Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, small businesses and their employees are the backbone of our economy, particularly in States like those of the Presiding Officer and the State that I am privileged to represent, the great State of Maine. Later today, the Senate is slated to vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1799, the PPP Extension Act of 2021. As a sponsor of the Senate companion bill, along with my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion. We are also delighted that several of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors of the Senate companion bill. The Paycheck Protection Program continues to be a lifeline for small businesses. It has made the difference between their shutting their doors and laying off their employees and their being able to remain open, survive the pandemic, and most important of all, send paychecks to their employees. Since the program was created last year, more than $718 billion in forgivable Small Business Administration loans have been approved, securing tens of millions of jobs in this country. The program has also been responsible for bringing approximately $3 billion to the State of Maine in forgivable loans that have allowed our small businesses, particularly those in the hospitality industry, to survive the pandemic and continue to send paychecks to their employees. The current application deadline for the PPP is March 31. That is just days away. I continue to hear about the urgent need for more PPP assistance from Maine's small businesses and to hear from others who are eligible for assistance but whose financial institutions are getting error messages from the Small Business Administration's computer system. Originally, the SBA had used the E-Tran system. For some reason, it switched computers for this round of PPP, and we understand that there are more than 190,000 applications that are pending for approval that are likely eligible for assistance but are held up because of computer glitches or other errors. The bill before us today mirrors the legislation that I introduced with Senators Cardin and Shaheen in that it provides for a clean extension of the PPP application deadline. It would simply extend the application deadline for PPP loans from March 31 to May 31, just 2 more months, and then it would provide an additional 30 days for the SBA to process pending applications. So if a small restaurant, for example, applied for a second PPP loan for which it is eligible because its revenues are down by 25 percent, comparing similar quarters in 2019 and 2020, it would not lose out because it applied in May and the SBA did not get time to process the application. Our bill has been endorsed by more than 90 organizations, including the Nation's largest small business advocacy group, the National Federation of Independent Business, which is key voting this vote. It has also been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the International Franchise Association, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Travel Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. The House passed this clean PPP extension last week by an overwhelming margin of 415 to 3. With the House now in recess and the Senate leaving this week, advancing a clean extension through the Senate ensures the continuation of this vital relief for our small businesses and their employees. We simply have to get this done. I agree with my colleagues that there are further improvements that could be made to PPP, such as addressing an issue facing certain sole proprietors. Unfortunately, the new administration changed the rules, so sole proprietors who applied early when the program reopened in January were treated differently than sole proprietors who are applying now. That obviously doesn't make sense. We should have the same rule. I have talked with the new SBA Administrator about this problem. She agrees that it is unfair and needs to be fixed and has committed to working with all the sponsors and with the House and Senate Small Business Committee to find a solution to ensure that the program is implemented as Congress intended. But in order to ensure that there is adequate time to develop and implement these improvements, we must first, without delay, pass H.R. 1799 to keep the PPP open for another 2 months. I urge all of my colleagues to support cloture and passage of this important bipartisan legislation. It truly is bipartisan.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, helping students achieve their education and career goals has long been a priority for me. I come to the floor today to introduce two bipartisan bills. Both are aimed at helping students pursue higher education, complete their degrees, and have satisfying work lives. Prior to my election to the Senate, I worked at Husson University in Bangor, ME. Many of Husson's students, for the most part, are first- generation college students. They are the first in their families to take that step of pursuing higher education. I saw firsthand the importance of several Federal initiatives: Pell grants, work study, and TRIO--programs that are specifically aimed at students whose families have little or no experience at all with higher education. The first bill that I am introducing today is the Educational Opportunity and Success Act. It would reauthorize and strengthen the Federal TRIO Programs. I have been a longtime champion of TRIO. It helps students prepare for, succeed in, and graduate from college or other institutions of higher learning. I would like to thank Senators Tester, Capito, and Baldwin for joining me as original cosponsors. Congress created the TRIO Programs because it recognized that low- income, first-generation college students often face significant obstacles to accessing and completing higher education. Our bipartisan bill would reauthorize these programs, modestly increase grant sizes, and make it easier for administrators to reach students who would benefit from TRIO. The bill also updates the way that the programs are evaluated and streamlines the application process. The bill would also increase the small stipend for Upward Bound students. Upward Bound is one of the TRIO Programs. These stipends make their college visits more accessible. These visits are often the first time that these young people have experienced a college campus. And it would create a new stipend for veterans participating in the Veterans Upward Bound Program. The Educational Opportunity and Success Act would also institute a commonsense process for correcting TRIO applications that have minor errors. Now, let me give you a concrete example. In 2017, the Department of Education initially rejected dozens of Upward Bound applications based on arbitrary, nonsubstantive formatting criteria, such as line spacing or font size irregularities. The Department lost sight of the goal of serving students and instead focused on whether the formatting criteria were followed exactly correctly. One of these applications was from the University of Maine at Presque Isle. It had used 1\1/2\ spacing instead of double spacing in text appearing in graphics in just two of the application's 65 pages. Imagine that the application was not considered on its merits at all because of a spacing error that accompanied graphics on 2 pages of a 65-page application. The Department's bureaucratic decision would have denied 960 disadvantaged Maine high school students from the chance of fulfilling their academic potential. After many months of advocacy, I worked with the Department of Education. I kept pressing the Department. And I worked