Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies Act, the CREST Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this bill. Our bipartisan bill would direct the Department of Energy to research and evaluate the feasibility of innovative carbon removal and storage pathways. The name the CREST Act alludes to the fact that we have reached the ``crest'' of our emissions and we must work to bring them down.

With more and more private and public sector commitments to reach net-zero emissions within certain timeframes, companies are scrambling to invest in quantifiable, durable, and verifiable carbon removal solutions. Microsoft, for example, has made a commitment to be carbon negative by 2030. Even though Microsoft plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than half, it will need to remove the rest of its carbon emissions. In order to do this, Microsoft plans to invest $1 billion in carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture, forestation, and carbon mineralization.

Despite the growing number of companies that are looking to offset their emissions, current cost estimates show that private sector investment alone will not be sufficient to research and deploy carbon removal pathways. I strongly supported the Energy Act of 2020, which authorized the first comprehensive Federal carbon removal research and development program, and the bipartisan infrastructure, which invested $3.6 billion in direct air capture. Although these investments have been significant, more work is needed in further research, increased testing, and enhanced public-private partnerships to help aid in scaling carbon removal technologies.

The CREST Act would expand the Department of Energy's carbon removal research and development programs to include carbon removal pathways that can permanently sequester carbon dioxide or use carbon dioxide to produce biofuels or products. The key areas of focus for research and development in our legislation are biomass carbon removal and storage, geological removal, atmospheric and aquatic removal, carbon dioxide storage, and carbon dioxide removal quantification.

Our legislation also aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovative carbon solutions through a pilot program at the Department of Energy. This pilot program would be charged with accelerating the deployment of affordable and proven carbon removal technologies. This reverse-auction style pilot program would position the government to purchase innovative and promising technologies, subject to certain criteria, and reduce the costs of those technologies. This would allow companies that may not have as much purchasing power as Microsoft to participate in carbon removal to help offset emissions.

This pilot program would also support companies that are leading the way in carbon removal technology, like Running Tide in Maine, in bringing down the cost of its product. Running Tide captures carbon dioxide using kelp microforests, sun, ocean currents, and gravity. This new and exciting company grows floating kelp microforest attached to biodegradable buoys that sink as they break down. The carbon captured through the floating microforest is effectively removed for hundreds of years once it hits the ocean floor. Running Tide hopes to soon be selling ``kelp carbon credits'' to help offset private entities' emissions. They are currently working to commercialize quickly. These innovative solutions are the kinds that our new pilot program would seek to encourage.

Mr. President, climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires innovative and global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. While carbon removal and storage is only a small part of the solution, it is critical that we expand our country's work in this area. Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from Bipartisan Policy Center Action, ClearPath Action, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and many others. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Cantwell and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies Act, the CREST Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this bill. Our bipartisan bill would direct the Department of Energy to research and evaluate the feasibility of innovative carbon removal and storage pathways. The name the CREST Act alludes to the fact that we have reached the ``crest'' of our emissions and we must work to bring them down.

With more and more private and public sector commitments to reach net-zero emissions within certain timeframes, companies are scrambling to invest in quantifiable, durable, and verifiable carbon removal solutions. Microsoft, for example, has made a commitment to be carbon negative by 2030. Even though Microsoft plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than half, it will need to remove the rest of its carbon emissions. In order to do this, Microsoft plans to invest $1 billion in carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture, forestation, and carbon mineralization.

Despite the growing number of companies that are looking to offset their emissions, current cost estimates show that private sector investment alone will not be sufficient to research and deploy carbon removal pathways. I strongly supported the Energy Act of 2020, which authorized the first comprehensive Federal carbon removal research and development program, and the bipartisan infrastructure, which invested $3.6 billion in direct air capture. Although these investments have been significant, more work is needed in further research, increased testing, and enhanced public-private partnerships to help aid in scaling carbon removal technologies.

The CREST Act would expand the Department of Energy's carbon removal research and development programs to include carbon removal pathways that can permanently sequester carbon dioxide or use carbon dioxide to produce biofuels or products. The key areas of focus for research and development in our legislation are biomass carbon removal and storage, geological removal, atmospheric and aquatic removal, carbon dioxide storage, and carbon dioxide removal quantification.

