[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1598-S1602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Xavier Becerra

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise today in strong support for 
the confirmation of California's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, to 
be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  I am absolutely confident that Mr. Becerra has the knowledge, the 
experience, the skills, and, just as importantly, the values and 
principles required of this job--a job that will play a key role in 
beating the coronavirus and tackling the urgent issues of equity and 
affordability now facing our healthcare system.
  I am especially confident in my assessment of Xavier Becerra because 
I have known him personally for years, both as a former colleague and 
as a

[[Page S1599]]

friend. I first met then-Congressman Becerra in the House of 
Representatives, where he served for over two decades with myself and 
the Presiding Officer and others, and where he was a champion for the 
healthcare rights of the American people, working overtime to make sure 
that every American had access to quality, affordable healthcare.
  We served together in the House Democratic leadership, and we served 
together on the House Ways and Means Committee. So I have had an 
opportunity to see his legislative talents up front and also to witness 
his love of service to our country.
  We worked together to halt a number of proposals that maybe some of 
our Republican colleagues here in the Senate were pushing for, 
including the proposal that continuously appeared in the House 
Republican budget to voucherize the Medicare Program. One of the former 
Speakers of the House wanted to essentially provide seniors on Medicare 
with a voucher and send them out into more of a private marketplace. It 
would have ended up putting our seniors more at risk. So together we 
did battle that idea.
  We served together on what was known as the Congressional Joint 
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the 
``supercommittee,'' and known to some as the ``not-so-super 
committee.'' I saw him work to try to achieve agreements on some of the 
biggest challenges facing our country, but, like him, we both agreed 
that we weren't going to do that at the expense of protecting Medicare 
for seniors, protecting Medicaid as an absolutely essential healthcare 
safety net for tens of millions of Americans, and we were not prepared 
to provide more tax cuts to the very wealthiest of Americans.
  It is in that last effort where Xavier Becerra, I think, really 
distinguished himself in the House, when it came to the issue of equity 
and healthcare. I know the Presiding Officer knows well the battles we 
all went in together in the development and passage of the Affordable 
Care Act, and it was that that really defined Mr. Becerra's legacy in 
the House.
  He championed the Affordable Care Act from the very start. He helped 
both to write and to pass this landmark law that now helps tens of 
millions of our fellow Americans, and after leaving the Congress, he 
led the charge to defend the Affordable Care Act against the Texas case 
before the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Now, I know a lot of our Republican colleagues have also spent years 
fighting the Affordable Care Act. We have seen that play out here in 
the U.S. Senate within the last couple years. But the reality is the 
Affordable Care Act is very important to the overwhelming majority of 
the American people who support it and is an essential lifeline to 
quality, affordable healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. And 
it is that that Mr. Becerra fought to pass and which he has fought to 
defend against constant attacks in the courts.
  There is no question that Xavier Becerra fights for what he believes 
is right, as he should, but that has never prevented him from working 
across the aisle to get things done. As the attorney general in the 
State of California, he has repeatedly partnered with Republicans to 
solve the pressing issues facing our fellow citizens.
  He builds bridges every day and has worked across party lines to 
expand access to COVID-19 treatments, to confront the opioid crisis, 
and to address the dangers of vaping and smoking among our Nation's 
youth.
  His record shows that Attorney General Becerra fights for what is 
important to the people he represents, not the party he belongs to, and 
he has demonstrated it by example time and time again with his ability 
to bridge deep divisions, even during this time of division. I know 
that he will fight hard for each and every one of our fellow citizens 
and will not look to see whether somebody is a Democrat or a Republican 
or from some other party. What he cares about is making sure he is 
looking out for the healthcare of every American.
  And, at this moment, everyone in this country stands to benefit from 
an effective leader at the helm of the Department of Health and Human 
Services. Our most pressing task is to contain the spread of COVID-19 
and to defeat COVID-19. That requires clear messaging on public health 
measures. That requires accelerating the distribution of vaccines and 
treatment and testing and making sure we do all of that in an equitable 
way. That means safely guiding the opening of our schools, and we all 
want our students to get back to school as quickly as possible and as 
safely as possible.
  As the attorney general of California, he has led one of the largest 
departments of justice in the country, and, in that capacity, has stood 
up for strong consumer and worker protections throughout this pandemic 
and before, and I trust that he will continue to do so for all 
Americans as Secretary of HHS, if confirmed.
  We know that this public emergency and health crisis has been a blow 
to our country. It has also laid bare the fault lines in our healthcare 
system in terms of racial inequities, inaccessibility for underserved 
communities, and underinvestment in our public health infrastructure. 
These issues, of course, predated COVID-19, but we must tackle them 
with renewed urgency as we emerge from this crisis.
  Mr. Becerra is equipped to root out these disparities, both because 
of his knowledge and skill and expertise but also because of his lived 
experience. Xavier grew up in a working-class Latino family. He knows 
the communities that are hurting most because he has lived in those 
communities. He would bring to this important office not only his 
expertise and skill but the empathy and the compassion needed to help 
those most in need.
  Like most of us, Mr. Becerra is also guided and motivated by what 
makes him most proud: his family. At his confirmation hearing, he spoke 
movingly about his wife and his children, who are all a part of all 
that he does. And he spoke about his parents, who traveled to this 
country from Mexico seeking a better life, with nothing more than, in 
Xavier's words, ``their health and their hope.''
  It is that health and that hope that propelled Mr. Becerra into a 
life of public service, and it is that health and that hope that will 
animate his leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services, 
should he be confirmed by this Senate.
  He was brought up in a family that believed in and sought the 
American dream, and he has spent his life fighting to make that dream 
real for families across this Nation. He believes, as I believe, that 
that mission requires us to care for the health and safety of each and 
every one of our fellow citizens, and I have full confidence that he is 
up to the task.
  Colleagues, I urge us to confirm the nomination of Xavier Becerra to 
be the next Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Indiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 730

