january 20th, 2023. visit for rules, tips, resources and step by step guide. >> now available at the c-span shop, c-span's, 2022, directory. order a copy of the congressional directory, there is contact information for many member of congress, bios and contact information. and the biden administration net. order your copy today at c-span shop.org. every helps to purchase the nonprofit operation. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. senators are expect today continue working on more of president biden's judicial nominations to u.s. courts of

appeals. two votes starting at 11:30 a.m. eastern, a confirmation on ariana freeman's to the 3rd circuit court of appeals and a nomination of a judge to the first circuit court. now live to the floor of the senate on c-span2. (senator leahy presiding) the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father and our god, in the silence of this moment, we feel gratitude for the privilege of approaching your throne of grace. lord, we come to you aware that you know us better than we know ourselves. we are grateful that you know

what we need even before we ask. forgive our mistake and the wrong we have done. lord, you know that, at times, we have been difficult to live with. enliven our lawmakers. let your power come among them, as you direct them according to your will. remind them that th lives, nation, and world are in your hands. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 13, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 4822, to provide for additional disclosure requirements. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, mr. president, shortly after the news leaked that the u.s. supreme court was ready to overturn roe v. wade, leader mcconnell acknowledged that a federal ban on abortion was now,

quote, possible, unquote. his words. well, later today the senior senator from south carolina is going to make good on leader mcconnell's warning by introducing a radical bill to institute a nationwide restriction on abortions. mr. president, proposals like the one today send a clear message from maga republicans to women across the country. your body, our choice. rather than expanding women's rights, maga republicans would curtail them. rather than give individuals the freedom to make their own health care choices, they hand that power over to radical politicians. let me add this. republicans are twisting themselves into pretzels asking for nationwide abortion bans

when they said they would leave it up to the states. even the senior senator from south carolina said, quote, in the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, it would mean that every state would decide if abortion is legal and on what terms. and yet here he is introducing al bill to restrict abortions nationally. for the hard right, this has never been about states' rights. this has never been about letting texas choose its own path while california takes another. no. for maga republicans, this has always been about making abortion illegal everywhere. the contrast has become clear. while democrats want to protect a woman's freedom to choose, maga republicans want to take that right away with proposals to ban abortions, to punish women and doctors for carrying out abortions, and even to push bans with no exceptions for rape or incest. we are seeing it play out across the country. it's chilling -- chilling to the

bone. every single american should stand in opposition against these rad tall maga republican views. now on the i.r.a. this afternoon i will join with my senate democratic colleagues at the white house to celebrate the enactment of one of the -- to establish the enactment of the inflation reduction act of 2022. when this bill passed the senate a little over a month ago, i expressed confidence that this legislation would signal a turning point to lower costs, to meet our nation's climate challenges and usher in the era of affordable clean energy. a month later, the good news is pouring in. companies like toyota have announced to start manufacturing batteries for electric and

hybrid vehicles here in america. honda and l.g. energy recently announced over $4 billion for e.v. battery production. and one company said that it was the inflation reduction act that was needed to make their investments here in america. had we not done this, many of these plants would have been built but probably joseph seas. yet, despite this record of success, despite the fact that democrats told republicans this is opening a new way for americans and good jobs for a future here, not one republican voted in favor of this bill. that's the difference between the two parties in a nutshell. while maga republicans are fixated on their extremist agenda, democrats are focused on creating jobs, lowering costs, bringing our country together.

while democrats will join today with president biden to promote our job-creating agenda, republicans will spend today introducing new radical legislation to ban abortions here on the senate floor. that's the contrast between the parties, clear as day. and we know which side the american people are on. and while democrats want to lower costs, increase prosperity, strengthen ladders to the middle class, the junior senator from florida, who serves as the chief architect for republicans, continues to promote tax hikes for working families and putting medicare on the chopping block. this split screen is unmistakable for all americans to see for themselves. democrats will spend today focused on the job-creating inflation fighting agenda we promised and delivered for the

american people while republicans continue defending tax hikes for the working class while pushing national abortion babs here in the senate. and the american people will have no trouble deciding for themselves which party is truly in their corner. on judges. last night i moved to file cloture on the nomination of sarah merriam to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. she will be the sixth circuit court judge this chamber has considered since the beginning of this work period. she will be in exceedingly good company, later we will vote on arianna j. freeman to be a united states judge for the third circuit followed by lara e. montecalvo to serve on the first circuit. all together the senate has now confirmed 80 judicial nominees to serve lifetime appointments on the federal bench. i made clear confirming more of

president biden's judicial nominees would be a top priority for senate democrats and we're making good on our promise by voting on six circuit court judges in the first two weeks of this work period alone. among the those confirmed, we have the first latino to serve the state of washington, the first black tennesseans to sit on the sixth circuit and the first asian american to sit on the seventh circuit. that is just in the last two weeks. the 80 jurists can include the first native american judge, and the first black woman, of course, in the history of the united states supreme court. i mention these firsts because it takes a lot to be a successful jurist, representing is a key part of the equation. there is a lot of talk about the public's trust in the courts. in my judgment for good reasons.

if courts are to endure, to say nothing of the democracy, they must reflect the vibrancy of our country. to continue -- we will make sure that the individuals on the bench will meet this important standard. we've got a long way but there is much work left to be done. i want to talk about a health issue that rarely gets the issue it deserves. and that is the issue of cepsis. of those, 270,000 -- 270,000 are ultimately killed by the disease. for those unfamiliar, cepsis is a life-threatening injuries condition where the body overreacts to an infection in an extreme way.

