Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the town of Island Falls, ME. As one who was born and raised in Aroostook County, it is a great pleasure to celebrate the generations of industrious and caring people who have made Island Falls such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families.

Incorporated on February 27, 1872, Island Falls is a small town with a rich history. For thousands of years, the west branch of the Mattawamkeag River was the hunting grounds of the Micmac and Maliseet Native American Tribes. Permanent settlement began in earnest when the long-disputed border between the Aroostook region of Maine and British New Brunswick finally was determined in 1842.

The early settlers created a vibrant community. They cleared farmland and, with the river and falls providing power, established lumber and grain mills. The first school, built in 1859, also served as a church and meeting house.

With the river, pristine lakes, and spectacular views of Mt. Katahdin, Island Falls has long been a paradise for outdoor enthusiasts. With William Sewell, the son of one of the first settlers as his guide, young Theodore Roosevelt often visited Island Falls to hunt, fish, hike, and canoe. Bible Point State Historic Site marks the location where the future President would sit in quiet contemplation on his Sunday mornings in Maine.

Today, Island Falls is a premier four-season destination for outdoor recreation. In addition to the activities Theodore Roosevelt enjoyed, it is an ideal place for golf, leaf-peeping, star-gazing, and, with an extensive network of well-groomed trails, snowmobiling.

Island Falls is a town of patriots, and a park pays tribute to those who have defended our nation. Among them is Pvt. George F. Robinson, who served with the Maine Eighth Regiment in the Civil War.

While recovering from wounds received in battle, Pvt. Robinson was reassigned as an attendant to Secretary of State William Seward. On the night of April 14, 1865, as the assassination of President Lincoln was being carried out, a coconspirator entered the Seward home and attacked the Secretary with a knife. Pvt. Robinson fought off the attacker and, despite his own stab wounds, helped render the first aid that saved Secretary Seward's life. This Maine hero rose to the rank of major and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. In 1965, on the centennial of this act of valor, the Maine Legislature renamed Robinson Mountain in his honor.

The celebration of Island Falls' 150th anniversary is not about the passing of time, but about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Island Falls, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, through a legendary broadcasting career spanning more than seven decades, Maine's Dewey DeWitt was the ``Voice of Aroostook County.'' Dewey passed away on January 5 at 99 years of age, but his voice and his contributions will never be forgotten.

As a native of the county, a longtime fan, and a friend, I offer my deepest condolences to his family. In this time of sorrow, I am sure they will find comfort in knowing how much Dewey meant to so many.

Dewey first went on the air in 1950, the year a radio station began operations in Houlton, the Shiretown of Aroostook County. When a television station began broadcasting from Presque Isle a few years later, Dewey was the first person seen by viewers.

Like many others in Northern Maine, I grew up listening to Dewey. From interviews with public officials to the daily news to high school basketball, he kept us informed.

Indeed, the hallmark of Dewey's career was his devotion to local sports, especially high school basketball. It is estimated that Dewey called the play-by-play of more than 3,000 games over the years.

Every sportscaster has that one indelible memory that stands alone. For Dewey and me, it was a memory we shared with people throughout the region. In 1969, when I was a student at Caribou High School, our boys' basketball team won its first-ever State championship on a last-second shot by Mike Thurston from beyond midcourt. I was at that exciting game, but it was Dewey's voice that brought that thrilling moment to listeners across Maine. More than a half-century later, Dewey could still recall that game and that shot in vivid detail.

Although Dewey retired from daily broadcasting some years ago, he remained active with a frequent show on WHOU radio called, ``Talk of the Town.'' Whenever I visited Houlton, I loved stopping to see Dewey for a chat.

Dewey's interviews were a shining example of how it should be done. He was always informed and insightful, with a keen understanding of how national issues affected the people in his audience. In our most recent interview, in October of 2021, he asked probing questions about border security, the appropriations process, our national debt, and pandemic recovery, among other important topics.

Dewey DeWitt's work was recognized by the Maine Sports Hall of Fame, the Maine Basketball Hall of Fame's Legends of the Game, and the Maine Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame. But I know that the tribute that meant the most to him was the affection people throughout Aroostook County will always have for him. I join them in celebrating his remarkable life and in recognizing him for a voice that brought us together as a community.

Mr. President, first, let me say that I appreciate the sincerity of the Senator from Virginia--my friend Senator Kaine--and his comments about the filibuster. I am not going to repeat the speech that I gave last week on the vital safeguards that the filibuster provides to the minority party in the U.S. Senate and why it makes us the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Instead, since I have already talked on that issue, I feel compelled to respond to comments that were made by Senator Ossoff, the Senator from Georgia, earlier this evening, in which he singled out four Republican Senators--Senator McConnell, Senator Cornyn, Senator Burr, and myself--and our position on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a seminal law that was so important in the civil rights movement in guaranteeing the right to vote for all Americans.

