Floor Statements

Mr. President, I just wanted to add my congratulations to my friend and colleague Senator Murray for casting her 10,000th vote. She has been such a remarkable leader, a steady force, a hard worker, and it has been wonderful to work in partnership with her on the Appropriations Committee.

Patty, congratulations, and we look forward to many more extraordinary accomplishments.

Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate is proceeding to consideration of the Fire Grants and Safety Act.

This bipartisan legislation, which my colleague from Michigan, Senator Peters, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and I have introduced, is cosponsored by our fellow congressional Fire Caucus chairs: Senators Murkowski, Tester, and Carper. Our bill would extend critical FEMA fire prevention programs, some of which are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. President, your State of Vermont and mine are a lot alike. Firefighters are critical to the safety of our communities, whether they are small or large.

Firefighters across Maine and the country courageously serve their communities. Recognizing their commitment in 2000 and 2003, I helped create FEMA's firefighter grant programs as part of a bipartisan effort to ensure that firefighters have the adequate staffing, equipment, and training to do their essential jobs as effectively and safely as possible. At that time, I was the chair or ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The Fire Grants and Safety Act would reauthorize four critical firefighting and emergency services programs: the U.S. Fire Administration, which provides training and data to State and local fire departments, as well as education and awareness for the public; the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, known as the AFG, which helps to equip and train firefighters and emergency personnel; the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program, which provides resources to carry out fire prevention education and training; and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program, better known as the SAFER Program, which helps our local fire departments recruit, hire, and retain additional firefighters.

Since October of 2020, fire departments across Maine have received just under $12 million from the AFG and SAFER grant programs. These critical investments in local, rural fire departments supported replacements of decades-old fire engines and obsolete breathing apparatuses. They also allowed for the hiring of additional firefighters, thus helping to ensure that Maine communities continue to provide excellent public safety services to our residents.

I have visited many of the fire stations around the State, and I have seen firsthand the difference these Federal grant programs make in improving the safety of our firefighters who risk their lives to protect ours. Many of the fire stations in Maine are decades or even a century old. They need updated equipment. They need better breathing

equipment. They need better fire engines. That is the purpose of many of these programs.

They also are helped by these programs in getting a sufficient number of firefighters and emergency medical personnel. Fire chiefs across the State of Maine tell me of the critical importance of these programs in helping their local fire departments keep their communities safe. And that is one reason that this bill has such broad support from the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs--the list goes on and on and on.

Failure to reauthorize these programs would lessen the ability of our firefighters to perform their vital jobs and thus would reduce the safety of the public. So I urge all of my colleagues to support the swift passage of this legislation to support our firefighters. We simply cannot allow these vital programs to expire.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Success for Rural Students and Communities Act. This bipartisan bill would help students living in rural areas achieve their higher education goals and connect them with the economic opportunities in their communities. I want to thank Senator Hassan for coleading this legislation with me.

Today, employers often require something more than a high school diploma, such as a college degree, a skilled trade credential, or a professional certificate. Yet, rural students may face barriers to pursuing postsecondary education. Although rural students tend to graduate from high school at about the same rate as their suburban peers, they go on to enroll in college at a lower rate. Rural students also tend to have lower full-time retention rates in postsecondary education than their urban and suburban peers.

Maine's experience is consistent with these national trends. According to census data, two out of three Maine schools are in rural communities, and more than half of Maine students attend those schools. More than 86 percent of Maine students graduate from

high school, but only about 60 percent enroll in higher education right away. Unfortunately, an even lower percentage of Maine students go on to actually earn a degree, often leaving them with debt and without the credential.

The Success for Rural Students and Communities Act would help by encouraging the creation of community partnerships to promote strategies that make it easier for rural students to access college and career pathways. Community stakeholders--such as local school districts, colleges and universities, regional economic development entities, and community organizations--would join together to help students and their families navigate higher education opportunities and address barriers that too often stand in their way.