sadly, because of a lack of awareness too many cases fly under the radar. today i if make september 13 national sepsis day. it would create better education about this condition, urge fertd entities to -- federal entities to ultimately bring sepsis to an ends. the federal government has a great model to follow in my home state of new york. which adopted rory's regulations to guide health officials when it comes to this illness. named in honor of rory staunton, a 12-year-old from queens who died from sepsis 10 years ago, these rules have undoubtedly saved countless lives and should inform federal policy. i cannot imagine the profound suffering that rory's parents must feel to this day, but i hope they find strength in knowing the rules bearing their son's name have gone a long was i to helping others. it's time we take this disease

seriously at the federal level, and for that reason i'm proud to introduce this resolution today. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

last year when you joined us about this time to discuss last years survey you reported civic in 2021. did that trend continued 12 months later? >> not on some key indicators. knowledge of branches down somewhat. a little under half and now is protected by the first amendment as well. the news isn't as good as it was last year but all this good news were celebrate constitution day, this is chance to make sure everybody is more aware of the

right protections response builds we've got. >> host: extend with the survey is and how long you been doing it trencher we've been doing it for more than 20 years. this is a survey that asks a national probability sample for basically the public in the united states. just about basic foundational concept of civics. can you name three branches of government? canyon and the freedoms protected under the first amendment? you know what it takes to override a potential veto? questions about the prerogative in the various branches. when there's a constitutional matter who gets to decide what is and is not a law of the land. these are things that are presupposition. if you don't understand these basic things happening, some of your capacities as citizens are not going to be top of my tea at times in which you might want to have them there. you might want to know when there's a conflict between the president and the supreme court or congress and the president, who's got what kinds of powers.

there are three branches we got checks and balances. >> host: to put numbers to disuse survey in front of our viewers here is one of the questions asking those who responded to the survey if they could name all three branches of government. just 47% of respondents of respondents this year said they could do that. 18% could name just two branches of government. 11% could mean only one branch and 25% couldn't name any of the branches of government. last year the number of respondents who could name all three branches at 56%, down to 47% this year. why would that fall in 12 months? >> guest: that tells you something interesting. one idea is we learn these things in grade school or high school and they should just be there. they should be there ready to be recalled by us whenever we want to answer the question what other branches of government? it turns out and our survey suggest this that some things

are more top of mind than others when they are in the news. this is open recall, can you name and then ask you to name. your ability to do that from top of mind is lower when the past year hasn't spent a lot of time talking about the branches of government in relation to each other. at some point you would say maybe this is good news because there was less conflict between the branches and as a result there's less top of mind recall with the branches actually are. what we would like to see is higher knowledge regardless of the news so if it is every news people can make sense of it and can know where the levers of power are that they would like to try to act on an order to get any changes they would like to see or if they would like to see things stay the same way. if somebody is trying to argue for change. >> host: may be we work at c-span but it seems like the first amendment is always in the news. here are some of the numbers to questions to respondents to the survey about being able to name the freedoms and the first amendment.

63% could name the freedom of speech. 24% could name freedom of religion. 20% the freedom of the press. 16% could name the right of people to peaceably assemble and just 6% the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. those numbers all down significantly as well from last year. >> guest: but again think of the past couple of years and what was in the news. for example, we had major protests following the death of george floyd. we had controversy about who could assemble, how and where. the key word is peaceably assemble. we also have debates about what constitutes the boundaries of speech. those debates were more front and center then they were this year and that's our best explanation for why this year we saw a drop. by the way in years prior to the past two years those answers had, in fact, been lower. we may have simply moved back to

what was a baseline knowledge when things are not front and center in the the news. i know a lot of talk about rights in response builds and what isn't is not in the constitution. >> host: want to invite viewers in to join about civics education in america. phone lines to do so as usual democrats 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independence 202-748-8002. maybe we'll get some teachers to join the discussion to talk about civics education in america, inviting you to call in as we talk with kathleen jamieson of the annenberg center. remind people what the center is, your mission and how you do it. >> guest: the policy center is part of universe of pennsylvania in philadelphia and part of its mission is trying to increase public knowledge and a particular student knowledge, knowledge when we're younger about basic rights and responsibilities of citizenship and particularly within the foundational concept of the

constitution or as part of te hope to organize the civics renewal network that civics renewal network is cr in, sees plan -- c-span classroom part of this. civics education is everybody's obligation. it's an obligation of parents at home, obligation of teachers and schools and on constitution day which is coming up it's an obligation in particular in schools because the third mac requires schools teach the constitution on constitution do if they're taking any kind of -- of encouraging but his interest in fighting the library of congress and national archives and justice o'connor and her own and a classroom to take a look at the civics renewal network, those materials cost nothing. we got a nice index on a website that will help you find them and we urge you to mix and match if you are teaching classes to find

things that work best for you. >> host: you mentioned c-span and a classroom effort here at c-span for viewers who want to learn more about the annenberg center, kathleen jamieson interviewed for c-span and a classroom podcast. it's to celebrate constitution day exit this coming saturday. you can find it on our website at c-span.org/classroom is where you can go. plenty of calls -- >> guest: you don't have to wait to constitution day to celebrate. we have resources available everyday including the dates and wage schools because they will not be in session on saturday. >> host: would encourage celebrating the constitution everyday. plenty of calls for you already. this is paula here in washington, d.c., a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning, everyone. i am a federal worker, working human resources in the executive

branch. i just had a question and is related to what you were just discussing, which is educating individuals come individuals come young people in school. i am a middle-aged person. don't remember getting a lot about civics in high school in the '80s. so i was just wondering what the curriculum would look like today and if it really is something that is being taught robustly in schools today. that's my question. >> guest: that's a great question. for teachers and schools the amount that has to be taught in the days are very large and there are many students who need extra help in some areas. so asking the teachers to add one more thing to existing

classes is to ask a great deal but we would hope there would be a way for teachers and classes when is he way to integrate some understanding of how a syrian government works, even in the course that is not called civics, to talk through with students about what's happening in the news with relation to and what that means in the constitution, what the constitution ungrounding is for. we know there is somewhat less civics been taught now than there once was. we know less about the specific content being taught in schools but we know what we have, what we see, a whole lot of good materials that are foundational that help you teach about structures of government, about the constitution, constructive ways of engaging after local and state level when you want to try to create change using structures that of improvement for a resilient over the years. let me add one more thing about the importance of having an organized civics course. when we look at us to take six, the underlying knowledge we get from who answers what questions

