[Pages S5037-S5046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
AFFORDABLE INSULIN NOW ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 6833,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 389, H.R. 6833, a bill to
amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to establish requirements with
respect to cost-sharing for certain insulin products, and for
other purposes.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Government Funding
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last night, our Democratic colleagues
released a draft short-term government funding deal. Big parts of the
draft are unobjectionable because they were negotiated across party
lines. Both sides of the aisle want to prevent a government shutdown
that no one wants. Both sides want to keep resources flowing to
disaster-stricken communities. Both sides want to continue time-
sensitive support for Ukraine.
But, unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues decided to put in
extraneous partisan language--in fact, a poison pill. This extraneous
poison pill is not related to keeping the government open. It was not
negotiated across the aisle. In fact, both the Democratic chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy, and the Republican vice
chairman, Senator Shelby, have stated publicly that this poison pill
should not be in the underlying bill. The poison pill is a phony
attempt to address the important topic of permitting reform.
It is much too difficult to build things in America and unleash
American energy. Liberal regulations and redtape are a huge--huge--part
of the problem. That is why Republicans are
[[Page S5038]]
the leaders on this issue. That is why my colleague Senator Capito has
introduced a strong, robust package that would actually move the ball
forward.
What our Democratic colleagues have produced is a phony figleaf that
would actually set back the cause of real permitting reform. This is an
issue where it should be very easy to improve upon the status quo, but,
amazingly, our Democratic colleagues have managed to write language
that would actually--listen to this--make things even worse.
Senator Manchin's bill goes out of its way to avoid actually amending
the National Environmental Policy Act or any other environmental law.
It layers new bureaucracy on top of existing bureaucracy. Its new
requirements and deadlines are paper tigers with no enforcement.
The few parts of this legislation that would actually change the
status quo would take things from bad to worse. For example, yesterday,
a long list of State attorneys general wrote the Senate a panicked
letter explaining that Senator Manchin's language would ``eviscerate
states' ability to chart their own land-use and energy policies.''
``Eviscerate states' ability to chart their own land-use and energy
policies.''
Among other problems, they explain how this legislation creates a
backdoor to sneak through an electricity grid takeover much like the
Obama administration's unconstitutional so-called ``Clean Power Plan.''
These State-level officials are also sounding the alarm about higher
costs for their citizens. They write the Manchin proposal could impose
``potentially back-breaking costs on residents who may see no true
energy benefit whatsoever.''
Democrats' policies already have electricity costs skyrocketing at
the fastest rate in more than 40 years. The last thing that struggling
families need are more Democratic policies that raise utility bills
even higher still.
This phony figleaf is ``permitting reform'' in name only. It was
written to drain the political will for actual reform without creating
any meaningful change that liberal special interests might actually
dislike.
If tepid Democratic support for this phony figleaf is all that our
colleague from West Virginia got in return for approving yet another
taxing-and-spending spree during an inflation crisis, it is hard to
imagine a worse bargain for a Senator or for the country.
So, if the Senate votes today on proceeding to a bill that has this
partisan poison pill jammed into it, I will be voting no, and I would
urge all my colleagues to vote no as well.
This all-Democratic government has a smooth and obvious path on
government funding. The path is obvious. Drop the extraneous, partisan
language and let the bipartisan CR move forward.
Electoral Count Act
Now, Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, this afternoon,
those of us on the Rules Committee will mark up a bipartisan package of
updates through the Electoral Count Act of 1887. I strongly support the
modest changes that our colleagues in the working group have fleshed
out after literally months of detailed discussions. I will proudly
support the legislation, provided that nothing more than technical
changes are made to its current form.
I particularly want to thank Senator Collins and Senators Capito,
Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Sasse, Tillis, and Young for their intense
work with Democratic colleagues to get this right.
Congress's process for counting the Presidential electors' votes was
written 135 years ago. The chaos that came to a head on January 6 of
last year certainly underscored the need for an update, so did
Januaries 2001, 2005, and 2017; in each of which, Democrats tried to
challenge the lawful election of a Republican President. Obviously, in
every case, our system of government won out. The Electoral Count Act
ultimately produced the right conclusion: certainty, finality, and the
transfer of power to the winning candidate. But it is clear the country
needs a more predictable path to that outcome.
This bipartisan bill does not rashly replace current law with
something untested. It keeps what has worked well and modestly updates
what has not.
The bill's sponsors debated every provision and found bipartisan
consensus. Bad ideas were left on the cutting room floor. The resulting
product--this bill, as introduced--is the only chance to get an outcome
and to actually make law.
Here is what the legislation does.
It raises the threshold for objecting to the electoral count--
preserving options if something incredibly unlikely were to happen but
ensuring claims with hardly any support can't paralyze the process. It
makes the already plain fact of the 12th Amendment even clearer: that
the Vice President has never had, and will never have, discretionary
powers over the counting.
It protects States' primacy in appointing their electors but ensures
they publicize rules actually before the election. It rejects unwise
challenges like creating new causes of action that would leave every
election up to the courts and create uncertainty. It makes modest
technical updates to other pertinent laws such as the Presidential
Transitions Act.
And Senator Collins' bill does all of those modest but important
things without capitulating to our Democratic colleagues' obsession
with a sweeping Federal takeover of all of our election law.
So I look forward to supporting the legislation as introduced in
committee.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 4962
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Inflation Reduction Act
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, here is item No. 2.
For decades, Americans have paid the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs. On average, we pay nearly four times more than the
people in Canada and other western nations for exactly the same drug.
This price gouging by Big Pharma hurts Americans' health and their
financial security.
I have stories sent to me from time to time from the people I
represent, especially senior citizens, who tell me these sky-high
prescription drug prices force them to choose between medications and
other basic necessities like food and shelter. Phillip has one of those
stories.
Phillip lives in a small town south of Chicago. He is 73 years old
and is a diabetic. After having several heart and back surgeries, he
can't work any longer. He takes several medications regularly. Now, you
are going to recognize the name of one of them. It is called
Trulicity--if you watch TV, you have heard that one--a noninsulin
treatment that he uses to control his blood sugar and manage his
diabetes, Trulicity.
Do you know the 1-month prescription cost for Trulicity? It is
$2,000.
So what does Phillip do, who can't work and has a fixed income? He
tries to cut the pills in half to make his prescription last longer.
Sometimes he just skips the medication altogether.
He is not alone. One in five Americans does not take the medications
as prescribed because they are too expensive. In Phillip's case, even
that isn't enough. At the end of the day, he had to refinance his
home--what a time to do it, huh, with the interest rates?--because here
in America, for too long, we have found it acceptable to allow
pharmaceutical companies to charge what they wish. Not anymore.
We pressed for decades--both Democrats and Republicans gave these
speeches; this was not just a Democratic issue--to lower prescription
drug prices, at least for seniors. Last month, we did it right here on
the floor of the Senate. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress
passed without a single Republican vote, is delivering real relief now
for families who are struggling with high prices.