Well, I was not in the Senate in 1965. I was 13. I am not sure that the Senator from Georgia was even born in 1965, but that is not really my point.

My point is that, of me, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Ossoff, said: Senator Collins previously said that this bill will ensure that voting rights afforded to all Americans are protected but not anymore.

I voted, enthusiastically, and did say that about the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 2006. Surely, my colleague is not confusing that bill, which was 5 pages long--5 pages--with the bill that is before the Senate tonight, which is 735-pages long. Surely, he is not confusing those two bills. If he is, I would like to sit down and talk with him about the enormous differences between the two bills, but, frankly, the number of pages says it all.

I do support the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I did so, as did every other Senator, in 2006, but to equate that to the legislation that is before us now is simply not worthy. Had I been on the floor at that time, I might well have thought of reminding the Senator that we have a rule in the Senate, rule XIX, which prohibits the impunity, the integrity, or the motives of other Senators--and not just one Senator in this case but four Senators.

So let there be no mistake about it, I do support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I supported the Voting Rights Act of 2006, as did every one of my colleagues who was mentioned by Senator Ossoff this evening, and I think it is sad that he implied otherwise about our support for such important civil rights legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I promise my colleagues this will be my last comment.

This is entirely different from the debate on a 735-page bill. I would invite my colleague from Georgia to review exactly what he said earlier this evening.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our democracy is protected by its institutional checks on unlimited power. The three branches of government are not the only manifestation of the careful balancing achieved by the Framers of the Constitution. Within the legislative branch, the Senate's unique traditions protect the rights of the minority party by allowing extended debate and by requiring a supermajority vote to pass legislation, with few exceptions. These rules have helped to make the U.S. Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Before commenting further on the importance of the extended debate and the 60-vote requirement for passing legislation, I want to point out a critical protection built into the Senate's procedures. Changing the rules requires 67 votes, not 60 votes, not 51 votes--67 votes.

But in a power grab that would be incredibly destructive to the functioning of the Senate, the Democratic leader is proposing to circumvent the rules in order to eviscerate the filibuster because he does not have anywhere near the 67 votes required to rewrite the Senate rules. Instead, he will propose to ``change the rules by breaking the rules,'' as former Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a true giant of the Senate, put it when arguing against a similar ploy in 2013.

As one of Senator Levin's predecessors, Arthur Vandenberg, warned in 1949, if the majority can change the rules of the Senate at will, ``there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate.''

Both Senators Levin and Vandenberg actually favored the rule change being considered at the time, but each recognized that ``breaking the rules to change the rules'' would irreparably harm the Senate and, thus, our country.

Democrats well understand the consequences of what they are proposing. Just 5 short years ago, Senator Chris Coons and I wrote a letter urging Senate leaders to preserve the 60-vote threshold for legislation. That letter was signed by 61 Senators: 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats, and 1 Independent. This total not only represented a majority of Senators but also a majority of the Republican caucus, a majority of the Democratic Caucus, and the current Vice President.

How well I remember seeking signatures on the Senate floor for that letter. Holding a green folder with the letter inside, I approached Senators on both sides of the aisle to achieve my goal of a total of 60 Senators signing, representing a majority of each caucus.

Not a single Senator whom I approached said no to signing the letter, not one. Quite the contrary, each was eager to sign the letter, and many thanked me for leading the effort to make clear that whatever our disagreements on a supermajority vote for nominees, they were firmly committed to keeping the filibuster for legislation. They understood its vital importance to the Senate and to our country.

This is what our letter stated, in part:

[W]e are united in our determination to preserve the

ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills

are on the Senate floor.

We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the

legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to

ensuring that this great American institution continues to

serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore,

we are asking you to join us

in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and

prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and

extended debate as we consider legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan letter, dated April 7, 2017, be printed in the Record.

The culture of the Senate is built upon a foundation of respect and cooperation that is meant to transcend partisanship. It is a culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience, persuasion, and perseverance, not raw power.

I implore my colleagues to consider the ramifications for our country. Do we want laws enacted one year to be repealed 2 years later on a simple majority vote and then perhaps reenacted in another 2 years by just 51 votes?

Do we want major laws, significant changes in policy, to be rammed through the Senate without thoughtful debate and bipartisan support?

At a time when our country is deeply and closely divided, do we really want to worsen the polarization by improving significant changes in public policy by a narrow partisan vote?

We are now on the brink of heading down that dangerous road, a slippery slope toward a tyranny of the majority. Limiting the ability of Senators to engage in a debate on legislative matters would give the majority party unprecedented power to push through major changes without careful deliberation or bipartisan cooperation. Such a move would have lasting implications, as future majorities--whether Republican or Democratic--would have little incentive to work with the other party.

