[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 171 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6011-S6015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No.
554, S. 4675.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to proceed.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 4675, a bill to amend the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5602
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak to
one of the most significant issues facing the security of our Nation.
It is a question of domestic terrorism, specifically the threat of
violent White supremacists.
In Tuesday's Presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked
President Trump to condemn White supremacists and rightwing militia.
President Trump refused. Instead, he replied--and I quote--``Proud
Boys, stand back and stand by.''
The Proud Boys, a far-right group that promotes and engages in
violence, viewed President Trump's words as a call to action. The
group's leader Joe Biggs said he took the President's words as a
directive to ``[F] . . . them up.''
I was appalled, but not surprised, by the President's words. He has a
long history of inflammatory, racist remarks. Now, President Trump
claims that violence is a ``left-wing problem, not a right-wing
problem''--his words.
Let me be clear. I join Vice President Biden in condemning all
violence, but we know that White supremacists pose a great threat. An
unclassified May 2017 FBI-DHS joint intelligence bulletin found that
``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent threat of lethal
violence.'' This was a finding by the lead law enforcement agencies of
the Trump administration. They went on to say that White supremacists
were responsible for more homicides from 2000 to 2016 than any other
domestic extremist movement. The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray,
in response to a question I posed in the Senate Judiciary Committee
last year, said that the majority of domestic terrorism arrests
involved White supremacists.
Now, for years, I have urged the Trump administration to respond to
the ongoing threat of violent White supremacists and other far-
rightwing extremists. Instead, they have repeatedly downplayed this
very lethal and real threat.
Attorney General Barr has never responded to the multiple letters I
have sent, asking what the Department of Justice was doing to combat
White supremacist violence.
Unfortunately, as we have learned from former Trump administration
officials themselves, the Trump administration has downplayed the
threat of violent White supremacists. POLITICO recently reported that a
draft homeland threat assessment report from DHS was edited to weaken
language on the threat posed by violent White supremacists. And a DHS
whistleblower alleged that DHS officials, including Ken Cuccinelli,
requested the modification of the report to make the threat of White
supremacists ``appear less severe'' and add information on violent
leftwing groups.
It is not enough to just stand here and condemn the President's
remarks at the infamous debate. The American people sent us to Congress
to act. There is something we can do now. There is something that we
can do that will show we are prepared to respond to this threat to law
and order, to this threat of violent White supremacists.
I am the lead sponsor of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act,
bipartisan legislation that would address the threat of violent White
supremacists and other domestic terrorists.
Our bill would establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the
Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security. It would require these offices to regularly assess the
domestic terrorism threat and focus their limited resources on the most
significant threats. Critically, they would provide training resources
to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement in addressing the
domestic terrorism threat. The House companion to my bill was
introduced by my colleague and friend Congressman Brad Schneider of
Illinois.
Just last week, the House of Representatives passed our bill on a
unanimous voice vote. The Senate should pass it today.
In a few moments, staff will provide me with the language to ask for
a unanimous consent. I am waiting so there is an opportunity for both
sides to discuss the procedure moving forward. In the meantime, several
of my colleagues have asked to come to the floor and address the issue.
I would yield to them for comment or question, through the Chair, with
the hopes that when the procedural language arrives, I might be able to
make the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today on probably one of
the most serious national security issues that we will confront. I say
that as a member of the Armed Services Committee, having received a
variety of classified briefings on threats to this country. Some of
them regarding ongoing foreign interference in our election are truly
chilling. But the threat to our national security from White
supremacists, now operating so openly that the Director of the FBI has
said they are one of the paramount threats and an ongoing security
threat to our Nation, demands that there should be action now.
The bill that my colleague Senator Durbin is offering passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives within recent days. Let me
repeat. It passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. It
reflects the real and urgent danger of this threat.
The President has refused to denounce White supremacists. The
President has told one of the most prominent of those groups to stand
by. That failure--an abject failure on the part of the Commander in
Chief--to respond to an ongoing security threat demands this action
now. We must stand up for the integrity of our elections, the security
of our Nation, and the fundamental freedoms that we prize as American
people.
[[Page S6012]]
We will not allow this cancer to metastasize in this country and
thwart the will of Americans who are going to the polls, in effect,
right now. The ballots are being cast. The threat to our electoral will
is ongoing.