with my Appropriations colleagues to reverse this ill-conceived policy. But it took Federal legislation to move the Department from its bureaucratic decision, which affected potentially 960 students in northern Maine. It affected students that were in other high schools as well across this country. I remember Montana was one of those that was affected. The University of Maine at Presque Isle ultimately received its TRIO grant to serve those students. The bill that we are introducing today would prevent the Department of Education from rejecting applications simply on the basis of formatting criteria. This is a commonsense reform that will prevent unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles in the future. We should be making sure that Federal funds get out the door efficiently and focus on the students they are meant to serve. I have met so many Maine TRIO students and have loved learning about their dreams for the future. One of them is a priest who serves in Skowhegan, ME. Neither of his parents went beyond the eighth grade. He, through the encouragement of the Upward Bound Program, went to Dartmouth and then on to the seminary and is now a priest. Let me tell you about another outstanding individual, Jason Judd. Jason grew up in Athens, ME, a very small community. Jason said: I knew that education was the only way I could escape poverty. Upward Bound taught me how to be successful in education and encouraged me to pursue my passions. Jason is a first-generation college graduate. With the support of Upward Bound, he went to the University of Maine at Farmington and earned his bachelor's degree. He chose to go into school administration. He received his master's degree from the University of Southern Maine in educational leadership and earned his doctorate from Northeastern University in organizational leadership studies. Now, Jason is the executive director of Educate Maine, where he works to improve education in our State. TRIO put him on the path to success. And now Jason supports students just like himself across the State of Maine, a real success story that TRIO helped make possible. The TRIO Programs have changed the lives of first-generation students across Maine and the country, opening the doors to the opportunities provided by higher education. I would ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to extend and improve the TRIO Programs

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the second bill I am introducing today is the Success for Rural Students and Communities Act. This bill would help students living in rural areas achieve their higher education goals and connect them with economic opportunities in their communities. I want to thank Senators Hassan, Cornyn, and Smith for introducing this legislation with me. According to census data, two out of three Maine schools are in rural communities, and more than half of Maine students attend these schools. Ninety percent of Maine's students graduate from high school. That is great. But only 62 percent enroll in some kind of higher education right away. Unfortunately, an even lower percentage of Maine students go on to actually earn a degree or a credential. That often leaves them with student debts but without the credential or degree that they need. Maine's experience is not unique. Rural students tend to graduate from high school at higher rates than their peers in urban districts and at about the same rate as their suburban peers, but fewer rural graduates enroll in college upon graduation than their urban and suburban counterparts. Our bill would authorize $60 million for demonstration grants to create community partnerships that help rural students access college and career pathways Community stakeholders, such as local school districts, colleges, universities, regional economic development entities and community organizations, would join together to help students and their families navigate higher education opportunities and address barriers that too often stand in the way to their achievement. For example, partnerships could work together to expose students to college campuses, courses, programs, and internships. They could focus on enrollment and completion rates of rural, nontraditional students, who may find that they need additional credentials or who once began but did not finish postsecondary education. Today, as you well know, many of the employers require something more than a high school diploma--perhaps a college degree, a skilled trade credential, or a professional certificate. Our bill would encourage schools and local employers to work together to put students on pathways into the high-demand jobs available where they want to live. Several strategies could be developed and tested, including work-based learning opportunities like apprenticeships, internships, and a sequence of courses on the path to a certain skill or job. In northern Maine, the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative is using this model successfully to help put students on pathways to academic and career success. The initiative collaborates with local businesses and with colleges and universities to offer seminars that guide students throughout their education. Students can team up with employers in the area through internships that give them the experience and the careers they wish to pursue. Last year, I met, from Aroostook County, a student named Katelyn Amero, who came to Washington to talk about her career goals. Katelyn hopes to pursue a career in medicine. In 2019, Katelyn participated in the Emerging Rural Leaders program at the University of Chicago, which provides opportunities for rural high school students to enroll in college courses over the summer months. That program has helped put her on the path to becoming a physician. The Success for Rural Students and Communities Act would support dynamic programs such as the Emerging Rural Leaders program and the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative. It would encourage other communities to innovate in similar ways. Both bills I am introducing today would provide critical support for students across the country who are seeking to achieve their college and career dreams. I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills

Mrs. COLLINS

Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, in introducing legislation to support the ongoing operation of the national child abuse hotline, which is currently operated by Childhelp, a national non-profit. Of all the major national help hotlines, the crisis line for child abuse and neglect is the only one without a Federal authorization and dedicated funding. Our bill, the National Child Abuse Help Hotline Act of 2021, would give the Administration for Children and Families the authority to award funding to increase Federal support for this important hotline. Tragically, on average, five children die every day from child abuse and neglect. According to the most recent Department of Health and Human Services' Child Maltreatment Report, 656,000 children were victims of child abuse and neglect in 2019, and a heartbreaking 1,770 children died--including three young children in Maine. The many stresses created by the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated the risks for vulnerable children, and I fear that the data from 2020 and 2021 will show a worsening crisis. According to the CDC, ``heightened stress, school closures, loss of income, and social isolation resulting from . . . . the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the risk for child abuse and neglect.'' As Michelle Fingerman of