[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5902-S5906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021 AND OTHER EXTENSIONS ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 8337, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 8337) making continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell Amendment No. 2663, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell Amendment No. 2664, of a perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Saturday the President announced his 
nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ginsburg. 
As the Nation mourns the death of this trailblazing Justice, it is 
fitting that the President chose an outstanding woman to replace her.
  I had the pleasure of sitting down with Judge Amy Coney Barrett 
yesterday, and I can say with confidence that she is everything you 
would want in a Supreme Court Justice.
  She is supremely qualified. Like Justice Ginsburg, Judge Barrett was 
first in her class in law school--in this case, at Notre Dame. She was 
a clerk for DC Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman and then for Supreme 
Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
  She worked at a prestigious law firm and served as a visiting 
professor at the George Washington University Law School before 
accepting a position at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where 
she went on to teach for 15 years.
  During her time at Notre Dame, Judge Barrett built a distinguished 
record. She was published repeatedly in prominent law journals and was 
chosen by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Advisory Committee 
for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She was elected 
Distinguished Professor of the Year by the law school's graduating 
class three times.
  She also served as a visiting associate professor at another 
prominent law school, the University of Virginia School of Law.
  In 2017, she moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit, winning Senate confirmation in a bipartisan vote. During her 
confirmation to the Seventh Circuit, support for Judge Barrett poured 
forth from her students, colleagues, and peers from both side of the 
aisle.
  Every one of the Supreme Court clerks who had served with Judge 
Barrett during her clerkship with Justice Scalia wrote a letter to the 
then-chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee expressing 
their support for her confirmation. This included Justice Ginsburg's 
clerks and other clerks from the liberal wing of the Court.
  Here is what they had to say:

       We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and we 
     have diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, 
     and much else. Yet we all write to support the nomination of 
     Professor Barrett to be a Circuit Judge on the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Professor Barrett 
     is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is 
     eminently qualified for the job.

  Judge Barrett's colleagues from Notre Dame sent a similar letter. 
They said:

       Amy Coney Barrett will be an exceptional federal judge. . . 
     . As a scholarly community, we have a wide range of political 
     views, as well as commitments to different approaches to 
     judicial methodology and judicial craft. We are united, 
     however, in our judgment about Amy. She is a brilliant 
     teacher and scholar, and a warm and generous colleague. She 
     possess in abundance all of the other qualities that shape 
     extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, 
     impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency 
     and humanity.

  That letter was signed by every full-time member of the Notre Dame 
Law School faculty--every full-time member.
  Four hundred seventy Notre Dame Law graduates, former students of 
Judge Barrett, sent a letter as well. Here is what they said:

       Our backgrounds and life experiences are varied and 
     diverse. Our legal practices are as varied as the profession 
     itself. . . . Our religious, cultural, and political views 
     span a wide spectrum. Despite the many and genuine 
     differences among us, we are united in our conviction that 
     Professor Barrett would make an exceptional federal judge.

  They went on:

       We are convinced that Professor Barrett would bring to the 
     federal bench the same intelligence, fairness, decency, 
     generosity, and hard work she has demonstrated at Notre Dame 
     Law School. She will treat each litigant with respect and 
     care, conscious of the reality that judicial decisions 
     greatly affect the lives of those before the court. And she 
     will apply the law faithfully and impartially.

  I could go on for a while here. There are a lot of tributes to Amy 
Coney Barrett out there, like the one in support of her circuit court 
nomination that was joined by former Obama Solicitor General Neal 
Katyal, which praised her ``first-rate'' qualifications and stated that 
she was ``exceptionally well qualified'' or the recent tribute from 
Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, one of the House Democrats' star 
impeachment witnesses, who stated: ``Barrett is highly qualified to 
serve on the Supreme Court.'' But I will stop here because I think it 
is abundantly obvious to everyone--my colleagues across the aisle 
included--that Judge Barrett is supremely qualified to be a Supreme 
Court Justice, which is why Democrats have resorted to scare tactics to 
try to sink her nomination.