Our legislation also aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovative carbon solutions through a pilot program at the Department of Energy. This pilot program would be charged with accelerating the deployment of affordable and proven carbon removal technologies. This reverse-auction style pilot program would position the government to purchase innovative and promising technologies, subject to certain criteria, and reduce the costs of those technologies. This would allow companies that may not have as much purchasing power as Microsoft to participate in carbon removal to help offset emissions.

This pilot program would also support companies that are leading the way in carbon removal technology, like Running Tide in Maine, in bringing down the cost of its product. Running Tide captures carbon dioxide using kelp microforests, sun, ocean currents, and gravity. This new and exciting company grows floating kelp microforest attached to biodegradable buoys that sink as they break down. The carbon captured through the floating microforest is effectively removed for hundreds of years once it hits the ocean floor. Running Tide hopes to soon be selling ``kelp carbon credits'' to help offset private entities' emissions. They are currently working to commercialize quickly. These innovative solutions are the kinds that our new pilot program would seek to encourage.

Mr. President, climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires innovative and global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. While carbon removal and storage is only a small part of the solution, it is critical that we expand our country's work in this area. Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from Bipartisan Policy Center Action, ClearPath Action, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and many others. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Cantwell and me in supporting this legislation.

Madam President, shortly, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, will come to the Senate floor and attempt to have a live unanimous consent request for a nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. When he does so, Madam President, I intend to object to that request, and I want to explain why to my colleagues. Senator Whitehouse has been delayed in getting to the Senate floor, so I am going to outline my objections prior to his making the request.

Madam President, in all of the time that I have served in the U.S. Senate, I don't ever recall coming to the Senate floor to object to a unanimous consent request. I say that because it demonstrates how unusual it is for me to be standing here objecting to one of my colleague's unanimous consent requests. Indeed, as I said, I don't believe I have ever done this in all of the time I have served in the Senate.

So let me give the Presiding Officer and my colleagues some background. On May 1, despite the objections of the entire Maine congressional delegation and its Democratic Governor, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, imposed onerous new regulations on Maine's lobster industry.

Now, Madam President, if I asked you what is the first thing you think of when I say the State of Maine, you probably would say lobster, our iconic industry. We have more than 4,500 lobstermen and -women, each of whom is self-employed. They have been good stewards, always, of the lobster resource. They have taken care over the decades to make sure that the lobsters are large enough, for example, to keep. They throw back egg-bearing lobsters. There are all sorts of rules and regulations that the lobster industry has worked with the State of Maine over decades to preserve the precious resource.

But, now, in comes NOAA. NOAA is imposing onerous, possibly impossible new regulations that do not reflect the reality in the Gulf of Maine with regard to the right whale. The final rule imposed on May 1 does not even come close to reflecting the reality of the Maine fishing and lobstering industry and the endangered right whale.

NOAA's focus on the State of Maine's lobster industry is flawed and unfair. In fact, Madam President, the Agency's own data show that there has never, never been a right whale entanglement death attributed to the Maine lobster fishery.

NOAA denied an entirely reasonable request to at least delay the implementation of these onerous new regulations for just 2 months until July 1. The entire delegation, plus our Governor, asked for this delay, this 2-month delay, because our lobstermen cannot even find enough of the gear, the new gear that is being mandated by NOAA. Just a 2-month delay would have helped to prevent huge losses to these small business owners.

Now, this isn't the first request that NOAA has refused. We have worked over more than a year with NOAA to try to prevent these regulations from going into effect in the first place because they are not relevant to preserving the right whale. Nobody wants to see the population of right whales decimated, but if you look at the data, here is what is happening, Madam President. It is ship strikes that have been responsible for the death of right whales. They have occurred in the St. Lawrence Seaway in Canada, not even in the State of Maine.

In addition, there is evidence that there is some gear that is used for the Canadian snow crab that has been found to entangle the right whale. That is different from our lobster gear. And as I said, there has never been a right whale entanglement death attributed to the Maine lobster fishery.

So these regulations make no sense in the first place, but at least-- at least--in response to a plea from the lobster industry, from the Maine Department of Marine Resources, from the Democratic Governor of Maine, from the entire Maine delegation--at least NOAA could have answered our plea to delay these onerous regulations for 2 months--2 months--during which time maybe this brandnew, very expensive gear would have become more available. But, no. Once again, NOAA refused.