Childhelp, the current operator of the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline, details: ``There is a wide range of fallout from pandemic anxiety and school shutdowns. There is more abuse already occurring in homes where caregivers are melting down from the stress, children are trapped at home with abusers, schools and daycare are closed, and therapists and other frontline providers are now more difficult to access.'' Despite these risks, official reports to child protection agencies have declined across the country, in some places by as much as seventy percent. But, fewer official reports does not mean abuse and neglect are on the decline. To the contrary, less in-person contact between children and mandated reporters like teachers, physicians, and coaches is one explanation for this reporting decline. Additionally, while the number of emergency department visits related to child abuse and neglect decreased in 2020, the percentage of visits severe enough to require hospitalization increased. Better access to prevention and intervention services can help stop these troubling trends. The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline is a resource that is accessible to children and families across the country, especially while many children are still not attending school in person full-time. A simple phone call or text to the hotline at 1-800-4-A-Child can connect people with those who can come to a child's aid before the unimaginable occurs. The hotline saw 11,573 contacts in May 2020, which is more than 40 percent higher than during May 2019. Childhelp's text and online chat platforms also experienced a significant volume increase last year. For the past few years, Congress has appropriated $1 million to pilot these platforms, and our legislation would help the grantee chosen by ACF expand its reach to more children and families. The helpline serves a wide range of individuals in every single state--at-risk children, distressed parents seeking crisis intervention, and concerned individuals who suspect that child abuse may be occurring. In Maine, where one in every 71 children is a victim of abuse, the National Child Abuse Hotline assisted nearly 200 callers in 2019. Those in need are connected--either on the phone, text, or online chat--with social workers who can offer confidential crisis intervention, information, and referrals to emergency, social service, and support resources. The National Child Abuse Help Hotline Act would provide a meaningful Federal investment to protect children across the country, authorizing $2 million annually for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to award a grant to a nonprofit entity to support a 24-hour, national, toll-free telephone hotline. That hotline will get information and assistance to victims of child abuse or neglect, parents, caregivers, mandated reporters, and other concerned community members. This will not interfere with any state-mandated reporter hotlines and will bolster those state efforts. In fact, the current operator has more than 80 community partners in just Maine alone. Mr. President, child abuse is preventable, and the helpline's prevention and intervention activities are both successful and well- documented. Consistent Federal support for the National Child Abuse Hotline will improve our ability to reach children of all ages, as well as parents or caregivers, during the pandemic and beyond. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this important legislation that could save lives.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce School Food Modernization Act to assist our schools in updating outdated kitchen equipment, allowing them to provide healthier meals to students. I also thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Smith, for cosponsoring this bill. School meals play a vital role in the lives of so many of our children. As one school nutrition director from Maine recently told me, school meals are the ``foundation for student success.'' Nearly 100,000 schools participate in the National School Lunch program, serving 30 million children each day, helping to prevent hunger. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school, and some get their most nutritious meals of the day at school instead of at home. Because school meals are a significant source of daily nutrition for so many, we must consistently aim to improve the program to best serve students. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the importance of school meals for many families. Across the country, schools and nutrition programs were adapted to remote and hybrid learning models during the pandemic. Nutrition programs in Maine and other states have tirelessly continued to support the nutritional needs of students despite school closures, with many schools offering as many as four or five meal delivery options to ensure families can continue to access food seven days a week. I met recently with school nutrition directors from Maine who said lack of equipment, including access to cold storage, has forced them to be even more creative in continuing to serve children across Maine during COVID-19. Many schools are using stoves from the 1960s and others lack adequate storage facilities to store the large amount of food needed to provide multi-day bulk meal bags for children and families who are learning remotely or attending school only part-time. The fact is schools built decades ago often lack the equipment and infrastructure necessary to do more than reheat and serve one or two meal options each day. Even before the pandemic, nearly 90 percent of schools needed at least one piece of updated school kitchen equipment. It is estimated that Maine schools alone would need $58.8 million for equipment infrastructure upgrades needed to serve healthy meals to all of our students. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I serve, has consistently recognized this need and appropriated $30 million for School Equipment Assistance Grants last year. The School Food Modernization Act would codify and improve this successful grant program to better meet the growing need nationwide. The School Food Modernization Act seeks to help school food service personnel offer a wide variety of nutritious and appealing meals to all students. First, the bill would provide targeted grant assistance to supply the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high-quality equipment. Second, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment. Finally, to aid school food services personnel in running successful, healthy programs, the legislation would authorize grants to support training and technical assistance for food service personnel. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to continue supporting school kitchen equipment needs as the Child Nutrition Reauthorization process takes shape. If our children are going to be able to learn and meet their full potential, they need their minds and bodies to be fully nourished. This bill would help us achieve that goal.