  Democrats realize that it is pretty hard to oppose Judge Barrett on 
the merits, and they seem at least somewhat wary of attacking her 
religion, as they did during her confirmation hearing to the Seventh 
Circuit, when multiple Democrats suggested that Judge Barrett was 
unqualified because she happened to be a practicing Catholic. I think 
Democrats may be realizing that their bias against religious people 
doesn't play well with the millions of Americans who take their faith 
seriously.
  They may also be remembering that the Constitution explicitly 
forbids--forbids--religious tests for public office, although I will 
note that that didn't stop one of the Democratic Presidential 
candidate's advisers from saying just this week that she doesn't think 
that orthodox Catholics, Muslims, or Jews should sit on the Supreme 
Court. That is right--in this Biden adviser's world, taking your 
religious faith seriously should disqualify you from sitting on the 
Supreme Court.
  Apparently Democrats still don't think that people of faith are 
capable of upholding the Constitution or discharging the duties of 
their office. But, again, it seems the Democrats realize that offending 
millions of religious Americans may not be their best strategy, so they 
have turned to healthcare scare tactics.
  Judge Barrett, Democrats say, will take away Americans' healthcare if 
she is confirmed to the Supreme Court. It is actually a very old 
Democratic line--something that they always use in their playbook.
  It was deployed, if you can believe this, against Justice Kennedy 
when he was a Supreme Court nominee back in 1986.
  It was deployed against Justice Souter, a Republican nominee, who 
became known for siding with the liberal wing of the Court. There were 
lots of posters at the time that said things like ``Stop Souter or 
women will die.'' ``He will jeopardize the health and lives of 
Americans,'' it was said by the left at the time.
  It was deployed against Justice Roberts--the very same man who cast 
the deciding vote upholding the Affordable Care Act--when he was Chief 
Justice on the Supreme Court. They said at the time that there would 
literally be millions of American consumers and families at risk of 
losing their coverage. That statement was made by a Member of the 
current leadership here in the U.S. Senate about Chief Justice Roberts.
  Now it is being deployed against Judge Barrett in an attempt to 
derail her nomination, while promulgating one of the liberals' favorite 
myths--that Republicans are eagerly waiting to rip away Americans' 
healthcare.
  Democrats are particularly focused on suggesting that Republicans 
would like to take away protections for preexisting conditions, despite 
the fact, I might add, that every single Senate Republican supports 
protecting people with preexisting conditions--every single Senate 
Republican. In fact, just a

[[Page S5903]]

few weeks ago, Republicans included language affirming protections for 
those with preexisting conditions in our COVID relief bill--a bill that 
Democrats filibustered.
  It is both ridiculous and offensive to suggest that Judge Barrett, 
the mom of seven children--more than one of whom has faced medical 
challenges--is out to eliminate Americans' healthcare.
  The truth is, we have no idea how Judge Barrett would vote on any 
particular healthcare case, just as we have no idea how any Supreme 
Court Justice will vote on any particular healthcare case. How could 
we? How could we? Each case is unique, with unique legal and 
constitutional issues. What we can say with certainty about Judge 
Barrett is that she will carefully consider each case. She will 
consider the facts of the case, the law, and the Constitution, and she 
will rule based on those things regardless of her personal feelings or 
beliefs.
  As Judge Barrett noted in her speech accepting the President's 
nomination, ``A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not 
policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy 
views that they might hold.'' That is the kind of Justice that Judge 
Barrett would be, and that is the kind of Justice that all of us, 
Democrat or Republican, should want--someone who will protect the 
principles of justice and equality under the law by judging according 
to the law and the Constitution and nothing else; someone who will 
leave her personal beliefs at the courtroom door; someone who will, as 
Judge Barrett said last week, quoting the judicial oath, ``administer 
justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and 
rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the 
United States.''
  One of the reasons I ran for the Senate was to help put judges like 
Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. I commend the President for his 
outstanding choice, and I look forward to supporting her nomination as 
the Senate moves forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Supreme Court Nominations