A few minutes ago, the Republican leader was on the floor, telling us
what a terrible bill that was, the Inflation Reduction Act. He didn't
mention the
[[Page S5039]]
fact that it is going to do some remarkable things. It makes historic
investments to address the climate crisis. That is one thing. It
includes investments in renewable, affordable energy sources. That is
certainly needed. These investments in renewable energy can save
families hundreds of dollars a year in energy costs. That is real
relief.
Just as an aside, last month, my wife and I decided to put solar
panels on our home in Springfield, IL. We are not the first in our
town, but we are certainly the first in our neighborhood. They
predicted it will reduce our electric bill by 85 percent a month. Think
about your own electric bill and what that would mean: money in hand.
There are tax credits to put on solar panels. How did we achieve that
and put tax credits in for heat pumps and electric water heaters? We
put it in the Inflation Reduction Act, which Senator McConnell just
came to the floor and said was a terrible bill. I think you are going
to see more and more Americans making the choice our family made. I
think they should.
The Inflation Reduction Act is also going to lower healthcare costs--
one of the biggest items in every family's budget. First, it will begin
to let Medicare negotiate fair prices for medications used by seniors.
Is that a radical idea, that a Federal Agency, on behalf of the
people it serves, negotiates for lower drug prices? It is an idea that
has been at work in the Veterans Health Administration for years. The
VA, our VA, in serving our veterans--the men and women who serve
this country--pays, on average, half of what Medicare pays for exactly
the same drugs now because the VA could negotiate and Medicare could
not.
The bill which Senator McConnell took exception to now gives Medicare
the power to negotiate lower prices for seniors, and 83 percent of
Americans think that is a pretty good idea. How do we get 83 percent of
Americans to agree on anything? They agree on that, as that is a good
idea, and 71 percent of the people are from the party of the Senator
from Kentucky.
Second, the Inflation Reduction Act will cap the price Medicare
recipients pay for insulin--insulin: $35 a month for Medicare
recipients. That is the limit--and it limits seniors' out-of-pocket
expenses for all medications to $2,000 a year. Remember Phil? Phil was
paying $2,000 a month for Trulicity. Under this bill, which we passed
here a month ago without a single vote from the other side of the
aisle, we are going to limit seniors' responsibility under Medicare for
prescription drugs to $2,000 a year.
By the way, I believe we should cap the cost of insulin at $35 a
month for everybody, not just seniors. Guess what radical nation--what
socialist nation--does that? Canada. Canada does it. Pharmaceutical
companies still make a healthy profit. They just don't make a killing
on a lifesaving drug.
Third, the Inflation Reduction Act will curb the outrageous cost
increases that Medicare beneficiaries pay for medications. It does that
by tying prescription drug price increases to the cost of living.
Pharmaceutical companies that raise their prices faster are going to
pay a penalty if they do. The days of Big Pharma raising prices they
charge seniors at 5 or 10 times the rate of inflation are over.
Of course, the pharmaceutical giants and their lobbyists fought us
every step of the way. They said: If you put limits on the prices we
can charge, then we are going to have to cut our research.
Guess what they didn't tell you and what our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle did not admit: It isn't true. Studies have found that
Big Pharma could lose $1 trillion in sales over the next decade, and it
would still remain the most profitable industry in America. By the way,
did you know these pharmaceutical companies spend more money on
advertising and marketing than they do on research?
Point 2, did you know that the research that they are using is based
on research that was started at the National Institutes of Health at
the expense of American taxpayers? I am all for the National Institutes
of Health. They use what the NIH develops to make new drugs. It is a
good thing to do, and they are very profitable as they do it, so I
don't want to hear that they can charge less and that they are not
going to be able to survive. I don't believe it.
It is not only seniors who will save on healthcare costs. More than
14 million Americans who receive their health coverage through the
Affordable Care Act marketplace will save hundreds--even thousands--of
dollars on their monthly insurance premiums because of the Inflation
Reduction Act.
Under the American Rescue Plan, we lowered monthly premiums for
middle-income families and for those with ACA health plans. The
Inflation Reduction Act will continue this for another 3 years, and I
hope I am here to renew it. No one should go without medical care ever
but especially not while we are fighting a worldwide pandemic.
Not only did our Republican colleagues vote against what I just
described to you, lowering monthly premiums for families nationwide,
but they went further and tried in every way they could think to gut
the Affordable Care Act.
Two weeks ago, a Federal judge in the Northern District of Texas
ruled that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health plans
offer free preventive health services, like vaccinations, was
unconstitutional. In 2020, because of the ACA, 152 million Americans
received these preventive health services, with no out-of-pocket cost,
often resulting in the early detection of cancer, heart disease, and
other serious conditions.
Now a group of Texas residents and businesses argues that that just
violates their basic religious liberty--religious liberty. They picked
a judge who has been friendly to them in the past. This same judge in
northern Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional.
That was overturned by the Supreme Court. Thank goodness.
It has been 12 years since the ACA became law. It is long past time
for both parties to support this effort which provides health insurance
for millions of Americans at an affordable cost. We need to bring down
the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs for all American
families.
The last item of good news comes from a blog that I read rather
religiously by a lady in Maine, Heather Cox Richardson. Almost every
day, she publishes a column for those who want to read it. I don't know
if there is a subscription cost. She asks from time to time if you want
to contribute to her effort. I do.
Well, today's is one that, I think, is worth reading and remembering.
She says:
A headline in The New York Times today read: ``Factory Jobs
Are Booming Like It's the 1970s.'' The story explained that
more money in the hands of consumers thanks to Federal
stimulus spending, along with a new skepticism of stretched
supply lines, has created a rebound in American
manufacturing.
Since the 1970s . . . outsourcing and automation have meant
that every recession has seen factory jobs disappear [in
America] and never return.
Well, there is good news. We now know that we have not only regained
all of the manufacturing jobs lost during the pandemic, we have added
67,000 more.
Those numbers would be higher if the labor market weren't
so tight, a condition leading employers to offer higher wages
and better benefits.
The other point she makes is one that the National Economic Council
Director, Brian Deese, told reporters: ``One of the most striking
things that we are seeing'' is that American companies ``are committing
to build and expand'' right here at home because of supply chain
concerns. ``Meanwhile''--get this--``the real net worth of the bottom
50% of U.S. households has climbed 60% [in the last year and a half] .
. . now reaching $67,524.''
Inflation is a problem. Don't get me wrong; it is a challenge.
Gasoline prices seem to be creeping down, at least in the Midwest. I
can't speak for all over the country. Food prices are still too high. I
have been to the supermarket over the weekend. I know what is going on.
