Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Too Narrow to Succeed Act with my colleagues Senators Booker, Murray, and Menendez. Enacting this bill would increase opportunities for women- and minority-owned asset management firms to direct investments and strengthen our Nation's retirement security.

Women- and minority-owned firms are significantly underrepresented in asset management, managing just over 1 percent of the sector's assets under management. This severe underrepresentation also extends to employment within the industry. This is not due to a lack of diverse talent; women- and minority-owned asset management firms have consistently performed just as well as or better than other firms in terms of returns on investment. In fact, women- and minority-owned firms are overrepresented among top-performing firms.

Having a diverse portfolio is a key part of having healthy finances because diversifying investments mitigates risk and improves long-term returns. Far too often, however, those making investment decisions at our Nation's financial firms are not diverse. If asset managers have too narrow a perspective, the/place the financial success of their clients at risk. This commonsense legislation supports asset managers' fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns to investors, and it will help ensure a safe financial future for workers and their families.

I hope my colleagues will support this bill.

Mr. President, the United States places special trust and confidence in the integrity, judgement, and abilities of those men and women chosen to represent the United States abroad as an Ambassador. The Constitution balances the President's need to have officials overseas able to execute U.S. foreign policy as directed by the President, with Congress' interest in ensuring that these officials will serve honorably and ably in the positions for which they are nominated. Apart from the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Ambassador nomination process has changed very little since our Nation was founded. However, it is fair to say that Presidents of all parties have on occasion appointed individuals Ambassadors whose profiles indicate political closeness with the President more than deep substantive experience in a particular foreign country.

Historically, the majority of Ambassadors are selected from the career ranks of the State Department. Roughly 30 percent of Ambassadors are typically selected outside of those ranks, including from among political supporters of the President. This is not categorically problematic--Ambassadors who are not professional diplomats have long served our country admirably, from Benjamin Franklin in France to former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield in Japan. A foreign country may benefit from having a U.S. Ambassador who has a close relationship with the President and the

ability to elevate issues to the highest levels or the independent gravitas to bring substantial public attention to that country's needs. That said, I do believe it is appropriate to ask Presidents and their Secretaries of State to explain their rationale for choosing Ambassador nominees outside of the Foreign and Civil Services so that the public can understand the rationale for these appointments. This would give both the U.S. public and foreign publics the assurance that the White House is not merely doling out political sinecures but is devoting meaningful thought to these selections.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Booker would not constrain the President's discretion to choose appointees but would require him or her to justify these selections and explain to Congress why someone from outside the State Department is the optimal choice to represent America's interests abroad. I am proud to introduce this bill to ensure that U.S. foreign policy and our national security interests are advanced by the most qualified Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the Senate.

Mr. President, the United States places special trust and confidence in the integrity, judgement, and abilities of those men and women chosen to represent the United States abroad as an Ambassador. The Constitution balances the President's need to have officials overseas able to execute U.S. foreign policy as directed by the President, with Congress' interest in ensuring that these officials will serve honorably and ably in the positions for which they are nominated. Apart from the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Ambassador nomination process has changed very little since our Nation was founded. However, it is fair to say that Presidents of all parties have on occasion appointed individuals Ambassadors whose profiles indicate political closeness with the President more than deep substantive experience in a particular foreign country.

Historically, the majority of Ambassadors are selected from the career ranks of the State Department. Roughly 30 percent of Ambassadors are typically selected outside of those ranks, including from among political supporters of the President. This is not categorically problematic--Ambassadors who are not professional diplomats have long served our country admirably, from Benjamin Franklin in France to former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield in Japan. A foreign country may benefit from having a U.S. Ambassador who has a close relationship with the President and the

ability to elevate issues to the highest levels or the independent gravitas to bring substantial public attention to that country's needs. That said, I do believe it is appropriate to ask Presidents and their Secretaries of State to explain their rationale for choosing Ambassador nominees outside of the Foreign and Civil Services so that the public can understand the rationale for these appointments. This would give both the U.S. public and foreign publics the assurance that the White House is not merely doling out political sinecures but is devoting meaningful thought to these selections.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Booker would not constrain the President's discretion to choose appointees but would require him or her to justify these selections and explain to Congress why someone from outside the State Department is the optimal choice to represent America's interests abroad. I am proud to introduce this bill to ensure that U.S. foreign policy and our national security interests are advanced by the most qualified Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the Senate.

