[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 184 (Sunday, October 25, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6507-S6518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues 
in opposing the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Justice of 
the Supreme Court. This is the wrong time to be choosing a Supreme 
Court Justice, and Justice Barrett is the wrong candidate for a seat on 
that Court.
  The timing of tonight's confirmation vote is shocking. The majority 
of Americans want to be able to weigh in on who should sit in Justice 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the highest Court in the land. They want 
to vote to choose a President to fill that vacancy.
  We are 8 days away from Americans casting their final votes in the 
2020 election. Over 58 million Americans have already voted, including 
more than 649,000 Nevadans. The American people are making their voices 
heard in response to this administration's disastrous handling of the 
coronavirus pandemic, which has led to the loss of 225,000 American 
lives, including 1,748 Nevadans, and sickened over 95,000 Nevadans.
  In the middle of this crisis, Congress should be doing everything it 
can to address the needs of the American people. Instead, the Senate 
majority leader is ramming through a nominee at breakneck pace. He and 
the President are rushing this nominee's confirmation for a reason, 
which is because they believe, based on Judge Barrett's own public 
statements, that she will be the decisive vote to overturn the 
Affordable Care Act in a case that will be heard just a week after the 
election.
  On November 10, the Supreme Court will listen to arguments from 
lawyers in a court case about whether the Affordable Care Act is 
constitutional. Majority Leader McConnell and the President want a 
Justice who shares their views on the Affordable Care Act seated on the 
Court by that date.
  Amy Coney Barrett's record on the ACA, not to mention her stance on 
the rights for women and the LGBTQ Americans that you have heard from 
my colleagues today and you will hear throughout the night, but her 
record on the ACA poses tremendous risk to Nevadans at a time when they 
need every help we can extend to them during this health pandemic.
  That is why I opposed her nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals back in 2017, and that is why I oppose her confirmation to the 
Supreme Court today. Instead of rushing her through in a partisan 
fashion to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, we should be working 
together to get the additional coronavirus relief that Nevadans and 
Americans so badly need right now.
  Most of us here in the Senate understand that the American people 
need help to cope with the pandemic. To save lives and to stop the 
spread of the virus, people have to wear masks, they wash their hands, 
and they socially distance. That has meant that businesses haven't been 
able to operate as usual.
  Some companies have been able to rethink their business models and 
thrive, but others just can't substitute online interactions for in-
person contact. That includes Nevada's world-class travel, tourism, and 
hospitality industry.
  During April, Nevada had the highest unemployment rate ever recorded 
anywhere in the country at 30 percent. We are recovering from that peak 
more slowly than other States, and we still have one of the highest 
unemployment rates in the country. In August, second only to Hawaii's, 
it was 12.6 percent. Nevadans are hurting. Nevadans are hurting, 
Americans are hurting, and my constituents tell me about it all the 
time, and the data is clear what I see in Nevada. One in seven Nevadans 
say they aren't getting enough to eat, and one in five Nevadans say the 
children in their household are underfed.
  There has been a 14-percent increase in those receiving SNAP benefits 
in the Silver State since February. There are 14 percent of Nevadans 
who say they are behind on rent or mortgage, and 38 percent are having 
difficulty with household expenses. There are 110,000 households in my 
home State that could be at risk of eviction by January.
  That is why I have spent weeks calling on Leader McConnell to extend 
and expand upon the support that we put in place in the relief 
legislation that we passed in the first half of this year. 
Unfortunately, instead of negotiating another COVID relief package, 
Leader McConnell would rather play politics.
  Nevadans need to understand the partisan political games that are 
being

[[Page S6508]]

