consequences. >> host: you can't see the ad but the biden campaign did put out an ad particularly targeted to hispanic and latino voters, and make some of the cases you talk about it will show you the advantage response to it after that. >> every policy for joe biden is about -- since he taken office unemployment in our community has been cut in half. our businesses are the fastest-growing in the country. driving our nation's economic recovery. -- >> here onou c-span2 we are goig to break away now for live coverage of the u.s. senate. ap. the clerk will call the roll. vote: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin.

mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

the clerk: mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono.

mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez.

mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow.

mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, blumenthal, cantwell, cardin, coons jicialtiond, -- gillibrand, hickenlooper, kelly, lujan, menendez, merkley, peters, shaheen, smith, tester, van hollen, warren, and welch. senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, braun, britt, capito, cassidy, cotton, cramer, crapo, daines, grassley, hawley, johnson, kennedy, lankford, lee,

marshall, mcconnell, mullin, paul, ricketts, risch, romney, rubio, and vance. the clerk: ms. ernst, no. ms. collins, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. warner, aye.

mr. barrasso, no. mr. hoeven, no. mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mr. bring to a close man -- mr.. the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no. mr. reed, aye. mrs. feinstein, aye. mr. sullivan, no. mr. fetterman, aye. mr. schumer, aye. mrs. murray, aye.

mrs. fischer, no. mr. heinrich, aye. mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, no.

ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: cortez masto, aye.

mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. manchin, aye. mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

vote: the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no.

the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

the clerk: mr. young, no. mr. brown, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 45, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of

the senate's action. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, may i have order, please. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: please take conversations outside the chamber. we're going to hear, the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes equally divided prior to the next roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this motion is the first procedural vote to consider an appropriations package containing the fiscal year 2024 military construction and veterans affairs, agriculture, and transportation and housing appropriations bills. mr. president, in order for us to consider amendments to these bills, we have to get on the

bills, and that is what this vote is all about. these bills were reported unanimously, all three of them, by the senate appropriations committee, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on proceeding to the bills, and then we can have a robust amendment process. thank you, mr. president. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i echo the words of vice chair lins -- collins. a lot of work has gone into these bills. we voted on them unanimously after a tremendous amount of work. to finish that work and allow all the senate to speak we need to vote yes on this. i urge a yes vote. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to

bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 198, h.r. 4366, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024 and for other purposes signed by 17 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. 4366, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veteran affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024, and for other purposes shall be brawbt to a close -- brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker.

the clerk: mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown.

mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

the clerk: mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar.

the clerk: mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. the clerk: mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio.

mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. .

vote: the presiding officer: senators vote -- the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative, booker, boozman, brown, cantwell, capito, cardin, cassidy, collins, coons, cortez-masto, daines, gillibrand, hassan, hoeven, hyde-smith, kennedy, lujan, manchin, mullin, murray, paul, rosen, shaheen, sinema, stabenow, sullivan, tester, thune, tillis, welch,

whitehouse, wicker, wyden. mr. murphy, aye. senators voting in the negative, budd, ernst, ricketts, scott of florida. the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye. mr. crapo, aye.

mr. lankford, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. the clerk: mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mr. johnson, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, aye.

ms. baldwin, aye. mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, aye. mr. hagerty, aye.

mr. young, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. romney, aye. mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. barrasso, aye. mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. mr. cotton, aye. ms. warren, aye. the clerk: mrs. britt, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. ms. lummis, no. mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye. the clerk: mr. kelly, yea. mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. rubio, aye. mr. vance, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. mr. menendez, aye. mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mrs. feinstein, aye. the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

vote:

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 85, a the nays are 12. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having. vote: ed in the a:15 -- voted in the affirmative it the motion is disagreed to. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked, the senate will resume legislative session. the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed, calendar number 198,-4366, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs fairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year sending september 30, 20224 and for other purposes. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: at the stop of the year, when vice chairman collins and i took over as leaders of the senate appropriations committee, we announced that we were going to return the committee to regular order. the first thing everyone told us was that's the great. we all want to return to regular

order. we all want to show the american people that congress can actually function, that we can work together and solve problems and pass bills to make their lives better. but the second thing they told us was essentially, good luck. you're going to need it. well, vice chair collins and i went to work. we said, look, if this is going to happen, we have to show that we're serious about i think woulding these bills that can actual lay be signed into law. that maintenancest meant a few things. we had to work with the fundings levels in the debt ceiling deal struck by president biden and speaker mccarthy, a zeal that i have and i still have concerns about and which required tough funding decisions across each of our 12 bills but the president and speaker shook hands and that is the agreement that congress passed into law and we can't produce serious bills if we start by throwing that framework out the window. secondly, it meant we had to

work together to find common ground, including on tough and thorny issues and compromise where necessary to produce spending bills that can make it through both chambers and to the president's desk. that meant avoiding poison pills that could sink these bills. and, third, we wanted to make sure that we had an open bipartisan process. we wanted to give each and every one of our colleagues the chance to weigh in on these bills. and the american public the chance to see our work on them. so we held over 40 years ago in spring to assess our nation's needs for the year ahead. we sought input from all of our colleagues. we wrote these bills together, and then we held markups for the first time in two years. we televised the markups, first time ever, so people could follow this debate from home. and at those markups we discussed the draft legislation,

considered amendments, and voted on our bills. the result? for the first time in five years we passed all 12 of our funding bills out of our committee and we did it with an overwhelming bipartisan support. nine of the 12 bills passed unanimously or had just a single no vote. in total, 97% of the votes in our committee were yes votes. these are not the bills i would have written on my own. they are the bills we wrote together along with our colleagues on the committee and with input from nearly every senator on both sides of the aisle. and they are serious bills that can be signed into law. which is how this process should work. we should come together, look for common ground, and build on it to write bills that solve problems and make people's lives better and give our nation and the communities the resources

they need to stay safe and competitive and to grow and thrive. that's exactly what the three bills in this package do. as chair of the subcommittee on military construction, veterans affairs, and related agencies, i am pleased to say i was able to work with senator boozman to put together a bill that gets our military and our veterans the support we owe them, the support that they need. this is essential to keeping our nation safe because our ships and submarines and aircraft are only as good as the infrastructure they rely on and the troops who operate them. so this bill provides dod with $19.1 billion for military construction that san increase over fy to 23 levels. this funding will help with construction needs across our country for projects like child care development centers to make sure our servicemembers and their spouses can go to work knowing that theirying are safe.

housing -- like the barracks project at joint base lewis-mcchord in my state, and other facilities across our country. it will help make sure that our shipyards are up to date and up to the challenges of this moment. these investments will build our presence around the world, especially in the indo-pacific regions and strengthen our military infrastructure to keep it resilient in the face of threats, like severe weather and earthquakes. i'm glad we included funds to address harmful pfas chemicals. i'm also very proud of the work we've done in this bill toll support veterans and their families. as the daughter of a world war ii veteran, i take the promises we made to those who fought for our country very seriously. and this bill ensures that we keep those promises by fully

funding v.a.'s budget request. we're talking about increased funding for mental health, suicide prevention programs, the caregivers program, expanding the child care pilot program -- that continues to be a huge priority for me across all of our appropriations bills -- funding for homelessness prevention programs for our veterans, rural health perhaps and of course women's veterans health care. women are the fastest growing sector. we can begin to address the aging facilities. it reflects the much-needed pause and reset happening with the electronic health record modernization program. i was raising the alarm from day one about how the unacceptable botched rollout of that program hurt veterans in my home state and i'm watching closely to make sure we see changes that provide

real results for our veterans and our v.a. providers, because at the end of the day these investments are not just about programs and contracts. this is about our promise to get veterans the benefits they earned and need to stay healthy, like prescriptions, mental health care, cancer screenings, and more. the stakes could not be higher for those families and we owe them that much, which is i'm proud this bill sends a clear bipartisan message we are not going to shortchange our veterans and our servicemembers, and we will live up to our obligation to provide them with the resources that they need. the next bill in this package from the subcommittee on agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies make sure we are living up to another crucial obligation, and that is to keep our food supply safe and secure and support rural communities across our country. because at the most basic level, we can't have strong communities if people can't put

food on the table. that means making sure that food that is sold in our country is safe. it means protecting families from shortages so avoiding and mitigating supply chain disruptions, addressing climate crisis like droughts which can threaten crops that we all rely on. it means addressing food insecurity so people can afford and access the food they need to keep their families healthy and fed. and it means supporting our nation's farmers who are such a huge part of our economy. for example, every day in my home state of washington, we ship apples, cherries, wheat, potatoes, and many other commodities across the country and across the world. so i want to thank senators heinrich and senators hoeven for their very hard work to help put together a bipartisan bill that delivers on those crucial issues. this bill will make sure fda has the resources it needs to keep grocery stores and dinner tables

safe and implement the bipartisan cosmetics legislation that we negotiated last year and that many of us worked very hard to pass on. it also includes crucial funding to support our farmers. for example, in increased investments in agricultural research. just last month i was home and visited my alma mater, washington state university, which is home to world-class agricultural research programs. this funding will help universities like wsu to tackle problems that our farmers are facing like in my state, smoke exposure to wine grapes, herbicide resistance and little cherry disease, not to mention efforts we need to make to address water shortages, reduce inputs and more. the bill also funds absolutely critical nutrition programs like wic which is a lifeline that keeps so many families from going hungry. this bill fully funds wic at the level included in the president's budget request, and we know that participation and

costs for the program are changing. so as we work to get final appropriations bills signed into law, i will keep working around the clock to make sure that no one loses their wic benefits and no one is forced to be on a wait list. we've got to maintain the strong bipartisan support for that program going forward and continue to fully fund it, and that's a top priority for me. mr. president, my family had to rely on food stamps for a short time, and thanks to that help that we got when i was young, every one of my six brothers and sisters and i have been able now to grow up and give back to our communities because our country had our back when we needed it. so make no mistake that our investments in wic are not just the right thing, the moral thing. it is investment in the future of america. so if i haven't painted a picture yet investments like this which maintain our nutrition programs, support our farmers and keep our food supply safe and secure are truly

mission critical to our nation's future, but they are also bipartisan. they are things we can all agree on that are important for america. finally, this package includes the funding bill from the transportation, housing, and urban development and related agencies subcommittee. i previously led this subcommittee along with vice chair collins as chair and ranking member. investments here are critical to help prevent people from living on the streets or being out in the cold and to get people and goods where they need to go in a safe and timely way. washington state, like so many other states in our country, has really been grappling with our nation's housing and homelessness crisis for years. so i'm glad we're able to maintain bainld on some key investments in this bill that provide rental assistance to families in need, increase our housing supply, support maintenance for distressed properties and connect people with health care, education, and employment programs and

other support services. and i hope we can come together in a bipartisan way to do more to tackle those challenges in a serious way in the future. because while this bill does take important steps and includes necessary investments, our housing and homelessness crisis is going to take a lot more than flat funding in most areas and modest funding increases in some programs, which is what it was possible to negotiate under the tough budget caps in this debt ceiling deal. when it comes to our nation's transportation infrastructure, the investments in this bill are especially important in light of some of the derailments and disasters and disturbing close calls that we saw this year. i'm very pleased we were able to increase funding for the federal aviation administration so it can address the shortage of air traffic controllers, reduce flight delays, increase efficiency and modernize technology and critically improve safety, which is so important given the concerning number of near misses we have

seen recently. this bill also increases the federal railroad administration's funding for its safety work to make sure we have enough inspectors to keep our rails safe and that we can research important questions to improve rail safety and efficiency. so i really want to thank senators schatz and hyde hyde-smith for their clent work putting that bill together. each and every one of the appropriations bills in the package before us today is the result of an open bipartisan process that invited input from every single senator. in fact, that is true for all 12 of the bills our committee passed, all in overwhelming bipartisan votes. as my colleagues know, the senate appropriations committee has plenty of members on opposite ends of the political spectrum strongly progressive democrats and deeply conservative republicans. in other words, getting here took a lot of hard work, late nights, early mornings, and we had to really set politics

aside, listen to each other, focus on the problems, and find common ground. i think i speak for everyone when i say this work has not been easy. and of course i know as well as anyone our work is not done. i think we all understand a c.r. will be necessary to see this process through, and we all understand supplemental funding is absolutely essential to respond to some of the urgent challenges our states are facing, like delivering disaster relief communities really desperately need today and paying our wild land firefighters, continuing to have our ukrainian allies' back and addressing the fentanyl crisis, not to mention the need, as i have spoken of, of addressing the child care funding cliff that threatens to put child care further out of reach for too many families. of course even after we pass this funding package before us today, we need to get all the rest of our appropriations bill across the finish line.