But we are seeing some evidence of progress on the economic front, and
I certainly hope that it continues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this column by Heather
Cox Richardson be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S5040]]
September 26, 2022
(By Heather Cox Richardson)
A headline in the New York Times today read: ``Factory Jobs
Are Booming Like It's the 1970s.'' The story explained that
more money in the hands of consumers thanks to federal
stimulus spending, along with a new skepticism of stretched
supply lines, has created a rebound in American
manufacturing.
Since the 1970s, authors Jim Tankersley, Alan Rappeport,
and Ana Swanson explain, outsourcing and automation have
meant that every recession has seen factory jobs disappear
and never return as employers used downturns to move
operations to countries with lower wage levels. This time,
though, American manufacturers have not only regained all the
jobs lost during the pandemic, they have also added about
67,000 more. Those numbers would be higher if the labor
market weren't so tight, a condition leading employers to
offer higher wages and better benefits.
Biden has made it clear that he is trying to overturn 40
years of ``supply side'' economics, ushered in by President
Ronald Reagan. This system was designed to free up capital at
the top of the economy through tax cuts and deregulation in
the belief that putting capital in the hands of the wealthy--
the ``supply side''--would lead them to invest more in the
economy, thus making it grow more quickly and providing more
jobs. While Republicans came to embrace that ideology
wholeheartedly, in fact it never showed signs of increasing
economic growth. What it did was to move wealth dramatically
upward. It also made the measure of the economy the health of
Wall Street rather than Main Street.
Since Abraham Lincoln's administration, which faced a
similar economic stratification upward. Biden has followed in
this tradition. Insisting that he would build the economy
``from the bottom up and the middle out,'' he, along with the
Democrats in Congress, bolstered domestic manufacturing with
measures like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the
Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act.
Now, statistics show, that investment has paid off. Chad
Moutray, the chief economist for the National Association of
Manufacturers, told the New York Times reporters: ``We have
67,000 more workers today than we had in February 2020. 1
didn't think we would get there, to be honest with you.''
National Economic Council director Brian Deese told the
reporters, ``One of the most striking things that we are
seeing now is the number of companies--U.S. companies and
global companies--that are committing to build and expand
their manufacturing footprint in the United States, and doing
so based on their view that not only did the pandemic
highlight the need for more resilience in their supply
chains, but that the United States is creating a policy
environment that makes long-term investment here in the
United States more attractive.''
Meanwhile, the real net worth of the bottom 50% of U.S.
households has climbed 60% since Biden took office, now
reaching $67,524.
One of the things that will continue to feed this change is
the plan to forgive significant student loan debt, especially
among low-income Black and Brown Americans. This story is
hitting the news today after the Congressional Budget Office
responded to a series of questions posed by Senator Richard
Burr (R-NC) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), both
fervently opposed to the program. The CBO's responses to
those specific questions have been widely published,
suggesting the program will cost the U.S. $400 billion. This
is sparking cries about its expense, but this particular CBO
number calculates the cost over the next 30 years rather than
the usual ten, does not address the stimulus effects of the
relief, and does not take into account how much anyone would
actually have repaid. The estimate is, the CBO states in its
letter, ``highly uncertain.''
In contrast to Biden's economic program, on Friday the new
government of Prime Minister Liz Truss announced the most
radical tax cuts in Britain since 1972, cutting the top
income tax rate as well as corporate taxes to spur the
economy. This unfunded cut will mean borrowing at rising
interest rates. Concerns about inflation, already hammering
the British economy, made the value of the pound, which is
the English unit of currency, drop to its lowest level since
1985.
These different economic visions are in conflict here in
the United States. Former Trump economic advisor Steve Moore
reacted to the Truss tax cuts by saying: ``This is exactly
what we should be doing in the US.'' White House economic
advisor Jared Bernstein said: ``President Biden has been very
clear about the negative track record of trickle-down,
Reagan-style tax cuts.''
Republicans have managed to keep voters behind their
economic program by downplaying it and emphasizing cultural
issues, primarily abortion, which reliably turned out anti-
abortion voters. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned
the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion,
Republicans have a demographic problem: a majority of voters
support reproductive rights and are turning out to vote, and
there is no longer a reason for anti-abortion voters to show
up.
So Republican leaders are downplaying abortion: reporter
Eric Garcia noted today that Republican representative and
Senate candidate Ted Budd (R-NC), who is a cosponsor of the
House version of Senator Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) national
abortion bill, didn't mention his stance in a recent rally
with former president Trump. They are also inventing new
cultural crises, most notably an attack on LGBTQIA folks but
also a renewed attack on immigrants.
Trump has gone further, jumping aboard the QAnon train,
which the FBI considers a domestic terrorism threat, as his
own legal troubles are mounting. His lawyers failed to slow
down the criminal investigation into his theft of documents,
including many marked with the highest levels of
classification. New York Attorney General Letitia James has
sued Trump, his company, and his children and two associates
for fraud. And now the House Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol is beginning to
turn up more information.
On Friday the committee subpoenaed Wisconsin House Speaker
Robin Vos to ask about a phone call he had with Trump in July
2022 (not a typo) in which Trump tried to get him to change
the 2020 result in Wisconsin. Vos is challenging the
subpoena.
In the lead-up to Wednesday's midday public hearing of the
committee, Zachary Cohen of CNN reported today that election
denier Phil Waldron, a former Army colonel associated with
Trump loyalist Michael Flynn, was in contact with White House
chief of staff Mark Meadows in late December 2020 about
gaining access to the voting systems in Arizona and Georgia.
Waldron referred to Arizona as ``our lead domino we were
counting on to start the cascade,'' to overturn the election.
Meanwhile, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice
Clarence Thomas, was texting QAnon links to Meadows. And now,
after flirting with QAnon since 2020, Trump has embraced it
wholeheartedly, first ``retruthing'' social media posts
featuring him as a QAnon hero and warning that ``The Storm Is
Coming,'' then using QAnon music at a rally. Now, he has sent
out an email calling for the death penalty for drug dealers--
a favorite theme of fascists since the 1930s and a major part
of the program of former dictator Rodrigo Duterte of the
Philippines, whom Trump admires--along with the warning that
``Under Democrat control, the streets of our great cities are
drenched in the blood of innocent victims,'' tapping into the
QAnon themes of violent retribution for those they see as
preying on America's youth.
``I certainly will do whatever it takes to make sure Donald
Trump isn't anywhere close to the Oval Office,''
Representative Liz Cheney said this weekend at The Texas
Tribune Festival, which highlights politics and policy. ``And
if he is the nominee, I won't be a Republican.'' She warned
that a Republican majority in the House would empower Trump
Republicans like Jim Jordan (OH), Marjorie Taylor Greene
(GA), and Lauren Boebert (CO).
And when asked if Trump should testify before the
committee, Cheney answered: ``Any interaction that Donald
Trump has with the committee will be under oath and subject
to penalty of perjury.''
