resettling afghan refugees, disaster relief for jackson, mississippi, water treatment system and reauthorizing fda user fees. coming up at 5:30 p.m. eastern lawmakers are expected to vote on whether to proceed to a short-term spending bill to avert that government shutdown. they will debate a proposal by the west virginia senator joe manchin on streamlining the federal permitting process for energy projects. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. us with blessings, open our eyes to the generosity of your grace. lord, help us to see in the beauty and bounty that surround us the movement of your loving providence. remind our lawmakers of their

responsibility to use your blessings to make a better nation and world. help them to understand that to whom much is given, much is expected. lord, give our senators the wisdom to release their control and ask you to take charge, guiding their steps by your power. 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 27, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 6833, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 389, h.r. 6833, an act to amend title 28 of the public health service act and so forth and for other mondays when congress is in

session we like to lay out the week ahead on capitol hill and to do that at the start of an especially busy week where joined by natalie andrews, congressional reported to the wall street journal and let's begin on the effort to keep the federal government opened past friday . where do thenegotiations stand right now on a government funding bill ? >> we expect the senate to move tomorrow to vote for a continuing resolution, a stopgap bill. the catch is the bill is going to have joe mansions permitting reform bill on it. this is a deal he made with chuck schumer in august in order to pass the big reconciliation bill. he wanted this legislation attached to that bill and schumer was going to do that on the continuing resolution. however we don't know if that bill will have 60 votes in the senate and especially

enough votes in the house to get it overthe finish line because a lot of house democrats said they don't want to support it . so it's interesting again going into the last week of september with a lot of unease during the vote tomorrow may not actually be a vote that can get the government funded and pass by friday. >> your colleague at the wall street journal katie ferrick, here's what she writes. that bill would speed up the approval process for energy-related projects across the country including natural gas pipelines, wind farms, solar power installations and would set a to your target for the duration of the most detailed category of review required by the government's national policy act and also order the white house to designate 25 projects that energy costs and improve energy reliability and cut carbon emissions priority for federal agencies , putting

pressure on us officials he reviews from languishing in today's wall street journal and also in today's wall street journal joke manchin himself making his case for the passage of his bill. the question i guess for you is what happens if this doesn't pass, if joe manchin is during his colleagues to shut down thegovernment because they don't like his permitting bill ? >> he's saying the policy to make that case and it's interesting talking to senators the last few weeks what would largely be a need for some sort of permitting reform but there's a lot of disagreement on what that is. now you have joe manchin who in some cases doesn't have a ton of goodwill with some of these members. in other cases yes he does, they're thrilled he got a reconciliation bill over the

line and they will support it so it's thosemargins of understanding willpeople come along , will they say okay . it didn't have text until last week to look at so it's unclear if seeing that percolating through the weekend has eased some stress about referrals. we're all going to see and hopefully we will see it before friday if the government can avoid shutdown . >> any other legislation that could hitch a ride onthat government funding bill, anything else you're watching . >> the two main things we expect to see jump on that is more aid for ukraine. that conflict there as you know putin has committed to escalate and more funding to the tune of about $12 billion does have supportfrom republicans and democrats . it's unclear how much longer the republicans want to continue funding this war and also funding the ukrainian government but right now,

there is money for aid on that. there they expect tosee a money on that bill . we also expect to see some money to help jackson mississippi. >> for at least a draft short-term government funding bill. big parts of the draft are unobjectionable because they were negotiated across party lines. both sides of the island want to prevent a government shutdown that no one wants . both sides want to keep resources flowing soto disastrous written communities. in fact most of the democratic chairman of the appropriations committee center lady and the republican vicechairman senator shelby . have stated publicly that this poison

liberal regulations and red tape are a huge, huge part of the problem. that's why republicans are the leaders on this issue. that's 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 fig leaf 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 are 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, quote, eviscerate states' ability to chart chart their own land use and energy policies. eviscerate states' ability to chart their own land use and energy policies. mopping other problems -- 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 plant. these state-level officials are also sounding the alarm about higher costs for their citizens. they write the manchin proposal could impose, quote, potentially back breaking costs on residents who could 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 fig leaf 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 democrat support for this phony fig leaf is all that our colleague from west virginia got in return for approving yet another taxes and spending spree during an inflation crisis, it's hard to imagine a worse bargain, for a senator or for the country. so, mr. president, if the senate votes today on proceeding to a bill that has this partisan poison pill jammed into it, i'll 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 c.r. move forward. now, on an entirely different matter, this afternoon those of us on the rules committee will mark up a bipartisan package of updates to 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'll 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, sas s, tillis and young for their intense work with democratic colleagues to get this right. congress' process for counting the presidential electors votes was written 135 years ago. kate os that came to a head on january last year certainly underscored the need for an update. so did januaries of 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. certainly, finality and the transfer of power to the winning candidate. but it's 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's 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 has introduced the only chance to get an outcome and to actually make law. here's what the legislation doe- 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 the rules actually before the election. it reject unwise challenges by 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 president and presidential transitions act. and senator collins' bill does all 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 presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to do something unusual on the floor of the senate. i'd like to report some good news. it isn't often we have those reports. today i have three items in my news, and i'd like it to share with people who are following this. i'll start my remarks by sharing an incredible story from the other side of the world. in may 2020, as the world was reeling from the spread of a deadly new strain of coronavirus, the red cross

society in the african nation of kenya received 500 bicycles from a chicago-based nongovernmental organization known as world bicycle relief. community health workers used these bicycles to make house visits across southern kenya, providing health services to remote communities who would otherwise not be reached because of restrictions on movement due to covid-19. in malawi, young girls used these bicycles to get safely to and from school. and when covid-19 closed the schools down, girls like 17-year-old elizabeth were able to shift focus to help her parents who are farmers, weather the economic effects of the pandemic. she used her bicycle to take the produce to the market. stories like these are common around the world, showing the value of the simple, relatively inexpensive green and easy-to-repair means of mobilito

help meet important developmental objectives. since its found in 2005 the organization has done great work helping displaced survivors after a natural disaster in sri lanka and getting girls to school in malawi. i've seen how a bicycle ambulance can change lives. in kenya, more than 245,000 sustainable, rugged bicycles have been provided. since 2019, i've been working to push for appropriations through usaid to invest in bicycles which helped meet the needs of health care, education, women and girls empowerment, and more. part of this funding included an in-depth assessment to see what was most useful and how to make the programs locally sustainable. they not only send bikes, they

send parts and train the repairmen. usaid used these opportunities with success thanks to many groups including world bicycle relief of chicago. today i'm introducing legislation partnering with the king of the bicycle world in the u.s. house of representatives, representative earl blumenaur of oregon. our bill is going to codify these efforts and form form form --alize the creation of gender equality. a global health crisis can turn into an economic crisis, a food crisis, mobility crisis and more. sometimes the simplest things like a bicycle can help make incredible progress. that's item number one. item number two, 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 people i represent, especially senior citizens, who tell me what these sky-high prescription prices force them to choose between medication and food and shelter. phillip is one of these stories. he lives in a small town south of chicago. 73 years old and a diabetic. after several heart and back surgeries, he can't work any longer. he takes several medications regularly. you're going to recognize the name of one of them. it's called trulicity. if you watch tv, you've heard that one, a noninsulin

