[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1598-S1602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Xavier Becerra
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise today in strong support for
the confirmation of California's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, to
be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.
I am absolutely confident that Mr. Becerra has the knowledge, the
experience, the skills, and, just as importantly, the values and
principles required of this job--a job that will play a key role in
beating the coronavirus and tackling the urgent issues of equity and
affordability now facing our healthcare system.
I am especially confident in my assessment of Xavier Becerra because
I have known him personally for years, both as a former colleague and
as a
[[Page S1599]]
friend. I first met then-Congressman Becerra in the House of
Representatives, where he served for over two decades with myself and
the Presiding Officer and others, and where he was a champion for the
healthcare rights of the American people, working overtime to make sure
that every American had access to quality, affordable healthcare.
We served together in the House Democratic leadership, and we served
together on the House Ways and Means Committee. So I have had an
opportunity to see his legislative talents up front and also to witness
his love of service to our country.
We worked together to halt a number of proposals that maybe some of
our Republican colleagues here in the Senate were pushing for,
including the proposal that continuously appeared in the House
Republican budget to voucherize the Medicare Program. One of the former
Speakers of the House wanted to essentially provide seniors on Medicare
with a voucher and send them out into more of a private marketplace. It
would have ended up putting our seniors more at risk. So together we
did battle that idea.
We served together on what was known as the Congressional Joint
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the
``supercommittee,'' and known to some as the ``not-so-super
committee.'' I saw him work to try to achieve agreements on some of the
biggest challenges facing our country, but, like him, we both agreed
that we weren't going to do that at the expense of protecting Medicare
for seniors, protecting Medicaid as an absolutely essential healthcare
safety net for tens of millions of Americans, and we were not prepared
to provide more tax cuts to the very wealthiest of Americans.
It is in that last effort where Xavier Becerra, I think, really
distinguished himself in the House, when it came to the issue of equity
and healthcare. I know the Presiding Officer knows well the battles we
all went in together in the development and passage of the Affordable
Care Act, and it was that that really defined Mr. Becerra's legacy in
the House.
He championed the Affordable Care Act from the very start. He helped
both to write and to pass this landmark law that now helps tens of
millions of our fellow Americans, and after leaving the Congress, he
led the charge to defend the Affordable Care Act against the Texas case
before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now, I know a lot of our Republican colleagues have also spent years
fighting the Affordable Care Act. We have seen that play out here in
the U.S. Senate within the last couple years. But the reality is the
Affordable Care Act is very important to the overwhelming majority of
the American people who support it and is an essential lifeline to
quality, affordable healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. And
it is that that Mr. Becerra fought to pass and which he has fought to
defend against constant attacks in the courts.
There is no question that Xavier Becerra fights for what he believes
is right, as he should, but that has never prevented him from working
across the aisle to get things done. As the attorney general in the
State of California, he has repeatedly partnered with Republicans to
solve the pressing issues facing our fellow citizens.
He builds bridges every day and has worked across party lines to
expand access to COVID-19 treatments, to confront the opioid crisis,
and to address the dangers of vaping and smoking among our Nation's
youth.
His record shows that Attorney General Becerra fights for what is
important to the people he represents, not the party he belongs to, and
he has demonstrated it by example time and time again with his ability
to bridge deep divisions, even during this time of division. I know
that he will fight hard for each and every one of our fellow citizens
and will not look to see whether somebody is a Democrat or a Republican
or from some other party. What he cares about is making sure he is
looking out for the healthcare of every American.
And, at this moment, everyone in this country stands to benefit from
an effective leader at the helm of the Department of Health and Human
Services. Our most pressing task is to contain the spread of COVID-19
and to defeat COVID-19. That requires clear messaging on public health
measures. That requires accelerating the distribution of vaccines and
treatment and testing and making sure we do all of that in an equitable
way. That means safely guiding the opening of our schools, and we all
want our students to get back to school as quickly as possible and as
safely as possible.