Notes
Jeff Stein@JStein WaPo
Former Trump economic adviser Steve Moore on Liz Truss tax
policy: ``I'm very supportive of what they're doing. This is
exactly what we should be doing in the US . . . I'm surprised
the market has not reacted positively but I think that's
going to reverse course.''
September 26th 2022
<a href='https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/business/factory-jobs-
workers-rebound.html'>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/business/factory-jobs-
workers-rebound.html</a>
<a href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/understanding-the-
pounds-sudden-crash/2022/09/4f195480-3d96-11ed-8c6e-
9386bd7cd826_story.html'>https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/understanding-the-
pounds-sudden-crash/2022/09/4f195480-3d96-11ed-8c6e-
9386bd7cd826_story.html</a>
<a href='https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-
guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality'>https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-
guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality</a>
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_092257
David Doney@David Charts
Real net worth of the bottom 50% households set another
record in Q2 '22, reaching $67,524, up 10% from last quarter
and up 60% since Biden started.
This is driven by home prices, big wage gains, and full
employment.
September 26th 2022
<a href='https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-09/58494-Student-
Loans.pdf'>https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-09/58494-Student-
Loans.pdf</a>
Ronald Klain@WHCOS
If you want apples-to-apples, note that this is a THIRTY
year score; most often, CBO estimates a program's cost over
its first TEN years.
When @POTUS announced this, the WH said it would cost about
$24b in the first year. This @USCBO estimate puts the first
year cost at $21B.
Peter Baker@peterbakernyt
Biden's plan to wipe out significant amounts of student
loan debt for tens of millions of borrowers could cost about
$400 billion, the nonpartisan CBO reports, renewing the
debate over his decision. @katierogers <a href='https://t.co/
'>https://t.co/
</a> 0flmC5O0bN
September 26th 2022
<a href='https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-north-carolina-
abortion-roe-ted-budd-b2175540.html'>https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-north-carolina-
abortion-roe-ted-budd-b2175540.html</a>
Kyle Cheney@kyledcheney
NEWS: The Jan. 6 select committee subpoenaed Wisconsin
House Speaker Robin Vos over the weekend and is seeking his
testimony by *today* about a July phone call he had with
Donald Trump.
[[Page S5041]]
September 26th 2022
<a href='https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/politics/meadows-texts-phil-
waldron-seize-voting-machines-election-fraud/index.html'>https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/politics/meadows-texts-phil-
waldron-seize-voting-machines-election-fraud/index.html</a>
Brian Klaas@brianklaas
The former president, many of his aides, Republican members
of Congress, and the wife of a Supreme Court justice, are all
directly promoting QAnon--which the FBI classifies as a
domestic terrorism threat. The GOP has become an
authoritarian, conspiracist, extremist party.
60 Minutes@60Minutes
Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife,
texted links tied to QAnon to ex-White House Chief of Staff
Mark Meadows, according to former Jan. 6th staffer Denver
Riggleman, Riggleman says her actions ``should be an eye
opener for everybody'' https://t.co/tgVPFfR661 <a href='https://t.co/
'>https://t.co/
</a> zGFNwATIG5
September 26th 2022
Jeff Sharlet@JeffSharlet
Big: Trump follows up his full QAnon embrace with email
labeled ``The Death Penalty,'' calling for execution of drug
dealers & signaling to Q, I'd argue, many more executions
after that. No question he's borrowing from former
Philippines dictator Duterte, whom he admires & envies.
September 26th 2022
<a href='https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/24/liz-cheney-texas-
tribune-festival'>https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/24/liz-cheney-texas-
tribune-festival</a>
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week, the Senate has one extremely
important item on our agenda: to keep the lights on; in other words, to
pass a government funding bill. We are just 3 days from the end of the
fiscal year, and the Democrat-controlled Senate has yet to pass a
single appropriations bill--no funding for our military, no funding for
veterans services, no funding for border security, nothing.
Now, this deadline does not sneak up out of nowhere; it arrives on
the same day every year. Yet here we are, 3 days before the funding
expires, and not a single appropriations bill has been voted on.
The majority leader conceded a long time ago that the regular
appropriations bills would be punted to a later date and we would pass
a short-term funding bill to bridge the gap. As a general rule, I am
not a fan of short-term funding bills. They don't provide the stability
or predictability we need to plan for the future. That is especially
true for America's military, which is operating in a dynamic threat
environment with countless unknowns. In order to plan for and prepare
for the future, government Agencies need a predictable budget, and
stopgap bills simply don't cut it.
As though this last-minute funding gambit isn't dramatic enough, the
majority leader has raised the stakes even higher. He is not putting a
clean funding bill on the floor; he is weighing it down with partisan
freight. This is part of a political horse trade that happened a couple
of months ago. In order to get the senior Senator from West Virginia to
vote for his reckless tax-and-spending bill, the majority leader
promised to attach permitting reform to the government funding bill.
Forget the fact that Senator Manchin's permitting bill was nowhere near
complete; the majority leader blindly agreed to tack it on to must-pass
legislation.
Senator Manchin, the senior Senator from West Virginia, finally
released his bill last week, and it became clear why he was so
desperate to attach it to a must-pass continuing resolution. That is
because the bill doesn't even come close to delivering the real
commonsense changes that were promised. The provisions meant to speed
up the approval process for new projects lack teeth, making them
unlikely to produce any real progress.
The bill doesn't touch the environmental reviews, which cause a lot
of delays to happen in the first place. On top of that, it is a power
grab by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, granting them
unprecedented authority to force electric transmission lines on States.
Under the current law, States have the authority to decide whether or
not to grant transmission lines to run through their States. It is part
of something called State sovereignty, federalism. Under this bill,
that would change, though. The unelected leaders at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission could override a State's objection to a new
project transmitting renewable energy.
In short, if a State like Illinois needs a new interstate
transmission line to help meet its clean energy mandates, its neighbors
will have no choice but to oblige. It will be forced on them. Folks in
Indiana or Ohio or any other State could be forced to help subsidize
the costs of Illinois' renewable energy. This is a far cry from the
kind of commonsense permitting reform that Senator Manchin has been
talking about.
This bill falls short in almost every regard, which is why we have
seen such broad bipartisan opposition. There aren't many Energy bills
where my vote aligns with that of the junior Senator from Vermont,
Senator Sanders, but this is one of them.
Despite the strong opposition to Senator Manchin's bill, the majority
is still moving forward with a procedural vote this evening. He knows
it will fail. It will not succeed. Then, Senator Schumer, the majority
leader, will have a choice: pass a clean funding bill to keep the
lights on, to keep government open, or shut down the government over
their reckless tax-and-spending spree deal cut behind closed doors last
summer.
If you remember, a couple of months ago, at the same time he
professed publicly and privately that the disastrous, radical tax-and-
spending spree bill was dead, the senior Senator from West Virginia was
negotiating a sweetheart deal in secret, unbeknownst to Republicans
and, by the way, unbeknownst to all Democrats other than the majority
leader. Fast-forward to today. When that deal falls apart this evening,
he will need to abandon his secret deal with Senator Schumer.