but by passing this package and the rest of our appropriations bills, we are showing the american people that there is a clear bipartisan path for us to do our jobs and fund the government. there is absolutely no reason for chaos or a shutdown, and i will continue working nonstep -- nonstop with my colleagues to make sure we get that job done. this was never going to be easy, but none of us came here because we thought it was easy. we came here because we wanted to make life better for folks back home. helping people, solving problems, i said that a lot during my time here in the senate, and i brokered a lot of bipartisan deals always in service to the people i represent back home, the friends and neighbors that i grew up with. helping people and solving problems, that is our job. and i'd like to see us do more of that together, democrats and republicans. so i urge all of our colleagues,

let's keep this momentum going, show the american people congress can work for them. there doesn't have to be a calamity over funding the government. let's show that there can and will be major policy disagreements on any number of issues, but their elected leaders can come together on what we do agree on and we will fund the government responsibly so they don't have to worry about chaos or shutdowns. and on that note i would like to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come to the floor and talk about these bills. what they mean for your state, what they mean for your constituents, what your priorities are here, and to talk to me and to talk to senator collins if you have amendments and ideas for how we can make these bills better. because senator collins and i are working now to clear a managers' package and set up votes. our staffs are still working hard too, and we're happy to work with your team so we can pass the strongest bills possible. we've been working closely from day one to run an open

bipartisan process to get input from all of our colleagues, and to make sure everyone can make their constituent voices heard. vice chair collins and i have heard is the need to support communities after the need of disasters. i'll have more to say in the days ahead but it is our job to take care of our communities who are working so hard to rebuild after the recent horrible disasters which includes as we know, wildfires in hawaii, areas in washington state, flooding in vermont, california, as well as damage caused by hurricane idalia. as we get started on this bill, i say to all of my colleagues, come to the floor, talk to us, work with us so we can get this funding package passed, help people solve problems. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine.

ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm very pleased to join chair murray as we begin debate on the first of what i hope will be a series of fiscal year 2024 appropriations packages considered on the senate floor in the coming weeks. and i want to commend chair murray for her leadership, for her bipartisanship, for her relentlessness in getting us to where we are today. it did take a lot of work, and it has been a pleasure to be her partner. when chair murray and i took the helm of the appropriations

committee at the beginning of this year, we set forth the goal of returning regular order to the appropriations process. now chair murray and i have served in the senate long enough that we remember what regular order means. it means going through the committee process, reporting bills out after hearings and a markup, bringing them to the senate floor. but many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have never experienced regular order. that's how long it has been since we've done the process the right way. the system just works better when we adhere to regular order. with committee members having the opportunity to shape

legislation and the senate as a whole having the chance to work its will. regular order is not easy. in fact, it is a lot of work. our committee members spent much of the winter and spring in hearing rooms, holding nearly 50 subcommittee hearings and briefings on the president's fiscal year 2024 budget request. we scrutinized the funding levels, evaluated the programs, and asked the tough questions. in june and july, our members were hard at work at developing, drafting, and advancing the fiscal year stwowrl -- 2024 funding bills. four -- for the first time ever our committee markups were

televised so our deliberations and our votes on amendments and on passage of each bill were fully transparent. the result, as senator murray has said, for the first time in five years the senate appropriations committee has reported each and every one of the 12 appropriations bills. all of them passed with strong bipartisan support. several of them were approved unanimously. today we take the next important step in restoring deliberation to the appropriations process as we bring the first package of funding bills to the senate floor. i know that both chair murray and i are committed to doing our part to ensure a constructive floor debate with a robust

amendment process. this will require the cooperation of all members, and i hope that we will be able to work together toward that goal. it is critical that we succeed in this effort so that we do not once again find ourselves in december faced with the unpalatable choice among a 4,000-plus age omnibus bill, a yearlong continuing resolution, or worst of all a government shutdown. mr. president, the republican leader spoke this morning about the sponsors of the package of bills before us. he noted that this legislation is designed to address a trio of important commitments to america's farmers, to our

veterans, and to investing in transportation infrastructure. he went on to note that 7% of american adults are veterans of our armed forces. i'm pleased to say in maine that percentage is even higher. we rank among the top in the country in the number of veterans on a per capita basis who have answered the call to serve. the leader also noted that 10% of american jobs are supported by agriculture and that our entire economy hinges on safe and efficient railroads, airports, roads, and bridges. mr. president, the leader's remarks succinctly sums up the importance of these bills. our package includes the

military construction and veterans' affairs bill, led by senators murray and boozman. it was approved by the committee on june 22. so members have had a great deal of time to scrutinize and read the language of this bill. this wasn't something assembled hastily behind closed doors at the last minute. to the contrary. it was subject to in-depth hearings, negotiations, and transparent markups. we're also going to include, i hope, the agricultural rural development and food and drug administration bill written by senators heinrich and hoeven, which was also approved on

june 22. a very important bill to the state of maine where potatoes are our number one crop. i grew up in northern maine where potatoes are grown and helped to pick potatoes when i was age 10 and the schools would recess so that the school children could help the farmers get in the crop before the heavy freeze made that impossible. and, of course, maine is also known for its wonderful wild blue berries and -- blueberries and many other crops. we are also going to look at an include the transportation and housing bill drafted by senators schatz and hyde-smith, which was approved on july 20. each of these bills, mr. president, each one of them was reported unanimously. that hardly ever happens around

here. and it is a tribute to the chairman and chairwomen of those subcommittees and the ranking members and how hard they worked to put together a bill that reflected not only the views of their subcommittees and the full committees and input from chair murray and me, but from so many other senators who wrote to us with air in priorities -- with their priorities. the first bill, the milcon v.a. appropriations bill invests in critical department of defense infrastructure. it provides funding to support the european and pacific deterrence initiatives, unfunded construction priority of the active guard and reserve forces, and improved housing for our servicemembers and their

families. so important at a time when we are experiencing recruitment problems. i am particularly pleased that this bill fully funds the shipyard infrastructure optimism optimismization program including the president's request for $445 million for dry dock number one at the shipyard in maine as a -- it is a national security asset for our submarine fleet. this bill also keeps our commitment to our veterans by funding v.a. medical care and veterans benefits, including disability compensation programs, education benefits, and vocational rehabilitation and employment training. like senator murray, i too am the daughter of a world war ii

veteran, and thus our commitment to our veterans is very personal to me. my father was a combat veteran in world war ii who fought in the battle of the bulge. he was wounded twice, earned two purple hearts and a bronze star, and it was he who taught me to honor our veterans. i'll never forget as a child his taking me to the memorial day parade every year in our hometown of caribou, maine, and he would hoist me high on his shoulders so that i could see the veterans march by and salute our flag. i'll never forget those lessons, and they're the reason that i care so deeply about the service of our veterans. i want to commend chair murray

and ranking member boozman for their great work on this bill, and i know they will describe its provisions in more detail. in fact, senator murray, chair murray already has. the second bill in the package is the agriculture appropriations bill, which funds programs that support our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, both the presiding officer and i think represent two of the most rural states in america. it also protects our nation's food and drug supply, and ensures that low-income families have access to critical federal nutrition programs. i'm particularly bleefd that des -- pleased that despite this tight budget environment, this supports agriculture research to

support food security and sustainability and for fda initiatives focused on drug and device shortages, food safety, and critical research focused on neuroscience and als. i commend chairman heinrich and ranking member hoeven for putting together such a strong bill. finally, the third bill in the package provides essential funding for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agency. both chair murray and i have a soft spot in our hearts for this bill because each of us spent many years as either the chair or the ranking member of the t-should subcommittee -- thud subcommittee, it supports the bridge formula program that help address our nation's

deteriorating infrastructure. it invests in the faa, supporting the addition of 1,800 air traffic controllers. we have a huge shortage in bangor, maine, i heard from the air traffic controllers about how terribly understaffed they are. and the bill would modernize outdated system, such as the notice to air missile system, that went offline shutting down the nation's airspace for a while. this bill contains the shore side infrastructure in the maine maritime academy that are necessary for docking the newly constructed national security multimission vessels that are training ships for the maritime

academies. at a time when virtually every state faces an affordable housing shortage, this bill also maintains existing rental assistance for more than 4.6 million households and continues to make meaningful investments aimed at tackling the persistent and growing problem of homelessness, especially among our nation's veterans and youth. i thank chair schatz and ranking member hyde-smith for their tremendous efforts on this bill. i also want to mention that both senators from hawaii, and senator schatz again today, have talked to all of us about the tragic loss of life and devastation that the recent wildfires have caused in his beloved home state. i know that the presiding

officer representing the state of vermont also has had a need for disaster assistance as has the state of maine and so many other states. we need to support the people of states who have been hit by these devastating disasters in their time of need. let me conclude my opening remarks by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to all of our committee members, particularly our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their extraordinary work in getting us to this point. and, again, i especially want to commend chair murray for his leadership and commitment. i look forward to a productive floor debate as we move forward and i ask my colleagues for their support.

the choice before the senate is clear. do we want to pass, with amendments, carefully considered funding bills or do we want to default to either an omnibus bill, many thousands of pages long and with very little transparency or worse a yearlong resolution that funds programs that are no longer needed, prevents new programs from starting up, waste taxpayer dollars and is subject to indiscriminate cuts due to the provisions of the fiscal responsibility act? mr. president, the choice is very clear. the senate should proceed to debate, consider amendments, and pass the appropriations bills.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, this is indeed an historic moment in the united states senate, as a member of the senate appropriations committee for more than two decades, i can remember a time, in fact, 12 different appropriation bills came to the floor of the senate for consideration. it's been at least five years, maybe longer, since we've done that. instead we bundled all of the provisions in one big omnibus bill, we handed it over to the leadership to decide and we wade for the desperate vote where they said, you've got to vote for this, take it or leave it. we're back to the stage of due deliberations on appropriations and i want to commend those who brought us to this moment. if you asked me at the beginning of this session to pick two senators, one a democrat and one a republican, to achieve this goal, i would have chosen the ones who are on -- who are on the floor today.

