[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5890-S5893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING THE HEALTHCARE OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES AND PREVENTING EFFORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
ADVOCATE COURTS TO STRIKE DOWN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT--Motion to Proceed
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 551, S.
4653, a bill to protect the healthcare of hundreds of millions of
people of the United States and prevent efforts of the Department of
Justice to advocate courts to strike down the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 551, S. 4653, a bill to
protect the healthcare of hundreds of millions of people of
the United States and prevent efforts of the Department of
Justice to advocate courts to strike down the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Cloture Motion
Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 551, S. 4653, a bill to protect the
healthcare of hundreds of millions of people of the United
States and prevent efforts of the Department of Justice to
advocate courts to strike down the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Patty Murray, Tim
Kaine, Martin Heinrich, Jack Reed, Jeff Merkley,
Bernard Sanders, Jon Tester, Benjamin L. Cardin, Brian
Schatz, Debbie Stabenow, Richard Blumenthal, Angus S.
King, Jr., Michael F. Bennet, Edward J. Markey, Chris
Van Hollen, Sheldon Whitehouse, Kirsten E. Gillibrand.
Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Trump Tax Returns
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the New York Times' latest reporting
tells us everything we need to know about why President Trump has
worked so hard to conceal his tax returns from the American people. The
President is a liar, a cheat, and a fraud. For years he marketed
himself as a self-made, successful businessman, but it is all an
illusion. Like the Wizard of Oz, behind the curtain is just a small,
petty fraud.
He made millions playing a billionaire businessman on TV, but in real
life, Donald Trump was racking up huge losses in debts that he then
used to get out of paying his fair share of Federal taxes. Call it tax
avoidance. Call it tax evasion. Call it whatever you want. The bottom
line is that Trump is no business genius. He is a con artist who thinks
that the rules don't apply to him.
The President managed to avoid paying any Federal income tax for 11
of 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, and then only paid $750 in 2016 and
2017. When I first read that in the New York Times, I thought there
must have been a typo. Surely there were zeros missing. I was wrong.
The page read right. Our self-proclaimed billionaire President paid
just $750 in Federal income taxes--$750. That is a heck of a lot less
than what essential workers supporting America throughout this pandemic
pay in taxes, like the grocery clerk in Newark, NJ, who makes $11 an
hour but owes about $1,060 in Federal taxes--$300 more than Donald
Trump. How about the nurse in Hackensack, NJ, working nights to save
patients with COVID-19, making $60,000 a year. She owes about $6,200 in
Federal income taxes--more than eight times what the President paid.
Most people would agree that is a problem with our economy. Americans
are working harder than ever for less. They are drowning in
skyrocketing healthcare, housing, childcare, and tuition bills. At the
end of the day, many middle-class New Jersey families still find
themselves owing money to Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, for rich people like
Donald Trump, the tax rate is the lowest it has been in decades, and
you can write off fancy haircuts and consulting fees paid to your own
daughter and all the losses you racked up running your business into
the ground.
I have to say, this is no surprise to most New Jerseyans. We watched
in horror as Donald Trump ran his Atlantic City casinos into the
ground, scamming hard-working contractors out of their pay and costing
the local economy thousands of jobs. Donald Trump was like a reverse
King Midas--everything he touched went bankrupt. Then after his string
of bankruptcies and broken promises to workers, Trump turned around and
got a $72.9 million bailout from the IRS--you heard me right, a $72.9
million bailout from the IRS. Most people I know think it is a good
year when they get $400 or $500 back from the Federal Government; this
scam artist got off with $72.9 million.
Yet Donald Trump isn't swimming in cash; he is drowning in debt. The
President is on the hook for approximately $421 million in loans, more
than $300 million of that coming due in the next 4 years. To get out of
the debt, the President is doing everything he can to profit off the
Presidency. Over the last 4 years, he has continued to make money off
foreign investments, rake in cash from special interests and foreign
officials at his Washington hotel, and charge the Federal Government
millions for the use of his properties. He could go anywhere. He could
go to Camp David. No. He goes to his properties, where millions--Secret
Service and other entities protect the President and help the President
whenever he leaves Washington. But he is always at his properties.