Mr. President, I proudly rise to speak about the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

When I began law school in the fall of 1979, the only woman Justice at the Supreme Court was a white marble statue on the steps. There were no women members of the Court. There had never been women members of the Court.

The motto engraved over the Court's entrance, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' sounded great, but it also rang hollow for the more than half of the U.S. population that had never seen themselves represented on the U.S. Supreme Court.

And it was more than just the absence of women on the Court. In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in core memorable phrase guaranteeing to all persons the equal protection of the law. But the Court, for more than 100 years, refused to extend equal protection to women.

In one of the first cases testing the meaning of the phrase ``equal protection of the law to all persons,'' the Supreme Court considered an Illinois State law restricting the practice of law to men only. A dynamic, young, feminist activist, Myra Bradwell, passed the Illinois bar exam and applied for a law license to practice law in Illinois. She was turned down because she was a woman. She appealed her case to the Illinois Supreme Court, and they turned her down because she was a woman. And then she came to the U.S. Supreme Court and said: We have just changed the Constitution to guarantee equal protection of the law to all persons, surely, you cannot turn me down in my quest to practice law after I have passed the Illinois bar exam.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1873, by a vote of 8 to 1, ruled that she was not entitled to an equal right to practice the profession of her choosing.

Let me read you a key part of the decision in that case:

The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill

the noble and benign office of wife and mother. This is the

law of the Creator.

So a wife and mother can't be a lawyer? So every woman must be a wife and mother? That is what the Supreme Court determined in analyzing the simple phrase ``all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law.''

Here is a great trivia question: When did the Supreme Court finally decide that equal protection of the law applied to women? 1971. It took 103 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted for the Supreme Court to say: Wait a minute, equal protection of the law to all persons, that means women.

In the case of Reed v. Reed, the Court ruled that a State statute providing that males must be preferred to females in the administration of estates--it was an estate administration case--the Court ruled, wait a minute, that violates women's rights to equal protection. Who was the lawyer in that case? A dynamic, young civil rights lawyer with the ACLU named Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So within my career as a civil rights attorney, from when I started law school in 1979 to today--43 years later--I have seen great change in the law's treatment of women and in their representation on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will make history. She will be the first African-American woman on the Court. And she will move a Court that had never had a woman member when I started law school to a Court where four of the nine members are women.

What powerful evidence of the capacity we have as a nation to come closer and closer to the equality ideal that was articulated as our moral North Star in the opening phrase of the Declaration of Independence drafted by a Virginian in 1776.

So I celebrate the history-making nature of this appointment, but it is not the reason for my support.

I support Judge Jackson's nomination because of her stellar academic credentials, her prestigious judicial clerkships, her dedicated service as an attorney and member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, her well- respected tenure as a Federal trial and appellate judge, and the multiple attestations that she has received attributing to her fairness and to her character.

In particular--in particular--I think that her successful confirmation as a Justice will add two critical skill sets to this nine-member collegial body: first, that she is a public defender; and, second, that she has been a trial judge.

That she was a public defender--so much of the Court's docket deals with issues that are at the heart of the American criminal justice system. There are currently members of the Court--Justice Sotomayor, Justice Alito--who had experience as prosecutors in both the State and Federal courts before they began their service in the judicial branch. That experience as prosecutor is really important experience, and it is an important expertise to have on the Supreme Court.

But a Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the first public defender ever to sit on the Court. And for a Court of nine to share perspectives and grapple with resolution of questions involving the criminal justice system, for that Court only to have people who prosecuted cases and not have people who have defended, in particular, the most indigent criminal defendants--it is a Court that doesn't have the balanced 360- degree perspective that we would want in these important matters. So the fact that she served honorably as a Federal public defender, in my view, is a strong trait for her, but it is even a better trait if you think about what we would need in a nine-member Supreme Court.

