Maine’s Senator Susan Collins joined me this AM to discuss he role in the new Congress as Chair of the Appropriations Committee:

Audio:

11-26hhs-collins

Transcript:

HH: I’m beginning the program with the incoming chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Susan Collins of the great state of Maine, my half-time home. Senator Collins, welcome back. It’s good to talk to you, and thank you for getting up early. Congratulations on becoming the chairwoman of Appropriations on January 3rd, kind of a surprise. A lot of people speculated that Leader McConnell would want that, but it’s going to be you with the big job. How do you feel about that?

SC: Well, I’m very excited about it, Hugh, and thank you for inviting me to join you this morning. It has been some 92 years since a Mainer has been at the helm of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So there’s a bit of home state pride there as well. But most of all, I want to get us back on track. And that means focusing on the basics of getting the appropriations bills written and signed into law before the new fiscal year begins. We’ve got to finish up the fiscal year that we’re in right now, FY 2025 before we can move on to the next fiscal year. And I think it’s really important that we give President Trump a clean slate so that he can focus on Fiscal Year 2026, give us his budget, and I’m committed to working with him.

HH: Now Senator, I read a floor speech by you talking about regular order and 12 bills getting 12 votes in the Senate. Is that how it’s going to work out this year? You’re still in the minority. You don’t take over until January 3rd. Do you expect the C.R. to take us a good way into calendar year 2025 and then fix the rest of it, or for the entire year?

SC: My preference would be that we finish the 2025 bills in December, because they were supposed to be done by October 1st. Our problem has been that we’ve been unable to get Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, to bring the bills to the floor, including six bills that passed of the 12 that passed out of our Appropriations Committee unanimously. And it costs the taxpayers money when we operate on continuing resolutions. Those are the short-term spending bills to fill in the gap, because we continue to fund programs that should be either terminated or reduced. We block the start of essential new programs. The Department of Defense can’t sign contracts during that period. So my preference is not to go into March, but finish the bills this year so the new administration can concentrate on preparing a budget that is due under law the first Monday in February for the next fiscal year.

HH: Now Senate, can, I’m wondering if they can run concurrently. I have a new column at Fox News this morning on the need for the budget resolution to pass the House and the Senate in order for the reconciliation process to be unlocked. Is it, is it wishful thinking to think that the budget resolution for 2026 can be done by the end of February so the trailing bills can follow?

SC: Well, the first thing we have to have is the President’s budget. And the Budget Committee needs to produce the reconciliation bill that you mentioned. And I think we can double track a lot of this work. The most important thing, as you have pointed out, that the reconciliation bill will be used for is to extend a lot of President Trump’s 2017 tax package, which I voted for, as did, I believe, every Republican. And those tax bills, those provisions will otherwise expire this year. And that would be disastrous. It would lead to massive tax hikes. I was talking to a small business owner just yesterday who outlined what it would mean for his business, and what a boost the Trump 2017 tax cuts have been for his small business right here in Bangor, Maine.

HH: I am curious, Senator. Do you expect the SALT deduction to rise in the revision of an extension of the Trump tax cuts? There are two things we know. The tax on tips is going to go away, but the President-Elect has talked about the SALT limit going up. I think that’s very healthy. It’s especially important in Maine, New York, California, places with high property taxes. Do you expect that to be part of the package for reconciliation?

SC: I hope it will be, but it’s very controversial, as you know. I don’t think it’s fair to have a tax on a tax, and that’s essentially what it is when you don’t allow taxpayers to deduct the full amount of their state and local taxes, including property taxes. As you know, many people in Maine that have what we call a camp, a cabin on a lake, why shouldn’t they be able to deduct the full amount of their real estate taxes on their home and on their camp, for example, as well as the state income tax? I would also point out that there’s the marriage penalty involved here. And generally, we’re against having marriage penalties, because if you are a single person, you can deduct up to $10,000 dollars under the current false limit. If you are married, it’s still only $10,000. Couldn’t we at least eliminate the marriage penalty so that two people who are married could deduct $20,000?

HH: It makes sense to me.

SC: That’s the bills that I’ve introduced.

HH: So Senator, what is your role as chair of Appropriations and budget reconciliation? I know there’s a Budget Committee, but they’ve got to talk to you about this. Are you in the room like you were on the PPP when you were negotiating the specifics of the budget reconciliation, because that is the motherlode.