I am proud to join my colleagues who are here on the floor who
represent an ideological spectrum, as did the House of Representatives
in unanimously approving this bill. The paramount threat to our Nation
and the integrity of our elections is White supremacy, violent
extremism, and nationalism that potentially jeopardize the very pillars
of our democracy.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to support the efforts of my
colleagues to bring the unanimous House bill establishing legal
procedures for dealing with White supremacy to the floor of the Senate.
I do so in honor of four Virginians.
In August of 2017, a group called Unite the Right held a White
supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA. They started on a Friday
evening, when Jewish residents of Charlottesville were gathering in
synagogues and when students were coming to the University of Virginia
to start their academic careers. They rampaged through the campus and
community chanting slogans from Nazi rallies like ``Jews will not
replace us'' or ``Blood and soil.''
As if that were not terrorizing enough, on the next day, they
escalated physical attacks against many. Heather Heyer was a
Charlottesville resident and paralegal with an amazing background and
story who was peacefully protesting that day, and a White supremacist
from another State revved his car up, hit her and killed her.
DeAndre Harris was a special education instructional aide in
Charlottesville, and he was set upon by a number of White supremacists
and beaten severely with objects.
There were two Virginia State Troopers, Jay Cullen and Berke Bates,
both of whom I knew. Jay Cullen often flew me in a helicopter when I
was Governor, and I met Berke Bates, the trooper, because he was part
of Governor McCullough's security detail. They were called out on that
day, which would have been a day off. They were called out on that day
because they needed to provide extra security as this White supremacist
rally ran amuck in Charlottesville. On that day, both of them lost
their lives as their helicopter malfunctioned.
I stand on the floor of the Senate thinking of these four
Virginians--two of whom I knew, three of whom lost their lives, and one
who was injured severely in this Unite the Right rally--to say that it
is time we have laws in this country that would enable us to
appropriately deal with the chief source of domestic terrorism. For
that, I thank my colleague.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Durbin for this bill. Thank you for the
colleagues who are on here.
I was struck when Senator Kaine rose in honor of those who died in
Virginia. The list goes on and on. You can go to Emmett Till. You can
go to the four girls, Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Denise
McNair, and Cynthia Wesley. You can go to those who lost their lives in
a church in Charleston, SC. The thing that connects them all is not
just that they died because of the color of their skin, not just
because of the White supremacists who were trying to change the
political dynamic in this country. It is an unbroken stream that goes
back decades and generations. It goes back to the time of the great
original sin of slavery, when White supremacy tried to dominate this
country, and it goes back to a string of unbroken deaths that are
occurring even as we speak.
Hate crimes across this country have proliferated, whether it is not
just White on Black or it is the Tree of Life synagogue. It is so many
things that we have to stop.
The interesting thing to me of what happened this week is that the
day after the Presidential debates when the President of the United
States refused to condemn White supremacy, the Governor of the State of
Alabama, my friend Kay Ivey--Republican Governor of the State of
Alabama--apologized to the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church
bombing that occurred 57 years ago. It was an implicit acknowledgement
that words matter, that statements of public officials have an effect
on people. They give a green light to violence, often even unintended.
This bill Senator Durbin has proposed that passed, as Senator
Blumenthal and others said, unanimously is a statement that we cannot
allow this to continue. It is a statement that we will--as law
enforcement, as citizens, as people in a free country--we will put an
end to this kind of rhetoric and this kind of hate.
Folks, we cannot let this moment pass in this body. The House passed
this bill unanimously and so should the U.S. Senate. We should make a
stand with our colleagues in the House--Republican and Democrat--that
this is an important statement right now because what is unsaid so much
right now is that we see this playing out in this country. We see it
playing out in the streets. And we can talk about it from the right or
the left, and we can talk about it from Republicans or Democrats, but
the fact is, we need to be talking about it in terms of people and
victims--innocent victims. That is what this bill is about--protecting
the lives of all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin,
regardless of their religion, regardless of their political persuasion.
This bill will do that.
Give the FBI the tools necessary. Give the statement from the U.S.
Senate that we will not stand for this. Support this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. I am really grateful, Madam President.
It has been said, and it is quite true, that the only thing necessary
for evil to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing.
Here we are at a time where we know our history. Since 9/11, the
greatest terrorism we have seen in our country, actions from a church
in South Carolina to a synagogue in Pittsburgh, to a Walmart in El
Paso, time and time again, the violence that we have seen and the
greatest terrorist activities since 9/11 have been domestic terrorism--
rightwing extremists, the majority of them White supremacists.