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night former Vice President Biden 
refused to rule out packing the Court if the President and the Senate 
proceed to fulfilling their constitutional duties and filling the High 
Court vacancy.
  I understand there are differences of opinion on the direction of the 
Court, but threatening to expand the Court and pack it with favorable 
Justices just because the other side won fair and square and simply 
followed the Constitution does not meet the commonsense test.
  This is dangerous territory and leads to an erosion of public faith 
in the judiciary. Where would such a path lead us? Thirteen Justices? 
Maybe 21 Justices? At what point does it stop?
  I thought we settled this under FDR, way back in 1937-1938. It is 
telling that Democrats are not trying to justify their discussion of 
Court packing by saying there is some practical reason why it is 
needed.
  In fact, the Supreme Court is hearing fewer cases than ever. Any 
Democratic Court-packing plan would be nothing more than a naked power 
grab, an effort by Democrats to subvert the will of the people when 
they couldn't get the results they wanted at the ballot box that would 
have let their party pick and confirm judges.
  Let's try to remain focused on the political independence of the 
judiciary and leave politicking to this branch of government--the 
legislative branch.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The assistant Democratic leader 
is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa who just spoke is my 
friend. We have worked on things together. We, occasionally, don't see 
eye-to-eye on issues. I certainly don't see eye-to-eye with him on what 
he just said on the floor of the Senate. It would be credible if, 4 
years ago, exactly the opposite result had not been produced by the 
Republican majority. Remember, 4 years ago, Antonin Scalia's untimely 
death on a hunting trip, and there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, 
in February, if I remember correctly? There was the question as to 
whether the incumbent President, duly elected, of the United States of 
America, Barack Obama, would be able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy?
  But, no, the Republicans insisted that was unacceptable--unacceptable 
for this lame duck President with only a year left in his term to fill 
the vacancy on the Supreme Court. No, they had a more constitutional 
idea. Their constitutional idea was to delay filling the vacancy on the 
Supreme Court until the American people spoke in an election in 
November of the same year.
  So when President Obama sent his nominee, Merrick Garland, eminently 
qualified, to be considered by the Senate, Senator McConnell instructed 
his membership: We are not only going to refuse him a hearing; I am 
going to refuse him even a meeting in my office. I will not dignify--
will not dignify--the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme 
Court vacancy, because--Senator McConnell told us in his golden rule--
the American people have to speak in the election about the next 
President, who will then fill the vacancy.
  That was the hard and fast rule that every Republican Senator swore 
allegiance to on the floor of the Senate, before the microphones and 
cameras, and said: That is the way it is going to be. It may be rude. 
It may be crude to even ignore this man who is eminently qualified to 
be the nominee of President Barack Obama, but that is the way it is 
going to be, because we are so committed to the Constitution that we 
will not fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court until after the 
election.
  And then came the epiphany--a vacancy on the Supreme Court with a 
Republican President, Donald Trump, occurring in the last year of his 
Presidency in his first term--maybe his only term--and the decision 
then by Senator McConnell in the name of the Constitution to completely 
reverse himself and to say: We will not fill the vacancy in the way we 
did 4 years ago. We will fill it the way we want to fill it now, and 
the way we want to fill it now is immediately, on a quicker timetable 
than virtually any person who has been appointed to the Supreme Court 
for a lifetime appointment, the highest Court in the land.
  There was a time, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that 
after hearing the nominee's name you waited for the reports. Many of 
them would come to you, talking about the biography of the nominee, the 
background of the nominee, the writings, the speeches, the articles, 
and, if they were judges, their judicial opinions. We would carefully 
study those and be prepared when it came time for a hearing.
  Not in this situation, no way--Senator McConnell wants this done and 
done now. He clearly has doubts in his own mind as to whether this 
President can be reelected, and he is not going to waste his time. He 
is going to make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee acts before the 
election on November 3. The hard and fast principle of 4 years ago has 
disappeared with President Trump.
  I have watched Republican Senator after Republican Senator, with only 
two exceptions, march before the camera and look at their shoes and 
say: I changed my mind. We are going to fill this vacancy now. Because 
of the Constitution? No, because politically it helps us.
  Why the hurry? Why before November 3? Why wouldn't they at least wait 
until the end of November?
  No, the hurry is obvious, because on November 10, the U.S. Supreme 
Court will have oral arguments on whether or not the Affordable Care 
Act will be eliminated. You see, Republican attorneys general, as well 
as this administration, have decided they want to do away with it. They 
want it to go away.
  When they are asked very simple questions: How will people be 
affected? They shrug their shoulders.
  Well, I will tell you how. Twenty million Americans will lose their 
health insurance if the Supreme Court abolishes the Affordable Care 
Act, and nearly every American will lose the protections it gives for 
people with preexisting conditions. The President said--and he said 
again last night, in what some characterized as a debate,