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is the time of year when people are calculating their taxes and filing their returns. There are inequities in our Tax Code, and the bill I am introducing today, the SALT Deduction Fairness Act, would help remedy one of these inequities. This bill would ensure that limits on State and local tax deductions, also known as SALT deductions, do not disproportionately and unfairly penalize married couples. Currently, the amount in State and local taxes that both single and married filers may deduct from their annual income taxes is capped at $10,000. Single filers and married filers are treated the same, and married people who file their taxes separately are limited to $5,000 each. In other words, people would be better off not getting married when it comes to the SALT deduction. My bill removes this penalty by simply doubling the deduction to $20,000 for married filers. This is the situation we have now: Two single people can both claim $10,000 worth of State and local income taxes as a deduction on their Federal returns, but if they get married, they can claim only $10,000 together. This is a classic example of a marriage tax penalty. When the Senate considered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, I worked to keep the SALT deduction in the Federal Tax Code because of the increased tax burden its elimination would have imposed on many Mainers who pay property taxes on their seasonal cottages as well as their homes, who remit annual excise taxes on their vehicles, and who are subject to State income taxes. The SALT deduction has been in the Tax Code since 1913, when the Federal income tax was first established. It is intended to protect families from double taxation, from essentially paying a tax on a tax. The Senate adopted my amendment, which paralleled that of the House, to retain the deduction for State and local taxes up to $10,000. This deduction is especially important to families living in high-tax States, like Maine, which has one of our Nation's highest State taxes and where many residents own second homes, like camps on Maine's beautiful lakes. Last year, an analysis by WalletHub found that Maine had the fourth highest overall tax burden behind only New York, Hawaii, and Vermont. Yet Maine's median household income ranked only 35th in the Nation and was approximately $6,800 below the U.S. median household income. So maintaining this deduction provides important tax relief for those Mainers who continue to itemize their deductions. Yet we can do better. We can make the SALT deduction fairer by eliminating the marriage penalty that limits a married couple to just $10,000; whereas, if they were not married, they could each claim $10,000. According to the U.S. Census, there are more than 60 million married couples living in our Nation. Our Tax Code should be fair to them. We should not create a situation in which married couples would have been better off financially, in terms of taxes, had they not married. One way to accomplish this goal is to double their access to deductions for the State and local taxes they pay, including from properties they share, such as their homes. This legislation would remedy this double taxation problem and eliminate the marriage tax penalty when it comes to the SALT tax deduction. It boils down to this: We simply should not be unfairly penalizing American taxpayers for being married. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill to fix this marriage tax penalty

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is the time of year when people are calculating their taxes and filing their returns. There are inequities in our Tax Code, and the bill I am introducing today, the SALT Deduction Fairness Act, would help remedy one of these inequities. This bill would ensure that limits on State and local tax deductions, also known as SALT deductions, do not disproportionately and unfairly penalize married couples. Currently, the amount in State and local taxes that both single and married filers may deduct from their annual income taxes is capped at $10,000. Single filers and married filers are treated the same, and married people who file their taxes separately are limited to $5,000 each. In other words, people would be better off not getting married when it comes to the SALT deduction. My bill removes this penalty by simply doubling the deduction to $20,000 for married filers. This is the situation we have now: Two single people can both claim $10,000 worth of State and local income taxes as a deduction on their Federal returns, but if they get married, they can claim only $10,000 together. This is a classic example of a marriage tax penalty. When the Senate considered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, I worked to keep the SALT deduction in the Federal Tax Code because of the increased tax burden its elimination would have imposed on many Mainers who pay property taxes on their seasonal cottages as well as their homes, who remit annual excise taxes on their vehicles, and who are subject to State income taxes. The SALT deduction has been in the Tax Code since 1913, when the Federal income tax was first established. It is intended to protect families from double taxation, from essentially paying a tax on a tax. The Senate adopted my amendment, which paralleled that of the House, to retain the deduction for State and local taxes up to $10,000. This deduction is especially important to families living in high-tax States, like Maine, which has one of our Nation's highest State taxes and where many residents own second homes, like camps on Maine's beautiful lakes. Last year, an analysis by WalletHub found that Maine had the fourth highest overall tax burden behind only New York, Hawaii, and Vermont. Yet Maine's median household income ranked only 35th in the Nation and was approximately $6,800 below the U.S. median household income. So maintaining this deduction provides important tax relief for those Mainers who continue to itemize their deductions. Yet we can do better. We can make the SALT deduction fairer by eliminating the marriage penalty that limits a married couple to just $10,000; whereas, if they were not married, they could each claim $10,000. According to the U.S. Census, there are more than 60 million married couples living in our Nation. Our Tax Code should be fair to them. We should not create a situation in which married couples would have been better off financially, in terms of taxes, had they not married. One way to accomplish this goal is to double their access to deductions for the State and local taxes they pay, including from properties they share, such as their homes. This legislation would remedy this double taxation problem and eliminate the marriage tax penalty when it comes to the SALT tax deduction. It boils down to this: We simply should not be unfairly penalizing American taxpayers for being married. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill to fix this marriage tax penalty

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the PPP Extension Act of 2021. I'm pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues, Senators Cardin and Shaheen. Last March, the three of us, along with Senator Rubio, formed a Small Business Task Force that crafted the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)--a forgivable loan program designed to help keep small employers afloat and their employees paid during the pandemic. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today would simply extend the current application deadline for new PPP loans from March 31st to May 31st of this year, and then provide an additional 30-day period during which time the Small Business Administration may continue processing applications received prior to the new May 31st deadline. Representatives Velazquez, Luetkemeyer, Bourdeaux, and Kim (CA) have introduced a companion bill in the House. The PPP has been hugely successful in helping our Nation's small businesses and nonprofits survive the pandemic and continue paying their employees. In 2020, more than five million small employers received forgivable PPP loans, helping to sustain upwards of 50 million American jobs. This includes more than 28,000 Maine small businesses, who received nearly $2.3 billion in forgivable PPP loans. Recognizing the importance of this program for our Nation's small employers, the bipartisan December 2020 COVID-relief law provided an additional $284.5 billion to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program and allow the hardest hit small employers to receive a second forgivable loan. The December law also made other improvements to the PPP, such as expanding forgivable overhead expenses to include supplier costs and investments in facility modifications and personal protective equipment needed to operate safely. Since reopening in January, more than two million additional forgivable loans--totaling nearly $165 billion--have been approved for small businesses across the Nation. In Maine, more than 10,000 small employers have been approved for more than $692 million in forgivable loans since PPP's reopening. In total, Maine small employers have been approved for nearly $3 billion in forgivable loans since the program was created last year. I have heard from countless small employers about the impact this program has had on them and their employees. The owner of Shipyard Brewing Company in Portland told me that without the relief that PPP provided, his company would be bankrupt. The Ecology School, a non- profit environmental education program in Saco, would have had to lay off the majority of its staff without the support of two forgivable PPP loans. I've heard from the owners of Jeff's Catering in Brewer, the Poland Spring Resort, and the Hamilton Marine in Searsport that PPP helped keep their businesses alive and their employees paid. With the ongoing distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and the promise of warmer weather throughout the Nation, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We're not there yet, which is why we need to extend the deadline to apply for new loans. Extending the deadline would also help address concerns I continue to hear from Maine small employers about delays in the processing of new loan applications because of difficulty in resolving error messages generated by the Small Business Administration computer system. By extending the PPP for another two months and then providing an additional 30 days after that time for the SBA to process applications that are still pending, this bill would help our Nation's small employers retain access to forgivable PPP loans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1242, and ask that it be reported by number.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Ms. COLLINS. This amendment provides $650 billion of immediate relief to those Americans who need it most. It is focused on the COVID crisis before us, not on future unrelated spending priorities. The amendment provides $160 billion to bolster vaccine production and delivery, as well as testing and much needed support for healthcare providers. It includes $1,400 checks for lower and middle-income Americans and extends unemployment insurance. It targets money to reopen schools, something that needs to happen as soon as possible, and to expand access to childcare. It has funding for substance abuse programs to combat the opioid epidemic that has worsened. This amendment would save tax dollars. It would save taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion while meeting immediate needs. The emergency we are facing should not be an excuse for funding partisan priorities. Instead, we should come together----

Ms. COLLINS.--just as we had on the five previous bipartisan bills.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native Plant Species Pilot Program Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this initiative. Our bipartisan bill would create a new pilot program at the National Park Service to support the use of native plants, and would direct the Park Service to review existing data and study the cost-effectiveness of using native plants. Native plants are species found naturally in regions and can add beauty and value to our National Park System. Benefits range from using less water and pesticides, purifying the air, and recharging groundwater in wetlands. By using native species, the Park Service can also improve habitat for wildlife and restore important species of birds and butterflies to their natural environment. In Acadia National Park, native plants are an important part of the ongoing conservation efforts undertaken by Superintendent Kevin Schneider and all those who work to encourage the use of native plants. Acadia National Park protects more than 900 plant species, including some that are globally, nationally, and locally rare. Acadia is home to the vibrant rhodoras that flower along wetland edges in the spring and stunning wood lilies that bloom on the mountain tops in August, helping to attract the more than 3.5 million visitors a year to the seventh most-visited national park in the United States. The Wild Gardens of Acadia, located at Sieur de Monts, are a collection of more than 400 native plants maintained almost exclusively by park volunteers and represent the natural plant communities found within Acadia National Park. This partnership project with Friends of Acadia allows visitors to easily step through the park's myriad habitats and learn about the splendor of Acadia's native plant species. The Wild Gardens celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2021. Native plants, however, face many threats, such as non-native pests, non-native plants, diseases, and a changing climate. Today, almost one quarter of Acadia National Park's species are non-native to the park. The red spruce, iconic to Acadia, is projected to lose a substantial amount of its habitat in coming decades because of climate change. In addition, invasive pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the hemlock woolly adelgid are affecting northern forests and have expanded into Maine. Hemlock woolly adelgid recently infested hemlock trees just outside of the park on Mount Desert Island. Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from the Garden Club of America, Friends of Acadia, Scenic America, and the Native Plant Center at Westchester Community College. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help protect the natural landscapes at our national parks for years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native Plant Species Pilot Program Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this initiative. Our bipartisan bill would create a new pilot program at the National Park Service to support the use of native plants, and would direct the Park Service to review existing data and study the cost-effectiveness of using native plants. Native plants are species found naturally in regions and can add beauty and value to our National Park System. Benefits range from using less water and pesticides, purifying the air, and recharging groundwater in wetlands. By using native species, the Park Service can also improve habitat for wildlife and restore important species of birds and butterflies to their natural environment. In Acadia National Park, native plants are an important part of the ongoing conservation efforts undertaken by Superintendent Kevin Schneider and all those who work to encourage the use of native plants. Acadia National Park protects more than 900 plant species, including some that are globally, nationally, and locally rare. Acadia is home to the vibrant rhodoras that flower along wetland edges in the spring and stunning wood lilies that bloom on the mountain tops