senators murray and collins, they truly have a dedication to a national purpose beyond anything that partisan politics might generate. i've seen them at work for years. i worked with them together. i can't think of a better team and i'm more than happy to work with them to achieve their goal of 12 appropriation bills considered and passed on the floor of the senate. it will be historic and it will serve the american people better than most imagine today because it will mean that we take tt time to do each of these bills in pa thoughtful careful way. let me start by commending them. mr. durbin: on july is 12, the united autoworkers began contract negotiations to determine their next four-year labor deal. since it was founded nearly 90 years ago, the united autoworkers have fought for and

won victories that have helped strengthen america's working families. the uaw has won better pay for its members, safer working conditions, employer-funded pensions, health insurance, education benefits, and much more. uaw helped to t. a how autoworkers and their families to buy homes, take vacations, send their children to college and retire with dignity. autoworkers work hard, they deserve that's right opportunity to enjoy the american dream. but the legacy that i have just described is in danger. over the last 20 years, autoworkers have faced dozens of plant closures, lost jobs, wage cuts, and contract concessions. in 2009, the uaw made major concessions in its contracts to help these same autoworkers receive government assistance. this included job security provisions, cost-of-living adjustments. they made sacrifices so that their employer companies

survived during that terrible situation in our economy. how have they done? the automakers have reaped billions of dollars in profits since. but these benefits have not been passed down to their workers and uaw members have seen their wages and standards of living suffer. over the past four years the coition of the big three that i've listed have seen 40% wage hikes on average while autoworkers have seen 6.1%. decades ago the ratio was around 20-1, which meant the big shots in the boardrooms were making 20 times what the fellow is making on the assembly line. today it has changed. no longer 20-1, it is 300-1. should ceo's be earning 300 times more than autoworkers? i don't think so. stellantis, general motors, and

ford have reported collectively profits of nearly -- get ready -- $250 billion between 2013 and 2022, and a combined profit of $21 billion alone in the first six months of this year. $21 billion. the salaries of their ceo's -- listen to these -- $29 million for the ceo of general motors, $21 million for ford's ceo, $24 million for stellantis. further evidence of this notion of corporate royalty. in 12007, the average wage for chryslers, ford, and general motors was $28. 2008, while the starting wage was $19.36 and hour. in today's dollars, that's $28 and 50 currents. said the starting wage at the big three is $18.04 an hour more

than $10 lower than what the wages would be if they kept up with inflation. $18 an hour. in springfield, illinois, coming back from picking up sop hardware at loews, i passed a taco bay. the sign out front of said starting pay $17 an hour. autoworkers, who worked hard, being offered $18. taco bell -- $17. meanwhile, the same workers that are making $18 an hour for the automobile manufacturers are asked to work 10-12 hour days six to seven days a week and 61 g.m. and ford and stellantis plants have been idled or closed since 2003. thousands of jobs roadblock lost. one of the idled plants was a belvedere assembly plant in illinois owned by stellantis. that the plant opened 58 years ago. they once had 4,500 union

workers. in february they laid out,1550 workers. this was devastating, not just to the families and the workers but to the community. i begged stellantis to reconsider this decision, and i've spoken to the president of the united autoworkers who tells me it is one of his highest priorities. workers are fed up. earlier this year auto workers struggled to breathe in factories across illinois and other states due to unprecedented wildfire smoke in canada. now they're saying in this negotiation, enough. at the same time, congress and the biden administration have made major investments in clean energy, including the production of electric vehicles. corporations cannot impose the cost of transitioning to electric vehicles on the shoulders of today's workers. we can and should invest in these vehicles while macing sure -- making sure they din to be produced with union labor. these corporations that i talked about, the big three, have

benefited from billions of dollars in profits in recent years. why haven't the workers benefited is much? in just over a week, on september 14, contracts covering 150,000 uaw workers at ford, general motors and stellantis will expire. at the same time, stellantis has put plants on critical status for 90 days. what does that mean for the workers before the contract would be announced? it would mean they would work seven days a week 12,-hour shifts. they are trying to pile up inventory. under critical status, workers can eel receive one day off every 30 days unless they use family medical leave. meanwhile, stellantis continues to lay off workers. it doesn't adds up. i urge the big three and the uaw to negotiate in good faith, reach an agreement before september 14, just two days away, and prevent a strike that will cost billions of dollars

and impact 150,000 hardworking autoworkers. this must include a restoration of the benefits the autoworkers sacrificed more than a decade ago to keep these families afloat and stellantis must reconsider the closure of belvedere assembly plant and welcome back the workers it laid off in february. autoworkers have done their best. they've sacrificed right and left to make sure this industry stays as strong as it is. the ceo's need to show a spirit of cooperation and team work to make sure that when we reopen this with a new contract, we'll have many more years of prosperity for american autoworkers. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise in opposition to democrat mandates that force our young senate pages to be

vaccinated three times. in a free society, no one should be forced to take an invention, no one should be forced to have a surgery, no one should be forced to submit to the a medical procedure, particularly a medical procedure approved under an emergency use authorization. democrats' support for medical choice when to comes to vaccines appears to be inconsistent and selective. but i fear they won't be persuaded bid any arguments towards liberty. so i had he he like to direct the majority of my remarks to the actual science about whether or not adolescents should have to be forced to have three covid vaccinesment. initially there were arguments made saying we must forcibly vaccinate these kids sore they will infect the older folks. the antiquarian senators. but it turns out that argument fails because the science? the end showed that the vaccine

didn't prevent transmission of the disease. in fact, in august 2021, cdc director walensky admitted for covid-19 that the vaccine does not stop transmission. our vaccines are working exceptionally well, what they can't do any more is prevent transmission. so the government, the proponents, those for the mandates argued well, we have to do it. it will stop the disease. we won't have any more spread. well, it turns out, that wasn't true. the vaccine does not stop transmission. with that, it should have been the end of the arguments for mandates because are no longer talking about your health versus someone else's health. the only argument that those who are for the mandates argue now and those who argue for talking the vaccine is it reduces our health risk. the individuals who chooses to get vaccinated. however, when you look at the

data, that appears only to be true for targeted populations. if you are at risk for being hospitalized or dying from covid, over age 75, i am immune know compromised, have other health concerns, there is some argument for a vaccine. but for a young, healthy person, there is no logical argument. if you look and ask yourself, will taking a booster reduce transmission? the argument is no. whether you're at risk or not, it does not reduce transmission. if you are at risk for a hospitalization or death, it may well reduce that. but the young pages we're talking about are not at risks for that. in fact, when we look at it, throughout europe there was a study of 23 million folks, young folks, and they found the death rate was zero. israeli looked at this. death rate, zero. germany, ages 5-17, death rate for young healthy people, zero. and so you say, what's the big deal?

the vaccine is not that bill a deal. you know, i.t. not going to hurt them. it's got to be better than having covid. well, it turns out when you weigh the risks versus the benefits for a particular age group, it's actually not true. if you look at the risks of side effects from the vaccine and the main, worrisome side effect we're concerned about is an inflammation of the heart, myocarditis or pericarditis. a study lookeddality 29 different studies and found that the incidents averaged out was a little over two per 15,000. the vaccine safety data link looked at this gnp and found also it was about 2-2.5 out of 15,000 h even the cdc admits that the risk for young people is about one in 15,000. tracy beth hogue looked had the a study of those who have been injured by vaccines and found that it was -- the incidence of

adverse cardiac events was about 1.62 per 10,000. it is not likes every kid will get myocar diet ice. but you have to weigh the incidence getting a serious disease that will affect their health or even debilitate them. the risks and benefits are different for every individual. that's why in a free society the individual or the individual and their parents make this decision with their doctor. sometimes they get more than one opinion. but we don't mandate -- in a free society you don't just tell them, do what you're told or else. but that's what's happening. it's not just happening here in the senate, although the senate is setting a terrible example for the country. many universities are still doing this. it's actually medical malpractice to require these vaccines for kids. when you look at the incidence of myocar diet ice, over 90% of the harden flamation that occurs

in young people occurs after the second dose. you could get rid of 90% of not a common problem, 90% of the risk by not requiring more than one. but we're not talking about just the second dose, where 90% of the hard inflammation comes, we're talking about senate democrats, because republicans would like too get rid of this, senate democrats are requiring three vaccines. there's absolutely no scientific evidence. in fact, when this went to the committee studying this, the first committee that looked at this was the fda vaccine and related biological products advisory committee, and dr. paul offit sits 0en this committee. they voted not to advise giving the booster to one over 65. they said let's lookality the risks and benefits, the diseases covid appears to be affecting the older generation. they're more at risk. we can put up with some risk. but for the kids it's not worth

it. the committee voted. so then it went from the fda's subcommittee to the cdc's vaccine committee. guess what? they voted against recommending the booster also. they said, reserve the booster for those who are at risk. for at-risk populations. so how did we get a booster mandate? how did we get booster advice from the cdc saying, everybody should get a booster? how did we get it? the cdc political appointee of the biden administration overrode the fda committee and overrode the cdc committee. dr. offit is still on the committee and he voted to reserve the booster for those at risk. he's the director of vaccine education center and professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at children's hospital of philadelphia. he's not someone who is opposed to vaccine's vaccines.

he spent his whole life advocator for vaccines. he is on a committee that has approved the covid vaccine. he just simply said, the vaccine should somebody targeted and it should be extended and advised, not even and make, but advised for people over 65 but not for kids can. his committee voteds no. don't give the vaccine to kids. the cdc committee on vaccines voted no, don't give it to kids. what do senate democrats want? put their head in the sand and make a political decision because they love central short to mandate that sand to mandate these kids get the vaccines. paul offit's quotes when asked whether or not his son who was 24 should get the vaccine, he said he shouldn't get the vaccine.

