Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the United States is facing a crisis unlike any other in our recent history. This is no time for partisanship or for political differences to prevent us from coming together and working in the best interests of the American people. The coronavirus pandemic has arrived on our shores, and it is growing exponentially, sickening our people and devastating our economy. As of today, more than 26,700 Americans have tested positive for the virus, and 340 people have died, while 176 have recovered. In my home State of Maine, there are now 89 cases in 8 different counties. Hospitals, doctors, and nurses are struggling to triage the influx of patients. Nursing homes are locking down their facilities in an attempt to safeguard their vulnerable residents. Students and teachers have had to transition abruptly to online learning as schools have closed across the Nation. Parents have been left with no childcare. Workers have been laid off or fear that they may soon lose their jobs as the outbreak worsens. To help mitigate the spread of this dangerous virus and protect those who are at highest risk, Americans have stepped forward to take the proper precautions and to follow the guidelines that are issued by the Centers for Disease Control. Although measures such as limiting large social gatherings and reducing nonessential travel are important to help contain the coronavirus and reduce contagion, they are also taking a tremendous toll on our economy. There are 30 million small businesses in the United States. They employ nearly 60 million Americans, about half of our Nation's workforce. According to a recent survey, 96 percent of small business owners say they have already been affected by the coronavirus--not in the sense that they have become ill with it, but their customer base has simply dried up--and 51 percent say they will only be able to keep open for up to 3 months if the economic consequences continue. The potential loss of more than half of our Nation's small businesses, and the impact on the millions of people they employ is simply unacceptable. In my State the number of claims for unemployment filed in a span of just 3 days this month was nearly double those filed in all of March 1 year ago. Maine is on track to surpass the highest weekly total of unemployment claims since the great recession of 2008. The situation is dire, and it is only going to get worse unless we act and we act now. We must come together as Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber and in the House to provide relief to the American people to ensure that workers continue to receive paychecks or other forms of assistance. Of course, we continue to build on the two bills that we have already passed to protect the health and safety of the American people. Looking beyond the statistics that I just recited, the real world effect of this economic devastation is evident everywhere. I just got off the phone from talking to a couple in Lewiston, ME, Jimmy and Linda Simones. They run a third-generation family diner. It is well known and a favorite place to stop by for lunch. They tried to convert to a takeout business, but it just didn't work. So for the first time ever in this diner's history, the Simones family is forced to close their doors and to lay off their workers--workers who have been with them for years, workers who include not only themselves but their son George. Every day I have heard from small business owners who are anxious about the future of their businesses and how they can continue to pay their employees who are often their family members, their friends, and their neighbors. The last thing they want to do is to lay off their employees and shut their doors, but they fear they may have no other choice. They simply do not have the cash flow, the revenue coming in the door, to allow them to remain open. The tourism sector, which is so critical to jobs in Maine, has been particularly hard hit. A small hotel in Brunswick, ME, received 84 cancellations within 24 hours of the local college suspending its in- person classes. A well-known Irish pub in Bangor, ME, had to close for St. Patrick's Day, probably its biggest day of the year, and has been forced to lay off 60 people. A charter bus company based in Lewiston lost $400,000 in 3 days because two major tours canceled. If tourism is further reduced, this bus company predicts losses of more than $1 million. Countless other businesses in my State--such as restaurants, the lobster and fishing industries, gyms, B&Bs, gift shops, retailers, and hair salons--have also been hard hit. The hospitality industry, in particular, is at risk of being devastated, as conferences and vacation trips continue to be canceled. A hair stylist in Biddeford, a good friend of mine, was forced to shutter her shop, and, at the same time, she lost her part-time job bartending when the bar that employed her was also required to close. When these small businesses suffer, it has a cascading effect on their employees, from housekeepers to wait staff, to bartenders, to fishermen, to drivers, to retail clerks. These are just some of the countless examples of the economic damage that is occurring in every community because of the virus and through absolutely no fault of the small businesses or their workers. But for the coronavirus and the steps that State and local governments have taken, as well as the Federal Government, these businesses would be thriving. In Maine, they would be beginning to start staffing up for the summer months for the height of the tourism season. It is essential that Congress act immediately without partisan bickering, without delay--act immediately to protect the paychecks and to provide other relief to supplement the earlier bills that we have passed. I am pleased to report that help is on the horizon for small businesses and their workers that would allow them to weather the current storm. As a member of the Small Business Task Force, I have been working very closely night and day with a group of my colleagues-- Senator Rubio, Senator Cardin, and Senator Shaheen. Our staffs have worked literally through the night on legislation to provide relief to small businesses and their employees. The Keeping Workers Paid and Employed Act that I authored with Senator Rubio, the chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, provides a plan to do just that. Through our negotiations with Senator Shaheen and Senator Cardin, who have been wonderful partners--wonderful partners--we have produced, jointly, a $350 billion plan that would help mitigate this crisis. Our group has worked night and day in a bipartisan fashion. We have kept in mind the common goal of protecting those employees who have been laid off or who are at risk of being laid off because of the cashflow problems of their employers, problems that these small businesses did not create but, rather, are a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our joint vision is to help small businesses and their employees make it through to the other side of this crisis by providing cashflow assistance quickly to employers who agree to keep their workers on the payroll. This would allow employers to stay in business and keep paying their employees. More than 100 Maine small businesses and the Maine Chamber of Commerce have endorsed this bill. Additionally, nationwide, a group of more than two dozen business