For example, many of these students are the first in their families to attend college, so they may have a more difficult time finding information about financial aid or selecting an educational program that meets their needs. Partnerships could work together to expose students to college campuses, courses, programs, and internships. They could also focus on the enrollment and completion rates of rural nontraditional students who did not pursue or complete postsecondary education after high school but may find they need additional credentials to pursue their chosen career path.

To help rural students gain the skills and experience needed to enter and succeed in the workforce, partnerships would also be encouraged to develop strategies for putting students on pathways into the high- demand jobs available in their communities. For example, partnerships could test various work-based learning opportunities, including apprenticeships, internships, and a sequence of courses on the path to a certain skill or job. By helping to connect students with good-paying jobs where they live, this bill would also ensure that rural communities benefit from their students' success.

In Maine's Aroostook County, the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative is using this model to help put students on pathways to academic and career success in their communities. The initiative collaborates with local community colleges and universities and with area businesses to offer seminars that guide students throughout their college educations. These seminars cover topics like time and stress management, budgeting and finances, goal setting, and transitioning from college to career. Certain seminars are focused on providing a more detailed look at various career fields, such as nursing, education, criminal justice/law enforcement, and banking/financial services. Students can also team up with employers in the area through internships that give them experience in the careers they wish to pursue.

Since 2012, the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative has served over 190 students, known as Gauvin Scholars, named for Ray and Sandy Gauvin, who started the program. According to the initiative, their students have a 94-percent college graduation rate--well above the rate for their local colleges overall--and more than 90 percent of Gauvin Scholars remain in Aroostook County to live and work. Students who have participated in the initiative say it has helped them develop networking skills and make connections with employers throughout their communities.

The Success for Rural Students and Communities Act would support dynamic programs such as the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative and help students across the country who are seeking to achieve their college and career dreams. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Success for Rural Students and Communities Act. This bipartisan bill would help students living in rural areas achieve their higher education goals and connect them with the economic opportunities in their communities. I want to thank Senator Hassan for coleading this legislation with me.

Today, employers often require something more than a high school diploma, such as a college degree, a skilled trade credential, or a professional certificate. Yet, rural students may face barriers to pursuing postsecondary education. Although rural students tend to graduate from high school at about the same rate as their suburban peers, they go on to enroll in college at a lower rate. Rural students also tend to have lower full-time retention rates in postsecondary education than their urban and suburban peers.

Maine's experience is consistent with these national trends. According to census data, two out of three Maine schools are in rural communities, and more than half of Maine students attend those schools. More than 86 percent of Maine students graduate from

high school, but only about 60 percent enroll in higher education right away. Unfortunately, an even lower percentage of Maine students go on to actually earn a degree, often leaving them with debt and without the credential.

The Success for Rural Students and Communities Act would help by encouraging the creation of community partnerships to promote strategies that make it easier for rural students to access college and career pathways. Community stakeholders--such as local school districts, colleges and universities, regional economic development entities, and community organizations--would join together to help students and their families navigate higher education opportunities and address barriers that too often stand in their way.

For example, many of these students are the first in their families to attend college, so they may have a more difficult time finding information about financial aid or selecting an educational program that meets their needs. Partnerships could work together to expose students to college campuses, courses, programs, and internships. They could also focus on the enrollment and completion rates of rural nontraditional students who did not pursue or complete postsecondary education after high school but may find they need additional credentials to pursue their chosen career path.

To help rural students gain the skills and experience needed to enter and succeed in the workforce, partnerships would also be encouraged to develop strategies for putting students on pathways into the high- demand jobs available in their communities. For example, partnerships could test various work-based learning opportunities, including apprenticeships, internships, and a sequence of courses on the path to a certain skill or job. By helping to connect students with good-paying jobs where they live, this bill would also ensure that rural communities benefit from their students' success.

