[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 156 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Senate]
[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
       https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/business/factory-jobs-
workers-rebound.html
       https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/understanding-the-
pounds-sudden-crash/2022/09/4f195480-3d96-11ed-8c6e-
9386bd7cd826_story.html
       https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-
guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
       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
       https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-09/58494-Student-
Loans.pdf
     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 https://t.co/
 0flmC5O0bN
       September 26th 2022
       https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-north-carolina-
abortion-roe-ted-budd-b2175540.html
     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
       https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/politics/meadows-texts-phil-
waldron-seize-voting-machines-election-fraud/index.html
     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 https://t.co/
 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
       https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/24/liz-cheney-texas-
tribune-festival

  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.

                          ____________________