and we ask have you had a cs course in high school or college, whatever they take that to mean, when someone says yes, they have it increases the likelihood that on these principles they're more likely to get those right. it increases likelihood when you ask the question if the supreme court issued some unpopular ruling, and you really didn't like, maybe would better to get rid of the supreme court that they will say no, that's not a good idea. with civics education appears to do first is a great increase amount of knowledge but secondly to increase appreciation for our structures of government in a way we think might increase the likelihood people want to defend them if they are challenged. >> host: from mlb onto it has been watching, the lack of knowledge within our american citizens regarding their government is a a damning statement on her education policies. we are in danger of having an uneducated electorate and i would be the beginning of the

end of this nation as we know it. kathleen jamieson, are you pessimistic? >> guest: i want to be optimistic about just about anything because when you get up in the morning not doing that makes it hard to get through the rest of the day. the question is if you don't know who's responsible for doing what in government, for example, if you don't know which party controls congress or one house of congress, if you don't know which party is in the white house, has a representative in the white house and is going to be more difficult to say i don't like this, i want to vote to change it because you don't know who is in charge. if you're not paying attention to elections to understand the party that moves into power does have some prerogatives to increase likelihood they were going to get what they want in the system, particularly when you have a president of the same party and you have a house and senate of that same party.

we want people to understand at least the foundation so they are not swayed by abbottabad by individuals and as a result may vote the exact opposite way they would vote if they were fully informed. my concern about an informed electorate is totally web informed voting only but we likelihood that are votes translate into a government we thought were going to get based on our understanding of where they stand on issues and where they sit within the power arrangement that ultimately determines whether they are likely to be able with others to get something done. >> host: you said earlier having civic issues in the news helps increase civics knowledge generally as people are talking about and reading about it, hearing about it. the supreme court has been a news especially in the wake of the dobbs decision and yet this is one of the findings of this year's survey. ask to a final responsibility for determining whether an act by the president is constitutional if the president and the supreme court disagreed,

the president congress or the court, less than half of americans 46% correctly said the supreme court. why is that? >> guest: if you don't understand that there are branches and you can't name branches the likelihood you will get that question wrong goes up dramatically. the first thing is this notion there some kind of foundational knowledge that most of us take for granted but some don't have means that we haven't anchored their understanding of our government in its structures in a way that lets them subsequent understand who who is what f prerogatives. under our system, constitutional issue comes before the supreme court. the supreme court makes that decision. it can change its position across time. they can say an earlier decision was wrong but it doesn't do that very often. we also a means of amending the constitution, very difficult process but we have those means.

if you don't understand three branches you can understand that subsequent knowledge. right now it becomes important for people who think the dobbs decision -- to make decisions in the states when issues comes up for a vote within the structures in their states. if you don't understand a branches work at the federal level you're not likely understand at the state level and with the same kind of dynamics in our state government. we would like to see everyone be able to act on their point of view in a way that is responsible, peaceably assemble, that exercises the right to speech can exercise the right to vote and also does in a way that ensures the action they take, actions are likely to get the outcomes they anticipate based on accurate understanding of what is able to do what inside our system. >> host: this is wrong in orford. independent. good morning. >> caller: i ran into this issue of ignorance and a project

is working on about a decade ago and it took a survey just randomly asking people that i met and asked them how many amendments are there in the constitution? i had to go through 31 people,, the 31st person knew the answer. nobody else knew the answer. i said this is terrible and assert doing something and i started doing -- >> host: 27, right? >> caller: yes. so i started doing seminars here and, of course, after the 2016 election i said we are really cooked. this is really an issue. i started doing, making it more official and set up a website and everything and during the pandemic we stopped but then i'm starting up again this saturday on constitution day, we're doing another one. is it okay if i promote that?

>> host: sure. comic it is at civics triaged.com. so we are doing it online now course because of the pandemic. also the question about the supreme court like the abortion thing that congress could pass along right now and make it so abortion would be legal in all the states right now because wicker gives them the power to do that. so they could do it if they wanted to. the only reason they are not passing along right now is so they can get contributions and get people fired up to try to vote democrat. if you want abortion, if you think that decision by the supreme court was wrong, you should vote against the incumbents right now. you should vote for whoever is challenge the incumbent because congress right now has the o change that just by passing a law. >> host: before you go i'm intrigued by the name, civics triaged. why is it civics triaged?

, after the 2016 election i said this, we can't wait for the education system to teach kids. the adults need trading. it's almost like an emergency. it's almost like, actually i set it up before the pandemic coincidentally but it's almost like a disease that we have in our nation that people are not educated about civics. >> host: thanks for the call from new hampshire. >> guest: first, i wonder how many people who are the targets in the classes know what triaged means. we had been chasing can we do research as well about the number of times we put a word any question and then listen as people struggle with that when you try to figure out what we're trying to find out.

so i love the idea of triage at that may be a concept that's not one that or the vocabulary many people. we have to ask we were trying to teach things about our system of government what are the most important things people know? the call is raising an important facet of our system. we can amend the constitution. there are means of doing it. one of the things that's ingenious of our system is it has a way to let people affect change through channels that increase likelihood that the majority if the act intelligently, understand the levers of power and issues at hand will ultimately be able to get what it thinks is best for the body politic within the constraints of a constitutional system. so understanding that we amend, how we amend is more important than knowing how many amendments there are. it's important oh other a lof amendments because across time

we have made some substantial changes. what are they? what rights do they guarantee? what protections are involved? what understand of our nation are built into those rights? i particularly like the idea that my grandmother marched for suffrage and so for my grandmother having enshrined in the constitution the right for women to vote was extraordinarily important. i grew up knowing that amendment was a and that she had thought to try to make that happen. that was one of my earliest understandings that at least she thought she had made a real difference simply marching for suffrage. >> host: maryland, like the democrats, good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. these conversations are so vitally important and needs to continue to be funded. the other thing is that i am a former social studies instructor in washington, d.c., and i thought american government

which is a a mandatory coursen order to graduate high school. how can we have a democracy that is for the people by the people as many of its citizens don't know the three branches of government, don't know their state and local history, and understand that local history and state governments how it impacts and influences our national government? i was encouraged by the fact that these high school students while a lot of them didn't quote-unquote like history they love and thrived on the american government course. it wasn't called civics at the way they phrase that it really was civics. so the onus like your former caller was mentioning, the onus is on not just parents and adults but parents and adults to work in partnership with state of school boards to that these classes are still mandatory before you graduate.