in August, helping to attract the more than 3.5 million visitors a year to the seventh most-visited national park in the United States. The Wild Gardens of Acadia, located at Sieur de Monts, are a collection of more than 400 native plants maintained almost exclusively by park volunteers and represent the natural plant communities found within Acadia National Park. This partnership project with Friends of Acadia allows visitors to easily step through the park's myriad habitats and learn about the splendor of Acadia's native plant species. The Wild Gardens celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2021. Native plants, however, face many threats, such as non-native pests, non-native plants, diseases, and a changing climate. Today, almost one quarter of Acadia National Park's species are non-native to the park. The red spruce, iconic to Acadia, is projected to lose a substantial amount of its habitat in coming decades because of climate change. In addition, invasive pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the hemlock woolly adelgid are affecting northern forests and have expanded into Maine. Hemlock woolly adelgid recently infested hemlock trees just outside of the park on Mount Desert Island. Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from the Garden Club of America, Friends of Acadia, Scenic America, and the Native Plant Center at Westchester Community College. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help protect the natural landscapes at our national parks for years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Schunk, a defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last week, I was pleased to join my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Joe Manchin, in introducing the Advancing Uniform Transportation Opportunities for Veterans Act, better known as the AUTO for Veterans Act. I am pleased that Senators Boozman, Hassan, and Blunt have joined as original cosponsors. Our bill would lessen the financial burden on severely disabled veterans who require special adaptive equipment to drive a motor vehicle. It would do so by increasing access to the Department of Veterans Affairs automobile grant program. The VA currently provides eligible veterans with a one-time grant of approximately $21,400 to be used to purchase a new or used automobile and necessary adaptive equipment, such as specialized pedals and switches. This grant is often used in conjunction with the VA's special adaptive equipment grants, which help our veterans purchase additional adaptive equipment, such as powered lifts, for example, for an existing automobile to make it safe and feasible for a veteran with disabilities. Although veterans can receive multiple special adaptive equipment grants over the course of their lives, for some reason they are limited to just a single automobile grant. The current limitation fails to take into account that a veteran is likely to need more than one vehicle in his or her lifetime. In fact, the Department of Transportation reports that, in 2019, the average age of a household vehicle was 11.8 years, and a vehicle that has been modified structurally tends to have a shorter useful life. According to the VA independent budget prepared by Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW, the substantial costs of modified vehicles, coupled with inflation, present a financial hardship for many disabled veterans who need to replace their primary mode of transportation once their car or van or truck reaches its lifespan. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that a new vehicle modified with adaptive equipment will cost anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000. These are significant costs for a veteran with disabilities to incur to replace his or her primary mode of transportation. That is why veterans should be eligible to receive a vehicle grant every 10 years and our legislation, the Collins-Manchin bill, would do just that. A Maine veteran whom I know well, Neal Williams of Shirley, ME, used a VA automobile grant in 1999 to purchase an adaptive vehicle, a Ford Econoline van. He has also had to purchase several adaptive vehicles since 1999, with each one lasting over 250,000 miles until they simply were no longer roadworthy. His current vehicle now has over 100,000 miles, and soon he will need a new one. He told me that purchasing a new van will cost him well over $50,000, which is more than he paid for his home in rural Maine. This is an enormous burden on our disabled veterans who need to purchase expensive adaptive vehicles in order to drive safely or to drive at all. Madam President, I feel like I am preaching to the choir here. Our Nation owes our veterans such an enormous debt. It is a debt that truly can never be fully repaid. Let's honor our commitment to our veterans by continuing to support their needs, including the needs of veterans who are disabled and need this adaptive technology for their vehicles long after they have been discharged or retire from Active Duty. This is a simple bill, but it is a bill that would make such a difference for so many of our disabled veterans who need vehicles with adaptive equipment so that they can drive themselves and drive safely. The AUTO for Veterans Act is an important step that we can take to meet this need and help those who have made so many sacrifices to serve our Nation. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in helping our Nation's veterans by supporting this bill. Thank you.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate was asked to decide whether this body has the constitutional jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial of Donald Trump now that he is no longer President of the United States. While the Constitution does not explicitly address Congress' jurisdiction when the subject of impeachment is a former President--or any former officer--its text and purpose as applied to the facts in this matter support the conclusion that the trial should proceed. The question of Senate jurisdiction should start with the text of the Constitution itself. The impeachment process is described in article I, which delineates the respective powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 2 plainly states that the House ``shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' In this matter, there is no dispute that impeachment occurred before former President Trump's term expired, and, therefore, there is no dispute that the House had jurisdiction to impeach him. What is at issue is whether the impeachment trial can occur in the Senate now that former President Trump is no longer in office. Again, I look to the text of article I. Section 3 states that ``the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' As former Federal circuit court Judge Michael McConnell has observed, the key word here is ``all.'' Sections 2 and 3 read together lead to the inescapable conclusion that, if the House presents the Senate with a valid impeachment article, the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct the trial. Some have argued that such an interpretation would put all former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and office holders dating back to the Washington administration at risk of being impeached and convicted, but the facts in this matter do not require such a sweeping conclusion. By asserting its jurisdiction over this trial, the Senate is simply ruling that a President who was impeached while still in office can be tried after he is no longer in office--nothing more. The former President's attorneys argue that the Senate