As the attorney general of California, he has led one of the largest
departments of justice in the country, and, in that capacity, has stood
up for strong consumer and worker protections throughout this pandemic
and before, and I trust that he will continue to do so for all
Americans as Secretary of HHS, if confirmed.
We know that this public emergency and health crisis has been a blow
to our country. It has also laid bare the fault lines in our healthcare
system in terms of racial inequities, inaccessibility for underserved
communities, and underinvestment in our public health infrastructure.
These issues, of course, predated COVID-19, but we must tackle them
with renewed urgency as we emerge from this crisis.
Mr. Becerra is equipped to root out these disparities, both because
of his knowledge and skill and expertise but also because of his lived
experience. Xavier grew up in a working-class Latino family. He knows
the communities that are hurting most because he has lived in those
communities. He would bring to this important office not only his
expertise and skill but the empathy and the compassion needed to help
those most in need.
Like most of us, Mr. Becerra is also guided and motivated by what
makes him most proud: his family. At his confirmation hearing, he spoke
movingly about his wife and his children, who are all a part of all
that he does. And he spoke about his parents, who traveled to this
country from Mexico seeking a better life, with nothing more than, in
Xavier's words, ``their health and their hope.''
It is that health and that hope that propelled Mr. Becerra into a
life of public service, and it is that health and that hope that will
animate his leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services,
should he be confirmed by this Senate.
He was brought up in a family that believed in and sought the
American dream, and he has spent his life fighting to make that dream
real for families across this Nation. He believes, as I believe, that
that mission requires us to care for the health and safety of each and
every one of our fellow citizens, and I have full confidence that he is
up to the task.
Colleagues, I urge us to confirm the nomination of Xavier Becerra to
be the next Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Indiana.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 730
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, this past year has been hard on Hoosiers
and Americans across the country. When the economy was shut down,
Congress got to work. Given my background as a business owner, I was
involved in negotiating the Paycheck Protection Program, known as PPP,
as part of the CARES Act, one of five bills that passed in 2020 with
overwhelming support, I think 90-plus votes. We worked it out,
Democrats and Republicans, together.
Those COVID-related packages totaled $4 trillion, and we didn't have
a penny saved up ahead of time to prepare for it. That is part of a
deeper problem with this institution, is that we borrow anything that
we spend money on, even 23 percent of our annual operating budget. To
put that in perspective, imagine if you had a business doing $100,000
in revenue, and you are losing $23,000, and then you go to your banker
and expect them to bail you out. It wouldn't make sense.
We came into 2021 with over $1 trillion from those packages unspent,
unobligated. Instead of working with us like before, Democrats did shut
us out of the process. In fact, the Senate as a whole did not work the
bill through committees. It was laid to us, on the Senate, by the
House, all $1.9 trillion of it.
Before this, some Republicans went to the White House to talk with
the President about a bipartisan plan, knowing all the money would be
borrowed again, but nothing came to fruition. Instead, we stayed up all
night;
[[Page S1600]]
finished the bill at noon the next day, Saturday; spent 29 hours on the
floor, and not a single Republican amendment was adopted in this
massive spending bill.
Instead of focusing on the virus and getting our economy back on
track, this became an exercise in ramming something through that was a
liberal wish list. Only 1 percent of the bill--1 percent of the bill--
went toward the vaccine. Less than 9 percent goes toward COVID-19
public health issues generally.
While the Congressional Budget Office projects the economy to return
to prepandemic levels by midyear, only 5 percent of the $130 billion
for K-12 schools gets spent this year, and none of it is tied to
reopening our schools, which many States had shut down early and opened
up late.
Included in this package is a whopping $350 billion for State and
local governments. I had a conversation with our own Governor 2, 3
weeks ago. A place like Indiana, and I believe West Virginia as well,
probably runs balanced budgets. We do it with the guardrail of a
constitutional amendment. Many other States, if they don't have a
constitutional amendment, they have a statute. In other words, you do
what households do. You do what all businesses do. You live within your
means. And here, when you run your State governments in a way that in
good times, you can't make ends meet, and you look to the Federal
Government to bail out your bad governance, it is a whole nother issue.