Second, she has been a trial judge, a Federal district court judge in the district court for the District of Columbia. And that is really, really important. There is only one other member of the Court now who was a trial judge, and that is Justice Sotomayor. Some of the members of the Court, as far as I know--I can find no evidence--not only were they not trial judges, some of them I am not sure ever tried cases.

What does it mean to have a trial judge on the Court? Well, again, think about the docket of the Supreme Court. So much of the docket of the Supreme Court is ruling on questions and controversies, whose ultimate goal is to make the Nation's trials--civil and criminal trials--more fair: admissibility of evidence, sentencing standards, definitions of police misconduct that could either gain or shed sovereignty immunity in a trial going on in a trial court, how to impanel jurors, how to instruct jurors, when to strike a juror if there is evidence that the juror may have a bias or prejudice. These are all cases that come before the Supreme Court all the time. And these kinds of cases, it is particularly important to have a Court that is well- represented by people who have actually been in the courtroom and done it.

What trial judges have to do is they have to figure out how to instruct and impanel jurors and deal with the juror who may have a bias question. They have to rule on evidentiary objections in a split second; dispose of discovery disputes; rule on dispositive motions like motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions; in bench trials, actually render judgments, which usually involves credibility determinations among competing witnesses.

The judges in the Federal system are those with the power of sentencing, the most difficult power of all. If you have not been a trial lawyer or a trial judge, you might underestimate how difficult and challenging each of those tasks are. But if you have had the experience of being a trial lawyer or trial judge, you understand how important they are.

I asked Judge Jackson as I interviewed her, tell me how you think that being a trial judge might help you on the Court. She said, so much of our opinions are essentially instructions to State and Federal trial courts, here is how to conduct a fair trial. I think my experience will enable me to write opinions that are more workable; that are more understandable; that are more practical; that are more likely to lead to a result that is fair to the parties, but also one that will increase the

respect for the decision making in courts themselves.

When I was Governor of Virginia, I did not have the power to put judges on the bench, except in rare instances. In the Virginia State system, I wouldn't even nominate judges. The legislature would choose the judges, and the Governor had no role, except--except--when the legislature would deadlock. If the house and senate couldn't agree on filling a position, then the Governor got to put in a judge or a justice until the legislature came back next year, and then they would have to vote on whether to ratify what the Governor had done.

Three times, when I was Governor, my two Republican houses deadlocked on an appellate judge: one on the court of appeals and two on the Virginia Supreme Court. So I had this opportunity. As somebody who practiced civil rights law for 17 years, as somebody who was married to a juvenile court judge, I had the opportunity to consider and then nominate people to be appellate judges.

I decided pretty quickly, as I analyzed who should be appellate judges--and I followed this rule in all three of my opportunities--that I would appoint a great trial judge. In each of the three instances, I appointed a great trial judge because I knew that that great trial judge would be able to sit on an appellate court and render rulings that weren't sort of philosopher, king-or-queen rulings that might sound good in a law review article or in a panel discussion, but they could render rulings that would be instantaneously understood in courtrooms all across the Commonwealth and be able to be implemented by the other trial judges, who were doing their best every day to conduct fair trials.

So that is why I think the second factor that Judge Brown Jackson was a district court judge handling trials, multiple trials and motions every day, will put her in such good company as she joins Justice Sotomayor as the only other member with that experience.

I will conclude and just say a Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will add depth and perspective to a Court that needs it. As we near the 150th anniversary of Myra Bradwell's quixotic case, the confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will make the statue of justice and the engraved phrase ``Equal Justice Under Law'' more accurate reflections of our Nation's highest Court.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to talk about one of the Senate's foremost constitutional duties, the advice and consent of executive nominations.

The most senior nominees, like Cabinet Secretaries, go through a floor process that normally takes about 4 days, if you run through all the procedural steps by the book. Other nominees, typically people with highly specialized expertise, go through a rigorous committee process and are often confirmed by unanimous consent.

Any Senator can object; that is the right of the Senator. If they feel that even one of hundreds of lower-level nominees should take up nearly a full week of the U.S. Senate's time, they can insist upon that.

