Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I hope, sirs, that you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance, it may seem rather paradoxical for us to consciously break laws. One may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.'' Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it'' relationship for an ``I thou'' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that State's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ``legal'' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal'' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to honor Eric Cioppa, the superintendent of the Maine Bureau of Insurance, who recently retired after more than three decades of distinguished public service to the State of Maine. Throughout his time at the bureau, Eric's leadership and service have benefited all Mainers and have contributed to the financial health of Mainers. Eric joined the bureau in 1988 as a statistician before being named supervisor of the workers' compensation section. I had the pleasure of working directly with Eric when I was commissioner of the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. In 1998, he was promoted to deputy superintendent and was then appointed to the position of superintendent of the Maine Bureau of Insurance by Governor Paul LePage in 2011, a position to which he was unanimously confirmed, and then reconfirmed in 2017 to serve another 5-year term. Throughout his service as superintendent, Eric's work has touched the lives of nearly every citizen in Maine. His tireless commitment to protecting insurance consumers, while also supporting ongoing competition and innovation in Maine's insurance industry, will leave a lasting positive impact on the State. Furthermore, numerous Governors have benefited from Eric's guidance and expertise on a wide range of insurance issues for decades, and his deep knowledge of Maine's insurance industry will be missed by all policymakers. Outside of Maine, Eric has been heavily involved in helping to set national priorities and developing new laws and regulations through his longtime service with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC. At NAIC, he has served as the association's president, vice president, and secretary, among other positions. Attributable to his stellar reputation, Eric was appointed by his peers at NAIC to serve a 2-year term as the State insurance commissioner representative on the Financial Stability Oversight Council in 2018 and was reelected for another 2-year term in 2020. Eric has also been an invaluable resource for me on insurance issues going back to my time as commissioner of the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. Throughout my service in the Senate, Eric has continued to provide wise counsel and advice to both me and my staff, and his wisdom and insight will be greatly missed. Eric exemplifies the ideal public servant, and there is no doubt that Mainers are better off because of his longtime dedication to protecting and serving the public. I wish him and his family all the best as they embark on their next chapter.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, in introducing the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act. Our bipartisan bill would support an innovative approach to fighting poverty, one that focuses on addressing the needs of children and their parents or other primary caregiver-- two-generations together--in order to help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Far too many American families are living below the poverty line, and the prolonged public health and economic crisis has exacerbated this problem. In 2020, when COVID-19 shut down our communities and economy, we unfortunately saw the first increase in poverty after 5 consecutive years of decline. Nearly 38 million people, or about 1 in 10 Americans, lived below the poverty line in 2020. Sadly, this includes nearly 11 million children, 35,000 of whom live in Maine. Despite recent progress, Maine's child poverty rate is still higher than all of the other New England States except Rhode Island. While Federal programs have helped many of those living in poverty manage day-to-day hardships, they are falling short of breaking the cycle of poverty that has trapped too many families. As Tomas Philipson, an economist who served previously as the Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``you don't cut poverty by increasing reliance on government. You do it by making them self-reliant.'' Our legislation marks an important first step toward reevaluating our approach to poverty-reducing programs and encouraging innovative, more effective uses of taxpayer dollars. We support an approach aimed at equipping both parents and their children with the tools they need to have opportunities to succeed and become self-sufficient. Oftentimes, Federal programs intended to help low-income individuals address challenges in silos, over looking the fact that the needs of family members are usually interconnected. Our bill seeks to change that. For example, helping a mother secure safe, high-quality childcare can have a positive impact on her ability to succeed in the workforce, as well as improving her child's ability to be ready for school. While that child receives care and an education, her mother can connect with skills training that could lead to a better paying job. Connecting various Federal programs that target both parents and children with supports aimed at increasing economic security, educational success, social capital, and health and well-being has the potential to lift whole families out of poverty. Listen to the story of Kaytlyn Robbins, a mother of four who recently relocated to Windham, ME, from Aroostook County, where a two- generation, or whole family, approach to economic mobility helped her turn her life around. I had the privilege of meeting Kaytlyn in August 2020 at a roundtable hosted by the Aroostook County Community Action Program, ACAP. When Kaytlyn first connected with ACAP, she was living in a homeless shelter, battling with substance use, and had just lost custody of her young daughter. With the assistance of ACAP's Whole Family Program, she worked with a career counselor to set new goals for herself and created a customized plan to refocus and transform her life. ACAP established a work experience for Kaytlyn at a local recovery center in Caribou, which later became a full-time job. She was able to secure safe housing and was reunited with her daughter, whom the team assisted with childcare placement. Kaytlyn is now thriving and told me she is ``healing as a family unit.'' She is married and has a new baby who just turned 1. Professionally, she is now a registered recovery coach and recently started up a nonprofit dedicated to substance use disorder recovery coaching, peer groups, and community education. Kaytlyn and her family are just one example of how the two-generation approach can truly transform a family and put them on a path towards economic independence. With legislation like the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act, I am confident we can recreate thousands of success stories like Kaytlyn's and expand upon successful programming like that offered by ACAP. Specifically, the bill we are introducing would codify an Interagency Council on Economic Mobility to better coordinate Federal efforts that are aimed at supporting vulnerable families and moving them out of poverty. The council would also make recommendations to Congress about ways to improve coordination of anti-poverty programs and to identify best practices. While I applaud ongoing efforts across the Federal Government to implement two-generation strategies, this council is needed to tackle logistical challenges, such as lack of coordination and communication across Agencies--and in some cases different entities within a single Department--and to improve the dissemination of information and best practices. In fact, a recent nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, GAO, report that Senator Heinrich and I requested confirmed that more coordination at the Federal level would provide the critical assistance and flexibility States and localities need to develop and implement two-gen policies to improve family well- being. This report from 2020 underscores why adoption of our legislation, particularly its emphasis on increasing the coordination of services, is critical to a robust two-gen approach. Our bill would also authorize a performance pilot program that would provide additional flexibility for States and local governments to improve the administration of poverty-reducing programs. To-Generation Performance Partnerships would be piloted in five States, which would be able to blend similarly purposed funds across multiple Federal programs. Two-generation approaches are often created ``from the bottom up,'' meaning local organizations and States are at the forefront of responding to local or regional needs. The Federal Government should be empowering States and local organizations with the flexibility to be creative problem solvers. For this reason, our legislation would reduce duplicative reporting and application requirements that may deter local agencies and organizations from making the most effective use of taxpayer dollars. To ensure accountability, the bill would require that these pilot programs be targeted at specific, poverty-reducing outcomes. With the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act, we have the chance to make a permanent difference in the lives of families and to break the multigenerational cycle of poverty. Just as a child's ZIP Code should not determine his or her future success, the current bureaucratic, siloed approach to aid should not stand in the way of helping families escape poverty. As Ascend at the Aspen Institute--a key partner on this legislation--recently observed, ``Today's economic and public health crisis demands the innovation, inclusiveness, collaboration, coordination, and flexibility that the 2Gen approach provides.'' In addition to strong support from national organizations like Ascend at the Aspen Institute and National Community Action Partnership, the Maine Community Action Partnership and the Maine Head Start Directors' Association have endorsed this important legislation. I very much appreciate their support. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this innovative approach to moving families out of poverty by giving them the tools they need to succeed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, in introducing the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act. Our bipartisan bill would support an innovative approach to fighting poverty, one that focuses on addressing the needs of children and their parents or other primary caregiver-- two-generations together--in order to help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Far too many American families are living below the poverty line, and the prolonged public health and economic crisis has exacerbated this problem. In 2020, when COVID-19 shut down our communities and economy, we unfortunately saw the first increase in poverty after 5 consecutive years of decline. Nearly 38 million people, or about 1 in 10 Americans, lived below the poverty line in 2020. Sadly, this includes nearly 11 million children, 35,000 of whom live in Maine. Despite recent progress, Maine's child poverty rate is still higher than all of the other New England States except Rhode Island. While Federal programs have helped many of those living in poverty manage day-to-day hardships, they are falling short of breaking the cycle of poverty that has trapped too many families. As Tomas Philipson, an economist who served previously as the Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``you don't cut poverty by increasing reliance on government. You do it by making them self-reliant.'' Our legislation marks an important first step toward reevaluating our approach to poverty-reducing programs and encouraging innovative, more effective uses of taxpayer dollars. We support an approach aimed at equipping both parents and their children with the tools they need to have opportunities to succeed and become self-sufficient. Oftentimes, Federal programs intended to help low-income individuals address challenges in silos, over looking the fact that the needs of family members are usually interconnected. Our bill seeks to change that. For example, helping a mother secure safe, high-quality childcare can have a positive impact on her ability to succeed in the workforce, as well as improving her child's ability to be ready for school. While that child receives care and an education, her mother can connect with skills training that could lead to a better paying job. Connecting various Federal programs that target both parents and children with supports aimed at increasing economic security, educational success, social capital, and health and well-being has the potential to lift whole families out of poverty. Listen to the story of Kaytlyn Robbins, a mother of four who recently relocated to Windham, ME, from Aroostook County, where a two- generation, or whole family, approach to economic mobility helped her turn her life around. I had the privilege of meeting Kaytlyn in August 2020 at a roundtable hosted by the Aroostook County Community Action Program, ACAP. When Kaytlyn first connected with ACAP, she was living in a homeless shelter, battling with substance use, and had just lost custody of her young daughter. With the assistance of ACAP's Whole Family Program, she worked with a career counselor to set new goals for herself and created a customized plan to refocus and transform her life. ACAP established a work experience for Kaytlyn at a local recovery center in Caribou, which later became a full-time job. She was able to secure safe housing and was reunited with her daughter, whom the team assisted with childcare placement. Kaytlyn is now thriving and told me she is ``healing as a family unit.'' She is married and has a new baby who just turned 1. Professionally, she is now a registered recovery coach and recently started up a nonprofit dedicated to substance use disorder recovery coaching, peer groups, and community education. Kaytlyn and her family are just one example of how the two-generation approach can truly transform a family and put them on a path towards economic independence. With legislation like the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act, I am confident we can recreate thousands of success stories like Kaytlyn's and expand upon successful programming like that offered by ACAP. Specifically, the bill we are introducing would codify an Interagency Council on Economic Mobility to better coordinate Federal efforts that are aimed at supporting vulnerable families and moving them out of poverty. The council would also make recommendations to Congress about ways to improve coordination of anti-poverty programs and to identify best practices. While I applaud ongoing efforts across the Federal Government to implement two-generation strategies, this council is needed to tackle logistical challenges, such as lack of coordination and communication across Agencies--and in some cases different entities within a single Department--and to improve the dissemination of information and best practices. In fact, a recent nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, GAO, report that Senator Heinrich and I requested confirmed that more coordination at the Federal level would provide the critical assistance and flexibility States and localities need to develop and implement two-gen policies to improve family well- being. This report from 2020 underscores why adoption of our legislation, particularly its emphasis on increasing the coordination of services, is critical to a robust two-gen approach. Our bill would also authorize a performance pilot program that would provide additional flexibility for States and local governments to improve the administration of poverty-reducing programs. To-Generation Performance Partnerships would be piloted in five States, which would be able to blend similarly purposed funds across multiple Federal programs. Two-generation approaches are often created ``from the bottom up,'' meaning local organizations and States are at the forefront of responding to local or regional needs. The Federal Government should be empowering States and local organizations with the flexibility to be creative problem solvers. For this reason, our legislation would reduce duplicative reporting and application requirements that may deter local agencies and organizations from making the most effective use of taxpayer dollars. To ensure accountability, the bill would require that these pilot programs be targeted at specific, poverty-reducing outcomes. With the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act, we have the chance to make a permanent difference in the lives of families and to break the multigenerational cycle of poverty. Just as a child's ZIP Code should not determine his or her future success, the current bureaucratic, siloed approach to aid should not stand in the way of helping families escape poverty. As Ascend at the Aspen Institute--a key partner on this legislation--recently observed, ``Today's economic and public health crisis demands the innovation, inclusiveness, collaboration, coordination, and flexibility that the 2Gen approach provides.'' In addition to strong support from national organizations like Ascend at the Aspen Institute and National Community Action Partnership, the Maine Community Action Partnership and the Maine Head Start Directors' Association have endorsed this important legislation. I very much appreciate their support. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this innovative approach to moving families out of poverty by giving them the tools they need to succeed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on February 24, approximately 1 month ago, Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked and unjustified war against his neighbor, the free, democratic, and sovereign nation of Ukraine. The bipartisan Senate delegation visit to Europe led by Senator Ernst that I joined over this past weekend was truly extraordinary. It has reinforced my already strong belief that the United States must do all that it can to provide lethal aid to the courageous Ukrainians fighting for their families and their freedom, as well as to provide the humanitarian assistance necessary to ease the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The Presiding Officer was on this trip, as well. Like the Senator from West Virginia, who just spoke, my most memorable conversation was with a young mother named Katarina, who had two children, one age 8 and one age 6, with her. I met her at the Polish refugee welcome center. It was only a few miles from the Ukrainian border. She said to me: I want to live in peace. I want to be back in Ukraine, but I have to keep my children safe. She was weary-looking but determined to keep her children safe. This young mother and her two children were leaving the only country she had ever known. She left her husband behind, not knowing when or if she would see him again--all in order to keep her children safe. We have only to watch the scenes of what Putin is doing to try to destroy Ukraine and to break the will of its people. He has bombed apartment buildings, schools, theaters, shelters, humanitarian corridors. He has bombed a maternity hospital. What does that tell you about this man, this war criminal? What more do we need to know? The only way that we can end this humanitarian crisis is to provide Ukraine with the weapons, supplies, ammunition, and other assistance that they need to bring to an end this Russian war of aggression. We must provide, without further delay, the Ukrainians with the MiG fighter aircraft that have been held up by this administration and which Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has requested. We must ensure that Ukraine receives additional anti-aircraft defenses, including the S- 300, whether directly from our stocks or those of our allies. We must ensure that the Ukrainians have the means to fight and defend their people from these ongoing atrocities ordered by Putin. And we know of--we saw firsthand--their extraordinary bravery, their determination to fight for their country, to put everything they have on the line. Every moment, every hour, every day counts. We do not have time for endless debate and delay that costs the lives of innocent Ukrainians. As the Ukrainian leader told us, the administration must stop telling Putin what America will not do. It must say what we will do. The administration should also make every effort in collaboration with Congress, when necessary, to ease the process of allowing Ukrainians with family members here in America to come stay with them until it is safe to return home. I know many Mainers are eager to help. Finally, I want to acknowledge the terrific American soldiers that we met, including several from the great State of Maine. Many of them left their families with days' or even hours' notice over the past few weeks. They rapidly deployed to Germany, Poland, and other NATO allies to deter Russia's aggression and defend these NATO members from any Russian threats. Each of these members of our military were motivated, patriotic, and impressive, and I am so grateful for their service. I have read that President Biden is considering stationing our troops close to the frontline to send an unmistakable message to the Russians on a more permanent basis, and I hope that he will indeed do that.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reproductive Choice Act with my colleague and friend Senator Lisa Murkowski, which would codify the protections for reproductive rights established by the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. We are introducing the Reproductive Choice Act as a substitute amendment to the Women's Health Protection Act before us today and as a standalone bill for future consideration. Unfortunately, the Women's Health Protection Act goes far beyond codifying Roe and Casey. Among other issues, this legislation would severely weaken protections afforded to healthcare providers who refuse to perform abortions on religious grounds. Rather than just codifying Roe's protections, the bill would undercut Federal and State laws that have been in place for decades and call into question basic conscience protections. The Reproductive Choice Act that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today would simply codify the essential holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Our bill carefully tracks the Supreme Court's language and would provide reassurance to women that the reproductive rights they have relied on for nearly 50 years will continue to be the law of the land. Specifically, the Reproductive Choice Act would make clear in Federal law that States may not impose an ``undue burden'' on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability. It would still allow States to enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, while stating that regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a ``substantial obstacle'' to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy would be considered an ``undue burden.'' As is currently permitted under Roe and Casey, our legislation would allow individual States to impose restrictions on terminating a pregnancy after fetal viability, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Notably, unlike the Women's Health Protection Act, our bill would not restrict laws regarding conscience protections, including laws that protect healthcare providers who refuse to provide pregnancy termination services for moral or religious reasons. Women should be assured privacy in making their reproductive choices, and I oppose efforts to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. It is my hope that the Reproductive Choice Act will be enacted to ensure that women in this country are able to make their own reproductive choices as established in the landmark Roe decision.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reproductive Choice Act with my colleague and friend Senator Lisa Murkowski, which would codify the protections for reproductive rights established by the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. We are introducing the Reproductive Choice Act as a substitute amendment to the Women's Health Protection Act before us today and as a standalone bill for future consideration. Unfortunately, the Women's Health Protection Act goes far beyond codifying Roe and Casey. Among other issues, this legislation would severely weaken protections afforded to healthcare providers who refuse to perform abortions on religious grounds. Rather than just codifying Roe's protections, the bill would undercut Federal and State laws that have been in place for decades and call into question basic conscience protections. The Reproductive Choice Act that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today would simply codify the essential holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Our bill carefully tracks the Supreme Court's language and would provide reassurance to women that the reproductive rights they have relied on for nearly 50 years will continue to be the law of the land. Specifically, the Reproductive Choice Act would make clear in Federal law that States may not impose an ``undue burden'' on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability. It would still allow States to enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, while stating that regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a ``substantial obstacle'' to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy would be considered an ``undue burden.'' As is currently permitted under Roe and Casey, our legislation would allow individual States to impose restrictions on terminating a pregnancy after fetal viability, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Notably, unlike the Women's Health Protection Act, our bill would not restrict laws regarding conscience protections, including laws that protect healthcare providers who refuse to provide pregnancy termination services for moral or religious reasons. Women should be assured privacy in making their reproductive choices, and I oppose efforts to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. It is my hope that the Reproductive Choice Act will be enacted to ensure that women in this country are able to make their own reproductive choices as established in the landmark Roe decision.