[[Page S5904]]

and what I characterize as a free-for-all--the President said: Well, we 
have a substitute plan.
  Really, Mr. President? Where would that be? I haven't seen it--not on 
the floor of the Senate, not in the newspapers, not in the press 
releases.
  There is no substitute plan. That is why 3 years ago Senator McCain 
came to the floor and said he would not join the Republicans in killing 
the Affordable Care Act, because there was no substitute. It would 
leave too many Americans without the protection of health insurance.

  Well, that is going to be argued in the Supreme Court on November 10, 
and by tradition, a Supreme Court Justice cannot vote come next spring 
on the fate of this lawsuit if they didn't sit in on the oral argument. 
So there is a mad dash--a mad dash--by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
to bring up the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett from Notre Dame 
University Law School. They want it done before November 3 so she can 
sit in on the decision--or at least on the oral argument and then the 
decision--in this case, California v. Texas.
  That is what it is all about. It is all about 600,000 people in the 
State of Illinois--600,000--who rely on the Affordable Care Act to get 
their health insurance. It is all about a law that eliminated the 
number of uninsured in my State by 50 percent. It is all about a 
protection that we all take for granted that says insurance companies 
cannot discriminate against us because of preexisting conditions. That 
is what it is all about.
  Over 50 votes on the floor of the House of Representatives by the 
Republican majority to end this Affordable Care Act couldn't get the 
job done. A last minute scramble on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 
2017 couldn't get the job done. Senator McConnell is going to get it 
done. He is going to get it done by pushing through a nominee before 
November 10 who can vote to eliminate this Affordable Care Act.
  How do I know that this Supreme Court nominee is going to eliminate 
the Affordable Care Act? Because she wrote it down. She wrote down her 
opinion as to whether or not this was constitutional. She has already 
let us know, and she obviously let President Trump know, and that is 
why he named her.
  And there is one other reason. You see, this President, for the first 
time in the history of the United States of America, will not pledge if 
he will accept the results of this election on November 3. It is the 
first time it has ever, ever happened in our history, and it is a 
constitutional outrage.
  I commend the Presiding Officer, the only Republican Senator on the 
floor who has spoken out against it, that I know of. Others should have 
joined him. The Governor of Massachusetts, a Republican, joined him, 
saying it is the wrong thing to say, the wrong thing to do, and both 
parties should condemn it when either a Presidential candidate or an 
incoming President says it.
  But this President is pretty obvious. He wants to fill that Supreme 
Court vacancy because he says: There may be an election contest after 
November 3; I want 9 people on the Court.
  What he didn't say, which is obvious, is that he wants that ninth 
person to be his nominee. So that is what we face with this situation 
and what we have ahead of us in the next week and a half.