It is crucial that we work together and find common ground on the issues that matter most to the American people. Changing longstanding Senate rules to benefit one political party would discourage efforts to forge consensus and only serve to reinforce bitter partisan divisions.

I urge my colleagues to stand against this calamitous change and for the principles of compromise and cooperation that have long defined and been the hallmarks of the U.S. Senate.

Let us listen to the admonition of the Democratic leader when he spoke against changing the rules in 2017: ``Let us go no further down this road.''

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President I rise today with my colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan, to introduce the Neuroscience Center of Excellence Act of 2021, legislation that would establish a Neuroscience Center of Excellence at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. This program would be modeled after FDA's Oncology Center or Excellence, which was authorized through the 2lst Century Cures Act. Building off that successful and bipartisan model, I hope we can make critical advances for those living with neurological diseases.

In July, FDA's Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research testified that neuroscience is an area of medicine where there is tremendous unmet need, and neurodegenerative diseases are particularly challenging from both a research and a drug development perspective. I have seen this firsthand as founder and cochairman of the Senate Alzheimer's Disease Caucus. I have vigorously advocated for record funding increases to support additional NIH research over the past 25 years. Over the past year, many have noted the success of Operation Warp Speed and wondered why we can't achieve the same rapid progress in other health conditions.

The Neuroscience Center of Excellence would encompass more than 20 neurological diseases, including conditions that are very rare. For example, Huntington's disease is an inherited

disease characterized by the progressive loss of brain and muscle function. It has sometimes been described as having ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's simultaneously. It is an autosomal dominant condition, so families with a history of Huntington's disease can see it appear in every generation. In Maine, Nancy Patterson has seen Huntington's disease in four generations of family. In addition, I lost a friend and coworker in former Senator Bill Cohen's office to this devastating disease. Sadly, there is no cure.

Through our bill, this new Neuroscience Center of Excellence would establish several programs aimed at supporting innovation. The first is to identify some of the current and emerging regulatory science and public policy challenges associated with developing medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through a series of public meetings and guidances. The Center of Excellence would also establish a program to facilitate both the collection and the systematic use of patient experience data in the development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders.

Another component of the Center's work would be around using digital technologies, an area of much promise. In 2018, the National Academies of Medicine Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders hosted a workshop on using mobile technology to advance research and treatment of central nervous system disorders. As Dr. William Marks, head of clinical neurology at Verily Life Sciences, observed, the current state of assessing brain disorders is ``exquisitely crude'' and there is a large unmet need for better measures of disease burden that are objective, quantitative, more frequently measured, and in the context of normal life.

Finally, the center would help promote inclusion of traditionally underrepresented populations in the research and development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through public meetings and industry guidance. Senator Lujan and I have worked together on this issue before as part of our Equity in Neuroscience and Alzheimer's Clinical Trials Act of 2021. Whether the barrier to participation is a distrust of the medical community or logistics concerns like time and travel, we need to overcome those hurdles in order to ensure the best possible science.

Researchers from the University of South Florida looked at the nine most prevalent and costly diagnosed neurological disorders and found the annual cost totaled nearly $800 billion. We desperately need to change this trajectory and renew our focus on these critical unmet needs. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President I rise today with my colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan, to introduce the Neuroscience Center of Excellence Act of 2021, legislation that would establish a Neuroscience Center of Excellence at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. This program would be modeled after FDA's Oncology Center or Excellence, which was authorized through the 2lst Century Cures Act. Building off that successful and bipartisan model, I hope we can make critical advances for those living with neurological diseases.

In July, FDA's Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research testified that neuroscience is an area of medicine where there is tremendous unmet need, and neurodegenerative diseases are particularly challenging from both a research and a drug development perspective. I have seen this firsthand as founder and cochairman of the Senate Alzheimer's Disease Caucus. I have vigorously advocated for record funding increases to support additional NIH research over the past 25 years. Over the past year, many have noted the success of Operation Warp Speed and wondered why we can't achieve the same rapid progress in other health conditions.

The Neuroscience Center of Excellence would encompass more than 20 neurological diseases, including conditions that are very rare. For example, Huntington's disease is an inherited

disease characterized by the progressive loss of brain and muscle function. It has sometimes been described as having ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's simultaneously. It is an autosomal dominant condition, so families with a history of Huntington's disease can see it appear in every generation. In Maine, Nancy Patterson has seen Huntington's disease in four generations of family. In addition, I lost a friend and coworker in former Senator Bill Cohen's office to this devastating disease. Sadly, there is no cure.

Through our bill, this new Neuroscience Center of Excellence would establish several programs aimed at supporting innovation. The first is to identify some of the current and emerging regulatory science and public policy challenges associated with developing medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through a series of public meetings and guidances. The Center of Excellence would also establish a program to facilitate both the collection and the systematic use of patient experience data in the development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders.