treatment he uses to control blood sugar and manage diabetes. trul icity. you know what a month prescription costs? $2,000. what does he do? he tries to cut the pills in half to make them last longer. sometimes he skips the medication altogether. he is not alone. one in five americans do not take their medications as prescribed because they're too expensive. in phillip's case, even that isn't enough. at the end of the day he had to write refinances home. what a time to do it. here in america we 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 drugs 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 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 fact that it's going to do some remarkable things. it makes historic investments to address the climate crisis -- that's one thing. it includes investments in renewable, affordable energy sources. that's certainly needed. these investments in renewable energy can save families hundreds of dollars a year in energy costs. that's real relief. just as an aside, last month my wife and i decided to put solar panels on our home in springfield, illinois. we're not the first in our town, but we're certainly the

first in our neighborhood. they predict it will reduce our electric bill by 85% a month. think about your own electric bill and what that would mean, money in hand. and 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? in the inflation reduction act, which senator mcconnell just came to the floor and said was a terrible bill. i think you're going to see more and more americans making the choice our family made. i think they should. the inflation reduction act also is going to lower health care costs. one of the biggest items in every family's budget. first, 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's an idea that's been at work in the veterans administration

for years. the v.a., our v.a. serving our veterans, men and women who serve this country, pays on average half of what medicare pays for exactly the same drugs now, because v.a. 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. 83% of americans think that's a pretty good idea. how do we get 83% of americans to agree on anything? they agree on that. that's a good idea. 71% of the people 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,s that's 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 truliis city. under this bill which we passed a month ago without a vote on the other side of the aisle, we're going to limit seniors' responsibility 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. and 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 h 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 five or ten times the rate of inflation are over. of course the pharmaceutical giants and their lobbyists fought us every step of the way. they said you put limits on the prices we can charge, and we're going to have to cut our research. guess what they didn't tell you and what colleagues on the other side of the aisle do 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 two, did you know that the research that they're using is based on research started at the national institutes of health at the expense of american taxpayers. i'm all for the national institutes of health. they use what the nih developed

to make new drugs. it's a good thing to do, and they're very profitable as they do it. so i don't want to hear that they can charge less, and they're not going to be able to survive. i don't believe it. it's not only seniors who will save on health care 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 those with aca health plans. the inflation reduction act will continue this for another three years, and i hope i'm here to renew it. no one should go without medical care ever, but especially not when we're fighting a worldwide pandemic. not only did our republican colleagues vote against what i've just described to you -- lowering monthly premiums for families nationwide -- they went further and tried 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 service like vaccinations was unconstitutional. in 2020, because of the a.c.a., 152 million americans received these preventive health services with no out-of-pocket costs, often resulting in the early detection of cancer, heart disease, and other serious conditions. now a group of texas residents and businesses argue that that just violates their basic religious liberty. religious liberty. and they picked a judge who's 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. 12 years after the aca became law, it's long past time for both parties to support this effort which provides health

insurance for millions of americans at affordable cost. we need to bring down the cost of health care and prescription drugs for all american families. the last item of good news comes from a blog which i read rather religiously, and it's 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's a subscription cost. she asks from time to time if you want to contribute to her effort. i do. well, today is one that i think is worth reading and remembering. and she says, a headline in "the new york times" read factory jobs are booming like it's the 1970's. the story explained that more money in the hands of consumers, thanks to federal stimulation spending, along with a new skepticism of stretched supply lines has created a rebound in american manufacturing.

since 1970, outsourcing and automation have meant that every recession has seen factory jobs disappear in america and never return. well, there's good news. we now know that we have not only regained all the manufacturing jobs lost during the pandemic, we've added 67,000 more. those numbers would be higher if the labor market weren't so tight. the other point that she makes that's worth note something that the national economic council director told reporters one of the most striking things we're seeing is 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. gasoline prices seem to be creeping down in the midwest, grocery prices are still too high, but we are seeing some evidence of progress on the economic front and i hope that's continued. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that this column by heather cox richardson be included in my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: >> at the start of an

especially busy week where joined by natalie andrews, congressional reported to the wall street journal and let's begin on that effort to keep the federal government opened past friday. where do the negotiations stand right now on the government funding bill ? >> we expect the senate to move tomorrow to vote for a continuing resolution of a stopgap bill. the catch is the bill will have joe manchin's permitting reform bill on it that is a deal he made with chuck schumer back in august in

order to pass the state reconciliationbill . he wanted this legislation in the past bill and schumer is going to do that on the continuing resolution. however we don't know if that bill will have the votes in the senate and especially enough votes in the house to get it over the finish line because a lot of house democrats have said they don't want to support it . so it's interesting getting going into last week of september with a lot of unease that the vote tomorrow may not actually be a vote that can get the government-funded and pass by friday. >> your colleague at the wall street journal katie eric today laying out what's actually in that permitting reform bill. here's what she writes. that bill would speed up the approval process for energy-related projects including natural gas

pipelines, transmission lines, wind farms, alert power installations and sent to your target for the duration of the most detailed category of review required by the governments environmental policy act and would also order the white house to designate 25 projects that energy costs and improve energy reliability and keep carbon in missions as priorities for the review to put pressure on individuals to keep reviews from languishing. that's in today's wall street journal and also in the journal joemanchin himself making his case for the passage of his bill . the question i guess for you is what happens if this doesn't pass? is joe manchin during his colleagues to shut down the government because they don't like his permitting bill ? >> he's saying it's good policy, try to make that case and it's interesting in talking to senators the past few weeks. most of them see the need for some sort of permitting reform but there's a lot of disagreement on what that is.

now you have joe manchin in some cases doesn'thave a ton of goodwill with some of these members . in some states yes he does, they're thrilled he got a reconciliation bill over the line and they will support it so it's just the margins of understanding will people come along, will they say okay, it didn't have text until late last week so it's unclear if maybe seeing that effect, having that percolating around through the weekend has eased some stress about referral. we're all going to see hopefully we will see before friday if the government can afford to shut down. >> is there any other legislation that could hitch a ride on that government funding bill, anything else you're watching ? >> the two main things we expect to see on that is more aid for ukraine. that conflict there as we know has putin has committed

to escalate and more funding to the tune of about $12 billion does have support from republicans and democrats. it's unclear though how much longer republicans want to continue funding this war and also funding the ukrainian government but right now, there is money for a. there is expected to be aid money on that bill. we also expect to see some money to help jackson mississippi with their water crisis right now.that's one thing we're watching and also there was a good deal struck to add and fda user fee renewal on the continuing resolution, something that was also expiring at the end of september and the train is leaving thestation and looks like it will catch a ride . >> if it does get past the expectation is it would punch

this debate to the lame-duck, is that correct? >> yes. most lawmakers wouldlike to see that deadline out into december . we often see them push it until mid-december and sometimes right before christmas eve they enjoyed hunting it right to a deadline that inspires some motivation among lawmakers to get something done so they can get out for the christmas holiday i would expect at least christmas. there are republicans and others saying it should go into january where we expect congress to change control and they went away ina little bit more . it doesn't seem like december is where things are headed. >> what else could we be looking at in a lame-duck session? any other must pass legislation as it's called ? >> there are a lot of things. i would say it's unclear how the agenda will shape up. we could see the antitrust bill that senator amy

klobuchar and chuck grassley are pushing. we could see them try to get it out for a vote and we could see the electoral count at reform bill that the house bipartisan support in the senate. it's slightly different than the bill that passed the house last week and it does have support so it would make sense that democrats see it as important to move forward. we could also see democrats in the house push their bill to ban doc ownership for lawmakers through their chamber. it's unclear though if their bill has backing in the senate where you also have had senators say they'd like to stop lawmakers from owning stocks but it doesn't seem to be one consensus bill. those are some of the things we're watching and any sort of crisis could come up including natural disasters.