because it impacts the rest of your life. and lastly, which is a little unrelated, this country should be listening to duke ellington ends the clean sweep he wrote for the queen he wrote far in 1959. >> host: thank you for the call. >> guest: first, thank you to the caller for taking social studies and the caller makes important point that the army places across the curriculum and which we can increase understanding of how our system of government works any american history course is sorely one. many courses called social studies are teaching what we would call civics which makes it difficult when you ask a question civics course to know whether people are hearing this to include those kinds of courses. the important other

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: just a few minutes ago, yet again the american people received a monthly inflation report that was even worse than the expert predictions. the expectation was that democrats w runaway inflation might actually begin to level off. the top line inflation rate was expected to fall. instead yet again the opposite happened. overall inflation was up even higher. prices this past august were still 8.3% higher than they were in august of 2021.

just a catastrophically high inflation rate. food prices went another point 8% just this past month alone. overall food prices just logged their biggest one-year increase since the late 1970's. groceries in particular are now 13.5% more expensive than they were at this time last year. democrats' policies are sucker punching american families every time they set foot in the checkout line. eggs are up 40%. butter, up 25%. baby food, up 13%. chicken, dairy, bread, cereal, and canned fruits and vegetables are all up around 16% each. coffee is up even more than that. housing and shelter costs were

up. medical costs were up. furniture, up. new cars, up. electricity costs were way, way up, a 15.8% increase since last year. the inflation rate on america's inflation bills are up 15.8%. this is the largest increase in electricity prices since 1981 when the statistic was looking back into the final months of jimmy carter. even if you take out energy and food prices, two areas where the administration likes to pass the buck and pretend they're powerless, inflation skyrocketed .6 psh in just the -- .6% in just the month of august. 8.3% inflation. and, remember, this figure looks

back 12 months, but we're now more than 12 months into the democrats' inflation spiral. prices are 8.3% higher today than in august of 2021. in august 2021, the baseline we were already talking about runaway inflation. prices were already way up compared to the year before that. so the 12-month number dramatically understates the total damage that democrats have cost. here's the comparison that matters most to american families, especially with an election in less than two months. how are things today compared to january 2021? when this all-democratic government was sworn in. how are they compared to januar? here's the answer. food prices are up a total of

13.9% since president biden was sworn in. gas prices are up 58.5%, electricity costs are up 21.6%, and the overall across the board inflation rate since president biden took office is a catastrophic 12.5%. this very day president biden and democrats are having a big celebration for their latest reckless spending bill which they pretended would reduce inflation but which nonpartisan experts say will actually make it worse. they could not look more out of touch if they tried. now on another matter. this past weekend vice president harris made a surprising announcement on meet the press. the vice president declared, listen to this, the border is secure.

we're about to close the figures cal year with more than two million immigrant encounters breaking the record that we set last year. lethal fentanyl is set to exceed last year's total. they are up more than 2%. these are not the signs of a secure border and the american people know it. an outright majority of the country disapproves of how president biden has been handling this issue. the vice president's claims aren't fooling anyone. for years this crisis has stretched border communities to the breaking point and caused ripples throughout the country. all the while democrats claimed it would be to have an open southern border. now in recent weeks the

country's been treated to one of the most striking ironies we've seen in quite a while. while local citizens and those on the border have cried out for help, various democrat-run cities in states not on the border decided to set themselves up as sanctuary cities where immigration laws simply did not apply. for years they have suggested that there is no reason to have secure borders or enforce immigration laws. only xenophobia could explain it. now some of these democratic-run jurisdictions have been taken at their word. a small portion of the illegal immigrants pouring into states were put on buses bound for new york and washington. and you know what?

just this very small taste of chaos, this tiny little sliver of what many places in america have been dealing with for years have these cities' democratic leaders outraged, anxious and scrambling. eric adams, the mayor of new york has received roughly the number of people that the border patrol encounters in seven or eight hours. new york has had over a month to handle a fraction of one day's share of border crossings. yet the mayor says having to deal with this is horrific. new york city officials complain they are overwhelmed. here in washington, the destination for fewer than 8,000 illegal immigrants, the mayor declared a public health emergency. she begged the pentagon to send the national guard for help. the defense department of course

turned her down. it's incredible how quickly democrats change their tune when they have to have a spoonful of the policies they've been force feeding the rest of our country. oh, it's challenging to have waves of illegal immigrants pouring into your country. this creates challenges for housing, medical care and resource other -- as one mayor put it recently, quote, the city of mc afternoonallen was able to deal with thousands of immigrants a day, i think they can handle a few00. maybe this will be the wakeup call democrats need to understand that functional nations -- functional nations need functional borders.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, arianna j. freeman, of pennsylvania, to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the other thing was a jury duty. a lot of people don't want to register and vote. because a jury duty. i think that should be an option. option. you want to serve jury duty are not? i don't know why they don't want to get involved but that's our problem in america. we don't have the education.