For our country's sake, I hope the majority leader and Senator
Manchin won't shut down the government. With so much economic
uncertainty already, the last thing we need is a government shutdown.
Legislation
Madam President, this is the last week the House of Representatives
will be in session until after the election. Once the Chamber gavels
out at the end of the week, Members will go home, and they won't return
until November 14. That doesn't leave a lot of time to accomplish the
work of the American people. In fact, after this week, the House is
scheduled to only be in session for 4 more weeks this year.
As my colleagues here in the Senate know, the House has a lot to do
and not a lot of time to do it. Since the start of the Congress, the
Senate has passed a long list of bipartisan bills that are still
awaiting action in the House. Many of these bills passed this Chamber
unanimously and will provide critical support for our communities.
Here is just one example. Last year, Senator Padilla, the junior
Senator from California, and I introduced a bill to support
infrastructure and disaster relief projects all across the country. Our
bill would open up billions of dollars for States and local governments
to put toward their most critical projects without adding a penny to
the deficit. That is because the money that would be freed up has
already been appropriated for COVID-19 relief but is in excess of what
the States and local governments need for that purpose. Our bill would
take the handcuffs off and allow them to spend that money if they want.
They are not required to do so, but if they want, they can spend up to
one-third of their excess funds on infrastructure or disaster relief,
and it doesn't add another penny to the deficit.
Over the last year and a half, I have heard from leaders all across
my State of Texas who are frustrated about the handcuffs that have been
put on them when it comes to spending the money that Congress had
appropriated for COVID-19 relief. Senator Padilla told me he is hearing
the same thing from leaders in California. So we got to work. We spoke
with folks in our States as well as our Senate colleagues and
administration officials, and we came up with legislation that was
simple but very effective in providing that sort of flexibility that
our local communities and our States have asked for.
With some places, that means pandemic-related expenses, which will
[[Page S5042]]
take the priority. Our legislation won't interfere with any plans to
spend that money on already-approved pandemic expenses, but it will
give the States and localities without that need the option to invest
those funds in infrastructure projects.
Usually, what happens here in Washington is the U.S. Congress
appropriates money, and it literally takes a couple of years to get the
money from DC down to places like Austin, TX, where the Texas
legislators can then figure out how to disburse those funds. Now, we
know they already have the money in their hands, but they simply can't
use it because of the restrictions placed on those funds.
Senator Padilla's and my bill would remove those restrictions for
important purposes, like infrastructure and like disaster relief;
things like widening highways, constructing bridges, extending
railways, expanding broadband. Our bill includes a long list of
qualifying expenses.
It also will allow leaders to put their funding toward disaster
relief, which is a major need in areas all across the country. Places
like Texas and Kentucky, for example, have experienced devastating
flooding in the last few months. Puerto Rico, we know, has just been
hit by a terrible hurricane and is still trying to restore power.
Florida is bracing for impact of Hurricane Ian as it makes its way to
the gulf coast. California continues to battle destructive wildfires.
Our bill would allow leaders to open up disaster relief funds
virtually instantly, as soon as the President signs the bill into law.
They already have the funding in hand. They won't have to wait for a
Federal disaster declaration or emergency funding from Congress; they
could write the check themselves and mobilize resources
instantaneously. It is no surprise this bill passed the Senate 100 to
0. It was unanimous.
These are the sorts of commonsense things that will benefit
communities all across the United States. This bill will open up tens
of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects in communities all
across the country, and it will support critical disaster relief
efforts as well. It will empower State and local leaders to make the
best decisions for their communities. It will ensure that this funding
can deliver on its intended purpose, which is to alleviate the
financial burden imposed by the pandemic on our State and local
governments. I hope Speaker Pelosi will bring up and pass this bill as
quickly as possible. It would help her State of California, but more
importantly, it would help the entire country.
But this is just one of many bipartisan bills that are currently
sitting in the House since the start of Congress--the Senate's
unanimously approved bills that I have introduced to prevent and
identify child sexual abuse; to provide incarcerated individuals with
access to treatment for their substance use disorder; to facilitate
more cross-border trade with our neighbors to the north and the south;
to support programs and help individuals experiencing mental health
crises; to provide tax relief to survivors of human trafficking; to
equip law enforcement officers with the tools they need in order to
help people in crisis.
It would be a shame if the Speaker declined to bring these bills up
and pass them. I am sure they would pass by overwhelming votes in the
U.S. House of Representatives, as they did here in the Senate. But the
House is only scheduled to be in session a few more weeks this
Congress. It is time to get moving on these commonsense,
noncontroversial, nonpartisan bills. Otherwise, we will have to start
back at square one next year.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Continuing Resolution
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have a short update on today's vote for
the information of all Senators.
Later this afternoon, the Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote
on a motion to proceed to a vehicle for the CR.
Now, Senate Republicans have made very clear they will block
legislation to fund the government if it includes bipartisan permitting
reform because they have chosen to obstruct instead of work in a
bipartisan way to achieve something they have long claimed they wanted
to do.
Because American families should not be subjected to a Republican-
manufactured government shutdown, Senator Manchin has requested, and I
have agreed, to move forward and pass the recently filed continuing
resolution legislation without the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2022.
Senator Manchin, myself, and others will continue to have
conversations about the best way to ensure responsible permitting
reform is passed before the end of the year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Social Security
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for those
comments and for his leadership on this and so much else, including the
subject that Senator Wyden and I will be talking about today: Social
Security.
I rise to discuss an issue that Senator Wyden and I have worked on,
and I am honored to be part of this with a Senator who began his career
active in the Gray Panthers. So his commitment to Social Security
almost goes back to almost before I was born, if I can say it that way.
Everything we do here--everything we do here--should come back to the
dignity of work; the idea that hard work should pay off for everybody
no matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter what kind of
work you do to support yourself and your family.
When work has dignity, people always, always, always should have a
secure retirement. That means they can count on Medicare. It means they
can count on Social Security. It means we protect in this body--Senator
Markey has been very involved in this, too, as the Presiding Officer.
It means we protect people's pensions. It means people should make
enough to save.
It is why we saved--this body. I remember sitting here with Senator
Casey on March 6, 2021, and saying to him this was the best day of my
career, when we voted 51 to 50 to save the pensions of 100,000 people
in Ohio, over a million workers around the country, the same day we
passed the Child Tax Credit extension, which dropped the poverty rate
in this country by 40 percent.
It is why we still fight for the Delphi retirees who lost their
pensions through no fault of their own, through no wrongdoing of their
own, through no malfeasance or anything else of their own. They lost it
because the system didn't guarantee it. It is why we will always,
always fight back against attacks on Social Security. A secure
retirement should never be partisan.