The warnings we are now getting from our intelligence officials,
according to one Judiciary hearing from the Department of Homeland
Security, are that the most significant threat right now to the
security of our country is White supremacy and violent White supremacy.
The FBI has given a number of warnings. We now are heading toward an
election where we are seeing signs of increased activity, increased
hate, increased focus. This body--this good body, friends on both sides
of the aisle--this is not a time where we can do nothing. We must act.
We must take measures and steps to end this kind of violent scourge in
our country.
Obviously, this will not accomplish everything. But in a time like
this, we must do something. I join my colleagues in support of this
legislation. I want to, again, affirm the fact, quite encouraging, that
it passed in a bipartisan manner in the U.S. House of Representatives.
That is so encouraging. We should do the same here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Additional Cosponsor
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Manchin's name be added as a cosponsor to S. 3190.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are asking for unanimous consent to
pass a bill that has passed the House of Representatives unanimously by
a voice vote--unanimously--to empower and direct the law enforcement
agencies of the United States to use their talents and resources to
stop domestic terrorism, to stop the killing. We are identifying, in
the course of it, the White supremacy and far-right extremism as one of
the sources.
Listen to what a Trump administration Department of Justice official
wrote last year in the New York Times:
White supremacy and far-right extremism are among the
greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States.
Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement at the
Federal and State levels have been slow to respond.
[[Page S6013]]
Killings committed by individuals in groups associated with far-right
extremist groups have risen significantly. We are not manufacturing a
crisis. The Trump administration Department of Justice official concurs
with our actions that they are needed.
How did I get involved in this? It goes back to 2012. As chairman of
a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, I held a hearing on the threat of
violent rightwing extremism after a White supremacist murdered six
worshippers at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, WI. Officials from the
Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and FBI--even at that time--
testified about the threat posed by violent domestic extremists.
When President Trump was asked and challenged to condemn this
violence, he refused.
The question is whether the U.S. Senate, now given the same
opportunity, will stand as the House of Representatives has on a
unanimous, bipartisan basis to say ``enough'' when it comes to domestic
terrorism inspired by White supremacy and rightwing extremism.
Let me add that there is nothing in this bill to stop the efforts of
those same agencies to police and stop leftwing extremism--all
extremism. I have no problem in condemning all of it, but we are
focusing on the one that is the most significant in the words of the
Department of Justice.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5602 and that the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just
found out about this bill a couple of hours ago. I have been busy. I
haven't really been able to really research it, and that is part of the
problem with what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do here in
just quickly rushing it through the U.S. Senate. Maybe this has had a
full vetting in the House of Representatives, but here, in the U.S.
Senate, it hasn't gone through any committee process whatsoever.
Unfortunately, I also have to make the point--because I am sure they
are trying to make a political point as opposed to trying to make law
today--that I am opposed to all forms of domestic terrorism, including
White supremacists. I think I speak for all of my Republican
colleagues, and I think I speak for every U.S. Senator: We all abhor
domestic violence and terror, including White supremacists.
Again, I don't have much knowledge about this even though I am
chairman of the committee of jurisdiction of one of the Departments
that would be subject to this piece of legislation. I know that the
Department was not consulted on this piece of legislation. I have been
given notice here that the Department of Justice does not support this
piece of legislation because it says it would seriously impede its
ability to work in the domestic terrorism space. Again, I am not
exactly sure why the Department of Justice does not like this piece of
legislation. Suffice it to say that it doesn't. The Department of
Homeland Security was not even consulted on this. As chairman of the
Homeland Security Committee, I don't know anything about this bill.
This is not the way to pass a serious piece of legislation that deals
with a serious issue. If it is a good piece of legislation, the
sponsors should have no problem running it through the normal committee
of jurisdiction process. In this case, apparently, it is with the
Judiciary Committee, but I would think my committee would also have
some pretty strong equities in this space, not to mention the fact that
I have been working with my ranking member on precisely these types of
issues.
Instead of just trying to make a political point, what I have always
tried to do is get a result and make law, but that has to go through a
thoughtful process that uses the full committee process, which is not
the case here.
So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yes, I am trying to make a political
point, and it should be a bipartisan political point. It should be
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, as there was a unanimous voice
vote in the House of Representatives on that same measure, and I am
sorry my colleague from Wisconsin has left.
The Senate's version of this bill has been pending for 9 months--for
9 months. The House has moved its version of it. It is a timely issue.