we need some training. people like you and of the people, let's get some money and put it on tv and make it a 24 hour show. you you could have history, social studies, all the amendments, everything. keep it up you're doing great. >> host: before you go i have to say there is a program on c-span's american history tv on c-span2 saturday mornings at 8 a.m. it's called lectures in history and we set up cameras and a back of a college, university professors classroom in film history lecture. >> caller: i have seen it. it's like once in a while. we need this constantly rolling 24/7. that would be great but thank you. >> host: thanks for the call. >> guest: we went to one of the cable systems, maybe 15 years ago and said we produced a lot of film for annenberg classroom. these are 22, 23 minute

documentaries about important moment in which cases came before the court that help decide the future of the nation. we proposed to this cable system they give us a channel in which 24 hours a day we would run these films so anytime you could find then you could. the person who is talking to at the cable companies that every put that on, nobody would watch that, kathleen. i said said could you give it a try? couldn't we see whether they would be willing to watch a? there is high quality historical base material about how the country came across time to remedy some of the justices. across time how individuals who stood up for the rights help shape the rights we now hold and we cherish. sometimes individuals from no means whatsoever said i have this right, top the help of good lawyers and managed to establish that we got those kinds of rights including some important protections for search and seizure. i would love to see a 24-hour a

day channel that had the best of the best that was simply there for you to dip in and out of and for parents to go to when did like to have a discussion with their children, for example, about what japanese internment meant and why it took so long for the court ultimately to say that the decision that upheld the right to do that was no longer good law. i would also like to thank the caller for his service and is a one of the things that's so important about our system of government is that are times in which the country will ask us to serve. we forget this since we have a volunteer army but those who stand up to serve the country swear an oath to the constitution. our country is set up so we have civilian not military control. we have civilian control of the military. it's an important concept and its help protect our nation across time. there are other contents i

consider foundational, civilian control of the military, that are within our structures that developed over time that help protect us in some really important ways. >> host: let me try to get in one of two more calls before running out of time with kathleen hall jamieson of the annenberg center. this is deborah in the faster maryland. go ahead. >> caller: i have written before about an e-mail and so forth about i think c-span ought to contribute to this education by doing something like how a bill becomes a law. i know it's simple but so many people that colin seemed to have no clue, for example, that there's something called a filibuster and the new hampshire gentleman i think it was who suggested the democrats could pass an abortion bill and make it legal don't understand that requires 60 votes in the senate. they did pass a bill in the house. you can't step your fingers even though you have nominal control of congress. there are a lot of things like

that, that is the reason why the budget and tax legislation is within a ten year window and so forth. people simply are not aware of that i would like to see something like that on c-span, not just on the constitution because the filibuster is not in the constitution. the burglars are in the constitution. but how things become a law. the committee system, everything you have to go through. i used to a tax lawyer in washington and i had to do with a lot of this stuff. most people have no clue about it and i think c-span would do a real service ifff they would pot out how the system we in a quorm call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dismissed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: this is an unusual set of comments for me because i will start out with personal history which i hope will make sense in terms of what i want to

address. i started working in the alternative energy industry in 1983. when i say industry, actually very small company developing hydro projects in maine and new england. we then worked on biomass projects. later on, worked on wind power. and also the development of large-scale conservation. my professional life has largely been occupied with energy, and particularly with renewable energy. at the same time, i had a deep history in maine in environmental matters. i represented the environmental community in maine before the maine legislature in the 1970's, if you can believe anybody around here was still doing things in the 1970s. i also as governor was very active in conservation matters and am proud to say during my eight years as governor of maine we put aside and set into conservation and protection

status more land than in the prior 175-year history of maine combined. this has been a passion of mine, the protection of the environment, for my entire life. so, history of renewable energy development and also environmental advocacy. i learned some lessons when i was working in the field of developing alternative or renewable energy. the most important lesson is there's no free lunch when it comes to energy. there are always costs and benefits. there are always impacts that some people think are terrific, other people think are not so good. there are always trade-offs. in fact, i will never forget going to hearings on hide row -- hydro projects and having people object, saying we like hydro but not on our river, not on this side. by the way, we don't really think you should be ruining the

rivers. why don't you go do wind power? lo and behold, 20 years later, i worked in the area of wind development, wind power, and people came to our hearings and said, we don't really need to spoil the view in our mountains. do more hydro. i'm not making that up, mr. president. i actually lived that kind of sort of conflict. the second lesson i learned is that you may have global goals, renewable energy, but local impacts, and you often have a controversy about a particular project. the third thing i learned is that change is hard. everybody's for progress, nobody's for change. change is difficult, whether it's for a local community, a state, or a nation. the fourth thing, permitting is hard. getting permits for renewable energy projects were lengthy, time-consuming and expensive.

and this was a -- this was a serious learning that i had during this period, that if you want to develop even the most beneficial project, you're going to have to go through an often arduous permitting process, and somebody isn't going to like it. thalways will be trade-offs. these were sporadic, small projects, and indeed in new england today, and i just checked this morning, about 10% of our electricity comes from renewables. this is after almost 40 years of development of these projects. about 10%. we're now talking about a transition in energy to fully renewable future. well, if you do the math that means ten times the amount of renewable energy development

that we've done in the last 40 years, in the next 10 to 15 years. people have to understand that this is a major, a major change that's going to require trade-offs, that's going to require us to make decisions and to understand, again, to go back to my basic premise, there's no free lunch. we are now undertaking the largest and most far-reaching energy transition in human history. the transition to fossil fuels took about 150 years, going back to around 1800. you can see the graph, it goes up, but we really got into the real heart of the fossil fuel economy in the mid 20th century. 150 years. we're talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables over 15 years. not 150, but 15. we have to grasp that this is an

enormous undertaking, and it's going to involve change. so, we are literally in a race with climate change. that's why it's going to have to happen in the next 10, 15, 20 years, because the consequences of not doing it are catastrophic, and we're already seeing that. i think that we've reached a point where most americans realize that climate change is real. the fishermen in maine know it. the loggers know it. the farmers know it. the people who work with the land and the sea and the atmosphere understand what's happening. they see it. the animals know it. they know what's happening. and that's why we have to make this transition. that's why it's so important

that we make this transition, and it's got to be fast. we don't have time to do it for over 150 years, or even 50 years. it's a huge change. it's going to involve dislocation, and it's going to involve trade-offs. and that's really the question that i want to address today. there's broad agreement, i believe, that we need change, that we need to develop responses to the global climate change crisis. there's certainly agreement in the environmental community, as far as that question is concerned. there's nobody in the environmental community that i know that doubts climate change or doubts the necessity of taking dramatic action to meet it. climate change is as real as it gets, and we have to address it. how do we address it?