Another component of the Center's work would be around using digital technologies, an area of much promise. In 2018, the National Academies of Medicine Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders hosted a workshop on using mobile technology to advance research and treatment of central nervous system disorders. As Dr. William Marks, head of clinical neurology at Verily Life Sciences, observed, the current state of assessing brain disorders is ``exquisitely crude'' and there is a large unmet need for better measures of disease burden that are objective, quantitative, more frequently measured, and in the context of normal life.

Finally, the center would help promote inclusion of traditionally underrepresented populations in the research and development of medical products for neuroscience diseases and disorders through public meetings and industry guidance. Senator Lujan and I have worked together on this issue before as part of our Equity in Neuroscience and Alzheimer's Clinical Trials Act of 2021. Whether the barrier to participation is a distrust of the medical community or logistics concerns like time and travel, we need to overcome those hurdles in order to ensure the best possible science.

Researchers from the University of South Florida looked at the nine most prevalent and costly diagnosed neurological disorders and found the annual cost totaled nearly $800 billion. We desperately need to change this trajectory and renew our focus on these critical unmet needs. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the STEM Education in Accounting Act with my colleague Senator Rosen. Our bill would recognize accounting as part of a well-rounded STEM education and allow school districts to use their Federal education

block grant resources to develop and improve instruction in accounting. It also aims to introduce more students to accounting and improve career awareness and workforce diversity in the field. In today's rapidly changing world, improving students' access to a STEM-based curriculum is increasingly vital to ensure they are prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce.

Mathematics--the ``M'' in ``STEM''--is a critical skill that can help students unlock countless doors to high-paying, in-demand fields. One of those doors leads to the accounting profession, whose work has a direct impact on employers, employees, retirees, investors, and the global economy. Certified professional accountants, or CPAs, play a key role in providing capital markets with confidence in financial reporting. Modern accounting increasingly requires cutting-edge math and technology skills, including IT auditing, artificial intelligence, data analytics, and cyber security, to keep up with the market's needs.

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is current law, school districts may use funds from the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program to support a host of curricular and extracurricular activities that deliver a well-rounded education to students in all grade levels. Specifically, the STEM Education in Accounting Act would add ``activities to promote the development, implementation, and strengthening of programs to teach accounting'' to the list of courses and activities supported by this flexible block grant. Our bill would also promote high-quality accounting instruction for members of groups underrepresented in the accounting profession.

Encouraging a robust pipeline of future accounting professionals is paramount. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to promote accounting education, improve students' finance skills, and strengthen the pipeline of future accountants, who play such a vital role in our financial system.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the STEM Education in Accounting Act with my colleague Senator Rosen. Our bill would recognize accounting as part of a well-rounded STEM education and allow school districts to use their Federal education

block grant resources to develop and improve instruction in accounting. It also aims to introduce more students to accounting and improve career awareness and workforce diversity in the field. In today's rapidly changing world, improving students' access to a STEM-based curriculum is increasingly vital to ensure they are prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce.

Mathematics--the ``M'' in ``STEM''--is a critical skill that can help students unlock countless doors to high-paying, in-demand fields. One of those doors leads to the accounting profession, whose work has a direct impact on employers, employees, retirees, investors, and the global economy. Certified professional accountants, or CPAs, play a key role in providing capital markets with confidence in financial reporting. Modern accounting increasingly requires cutting-edge math and technology skills, including IT auditing, artificial intelligence, data analytics, and cyber security, to keep up with the market's needs.

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is current law, school districts may use funds from the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program to support a host of curricular and extracurricular activities that deliver a well-rounded education to students in all grade levels. Specifically, the STEM Education in Accounting Act would add ``activities to promote the development, implementation, and strengthening of programs to teach accounting'' to the list of courses and activities supported by this flexible block grant. Our bill would also promote high-quality accounting instruction for members of groups underrepresented in the accounting profession.

Encouraging a robust pipeline of future accounting professionals is paramount. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to promote accounting education, improve students' finance skills, and strengthen the pipeline of future accountants, who play such a vital role in our financial system.

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

Madam President, on Friday, the Department of Labor reported that inflation had hit a near-40-year high, confirming what many American families have been feeling in their wallets for many months.

The soaring cost of virtually everything, from gasoline to groceries, is a growing crisis that has hit families across our Nation. The numbers are alarming.

During the past year, the Consumer Price Index, which measures the price of goods and services, jumped by nearly 7 percent. That is the highest rate since 1982. It represents the sixth consecutive month of inflation exceeding 5 percent.

The goods experiencing the greatest increases read like a list of everyday essentials. Energy costs are up by 33 percent. Used vehicles are up by 31 percent. Hamburger costs are up by 14 percent. Milk, eggs, baby food, furniture, and many other necessities all cost more, and those prices are simply unsustainable for many working families.