played right now. Over the last 7 months, Senator McConnell has refused 
to come to the table to even negotiate with the administration, with 
Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Schumer.
  Now, Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer originally asked for 
$3.4 trillion in a new stimulus package. They have since come down to 
request for $2.2 trillion in relief. That is a decrease of $1.2 
trillion from their original position. In return, as they have been 
negotiating with the administration, President Trump and Secretary 
Mnuchin have offered $1.8 trillion in coronavirus relief. Clearly, 
Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Mnuchin have been working to get closer to 
an agreement over the amount and structure of the next needed 
comprehensive COVID stimulus package.
  Meanwhile, while that negotiation is going on, Senator McConnell is 
not even at the table. He refuses to even negotiate with the Democrats. 
Just this week, last week, he has forced two votes on the floor of the 
Senate on relief packages that were crafted behind closed doors with no 
bipartisan negotiation, and the second package was half the price of 
the one before. That is not a negotiation. That is politics. Senator 
McConnell doesn't want to deal. He hasn't participated in the talks, 
and he is proposing less than a third of what even the Secretary of the 
Treasury thinks we need.
  Instead, the majority leader has been laser-focused on one thing and 
one thing only, rushing through the Supreme Court nomination for Judge 
Amy Coney Barrett. There is a reason he is pushing so hard. He and 
others in the GOP have been obsessed with getting rid of the Affordable 
Care Act since it passed, and in Amy Coney Barrett, they see their 
chance to finally do just that.
  Now, I want Nevadans to understand exactly what is at stake and how 
we got here. Let me lay out the timeline of just some of the dozens of 
Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act and how Judge Barrett 
fits into their larger plan to overturn healthcare protections.
  In 2010, the Obama administration passed the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, the ACA, to bring down healthcare costs and make 
sure that Americans had access to quality healthcare. Now, Republicans 
have been trying to repeal it ever since, voting at least 70 times--70 
times--to undo the law in Congress. When they failed in Congress, they 
attempted in the courts.
  Republicans have repeatedly used the courts to challenge Congress's 
power to enact the ACA. Their first attempt ended in failure in 2012 
when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the important provisions of the ACA 
in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts in the landmark case, 
NFIB v. Sebelius, but that has not stopped the Republican leadership.
  Even though a majority of the American people have made it clear over 
and over that they want the ACA and its extensive protections for 
healthcare, this administration and Mitch McConnell have been stacking 
the court with Federal judges they believe would overturn the ACA, and 
Professor Barrett fits their profile.
  In 2017, Professor Amy Coney Barrett wrote a book review article for 
Notre Dame Law School making it clear at the time in that book review 
that she thought Justice Roberts incorrectly decided NFIB v. Sebelius. 
She said that Chief Justice John Roberts ``pushed the Affordable Care 
Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.'' Conservatives 
who agreed with her, well, they took notice, because in May of that 
same year, 2017, they nominated her to serve as a judge on the Seventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals--go from professor to a judge of the Seventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals
  Now, while her nomination was pending in 2017, in July, the 
Republican leaders in the Senate again tried to force a vote to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, and during that vote, the late Senator John 
McCain gave his famous thumbs down to show that he would not be 
responsible for repealing the ACA and ripping healthcare away from 
millions of Americans.
  Well, a couple of months later, October 2017, Amy Coney Barrett was 
appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I opposed her then 
for the same reasons that I oppose her nomination today. One month 
later, in November, she is then placed on President Trump's list of 
potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. She just got to the 
circuit court. A month later, she is now on President Trump's list. Why 
is she on that list? Because she made it very clear in her writings 
that she was opposed to the Affordable Care Act.
  Then 3 months later, in December of 2017, the Republicans in Congress 
passed a bill that would continue their attempts to sabotage the ACA. 
What they couldn't get done, because Senator John McCain and several 
others stopped him, they continued to sabotage it, so they passed a 
law. Based on this new law, several Republican attorneys general then 
went to Court asking the Court to rule the ACA unconstitutional. That 
case is California v. Texas, and it will be argued this year, November 
10, just 2 weeks from now.
  So their pathway has been consistent; I give them credit for that. 
The Republicans have been consistent in wanting to do away with the 
Affordable Care Act. They have either tried it here in Congress, or 
they are continuing to work the courts, and if they can't win in the 
courts, then let's put judges on the Federal benches that we know will 
support our position, and that is what you have happening. That is why 
this is being rushed through now, because they need Amy Coney Barrett 
on the bench when that case is heard November 10 to determine the 
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
  Let me tell you, the U.S. Department of Justice has done everything 
it can to assist their efforts to strike down the ACA. They filed a 
brief. The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of President Trump's 
administration, have filed a brief arguing that the entire law is 
invalid in support of those Republican attorneys general who want to do 
away with the Affordable Care Act. They have done this because the 
President wants them to.
  In an interview with ``60 Minutes'' that aired just this evening, the 
President said that with regard to the Supreme Court's decision on the 
Affordable Care Act, ``I hope that they end it.''
  That is not the only time. It is not a secret. President Trump wants 
to do away with healthcare coverage and patient protections in the 
middle of a pandemic that has killed 225,000 Americans, and he has been 
very clear about it. I mean, look back. June 26, 2015:

       If I win the Presidency--

  When he was a candidate.

