[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6420-S6427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just heard the Republican leader say 
there is no inconsistency between what the Republicans are doing now 
with Amy Coney Barrett's nomination and what they did with Merrick 
Garland in 2016. Who would believe that? The contradiction is glaring. 
The contradiction will be a stain on the leader's forehead and on the 
entire Republican caucus if it continues.
  We just heard another warped, distorted, and convoluted history 
lesson from Leader McConnell. We know how defensive he is about the 
blatant, 180-degree, hypocritical turn he has made on Supreme Court 
nominations, but a distorted, warped history lesson will not remove the 
stain.
  Only one thing will, Leader McConnell: Withdraw the nomination of Amy 
Coney Barrett until after the election, plain and simple.
  Now we meet here in a rare Saturday session because there is 
nothing--nothing--remotely normal about the Republicans' drive to 
confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court only days before a 
Presidential election.
  Four years ago, the entire Republican Senate said it was a 
principle--that was their word, ``principle''--that Supreme Court 
Justices should not be confirmed in Presidential election years. Leader 
McConnell said: ``The American people [deserve a choice] in the 
selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.'' That is the principle 
they insisted the Senate must follow, and they declared that this 
principle bound the Senate not to consider the nomination of Judge 
Garland even though it was 8 months before the Presidential election of 
2016.
  Well, here we are today, just a few days from another Presidential 
election. More than 50 million Americans have already voted, and that 
number will only increase between today and Monday--the date of Judge 
Barrett's confirmation vote. Americans are waiting in line now, 
patiently, at early voting locations around the country, to cast their 
ballots in Arizona and North Carolina, in Maine and Colorado, in Iowa 
and Kansas, in Georgia, Alaska, and Kentucky, in 26 States where early 
voting centers are open and in another 15 States where early votes can 
be dropped off at election offices.
  In my home State of New York, where today marks the first day of 
early voting, it may look a little different this year. The lines are 
longer, not just because of enthusiasm but also because they are more 
socially distant. Everyone should be wearing a mask. But as we speak, 
millions of Americans are using their voices to say who they want to 
have select Supreme Court Justices.
  At the same time, when the Republican majority in the Senate is 
ramming through the lifetime appointment of a Justice who will make 
hugely impactful decisions about their lives and freedom, Leader 
McConnell has the temerity to say there is no contradiction between 
Merrick Garland and how they treated him and Amy Coney Barrett and how 
they are treating her. Give me a break. Our colleagues are saying to 
the American people: You get no say. You get no choice.
  Four years ago, when a Democratic President nominated a Justice, the 
Republicans professed to care about giving the American people a 
voice--not so now, not when a Republican-nominated Justice is on the 
line, not when their own political power is at stake.

[[Page S6421]]

What became of that high-minded principle the Republican Senators 
embraced so fervently in somber tones? Just 4 years ago, Leader 
McConnell and they told the Nation that the Senate must heed the voices 
of the American people when they vote. Where on Earth did that 
principle go? What principles govern their current mad rush to confirm 
another Trump Justice 8 days before this Presidential election?
  If this process has revealed anything, it is that the supposed 
Republican principle was a farce--no principle at all and never was. It 
was a naked, opportunistic, transparent, cynical, last-ditch grab for 
power. Of course, it is the continuation of their shameful, lockstep 
subservience to President Trump--the most unprincipled President in 
American history. This will go down as the most partisan, most 
hypocritical, and least legitimate Supreme Court nomination in our 
Nation's history.
  Once again, Leader McConnell, when you talk about history--a 
distorted, one-sided view, that is all you give--it doesn't erase what 
you have done. It stares the American people in the face. They know it. 
We know it. We all know it, and history will know it.
  It is a very dark moment for the Senate, and I am ashamed that the 
Republicans are going along with this. This, again, will be the most 
partisan, most hypocritical, and least legitimate Supreme Court 
confirmation in our Nation's history