The pain is being felt across the Nation, including in my State of Maine. I have heard from many Mainers worried about how they will be able to afford to heat their homes this winter. The average price of heating oil in Maine is currently $3.15 per gallon, compared to $2.11 per gallon this time last year. While the amount of heating oil a household uses varies considerably, a typical Maine family will spend nearly $1,000 more this year on home heating oil. The State of Maine is disproportionately affected by this rise in costs since more than 60 percent of our homes use fuel oil as their primary energy source for heating compared to only 4 percent of households nationally.

The rise in the price of heating oil is not the only hardship that Mainers are facing this winter. Mainers have shared with me their genuine concerns about being able to afford to drive back and forth to work and to put nutritious food on the table. Gas prices in Maine are about $1.30 per gallon higher than last year.

Business owners face the often impossible challenge of paying higher prices for commodities, food, and supplies without passing those increases on to their already struggling consumers. For example, Maine restaurant owners, who have already experienced an extraordinarily difficult 18 months due to the pandemic, are now grappling with double- digit percentage increases in the costs of ingredients and other goods needed to run their businesses. An owner of a restaurant I visited in Searsport told me that the cost of fryer grease has skyrocketed from $19 to $48 per case. Another restaurant owner in Rockland recently told the Bangor Daily News that the price for prime ribs has more than doubled from $7 to $17. These supply costs shrink their already slim margins and exacerbate other difficulties the industry is facing with staffing shortages and pandemic-related closures.

After a tough 2020 caused by COVID-related market disruptions and drought, Maine's resilient potato growers rebounded with yields up 20 percent over last year. Such a strong harvest usually would be cause for celebration, but farmers are facing rising transportation, fuel, and fertilizer costs that are hurting their bottom line and forcing them to pass on some of the inflationary costs to their customers. The increased costs of doing business mean that families and processors will pay more for potatoes and growers will get a lower return on their crop.

This weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported on how inflation is harming the employees at the One Stop Tulsa gas station in Aroostook County in Northern Maine. One clerk was working 60 hours each week--up from 40 before the pandemic--because they are so shortstaffed. Even with the increased hours, she said she is struggling with rising costs, from food to electricity.

Melissa Holmes, the gas station manager, said that her twice monthly grocery bill has increased from $300 to $500 and it now costs her $60 to fill up her 2011 Ford Explorer. That is $20 more than last year.

Ms. Holmes also described facing customers who are frustrated by the higher prices. The cost of chicken, for example, has gone up so an order of chicken tenders has jumped from $5.49 to $8.99. That is a big increase, and customers are feeling that squeeze.

After passage of the President's $1.9 trillion stimulus this spring, the price of goods and services went up. We heard reassurances from the President's team that this inflation was transitory but no acknowledgement of the role that their policies have had on soaring prices. Americans are feeling the consequences as Washington has overheated the economy.

We in Congress must confront this inflation crisis, but instead the Biden administration is pushing trillions in additional macroeconomic stimulus in the President's Build Back Better plan. The consequences for an already overheated economy could be devastating. Given the clear link between recent extraordinary government spending and rampant inflation, we should not be adding more fuel to the fire. Our economy is ailing so it would be wise to begin to follow the maxim that guides medical professionals: First, do no harm.

Democrats have said that their spending spree, which follows the Build Back Better plan, would cost $1.7 trillion. Several of the proposals in that plan would be set to expire after 1, 3, or 5 years--a gimmick that hides the true cost because we know that is not what the real hope is nor what is going to happen.

Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that making the social spending programs in the Build Back Better plan permanent would, in fact, cost $4.9 trillion over the decade--$4.9 trillion. Doing so would add $3 trillion to the deficit unless paid for with even more taxes beyond those that the Democrats have already proposed in their bill. That is much higher than the purported $1.7 trillion pricetag because we know that the ultimate goal is to make these expensive programs permanent.

Inflation is a regressive tax. It does not discriminate among the rich and the poor. It does not take into account the ability to pay. It is a cruel tax, one that punishes thrift by diminishing the value of savings. This is damaging to families who are saving to buy a home or for their children's education. It can be devastating to our seniors, who can do nothing but helplessly watch as the retirement funds that they have worked for their whole lives don't go nearly as far as they had expected.

Like the pandemic itself, we do not know for certain whether this inflation crisis will abate, be prolonged, or even accelerate. Our immediate focus should be on measures that we know will have a lasting and beneficial impact on our economy, such as implementing the bipartisan infrastructure law, opening up and repairing our supply chains, getting more Americans back to work, and protecting the earnings of hard-working Americans.

