In fact, we were successful in getting this legislation passed in the Senate by attaching it to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this language was removed during conference negotiations with the House. Senator Snowe and I remain committed to bringing the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to all of Aroostook County's residents and will work to pass this legislation in both Chambers during this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman in Bangor, ME, the city I am proud to call home. Her name is Katherine Lebowitz, but her friends call her Kay. And she has lots of friends: the citizens of Maine she represented so well in the State legislature, the residents of Bangor she served as mayor, the countless people who benefit from her tireless volunteer work for educational, cultural, and charitable causes. Also among her close circle of friends are the more than 260,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces who have passed through Bangor International Airport during the last 3 years of conflict. Whether Bangor is their last stop before going overseas or the first American soil they touch on the way home, Kay Lebowitz and the wonderful Bangor Troop Greeters are there. Nearly 1,500 military flights have landed in Bangor since 2003, and the Troop Greeters have met every one day or night with cookies, homemade fudge, cell phones to call loved ones back home, cheers of gratitude, and hearty handshakes. At the age of 90 soon to be 91 Kay has arthritis that prevents her from shaking hands, so she hugs. She hugs until her arms ache, but there is a hug for everyone. To the returning troops, she says, ``Welcome home.'' To those headed out, it is ``See you on the way back.'' And she will. Today K-I-S-S radio in Bangor is holding a roast in honor of Kay Lebowitz. This event will include the ceremonial ``retirement'' of a pair of her trademark eyeglasses very stylish eyeglasses into the Troop Greeters Hall of Fame at Bangor International Airport. This is precisely the kind of lighthearted gesture Kay enjoys most, and it is fully in keeping with her generous spirit. I am sure my Senate colleagues join me and all Americans in thanking the Bangor Troop Greeters for their extraordinary efforts in expressing the gratitude we all share, and in wishing the very best on this special day to Kay Lebowitz. She is a remarkable woman and a great patriot.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my admiration for the Senator from Wisconsin. He is a champion of good government. I worked very closely with him on the McCain-Feingold bill, and I think the world of him. I know the intent of his amendment is admirable, but I do not think it is workable. It is far too sweeping, and it will lead to all sorts of problems. There are literally millions of Americans who work for LDA registrants. For example, I would imagine that nearly every employee of a Fortune 500 company fits in that category. Many of those employees have absolutely no responsibility for the lobbying activities of their companies. They probably have no idea their company, their employer, is an LDA registrant. That is why I do not think this is workable. I think it will create all sorts of inadvertent violations of this important law. What we would be doing, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, is treating rank-and-file employees as if they were registered lobbyists. That does not make sense. The fact is, a lot of business in this country is done over lunch, an informal lunch. I have lunch occasionally with the union presidents from one of my shipyards. Is that all of a sudden going to become an offense under this proposal because the shipyard employs a lobbyist in Washington? I think we need to think more thoroughly about the implications of this amendment. Its sweep is enormous. It brings millions of rank-and- file employees into the jurisdiction of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. I do not think that is addressing any problem. Now, I do think it is important we strengthen this bill to make very clear that registered lobbyists cannot buy meals for Members of Congress. I support that reform. But let's have a sensible bill. I do rise in opposition to the amendment from my good friend from Wisconsin.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first let me begin by thanking my colleague from Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill forward. I also want to commend the ranking member of the committee, Senator Dodd. This has been an unusual and extraordinary experience where we have two committees that produced bipartisan bills with overwhelming support-- only one negative vote between the two committees--and have brought legislation to the Senate floor where it was married together and presented to the full Senate. I am very proud that there has not been a single party-line vote that has occurred as we considered this bill, both in committee--in my committee, anyway--and also here on the Senate floor. I do think this is a model for how the Senate should act, that we can act together in a bipartisan way and look at how much we can get done when we do so. So I salute Senator Lott and Senator Dodd for their extraordinary leadership. I also thank the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, for all that he has done to advance this very important cause. Senators McCain and Santorum also were key figures. Senator McCain introduced one of the earliest bills. Senator Santorum brought together a bipartisan group which agreed on certain principles that became the foundation of the legislation before us. The Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Reid, worked together to ensure that we would complete action on this bill. I must say, when the bill was pulled before, I was worried about whether we would return to finish the job. We have done just that, and I am proud of that activity. This legislation is a strong bill. It may not be a perfect bill--we probably would all have different definitions of what a perfect bill would be--but it is a strong bill that I believe will help to enhance public confidence in the integrity of Government decisions. Let me describe some of the major provisions of the bill as approved and, in particular, the emphasis on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's provisions. First of all, we greatly strengthened the disclosure required by lobbyists. The legislation requires quarterly filings rather than the present semiannual filings by lobbyists, and it ensures that the information is made available to the public on the Internet. We will have stronger, more accessible disclosure reports. This is important in terms of ensuring that there is adequate sunshine on these activities. Our goal, which would be accomplished by this bill, is to have lobbying disclosure reports on a searchable, easily accessible public database, so that the public can evaluate the spending that is occurring, and so that they know who is lobbying whom. I think disclosure is going to make a big difference, and we put some teeth in the disclosure process by doubling the maximum penalty for noncompliance to $100,000. I think that is going to provide ample incentive for prompt and full disclosure. Another provision of the bill will provide for auditing and oversight of the lobbyists' disclosure reports by the Comptroller General, the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO will do some random audits, give us advice, and help us understand weaknesses in the current system. Another important provision that really hasn't been discussed much on the Senate floor is that the legislation provides for mandatory ethics training for Members of Congress and congressional staff. I think this is important as well. I think a lot of times people aren't fully informed of what the rules are. We are going to require mandatory training for both Members and their staffs. Another provision of the legislation addresses the so-called revolving door issue where Members of Congress and high-ranking staff leave Government for jobs focused on the institution in which they once served. We extend the cooling off period during which a former Member of Congress or a former senior executive branch official may not lobby from 1 year to 2 years. We also make an important change in the so- called revolving door provisions as they apply to senior staff. Right now the limitation is that a staff member cannot lobby the specific office for which he or she worked for a 1-year period. We retain that 1-year period--the cooling off period--but we extend it to the entire Senate or the entire body in which the staffer worked. So I think that is a significant strengthening of the revolving door provisions. Our legislation also, for the first time, prohibits lobbyists from providing gifts and travel that Members and staff are prohibited from accepting under the ethics rules. The burden has always been on Members. We have a parallel requirement placed now, for the first time, on lobbyists, and I think that is going to make a difference as well. I am pleased that we adopted an amendment on the Senate floor to draw a bright line to make it clear that lobbyists cannot provide gifts to Members, including meals. Another provision of our bill, this provision authored by Senator Coleman, would create a commission to look over our ethics laws and rules and to make recommendations to Congress by July 1 of this year on any further changes that would be appropriate. Again, I think this is an excellent bill. It is an important step forward toward the goal of restoring public confidence in the decisions that we make. Some people asked: Why does this matter? Why should we be even spending time strengthening our lobbying disclosure laws, prohibiting practices that might undermine the public's confidence in Government? The reason this is so worthwhile and so important is that we cannot tackle the big issues facing our country if the public doesn't trust us to act in the public interests. Too often, the public is convinced that the big decisions are tainted by undue influence. Lobbying conjures up images of all-expense-paid vacations masquerading as factfinding trips, or special access that the average citizen does not have, or decisions that are tainted by improper influence. That means the public doesn't have confidence that we will do the right thing, that we will act in the public interest rather than to meet the wishes of some special interest. That is why this matters. The experts tell us over and over again that there are so many important issues--entitlement reform, for example--that we should be tackling. But if the public doesn't trust us, if the bonds of trust between public officials and their constituents are frayed, then it is very difficult for us to make the difficult choices, for us to make the hard decisions. That is why this matters. That is why this legislation is so important. In many ways, it is the foundation that allows us to proceed to tackle the challenges facing our great Nation. I am very pleased and proud today that we have come together. I believe this legislation will be overwhelmingly adopted by the full Senate, and that is as it should be. I am also very pleased to see the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee has joined us on the floor. As I said earlier when he was not on the floor, he has been such a valuable partner. His commitment to good government and to repairing the public trust in government is second to none. It has been a pleasure to work with him as well as with Senator Lott and Senator Dodd as we brought forward this bipartisan endeavor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in SD-430.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``Bolstering the Safety Net: Eliminating Medicaid Fraud.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, Titles II through VI.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Multilateral Development Banks.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., on FAA Budget.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am going to reserve my 6 minutes for right before the vote for some concluding comments. I probably will not use all 6 minutes. I have no objection to turning now to the debate on the Wyden amendment. Amendment No. 2944

Ms. COLLINS. And I believe there is a parallel time agreement for further debate on the Wyden amendment; am I correct?

Ms. COLLINS. And I believe the time of the opponents has expired, the time that was controlled by Senator Voinovich; am I correct?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to clarify our situation, if I may, if the Presiding Officer would tell me if I am correct that there is still an amount of time remaining to the proponents of the Collins-Lieberman- McCain amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, would the Presiding Officer review the time agreement that we are about to embark on for consideration of the Collins-Lieberman-McCain amendment?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly we will vote on the Wyden- Grassley amendment. First, we will vote on the Collins-Lieberman-McCain amendment which is the second-degree amendment. I applaud the initiative of Senators Wyden and Grassley. When this amendment first came up, I spoke in favor of it. I believe we do need to end the practice of secret holds. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Wyden- Grassley amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. I also ask for the yeas and nays on the Wyden-Grassley amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

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