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 925

  Mr. President, now let's look at the status of our country. It is 
even less justified in light of that.
  We had a record number of COVID infections yesterday. Let me repeat--
a record number. Are Senate Republicans doing anything about that? No. 
This is not a regional crisis like before. These spikes are now 
widespread, across the whole country, putting all of our Nation at 
risk. In fact, in per capita terms, I believe North and South Dakota 
have the highest in the Nation. I read this morning that beds are 
running out, and we are not doing a thing.
  In the past month, there has been a 35-percent increase in the number 
of Americans hospitalized with COVID. COVID is now the third leading 
cause of death in the United States. In countries like Germany and 
Japan and Australia, COVID isn't close to being in the top 10. Experts 
like Dr. Fauci are predicting, unfortunately, or projecting that we 
could hit 400,000 American deaths this year and that the darkest and 
worst days of this pandemic, unfortunately, are ahead of us, not behind 
us.
  The next huge wave of this pandemic is not looming; it is here. We 
cannot afford to wait, but are the Republicans doing anything about it? 
No. There are tens of millions of Americans out of work, and businesses 
are failing every day. Are Senate Republicans doing anything about 
that? No. There are foreign powers, particularly Russia, trying to 
undermine our elections. Are the Republicans doing anything about that? 
No. They are too focused on implementing their deeply unpopular agenda 
through the courts because they know they could never get it through 
the Senate. Most of them wouldn't even vote for it.
  Today, we are going to give the Republican majority in the Senate the 
opportunity to consider critical legislation that has, so far, 
languished in Leader McConnell's legislative graveyard. Many bills that 
are just sitting here, awaiting action, that were passed in the House--
many with bipartisan support--are waiting for Senate action. We should 
be doing that, not rushing through this nomination while people are 
voting and wanting their choices to be listened to, not the Republican 
Senate's choice.
  So we are going to start with comprehensive legislation that 
addresses the most serious problems facing America right now, the 
Heroes Act, which would deliver urgent and necessary relief to the 
Nation and to the people who are suffering. The Heroes Act would have a 
comprehensive regime for testing and tracing of $75 billion--the money 
that is needed but that this administration never gave. In fact, there 
is $9 billion sitting there from what we approved months ago in the 
CARES Act that they have not even given out yet, so incompetent are 
they.
  I saw Donald Trump in the debate. He said: Oh, it will go away. He 
has been saying that since January. That is why people know he is an 
incompetent President during the most difficult of times. Yet he still 
says it.
  We need that money. We need money to open up our schools safely and 
soundly. That takes extra money. The school districts can't afford it. 
We need ventilation, more buses, PPE, oftentimes more teachers, 
hotspots so that people can get Wi-Fi when they don't have it in their 
own homes, and so much more.
  We need money to prevent people from being evicted from their houses. 
They have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they are 
getting kicked out either as a renter or as a mortgagor. The Heroes Act 
deals with that.
  We need money to help our small businesses--and not just a few. The 
restaurants, stages and venues, broadcasters and newspapers, nonprofits 
and rural hospitals--all left out of the Republicans' proposal--are in 
the Heroes bill.
  There is money for unemployment. The $600 pandemic unemployment kept 
10 million people out of poverty. It has pumped money into the economy 
as well as given people who are not wealthy at all an ability to get 
by. That is in the Heroes bill, and there is so much more.
  There is money to make sure our elections are guarded and safe. There 
are provisions that allow for the census to be counted in a fair way.
  All of that is in the Heroes bill. The American people so much want 
us to pass it, but Leader McConnell will not even put it on the floor 
for a debate.
  If Leader McConnell and his Republican majority had an ounce of 
concern for average American families, they would halt this sham 
Supreme Court process and join us in taking up the critical pieces of 
legislation which my colleagues and I will be putting on the floor all 
afternoon. In each case, we are not asking the Senate to pass it; we 
are simply asking to debate it. We are asking them to overrule Leader 
McConnell and put these bills on the floor and let there be a debate 
and let there be amendments. That is all we ask during the most 
desperate--desperate--of times.
  All we ask is for the ability to debate something that really matters 
to the American people instead of rushing through a judge, a Supreme 
Court nominee, when the American people want the decision to be made by 
them, not by Republican Senators, not when her views on key issues only 
represent an extreme minority of the American people.
  Mr. President, in order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 925, 
Heroes 2, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the minority 
leader is requesting to move to legislation after having repeatedly, 
this week, requested and asked for votes to adjourn multiple times--
leave town. Now, all of a sudden, he wants to legislate.
  I think there is a serious question about the sincerity of the 
minority leader's request here. And, frankly, to his point, the U.S. 
Senate has now twice--and most recently this week, on Tuesday--Tuesday 
this week--voted on legislation that would do all the things that he 
says that he wants to do: Help people who are unemployed; we voted on a 
bill that had unemployment insurance for people who are unemployed. 
Help small businesses; we had a bipartisan agreement on the Paycheck 
Protection Program to provide assistance to small businesses, and that 
was blocked by the Democrats earlier this week. It had money in there, 
resources on a bipartisan, agreed-upon objective, and that is more 
money, more resources, for schools and universities to open safely--
$100 billion in there for schools to open safely. They blocked it. They 
objected.
  It had money in there for farmers, something that is important to the 
Presiding Officer and to me as well. They blocked it.
  It had money in there for the Postal Service, something that his side 
has been saying repeatedly we need to address. They blocked it. We had 
that vote this week.
  We have taken up legislation exactly along the lines of what the 
Democratic

[[Page S6422]]