Even left-leaning economists and think tanks are worried about what
this is going to do down the road because most of the time, you don't
feel the repercussions until later. And, of course, that could show up
in inflation. It could show up in a way similar to what we dealt with
in the late seventies and the early eighties.
Forty-four States had surpluses last year, when you look at COVID
funding. Many places, like California, had surpluses. Then they
reconfigured how this was done not based on pro rata population but
rewarded the States with the highest unemployment levels. It sounds
bizarro to me.
Governor Holcomb in Indiana has done a great job balancing the
economy with public safety, and that is why our unemployment rate is
now close to a full employment rate. It was the lowest in the Midwest
going into it because we have a good business climate, and we have a
low cost of living. Things work there. Sadly, the Democrats' bill
punishes States like Indiana for safely reopening. The higher a State's
unemployment rate, again, the more bailout money you get
proportionately.
But it goes one step further, and this is the part that caught my
attention. I am interested in hearing the explanation for it. I think
it was a sneaky maneuver when you put it in such a large bill that had
other doozies like stimulus checks for undocumented immigrants, for
felons, all kinds of stuff that I think, when you look at it, shouldn't
have been in there. But when it is that massive--it takes 10, 11 hours
to read out loud--you are going to get some of that. What this does is
say that if a State takes Federal money, they cannot lower their State
taxes in any way through 2024.
First of all, I believe this is unconstitutional and coercive.
Second, we should never punish States for putting taxpayers first. We
serve the public and should be good stewards of their money, and
especially a place like this that runs the way it does day in and day
out should not be telling States that run their operations responsibly
that they cannot do what they want with spending or taxation.
My bill strikes the provision that prohibits States' ability to
change revenues as they see fit for their State's unique needs.
Second, my bill strips out the reporting requirement where States
have to tell the Federal Government about every revenue source and
amount of money they take in. This place ought to be doing that
routinely to all the people who send it revenue.
This bill has the support of over 25 groups, including the American
Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for
Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Club for Growth,
FreedomWorks, Heritage Action for America, Independent Women's Forum,
and the National Taxpayers Union, among others. We expect many more to
join in coming days. I am sure many stakeholders in Indiana and in West
Virginia not mentioned will throw in support as well.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Finance Committee ranking member,
Senator Crapo, for cosponsoring this legislation--and others, including
Senators Blackburn, Capito, Inhofe, Marshall, Rubio, Rick Scott,
Tillis, and Senator Young from my home State.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 730 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MANCHIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, my good friend the Senator from
Indiana--I am hoping this is a misunderstanding, and I hope I can
explain it because I was very much involved in this process.
First of all, as a former Governor, I know about the budget process.
I know about balanced budgets. I used to meet every Tuesday afternoon.
As Governor, I would have my finance people come to my office, and we
would sit down and look at the revenue estimates. We had to make
adjustments because we had a balanced budget amendment. Isn't that a
novelty, a balanced budget amendment? We had to live within our
confines. That is something that no one who has ever been in State
government or ever run a business understands. I understand that. But
it is something that we did very religiously.
The language in this bill, Senator from Indiana, the only thing this
bill does--or that language you were concerned about, the only thing it
did--you can cut all you want to. You can manage all your money the way
you want. You just can't take Federal money and use it if you cut your
revenue intentionally. That is all. What we try to do is target where
the money has gone.
So the Treasury, you have to go--as a State, you go to the Treasury,
and you show the need that you have. You show the cost--what COVID has
cost your revenue and you are able to have money to replace that
because COVID caused you that problem.
You have also the ability to use this, in your State, for three
things: water, sewer, and internet service. So you have infrastructure
that can be done.