does not have jurisdiction to conduct a trial because the penalty prescribed for conviction under article II, section 4, is removal from office. Because former President Trump cannot be removed, they argue that the Constitution requires he not be tried. But article I, section 4, authorizes the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification from holding office in the future if it chooses to do so. And, notably, a vote on whether or not to disqualify can only be taken after conviction, at which point any defendant would have been removed and no longer an office holder. If the defense's argument were to be followed to its logical conclusion, it would lead to a constitutional absurdity--the Senate would have the sole power to apply the disqualification penalty, but it would never have jurisdiction to do so. If the Senate were unable to consider disqualification after a President is no longer in office, the second penalty would lose its meaning. A more sensible reading of article I, section 4, is that both punishments, removal and disqualification, are equally significant, and therefore, the Senate has jurisdiction in this matter. For all the reasons I have set forth, I believe that the Senate must exercise jurisdiction, and I voted to begin its impeachment proceedings.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Broadband Buildout Act. This legislation would help ensure that rural Americans have access to broadband services at the speeds they need to participate fully in the benefits of our modern society and economy. I want to thank my colleague Senator Rosen for joining me in introducing this bill today. Twenty-five years ago, Americans typically accessed the internet using their home phone lines via modems, capable of downloading data at just 56 kilobits per second, too slow even to support MP3-quality streaming music. Today, the Federal Communications Commission defines broadband service as having a threshold download speed nearly 500 times faster. Many areas of our country, particularly our rural communities, simply do not have the infrastructure to achieve these speeds and fully tap into the opportunities that digital connectivity can deliver. According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, nearly 37 percent of rural Americans lack a broadband connection compared to 25 percent of urban Americans. Similar disparities occur in terms of broadband adoption. That is the rate at which Americans subscribe to broadband service once they have access to it. The survey also found that 15 percent of rural Americans don't use the internet at home compared to just 9 percent of urban Americans. The current pandemic has brought these connectivity challenges into stark focus as many families have had to move their education, their workplaces, and their healthcare services online. Andrea Powers, the town manager of Fort Fairfield in northern Maine, recently described a number of challenges in her community: students who have to sit on the town's library steps in order to finish research projects and submit their papers; a business owner who was forced to relocate his company to another community in order to have a chance to succeed; a senior citizen who requires the care of distant doctors but does not have the capacity to travel nor access the telehealth options. Andrea told me the story of one family whose jobs rely heavily on access to high-speed broadband. They were told that it would cost them $15,000 to bring that connection to their doorstep. Andrea summed up the reality facing so many rural communities that lack access in this way. She said: ``We will continue to see a loss of business retention and expansion along with job creation. We simply cannot afford to allow this to happen. Online schooling, business growth and development, telehealth care, and economic agriculture success are all dependent on . . . affordable fiber optic broadband.'' Telehealth services are an essential piece of the national broadband conversation. Often, rural communities struggle to attract and retain healthcare providers that they need to ensure access to quality care. Broadband is vital to bridging that gap to enable innovative healthcare delivery. Let me give you an example. Hospice workers at Northern Light Homecare were able to use the internet and video technology to help support a patient living on an island off the coast of Maine--not far as the seagull flies, but hours away in travel time. Although the connection was poor, the video enabled nurses to monitor the patient's condition and symptoms and, equally important, to provide emotional support to her and to her family. As one hospice worker put it, ``our hospice team could be doing so much more with video and telemonitoring technologies if only Maine had better connectivity.'' The American Broadband Buildout Act would help close this ``digital divide'' between urban and rural America by providing up to $15 billion in matching grants to assist States and State- approved entities in building that ``last-mile'' infrastructure to bring high-speed broadband directly to homes and businesses in areas that lack it. Projects would have to be located in unserved areas--that is, areas where broadband is unavailable at speeds that meet the FCC standards. Focusing on those areas will direct support where it is most needed and will protect against overbuilding where infrastructure is already in place. The Federal funding authorized in our bill would be matched through public-private partnerships between the broadband service provider and the State where they provide service. This means that States and their private sector partners will have ``skin in the game'' so that the projects will be well thought out and sustainable. This model will also incentivize existing service providers to extend their networks to rural areas and swiftly connect new households. Third, the bill would require that projects be designed to be ``future proof,'' meaning that the infrastructure installed must be capable of delivering higher speeds as broadband accelerates in the future. We want these investments to serve rural Americans now and in the future without having to rebuild every time technology advances. Our bill would also prioritize projects in States that have traditionally lagged behind the national average in terms of broadband subscribers and those that are at risk of falling further behind as broadband speeds increase. Finally, the bill would provide grants for digital literacy and public awareness campaigns to encourage wider broadband adoption once access is available. Increasing broadband adoption will help drive down the cost of the service and make it more affordable for everyone. Rural Americans need access to high-speed internet just as urban Americans do. In fact, one could argue they need it even more, especially during these times that can require remote work, education, and healthcare. The bill that Senator Rosen and I are introducing today would help bridge this digital divide by funding ``future proof'' broadband where it is needed most and give a boost to job creation in rural America. As the Presiding Officer well knows, businesses will not locate in areas that do not have this essential service, in many cases. I urge all of our colleagues to join in supporting this bill. Thank you