non-fossil fuel electricification. if we do that, we can address the co2. we're talking about emissions of co2. is it a problem? well, the average over the past million years of co2 in the atmosphere is about 280 parts better million. it -- per million. it varies up and down. people say it's a natural cycle. it varies up and down about 250, 300 parts a million. it's gone up 20 in the last two, three years. the last time we were over 400 parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were 60 feet higher. we are in uncharted territory in human history right now, and we have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it in a hurry. where's all that co2 coming from? well, here's a rough breakdown

of the co2 budget, about 30% from the generation of electricity. 30%, 35%. another 30%, 35% from transportation, the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles. the last 30%, 35% comes from space heat and industrial use. so that's the budget we have to deal with. how do we tackle that? electricification with electricity from renewable sources. if you have an electric vehicle and you're feeling really good about saving the environment, you're not saving the environment if the power for that electric vehicle comes from fossil fuels. you're saving the environment if the power for that electric vehicle comes from renewables. so that's what we're talking about. but there are problems with refiewbles. remember, i said i -- problems with renewables. i said i worked in the wind power business. the wind doesn't blow all the

time. the sun doesn't shine all the time. the term is intermittency. that's the issue, that's the issue with renewables, is intermittency, the fact that there has to be something to supply power when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow. the answer to that is storage. mr. president, the real green new deal is energy storage. if we can solve that problem in a cost-effective way, then we really can have a realistic, all-renewable future, because what you have with energy storage plus renewables is essentially baseload power without co2. and that's really the direction that we're moving in. however, and this is what i want to really stress, you can't be in favor of electricification, you can't be in favor of renewable power, you can't be in

favor of electrical vehicles if you're not in favor of mining the lithium that you need for the batteries. or covering a lot of farmers' fields with solar panels. you can't have those things without paying a price. it would be nice if you could. i would love it if i could wave a wand and say we're going to get rid of fossil fuels and we're going to have an all-renewable future. yes, i want that. but we have to recognize that in order to get there, there are some things we have to do that, heretofore, we really haven't been very likely to like. one of the other issues is renewable power is a lot of the renewable power is in places where there aren't people. so we have to get that renewable power to the places where there are people. you know what that means? transmission, new transmission lines, new rights of way. people aren't going to be too

crazy about that, but you can't have a renewable energy future without having transmission. and you can't have a renewable energy future without having batteries or some storage technology that, chances are, is going to require minerals and earth minerals that you have to mine. geography is a problem. technology is a problem. this will require trade-offs. but we have to keep in mind that we're talking about a global goal. we're talking about literally saving the earth. but we have to understand that there are going to be costs to do so. so, let's talk about permitting. one of my favorite stories is when god came to moses and said, moses, i have good news and bad news. moses says, god, give me the good news. god says, i'm going to empower you to part the waters of the

red sea, allow my people to go free, then have the waters come back and inundate tharo's army. moses says that's wonderful, god. what's the bad news? god says, you have to prepare the environmental impact statement. we've got to understand that permitting it is part of the process of going to a renewable future. now, when i was governor of maine i had a very clear policy -- no diminution, no cutting, no cutting corners of environmental standards, but i wanted the most timely and predictable environmental permitting process in the country. i don't think those two things are in any way mutually exclusive. when i talk here and work with my colleagues here about permitting reform, i'm talking, we're talking, about the

process, not the standards. we're not talking about lowering the standards, saying you can emit more or you don't have to meet clean water standards. i sit at edmund muskie's desk in my office. lightning would strike me if i was lowering the water quality or air quality standards. but we've got to talk about a process that's timely and predictsable -- predictable. the estimates are that to permit a mine in this country takes about ten years, about ten years. mr. president, we don't have ten years to spend on a permitting process if we're going to solve this problem in time to save the country and the planet. we've got to figure out how to do this in a more timely way. how are we going to do it? i don't know the details of the various discussions that are going on here, but i have some thoughts that i've suggested to

senator manchin and others. one is one-stop shopping. you shnt have to go -- you shouldn't have to go to five agencies. go to one agency in charge of the permitting process and let them lead it. don't make the applicant go to five, six, seven different agencies. secondsly, deadlines, real deadlines, deadlines that mean something. so that the agencies, if it says 180 days, they've got to have a decision in 180 days. eisenhower retook europe in 11 months. there's no reason that we can't get decisions out of some of these agencies in less than a year. so deadlines and reasonable time frames, i think, is part of this process. accelerated appeal process, where an appeal from one of these -- from an environmental decision on a renewable energy project or related to our renewable energy future can go to the courts, get a fair

hearing, but in a timely basis, not go through a long process that takes, again, years. another suggestion i have, this goes back to my experience of working on renewable energy projects, there should be credit given for the nature of the project you're doing. in other words, if you're doing a project that is going to contribute to the solution of the problem of global climate change, you shouldn't be treated as a strip mall. you ought to be given some -- some weight should be given to the import and the value, the environmental value of the project vis-à-vis the incidental environmental cost and i could be criticized for using the word incidental but the small costs that may be involved in getting there. i think that's got to be how we approach this whole permitting question. so why am i here today? i'm here today to talk to my

friends in the environmental community. and i do mean friends, people i've worked with all my life. to have them change the way they think about the environmental process and what they have conventionally and historically thought about this kind of action. historically -- and if you go back to the beginning of the environmental movement in the 60's and 70's and lord help me, i was there, the environmental movement was about stopping things. the environmental movement began with a proposed oil refinery on our coast. people wanted to stop it because they didn't think it was the appropriate place. but if you think about that, a lot of the environmental movement has been about stopping things, stopping projects, stopping highways, stopping whatever. what we have to do now is think about facilitating getting things done in order to get to the renewable future that we want. and i think that's a very, very