     --my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike 
     Bush's appointee, John Roberts, on ObamaCare.

  February 8, 2016:

       I am disappointed--

  This is President Trump.

     --I am disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts because he gave 
     us ObamaCare. He had two chances to end ObamaCare, and he 
     should have ended it by every single measurement, and he 
     didn't do it, so that was a disappointing one.

  May 7, 2020, President Trump reiterated his position:

       We want to terminate healthcare under ObamaCare, and 
     ObamaCare is a disaster.

  September 27, 2020, shortly after Barrett's nomination to the Supreme 
Court, President Trump tweeted:

       ObamaCare will be replaced with a much better and far 
     cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the Supreme Court. 
     It would be a big win for the USA.

  So, 4 years, at least, while I have been here, Republicans have been 
trying to repeal it, and this administration has been promising a 
replacement for healthcare in this country if the Affordable Care Act 
is repealed, but we see no replacement. We know that they have been 
putting judges on the Federal courts that will do their bidding--or at 
least think that they will do their bidding.
  Now, let me give Judge Amy Coney Barrett credit because here is the 
thing: As an attorney, I respect judges, and I am always looking for a 
judge--a mainstream judge--who is going to weigh the evidence and the 
facts, look at the precedent, and make a decision that is on behalf of 
this country and the American people. So it is fair, though, without 
knowing her background, to judge which way she is going to rule and if 
she has an inherent bias based on her writings. That is what we do all 
the time.
  What are her writings? Whether it is in private life as a professor 
or as an

[[Page S6509]]

attorney practicing law or as a judge in her written opinions, that is 
fair game. That will give us insight, because we can't see into 
somebody's mind and what they are thinking. That will give us insight 
on their legal analysis.
  We know what she said at the hearing. There is two hearings: One is 
the Seventh Circuit, and one is U.S. Supreme Court. I will say, in her 
confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett has said:

       I am not hostile to the ACA at all.