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Supporting Essential Workers in Retirement Act with my colleagues Senator Brown, Senator Cassidy, and Senator Casey. Our bill would ensure that workers who stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic and performed essential work in hazardous conditions, including our first responders and critical supply chain workers, do not have their Social Security benefits reduced for serving our country. Semiretired workers make invaluable contributions across all sectors of our economy. Workers who retire at age 62 may collect Social Security benefits, but if these workers choose to continue working and earning income, then the retirement earnings test, or RET, will reduce the benefits they earn above a certain threshold. I have heard from many constituents who stepped up to perform essential work during the pandemic, only to find later that the income they earned during that time unexpectedly put them above the statutory RET threshold. One of my constituents, a teacher aide at an Aroostook County elementary school, is an example of a semiretired worker who was negatively impacted by the RET. She worked extra hours delivering meals to children who were at home learning remotely from March through June of 2020, and as a result she earned more than the RET threshold and had to pay money back to the Social Security Administration. I have also heard from semiretired nurses who agreed to work extra hours as our hospitals were filled with COVID patients and part-time employees who worked overtime to produce desperately needed personal protective equipment and COVID tests. They answered the call to fulfill vital roles when many of us were locked down in the early stages of the pandemic. Through no fault of their own, these workers' incomes surpassed the RET threshold due to overtime and hazard pay. They must now pay back thousands of dollars in benefits to the Social Security Administration or face a temporary reduction in their benefits until the money is recouped. Meanwhile, the money they earned during this time was to compensate for the exceptional work performed during the pandemic, and these semiretired essential workers did not plan or budget for a reduction in benefits or a sudden expense. Mr. President, this is profoundly unfair for those who aided us during a crisis. The Supporting Essential Workers in Retirement Act would exempt premium pay earned by essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic from the RET. We should incentivize essential work, not discourage it. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to ensure that those brave individuals who performed essential work in hazardous conditions to help our country address a global pandemic are not punished for doing so.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act of 2022 with my colleagues Senator Sinema and Senator King. This legislation would allow individuals seeking asylum to be eligible for employment authorizations starting 30 days after applying for asylum, provided their applications are not frivolous; they are not detained; and their identities have been verified, with their names run through the federal--government's terrorist watch lists. This change would allow asylum applicants to work, support themselves, and contribute to society without being as dependent on assistance from local governments while their claims are being adjudicated. Under current law, asylum seekers must wait extended periods of time after filing their applications before they are allowed to apply for work permits. These long waiting periods were originally adopted by the Clinton administration--and then extended to a full year by the Trump administration--out of concern that some migrants might apply for asylum primarily as a means of getting a work authorization. Clearly, this change has only transferred the burden of care for these asylum seekers onto communities across the Nation. One such community is Portland, ME. Over the span of several months, a historic surge of asylum seekers has arrived in Portland after crossing our southern border. Currently, hundreds of asylum seekers are being housed in emergency shelters by the city of Portland. These asylum seekers could give a much needed boost to Maine businesses that are facing labor shortages--our State's unemployment rate is just 4.7 percent--but the lengthy work authorization process prevents these asylum seekers from getting jobs, even to support themselves. While the Federal Government has provided assistance to Portland and other communities around our country dealing with a surge in asylum seekers, it would be a better solution if those seeking asylum were able to join the workforce and achieve self-sufficiency as quickly as possible while awaiting the outcome of their cases. It is my hope that the changes proposed by our bill will lessen the burden on the budgets of communities hosting asylum seekers, while allowing these individuals and their families to support themselves as they want to do, bringing needed skills to the cities and towns in which they settle. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Supporting Essential Workers in Retirement Act with my colleagues Senator Brown, Senator Cassidy, and Senator Casey. Our bill would ensure that workers who stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic and performed essential work in hazardous conditions, including our first responders and critical supply chain workers, do not have their Social Security benefits reduced for serving our country. Semiretired workers make invaluable contributions across all sectors of our economy. Workers who retire at age 62 may collect Social Security benefits, but if these workers choose to continue working and earning income, then the retirement earnings test, or RET, will reduce the benefits they earn above a certain threshold. I have heard from many constituents who stepped up to perform essential work during the pandemic, only to find later that the income they earned during that time unexpectedly put them above the statutory RET threshold. One of my constituents, a teacher aide at an Aroostook County elementary school, is an example of a semiretired worker who was negatively impacted by the RET. She worked extra hours delivering meals to children who were at home learning remotely from March through June of 2020, and as a result she earned more than the RET threshold and had to pay money back to the Social Security Administration. I have also heard from semiretired nurses who agreed to work extra hours as our hospitals were filled with COVID patients and part-time employees who worked overtime to produce desperately needed personal protective equipment and COVID tests. They answered the call to fulfill vital roles when many of us were locked down in the early stages of the pandemic. Through no fault of their own, these workers' incomes surpassed the RET threshold due to overtime and hazard pay. They must now pay back thousands of dollars in benefits to the Social Security Administration or face a temporary reduction in their benefits until the money is recouped. Meanwhile, the money they earned during this time was to compensate for the exceptional work performed during the pandemic, and these semiretired essential workers did not plan or budget for a reduction in benefits or a sudden expense. Mr. President, this is profoundly unfair for those who aided us during a crisis. The Supporting Essential Workers in Retirement Act would exempt premium pay earned by essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic from the RET. We should incentivize essential work, not discourage it. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to ensure that those brave individuals who performed essential work in hazardous conditions to help our country address a global pandemic are not punished for doing so.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act of 2022 with my colleagues Senator Sinema and Senator King. This legislation would allow individuals seeking asylum to be eligible for employment authorizations starting 30 days after applying for asylum, provided their applications are not frivolous; they are not detained; and their identities have been verified, with their names run through the federal--government's terrorist watch lists. This change would allow asylum applicants to work, support themselves, and contribute to society without being as dependent on assistance from local governments while their claims are being adjudicated. Under current law, asylum seekers must wait extended periods of time after filing their applications before they are allowed to apply for work permits. These long waiting periods were originally adopted by the Clinton administration--and then extended to a full year by the Trump administration--out of concern that some migrants might apply for asylum primarily as a means of getting a work authorization. Clearly, this change has only transferred the burden of care for these asylum seekers onto communities across the Nation. One such community is Portland, ME. Over the span of several months, a historic surge of asylum seekers has arrived in Portland after crossing our southern border. Currently, hundreds of asylum seekers are being housed in emergency shelters by the city of Portland. These asylum seekers could give a much needed boost to Maine businesses that are facing labor shortages--our State's unemployment rate is just 4.7 percent--but the lengthy work authorization process prevents these asylum seekers from getting jobs, even to support themselves. While the Federal Government has provided assistance to Portland and other communities around our country dealing with a surge in asylum seekers, it would be a better solution if those seeking asylum were able to join the workforce and achieve self-sufficiency as quickly as possible while awaiting the outcome of their cases. It is my hope that the changes proposed by our bill will lessen the burden on the budgets of communities hosting asylum seekers, while allowing these individuals and their families to support themselves as they want to do, bringing needed skills to the cities and towns in which they settle. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the town of Island Falls, ME. As one who was born and raised in Aroostook County, it is a great pleasure to celebrate the generations of industrious and caring people who have made Island Falls such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. Incorporated on February 27, 1872, Island Falls is a small town with a rich history. For thousands of years, the west branch of the Mattawamkeag River was the hunting grounds of the Micmac and Maliseet Native American Tribes. Permanent settlement began in earnest when the long-disputed border between the Aroostook region of Maine and British New Brunswick finally was determined in 1842. The early settlers created a vibrant community. They cleared farmland and, with the river and falls providing power, established lumber and grain mills. The first school, built in 1859, also served as a church and meeting house. With the river, pristine lakes, and spectacular views of Mt. Katahdin, Island Falls has long been a paradise for outdoor enthusiasts. With William Sewell, the son of one of the first settlers as his guide, young Theodore Roosevelt often visited Island Falls to hunt, fish, hike, and canoe. Bible Point State Historic Site marks the location where the future President would sit in quiet contemplation on his Sunday mornings in Maine. Today, Island Falls is a premier four-season destination for outdoor recreation. In addition to the activities Theodore Roosevelt enjoyed, it is an ideal place for golf, leaf-peeping, star-gazing, and, with an extensive network of well-groomed trails, snowmobiling. Island Falls is a town of patriots, and a park pays tribute to those who have defended our nation. Among them is Pvt. George F. Robinson, who served with the Maine Eighth Regiment in the Civil War. While recovering from wounds received in battle, Pvt. Robinson was reassigned as an attendant to Secretary of State William Seward. On the night of April 14, 1865, as the assassination of President Lincoln was being carried out, a coconspirator entered the Seward home and attacked the Secretary with a knife. Pvt. Robinson fought off the attacker and, despite his own stab wounds, helped render the first aid that saved Secretary Seward's life. This Maine hero rose to the rank of major and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. In 1965, on the centennial of this act of valor, the Maine Legislature renamed Robinson Mountain in his honor. The celebration of Island Falls' 150th anniversary is not about the passing of time, but about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Island Falls, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, through a legendary broadcasting career spanning more than seven decades, Maine's Dewey DeWitt was the ``Voice of Aroostook County.'' Dewey passed away on January 5 at 99 years of age, but his voice and his contributions will never be forgotten. As a native of the county, a longtime fan, and a friend, I offer my deepest condolences to his family. In this time of sorrow, I am sure they will find comfort in knowing how much Dewey meant to so many. Dewey first went on the air in 1950, the year a radio station began operations in Houlton, the Shiretown of Aroostook County. When a television station began broadcasting from Presque Isle a few years later, Dewey was the first person seen by viewers. Like many others in Northern Maine, I grew up listening to Dewey. From interviews with public officials to the daily news to high school basketball, he kept us informed. Indeed, the hallmark of Dewey's career was his devotion to local sports, especially high school basketball. It is estimated that Dewey called the play-by-play of more than 3,000 games over the years. Every sportscaster has that one indelible memory that stands alone. For Dewey and me, it was a memory we shared with people throughout the region. In 1969, when I was a student at Caribou High School, our boys' basketball team won its first-ever State championship on a last-second shot by Mike Thurston from beyond midcourt. I was at that exciting game, but it was Dewey's voice that brought that thrilling moment to listeners across Maine. More than a half-century later, Dewey could still recall that game and that shot in vivid detail. Although Dewey retired from daily broadcasting some years ago, he remained active with a frequent show on WHOU radio called, ``Talk of the Town.'' Whenever I visited Houlton, I loved stopping to see Dewey for a chat. Dewey's interviews were a shining example of how it should be done. He was always informed and insightful, with a keen understanding of how national issues affected the people in his audience. In our most recent interview, in October of 2021, he asked probing questions about border security, the appropriations process, our national debt, and pandemic recovery, among other important topics. Dewey DeWitt's work was recognized by the Maine Sports Hall of Fame, the Maine Basketball Hall of Fame's Legends of the Game, and the Maine Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame. But I know that the tribute that meant the most to him was the affection people throughout Aroostook County will always have for him. I join them in celebrating his remarkable life and in recognizing him for a voice that brought us together as a community.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me say that I appreciate the sincerity of the Senator from Virginia--my friend Senator Kaine--and his comments about the filibuster. I am not going to repeat the speech that I gave last week on the vital safeguards that the filibuster provides to the minority party in the U.S. Senate and why it makes us the greatest deliberative body in the world. Instead, since I have already talked on that issue, I feel compelled to respond to comments that were made by Senator Ossoff, the Senator from Georgia, earlier this evening, in which he singled out four Republican Senators--Senator McConnell, Senator Cornyn, Senator Burr, and myself--and our position on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a seminal law that was so important in the civil rights movement in guaranteeing the right to vote for all Americans. Well, I was not in the Senate in 1965. I was 13. I am not sure that the Senator from Georgia was even born in 1965, but that is not really my point. My point is that, of me, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Ossoff, said: Senator Collins previously said that this bill will ensure that voting rights afforded to all Americans are protected but not anymore. I voted, enthusiastically, and did say that about the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 2006. Surely, my colleague is not confusing that bill, which was 5 pages long--5 pages--with the bill that is before the Senate tonight, which is 735-pages long. Surely, he is not confusing those two bills. If he is, I would like to sit down and talk with him about the enormous differences between the two bills, but, frankly, the number of pages says it all. I do support the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I did so, as did every other Senator, in 2006, but to equate that to the legislation that is before us now is simply not worthy. Had I been on the floor at that time, I might well have thought of reminding the Senator that we have a rule in the Senate, rule XIX, which prohibits the impunity, the integrity, or the motives of other Senators--and not just one Senator in this case but four Senators. So let there be no mistake about it, I do support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I supported the Voting Rights Act of 2006, as did every one of my colleagues who was mentioned by Senator Ossoff this evening, and I think it is sad that he implied otherwise about our support for such important civil rights legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me just note that the Federal Department of Justice, under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, has challenged the law of the State of Georgia and the State of Texas. So the idea that somehow the Justice Department no longer has authority to challenge laws with which it disagrees or regulations or practices is simply not accurate. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides that authority. It is in effect, and the Department of Justice, rightly or wrongly, has invoked it.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I promise my colleagues this will be my last comment. This is entirely different from the debate on a 735-page bill. I would invite my colleague from Georgia to review exactly what he said earlier this evening. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our democracy is protected by its institutional checks on unlimited power. The three branches of government are not the only manifestation of the careful balancing achieved by the Framers of the Constitution. Within the legislative branch, the Senate's unique traditions protect the rights of the minority party by allowing extended debate and by requiring a supermajority vote to pass legislation, with few exceptions. These rules have helped to make the U.S. Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world. Before commenting further on the importance of the extended debate and the 60-vote requirement for passing legislation, I want to point out a critical protection built into the Senate's procedures. Changing the rules requires 67 votes, not 60 votes, not 51 votes--67 votes. But in a power grab that would be incredibly destructive to the functioning of the Senate, the Democratic leader is proposing to circumvent the rules in order to eviscerate the filibuster because he does not have anywhere near the 67 votes required to rewrite the Senate rules. Instead, he will propose to ``change the rules by breaking the rules,'' as former Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a true giant of the Senate, put it when arguing against a similar ploy in 2013. As one of Senator Levin's predecessors, Arthur Vandenberg, warned in 1949, if the majority can change the rules of the Senate at will, ``there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate.'' Both Senators Levin and Vandenberg actually favored the rule change being considered at the time, but each recognized that ``breaking the rules to change the rules'' would irreparably harm the Senate and, thus, our country. Democrats well understand the consequences of what they are proposing. Just 5 short years ago, Senator Chris Coons and I wrote a letter urging Senate leaders to preserve the 60-vote threshold for legislation. That letter was signed by 61 Senators: 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats, and 1 Independent. This total not only represented a majority of Senators but also a majority of the Republican caucus, a majority of the Democratic Caucus, and the current Vice President. How well I remember seeking signatures on the Senate floor for that letter. Holding a green folder with the letter inside, I approached Senators on both sides of the aisle to achieve my goal of a total of 60 Senators signing, representing a majority of each caucus. Not a single Senator whom I approached said no to signing the letter, not one. Quite the contrary, each was eager to sign the letter, and many thanked me for leading the effort to make clear that whatever our disagreements on a supermajority vote for nominees, they were firmly committed to keeping the filibuster for legislation. They understood its vital importance to the Senate and to our country. This is what our letter stated, in part: [W]e are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor. We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore, we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan letter, dated April 7, 2017, be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. The culture of the Senate is built upon a foundation of respect and cooperation that is meant to transcend partisanship. It is a culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience, persuasion, and perseverance, not raw power. I implore my colleagues to consider the ramifications for our country. Do we want laws enacted one year to be repealed 2 years later on a simple majority vote and then perhaps reenacted in another 2 years by just 51 votes? Do we want major laws, significant changes in policy, to be rammed through the Senate without thoughtful debate and bipartisan support? At a time when our country is deeply and closely divided, do we really want to worsen the polarization by improving significant changes in public policy by a narrow partisan vote? We are now on the brink of heading down that dangerous road, a slippery slope toward a tyranny of the majority. Limiting the ability of Senators to engage in a debate on legislative matters would give the majority party unprecedented power to push through major changes without careful deliberation or bipartisan cooperation. Such a move would have lasting implications, as future majorities--whether Republican or Democratic--would have little incentive to work with the other party. It is crucial that we work together and find common ground on the issues that matter most to the American people. Changing longstanding Senate rules to benefit one political party would discourage efforts to forge consensus and only serve to reinforce bitter partisan divisions. I urge my colleagues to stand against this calamitous change and for the principles of compromise and cooperation that have long defined and been the hallmarks of the U.S. Senate. Let us listen to the admonition of the Democratic leader when he spoke against changing the rules in 2017: ``Let us go no further down this road.'' Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan, to introduce the Neuroscience Center of Excellence Act of 2021, legislation that would establish a Neuroscience Center of Excellence at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. This program would be modeled after FDA's Oncology Center or Excellence, which was authorized through the 2lst Century Cures Act. Building off that successful and bipartisan model, I hope we can make critical advances for those living with neurological diseases. In July, FDA's Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research testified that neuroscience is an area of medicine where there is tremendous unmet need, and neurodegenerative diseases are particularly challenging from both a research and a drug development perspective. I have seen this firsthand as founder and cochairman of the Senate Alzheimer's Disease Caucus. I have vigorously advocated for record funding increases to support additional NIH research over the past 25 years. Over the past year, many have noted the success of Operation Warp Speed and wondered why we can't achieve the same rapid progress in other health conditions. The Neuroscience Center of Excellence would encompass more than 20 neurological diseases, including conditions that are very rare. For example, Huntington's disease is an inherited disease characterized by the progressive loss of brain and muscle function. It has sometimes been described as having ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's simultaneously. It is an autosomal dominant condition, so families with a history of Huntington's disease can see it appear in every generation. In Maine, Nancy Patterson has seen Huntington's disease in four generations of family. In addition, I lost a friend and coworker in former Senator Bill Cohen's office to this devastating disease. Sadly, there is no cure. Through our bill, this new Neuroscience Center of Excellence would establish several programs aimed at supporting innovation. The first is to identify some of the current and emerging regulatory science and public policy challenges associated with developing medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through a series of public meetings and guidances. The Center of Excellence would also establish a program to facilitate both the collection and the systematic use of patient experience data in the development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders. Another component of the Center's work would be around using digital technologies, an area of much promise. In 2018, the National Academies of Medicine Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders hosted a workshop on using mobile technology to advance research and treatment of central nervous system disorders. As Dr. William Marks, head of clinical neurology at Verily Life Sciences, observed, the current state of assessing brain disorders is ``exquisitely crude'' and there is a large unmet need for better measures of disease burden that are objective, quantitative, more frequently measured, and in the context of normal life. Finally, the center would help promote inclusion of traditionally underrepresented populations in the research and development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through public meetings and industry guidance. Senator Lujan and I have worked together on this issue before as part of our Equity in Neuroscience and Alzheimer's Clinical Trials Act of 2021. Whether the barrier to participation is a distrust of the medical community or logistics concerns like time and travel, we need to overcome those hurdles in order to ensure the best possible science. Researchers from the University of South Florida looked at the nine most prevalent and costly diagnosed neurological disorders and found the annual cost totaled nearly $800 billion. We desperately need to change this trajectory and renew our focus on these critical unmet needs. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan, to introduce the Neuroscience Center of Excellence Act of 2021, legislation that would establish a Neuroscience Center of Excellence at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. This program would be modeled after FDA's Oncology Center or Excellence, which was authorized through the 2lst Century Cures Act. Building off that successful and bipartisan model, I hope we can make critical advances for those living with neurological diseases. In July, FDA's Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research testified that neuroscience is an area of medicine where there is tremendous unmet need, and neurodegenerative diseases are particularly challenging from both a research and a drug development perspective. I have seen this firsthand as founder and cochairman of the Senate Alzheimer's Disease Caucus. I have vigorously advocated for record funding increases to support additional NIH research over the past 25 years. Over the past year, many have noted the success of Operation Warp Speed and wondered why we can't achieve the same rapid progress in other health conditions. The Neuroscience Center of Excellence would encompass more than 20 neurological diseases, including conditions that are very rare. For example, Huntington's disease is an inherited disease characterized by the progressive loss of brain and muscle function. It has sometimes been described as having ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's simultaneously. It is an autosomal dominant condition, so families with a history of Huntington's disease can see it appear in every generation. In Maine, Nancy Patterson has seen Huntington's disease in four generations of family. In addition, I lost a friend and coworker in former Senator Bill Cohen's office to this devastating disease. Sadly, there is no cure. Through our bill, this new Neuroscience Center of Excellence would establish several programs aimed at supporting innovation. The first is to identify some of the current and emerging regulatory science and public policy challenges associated with developing medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through a series of public meetings and guidances. The Center of Excellence would also establish a program to facilitate both the collection and the systematic use of patient experience data in the development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders. Another component of the Center's work would be around using digital technologies, an area of much promise. In 2018, the National Academies of Medicine Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders hosted a workshop on using mobile technology to advance research and treatment of central nervous system disorders. As Dr. William Marks, head of clinical neurology at Verily Life Sciences, observed, the current state of assessing brain disorders is ``exquisitely crude'' and there is a large unmet need for better measures of disease burden that are objective, quantitative, more frequently measured, and in the context of normal life. Finally, the center would help promote inclusion of traditionally underrepresented populations in the research and development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through public meetings and industry guidance. Senator Lujan and I have worked together on this issue before as part of our Equity in Neuroscience and Alzheimer's Clinical Trials Act of 2021. Whether the barrier to participation is a distrust of the medical community or logistics concerns like time and travel, we need to overcome those hurdles in order to ensure the best possible science. Researchers from the University of South Florida looked at the nine most prevalent and costly diagnosed neurological disorders and found the annual cost totaled nearly $800 billion. We desperately need to change this trajectory and renew our focus on these critical unmet needs. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the STEM Education in Accounting Act with my colleague Senator Rosen. Our bill would recognize accounting as part of a well-rounded STEM education and allow school districts to use their Federal education block grant resources to develop and improve instruction in accounting. It also aims to introduce more students to accounting and improve career awareness and workforce diversity in the field. In today's rapidly changing world, improving students' access to a STEM-based curriculum is increasingly vital to ensure they are prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce. Mathematics--the ``M'' in ``STEM''--is a critical skill that can help students unlock countless doors to high-paying, in-demand fields. One of those doors leads to the accounting profession, whose work has a direct impact on employers, employees, retirees, investors, and the global economy. Certified professional accountants, or CPAs, play a key role in providing capital markets with confidence in financial reporting. Modern accounting increasingly requires cutting-edge math and technology skills, including IT auditing, artificial intelligence, data analytics, and cyber security, to keep up with the market's needs. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is current law, school districts may use funds from the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program to support a host of curricular and extracurricular activities that deliver a well-rounded education to students in all grade levels. Specifically, the STEM Education in Accounting Act would add ``activities to promote the development, implementation, and strengthening of programs to teach accounting'' to the list of courses and activities supported by this flexible block grant. Our bill would also promote high-quality accounting instruction for members of groups underrepresented in the accounting profession. Encouraging a robust pipeline of future accounting professionals is paramount. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to promote accounting education, improve students' finance skills, and strengthen the pipeline of future accountants, who play such a vital role in our financial system.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the STEM Education in Accounting Act with my colleague Senator Rosen. Our bill would recognize accounting as part of a well-rounded STEM education and allow school districts to use their Federal education block grant resources to develop and improve instruction in accounting. It also aims to introduce more students to accounting and improve career awareness and workforce diversity in the field. In today's rapidly changing world, improving students' access to a STEM-based curriculum is increasingly vital to ensure they are prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce. Mathematics--the ``M'' in ``STEM''--is a critical skill that can help students unlock countless doors to high-paying, in-demand fields. One of those doors leads to the accounting profession, whose work has a direct impact on employers, employees, retirees, investors, and the global economy. Certified professional accountants, or CPAs, play a key role in providing capital markets with confidence in financial reporting. Modern accounting increasingly requires cutting-edge math and technology skills, including IT auditing, artificial intelligence, data analytics, and cyber security, to keep up with the market's needs. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is current law, school districts may use funds from the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program to support a host of curricular and extracurricular activities that deliver a well-rounded education to students in all grade levels. Specifically, the STEM Education in Accounting Act would add ``activities to promote the development, implementation, and strengthening of programs to teach accounting'' to the list of courses and activities supported by this flexible block grant. Our bill would also promote high-quality accounting instruction for members of groups underrepresented in the accounting profession. Encouraging a robust pipeline of future accounting professionals is paramount. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to promote accounting education, improve students' finance skills, and strengthen the pipeline of future accountants, who play such a vital role in our financial system.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on Friday, the Department of Labor reported that inflation had hit a near-40-year high, confirming what many American families have been feeling in their wallets for many months. The soaring cost of virtually everything, from gasoline to groceries, is a growing crisis that has hit families across our Nation. The numbers are alarming. During the past year, the Consumer Price Index, which measures the price of goods and services, jumped by nearly 7 percent. That is the highest rate since 1982. It represents the sixth consecutive month of inflation exceeding 5 percent. The goods experiencing the greatest increases read like a list of everyday essentials. Energy costs are up by 33 percent. Used vehicles are up by 31 percent. Hamburger costs are up by 14 percent. Milk, eggs, baby food, furniture, and many other necessities all cost more, and those prices are simply unsustainable for many working families. The pain is being felt across the Nation, including in my State of Maine. I have heard from many Mainers worried about how they will be able to afford to heat their homes this winter. The average price of heating oil in Maine is currently $3.15 per gallon, compared to $2.11 per gallon this time last year. While the amount of heating oil a household uses varies considerably, a typical Maine family will spend nearly $1,000 more this year on home heating oil. The State of Maine is disproportionately affected by this rise in costs since more than 60 percent of our homes use fuel oil as their primary energy source for heating compared to only 4 percent of households nationally. The rise in the price of