so we're stuck with the situation where there is no evidence and no historical precedent for mandating this kind of treatment. there's no historical precedent for mandating that the senate and senate democrats intervene between the doctor of these children and making their own medical decisions. it's taking away the idea that risk and benefit are debated and discussed based on your risks and benefits. and so what we find is that advice that actually probably is good if you're over 65 to consider getting a booster, although it still should be voluntary, we're going against the best advice to actually promote that these kids get a vaccine that may well be harmful to them. the cdc has admitted it doesn't stop transmission. but then you want to ask yourself, what do other countries, what are they doing around the world? they looked at 23 million people

ages 12 and up in denmark, finland, norway and sweden. what did they find? after two doses of the mrna covid vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher than compared with those who were not vaccinated. this is exactly why much of europe is now limiting the vaccine and not giving the vaccine to certain age groups. what they found in these studies is that adolescent males particularly between 12 and 26 are at a heightened risk for this. in fact, tracy hogue in her study looked at the possibility of adverse cardiac effects versus the possibility that someone their age could go to the hospital over a 120-day period. they found that the possibility of an adverse cardiac effect was about five times greater than any of these kids even going to the hospital. but what we did find is, and this is why several countries have limited this, germany, france, finland, sweden,

denmark, and norway now restrict the mrna vaccine and don't advise giving the vaccine to this age group particularly the three vaccines. a study found that about 14.7 cases of myocarditis, actually 1.47 cases per 10 thousand in ages 18 to 29, they also found that those who had the hard inflammation threel months later were still suffering from inflammation of the heart. dr. offit, who sits on the committee that voted against recommending this for adolescents and for children, wrote in an op-ed that a healthy young person with two mrna doses is extremely unlikely to be at -- hospitalized for covid. that's why they didn't recommend against a third vaccine, which

is exactly the opposite of what the democrats are doing. they do and want to mandate three vaccines on these kids. as one editorial put it last year, if being boosted becomes a prerequisite for participation in normal life, the vaccine's diminishing efficacy means the booster campaign will never end. dr. marty makary, professor at johns hopkins school of medicine wrote that the pushing boosters for 16 and 17-year olds without supporting clinical data. a large israeli study found the risk of covid death for people under 30 with two vaccine shots was zero. germany showed zero deaths among healthy kids age 5 to 17. there is no scientific rationale for mandating three covid vaccine for healthy kids. even world health organization chief scientist dr. swamy said

last year there is no evidence that will suggests children and adolescents need booster shots. no evidence. this is the head of the w.h.o., these aren't opponents of vaccines. these are people saying no evidence and it might harm these kids to get vaccinated and yet democrats will vote today, the lot of them, to say that basically we must force these kids to get three vaccines or they can't be up here. you might say, well, gosh, we're just so worried and we don't know everything, so why don't we do it. how about all the other people who work up here? at any point in time another 10 to 15 people in this room, are they required to get vaccines? no. woarnl requiring one sub -- we're only requiring one subset them to do. they are the least likely to get covid. they get covid and don't know it. the vaccine doesn't stop them from getting covid. they have natural acquired immunity as well. if you don't ask yourself what that means, you're not paying

attention to any science. even if you thought a vaccine mandate was great, what if i already had covid? do i need three more vaccines? i've developed natural immunity. dr. martin kuldorff says mandating people who have already had covid, that they still get vaccinated makes zero sense from a scientific point of view and makes zero sense from a public health point of view. a study in lancet supported this view stating that current evidence does not appear to show a need for boosting in the general population. that's why the fda committee and the cdc committee both voted against advising it. it's not only bad advice, it's a horrific mandate. it would be one thing if you want to give advice to tell people we think it's a good idea. but it's another to tell them they've got no choice. you want to participate in the elite program here in the nation's senate, you can't come

unless you do what democrats want. submit to three vaccines even though it may increase your risk of heart inflammation. they don't care. mandates are fine. a study in lancet looked at this and said that it was a bad idea. it says currently available evidence does not show the need for widespread need for booster vaccination in populations who have already been infected with the disease. when we consider the rules for the pages, we ought to ask will these policies be expected to continue indefinitely. the virus mutates about every three or four months. you've got a virus now you debate have four -- you didn't have four months ago. the vaccines lose their potency. are you going to mandate until the end of time? are you going to stick your head in the sand and say this is 2020? the virus in 2020 was more lethal. one of the good things about viral evolution is they

typically evolve to become less dangerous and more transmissible. you can catch covid by looking at somebody wrong, but fortunately it's not as deadly as it once was. are there still some people dying from covid? yes. people who are at high risk. if you go to a doctor and you have chest pain and you're 12 years old, he doesn't or she doesn't treat you the same way as if you go in and you're 60 years old. if you get in the emergency room and you're 15 years old with chest pain they usually might think of asthma or other problems but typically not a heart attack. people are treated differently based on their age. doctors think of what is common in that age group. if i go in with a chest pain they are going look for a heart attack, the first thing they're going to look for. but they don't treat everyone the same. this is blindly what we're being told by the democrats is everybody is the same. submit or else. but it's not just the pages who they're hurting here. it's not just the pages that they're increasing their risk for this heart infladges. -- heart inflammation.

they are setting an example and other universities are doing it. tens of thousands of young american kids are being forced to take three vaccines. you're saying they're not being forced. they can choose not to go to yale or harvard. what if your dream had been to go to one of these schools. you have to give up on your medical freedom and good judgment simply so you can do exactly what the democrats tell you to do? multiple scientific studies have shown a heightened risk of this heart infladges -- heart inflammation after taking the vaccine. 90% of the myocarditis comes after the second or third vaccine. if you went to one vaccine you would get rid of 90% of the problem yet they are considering we do something that is actually medical malpractice. multiple countries have begun restricting the vaccine for certain age groups. germany, france, denmark, finland and sweden have restricted modern in a -- mo der in a vaccine for younger

people. this is due to the risk of cardiovascular side effects for boosters in children. yet what we will get today is not a discussion, not we're open to compromise. no, maybe the science has changed and we'll reevaluate it. you will get from the democrats, no, get three boosters or you can't come to the senate. why is the united states senate choosing to ignore the risk other countries have acknowledged when mandating these vaccines for young people who are in peak physical condition? what happened to a belief in medical choice? a belief in medical freedom? public health measures should be backed up with proof that the benefits outweigh the burdens. and if you want to treat everyone the same, you want to say that taidges are the same ae as -- teenagers are the same as 75-year-olds, that is not good science. there is no evidence that when it comes to vaccination and boompt mandates especially for teenagers, that's why i'm asking unanimous consent today

that we pass my resolution to get rid of this ridiculous and unscientific mandate. therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 336 which is at the desk. further, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. first of all, i want to assure the pages that we normally don't spend this much time debating you guys. at the end of the july session there was a verbal assault on pages who were in the rotunda which caused both senator schumer and senator mcconnell to rise to the pages' defense. we have now spent an inordinate amount of time this week debating health care policies related to the pages.

second, while senator paul and i often find common cause, i am continually stunned at his unseriousness about the scope of this ongoing tragedy. no matter how many times i hear senator paul rail against vaccines, i am still heart broken by the fact that so many of my colleagues don't understand the devastation that has been wrought in this country as 1.1 million americans, 1.1 million americans have died from covid. in large part because of the ongoing attacks against vaccines that work, that has undermined the public's confidence in one of the very best tools that we have to combat the worst of this disease and this virus. i'm looking at a scientific

study from earlier this year naming covid as the eighth leading cause of death for children in this country. it is true. it is rare for a child to die from covid. but when you have 1.1 million people dying of covid in this country of course there's going to be an unacceptable number of children who die from covid. covid-19 deaths displaced influenza and pneumonia, becoming the top cause of death for children caused by any infectious or respiratory disease. it caused substantially more deaths for children than any vaccine preventable disease historically, this study showed. and so yes, our pages are working for us. we are responsible for them while they are here. and, yes, children are not

immune from covid. and lastly, the only mandate that we're talking about as we consider senator paul's resolution is the mandate in his resolution. right now there is no statutory or rules-based vaccine mandate. the senate has been silent on this question. and so it is up to the spimbts who run -- the public servant who run the senate and the medical advice they rye lie on as to whether or not pages should get vaccinated. there is no mandate. senator paul's resolution is a mandate. senator paul says under no circumstances can pages be required to be vaccinated, even if the virus mutates, even if a new vaccine comes along that is even more efficacious, under no

circumstances can there be a requirement for a vaccine. under current policy, under current statute, under the current rules of the senate, it is up to the senate leadership, it is up to the medical advice that they rely on. they could change that advice as time goes on. under senator paul's mandate, they could only make one choice. covid cases are rising. people are at risk again, and this constant campaign to use every mechanism possible to try to undermine people's faith in medicine and science and vaccines, it's not just about the pages that serve here. it's about the entire american public that is disserved by a united states senate that continues to try to undermine

the basic tools that we have to try to fight this ongoing epidemic that still plagues too many in this nation, and for that reason i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: in no way shape or form, have i opposed vaccines for those at risk. when my in-laws who are 92 and 86 first became available for the vaccine, we called the health department to see if we could get them a vaccine. unfortunately the health department wouldn't answer the phone, but they had a useful message, they said if we knew of anyone who didn't wear a mask, we could report them to the police. i'm not opposed to vaccines, a lot of the vaccine hesitancy that we in this country comes from the unscientific and unfounded half-baked yltdz r

ideas -- ideas that the democrats have on this. when they tell 14-year-olds need to be vaccinated, and people know it makes no sense, that leads to mistrust of the government on other fronts. so i mentioned earlier, and this apparently was lost and not necessarily received by the other side. the fda committee looking at boosters advised not to give boosters to teenagers. they hide behind and say, there's no mandate. ask these kids if there's a mandate. the media, call them up and ask them. can they be here? no, not unless they have e -- have three vaccines. we have a chance to undo the mandates and that's what the vote would be about. the fda didn't advise giving it to them, but didn't advise mandating it. the cdc said the same thing. the only reason we got approval for the booster is that the

political appointee of the biden administration overrode both of the vaccine committees to approve it. normally you have to prove efficacy, a reduction and a hospitalization. transmission would be one. the senators came to the floor and said vaccine preventable disease, and it's not because it doesn't stop transmission or from getting it. if you look at vaccines and boosters and if they're good for kids, and we're not talking about the elderly or infirm or people with risk factors. we're talking about these kids. if you look at these kids and ask if they have risk factors or any of them dying, we were quoted some statistics here. the statistics are not accurate. if you look at healthy kids, not one healthy kid, in germany zero healthy kids died, in israel zero unhealthy kids died.

unfortunately, a little over 100 kids in a country over 300 million died, who had a severe medical issue. we are the only ones trying to figure out where this virus came from. for the last three years, i've been asking every day, did this virus escape from a lab and not one democrat said, i'll help you find out. every democrat said, we don't care, we don't know and we don't want to know where the virus came from, but if it came from a lab, maybe we should quit funding this research. should we quit sending our money to china in a lab that operates in an unsafe manner? that would be a way to show you care. make no mistake mandate on these young pages is wrong, it's malpractice, it shouldn't happen and there is no scientific

evidence, including the government's own vaccine committees don't advice it and the democrats have said today, they don't care about the pages, they don't care about their parents or their ability to discern the risks or benefits of having a medical procedure, democrats are going to tell you what to do and just remember that. just remember that they don't care at all about your own choice, about your own body. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as the members of the senate know, this week we're expected to vote on a series of three appropriations bills. three out of the 12 appropriations bills that passed

out of this senate appropriations committee a couple of months ago. with just two and a half weeks left before the end of the fiscal year, time is of the essence unless congress funds the government in the next 18 days, the government will shut down. now, you might ask yourself why, if these appropriations bills passed out of the committee with strong bipartisan votes months ago, why are we waiting until 18 days before the deadline to begin the debate and voting on these appropriations bills? and not all of the appropriations bills, just a subset of three. well, we know shutdowns do not benefit anybody. i think there's a lot of -- i noticed on social media there's a lot of anger out there of

washington and people say, yeah, let's shut down the government. that's a good thing. it's too big. it's too intrusive. it's doing things i don't like. if you think about this a moment, with a shutdown, servicemembers, members of our mill will have to -- military will have to work without pay. veterans won't get the benefits or services that they have earned. mortgage and other loan applications will be delayed, passport processing will grind to a halt. maybe there's even a risk that medicare and social security payments will not be delivered on time. so shutdowns are a blunt instrument, and i think we realize that with a shutdown, when the government reopens, the same problem is staring you right in the face so you might