important way to look at this process. you can't be for e.v.'s if you're against mining lithium. let me give you just a couple of numbers on what i'm talking about. copper. remember i talked about transmission. copper, copper wires to transmit electricity. the estimate is -- let me -- i want to be sure this is right. the estimate is we're going to need as much copper annually by 2050 as has been mined in the entire prior history of the world. one year we're going to need that much. the estimate is that in order to achieve our climate goals, we're going to have to triple, triple the grid, the wires, the rights of way, the towers, the grid infrastructure has to be tripled in order to absorb the new and

transmitted and distribute the new energy that's going to be needed. if you have electric vehicles, you're going to need more wires to get the power. that's going to be a huge increase. between doubling and tripling is the estimate of the strength of the grid. we're going to need the international energy agency, not me and not some commercial group, but the international energy agency says that by 2040 -- that's not that long from now, barely over 15 years -- we're going to need 42 times the amount of lithium that we have. 25 times more graphite. 21 times more cobalt, 19 times more nickel, 7 times more rare earth elements. we have two choices, mr. president. we can buy those things if other countries, particularly countries that may be potential adversaries and do we really

want to be dependent on china for this kind of essential material to our environmental future? i don't think so. but if we're going to say we don't want to import it, we've got to get it out of the ground here. and we can't spend ten years deciding it. i'm not saying lower the standards. but i'm saying the process itself should not be used as a weapon to undermine projects that are necessary to achieve our ultimate climate goal. mr. president, this is a change. this is a change of thinking that's required by the reality that we face. and i'm here because i want to face that relate. i want to do something about climate change. i want to take the action that's necessary, not token actions but the real deal. but it's going to involve these enormous commitments of time, effort, and money and also our

understanding particularly in the environmental community that there's no free lunch. on december 2, 1862, abraham lincoln came to this congress to talk about the progress of the civil war. his problem was that the congress was being the congress. they were doing politics, and they really he didn't feel were taking it seriously or understood the massive change that was sweeping over the country. and at the end of that speech, the afternoon of december 2, 1862, abraham lincoln gave what i think is still the best analysis of how you deal with change that i've ever encountered. and i think it applies exactly in this situation. lincoln said the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. the occasion is piled high with

difficulty. therefore, we must rise with the occasion. as our cases new, we also must think anew and act anew and then here's the key line. we must disenthrall ourselves, lincoln said, and then we shall save our country. we must dise enthrall ourselves and save our country. it means think in new and different ways. let go of the way you thought about these kinds of issues in the past. disenthrall ourselves, mr. president, and then we shall save our planet. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that i be able to complete my remarks before the start of the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: the bureau of labor statistics released the august inflation number. as every american who has been to a grocery store lately knows, august was yet another month of high inflation. consumer prices rose 8.3% last month from a year earlier, including or i should say holding to a near four-decade high. 40-year high inflation. americans are feeling the strain. mr. president, even one unexpectedly expensive month can be challenging for many families. but at least it's actually and usually possible to recover from a single tough month. how are american families going to recover from the months upon months upon months of high

inflation that have marked the biden economy? mr. president, as i said, american families are suffering. grocery bills are out of control. between august 2021 and august 2022, grocery bills rose at their highest rate since 1979. 1979. i was a senior in high school. even back-to-school supplies like pencils and glue are more expensive. the national retail federation reported in june that households were on track to spend an average of $864 on back-to-school shopping, a 24% increase from 2019. utility bills have soared. things have gotten so bad that approximately one out of every six households, one out of every six households in america is behind on its utility bills. unfortunately considering the

increases in the price of natural gas and electricity since president biden took office, it's not surprising. 40% of households, 40%, report having difficult paying for their normal household expenses. and gallop reports that 56% of americans, well over half of the u.s. population, are experiencing financial hardship as a result of inflation. the personal savings rate has plunged to its lowest level since 2009 and many americans are dipping into their savings to make ends meet. others have taken up a side job or are pulling out the credit card. still others have been forced to rely on food basks. -- food banks. as recently as friday, president biden was touting his work to, quote, finally deliver an economy that works for working families. i have to say i don't know what ivory tower the president is living in, but the biden economy is the very opposite of an

economy that works for working families. working families in the biden economy are struggling. they're wondering how they can make ends meet. they're cutting back on groceries like meat or milk. they're cutting back on family trips or putting off necessary home repairs. they are, as i said, dipping into their savings or charging necessities on their credit cards or visiting food banks. a recent cbs news article discussing a new gallup poll noted, and i quote, the findings indicate that the hottest inflation in 40 years is eating into the bedrock of the comern economy -- of the american economy, the middle class. and even eroding the financial stability of more well-healed households, end quote. to repeat, mr. president, the findings indicate that the hottest inflation in 40 years is eating into the bedrock of the american economy, the middle class. this is not an economy that's --

to paraphrase the president -- being built up from the bottom out and middle out. this is not an economy that works for working families. this is an economy where living standards for working families are declining. mr. president, the president is actually had the audacity to repeatedly bring up the lines of cars waiting at food banks that occurred during the height of the covid pandemic with the implication that things are different now in the biden economy. well perhaps no one at the white house has read the news recently. here is a sampling of headlines from the past few weeks. las vegas food banks experiencing heightened demand amid inflation spikes. there's another one. food banks feeling pinch of high inflation as centers juggle increased demand for help. another headline, new hampshire food pantries struggle with rising costs, growing demand.

organizations say more people than ever need help. another headline. st. mary's food bank in phoenix sees record number of families in need amid inflation. yet another headline, mountain west food banks are strained by high customer demand and low supply. unfortunately, mr. president, i could go on. at this point everyone knows how we got here. democrats took office and decided to pass a massive $1.9 trillion spending bill, the so-called american rescue plan act that flooded the economy with unnecessary government money. and the economy overheated as a result. president biden took office, the ininflation rate was 1.4%, well within the fed's 2% target.