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, this past year has been hard on Hoosiers 
and Americans across the country. When the economy was shut down, 
Congress got to work. Given my background as a business owner, I was 
involved in negotiating the Paycheck Protection Program, known as PPP, 
as part of the CARES Act, one of five bills that passed in 2020 with 
overwhelming support, I think 90-plus votes. We worked it out, 
Democrats and Republicans, together.
  Those COVID-related packages totaled $4 trillion, and we didn't have 
a penny saved up ahead of time to prepare for it. That is part of a 
deeper problem with this institution, is that we borrow anything that 
we spend money on, even 23 percent of our annual operating budget. To 
put that in perspective, imagine if you had a business doing $100,000 
in revenue, and you are losing $23,000, and then you go to your banker 
and expect them to bail you out. It wouldn't make sense.
  We came into 2021 with over $1 trillion from those packages unspent, 
unobligated. Instead of working with us like before, Democrats did shut 
us out of the process. In fact, the Senate as a whole did not work the 
bill through committees. It was laid to us, on the Senate, by the 
House, all $1.9 trillion of it.
  Before this, some Republicans went to the White House to talk with 
the President about a bipartisan plan, knowing all the money would be 
borrowed again, but nothing came to fruition. Instead, we stayed up all 
night;

[[Page S1600]]