                          Presidential Debate

  Mr. President, I watched what was supposedly called a debate last 
night. It was painful. It was painful as this President showed so 
little respect when it came to the rules of the debate.
  Chris Wallace, the FOX Television newsman who moderated was beside 
himself. He didn't know how to get the President to stop interrupting, 
to follow the rules of the debate. This President doesn't follow 
anybody's rules but his own. That was very obvious last night.
  There was one moment, though, that I want to highlight. It was a 
moment when Chris Wallace basically said: Will both of you, the 
Democrat, Biden, and the Republican, President Trump--both of you--
condemn violence, White nationalism, and White supremacists? Well, 
Biden did. Biden said: There is no place for violence in the name of 
political protests--none. Unequivocal.
  Then came the turn of the President, who, if you remember, had 
difficulty parsing out the good guys and bad guys in Charlottesville--
those who went down to Charlottesville to march for civil rights and 
those who went down to march, frankly, chanting what was used during 
the time of the German rise of Nazism, their anti-Semitic chant. They 
grabbed their torches and marched. When asked later, President Trump 
struggled with it and said that there were good folks on both sides, 
the White nationalist side, as well as those for civil rights. That was 
an outrage. Last night, Chris Wallace served up an opportunity for the 
President to clear it up.
  I came to the floor today to speak about the President's response, to 
speak also about the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing 
our Nation today: the threat of violent White supremacists. Like most 
Americans, I was stunned by the President's refusal last night to 
condemn White supremacists during the course of last night's 
Presidential debate.
  Moderator Chris Wallace gave President Trump an uninterrupted 
opportunity to condemn the Nation's biggest domestic terrorist group, 
White supremacists. Instead, Trump said, and I quote: They should 
``stand back and stand by.'' ``Stand back and stand by.''
  Trump's comments were quickly embraced by the Proud Boys, an alt-
right self-described, ``western chauvinist'' group that clearly heard 
it as a call to action. The group immediately turned the President's 
words in the debate into a logo that has been widely circulated on 
social media.
  From the rightwing social media site--which I am not going to name 
because I don't want to give any publicity to it, but I will put it in 
the Record--Proud Boys leader Joe Biggs said he took Trump's words as a 
directive to ``[F] . . . them up.''
  For years now, in letters, briefings, and hearings, I have repeatedly 
urged the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
and the Department of Homeland Security to take a strong stand against 
the ongoing threat of violent White supremacy and other far rightwing 
extremists. Unfortunately, instead of following up with a 
comprehensive, coordinated effort--to no surprise--the Trump 
administration has repeatedly chosen to downplay this deadly threat--a 
law-and-order President who looks the other way, winks, nods, and says 
``stand by'' to militia groups and White supremacists.
  Last year, several of us wrote to Attorney General Barr and FBI 
Director Wray to inquire about the Trump administration's inexplicable, 
irresponsible decision to stop tracking White supremacist incidents as 
a separate category of domestic terrorism. The Trump administration has 
yet to respond to our many letters asking what the Department of 
Justice and the FBI are doing to combat the ongoing threat of White 
supremacist violence targeting religious minorities and communities of 
color.
  Since then, our concern has obviously grown. Instead of focusing on 
the significant threat of domestic terrorism motivated by White 
supremacy and far-rightwing extremism, terrorists have killed more than 
100 Americans since 9/11. President Trump claims, as he did last night, 
that violence is a ``left-wing problem, not a right-wing problem.''
  Let me tell you, we should condemn violence on both wings and 
everything in between. I join Vice President Biden in condemning all 
violence, including the alleged murder of a Federal Protective Service 
officer in Oakland, CA, by a rightwing ``Boogaloo'' extremist, and the 
alleged murder of two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, WI, by 
an Illinois teenager who reportedly considered himself to be a member 
of a militia--17 years old.
  Unfortunately, as we have learned from former Trump administration 
officials, the Trump administration has downplayed the threat of 
violent White supremacy and other far rightwing domestic terrorists.
  POLITICO recently reported that a draft homeland threat assessment 
report from DHS was edited and changed by the Trump administration to 
weaken language discussing the particular threat posed by violent White 
supremacists. The Trump boys don't want to talk about it.
  Shortly thereafter, a DHS whistleblower alleged that DHS officials, 
including Ken Cuccinelli, requested the modification of the homeland 
threat