In spite of all this revenue, Trump is still badly in debt. It is no
surprise that intelligence experts are concerned about who is holding
it. They worry about the President's personal exposure to foreign
creditors and what that might mean for national security. Anyone else
in that much debt to foreign entities would have their security
clearances immediately revoked. Is this why Trump refuses to punish
Putin for putting bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers? Is this why
he applauds dictators like Erdogan and sells out American allies like
the Kurds? Is this why he applauds dictators like Philippines President
Rodrigo Duterte for doing ``an unbelievable job''?
The bottom line is this: Who does Donald Trump owe those hundreds of
millions of dollars to, and how much do
[[Page S5891]]
they know about him and how deep are they into him?
For years, the President has fought to keep Americans in the dark.
Well, now we know why. He is a liar, a fraud, and a failed businessman
so deep in the red, he is a potential national security liability.
Let me close by quoting President Donald Trump in his own book, ``The
Art of the Deal.'' He said:
You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create
excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds
of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you
don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.
I only hope the American people are catching on.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
552, H.R. 8337, a bill making continuing appropriations for
fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Richard C. Shelby, Lindsey Graham, Cindy
Hyde-Smith, Tom Cotton, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, Roy
Blunt, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr, Cory Gardner,
John Barrasso, Joni Ernst, Mike Crapo, Rob Portman,
James E. Risch, John Hoeven.
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 H.R.
8337, a bill making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Thune
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--6
Cruz
Hawley
Lee
Loeffler
Paul
Toomey
NOT VOTING--12
Alexander
Blackburn
Blunt
Coons
Harris
Moran
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Tester
Tillis
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 6.
Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the selection of the person to fill the
Supreme Court vacancy is a historic moment in Washington. This is the
seventh time that we will be in a position to at least meet someone who
is aspiring to that position. I have had opportunities with each one of
them to ask some questions before the formal hearing. I hope I have the
same opportunity with the current nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
What is different about this particular moment is the fact that we
know that there is an issue at stake here and one that is likely to be
decided almost immediately by the new Supreme Court Justice. It is the
only explanation I can find--perhaps one other--the only two
explanations I can find as to why there is this hurry to fill this
vacancy.
You see, it was 4 years ago, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme
Court with Antonin Scalia's death--and that occurred on the February
before the election--that Senator McConnell, then the Republican Senate
leader, argued there was no need to hurry. Why hurry about it? Leave
the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Wait until after the next
Presidential election. Let the American people decide who will be
filling that vacancy.
He made that argument, despite the clear history in this Chamber that
did not support him, and he won the support of his position by every
Republican Senator. They went so far as to say that if President Obama,
in his last year in office, nominated someone to fill the Supreme Court
vacancy, they wouldn't give that person a hearing.
Well, President Obama, in his last year of his Presidency, nominated
Merrick Garland, a person who was widely respected as the chief judge
in the DC Circuit Court--the second highest court in the land by some
measure--and Merrick Garland came to Capitol Hill in the hopes that he
would get his day in court, so to speak, in the Senate. But Senator
McConnell said: No way. Words out, Republican Senators, don't meet with
him. A couple of them broke his rule and met with him anyway. But the
word was out not to even give him the courtesy of a meeting 4 years
ago. So Merrick Garland never had his day before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and his nomination departed with the Presidency of Barack
Obama.
