Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the underlying bill provides billions of dollars to the IRS to hire 87,000 additional auditors, yet more than 50 percent of the current IRS employees have yet to return to their offices or work sites. Here are the consequences: Four out of five phone calls from taxpayers go unanswered; 21 million returns have not been processed; refunds are taking 6 months or more. My motion would simply prohibit the IRS from using these billions of dollars to add 87,000 new employees prior to bringing 90 percent of their workforce back to the office. I would note that that 87,000 number is more than the combined employees at the Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol agents combined.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the accession of Finland and Sweden into the NATO alliance. In May, I visited Helsinki and Stockholm as part of a Senate delegation to encourage the Finnish and Swedish efforts to join the alliance. Our trip, however, started in Ukraine. There, after a long, secret journey under cover of darkness, our contingent of four Senators met with President Zelenskyy for 2 hours. We discussed the military, humanitarian, economic, and security consequences of Russia's unprovoked, brutal war against Ukraine. I asked President Zelenskyy whether he thought Vladimir Putin's attack on his country had had the opposite effect of what he had intended. For example, the Russian- speaking sections of eastern Ukraine are now embracing their Ukrainian identity, and NATO is more united than ever. President Zelenskyy told me that Putin's war of aggression not only had been the opposite of the easy conquest that Putin had expected but also had strengthened the NATO alliance and the European Union. (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, one cannot understand how Russia's invasion of Ukraine has upended decades and, in the case of Sweden, centuries of security policy for these countries. For 200 years, Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality, but, as Swedish Prime Minister Andersson put it to me, ``February 24 changed everything.'' That was the date of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Finland, which shares an 830-mile border with Russia, likewise concluded that Russia's aggression required a dramatic rethinking of its security. To demonstrate the reality on the ground, the Finnish President took us outside of his home and pointed to his right, where Tallinn, Estonia, is only 50 miles away across the Baltic Sea. He then pointed to his left and told us that St. Petersburg, Russia, is only 200 miles away. Our visits to these leaders came just as the Parliaments of Finland and Sweden were voting to formally request admission into NATO. We assured their leaders that there was strong, bipartisan support in the Senate for their accession and that adding their capabilities to the alliance would improve, would strengthen our collective defense and security. This is, indeed, an important point. Sweden and Finland will both bring enormous geographic advantages and military capabilities to NATO. Finland is expected to exceed NATO's 2 percent defense spending target this year, and Sweden has committed to meeting that target as soon as possible. Finland has the largest reserve military force in Europe and has recently decided to upgrade its current fleet of American F-18 fighter jets with the fifth-generation F-35. For the past several years, Sweden has been increasing its arms spending, and the country has advanced defense industrial capabilities. The addition of both of these nations to NATO will bolster deterrence against Russia in the Arctic, Nordic, and Baltic regions. For decades, Finland and Sweden have had a strong history of support for NATO. Their advanced militaries are, for example, interoperable with member nations. Both countries also have supported NATO-led operations over the decades, including in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq. They frequently participate in alliance-led exercises and capacity-building operations in Africa and elsewhere. During the current crisis in Ukraine, Finland and Sweden have been invaluable partners to the Ukrainians. They have been sending vital military aid to Ukraine, as well as humanitarian assistance, since February, including anti-ship missiles, rifles, body armor, and anti- tank weapons. There are a few critics who contend that this NATO expansion, which will more than double NATO's direct border with Russia, is somehow provocative to Vladimir Putin. This assertion ignores a clear pattern of Russian aggression extending back years. In 2008, Russia invaded its neighbor, Georgia. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time, occupying and seizing Crimea and areas of eastern Ukraine. Then, earlier this year, of course, Russia launched the largest and most devastating land war in Europe since World War II without any justification or provocation when it invaded the free and democratic nation of Ukraine. This expansion of NATO is warranted precisely because of Russian provocations across the region. As always, NATO and the United States have no desire to see a war with Russia, but we will defend the territory and sovereignty of each of its members. Russia's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has permanently changed the European security environment. Enlarging NATO to include two of our most capable and supportive European allies, Finland and Sweden, is a necessary and deliberative response. I urge all of my colleagues, in a strong vote, to join me in the swift ratification of Finland and Sweden's accession into NATO.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled votes: Senator Collins for up to 10 minutes, Senator Graham for up to 5 minutes, Senator Blunt for up to 5 minutes, Senator Romney for up to 5 minutes, Senator Risch for up to 5 minutes, Senator Paul for up to 10 minutes, Senator Sullivan for up to 1 minute, and Senator Menendez for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Heidi Zisselman, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges through August 4, 2022.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the introduction of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference. I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether or not 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 needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside. In its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the U.S. 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 now, more than ever in modern 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 in to Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I have worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema in drafting 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 decade and that are relied upon by healthcare 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 five decades regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices. Mr. President, this bill maintains the pre-Dobbs status quo. In other words, it would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs remains the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned. Specifically 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 ternate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time Sates 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 protects conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections. Mr. President, the best path forward for our country is to maintain the same legal framework that was in place just weeks ago 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. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the introduction of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference. I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether or not 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 needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside. In its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the U.S. 