  But this statement contradicts the thing she said about the ACA 
before her nomination to the court.
  I believe now what I believed in 2017, Judge Barrett's writing showed 
her to be clearly opposed to the ACA. My view is that no one--no one--
not even a judge, should weaken those protections for healthcare in 
this country during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
  The Affordable Care Act is a crucial part of the Nation's response to 
coronavirus. Without it, insurance companies would be able to charge 
more or even deny insurance to people with preexisting conditions. That 
includes more than 95,000 Nevadans who have had COVID-19 to date 
because contracting that coronavirus is a preexisting condition. It 
includes another 1.2 million Nevadans with other preexisting conditions 
from asthma to cystic fibrosis to depression.
  Without the ACA, insurance companies would also be able to consider 
pregnancy a preexisting condition as they used to. The 1.5 million 
women in Nevada could be charged more for their care than men, and 
lifetime and annual benefit caps could be reinstated.
  If the Affordable Care Act is repealed or found unconstitutional, 
insurance companies would be able to kick children off their parents' 
insurance before the age of 26. Across the country, without the ACA, 
more than 20 million people would lose their health coverage, and over 
135 million Americans would lose protections for their preexisting 
conditions. If the Supreme Court eliminates the ACA, millions of newly 
uninsured people will be unable to afford coronavirus treatment.
  If you don't have insurance and you contract COVID-19, you are 
looking at tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills. Let me tell 
you, this is especially alarming because COVID-19 has hit communities 
of color the hardest, including in my State. In Nevada, a third of our 
population are Latino; with another 10 percent of the population 
African-American; and 9 percent, fastest growing Asian-American/Pacific 
Islander; 2 percent, Native-American.
  Among COVID-19 cases, however, these numbers are practically turned 
upside down. Forty-five percent of Nevada's COVID-19 cases are among 
Latinos who make up 29 percent of the population. And 29 percent of the 
cases are among White Nevadans who are 45 percent of the population. 
Nevadans of color are also overrepresented in the numbers of those who 
have lost their lives during this pandemic. In Nevada, 12 percent of 
those who have died of COVID-19 are African-American and another 12 
percent are Asian-American/Pacific Islander.
  We also know from national data that COVID-19 has particularly 
devastating effects on children of color. Of those under 21 who have 
been killed by the coronavirus, more than 75 percent have been 
Hispanic, Black, or Native American. In addition, the coronavirus 
pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on pregnant women of color 
and their babies.
  Nationwide, Latino mothers make up nearly half of the coronavirus 
cases among pregnant women, according to the CDC data through August.
  Young people and communities of color are also seeing the greatest 
economic impact as a result of this pandemic. They are losing jobs and 
healthcare at higher rates. A recent study suggested that job losses 
would mean that 5 million Black, Latino, and Asian Americans would lose 
healthcare during the pandemic.
  People in these communities don't always have the financial reserves 
to keep a roof over their heads, let alone access to critical, 
physical, and mental healthcare. Repealing the ACA would just further 
jeopardize these Americans, including millions in my home State and 
across this country.
  And without the ACA protections, women in Nevada would also see 
adverse impacts on their health. That is because the ACA requires 
insurance plans to offer women essential benefits, like annual wellness 
examines, preventive mammograms and other screenings, maternity care, 
and access to free birth control. If the law is struck down, these 
benefits would go too.
  In fact, Judge Barrett publicly signed a statement of protest against 
the ACA contraceptive coverage requirements. She said that those 
requirements were ``an assault on religious liberty when applied to 
religious employers and institutions.''
  But that is just the first part of the danger that Judge Barrett 
represents to women's healthcare. She puts reproductive health rights 
at risk across the board.
  In 2006, Judge Barrett signed a letter that called for ``an end to 
the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.''
  As a judge, she has repeatedly voted to rehear cases that struck down 
unconstitutional abortion restrictions.
  During her confirmation hearing, she refused to describe Roe v. Wade 
as a superprecedent that could no longer be challenged. These views 
suggest--her written views and comments--that as she predicted in a 
2016 speech, a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court would mean that the 
restrictions on abortion would change and that the Court would likely 
increase how much freedoms States have in regulating abortion, and if 
those States have more freedom to regulate abortion, it will lead to a 
patchwork of different laws in different States.
  A recent study suggests that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the 
closest abortion clinic would close for 41 percent of women across the 
country, and the distance to the nearest clinic would increase from an 
average of 36 miles to an average of 280 miles.
  In 2020, American women shouldn't have to choose what State to live 
in based on what kind of healthcare they think that they can get. These 
are fundamental rights that shouldn't be up for grabs.
  More than 80 percent of Nevadans believe that women should control 
their own reproductive choices, and I stand with them.
  I am also concerned about the impact that Judge Barrett would have on 
LGBTQ Nevadans if she is confirmed to the Court. The ACA contains 
specific protections against discrimination based on gender identity. 
The Trump administration has already weakened these protections 
significantly. If the ACA is struck down altogether, people who don't 
conform to gender stereotypes, including transgender Americans, could 
face increased discrimination in healthcare.
  A study of transgender patients before the ACA went into effect, 
found that one in five had experienced discrimination from doctors and 
that 28 percent have postponed medical care in the past in order to try 
to avoid that discrimination.
  Judge Barrett could also pose a considerable threat to the LGBTQ 
individuals in other ways. During her confirmation hearings, she 
refused to say whether she agreed with a decision in Obergefell v. 
Hodges, which established the right to same-sex marriage nationally.
  In 2015, she publicly signed a letter stating that marriage is 
founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman. She has 
also publicly argued that title IX of the Civil Rights Act does not 
apply to transgender Americans, noting that it seems to strain the text 
of the statute to say that title IX demands that the government 
guarantee transgender bathroom access.
  So, again, I am very concerned that if she is confirmed to the Court, 
Judge Barrett will be an additional vote to strike down things like 
same-sex marriage and imperil the health of LGBTQ Nevadans.
  The truth is that Judge Barrett's views on a whole host of issues are 
far from mainstream. In her short time in the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals, Judge Barrett has sided with corporations over workers and 
consumers in a majority of business-related cases, resulting in the 
erosion of workers' rights and consumer protection rights. She has 
suggested that voting rights should be more easily restricted than the 
right to possess firearms. And she has ruled that the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act does not protect job applicants from 
hiring practices that harm older Americans.