Senator McConnell's new theory prevailed on how the Senate should
treat Supreme Court vacancies. Every one of his soldiers on the
Republican Senate marched in lock step with his theory. Well, guess
what happened 4 years ago later. An incumbent President had a late
vacancy on the Supreme Court with the untimely death of Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, just a little over a week-and-a-half ago. And the obvious
question to Senator McConnell is: Will you be consistent now and say
that that vacancy should not be filled until a new President is
elected, and that President should have the option to fill it? And
Senator McConnell said: Of course not. It is not to my political
advantage--he didn't add those words; I did--not to my political
advantage. I am going to change this hard-and-fast rule of 4 years ago,
and I am going to ask all of my Republican Senators to march before a
camera and a microphone and to look down at their shoes and say the
position they took 4 years ago, they are abandoning today. And all but
two of them did it. All but two of them walked away from their pledge
that they were under the old McConnell rule.
That McConnell rule was stated in just a few words. Here is what
Senator McConnell said 4 years ago:
The American people should have a voice in the selection of
their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy
should not be filled until we have a new President.
The McConnell rule was thrown out just a few days ago. Why? Because
it was to Senator McConnell's advantage to fill this vacancy and to the
President's and not to wait for the outcome of the November 3 election.
So what is the issue? What would cause Senator McConnell to change so
quickly and
[[Page S5892]]
to ask all of his loyal Republican Senators to go through the
embarrassment of recanting the position they took publicly 4 years ago?
What is the big deal, Senator McConnell? Well, it turns out we know
what the big deal is. It is the Affordable Care Act. To paraphrase a
Senator from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers, the Republicans and President
Trump hate the Affordable Care Act like the devil hates holy water.
They have tried every imaginable way to eliminate it, to change it, to
water it down, and to discourage it. There were 50 different votes in
the House of Representatives to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and
were it not for the Democrats in the Senate, they might have had some
luck in doing that, but it didn't work. So they tried it on the Senate
floor under reconciliation. They thought: Here is our chance. We just
need a majority. We should be able to pull this one off.
And we had this historic moment just 3 years ago when, at 2:30 in the
morning, John McCain came through those doors, and, with his ``no''
vote and the vote of two other Republican Senators, saved the
Affordable Care Act. Imagine the frustration of Mitch McConnell. Here
was his moment to finally drive that dagger deep in the heart of the
Affordable Care Act, and John McCain voted no. What was he going to do
to get this job done?
Well, it turns out he figured he would get it done across the street
in the U.S. Supreme Court. So 18 Republican State attorneys general
filed a lawsuit to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. And then the
Trump administration said: We are on board too. Let's get rid of it
completely.
Off they went through the long treacherous journey in the courts all
the way up to the Supreme Court across the street. Guess when the
argument is scheduled to be heard. It is to be heard 7 days after the
election. So you wonder why there is such a hurry to put another
Supreme Court Justice on the Court who also opposes the Affordable Care
Act? And make no mistake, President Trump made that one of the
conditions of employment for anyone he would name to the Supreme Court.
You have to be ready to march right in there and put an end to it.
So if we can vote under Senator McConnell's timetable on or before
the election, November 3, the new Supreme Court Justice sworn in, in
her black robe, ascends to the bench in the Supreme Court on November
10, listens to the oral argument on the Affordable Care Act, and then a
few weeks or months later puts an end to it. That is why we are in such
a hurry, because if that Supreme Court vacancy is not filled by
November 10, then whomever is chosen, as they do by tradition, could
vote on the actual outcome of the case in the spring. That is what this
is all about.
As someone told me long ago in this business of politics, there is
always a good reason, and then there is always the real reason. The
real reason for the mad dash of the Senate Judiciary Committee to fill
the Supreme Court vacancy, the real reason why Republican Senators are
asked to march in lockstep and say that what they pledged 4 years ago
meant nothing today--the real reason--is to put an end to the
Affordable Care Act.
Let me tell the story, if I can, about the Affordable Care Act. I
voted for it and am proud to have done it. Twenty million Americans
have insurance because of it--600,000 in Illinois and, I might add,
protections for people all across America. Let me discuss one of the
protections of the Affordable Care Act that will go away and be
eliminated if President Trump, the Republican Attorney General, and the
Republican Senators who are supporting Mitch McConnell have their way.