leader is asking for, and they have consistently blocked it.
  And then to say: Well, let's adjourn; we have had multiple votes on 
adjourning. This isn't serious, and he knows it. This is all about 
politics. This is a bogus issue to detract the Senate from the work at 
hand, which is to confirm a well-qualified judge to the Supreme Court, 
who had a ``well qualified'' recommendation from the American Bar 
Association, which the Democratic leader in the past has said is the 
gold standard--the gold standard when it comes to processing and 
considering judicial nominations. So let's see this for what it is, 
call it out for what it is.
  And the bill he is calling up, by the way, from the House of 
Representatives, if you look at all the stuff it has in it--and this is 
the all-or-nothing approach that they are advocating right now--tax 
cuts for Manhattan millionaires? They are always complaining about tax 
cuts for the rich. This is tax cuts for millionaires in New York and 
California. Blue State bailouts for his State of New York. Think about 
that. Is that really what the American people think we ought to be 
voting on right now when they are unemployed, small businesses need 
help?
  And that is the other thing. The bill he is calling up--trying to 
call up right now has no assistance in there for the PPP program, the 
very program that everybody around the country has said has provided 
enormous assistance to small businesses, kept them in business, and 
there are other businesses who need that help. He talked about wanting 
to help businesses that are going out of business. Well, that bill that 
he is trying to call up right now doesn't include assistance for small 
businesses.
  So, anyway, this is clearly an attempt to detract the Senate from the 
work at hand, which is to consider a very well-qualified nominee to the 
U.S. Supreme Court--one of the Senate's most important constitutional 
duties and responsibilities, and we intend to stay focused on that.
  And if the leader is genuinely interested, he could let us get on the 
bill that we tried to call up earlier this week that deals with all the 
coronavirus relief issues that he mentioned earlier, all of which are 
bipartisan issues--every single one of them on that list. But that 
isn't what this is about. This is about politics.
  So, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, just a few quick points.
  No. 1, no one is--we are not talking about, and the American people 
are not about qualifications. We are talking about views on issues.
  Do the American people want their healthcare taken away from them? 
Amy Coney Barrett has said that she disagrees with the decision to keep 
it.
  Do the American people--do American women want the right to choose 
taken away from them? Amy Coney Barrett, in the past, has said she 
would do that.
  Do the American people want to make it even harder to form a union so 
they might get some good pay? Amy Coney Barrett. How about gun safety? 
She is to the right of Scalia.
  The issue on Amy Coney Barrett is twofold, and nothing they say 
changes it. No. 1, her views on the issues are so far and so extreme 
that she does not represent even the views of the people in this body 
on the Republican side; and, No. 2, if they feel that the American 
people want her, let them vote and decide--the very same thing my 
friend from South Dakota and everyone else said with Merrick Garland. 
We know hypocrisy when we see it. We know contradictions when we see 
them.
  And on the bill--yes, let's debate it. But their bill is inadequate 
on testing, inadequate on small business, inadequate on schools. We 
went to school administrators. No money for State and local 
governments, and I dare say to my friend from South Dakota, a police 
officer, a firefighter, someone who picks up the garbage or drives the 
buses needs help in South Dakota, if it is a red State, or New York, if 
it is a blue State. It is despicable, when the bill goes for all 
States, to say: ``It is just for blue States.'' That is the kind of 
divisiveness that Donald Trump has created in this country. It is why 
so many people don't like him, and what our Republican colleagues, 
unfortunately, since he has become President, have followed through on.
  Our bill is far more comprehensive. It deals with the needs. Very 
little money for testing, very little money for State and local 
governments, no money to help restaurants or stages or nonprofits or 
rural hospitals, no money for hospitals, in general.
  So the bottom line is very simple. Ours is a broad, comprehensive 
bill. Theirs is a narrow, skinny bill done to appease 20 Republican 
Senators who wanted no money--no money. And they won't even debate that 
either.
  So I say to my good friend from South Dakota, and he is my friend, we 
have one view. The American people are for a $2 trillion bill, a recent 
poll showed--60, 70 percent. They have a much narrower view, based on a 
hard-right philosophy.
  Bring this bill to the floor, and let's debate it. It passed the 
House. It is the only thing that has a chance of getting done, and if 
you want to make amendments to cut back on the money and help we need, 
we welcome that debate, but don't just block something that has a real 
chance of becoming law as opposed to the farcical exercise they engaged 
in on Tuesday on a totally partisan bill that got not a single 
Democratic vote. Let's have a debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I could just make one quick observation 
here, first off, the funding that was provided in the Republican bill 
wasn't inconsequential. It was $650 billion.
  And to the Democratic leader's point about the people in this country 
want what is now a $2.4 trillion bill--boy, I can tell you, I haven't 
seen that anywhere, and maybe there is some polling out there that 
indicates that. But I think if you ask the question: Would you want to 
spend $2.4 trillion dollars if you knew you were borrowing it from your 
children and grandchildren, you might get a different answer.
  And the truth of the matter is, we have gone $3.5 trillion--all 
borrowed money, all added to the debt--already to address coronavirus 
relief.
  That being said, we did bring a bill up that was another $650 
billion, and the Democrats blocked it. Why? Because it didn't spend 
enough, and they didn't think it spent enough on the things that they 
thought it ought to spend money on.
  Well, if that is the debate, let's get on our bill. Let's start at 
the $650 billion base level, and they can offer amendments to increase 
funding.
  By the way, we did have funding in there for testing and vaccines--
significant amounts of money negotiated by Lamar Alexander, the 
chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. But 
if that is what they want to do, then let's start there, and then they 
can have an opportunity to debate it and offer amendments, but they 
have blocked even getting on the bill--not the bill itself, even 
debating it.
  So when he says: We want to have a debate, we could have had a 
debate. All they had to do was let us get on the bill, and then we 
could be offering up and debating and discussing these various 
amendments that they want to offer
  But I would argue that all the things that our bill includes are 
things that are important to the American people. It was a targeted 
bill. It was a fiscally responsible bill. And, yes, it got 52 out of 53 
Republicans to vote for it--not a single Democrat. Why? Because the 
Democrats have an all-or-nothing approach, and they want to hold this 
process hostage to get a leftwing agenda of items included in the 
legislation, many of which--many of which have no relationship 
whatsoever to the coronavirus.
  So the leader's point--and, by the way, with respect to the judge, 
yes, Judge Barrett is, I think, everything that the American people 
want to see in a Supreme Court Justice. And for him to get up here and 
say that she doesn't have views that are supported by the American 
people, I don't understand exactly that argument because my 
understanding of what a judge is supposed to do is to take the facts of 
the case, apply the law, apply the Constitution in an impartial way, 
and apply those as written--not to try and get some perceived outcome 
or result or policy preference. That is not what judges do.