In Maine's Aroostook County, the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative is using this model to help put students on pathways to academic and career success in their communities. The initiative collaborates with local community colleges and universities and with area businesses to offer seminars that guide students throughout their college educations. These seminars cover topics like time and stress management, budgeting and finances, goal setting, and transitioning from college to career. Certain seminars are focused on providing a more detailed look at various career fields, such as nursing, education, criminal justice/law enforcement, and banking/financial services. Students can also team up with employers in the area through internships that give them experience in the careers they wish to pursue.

Since 2012, the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative has served over 190 students, known as Gauvin Scholars, named for Ray and Sandy Gauvin, who started the program. According to the initiative, their students have a 94-percent college graduation rate--well above the rate for their local colleges overall--and more than 90 percent of Gauvin Scholars remain in Aroostook County to live and work. Students who have participated in the initiative say it has helped them develop networking skills and make connections with employers throughout their communities.

The Success for Rural Students and Communities Act would support dynamic programs such as the Aroostook Aspirations Initiative and help students across the country who are seeking to achieve their college and career dreams. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Madam President, as Tax Day approaches, Americans families have begun calculating their taxes and filling out returns. They face a Tax Code that is frustratingly complex and at times unfair. The bill that I am introducing today would remedy a major discrepancy. The SALT Deduction Fairness Act would ensure that limits on State and local tax deductions, also known as SALT deductions, do not unfairly penalize married filers.

Currently, the amount of State and local taxes that both single and married filers may deduct from their annual income taxes is capped at $10,000. Married people who file their taxes separately are limited to $5,000 each. In other words, people would be better off not getting married at all when it comes to the SALT deduction. My legislation eliminates the marriage penalty by treating married couples fairly by doubling their deduction to $20,000 when they file jointly or $10,000 each for married individuals who file separate returns.

The SALT deduction has been in the Tax Code since 1913 when the income tax was established. It is intended to protect taxpayers from double taxation. When the Senate considered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, I worked to keep the SALT deduction in the Federal Tax Code because of the increased tax burden its elimination would have imposed on Mainers. They already pay taxes on their homes and seasonal properties, annual excise taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, and State income taxes. The Senate adopted my amendment, preserving the deduction for State and local taxes up to $10,000.

Maine has one of the Nation's highest State income tax rates, making this deduction especially important to families in my State. Last year, an analysis by WalletHub found that Maine had the third highest overall tax burden behind only New York and Hawaii. Yet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Maine's median household income ranks only 32nd in the Nation and is approximately $5,000 below the U.S. median household income. Many Mainers are also subject to high local property taxes. The SALT deduction helps to offset the burden these taxes place on Maine families, providing critical relief for those who itemize their deductions.

More broadly, our Tax Code must be fair to the more than 60 million married couples living in our Nation. A couple should not face a tax penalty for being married. One way to do that is to not penalize the deductions they can take for State and local taxes. The SALT Deduction Fairness Act remedies this.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill to fix this marriage penalty.

Madam President, as Tax Day approaches, Americans families have begun calculating their taxes and filling out returns. They face a Tax Code that is frustratingly complex and at times unfair. The bill that I am introducing today would remedy a major discrepancy. The SALT Deduction Fairness Act would ensure that limits on State and local tax deductions, also known as SALT deductions, do not unfairly penalize married filers.

Currently, the amount of State and local taxes that both single and married filers may deduct from their annual income taxes is capped at $10,000. Married people who file their taxes separately are limited to $5,000 each. In other words, people would be better off not getting married at all when it comes to the SALT deduction. My legislation eliminates the marriage penalty by treating married couples fairly by doubling their deduction to $20,000 when they file jointly or $10,000 each for married individuals who file separate returns.

The SALT deduction has been in the Tax Code since 1913 when the income tax was established. It is intended to protect taxpayers from double taxation. When the Senate considered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, I worked to keep the SALT deduction in the Federal Tax Code because of the increased tax burden its elimination would have imposed on Mainers. They already pay taxes on their homes and seasonal properties, annual excise taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, and State income taxes. The Senate adopted my amendment, preserving the deduction for State and local taxes up to $10,000.