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 now, more than ever in modern 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 in to Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I have worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema in drafting 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 decade and that are relied upon by healthcare 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 five decades regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices. Mr. President, this bill maintains the pre-Dobbs status quo. In other words, it would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs remains the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned. Specifically 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 ternate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time Sates 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 protects conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections. Mr. President, the best path forward for our country is to maintain the same legal framework that was in place just weeks ago 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. Mr. President, the opioid epidemic continues to claim the lives of far too many people, with record numbers of both Mainers and Americans lost in 2021. While many perceive the face of opioid addiction as young, the epidemic harms older adults as well. In Maine, more than 10 percent of drug overdose deaths last year were among residents 60 and older. Each and every opioid death is preventable, but we must ensure the unique needs of seniors struggling with addiction are not forgotten. That is why I rise today with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, to introduce legislation to improve seniors' awareness of, and access to, opioid use disorder, OUD, treatment covered by the Medicare Program. Our bill, the Supporting Seniors with Opioid Use Disorder Act of 2022, is in response to recent findings from the inspector general that confirm the urgent need to increase the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the increased prevalence of fentanyl, have aggravated this national crisis. Even before COVID-19, however, the number of people age 55 or older treated in emergency rooms for nonfatal opioid overdoses was increasing, with a shocking 32 percent jump in E.R. visits from 2016 to 2017. In 2018, as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I chaired a hearing on this very topic in attempt to shed light on this often-overlooked population. One expert witness told the Aging Committee, ``Medicare beneficiaries are the fastest growing population of diagnosed opioid use disorders.'' Compounding these disturbing statistics is a December 2021 Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, OIG, report exploring whether Medicare beneficiaries with opioid use disorder receive medication and behavioral therapy. It found more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries were diagnosed with OUD in 2020, yet fewer than 16 percent of those patients received medication to treat their OUD. The report also concluded older beneficiaries were three times less likely to receive medication to treat their OUD than younger beneficiaries. Even fewer beneficiaries received both medication and behavioral therapy. The conclusion is clear: Medicare beneficiaries are not receiving the OUD treatment they need. Our bill, the Supporting Seniors with Opioid Use Disorder Act of 2022, would codify the recommendations made by the HHS OIG regarding how to improve beneficiaries' awareness of Medicare coverage for OUD treatment and how to identify current gaps and opportunities to better meet the needs of this unique population. Specifically, our legislation would require CMS to conduct additional outreach to beneficiaries to increase awareness about Medicare coverage for the treatment of OUD, such as by revising outreach and enrollment materials, making State and national contact information for healthcare providers publicly available in an easily accessible manner, and developing or improving continuing education programs on opioid medications and substance use disorder treatment programs. Our bill would also improve data sharing within Agencies at HHS with the goal of obtaining a better understanding of current treatment gaps. Lastly, the bill would require HHS to convene a stakeholder meeting to share best practices on the use of behavioral therapy among beneficiaries receiving medication to treat opioid use disorder. Emerging research points to evidence that patients receiving medication to treat opioid use disorder may also benefit from behavioral therapy, so this opportunity for collaboration on strategies to support better treatment engagement and continuity could be beneficial to both patients and healthcare professionals. The overdose crisis continues to ravage the country, and it is critical that people who are suffering from opioid use disorder have access to the treatment they need to survive and thrive--including our seniors. Challenges in treatment and recovery undoubtedly persist, but the actions taken in this legislation can help guide our continued response. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this important legislation that will support seniors' access to opioid use disorder services and our understanding of potential disparities in treatment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the opioid epidemic continues to claim the lives of far too many people, with record numbers of both Mainers and Americans lost in 2021. While many perceive the face of opioid addiction as young, the epidemic harms older adults as well. In Maine, more than 10 percent of drug overdose deaths last year were among residents 60 and older. Each and every opioid death is preventable, but we must ensure the unique needs of seniors struggling with addiction are not forgotten. That is why I rise today with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, to introduce legislation to improve seniors' awareness of, and access to, opioid use disorder, OUD, treatment covered by the Medicare Program. Our bill, the Supporting Seniors with Opioid Use Disorder Act of 2022, is in response to recent findings from the inspector general that confirm the urgent need to increase the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the increased prevalence of fentanyl, have aggravated this national crisis. Even before COVID-19, however, the number of people age 55 or older treated in emergency rooms for nonfatal opioid overdoses was increasing, with a shocking 32 percent jump in E.R. visits from 2016 to 2017. In 2018, as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I chaired a hearing on this very topic in attempt to shed light on this often-overlooked population. One expert witness told the Aging Committee, ``Medicare beneficiaries are the fastest growing population of diagnosed opioid use disorders.'' Compounding these disturbing statistics is a December 2021 Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, OIG, report exploring whether Medicare beneficiaries with opioid use disorder receive medication and behavioral therapy. It found more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries were diagnosed with OUD in 2020, yet fewer than 16 percent of those patients received medication to treat their OUD. The report also concluded older beneficiaries were three times less likely to receive medication to treat their OUD than younger beneficiaries. Even fewer beneficiaries received both medication and behavioral therapy. The conclusion is clear: Medicare beneficiaries are not receiving the OUD treatment they need. Our bill, the Supporting Seniors with Opioid Use Disorder Act of 2022, would codify the recommendations made by the HHS OIG regarding how to improve beneficiaries' awareness of Medicare coverage for OUD treatment and how to identify current gaps and opportunities to better meet the needs of this unique population. Specifically, our legislation would require CMS to conduct additional outreach to beneficiaries to increase awareness about Medicare coverage for the treatment of OUD, such as by revising outreach and enrollment materials, making State and national contact information for healthcare providers publicly available in an easily accessible manner, and developing or improving continuing education programs on opioid medications and substance use disorder treatment programs. Our bill would also improve data sharing within Agencies at HHS with the goal of obtaining a better understanding of current treatment gaps. Lastly, the bill would require HHS to convene a stakeholder meeting to share best practices on the use of behavioral therapy among beneficiaries receiving medication to treat opioid use disorder. Emerging research points to evidence that patients receiving medication to treat opioid use disorder may also benefit from behavioral therapy, so this opportunity for collaboration on strategies to support better treatment engagement and continuity could be beneficial to both patients and healthcare professionals. The overdose crisis continues to ravage the country, and it is critical that people who are suffering from opioid use disorder have access to the treatment they need to survive and thrive--including our seniors. Challenges in treatment and recovery undoubtedly persist, but the actions taken in this legislation can help guide our continued response. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this important legislation that will support seniors' access to opioid use disorder services and our understanding of potential disparities in treatment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my close friend and dear colleague Senator Manchin in introducing bipartisan legislation to reform the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887, the important law that governs how Congress tallies each State's electoral votes for President and Vice President. On January 6 of 2017, I was amused to learn that I had received one electoral vote for Vice President of the United States, an office for which I obviously was not a candidate. But on January 6, 2021, I realized that my unearned vote from 4 years earlier was really not funny at all. Rather, it was an indication of deep structural problems with our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes for President and Vice President. These unfortunate flaws are codified in the 1887 Electoral Count Act. In four of the past six Presidential elections, this process has been abused, with Members of both parties raising frivolous objections to electoral votes. But it took the violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 of 2021 to really shine a spotlight on the urgent need for reform. Over the past several months, Senator Manchin and I have worked with a terrific, bipartisan group of Senators who are united in our determination to prevent the flaws in this 135-year-old law from being used to undermine future Presidential elections. I want to express my gratitude to my friend Senator Manchin and to all the members of our bipartisan group for their hard work, their constructive work, to craft this legislation. Specifically, I want to thank Senators Portman, Sinema, Romney, Shaheen, Murkowski, Warner, Tillis, Murphy, Capito, Cardin, Young, Coons, and Sasse for their work over several months. I also want to thank Senators Klobuchar and Blunt, who head the Rules Committee, for their advice and counsel throughout this process, and Senator Lindsey Graham for his insights and for joining as a cosponsor. The legislation that we are introducing--the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act--will help ensure that electoral votes totaled by Congress accurately reflect each State's popular vote for President and Vice President. Our bill includes a number of important reforms, but I want to highlight just a few. First, it reasserts that the constitutional role of the Vice President in counting electoral votes is strictly and solely ministerial. The idea that any Vice President would have the power to unilaterally accept or reject or change or halt the electoral votes is antithetical to our Constitution and basic democratic principles. Second, our bill raises the threshold to lodge an objection to electors to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Currently, only a single Member in both houses is required to object to an elector or a slate of electors. Third, our legislation will ensure that Congress can identify a single, conclusive slate of electors by clearly identifying a single State official who is responsible for certifying a State's electors; requiring Congress to defer to the slates of electors submitted by a State pursuant to the judgment of State or Federal courts; and providing aggrieved Presidential candidates with an expedited judicial review of Federal claims related to a State's certificate of electors. Let me be clear that this does not create a new cause of action. Instead, it will ensure prompt and efficient adjudication of disputes. To help promote the orderly transfer of power, our bill also includes clear guidelines for when eligible Presidential candidates may receive Federal resources to support their transition into office. And I want to particularly thank Senators Portman, Coons, and Sasse for their hard work on those provisions. We are also introducing a second bill--the Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act--to address other issues pertaining to the administration of elections. In the interest of time, let me just quickly note the major provisions of this bill. It would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission and require it to conduct additional cyber security testing of voting systems, a concept put forth by Senator Warren. It would improve the Postal Service's handling of election mail. It would enhance current penalties for violent threats against election workers; and increase the maximum penalties for tampering with voting records, including certain electronic records, that was the work of several members, including Senators Romney, Shaheen, and Sinema, among others. We have before us an historic opportunity to modernize and strengthen our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes for President and Vice President. January 6 reminded us that nothing is more essential to the survival of a democracy than the orderly transfer of power. And there is nothing more essential to the orderly transfer of power than clear rules for effecting it. I very much hope that Congress will seize this opportunity to enact these sensible and much-needed reforms before the end of this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, want to salute all of the members of our group who worked so hard over many months. As is always the case when you delve into a complicated issue, it turns out that there are far more nuances and complexities than you would think when you first look at the issue. But everyone continued to work for the common good to strengthen the procedures, to update this archaic and ambiguous law that was written in the language of another era. And we have accomplished that. And I really hope our colleagues will all join together and that in the end we can have an overwhelming vote. Finally, I, too, want to thank our staff members for their extraordinary work. They worked literally night and day to work through the many thorny issues and to help bring us together. So my thanks not only to the Members but to their staffs as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my close friend and dear colleague Senator Manchin in introducing bipartisan legislation to reform the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887, the important law that governs how Congress tallies each State's electoral votes for President and Vice President. On January 6 of 2017, I was amused to learn that I had received one electoral vote for Vice President of the United States, an office for which I obviously was not a candidate. But on January 6, 2021, I realized that my unearned vote from 4 years earlier was really not funny at all. Rather, it was an indication of deep structural problems with our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes for President and Vice President. These unfortunate flaws are codified in the 1887 Electoral Count Act. In four of the past six Presidential elections, this process has been abused, with Members of both parties raising frivolous objections to electoral votes. But it took the violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 of 2021 to really shine a spotlight on the urgent need for reform. Over the past several months, Senator Manchin and I have worked with a terrific, bipartisan group of Senators who are united in our determination to prevent the flaws in this 135-year-old law from being used to undermine future Presidential elections. I want to express my gratitude to my friend Senator Manchin and to all the members of our bipartisan group for their hard work, their constructive work, to craft this legislation. Specifically, I want to thank Senators Portman, Sinema, Romney, Shaheen, Murkowski, Warner, Tillis, Murphy, Capito, Cardin, Young, Coons, and Sasse for their work over several months. I also want to thank Senators Klobuchar and Blunt, who head the Rules Committee, for their advice and counsel throughout this process, and Senator Lindsey Graham for his insights and for joining as a cosponsor. The legislation that we are introducing--the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act--will help ensure that electoral votes totaled by Congress accurately reflect each State's popular vote for President and Vice President. Our bill includes a number of important reforms, but I want to highlight just a few. First, it reasserts that the constitutional role of the Vice President in counting electoral votes is strictly and solely ministerial. The idea that any Vice President would have the power to unilaterally accept or reject or change or halt the electoral votes is antithetical to our Constitution