[[Page S6423]]

  What you heard him say is exactly why we have a difference of opinion 
about the judiciary in this country because they view the judiciary as 
an auxiliary legislature where you go to get outcomes and results that 
you can't get through the two political branches of our Government.
  Well, that is not what the judiciary is. The judiciary is supposed to 
be independent. It is supposed to be a fair arbiter--it calls balls and 
strikes and doesn't try and step on the scales or write the rules of 
the game. That is what a judge is supposed to be.
  So they don't like this Justice or this judge, I should say--
hopefully, soon to be Justice--because they think she is going to rule 
a certain way on particular cases, and they have no idea about that.
  I mean, think about it. The same argument has been made against 
Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, literally, for the last 30 or 
40 years. Every single time a Republican President nominates an 
individual to the Supreme Court, the Democrats and the left get up and 
say: They are going to cut healthcare. They are going to destroy 
healthcare. They were saying that about Justices on the Supreme Court 
that vote with their wing more than anybody else. They said that about 
Chief Justice Roberts. He was going to kill healthcare. He was going to 
destroy healthcare for millions of Americans.
  He cast the deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act, 
otherwise known as ObamaCare.
  So they don't know what a judge is going to do. But I know what she 
is going to do because she has proven it as a judge on the appellate 
circuit, the Seventh Circuit, as an academic, in her writings, that she 
believes the role of a judge is to take the facts of a case, apply the 
law, apply the Constitution, as written, impartially, and to render a 
decision.
  That, to me, is what I think every American believes we ought to have 
in a Supreme Court Justice. So, yes, this may be fair game for them to 
come down here and offer up all these motions that we are going to hear 
repetitively today, none of which has anything to do with the issues 
that they are going to say they want to talk about but everything to do 
with the fact that we are considering an incredibly well-qualified--not 
by my opinion but by everybody who has ever worked with her, including 
the dean of the Notre Dame Law School who hired her, the ABA--the 
American Bar Association--which passes judgment on all these nominees, 
her colleagues on the Seventh Circuit, staff, everybody this person has 
ever interacted with, stellar recommendations. This is an incredibly 
qualified individual and somebody, by the way, who I think can be 
relatable to the American people because she deals with the same issues 
that all Americans do, trying to raise seven kids. Imagine that.
  Imagine trying to organize her schedule around seven kids, continue 
to be a professional, and do exceptional work.
  She is highly qualified, a ``towering intellect,'' she has been 
described by her colleagues.
  So that is what this is about. It is about trying to block a well-
qualified Justice to the Supreme Court simply because they don't like 
the process. And I understand that, but this is a constitutional 
process. This is a vacancy.
  The Constitution doesn't follow the political calendar when it comes 
to filling vacancies, and, as you heard Leader McConnell point out 
earlier today, precedent on this issue, on confirming a nominee by a 
President to a vacancy created in an election year, the precedent falls 
all one way, if you go back throughout history.
  So just so people know, every time they get up and offer a unanimous 
consent request to call up a piece of legislation, it has nothing to do 
with the legislation, because they have already moved to adjourn 
multiple times this week, meaning they want to get out of town. They 
don't want anything to do with this Supreme Court. So they are going to 
get up and say Republicans are blocking this or that. As I pointed out, 
the first one that was offered was a bill to deal with the coronavirus 
and provide relief to people across this country, which, by the way, we 
just voted on 2 days ago--3 days ago here in the U.S. Senate. They 
blocked even getting on the bill--not considering the substance of it, 
which, by the way, as I said, includes a lot of bipartisan objectives 
and priorities; they blocked even considering.
  So that is what this is about, and I expect that is what we are going 
to hear today, tomorrow, and the next day, but it is not going to deter 
us from the important work we have at hand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from 
Kentucky in his statement on the floor this morning. It was a lengthy 
defense of the procedure that is being followed in terms of the 
nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. It is not the 
first time he has made this historic defense, and clearly he is going 
to continue. He obviously feels that he is on the defense when it comes 
to explaining. I think he is. I think everyone remembers Merrick 
Garland and the pronouncement by Senator McConnell and all of the 
Republican Senators that Barack Obama did not have the authority in the 
last year in office to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  We sent the name ``Merrick Garland'' to the Hill. Senator McConnell 
let the word go out that he would not even meet with the man in his 
office. He would not show him the respect of meeting with him. Two or 
three Republican Senators broke with that command from Senator 
McConnell. Most went right along. It was a very low moment. It is one 
we haven't forgotten and I don't believe the American people have 
forgotten, because we have rewritten the rules. Now when it comes to a 
Republican President, Senator McConnell says, why, of course he can 
fill the vacancy. He can even fill it while votes are being cast in his 
reelection campaign. It is an enormous departure from 4 years ago, and 
Senator McConnell comes to the floor regularly to try to explain it 
away, and it just doesn't work. He will keep trying. He has no 
alternative.
  But if most Americans tuned in to this session this morning and 
afternoon, I am not sure they would dwell on the rules of the Senate or 
the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They would probably be 
asking themselves and members of their family a very basic question: 
What is wrong with the Senate? Doesn't the U.S. Senate know what is 
going on across America?
  This morning's New York Times front page: ``New Peak for US Cases: 
Over 82,000 in a Single Day. 13 States Endure Their Worst Week Yet--
Warnings of a Cold-Weather Surge.''
  The article--of course referring to COVID-19--says:

       The United States is in the midst of one of the most severe 
     surges of the coronavirus to date, with more new cases 
     reported across the country on Friday than on any other 
     single day since the pandemic began.''

  We sit here arguing about the rules of the committee and the rules of 
the Senate and who came first and who shot whom. The American people 
would like us to focus on something that has real relevance to their 
lives.
  Listen to some of the things that were reported this morning in this 
newspaper about what is going on across America when it comes to this 
coronavirus:
  On Thursday, the same day that President Trump said the coronavirus 
was ``going away'' and Joseph Biden warned of a ``dark winter ahead,'' 
the United States recorded one of its highest daily totals of new 
cases--75,064. By Friday evening, a new peak in the pandemic had been 
reached when more than 82,000 cases in a single day were reported 
nationwide, breaking the daily record set on July 16 by more than 3,000 
cases. Thirteen States have had more new infections in the past week 
than in any other 7-day stretch. Hotspots are emerging across the 
country. Officials in Kentucky--Kentucky--announced more than 1,470 
cases on Thursday, the biggest 1-day jump in that State. More than 
1,300 cases reported in Colorado--another single day record. In the 
State of Washington, Governor Jay Inslee tweeted that the State had 
passed the 100,000-case mark, adding that ``we all need to commit to 
having fewer, shorter, safer interactions, especially as the weather 
keeps us inside more often.
  Mr. President, that is what is happening in America. It is not what 
is

[[Page S6424]]

happening on the floor of the Senate. We are embroiled in a political 
controversy over a Supreme Court nominee instead of focusing on 
the deadly situation that is going on across our Nation.