Maine has one of the Nation's highest State income tax rates, making this deduction especially important to families in my State. Last year, an analysis by WalletHub found that Maine had the third highest overall tax burden behind only New York and Hawaii. Yet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Maine's median household income ranks only 32nd in the Nation and is approximately $5,000 below the U.S. median household income. Many Mainers are also subject to high local property taxes. The SALT deduction helps to offset the burden these taxes place on Maine families, providing critical relief for those who itemize their deductions.

More broadly, our Tax Code must be fair to the more than 60 million married couples living in our Nation. A couple should not face a tax penalty for being married. One way to do that is to not penalize the deductions they can take for State and local taxes. The SALT Deduction Fairness Act remedies this.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill to fix this marriage penalty.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. My colleague Senator King joins me in introducing this important legislation that would assist farmers across America who have been harmed by PFAS contamination.

PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals--sometimes referred to as ``forever chemicals''--that can bioaccumulate in bodies over time. They are traditionally found in nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, decreased fertility, and hormone disruption. PFAS contamination is a growing problem, and additional resources are needed to support affected communities.

In Maine, PFAS contamination affecting many different sectors, including agriculture, has been discovered over the past several years. The presence of PFAS in wastewater sludge once spread as fertilizer has prevented some Maine farms from selling their products, thus leading to significant financial hardship for these family farmers. One such farmer is Fred Stone, a dairy farmer in Arundel, ME. In 2016, Fred discovered that the milk produced on his farm contained some of the highest levels ever reported for a PFAS contaminant at that time. More recently, a dairy farm in Fairfield, ME, found PFAS levels in its milk that were 153 times higher than the State's standard.

Dairy is not the only agricultural sector affected by these harmful forever chemicals. Adam Nordell and his wife Johanna Davis, from Unity, ME, learned that PFAS had contaminated the soil and water in their organic vegetable farm, the result of sludge spread on their land in the 1990s. Tests last year showed that Adam and Johanna had levels of PFAS in their blood that were even higher than chemical plant workers who manufactured PFAS for decades and handled them daily.

Currently, USDA provides limited support through the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program to dairy farmers who have been directed to remove their contaminated milk from the commercial market. This program falls far short of meeting the growing needs of all farmers in the State of Maine. Fred Stone, the farmer who first learned of contamination in 2016, has still not been compensated adequately for the contamination he has experienced. What is more, this program helps only dairy farmers, excluding the farmers of other agricultural products who have had their livelihoods disrupted by PFAS contamination. While community organizations and the State of Maine have stepped in to provide some aid, USDA should do more to assist all farmers affected by these chemicals. That is what our legislation aims to do.

Specifically, the funds authorized by the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act could be used for a variety of purposes at the State level, including providing financial assistance to affected farmers; building capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; monitoring blood for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; upgrading or purchasing equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; developing alternative production systems or remediation strategies; developing educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and researching soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms.

In addition to making new resources available, our bill would create a task force at USDA charged with identifying other USDA programs to which PFAS contamination should be added as a activity. This would help bring even more resources to farmers through existing programs. Additionally, the task force would provide technical assistance to States to help them coordinate their responses effectively.

Mr. President, USDA needs to step up and provide support to farmers, who through no fault of their own are at risk of losing their livelihoods. This is not just a problem in Maine. A recent report released by the Environmental Working Group estimated that approximately 20 million acres of crop land in the United States could be contaminated from PFAS-tainted sludge, which had been used as fertilizer.

Thus far, the Federal Government's response has failed to keep pace with this growing problem. I have urged USDA Secretary Vilsack repeatedly to come to the aid of these affected farmers, and the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would direct the Department to help where it is needed most.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. As the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee begin work on the 2023 farm bill, I hope that we can work together to pass the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act into law.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. My colleague Senator King joins me in introducing this important legislation that would assist farmers across America who have been harmed by PFAS contamination.

PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals--sometimes referred to as ``forever chemicals''--that can bioaccumulate in bodies over time. They are traditionally found in nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, decreased fertility, and hormone disruption. PFAS contamination is a growing problem, and additional resources are needed to support affected communities.

In Maine, PFAS contamination affecting many different sectors, including agriculture, has been discovered over the past several years. The presence of PFAS in wastewater sludge once spread as fertilizer has prevented some Maine farms from selling their products, thus leading to significant financial hardship for these family farmers. One such farmer is Fred Stone, a dairy farmer in Arundel, ME. In 2016, Fred discovered that the milk produced on his farm contained some of the highest levels ever reported for a PFAS contaminant at that time. More recently, a dairy farm in Fairfield, ME, found PFAS levels in its milk that were 153 times higher than the State's standard.

Dairy is not the only agricultural sector affected by these harmful forever chemicals. Adam Nordell and his wife Johanna Davis, from Unity, ME, learned that PFAS had contaminated the soil and water in their organic vegetable farm, the result of sludge spread on their land in the 1990s. Tests last year showed that Adam and Johanna had levels of PFAS in their blood that were even higher than chemical plant workers who manufactured PFAS for decades and handled them daily.

Currently, USDA provides limited support through the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program to dairy farmers who have been directed to remove their contaminated milk from the commercial market. This program falls far short of meeting the growing needs of all farmers in the State of Maine. Fred Stone, the farmer who first learned of contamination in 2016, has still not been compensated adequately for the contamination he has experienced. What is more, this program helps only dairy farmers, excluding the farmers of other agricultural products who have had their livelihoods disrupted by PFAS contamination. While community organizations and the State of Maine have stepped in to provide some aid, USDA should do more to assist all farmers affected by these chemicals. That is what our legislation aims to do.

Specifically, the funds authorized by the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act could be used for a variety of purposes at the State level, including providing financial assistance to affected farmers; building capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; monitoring blood for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; upgrading or purchasing equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; developing alternative production systems or remediation strategies; developing educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and researching soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms.

In addition to making new resources available, our bill would create a task force at USDA charged with identifying other USDA programs to which PFAS contamination should be added as a activity. This would help bring even more resources to farmers through existing programs. Additionally, the task force would provide technical assistance to States to help them coordinate their responses effectively.

Mr. President, USDA needs to step up and provide support to farmers, who through no fault of their own are at risk of losing their livelihoods. This is not just a problem in Maine. A recent report released by the Environmental Working Group estimated that approximately 20 million acres of crop land in the United States could be contaminated from PFAS-tainted sludge, which had been used as fertilizer.

Thus far, the Federal Government's response has failed to keep pace with this growing problem. I have urged USDA Secretary Vilsack repeatedly to come to the aid of these affected farmers, and the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would direct the Department to help where it is needed most.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. As the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee begin work on the 2023 farm bill, I hope that we can work together to pass the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act into law.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Peters, to introduce the Animal Freedom from Testing, Experiments, and Research Act, known as the AFTER Act, to promote the adoption or retirement of animals used for research by Federal Agencies.

In fiscal year 2021, the Federal Government experimented on approximately 45,000 regulated animals for research purposes. These experiments occurred across 14 different Federal Agencies. The animals used were mainly cats, dogs, monkeys, and rabbits. Tracking these animals following experimentation is challenging. In many instances, sadly, animals no longer needed for research are killed since many Agencies lack formal retirement or adoption policies. Recent peer- reviewed studies indicate that research animals that are adopted, however, often thrive in their new environments.