Also, what we did in this bill is we have it going out to 2024, so
you are not going to overheat, if you will--overheat or overcharge the
economy. They can spread that out. The State and local moneys go in two
tranches: Half this year, half next year is what you can access. The
money to every one of your communities--for the first time, 40 percent
of that total money goes directly, so your large cities will get money
directly from the Treasury. They have to show how they are using it for
their backfill, not, basically, having anything to do with what their
tax revenue is. They just can't use this money to backfill tax cuts if
they want to do that. That is pretty simple because there is not a need
for it. If you can reduce your taxes, then you don't need Federal
dollars to backfill to show that you are in good shape. But if you need
it for anything else, you can use it for that. You can use it for all
these things.
I can tell you--I would assure you that every incorporated city in
Indiana, every county in Indiana has to be thrilled. They have to be
thrilled for the first time to have control of their destiny. That was
our intention.
In the first CARES package, that never happened. The first CARES
package went directly to the Governors, and if the Governors were very
prudent in how they did it--set up a committee, worked through the
legislature--some did, some didn't, and there is a lot of money that
never got into the basic fibers of your State or my State. Now that is
not going to be the problem.
Also, they have the ability, if they have a water project they have
been
[[Page S1601]]
trying to do forever and never had the resources to do it, they can use
their money for that.
If they have a sewer project--I have said this: How do we pick water,
sewer, and internet? They are not the sexy things that, basically,
Governors and politicians go out and cut ribbons for--a sewer line or a
water line that is buried 50 feet down. That is not a sexy thing.
We knew the infrastructure was falling apart city by city and the
ages of water lines are over 80 years in most of our cities. So we
tried to do something.
They have until 2024, so they don't have to throw it out. It is not
shovel-ready. It is a project you have been wanting to do but never
could afford.
I assure you, we do not want to impede good fiscal management to make
adjustments to do whatever they want to their tax codes. This does not
prohibit that. It just prohibits using and going to the Federal
Treasury and saying: I have a loss of revenue because I cut $100
billion or I cut $100 million or a billion dollars out of my State
budget when I reduced taxes, and now I can't pay my bills.
Also, you can't use this money from the Federal Government for your
pensions. That is a responsibility that we have. We call it OPEB, other
postponed employment benefits. OPEB is other postponed employment
benefits--pensions, healthcare, all the things that when a person
retires from their State, these are things that the State has a
contract and an obligation for them in their retirement. It is the
responsibility of the States to manage that, and that, basically, keeps
the State in a good financial position. It keeps your credit rating up
or your credit rating low if you have managed yourself through it. This
is only to help you with expenses and extraordinary expenses that you
incurred during COVID. That is all, sir.
I don't want the State of Indiana or any State to think that they
can't do whatever they want to with their taxes. They just can't use
the Federal Treasury to backfill something done deliberately,
basically, or self-inflicted--a loss of revenue. That is about it in a
nutshell.
COVID-19 is the greatest challenge we have ever had. I know you
mentioned a few things. I will tell you this because my dear friend
from Maine is sitting here. We met quite a bit on the bill in a
bipartisan way, even though a lot of it did not get in. The bill was
bigger than what my friends--all of you, my friends on the Republican
side--could basically vote for. I understand that.
But please understand there are an awful lot of things we talked
about that I did everything in my power to make sure the tranches--
spreading them out, not going it all at one time. There is the
RESTAURANTS Act. Senator Wicker and Senator Sinema were on the
RESTAURANTS Act. There was, basically, the homeless children's bill
that Senator Murkowski and myself put in there. There was
bipartisanship in that.
There should have been a lot more; I agree. We both know the process
sometimes doesn't work the way we want it to. But you make every effort
you can to make it work. I did that. Whenever I talked, I said that
this had bipartisan input. It didn't come out as a bipartisan vote, but
there was bipartisan input into this piece of legislation, the best we
possibly could.
I think it is a piece of legislation that we--if you have education,
there is not a school in America today that should not be able to have
a program where they can make their school the safest environment that
a child should be in. Every parent should be safe in thinking their
children are in a safe place because of heating, ventilation--things
that we have in this bill that allow education to have the resources it
needs and, also, your higher education too.
The money that is going out--you have money going to the stimulus
payments, going to all of your citizens at $75,000. We put a hard cap.