Social Security and Medicare are two of the most popular and most
unifying institutions in the country.
Think back. We have had Social Security since the Roosevelt days. We
have had Medicare since the LBJ days--so 80, 90 years of Social
Security. The first Social Security check was in 1940 to a woman in
Vermont. We have had Social Security for 82 years.
Medicare, passed by a Democratic House and Senate, with some
Republican support joining President Johnson creating Medicare in the
1960s--again, two of the most popular and most unifying institutions in
the country.
Social Security is our government's promise to working men and women,
a promise they will be able to retire with dignity.
Support for Social Security among the voters, among the public, cuts
across party lines, geographic lines, racial lines. Almost everybody in
this country supports Social Security.
Americans want to not only protect Social Security and Medicare, but
they want to make it stronger.
I said almost everybody in the country supports Social Security and
Medicare. Well, Mr. President, as you know and Chairman Wyden of the
Finance
[[Page S5043]]
Committee knows, almost everybody except a whole lot of people who come
to the Senate and, down the hall, come to the House of Representatives
and think their mission is to privatize Social Security and privatize
Medicare.
So why do they do that?
Well, it is their answer to pay for everything. How can we afford
handouts to corporations? Well, the way to pay for it is to cut Social
Security and you privatize Medicare. How do you pay for tax cuts for
the wealthy? Well, you wipe out the retirement security of Americans.
You cut Social Security. You privatize Medicare. That is their answer,
time after time after time.
They don't really want to talk about it this close to an election. As
soon as this election is over, we know the crescendo; we know the loud
voices, again, from Senator Scott, the leader, who happens to also run
the Republican Senate Campaign Committee--the Senator from Florida who
is a freshman who believes that privatizing--that we should have to
renew Medicare and Social Security every 5 years. Like we don't want
anybody to feel comfortable or be able to plan for the future or to
feel, like, just secure in their retirement.
So it is always the same plan from the corporate elite and think-tank
extremists.
So when I said almost everybody, it was not quite fair to say it is
only Republican Senators and Republican House Members. It is also the
corporate elite, in many cases. It is the people at these rightwing
think tanks, funded by billionaires, who think this is some way that--
they come up with some new scheme to disguise their unpopular agenda:
privatize Social Security or means-testing Social Security. Whatever it
is, the plan is the same: to kill off Social Security.
This time it is Senator Rick Scott and Senate Republicans' plan to
terminate Social Security. As I said, they want to get rid of this
bedrock promise. It doesn't matter to them that most Americans support
Social Security.
That is why, this week, Senator Wyden, who, as I said, began his
activism as an activist for the Gray Panthers in Portland, OR; Senator
Casey, who sits next to me, one of the leaders in this Senate, a
Senator from Pennsylvania--he came to the Senate the same day I did--
who is one of the leaders of this Senate and on Senator
Wyden's committee to fight to affirm that Social Security should remain
a guarantee for every American whom we want because our government
should work for people, not against them.
When workers have dignity--when work has dignity, we honor the
retirement security people earned. It should be an easy decision.
I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues, frankly,
with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers--we all have
that in this body--to think about the generations of Americans who have
benefited from Social Security and the generations to come who are
relying on the promise of Social Security.
I have listened to their speeches for years extolling the value of
hard work. I have heard some of them trying to run from their own plans
to end Social Security. But the American people are on to Senate
Republicans.
The American people watched as all 50 Republicans voted against or
essentially did nothing to solve the multiemployer pension crisis. They
are watching--a few exceptions. Senator Portman has been helpful on
this, on the bipartisan Delphi retiree fix, but many are trying to
block it.
The public watches as the Republican caucus tries to end Social
Security for good.
If the American people don't need to worry about the Republican
Senate plan to end Social Security, now is your chance to prove it.
This is your chance, by voting--this is your chance to live up to your
own words and cosponsor this resolution that Senator Wyden and I and
Senator Casey are leading.
Show Americans that if you work hard all your life, your government,
your Senator will be there for you and that you are not working in this
body to undermine the promise of Social Security.
Senator Wyden and I have worked together to protect Social Security
for years.
What is at stake with these attacks? Why do we need to show a united
commitment to Social Security in the U.S. Senate?
Senator Wyden.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. And I see in the Chair
another strong supporter of Social Security, the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts.
And for colleagues who aren't aware, Senator Brown is our chair of
the Subcommittee on Social Security in the Senate Finance Committee.
This is a crucial subcommittee for all the reasons that Senator Brown
just mentioned, and I am just going to make a couple of points, and if
my colleague is still on the floor, maybe we can have a little bit of a
colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you.
What Senator Brown has illustrated again is the differences between
the two parties on Social Security and Medicare, and my colleague was
kind enough to go back to my past as codirector of the Oregon Gray
Panthers.
Ever since those days, the difference between the two parties has
been that on our side of the aisle, we are very blunt when we get asked
about Social Security and Medicare. As Senator Brown just said, on our
side, we make it clear that Social Security and Medicare are a
guarantee. They are not a voucher. They are not something that is going
to be thrown to the private market. They are a guarantee.
What we hear from our colleagues on the other side is sort of a word
salad, but it nearly always involves a statement about how much they
want to protect Social Security, but then we hear a lot about
privatization, about portability, about investment.
It is anything but what you just heard Senator Brown say; that
Medicare and Social Security are not something to be privatized; they
are about a guarantee.
And we should make no mistake about it, seniors, others who are
eligible for the programs have earned these benefits. They have earned
these benefits.
And yet, somehow, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and
candidates don't get what the programs are really all about.
For example, not long ago, I saw a Republican Senate candidate out
West say in a primary forum: Congress ought to ``privatize Social
Security and just get the government out of it.''
``Just get the government out of it.''
Now, apparently, he is the nominee, and he is for protecting Social
Security. He swears up and down he is for protecting Social Security--
huge about-face.
I heard another westerner asked on live TV about his thoughts on
Social Security. And he said nothing about a guarantee. He said: We
ought to look at portability issues and individual accounts and benefit
cuts are on the menu.
Again, this is kind of Washington lingo, Washington code for
unraveling the guarantee that is Social Security and Medicare that I
learned about in those days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray
Panthers.
And Americans don't want their elected representatives to cut this
crucial set of programs that are earned benefits. And they certainly
don't want their elected officials and candidates to talk out of both
sides of their mouth.
Now, I mentioned this question of westerners and where westerners
stand, but apparently this opposition to these core principles of
Social Security doesn't just reside in the West. It seems to spread
across the country. Senator Rick Scott has proposed ending, again, the
guarantees of these bedrock programs--Social Security and Medicare--and
just sunsetting them after just a few years--sunsetting them.