Here is one of the provisions in the law.
Here is the story.
A couple of years ago, Tom from Palatine, IL, a suburb of Chicago,
wrote to me about the Affordable Care Act. I will show a picture here.
This is him. At the age of 30, Tom, married with dreams of fatherhood,
was diagnosed with cancer, a tumor in his chest. He underwent 20 rounds
of chemo and major surgery to remove the tumor. Thankfully, after that,
he was cancer free.
There is Tom in his better days, racing to Wrigley. And there he is
fighting his way through cancer in a hospital bed.
How much did it cost him for all of that care? Two million dollars.
Two million dollars was the bill.
Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies imposed arbitrary
annual and lifetime limits on how much they would actually reimburse a
patient for medical bills. If you pass the limit, you are on the hook
personally. That is why for years, medical debt was a leading cause of
bankruptcy in America.
A fellow like Tom, racing along here, looking as healthy and fit as
possible, ends up with a cancer diagnosis and goes through months and
months of therapy and a bill of 2 million bucks, and the insurance
company says: It is all yours. There is a limit in your policy.
That is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. The
Affordable Care Act put an end to those limits. Without those
protections, Tom wrote to me and said that he ``would most likely have
capped [his] coverage and be bankrupt.'' It is pretty clear.
Thousands of other Americans could also be right there with him
without the Affordable Care Act. Although Tom wants to continue working
and contributing to society, he said he is scared to death. He is
``terrified''--in his words--that protections for preexisting
conditions would be ended. You see, Tom having defeated surgery and
declared this great victory--I am sure his friends and family couldn't
be happier--is now branded by the insurance companies as a man with a
preexisting condition.
In the old days, before the Affordable Care Act: Good luck, Tom. Good
luck, because if you had a preexisting condition--and almost anything
would count: acne, asthma, being a woman who might get pregnant, and on
and on and on--you were subjected to higher premiums, maybe even no
insurance at all. Those were the days before the Affordable Care Act.
Now, President Trump, the Republican attorneys general, and the
Republicans in the Senate are dutybound to send a new Supreme Court
Justice in to put an end to that protection, to put an end to the
Affordable Care Act. They are so determined to get rid of ObamaCare at
any cost that they could care less about Tom and people just like him
with these lifetime limits.
If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, insurers could once again
deny coverage to millions of Americans with preexisting conditions.
That isn't all.
The Affordable Care Act also made it clear that if you are a family
with a son or daughter who goes to college, comes out of school looking
for a job, maybe had taken that gap year, maybe had taken an
internship, but likely not to have health insurance, the Affordable
Care Act says don't worry. Until that young man or young woman in your
household reaches the age of 26, they can stay on your family's health
insurance plan--a provision of the Affordable Care Act and a provision
that a lot of families count on.
Our family needed something just like that when our daughter
graduated college and didn't have health insurance and assured me that
she sure didn't need it and she was so healthy. Well, that is scary
talk for a parent to hear. But when it came to the Affordable Care Act,
we would have been able to keep our young daughter under that policy--
our family policy--for a period of time. The Republicans want that to
go away--to go away with the Affordable Care Act.
You say to yourself: Well, clearly, Durbin, you are not telling the
whole story. You are not telling us what the Republican plan is to
replace the Affordable Care Act.
It is true--guilty as charged. I am not describing to you the
Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act because it doesn't
exist. It does not exist. That is why John McCain and two other
Republican Senators said: You can't eliminate the Affordable Care Act
unless you have a replacement that is as good or better. Otherwise, too
many American families will lose their insurance and lose their
protection.
We had a hearing a few weeks ago, and I asked the leaders in the
health community under the Trump administration the basic question:
What have you heard about the Republican substitute for the Affordable
Care Act? President Trump has told us over and over and over and over
again that it is
[[Page S5893]]
just a week or two away. So what have you heard about preparedness?