heating oil is not the only hardship that Mainers are facing this winter. Mainers have shared with me their genuine concerns about being able to afford to drive back and forth to work and to put nutritious food on the table. Gas prices in Maine are about $1.30 per gallon higher than last year. Business owners face the often impossible challenge of paying higher prices for commodities, food, and supplies without passing those increases on to their already struggling consumers. For example, Maine restaurant owners, who have already experienced an extraordinarily difficult 18 months due to the pandemic, are now grappling with double- digit percentage increases in the costs of ingredients and other goods needed to run their businesses. An owner of a restaurant I visited in Searsport told me that the cost of fryer grease has skyrocketed from $19 to $48 per case. Another restaurant owner in Rockland recently told the Bangor Daily News that the price for prime ribs has more than doubled from $7 to $17. These supply costs shrink their already slim margins and exacerbate other difficulties the industry is facing with staffing shortages and pandemic-related closures. After a tough 2020 caused by COVID-related market disruptions and drought, Maine's resilient potato growers rebounded with yields up 20 percent over last year. Such a strong harvest usually would be cause for celebration, but farmers are facing rising transportation, fuel, and fertilizer costs that are hurting their bottom line and forcing them to pass on some of the inflationary costs to their customers. The increased costs of doing business mean that families and processors will pay more for potatoes and growers will get a lower return on their crop. This weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported on how inflation is harming the employees at the One Stop Tulsa gas station in Aroostook County in Northern Maine. One clerk was working 60 hours each week--up from 40 before the pandemic--because they are so shortstaffed. Even with the increased hours, she said she is struggling with rising costs, from food to electricity. Melissa Holmes, the gas station manager, said that her twice monthly grocery bill has increased from $300 to $500 and it now costs her $60 to fill up her 2011 Ford Explorer. That is $20 more than last year. Ms. Holmes also described facing customers who are frustrated by the higher prices. The cost of chicken, for example, has gone up so an order of chicken tenders has jumped from $5.49 to $8.99. That is a big increase, and customers are feeling that squeeze. After passage of the President's $1.9 trillion stimulus this spring, the price of goods and services went up. We heard reassurances from the President's team that this inflation was transitory but no acknowledgement of the role that their policies have had on soaring prices. Americans are feeling the consequences as Washington has overheated the economy. We in Congress must confront this inflation crisis, but instead the Biden administration is pushing trillions in additional macroeconomic stimulus in the President's Build Back Better plan. The consequences for an already overheated economy could be devastating. Given the clear link between recent extraordinary government spending and rampant inflation, we should not be adding more fuel to the fire. Our economy is ailing so it would be wise to begin to follow the maxim that guides medical professionals: First, do no harm. Democrats have said that their spending spree, which follows the Build Back Better plan, would cost $1.7 trillion. Several of the proposals in that plan would be set to expire after 1, 3, or 5 years--a gimmick that hides the true cost because we know that is not what the real hope is nor what is going to happen. Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that making the social spending programs in the Build Back Better plan permanent would, in fact, cost $4.9 trillion over the decade--$4.9 trillion. Doing so would add $3 trillion to the deficit unless paid for with even more taxes beyond those that the Democrats have already proposed in their bill. That is much higher than the purported $1.7 trillion pricetag because we know that the ultimate goal is to make these expensive programs permanent. Inflation is a regressive tax. It does not discriminate among the rich and the poor. It does not take into account the ability to pay. It is a cruel tax, one that punishes thrift by diminishing the value of savings. This is damaging to families who are saving to buy a home or for their children's education. It can be devastating to our seniors, who can do nothing but helplessly watch as the retirement funds that they have worked for their whole lives don't go nearly as far as they had expected. Like the pandemic itself, we do not know for certain whether this inflation crisis will abate, be prolonged, or even accelerate. Our immediate focus should be on measures that we know will have a lasting and beneficial impact on our economy, such as implementing the bipartisan infrastructure law, opening up and repairing our supply chains, getting more Americans back to work, and protecting the earnings of hard-working Americans. What we should not do is pass trillions of dollars in additional spending in the administration's Build Back Better bill that would exacerbate the toll that inflation imposes on seniors, working families, and small businesses. We should not take that risk. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Cooking Support Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin. Our bill aims to address a serious global public health and environmental issue where leadership by the United States can make a real difference. Today, close to 3 billion people, or one-third of the global population, rely on ``dirty cooking,'' such as open fires or inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves that use agricultural waste, coal, dung, wood, charcoal, or other solid fuels, to cook their meals. The majority of people using these types of cookstoves and fuels are in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Exposure to smoke from these traditional cooking methods and open fires, referred to as ``household air pollution,'' causes chronic and acute diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Alarmingly, the household air pollution caused by traditional cookstoves and open tires causes 4 million premature deaths annually, including 400,000 children younger than 5 years of age, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. Women and girls are disproportionately affected, as they spend hours cooking, inhaling toxic smoke, and collecting fuels. These cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. Household air pollution does not remain in the home; it contributes to more than 10 percent of global ambient air pollution. According to the EPA, greenhouse gas emissions from nonrenewable wood fuels for cooking amount to 2 percent of the global CO2 emissions, on par with the global CO2 emissions from the aviation or shipping industries. In 2019, more than 600,000 deaths were attributed to ambient air pollution stemming from the household combustion of solid fuels. These cookstoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Since 2010, the Clean Cooking Alliance, an innovative public-private partnership hosted by the United Nations Foundation, has supported the adoption of clean cooking worldwide, with the goal of achieving universal access to clean cooking by 2030. Recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the Alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. In April, President Biden announced that the U.S. is resuming and strengthening its commitment to the Clean Cooking Alliance, and during a recent presentation at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference that covered clean cooking and household energy, EPA Administrator Michael Regan reaffirmed this undertaking as well. Our legislation reinforces our country's policy on promoting clean cookstoves and seeks to take a whole-of-government approach to address household air pollution. Specifically, the Clean Cooking Support Act would create an interagency working group, with representatives from at least six different Federal agencies, committed to increasing access to clean cooking fuels and technologies worldwide. Our legislation explicitly spells out the role of each Federal agency in the advancement of clean cooking as well. The Department of Energy, for instance, is tasked with research and development to spur the production of low-cost, low-emission, and high-efficiency cookstoves, while the Department of State is directed to engage in diplomatic activities across the globe to support the clean cooking and fuels sector. Finally, our bill would authorize funding for the U.S. Government to continue such activities through 2027, to ensure that these important efforts to prevent unnecessary illness and reduce pollution around the globe continue. Our legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest people, including the women and girls who are disproportionately affected, and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Durbin in supporting the Clean Cooking Support Act.