  I have spoken to Governor Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, 
regularly about his battle to try to find equipment and treatment for 
the people in our State. It is a lonely, unpopular battle that he 
fights. This Governor in Illinois and Governors across the Nation have 
to stand up--if they are responsible--have to stand up and say to the 
people, the residents of their States, some things they don't want to 
hear.
  I don't like wearing these masks--most people don't--but it is a 
simple, effective way to dramatically decrease the spread of this 
virus. I don't like the notion of social distancing, and I certainly 
don't like the idea of being away from my grandkids and the rest of my 
family, but if it means keeping them alive, I will do it, as painful as 
it may be. These are the simple, basic things that we are now debating 
from one end of America to the other.
  This coronavirus situation has reached such a terrible state that 
yesterday, when the director of public health for the State of Illinois 
gave her daily briefing--Dr. Ezike is her name. She is a wonderful 
African-American doctor who has just been steadfast through this whole 
battle against the pandemic. In the middle of her presentation about 
what was facing our State, she broke down crying. I would have too. She 
turned her back for a moment and tried to compose herself. She could 
barely finish her press conference. She begged the people of my State 
of Illinois: Please, if for no other reason, for the sake of the 
healthcare professionals who risk their lives to treat these people, 
please help us put an end to this virus.
  Last Saturday, a week ago today, one of my dear friends for years and 
years was feeling sick. She called her daughter and said: I think I 
need to go to the hospital. Her daughter took her to the major hospital 
not far from their home for admission because of lung problems. The 
hospital would not accept her. All the rooms were full. She then went 
to the second largest hospital in the area, asking if she could be 
admitted and treated. They would not accept her. All the rooms were 
full. She finally made it into the third hospital. She survived until 
Tuesday morning, when she passed away.
  In the United States of America, that someone who had health 
insurance, was prepared to pay, could not even be admitted to major 
hospitals because of this coronavirus pandemic--and we are sitting here 
on the floor arguing about who was appointed by which President 100 
years ago? Do you wonder why people look at the Senate and say: You are 
irrelevant. You are not even addressing the issues we care about.
  And the procedural play here means nothing. Oh, I offered an 
amendment, and you voted no. People, at the bottom line, say: Grow up 
and do something to help America.
  We know what it takes to reach an agreement, as we found on March 26 
when we passed the CARES Act. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 96 
to nothing--a bipartisan, strong vote, not a single dissenting vote--
$3.3 trillion to address this pandemic and our economy. We rose to the 
occasion. I went home, and people were amazed. You mean you actually 
did something in the Senate? Yes, we did.
  How did we reach that point? It wasn't through the regular order; it 
was through honest, serious negotiation that took place between the 
White House and the leaders in Congress. But since then--since then--we 
have not seen that. There has been one group who has stayed away from 
all of the negotiations around the table. The White House is there. 
Secretary Mnuchin is there. Speaker Pelosi is there. Chuck Schumer, the 
Democratic leader of the Senate, is there. The Republicans have refused 
to sit down and negotiate at the table.
  That is how it gets done around here. People sit down and work out 
their differences and put a bill on the floor and pass it 96 to 
nothing. But Senator McConnell has steadfastly refused to attend these 
negotiating sessions. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, 
joins him. So they boycott the sessions and come to the floor with a 
take-it-or-leave-it, partisan amendment in order to cover some 
political concerns back home. What a shame. What a waste.
  When Senator McConnell announced just a few days ago to the White 
House, stop negotiating; there will be no bill before the election; 
there will be no COVID relief before the election, people back in 
Illinois said to me: What is he thinking? Doesn't he understand the 
reality of what is going on in States like Illinois, Wisconsin, 
Michigan, and across the Nation, the infection rate, the death rate, 
hospitals being pushed to the limit? No. Clearly that is not a priority 
for Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans. The priority is not the 
millions who are at risk. The priority is not the hundreds who are 
dying. The priority is one Supreme Court nominee. So we are bound to 
spend 5 straight days on that issue and not a minute of that time 
dealing with COVID-19. How do you explain that to the American people? 
I don't believe you can.
  I could go through the lengthy history--I will put it in the record--
of this Barrett nomination, but I will just state that when it comes 
right down to it, we cannot explain how we are going to leave here 
Monday night voting on one nominee but empty-handed when it comes to 
COVID-19. There is no excuse--no excuse for that. That is where we find 
ourselves.
  I want to tell a story on why the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett 
directly links up with my concern about this pandemic. Having lost 
220,000 American lives, my concern and the concern of everyone is to 
keep our families safe. The first question we ask one another is, You 
do have health insurance, don't you? It is the obvious question.
  I remember a time in my own life, newly married, law student, my wife 
and I blessed with a little girl who came pretty quickly, and she was 
pretty sick, and we had no health insurance--no health insurance. She 
was treated by local hospitals here in Washington, where I was going to 
law school, and they called me in one day and said: Well, since you 
don't have any health insurance, you have three options: You can 
declare bankruptcy with all these medical bills.
  I said: That doesn't sound right to me. I haven't even taken the 
bankruptcy course in law school. What else?
  Well, you could file--we think you qualify for welfare, Medicaid.
  That doesn't sound right either. I am training to be a lawyer. I am 
supposed to end up with a good paying job at some point in my life. 
Going on welfare in law school? What is the other option?
  Well, the only other option is, we will total up all your bills, and 
you can pay them back to us over a period of years.
  It took us 10 years--10 years to pay those bills because I had no 
health insurance. Did I remember that moment? I remembered it for the 
rest of my life, to be a father and a husband without health insurance 
and a sick baby, thinking, my goodness, is this going to keep the good 
doctors away? Will she get the treatment she needs to survive?
  That is what we are up against now, because the Affordable Care Act, 
which I voted for 10 years ago on this floor, extended health insurance 
to 23 million Americans--600,000 in the State of Illinois--and it 
changed health insurance for everybody because now the health insurance 
companies have lost some of their tricks of the trade. They can no 
longer put a lifetime limit on how much they pay out. They can no 
longer discriminate against a person because they happen to be a woman. 
They can no longer discriminate based on preexisting conditions. They 
have to provide family health insurance, the option to keep kids on the 
policy until they reach the age of 26. That affects all policies.
  So what has been the approach of the Republicans, particularly this 
President? He wants to eliminate that. What I have just described, he 
wants to eliminate. Don't take my word for it; it has been filed in a 
case across the street, Texas v. California. A group of Republican 
attorneys general came forward and said: We want to eliminate the 
Affordable Care Act. And the President said: I am going to join you. 
Let's get rid of it.

