Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Brown, to introduce the Social Security Fairness Act. The bipartisan bill would repeal two Social Security provisions that unfairly penalize many public servants in Maine and in other States. Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans. This crucial program has made the difference between poverty and a comfortable retirement for millions of seniors. Yet, some teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two Social Security provisions: the windfall elimination provision and the Government pension offset. The Windfall elimination provision or W-E-P affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits. Due to the WEP, their Social Security benefits are calculated using a different formula, which can reduce their monthly benefits. For workers who become eligible for benefits in 2023, the WEP reduction can be up to $557.50 per month, subject to other adjustments. The Government Pension Offset GPO affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security and are also eligible to receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefit. However, the GPO reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the noncovered pension. According to the Social Security Administration, in December 2022, more than 2 million people, including nearly 20,500 people in Maine, had their Social Security benefits reduced by the WEP. Similarly, nearly 735,000 people were affected by the GPO in December 2022, including more than 8,100 people in Maine. While the effects of the WEP and GPO are most acute in certain States, including Maine, data from the Social Security Administration indicate that these provisions affect public servants in all 50 States. Many Maine teachers have spoken with me about how the WEP and GPO affect their retirement security. I recently heard from a special education teacher in Kennebuck who has spent more than 40 years teaching and also held a second job in the private sector to help support her family after becoming a single parent. Due to the WEP, she is concerned about her financial security once she retires. A retiree in Mount Desert also reached out to me recently to share his story. He wants to make sure his wife, who is a public servant, will be taken care of after he is gone. Due to the GPO, he is concerned that any Social Security widow's benefits his wife receives will be substantially reduced. The bill we are introducing today, the Social Security Fairness Act, would repeal both the WEP and the GPO for Social Security benefits payable after December 2023. This means current Social Security beneficiaries would have their benefits recalculated without applying the WEP and GPO. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants currently in the workforce would no longer have to worry about having their Social Security benefits unfairly reduced in the future. Those who are considering careers in public service would no longer have to weigh the potential negative effects of this choice on their future retirement security. Our dedicated public servants, such as our teachers who help prepare our children for future success and our police officers who help keep our communities safe, should receive the full Social Security benefits they have earned. It is time for us to take action to address the WEP and the GPO. I urge my colleagues to support the Social Security Fairness Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Brown, to introduce the Social Security Fairness Act. The bipartisan bill would repeal two Social Security provisions that unfairly penalize many public servants in Maine and in other States. Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans. This crucial program has made the difference between poverty and a comfortable retirement for millions of seniors. Yet, some teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two Social Security provisions: the windfall elimination provision and the Government pension offset. The Windfall elimination provision or W-E-P affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits. Due to the WEP, their Social Security benefits are calculated using a different formula, which can reduce their monthly benefits. For workers who become eligible for benefits in 2023, the WEP reduction can be up to $557.50 per month, subject to other adjustments. The Government Pension Offset GPO affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security and are also eligible to receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefit. However, the GPO reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the noncovered pension. According to the Social Security Administration, in December 2022, more than 2 million people, including nearly 20,500 people in Maine, had their Social Security benefits reduced by the WEP. Similarly, nearly 735,000 people were affected by the GPO in December 2022, including more than 8,100 people in Maine. While the effects of the WEP and GPO are most acute in certain States, including Maine, data from the Social Security Administration indicate that these provisions affect public servants in all 50 States. Many Maine teachers have spoken with me about how the WEP and GPO affect their retirement security. I recently heard from a special education teacher in Kennebuck who has spent more than 40 years teaching and also held a second job in the private sector to help support her family after becoming a single parent. Due to the WEP, she is concerned about her financial security once she retires. A retiree in Mount Desert also reached out to me recently to share his story. He wants to make sure his wife, who is a public servant, will be taken care of after he is gone. Due to the GPO, he is concerned that any Social Security widow's benefits his wife receives will be substantially reduced. The bill we are introducing today, the Social Security Fairness Act, would repeal both the WEP and the GPO for Social Security benefits payable after December 2023. This means current Social Security beneficiaries would have their benefits recalculated without applying the WEP and GPO. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants currently in the workforce would no longer have to worry about having their Social Security benefits unfairly reduced in the future. Those who are considering careers in public service would no longer have to weigh the potential negative effects of this choice on their future retirement security. Our dedicated public servants, such as our teachers who help prepare our children for future success and our police officers who help keep our communities safe, should receive the full Social Security benefits they have earned. It is time for us to take action to address the WEP and the GPO. I urge my colleagues to support the Social Security Fairness Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to join in the reintroduction of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use contraception. I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent at the national level. States can account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate consistency, predictability, and restraint. Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International. Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections. Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices. This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned. Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, unless such regulations impose an undue burden. After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining or using contraceptives. Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections. The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to join in the reintroduction of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use contraception. I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent at the national level. States can account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate consistency, predictability, and restraint. Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International. Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections. Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices. This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned. Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, unless such regulations impose an undue burden. After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining or using contraceptives. Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections. The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at continuing the important progress we are making to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. I know how devastating this disease is to our families. My father, grandfather, and two uncles all died from Alzheimer's. I am committed to this effort both as a person whose beloved family members have suffered from this terrible disease, as well as a Senator concerned about the impact on our families and our healthcare system. When I founded the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force in the Senate in 1999, there was virtually no focus on Alzheimer's in Washington. Twelve years ago, I coauthored the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Project Act with my colleague Senator Evan Bayh. Before we passed that legislation, there was no coordinated, strategic, national plan to focus our efforts to defeat Alzheimer's. NAPA fixed this by convening a panel of experts to create a coordinated strategic national plan to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025. The expert council updates the plan annually. While the 2025 goal has been elusive, we have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment and a means of prevention. Nevertheless, Alzheimer's remains the fifth leading cause of death in the United States for people over 65. In addition to the human costs, caring for people living with Alzheimer's and other dementias is one of the costliest conditions to society, costing our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending. If we continue along this trajectory, Alzheimer's is projected to claim the minds of 12.7 million seniors and nearly surpass $1 trillion in annual costs by 2050. It takes a tremendous toll on families too. In 2021, family caregivers provided 16 billion hours of unpaid care for loved ones with dementia, a contribution to society valued at more than $271 billion. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver. The first bill I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, Menendez, Murkowski, and Stabenow is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. This bill would reauthorize the National Alzheimer's Project Act through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made in understanding the disease, such as including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors. The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025. We need to reauthorize this critical legislation this Congress in order to ensure that our research investments remain coordinated and there are no disruptions as we maximize the impact of our investments. The second bill I am introducing with my colleagues Senators Markey, Capito, Warner, Moran, Menendez, Murkowski, and Stabenow is the Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act. This bill would continue through 2035 a requirement that the Director of the National Institutes of Health submit an annual budget to Congress estimating the funding necessary for NIH to fully implement NAPA's research goals. Only two other areas of biomedical research--cancer and HIV/AIDs--have been the subject of special budget development aimed at speeding discovery, and this ``bypass budget,'' as it is known, helps us to understand what additional funding is needed to find better treatments, a means of prevention, and ultimately a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Nearly half of baby boomers reaching age 85 will either be afflicted with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's is the defining disease of this generation. We have made tremendous progress in recent years to boost funding for Alzheimer's research, most recently providing $3.74 billion--a $226 million increase--for NIH Alzheimer's research in the fiscal year 2023 government funding bill. This investment holds great promise to ending this disease that has had such a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families, but we must keep up this momentum. The two bills I introduce today will make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research are beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours. I urge my colleagues to support the NAPA Reauthorization Act and Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act, and I thank the Alzheimer's Association and UsAgainstAlzheimer's for their support of this bipartisan legislation to help improve the lives of those affected by Alzheimer's throughout the country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at continuing the important progress we are making to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. I know how devastating this disease is to our families. My father, grandfather, and two uncles all died from Alzheimer's. I am committed to this effort both as a person whose beloved family members have suffered from this terrible disease, as well as a Senator concerned about the impact on our families and our healthcare system. When I founded the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force in the Senate in 1999, there was virtually no focus on Alzheimer's in Washington. Twelve years ago, I coauthored the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Project Act with my colleague Senator Evan Bayh. Before we passed that legislation, there was no coordinated, strategic, national plan to focus our efforts to defeat Alzheimer's. NAPA fixed this by convening a panel of experts to create a coordinated strategic national plan to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025. The expert council updates the plan annually. While the 2025 goal has been elusive, we have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment and a means of prevention. Nevertheless, Alzheimer's remains the fifth leading cause of death in the United States for people over 65. In addition to the human costs, caring for people living with Alzheimer's and other dementias is one of the costliest conditions to society, costing our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending. If we continue along this trajectory, Alzheimer's is projected to claim the minds of 12.7 million seniors and nearly surpass $1 trillion in annual costs by 2050. It takes a tremendous toll on families too. In 2021, family caregivers provided 16 billion hours of unpaid care for loved ones with dementia, a contribution to society valued at more than $271 billion. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver. The first bill I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, Menendez, Murkowski, and Stabenow is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. This bill would reauthorize the National Alzheimer's Project Act through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made in understanding the disease, such as including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors. The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025. We need to reauthorize this critical legislation this Congress in order to ensure that our research investments remain coordinated and there are no disruptions as we maximize the impact of our investments. The second bill I am introducing with my colleagues Senators Markey, Capito, Warner, Moran, Menendez, Murkowski, and Stabenow is the Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act. This bill would continue through 2035 a requirement that the Director of the National Institutes of Health submit an annual budget to Congress estimating the funding necessary for NIH to fully implement NAPA's research goals. Only two other areas of biomedical research--cancer and HIV/AIDs--have been the subject of special budget development aimed at speeding discovery, and this ``bypass budget,'' as it is known, helps us to understand what additional funding is needed to find better treatments, a means of prevention, and ultimately a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Nearly half of baby boomers reaching age 85 will either be afflicted with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's is the defining disease of this generation. We have made tremendous progress in recent years to boost funding for Alzheimer's research, most recently providing $3.74 billion--a $226 million increase--for NIH Alzheimer's research in the fiscal year 2023 government funding bill. This investment holds great promise to ending this disease that has had such a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families, but we must keep up this momentum. The two bills I introduce today will make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research are beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours. I urge my colleagues to support the NAPA Reauthorization Act and Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act, and I thank the Alzheimer's Association and UsAgainstAlzheimer's for their support of this bipartisan legislation to help improve the lives of those affected by Alzheimer's throughout the country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Foxcroft Academy in Dover-Foxcroft, ME, was established on January 30, 1823, with a mission of bringing quality education to pioneer families in our new State. On this 200th anniversary, it is a pleasure to congratulate this outstanding school for its dedication to excellence and opportunity. The history of Foxcroft Academy demonstrates that commitment. It was the first school chartered in Maine after we achieved statehood 3 years earlier. It is one of the oldest private day and boarding preparatory high schools in America. That charter was the result of extraordinary vision. The school's namesake, Colonel John Foxcroft, born to a prominent Massachusetts family, was successful in business and amassed a considerable fortune. His wealth enabled him to acquire thousands of acres of prime timberland in the wilderness of Maine. With the growing cities of early America nearby, he could have exploited this natural resource and added greatly to his fortune. Instead, he chose to offer opportunity. He opened his land up to those less fortunate; he encouraged settlers to come to clear farmland, construct mills, start businesses, and build their homes and their futures. The people of the fledgling settlement raised $100 to build a wood frame building to create a school and a true community. Today, Foxcroft Academy sits upon a beautiful 125-acre campus with a full array of state-of-the-art academic, athletic, and residential facilities. More than 350 day students live in Dover-Foxcroft and neighboring towns, and an additional 100 international students come from 20 countries around the world. Foxcroft Academy is renowned for high achievement in academics, athletics, and the arts. Its designation as an Apple Distinguished School recognizes its successful integration of technology into education, and its inclusion in the International Baccalaureate Program acknowledges its commitment to helping students become good global citizens. The school's motto is ``Knowledge is Power.'' Whether graduates go on to college, the workforce, or the military, they leave Foxcroft Academy empowered to succeed. Foxcroft Academy was founded with a pioneering, innovative spirit that is carried on today by students, faculty, administrators, and supporters. This bicentennial year is a time to celebrate a school that holds a special place in Maine's history and in its future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled vote: Senator Collins, Senator Reed, Senator Cardin, and Senator Coons.