and basic democratic principles. Second, our bill raises the threshold to lodge an objection to electors to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Currently, only a single Member in both houses is required to object to an elector or a slate of electors. Third, our legislation will ensure that Congress can identify a single, conclusive slate of electors by clearly identifying a single State official who is responsible for certifying a State's electors; requiring Congress to defer to the slates of electors submitted by a State pursuant to the judgment of State or Federal courts; and providing aggrieved Presidential candidates with an expedited judicial review of Federal claims related to a State's certificate of electors. Let me be clear that this does not create a new cause of action. Instead, it will ensure prompt and efficient adjudication of disputes. To help promote the orderly transfer of power, our bill also includes clear guidelines for when eligible Presidential candidates may receive Federal resources to support their transition into office. And I want to particularly thank Senators Portman, Coons, and Sasse for their hard work on those provisions. We are also introducing a second bill--the Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act--to address other issues pertaining to the administration of elections. In the interest of time, let me just quickly note the major provisions of this bill. It would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission and require it to conduct additional cyber security testing of voting systems, a concept put forth by Senator Warren. It would improve the Postal Service's handling of election mail. It would enhance current penalties for violent threats against election workers; and increase the maximum penalties for tampering with voting records, including certain electronic records, that was the work of several members, including Senators Romney, Shaheen, and Sinema, among others. We have before us an historic opportunity to modernize and strengthen our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes for President and Vice President. January 6 reminded us that nothing is more essential to the survival of a democracy than the orderly transfer of power. And there is nothing more essential to the orderly transfer of power than clear rules for effecting it. I very much hope that Congress will seize this opportunity to enact these sensible and much-needed reforms before the end of this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, want to salute all of the members of our group who worked so hard over many months. As is always the case when you delve into a complicated issue, it turns out that there are far more nuances and complexities than you would think when you first look at the issue. But everyone continued to work for the common good to strengthen the procedures, to update this archaic and ambiguous law that was written in the language of another era. And we have accomplished that. And I really hope our colleagues will all join together and that in the end we can have an overwhelming vote. Finally, I, too, want to thank our staff members for their extraordinary work. They worked literally night and day to work through the many thorny issues and to help bring us together. So my thanks not only to the Members but to their staffs as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the town of Buxton, ME. It is a great pleasure to celebrate the generations of industrious and caring people who have made Buxton a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. Named for the famous spa town in England, Buxton has a rich history. For thousands of years, the Saco River Valley was home to the Abenaki. In 1728, the Massachusetts General Court granted land to establish a settlement that was called Narragansett Number One. As the population grew, the town of Buxton was incorporated on July 14, 1772. The early settlers turned the dense forests and fertile soil into a thriving lumber industry and productive farms. With the Saco River providing power, sawmills and gristmills were built, followed by woolen mills, tanneries, churches, libraries, and flourishing retail stores. Education has been central to Buxton from the start. The first schoolmaster arrived in 1761, more than a decade before incorporation. Soon, 17 homes in town hosted one-room schools so that every youngster was within walking distance. Buxton's early prosperity as an industrial center produced many fine examples of New England architecture. Today, several homes, businesses, and the First Congregational Church are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Also on the Register is the Buxton Powder House, built by the townspeople at a cost of $59 to store ammunition and arms during the War of 1812. Since then, the people of Buxton have joined together to erect monuments and memorials in tribute to the patriots who have defended freedom throughout our Nation's history. The spirit that built Buxton is evident today in many ways. Countless volunteers have come together to make the town's sestercentennial a memorable celebration. For nearly 30 years, townspeople have generously supported the Buxton Toy Box that helps bring holiday cheer to children. Buxton's active involvement on the Saco River Corridor Commission shows a commitment to protect the natural resources that are vital to the quality of life. Nothing better demonstrates the Buxton spirit than a special moment at this year's annual town meeting on June 18, when the townspeople honored Deputy Chief Gene Harmon of the Buxton Fire-Rescue Department for 60 years of dedicated service to his community and his neighbors. Buxton's 250th anniversary is a time to celebrate the people who pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Buxton, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, St. Joseph Healthcare of Bangor, ME, was founded in 1947 by the Felician Sisters with a mission to support the wellness and healing of a patient's mind, body, and spirit. On this 75th anniversary, I congratulate this outstanding institution for carrying out that mission with expertise and compassion. St. Joseph is a 112-bed acute care community hospital that brings together primary care providers and specialists focused on delivering personalized medicine in more than 30 departments. It is a member of Covenant Health, an innovative, Catholic regional health delivery network that is a leader in values-based, not-for-profit health and elder care. The St. Joseph story began in 1855 in Warsaw, Poland, when Blessed Angela founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Felix, an order dedicated to serving the poor, the sick, and the disabled. The Felician Sisters were founded with a particular focus on serving the Polish countryside. St. Joseph Healthcare continues that tradition by its efforts to ensure healthcare services for rural Maine. St. Joseph's contributions as a healthcare provider are enormous but only part of its mission. The hospital's facilities have been applied to such needs as providing laundry and food services to the area's homeless shelters. A food pantry, an elementary school backpack program, and a community vegetable exchange stand help alleviate food insecurity. St. Joseph's Closet provides patients who are being discharged with needed clothing. The Blessing Bag program provides food, winter clothing, and basic personal hygiene items to homeless emergency room patients. Countless other acts of kindness complement the St. Joseph mission of meeting the spiritual and religious needs of patients regardless of their beliefs and traditions or spirituality. The 16th century Capuchin friar canonized St. Felix was known in his time as ``the saint of the streets of Rome'' for his daily journeys through the city dispensing food, medicine, and comfort to the poor, the sick, and the troubled. The dedicated staff and leadership of St. Joseph Healthcare continue that legacy through the streets of Bangor and the country roads of Maine, and I thank them for their blessed service.