What we should not do is pass trillions of dollars in additional spending in the administration's Build Back Better bill that would exacerbate the toll that inflation imposes on seniors, working families, and small businesses. We should not take that risk.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Cooking Support Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin. Our bill aims to address a serious global public health and environmental issue where leadership by the United States can make a real difference.

Today, close to 3 billion people, or one-third of the global population, rely on ``dirty cooking,'' such as open fires or inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves that use agricultural waste, coal, dung, wood, charcoal, or other solid fuels, to cook their meals. The majority of people using these types of cookstoves and fuels are in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Exposure to smoke from these traditional cooking methods and open fires, referred to as ``household air pollution,'' causes chronic and acute diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Alarmingly, the household air pollution caused by traditional cookstoves and open tires causes 4 million premature deaths annually, including 400,000 children younger than 5 years of age, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. Women and girls are disproportionately affected, as they spend hours cooking, inhaling toxic smoke, and collecting fuels.

These cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. Household air pollution does not remain in the home; it contributes to more than 10 percent of global ambient air pollution. According to the EPA, greenhouse gas emissions from nonrenewable wood fuels for cooking amount to 2 percent of the global CO2 emissions, on par with the global CO2 emissions from the aviation or shipping industries. In 2019, more than 600,000 deaths were attributed to ambient air pollution stemming from the household combustion of solid fuels.

These cookstoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Since 2010, the Clean Cooking Alliance, an innovative public-private partnership hosted by the United Nations Foundation, has supported the adoption of clean cooking worldwide, with the goal of achieving universal access to clean cooking by 2030. Recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the Alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. In April, President Biden announced that the U.S. is resuming and strengthening its commitment to the Clean Cooking Alliance, and during a recent presentation at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference that covered clean cooking and household energy, EPA Administrator Michael Regan reaffirmed this undertaking as well.

Our legislation reinforces our country's policy on promoting clean cookstoves and seeks to take a whole-of-government approach to address household air pollution. Specifically, the Clean Cooking Support Act would create an interagency working group, with representatives from at least six different Federal agencies, committed to increasing access to clean cooking fuels and technologies worldwide. Our legislation explicitly spells out the role of each Federal agency in the advancement of clean cooking as well. The Department of Energy, for instance, is tasked with research and development to spur the production of low-cost, low-emission, and high-efficiency cookstoves, while the Department of State is directed to engage in diplomatic activities across the globe to support the clean cooking and fuels sector. Finally, our bill would authorize funding for the U.S. Government to continue such activities through 2027, to ensure that these important efforts to prevent unnecessary illness and reduce pollution around the globe continue.

Our legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest people, including the women and girls who are disproportionately affected, and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Durbin in supporting the Clean Cooking Support Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Cooking Support Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin. Our bill aims to address a serious global public health and environmental issue where leadership by the United States can make a real difference.

Today, close to 3 billion people, or one-third of the global population, rely on ``dirty cooking,'' such as open fires or inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves that use agricultural waste, coal, dung, wood, charcoal, or other solid fuels, to cook their meals. The majority of people using these types of cookstoves and fuels are in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Exposure to smoke from these traditional cooking methods and open fires, referred to as ``household air pollution,'' causes chronic and acute diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Alarmingly, the household air pollution caused by traditional cookstoves and open tires causes 4 million premature deaths annually, including 400,000 children younger than 5 years of age, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. Women and girls are disproportionately affected, as they spend hours cooking, inhaling toxic smoke, and collecting fuels.

These cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. Household air pollution does not remain in the home; it contributes to more than 10 percent of global ambient air pollution. According to the EPA, greenhouse gas emissions from nonrenewable wood fuels for cooking amount to 2 percent of the global CO2 emissions, on par with the global CO2 emissions from the aviation or shipping industries. In 2019, more than 600,000 deaths were attributed to ambient air pollution stemming from the household combustion of solid fuels.

These cookstoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Since 2010, the Clean Cooking Alliance, an innovative public-private partnership hosted by the United Nations Foundation, has supported the adoption of clean cooking worldwide, with the goal of achieving universal access to clean cooking by 2030. Recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the Alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. In April, President Biden announced that the U.S. is resuming and strengthening its commitment to the Clean Cooking Alliance, and during a recent presentation at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference that covered clean cooking and household energy, EPA Administrator Michael Regan reaffirmed this undertaking as well.

Our legislation reinforces our country's policy on promoting clean cookstoves and seeks to take a whole-of-government approach to address household air pollution. Specifically, the Clean Cooking Support Act would create an interagency working group, with representatives from at least six different Federal agencies, committed to increasing access to clean cooking fuels and technologies worldwide. Our legislation explicitly spells out the role of each Federal agency in the advancement of clean cooking as well. The Department of Energy, for instance, is tasked with research and development to spur the production of low-cost, low-emission, and high-efficiency cookstoves, while the Department of State is directed to engage in diplomatic activities across the globe to support the clean cooking and fuels sector. Finally, our bill would authorize funding for the U.S. Government to continue such activities through 2027, to ensure that these important efforts to prevent unnecessary illness and reduce pollution around the globe continue.