So as I would say to my colleague, who has worked with me on a lot of
these issues, let's just unpack that for a minute. We believe that
Social Security and Medicare are guaranteed. They are not subject to
these annual, political kind of battles and pushed and prodded for
political advantage. They are guaranteed. But yet, after quoting those
in the West who want to come join us, now we have a southerner in a
position of great importance who wants to sunset programs like Social
[[Page S5044]]
Security and Medicare after just a few years and, in effect, throw them
to the winds to see what kind of politics might be put in place.
I don't believe that is acceptable. Senator Brown, the chair of our
subcommittee, doesn't believe that is acceptable. Social Security is
among the most foundational principles in our country's history,
providing financial security through guaranteed benefits for millions
of Americans. Over 70 million Americans receive Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income every year.
Mr. BROWN. Senator Wyden, would the Senator yield for one moment?
Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to and, particularly, so you can tell
everybody again why you feel so strongly.
Mr. BROWN. I would like to ask you this. You had said that Senator
Scott, who is the chairman of the Republican Senate campaign committee,
represents the third largest State in the country, Florida. He said he
wants to sunset? What exactly--just explain that so my colleagues
understand it. The word ``sunset'' doesn't sound so bad until you
really explain it. And I know Senator Markey understands it, but
explain that, if you would.
Mr. WYDEN. Yes. What ``sunset'' means is you would unravel the basic
principles of Social Security and Medicare. We don't subject them to
annual or regular political fights. We have said that people have
earned those benefits, and we aren't just going to set arbitrary dates
and say we are going to, in effect, move on and we will decide what
happens to seniors and the disabled based on the politics of the
moment.
It is a 180-degree departure from the kind of guarantee that you
spelled out that I feel so strongly about. We don't say we are just
going to have these arbitrary changes that could put at risk the entire
program.
Mr. BROWN. So he is saying then, so I understand this right. Senator
Scott, the chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee,
representing the third largest State in the country, is saying that
every 5 years, if the Senate doesn't say yes to Social Security and
Medicare, then they are unraveled and they die. It is up to the Senate
to say yes every 5 years?
Mr. WYDEN. My colleague from Ohio is being way too logical because,
you bet, what this essentially means is if you sunset it, the program
and the benefits are not going to continue as they have. As you said,
if people decide because of some particular kind of flurry at the
moment that for some cause they don't want to continue it, the well-
being and security of seniors is jeopardized.
Mr. BROWN. So if there is a President and a Senate and a House in 5
years that want to privatize Medicare and Social Security, or a
President who wants to veto it, or a Senate leader, like Senator
McConnell, who has never really believed in it, they can do nothing.
They just do nothing. So it is up to the people who support Social
Security and Medicare to keep it going every 5 years. In other words,
the burden is on the supporters, the public--which is, to me, 90
percent of the public who likes this. So that is the way it works,
right?
Mr. WYDEN. You have stated it well. It would mean that when you
sunset it, you would have to have a brand-new fight to reestablish its
primacy as a guarantee. You sunset it.
Mr. BROWN. Well, go back to that. You said ``a brand-new fight.'' I
am not a historian. I like reading history, but I know enough about
Medicare because I care a lot about the history, as you do, of that--
and Senator Markey and others and Senator Leahy, who is on the floor
about it too.
President Truman wanted to enact Medicare, but he couldn't get the
Congress to do it. And then President Kennedy wanted to enact Medicare,
and he couldn't get Congress to do it. It probably took the Kennedy
assassination and all that was happening to sort of light the fire
under Congress to pass Medicare.
So you would need that kind of political will. In other words, it
took almost 20 years to pass Medicare. So if Medicare were to expire,
you would need a huge public wave with elected officials who want to do
it to get it back, in effect.
Mr. WYDEN. Nope, no question about it, and it would put in jeopardy
fundamental core principles that seniors all across the country--in
Ohio and Oregon and Massachusetts--have been able to count on. When you
sunset it, you say you can't count on it. You have to wait for another
political battle.
And I would just say to my colleagues--showing how extreme the
position is of our colleague from Florida, Senator Scott--that Senator
Orrin Hatch, the late Senator Hatch who worked with us, when he was in
the Senate said: We will update the Medicare guarantee to start
covering chronic care. This is something the Senator from Massachusetts
has worked with me on, home care for seniors. So Senator Orrin Hatch,
our late colleague and my personal friend, who was not exactly a
liberal, he understood what you and I are talking about: that Medicare
and Social Security are a guarantee. And when we talked about chronic
care, he said: We are going to update the Medicare guarantee--nothing
about saying: Well, gee, maybe we will do something after we sunset it.
So my colleague has said it well.
Mr. BROWN. Let me ask another question. So if Senator Scott gets his
way or Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, gets his way, and all
the new candidates Senator Scott is helping to get elected, if they get
their way and pass Senator Scott's bill to sunset, would Senator Scott
still have government healthcare and a government pension?
Mr. WYDEN. He hasn't talked about it, but I think that would
certainly be one of the questions our constituents would ask about,
because this issue of there being a double standard between seniors at
home and their elected officials would be very real. He hasn't spelled
out how he would deal with that, but there is certainly the question of
elected officials, because we have these retirement benefits that have
been part, again, of a program that has been established for some time.
They haven't been talked about.
But I will tell you, I think the chair of the Social Security
Subcommittee and myself on the Finance Committee, we are going to go
out there and say: No double standard.
You can be sure of that. If something is sunsetted for working people
and seniors and the disabled, we are certainly not going to let Senator
Scott pretend that somehow it is business as usual for elected
officials.
Mr. President, I think Senator Brown started us off very well, and he
is asking questions that I think millions of Americans are going to
ask. My understanding is that my colleague from Ohio, the chairman of
the subcommittee, is going to be looking at a lot of these issues in
his subcommittee. But certainly this last point, about politicians
talking out of both sides of their mouth and saying somehow that we are
going to have a program sunsetted for seniors and the disabled--Social
Security, Medicare and others--but we are not going to even talk about
what happens for elected officials is an example of how you shouldn't
legislate. It is an example of what I believe could be a double
standard.
And I will just close, unless Senator Brown wants to. In fact, I am
going to let Senator Brown do it. I thought, as I listened to Senator
Brown, and I put it in the context of all these years with the Gray
Panthers, that everybody can understand what Senator Brown is talking
about. Medicare and Social Security are a guarantee--period--inviolate,
as a result of the history that we have had in this country where
people worked so hard for this.
On the other side, we are talking about privatization, we are talking
about portability, and we are talking about lots of new cost analyses
in the private sector and individualized programs. I am for
individualized programs on top of Social Security, not in place of it.
So I really appreciate your resolution, Senator Brown, and I am going
to do everything I can to support it.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. And I will yield back my time in
30 seconds.
Mr. President, thank you for your indulgence. Senator Leahy will be
speaking in a moment. And, Senator Leahy, chairman of the Finance
Committee, we are just asking for cosponsors. We have a number of
colleagues that have cosponsored this to make sure that Social Security
is with us--a strong, good
[[Page S5045]]
Social Security system--as long as we are a nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the floor vote is going to be
soon. I ask unanimous consent that it be after I finish my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, listening to Senator Wyden and Senator
Brown about Social Security, I would tell my colleagues that the first
recipient of Social Security was a Vermonter. And Vermonters at that
time, I believe, were the most Republican State in the Nation.