Why waste a day in making America safer? Why not tell our law
enforcement agencies: Now, roll up your sleeves. Go to work. Find the
most dangerous things happening in this country, and stop them.
We know one of them is White supremacists and their rightwing
extremism. The President fumbled and couldn't come up with an answer 2
days ago. Today, sadly, from the Republican side, we get an objection
to coming together on a bipartisan basis, as they did in the House, to
address this very real issue. I am troubled by this. It is a sad
moment.
I do believe the Senator from Wisconsin and many others will say they
are against extremism. They had a chance to prove it by passing a
measure here and refused.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. Madam President, I am compelled to talk about this process
that I just heard about.
There is no process, folks. Let's just be candid. This Senate is not
the deliberative process body that the Senator from Wisconsin talked
about. We don't have that. This bill has been pending for 9 months. But
we don't have that. This is not the Senate in which I worked in 1979,
where there was a deliberative attempt. There were debates on the
floor, and there were debates in committee. This is not a process.
Whether it is on the floor of this Senate or whether it is in the media
or wherever else, when someone says that this should go through the
normal process, those processes were killed a long time ago. I have
been in this body for almost 3 years, and we have had only a relatively
handful of amendments on any bill that has come here. We have had
virtually no markups and debates in committees. Those don't exist. This
bill has been pending for 9 months, which is more than adequate time
for the Homeland Security Committee to have taken a look at it, more
than enough time for the Committee on the Judiciary to have taken a
look at it, and more than enough time to have had a hearing on it.
Apparently, our colleagues in the House felt it was OK, but this body
has gotten to be so dysfunctional that, to send a statement, we will
not allow a unanimously passed bill that has been pending in the Senate
of the United States for 9 months to be passed.
There is one thing with which I might disagree a little bit with
Senator Durbin. For me, this is not a political statement. This is a
statement about law enforcement and increasing the ability of law
enforcement. It is a statement to protect victims of crime. That is
what this bill is about for me. I have seen it all too often in my
State and throughout the South. Again, that unbroken string--that is
what I see this bill as.
So I don't need lectures about process when I see a Senate that does
not function but that leapfrogs substantive legislation simply to ram a
Supreme Court nominee through--one that hasn't been pending for very
long, either. This is the kind of thing the Senate needs to be doing
and passing, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for not doing it.
Hopefully, that will change.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I get into the subject of this
pending vote, I do want to thank my colleagues from Illinois and
Connecticut for bringing this important topic before the Senate.
President Trump's refusal to condemn violent White supremacist groups
in the Presidential debate has been around for several days. We have
hardly heard anything out of most of our colleagues, and no one--no
one, no one--is going to buy the argument that it came too suddenly.
White supremacy
[[Page S6014]]
hasn't come too suddenly. The President's remarks have been out there
for several days. It is the flimsiest of excuses to avoid criticizing
the President even when every American of decency--the overwhelming
majority of all Americans--would know he should be condemned.
They don't care if you are a Democrat or a Republican or are liberal
or conservative. You never know how low President Trump can go, but his
refusal to condemn White supremacy is among the lowest things he has
done, and--boy, oh, boy--there are lots of them lined up. I am ashamed
of my Republican colleagues and ashamed--for America, for decency--that
they have chosen to block this
S. 4653
Madam President, now, on another issue of great importance to
America, the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court
has thrust the issue of healthcare back into the spotlight. Her
confirmation to the highest Court in the land could put healthcare for
hundreds of millions of Americans at risk.
As you would imagine, taking away healthcare is deeply unpopular with
the American people. So it seems the strategy from the Republican
majority is to invent some new distraction--a fresh outrage--to talk
about. My colleagues on the other side would rather talk about anything
besides the fact that their President, their party, and their Supreme
Court nominee pose a dire threat to Americans' healthcare.
The outrage from the Republican leader was directed today, once
again, at the idea that the Democrats would attack a nominee's
religious beliefs, but of course, in their zeal to manufacture this
issue, the Republican Senators began telegraphing this line of attack
even before the nominee had been named. One Republican Senator wrote me
a letter to warn against anti-Catholic attacks that hadn't happened yet
against a nominee who had not been named. That is how transparent this
Republican diversion--ruse--is.
It appears the Republican majority will crank up the outrage machine
to any level of absurdity to avoid talking about America's healthcare--
the healthcare that so many Americans desperately want and need. In
fact, all week, the Republican leader has mocked the idea that a far-
right Supreme Court majority might strike down the Affordable Care Act
and that Judge Barrett might play a decisive role. Of course, President
Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who would terminate
the Affordable Care Act, and he picked Judge Barrett. Those are the
President's words. He is only going to pick Justices who would
terminate the Affordable Care Act, and it is no mystery why he picked
Judge Barrett.