organizations that represent thousands of companies across the country have expressed their strong support for this proposal, and I would ask unanimous consent that both of those letters be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Let me explain how our plan would work. Under our approach, small businesses would be eligible for a 100-percent federally guaranteed emergency loan to cover their payroll for 8 weeks, as well as certain fixed expenses--normal customary expenses like rent or mortgage payments and utilities. These loans would ultimately be eligible to be forgiven, provided that the employers kept the workers on their payrolls. That is the key provision. This financial assistance is targeted, and it could not be used to give raises to highly compensated employees or to increase returns to shareholders, not that most of these small businesses even have shareholders. Our goal is to keep these workers employed, to keep paychecks going to them, to keep payments for their health insurance intact, and to keep contributions that an employer may be making to their 401(k) plan intact. We know that keeping people employed and ready to get back to work, not severing that connection between employers and their employees, will cost far less than it would to try to rescue the economy after we have had massive layoffs and business closures. That is what our bill would prevent. The Secretary of the Treasury has estimated that if we do nothing and if we do not pass this bill in connection with a broader package aimed at preventing economic devastation, we could see unemployment rise as high as 20 percent. Keep in mind, we are coming through a period where we have had record-low unemployment. It could rise as high as 20 percent. If that happens, the impact on the Federal Government would be substantial, far more than the $350 billion that we are using for this small business assistance program to keep their employees paid, not to mention the extraordinary harm that this kind of economic catastrophe would cause to millions of families. Congress has already passed two emergency relief packages. They will promote the health and safety of Americans, but it is going to take time for us to get the coronavirus under control. It is going to take time for the social distancing to work. It is going to take time for new treatments to be developed, much less a vaccine, despite the extraordinary efforts of scientists and physicians and other experts across this country who are all pulling together. Our Keeping Workers Paid and Employed Act has been included in a third package that I hope Congress will soon--very soon--consider to respond to COVID-19. It is imperative that we not delay. Every day that we delay, another business like the Samones' business, their diner in Lewiston, ME, is forced to close their doors and to lay off their employees. We are truly standing at the edge of a dangerous precipice. Bold, bipartisan action is required to respond to this public health crisis and move us back from economic disaster and small businesses closing their doors--in some cases forever--devastating and decimating our downtowns and millions of Americans losing their jobs. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put aside partisan differences and come together and join our bipartisan group in delivering this urgently needed aid for the American people by passing this important economic relief for the employees of small businesses throughout our Nation

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Grassley, not only for his leadership but also for his persistence on an issue that affects so many Americans, and that is the soaring price of prescription drugs. Three committees--the Committee on Finance, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on the Judiciary-- have all advanced bipartisan legislation to reform our broken drug pricing system. The Aging Committee, which I chair, has held eight drug pricing hearings which have highlighted the burden of soaring prices and the manipulation of the market by individuals like the infamous Martin Shkreli. It is now past time for us to move forward to the Senate floor to debate these bills that have bipartisan support and that have garnered the approval of three major committees. The Finance bill, which Senator Grassley has crafted with Senator Wyden and others and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, makes crucial improvements to Medicare Part D, such as protecting seniors with an out-of-pocket spending cap as well as including cost control measures, such as an inflationary cap to limit pharmaceutical price hikes. In one of the hearings that the Aging Committee held, it heard testimony that was heartbreaking from a former teacher with multiple myeloma who had to refinance her home in order to cover the cost of her $250,000 cancer medication. We heard example after example. I will never forget my standing in the pharmacy line in Bangor, ME, where I live, and ahead of me was a couple who had just been told that the couple's copay was $111. The husband turned to his wife and said: Honey, we just can't afford that. They walked away--away from the medication that one of them needed. I asked the pharmacist: How often does this happen? He told me that it happens every day. We have to take action. That experience led me to author legislation that became law that prohibited gag clauses that were preventing pharmacists from advising their patients, their customers, on whether or not there was a less expensive way to purchase their prescription drugs. I am proud to say that this legislation is now law, but there is much more that we need to do. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, on which I serve, has incorporated more than 14 measures to increase price competition in its legislation on lowering healthcare costs. I know the Presiding Officer is a member of that committee as well. I am pleased to say that the bill includes major portions of the Biologic Patent Transparency Act, which is a bill that I authored with Senator Tim Kaine. It is intended to prevent drug manufacturers from gaming the patent system. Now, patents are very important. They help to spur innovation, and that period of exclusivity encourages drug manufacturers to invest more into lifesaving drugs. Yet the fact is, when the patent has expired, generics should be allowed to come to the market and drive down the costs. According to former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, if all of the biosimilars--those are generics for biologic drugs--that had been approved by the FDA had been successfully marketed in our country in a timely fashion, Americans would have saved more than $4.5 billion in 2017. A biosimilar version of HUMIRA, the world's best-selling drug, has been on the market in Europe for more than a year, while American patients must wait until 2023. We simply cannot allow this kind of abuse of the patent system to continue. The Judiciary Committee has also advanced proposals to empower the Federal Trade Commission to take more aggressive action against anticompetitive behaviors. Last month, the FTC charged the infamous Martin Shkreli with an anticompetitive scheme of setting an increase of more than 4,000 percent overnight for the lifesaving drug DARAPRIM. That was the focus of an investigation on the Aging Committee that I led with former Senator Claire McCaskill. I applaud the FTC