  They tried to, on the Senate floor, in 2017. It is one of those 
moments etched in my memory, sitting down there at that desk. I looked 
at that door over

[[Page S6425]]

there, and it opened at 1:30 a.m., and John McCain, Republican Senator 
from Arizona, walked through that door, stood in the well. He could 
barely lift that right arm, which had been shattered when he was a 
prisoner of war. He lifted it just enough to say ``no.'' That ``no'' 
saved the Affordable Care Act from being eliminated by the Senate.
  So where do they turn if they can't get it done in Congress? Off to 
the courts. And why is that important in terms of this nomination of 
Amy Coney Barrett? Because they are bound and determined to fill that 
vacancy on the Court before November 10. Why November 10? Because that 
is the day the Court takes up the oral arguments on the future of the 
Affordable Care Act. And if she is not in her black robe listening to 
that argument, by tradition she can't vote on whether to eliminate it 
or not.
  She sent plenty of signals in the past about what she feels about the 
Affordable Care Act. To my friend from South Dakota who says, ``You 
don't know how she is going to rule,'' there is some truth to that. She 
could change her mind. But I will tell you, if you were a betting 
person, you would say the statements that she made criticizing Chief 
Justice Roberts for saving the Affordable Care Act and other statements 
that she has made about the law itself suggest that she will not be a 
friend when she has the opportunity to vote.
  Do we take that seriously on behalf of 600,000 people in Illinois? 
You bet we do. It directly relates to this pandemic and the opportunity 
for people across this country to have the coverage they need.
  I am going to tell a quick story about one of them. I have a photo of 
her here that I want to share with people. It is a situation that she 
faces. I am sorry that I don't have that in front of me, but I am going 
to tell the story anyway, as I remember it.
  Her last name is Danenberger. She is from New Berlin, IL. She is an 
amazing young woman. She is battling breast cancer.
  Here it is. Thank you.
  When we cut corners when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Susan 
Danenberger is one of the victims. She is a fifth-generation farmer and 
wine maker. She has a great little vineyard and a great little 
restaurant, and I have been out there with my family. She is also a 
two-time cancer fighter with stage IV metastatic breast cancer. She has 
been through the gauntlet of medical procedures, treatments, and 
complications of recent years--a double mastectomy, radiation, IV, 
chemo, pulmonary embolisms, lung infections, and more. Her oral chemo 
medications alone have cost her thousands of dollars every single 
month, even with insurance.
  As a business owner, Susan offers insurance to her employees. She was 
relieved to learn, when opening her new health policy, that the ACA 
guarantees that she gets coverage even with that medical history. It 
also allows her 23-year-old son to stay on the family plan.
  Here is what she says to me:

       Most of the time I feel driven. Making wine and running a 
     winery is more than just a job. It's my purpose. I am more 
     scared than I pretend to be, and that is how I make it 
     through. I pretend that everything is OK. But this year, it 
     is harder to pretend that everything is going to be OK. I am 
     worried about the future. I am worried about money. I am 
     worried that I won't be able to afford to fight cancer. I am 
     worried about taxes, health insurance changes, and being at 
     the mercy of insurance companies.