as well deal with it on the front end rather than on the back end. for minor inconveniences to major disruptions, the american people are affected by lapses in government funding. we've learned that lesson before. the surest way to avoid any funding drama, which is what we're experiencing now, drama -- the surest way to avoid that is to pass spending bills on time and in a transparent, normal process. something we call regular order around here. that means using the processes that are already in place to write, debate, and pass quality legislation. and it's done in a transparent sort of way where every senator, all 100 senators can participate. if they have a better idea, they can offer an amendment. they can try to persuade

colleagues, and they can get a vote. well, at the start of this summer, i was feeling somewhat optimistic about the funding -- the government funding process. the day the senate passed legislation to lift the debt ceiling and curb government spending, leader schumer and leader mcconnell issued a joint statement about the funding process. they asked the chair and vice chair of the appropriations committee to get the regular process back on track. they also pledged to work in a bipartisan fashion to advance funding bills and noted that, quote, expeditious floor consideration would be key to preventing automatic funding cuts. well, there's no question our friends on the appropriations committee, led by senator murray, senator collins, there's no question that -- that they

have done their job. they did. as a matter of fact, i think three of these bills, maybe the three in front of us, passed with unanimous votes in the appropriations committee, and all of them passed with broad bipartisan support. the point is the appropriations committee passed all 12 regular appropriations bills before the senate adjourned for the august recess. to show you how rare that is these days, this is the first time in five years that the appropriations committee actually processed all 12 bills. i want to commend senator murray and senator collins and the entire appropriations committee on a bipartisan basis for doing their job and for doing it on a timely basis.

well, thanks to their hard work, the senate was in a strong position to advance these appropriation bills on an individual basis, or if necessary, to combine a few of them in what sometimes are called minibuses. we were well positioned to do that well in advance of the september 30 deadline. as senator schumer affirmed in that joint statement earlier this summer, expeditious floor consideration is key. but his actions don't match those words. today more than 8 -- more than 80 days after the appropriations committee passed their first spending bill, the full senate is beginning -- beginning to consider the first batch of those bills. 80 days after the first bill passed. that is not what anybody would

call expeditious. the american people may or may not know it, but the majority leader has tremendous power. he has near full ball control in terms of the senate agenda and the timing of legislation. he actually determines which bills come to the floor, when they receive a vote, how many amendments will be considered. the leader -- the majority leader is in the driver's seat. senator schumer could have called any of these bills up for consideration, debate, and vote at any time in the last couple of months, starting with the first one that was passed 80 days ago. senator schumer has been around here a long time. he's a smart guy.

he's a shrewd operator and a worthy adversary when it comes to politics. but he knows the senate can't complete its work in 18 days. plus, in addition to the 12 funding bills, we need to pass the farm bill, federal aviation administration reauthorization, and the final version of the national defense authorization act. that's a lot of work in an impossibly short amount of time. and the majority leader knows that, and he knows that if he actually wanted to keep his commitment to the senate, to senator collins, senator murray, that he should have started this process far earlier than today. well, the senate had a two-week recess over the 4th of july, and we had a five-week recess in august.

there's got to be some time in there that we could have used on something other than routine nominations where senator schumer could have put these bills on the floor and we would have kept to his commitment of expeditious consideration of the bills. i understand that these recesses are sacrosanct. i'm not sure we needed a five full weeks for the august recess. maybe four weeks would have been good with a little notice so everybody could plan. but my point is senator schumer apparently had no interest in seeing each of these 12 bills voted on the senate floor before the deadline. so here we are. now, you may ask, why would senator schumer sabotage the regular order process for the appropriations bills? well, a couple of reasons. one is that it maximizes his power because he knows once you

get down to the deadline that four or five people are the ones who are going to basically figure out how to get out of this boxed canyon. meanwhile the rest of the members of the senate, all 98 or so of us are left with no options. we can't engage on behalf of our constituents. we can't cut what needs to be cut. we can't reprioritize the spending. we can't offer amendments. we can't vote. all of that goes down the drain when the majority leader sabotages the timing of this appropriations process. senator schumer waited for 18 days before a potential government shutdown before putting the first funding bill on the floor.

now, if there is a shutdown, and i don't recommend it, it was engineered by the majority leader himself which is why it should be called a schumer shutdown. well, i hope that doesn't happen. but he knows that the house is in a different place than the senate in terms of the spending levels. he knows that speaker mccarthy has a razor 24eu7b majority. he's been quickly to blame the house for a potential shutdown, but as i've explained here, this -- any potential shutdown is of senator schumer's own making. and the press has already taken hook, line, and sinker, the narrative that this is somehow the fault of the republicans in the house.

the majority leader is quick to say the senate passed 12 bipartisan appropriations bills through the committee. we're engaging in a bipartisan process this week. maybe next week. well, he knows we can't get through this process of about now and the end of this month so he knows basically what he's engineered is one of two options. he's either engineered a shutdown or he's engineered a continuing resolution which essentially means postponing or continuing the funding at current levels to some future date. of course, that's going to have to be negotiated what that date looks like. well, this is not a genuine effort to return to regular order. it's, frankly, political theater. it's an attempt to make good on

the promise -- it's an attempt to make good on the promise to return to regular order without actually doing it. now, mr. president, i've been fortunate to be in the senate for some time now. i've seen this place work well where every senator gets to contribute to the process, where the committees do their work, or the majority leader gives members of the senate adequate time to debate bills and to vote on amendments, and to pass legislation. and when you do that, it's much easier to build consensus, bipartisan consensus to actually get things done. and the work product is far superior because everybody has had a hand in crafting it. every member of this chamber by extension, all 330 million of our constituents, deserve a say

this this legislation regardless of where they're from, which committees they sit on or how long they've been in the senate, all 100 senators should have a voice in this process. the majority leader has squandered valuable time that could have been spent debating, amending, and passing appropriations bills on a timely basis. that's why everyone knows that a continuing resolution is the probable outcome of this disaster. it does not have to be this way -- it did not have to be this way. and if there is a shutdown, which i hope there is not for the reasons i've tried to explain, i think it should be called the schumer shutdown. mr. president, i yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. klobuchar: i ask that that be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise with many of my colleagues today to mark a new era for patients in this country. last year we decided that enough is enough, and we put an end to the sweetheart deal that led drug companies charge seniors on medicare whatever they wanted for some of the most common lifesaving and life-improving

prescription meds on the market. now the big pharma companies are trying to stop this legislation with absurd lawsuits. and i'll talk about that effort in a moment. but for now, let me say unequivocally allowing medicare to negotiate lower prices is a victory for seniors, a victory for taxpayers, a victory for patients and their families, a victory for america. mr. president, thank you for your work on this as the senator from vermont, when you were the house member for vermont. you led this bill in the house and i led it in the senate. we worked together to allow for the negotiation of drugs. and finally this bill has been passed into law as part of larger legislation. a number of our colleagues, including senator wyden of oregon, have long been leaders on this issue.

i think we all know this progress could not have come soon enough. we know when americans pay the highest prices in the world for the same brand name prescription drugs. in fact, prescription drug prices in the u.s. are more than 250% higher than drug prices in other industrialized countries. not only are prices sky-high, we've all watched them get high, as senator wyden has worked on this, as you, mr. president, have worked on this, as senator schumer has worked on this. we have continued to battle, sadly, the other side when it comes to putting our provision into law that allows medicare to negotiate better prices. finally, we did it on our own. we did it on our own but not really. we did it with the seniors of this country, with aarp at our side, with so many advocacy groups. taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to have the money go into higher profits for companies that already are

making much more than the average company on the stock exchange. not only are we seeing high prices, but it literally makes it unaffordable for some patients. what good are treatments and cures if they go unused because they're unaffordable? the average price of the 25 brand name medications that medicare spends the most on, 25 top block busters, has tripled on average, tripled since the drugs hit the u.s. market. think about it. we all believe in competition. we believe in capitalism. if you allow for real competition and generics to get on and you don't mess around and play around with the patent system and change this little thing so you get a longer patent and you don't put into law a sweetheart deal that says medicare can't negotiate any prices for 50 million seniors which, by the way, affects everyone else because when that biggest negotiating group in the country is blocked out from the

table, they're locked out of the room. it hurts everyone else as well for what the prices are. this change alone, when the administration just put the first ten drugs on the negotiating table, 900, 900, we have so many people involved and will be affected by this that we will save -- we will save three, three, over $300 billion. that is a big, big deal. not only are prices sky-high, we know that the numbers only grow shocking as you learn about the people behind them and about the profit margins of the big drug companies. i'm thinking of carey and his wife who live in minnesota and both take jardiance. this prescription drug costs them $750 each for just one

month's supply, and that's on top of the cost of their other meds. i know of a 71-year-old medicare beneficiary from oak grove, minnesota, who also relies on jardiance to control a heart issue. last year the drug cost her about $530 for a 09-day -- 09 day supply, roughly sixth of her home care pay. another minnesotan, 67-year-old medicare beneficiary from glenville paid roughly $750 for a 90-day supply of jardiance and januvia and stopped taking the drugs alltogether due to the cost. and another from southern minnesota who was diagnosed with a rare form of blood cancer. she was relieved to find that she would be able to take an oral medication instead of invasive chemotherapy treatments but it was going to cost $680 per month, nearly half of her monthly social security check.

her daughter applied for a grant and figured out a way to make ends meet but it just shouldn't be that hard. those are just a few of the many minnesotans who have had to tighten their belts to satisfy big pharma's greed. you'll hear the stories from oregon. you hear the stories from every state in this country. in fact, big pharma makes almost, as i said, three times the average profit margin of other industries on the s&p 500 exchange, three times larger profit. unaverage of other industries on the s&p stock market. and yet nearly 30% of americans say they haven't taken their medications as prescribed due to cost. that's unacceptable. the presiding officer over in the house and i led these bills to get rid of that sweetheart deal. and, yes, we got this in to the inflation reduction act, got it signed into law. a couple of years ago medicare announced the first ten drugs selected for price negotiation, including jarred yadges, as i mentioned which treats heart

failure and diabetes, januvia, another prescription for diabetes, enbrel, a rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis treatment. xarelto and eliquis medications to prevent blood clots taken by -- together, those two, eliquis, xarelto, blood clots taken by five million medicare beneficiaries. i wanted to correct one statistic i used. it is up to nine million americans with medicare part d take the drugs that were selected and they have spent -- i seed 300. they have spent $3.4 billion, $3.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs. up to nine million americans with medicare part d take those ten drugs. paying an average between $121 and $5,200 a month on

out-of-pocket. $5,200? how much is that per year? the pages can do the math. that's $60,000 on average per year. what does this mean for a senior on a fixed income? that relief is finally coming. for years we toiled on this legislation as the presiding officer and senator wyden know, toiled on this legislation but it was joe biden that finally got it over the finish line and signed it into law. giving medicare the power to negotiate with drug companies to help bring the price of medications in the u.s. down. the law also, as we all know, has other provisions. $35 out of pocket, monthly cap on insulin. this new policy has lowered the cost of daily living for over 1.5 million americans already. we now have drug companies that have voluntarily for nonseniors, capped it. i predicted this would happen. several. us did because it's kind of hard to say, seniors get $35 but a