democrats were warned, including by at least one noted economist from their own party that their legislation ran the risk of overheating the economy. but they were committed to taking advantage of their new majority to push their big government, big spending vision. and so they ignored the warnings. and their bill helped trigger the worst inflation crisis in 40 years. but perhaps the worst part is that even after democrats saw the damage that resulted from their american rescue plan spending spree, they continued to try to double down on the spending strategy that helped get us into this mess in the first place. democrats spent half of last year attempting to force through -- if you can believe this -- yet another partisan spending spree originally planned to cost up to $5 trillion. fortunately for americans, those particular far-left fantasies

were foiled, but that hasn't stopped democrats from continuing to accumulate wasteful government spending. in august democrats forced through a partisan tax-and-spending bill that will raise americans' energy bills, reduce jobs and opportunities for american workers and waste taxpayer dollars on a host of green new deal priorities like electric vehicle tax credits for wealthy americans and road equity, and identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. they called this tax-and-spending spree the inflation reduction act, even though as even the democrat chairman of the senate budget committee admitted, the bill will not reduce inflation. apparently the title's only function is to make the bill sound more acceptable to americans who are sick and tired of dealing with soaring prices and economic pain. then a mere eight days, eight

days after signing the so-called inflation reduction act, the president once again added to democrats' record of economic malfeasance with a massive student loan giveaway that could cost more than $1 trillion. and that the committee for responsible federal budget notes, and i quote, will meaningfully boost inflation, end quote. that from the committee for responsible federal budget. mr. president, i'm not sure whether democrats are incapable of learning their lesson or whether they consider soaring prices to be a trivial issue next to implementing their green new deal agenda. or whether they think inflation is an acceptable price to pay for big government. but whatever it is, democrats are apparently going to continue to ignore the economic pain that americans are experiencing in favor of implementing their

far-left, big government, and big-spending agenda. and it appears that the american people are going to have to continue to suffer as a result. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i would ask consent to speak for up to five minutes before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. rise today in support of the pending nomination, arianna j. freeman who's been nominated to serve on the united states court of appeals for the third circuit. for those who may not know all the geography, that includes pennsylvania, new jersey, delaware, and the virgin islands. arianna freeman has dedicated her legal career to service, especially in the philadelphia

community. after graduating from swarthmore college and yale law school, ms. freeman returned to philadelphia to start her legal career. after clerking for three federal judges in the eastern district of pennsylvania, she joined the federal community defender office in philadelphia. through her experience in the defender's office, she has briefed over 15 appeals to the third circuit -- or i should say in the third circuit -- and presented oral argument on several occasions, including before the third circuit en banc, meaning the entire court. she has submitted four briefs before the united states supreme court as well. her legal reputation, her intellect, her ability and her integrity are unquestioned. just give you three or four examples of what others have said about her work. former united states district court judge giles wrote, she as

is the character and intellectual attributes that will lead her for a wonderful appeals court judge, she discerning, open-hyped, logical an is both is listener and contributor to debate and conversation, unquote. a group of appellate practitioners from the third circuit wrote as follows -- arianna freeman has the strong intellect, tenacious work ethic, and even temperament necessary to become an outstanding federal judge. her integrity and experience will enshould you are that she will be ready to serve from the first day, unquote. third example -- given arianna's background as a public defender, a federal public defender, perhaps most important is the praise she is received from over 20 former federal prosecutors. one group wrote, quote, we are

impressed by arianna's diligence, intelligence, dedication, and integrity. it is because of her ethics and compassion grounded in sensibility that we are confident that she will provide sound and measured opinions while approaching each case without bias and with respect for the rule of law, unquote. so said 20 former federal prosecutors. arianna is so well-respected that her nomination has garnered strong support even beyond the state of pennsylvania, as evidenced by a letter submitted bid over 30 law school professors from across the nation who describe arianna free man as, quote, brilliant, careful -- i should say, as a brilliant, careful, talented lawyer with impressive professional credentials and a strong commitment to fairness,

equal justice, and the rule of law, unquote. there is no doubt that arianna freeman's extensive legal experience, keen intellect, and dedication to the principles of fairness and equal justice will serve the third circuit well. furthermore, if confirmed, she will not only provide a critically important professional perspective to the third circuit as a career public defender, she will also become the first woman of color to serve on the third circuit and just the third active woman on that bench. this is an important and historic nomination, not only for pennsylvania but, of course, for the entire third circuit court of appeals. i'd like to share a final passage from a letter written to the senate judiciary committee by a group of law school deans from pennsylvania, unusually, and delaware, led by professor

daniel conway from the penn state dickinson school of law. they wrote, and i'm wroting, the nomination of arianna j. freeman to serve as a judge on the united states court of appeals for the third circuit is inspired and her ultimate confirmation will be inspiring. as legislative leaders in this great society, the committee and the full senate will be favorably rewarded with history's account of how you worked to elevate this brilliant lawyer to the bench, unquote. couldn't be said any better than that. i urge her confirmation. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. thank you it mr. president. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. i will withdraw the motion. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second?

mr. casey: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

mr. schumer: i move to close the vote. the presiding officer: the yeas are 47, the nays are 49, and the confirmation is not confirmed. mr. schumer: i enter a motion to reconsider. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. schumer: note the absence -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 1033, lara e. montecalvo, of rhode island, to be united states circuit judge for the first circuit, signed by 18 senators. 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 nomination of lara e. montecalvo, of rhode island, to be united states circuit judge

for the first circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 45, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, lara e. montecalvo, of rhode island, to be united states circuit judge for the first circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

>> meet and greet, debate, and other events during this year's senate, house, and duetorial races and don't miss a single election moment and you can take us with you on the go with the cspan mobile app and visit cspancampaign2022 your site for all the election coverage. state by state maps and charts to track results from every primary. cspan campaign 2022, your unfiltered view of politics.es >> conversation now on progressives in campaign 2022 and we have morris pitch el of the -- maurice mitchell of the wackerring party's family. >> sure, it's the political party for the multiracial working class. we started