we also see that unfortunately right now you could see and emergency funding bills come up as well . >> talking about the week ahead on capitol hill. if you want to join the conversation phone lines as usual democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8000 ones, independence 202-748-8000 two . we were talking about the lame-duck and speaking of after the midterm elections there's been a good deal of time taking a look at what leadership might look like in the house specifically on both sides of the isle when it comes to after the election. start on democrats. what does the leadership team , what is it shaping up to the at this point when the house convenes for the hundred 18 congress on january? >> democrats have had the same leadership for about two decades. nancy pelosi at the top,

steny hoyer in the number three spot and i talked to several democrats in the past few weeks asking them what do they expect to see after the midterms and i will say as democrats got more hopeful that they could block off republicans from winning the majority of seatsor limit the losses there , they have thought that nancy pelosi could run for another termand probably win if she had support . there's not a lot of people if anyone stepping up to directly challenge speaker pelosi. you have two, akim jeffries is currently democratic caucuschair and adam shift who's been in charge of the intelligence committee . they have started talking to people, having meetings . weighing out the groundwork should nancy pelosi decided she didn't want to be the caucus anymore . she did make a deal for years

ago that she would only do two more terms as speaker but that deal was never codified into house democratic rules. so there is little room here and it is wild but it truly seems like it's anyone's game. if policy wants to stay severaldemocrats said they would try . and then if she doesn't you can see akim jeffries could emerge as the first black man to lead apolitical party in congress .and i would say adam shift is seen as the underdog but he doesn't have national name recognition and he's holding meetings . >> to the republican side of the house, the headline of your story in the wall street journal, kevin mccarthy's front have to power. the right she's closer than ever to becoming speaker, a job iswanted for years although thepath he's taken is a risky one . why risky ?

>> kevin mccarthy has wanted this job since 2016. he sent set his sights on unifying people who didn't like him . so jim jordan who was threatening to challenge him in 2015 is nowan ally . and he has tried hard to unite all those branches of the republican conference. however it's hard to leave when you have tried to make friends with everyone and tried to push them through onto a spending bill or some sort of must pass legislation. it's been difficult when you try to bring people together in a republican conference that is not necessarily unified on a lot of things. republican conference also it doesn't like spending bills. they don't like increasing spending. it's going to be hard for any republican speaker to negotiate a deal with joe biden .

and we're going to see kevin mccarthy who doesn't have a relationship but i asked two dozen republicans if they would vote for an omnibus if kevin mccarthy came to them and said i need your help getting this giant spending bill through. haven't seen omnibus spending bills come through congress the past couple of years. the result of that . >> ami as we dispense with the quorum call. >> without objection. >> i rise just for to request , i have to request for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of the majorityand minority leaders . >> duly noted. >> i now notethe absence of a quorum . >>

when you say right wing you mean totally to the right or totally left but the biggest thing is being able to find information when needed. >> natalie interest on this issues of censorship talking to members of congress, have you followed the issue as it gets debated on capitol hill? >> i think some lawmakers would say it's why they want to see, they talk about social media and

wanting to regulate that, your topic of house investigation next year should republicans when the house majority and we could see it from the. >> i know it's a week ahead on capitol hill but the end of last week we saw the house approved legislation police funding in a series of bills. explain what happened now that is passed in the house passed in the senate, is it likely to become law before the election? >> the house passed for bills led by democrats, some bipartisan led by people who wanted to push back against the democrats soft on crime or defund the police, they've been

facing this attack for years and the bill on the republican side would give grants to i believe 60 million over the next five years. there were bills to mitigate crime through grant programs and things like that but these bills, even bipartisan bill in a different form from chuck grassley probably up against the clock more than anything else the senators have a long list of things they would like to do. if they can get through the senate, we will watch. in the senate where they will campaign much of october and if they don't they will have to do the authorization act and there's a list of things to get

linked up. >> when does the house get out of the town and reddened does the senate get out to keep everybody aware of the schedule? >> the house leaves after this week and they will campaign and probably vigorously until election day and elections are very high the majority of the senate. they are scheduled to be in october however, we haven't seen the senate calendar shift. democrats are extending c2 probably want to campaign and will ask for such time so we could see the days they've scheduled through october into the campaign. >> this is lewis in north carolina plan for democrats, good morning,. >> top of the morning to you.

i'm thinking about some of the things you said how politics is running in the senate. this is my question. if the republicans when the house or the senate, do you think, and you know they are going to put abortion on and make it mandatory and everything federal, you think republican women's and independent women marching in the streets when the decision came out, protesting about it, do you think the women will vote that want to get rid of abortion altogether, you think they will vote on them and go back in the street in my

chicken about abortion? >> the issue of abortion. >> it is an interesting question how abortion will play in november. we've seen only in the past shows abortion sometimes ranks number three or four or five issue to voters and the economy in the tough spot, inflation and rising costs, the economy generally rises in the healthcare debate rise to the top and this is the first election in recent history where we have had abortion legislated as we speak so that could change but in the past we seen people who support abortion rights

don't support abortion because it's not the top of the list when looking for someone as a lawmaker. i've seen republicans off these attacks by saying -- i talked to marjorie taylor greene on friday and asked about abortion because it wasn't in this plan other than one line that said they support the right to life she said it's decided by the state. i do think it's interesting line to push back and make it a national issue however, should republicans when the house majority i would expect them a vote on abortion, limiting abortion rights and if it makes it to the senate which is

unlikely it would end up with a veto from joe biden's. interesting times where we see how people prioritize that voting in a post- roe world but i think we just don't have that data yet. >> in terms of the data on how much abortion is being discussed, brookings institution in recent report looked at the primary season candidate to campaign material figuring out what the topic issues discussed during the primaries in campaign material and here's what they found when it came to democrats healthcare discussed by 62% of candidates, abortion 61%. climate change 59% and guns and election integrity, the top five issues congressional candidate, democratic congressional candidates discussed in the primaries. here's the republican side, top issue immigration discussed by 61% and then guns and abortion