In both major cases brought against the ACA, Judge Barrett twice
sided against the law. She publicly criticized Justice Roberts for
upholding the law and said that, if the Supreme Court were to read the
statute the way she does, they would have to ``invalidate it.''
President Trump: ``terminate it.'' Judge Barrett: ``invalidate it.''
Guess what. President Trump and Republican attorneys general are in
court right now, suing to do just that--invalidate our healthcare law
in a case that will be heard 1 week after the election.
The threat to Americans' healthcare is very, very real, and Senate
Republicans are tying themselves in knots in trying to explain how it
is not. Leader McConnell, from the floor of the Senate, called it a
joke--a joke--that Judge Barrett and the far-right majority of the
Court might vote to take away healthcare or to turn back the clock on
women's rights.
Maybe he didn't get that message around to his conference, because
the Republican Senator from Utah, only a few days earlier, claimed that
the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional and that striking it down
shouldn't tarnish Judge Barrett if that is what she chooses to do.
Another Republican Senator said he wanted to see evidence that the
nominee understood that Roe was wrongly decided, that Roe was an act of
judicial imperialism, and I do believe Amy Coney Barrett's record bears
that out. That was his quote.
The junior Senator from Missouri expressed confidence that Judge
Barrett believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. On the Supreme Court,
a Justice Barrett could enforce that view.
So which is it, Republican leader? Is it absurd to think that Judge
Barrett might strike down the Affordable Care Act, or is it a good
thing that shouldn't tarnish her reputation?
Is it a joke that Judge Barrett could curtail women's fundamental
rights, or are Republican Senators relieved to think that she thinks
Roe v. Wade is judicial imperialism?
Americans are starting to get pretty sick of these double standards
and mealy-mouthed talking points--pretty sick of politicians who, just
4 years ago, declared they couldn't possibly confirm a Democratic
nominee to the Supreme Court in the early months of an election year
but are now rushing to confirm a Republican nominee in the middle of an
election that is already underway. Most of all, pretty sick are
Republicans claiming they support protections for Americans with
preexisting conditions while, at the same time, they support a lawsuit
that would eliminate them.
Well, we are about to put a few of these Senate Republicans on the
record. Soon, the Senate will vote on a bill that, if passed, would
protect the healthcare of hundreds of millions of Americans and prevent
efforts by the Department of Justice to advocate that courts strike
down the Affordable Care Act. I was able to move this measure to the
floor despite the fact that Republicans didn't want it, and now we will
have a vote.
Will Republican Senators vote to stop President Trump's Justice
Department from spending taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate the
taxpayers' healthcare? We will see very shortly.
If Senators truly want to support protections for Americans with
preexisting conditions, they would vote to damage President Trump's
legal effort to eliminate them. It is as simple as that.
No amount of sophistry or explanation is needed. Yes or no?
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given a chance to
finish my remarks in the next few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
It is as simple as that. Are they with the people who want protection
or not, or are they standing with President Trump, who wants to destroy
it? It is that simple, because if President Trump and the Republican
lawsuit are successful, every single American stands to lose vital
healthcare protections or access to care. Millions of Americans would
see drug costs skyrocket. Tens of millions of families would lose
healthcare coverage during the worst health crisis in a century. More
than 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions would lose vital
protections, including every American who contracted COVID, which would
be treated as a preexisting condition. Women would see their country
hurtle backward to a time when they could be charged more than men for
insurance simply because they are women.
This vote, which I was fortunate enough to obtain, will show America
which party stands with protecting Americans' healthcare and
protections for preexisting conditions and which party opposes it.
It is plain and simple. Are you with Leader McConnell, who wants to
rip away people's protections? Are you with President Trump, who wants
to wound our American healthcare by eliminating ACA? Are you with the
American people, who desperately need these protections? Are you with
the mother or father whose son or daughter has cancer and the insurance
company says ``You are not getting any insurance,'' or are you going to
require that company to give them the insurance that family so
desperately needs?
The eyes of America are on this body and on Republican Senators right
now. Whose side are you on--President Trump's or the American people
who want healthcare?
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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S6015]]
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Conclusion Of Morning Business
Morning business is closed.
____________________