I think Presidents are due an appropriate level of discretion in picking their teams, and I believe this is true whether or not the President is one I support or oppose. I believe in having the executive branch staffed with qualified professionals. I do draw the line at three areas: if a nominee is totally unqualified for the job, if there is a well-justified reason to question a nominee's ethics or honesty or impartiality, and, finally, if a nominee is so outside the mainstream in ways that go beyond normal good-faith disagreement on matters of policy.

I opposed a number of President Trump's nominees who met one or multiple of these criteria, but I also supported a larger percentage of President Trump's nominees. Even though these were not people I expected to agree with on policy, they did not fall afoul of the three criteria that I look at in a primary way.

I am here today because of several nominees within the jurisdiction of multiple committees I sit on; they are being blockaded, and I would like to focus on one just now.

Amy Loyd is nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Education for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

Ms. Loyd designed and led programs across the United States in her prior role at the education think tank Jobs for the Future and the Native American educational advocacy group the Cook Inlet Tribal Council.

She had a distinguished academic career, attending community college first in Santa Fe, prior to a doctorate in education leadership from Harvard Graduate School of Education. She is a lifelong professional in the field of career and technical education, and she brings personal life experience in the field, having begun her career at community college. I believe she is an outstanding point person for President Biden when it comes to matters of career and technical education.

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions advanced her nomination by a voice vote, with no recorded opposition. I sit on the HELP Committee. I am the chairman of the bipartisan Senate Career and Technical Education Caucus. I was proud to support her.

Although I do not know Ms. Loyd personally, I do have a personal connection to her nomination. My dad ran a welding and ironworking shop. I grew up working in that shop with my two brothers and my mother. I saw the power of career and technical education and the artistry of the ironworkers who worked in my dad's business.

When I was in the middle of law school, I took a year off to go be a missionary in Honduras, and I ran a school that taught kids to be carpenters and welders, again seeing the power of career and technical education. And I think that there is a bipartisan understanding in this body and the House--really, in society at large--that we may have undervalued career and technical education in recent generations; and as we are contemplating things like an infrastructure bill or other important priorities to grow the economy, we need to put more stress, not less, on the value of career and technical education.

So, as a Senator, I am proud to have made this one of my central policy fields: working on CTE bills with many, many colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

There is a hold on Amy Loyd's nomination, and that is the right of those who would hold her. But I am here specifically because I would like to know why.

I would ask my colleagues under which of the three buckets does Ms. Loyd's nomination fall short? Is there a perception that she is not qualified? Is there a perception that she is not ethical? Is there a perception that her views on career and technical education are outside the mainstream?

You don't have to support President Biden's nominees. If she is confirmed, part of her job will be answering tough questions from colleagues.

But I would ask my colleagues, if you are voting against nominees of any President from the other party not because of flaws of the kinds that I have described, what does that get us?

The American people put Democrats for a period of time in charge of both the executive and the legislative branches. The American public often vote for divided government. Does that mean that any time the White House and the Senate are controlled by different parties, the parties just won't have anybody in their administration? What does that get our country? I think we know the answer: dysfunction.

Clearly, Madam President, as I conclude, there are nominees who engender significant controversy, either because of the peculiar nature of the post to which they have been nominated or because of aspects of their background or character. I know of no such controversy with this nominee, either about the position or about the individual herself. And I think if we are to succeed in the necessary project of elevating the importance of career and technical education, we need to have Ms. Loyd confirmed in her position.

For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination; Calendar No. 669, Amy Loyd, to be Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to do a couple of things. I am awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Missouri. I am going to make a UC motion to bring up a very important nominee in the Secretary of Defense Department, but before I do, I want to comment on a UC that I made 2 hours ago. I stood here in this spot, and I sought unanimous consent to bring forward the nomination of Amy Loyd, who is the nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Education for Career and Technical Education. She passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously.

We knew there was a hold on her nomination. We didn't know why. So I sought to bring forward her nomination, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, appeared, and I asked him why he was objecting to Amy Loyd. The good news was, he answered. He didn't have to, but he gave me an answer, and he said that her work indicated an attachment to critical race theory. That was his response, and he cited an article.