53% and taxes and regulation and the issue of inflation, the universe of issues most candidates on each side discussed. brookings.edu is where you can go for the report. >> it's interesting, it's increased and how people are talking and it's on the ballot in california and michigan, so if you see people coming to vote on referendums, they probably will look, democrats hope they will look to back abortion rights and they hope voters coming out will propel them or even pick up some. it's interesting to see how abortion is changing the landscape and democrats hope it is taken up pointing to their

special election win new york where he talks about abortion rights. republicans feel it's a one off their primary was crowded but other circumstances that prevented them from getting a clear win but it's grown a wildcard into the election. >> independent, this is bryan. >> having served under both carter and reagan, i was young ben but didn't know there would be such a big difference and it happened real quick. i cannot support the democratic party anymore unless you can

find a candidate such as jfk. what did he believe in? a long way back he believed in a secure border number one no excuses, wasn't worried about reform, just secure the border. also what didn't he believe in? he didn't lead with trade with communist nations, he didn't believe in it such as china and you see where we are now also what he didn't believe in was the cia. >> when you say you served under carter and reagan, did you serve in the military, federal jobs? >> at a high level, we didn't need to get into that. staff it changed. my mission statement would change at the end of the year when reagan gotten and i thought this won't affect me, it affected me within a month, it affected us and mission statement changed and we were more defined. it was great and cap politics

out of the military back then. now look where it sat. >> running short on time trying to get colors in. carlos in denver city texas, good morning. >> good morning. first of all, i am an american. on abortions, i don't see why we have to pay for it. let them pay for it out of their pocket. there won't be a problem if they pay out-of-pocket. why do we taxpayers have to pay for it? that's wrong. let them pay for it. another question, in mexico for all those people coming across

mexico, it's making a killing out of it. another one, do we send people to new york? they need it to pelosi, joe biden -- >> all right, that's carlos. a couple of issues he brings up. in terms of we are paying for abortion, i wonder could reveal what they amendment is. >> this amendment is in funding bills, any funding bill for healthcare that makes its weight and where it outlines government funding not to go to abortion and it's truly something even democrats have tried to get it revoked since it took control and realized it's not a fight

until they would have 60 votes in the senate for it so it will likely stay in future funding bills. government funding can go to cases like planned parenthood and do abortion but the funding for the abortion itself, the government funding cannot go around abortion. >> in the few minutes we have left, i would to give you a chance of conversations you've had with members of congress when it comes to the issue of undocumented immigrants in the country and that topic must specifically transferring them to sanctuary city, sanctuary areas, all members of congress talk about that and how it's viewed on capitol hill as it's happening in the states. >> immigration as a whole comes

up before elections in a big way, something publicans talk about and are concerned about it right now. feel like there are problems of crime and drugs because of the border and i would expect them to take the message right into the majority in terms of investigation and homeland security. democrats if you talk to them, they feel they are doing an effective job and others say they can do better to push back and they don't have a wholesome message to confront immigration and problems of the border. it's traditionally been in support of a pathway to citizenship dreamers brought to the country as young children

and wanting people to have a chance at the american dream something democrats have long talked about so when confronted with these problems at the border, immigrants worry their party doesn't have a solid response to address it. republicans tend to go all in wanting to close the border and limit access. we will see as to how much it matters to voters and impacts people. i do think it's overwhelmingly on i want to talk about but immigration is always a problem for congress on how to solve broader immigration policy. >> we will have to ended their. a congressional reporter with the "wall street journal" on twitter at natalie wsj, appreciate your time.

they were negotiated a person party lines. both sides want to prevent government shutdown no one wants. both sides want to keep resources going through disaster struck minorities. what democratic chairman of the appropriations committee, senator leahy and the public and vice chairman senator sherm shelby stated publicly poison --

excuse me. the misplaced age here. as are saying, both sides want to continue support for ukraine but unfortunately democratic colleagues decided to put a strenuous partisan language, a poison pill. is not related to keeping the government open, not negotiated across the aisle both democratic chairman of the appropriations committee senator leahy and republican vice chairman senator shelby stated publicly this should not be underlying fill.

an attempt to address an important topic of permitting reform. it's much too difficult to build things and america unleash american energy. liberal regulations and red tape are a huge part of the problem and that's why republicans are the leaders on this issue and want my colleagues senator capitol is in producing strong robust package to move the ball forward. democratic colleagues produced a fig leaf that would set back the cause of real permitting reform in's and issues to improve upon status quo but amazingly democratic colleagues managed will actually make things even

worse. he goes out of his way to avoid amending the environmental policy act or any other environmental law and players bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy. it's new requirements, deadlines paper with no enforcement. a few parts that would change the status quo and take things to worse. yesterday, a long list of state attorneys general wrote the senate a panicked letter explaining the language would eviscerate state's ability to hurt for online use and energy policy, eviscerate state's ability to chart their own land use energy policy.

among other problems explain how the legislation creates a backdoor to think through and take over much like the obama administration's unconstitutional so-called powerplant. these officials are sounding the alarm about higher cross for citizens in the proposal could a backbreaking cost with no true benefit or energy benefit whatsoever, democrats policy has electricity costs skyrocketing fastest rate in more than 40 years. more democratic policies that raise utility bills even higher still. this stony fig leaf permits reform in name only.

written to drain the political will for actual farm without creating meaningful change liberal special interest might deflect. the democratic support for this bony fig leaf is all our colleagues returns for approving it another taxing and spending spree during inflation crisis, it's hard to imagine bargain. so the senate vote on proceeding to a bill that has bonus and bill jammed into it, i'll vote

no and i would urge my colleagues to vote no as well. has a smooth obvious path on government funding. the path is obvious. drop the partisan language and that the bipartisan cr move forward. a different matter, this afternoon those of us on the rules committee will mark up bipartisan package of updates to the electoral count act of 1887. strongly support the changes the colleagues have flushed out after months of detailed discussions. i'll probably support legislation provide nothing more

than technical changes are made to its current form. i want to thank senator collins for their work with colleagues to get this right. the presidential elections votes written 135 years ago. the chaos that came to a head january 6 last year underscored the need for an update so the 2001, 2005 and 2017 and each of which democrats tried to challenge the election of a republican president. in every case our system of government went out and produced

analogy if transfer of power to the winning candidate but it's clear the country a more predictable path for that outcome. this bill does not replace current law and untested. it keeps what worked well and updates. the bill sponsors debate and every provision and found bipartisan consensus that bad ideas on the floor to result in product still as introduced, the only chance to get an outcome and make law. here is what the legislation does. it raises the flesh threshold for the electoral count preserving options -- dent,

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're just three days from the end of the fiscal year, and the democratic-controlled senate has yet to pass a single appropriations bill. no funding for our military, no funding for veterans services, noing funding for border -- 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 three 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'm not a fan of short-term funding bills. they don't provide the stability or predictability we need to plan for the future. that's 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 if you think the gambit -- gambit isn't enough, the majority leader raised the stakes even higher. he's not putting a clean funding bill on the floor. he's 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's because the bill doesn't come even 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's a power grab by the federal regulatory, 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's 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 new project transmission, transmitting lines, 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 cost 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've 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 leader is still moving forward with a procedural vote this evening, and 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 opening, open, or shut down the government over their reckless tax-and-spending spree deal cut behind closed doors last summer. if you'll 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'll 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. madam president, on another matter, 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 four 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's 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're not required to do so, but if they want they could spend up to a 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've heard from leaders all across my state in texas who are

frustrated about the handcuffs that have been put on them when it comes spending the money that congress had appropriated for covid-19 relief. senator padilla told me he's hearing the same thing from leaders in california. so we got to work. we spoke with folks in our states as well as the senate, 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. in some places that means pandemic-related expenses which will take a priority, but 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.

and usually what happens here in washington is the united states congress appropriates money, and it literally takes a couple of years to get the money from d.c. down to places like austin, texas, where the texas legislatures can then figure out how to disburse those funds. but 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, wu know, has -- we know has been hit by a terrible hurricane and is still trying to restore power. florida is bracing for the impact of hurricane ian as it makes its way to the gulf coast. and 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's no surprise this bill passed the senate 100-0. it was unanimous. these are the sort 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. and it will empower state and local leaders to make the best decisions for their communities. and 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 states 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, would help the entire country. but this is just one of many bipartisan bills that's currently sitting in the house since the start of congress, the senate unanimously approved bills that i've 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 south, to support programs that 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. and i'm sure they'd pass by overwhelming votes in the united states 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's time to get moving on these commonsense, noncontroversial, nonbills. otherwise we'll have to start back at square one next year. madam president, i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

can you describe your organization's work?