This really is outrageous, and the industry is expected to lose out on $7 million due to lost fishing time during these 2 months.

Now, perhaps the Senator from Rhode Island and others do not believe what the Maine delegation, the Democratic Governor of Maine, the Maine Department of Marine Resources, and many experts are saying about the impact of these regulations and the lack of availability of this new gear and the fact that the data show that we are not the problem in the State of Maine. As I said, it is fish strikes and due to warming waters, which I know is of great concern to the Senator from Rhode Island, as it is to me.

The right whale are actually moving and following their food supply into Canadian waters. In fact, I have talked to many lobstermen and - women who have never seen a right whale--never--in all the time that they have been lobstering. But as I said, maybe NOAA just thinks that we are just automatic advocates for an iconic industry, despite the extraordinary record of stewardship by the lobster industry.

So let me give you another source. Denying this 2-month extension conflicted with the recommendations of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, an independent voice for small business within the Federal Government. The office of advocacy asserted that NOAA was putting lobstermen and -women in ``an impossible scenario,'' and went on to say:

If they are not granted a short delay of the compliance

deadline, they may stand to lose significant amounts of

revenue, or in some instances, their entire business.

This isn't just the Maine delegation. It isn't just our Governor. It isn't just the Maine Department of Marine Resources. This is another government agency. It is the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy which is saying this.

Maine harvesters are justifiably worried about what they are going to do and I don't know what more the Maine delegation can do. We have had countless meetings with the Department of Commerce, with NOAA. I met with the Fisheries Administrator in NOAA. I asked for his help. He promised to work with us. Instead, things have gotten only worse. And now our lobster industry worries that NOAA will continue to steadily whittle away at their livelihoods while ignoring not only their on-the- water expertise, the expertise of the State of Maine, but the impartial advice of the Federal Government's Small Business Advocate as well.

The entire agency, all of NOAA, needs to recognize that the practice of implementing management decisions based on incomplete, imprecise, inaccurate data--especially when those decisions have a harmful effect on a fishery that is known for its conservation methods and on the communities that this fishery has supported forever in the State of Maine--cannot continue.

So that is the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is why I believe, for the first time in all the years that I have served in the Senate, I have come to the floor to object when the unanimous consent request is made.

I object.

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

When I founded the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force in the Senate in 1999, there was virtually no focus on Alzheimer's in Washington. Twelve years ago, I coauthored the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Project Act with my colleague Senator Evan Bayh. Before we passed that legislation, there was no coordinated, strategic national plan to focus our efforts to defeat Alzheimer's and ensure that our resources are maximized and leveraged. NAPA

fixed this by convening a panel of experts to create a coordinated strategic national plan to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025. The expert council updates the plan annually.

We have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment, means of prevention, or cure, but Alzheimer's still costs our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid. If we continue along this trajectory, Alzheimer's is projected to claim the minds of 12.7 million seniors and nearly surpass $1 trillion in annual costs by 2050. It takes a tremendous toll on families, too. In 2021, family caregivers provided 16 billion hours of unpaid care for loved ones with dementia. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver.

The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025, so we need to reauthorize this critical legislation to make sure that our research investments remain coordinated, and we can maximize their impact.

The first bill that I will introduce today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, and Menendez, is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. It would reauthorize NAPA through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made understanding the disease, like including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors.

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

Nearly half of baby boomers reaching age 85 will either be afflicted with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's is the defining disease of this generation. We have made tremendous progress in recent years to boost funding for Alzheimer's research, which holds great promise to ending this disease that has had a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families. The two bills I introduce today will maintain our momentum and make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research is beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours.

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

When I founded the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force in the Senate in 1999, there was virtually no focus on Alzheimer's in Washington. Twelve years ago, I coauthored the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Project Act with my colleague Senator Evan Bayh. Before we passed that legislation, there was no coordinated, strategic national plan to focus our efforts to defeat Alzheimer's and ensure that our resources are maximized and leveraged. NAPA

fixed this by convening a panel of experts to create a coordinated strategic national plan to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025. The expert council updates the plan annually.