for taking action, and we simply must give them more authority and the resources to pursue these kinds of anticompetitive cases that drive up the cost of prescription drugs. Finally, I hope that we have the opportunity to debate other worthy proposals, including one that Senator Shaheen and I have introduced to lower the skyrocketing price of insulin. I want to commend the administration for today releasing a new plan to drive down the cost of insulin for Medicare beneficiaries. The fact is, between 2012 and 2016, the average price of insulin nearly doubled. According to the Health Care Cost Institute, the price of an average 40-day supply of insulin rose from $344 in 2012 to $666 in 2016. There is no justification for that. Insulin was isolated nearly 100 years ago, and while there are different varieties of insulin, it is still insulin. As cochairs of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator Shaheen and I have introduced legislation which creates a new pricing model for insulin, and our bill would hold pharmacy benefit managers, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers accountable for surging insulin prices by incentivizing reductions in list prices. For the most popular insulins, this would result in as much as a 75- percent decrease in prices on average. Whether you are insured or you are paying out of pocket, you would benefit from that significant decline in the price if you need insulin to control your diabetes. Congress has a tremendous opportunity to deliver a decisive victory in both lowering healthcare costs and in improving healthcare for the people in my State of Maine and throughout our country. Let's not delay any longer. We must act on prescription drug legislation without further delay. We have three committees that have produced bills, and I believe this should be a priority for this Chamber.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on March 15, 1820, Maine became our Nation's 23rd State. It is a pleasure to join my fellow Mainers in celebrating this bicentennial and the generations of people who have written an inspiring and remarkable history. The story of Maine begins long before President James Monroe signed the legislation granting statehood to what had been a district of Massachusetts. For thousands of years, the land has been home to the Wabanaki, who have drawn sustenance from Maine's woods and waters. The People of the Dawn remain valued members of our communities today, and their reverence for nature is the foundation of the ethic of environmental stewardship that continues to guide our State. French explorers, led by Samuel de Champlain, first visited the area in 1604. In 1607, more than a decade before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, bold English pioneers established Popham Colony and constructed the first sailing ship built in North America. Ten years later, Captain John Smith sailed the North Atlantic coast and named the region ``New England.'' The European settlers that followed cleared farm fields, cut timber, and harvested the bounty of the sea. They harnessed rivers to power grain, lumber, and textile mills. With pick and shovel, they built roads and, later, railroads to connect communities to one another and Maine to the world. In June of 1775, just 2 months after Lexington and Concord, the first naval battle of the American Revolution was fought at Machias. Armed with nothing more than muskets, pitchforks, and axes, a militia of 30 patriots captured a British warship in a stunning American victory. When the British tried again to subdue that hotbed of revolution 2 years later, Passamaquoddy warriors joined with the local militia to repel the invasion. We are a State of immigrants, first from England, Scotland, and Ireland, then from Scandinavia. When the Acadians fled persecution in British Canada, many found new homes in Maine, establishing our rich Franco-American heritage. In recent years, Maine has opened its arms to thousands of refugees from Somalia and other nations in Africa and the Middle East. Maine achieved statehood as a result of legislation that admitted two new States--Maine and Missouri--to the Union--one free, one slave. Freedom is a theme that resonates throughout Maine's history. During the era when slavery stained our young Nation, Mainers were fervent abolitionists and hosted a vital part of the Underground Railroad. It was in Maine that Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote ``Uncle Tom's Cabin,'' the novel that brought the horror of slavery into homes throughout America. During the Civil War, Maine provided more soldiers per capita to the Union cause than any other State. When Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine made their heroic charge at Little Round Top, they turned the tide at Gettysburg and saved our Nation so that all people would be free. As the war neared its end, President Abraham Lincoln established a network of hospitals to care for wounded veterans, the foundation of today's VA. It was fitting that the very first of those hospitals was in Maine. Maine also led the way in ensuring that all American citizens have the right to express themselves at the ballot box. Maine provided some of the most effective leaders in the movement for women's suffrage. Maine's Governor and two Senators played key roles in the passage of the 19th Amendment that took effect 100 years ago, during Maine's centennial year. Two episodes wonderfully describe the commitment of Maine people to liberty, equality, and dignity for all. In 1837, the crew of a Maine schooner smuggled a slave from a southern port to our State and to freedom. The Governor of the slave State demanded not just the return of the slave but also the extradition of the ship's captain and first mate to face charges of theft of property. The response of Maine's Governor was blunt: ``We do not consider people to be property.'' In our time, in 2003, an out-of-State neo-Nazi White supremacist group brought its message of racial bigotry and anti-Semitism to Lewiston, a city that had recently opened its doors, and its heart, to refugees from Somalia. The rally for hate attracted barely 30 people. The counter rally for humanity drew more than 4,000. Another 1,000 gathered outside on a bitterly cold January day, unable to fit into the packed Bates College gym but unwilling to let their voices go unheard. That is the real story of Maine--a noble history that is upheld and enhanced today. Farming, fisheries, and forest products remain vital parts of our economy, now joined by advanced manufacturing and world- leading biomedical research. Our maritime heritage continues at our two great shipyards that keep our Navy preeminent in the world. Mainers continue to serve in uniform and defend freedom--we have the second highest percentage of veterans in the Nation. The people of our State will always come to the aid of those in need and offer a haven to the oppressed. When Captain John Smith explored the Maine coast more than four centuries ago, he wrote in his log that settling that beautiful and untamed region would take ``the best parts of art, judgment, courage, honesty, constancy, diligence, and industry.'' The people of Maine continue to demonstrate those qualities, and it is an honor to celebrate this landmark anniversary with them.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that is scheduled to begin at 1:45 p.m. begin immediately.