finished the bill at noon the next day, Saturday; spent 29 hours on the 
floor, and not a single Republican amendment was adopted in this 
massive spending bill.
  Instead of focusing on the virus and getting our economy back on 
track, this became an exercise in ramming something through that was a 
liberal wish list. Only 1 percent of the bill--1 percent of the bill--
went toward the vaccine. Less than 9 percent goes toward COVID-19 
public health issues generally.
  While the Congressional Budget Office projects the economy to return 
to prepandemic levels by midyear, only 5 percent of the $130 billion 
for K-12 schools gets spent this year, and none of it is tied to 
reopening our schools, which many States had shut down early and opened 
up late.
  Included in this package is a whopping $350 billion for State and 
local governments. I had a conversation with our own Governor 2, 3 
weeks ago. A place like Indiana, and I believe West Virginia as well, 
probably runs balanced budgets. We do it with the guardrail of a 
constitutional amendment. Many other States, if they don't have a 
constitutional amendment, they have a statute. In other words, you do 
what households do. You do what all businesses do. You live within your 
means. And here, when you run your State governments in a way that in 
good times, you can't make ends meet, and you look to the Federal 
Government to bail out your bad governance, it is a whole nother issue.
  Even left-leaning economists and think tanks are worried about what 
this is going to do down the road because most of the time, you don't 
feel the repercussions until later. And, of course, that could show up 
in inflation. It could show up in a way similar to what we dealt with 
in the late seventies and the early eighties.
  Forty-four States had surpluses last year, when you look at COVID 
funding. Many places, like California, had surpluses. Then they 
reconfigured how this was done not based on pro rata population but 
rewarded the States with the highest unemployment levels. It sounds 
bizarro to me.
  Governor Holcomb in Indiana has done a great job balancing the 
economy with public safety, and that is why our unemployment rate is 
now close to a full employment rate. It was the lowest in the Midwest 
going into it because we have a good business climate, and we have a 
low cost of living. Things work there. Sadly, the Democrats' bill 
punishes States like Indiana for safely reopening. The higher a State's 
unemployment rate, again, the more bailout money you get 
proportionately.
  But it goes one step further, and this is the part that caught my 
attention. I am interested in hearing the explanation for it. I think 
it was a sneaky maneuver when you put it in such a large bill that had 
other doozies like stimulus checks for undocumented immigrants, for 
felons, all kinds of stuff that I think, when you look at it, shouldn't 
have been in there. But when it is that massive--it takes 10, 11 hours 
to read out loud--you are going to get some of that. What this does is 
say that if a State takes Federal money, they cannot lower their State 
taxes in any way through 2024.

  First of all, I believe this is unconstitutional and coercive. 
Second, we should never punish States for putting taxpayers first. We 
serve the public and should be good stewards of their money, and 
especially a place like this that runs the way it does day in and day 
out should not be telling States that run their operations responsibly 
that they cannot do what they want with spending or taxation.
  My bill strikes the provision that prohibits States' ability to 
change revenues as they see fit for their State's unique needs.
  Second, my bill strips out the reporting requirement where States 
have to tell the Federal Government about every revenue source and 
amount of money they take in. This place ought to be doing that 
routinely to all the people who send it revenue.
  This bill has the support of over 25 groups, including the American 
Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for 
Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, 
FreedomWorks, Heritage Action for America, Independent Women's Forum, 
and the National Taxpayers Union, among others. We expect many more to 
join in coming days. I am sure many stakeholders in Indiana and in West 
Virginia not mentioned will throw in support as well.
  Lastly, I would like to thank the Finance Committee ranking member, 
Senator Crapo, for cosponsoring this legislation--and others, including 
Senators Blackburn, Capito, Inhofe, Marshall, Rubio, Rick Scott, 
Tillis, and Senator Young from my home State.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 730 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MANCHIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, my good friend the Senator from 
Indiana--I am hoping this is a misunderstanding, and I hope I can 
explain it because I was very much involved in this process.
  First of all, as a former Governor, I know about the budget process. 
I know about balanced budgets. I used to meet every Tuesday afternoon. 
As Governor, I would have my finance people come to my office, and we 
would sit down and look at the revenue estimates. We had to make 
adjustments because we had a balanced budget amendment. Isn't that a 
novelty, a balanced budget amendment? We had to live within our 
confines. That is something that no one who has ever been in State 
government or ever run a business understands. I understand that. But 
it is something that we did very religiously.
  The language in this bill, Senator from Indiana, the only thing this 
bill does--or that language you were concerned about, the only thing it 
did--you can cut all you want to. You can manage all your money the way 
you want. You just can't take Federal money and use it if you cut your 
revenue intentionally. That is all. What we try to do is target where 
the money has gone.
  So the Treasury, you have to go--as a State, you go to the Treasury, 
and you show the need that you have. You show the cost--what COVID has 
cost your revenue and you are able to have money to replace that 
because COVID caused you that problem.
  You have also the ability to use this, in your State, for three 
things: water, sewer, and internet service. So you have infrastructure 
that can be done.
  Also, what we did in this bill is we have it going out to 2024, so 
you are not going to overheat, if you will--overheat or overcharge the 
economy. They can spread that out. The State and local moneys go in two 
tranches: Half this year, half next year is what you can access. The 
money to every one of your communities--for the first time, 40 percent 
of that total money goes directly, so your large cities will get money 
directly from the Treasury. They have to show how they are using it for 
their backfill, not, basically, having anything to do with what their 
tax revenue is. They just can't use this money to backfill tax cuts if 
they want to do that. That is pretty simple because there is not a need 
for it. If you can reduce your taxes, then you don't need Federal 
dollars to backfill to show that you are in good shape. But if you need 
it for anything else, you can use it for that. You can use it for all 
these things.
  I can tell you--I would assure you that every incorporated city in 
Indiana, every county in Indiana has to be thrilled. They have to be 
thrilled for the first time to have control of their destiny. That was 
our intention.
  In the first CARES package, that never happened. The first CARES 
package went directly to the Governors, and if the Governors were very 
prudent in how they did it--set up a committee, worked through the 
legislature--some did, some didn't, and there is a lot of money that 
never got into the basic fibers of your State or my State. Now that is 
not going to be the problem.