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Once again, our Nation has been horrified by mass shootings, this time of shoppers killed in Buffalo, NY, and of schoolchildren and teachers murdered in Texas. Twelve of us have come together to develop the bipartisan proposal before us to help address the gun violence that is plaguing our country. We were led by Senators Chris Murphy, John Cornyn, Kyrsten Sinema, and Thom Tillis. I want to thank and recognize each of them for their efforts. Our commonsense plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure that dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as suffering from mental illness cannot purchase firearms. If enacted, our bill will save lives. At the same time, it steadfastly protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. It is not hyperbole to say that this legislation represents the most significant gun safety legislation in decades. I would like to highlight two specific provisions of this bill that I worked on and that will have a significant impact in Maine and across the country. First, our bill will fund crisis intervention programs, like Maine's yellow flag law, which our State supreme court just upheld as constitutional this very week. Maine's law, which has robust due-process protections, allows the court--following an assessment by a medical professional--to determine if individuals should temporarily lose possession of firearms because they pose a serious threat to themselves or to others. Maine's law was developed in consultation with the Sportsman Alliance of Maine, and it has likely saved lives. This Federal legislation will provide Maine with more resources to fully implement this important program. It will help connect law enforcement, medical professionals, and people in crisis through telehealth services, as well as provide additional financial help to ensure that the law can be efficiently and effectively utilized when necessary. Second, our bill will also help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. The bipartisan package includes the Stop Illegal Trafficking and Firearms Act that I coauthored with Senator Patrick Leahy. It cracks down on straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. I would like, particularly, to thank Senator Heinrich, with whom I worked to further refine this proposal so that it could be included in this bipartisan package. Senator Heinrich was a wonderful partner as we worked through all of the details of this provision. The trafficking of firearms to violent criminals, gangs, and drug trafficking groups presents a serious threat to public safety in communities across America. Straw purchasers--individuals who purchase guns for other people who are prohibited by law from receiving such weapons--are the linchpin of most firearms trafficking operations, which are responsible for funneling firearms into our cities and across our southern border. Currently, there is no criminal statute specifically prohibiting straw purchasing or firearms trafficking in the way that we need it to do. Instead, prosecutors rely primarily on paperwork violations that prohibit making false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm. Our bill establishes new, specific criminal offenses with significant penalties for straw purchasers and firearms traffickers, along with enhanced penalties when straw-purchased firearms are used in connection with serious criminal activity like terrorism or drug trafficking. The danger presented by straw purchasers and firearms trafficking is not abstract. It is not theoretical. It is very real--a real and present danger. Maine's U.S. attorney, Darcie McElwee, recently described how gun and drug trafficking in our State and elsewhere are often intertwined. ``Individuals would come to Maine for guns and leave us their drugs and go back,'' she explained. She added that in recent years, guns acquired in Maine represented ``7% of Massachusetts gun recoveries at crime scenes,'' while Massachusetts guns ``were responsible for 20% of ours. So, that means that both their guns and their drugs are coming into our state.'' I am quoting our new U.S. attorney. In a recent example of gun and drug trafficking along the I-95 pipeline, a Massachusetts man was sentenced to 7 years in prison after receiving two pistols from a straw purchaser in Androscoggin County, while facilitating fentanyl sales in Bangor. What we have seen are gang members from Connecticut coming to Maine with heroin and swapping heroin for guns. Gun trafficking is also a border security issue. Law enforcement has long been concerned about the flow of firearms from the United States into Mexico. According to a recent report, more than 70 percent of all crime guns recovered and traced to Mexico between 2009 and 2014--and that represents more than 73,000 firearms--were traced back to the United States. And the Mexican Government has estimated that 200,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. Our bill provides additional tools to law enforcement and prosecutors to prevent and prosecute these crimes. This is meaningful legislation that reflects input from gun safety advocates, gun rights groups, the U.S. Department of Justice, law enforcement officers, and others. Thus, in addition to helping keep our schools safe and our communities safer, this bill will help to address the gun violence and drug problems that are plaguing our communities, more generally. Mr. President, I come from a State with a strong heritage of responsible gun ownership. This package reflects conversations that I have had with the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and other responsible groups. It is worth my emphasizing one more time that we are able to make these significant improvements without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Finally, it is important to note that this package demonstrates that Members of the Senate can come together and work in a constructive way to get important goals achieved on behalf of the American people. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies Act, the CREST Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this bill. Our bipartisan bill would direct the Department of Energy to research and evaluate the feasibility of innovative carbon removal and storage pathways. The name the CREST Act alludes to the fact that we have reached the ``crest'' of our emissions and we must work to bring them down. With more and more private and public sector commitments to reach net-zero emissions within certain timeframes, companies are scrambling to invest in quantifiable, durable, and verifiable carbon removal solutions. Microsoft, for example, has made a commitment to be carbon negative by 2030. Even though Microsoft plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than half, it will need to remove the rest of its carbon emissions. In order to do this, Microsoft plans to invest $1 billion in carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture, forestation, and carbon mineralization. Despite the growing number of companies that are looking to offset their emissions, current cost estimates show that private sector investment alone will not be sufficient to research and deploy carbon removal pathways. I strongly supported the Energy Act of 2020, which authorized the first comprehensive Federal carbon removal research and development program, and the bipartisan infrastructure, which invested $3.6 billion in direct air capture. Although these investments have been significant, more work is needed in further research, increased testing, and enhanced public-private partnerships to help aid in scaling carbon removal technologies. The CREST Act would expand the Department of Energy's carbon removal research and development programs to include carbon removal pathways that can permanently sequester carbon dioxide or use carbon dioxide to produce biofuels or products. The key areas of focus for research and development in our legislation are biomass carbon removal and storage, geological removal, atmospheric and aquatic removal, carbon dioxide storage, and carbon dioxide removal quantification. Our legislation also aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovative carbon solutions through a pilot program at the Department of Energy. This pilot program would be charged with accelerating the deployment of affordable and proven carbon removal technologies. This reverse-auction style pilot program would position the government to purchase innovative and promising technologies, subject to certain criteria, and reduce the costs of those technologies. This would allow companies that may not have as much purchasing power as Microsoft to participate in carbon removal to help offset emissions. This pilot program would also support companies that are leading the way in carbon removal technology, like Running Tide in Maine, in bringing down the cost of its product. Running Tide captures carbon dioxide using kelp microforests, sun, ocean currents, and gravity. This new and exciting company grows floating kelp microforest attached to biodegradable buoys that sink as they break down. The carbon captured through the floating microforest is effectively removed for hundreds of years once it hits the ocean floor. Running Tide hopes to soon be selling ``kelp carbon credits'' to help offset private entities' emissions. They are currently working to commercialize quickly. These innovative solutions are the kinds that our new pilot program would seek to encourage. Mr. President, climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires innovative and global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. While carbon removal and storage is only a small part of the solution, it is critical that we expand our country's work in this area. Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from Bipartisan Policy Center Action, ClearPath Action, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and many others. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Cantwell and me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies Act, the CREST Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this bill. Our bipartisan bill would direct the Department of Energy to research and evaluate the feasibility of innovative carbon removal and storage pathways. The name the CREST Act alludes to the fact that we have reached the ``crest'' of our emissions and we must work to bring them down. With more and more private and public sector commitments to reach net-zero emissions within certain timeframes, companies are scrambling to invest in quantifiable, durable, and verifiable carbon removal solutions. Microsoft, for example, has made a commitment to be carbon negative by 2030. Even though Microsoft plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than half, it will need to remove the rest of its carbon emissions. In order to do this, Microsoft plans to invest $1 billion in carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture, forestation, and carbon mineralization. Despite the growing number of companies that are looking to offset their emissions, current cost estimates show that private sector investment alone will not be sufficient to research and deploy carbon removal pathways. I strongly supported the Energy Act of 2020, which authorized the first comprehensive Federal carbon removal research and development program, and the bipartisan infrastructure, which invested $3.6 billion in direct air capture. Although these investments have been significant, more work is needed in further research, increased testing, and enhanced public-private partnerships to help aid in scaling carbon removal technologies. The CREST Act would expand the Department of Energy's carbon removal research and development programs to include carbon removal pathways that can permanently sequester carbon dioxide or use carbon dioxide to produce biofuels or products. The key areas of focus for research and development in our legislation are biomass carbon removal and storage, geological removal, atmospheric and aquatic removal, carbon dioxide storage, and carbon dioxide removal quantification. Our legislation also aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovative carbon solutions through a pilot program at the Department of Energy. This pilot program would be charged with accelerating the deployment of affordable and proven carbon removal technologies. This reverse-auction style pilot program would position the government to purchase innovative and promising technologies, subject to certain criteria, and reduce the costs of those technologies. This would allow companies that may not have as much purchasing power as Microsoft to participate in carbon removal to help offset emissions. This pilot program would also support companies that are leading the way in carbon removal technology, like Running Tide in Maine, in bringing down the cost of its product. Running Tide captures carbon dioxide using kelp microforests, sun, ocean currents, and gravity. This new and exciting company grows floating kelp microforest attached to biodegradable buoys that sink as they break down. The carbon captured through the floating microforest is effectively removed for hundreds of years once it hits the ocean floor. Running Tide hopes to soon be selling ``kelp carbon credits'' to help offset private entities' emissions. They are currently working to commercialize quickly. These innovative solutions are the kinds that our new pilot program would seek to encourage. Mr. President, climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires innovative and global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. While carbon removal and storage is only a small part of the solution, it is critical that we expand our country's work in this area. Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from Bipartisan Policy Center Action, ClearPath Action, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and many others. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Cantwell and me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, shortly, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, will come to the Senate floor and attempt to have a live unanimous consent request for a nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. When he does so, Madam President, I intend to object to that request, and I want to explain why to my colleagues. Senator Whitehouse has been delayed in getting to the Senate floor, so I am going to outline my objections prior to his making the request. Madam President, in all of the time that I have served in the U.S. Senate, I don't ever recall coming to the Senate floor to object to a unanimous consent request. I say that because it demonstrates how unusual it is for me to be standing here objecting to one of my colleague's unanimous consent requests. Indeed, as I said, I don't believe I have ever done this in all of the time I have served in the Senate. So let me give the Presiding Officer and my colleagues some background. On May 1, despite the objections of the entire Maine congressional delegation and its Democratic Governor, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, imposed onerous new regulations on Maine's lobster industry. Now, Madam President, if I asked you what is the first thing you think of when I say the State of Maine, you probably would say lobster, our iconic industry. We have more than 4,500 lobstermen and -women, each of whom is self-employed. They have been good stewards, always, of the lobster resource. They have taken care over the decades to make sure that the lobsters are large enough, for example, to keep. They throw back egg-bearing lobsters. There are all sorts of rules and regulations that the lobster industry has worked with the State of Maine over decades to preserve the precious resource. But, now, in comes NOAA. NOAA is imposing onerous, possibly impossible new regulations that do not reflect the reality in the Gulf of Maine with regard to the right whale. The final rule imposed on May 1 does not even come close to reflecting the reality of the Maine fishing and lobstering industry and the endangered right whale. NOAA's focus on the State of Maine's lobster industry is flawed and unfair. In fact, Madam President, the Agency's own data show that there has never, never been a right whale entanglement death attributed to the Maine lobster fishery. NOAA denied an entirely reasonable request to at least delay the implementation of these onerous new regulations for just 2 months until July 1. The entire delegation, plus our Governor, asked for this delay, this 2-month delay, because our lobstermen cannot even find enough of the gear, the new gear that is being mandated by NOAA. Just a 2-month delay would have helped to prevent huge losses to these small business owners. Now, this isn't the first request that NOAA has refused. We have worked over more than a year with NOAA to try to prevent these regulations from going into effect in the first place because they are not relevant to preserving the right whale. Nobody wants to see the population of right whales decimated, but if you look at the data, here is what is happening, Madam President. It is ship strikes that have been responsible for the death of right whales. They have occurred in the St. Lawrence Seaway in Canada, not even in the State of Maine. In addition, there is evidence that there is some gear that is used for the Canadian snow crab that has been found to entangle the right whale. That is different from our lobster gear. And as I said, there has never been a right whale entanglement death attributed to the Maine lobster fishery. So these regulations make no sense in the first place, but at least-- at least--in response to a plea from the lobster industry, from the Maine Department of Marine Resources, from the Democratic Governor of Maine, from the entire Maine delegation--at least NOAA could have answered our plea to delay these onerous regulations for 2 months--2 months--during which time maybe this brandnew, very