[[Page S6510]]

  Now, I have received over 18,000 letters from Nevadans opposing her 
confirmation. That is compared to 3,900 supporting it. So, clearly, 
Nevadans are concerned that Judge Barrett doesn't share their views, 
and they are right to be concerned.
  The Supreme Court makes decisions about so many issues that affect 
our communities, and it will be lifelong. People in this country care 
deeply about issues, and in so many cases, Judge Barrett's views are 
out of step with what large majorities of Americans want.
  Seventy-seven percent of Americans think we should stop unlimited 
dark money from influencing our politics, but a 6-to-3 conservative 
Court would slam the door on campaign finance reform, allowing 
corporations and other groups to throw their wealth behind their pet 
policies
  Americans believe voting should be easy, safe, and secure, and that 
you shouldn't have to risk your health during a pandemic to cast your 
ballot. But, again, a 6-to-3 conservative Court with Amy Coney Barrett 
on the Bench would make it harder for people to vote, especially people 
in low-income communities and communities of color. And, again, bear in 
mind that we are in the middle of an election.
  If she is confirmed tonight, Justice Barrett would also be in a 
position to rule on any legal disputes about that election.
  That is one of many topics that she simply refused to answer 
questions about during her confirmation hearings.
  Now, it is understandable for a judge to avoid questions about a case 
that may come before her so that she doesn't prejudge the outcome. But 
Judge Barrett refused to answer the most basic of questions--questions 
that any high school civic student knows the answer to.
  She wouldn't say whether the Constitution allows Congress to protect 
the right to vote. Answer: It does in at least five separate 
provisions.
  She wouldn't say whether the President of the United States can delay 
the election. Answer: He can't. That is not within his authority.
  She wouldn't say whether the President should peacefully transfer 
power to the winner of a Presidential election. The most important 
American principle is that we the people get to decide who governs it, 
but Judge Barrett wouldn't even affirm that.
  And she wouldn't say whether voter intimidation or voting twice in an 
election is illegal. Well, it is. Those laws are clearly on the books. 
It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to interpret them.
  People in Nevada and across the Nation need to realize that many of 
the rights and protections they enjoy are one vote away from being 
ended by the Supreme Court.
  There are at least 120 landmark Supreme Court cases from the past 
several decades that were 5-to-4 decisions, with Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg the deciding vote in the majority and Justice Antonin Scalia, 
whose judicial philosophy inspires Judge Barrett, in the minority. 
There is every reason to think that Judge Barrett would take positions 
like Justice Scalia's in those areas and more.
  With Amy Coney Barrett on the Court, Americans' civil rights, 
workers' rights, reproductive rights, healthcare, and, yes, their 
voting rights are at risk. For all of these reasons, Judge Barrett is 
not only the wrong nominee, but she comes at the wrong time.
  Now is not the time to rush a nominee onto the Court. Now, as 
millions fill out their ballots, is not the time to deprive the 
American people of a voice in choosing the next President who will 
choose the Supreme Court Justice. Now is not the time for us to focus 
on the immediate crisis at hand.
  We need to act to save lives and to protect families in Nevada and 
across the country. We need that focus now on what our families are 
dealing with because of this pandemic. That is why our focus should be 
on passing another comprehensive COVID-19 stimulus package.
  We need pandemic unemployment insurance for those who have been laid 
off or furloughed, through no fault of their own, and subsidized health 
coverage for those workers. We need additional funds to address the 
health aspects of this pandemic--everything from PPE to COVID-19 
testing and tracing, to funding to develop vaccines and treatment. We 
need rental and homeowner's insurance to keep people safe in their 
homes as winter approaches. Our small businesses need extended PPP so 
they can retain staff. And many of our large industries need support as 
well.
  State, local, and Tribal governments must have assistance so they can 
afford to fund EMTs, police, firefighters, and healthcare providers, 
not to mention teachers who are reinventing education on the fly.
  All of these essential services are keeping our communities safe and 
functioning during this crisis.
  I can keep going on and on with this list, or I can just simply point 
my colleagues to the Heroes Act, which the House passed months ago.
  If Senator McConnell really wanted to get meaningful relief passed, 
he would do it. We know he can move quickly because we can see that 
with this Supreme Court nominee.
  If he would just come to the table with Senators from both parties 
who are eager to find a compromise to help out their constituents, and 
he could make that deal happen, that is what should happen. Instead, he 
and the majority in this Chamber have decided to fast-track this 
nominee. They have decided the most important thing they can do for 
this Nation during a once-in-a-lifetime health crisis is to confirm a 
Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The cruelty and blindness to the real needs of Americans is 
astounding to me. Instead of working for our constituents, Republican 
leadership has focused on a last-minute power grab that threatens 
Americans' health. I can't support that.
  There is no reason to rush this nominee. There is every reason to act 
on a comprehensive COVID-19 relief package. It is what we should have 
been doing months ago.
  My priority is and will continue to be getting Nevadans comprehensive 
and meaningful support that they need right now.
  Thank you
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of 
Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. That has been the subject of, I know, a number of floor remarks 
tonight and this morning.
  We know that in terms of the history of the nomination at this time 
before an election, no person has ever been confirmed this close--just 
days away from a Presidential election--and no election, of course, has 
had so many votes cast this early. Fifty-nine million is the last 
number I saw a couple of hours ago. And this is all happening--this 
rushed confirmation process--while people are voting, all while 
Republicans here in the Senate are ramming a nomination through and not 
voting on a COVID-19 relief bill, which should be the subject of our 
work at this time, in my judgment, because of the nature of the 
pandemic, the threat that it still poses, and the relief that is needed 
all across the country.
  But as much as we focus, in this Supreme Court Justice nomination 
debate, on this judge from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 
ultimately, it is really, in the end, not about her nomination; in the 
end, it is about real people's lives, especially as to how the Supreme 
Court will impact those lives, those families, when it comes to the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That will be the focus of 
my remarks this morning.
  This is a debate about people, and I will talk about a few people 
from Pennsylvania in my time here on the floor, people like Erin 
Gabriel, who is from Beaver County, PA, right on the Ohio border, way 
out in the western part of our State. It is about Erin and her 11-year-
old daughter Abby, as well as Shannon Striner. Shannon is from 
Pittsburgh, just a little south of where Erin is from.
  I will be talking about Shannon and her 4-year-old daughter, but I 
will start with Erin Gabriel's daughter Abby. I will use this 
photograph to tell everyone who Abby is. Abby is this child in the 
middle. She is in this picture with her brother and sister.