15-year-old has to pay a hundred a month. so you're starting to see that change. the law also provides free vaccines like shingles or pneumonia. that will help seniors save about a hundred bucks. of course the legislation puts a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket spending for medicare beneficiaries starting in 2025. what happened? lawsuits. johnson & johnson, let's name them who sued. i thought when we passed this, signed into law by the president of the united states, anyone who knows schoolhouse rock knows both houses, sign a bill by the president. it's law. what do these guys do? they go out and sue. oh, we made a sweetheart deal 20 years ago and we want it back so we're going to sue. hire tons of lawyers. johnson subpoena johnson, navarre dis, as well as the industry trade group the pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of america better known as pharma, they've all

sued. we know that this effort is patently absurd. government agencies negotiating on drug prices isn't novel and unprecedented. the v.a. has done it for years. end of story? we persisted after nearly $400 million was spent in lobbying in congress. after every member of congress had three lobbyists assigned to them. we still passed this bill. so big surprise, they've gone to court. but we will win there, too. their legal argument is somewhat absurd that? how this -- somehow this is a taking whether in fact it's their choice to participate in capitalism and be part of competition. if they don't want to sell drugs to 50 million americans, i guess that's up to them. these first 10 drugs are just the beginning. we must go to the next 15, the next 15, the next 20. that's how the law works and at the same time take on the patent

cases that senator grassley and i have done, senator cornyn, blumenthal and others in judiciary, are leading bills to take on the product hopping and take on all the bad stuff is that keeps competitors off the market. but in the end, this should be a celebration. this has finally begun, and they're not going to end the celebration for 50 million seniors with all their lawyers, no matter how many they hire and no matter how many they bring to the courthouse. with that, mr. president, i yield to my wonderful colleagues. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, senator klobuchar has said it very, very well. i want to pick up on her remarks, and we're here to reflect on the extraordinary achievement in the inflation reduction act in order to provide for the first time a real measure of relief, a real measure of relief for these

staggering costs seniors and others pay for medicine? our country, and i'm going to talk about the negotiation issue, but i want to say, this is just the next and essential piece of what we are doing to get relief for the consumer. for example, through most of the summer, mr. president, i talked about the price-gouging pennsylvaniaality that we got -- the price-gouging penalty that we got in the law. the price-gouging penalty is the first such thing in federal law. this is a penalty that is imposed, as senator stabenow remembers, when drug companies hiked their prices over inflation. they have to pay a rebate to

medicare, which is used to lower the out-of-pocket costs for seniors. and senator stabenow and i have been out kind of crunching the numbers on this issue, and one of the areas that we found is that these drugs, particularly those that are administered in a doctor's office, already are producing massive savings. senator stabenow, we found a drug a couple of weeks ago where seniors are saving several hundred dollars per dose -- per dose, i would say to my colleagues -- on one of these cancer drugs you get in the office, and this is just the beginning, as senator klobuchar has said. so this legislation, which didn't, unfortunately, get a single republican vote, represents a seismic shift in the relationship between

consumers and big pharma, and especially authority for medicare to negotiate prices of prescription drugs with manufacturers. and i just with aens to take a few -- and i just want to take amy minutes to take on this issue of legal actions big pharma and their allies are taking to stop medicare drug price negotiation. and we've been talking about all these lawsuits that the big companies -- and i gather the chamber of commerce is with them all the way -- have filed to prevent families and seniors from getting a break on medicine. so these legal actions that the big companies and the chamber of commerce are taking beg the question that i just want to to offer up this afternoon -- what would happen in america if our country didn't negotiate in our economy? the fact is, negotiating on

price is the underpinning of ofe american marketplace. it ensures you bring two sides together to get a fair deal. and the question really has to become -- are these companies that have filed these suits really arguing that the government shouldn't try to get at fair price on medicine for more than 50 million american seniors? senator stabenow, that is the essential question. are they really arguing to the american people -- and, by the way, this is taxpayer money, much of this is taxpayer money. are they really arguing that seniors and taxpayers shouldn't get a fair deal? now, the fact is that medicare, in particular, with such strong taxpayer backing, has a special

argument for being a program that we negotiate to get fair prices on, because medicare is not just a slip of paper, as we've examined in the finance committee often. i see senator whitehouse, our distinguished colleague. medicare is not just a slip of paper with a few words on it. medicare is a guarantee, it is a guarantee for seniors of good, quality coverage. and it just begs the question, if you have a guarantee -- and a guarantee of something specific -- good, quality coverage -- wouldn't you automatically say that the taxpayer should be able to have a friend, an advocate negotiating for them in order to get the best possible deal? and i think the answer to that question is pretty obvious. now, big pharma has, unfortunately, taken a very

different position. they have been guarding the prohibition on price negotiation in this country, like the holy grail, and they don't like that we have closed this chapter. and the first ten drugs were not drawn out of a hot. congress maded it clear in black-letter law the criteria the federal government has to use, and so what we're doing now, senator stabenow, we've been talking, i think, to remain of the members -- to many of the members of the finance, is we're looking at the fact that these ten drugs also were ones where we made sure and put in the criteria specifically where you had significant taxpayer support in terms of getting the drug to market. so, again, another argument for why you ought to negotiate. the costliest drugs, the drugs that get to market with taxpayer money.

now, senator klobuchar, i thought, very eloquently described a number rest drugs. but i think -- and i want to give my colleagues a chance to make their remarks -- i think we ought to reflect on the importance of making sure that when big pharma has been double-dipping into taxpayers' wallets for these important medications -- groundbreaking research from the national institutes of health or another research arm of the federal government -- then after the research was funded by taxpayers, manufacturers sell the drugs developed using taxpayer-funded-backed research at sky-high prices, are they really night going to have a chance to get a better deal? yell, a drug mentioned often on the floor, was developed using

nih-supported research. the hospital sold the patent rights at the expense, senator stabenow, of taxpayers for now going on 30 years. so my colleagues are going to have a chance to go into further detail about this. but i think when you're talking about big pharma and a new law that considers, among a host of other factors, prior federal financial support provided by the taxpayers that we have the honor to represent, it means that the government should stand up for seniors and taxpayers to make sure that they get a good deal, an investment in basic science funded by american taxpayers is based on our record in the finance committee often the foundation. new drug. when drug manufacturers use this

taxpayer-funded research to make a drug rush the price of the drug should be lower to reflect taxpayer investment and you get the best possible deal for those taxpayers when you negotiate, and i will just close by saying, i think my colleagues know from talking to people at home, most people when you discuss this issue, think it's absurd that for all these years nobody could negotiate for them. what they're surprised about is not so much that a law passed, even though senator klobuchar talked about, beat all these lobbyists. what they're surprised about is how people with a straight face have made the case for years that with all the taxpayer support for medicine that i just outlined that you wouldn't have started negotiating for taxpayers and seniors a long time ago. so i really appreciate senator klobuchar doing this. i see the chair, who's been our champion in the other body for

many years, my seatmate, senator klobuchar, we've got an exciting new member from the west who has also joined us. this is an important chance to really think through where we're headed. senator stabenow knows we've got a lot more to do. we're taking on the pbm's, the middle men, who are also a factor in driving up prices. but tonight is a chance senator klobuchar has taken this time to talk about the negotiating issue. i've tried to go through some of the history of how you were stunned to hear over the years that you couldn't negotiate. that's been changed. my completion are going to continue -- my colleagues are going to continue this discussion and you're going to hear a lot more about it, because for all of those people that i knew, starting with the great panthers, who are standing in the pharmacy lines, getting mugged at the pharmacy counter trying to figure out how the

they are going to choose between their food and rent, they are going to have new hope because prices are going to be negotiated, there's going to be hope for them and hope for american taxpayers, and it's long overdue, and i yield to my colleagues. mr. hickenlooper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. hickenlooper: thank you. when i first aintroduced this building a couple years ago, senator klobuchar, one of the first things she brought up was the cost of pharmaceuticals, drug prescriptions for the american people. well, this is the beginning of the end for americans getting the short end of the stick from pharmaceutical companies peddling prescription drugs. for years we've all been paying much more than those in other countries pay for the same drugs, but now medicare is taking the first step towards ending that stranglehold on

lifesaving drugs. let's be clear. this is not some unfair assault on global drug companies. rather, this is a transition that's going to give americans the same opportunity to afford lifesaving drugs as others in other countries are given. according to the kaiser family foundation, the u.s. spends far more than any other industrialized country for prescription drugs. from getting charged $150 more for xarelto, which reduces the risk of coronary reartery disease, to getting ripped off by paying $1,600 for embrel, an arthritis drug, eliquis, a common blood thinner, one that i have occasion to use myself, prevents blood clots but costs an extra $514 out of pocket for medicare enrollees in colorado. in germany, it's only $96. it's five times more in the

united states. why should we pay more than germans and canadians and the swiss? what possible rules of common sense should permit drug companies the right to charge us many times more than what the rest of the world pays for the same drugs? part of the answer is that up until now, we've let them. medicare, the largest buyer of prescription drugs in the united states, has never been allowed to negotiate the price of drugs with pharmaceutical companies, and as senator wyden was making painfully clear, the losses to the american people have been substantial. until now, medicare has had to accept whatever price big pharma dictated, even when medicare knew we were subsidizing the rest of the world. well, that changes today. thanks to the inflation

reduction act we passed last year, medicare finally has the ability to negotiate with big pharma and get us a fair price for these drugs. medicare will take the ten most expensive drugs each year and negotiate their prices down, but the impact goes far beyond the impact just on seniors or just for those ten drugs. first, every year -- every year medicare will negotiate down to ten -- every year medicare will negotiate down ten more drugs, so the costs will keep coming down each year. in future years, medicare will be able to negotiate even more drugs. second, because medicare is the largest buyer in the american market, there's a darned good chance that other big buyers, like private insurance companies, are going to negotiate to bring the price that they pay down to what medicare will pay.

a falling tide lowers all prices. so what exactly does that mean now? medicare has announced the first drugs it will negotiate, they include the two i've mentioned, xarelto and embril, along with eight others. four other drugs treat diabetes. the others treat or prevent blood clots, heart failure, kidney disease, blood cancers and arthritis. in 2022, medicare throl enrollees taking these ten drugs paid $3.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs. that's what they paid out of their own savings. the average per enrollee cost was a staggering $5,247 for the most expensive drug on the list, which treats blood cancer. it's a big deal in every state.