In 2013, led by Senators Harkin, Alexander, Cantwell and myself, the Senate passed the CHIMP Act, which allowed for the retirement of hundreds of primates that were formerly used in National Institute of Health, NIH, experiments. In addition, the Department of Defense DOD, Veterans Affairs, VA, Federal Drug Administration, and NIH recently enacted successful animal retirement policies. While I am encouraged by the Senate's past work on primates and the recent policies developed by a few Federal Agencies, there are many other Federal Agencies, including the Agriculture Department, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, that lack formal policies for animals used in experiments.

The AFTER Act would build on successful policies at DOD, VA, and NIH by directing all Federal Agencies to promulgate regulations that would facilitate the retirement of laboratory animals. The bill would provide flexibility for each Agency to devise its own policy, with the goal of ensuring that such animals, whenever possible, are retired and not killed. Additionally, the AFTER Act would require that animals be evaluated by a licensed veterinarian and pronounced both mentally and physically healthy before leaving an Agency. This will help ensure a smooth transition to a new environment.

Our legislation would also encourage Federal Agencies to work with nonprofit organizations to help place retired animals in sanctuaries and shelters across the country, not just those closest to the research facility. This would allow State like Maine, which does not have Federal research labs that use animals, to play a role in retiring these animals and providing homes for them.

Mr. President, animals that are suitable for adoption or retirement should not be killed by our Federal Government. The AFTER Act would provide the necessary direction Federal Agencies need in order to move forward with developing retirement policies. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this important bipartisan legislation, the Animal Freedom from Testing, Experiments, and Research Act.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Peters, to introduce the Animal Freedom from Testing, Experiments, and Research Act, known as the AFTER Act, to promote the adoption or retirement of animals used for research by Federal Agencies.

In fiscal year 2021, the Federal Government experimented on approximately 45,000 regulated animals for research purposes. These experiments occurred across 14 different Federal Agencies. The animals used were mainly cats, dogs, monkeys, and rabbits. Tracking these animals following experimentation is challenging. In many instances, sadly, animals no longer needed for research are killed since many Agencies lack formal retirement or adoption policies. Recent peer- reviewed studies indicate that research animals that are adopted, however, often thrive in their new environments.

In 2013, led by Senators Harkin, Alexander, Cantwell and myself, the Senate passed the CHIMP Act, which allowed for the retirement of hundreds of primates that were formerly used in National Institute of Health, NIH, experiments. In addition, the Department of Defense DOD, Veterans Affairs, VA, Federal Drug Administration, and NIH recently enacted successful animal retirement policies. While I am encouraged by the Senate's past work on primates and the recent policies developed by a few Federal Agencies, there are many other Federal Agencies, including the Agriculture Department, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, that lack formal policies for animals used in experiments.

The AFTER Act would build on successful policies at DOD, VA, and NIH by directing all Federal Agencies to promulgate regulations that would facilitate the retirement of laboratory animals. The bill would provide flexibility for each Agency to devise its own policy, with the goal of ensuring that such animals, whenever possible, are retired and not killed. Additionally, the AFTER Act would require that animals be evaluated by a licensed veterinarian and pronounced both mentally and physically healthy before leaving an Agency. This will help ensure a smooth transition to a new environment.

Our legislation would also encourage Federal Agencies to work with nonprofit organizations to help place retired animals in sanctuaries and shelters across the country, not just those closest to the research facility. This would allow State like Maine, which does not have Federal research labs that use animals, to play a role in retiring these animals and providing homes for them.

Mr. President, animals that are suitable for adoption or retirement should not be killed by our Federal Government. The AFTER Act would provide the necessary direction Federal Agencies need in order to move forward with developing retirement policies. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this important bipartisan legislation, the Animal Freedom from Testing, Experiments, and Research Act.

Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Brown, to introduce the Social Security Fairness Act. The bipartisan bill would repeal two Social Security provisions that unfairly penalize many public servants in Maine and in other States.

Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans. This crucial program has made the difference between poverty and a comfortable retirement for millions of seniors. Yet, some teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two Social Security provisions: the windfall elimination provision and the Government pension offset.