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

Mrs. COLLINS

Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize today, March 5, as National ``Slam the Scam'' Day. I first want to thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, for working with me on a Senate resolution designating today as National ``Slam the Scam'' Day. This resolution will help raise awareness of Government imposter scams with a single message: hang up and tell someone. In Government imposter scams, criminals claim to be from Government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, and call Americans demanding payment or personal information. These scams look real because they often begin with an unsolicited robocall using a spoofed caller ID, showing the name of the Government agency they are pretending to be. In reality, the Government would never call to threaten you or demand payment using gift cards, cash, wire transfers, or internet cryptocurrency. Government imposter scams have been the number one complaint reported to the Aging Committee's Fraud Hotline since its creation in 2013. Over the last two years, nearly 2,000 Maine consumers reported Government imposter scams to the Federal Trade Commission, with total losses of more than $700,000. Last year, the top reported scam to the Fraud Hotline, which the Aging Committee featured in our first hearing of the year, was the Social Security Administration impersonation scam. Americans reported losing nearly $38 million to this scam in 2019 alone, according to the Federal Trade Commission. That undoubtedly is the tip of the iceberg. Scammers are ruthlessly targeting Americans, and particularly older Americans, across the country. In 2016, Philip Hatch, an 81-year Navy veteran from Maine, lost $8,000 of his hard-earned savings to a Government impersonation scam. These scammers first posed as IRS agents and then impersonated the Portland Police Department. Just last year, a Maine senior reported a call from someone claiming to work for the Social Security Administration. The caller told him that his Social Security number matched a credit card used to rent a car found on the Texas border filled with drugs and blood. The caller provided an FBI ID number and correctly identified when my constituent had recently visited Texas on business. When prompted by the scammer, he confirmed his date of birth and Social Security number. These pernicious scams not only steal the savings of hardworking Americans and threaten to compromise their personal information; they also erode public trust and make it more difficult for Federal, State, and local government agencies to fulfill their missions. The Aging Committee, which I chair, has held 25 hearings on scams over the past seven years, and we have examined Government imposter scams from a number of angles. Public awareness can help to stop these scams from the start. I urge my colleagues to join me in marking today as National ``Slam the Scam'' Day by supporting our resolution. Let's work together to hang up on these Government imposters and put them out of business once and for all. Let's slam these scams.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last night the Senate unanimously passed my legislation, the Supporting Older Americans Act of 2020. I developed this important legislation with Senator Bob Casey, who serves as the ranking member of the Senate Aging Committee, which I chair, to reauthorize and strengthen the landmark Older Americans Act. A bipartisan group of 24 Senators cosponsored this reauthorization, and 128 national organizations endorsed it. I rise today to commend this bipartisan achievement that will ensure that vital services for our seniors continue and are strengthened. Since 1965, the Older Americans Act has helped to ensure that millions of seniors receive the support they need to age independently and with dignity. Administered by the Administration for Community Living, the Older Americans Act authorizes an array of services through a network of 56 State units on aging and more than 600 area agencies on aging, serving more than 10 million Americans throughout the Nation each year. OAA programs provide nutritious food, transportation, assistance to caregivers, and in-home services for older adults. These investments foster a sense of community for older adults and save taxpayers money by reducing hospitalizations and the need for long-term residential care. As our population ages, demand for Older Americans Act services has grown. Our legislation extends OAA programs for 5 years and provides increased investments to meet growing demands. For example, one hallmark OAA program is Meals on Wheels. Last year, this home-delivered nutrition program provided seniors with 358 million meals. In many States, however, the need is soaring. In Maine, there is a waitlist of 400 to 1,500 people, depending on the time of the year and the location in our State. That is why it is so important that this bill helps to ensure that more seniors in need of nutritious food can be served through important programs such as Meals on Wheels. At $11 a day, a meal is far cheaper than the $2,400 average cost of a hospital stay. Using Older Americans Act dollars, the Southern Maine Agency on Aging conducted a pilot study that provided seniors discharged from the hospital with 4 weeks' worth of food. The results were astounding--hospital readmissions were reduced by 38 percent--a 387-percent return on investment. On a national scale, the savings would be an astronomical $51 billion annually. Our legislation also includes several provisions to combat social isolation, which can have devastating health effects, particularly on older adults who are already vulnerable. As the executive director of the Eastern Maine Area Agency on Aging, Dyan Walsh, said, The Older Americans Act is a great victory for the aging services network and those we serve. There are many important provisions in the bill, not the least of which is the focus on research to study the negative consequences of social isolation and loneliness which impacts so many rural older adults. We look to the future with a renewed focus to integrate innovative strategies that will advance our mission to support communities and those who are the most vulnerable. The Older Americans Act is a shining example of a Federal policy that works. Every $1 invested into the Older Americans Act generates $3 by helping seniors stay at home through low-cost, community-based services. I thank the dozens of stakeholders we have worked with over the past several months to reauthorize and strengthen OAA, including the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, AARP, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the National Alliance for Caregiving, Meals on Wheels America, the National Association of Counties, and the Alzheimer's Association. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters of support printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this important reauthorization so that we can swiftly send it to the President's desk to get signed into law.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the American Energy Innovation Act--a compilation of energy-related measures that has been reported, with bipartisan support, by the Senate's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Let me start by recognizing the tremendous efforts of the very committed and dedicated chairman of that committee, Lisa Murkowski, and of the ranking member, Joe Manchin, and their work in bringing this comprehensive energy package to the Senate floor. Under their leadership, the committee has worked very hard to craft a bipartisan package that seeks to lower energy costs for consumers, to diversify our energy portfolio, and to facilitate and encourage the use of cleaner energy sources. The American Energy Innovation Act includes several bills that I either authored or cosponsored, including the Better Energy Storage Technology Act, known as the BEST Act, which supports energy storage research and development; the Weatherization Enhancement and Local Energy Efficiency Investment and Accountability Act, which reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program; the Wind Energy Research and Development Act, which supports targeted investments in wind energy; and the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, as well as the Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which both promote energy efficiency. I am particularly pleased that this agreement includes legislation I authored with Senator Heinrich. It is what is known as the BEST Act, the Better Energy Storage Technology Act. This bipartisan bill would support energy storage research and development, which would, in turn, advance the deployment of renewable energy. Federal investments in the research, development, and deployment of energy storage technologies would enable the expansion of renewable energy sources that are essential in combating climate change. Energy storage systems actually provide a wide range of benefits. First, these technologies increase the reliability and resiliency of our electric grid by limiting potential disruptions. Energy storage allows for the better management of supply and demand on our Nation's power grid. Second, this type of technology can decrease energy costs. In the State of Maine, the price of electricity can rise steeply during the coldest days of the year. In late 2017 and early 2018, very cold temperatures in New England led to higher energy costs that amounted to more than $1 billion being spent in the wholesale energy market in only 15 days. The next generation of energy storage technologies could also help to transform our grid, meaning that we would no longer need to generate more expensive power to meet demand during the hottest and coldest days of the year. Instead, we could use more affordable sources of energy that have been stored for later use. Finally, energy storage systems can allow for more intermittent renewable sources, such as wind or solar power, to be placed on the grid and to be used precisely when they are needed. Think of that. Right now, if the wind is not blowing, obviously we are not producing wind energy. If the Sun is not shining, we are not producing solar- generated energy. Yet, if during those windy periods and on those sunny days we could figure out how to store the energy that is produced so that it may be released later for electricity on the grid, what a difference it would make. Off the coast of Maine, offshore wind turbines can produce electricity almost 50 percent of the time due to our relatively persistent offshore winds, but with next-generation energy storage technology, we could utilize this wind power closer to 100 percent of the time by storing the electricity that is produced so that it may be used when the wind is not blowing. That is why I am so excited about the potential for improving our energy storage technologies. We all think of batteries. Certainly, coming up with better, more efficient batteries with which to store electricity is part of the answer, but there are other technologies that are going to be available if we make a concerted effort to devote resources to research and development and deployment. For these reasons, I am especially delighted that the BEST Act was included in this package, and I hope it will be enacted swiftly. Next, I would like to turn to a program that is very important to many low-income families and seniors in the State of Maine, and that is the weatherization program. I thank Senators Murkowski and Manchin for including the bill that I authored with Senators Coons, Reed, and Shaheen that reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program. Through my position on the Committee on Appropriations, I have worked with my colleagues to secure an increase of $51 million for weatherization assistance for fiscal year 2020. In fact, virtually every year, this is something on which I and the Senators whom I mentioned work together to achieve. Oftentimes, regrettably, the President's budget eliminates the funding for the weatherization program, but with bipartisan support, the members of the Committee on Appropriations work hard to include it in the funding bills. One reason we do so is that, whether it is insulating them or replacing windows or installing heat pumps, weatherizing our houses pays off. In fact, on average, weatherization returns a 4 to 1 on the investment. Since 2010, the State of Maine has received a little more than $22 million in funding, and it has been able to successfully weatherize nearly 2,500 homes and rental units across the State. What a difference that has made to the families who live in those homes and to the seniors who were once living in drafty homes, for their energy costs were much higher than they needed to be because their homes were not well insulated. It also makes those homes a lot more comfortable for our seniors and low-income families. Encouraging the adoption of energy efficiency measures is one of the easiest, yet effective mechanisms for reducing energy consumption, lessening pollution, and ultimately saving money for families, businesses, communities, and governments at all levels. In addition to weatherization, this comprehensive package supports crucial investments in renewable energy, including the Wind Energy Research and Development Act that I introduced with Senator Smith. This bill would reauthorize the Department of Energy's Office of Wind Energy. It would support grants in order to improve the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of wind energy generation. The Aqua Ventus program, which aims to be the first floating, deepwater, offshore wind project in the United States, has been under development by the University of Maine and a consortium of both public and private partners for many years