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a fellow New Englander and a truly extraordinary Senator, our friend Patrick Leahy. In his memoir, Senator Leahy said that one word came to him time and again as he prepared to announce his retirement. That word is ``conscience.'' The Senate, at its best, he wrote, has been the Nation's conscience--a place where Members keep their word and work together for the good of our country. We heard him expound on that today when he talked about the currency of the Senate being trust. He went on to say: It has been a place where the minority has not just had a seat at the table but a voice as well. It has been a place where leaders join together across party lines to protect and strengthen our precious democracy. For 48 years, Patrick Leahy has been such a leader. As we celebrate the fact that he is the longest serving current Senator and the longest serving in Vermont's history, we know that this remarkable longevity is a consequence of his character. It has been such a pleasure to learn from Patrick Leahy during many years and to work with him. The legislation that we introduced in 2013 to end straw purchasing and the illegal trafficking of firearms was incorporated into the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that was signed into law this year. We have worked together to better protect runaway and homeless youth with legislation to help thousands of homeless young people nationwide. We stood together at the signing ceremony for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. My fellow New Englander has been a champion for the Northern Border Regional Commission, which supports job creation and economic growth in the rural areas of the Northeast. As the former chairman and current member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Pat has been such an effective advocate for our family farms. I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Leahy on many agricultural issues, including support for our dairy industries and vital nutrition programs. And while Vermont and Maine may disagree on which State produces the best maple syrup, Pat has worked hard to protect an industry that is part of our region's heritage. Above all, as we have heard today, Pat has been a stalwart champion of human rights. He has said that the accomplishment of which he is most proud is the Leahy Law of 1997 that works to prevent egregious human rights violations by American allies. His determination, which we also heard about today, to end the deployment of antipersonnel landmines around the world has saved innocent lives. Patrick has many talents, and he is endlessly curious. Many of us have been the beneficiaries of his wonderful photographs, but this story shows that that curiosity started at a very early age. After all, who else but a 6-year-old Pat Leahy would have pedaled his tricycle into the Vermont Governor's office simply because the door was open and he had to see what was inside? As a photographer, he is both an artist and a chronicler of history and, as has also been mentioned, his recurring role in Batman movies suggests that this former State prosecutor has a bit of ``The Dark Knight'' within him. In his memoir, and again this morning, Pat laments that the Senate too often has descended into hyperpartisanship and political advantage. But he has faith, as we were inspired by his remarks today, that the Senate can once again be what it once was. He writes: ``Because it is the people, not the rules, who give the Senate its conscience.'' The title of Pat's memoir, ``The Road Taken,'' is a twist on the famous poem by Robert Frost, Vermont's poet laureate. Pat, you have taken the road less traveled by, and it truly has made all the difference, not just for your beloved Vermont but for our Nation. It has been such an honor and privilege to serve with you and to learn from you, and I wish you and your wonderful wife Marcelle all the best in the years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, when it was reported a few years ago that Senator Pat Toomey had taken up beekeeping, he said this about the appeal of his new hobby: When you're in my line of work, you're often dealing with abstractions. It's fun to have something tangible, where you can see the results. Well, my good friend from Pennsylvania has, of course, produced many tangible results during his 12 years in the Senate. As Senator Toomey's service here draws to a close, I rise today in tribute to an outstanding leader who has been as busy and beneficial as those hard- working bees he tends. Pat came to the Senate in 2011 well prepared for this line of work by his three terms in the House. With his background in the financial services industry and as the owner and operator of a small family business with his brothers, he has been an effective voice for economic growth, regulatory reform, and fiscal responsibility. His respectful demeanor, his integrity, and his commitment to getting the facts have earned him the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. His persuasive and principled arguments often convince his opponents to become his allies. I always personally looked forward to Senator Toomey coming to visit me to discuss a nominee or a piece of legislation. Inevitably, he would arrive with all the facts, all the data, all the quotations, and make his case. He didn't rely simply on rhetoric or an appeal to party loyalty--not at all. His approach was to present a solid case for why I should agree with him, and his track record, I must say, was very good. Throughout his time in Congress, Pat has focused on creating good jobs for the people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across our entire country. He knows that America has the best workers in the world, and when they have a level playing field, they can compete with anyone. Drawing on his expertise in finance, Pat pushed for policies that supported workers and were conducive to the startup and growth of businesses. He played an absolutely essential role in shaping the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the tax burden for American families. He coauthored sections of the JOBS Act, which made it easier for businesses to invest and expand. He has always worked to cut redtape to help unleash economic opportunities. There is another side to Pat as well. He is a true champion for those who are vulnerable in our society. I have worked with him on many issues over the years, including legislation to safeguard seniors from financial exploitation, as well as a bill to support 50 million Americans who serve as family caregivers. Pat has led efforts to better protect children from abuse, as well as to prevent animal cruelty. Pat is a determined leader. He is a leader who seeks bipartisan solutions. After the horrendous and heartbreaking Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 that took the lives of 26 people, including 20 children, he reached across the aisle to work with another good friend of mine, Senator Joe Manchin, on comprehensive legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and those who are dangerously mentally ill. That initiative laid the foundation for the Safer Communities Act that became law this year. It was a pleasure to serve with Pat on the bipartisan 20- Member working group who forged that landmark law. Pat, it has been such an honor to serve with you, and I cherish our friendship. I will miss those visits to my office to straighten me out on certain issues and to educate me. In all sincerity, I really did look forward to those visits because they were always an intellectual exchange, and you always made such a great case. I wish you, Kris, and your wonderful children all the best. You will be missed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, how heartwarming it has been today to witness Richard Burr's farewell speech to his colleagues, his staff, the Members of the Senate, his constituents, and, indeed, all Americans, and equally heartwarming it has been to listen to the heartfelt tributes that he is receiving from those of us who have been privileged to share with him. During his 28 years in Congress as both a Member of the House and of the Senate, Richard has been a strong voice for responsible government and bipartisanship. I join my colleagues in thanking him for his truly extraordinary service not just to the people of his beloved North Carolina but to all of our country. Throughout his service, Richard has consistently reached across the aisle to meet challenges and to move our Nation forward. As the leader of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, he has supported innovations in our healthcare system that have made a real difference for his fellow Americans. These advancements include enhancing the ability of cutting-edge treatments and medications to reach patients as well as advocating for historic funding increases for biomedical research. Richard has also left a lasting mark on education policy for Americans of all ages. He has worked to ensure that the very youngest learners have the best possible opportunities in life by supporting early education through Head Start and quality childcare and by supporting afterschool programs through the child care and development block grant. He has sought to increase the affordability of higher education by authoring the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, and he has helped Americans obtain good-paying jobs by strengthening workforce development programs. Richard was also a member of the bipartisan group that shepherded the Great American Outdoors Act through Congress. Two years ago, I was proud to join him when that bipartisan bill was signed into law. This historic legislation fully funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund that supports access to the great outdoors for all Americans. It is preserving and creating recreational opportunities from the Outer Banks to the Pacific coast. Perhaps less well-known but also important is the fact that Richard has been a champion of civil rights. He spearheaded the passage of the ABLE Act--one of the most important laws for individuals with disabilities since the Americans with Disabilities Act. He partnered with Congressman John Lewis, the late civil rights icon, to reauthorize the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act to right the wrongs committed against African Americans that were never investigated. When in 2010 former Senator Joe Lieberman and I led the fight to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell law that prohibited patriotic Americans from serving in the military due to their sexual orientation, Richard stepped forward to help ensure that successful repeal. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard oversaw the Agencies that helped to keep our Nation safe and ensured that they had the tools needed to guard against foreign threats. In addition, as Senator Warner has mentioned, at a time of intense partisanship, he led the investigation into Russian attempts to meddle in U.S. elections. He deserves enormous credit for keeping our committee focused on the task at hand and for producing a fact-based account of the events surrounding the 2016 election. There is a final story that I want to end with about Richard, and it is repeating in many ways what our chairman, Mark Warner, has said. I, too, have accompanied Richard Burr as he has visited with our men and women of the intelligence community at stations around the world. He doesn't just receive the intelligence briefings, as you would expect. No. He goes beyond that. He makes the effort to thank each and every one of our intelligence community's staff, who are serving in stations, sometimes in dangerous conditions, often being separated from their families or enduring hardship. He thanks each and every one of them. That tells you a lot about who Richard Burr is. Richard, thank you for your countless contributions to the U.S. Congress and to our Nation. I join your friends and colleagues in wishing you and Brooke all the best in the years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, when Senator Roy Blunt announced that he would not seek reelection, he promised to finish strong. As has been the case throughout his public service, he has kept his word. Roy is not only an effective Senator and a persuasive advocate, but, as Senator Wicker just mentioned, he is also a good friend to so many of us. On the Appropriations Committee, we have worked together particularly closely when it has come to biomedical research aimed at preventing, treating, and curing Alzheimer's disease. The fiscal year 2022 funding bill included a historic $3.5 billion for Alzheimer's research, and that tremendous success would not have come about but for the leadership of Roy Blunt. It has been truly outstanding. He has extraordinary vision in understanding the need for biomedical research that produces the medical breakthroughs. The American people also saw Roy's effectiveness with the work he did with Senator Burr on Operation Warp Speed. That was responsible for the development of the COVID vaccines in record time. No one thought that the partnership between the Federal Government and the private sector would be able to produce a vaccine so quickly, but Roy swept away the bureaucratic obstacles, he provided the funding, and most of all, he provided the vision. As a result of Roy's work, we have a COVID vaccine that has saved the lives of so many people. Serving with Roy not only on the Appropriations Committee but also on the Intelligence Committee, I have seen firsthand the extraordinary number of contributions he has made to our country. He is an experienced and skillful legislator who has the vision to write policy that makes a real difference. Roy has mentioned the role that he has played as master of ceremonies for the inauguration of President Biden. At the time, he delivered brief remarks on the preamble to our Constitution, observing that it establishes the uniquely American principle that government derives its authority from ``we the people.'' Our ongoing mission to create a ``more perfect Union'' is a continuing project, Roy noted, adding that ``we are more than we have been and we are less than we hope to be.'' Roy, you have played a key role in advancing that mission, and it has been such an honor to serve with you. I wish you, Abby, Charlie, and the rest of your family all the best in the years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, what a pleasure it is to join Senator Wicker in paying tribute to our dear friends and outstanding colleagues, Senators Jim Inhofe and Richard Shelby. We could talk about their accomplishments on the floor for many, many hours, but in the interest of time, we are going to focus--as has my colleague from Mississippi--on their truly outstanding contributions to our national security. Their unwavering commitment to the security of our Nation and the well-being of our servicemembers has been truly remarkable.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, before I begin my remarks, let me commend the Senator from Wyoming for her very moving and perceptive comments. I was very glad to be here on the Senate floor to witness her speech, which I think imparts valuable lessons for all of us to follow. I rise today in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would ensure that all married couples--including same-sex and interracial couples--are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage, regardless of the State in which they live. Let us remember that we are talking about our family members, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. I am proud to have stood--and I will continue to stand--with them in the efforts to secure their rights, while also steadfastly protecting and respecting religious liberty. With regard to marriage equality, the Respect for Marriage Act accomplishes two primary goals. First, it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals in one State is recognized by other States, regardless of the couple's sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. Second, it would require the Federal Government to recognize valid marriages between two individuals. Our bill is also noteworthy, however, for the way that it advances the cause of religious liberty. Indeed, the substitute amendment that Senator Baldwin and I introduced with Senators Portman, Sinema, and Tillis, unambiguously adds significant religious liberty and conscience protections to the legislation. These protections were developed in consultation with and have been endorsed by a wide array of faith-based groups. These include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the AND Campaign, the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, the Center for Public Justice, and the 1st Amendment Partnership. Every single one of these entities believes that marriage is between a man and a woman--every single one of them. They support the religious liberty provisions in the substitute because these provisions provide important safeguards against government retaliation, as well as meaningful recognition of their beliefs embodied in public policy. Prominent constitutional scholars agree. In a letter led by Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law, four constitutional scholars who have long advocated for religious liberty have concluded that the substitute amendment is ``an advance for religious liberty.'' They call it a ``good and important step for the liberty of believers to follow their traditional views of marriage.'' Now, let me address some of the unfounded criticisms of our amendment. It has been suggested by some that the amended Respect for Marriage Act would somehow demean individuals who have traditional views on marriage. To the contrary, this legislation would explicitly recognize in Federal law, for the first time, that such views and the people who hold them are ``due proper respect.'' It reads: Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect. This finding directly rebuts the claim that the bill can be construed to establish a public policy against people of faith. It does precisely the opposite. Opponents point to the example of an institution that lost its tax- exempt status on the basis of racially discriminatory policies that were contrary to public policy. That analogy ignores the important finding in our bill. As Professor Laycock and his colleagues explained, ``explicit congressional affirmation that the traditional male-female definition of marriage is `reasonable' and `honorable' would counter the analogy to racism and weaken the grounds for relying on Bob Jones''--that is a Supreme Court case--``to justify rejecting traditionalist believers' religious-freedom claims.'' Despite this strong policy statement, some have continued to argue that the Respect for Marriage Act, with the substitute amendment, could still somehow be used to deprive religious organizations of their tax- exempt status. We have heard that on the floor today. This is simply false. To avoid any ambiguity, the amendment states in section 7(a) that this bill cannot be used to deny or alter such status, as well as the ``tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.'' In light of these provisions, the constitutional scholars concluded that ``those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male-female marriage . . . are disregarding the statutory text.'' The very text of our bill would prohibit that. Opponents of this legislation are also mistaken in asserting that it would provide new grounds on which to sue churches, nonprofit religious organizations, and people of faith based on their religious beliefs. This, too, is inaccurate. The bill simply requires government actors to recognize valid marriages and provide marriage-based rights to which married couples are entitled, and it provides a way to pursue claims against those government actors only in instances where that recognition is denied. Government actors are already required to recognize same-sex marriages under the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell, and the enforcement provisions in our amendment do not apply to individuals or religious organizations who are not government actors. As the 1st Amendment Partnership, an organization dedicated to protecting religious freedom for Americans of all faiths, wrote in its analysis, ``if you cannot be sued now under Obergefell, then you still can't be sued under the'' Respect for Marriage Act. Of course, providing a way to pursue rights in court when those rights are unlawfully denied is not unusual. Indeed, other amendments filed to this legislation contain private causes of action. The amendment offered by our colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, ironically would empower individuals to bring lawsuits even on the basis of ``threatened violation[s].'' Notably, not only would the amended Respect for Marriage Act not diminish or abrogate any religious liberty or conscience protection, it also would provide affirmative protections and litigation defenses for people and organizations of faith that do not exist under current law. For instance, the amendment contains an affirmative protection that prohibits any religious nonprofit organization--including churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, religious schools, and faith-based social agencies--from being forced to provide goods, services, or accommodations in connection with the solemnization or celebration of a marriage against their beliefs. Moreover, the legislation flatly prohibits any litigation for such a denial. The leader of one religious group recently wrote that our legislation, as amended, ``sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can co- exist with religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.'' I agree, and that is what our bill does. It advances the rights of couples--same-sex and interracial couples--who are married to one another, and it advances religious liberty. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and historic step forward for religious liberty and for ensuring the dignity and respect for all Americans.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly, we will have the opportunity to make history by passing important legislation that will advance two goals: one, the goal of marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples, and second, the goal of strengthening religious liberty and conscience protections. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on this legislation, and I also want to thank the broad array of faith-based groups who worked with us on the religious liberty provisions of our bill. I want to thank Senator Baldwin, who has been the lead on this bill; Senator Sinema, who has worked so hard; Senator Portman, who has poured his heart and soul into it; and Senator Tillis in particular. But I also want to thank all of the Republicans who have supported this. I know that it has not been easy, but they have done the right thing. I urge a vote in favor of the bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is a great pleasure to join people throughout the State of Maine in thanking Dana Connors for a remarkable career of nearly six decades of devoted service and lasting contributions in government and the private sector. In addition to being an outstanding leader, Dana is a cherished friend to me and so many others. I first met Dana when I was working for Bill Cohen in Washington and he was the city manager of Presque Isle, a position he held for 16 years. Both of us are natives of Aroostook County, so we have always had that special county bond. Years later, we served together in Governor John McKernan's cabinet, where he was commissioner of transportation. Everyone who worked with Dana during his 11 years in that challenging role was in awe of the fact that Dana could go into any meeting, and no matter how unhappy the people might be about the condition of a road or bridge in their community, they inevitably came out smiling. He just had a knack, which he still has, of always listening to people and making them feel valued. From there, Dana stepped forward to serve as president of the chamber. Throughout his nearly 30 years of leadership, he has shown a deep understanding of the role of businesses in our State, particularly those that are owned by families. He is a staunch supporter of Maine's traditional industries, including farming, fishing, and forestry, and a champion of such emerging industries as advanced manufacturing and biotechnology. What motivates Dana are his love for our State, his belief in our communities, and his deep affection for our hard-working, ingenious, and determined people. He understands the importance of creating an environment that is conducive to small businesses starting up, growing, and expanding. Above all, Dana is passionate about ensuring that Mainers have good jobs and are able to stay right here in Maine. There is no better demonstration of this desire than his strong and effective advocacy for vocational education, apprenticeships, and other programs that provide Mainers with skills that are in demand by Maine employers. I am especially grateful to Dana for the advice he provided during the pandemic as I was drafting the Paycheck Protection Program. I knew I could turn to him for guidance on how it should be crafted and what would work best to help our small employers remain in business and continue to pay their employees. Dana was truly an invaluable resource during that crisis. There is one special memory of Dana that I want to share. In 2016, he brought together all five of Maine's living U.S. Senators--George Mitchell, Bill Cohen, Olympia Snowe, Angus King, and me--for a forum about public confidence in government and bipartisanship. It is a testament to the enduring relationships Dana has forged and the respect he has earned from members of both parties that he was able to convince all five former and current Senators to come to the same event on the same night. There is another part to that story that says so much about Dana. At the time, my husband, Tom Daffron, was teaching a class at the University of Maine. He told Dana that the Senators forum would be a wonderful event for students to attend, but they could not afford to pay for the dinner. Dana quickly devised a solution. He offered students the opportunity to volunteer at the event, which would allow them to attend for free. Those students were absolutely thrilled to see five Maine Senators on the same stage discussing the issues of the day, all because of Dana's generosity and his caring for the next generation. Dana has made such a positive difference for Maine in all of the positions he has held. His legacy is that Maine is an even better place to live, raise a family, and start a business. He has done so much, and I know that there is another chapter yet to come. In the meantime however, I offer my very best wishes to Dana and his wife, Joyce, and my deepest thanks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Respect for Marriage Act, a bipartisan bill that Senator Baldwin and I have introduced with our colleagues Senator Feinstein, Senator Portman, Senator Sinema, and Senator Tillis. Madam President, this bill recognizes the unique and extraordinary importance of marriage on an individual and societal level. It would help promote equality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of Americans in same-sex and interracial marriages. It would accomplish these goals while maintaining and indeed strengthening important religious liberty and conscience protections. I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, and I am grateful that a similar bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support. As the Senate considers and prepares to vote on this historic legislation, I would be remiss if I did not begin by recognizing the tremendous progress that LGBTQ individuals in this country--in our country--have made in recent times in achieving equal rights. It was not long ago that patriotic Americans could not be honest about their sexual orientation while fighting to protect our country-- our freedoms--in the Armed Forces. I led the fight with former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell law. It was not long ago in America that a person could be fired merely for being gay. I strongly supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, known as ENDA, which passed the Senate in 2013 and would have prohibited such discrimination. Seven years later, the Supreme Court in Bostock held that the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. And it was not long ago in America that individuals could not marry the person whom they loved if that person were of the same sex. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell found that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed by our Constitution. Madam President, let us remember that we are talking about our family members, our friends, our coworkers, our neighbors. I am proud to have stood with them, and I will continue to stand with them in efforts to protect and secure their rights, while at the same time steadfastly protecting and respecting religious liberty. The Respect for Marriage Act would accomplish two primary goals. First, it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals in one State is given full faith and credit by other States, meaning that States must recognize a valid marriage for purposes of public acts, judicial proceedings, and rights arising from a marriage regardless of that couple's sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. That means that same-sex and interracial couples can rest assured that their marriages will be recognized regardless of the State in which they live. We need to remove the cloud that is now over these couples that is causing them such consternation, as my colleague from Wisconsin has mentioned. Second, it would require the Federal Government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the State where it was performed. It would do so by getting rid of a law that is on the book, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which has been invalidated by the Supreme Court's ruling yet remains on the books. With these changes, Federal law will provide that all married couples are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. This includes, for example, making medical decisions for an ill spouse and receiving spousal benefits from programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as those benefits earned from service in our Armed Forces. To remove any ambiguity about the intent and scope of this bill, I have worked with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as with a coalition of religious organizations, to develop an amendment designed to clarify the language and address concerns that have been raised with the House version of our bill. First and foremost, this legislation would not diminish or abrogate any religious liberty or conscience protections afforded to individuals and organizations under the U.S. Constitution and Federal law, including the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Through our amendment, this fact is now stated explicitly in our bill. The amendment also makes clear that this bill only applies to valid marriages between two individuals. In other words, it does not authorize or require recognition of polygamous marriages. They are already prohibited in all 50 States. This really was a straw argument, but we have made it clear nonetheless in our amendment that in no way would the Federal Government or other States be required or authorized in any way to recognize polygamous marriages. Moreover, the amendment clarifies that the bill could not be used to deny or alter the tax-exempt status or any other status--tax treatment, grant, contract agreement, guarantee, educational