it's a big deal in my home state of colorado. over 100,000 medicare enrollees in colorado take these ten drugs. 43,000, including me, take eliquis. this is a blood thinner to help prevent blood clots with an average out-of-pocket cost of over $500. 21,000 take xarelto and pay $447 average out-of-pocket cost. the bottom line, seniors on medicare are getting ripped off. and from going forward, they're going to spend less. they are finally going to spend less on the prescription drugs that they need in many cases just to stay alive. if all goes according to plan, the rest of us will also pay less once insurance companies follow medicare's lead. this isn't a fix to all the

problems in the health care system in this country, but it's a pretty big step and it's a reminder that we're not helpless to fix the other problems we face. they're still out there. all it takes is the will to come together and get things done. hopefully this is just the beginning. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you. i will be very brief, but i wanted to come to the floor to thank all of my colleagues for coming to the floor and talking about this issue. our democratic caucus has been persistent champion in the fight to lower drug costs for americans. i want to thank senator klobuchar, who has been such a leader on this issue for calling us together tonight. it was said year after year, decade after decade they're never going to take on the big drug companies. they're never going to get those

high costs, in some cases outrageously high costs, down. but last summer we did, and we won. now millions of americans are seeing their drug costs go down because as the inflation & the ten prescription drugs which my colleagues have talked about are not drugs used by a mere few, but used by millions that affect so many different illnesses, and they will treat things like diabetes and heart failure and cancer and kidney disease and blood clots and more. the pain you feel when you talk to a parent who says my child has been diagnosed with cancer, but it costs $1,000 a month for the drug and i can't afford it. what am i going to do? what pain. well, that pain is going to be greatly reduced in hundreds of thousands of cases now that we have done this. we're not stopping. we're going to keep going.

it's a huge deal. we're capping the price of insulin at $35. we did it for seniors on medicare. now we're going to fight to get it for everybody else. i know you, mr. president, are helping lead that charge. the costs for all drugs which once was $3,000 a year -- which once was unlimited will start at $3,000 in january and go to $2,000 in 2025. the number-one thing our constituents are asking about is high costs. the number-one thing that bugs them about the government is no one seems to get a handle on those high costs. well, this is a shining example. we're reducing their costs by taking on the special interests. we're not stopping here. i yield the floor. i thank my colleagues for being here. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i really feel like this is a

celebration because we've been talking about how americans have been taken advantage of for years, forever in terms of high prices. we've been paying the highest prices in the world forever, and oftentimes three and four times more than people in other countries. i know i received messages from families every day who are struggling to pay their prescription medications. but the truth is we understood this. we finally had the opportunity where we had president biden and a democratic majority in the house and senate. we took on big pharma and we won. so this is really a celebration. we're not done. more to do, just getting started, but this is a big deal. it's a big deal. one out of four americans can't afford their medicine right now. one out of four. and that's shameful in the united states of america. you know, back in 1998 when i was a member of the u.s. house

of representatives, i took bus loads of seniors from detroit, one side of the ambassador bridge to the other side. a few minutes across the bridge to canada, to windsor. crossed the bridge, cut prescription drug prices by 40%. by crossing a bridge. it has made no sense to me -- and the reason i have been championing this for so long and so appreciate the leadership of senator klobuchar and so many of us who have worked together, is that this just simply makes no sense and it's cost lives and people's livelihoods trying to pay for their medicine. you shouldn't have to skip doses or split pills in half or choose between paying your electric bill or taking your medicine. so the good news is despite the fact if you just look at the united states senate, just in

the senate there are 15 lobbyists for every senator, and they work every day to try to stop us from lowering prices, mr. president. but despite that, we took on big pharma and we won. and i want to thank our presiding officer for your leadership on the first thing that we were able to do that is so tangible. in michigan we've got nearly 67,000 michiganders on medicare that now benefit from a cap on insulin of $35 a month. not $600 or $700 that the average person was paying. $35 a month. saving lives. and, by the way, insulin is something that was discovered and developed 100 years ago. 100 years ago. it cost ten bucks to make. and we had to go through a major fight to cap it at $35.

but our presiding officer, the senator from georgia, led that, and i want to thank you for doing that. you know, we have nearly 673,000 michiganders that are going to save an average of $356 , thanks to the $2,000 cap we're going to put on. total cap. right now folks are on average paying $14,000, $15,000 a year and oftentimes thousands of dollars more than that. we're capping that. this next year capped at $3,200. next year, $2,000. and that's it, $2,000 a year out-of-pocket costs for seniors. it's extraordinary. it will save lives. and so this is a time, i think, of celebration. we've got nearly 1.8 million michigan seniors who are now going to be able to get free

shin gems vaccinations and other critical vaccinations that before maybe just didn't do because on average it was $300 to be able to do or $400 to do. and now they can protect themselves with vaccinations. and that's a big deal. and senator wyden was talking about his provision which is so very important, which is to say if a drug company under medicare part b, which is the drugs you get in the hospital or in a doctor's office, that if they go up faster than the rate of inflation, the biden administration now has a check every three months. if it goes up faster than inflation, they're going to roll the price back. roll the price back. as of july 1 it was an average of over $470 per dose on a cancer drug. so this is a big deal. it's a big deal that we're talking about right now. and the biggest of all,

medicare is beginning to negotiate prices just like the v.a. who gets a 40% discount, by the way. so that's the ultimate. when i first came to the senate after taking those bus trips across the border, i really took on this whole question about prescription drugs and really leaned in in so many ways. and i was excited we were going to do medicare part d. that passed under the bush administration -- until i saw the fine print where it prohibit ed medicare from negotiating prices. that was the fine print. it sounded great, but the drug companies were able to insert the language that says you can't negotiate. we get to charge whatever we want. and that's what happened since then. so here we are. the first ten drugs that will be negotiated through medicare were

announced just a week or so ago, and we're talking about those drugs that will deal with blood clots and heart failure, diabetes, psoriasis, blood cancers, arthritis and so many more things. these are the top drugs in terms of usage and price. the first ten, then there will be more and there will be more and there will be more until we get the full negotiation. we know that negotiating on just these ten drugs will help more than nine million people. nine million people lower their costs. just those first ten. so this is a big deal. we know we have more to do to lower costs. more to do together to address health care costs and other costs that people pay.

but i think it's pretty safe to say that the prescription drug companies are the biggest lobby here, and we finally had the votes, mr. president. we had the president who was willing to do it -- president biden. we had the majorities in the house and senate to do what we knew needed to be done regardless of how much clout they have. and so that's what we did. you know, i get letters like all of you do and talk to people all the time. but dianne of bloomfield hills, who is retired and on medicare, shared with me that she's a diabetic and she takes two types of insulin or four injections per day. four injections per day. she told me that she used to pay a co-pay of $650. $650 or more for three-month

supply. for just one of her prescriptions. she takes four injections a day. for just one of her prescription s. but not anymore. back in january dianne went to the pharmacy like usual, and the pharmacist told her that her three-month supply would be $105. not $650. $105. she said, i paid and walked away with a big smile on my face. mr. president, you led that effort to put a smile on her face, and i'm sure create a little more capacity for her to take care of herself and to be able to have a good life. people like dianne should not have to go without the medicine they need. they shouldn't be forced to skip doses or take less than was prescribed to save money. they shouldn't have to choose

between their medicine and putting food on the table or paying their bills. that's what this is about. so it's a celebration, mr. president. and i'm so proud that we joined with president biden to take the first step to make sure that people are going to be able to afford the medicine they need. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i'm very happy to be here and resolve a, i guess, celebrate, the resolution of a long-standing wrong done to the american people. senator stabenow can correct me if i'm wrong, but my recollection is that the ban that congress put on medicare negotiating with the

pharmaceutical companies the way, say, the veterans administration already does, was a magical appearance of a tiny little bit of language, not in the senate, not in the house, but in the secret confines of the conference committee that merged the two bills. it just slipped in as a sentence. nobody took credit for it. i still can't identify who slipped that thing in there. but once it got slipped in, the pharmaceutical industry defended it with all the venom and power and money and muscle that they had, and we beat them. we took it away. now, just like the veterans administration, medicare gets to negotiate and drive prices down, and that is going to make a big difference for rhode islanders with diabetes, with cancer, with blood clots, with heart disease, with rheumatoid arthritis. this happened because all of us,

senate democrats, got together, stuck to our guns and made it happen through the inflation reduction act, which came out of the budget committee originally, the authorization. we are lowering the prices of these ten very expensive drugs, and even though the farnl suit cal industry is -- the pharmaceutical industry is going to try to wrestle around in court, pretty hard to say medicare doesn't have the same authority that its sister agency, the veterans administration has, to negotiate for pharmaceuticals. shows how much they will try to try to get that little slippery sentence that got slipped into that bill back to defend their price gouging. vaccines are free with medicare. insulin is capped at $35 a month. drug companies are penalized if they jack up their prices higher than the rate of inflation. a 3250 cap on out-of-pocket spending for seniors is just

about to go into a effect, and the next year it drops to a $2,000 limit. i think that will cover 11,000 rhode islanders who now pay higher out-of-pocket costs than those. these changes will save tens of thousands of medicare part d enrollees in rhode island over $23 million. that's a big number in our small state. i would like to think that the inflation reduction act was bipartisan. it would be graipt if this had passed with bipartisan support. it didn't. not a single republican vote came. i regret that. but we're going to continue. there's more progress to be made. we've shown it can be done. while we're at it, we need to strengthen medicare, both social security and medicare. and we have a bill that's had its hearing in the budget committee to strengthen social

security and medicare by making people who are making over $400,000 a year, and the superrich, who hide their income through all sorts of tricks so it doesn't show up as regular income, pay a fair share, support these essential programs. so, we can celebrate a win today, and we can go forward with confidence to future wins. and with that, i yield the floor. mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. welch -- mr. welch: i join my colleagues in celebrating this achievement, allowing the american people to have a benefit of a government that will stand up to negotiate prices and try its best to make the prescription medications

that they need for themselves and the people they love to be affordable. you know, what is a greater responsibility that a government has to its citizens to help create a health care system that is accessible and is affordable? why is it that in this country the citizens that we all represent are getting hammered on the cost of medications that, if they just go across the border to canada, they can get it one-tenth, one-fifth of the price? why is it? it is because, unless this day, we have been the only government that has not been willing to use price negotiation to protect consumers from price gouging by big pharma, and it's really brutal. i mean, every one of us, i talk to vermonters, senator stabenow was talking about mitch

ganders -- michiganders, some of whom are republicans, some are democrats, some are independents, many of whom don't bother do pay much attention to the political process. but when they have to get access to that medication that is really essential to their well-being, they can't afford it. we are paying, they are paying, all our citizens, in many cases two and a half times on average what folks across the border in canada or in europe are paying for the same medication. it's terrific when big pharma, through their research, comes up with medications that can extend our life, but if they charge so much that we can't afford it, what does that do? time after time, we have seen folks make these horrible

decisions about cutting back on their medication at the threat to their own life and safety, because they literally can't afford it. now, the pharmaceutical industry, let's give them credit, they've created lifesaving drugs. that's a tremendous thing. but they can't use the fact that they're doing something good to jack up prices to make it unaffordable, just for self-enrichment. you know, we have done, we as a government have done, an enormous amount to help pharma with the innovation side, and they're suggesting that this legislation is going to interfere with that capacity. is it true? no. think about what we've done. we, the government, taxpayers, number one, the intellectual property is protected. so for that period of time, oftentimes well offense a decade, they can charge whatever they want, and they have the