They said: Nothing. We have heard nothing.
There is no Republican substitute for the Affordable Care Act. They
are just dutybound to eliminate ObamaCare, and, sadly, the consequences
would be awful.
That is what this is about. So if you think, I don't want to tune in
to this whole debate about a new Supreme Court Justice from Indiana; I
don't want to hear all these arguments because what difference does it
make to me--if you are that person in America--I would say to you,
please, take a look at what we are really facing here--an effort to
fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in a timely way to eliminate the
Affordable Care Act. That is what this is all about.
Then, the President, just for good measure, tossed in another issue
last week. How about this one--the first President in the history of
the United States to not publicly declare that he would accept the
outcome of an election? How about that? It is nothing short of a
constitutional outrage that any President would say that. It is no
surprise with this President because, when he was a candidate, he said
basically the same thing: If it doesn't turn out that I win, then, I am
not sure I want to live by the results.
He makes up these contrived arguments against paper ballots and how
fraudulent they are. There are five States--five States in America--
that use mail-in ballots exclusively. They include, of course, the
State of Oregon, which might have been one of the first, and they
include the State of Utah, as well, and Hawaii. Other States do it. How
much fraud is there? Almost none. But that doesn't stop the President
from claiming that mail-in ballots are fraudulent.
How does the President vote, incidentally? By mail-in ballot. What
hypocrisy for him to make that kind of statement when he is casting his
own vote with a mail-in ballot.
So now he said that he wants that Supreme Court vacancy filled: Do it
now because I need nine Justices sitting on that Supreme Court if there
is any election contest to follow.
It is pretty obvious what this is all about. The President needs a
sure vote on the Supreme Court.
What a shame that we have reached this point, that we have denigrated
the U.S. Senate to the point that we change the rules at our
convenience, that we have reached the point where we are prepared to
eliminate protections for 20 million Americans with nothing to replace
it, and that we have reached a point where a President is so brazen as
to say he wants to fill that spot on the Supreme Court just in case he
runs into an election contest.
You would think there would be a chorus--a bipartisan chorus--of
outrage for that statement by the President. Not so. There may have
been others--and I will scour the records to make sure--but two
Republicans stepped up and said that the President's public statement
on not abiding by election returns was terrible.
Who were those two? Senator Mitt Romney, here, the only Republican
Senator I know of. If there were more, I will come back and correct the
record. But I heard him clearly say that what the President said was
intolerable. Then there was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. I
watched that press conference. He wasn't just declarative. He was upset
to think that any President of either party would make that kind of
statement. That is what we are up against.
Two weeks from yesterday, they want to hold a hearing in the Senate
Judiciary Committee on this nominee, Judge Barrett, and they want the
vote before the election, before the argument on the Affordable Care
Act, and before the President faces any possibility of an election
contest.
What a point we have reached in this country. The silence of
Republicans across the Nation is deafening. They ignore the obvious.
You cannot have a viable, trustworthy democracy if you don't have
viable, trustworthy elections, and in order to have that happen, you
need Presidents of both political parties who are committed to
fairness, committed to honesty, and committed to our Constitution.
Sadly, at this moment in time, we do not have a President who is, and
there are too many of his own political party who stand back in the
shadows in silence, recanting on pledges they made 4 years ago, doing
whatever is necessary to win the favor of this President.
I hope another day will come soon with different leadership and a
different view of this country. I am genuinely concerned about what we
face on November 3 and the days that follow, but I have never given up
on America, and I never will. I believe this democracy will prevail,
and I hope that after he is gone, some Republicans will step forward
and say: It is time to create a party not in his image.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Orders for Wednesday, September 30, 2020
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it recess until 12 noon,
Wednesday, September 30; further, that following the prayer and pledge,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume
consideration of H.R. 8337; finally, that all time during recess of the
Senate and leader remarks count postcloture on H.R. 8337.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
____________________