We have made some progress in our efforts to find a treatment, means of prevention, or cure, but Alzheimer's still costs our Nation an astonishing $321 billion per year, including $206 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid. If we continue along this trajectory, Alzheimer's is projected to claim the minds of 12.7 million seniors and nearly surpass $1 trillion in annual costs by 2050. It takes a tremendous toll on families, too. In 2021, family caregivers provided 16 billion hours of unpaid care for loved ones with dementia. That job is often 24/7 and often harms the health of the caregiver.

The National Alzheimer's Project Act is set to expire in 2025, so we need to reauthorize this critical legislation to make sure that our research investments remain coordinated, and we can maximize their impact.

The first bill that I will introduce today with my colleagues Senators Warner, Capito, Markey, Moran, and Menendez, is the NAPA Reauthorization Act. It would reauthorize NAPA through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect strides we have made understanding the disease, like including a new focus on promoting healthy aging and reducing risk factors.

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

Nearly half of baby boomers reaching age 85 will either be afflicted with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's is the defining disease of this generation. We have made tremendous progress in recent years to boost funding for Alzheimer's research, which holds great promise to ending this disease that has had a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families. The two bills I introduce today will maintain our momentum and make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research is beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer's define our children's generation as it has ours.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on my careful review of her record and experience, as well as my assessment of her character and judicial philosophy, I believe that she warrants confirmation to the High Court.

The Constitution delineates the roles of the President and the Senate in nominating and confirming members of the Federal judiciary. Article II grants the President the power to nominate judges, and it gives the Senate the power of advice and consent for such nominations.

Evaluating a nominee to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is one of the most consequential responsibilities of any Senator. Accordingly, I closely examine each nominee's qualifications, experience, writings, judicial philosophy, and personal integrity. One factor I do not consider is the political party of the nominating president.

I have spent the last several weeks reviewing Judge Jackson's record, both before and after she became a Federal judge. Prior to and after her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Jackson and I spent more than 2 and a half hours discussing her jurisprudence and approach to deciding cases. I explored her views on precedent and her understanding of the role that the judicial branch plays within our constitutional design.

I also watched Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing and, on numerous occasions, requested additional information from the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee.

There is no question that Judge Jackson is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has sterling academic and extensive professional credentials. She has been a Supreme Court clerk, an attorney in private practice, a Federal public defender, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and a Federal district court judge for more than 8 years. She now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Her qualifications have been confirmed by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which has unanimously rated Judge Jackson as ``Well Qualified''--its highest rating.

Having determined that Judge Jackson possesses the requisite qualifications and experience, my consideration of her nomination then turned to whether she has the judgment and approach to deciding cases that are necessary to serve on the Supreme Court.

Words that I spoke--years ago--when announcing my decision to vote to confirm Justice Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court remain my standard today: ``I believe it is . . . critical for nominees to have a judicial philosophy that is devoid of prejudgment, partisanship, and preference. Only then will the decisions handed down from the bench be impartial and consistent with legal precedents and the constitutional foundations of our democratic system.''

Federal judges at all levels who are entrusted with lifetime appointments must avoid the temptation to exceed their constitutional role. That is particularly important for Supreme Court

Justices, who issue rulings from which there is no further opportunity for appeal.

Judge Jackson testified that, as a judge, she seeks to ``decide cases from a neutral posture'' and rules ``without fear or favor, consistent with [her] judicial oath.'' She also correctly acknowledged that the role of a judge ``is a limited one'' and that she is only empowered to ``decide cases and controversies that are properly presented.'' She added that her ``judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.''

During her hearing, Judge Jackson was asked whether she believes that the Constitution is a living document with a meaning that evolves over time. In response, she discussed the importance of ``adherence to the text'' and how her judicial powers are constrained by the meaning of the text at the ``time of the founding.'' She also explained that she does not believe in a ``living Constitution,'' rejecting the theory that it is a changing document ``infused with [her] own policy perspective or the policy perspective of the day.''

In these responses, she demonstrated an understanding of the limited role of the judiciary. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Court must ``say what the law is.'' For any judge to do more would undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

I also valued the testimony of Judge Thomas Griffith, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President George W. Bush. He explained that, on several occasions, he reviewed Judge Jackson's decisions on appeal. Although they did not always agree on the outcome, he ``respected her diligent and careful approach, her deep understanding, and collegial manner.'' He added that, in his view, Judge Jackson ``is an independent jurist who adjudicates based on the facts and law and not as a partisan.''