[[Page S5905]]

assessment report to make the threat of White supremacists ``appear 
less severe'' and add information on violent ``leftwing groups.''
  The efforts of officials within the Trump administration to obscure 
this threat posed by violent White supremacists and other far-rightwing 
extremists are misguided and dangerous. We know the significance of 
this threat.
  An unclassified May 2017 FBI-DHS joint intelligence bulletin found 
that ``White supremacist extremism poses a persistent threat of lethal 
violence'' and that White supremacists were responsible for more 
homicides from 2000 to 2016 than any other domestic extremist group. 
FBI Director Wray admitted, when questioned before a Senate Judiciary 
Committee at a hearing last year, that the majority of domestic 
terrorism threats in America involve White supremacists.
  Thankfully, there is something in the Senate we can do to respond to 
this threat. I have introduced the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, a 
bill that would enhance the Federal Government's efforts to prevent 
domestic terrorism by requiring Federal law enforcement agencies to 
regularly assess domestic terrorism threats, focus their limited 
resources on the most significant domestic terrorism threat, and 
provide training and resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law 
enforcement.
  Good news: Last week, the House of Representatives passed the House 
companion to my bill on a unanimous voice vote. The Democrats and 
Republicans all agreed. Senator McConnell has a chance take it up. Are 
we going to stand together, as the House did, on a bipartisan basis, 
condemning White supremacists who resort to violence and terrorism or 
are we going to say to them: Stand back and stand by?
  It is time for us to step up together on a bipartisan basis. Condemn 
violent conduct on both political spectrums--on the right, on the left, 
and everything in between. You can use our Constitution responsibly. 
You don't have to resort to violence. You don't have to resort to 
vandalism or looting, the use of guns and threats, or the killing of 
innocent people. It is never ever acceptable, right or left.
  The dominant group, when it comes to this activity, is White 
supremacists. Our opportunity now to keep track of them and their 
activities is before us. All it takes is for Senator McConnell to agree 
to take up this unanimously passed bill from the House of 
Representatives and to say to President Trump, once and for all, join 
us in condemning all violence across the political spectrum.
  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.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                               Healthcare