funding, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, benefit, right, claim, or defense not arising from a marriage--for any otherwise eligible person or entity. In other words, no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple, no religious educational institution would have to worry that somehow their tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy if they do not perform same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. Let me repeat that because this has been coming up time and again. For the first time and consistent with the First Amendment and the laws of many States, this legislation would make clear in Federal law that nonprofit religious organizations and religious educational institutions cannot be compelled to participate in or support the solemnization or celebration of marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement an excellent analysis by the 1st Amendment Partnership. Some have said that this bill is unnecessary because there is little risk that the right to have a same-sex or interracial marriage recognized by the government will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Regardless of one's views on that possibility, there is still value in ensuring that our Federal laws reflect that same-sex and interracial couples have the right to have their marriages recognized regardless of where they live in this country. I strongly believe that passing this bill is the right thing to do, and the American people agree. Indeed, more than 70 percent of Americans support marriage equality, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. As I wrote in a Washington Post op-ed with my colleague Senator Baldwin, ``Millions of American families have come to rely on the promise of marriage equality and the freedoms, rights and responsibilities that come with making the commitment of marrying the one you love. . . . Individuals in same-sex and interracial marriages need, and should have, the confidence that their marriages are legal.'' Simultaneously, we must also recognize that people of good conscience may disagree on issues relating to marriage. For many Americans, marriage is more than just a legal union; it is a religious institution grounded in their faith. As Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, explained in the Obergefell decision, ``[M]arriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held--and continues to be held--in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.'' He went on to explain that ``neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.'' The same principle applies to our legislation, and that is explicitly acknowledged in the amended bill. Thus, it is important to me that our bill would not affect or diminish in any way religious liberty and conscience protections. Any interpretation of this legislation that would limit the applicability of these protections for individuals or entities because they have religious objections to same-sex marriages would be contrary to the plain language of our bill. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a series of letters from religious organizations that endorse the religious liberty provisions of our bill. They include letters from Elder Jack Gerard from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Melissa Reid from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Nathan Diament from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and from a host of other organizations: the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the AND Campaign, the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, the Center for Public Justice, and Tim Schultz of the 1st Amendment Partnership. We have worked very closely with all of them. Madam President, in closing, let me once again salute the leadership of Senator Baldwin, as well as Senator Portman, Senator Tillis, and Senator Sinema, for their tireless efforts on this important legislation. Let's do the right thing. Let's vote to proceed to this important bill, and let us pass it. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the Respect for Marriage Act.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation recently celebrated Veterans Day, one of the most sacred days on our national calendar. Across the land, grateful Americans paid tribute to the brave men and women who have defended our freedom throughout our history. Today, nearly 20 million Americans hold the title of veteran. That includes almost 110,000 men and women in my State of Maine, one of the highest percentages in the country. It is estimated that some 48 million patriots have served in uniform since our Nation's founding. Among them is a very special group of more than 3,500 heroes who have received the Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor in action. Although more than 160 years have passed since the medal's inception, its foundation of courage and sacrifice have remained constant. More than 100 Mainers have earned the Medal of Honor. In observation of Memorial Day last May, Emily Burnham of the ``Bangor Daily News'' authored a fascinating story profiling four of them. I am delighted to insert her inspiring story into the Congressional Record and to recap briefly the heroism she described. Early in the Civil War, fisherman Andrew Tozier enlisted in the 2nd Maine Infantry. He was wounded at the Battle of Gaines Mill in Virginia and captured. After being released by the Confederates, he joined the 20th Maine Infantry Regiment under Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. At Gettysburg, he was the Regiment's color bearer. During the decisive stand Chamberlain led at Little Round Top, Sergeant Tozier stood at the center of the regiment with the regimental flag tucked in his right elbow while he used the rifle of a wounded member of the color guard to return fire on the attacking Confederates in defense of his comrades. After the war, Mr. Tozier was adrift and fell into a life of crime, stealing cattle and other property. When he was arrested, Chamberlain, then Governor of Maine, took Mr. Tozier and his wife into his home and helped him turn his life around. In addition, Gov. Chamberlain, a Medal of Honor recipient himself, recommended Andew Tozier for the medal for his bravery at Little Round Top. Veterans helping fellow veterans remains an American tradition. Before World War II, Edward Dahlgren worked as a seed potato inspector in Maine's Aroostook County. He enlisted in the Army in 1943 and served with the 36th Infantry Division. On February 11, 1945, in France, Sergeant Dahlgren led the rescue of a unit surrounded by German forces, repeatedly attacking enemy positions alone and capturing nearly 40 prisoners. His Medal of Honor citation credits his ``bold leadership and magnificent courage'' for repulsing an enemy attack and saving an American platoon from great danger. Charles Loring of Portland distinguished himself in both World War II and the Korean war. In 1942, he enlisted in the Army Air Forces and flew 55 combat missions as a fighter pilot. In December of 1944, he was shot down over Belgium and spent 6 months as a prisoner of war. Major Loring returned to combat duty in 1952, flying an F-80 jet fighter in Korea. Leading a patrol on November 22 of that year, he spotted a concentration of enemy artillery that was pinning down UN ground troops. As Loring began his bombing run, his plane was severely damaged by anti-aircraft fire. Rather than abort his mission and leave the ground troops in danger, Loring dove his damaged aircraft into the enemy position. He was killed instantly, but his action resulted in the complete destruction of the threat. When Major Loring's widow was presented the posthumous Medal of Honor by President Eisenhower on May 9, 1954, it was announced that the new Air Force base in Limestone, ME, would bear his name. Gary Gordon grew up in Lincoln, ME. After graduating from his school in 1978, he enlisted in the Army and later volunteered for the elite Delta Force unit. On October 3, 1993, while serving in a peacekeeping mission in Mogadishu, Somalia, Master Sergeant Gordon and fellow sniper 1SG Sergeant Randy Shughart took action to rescue the crews of two Black Hawk helicopters that had been shot down by Somali gunfire. Heavily outnumbered and outgunned, Gordon and Shughart fought their way to the first helicopter, pulled the crew from the wreckage, and defended their position until they ran out of ammunition. Both gave their lives defending their fellow soldiers, and both received the Medal of Honor. Their extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are immortalized in the book and movie ``Black Hawk Down.'' Last year, I had the privilege to join in the dedication of a memorial to Master Sergeant Gordon in his hometown of Lincoln. Although separated by many years and theaters of combat, these four share the common bond of uncommon valor. They are powerful reminders that our Nation has been blessed throughout our history by ordinary citizens who possess the character and the strength to do extraordinary things. Veterans Day is a meaningful observance throughout America. Nowhere did Veterans Day 2022 have more meaning than in the small Maine town of New Vineyard. That is when Army Air Forces Sergeant Zelwood Gravlin returned home for burial 79 years after he perished in the skies over German-controlled Romania during World War II. Sergeant Gravlin was a gunner on the B-24 Liberator bomber ``Four Eyes'' that was shot down on August 1, 1943, during Operation Tidal Wave that targeted the Romanian oil refineries that fueled the Nazi war machine. Fifty-one of the 177 B-24s on that harrowing raid did not return. The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency began exhuming unknown remains associated with Operation Tidal Wave in 2017. One set of remains, which were first interred in a Romanian cemetery and then at an American Military Cemetery in Belgium, were positively identified as Sergeant Gravlin's in July. This remarkable event underscores the commitment of the American people that the men and women who serve our country will always be honored and, no matter how many years pass, they will never be forgotten. May God bless our veterans and may God bless America. I ask unanimous consent that the ``Bangor Daily News'' story by Emily Burnham be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. I thank my colleague Senator King for joining me to introduce this