>> represent the state directors low income assistance program, the largest federal program designed to help low income families, energy bills in the winter as well as cooling bills in the summer. as far as the demand of low income residents, what does winter mean for them? >> extremely difficult because when winter heating bills can be expensive and this year they are hitting levels they haven't seen in ten years. estimated 20% higher than last year so a family spending 900 at home or heating oil over $2000 so a lot of money. >> let's go through numbers,

$952, the average for natural gas, expected increased 21 to 22, electricity $1300 and heating oil 2100 pain 1800 and you take the fuel cost together a 1200 increase compared to 21. where they coming from and what's causing them? >> one thing causing it was the high cost going in the cool their homes and companies have to draw down supplies and natural gas producing electricity during the summer as well as winter. 50% of homes used in natural gas so the prices are very high in some cases higher than last 12

to 15 years and amplified by the war in ukraine because europeans import natural gas in the united states and those limits to how much we can export it adds pressure here. >> if there's higher prices, with the demand on prices and how much can they meet? >> we are extremely worried, we have enough, one out of six eligible households but i heard this morning congress resolution added a few billion dollars which will help a lot, still not enough. we asked for 5 billion because we are not only worries about competing but it's a year round program so we have had two years now of hot temperatures in the summer, it's the new normal so we don't have enough money for heating and cooling bills so the extra money is a step in the right direction but the long-term concern is we don't

have enough money to help families struggling to pay their bills. one out of six receive assistance, what goes into determining who gets it? >> it's not entitlement so first come first serve program the things, we have three priorities, families who are elderly and anyone over the age of 60, disabled or they have young children. they are priority households. we also look at a family behind on energy bills, whatever keeps them connected so even though it's enough money to help, it makes a difference in the most vulnerable families. our concern is families able to pay on energy bill last year or the year before would be able too and it's combined, families are struggling with high inflation food and rent so families are being squeezed.

a major concern is congress does not extend the child tax credit. it ended in december so is taken away resources to pay bills like home energy or food. >> you said 50% of homes eat homes with natural gas, 16 million plus in the u.s. when it comes to electricity, 42% of homes, 52 million homes, 5 million homes depending on heating, 6 million homes depending on it so natural gas is a driver but as far as the u.s. capability of producing natural gas what's compared to be used to help heat homes? >> natural gas production declines especially during the pandemic and that's the problem. it's not so much production because reserves are down but it's a hot summer and the uses of reserves.

the other thing is the price of natural gas or electricity depends on where you live. it's primarily natural gas that generates electricity. out west is hydro, water, it doesn't change. water is water. so you see higher cost with natural gas. there's utilities in northeast talking about 40, 50% increases but higher than the national average so across the country there's potentially a serious problem developing. it's only september a few more days so it could change in weather conditions could moderate, applicable warm winter to allow companies to build up reserves we don't know so part of what we are saying is as we go forward from here they look toward high prices and we need to prepare and that's the real

concern, they will bow behind and take measures that are safe and some people turned down the heat to low and cause issues and we don't want to see a happen to mock our guest with us until 10:00. if you have questions, we divide the line differently particularly the look of the economic feel making under 452,027,488,000. 45000 -- 265,000. if you make over 65000, (202)748-8002. text (202)748-8003. what defines low income in this program? >> states have considerable discretion but a family of four could make up to 50000 a year end still qualify but most get energy assistance earning less than 35000 a year. we saw energy of the pandemic,

how much is still in existence? >> that's one thing about the concern from an extra four and a half billion under pandemic relief to help families under the 3.8 billion. that's 4.5 billion by the end of this month so we are concerned hasn't changed that much but someone will be considerably lower. >> that makes it more difficult in determining who the one out of six will be. >> we have enough money to help the one out of six but we would like to help for out of six that don't get help because they will be applying this year. applications are going up and people are worried looking at early signs of the bills. >> i suppose if you look at other events in the united states we see gas prices for gasoline go down to get to see home heating prices rise.

what is to explain that? >> they don't move in tandem. natural gas from heating oil they are not priced the same so natural gas prices skyrocketed primarily because of supply, supplies are very low. oil supplies in front of and they track global prices of petroleum. the thing that people don't recognize, we are coming at the end of a hot summer and many had higher willing does the master. some fell behind on top of the day, almost doubled during the pandemic. many families going into the heating season owing more than they did before with much higher

bills so we could help the worst of all so instead of the normal 8 billion a year families oh, it's closer to 16 billion and the numbers could go up as part of the reason we have funding because looking at situations that is unavoidable because families can't plan wars. a global problem with supply, you can plan your budget based on what you know and what you know is five, six, seven years of cheap energy and it ended in the last year or so, so what we are worried about is lower income and middle income families, their budgets have been squeezed in basic expenses not going into winter with more increases. that's the real concern and we

are sending a lot of work taking about how the nation can address temperatures working with the climate foundation to think about the strategies to help families have access to affordable cooling in the context not making it worse. the more fossil fuels and we have a considerable problem so part of what we do is not just think about how bills get paid but also the most energy efficient way possible and that is important because otherwise you have fossil fuels, more emissions and higher prices. >> directors association for the conversation, we will start off with him in rock hill, south carolina.

thank you for calling, you're on with our guest, go ahead. >> democrat own this washington d.c., they phoned it because of energy and everything and hopefully with money and greed and power from a week and change things in november. >> thanks for your question, one thing that's difficult for democrats and republicans is the federal government does not control energy prices so even though the president wanted to push down the price of oil, he had limited tools. natural gas, the president does not control natural gas for the price of propane. after going to the winter the only solution i can see is we need additional federal funding to help the most vulnerable in our country to pay the bills

until the supply increases, prices come down as we head toward recession, whatever it is we have to help families get through. >> good morning. my question is upon natural gas and pain, people are frantic on why it was so high. how can we decrease it in the wintertime of natural gas and propane? how can democrats fix that we can afford it? >> the best solution is efficiency. at the of the day the amount of money you spend to heat our home

with natural gas and electricity depends on the price of fuel so there's an effort to increase the efficiency of homes especially lower income homes. the $9 billion for residents efficiency and congress provided a believe about four or $5 billion. ... my sense is that it varies

across the country for example california massachusetts new york is very active program called families at home and other, i'm sorry you see duke energy for example utilities in illinois that provides low cost and in some cases free thermal energy improvements. i think the important thing is we need a national campaign to do this in a systematic approach to get every way people can do cost-effective treatments and in paper with financing because that's the other way to reduce demand. help families reduce energy. in the short-run we have these bills that have to be. >> host: from virginia this is kerry, you are next. >> caller: hello. this is the first time i've gotten through calling. i've been watching you since the 80s. i love your show.