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is typical during an election season 
to hear Democrats try to scare people into believing that Republicans 
want to destroy programs that Americans rely on for their health and 
security. We have recently heard this on Medicare and Social Security. 
Now there is a new subject to add: health insurance. The programs are 
different, but the scenarios are the same.
  The Democrats concoct a story, attribute it to the President and to 
Republican Members of Congress, and then turn to their allies to 
amplify this false narrative. What really stands out this election 
season is how those all-too-familiar scare tactics directly contradict 
the message coming from the Presidential nominee of the Democratic 
Party.
  Vice President Biden says he is for hope, not fear. His actions and 
those of his party show just the opposite. So let's start with the 
Democrats' efforts to pin Medicare's financial struggles on 
Republicans. The facts tell a much different story.
  Republicans have fought for decades, often in the face of Democratic 
resistance, to keep Medicare strong not only for current enrollees but 
for their children and grandchildren. For instance, in 1995, President 
Clinton vetoed Republican efforts to keep Medicare on sound financial 
footing.
  Faced with the prospect that the Medicare hospital insurance trust 
fund was going broke in just a few years, back then, Republicans still 
pressed on. It was the work of a Republican House of Representatives 
and a Republican Senate that ultimately convinced President Clinton to 
sign the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act of 1997 extended the 
life of the health insurance trust fund, but it was not a silver bullet 
to solve the Medicare Program's long-term financial challenges.
  For many years, spanning both Democratic and Republican 
administrations, the Medicare trustees have cautioned that the 
program's financial shortfalls require further legislative action. The 
trustees reported repeatedly--advised Congress to enact such 
legislation sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on 
beneficiaries, healthcare providers, and taxpayers.
  Republicans know how important Medicare is to the over 60 million 
Americans who rely on the program for their healthcare, but we also 
realize that Medicare is on an unsustainable course. I have already 
said that we need to work in a bipartisan way to protect Medicare, 
particularly here in the U.S. Senate, where it takes 60 votes to get 
anything done. That work requires an honest assessment and a very 
serious discussion.
  Sadly, it seems that Democrats are only willing to take their heads 
out of the sand long enough to point fingers. So let's set the record 
straight. Earlier this year, the trustees of Medicare projected that 
that program would be bankrupt in 2026. Then, of course, we have this 
unprecedented public health emergency to deal with, the pandemic, as we 
always call it, which dealt a crippling blow to our Nation. The 
sacrifices and efforts made to stop the spread of the coronavirus 
effectively shut down the U.S. economy and altered life as we all know 
it.
  Congress stepped in to provide Federal relief. The COVID response 
bills were passed on an overwhelming bipartisan majority, specifically 
the CARES Act--better known as the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic 
Security Act--passed the House by a vote of 419 to 6, and the U.S. 
Senate, 96 to 0.
  CARES gives extra Medicare funding to hospitals and other healthcare 
providers to keep them in business in the face of an unexpected drop in 
demand for medical services. Additionally, because of Medicare Part A, 
as financed by payroll taxes that are split between employers and 
employees, unemployment caused by the pandemic has resulted in less 
money coming into the trust fund. So it, then, is not surprising that 
the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this month that the 
Medicare trust fund could run out of money in 2024, 2 years earlier 
than the Medicare trustees had projected, without taking into account 
the impact of COVID because they didn't know about it and couldn't take 
that into consideration.
  It is important to note that during the Trump Presidency and prior to 
the pandemic, the projected insolvency date of the Medicare health 
insurance trust fund remained pretty steady. No one could have 
anticipated this current crisis.
  Instead of taking it as a reminder of the need to shore up Medicare 
for the long haul, Democrats have opted to create a false narrative 
that the current administration is the problem. Every recent President, 
Republican and Democratic, has offered Medicare reform ideas in budget 
requests submitted to the Congress. Many of those budgets contained 
identical policy ideas, whether from a Republican President or a 
Democratic President.
  Putting aside that Congress, and not the President, makes laws, the 
notion that proposals aimed at making Medicare more efficient is 
equivalent to sabotaging the program is absurd. Yet, whenever a 
Republican occupies the White House, we repeatedly hear from Democrats 
that proposals for program integrity represent cuts or efforts to 
weaken or destroy Medicare, even when some of those same proposals were 
put forward by Democratic administrations.
  Because Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy, the greatest threat, 
then, is what often happens around here--inaction. Over the past 
decade, Democrats not only stood firmly in the way of meaningful 
Medicare reform, but they actually made the problem worse.

[[Page S5906]]