expensive gear would have become more available. But, no. Once again, NOAA refused. This really is outrageous, and the industry is expected to lose out on $7 million due to lost fishing time during these 2 months. Now, perhaps the Senator from Rhode Island and others do not believe what the Maine delegation, the Democratic Governor of Maine, the Maine Department of Marine Resources, and many experts are saying about the impact of these regulations and the lack of availability of this new gear and the fact that the data show that we are not the problem in the State of Maine. As I said, it is fish strikes and due to warming waters, which I know is of great concern to the Senator from Rhode Island, as it is to me. The right whale are actually moving and following their food supply into Canadian waters. In fact, I have talked to many lobstermen and - women who have never seen a right whale--never--in all the time that they have been lobstering. But as I said, maybe NOAA just thinks that we are just automatic advocates for an iconic industry, despite the extraordinary record of stewardship by the lobster industry. So let me give you another source. Denying this 2-month extension conflicted with the recommendations of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, an independent voice for small business within the Federal Government. The office of advocacy asserted that NOAA was putting lobstermen and -women in ``an impossible scenario,'' and went on to say: If they are not granted a short delay of the compliance deadline, they may stand to lose significant amounts of revenue, or in some instances, their entire business. This isn't just the Maine delegation. It isn't just our Governor. It isn't just the Maine Department of Marine Resources. This is another government agency. It is the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy which is saying this. Maine harvesters are justifiably worried about what they are going to do and I don't know what more the Maine delegation can do. We have had countless meetings with the Department of Commerce, with NOAA. I met with the Fisheries Administrator in NOAA. I asked for his help. He promised to work with us. Instead, things have gotten only worse. And now our lobster industry worries that NOAA will continue to steadily whittle away at their livelihoods while ignoring not only their on-the- water expertise, the expertise of the State of Maine, but the impartial advice of the Federal Government's Small Business Advocate as well. The entire agency, all of NOAA, needs to recognize that the practice of implementing management decisions based on incomplete, imprecise, inaccurate data--especially when those decisions have a harmful effect on a fishery that is known for its conservation methods and on the communities that this fishery has supported forever in the State of Maine--cannot continue. So that is the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is why I believe, for the first time in all the years that I have served in the Senate, I have come to the floor to object when the unanimous consent request is made.

Ms. COLLINS. I object.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at continuing the important progress we have made so far to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. I know how devastating this disease is. 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 disease as well as a Senator concerned about the impact on our families and our healthcare budgets. 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 and ensure that our resources are maximized and leveraged. 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. We have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment, means of prevention, or cure, but Alzheimer's still costs our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid. 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. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver. The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025, so we need to reauthorize this critical legislation to make sure that our research investments remain coordinated, and we can maximize their impact. The first bill that I will introduce today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, and Menendez, is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. It would reauthorize NAPA through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made understanding the disease, like including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors. The second bill that I will introduce, with my colleagues Senators Markey, Capito, Warner, Moran, and Menendez, is the Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act. That 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 the additional funding 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, which holds great promise to ending this disease that has had a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families. The two bills I introduce today will maintain our momentum and make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research is beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at continuing the important progress we have made so far to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. I know how devastating this disease is. 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 disease as well as a Senator concerned about the impact on our families and our healthcare budgets. 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 and ensure that our resources are maximized and leveraged. 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. We have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment, means of prevention, or cure, but Alzheimer's still costs our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid. 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. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver. The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025, so we need to reauthorize this critical legislation to make sure that our research investments remain coordinated, and we can maximize their impact. The first bill that I will introduce today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, and Menendez, is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. It would reauthorize NAPA through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made understanding the disease, like including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors. The second bill that I will introduce, with my colleagues Senators Markey, Capito, Warner, Moran, and Menendez, is the Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act. That 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 the additional funding 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, which holds great promise to ending this disease that has had a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families. The two bills I introduce today will maintain our momentum and make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research is beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on my careful review of her record and experience, as well as my assessment of her character and judicial philosophy, I believe that she warrants confirmation to the High Court. The Constitution delineates the roles of the President and the Senate in nominating and confirming members of the Federal judiciary. Article II grants the President the power to nominate judges, and it gives the Senate the power of advice and consent for such nominations. Evaluating a nominee to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is one of the most consequential responsibilities of any Senator. Accordingly, I closely examine each nominee's qualifications, experience, writings, judicial philosophy, and personal integrity. One factor I do not consider is the political party of the nominating president. I have spent the last several weeks reviewing Judge Jackson's record, both before and after she became a Federal judge. Prior to and after her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Jackson and I spent more than 2 and a half hours discussing her jurisprudence and approach to deciding cases. I explored her views on precedent and her understanding of the role that the judicial branch plays within our constitutional design. I also watched Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing and, on numerous occasions, requested additional information from the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee. There is no question that Judge Jackson is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has sterling academic and extensive professional credentials. She has been a Supreme Court clerk, an attorney in private practice, a Federal