now. That consortium and the University of Maine, in particular, could benefit from these targeted investments in offshore wind energy. Finally, another important component of this comprehensive bill is energy efficiency. I am pleased that the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act is included in this package. As an original cosponsor of this bill, which is also known as the Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency legislation, I recognize that it can kick-start the use of energy efficiency technologies that are commercially available right now and can be deployed by residential, commercial, and industrial energy users. It can also improve the energy efficiency of the Federal Government, which happens to be our Nation's largest consumer of energy. I congratulate the bill's sponsors, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for crafting this commonsense bill and for their relentless efforts in getting it across the finish line. Again, I express my appreciation to Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Manchin. I would also like to highlight another energy efficiency bill that is included in this package, and that is the Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which I sponsored with Senator Mark Warner. In Maine, our schools have made tremendous progress on energy efficiency, but it can be challenging for schools to take full advantage of programs that lower energy costs, in part because school officials may not know where to start. A lot of these programs are scattered in different agencies across the Federal Government. Our bipartisan bill would create a coordinating structure within the Department of Energy that would streamline available Federal energy efficiency programs, assist school administrators with navigating available Federal financing, and thus reduce school buildings' energy costs. Again, I want to thank the committee leaders for their excellent work on this package of energy legislation, and I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of the American Energy Innovation Act. This is an area where we can truly make a difference for our constituents, our communities, our States, our levels of government, and for our country. Let's get on with the adoption of this very worthwhile package of energy bills. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, in introducing the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act. Our bipartisan bill would support an innovative approach to fighting poverty, one that focuses on addressing the needs of children and their parents--two-generations together--in order to help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Many current conversations about lifting families out of poverty highlight record low unemployment and the booming U.S. economy as proof that we are finally headed in the right direction. I see many encouraging signs, such as the U.S. poverty rate finally in 2018 falling below the pre-recession level and Maine experiencing the largest decline in child poverty in the Nation from 2016 to 2017, but I also know far too many families still struggle financially. Over 38 million people, or about one in eight Americans, lived below the poverty line in 2018. This sadly includes nearly 13 million children, including 35,000 children in Maine. Despite recent progress, Maine's child poverty rate is still higher than all the other New England states. In addition to recognizing the continued need to lift up families and provide a brighter future for our Nation's youth, the economic motivation for addressing intergenerational poverty points to one simple fact--we must do something different. It is estimated that child poverty costs the U.S. between $800 billion and $1.1 trillion a year. For a sense of scale, the high end estimate of $1.1 trillion annually is similar to the amount Congress appropriated in December to fund programs across the entire government. Our legislation marks an important first step toward reevaluating our approach to poverty-reducing programs and encouraging innovative, more effective uses of taxpayer dollars. We support an approach that is aimed at equipping both parents and their children with the tools they need to succeed and become self-sufficient. Oftentimes, Federal programs intended to help low-income individuals address certain issues in silos, overlooking the fact that the needs of family members are usually interconnected. Our bill aims to change that. For example, helping a mother secure safe, high-quality child care can have a positive impact on her ability to succeed in the workforce, as well as improving her child's ability to be ready for school. While that child receives care and an education, her mother can be connecting with skills training to help her improve her income. Connecting various Federal programs that target both parents and children with supports aimed at increasing economic security, educational success, social capital, and health and wellbeing has the potential to lift whole families out of poverty. Listen to the story of Ambrosia Ross, a mother of three from Washington County, Maine, who was part of the first cohort of participants at Family Futures Downeast, a two-generation program designed to improve economic outcomes for low-income families through post-secondary education for parents at the same time their children access high quality early childhood education. In a testimonial about her experience, Ambrosia says, ``Family Futures Downeast opened up a whole new world, not just for me but also for my children . . . . Both of my boys talk about going to ``Mama's school'' and assure me that they are going to go to college also! They watch me doing homework and ask to do theirs as well. It means so much to me to know that not only has FFD changed my life but also set my children on a brand new path.'' In addition to continuing to attend college full time, Ambrosia is putting her new skills and education into practice by serving as a WIC Breastfeeding Peer Support Counselor. Her sons are also both eager to continue learning and her young daughter is already a ``wanna-be reader.'' Family Futures Downeast is just one example of the great strides we have made in bringing communities and service providers together to implement two-generation strategies. By blending federal dollars with the help of the State of Maine, Family Futures Downeast has reached nearly 230 individuals in Maine's most impoverished county with astounding results. In 2015 when the program was just getting started, I was proud to support Family Future Downeast's application to participate in a federal demonstration project aimed at combatting rural child poverty, which provided critical technical assistance and, with additional support from the John T. Gorman Foundation in Portland, helped the program get off the ground. The legislation we are introducing today would build on efforts like Family