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Seeing no one seeking recognition, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the hallmark of our American democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after the voters choose their leaders. In America, we accept election results even if our candidate does not prevail. If a candidate believes that there is fraud, the courts can hear and decide those issues. Otherwise, the authority to govern is vested in the duly elected officials. On January 6, this Congress gathered in the Capitol to count the votes of the electoral college, pursuant to the process set forth in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At the same time, a mob stormed the Capitol, determined to stop Congress from carrying out our constitutional duty. That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. Rather, it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the Presidential election. The President's unprecedented efforts to discredit the election results did not begin on January 6. Rather, he planted the seeds of doubt many weeks before votes were cast on November 3. He repeatedly told his supporters that only a rigged election could cause him to lose. Thus began President Trump's crusade to undermine public confidence in the Presidential election unless he won. Early in the morning of November 4, as the ballots continued to be counted, President Trump claimed victory and asserted that Democrats were trying to steal the election. On November 8, the day after several media outlets had declared Joe Biden the apparent winner based on State-by-State results, President Trump tweeted: This was a stolen election. With that, his postelection campaign to change the outcome began. Over the ensuing days and months, the President distorted the results of the election, continuing to claim that he had won, while court after court threw out his lawsuits and States continued to certify their results. President Trump's falsehoods convinced a large number of Americans that he had won and that they were being cheated. The President also embarked on an incredible effort to pressure State election officials to change the results in their States. The most egregious example occurred on January 2. In an extraordinary phone call, President Trump could be heard alternating between lobbying, cajoling, intimidating, and threatening the election officials in Georgia. ``I just want to find 11,708 votes,'' he stated, seeking the exact number of votes needed to change the outcome in that State. Despite the President's pleas and threats, the Georgia officials refused to yield to the Presidential pressure, as did State officials in other States. In December, President Trump's postelection campaign became focused on January 6, the day that Congress was scheduled to count the electoral college votes. Although this counting is a ceremonial and administrative act, it is nevertheless the constitutionally mandated final step in the electoral college and the electoral process, and it must occur before a new President can be inaugurated. On December 19, President Trump tweeted to his supporters: Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild! In response, some of his campaign supporters changed the date for protest rallies they originally had scheduled to occur after the inauguration to happen instead on January 6. Having failed to persuade the courts and State election officials, President Trump next began to pressure Vice President Pence to use his role under the 12th Amendment to overturn the election. The President met with Vice President Pence on January 5 and then increased the pressure by tweeting hours later: If [the Vice President] comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. That is what his tweet said. Vice President Pence, however, refused to yield. He issued a public letter on January 6 making clear that his oath to support and defend the Constitution would prevent him from unilaterally deciding which electoral vote should be counted and which should not. During his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, President Trump kept up that drumbeat of pressure on Vice President Pence. In front of a large, agitated crowd, he urged the Vice President to ``stand up for the good of our Constitution.'' ``I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do,'' President Trump concluded. Rather than facilitating the peaceful transfer of power, President Trump was telling Vice President Pence to ignore the Constitution and to refuse to count the certified votes. He was also further agitating the crowd, directing them to march to the Capitol. In this situation, context was everything. Tossing a lit match into a pile of dry leaves is very different from tossing it into a pool of water. And on January 6, the atmosphere among the crowd outside the White House was highly combustible, largely the result of an ill wind blowing from Washington for the past 2 months. President Trump had stoked discontent with a steady barrage of false claims that the election had been stolen from him. The allegedly responsible officials were denigrated, scorned, and ridiculed by the President, with the predictable result that his supporters viewed any official they perceived to be an obstacle to President Trump's reelection as an enemy of their cause. That set the stage for the storming of the Capitol for the first time in more than 200 years. Nearly 30 minutes after the Capitol first came under attack, Members of Congress, law enforcement, and everyone else here in the Capitol waited in vein for the President to unequivocally condemn the violence and tell his misguided supporters to leave the Capitol. Rather than demand an end to the violence, President Trump expressed his frustration once again that the Vice President had not stopped the vote certification as he had urged Shortly after the Vice President was whisked away from this very Chamber to avoid the menacing mob chanting ``Hang Mike Pence,'' President Trump tweeted: Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one. Rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring. Whether by design or by virtue of a reckless disregard for the consequences of his action, President Trump, subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interest, bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol. This impeachment trial is not about any single word uttered by President Trump on January 6, 2021; it is instead about President Trump's failure to obey the oath he swore on January 20, 2017. His actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our Constitution and our American democracy, were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction. Two arguments have been made against conviction that deserve comment. The first is that this was a snap impeachment, that the House failed to hold hearings, conduct an investigation, and to interview witnesses, and that is true. Without a doubt, the House should have been more thorough. It should have compiled a more complete record. Nevertheless, the record is clear that the President, President Trump, abused his power, violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, and tried almost every means in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected President. Second is the contention that the First Amendment protects the President's right to make any sort of outrageous and false claims, no matter the consequences. (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.) But the First Amendment was not designed and must never be construed by any court to bar the impeachment and conviction of an official who violates his oath of office by summoning and inciting a mob to threaten other officials in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and for those reasons, I voted to convict Donald J. Trump. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.