Our legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest people, including the women and girls who are disproportionately affected, and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Durbin in supporting the Clean Cooking Support Act.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Tina Smith, to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Inpatient Equity Act, legislation that eliminates Medicare's arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals. Given the steps that Congress has already taken to establish parity and improve coverage of mental health services, this change is long overdue, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the already alarming trends in the mental health of some Americans.

Notably, an estimated 13.1 million adults aged 18 or older in the United States are living with serious mental illness, representing 5.2 percent of all adults nationwide. These illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment and care over a lifetime. When left untreated, they can be some of the most debilitating and destructive illnesses afflicting Americans.

Unfortunately, our current mental health system is fragmented, and these individuals all too often lack access to the care that they need. That is why I have worked to improve mental health services across the lifespan and break down barriers to treatment. The legislation I am introducing today eliminates another barrier in Medicare, the 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

Most Medicare beneficiaries treated in inpatient psychiatric facilities qualify because of a disability. As such, this current restriction disproportionately impacts non-elderly Medicare beneficiaries--mainly those living with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder who may be diagnosed at a younger age and stay on Medicare longer as a result. Sadly, it is young adults aged 18 to 25 years who currently have the highest prevalence of serious mental illness of any age group.

Furthermore, no other Medicare inpatient service has these types of arbitrary caps, which is why elimination of Medicare's lifetime cap was a recommendation of the 2016 White House Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Task Force. While I recognize that this cap was originally intended to limit the Federal Government's role in paying for long-term custodial support of the mentally ill, keeping a cap on inpatient days at psychiatric hospitals--particularly for patients who have been living with serious mental illness from a young age-- undermines patient treatment options and can lead to disruptive transitions of care.

During their life, people with serious mental illnesses may need repeated psychiatric inpatient hospital stays to manage their condition and regain quality of life in their community of choice. The 190-day lifetime limit can hurt people by arbitrarily ending coverage and can disrupt care from a provider who is most familiar with the patient. Moreover, when individuals with mental illness cannot receive care in the right setting, they often end up in hospital emergency rooms, in jails, or on the streets--leading to worse long-term outcomes for the individual, more pain and suffering for family members, and a greater cost to the taxpayer.

Outside a psychiatric inpatient hospital, it is difficult for many healthcare facilities to meet the treatment needs of those suffering with severe mental illness. Many general hospitals lack psychiatric care capacity, and there are countless examples of psychiatric boarding in emergency departments. Skilled nursing facilities may also not be best suited to provide the complex and specialized psychiatric care these beneficiaries need. Finally, too many patients find themselves receiving care in prisons, or not at all, if they are on the streets or are on long waitlists for care. As one local sheriff in Aroostook County recently told me, ``Law enforcement is not equipped to handle individuals with mental health challenges and yet we are faced with that reality every day.'' Similarly, a behavioral health provider in Presque Isle, ME, said, ``Imposing a limit may appear to reduce cost; however, the true cost-and toll-on community resources is far greater than any savings incurred by Medicare.''

On top of all of these existing challenges, it is clear the COVID-19 pandemic has increased stress and isolation, disrupted care services, and dramatically changed everyday life and even living environments for many Americans. With research pointing to greater psychological distress during the pandemic for people with mental illnesses, already a particularly vulnerable population, I fear we will be trying to make up for lost strides in behavioral health care for years to come. Now more than ever, we must work on commonsense reforms that provide parity between behavioral and physical health care, as well as strive to increase access to support and improve care coordination.

As the American Hospital Association, which endorses this bill, said, ``As we work to further integrate physical and behavioral health to better address the nation's behavioral health needs, one major obstacle to parity remains in the Medicare program--the 190-day lifetime limit on coverage for certain inpatient psychiatric treatment. With the nation's population aging and an increasing number of seniors and people with disabilities seeking inpatient care to address their behavioral health needs, now is the time to repeal this discriminatory policy and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries can receive necessary inpatient psychiatric care.''

The pandemic may have had a disastrous effect on the mental health of the Nation, but it has also led to more visibility and the understanding that individuals with serious mental illness, their families, and the communities in which they live do not have access to the care and resources they need. I hope we can use what we have learned throughout the pandemic as an opportunity to reduce stigma and make overdue reforms like removing the 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

Our legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Inpatient Equity Act, is supported by a wide range of organizations, including the American Hospital Association and the Mental Health Liaison Group, a coalition of 57 national organizations representing consumers, family members, and mental health and addiction providers. This includes support from the National Association of Behavioral Healthcare, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Mental Health America.