Futures Downeast that are increasing opportunities for families in need across the country by funding projects that work. Specifically, the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act would create an Interagency Council on Multigenerational Poverty and Economic Mobility to better coordinate federal efforts aimed at supporting vulnerable families and moving them out of poverty. The Council would also make recommendations to Congress on ways to improve coordination of anti-poverty programs and to identify best practices. While I applaud ongoing efforts across the federal government to implement two- generation strategies, this Council is needed to tackle logistical challenges, such as lack of coordination and communication across federal agencies--and in some cases different departments within a single agency--and improve the dissemination of information and best practices. Our bill would also authorize a pilot program that would provide additional flexibility for states and local governments to improve the administration of programs using Two-Generation models. It would authorize five states to participate in Two-Generation Performance Partnerships, allowing states to achieve reductions in poverty by blending similarly purposed funds across multiple federal programs. Two-generation approaches are often created ``from the bottom up,'' meaning local organizations and states are at the forefront of responding to local or regional needs. Therefore, our role as federal policymakers should be to give states and local organizations the flexibility they need to be creative in solving their unique challenges. For this reason, our legislation would reduce duplicative reporting and application requirements that may deter local agencies and organizations from making the most effective use of taxpayer dollars. To ensure accountability, the bill would require that these pilot programs be targeted at specific, poverty-reducing outcomes. While federal programs have helped many of those living in poverty manage day-to-day hardships, they are falling short of breaking the cycle of poverty that has trapped too many families. With this bill, we have the chance to make a permanent difference in the lives of families and to break the multigenerational cycle of poverty. Just as a child's ZIP code should not determine his or her future success, so should the bureaucratic siloed approach to poverty not make it so difficult for families to get the help they need to escape poverty. The federal government can be an effective partner in providing opportunities for parents and their children, lifting up families, and in turn, building stronger communities. State and local governments can be at the forefront of these efforts, and the increased flexibility proposed by this bill would help reform practices across government. In addition to strong support from national organizations like Ascend at the Aspen Institute, I want to thank the Maine Community Action Association and the Maine Head Start Directors Association for endorsing this important legislation. I also thank Senator Heinrich for his continued leadership and urge my colleagues to support this innovative approach to moving families out of poverty by giving them the tools they need to succeed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge passage of bipartisan, compassionate legislation that I introduced on April 2 of last year with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, to reauthorize the Lifespan Respite Care Program. This program provides respite services to family members who are caring for loved ones with special needs. Oftentimes, they are taking care of a spouse with Alzheimer's disease or a child with several disabilities, and it is a 24/7 job. They need a break, they need help, and that is what respite service is all about. This is not a new program. It has long been a bipartisan priority, and our bill is widely supported by a total of 100 leading caregiver and respite organizations across the country. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported our bill unanimously on October 31 of last year, and we have been working since then to secure its passage by the full Senate. It cleared the Republican side of the aisle on December 17, but the bill has been stalled on the other side of the aisle due to an unknown objection by an anonymous Senator, making it very difficult to resolve. If you don't know who has lodged the objection and you don't know what the concern is, it becomes impossible to resolve it. Thankfully, I am pleased to report that the objection has now been lifted, and we are poised to pass this bill that will help our seniors caring for a spouse with Alzheimer's or another disease, as well as parents caring for children with disabilities. Our bill would authorize $10 million annually for the Lifespan Respite Care Program over the next 5 years to assist States in establishing or enhancing statewide lifespan respite programs. Since the program's enactment 15 years ago, 37 States plus the District of Columbia have received grants to increase the availability and quality of respite services. Failing to reauthorize this program would put this funding in jeopardy. While respite care is the No. 1 service caregivers say they need, 85 percent of our Nation's caregivers have not received any respite services at all. Respite care has been shown to help sustain family caregivers' health and well-being and avoid and delay out-of-home placement for those for whom they are caring. From families caring for children with disabilities to those caring for older adults, the need for respite care today continues to grow. Our bipartisan legislation would help the 45 million caregivers in our country who provide an estimated $470 billion in uncompensated care each year. As a Senator representing the State with the oldest median age in our Nation and as chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, the well-being of our seniors and their caregivers is among my top priorities. The need for respite care continues to outpace available resources. This program is an attempt to provide a modest amount of Federal grant money toward this goal. Along with Senator Baldwin, this bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Murray, Reed, and Sinema. More than 50 national stakeholders have signed a letter urging immediate passage of the bill, including the ARCH National Respite Coalition, the AARP, Easterseals, The Arc, and the Elizabeth Dole Foundation. In addition, State-based organizations representing constituents across the country have also signed this letter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have shared how important it is that we pass this legislation, the Lifespan Respite Care Reauthorization Act of 2019, without further delay, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 283, S. 995.