The Windfall elimination provision or W-E-P affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits. Due to the WEP, their Social Security benefits are calculated using a different formula, which can reduce their monthly benefits. For workers who become eligible for benefits in 2023, the WEP reduction can be up to $557.50 per month, subject to other adjustments.

The Government Pension Offset GPO affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security and are also eligible to receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefit. However, the GPO reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the noncovered pension.

According to the Social Security Administration, in December 2022, more than 2 million people, including nearly 20,500 people in Maine, had their Social Security benefits reduced by the WEP. Similarly, nearly 735,000 people were affected by the GPO in December 2022, including more than 8,100 people in Maine. While the effects of the WEP and GPO are most acute in certain States, including Maine, data from the Social Security Administration indicate that these provisions affect public servants in all 50 States.

Many Maine teachers have spoken with me about how the WEP and GPO affect their retirement security. I recently heard from a special education teacher in Kennebuck who has spent more than 40 years teaching and also held a second job in the private sector to help support her family after becoming a single parent. Due to the WEP, she is concerned about her financial security once she retires. A retiree in Mount Desert also reached out to me recently to share his story. He wants to make sure his wife, who is a public servant, will be taken care of after he is gone. Due to the GPO, he is concerned that any Social Security widow's benefits his wife receives will be substantially reduced.

The bill we are introducing today, the Social Security Fairness Act, would repeal both the WEP and the GPO for Social Security benefits payable after December 2023. This means current Social Security beneficiaries would have their benefits recalculated without applying the WEP and GPO. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants currently in the workforce would no longer have to worry about having their Social Security benefits unfairly reduced in the future. Those who are considering careers in public service would no longer have to weigh the potential negative effects of this choice on their future retirement security.

Our dedicated public servants, such as our teachers who help prepare our

children for future success and our police officers who help keep our communities safe, should receive the full Social Security benefits they have earned. It is time for us to take action to address the WEP and the GPO. I urge my colleagues to support the Social Security Fairness Act.

Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Brown, to introduce the Social Security Fairness Act. The bipartisan bill would repeal two Social Security provisions that unfairly penalize many public servants in Maine and in other States.

Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans. This crucial program has made the difference between poverty and a comfortable retirement for millions of seniors. Yet, some teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two Social Security provisions: the windfall elimination provision and the Government pension offset.

The Windfall elimination provision or W-E-P affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits. Due to the WEP, their Social Security benefits are calculated using a different formula, which can reduce their monthly benefits. For workers who become eligible for benefits in 2023, the WEP reduction can be up to $557.50 per month, subject to other adjustments.

The Government Pension Offset GPO affects public servants who receive a pension from a job where they did not pay into Social Security and are also eligible to receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefit. However, the GPO reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er)'s benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the noncovered pension.

According to the Social Security Administration, in December 2022, more than 2 million people, including nearly 20,500 people in Maine, had their Social Security benefits reduced by the WEP. Similarly, nearly 735,000 people were affected by the GPO in December 2022, including more than 8,100 people in Maine. While the effects of the WEP and GPO are most acute in certain States, including Maine, data from the Social Security Administration indicate that these provisions affect public servants in all 50 States.

Many Maine teachers have spoken with me about how the WEP and GPO affect their retirement security. I recently heard from a special education teacher in Kennebuck who has spent more than 40 years teaching and also held a second job in the private sector to help support her family after becoming a single parent. Due to the WEP, she is concerned about her financial security once she retires. A retiree in Mount Desert also reached out to me recently to share his story. He wants to make sure his wife, who is a public servant, will be taken care of after he is gone. Due to the GPO, he is concerned that any Social Security widow's benefits his wife receives will be substantially reduced.

The bill we are introducing today, the Social Security Fairness Act, would repeal both the WEP and the GPO for Social Security benefits payable after December 2023. This means current Social Security beneficiaries would have their benefits recalculated without applying the WEP and GPO. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants currently in the workforce would no longer have to worry about having their Social Security benefits unfairly reduced in the future. Those who are considering careers in public service would no longer have to weigh the potential negative effects of this choice on their future retirement security.