We tried it to put a hard cap at $75,000 and $150,000. We found out the
first CARES package--I don't think that anyone on the Republican side
or the Democrat side thought someone making $200,000, $300,000 would be
getting money. They didn't need a check, but we found out it happened.
We didn't intend for that to happen. That is the way the code read, and
that is the way it kind of slipped into that. We stopped that from
happening here.
So we tried to do everything--and that, again, came from our
bipartisan group. If it wasn't for the bipartisan group talking and
saying ``This is something we can't do,'' I would have had things I
might have missed. I wouldn't have known some things that were of
concern to all of us and some of the atrocities that happened that we
didn't want to repeat. We did all the things we could to stop that.
I am very reluctant to object to any of my Senators, my fellow
Senators, but on this one, sir--if I can work with you on this--I am
objecting because I want to have a productive sit-down with you and we
can work on something together.
Please tell your Governor that he can cut away if he wants to. He
just can't go back to the Federal Government and say: OK, I made a
mistake. Now I need your money.
That is about it in a nutshell. If Indiana can cut and it helps you
and grows your economy, God bless you. If you have COVID expenses, we
are going to help you. If you have projects--my goodness, just
infrastructure projects--then there is no impediment there if you have
internet services you need, if you have water services, and you have
sewer services.
In West Virginia, what we are trying to do right now is put a team
together that can basically work from this. The State has money for
those three tranches of infrastructure. The counties have it, and the
municipalities have it. The unincorporated towns that aren't able to
get money directly are going to count on the county and the State.
There is so much good to be done to make it work for you to make sure
they understand. They are elated to now have a project they never could
finish, like upgrade your services, finish your water line, have
internet service you have never had before. These are all unbelievable
opportunities that we have never had.
The bipartisan SMART Act that was filed in May 2020 included both of
these guardrails, plus another one required maintenance of effort. We
have that in there. Maintenance of effort--we put that back then.
The Bipartisan State and Local Support of Small Business Protections
Act that was released last December had exactly the same language. This
is not new language, sir. This is the same language that has been
there.
They have never been able to backfill for, basically, discretionary
cuts that they made themselves. It doesn't prohibit them, the same as
it doesn't prohibit anybody in their State for having--and being a
former Governor, I am very partial to the 10th Amendment to the
Constitution, States rights. You have those rights. Now you have the
assistance also with those rights.
I am hoping to improve everyone's situation. I know it does in West
Virginia. I hope it does in Maine. I hope it does in Indiana, and I
think it will.
It is all about making these emergency funds get to the right people.
We are trying to target it. It is something we have to keep an eye on.
I can tell if we do it and do it right and we are good stewards, this
will get us through this COVID challenge that we have because we really
don't know.
I am hoping we come out of this guns ablazing in July--we come out of
this, and the economy takes off like a rocket. Sometimes when they take
off, they tend to level off too.
We want to make sure we are still out there for 2022, 2023, out to
2024. And if they do it and do it right, they can. They can finish
their projects and be able to have the moneys as needed for emergencies
if it has a dip.
With that, we thought we had worked something, but the language is
nothing new. It is not a surprise. It was not anything that was put in;
it has been in there. Basically, it is language that spells out pretty
directly how you can use your money and what money you can't acquire.
That is the only thing we did.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MANCHIN. Yes, there is objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Indiana.
[[Page S1602]]
Mr. BRAUN. My friend from West Virginia explained why this won't
impact Governors and legislatures in terms of what they can do with
their own fiscal policy. I would say my friend the Senator from West
Virginia probably ought to check with Governor Justice and his
legislature to see if they are on the same wavelength there.
When we got input in bringing this up as an issue and when you are
talking about the American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for
Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste--I won't repeat the rest
of the list--I think it would get down to semantics in this sense: What
do you do if you want to cut tax rates? Then, just like pre-COVID, we
cut taxes, and revenues went up for 3 to 4 years.
How do you measure that complicated equation? In many cases, when you
cut rates, you find a new sweet spot where you generate more tax
revenue. How would you sort all of that out? Then, if it were not based
upon penalizing States that are most apt to lower their tax rates
because of how good their economies were pre-COVID, it would be a
different issue as well.