[[Page S6511]]

  Here is what Erin Gabriel said about her daughter. She said:

       My youngest daughter Abby just celebrated her 11th birthday 
     last Saturday.

  This is just in the month of October, this month.

       That was something that was never promised to us. Abby is 
     growing up in her community with her family and friends. 
     Normally, she enjoys shopping, going to the movies, Disney on 
     Ice. She travels. She swims at a local lake, and she snuggles 
     with her dog at home, and she rides all the rides at 
     Idlewild--

  Which is a local amusement park--

       Abby is autistic, deaf, blind, nonverbal, and has a rare 
     progressive neurological syndrome affecting multiple organ 
     systems, with a long list of life-threatening symptoms that 
     we are all still trying to learn more about.
       Medically, Abby has to go through a lot. She sees multiple 
     specialists in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Boston. She is 
     undergoing blood work to monitor her anemia and to watch for 
     signs of leukemia. She has regular EEGs and MRIs to monitor 
     the progress of her seizures. She uses hearing aids and 
     glasses and a wheelchair and a speech-generating device. She 
     relies on protections for people with preexisting conditions, 
     and she relies on the ban on lifetime caps to access this 
     care. Without the Affordable Care Act, Abby would be 
     uninsurable.

  Then Erin goes on to talk about the benefit of living in Pennsylvania 
because of some extra protections that Abby has. Then she continues:

       Because she receives this care, Abby is right now healthy, 
     happy, and thriving. As you might expect, Abby is considered 
     very high risk should she contract COVID-19. Abby has not 
     been inside any building that is not our home or a hospital 
     since March 10 of this year. Summer vacations, play dates, 
     outings, travel plans to visit grandparents--they have all 
     been canceled. This fall, we pulled Abby out of her school--a 
     place that had become community to her over the last 8 
     years--to homeschool her.
       She, like many children with disabilities, simply cannot 
     access a virtual education, and it is not safe to send her 
     back into a school building while this virus is spreading. 
     But Abby misses her school and her friends.
       Normally, ongoing speech, occupational, and physical 
     therapy help Abby to keep the progress she has made learning 
     to walk, to eat, swallow, and to communicate. But with COVID-
     19, they have all come to a halt.
       It is just not safe, and it has also provided us a window 
     into what her world looks like without access to these 
     therapies.