I urge my colleagues to support this important critical legislation to bring greater mental health parity to the Medicare Program and give those suffering with serious mental illness access to the care they so desperately need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Tina Smith, to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Inpatient Equity Act, legislation that eliminates Medicare's arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals. Given the steps that Congress has already taken to establish parity and improve coverage of mental health services, this change is long overdue, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the already alarming trends in the mental health of some Americans.

Notably, an estimated 13.1 million adults aged 18 or older in the United States are living with serious mental illness, representing 5.2 percent of all adults nationwide. These illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment and care over a lifetime. When left untreated, they can be some of the most debilitating and destructive illnesses afflicting Americans.

Unfortunately, our current mental health system is fragmented, and these individuals all too often lack access to the care that they need. That is why I have worked to improve mental health services across the lifespan and break down barriers to treatment. The legislation I am introducing today eliminates another barrier in Medicare, the 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

Most Medicare beneficiaries treated in inpatient psychiatric facilities qualify because of a disability. As such, this current restriction disproportionately impacts non-elderly Medicare beneficiaries--mainly those living with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder who may be diagnosed at a younger age and stay on Medicare longer as a result. Sadly, it is young adults aged 18 to 25 years who currently have the highest prevalence of serious mental illness of any age group.

Furthermore, no other Medicare inpatient service has these types of arbitrary caps, which is why elimination of Medicare's lifetime cap was a recommendation of the 2016 White House Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Task Force. While I recognize that this cap was originally intended to limit the Federal Government's role in paying for long-term custodial support of the mentally ill, keeping a cap on inpatient days at psychiatric hospitals--particularly for patients who have been living with serious mental illness from a young age-- undermines patient treatment options and can lead to disruptive transitions of care.

During their life, people with serious mental illnesses may need repeated psychiatric inpatient hospital stays to manage their condition and regain quality of life in their community of choice. The 190-day lifetime limit can hurt people by arbitrarily ending coverage and can disrupt care from a provider who is most familiar with the patient. Moreover, when individuals with mental illness cannot receive care in the right setting, they often end up in hospital emergency rooms, in jails, or on the streets--leading to worse long-term outcomes for the individual, more pain and suffering for family members, and a greater cost to the taxpayer.

Outside a psychiatric inpatient hospital, it is difficult for many healthcare facilities to meet the treatment needs of those suffering with severe mental illness. Many general hospitals lack psychiatric care capacity, and there are countless examples of psychiatric boarding in emergency departments. Skilled nursing facilities may also not be best suited to provide the complex and specialized psychiatric care these beneficiaries need. Finally, too many patients find themselves receiving care in prisons, or not at all, if they are on the streets or are on long waitlists for care. As one local sheriff in Aroostook County recently told me, ``Law enforcement is not equipped to handle individuals with mental health challenges and yet we are faced with that reality every day.'' Similarly, a behavioral health provider in Presque Isle, ME, said, ``Imposing a limit may appear to reduce cost; however, the true cost-and toll-on community resources is far greater than any savings incurred by Medicare.''

On top of all of these existing challenges, it is clear the COVID-19 pandemic has increased stress and isolation, disrupted care services, and dramatically changed everyday life and even living environments for many Americans. With research pointing to greater psychological distress during the pandemic for people with mental illnesses, already a particularly vulnerable population, I fear we will be trying to make up for lost strides in behavioral health care for years to come. Now more than ever, we must work on commonsense reforms that provide parity between behavioral and physical health care, as well as strive to increase access to support and improve care coordination.

As the American Hospital Association, which endorses this bill, said, ``As we work to further integrate physical and behavioral health to better address the nation's behavioral health needs, one major obstacle to parity remains in the Medicare program--the 190-day lifetime limit on coverage for certain inpatient psychiatric treatment. With the nation's population aging and an increasing number of seniors and people with disabilities seeking inpatient care to address their behavioral health needs, now is the time to repeal this discriminatory policy and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries can receive necessary inpatient psychiatric care.''

The pandemic may have had a disastrous effect on the mental health of the Nation, but it has also led to more visibility and the understanding that individuals with serious mental illness, their families, and the communities in which they live do not have access to the care and resources they need. I hope we can use what we have learned throughout the pandemic as an opportunity to reduce stigma and make overdue reforms like removing the 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

Our legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Inpatient Equity Act, is supported by a wide range of organizations, including the American Hospital Association and the Mental Health Liaison Group, a coalition of 57 national organizations representing consumers, family members, and mental health and addiction providers. This includes support from the National Association of Behavioral Healthcare, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Mental Health America.

I urge my colleagues to support this important critical legislation to bring greater mental health parity to the Medicare Program and give those suffering with serious mental illness access to the care they so desperately need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.