and thank you for having this question on. i am aware that you know one of the biggest problems is that a lot of the new energy-efficient needs well i wouldn't say they are that new but the more modern techniques q of say adding solar and wind 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 c.r. now, senate republicans have made very clear they will block legislation to fund the government if it includes bipartisan permitting reform. because they've chosen to obstruct instead of work in a bipartisan way to achieve something, they've long claimed they wanted to do. because american families should not be subject 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. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. thank you, the majority leader, for those comments and for your 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 o. i'm honored to be part of this with the senator who began his career active in the great

panthers. so his commitment to social security almost goes back to almost before i was born, mr. president, if i could say it that way. everything we do here, mr. president, everything we dough here should come back to the dignity of work. the idea that hard work should pay off for everyone 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's 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 51-50 to protect -- is a

issues -- to save the pensions of a hundred thousand 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%. it's why we still fight for the dell identify 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 open. they lost it because the system didn't guarantee it. it's why we'll always, always fight back against the tax and social security. a secure retirement should never be partisan. social security and medicare are two of the most popular, most unifying institutions in the country. think back. we've had social security since the roosevelt days. we've had medicare since the lbj days. 80, 90 years of -- the first social security check was in 1940 to a woman in vermont. we've 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 1960's. again two of the most popular and most unifying institutions in the country. social security sour government's properly -- social security is our government's promise to working men and women, a promise to retire with dignity. social security 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 widen of the -- chairman wyden of the finance committee knows, almost everybody knows, they think it is their mission to prior size medicare. so why do they do that? well, it's 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 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's 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 also happens to run the republican senate campaign committee, the senator from florida who is a freshman who believes that we should -- we have to renew medicare and social security every five years like we don't want anybody to feel comfortable or to be able to plan for the future or feel secure in their retirement. it's always the same plan from the corporate elite and think tank extremists. when i said almost everybody, it's not quite fair. it's the corporate elite in many cases. it's the people at these

right-wing think tanks funded by billionaires that think this is some way that they -- 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's 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's why this week senator wyden who i said began his activism -- activist for the great panthers in portland, oregon, senator casey who sits next to me, one of the leaders in this senate, the senator from pennsylvania, came to the senate the same day i did who is one of the leaders in this senate and on senator wyden's committee to to affirm that social security should remain a guarantee. our government should work for people, not against it. 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 health care 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've listened to their speeches for years, extolling the value of hard work. i've heard some of them try 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're watching. a few exceptions. senator portman has been helpful in this on the bipartisan dell phi -- delphi retirement fix. many are trying to block it. they're watching as the republican caucus tries to end scoacial 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're 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's at stake with these attacks? why do we need to show a united commitment in the united states senate on social security. senator wyden. mr. wyden: thank you very much, senator brown. i see in the chair another strong supporter of social security, the distinguished senator. the presiding officer: massachusetts. for colleagues who aren't aware, senator brown is our chair of the subcommittee on social security and the senate finance committee. this is a crucial subcommittee for all the reasons that senator

brown just mentioned, and i'm 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. what senator brown -- the presiding officer: without objection. 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 great pan -- gray panthers. ever since those days, the difference between the two parties has been that on our side of the aisle, we're 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're not a voucher. they're not something that's 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's anything but what you just heard senator brown say, that medicare and social security are not something to be privatized. they're 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 republican senate candidate out west say in a primary forum, congress ought to, quote, privatize social security and just get the government out of it. just get the government out of it. now apparently he's the nominee and he's for protecting social security. swears up and down he's for protecting social security. huge about face. 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. 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 about both sides of their mouth. now, i mentioned this question of western ares 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 have 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. 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 guarantees. they're not subject to these annual political kind of battles and pushed and prodded for political advantage. they're guarantees. 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 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's acceptable. senator brown, the chair of our subcommittee, doesn't believe that's 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 social security income every year. over -- mr. brown: would the senator yield for one minute? mr. wyden: i would be happy, and particularly so you can tell everybody again why you feel so

strongly -- mr. brown: i would like to ask you -- you had said that senator scott, who represents the third largest state in the country, florida, he said he wants to sunset? what exactly -- just explain that so my colleagues understand. the word sunset doesn't sound so bad until you really explain it. and senator markey, i know, understands it. but explain that, if you would, as the chairman of the committee. mr. wyden: what sunset means is you would unravel the basic principles of social security and medicare. you don't subject them to annual irregular political fights. we've said people have earned those benefitsment and we aren't just going to set arbitrary dates and say we're going to, in effect, move on and we'll 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're just going to have these arbitrary changes that could put at risk the entire program. mr. brown: so he's saying then, if i understand this right, senator scott -- again, the chair of the republican senate campaign committee representing the third largest state in the countriment, he's saying every five years in the senate doesn't say yes to social security and medicare, then they unravel, then they die? it is up to the senate to say yes every five 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. and as you said, if people

decide because of some particular kind of flurry at the moment, some cause they don't want to continue it, the well-being of seniors is -- mr. brown: so if there is a president and a senate and a house in five years that wants to privatize medicare and end social security, they just block this -- or the president wants to veto it or a senate leader like senator mcconnell, that's never really believed in it, they can do nothing, it's up to people who support social security and medicare to keep it going every five years, in other words? the burden is on the supporters, the public, which is to me 90% of the public or more likes this. that's the way it works, right? mr. wyden: you have stated it well. if would mean that when you sunset it, you have to have a brand-new fight to reestablish its primacy as a guarantee. you sunset it. mr. brown: go back with that.

you said a brand-new fight. i'm not an 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 is on the floor, about it, too. that president truman wants 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 a 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 that want to do it to get it back, in effect? mr. wyden: 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, senator orrin hatch, the late-senator hatch who worked with us, when he was in the senate, he said we'll 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, not exactly -- our late colleague and personal friend, he understood what we were talking about, that medicare and social security are a guarantee. when we talked about chronic

care, he said we're going to update the medicare guarantee. nothing about saying, well, gee, maybe we'll do something after we sunset it. my colleague has said it well. mr. brown: let me ask you another question. so if senator scott gets his way and senator mcconnell gets his way and all those new candidates that 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 health care 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 this. but certainly the question of elected officials because we

have these retirement benefits that have been part, again, of a program that's been established for some time, they haven't been talked about. but i'll tell you, i think, as chair of the social security subcommittee, myself on the finance committee, we're going to go outlands say, no double standard. we're going to go out there and say, no double standard. you can be shoe sure of that. if something is sunsetted for working people and the seniors and disabled, we're going to be sure it is not available for elected officials. i think senator brown started us off very well, and he's asking questions that i think millions of americans are going to ask. my understanding is that my colleague from ohio, 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 we're going to have a program sunsetted for seniors and the disabled, social security, medicare and others, but we're not going to even talk about what happens for elected officials is an example of how you shouldn't legislate. it's an example of what i believe could be a double standard, and i'll just close -- unless senator brown wants to. i'll let senator brown do it. as i listened to senator brown and i put it in the context with all these years with the gray panthers, everybody can understand what senator brown is talking about. medicare and social security are guaranteed, period, inviolate, people worked so hard for this. on the other side we're talking about privatization.