  For Americans like Susan, with a family, a business, and preexisting 
conditions, there is so much at stake with this case pending before the 
Supreme Court and the judges and Justices who will vote on it.
  Susan, bless you--she just can't afford for this Court to strike down 
the Affordable Care Act. Where will she turn?
  Oh, but you must conclude it. Durbin, you are not telling us the 
whole story. Tell us about the Republican alternative to the Affordable 
Care Act. Tell us about their substitute, the one that is going to save 
everybody so much money and provide all the same coverage--tell us 
about that. Well, I sure would like to, but I can't because it has 
never been written down on paper, ever. There is no Republican 
alternative. They are bound and determined to kill ObamaCare with no 
substitute. That is why John McCain voted no. He said: We owe it to the 
American people to give them an alternative. Sadly, sadly, 
unfortunately, there is still no alternative.
  Senator Schumer, earlier today, noted that there are a lot of other 
things we should be taking up at this moment in time. I am going to 
mention a few here this morning. These are measures which passed the 
House of Representatives sometimes months ago, sometimes over a year 
ago, and sent to the desk of Senator McConnell. They were never taken 
up. They have been sitting there while we have done little or nothing 
on the floor of the Senate except entertain his judicial nominations.
  The first one is personal to me--not that it affects me personally or 
legally, but it is related to a bill that I introduced a long time ago. 
On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6, the 
American Dream and Promise Act, with a strong bipartisan vote, giving a 
path to citizenship to Dreamers. I introduced the first DREAM Act 19 
years ago. I have been reintroducing on this ever since.
  These are young immigrants brought to the United States as toddlers, 
infants, and children. The Dream and Promise Act has now been sitting 
on Senator McConnell's desk for more than a year--more than a year. On 
June 22, I sent a letter signed by all the Democratic Senators calling 
on Senator McConnell to finally bring it up for a vote, and, 4 months 
later, Senator McConnell has not even responded.
  We sent our letter after the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's 
effort to end deportation protections for Dreamers. In the opinion by 
Chief Justice Roberts, here is what he said about the actions of the 
Trump administration on DACA. Here is what he said: arbitrary and 
capricious. That was the description.
  I joined with Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican, years ago, asking for 
the President to create DACA. President Obama responded by creating it 
by Executive order. Sadly, President Trump eliminated it, and, 
literally, hundreds of thousands of young people have their fate in 
doubt because of it.
  The same thing is true when it comes to temporary protected status 
for people in the United States.
  This administration has been a scourge when it comes to the issue of 
immigration, particularly inspired by Stephen Miller, a person I could 
never, ever understand. They have decided to be as mean as possible and 
cruel when it comes to people who are in this country having left 
horrible circumstances at home.
  Now is the time for us to take up this measure and to start the 
debate. It isn't as if we have so much else to do. What we should be 
doing is to make sure that we do this.
  So, in order to proceed in consideration of H.R. 6, the American 
Dream and Promise Act, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have only 
been here a little under 2 years, and in the time that I have been 
here, it has been disappointing that when it comes to real attempts to 
make legislative progress, so often I see that we are far apart in 
terms of how we want to go about it.
  I came here from a State like Indiana, where serving in our State 
legislature and running a business for 37 years, we seemed to get 
things done. Even though we were divided, of course, like most 
legislative bodies are, we came together and did things that made a 
difference for our constituents.
  In the time before the impeachment saga came along, COVID, and civil 
unrest, I thought many of us were putting our shoulders to the 
grindstone--and I am on committees like Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions--wanting to weigh in on talking about some of things the 
Democrats have brought up about healthcare. And, to me, again, I think 
it brings in front of us differences in approach, certainly.
  I am a believer that rather than trying to get government even more 
involved in certain things, that we might look at what actually works 
in the real world and works in many States, including healthcare, which 
I agree is probably the No. 1 issue we face in the country. It was the 
No. 1 issue when I was running a business

[[Page S6426]]

  I think there is so much commonality, in the sense that we have a 
broken healthcare system. We sometimes, as conservatives, are slow to 
maneuver and may not be interested in doing things that need to be 
done, but I think there is a time and a place for that. I was pleased 
to see, I think, that 70 or 80 Senators weighed in on trying to fix 
healthcare. But what interrupted that progress was several months of an 
impeachment saga that proved to go nowhere, and then we have been 
confronted with the biggest health crisis, certainly, in a century--
other issues.
  But, in this case, I think, to me, trying to cut to the chase, this 
is clearly a sequence of maneuvers that is trying to interject in a 
process of getting one of the most qualified judges across the finish 
line to become a Supreme Court Justice.
  I think the American people are watching, too. They see what goes on 
here. They see that, year after year, we seem not to deliver results. 
When it comes to stuff that should be simple--when it is clear, based 
upon the credentials, especially, of someone like Amy Coney Barrett, 
who comes from my State, who has done such an outstanding job as an 
appellate judge, has impeccable credentials, and to where now this is 
being litigated not on the merits of who she is and how she will handle 
herself as a Supreme Court Justice--it has gotten so partisan. I think 
that really does turn people off.
  I think this is more a sequence that maybe we are both guilty of, to 
where we do not roll up our sleeves and get to the heart of the matter. 
I was happy to be the first Republican to come across and acknowledge 
that climate is an issue. I formed the Climate Caucus and got six other 
Republicans to do it. I think we have to be engaged in the key issues 
of the day. Again, as I said earlier, we sometimes are slow to come to 
the discussion, but in the time that I am going to spend here, I would 
hope that we do legislation in the time that is there to do it and not 
try to interject it into a process like this.
  I am so happy that we have this in a situation where we are going to 
get her voted in on Monday, and, in the meantime, I think that any of 
the attempts that are made by the other side to belabor the point just 
shows the American public what is wrong with this institution.
  So, that being said, I do think that she is a qualified nominee to 
the Supreme Court. It is of the utmost importance that we do not 
belabor the process, and I object to proceeding to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Indiana, I 
recognize that he is new to this body, and what he has seen in the 
Senate is not the Senate that I was elected to.
  There was a time--the Senator may find it hard to believe--when we 
actually brought bills to the floor. We allowed amendments. Before 
that, of course, the committee had done its work. We allowed amendments 
on the floor up or down, and we ended up deliberating and voting on 
measures. If they passed here, we then had a conference, and, 
miraculously, at some point, they became law. That has not happened 
here for a long, long time, and I don't think you have seen it. Maybe 
the Defense authorization bill is as close as it gets, though we don't 
have active amendments there.
  In this circumstance, on this bill which I brought before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee 18 years ago--18 years ago--it has passed the House 
of Representatives and is sitting on Senator McConnell's desk for a 
year. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I 
cochair the Immigration Subcommittee with your colleague, who is 
standing to your right, from Texas. We have met once in the last 2 
years--once--and have never taken this up. So for the sake of the 
people affected by it, asking that it come to the floor is not an 
unreasonable request. Their lives are tied up in it.
  So I would love to see regular order. We haven't seen it in so long. 
Most people wouldn't recognize it. But I understand your objection.
  I have a series, but I am only going to make one more unanimous 
consent request because I see Members waiting to speak. This one is 
very relevant and very timely.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4617