So I am willing to listen in terms of how that does play out, but for
now, I am going to view it as something, I think, that is not going to
sit well with many States, their Governors, or their legislatures and
that has a possibility of being taken to court as being something that
might be unconstitutional. If I am off base, I am willing to listen,
but I will probably have to bring some other parties in to make sure
that this isn't a case of semantics and is real according to the way
you explain it.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BRAUN. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. MANCHIN. First of all, I did have a nice conversation with
Governor Justice. He and I have disagreed on basic issues on Tax Code
legislation, and we are trying to work through all of that. I explained
it to him. I said that it doesn't do a thing in that it doesn't impede
you at all. If you want to cut, go ahead and cut. He is still moving
through with the legislation. He might succeed on that, and he might
not.
With that, I will make it very clear that this is not new language.
You cannot backfill. You cannot backfill. The only thing you can use
your money for is for COVID expenses. Basically, if your revenues were
down through no fault of your own, business dropped off, and your tax
collections were down through no fault of your own, then that is what
this is for. COVID caused you a problem. It caused you an imposition
and put strain on the services that you are basically providing to the
people of West Virginia and Indiana.
We want to make sure that your first responders are there and your
education is there, that everything is still running the way it is
supposed to. That is why we have passed five bills in trying to keep
things afloat, and we think we have done that. So it does not impede
that whatsoever. We have also looked at it constitutionally, and we are
solid on the Constitution.
All we are asking is, does the Federal Government have a
responsibility to backfill with Treasury dollars a decision that could
be self-inflicted? That is all. You should live with that or my State
should live with it or reap the benefits. We are not penalized. Even if
your revenues went up, you still had COVID expenses you could offset.
Those were legitimate expenses that you incurred during the COVID-19
pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is what we are talking about. So if
your revenues went up after that, we are not penalizing you. If they
went down, that is a whole other story because COVID caused that, but
you just can't cause it yourself. I think this is it in a nutshell.
Mr. BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MANCHIN. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. BRAUN. I think it begs the question in that, by cutting taxes,
you are going to lower gross tax revenues, and that has been a
discussion we have all had for many years.
I know in places like Indiana--and we just had it occur here with the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the Federal level--that the CBO--and I was
working with it--was getting close to saying its original forecast of
when you had a tax cut, which was $1.5 trillion over 10 years, $150
billion per year, wasn't working out that way because there is the
phenomenon called: When you find the sweet spot of taxation, you can
cut taxes and generate more revenue. Then you penalize a good fiscal
move by the way you are interpreting your reading.
I am willing to get into the nuance to see if that would muster that
particular case, but I don't think it would.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BRAUN. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. MANCHIN. Senator Braun has always been very kind and very
reasonable, and I look forward to sitting down with him on this.
What he has said is absolutely correct in that we are not penalizing.
We don't intend to penalize anybody who has made that decision, but the
Senator is talking about a State that has a balanced budget amendment
year in and year out. There is a time when a Governor has to make a
decision and go to his legislature and say: Hey, we are going to be X
amount of dollars short, so we need to cut. So they start cutting and
cutting services. That is what happens in order to balance the budget
usually--services are cut to the people.
We are just saying in our piece of legislation here that we have that
we don't want that to happen because it is of no fault of your own, but
if you cut your taxes and you are thinking, well, 5 years down the
road, we are going to have more revenue, then that is fine. You just
can't backfill for that short period of time and use it for something
for which you have cut revenues, basically, in a self-inflicting way.
It might be a self-ingratiating way to where it will help you down the
road, but you still can't backfill for that.
Now, for any COVID expenses you have, absolutely, you can fill that
hole. Show that you have had COVID expenses. If you were to say, ``OK.
We filled all of our holes for COVID, and now we have water, sewer, and
internet''--and trust me, there is not a place in Indiana or in West
Virginia that doesn't need help there.
I thank the Senator. I appreciate it
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 804
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.