I went up to him after, and I asked him what the article was, and he referred me to an article dated August 2020, titled ``Diversifying Apprenticeship: Acknowledging Unconscious Bias to Improve Employee Access.'' That was the reason he and, he said, on behalf of others were opposing Ms. Loyd's nomination for a really important position focusing on career and technical education in the country.

I went back to my office, and I got the article. The article is seven pages long, August 2020--it is actually six pages long. It is entirely uncontroversial. Listen to this. There is a block that says ``What Is Unconscious Bias?'' Talk about fair and balanced language:

Unconscious biases are social stereotypes about certain

groups of people that individuals form outside their

conscious awareness.

Is that controversial? Is that controversial?

There are recommendations for diversifying apprenticeships because, as we know, there are a lot of apprenticeships where there are not many women in apprenticeships. Ms. Loyd is a woman. She wants to diversify apprenticeships. That doesn't seem that unusual.

The recommendations for diversifying apprenticeships in this controversial article where the phrase ``critical race theory'' is never mentioned are widen the selection pool; seek out workers across skill levels; develop transparent, detailed, and uniform criteria; get multiple perspectives; complement selection processes with program designs that increase access. This is just basic human resources. There is nothing in this document about critical race theory.

When I read it thinking I was going to find some real reason to oppose Ms. Loyd, I found this basic human resources 101--nothing about critical race theory. But then I realized something even more amazing. I looked at

the author of the article. This was being held against Ms. Loyd's confirmation. The author of the article is Jessica Toglia, senior program manager of JFF. Unless this is a nom de plume, Amy Loyd had nothing to do with the article that was cited to block her confirmation for this position.

So then I looked further. There are acknowledgements on page 7. Ms. Toglia thanks 10 different people who gave her ideas and thoughts that she put into these six pages. Amy Loyd's name isn't among the 10.

There are then 28 footnotes and references citing articles and other pieces of scholarship that were written. None of them are by Amy Loyd-- none.

So in response to my request as the son of a welder that we ought to have somebody at the Department of Education who values career and technical education, this well-qualified individual, who got out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee by unanimous vote, is now being sort of tarred with the ``critical race theory'' label based upon an article that she had nothing to do with--nothing to do with.

I knew if I came back and stated this, like, well, who would listen, and who would care? You can assert a reason. But the reason for opposition to her nomination has nothing to do with her.

Mr. President, I respect my colleague's right to object, obviously. But I would say that while the Senator from Missouri raises very valid concerns, none of those concern this nominee, Christopher Lowman, and none of his concerns are addressed or

enhanced by leaving the Pentagon without an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment during a war in Europe where the U.S. military is playing a very important role.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on energy and natural resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused extraordinary challenges for our Nation's public health system and put a spotlight on longstanding gaps in public health preparedness. Our Nation's public health system needs accurate, timely, and high-quality data to protect the public from emerging health threats and to respond to existing public health emergencies.

For far too long, gaps in data infrastructure have prevented policymakers and public health officials from quickly translating public health data into their decisionmaking. Outdated and inconsistent public health data systems have made it hard for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments to get a full picture of the COVID-19 crisis. In turn, these data gaps have made it difficult for public health departments to tailor their responses. Specifically, inconsistent definitions of data, ambiguous reporting requirements, and data accessibility issues have hindered the U.S. response to the COVID- 19 pandemic and prevented the timely communication of public health data.

We know that effective pandemic prevention and response requires coordinated efforts between public health

officials across all levels of government. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Baldwin, Smith, and Murphy, the Improving Data Accessibility Through Advancements in Public Health Act, or the Improving DATA in Public Health Act, to use the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that our Nation's public health system has the data capabilities to address and prevent future pandemics.

The Improving DATA in Public Health Act amends public health data systems' modernization provisions in current law by establishing a timeline for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to disseminate data standards to improve the exchange of electronic public health data. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand the access, exchange, and use of public health data by improving data sharing between Federal Agencies and State and local public health systems when preparing for, identifying, monitoring, and responding to public health emergencies.

The Improving DATA in Public Health Act also expands upon existing data modernization efforts by commissioning a study on improving electronic data standards and reporting between laboratories and public health data systems. Finally, the legislation calls for the development of best practices to improve the quality and completeness of demographic data to support equitable public health responses.