exclusive right to have that drug on the market. and they charge a lot. number two, we've created employer-sponsored health care system, where we have employers in all of our states, where it's really important to that employer to provide good, quality health care to its employees. and they have to pay whatever the premiums are that are oftentimes inflated as a result of us having the highest prescription drug prices in the world. third, we have a medicare and medicaid program, which is guaranteed purchasing pool, to buy the products that they create. so pharma has protection on its profits with an exclusive periods. it has government standing behind the right of citizens to have access to health care through medicare particularly, medicaid, and also employer-sponsored health care. then what you see is pharmaceutical industry going beyond the patent rights it has for that market exclusivity and

doing the things senator klobuchar was talking about, where they try to extend the life of the patent well beyond what that limited period was supposed to be. by the way, wall street gets in the game here, because what many of the companies have claimed is research is a corporate buyout. company a buys company b that has a patent on a popular and necessary drug. they pay billions for it. to pay for the purchase price, they inflate the cost of that prescription drug. they can do it. they get away with it. senator hickenlooper asked the question, why is the outrage not about that we let it go on for so long? so pharma is going to do fine and keep doing what they're going to be doing. they're going to have the patent exclusivity. they're going to have a

government and a senate, with republicans and democrats, wanting, maintaining the medicare program, so that folks who need prescription drugs get them. they're going to do fine. but finally, we have price negotiation so that, in effect, if you or i are going to the pharmacy to buy aspirin and we buy 100, because the per-unit cost is a lot less, we get to pay wholesale -- we get to decide about bargaining by what we purchase, a big amount or a little. amount. medicare should be able to do the same thing. this is so overdue, and so beneficial to everybody that we all represent, regardless of politically whose side they're on. this is about a shared need that our society has for access to

prescription medication. of course, senator -- mr. president, we all appreciate the focus that you put on insulin. if there isn't a more shocking example of a rip-off. this drug has been around for decades. there's no new innovation. what there is is pricing power, so that those companies that had the ability to set the price, to raise the price, and to do it again kept going up and up and up, even though there was not any additional intellectual breakthroughs with the actual core of what insulin is. you know, we in this country know that working americans are struggling to pay their bills. things are expensive. it's not just inflation. things are expensive in many cases because there's real corporate power and they can get the price they want.

nowhere do they do that with more abuse and consistency than pharmaceutical plea descriptions. we can -- prescriptions. we can decide as a senate that beer going to find ways to make things affordable by stopping the rip-off, having the capacity for medicare to negotiate prices is a major breakthrough. it's no small thing. it's the beginning, it's not the end of our efforts. i thank all of my colleagues for working together to help all of our constituents, regardless of who they voted for, because the thing they all have in common is they want to protect especially the people that they love. the arguments from pharma, what i find so alarming, is that what they prey upon is the love that people in america have for their families. because if you're a mom, or

you're a dad and you've got a son or daughter who needs a prescription drug and you can't afford it, you'll take out a second mortgage or you'll sell the house or you'll get rid of your retirement account. you'll do whatever it takes to save the person you care about. pharma, with their pushback, saying this is going to threaten innovation, is not -- it's preying on those fears all of us have about what will happen if we don't do everything we can to help the person we love. you know what? it's not about that for pharma. they're doing pretty well. those salaries are astonishing. those corporate buybacks are very rich. so i'm proud to be with my colleagues here to stand up for the right that our citizens have, affordably, confidently, securely, to be able to have,

when they need it, access to the prescription medication that's going to extend their life and save their loved ones. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: thank you, mr. president. there are over 578,000 nevadans across my state enrolled in medicare, and their hard-earned medicare benefits provide coverage for their health care expenses. the problem is, when i travel around my state, and i speak to seniors, the number one thing that i hear about is how difficult it is to afford the prescription drugs that they need. let me give you an example. sue bird and her husband tom,

they live in rural nevada. tom has diabetes. even though they are both on medicare, covering all their health care expenses, costs, nearly a thousand dollars a month, that can be crushing for two retirees on a fixed income. the stress affects tom's blood -- it becomes too much to handle for them. why are tom and sue's medication so expensive? i'll tell you why and you heard it from my colleagues over and over again. because year after year big pharma has decided that they need to jack up the prescription drug prices all while executives are getting more money. they are forcing millions of

older americans to pay more in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. our seniors made this country what it is today. tom is a fourth generation nevadan, and we really have a duty to ensure quality affordable health care for people like tom and sue and seniors across the country when they retire. that is exactly what democrats did when we passed the inflation reduction act. we capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month for people with medicare. we made vaccines free to seniors, and we're holding drug companies accountable for raising their prices faster than the rate of inflation. and now you're hearing in a major victory that's been decades in the making, we finally gave medicare the green light to negotiate lower prescription drug prices directly with big pharma. this will make a huge difference

for nevadans and for americans across the country. the biden administration just selected the first ten drugs for price negotiation under medicare part d. these are widely used medications. about ten million people with medicare take one or more of these drugs each year to treat serious conditions like diabetes, heart failure, blood clots, and cancer. and they're extremely expensive. medicare enrollees taking any of these ten medications paid a total of $3.4 billion out of pocket in 2022. gor his -- for his diabetes, tom byrd takes jarreddians -- jardiance, this month he paid $660. this cost over $50 billion last year alone. think of where that money is

going. think about where it's going. how much money is enough for these big pharma companies? but you know what? the fact that democrats fought to ensure that medicare could negotiate directly with drug companies will change all of that. it will lower health care costs, and it will also cut back on federal spending by $25 billion. that's $25 billion we're saving taxpayers across the country. and this is just the beginning. each year more medications will be added to the negotiation list, allowing medicare to keep bringing down prescription drug costs and saving more taxpayer dollars. and i'll tell you what. our seniors across this country, like tom and sue, who helped build our country and make it what it is today, will be able to breathe a sigh of relief. this is all thanks to the

inflation reduction act which continues to benefit nevadans and americans throughout our country. listen, i am proud of the work we all did when we passed this legislation, i'm proud of the biden-harris administration for not only supporting the passage of this and working to get this done, but also the implementation. i can tell you that i know my colleagues and i, we're going to make sure and keep working to ensure that nevada, seniors across this country, whether they're in nevada or across this country see lower health care costs. because every senior should be able to retire with dignity. they've worked for it. they worked hard to make that happen, and we should at least make sure that we are lowering those costs to help them. so, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i rise today to stand alongside the over 80% of americans who support medicare being able to negotiate the price of prescription drugs. because despite being one of the -- or the wealthiest nation in the world, too many americans are struggling to afford the medication that they need to survive. more than five million medicare bishes are struggling -- beneficiaries are struggling to afford their medications. i heard devastating stories from wisconsin seniors who have been put in impossible situations and forced to ration or forego their medications all while the drug companies turn record profits. no american, and especially our seniors living on fixed incomes, should have to choose between putting food on the table or

accessing the prescription drugs that they need to stay healthy. that's why i was so proud to support the inflation reduction act to finally provide some relief for wisconsin families and hold the big drug companies accountable for prioritizing profits over people. and now we are seeing the results. we capped the cost of insulin out of pocket at $35 a month for seniors. we lowered health care premiums for millions of americans, and we penalized drug companies for raising their costs faster than inflation. last month we reached a new milestone that has been a long time coming. medicare announced the first ten drugs that they will negotiate with drug companies. these are lifesaving medications

that millions of americans take to stay healthy, treating everything from diabetes and heart disease to blood cancers. by lowering the cost of these drugs, fewer seniors will have to choose between buying groceries and taking their medication. and fewer families will lie awake at night worrying about how they're going to afford the cost of their loved one's medication. and most importantly, medical care finally stepping up and taking on the big drug companies means that fewer americans will be priced out of the care that they need to live healthy lives. we have more work to do, but the inflation reduction act was an historic step in the right direction. every american deserves access to affordable and comprehensive health care, and i'm committed to finishing what we started last year with the passage of

the inflation reduction act. mr. president, i yield back. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, the fiscal responsibility act of 2023, the fra, by its initials, which congress passed three months ago represented a bipartisan agreement. it resolved a manufactured default crisis, it avoided an economic catastrophe that was threatened, and it set funding levels for the upcoming year. pursuant to section 121 of that act, i previously filed on

june 21 budgetary aggregates and committee allocations for fiscal year 2024. today i am adjusting those levels to account for senate amendment 1092 to h.r. 4366. the proposed package making appropriations for the fiscal year-ending september 30, 2024. this first package includes the fiscal year 2024 military construction, veterans' affairs, and related agencies, transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies, and agriculture rural development food and drug administration and related agencies appropriations bills. section 251 of the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1819 -- 1985, as

amended by the fra, establishes funding limits for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 and allows for adjustments to those limits. section 302 and 314-a of the congressional budget act allow the chairman of the budget committee to revise the allocations, aggregates and levels consistent with those adjustments. senate amendment 1092 is eligible for an adjustment. division c, the transportation urban development and related agencies appropriations act of 2024, includes $10.8 billion of budget authority and $8.3 billion of outlays that are designated as emergency funding. the emergency funding in this division is consistent with the bipartisan agreement tied to the

enactment of the fra. in addition, the senate appropriations committee has reported eight other bills that include funding eligible for an adjustment. i am also making those adjustments in today's filing. in total, i am revising the allocation to the appropriations committee by $62.2 billion of budget authority and $23.8 billion of outlays, secluding offbudget -- excluding offbudget amounts, -- the aggregates by $23.34 billion of outlays. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that these accompanying tables, which provides details about the adjustment filing be printed in the record at the

conclusion of these remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominees, executive calendar number ^2 98, michael colin casey to be director of the national counterinconscious -- counterintelligence and security

center, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, office of the director of national intelligence, michael colin casey, of kentucky, to be director of national counterintelligence and security center. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions, senate res. 337, national direct support professions recognition week, senate res. 338, senate res. 339 blood donation drive.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, where applicable, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand stand adjourned until 12:00 o'clock noon, that following the prayer -- the morning hour be deemed expired, morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 198, h.r. 4366, postcloture. further, that all time during adjournment, recess, morning business, and leader remarks count against the postcloture time. the presiding officer: without

objection.

mr. whitehouse, on behalf of senator murray, i ask unanimous consent that the following report from the committee on appropriations be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until today sent lawmakers confirmed tonya to be the next deputy d.a.

secretariat by a vote of 50 -- 46 appeared to become the first woman to serve the department second-highest post. the upper chamber voted to advance three bills spending package to fund the agriculture, housing, transportation and veterans department next year. as always you can watch live coverage for the u.s. senate here on cspan2. x tonight and oversight. with securities and exchange commission chair. testifying for the senate banking, housing and urban affairs committee. watch at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2, c-span now are free mobile video app apart or online at c-span.org. ♪ ♪ ♪ this fall watch c-span's new series books that shaped america. join us as we embark on the captivating journey in partnership with the library of congress which first created

books that shaped america list to explore key works of literature from american history. the books featured provoke thought, won awards, led to significant societal changes and are still talked about today. hear from featured renowned experts will shed light on the profound impact of these iconic works virtual journeys to significant locations across the country intricately tied to these authors and unforgettable books appeared among our featured books common sense by thomas paine huckleberry finn by mark twain, their eyes were watching god and free to choose but milton and rose freedman. watch our 10 part series books that shaped america starting monday september 18 at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now reit mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪ a healthy democracy does not just look like this.