  So that is just part of Abby's story, as told to us by her mom. As I 
made reference to in the statement of her mom, Erin wrote that Abby 
would be ``uninsurable'' without the ACA.
  I have to ask: Are we really going to say, again, that children like 
Abby are uninsurable? Are we going to allow that to happen in America? 
Is that the intent of this whole exercise, the exercise that has played 
out over years now--years--of repeal efforts?
  All of them so far have failed, so the second strategy was to run 
cases up through the judicial system, to get to the Supreme Court, and 
then, ultimately, to stack the Court with rightwing justices who could 
then strike down the Affordable Care Act. That is what we are heading 
toward right now.
  Is that America? Is that the America we want--where we advance 
healthcare to make sure families like Erin's and her daughter Abby have 
all the protection, all the coverage that she needs--after all the 
progress that has been made, instead of coming together and saying that 
we are going to make improvements to our healthcare system but we are 
going to grow the number of people who are covered and we are going to 
ensure that any child like Abby has the protections that she needs, 
that her family should have a right to expect in the United States of 
America, the most powerful, the wealthiest country in the history of 
the world?
  Erin went on to say that, because she receives this care, the care 
she is getting now--largely because of the Affordable Care Act, not to 
mention Medicaid: ``Largely because she receives this care, Abby is 
healthy, happy, and thriving.''
  So I have to ask: What does justice demand here? St. Augustine said 
hundreds of years ago: ``Without justice, what are kingdoms but great 
bands of robbers.''
  So any government--certainly our government--that makes it possible 
for a child to have those protections, those programs, those services, 
the therapies--and I could go on--and then takes an action that could 
result--and if this law is struck down by the Supreme Court will 
result--in those benefits and protections either to have been taken 
away or to be threatened or undermined or compromised or limited--any 
government which does that is robbing that family of justice.
  I mentioned earlier that Shannon's daughter Sienna is another example 
of what we are talking about here. Here is what Shannon says about 
Sienna, her 4-year-old daughter with Down syndrome. She says:

       Sienna is a remarkable little girl that loves life. She is 
     a smiley, energetic, empathetic ray of sunshine. Her favorite 
     activity is spending time with her big sister, whom she 
     adores. If we let her, she would watch Sesame Street all day. 
     Elmo is a way of life in our house. She loves music, books, 
     therapy, and playing outside. She is mischievous, funny, and 
     beautiful. She has the ability to bring smiles to our family 
     on the worst of days. We wouldn't change one thing about her.
       Sienna happens to have an extra copy of her 21st 
     chromosome, also known as trisomy 21 or Down syndrome. 
     Sienna's diagnosis came as a surprise to us. After enduring 
     four miscarriages, she was our miracle baby. Our miracle baby 
     surprised us on the day of her birth with her diagnosis and a 
     heart condition.
       We were completely unprepared to raise a child with a 
     disability. After I delivered her, a kind nurse explained to 
     me how lucky we were to have Sienna here in Pennsylvania 
     after passage of the Affordable Care Act.

  Then she went on to talk about how Pennsylvania had some benefits in 
Medicaid. And then Shannon continues:

       As I entered this new world of early intervention, 
     therapies, and medical needs, I began to realize just how 
     much of a financial toll this would take on all of us if it 
     weren't for the protections of the ACA and Medicaid: custom 
     orthotics, outpatient weekly therapies, overnight hospital 
     stays, adaptive strollers, walkers, safety sleepers, 
     echocardiograms, communication devices, blood work. The list 
     goes on.
       Sienna receives seven weekly therapies. The cost of those 
     alone are $3,400 per week. Without the ACA, her therapies and 
     medical care would have quickly exceeded the lifetime cap, 
     and Sienna would be uninsurable for the rest of her life and 
     left without access to lifesaving care.

  Shannon goes on:

       I am proud to be Sienna's mom. The journey is full of 
     wonder, joy, and unimaginable love. It changes life's most 
     ordinary moments into the extraordinary. But with constant 
     attacks on our healthcare, it is also agonizing work, hard 
     decisions, and constant advocacy. It gets exhausting fighting 
     for your child, having to prove their value to the world.

  Then she goes on at the very end:

       Once again, we as parents are forced to suit up for battle 
     and prove that our children are worthy of healthcare.

  Her last line of this statement is:

       Everyone loses if our children are unable to reach their 
     fullest potential.

  So that is Shannon talking about Sienna, her daughter. She used that 
same word that Erin used. Different stories, similar burdens, but she 
used that same word that Erin used--``uninsurable''--uninsurable if the 
Affordable Care Act is taken away.
  She talks about life with the Affordable Care Act and without it. 
That is what a lot of parents do when they write to us. They tell us 
what their life was like before the Affordable Care Act and what their 
life is like now--and what their life would return to, those dark days 
when an insurance company could make a determination about a child's 
insurance, their coverage, their treatment--frankly, their life
  Then, toward the end, she talks about what she and other parents feel 
under these constant attacks, having to prove their value, the value of 
their child: We as parents are forced to suit up for battle--suit up 
for battle--and prove that our children are worthy of healthcare.
  I am going to ask the same question again: In America? In America, 
that is what we want to do--have this constant battle? Parents have to 
come here, to the U.S. Senate and to the House?
  The organization that this mom is a part of is called Little 
Lobbyists. This is a group for and because of the battles on 
healthcare. Why the hell is this going on in America?
  Why should we be fighting about progress that has been made? Why 
aren't we talking about improvements, getting the cost of healthcare 
down, getting the cost of prescription drugs down? Let's make 
improvements.
  Why do these parents have to continually battle to ensure that their 
children have this kind of protection? Should mothers really have to 
suit up for battle in the United States of