Our dedicated public servants, such as our teachers who help prepare our

children for future success and our police officers who help keep our communities safe, should receive the full Social Security benefits they have earned. It is time for us to take action to address the WEP and the GPO. I urge my colleagues to support the Social Security Fairness Act.

Madam President, I rise today to join in the reintroduction

of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use contraception.

I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent at the national level. States can account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside.

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate consistency, predictability, and restraint.

Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International.

Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections.

Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices.

This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned.

Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, unless such regulations impose an undue burden.

After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining or using contraceptives.

Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections.

The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades.

I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam President, I rise today to join in the reintroduction

of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use contraception.

I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent at the national level. States can account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside.

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate consistency, predictability, and restraint.

Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International.

Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections.

Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices.

This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned.

Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, unless such regulations impose an undue burden.

After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining or using contraceptives.

Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections.

The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades.

I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at continuing the important progress we are making to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. I know how devastating this disease is to our families. My father, grandfather, and two uncles all died from Alzheimer's. I am committed to this effort both as a person whose beloved family members have suffered from this terrible disease, as well as a Senator concerned about the impact on our families and our healthcare system.

When I founded the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force in the Senate in 1999, there was virtually no focus on Alzheimer's in Washington. Twelve years ago, I coauthored the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Project Act with my colleague Senator Evan Bayh. Before we passed that legislation, there was no coordinated, strategic, national plan to focus our efforts to defeat Alzheimer's. NAPA fixed this by convening a panel of experts to create a coordinated strategic national plan to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025. The expert council updates the plan annually.

While the 2025 goal has been elusive, we have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment and a means of prevention. Nevertheless, Alzheimer's remains the fifth leading cause of death in the United States for people over 65. In addition to the human costs, caring for people living with Alzheimer's and other dementias is one of the costliest conditions to society, costing our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending. If we continue along this trajectory, Alzheimer's is projected to claim the minds of 12.7 million seniors and nearly surpass $1 trillion in annual costs by 2050.

It takes a tremendous toll on families too. In 2021, family caregivers provided 16 billion hours of unpaid care for loved ones with dementia, a contribution to society valued at more than $271 billion. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver.

The first bill I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, Menendez, Murkowski, and Stabenow is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. This bill would reauthorize the National Alzheimer's Project Act through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made in understanding the disease, such as including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors. The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025. We need to reauthorize this critical legislation this Congress in order to ensure that our research investments remain coordinated and there are no disruptions as we maximize the impact of our investments.

The second bill I am introducing with my colleagues Senators Markey, Capito, Warner, Moran, Menendez, Murkowski, and Stabenow is the Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act. This bill would continue through 2035 a requirement that the Director of the National Institutes of Health submit an annual budget to Congress estimating the funding necessary for NIH to fully implement NAPA's research goals. Only two other areas of biomedical research--cancer and HIV/AIDs--have been the subject of special budget development aimed at speeding discovery, and this ``bypass budget,'' as it is known, helps us to understand what additional funding is needed to find better treatments, a means of prevention, and ultimately a cure for Alzheimer's disease.

Nearly half of baby boomers reaching age 85 will either be afflicted with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's is the defining disease of this generation. We have made tremendous progress in recent years to boost funding for Alzheimer's research, most recently providing $3.74 billion--a $226 million increase--for NIH Alzheimer's research in the fiscal year 2023 government funding bill. This investment holds

great promise to ending this disease that has had such a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families, but we must keep up this momentum. The two bills I introduce today will make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research are beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours.

I urge my colleagues to support the NAPA Reauthorization Act and Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act, and I thank the Alzheimer's Association and UsAgainstAlzheimer's for their support of this bipartisan legislation to help improve the lives of those affected by Alzheimer's throughout the country.