The Improving DATA in Public Health Act will strengthen our public health data systems and take commonsense steps to improve our ability to prevent and respond to future pandemics.

Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused extraordinary challenges for our Nation's public health system and put a spotlight on longstanding gaps in public health preparedness. Our Nation's public health system needs accurate, timely, and high-quality data to protect the public from emerging health threats and to respond to existing public health emergencies.

For far too long, gaps in data infrastructure have prevented policymakers and public health officials from quickly translating public health data into their decisionmaking. Outdated and inconsistent public health data systems have made it hard for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments to get a full picture of the COVID-19 crisis. In turn, these data gaps have made it difficult for public health departments to tailor their responses. Specifically, inconsistent definitions of data, ambiguous reporting requirements, and data accessibility issues have hindered the U.S. response to the COVID- 19 pandemic and prevented the timely communication of public health data.

We know that effective pandemic prevention and response requires coordinated efforts between public health

officials across all levels of government. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Baldwin, Smith, and Murphy, the Improving Data Accessibility Through Advancements in Public Health Act, or the Improving DATA in Public Health Act, to use the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that our Nation's public health system has the data capabilities to address and prevent future pandemics.

The Improving DATA in Public Health Act amends public health data systems' modernization provisions in current law by establishing a timeline for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to disseminate data standards to improve the exchange of electronic public health data. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand the access, exchange, and use of public health data by improving data sharing between Federal Agencies and State and local public health systems when preparing for, identifying, monitoring, and responding to public health emergencies.

The Improving DATA in Public Health Act also expands upon existing data modernization efforts by commissioning a study on improving electronic data standards and reporting between laboratories and public health data systems. Finally, the legislation calls for the development of best practices to improve the quality and completeness of demographic data to support equitable public health responses.

The Improving DATA in Public Health Act will strengthen our public health data systems and take commonsense steps to improve our ability to prevent and respond to future pandemics.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Spouse Hiring Act with my colleagues Senators Boozman, Hassan, and Rounds. Enacting this bill would improve financial stability for Blue Star families across the country.

The families of America's servicemembers make sacrifices that often go unrecognized. Among them is packing up and moving frequently, with military spouses regularly having to leave stable employment to move to a new area and start over. This is compounded by the complex system of State licensing and certification requirements, which can prevent these spouses from taking jobs that utilize their expertise and experience. Because of this, military spouses have unemployment rates substantially higher than the national average, and they are often underemployed when they do have jobs. Adding to the financial struggles caused by frequent periods of unemployment and underemployment, the rising cost of child care puts a substantial burden on many military families.

The Military Spouse Hiring Act would help these families by making military spouses an eligible population for the work opportunity tax credit. This tax credit has proven effective in improving employment prospects for other groups. Extending it to military spouses would help them find employment more easily after moving to new areas.

I hope my colleagues will support this bill to help families who have made the greatest sacrifice for our nation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is the product of 18 years of collaborative work from a diverse group of stakeholders in Virginia, including local recreation groups, conservationists, timber industry representatives, and sportsmen.

The Shenandoah Mountain Act of 2022 would designate more than 92,000 acres of the George Washington National Forest in Virginia as the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area, SMNSA.

Congress designates national scenic areas to protect the natural and scenic value of lands that are also compatible with recreational uses such as hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, mountain biking, among others.

The SMNSA encompasses four wilderness areas: Skidmore Fork, Little River, Ramsey's Draft, and Lynn Hollow, which in total include 10 peaks above 4,000 feet and 150 miles of trails to attract campers, hikers, mountain bikers, fishermen, birders, and equestrians. The legislation also establishes a 5,764 acre wilderness area at Beech Lick Knob, located 10 miles to the north.

The SMNSA will protect important water resources, as it contains headwaters for the Potomac and James Rivers and watersheds that provide drinking water sources for Harrisonburg, Staunton, and communities farther downstream, such as Washington, DC, and Richmond. It is also a hotspot for biodiversity. Cold mountain streams in the area are also a stronghold for native brook trout. Today's legislation would permanently protect those rivers and streams from industrial development, and it would also help safeguard plant and wildlife habitat for black bears, wild turkeys, more than 250 species of birds, and at-risk species like the Cow Knob and Shenandoah Mountain salamanders.

The Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area will provide a boost to the region's growing tourism industry. In 2019, the tourism economy directly employed 5,365 people and generated $601 million in Augusta, Rockingham, and Highland Counties, as well as Harrisonburg and Staunton. Designation of the SMNSA would further grow this value.

These challenging past 2 years have underscored that getting out into nature is critical to our health and well-being. I am proud that the Shenandoah Mountain Act will expand these opportunities within the George Washington National Forest for visitors near and far, while also boosting our local economies, protecting drinking water sources, and preserving the wildlife that makes this area so special.

The local governments of Staunton, Augusta, Rockingham, and Harrisonburg, along with over 400 businesses and organizations, have endorsed the new designation for the vast benefits it will have on the surrounding communities. I thank my colleague Senator Mark Warner for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also commend our local stakeholders for working on this proposal for so many years.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Spouse Hiring Act with my colleagues Senators Boozman, Hassan, and Rounds. Enacting this bill would improve financial stability for Blue Star families across the country.

The families of America's servicemembers make sacrifices that often go unrecognized. Among them is packing up and moving frequently, with military spouses regularly having to leave stable employment to move to a new area and start over. This is compounded by the complex system of State licensing and certification requirements, which can prevent these spouses from taking jobs that utilize their expertise and experience. Because of this, military spouses have unemployment rates substantially higher than the national average, and they are often underemployed when they do have jobs. Adding to the financial struggles caused by frequent periods of unemployment and underemployment, the rising cost of child care puts a substantial burden on many military families.

The Military Spouse Hiring Act would help these families by making military spouses an eligible population for the work opportunity tax credit. This tax credit has proven effective in improving employment prospects for other groups. Extending it to military spouses would help them find employment more easily after moving to new areas.

I hope my colleagues will support this bill to help families who have made the greatest sacrifice for our nation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is the product of 18 years of collaborative work from a diverse group of stakeholders in Virginia, including local recreation groups, conservationists, timber industry representatives, and sportsmen.

The Shenandoah Mountain Act of 2022 would designate more than 92,000 acres of the George Washington National Forest in Virginia as the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area, SMNSA.

Congress designates national scenic areas to protect the natural and scenic value of lands that are also compatible with recreational uses such as hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, mountain biking, among others.

The SMNSA encompasses four wilderness areas: Skidmore Fork, Little River, Ramsey's Draft, and Lynn Hollow, which in total include 10 peaks above 4,000 feet and 150 miles of trails to attract campers, hikers, mountain bikers, fishermen, birders, and equestrians. The legislation also establishes a 5,764 acre wilderness area at Beech Lick Knob, located 10 miles to the north.

The SMNSA will protect important water resources, as it contains headwaters for the Potomac and James Rivers and watersheds that provide drinking water sources for Harrisonburg, Staunton, and communities farther downstream, such as Washington, DC, and Richmond. It is also a hotspot for biodiversity. Cold mountain streams in the area are also a stronghold for native brook trout. Today's legislation would permanently protect those rivers and streams from industrial development, and it would also help safeguard plant and wildlife habitat for black bears, wild turkeys, more than 250 species of birds, and at-risk species like the Cow Knob and Shenandoah Mountain salamanders.

The Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area will provide a boost to the region's growing tourism industry. In 2019, the tourism economy directly employed 5,365 people and generated $601 million in Augusta, Rockingham, and Highland Counties, as well as Harrisonburg and Staunton. Designation of the SMNSA would further grow this value.

These challenging past 2 years have underscored that getting out into nature is critical to our health and well-being. I am proud that the Shenandoah Mountain Act will expand these opportunities within the George Washington National Forest for visitors near and far, while also boosting our local economies, protecting drinking water sources, and preserving the wildlife that makes this area so special.

The local governments of Staunton, Augusta, Rockingham, and Harrisonburg, along with over 400 businesses and organizations, have endorsed the new designation for the vast benefits it will have on the surrounding communities. I thank my colleague Senator Mark Warner for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also commend our local stakeholders for working on this proposal for so many years.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.