To be sure, I do not agree with some of the decisions that Judge Jackson has rendered as a Federal judge. For instance, in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, I believe that Judge Jackson was wrong to review a decision that Congress--through Federal law--left to the ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Court of Appeals rightly reversed her ruling in that case. When I asked Judge Jackson about her decision, however, I respected the fact that she was able to articulate the thoughtful--albeit ultimately mistaken-- analysis that she employed.

Similarly, I disagree with the sentences that she has imposed in some of the criminal cases that have come before her. As a general matter, I believe that judges should have some discretion in sentencing. This allows them to take into account the unique circumstances of each case--whether aggravating or mitigating--to determine an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.

Other Federal judges--appointed by Presidents of both parties--have deviated from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in some of the same types of cases handled by Judge Jackson. For instance, a 2021 report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission explained that ``[l]ess than one-third (30.0%) of non-production child pornography offenders received a sentence within the guideline range in fiscal year 2019.''

The recent surge in crime, exacerbated by the vilification of law enforcement, is causing tremendous harm in cities across America. Thus, in evaluating Judge Jackson's approach to criminal cases, I appreciate the input from the Fraternal Order of Police, which concluded that she ``has considered the facts and applied the law consistently and fairly on a range of issues.'' That organization explained that it is ``reassured that, should she be confirmed, she would approach her future cases with an open mind and treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly.''

Just as I have disagreed with some of her decisions to date, I have no doubt that, if Judge Jackson is confirmed, I will not agree with every vote that she casts as a Justice. That alone, however, is not disqualifying. Indeed, that statement applies to all six Justices, nominated by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, whom I have voted to confirm.

I have concluded that Judge Jackson possesses the experience, judicial philosophy, and character to serve our country honorably as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak on the profoundly disturbing trend of politicizing the courts and the judicial nomination process. This trend dates back decades and, sadly, continues to damage the reputation of this body and the independence of our courts. Today, calls to ``pack'' the Supreme Court in an apparent effort to dictate the outcome of cases are dangerous and undermine the public's confidence in our judiciary.

Part of the reason for this politicization is that, in recent years, the process has increasingly moved away from what I believe to be appropriate for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. In my view, the role the Constitution assigns to the Senate is to examine the experience, qualifications, philosophy, and integrity of the nominee. It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the ideology of an individual Senator or would rule exactly as an individual Senator would want.

It used to be common for Senators to give the President, regardless of political party, considerable deference in the choice of a nominee as long as the President's choice possessed the requisite credentials, experience, integrity, and respect for the Constitution. One need look no further than the 98-0 vote that conservative Justice Scalia received in 1986 and the 96-3 vote that liberal Justice Ginsburg received in 1993.

This approach served the Senate, the Court, and the country well. It instilled confidence in the independence and the integrity of the judiciary and helped keep the Court above the political fray. And this is the approach that I plan to continue to use for Supreme Court nominations because it runs counter to the disturbing trend of politicizing the judicial nomination process.

I urge my colleagues to denounce partisan attacks on our courts and to join me in working to reverse this harmful trend.

Similarly, I urge the Court itself to strive to forge consensus. A defining characteristic of a democracy, one that differentiates it from an autocracy, is that we are all, from the humblest to the most powerful, governed by the rule of law. That protection is inevitably weakened when those charged with upholding the primacy of the rule of law cannot agree on what the law provides. The perception held by some, whether fair or not, that Supreme Court Justices are guided by their personal views undermines respect for the law, posing a threat to the principle that holds us together as Americans.

This danger will only grow if the Court continues to exhibit recurring and predictable differences on the most significant legal issues of our time. Thus, I think it is essential that the Justices endeavor to reach consensus, especially on matters with the greatest potential to cause conflict.

To state this point in simpler terms, at times when our country is deeply divided along political and ideological lines, the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to ensure that we adhere to the ties that bind us. Its ability to perform that function is diminished, however, when its members appear no less divided than the rest of the country.

I will cast my vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.