important legislation for farmers across America. The Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would provide vital assistance to farmers affected by PFAS contamination. PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals--sometimes referred to as ``forever chemicals''-- that can bioaccumulate in bodies over time. They are traditionally found in nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, decreased fertility, and hormone disruption. PFAS contamination is a growing problem, and additional resources are needed to support affected communities. In Maine, PFAS contamination affecting many different sectors, including agriculture, has been discovered over the past several years. The presence of PFAS in wastewater sludge once spread as fertilizer has prevented some Maine farms from selling their products, thus leading to significant financial hardship for these family farmers. One such farmer is Fred Stone, a dairy farmer in Arundel, ME. In 2016, Fred discovered that the milk produced on his farm contained some of the highest levels ever reported for a PFAS contaminant at that time. More recently, a dairy farm in Fairfield, ME, found PFAS levels in its milk that were 153 times higher than the State's standard. Dairy is not the only agricultural sector affected by these harmful forever chemicals. Adam Nordell and his wife Johanna Davis, from Unity, ME, learned last year that PFAS contaminated the soil and water in their organic vegetable farm, the result of sludge spread on their land in the 1990s. Tests earlier this year showed that Adam and Johanna had levels of PFAS in their blood that were even higher than chemical plant workers who manufactured PFAS for decades and handled them daily. Currently, USDA provides limited support to dairy farmers who have been directed to remove their milk from the commercial market. The Dairy Indemnity Payment Program--DIPP--is the only USDA program that attempts to address this problem; however, it falls far short from meeting the growing needs of all farmers in the State of Maine. Fred Stone, the farmer who first learned of contamination in 2016, has still not been compensated adequately for the contaminated cows he depopulated. What is more, this program helps only dairy farmers, excluding the farmers of other agricultural products who have had their livelihoods disrupted by PFAS contamination. While community organizations and the State of Maine have stepped in to provide some aid, USDA should do more to assist all farmers affected by these chemicals. That is what our legislation aims to do. Specifically, the funds authorized by the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act could be used for a variety of purposes at the State level, including more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems and the viability of those systems for farms. In addition to making new resources available, our bill would create a task force at USDA charged with identifying other USDA programs to which PFAS contamination should be added as an eligible activity. This would help bring even more resources to farmers through existing programs. Additionally, the task force would provide technical assistance to states to help them coordinate their responses effectively. USDA needs to step up and provide support to farmers who, at no fault of their own, are at risk of losing their livelihoods. This is not just a problem in Maine; PFAS contamination has been discovered on farms in New Mexico and Michigan, and this problem will only become more evident as testing becomes more readily available. Thus far, the Federal Government's response has failed to keep pace with this growing problem. I have repeatedly urged USDA Secretary Vilsack to come to the aid of these affected farmers, and the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would finally activate the Department to help where it is needed most. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. As the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee begin work on the 2023 farm bill, I hope that we can work together to pass the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act into law.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. I thank my colleague Senator King for joining me to introduce this important legislation for farmers across America. The Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would provide vital assistance to farmers affected by PFAS contamination. PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals--sometimes referred to as ``forever chemicals''-- that can bioaccumulate in bodies over time. They are traditionally found in nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, decreased fertility, and hormone disruption. PFAS contamination is a growing problem, and additional resources are needed to support affected communities. In Maine, PFAS contamination affecting many different sectors, including agriculture, has been discovered over the past several years. The presence of PFAS in wastewater sludge once spread as fertilizer has prevented some Maine farms from selling their products, thus leading to significant financial hardship for these family farmers. One such farmer is Fred Stone, a dairy farmer in Arundel, ME. In 2016, Fred discovered that the milk produced on his farm contained some of the highest levels ever reported for a PFAS contaminant at that time. More recently, a dairy farm in Fairfield, ME, found PFAS levels in its milk that were 153 times higher than the State's standard. Dairy is not the only agricultural sector affected by these harmful forever chemicals. Adam Nordell and his wife Johanna Davis, from Unity, ME, learned last year that PFAS contaminated the soil and water in their organic vegetable farm, the result of sludge spread on their land in the 1990s. Tests earlier this year showed that Adam and Johanna had levels of PFAS in their blood that were even higher than chemical plant workers who manufactured PFAS for decades and handled them daily. Currently, USDA provides limited support to dairy farmers who have been directed to remove their milk from the commercial market. The Dairy Indemnity Payment Program--DIPP--is the only USDA program that attempts to address this problem; however, it falls far short from meeting the growing needs of all farmers in the State of Maine. Fred Stone, the farmer who first learned of contamination in 2016, has still not been compensated adequately for the contaminated cows he depopulated. What is more, this program helps only dairy farmers, excluding the farmers of other agricultural products who have had their livelihoods disrupted by PFAS contamination. While community organizations and the State of Maine have stepped in to provide some aid, USDA should do more to assist all farmers affected by these chemicals. That is what our legislation aims to do. Specifically, the funds authorized by the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act could be used for a variety of purposes at the State level, including more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems and the viability of those systems for farms. In addition to making new resources available, our bill would create a task force at USDA charged with identifying other USDA programs to which PFAS contamination should be added as an eligible activity. This would help bring even more resources to farmers through existing programs. Additionally, the task force would provide technical assistance to states to help them coordinate their responses effectively. USDA needs to step up and provide support to farmers who, at no fault of their own, are at risk of losing their livelihoods. This is not just a problem in Maine; PFAS contamination has been discovered on farms in New Mexico and Michigan, and this problem will only become more evident as testing becomes more readily available. Thus far, the Federal Government's response has failed to keep pace with this growing problem. I have repeatedly urged USDA Secretary Vilsack to come to the aid of these affected farmers, and the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would finally activate the Department to help where it is needed most. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. As the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee begin work on the 2023 farm bill, I hope that we can work together to pass the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act into law.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 375th anniversary of the incorporation of Kittery, ME. The oldest town in Maine has a history that is as fascinating as it is long. It is a history that exemplifies the determination, resiliency, and courage of my State and our Nation. For thousands of years the rich fishing grounds where the Piscataqua River meets the sea sustained the Native American tribes. The first European settlers, drawn by the abundant natural resources, arrived in 1623, just 3 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. Built on a foundation of forestry and fishing, the growing community was incorporated in 1647. With a protected natural harbor and ample supplies of lumber, Kittery soon became a key Colonial center for seafaring trade and shipbuilding. Kittery's maritime heritage is inextricably linked to our Nation's independence and its ongoing defense of freedom. During the American Revolution, warships for the fledgling U.S. Navy were built at Kittery, including the Ranger, commanded by John Paul Jones. Kittery is the birthplace of General William Whipple, a ship's captain who was the only Maine native to have signed the Declaration of Independence and was later a hero of the Battle of Saratoga. Kittery also is the hometown of Captain Jeremiah O'Brien, who led American forces to victory at the Battle of the Margaretta at Maine's Machias Bay in 1775, the first naval battle of the American Revolution. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, our Nation's oldest continuously operating Navy yard, was established in Kittery in 1800. Its first commander was Commodore Isaac Hull, who achieved fame as captain of the USS Constitution--Old Ironsides--in the War of 1812. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard rebuilt Old Ironsides during the Civil War and constructed the USS Kearsarge, celebrated for its role in clearing the seas of Confederate raiders. During World War I, the shipyard took on the new task of constructing submarines, in addition to the overhaul and repair of surface vessels. Over the course of World War II, more than 70 submarines were constructed there, with a record four submarines launched on 1 day. Today, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, considered the gold standard of our public shipyards, continues its tradition of excellence by maintaining, modernizing, and refueling the Navy's submarine fleet. The people of Kittery cherish their history and work to preserve its treasures. Some of the earliest homes in New England are found there, lovingly restored and maintained. The First Congregational Church, built in 1730, is the oldest church building in continuous use in Maine. Two historic seaside forts now offer hiking trails, parkland, a museum, and spectacular ocean views. As the gateway to Maine from New Hampshire and points south, Kittery has much to offer visitors and residents alike. From extensive shopping, excellent restaurants, and a vibrant arts scene to a wealth of outdoor recreation opportunities, there is something for everyone. The wide range of events held during this landmark anniversary year demonstrates the civic pride found throughout the community. For 375 years, Kittery has grown and prospered for the future while honoring its past. The story of Kittery is an important part of America's story, written by committed citizens working together. I congratulate the people of Kittery for their accomplishments and wish them all the best in the years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, in introducing the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act of 2022. This bill would update and reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs, which have provided lifesaving services and housing for America's homeless youth for nearly half a century. Homelessness is affecting youth in truly staggering numbers. According to the National Network for Youth, an estimated 4.2 million young people experience homelessness at some point each year. Some of these youth may be away from home for a few nights, while others have been living on the streets for years. No area of this country is immune from the scourge of homelessness, as it impacts rural and urban communities alike. Tragically, runaway and homeless youth are at high risk of victimization, abuse, criminal activity, and even death. This population is at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. Many are unable to continue with school and are more likely to enter our juvenile criminal justice system. The reality is that available data likely underestimate the scale and consequences of this problem. I have met with teachers, social workers, and others from Maine who work directly with young people experiencing homelessness. We talked about the pressure that student homelessness places on teachers, school administrators, and their already strapped resources, and--most important--the homeless students themselves. I have also visited New Beginnings in Lewiston, where I saw firsthand how Runaway and Homeless Youth Act resources are providing essential safety nets for young people in need. The staff at New Beginnings helps young people with case management, provides referrals to State and local agencies, assists with housing needs and access to shelter, and connects individuals to local educational and employment programs. Several years ago, as the chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, I held a hearing that featured testimony from Brittany Dixon, a former homeless youth from Auburn, ME, who gave powerful testimony on her personal experience with homelessness. After becoming homeless, Brittany was connected with New Beginnings. In her testimony, she said, ``New Beginnings provided many resources I could use to succeed, including assistance with college applications and financial aid. . . . New Beginnings has helped me to develop critical life skills and to become self-sufficient.'' ``Programs that support homeless youth are important to so many young people like me,'' she added. ``It gives young people the chance to have a safe place to stay while they get their footing and figure out what they want to do in their lives.'' Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs helped make Brittany's success story possible. Sadly, however, there are still many homeless youth who do not have the support they need. We must build on our past efforts because homeless youth should have the same opportunities to succeed as their peers. The three existing Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs--the Basic Center Program, the Street Outreach Program, and the Transitional Living Program--help community-based organizations reach young people when they need support the most. These programs help runaway and homeless youth avoid the juvenile justice system, and early intervention can help them escape victimization and trafficking. The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act would reauthorize and strengthen these programs that help homeless youth meet their immediate needs, and it would help secure long-term residential services for those who cannot be safely reunited with their families. Our legislation would also create a new program--the Prevention Services Program--designed to help prevent youth from running away and becoming homeless in the first place. Moreover, our bill supports wraparound services for victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. Mr. President, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act will support those young people who run away, are forced out of their homes, or are disconnected from their families. A caring and safe place to sleep, eat, grow, study, and develop is critical for all young people. The programs reauthorized and modernized through this legislation help extend those basic services to the most vulnerable youth in our communities. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, in introducing the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act of 2022. This bill would update and reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs, which have provided lifesaving services and housing for America's homeless youth for nearly half a century. Homelessness is affecting youth in truly staggering numbers. According to the National Network for Youth, an estimated 4.2 million young people experience homelessness at some point each year. Some of these youth may be away from home for a few nights, while others have been living on the streets for years. No area of this country is immune from the scourge of homelessness, as it impacts rural and urban communities alike. Tragically, runaway and homeless youth are at high risk of victimization, abuse, criminal activity, and even death. This population is at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. Many are unable to continue with school and are more likely to enter our juvenile criminal justice system. The reality is that available data likely underestimate the scale and consequences of this problem. I have met with teachers, social workers, and others from Maine who work directly with young people experiencing homelessness. We talked about the pressure that student homelessness places on teachers, school administrators, and their already strapped resources, and--most important--the homeless students themselves. I have also visited New Beginnings in Lewiston, where I saw firsthand how Runaway and Homeless Youth Act resources are providing essential safety nets for young people in need. The staff at New Beginnings helps young people with case management, provides referrals to State and local agencies, assists with housing needs and access to shelter, and connects individuals to local educational and employment programs. Several years ago, as the chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, I held a hearing that featured testimony from Brittany Dixon, a former homeless youth from Auburn, ME, who gave powerful testimony on her personal experience with homelessness. After becoming homeless, Brittany was connected with New Beginnings. In her testimony, she said, ``New Beginnings provided many resources I could use to succeed, including assistance with college applications and financial aid. . . . New Beginnings has helped me to develop critical life skills and to become self-sufficient.'' ``Programs that support homeless youth are important to so many young people like me,'' she added. ``It gives young people the chance to have a safe place to stay while they get their footing and figure out what they want to do in their lives.'' Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs helped make Brittany's success story possible. Sadly, however, there are still many homeless youth who do not have the support they need. We must build on our past efforts because homeless youth should have the same opportunities to succeed as their peers. The three existing Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs--the Basic Center Program, the Street Outreach Program, and the Transitional Living Program--help community-based organizations reach young people when they need support the most. These programs help runaway and homeless youth avoid the juvenile justice system, and early intervention can help them escape victimization and trafficking. The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act would reauthorize and strengthen these programs that help homeless youth meet their immediate needs, and it would help secure long-term residential services for those who cannot be safely reunited with their families. Our legislation would also create a new program--the Prevention Services Program--designed to help prevent youth from running away and becoming homeless in the first place. Moreover, our bill supports wraparound services for victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. Mr. President, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act will support those young people who run away, are forced out of their homes, or are disconnected from their families. A caring and safe place to sleep, eat, grow, study, and develop is critical for all young people. The programs reauthorized and modernized through this legislation help extend those basic services to the most vulnerable youth in our communities. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the motion be dispensed with.