public defender, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and a Federal district court judge for more than 8 years. She now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Her qualifications have been confirmed by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which has unanimously rated Judge Jackson as ``Well Qualified''--its highest rating. Having determined that Judge Jackson possesses the requisite qualifications and experience, my consideration of her nomination then turned to whether she has the judgment and approach to deciding cases that are necessary to serve on the Supreme Court. Words that I spoke--years ago--when announcing my decision to vote to confirm Justice Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court remain my standard today: ``I believe it is . . . critical for nominees to have a judicial philosophy that is devoid of prejudgment, partisanship, and preference. Only then will the decisions handed down from the bench be impartial and consistent with legal precedents and the constitutional foundations of our democratic system.'' Federal judges at all levels who are entrusted with lifetime appointments must avoid the temptation to exceed their constitutional role. That is particularly important for Supreme Court Justices, who issue rulings from which there is no further opportunity for appeal. Judge Jackson testified that, as a judge, she seeks to ``decide cases from a neutral posture'' and rules ``without fear or favor, consistent with [her] judicial oath.'' She also correctly acknowledged that the role of a judge ``is a limited one'' and that she is only empowered to ``decide cases and controversies that are properly presented.'' She added that her ``judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.'' During her hearing, Judge Jackson was asked whether she believes that the Constitution is a living document with a meaning that evolves over time. In response, she discussed the importance of ``adherence to the text'' and how her judicial powers are constrained by the meaning of the text at the ``time of the founding.'' She also explained that she does not believe in a ``living Constitution,'' rejecting the theory that it is a changing document ``infused with [her] own policy perspective or the policy perspective of the day.'' In these responses, she demonstrated an understanding of the limited role of the judiciary. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Court must ``say what the law is.'' For any judge to do more would undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. I also valued the testimony of Judge Thomas Griffith, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President George W. Bush. He explained that, on several occasions, he reviewed Judge Jackson's decisions on appeal. Although they did not always agree on the outcome, he ``respected her diligent and careful approach, her deep understanding, and collegial manner.'' He added that, in his view, Judge Jackson ``is an independent jurist who adjudicates based on the facts and law and not as a partisan.'' To be sure, I do not agree with some of the decisions that Judge Jackson has rendered as a Federal judge. For instance, in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, I believe that Judge Jackson was wrong to review a decision that Congress--through Federal law--left to the ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Court of Appeals rightly reversed her ruling in that case. When I asked Judge Jackson about her decision, however, I respected the fact that she was able to articulate the thoughtful--albeit ultimately mistaken-- analysis that she employed. Similarly, I disagree with the sentences that she has imposed in some of the criminal cases that have come before her. As a general matter, I believe that judges should have some discretion in sentencing. This allows them to take into account the unique circumstances of each case--whether aggravating or mitigating--to determine an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed. Other Federal judges--appointed by Presidents of both parties--have deviated from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in some of the same types of cases handled by Judge Jackson. For instance, a 2021 report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission explained that ``[l]ess than one-third (30.0%) of non-production child pornography offenders received a sentence within the guideline range in fiscal year 2019.'' The recent surge in crime, exacerbated by the vilification of law enforcement, is causing tremendous harm in cities across America. Thus, in evaluating Judge Jackson's approach to criminal cases, I appreciate the input from the Fraternal Order of Police, which concluded that she ``has considered the facts and applied the law consistently and fairly on a range of issues.'' That organization explained that it is ``reassured that, should she be confirmed, she would approach her future cases with an open mind and treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly.'' Just as I have disagreed with some of her decisions to date, I have no doubt that, if Judge Jackson is confirmed, I will not agree with every vote that she casts as a Justice. That alone, however, is not disqualifying. Indeed, that statement applies to all six Justices, nominated by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, whom I have voted to confirm. I have concluded that Judge Jackson possesses the experience, judicial philosophy, and character to serve our country honorably as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak on the profoundly disturbing trend of politicizing the courts and the judicial nomination process. This trend dates back decades and, sadly, continues to damage the reputation of this body and the independence of our courts. Today, calls to ``pack'' the Supreme Court in an apparent effort to dictate the outcome of cases are dangerous and undermine the public's confidence in our judiciary. Part of the reason for this politicization is that, in recent years, the process has increasingly moved away from what I believe to be appropriate for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. In my view, the role the Constitution assigns to the Senate is to examine the experience, qualifications, philosophy, and integrity of the nominee. It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the ideology of an individual Senator or would rule exactly as an individual Senator would want. It used to be common for Senators to give the President, regardless of political party, considerable deference in the choice of a nominee as long as the President's choice possessed the requisite credentials, experience, integrity, and respect for the Constitution. One need look no further than the 98-0 vote that conservative Justice Scalia received in 1986 and the 96-3 vote that liberal Justice Ginsburg received in 1993. This approach served the Senate, the Court, and the country well. It instilled confidence in the independence and the integrity of the judiciary and helped keep the Court above the political fray. And this is the approach that I plan to continue to use for Supreme Court nominations because it runs counter to the disturbing trend of politicizing the judicial nomination process. I urge my colleagues to denounce partisan attacks on our courts and to join me in working to reverse this harmful trend. Similarly, I urge the Court itself to strive to forge consensus. A defining characteristic of a democracy, one that differentiates it from an autocracy, is that we are all, from the humblest to the most powerful, governed by the rule of law. That protection is inevitably weakened when those charged with upholding the primacy of the rule of law cannot agree on what the law provides. The perception held by some, whether fair or not, that Supreme Court Justices are guided by their personal views undermines respect for the law, posing a threat to the principle that holds us together as Americans. This danger will only grow if the Court continues to exhibit recurring and predictable differences on the most significant legal issues of our time. Thus, I think it is essential that the Justices endeavor to reach consensus, especially on matters with the greatest potential to cause conflict. To state this point in simpler terms, at times when our country is deeply divided along political and ideological lines, the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to ensure that we adhere to the ties that bind us. Its ability to perform that function is diminished, however, when its members appear no less divided than the rest of the country. I will cast my vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court.