we're talking about portability, we're talking about lots of new cost analyses in the private sector and individualized programs. i'm for individualized programs, on top of social security, not in place of it. so i really appreciate your resolution, senator brown, and i'm 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 and senator leahy will be speaking in a moment, and senator wyden, the chair of the finance committee, we're just asking for cosponsors. we have a number of our colleagues that have cosponsored this to make sure that social security is with us -- a strong, good social security system as long as we are a nation. so i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i

understand the vote is going to be soon. i ask consent that it be after i finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. 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 vermont was at that time i believe 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 franklin roosevelt and the democrats did, but social security, i'm all for that. and i learned that as a child, and it's been part of my mantra ever since, along with senator brown and senator wyden. social security is a contract, and we should follow it.

now, on another matter, mr. president, today the senate will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 6833. what that means, we take up a substitute amendment containing a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through december 16. december 16 is an important date, and we should have it done by then. so i'll vote to invoke cloture and move the process forward. i'd urge both republicans and senators to do that. you know, 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, which is so needed ahead of winter, and provide

emergency relief to communities recovering from natural disasters all over our great country. this is an important step, but it is, of course, just a temporary step because we will finish the omnibus bill with all appropriations in it by december 16. as chairman of the senate appropriations committee, i'm committed to completing the work of the appropriations committee before the end of this congress. and i'm seeking bipartisan support on both the republican side and the democratic side. my staff, myself, and the staffs and members -- key members in the house, we worked throughout most of the august recess going through thousands of pages to make sure this is possible.

because it's a time of rising inflation. everything is costing more -- energy, food, fuel, housing. we must respond accordingly. running on autopilot after december would be irresponsible. the american people deserve more. i'll repeat that. we're in a time of rising inflation. everything is costing more -- energy, food, fuel, housing. we have to respond accordingly. if you run on autopilot in this country after december, that would be irresponsible, and the american people deserve more. we know how bad it was when the government closed down for its longest period during the last

administration. that cost americans billions of dollars, totally wasted. you know, our federal agencies -- people talk about the government. let's look at our federal agencies. they run thousands of programs every day that benefit working families. from nutrition programs to small business loans and grants, from affordable housing to house care for our nation's veterans, child care services to our nation's schools. the federal government provides services that impact nearly every aspect of american life. so we can't fund these critical programs at last year's levels without cutting services or underfunding needs. it's simple math. enacting a full-year appropriations bill into law must be our top priority. we owe it to the americans who sent us here, no matter what their political background is, no matter what part of the country they come from. so look at the several urging

and pressing issues that cannot wait. this bill contains $1 billion to bolster liheap ahead of winter. people are going to be facing higher fuel costs because of putin's war on ukraine. inflation also caused partly by that, will drive energy costs even higher. no family should have to choose between heating their home or buying food, not in my state of vermont, but not in any community anywhere in the country. i'm glad that we're able to come together and secure these resources. it also has $12.35 billion in emergency assistance for ukraine. we further demonstrate our resolve to stand with the people of ukraine against president putin's illegal, brutal war on their country.

we're going to stand up to a man who has committed war crimes. and the bill provides $2.5 billion to support recovery efforts. i think of the peak cabin fire in new mexico, the largest fire in new mexico's history has scorched hundreds of thousands of acres. it's destroyed homes, it's displaced thousands, iting sparked a fresh water crisis in new mexico. we're the united states of america, so we support all states in america. and the bill includes $2 billion in community development block grants to help address unmet recovery needs in communities experiencing major disasters in 2021, in 2022, such as kentucky and missouri and puerto rico.

and with hurricane ian advancing in the gulf, the continuing resolution also includes an additional $18.8 billion for the fema disaster relief fund. this is a fund that protects all americans. and we have to ensure that fema has the resources to meet this challenge. the bill provides those resources. i am disappointed that due to republican opposition, there's no additional funding to combat covid-19 or monkey pox. i think not providing these resources is shortsighted, and so i'll continue to fight for the necessary funding to continue to combat these terrible diseases, and we will revisit this issue in the omnibus. so now congress must do its job and complete the appropriations process before the end of the year. i look forward to working with

the people i've been working with for the past several months, and i would single out vice chairman shelby, chair delauro, ranking member granger. if we continue the work we've been doing, we can get this done, more importantly, for the american people, we have to, we have to get this done. i yield the floor. 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 the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 389, h.r. 6833, an act to amend title 28 of the public health service act, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 19 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 motion to proceed to h.r. 6833, an act to amend title 27 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. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

people who may not be familiar with it the what is it? >> we aren't on line news cup for -- newspaper covering the

workforce and things like that because the one of the more federal workforce is the role of fema. if a situation situation where the hurricane hit florida. at this stage can you remind us of the role it has especially with a hurricane bearing down on the united states? >> guest: what famous doing now is repositioning supplies and getting people and materials ready in florida and alabama right nearby wherever they are needed. that includes dry foods, water, both of water generators and things like that. and they have thousands and thousands of services to deploy activated whenever there is an emergency situation and to help people on the ground. they push water and power and eventually they help people with long-term recovery with

financial assistance and flood insurance and things like that but in the immediate term they are really focusing on the acute needs making sure they are fed and have shelter. >> host: how much coordination do they have with the state and local governments there and how much of a role as far as taking a lead in these events? >> guest: there has been a lot of coordination. they have a relationship with emergency responders and with things like that. generally like in puerto rico right now they are playing a support role. ..

what did we learn this time around particulate from hurricane fiona as far as what happened to the island but what was the response from fema for that? >> it one thing the fema officials i spoke to said they were much better position this

that's been really slow going. it is been five years since that happened. they are still right now. but they said they had people there that could pivot to this response. we knew how to get those people in the right position quickly. and they also had better relationships of people on the ground there. and they had more materials up repositioned. i think when maria hit they only had two warehouses full of food, water, generators and this time they had five. they knew they were very much underprepared last time. and they were able to send out way more employees. there was already 700 who live and work there full-time.

that gives some sort of a leg up to respond more quickly. >> can you elaborate if they are there full-time outside of a disaster situation where they doing in the meantime as far as day-to-day roles? >> a lot of it is trying to get the benefits out the people who were affected by maria. and of course i was most of the island. it took a long time for several years to really get the dollars that were appropriated dispersed out into the island. there is some controversy as to why that was. they are now trying to rebuild, obviously puerto rico has taken a lot of heat i guess with the state of their grid, their electric. they were just starting to get

underway with a project to improve that situation when fiona hit. that was certainly a major setback. those employees that they are, they were working on those issues. they are trying to the island better positioned so they could sustain another disaster without the catastrophic impact that maria had. and unfortunately that work was not finished yet. they are still dealing with a crisis situation. >> our guest from government executive but if you would ask questions about hurricane really particular when it comes to puerto rico you can call the line (202)748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202)748-8001 vernon mountain and pacific time (027)488-0024 elsewhere pretty but the text just (202)748-8003.

you would talked about that money going to puerto rico. how much was slated to go to the commonwealth? hex how much actually made it there? >> so there was tens of billions of dollars that was slated to go. i think only about a third of that actually made it there. and a big chunk of that was sort of at the end of the trump administration. that took a few years to get out there. and like i was saying earlier, some of that has been obligated but not necessarily spent spirits of the projects it was supposed to go to were slow to get off the ground. there's still a lot of money that is available. one thing that has come up and emergency response previously is fema is typically authorized to send money just to repair things that way they were before this

disaster. but in this case they got money to actually make things better. to rebuild it in a way that's more sustainable and could actually allow the island to sustain damage the wind knocked out the whole system that work was not complete yet. we've slowly been restoring power. >> majority leader chuck schumer last week held a press comfort outside of capitol hill talking about these various events. one of things he did talk about was money going to the island. as far as the rate it was going. he brought up concerns he had. i want to play a little bit of what he had to say and then we will your response to it. >> we were able to deliver $21 billion.

$21 billion to our fellow citizens in puerto rico to deal with housing, healthcare, water and half of it went to power. as franky mentioned $12 billion. this is not a lack of money. but let me say it is, listen to this. according to gao about $21 billion only 2% of the money has been spent. 2% when the island was already devastated by maria. it opens even more i'd fiona because things were not fixed rate is that outrageous? while in large part that was due to the trump administration's callousness and action. it is also because of the ongoing conflict on the island for what resources should power puerto rico with a 12 billion of that was for getting a new power grid. half of that funding, more than

half to rebuild the grid devastated by maria. while the department of energy, fema and hud's working to support that effort the ongoing conflict between cuba and the puerto rico energy bureau has hamstrung those efforts. instead of getting power to the people, instead of making it a resilient grid eight local grid they are busy fighting with each other. it is outrageous. >> let's start there about that fighting between the federal government and local authorities there puerto rico. what is a senator referring to? >> after maria, their attractive parrot the best way to rebuild the grid contractor was brought on to help those efforts. and so the existing power authority has a role to play in this new private entity has a role to play. what senator schumer is referring to is a clash there in

terms of determining who was in charge of what. how did they allocate the dollars properly? and dealing with the puerto rican government on top of that has made it more complicated and intended lease dollars were appropriated for that cop is very quick to center also actions of the previous administration as a cause can you elaborate on that? >> i think he was referring to there, first of all the previous stint in its for being slow to respond when the storm first hit. there were storms happening elsewhere in the country in texas at the time or it certainly after. there is some criticism they prioritize other areas and left puerto rico hanging in the balance for a while. and then more recently they were slow as we discussed getting dollars out the door, putting

condition on the congress attached. there is criticism for not happening quickly. we went let's hear from jamaal and george, morning. >> caller: good morning. two questions, who makes the decision what to spend money on? makes the decision if to rebuild or relocate people who are impacted by natural disasters? if you get louisiana get people have been impacted and rebuilding them is going to cause them to be exposed to another natural disaster what is the point of rebuilding versus relocating? who makes those two decisions? extra mall there in atlanta thank you jamaal.

>> guest: in terms of where the dollars go fema works on that with the local entities. they also solicit people impacted. they can provide them financial assistance, give them disaster relief grants or small business loans and things of that nature to help them. and of course there's other entities within the federal government that help with that. in terms of whether to rebuild or relocate that is up to the individual. they can also receive assistance for rebuilding or doing repairs that can be a complicated process. there has been criticism for that taking too long, being too cumbersome for the individual. there is obviously every individual has to weigh that cost benefit of the federal

government is not going to forcibly relocate. >> 748,000 eastern and central time zones in (202)748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. effective senator schumer for a second period why is the federal government direct lead-in with the puerto rican government on these matters? why is there a series of groups in between? >> think about how you get your power at home. there is a third-party entity that is the power company so they have a role to play for the puerto rican government has a role to play then there's this other entity that is been hired by the utility. all that has created sort of a complicated structure.

they all are working coordination. do not want to suggest it's every man for himself down there in terms of these various entities. but it is sort of in terms of getting the dollars were they need to go and what projects need to be prioritized. i think it has slowed the process down a little bit. >> as far as the concerns about the government itself, are they meeting here in washington d.c. are they beating with fema and puerto rico into it with the aftermath? how much of that is been coordinated there in here? >> fema tries to be forward, on the ground to coordinate here in washington. they take on well experienced you coordinate the efforts with this. other agencies will report to

them. they handle interactions with the local government figure out the best path forward or whatever challenges they have to tackle. they really do try to let the local decision-makers lead the charge. >> this is louie, louie joined us in pennsylvania good morning. >> hello, how are you guys? >> find your other guests or go ahead. >> caller: okay, thank you. what happens if florida needs that? are we going to be impacted, is the price going to go back up that's my question. i will listen to my answer after. >> host: ass gasoline prices in light of hurricane disaster that kind of thing? >> caller: yes, sir, that is it. >> host: give anything for that? >> i think one time we saw when

the oil refineries got hit impacted by the hurricane. an impact on gas prices. i was allows the strategic river reserve was dispersed with high gas prices. obligor at the wrist they can hurt the infrastructure. >> the power grid itself, the entire island had a power outage speaking of gasoline that is the

color asked about there's a run for generators because everyone wanted a generator. the powers coming back a little more quickly than last time. island was without power. the million still without power. they are working to repair that. it's going down but it's not there yet. >> the goal was to improve, they were not there yet. everyone is in agreement that was not a good situation.

it had a lot of work to do but they were trying to rebuild it you heard senator schumer talk about that. that money was allocated that has not been spent. the majority of it is not been spent yet. that bickering of who is in charge. >> it was a motion master's degree

from the university of montana and his ph.d. from montana state. back home in montana, cat gris bipartisanship is what doug has in his background. he taught at billings west high school before accepting a job at the school district. he met his lovely wife mary joe. doug and mary joe have been married for almost 43 years and have raised two wonderful daughters megan and cali. they are now the proud grandparents of four grandsons. doug has been a teacher, a building administrator, and superintendent for 46 years serving as a superintendent at helgate elementary for the past 34 years. prior to his retirement, he received the g are gmplets v.

erickson award for his contribution to education in our great state. and since doug took over as superintendent, the school has seen a 33% 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, helgate 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 helgate elementary and middle school were in session five days a week during the 2020 and 2021 school years. it is my honor to recognize dr. doug risic for serving the state of montana as an educator and for his dedication to

ensuring that montana students have a very bright future ahead. so congratulations on your retirement, doug. you truly make montana proud.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 798 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 798 expressing support for the designation of the week of september 19 through september 25, 2022, as rail safety week and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 799 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 799 designating october 5, 2022, as energy efficiency day and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 468 which was received from the house and is at its desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 468, an act to amend title 49 united states code to permit the use of incentive payments to expedite certain federally financed airport development projects. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: one minute, please.

i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4673, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4673, a bill to reauthorize the national computer forensics institute of the united states secret service and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will now proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if no further debate on the bill, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. all opposed will say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the bill is passed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, september 28. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar 389, h.r. 6833 postcloture. further, the senate recess between 12:30 and 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. finally, that all time during adjournment, recess, morning business and leader remarks count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

senate stands adjourned until current money runs out at midnight on september 30. today's vote followed an announcement by majority leader schumer he removed a federal permitting measure offered by west virginia democrat joe manchin from the temporary funding bill. also making news today it was republican leader at mcconnell's decision to support a bipartisan election integrity bill will show you those remarks momentarily more live senate coverage when lawmakers return here on cspan2. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including medco.

♪ ♪ ♪ support and as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving it a front row seat to democracy. as mentioned senate republican leader senate mcconnell when he announced his support for an electoral reform bill cosponsored by republican susan collins and democrat joe manchin. after his announcement the senate rules committee voted 14 -- one in favor of the bill. texas republican ted cruz the only dissenting votes. senator mcconnell's remarks followed by number of democratic senators talking about preserving social security and medicare. >> released a draft short-term funding bil