Rather than confront the looming crisis in 2009, President Obama, Vice 
President Biden, and Washington Democrats raided more than $700 billion 
from the Medicare Program. They didn't do it to save Medicare; they cut 
money from a financially strapped Medicare Program and then spent that 
money on a brandnew entitlement program called ObamaCare. It was the 
Democrats who pushed ObamaCare through Congress without a single 
Republican vote.
  And what do Democrats want to do if they find their way back into 
power? They want to enact something called Medicare for All. Moving the 
180 million Americans with private, employer-based insurance to the 
Medicare rolls would cause Federal spending to balloon to unthinkable 
levels.
  An analysis conducted by the Mercatus Center in 2018 found that 
Medicare for All would increase Federal spending by $32 trillion over 
the next 10-year period. This Democratic plan would also give the 
Federal Government more control over healthcare, impose massive tax 
increases on the middle class, and disrupt access to services. That is 
why Democrats would rather mischaracterize the unavoidable impact of 
COVID and demonize Medicare budget proposals that are often bipartisan 
in nature.
  Democrats used the very same dirty tricks related to Social Security, 
as I just talked about with Medicare. Some across the aisle recently 
concocted a hypothetical proposal that eliminates the funding source 
for Social Security and asked the program's Chief Actuary to assess its 
impact.
  This was an obvious attempt to alarm seniors and disabled Americans 
with the ultimate intent of smearing Republicans and feeding false 
talking points to a Democratic candidate for President. Even when their 
schemes and false talking points earned four Pinocchios from even the 
Washington Post, Democrats still proceed full speed ahead with their 
misinformation campaign. And even though Ways and Means Committee 
Ranking Member Brady and I got the Social Security Actuary to affirm 
the Democrat's recent scheme was just a bunch of malarkey, the 
Democrats and Candidate Biden continue with this misinformation.
  Again, Democrats use scare tactics in the runup to an election. While 
they accuse Republicans of wanting to destroy Social Security, Senate 
Democrats do little or nothing to work in a bipartisan way to help this 
program. Remember, in 2015, when the disability insurance trust fund 
was going to run dry, Senate Democrats demanded that the only thing 
that you could possibly do was to take from the retirement trust fund 
and then just simply kick the can down the road.
  Senate Democrats had no interest in working with us to at least try 
to make the disability insurance program better for beneficiaries. 
Instead, Senate Republicans worked with the House and Obama 
administration to prevent disability security trust fund exhaustion and 
even to improve the program.
  There was no privatization of anything, and the only thing that could 
be construed as a benefit cut came directly from President Obama.
  You will not hear anything about that from these Senate Democrats. 
Instead, they just bring out their stale talking points and, of course, 
scare tactics about Republicans trying to destroy the program. Now they 
are applying the same wornout, baseless scare tactics to this Supreme 
Court confirmation process.
  Democrats want to make the President's nomination to fill the vacancy 
all about ObamaCare and the case the Court will consider this fall.
  Going to the minority leader's own words when it comes to Judge 
Barrett's confirmation hearing, he said: ``We must focus like a laser 
on health care.'' The left is misrepresenting an article by then-
Professor Barrett in hopes of finding something--almost anything--to 
gum up this confirmation process. It seems to me they are just 
frustrated this nominee had the audacity to suggest judges interpret 
law as written.
  There is an old saying in the legal profession: If the law isn't on 
your side, pound the facts. If the facts aren't on your side, pound the 
law. If neither fact or law is on your side, just pound the table.
  That is what we see yet again from our Democratic colleagues. It is 
ludicrous to pick one pending case and predict how every member of the 
Court, including one just starting the confirmation process, would vote 
on that case, especially when entirely different legal issues are at 
stake. Frankly, it is a disservice to the American people.
  The Democrats know this, but that will not stop them. It will not 
stop them from trying to mislead hard-working Americans into believing 
that their healthcare coverage could disappear tomorrow.
  It is also just the latest example of how many Democrats in Congress 
view the Supreme Court--just somehow another policy end that they can't 
accomplish through this branch of government, where we are now. That is 
not the role of the Court. I am sure Judge Barrett will reiterate that 
point before the Judiciary Committee.
  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case mid-November, 
and there are countless scenarios on a potential outcome. So is it is 
useless, then, to speculate. But that will not stop the Democrats from 
speculating during this process of Judge Barrett's nomination.
  The bottom line is, no matter the decision, no one will lose 
healthcare coverage on the day the Supreme Court issues its ruling.
  In the meantime, Republicans will continue to protect individuals 
with preexisting conditions and fight to give Americans more affordable 
healthcare options.
  The President reaffirmed that very thing in his commitment in an 
Executive order that he signed last week. That Executive order states 
that it has been, and will continue to be, the policy of the United 
States to assure that Americans with preexisting conditions can obtain 
insurance of their choice at an affordable price.
  The Democrats don't want to stop at ObamaCare. What they really want 
to do is impose their government-run Medicare for All Program and take 
away people's private insurance plans that they like--because 160 
million people have it.
  As I mentioned earlier, this one-size-fits-all approach would take 
away people's private insurance, result in worse care, and bankrupt the 
country.
  Republicans want to strengthen Medicare, preserve Social Security, 
and ensure affordable private coverage options now as well as in the 
future. Democrats want to mislead now in hopes of future political 
gains.
  Americans deserve better. We can do better.
  Vice President Biden and his party should stop their shameful 
election-year scare tactics. They should end the malarkey.
  It is time to have the courage to engage in an honest, civil 
conversation about bipartisan ideas to improve these health and 
security programs for millions of people who depend on them.

                          ____________________