  Mr. President, we know that foreign election interference continues 
to be a real threat in America. Just this week we learned of a foreign 
influence campaign carried out by Iran in which fake, menacing emails 
were sent to Democratic voters who were told to vote for Trump or ``we 
will come after you.'' The origin, we are told by intelligence 
agencies, is Iran.
  FBI Director Wray has said that Russia has been ``very active in its 
efforts to influence the election'' and seeks to ``denigrate Democratic 
nominee Joe Biden''--two countries up to their elbows in trying to make 
a mess of our election campaign.
  It is well past time to address this threat. We spend a time of lot 
talking about it. We could do it today by passing the House-passed 
SHIELD Act.
  This is a bill passed in the House of Representatives that would 
establish a duty to report election interference from foreign entities 
so the FBI and the Federal Election Commission are aware when foreign 
powers are offering unlawful--unlawful--election assistance to 
campaigns and other political committees.
  This bill would restrict the exchange of campaign information with 
foreign entities by making it illegal to offer nonpublic campaign 
material to foreign governments and those linked with foreign 
governments.
  The bill would improve transparency by applying existing campaign 
advertising requirements to online advertisements, and it would close 
critical loopholes in the law to further limit political spending by 
foreign nationals and foreign governments to try to influence the 
outcome of a U.S. election.
  Finally, the bill would prohibit deceptive practices about voting 
procedures to stop individuals from providing false information about 
voting rules and qualifications for voting.
  In light of these ongoing threats to both Presidential candidates, 
President Trump as well as Vice President Biden--this is a bipartisan 
attack. They are not just going after Democrats or Republicans; they 
are going after all of us. Isn't it about time we said that we are fed 
up with it, and it has to stop? That is all this bill does. It is 
bipartisan.
  In order to proceed to the consideration of this bill in time for it 
to affect the outcome of this election, perhaps, H.R. 4617, the SHIELD 
Act, I ask that we proceed to consideration of it to prevent foreign 
interference in elections. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right object, as I said 
earlier, the Senate is currently considering the nomination of a highly 
qualified nominee to be an Associate of the Supreme Court. This request 
is another procedural move just to belabor the process.
  They voted to adjourn until after the election four times this week, 
so, obviously, this bill, even though it may have merits that we need 
to discuss, should not be done in this format.
  Continuing to consider this highly qualified nominee to the Supreme 
Court is the utmost, most important thing that we should do here. 
Therefore, I object to proceeding to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois


     Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4995, H.R. 4996, and H.R. 1585

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, H.R. 4995 is one that passed the House 
from Representative Engel to help address maternal health gaps and 
disparities in rural communities. The bill would provide grants at HHS 
to networks of healthcare providers and academic partners to expand 
obstetric capacity and improve trainings in underserved rural areas.
  The trainings would help to address implicit bias, which--more so 
than economic status, health status, or education level--can contribute 
to health negative outcomes for moms and their babies.
  Due to lack of specialists and geographic gaps, maternal health 
outcomes in rural Illinois are worse than in urban areas. So when it 
comes to responding to and tackling the urgent health challenges of the 
moment,

[[Page S6427]]

alongside addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, these bills can help close 
the disparities and gaps that exist in health care in America.
  H.R. 4996, sponsored by Congresswoman Robin Kelly from Illinois, 
passed the House in September. It closely mirrors a provision in 
legislation I have introduced in the Senate, the MOMMA Act. This 
critical legislation addresses our Nation's unconscionable disparities 
in maternal and infant mortality by ensuring mothers can maintain 
access to care and prevent pregnancy-related complications.
  The U.S. is 1 of only 13 countries in the world where the maternal 
mortality rate is worse now than it was 25 years ago. Nationwide more 
than 700 women die every year as a result of their pregnancy, and more 
than 70,000 others suffer severe, near-fatal complications. Across the 
country, women of color are four times more likely to die from 
pregnancy-related complications than white women. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has magnified these racial and ethnic health disparities that already 
existed. These gaps in our health system are unacceptable.
  Medicaid covers half of the births in Illinois. This policy would 
help thousands of mothers in Illinois and nationwide by enabling 
Medicaid to provide coverage for low-income mothers for up to 1 year, 
compared to the current limit of 60 days. It is time we turn the page 
on this unacceptable inequity in our healthcare system and address a 
real need across America.
  H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law 26 
years ago, and it must be reauthorized. This law has been a lifeline 
for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in my State of 
Illinois and across the country. Over a year ago, the House voted to 
reauthorize and strengthen VAWA. But the Republican-controlled Senate 
has refused to bring this bill to the floor for a vote.
  For many Americans, home is not always a safe place, and the COVID-19 
pandemic has presented particular challenges for people facing abusive 
situations and domestic violence. It is shameful that Leader McConnell 
has refused to call this critical reauthorization to the Senate floor 
for a vote.
  It is long past time for the Senate to renew and strengthen VAWA.
  In order to proceed to the consideration H.R. 4995, the Maternal 
Health Quality Improvement Act of 2020; H.R. 4996, the Helping MOMS Act 
of 2020; and H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I object to proceeding to everything en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.