SC: It is so important, and we haven’t had a budget resolution in years under the Democratic control. So I will certainly be involved. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee rather than Appropriations, but it obviously shapes and guides the work that we do. Most important of all, it gives us a topline figure for the budget, and that is really useful for that to go through the House and the Senate. The budget resolution does not go to the President for his signature. So this is something that we need to do so that we have a topline for the appropriations process. And as you know, one of my top priorities is strengthening our national Defense. So once I get a topline, I can negotiate with the Democrats on how much each of the sub-committees on Appropriations will get. And national Defense is a huge priority for me. It is very alarming that under the Biden administration, budget requests for Defense, we would have the smallest Air Force in history, and our Naval fleet of 296 ships will be shrunk by five ships over the next five years while China’s Navy continues to grow to more than 435 ships. So a strong national Defense is really important to me.

HH: I spoke to Admiral Mark Montgomery, Rear Admiral Montgomery who’s retired, yesterday. He said we’re down to 3.1% GDP. We’ve got to get back to 3.5% minimum. Do you share his objective over four years, Senator?

SC: I absolutely do, and that’s why I negotiated this year in the increase on the President’s budget of about $23 billion dollars. That money is desperately needed. We, I talked to the combatant commanders all over the globe. And to a person, they tell me this is the most dangerous time for global threats that we’ve experience since World War II. And we can’t ignore that imperative.

HH: Senator, I was, I want to talk to you about three things before you run. I might keep you during the break for a second and play it after the break. One is the return of earmarks and riders. The second is, it’s kind of a hometown issue, which is the destroyers that are in the Kennebec. There aren’t enough of them. And then I want to talk to you about the Roux Institute. So first, are Appropriations riders and earmarks back?

SC: They are back. And let me explain to your listeners that to me, this is an issue of whether the executive branch is making spending decisions or whether we in Congress who have Constitutional authority, or have the power of the purse. They’re making spending decisions. And to me, we know, we in Congress know our states needs far better than someone who’s never been to the state of Maine, who is working in a federal agency or department in Washington. At least, they should be working. So many of them are still at home, and that’s a whole other issue. So…

HH: Well, I am glad they’re back. Pause for a second, Senator. I’m going to come back and tape this, four more minutes with you and play it on the other side. Don’t go anywhere, America. Senator Susan Collins, incoming chair of Appropriations is my guest. We’re going to hear about Arleigh Burke destroyers next.

— – – –

HH: I am back with Senator Collins. I agree with you, Senator, on appropriations, on both riders and on earmarks. One of those earmarks I’d like to see is for more Arleigh Burke destroyers, because I’ve read everything that I can. I’m a civilian. I’m not a military person. But they work. They’re important. They do a lot of heavy lifting. They protect our carriers. We only have three of them in the Kennebec. What about more of those per year, Senator?

SC: We definitely need to produce more destroyers. One has only to look at the role the destroyers have played in the Red Sea, in the Mediterranean to realize how important they are in shooting down the Houthi missiles that have been aimed at not only at Israel, but at commercial ships, to try to bring commercial shipping to a halt. And the Arleigh Burke destroyers that are built at Bath Iron Works and at Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi, I’m very proud of the B.I.W. destroyers, all of our destroyers, I’m very proud of, because they’ve played a critical role in protecting Israel, in keeping the shipping lanes open, and protecting our own troops, some of whom have lost their lives. But our destroyers have an incredible record. And keep in mind the Houthis out of Yemen are a terrorist group. They’re a proxy of Iran. It’s all coordinated by Iran, and it is those destroyers are absolutely critical. One of them that was built at Bath Iron Works has a perfect record of shooting down 22 missiles that were aimed at Israel and at commercial ships in the Red Sea.

HH: And I want people to know, we used to build 17 destroyers a year on the Kennebec River in Maine. It’s down to one and a half a year.

SC: That’s right.

HH: So I think it’s vitally important. Last question, Senator. I’m a big enthusiast of the Roux Institute, which is coming to Portland, Maine. I don’t live in Portland, but I think AI is the future, and we can’t just have it all in Silicon Valley. I wouldn’t even mind an earmark for it. What do you think about the Roux Institute?

SC: Well, the Roux Institute is concentrating on high-tech jobs. And I’ll tell you, any group, and it’s out of Northeastern University. Any group that is willing to work collaboratively with other educational institutes into Maine, including the University of Maine, our community colleges to produce more skilled workers for our state so that young people don’t feel that they have to leave Maine to get a good job. These are, it’s the jobs of the future, and I certainly welcome the efforts of the Roux Institute, and appreciate David Roux, after whom it’s named, for his generous contributions.

HH: Senator Collins, good to talk to you. Your website is www.susancollins.com. I look forward to talking to you throughout the next two years, and good luck in the incoming chair, because boy, that’s a lot of work. I mean, it’s a lot of work, America, but Susan Collins can get it done. I appreciate it, Senator. Have a good morning.

SC: Thanks so much, Hugh.

End of interview.