I remember growing up as a child hearing so many people say: Well, I
may disagree with a whole lot of things that President Roosevelt and
the Democrats did, but Social Security, I am all for that.
And I learned that as a child, and it has been part of my mantra ever
since, along with Senator Brown and Senator Wyden. Social Security is a
contract, and we should follow it.
Continuing Resolution
Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 6833 and take up a substitute amendment
containing a continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government
through December 16. I will vote to invoke cloture and move the process
forward. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Funding the Federal Government is the most basic responsibility of
Congress. The continuing resolution before the Senate today will keep
vital services running for the American people through December 16,
provide critical support for Ukraine, secure the LIHEAP safety net
ahead of winter, and provide emergency relief to communities recovering
from natural disasters around the country.
However, let me be clear, this is only a temporary measure. As the
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to
completing the work of the Appropriations Committee before the end of
this Congress. In a time of rising inflation, when everything costs
more--energy, food, fuel, housing--we must respond accordingly. Running
on autopilot after December would be irresponsible, and the American
people deserve more.
Our Federal agencies run thousands of programs every day that benefit
working families. From nutrition programs to small business loans and
grants, from affordable housing to healthcare for our Nation's
veterans, from childcare services to our Nation's schools, the Federal
Government provides services that impact nearly every aspect of
Americans' lives. At a time of rising inflation, we cannot fund these
critical programs at last year's levels without cutting services or
underfunding needs. It is simple math. Enacting full year
appropriations bills into law must be our top priority. We owe it to
the American people who sent us here.
This bill addresses several urgent and pressing issues that cannot
wait. The third hottest summer on record has strained one of our most
successful safety nets--the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
LIHEAP--as families' energy costs went up with the record-setting
temperatures. This bill contains $1 billion to bolster LIHEAP ahead of
the winter, where Putin's war on Ukraine and inflation are expected to
drive energy costs even higher. No family should have to choose between
heating their home or buying food, not in Vermont and not in any
community across the country. I am glad that we were able to secure
these needed resources.
The bill includes $12.35 billion in emergency assistance for Ukraine,
further demonstrating our resolve to stand with the people of Ukraine
against President Putin's illegal, brutal war on their country. These
funds will provide much-needed training, equipment, logistical support,
supplies, and weapons to the military and national security forces of
Ukraine at this pivotal point in the war. These funds will also be used
to provide direct assistance to Ukraine to help its government maintain
day-to-day operations while it fights to repel Russia's invasion. And
it provides funding to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment that have
been provided to the government of Ukraine and to other countries in
support of the cause.
The bill provides $2.5 billion to support recovery efforts following
the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire in New Mexico. The largest fire in
New Mexico's history has scorched hundreds of thousands of acres,
destroyed homes, displaced thousands, and sparked a fresh water crisis
in the community of Las Vegas, New Mexico. This is not an issue of red
States or blue States, we are the United States, and we must stand with
communities in crisis wherever they may be.
The bill also includes $2 billion in community development block
grants to help address unmet recovery needs in communities experiencing
major disasters in 2021 and 2022, such as Kentucky, Missouri, and
Puerto Rico. And with Hurricane Ian advancing in the Gulf, the CR also
includes an additional $18.8 billion for the FEMA disaster relief fund.
We must ensure FEMA has the resources to meet this challenge, and this
bill provides those resources.
I am disappointed that, due to Republican opposition, there is no
additional funding to combat COVID-19 or monkeypox. Reductions in the
current infection levels for COVID-19 are a direct result of the
investments we have made in vaccines, therapeutics, and testing over
the past 2 years. If we hope to avoid a surge this winter, we need the
resources to continue that effort. And we should be investing now to
get ahead of monkeypox before it continues to spread both in the United
States and overseas. Not providing these resources is short-sighted,
and I will continue to fight for the necessary funding to continue to
combat these terrible diseases.
Now Congress must do its job and complete the appropriations process
before the end of the year. I look forward to working with Vice
Chairman Shelby, Chair DeLauro, and Ranking Member Granger to get this
done.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 389, H.R. 6833, a bill to amend title
XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 to establish requirements with respect to cost-
sharing for certain insulin products, and for other purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Raphael G. Warnock, Tim Kaine,
Sherrod Brown, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Angus S. King,
Jr., John W. Hickenlooper, Michael F. Bennet, Cory A.
Booker, Christopher Murphy, Amy Klobuchar, Gary C.
Peters, Edward J. Markey, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne
Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Alex
Padilla, Catherine Cortez Masto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 6833, a bill to amend title XXVII of the
Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to establish
requirements with respect to cost-sharing for certain insulin products,
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from
Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]
YEAS--72
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
[[Page S5046]]
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--23
Blackburn
Braun
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Fischer
Hawley
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Marshall
Paul
Risch
Rounds
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville
NOT VOTING--5
Barrasso
Burr
Hagerty
Lummis
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 72,
and the nays are 23.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Montana.
Tribute to Dr. Douglas Reisig
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today, I have the distinct honor of
recognizing Dr. Doug Reisig of Missoula County as Montanan of the Month
for his distinguished career as an educator and for his devotion to
Montana students, Montana parents, and the community.
Doug was born and raised in Montana. He earned his master's degree
from the University of Montana and his Ph.D. from Montana State. Back
home in Montana, Cat-Griz bipartisanship is what Doug has in his
background. You see, Doug taught at Billings West High School before
accepting a job at the St. Ignatius School District. It was in St.
Ignatius that he met his lovely wife Mary Jo. Doug and Mary Jo have
been married for almost 43 years and have raised two wonderful
daughters, Megan and Callie. They are now the proud grandparents of
four grandsons.
Doug has been a teacher, building administrator, and superintendent
for 46 years, serving as superintendent at Hellgate Elementary for the
past 34 years. Prior to his retirement, he received the G.V. Erickson
Award from the School Administrators of Montana for his contribution to
education in our great State.
Since Doug took over as superintendent, the school has seen a 33-
percent increase in enrollment. He also oversaw the construction of the
new middle school, and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic,
under Doug's leadership, Hellgate Elementary was a leader in delivering
meals to children in need and even went the extra mile by selflessly
donating his increase in salary to the Family Resource Fund. With
Doug's direction and precautions in place, both Hellgate Elementary and
Middle School were in session 5 days a week during the 2020 and 2021
school years.
It is my honor to recognize Dr. Doug Reisig for serving the State of
Montana as an educator and for his dedication to ensuring that Montana
students have a very bright future ahead.
Congratulations on your retirement, Doug. You truly make Montana
proud.
____________________