  Also, they have the ability, if they have a water project they have 
been

[[Page S1601]]

trying to do forever and never had the resources to do it, they can use 
their money for that.
  If they have a sewer project--I have said this: How do we pick water, 
sewer, and internet? They are not the sexy things that, basically, 
Governors and politicians go out and cut ribbons for--a sewer line or a 
water line that is buried 50 feet down. That is not a sexy thing.
  We knew the infrastructure was falling apart city by city and the 
ages of water lines are over 80 years in most of our cities. So we 
tried to do something.
  They have until 2024, so they don't have to throw it out. It is not 
shovel-ready. It is a project you have been wanting to do but never 
could afford.
  I assure you, we do not want to impede good fiscal management to make 
adjustments to do whatever they want to their tax codes. This does not 
prohibit that. It just prohibits using and going to the Federal 
Treasury and saying: I have a loss of revenue because I cut $100 
billion or I cut $100 million or a billion dollars out of my State 
budget when I reduced taxes, and now I can't pay my bills.
  Also, you can't use this money from the Federal Government for your 
pensions. That is a responsibility that we have. We call it OPEB, other 
postponed employment benefits. OPEB is other postponed employment 
benefits--pensions, healthcare, all the things that when a person 
retires from their State, these are things that the State has a 
contract and an obligation for them in their retirement. It is the 
responsibility of the States to manage that, and that, basically, keeps 
the State in a good financial position. It keeps your credit rating up 
or your credit rating low if you have managed yourself through it. This 
is only to help you with expenses and extraordinary expenses that you 
incurred during COVID. That is all, sir.
  I don't want the State of Indiana or any State to think that they 
can't do whatever they want to with their taxes. They just can't use 
the Federal Treasury to backfill something done deliberately, 
basically, or self-inflicted--a loss of revenue. That is about it in a 
nutshell.
  COVID-19 is the greatest challenge we have ever had. I know you 
mentioned a few things. I will tell you this because my dear friend 
from Maine is sitting here. We met quite a bit on the bill in a 
bipartisan way, even though a lot of it did not get in. The bill was 
bigger than what my friends--all of you, my friends on the Republican 
side--could basically vote for. I understand that.
  But please understand there are an awful lot of things we talked 
about that I did everything in my power to make sure the tranches--
spreading them out, not going it all at one time. There is the 
RESTAURANTS Act. Senator Wicker and Senator Sinema were on the 
RESTAURANTS Act. There was, basically, the homeless children's bill 
that Senator Murkowski and myself put in there. There was 
bipartisanship in that.

  There should have been a lot more; I agree. We both know the process 
sometimes doesn't work the way we want it to. But you make every effort 
you can to make it work. I did that. Whenever I talked, I said that 
this had bipartisan input. It didn't come out as a bipartisan vote, but 
there was bipartisan input into this piece of legislation, the best we 
possibly could.
  I think it is a piece of legislation that we--if you have education, 
there is not a school in America today that should not be able to have 
a program where they can make their school the safest environment that 
a child should be in. Every parent should be safe in thinking their 
children are in a safe place because of heating, ventilation--things 
that we have in this bill that allow education to have the resources it 
needs and, also, your higher education too.
  The money that is going out--you have money going to the stimulus 
payments, going to all of your citizens at $75,000. We put a hard cap. 
We tried it to put a hard cap at $75,000 and $150,000. We found out the 
first CARES package--I don't think that anyone on the Republican side 
or the Democrat side thought someone making $200,000, $300,000 would be 
getting money. They didn't need a check, but we found out it happened. 
We didn't intend for that to happen. That is the way the code read, and 
that is the way it kind of slipped into that. We stopped that from 
happening here.
  So we tried to do everything--and that, again, came from our 
bipartisan group. If it wasn't for the bipartisan group talking and 
saying ``This is something we can't do,'' I would have had things I 
might have missed. I wouldn't have known some things that were of 
concern to all of us and some of the atrocities that happened that we 
didn't want to repeat. We did all the things we could to stop that.
  I am very reluctant to object to any of my Senators, my fellow 
Senators, but on this one, sir--if I can work with you on this--I am 
objecting because I want to have a productive sit-down with you and we 
can work on something together.
  Please tell your Governor that he can cut away if he wants to. He 
just can't go back to the Federal Government and say: OK, I made a 
mistake. Now I need your money.
  That is about it in a nutshell. If Indiana can cut and it helps you 
and grows your economy, God bless you. If you have COVID expenses, we 
are going to help you. If you have projects--my goodness, just 
infrastructure projects--then there is no impediment there if you have 
internet services you need, if you have water services, and you have 
sewer services.
  In West Virginia, what we are trying to do right now is put a team 
together that can basically work from this. The State has money for 
those three tranches of infrastructure. The counties have it, and the 
municipalities have it. The unincorporated towns that aren't able to 
get money directly are going to count on the county and the State.
  There is so much good to be done to make it work for you to make sure 
they understand. They are elated to now have a project they never could 
finish, like upgrade your services, finish your water line, have 
internet service you have never had before. These are all unbelievable 
opportunities that we have never had.
  The bipartisan SMART Act that was filed in May 2020 included both of 
these guardrails, plus another one required maintenance of effort. We 
have that in there. Maintenance of effort--we put that back then.
  The Bipartisan State and Local Support of Small Business Protections 
Act that was released last December had exactly the same language. This 
is not new language, sir. This is the same language that has been 
there.
  They have never been able to backfill for, basically, discretionary 
cuts that they made themselves. It doesn't prohibit them, the same as 
it doesn't prohibit anybody in their State for having--and being a 
former Governor, I am very partial to the 10th Amendment to the 
Constitution, States rights. You have those rights. Now you have the 
assistance also with those rights.
  I am hoping to improve everyone's situation. I know it does in West 
Virginia. I hope it does in Maine. I hope it does in Indiana, and I 
think it will.
  It is all about making these emergency funds get to the right people. 
We are trying to target it. It is something we have to keep an eye on. 
I can tell if we do it and do it right and we are good stewards, this 
will get us through this COVID challenge that we have because we really 
don't know.
  I am hoping we come out of this guns ablazing in July--we come out of 
this, and the economy takes off like a rocket. Sometimes when they take 
off, they tend to level off too.
  We want to make sure we are still out there for 2022, 2023, out to 
2024. And if they do it and do it right, they can. They can finish 
their projects and be able to have the moneys as needed for emergencies 
if it has a dip.
  With that, we thought we had worked something, but the language is 
nothing new. It is not a surprise. It was not anything that was put in; 
it has been in there. Basically, it is language that spells out pretty 
directly how you can use your money and what money you can't acquire. 
That is the only thing we did.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MANCHIN. Yes, there is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Indiana.

[[Page S1602]]

  

  Mr. BRAUN. My friend from West Virginia explained why this won't 
impact Governors and legislatures in terms of what they can do with 
their own fiscal policy. I would say my friend the Senator from West 
Virginia probably ought to check with Governor Justice and his 
legislature to see if they are on the same wavelength there.
  When we got input in bringing this up as an issue and when you are 
talking about the American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for 
Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste--I won't repeat the rest 
of the list--I think it would get down to semantics in this sense: What 
do you do if you want to cut tax rates? Then, just like pre-COVID, we 
cut taxes, and revenues went up for 3 to 4 years.

  How do you measure that complicated equation? In many cases, when you 
cut rates, you find a new sweet spot where you generate more tax 
revenue. How would you sort all of that out? Then, if it were not based 
upon penalizing States that are most apt to lower their tax rates 
because of how good their economies were pre-COVID, it would be a 
different issue as well.
  So I am willing to listen in terms of how that does play out, but for 
now, I am going to view it as something, I think, that is not going to 
sit well with many States, their Governors, or their legislatures and 
that has a possibility of being taken to court as being something that 
might be unconstitutional. If I am off base, I am willing to listen, 
but I will probably have to bring some other parties in to make sure 
that this isn't a case of semantics and is real according to the way 
you explain it.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRAUN. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. MANCHIN. First of all, I did have a nice conversation with 
Governor Justice. He and I have disagreed on basic issues on Tax Code 
legislation, and we are trying to work through all of that. I explained 
it to him. I said that it doesn't do a thing in that it doesn't impede 
you at all. If you want to cut, go ahead and cut. He is still moving 
through with the legislation. He might succeed on that, and he might 
not.
  With that, I will make it very clear that this is not new language. 
You cannot backfill. You cannot backfill. The only thing you can use 
your money for is for COVID expenses. Basically, if your revenues were 
down through no fault of your own, business dropped off, and your tax 
collections were down through no fault of your own, then that is what 
this is for. COVID caused you a problem. It caused you an imposition 
and put strain on the services that you are basically providing to the 
people of West Virginia and Indiana.
  We want to make sure that your first responders are there and your 
education is there, that everything is still running the way it is 
supposed to. That is why we have passed five bills in trying to keep 
things afloat, and we think we have done that. So it does not impede 
that whatsoever. We have also looked at it constitutionally, and we are 
solid on the Constitution.
  All we are asking is, does the Federal Government have a 
responsibility to backfill with Treasury dollars a decision that could 
be self-inflicted? That is all. You should live with that or my State 
should live with it or reap the benefits. We are not penalized. Even if 
your revenues went up, you still had COVID expenses you could offset. 
Those were legitimate expenses that you incurred during the COVID-19 
pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is what we are talking about. So if 
your revenues went up after that, we are not penalizing you. If they 
went down, that is a whole other story because COVID caused that, but 
you just can't cause it yourself. I think this is it in a nutshell.
  Mr. BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MANCHIN. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. BRAUN. I think it begs the question in that, by cutting taxes, 
you are going to lower gross tax revenues, and that has been a 
discussion we have all had for many years.
  I know in places like Indiana--and we just had it occur here with the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the Federal level--that the CBO--and I was 
working with it--was getting close to saying its original forecast of 
when you had a tax cut, which was $1.5 trillion over 10 years, $150 
billion per year, wasn't working out that way because there is the 
phenomenon called: When you find the sweet spot of taxation, you can 
cut taxes and generate more revenue. Then you penalize a good fiscal 
move by the way you are interpreting your reading.
  I am willing to get into the nuance to see if that would muster that 
particular case, but I don't think it would.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRAUN. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Senator Braun has always been very kind and very 
reasonable, and I look forward to sitting down with him on this.
  What he has said is absolutely correct in that we are not penalizing. 
We don't intend to penalize anybody who has made that decision, but the 
Senator is talking about a State that has a balanced budget amendment 
year in and year out. There is a time when a Governor has to make a 
decision and go to his legislature and say: Hey, we are going to be X 
amount of dollars short, so we need to cut. So they start cutting and 
cutting services. That is what happens in order to balance the budget 
usually--services are cut to the people.
  We are just saying in our piece of legislation here that we have that 
we don't want that to happen because it is of no fault of your own, but 
if you cut your taxes and you are thinking, well, 5 years down the 
road, we are going to have more revenue, then that is fine. You just 
can't backfill for that short period of time and use it for something 
for which you have cut revenues, basically, in a self-inflicting way. 
It might be a self-ingratiating way to where it will help you down the 
road, but you still can't backfill for that.
  Now, for any COVID expenses you have, absolutely, you can fill that 
hole. Show that you have had COVID expenses. If you were to say, ``OK. 
We filled all of our holes for COVID, and now we have water, sewer, and 
internet''--and trust me, there is not a place in Indiana or in West 
Virginia that doesn't need help there.
  I thank the Senator. I appreciate it
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 804 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.