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, for more than 200 years after our Constitution was adopted, only one President faced an impeachment trial before the Senate. That was Andrew Johnson in 1868. But now we are concluding our second impeachment trial in just 21 years. While each case must stand on its own facts, this trend reflects the increasingly acrimonious partisanship facing our Nation. The Founders warned against excessive partisanship, fearing that it would lead to ``instability, injustice, and confusion,'' ultimately posing a mortal threat to our free government. To protect against this, the Founders constructed an elaborate system of checks and balances to prevent ``factions'' from sacrificing ``both the public good and the rights of other citizens.'' Impeachment is part of that elaborate system. The Founders set a very high bar for its use, requiring that the President may only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The Framers recognized that in removing a sitting President, we would be acting against not only the officeholder but also the voters who entrusted him with that position. Thus, the Senate must consider whether misconduct occurred, its nature, and the traumatic and disruptive impact that removing a duly elected President would have on our Nation. In the trial of President Clinton, I argued that in order to convict, ``we must conclude from the evidence presented to us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office one moment more.'' The House managers adopted a similar threshold when they argued that President Trump's conduct is so dangerous that he ``must not remain in power one moment longer.'' The point is, impeachment of a President should be reserved for conduct that poses such a serious threat to our governmental institutions as to warrant the extreme step of immediate removal from office. I voted to acquit President Clinton, even though the House managers proved to my satisfaction that he did commit a crime, because his conduct did not meet that threshold. I will now discuss each of the articles. In its first Article of Impeachment against President Trump, the House asserts that the President abused the power of his Presidency. While there are gaps in the record, some key facts are not disputed. It is clear from the July 25, 2019, phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky that the investigation into the Bidens' activities requested by President Trump was improper and demonstrated very poor judgment. There is conflicting evidence in the record about the President's motivation for this improper request. The House managers stated repeatedly that President Trump's actions were motivated ``solely'' for his own political gain in the 2020 campaign. Yet the President's attorneys argued that the President had sound public policy motivations, including a concern about widespread corruption in Ukraine. Regardless, it was wrong for President Trump to mention former Vice President Biden on that phone call, and it was wrong for him to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival. The House Judiciary Committee identified in its report crimes that it believed the President committed. Article I, however, does not even attempt to assert that the President committed a crime. I sought to reconcile this contradiction between the report and the articles in a question I posed to the House managers, but they failed to address that point in their response. While I do not believe that the conviction of a President requires a criminal act, the high bar for removal from office is perhaps even higher when the impeachment is for a difficult-to-define, noncriminal act. In any event, the House did little to support its assertion in article I that the President ``will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.'' As I concluded in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, I do not believe that the House has met its burden of showing that the President's conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office, nor does the record support the assertion by the House managers that the President must not remain in office one moment longer. The fact that the House delayed transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for 33 days undercuts this argument. For all of the reasons I have discussed, I will vote to acquit on article I. Article II seeks to have the Senate convict the President based on a dispute over witnesses and documents between the legislative and executive branches. As a general principle, an objection or privilege asserted by one party cannot be deemed invalid, let alone impeachable, simply because the opposing party disagrees with it. Before the House even authorized its impeachment inquiry, it issued 23 subpoenas to current and former administration officials. When the House and the President could not reach an accommodation, the House failed to compel testimony and document production. The House actually withdrew a subpoena seeking testimony from Dr. Charles Kupperman, a national security aide, once he went to court for guidance. And the House chose not to issue a subpoena to John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, whom the House has identified as the key witness. At a minimum, the House should have pursued the full extent of its own remedies before bringing impeachment charges, including by seeking the assistance of a neutral third party--the judicial branch. In making these choices, the House substituted its own political preference for speed over finality. The House managers described impeachment as a ``last resort'' for the Congress. In this case, however, the House chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead leapt straight to impeachment as the first resort. Therefore, I will vote to acquit on article II. This decision is not about whether you like or dislike this President, or agree with or oppose his policies, or approve or disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances. Rather, it is about whether the charges meet the very high constitutional standard of ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors.'' It has been 230 years since George Washington first took the oath of office, and there are good reasons why during that entire time the Senate has never removed a President. Such a move would not only affect the sitting President but could have unpredictable and potentially adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process. It is my judgment that, except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy; namely, who should lead their country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Crapo, Blunt, and Rubio.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Rubio, and Senator Risch.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. COLLINS. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Romney.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. COLLINS. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski.