Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Women's History Museum Act of 2005. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have helped in this important effort and who have agreed to be cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Dole, Mikulski, Hutchison, Boxer, Snowe, Cantwell, Murkowski, Clinton, Feinstein, Lincoln, Murray, Stabenow, Voinovich, Akaka, Bennett, Durbin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, and Pryor. I introduced this bill last Congress, and it passed the Senate unanimously. The need to establish a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is clear. There is currently no national institution in the Washington, D.C. area that is dedicated to the legacy of women's contributions throughout our country's history. Sadly, fewer than 5 percent of the Nation's 2,200 National Historic Landmarks are dedicated to women, a troubling fact given the significant contributions of women throughout our Nation's history. The proposed legislation would direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. (NWHM) to establish a museum in the currently vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C. The NWHM is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational institution in the District of Columbia that was created to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor and to present the contributions that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society. In 1999, the President's Commission on the celebrating of Women in American History concluded that ``efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include,the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital,'' citing the efforts of the NWHM to implement this goal. The proposed legislation would serve two important purposes: Creating, as the President's Commission recommended, a national women's museum in the District of Columbia and, by designating the Pavilion Annex, utilizing a currently vacant space on Pennsylvania Avenue, considered ``America's Main Street.'' I would note that, last Congress the Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed real property on its High Risk list noting that vacant and underutilized properties present significant potential risks to Federal agencies including lost dollars because of the need for maintenance and lost opportunities because the property could be put to more beneficial uses. The Annex has been vacant for more than 10 years and it is unclear whether, if at all, GSA will be able to generate a use for the building. While the adjacent Old Post Office is a national historic landmark, the Annex is not and has sat vacant and deteriorating for years, while Federal dollars are used to keep it maintained and secured. In addition, the proposed legislation would generate revenue from this now vacant property for the Federal Government through rental payments, based on the fair market value. The museum would also benefit the city by drawing an estimated 1.5 million visitors annually to the District and promoting economic activities by attracting tourists. I believe this legislation is clearly a win-win situation. There is strong precedent for this type of legislation. In fact, museums in the District of Columbia are historically established by Congress through legislation that authorizes the use of Federal land or buildings. One recent legislative example is the National Museum for African American History and Culture, which identified potential sites for such a Museum. Another example is the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, which authorized the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, Inc. to build a Museum on Federal land. The current Building Museum located in the historic Pension Building was authorized by an act of Congress. I believe that just as these museums serve very important public purposes of educating visitors about important aspects of our history and culture, so also would a national women's history museum fill a void in telling the story of women in our history. The most compelling reasons to support this important piece of legislation are the stories of the women in American history, who helped change and shape our Nation: Women who were and are trailblazers such as Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court; Sally Ride, who was the first American woman in space; and Madeleine Albright, who was the first woman U.S. Secretary of State. We should ensure that the stories of women with unwavering bravery are told. Women like Harriet Tubman, who led slaves to freedom using the underground railroad, and Rosa Parks, who sparked a movement just by refusing to sit in the back of a bus. A national museum would record this history and tells the stories of these pioneering women, so that others might be inspired by them. One woman who inspired me and who is my own role model is the woman who served in the Senate seat that I now hold, Maine's own Margaret Chase Smith, who was the first woman nominated for president of the United States by a major political party and the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in 1940. She was a woman who embodied the independent spirit of Maine. She was from Skowhegan and was known as a smart, courageous, and independent Member of Congress. Long after it became commonplace for women to serve in the highest ranks of our government, Senator Smith will be remembered in Maine and the Nation for her courage and service. These women, and many like them, are the reason I am proud to sponsor a bill directing that the Old Post Office Annex be made available to house the National Women's History Museum. Women's history needs a place in our Capital and in our collective American history, so that we all cannot only learn about our past, but also be inspired to make history of our own. I urge that my colleagues support this important piece of legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Women's History Museum Act of 2005. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have helped in this important effort and who have agreed to be cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Dole, Mikulski, Hutchison, Boxer, Snowe, Cantwell, Murkowski, Clinton, Feinstein, Lincoln, Murray, Stabenow, Voinovich, Akaka, Bennett, Durbin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, and Pryor. I introduced this bill last Congress, and it passed the Senate unanimously. The need to establish a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is clear. There is currently no national institution in the Washington, D.C. area that is dedicated to the legacy of women's contributions throughout our country's history. Sadly, fewer than 5 percent of the Nation's 2,200 National Historic Landmarks are dedicated to women, a troubling fact given the significant contributions of women throughout our Nation's history. The proposed legislation would direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. (NWHM) to establish a museum in the currently vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C. The NWHM is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational institution in the District of Columbia that was created to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor and to present the contributions that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society. In 1999, the President's Commission on the celebrating of Women in American History concluded that ``efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include,the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital,'' citing the efforts of the NWHM to implement this goal. The proposed legislation would serve two important purposes: Creating, as the President's Commission recommended, a national women's museum in the District of Columbia and, by designating the Pavilion Annex, utilizing a currently vacant space on Pennsylvania Avenue, considered ``America's Main Street.'' I would note that, last Congress the Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed real property on its High Risk list noting that vacant and underutilized properties present significant potential risks to Federal agencies including lost dollars because of the need for maintenance and lost opportunities because the property could be put to more beneficial uses. The Annex has been vacant for more than 10 years and it is unclear whether, if at all, GSA will be able to generate a use for the building. While the adjacent Old Post Office is a national historic landmark, the Annex is not and has sat vacant and deteriorating for years, while Federal dollars are used to keep it maintained and secured. In addition, the proposed legislation would generate revenue from this now vacant property for the Federal Government through rental payments, based on the fair market value. The museum would also benefit the city by drawing an estimated 1.5 million visitors annually to the District and promoting economic activities by attracting tourists. I believe this legislation is clearly a win-win situation. There is strong precedent for this type of legislation. In fact, museums in the District of Columbia are historically established by Congress through legislation that authorizes the use of Federal land or buildings. One recent legislative example is the National Museum for African American History and Culture, which identified potential sites for such a Museum. Another example is the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, which authorized the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, Inc. to build a Museum on Federal land. The current Building Museum located in the historic Pension Building was authorized by an act of Congress. I believe that just as these museums serve very important public purposes of educating visitors about important aspects of our history and culture, so also would a national women's history museum fill a void in telling the story of women in our history. The most compelling reasons to support this important piece of legislation are the stories of the women in American history, who helped change and shape our Nation: Women who were and are trailblazers such as Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court; Sally Ride, who was the first American woman in space; and Madeleine Albright, who was the first woman U.S. Secretary of State. We should ensure that the stories of women with unwavering bravery are told. Women like Harriet Tubman, who led slaves to freedom using the underground railroad, and Rosa Parks, who sparked a movement just by refusing to sit in the back of a bus. A national museum would record this history and tells the stories of these pioneering women, so that others might be inspired by them. One woman who inspired me and who is my own role model is the woman who served in the Senate seat that I now hold, Maine's own Margaret Chase Smith, who was the first woman nominated for president of the United States by a major political party and the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in 1940. She was a woman who embodied the independent spirit of Maine. She was from Skowhegan and was known as a smart, courageous, and independent Member of Congress. Long after it became commonplace for women to serve in the highest ranks of our government, Senator Smith will be remembered in Maine and the Nation for her courage and service. These women, and many like them, are the reason I am proud to sponsor a bill directing that the Old Post Office Annex be made available to house the National Women's History Museum. Women's history needs a place in our Capital and in our collective American history, so that we all cannot only learn about our past, but also be inspired to make history of our own. I urge that my colleagues support this important piece of legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State. Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, trucks are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns and villages. Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's interstate highway system forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways. The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities and is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multi-lane, limited access highway. Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5-mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5-mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor, as well. Congestion is a significant issue and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions. A recent study, conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, found that the accident rate between 2000 and 2003--per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--was more than four times higher on two-lane roads than on the Maine Turnpike, which had four lanes at the time of the study. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's interstate highway system. Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State. Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, trucks are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns and villages. Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's interstate highway system forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways. The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities and is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multi-lane, limited access highway. Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5-mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5-mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor, as well. Congestion is a significant issue and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions. A recent study, conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, found that the accident rate between 2000 and 2003--per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--was more than four times higher on two-lane roads than on the Maine Turnpike, which had four lanes at the time of the study. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's interstate highway system. Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2005, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I am submitting for printing in the Record a copy of the rules of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the committe rules be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2005,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending that can occur when the Government neglects to pay attention to where it makes its purchases. Last year, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, now the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explored the Government's use of purchase cards and we learned about ways to save an estimated $300 million annually through better management of purchase cards. Purchase cards are, in essence, credit cards that agencies give to its employees for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the Federal Government. In fact, under Federal acquisition law, purchase cards are the Government's preferred method for making what are known as ``micropurchases''--that is items costing $2,500 or less. Although Government employees spend billions of dollars with purchase cards each year, Federal agencies do very little to analyze the items obtained with purchase cards in an attempt to get a better price for the Government. The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today when the Government is running large budget deficits. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a special role to play in reducing wasteful spending, and I have made this role a priority at the Committee. This legislation is one aspect of our committee's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Government spending. Purchase cards came into Federal Government-wide use in 1989. They allow Government employees to easily and efficiently purchase routine items such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. While they are generally used for small purchases, they accounted for more than $16 billion in Federal spending in 2003. In 1994, they accounted for only $1 billion. This increase in use is good news because it means that more Government spending is being executed in an expeditious manner that reduces red tape and saves on administrative costs. At the same time, the use of purchase cards should enable us to conduct comprehensive analysis of how this $16 billion is spent and where. This information could be analyzed and used to further reduce the Federal Government's costs. At present, however, this is not being done. Last year, Senator Feingold, Representative Schakowsky and I released a report by the Government Accountability Office identifying missed opportunities for savings. According to that report the missed savings were due to both a lack of training and a lack of management attention and oversight. According to GAO, too many purchase cardholders failed to obtain readily available discounts on purchase cards buys. Even where the Government and the vendor had negotiated a discounted price for items through the General Services Administration schedules, Federal employees with purchase cards failed to take advantage of the discounted prices and their managers were completely unaware of those lost opportunities to save. One example of a repeated lost opportunity to save was the Department of the Interior's purchases of printer toner cartridges. One GSA schedule vendor offered the toner for only $24.99. Yet, of the Department's 791 toner cartridge purchases, only two were at or below that price. Some cartridges were purchased for $34.99, which is about 40 percent higher than the GSA schedule price. In addition to failing to use available schedule prices, GAO found that agencies failed to negotiate lower prices with vendors with whom they frequently used purchase cards. In the private sector, most companies that use the same vendor for a lot of purchases would negotiate some sort of volume discount. But before they would attempt to negotiate savings the company would first need to understand its spending patterns. Because Federal agencies lack a comprehensive understanding of where its employees are using Government purchase cards, Federal agencies are unable to replicate this practice. At my request, GAO analyzed purchase card use at the six Federal agencies that account for 85 percent of Government purchase card usage. As a result of that analysis, GAO estimated that $300 million per year could be saved if agencies improved their purchase card buying practices. Under our legislation, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, would direct agencies to better train their cardholders and more effectively analyze their spending data. It would also direct the GSA to increase its efforts to improve its efforts to secure discounts with vendors and provide agencies with more guidance to reduce wasteful spending. The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars wisely. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2005,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending that can occur when the Government neglects to pay attention to where it makes its purchases. Last year, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, now the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explored the Government's use of purchase cards and we learned about ways to save an estimated $300 million annually through better management of purchase cards. Purchase cards are, in essence, credit cards that agencies give to its employees for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the Federal Government. In fact, under Federal acquisition law, purchase cards are the Government's preferred method for making what are known as ``micropurchases''--that is items costing $2,500 or less. Although Government employees spend billions of dollars with purchase cards each year, Federal agencies do very little to analyze the items obtained with purchase cards in an attempt to get a better price for the Government. The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today when the Government is running large budget deficits. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a special role to play in reducing wasteful spending, and I have made this role a priority at the Committee. This legislation is one aspect of our committee's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Government spending. Purchase cards came into Federal Government-wide use in 1989. They allow Government employees to easily and efficiently purchase routine items such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. While they are generally used for small purchases, they accounted for more than $16 billion in Federal spending in 2003. In 1994, they accounted for only $1 billion. This increase in use is good news because it means that more Government spending is being executed in an expeditious manner that reduces red tape and saves on administrative costs. At the same time, the use of purchase cards should enable us to conduct comprehensive analysis of how this $16 billion is spent and where. This information could be analyzed and used to further reduce the Federal Government's costs. At present, however, this is not being done. Last year, Senator Feingold, Representative Schakowsky and I released a report by the Government Accountability Office identifying missed opportunities for savings. According to that report the missed savings were due to both a lack of training and a lack of management attention and oversight. According to GAO, too many purchase cardholders failed to obtain readily available discounts on purchase cards buys. Even where the Government and the vendor had negotiated a discounted price for items through the General Services Administration schedules, Federal employees with purchase cards failed to take advantage of the discounted prices and their managers were completely unaware of those lost opportunities to save. One example of a repeated lost opportunity to save was the Department of the Interior's purchases of printer toner cartridges. One GSA schedule vendor offered the toner for only $24.99. Yet, of the Department's 791 toner cartridge purchases, only two were at or below that price. Some cartridges were purchased for $34.99, which is about 40 percent higher than the GSA schedule price. In addition to failing to use available schedule prices, GAO found that agencies failed to negotiate lower prices with vendors with whom they frequently used purchase cards. In the private sector, most companies that use the same vendor for a lot of purchases would negotiate some sort of volume discount. But before they would attempt to negotiate savings the company would first need to understand its spending patterns. Because Federal agencies lack a comprehensive understanding of where its employees are using Government purchase cards, Federal agencies are unable to replicate this practice. At my request, GAO analyzed purchase card use at the six Federal agencies that account for 85 percent of Government purchase card usage. As a result of that analysis, GAO estimated that $300 million per year could be saved if agencies improved their purchase card buying practices. Under our legislation, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, would direct agencies to better train their cardholders and more effectively analyze their spending data. It would also direct the GSA to increase its efforts to improve its efforts to secure discounts with vendors and provide agencies with more guidance to reduce wasteful spending. The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars wisely. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join several of my colleagues--Senator Pryor, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Lieberman, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman--in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children who are struggling with serious mental illness. It is intended to ensure their parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, because he was an active participant in them, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the last Congress held extensive hearings on this issue. What we heard was a tragedy. We heard case after case where families made the wrenching choice to give up custody of their children in order to secure the mental health treatment that they needed. No family should ever be forced to make that decision. Imagine what it feels like for a child who is suffering from mental illness to be wrenched from his family, put into either the juvenile justice system or the foster care system simply because that is the only way to get that child the care that he so desperately needs. Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it. Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or a daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, or the juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system. When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment. Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn. In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat 'em up, lock 'em up, or give 'em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data. Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance for the Mentally III found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so. Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families. Last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs. The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for 2 years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help. Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children. We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report last year with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services. Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly 7 percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services. The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment. The legislation authorizes $55 million over 6 years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help States to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families. The legislation would also remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more States from using the Medicaid home and community-based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health needs. This waiver provides a promising way for States to address the underlying lack of mental health services for children that often leads to custody relinquishment. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. Our legislation would provide parity to children with mental illness by making it easier for States to offer them home- and community-based services under this waiver as an alternative to institutional care. And finally, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment. The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Child Welfare League, the National Mental Health Association, the American Correctional Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Fight Crime, Invest in Kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of endorsement for the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join several of my colleagues--Senator Pryor, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Lieberman, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman--in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children who are struggling with serious mental illness. It is intended to ensure their parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, because he was an active participant in them, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the last Congress held extensive hearings on this issue. What we heard was a tragedy. We heard case after case where families made the wrenching choice to give up custody of their children in order to secure the mental health treatment that they needed. No family should ever be forced to make that decision. Imagine what it feels like for a child who is suffering from mental illness to be wrenched from his family, put into either the juvenile justice system or the foster care system simply because that is the only way to get that child the care that he so desperately needs. Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it. Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or a daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, or the juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system. When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment. Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn. In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat 'em up, lock 'em up, or give 'em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data. Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance for the Mentally III found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so. Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families. Last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs. The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for 2 years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help. Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children. We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report last year with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services. Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly 7 percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services. The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment. The legislation authorizes $55 million over 6 years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help States to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families. The legislation would also remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more States from using the Medicaid home and community-based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health needs. This waiver provides a promising way for States to address the underlying lack of mental health services for children that often leads to custody relinquishment. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. Our legislation would provide parity to children with mental illness by making it easier for States to offer them home- and community-based services under this waiver as an alternative to institutional care. And finally, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment. The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Child Welfare League, the National Mental Health Association, the American Correctional Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Fight Crime, Invest in Kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of endorsement for the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of rule XXVI, section 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for the 109th Congress adopted by the committee on February 10, 2005.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call I am about to invoke be charged equally to both sides.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier today, the senior Senator from Massachusetts spoke on this nomination. I have enormous respect and affection for my colleague from New England, but on this occasion I believe his comments were well off the mark. Here are some of the words my colleague spoke: Our problems with the administration on this nomination pale in comparison with the failure of the Senate Republican majority to carry out its own constitutional responsibilities on this nomination. Instead of insisting on adequate answers to questions raised by the documents, they have acquiesced in the Government's coverup and abdicated their own independent constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent. I sincerely believe that were I fortunate enough to have the senior Senator from Massachusetts serve on the committee the Presiding Officer and I serve on, he would never have said those words or reached such a harsh judgment. He went on in his statement to call these proceedings ``a blatantly defective consent.'' Again, I so wish that the senior Senator from Massachusetts had had the opportunity to participate in our committee's process. He would have found that our committee has the most thorough process for considering nominations of any committee in the entire Senate. I believe our committee is the only one, for example, that has the staff on both sides of the aisle interview the nominee. We posed to Judge Chertoff 250 written questions, both before the hearing and after the hearing. We had a lengthy hearing in which members on both sides of the aisle were free to ask the toughest questions possible to the nominee. There was no limit on the questions that could be submitted for the record, and the nominee sat for hours patiently, fully, and candidly answering the questions posed to him by the members of the committee. So I believe that the judgment of the Senator from Massachusetts does not reflect the process we undertook for this nominee. I truly wish he could have seen the process because I think he would have reached a different conclusion. And I say that with a great deal of personal affection for my friend from Massachusetts. The fact is, first, that Judge Chertoff has undergone intense scrutiny by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I cannot imagine how anyone could conclude, given the number and the scope of questions posed to the judge, that this was somehow ``defective consent.'' Second, on the issue of the e-mails and the nominee's knowledge of questionable interrogation techniques used by certain DOD personnel at Guantanamo, Judge Chertoff's testimony could not have been clearer. He told the committee under oath that he was ``not aware'' of any practices at Guantanamo that ``even approach[ed] torture.'' He said he had ``no knowledge'' of any interrogation techniques other than those that he described as ``plain vanilla.'' These are straightforward, plain words--``I was not aware''; ``I had no knowledge.'' They are not susceptible to multiple interpretations. They are not ambiguous. They do not suggest the need to refresh the nominee's recollection. They do not invite speculation as to what the nominee meant. And there is only one reason why some of our colleagues would feel the need to ask other people about what they said to Judge Chertoff, and that is, if we did not believe him. This is a distinguished public servant, a sitting Federal judge who is testifying before our committee under oath. There is no reason to doubt his testimony. His testimony was clear, it was forthright, it was candid. It is demeaning to suggest that somehow we need to probe this further because we do not believe this distinguished public official. I asked this question yesterday, but I am going to repeat it again: Since when have we become so cynical about good people who are willing to step forward, sacrifice, and serve our country? How could our colleagues from Michigan and Massachusetts come to this floor, praise Judge Chertoff, pledge to vote to confirm him, and then condemn the nomination process when we have concluded that the judge gave us truthful, straightforward answers, and we have no reason to doubt the answers he gave us? He was not evasive. He was straightforward. It does not make sense to criticize the process because the committee refuses to engage in an exercise that, at its core, is built upon the premise that Judge Chertoff is somehow being less than truthful with the committee. I reject that premise. There is no basis for it. Let me close these remarks by saying a word about the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent because I think a lot that has been said about this role misses an essential point. We, the Senate, advise and consent. It is the President who appoints. We do not appoint. Sometimes I think some of my colleagues believe the Senate should do all of the appointing for the President, but that is not how the system works. That is not how our Constitution works. Indeed, as Professor Laurence Tribe has noted--and he is a liberal law scholar, not a conservative one--the appointments clause ``seeks to preserve an executive check upon legislative authority in the interest of avoiding an undue concentration of power in Congress''--in Congress--``in executing our responsibilities.'' We should do well to remember that it is the President who is appointing these positions. It is our job to advise and consent. We have performed that job well in this case. We subjected this nominee to extraordinary scrutiny, despite the fact that he has already been confirmed by this body three previous times. Nevertheless, as is appropriate, we went through a full confirmation process with a review of his biographical questionnaire, his finances, with a full FBI check, with an extensive public hearing that stretched several hours, and with 250 written questions, primarily from Democratic members, submitted to him for response. What more can we ask? What more can we ask of a nominee who is simply stepping forward to answer the call to serve his country? And what more can we ask of a Senate committee in carrying out this solemn duty with which we are vested? As much as I have respect and affection for my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, I cannot let his comments pass. That is why I felt compelled to explain to all of my colleagues what the process was and that the Senator's description simply does not reflect what was done. I am certain--absolutely certain--that had he been a member of the committee, had he joined with us in the nomination hearing, he would have reached an entirely different conclusion about the integrity and thoroughness of the process. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I do anticipate that further of my colleagues will be coming to the floor. I will yield to them when that happens. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 380 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will make clear that it is coming from the Democrats' time.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will withhold that request so that the Senator from New Jersey, who has just come to the Chamber, may speak on the nomination. I yield him 10 minutes from the minority side.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that this speech not interrupt the debate on the Chertoff nomination.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his excellent statement. He is a very valuable member of the committee, and I very much enjoy working with him. I rise again today in support of the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the new Secretary of Homeland Security. As the Presiding Officer knows better than most, this is one of the most challenging and critical jobs in the entire Federal Government. Judge Chertoff is clearly the right person to take the helm of this Department, and it is past time to put him in that post. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a nomination hearing for Judge Chertoff on February 2. It was a long and thorough hearing. Judge Chertoff answered every question posed to him fully and candidly. His responses to more than 250 written questions my committee presented to him were just as forthright. His nomination was endorsed by a unanimous vote. I mention this because there should be no impression among our colleagues that our committee did not do a thorough job in questioning Judge Chertoff. To the contrary, he was subjected to hundreds of questions. He responded to every question posed to him at our committee's lengthy nomination hearing. And every member of the committee, on both sides of the aisle, had ample opportunity to question Judge Chertoff on whatever issues they wished to raise with him. In fact, I am aware of no opposition to his nomination. Virtually the only issue we have debated during the course of these proceedings is one that I believe has no bearing whatsoever on Judge Chertoff's fitness to serve in this critical capacity. This issue is the demand, by a few of our colleagues, for information regarding the FBI's personnel working at Guantanamo Bay's detention facility and what information they may have had about interrogation techniques used on detainees by Department of Defense personnel. Let me make clear that all of us have concerns about the proper and humane treatment of our detainees. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who also serves on our committee, held a number of hearings to explore the treatment of detainees. It is my understanding that the Senate Intelligence Committee is also embarking on an investigation of the treatment of detainees by CIA personnel. So this is an issue. But the problem is, this is not an issue in which Judge Chertoff has been involved in setting policy. He is being asked for information he simply does not have. At our committee's nomination hearing, Judge Chertoff was asked about these concerns by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin. Judge Chertoff's answer was unequivocal. Let me read it to you. He said: I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of Justice that there were practices at Guantanamo, if there were practices at Guantanamo, that would be torture or anything even approaching torture. He was not aware--not he did not recall not he was not sure; He was not aware. That is unambiguous testimony. Our responsibility as Senators to advise and consent on executive branch nominees is a solemn one. It is one, as chairman of the committee, I take very seriously. If there were a good reason to delay consideration of a nomination in order to secure important information, then delay would be appropriate; it would be called for. But expecting a nominee to provide information that he has sworn under oath he does not know is not a good reason for delaying his nomination. The questions about Judge Chertoff's knowledge of the treatment of detainees have been asked and answered, repeatedly. They have been asked in prehearing questions. They have been asked at the hearing. And they have been asked posthearing. Judge Michael Chertoff is eminently qualified for this important position. In his distinguished career, he has established a strong reputation as a tough prosecutor. But he has established a reputation as a fierce defender of civil liberties. His position on the balance between these two critical roles was made clear in his testimony before the committee. He said: I believe that we cannot live in liberty without security, but we would not want to live in security without liberty. I cannot think of a more eloquent statement by a nominee, showing us--demonstrating beyond a doubt--he clearly understands that as he increases security for our Nation, he must be ever mindful of privacy rights, of civil liberties, of the very freedoms that define us as Americans, and that we cherish. Indeed, we would be handing the terrorists a victory if we so compromised our freedoms in the name of security. Judge Chertoff understands that tension, that balance, the need for constant evaluation. Judge Chertoff has also demonstrated a great ability to work with law enforcement agencies at all levels of Government. He has a keen understanding of the broad range of homeland security vulnerabilities faced by States and communities throughout the country. When I have talked to law enforcement officials from Maine to California about Judge Chertoff, they have unanimously and enthusiastically embraced his nomination. They know he will listen to State and local law enforcement, and that he views them as partners in our fight to tighten and improve our homeland security. I point out that Judge Chertoff was confirmed three times previously by this body. He was confirmed overwhelmingly by both sides of the aisle 2 years ago for one of the highest courts in the land. And now, having attained a lifelong appointment at the pinnacle of his legal profession, he nevertheless is giving that up. He is giving up a lifetime appointment on one of the most prestigious courts in the country to step forward to serve our Nation in one of the most difficult jobs imaginable, one of the most thankless jobs in the Federal Government. I remind my colleagues of what he told our committee when I asked him why he was willing to give up that judgeship, why he was willing to make that sacrifice. He said--and his words are eloquent-- September 11th and the challenge it posed was, at least to my lights, the greatest challenge of my generation, and it was one that touched me both personally and in my work at the Department of Justice. The call to serve in helping to protect America was the one call I could not decline. We are fortunate to have an individual of Michael Chertoff's quality, with his commitment to public service, who is willing to answer the call of his country. I hope he will be unanimously confirmed later this afternoon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for his excellent statement. I see a very valuable member of the committee, the Senator from Hawaii, is here to speak. I am prepared to yield to him 10 minutes from the minority side.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia and, from the minority's time, I will yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

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

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. COLLINS

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