[[Page S6512]]

America, where the powerful get their way all the time in this place?
  They are different kinds of lobbyists that come in. They are not 
Little Lobbyists. They are not mothers and their sons and daughters. 
They are a different kind of lobbyist. Corporations did really well in 
the tax bill of 2017, a bill that was rammed through between 
Thanksgiving and Christmas.
  What did they get? Well, they got about a 14-point reduction in their 
corporate tax rate--permanent tax relief, jacked up the debt to do it--
because they have power.
  I thought that was--when you compare that action that the Senate took 
at the time to what some in the Senate want to do on healthcare, to 
roll back the protections, to rip away protections for these children--
and I am not even talking tonight about the adults who are impacted. 
But when you compare those two actions, it is really perverse and 
disgusting that the powerful get to come in here and get permanent tax 
relief and get a bonanza the likes of which we haven't seen in modern 
American history.
  And all these parents are asking us to do is preserve what we have. 
They are not asking for anything more. They are just saying: Please 
make sure my child doesn't lose their coverage. Please make sure that 
they have the therapies they need when they have these complex medical 
needs, multiple disabilities--not one, in many cases, but multiple. 
That is all they are asking us to do.
  That is why it is such an important matter in the Supreme Court fight 
because you have to ask: Why the rush to get this nominee through by 
election day? That has never happened before this close to an election.
  Well, I will tell you why. This nominee is being fast-tracked, first 
of all, because this nominee has been vetted by the two groups that 
matter--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation--both groups 
totally committed to undoing, striking down the Affordable Care Act. So 
she has already passed that test, and she apparently passed with flying 
colors, as she moves very quickly to a likely confirmation.
  But why the fast-track to get there in a matter of days? What is 
coming up? Is it election day? No. There is a date after the election; 
it is November 10. That is the argument date. They know that, if she is 
not on the Supreme Court, if she is not confirmed as a member of the 
Court by the argument, November 10, she can't participate in the 
decision.
  What is the decision? The decision to strike down the Affordable Care 
Act. That is what it is--the decision that really is the proxy for what 
did not happen on the floor of the U.S. Senate in July of 2017. When 
the repeal effort failed and when it failed multiple times in the House 
over many years, this is the proxy for it. Litigate it, fund it, and 
run that case right up the chain to the Supreme Court.
  So that is what this is about. They want to make sure that she is on 
the Court and at the argument so she can be the deciding vote on the 
Affordable Care Act. That is why we are rushing.
  How about another healthcare issue? How about Medicare? I mentioned 
Medicaid. How about Medicare, the program that used to have bipartisan 
support all across the board?
  Now, Judge Barrett was asked a direct question about Medicare, and 
she didn't want to give an opinion on Medicare. She was asked it in the 
context of the constitutionality of Medicare. And a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, asked her because she 
referenced a law review article questioning the constitutionality of 
Medicare.
  I think that is a loopy theory. I think that is a theory that most 
Americans--probably 90 percent of Americans--don't agree with, 
questioning the constitutionality of Medicare, passed more than 50 
years ago. It has benefited tens and tens and tens of millions of 
Americans and still today benefits numbers like that--45 million, 
roughly, I think it is.
  I understand why the judge doesn't want to say: Well, in this case 
that is before the Court or this case that is unsettled, I might have 
a--I can't give you a determination. But on Medicare couldn't she have 
at least said--instead of mentioning, as she did in her answer, the law 
professor's name twice who has this loopy theory on Medicare 
constitutionality, couldn't she have said simply: Well, I can't tell 
you how I am going to rule on a Medicare case, but I can tell you that, 
just like Brown v. Board of Education is a superprecedent in a judicial 
sense, I think most people would agree that Medicare is a 
superprecedent in a legislative sense.
  She wouldn't have violated any principle of not telling how you are 
going to come down in a case. She could just tell us or relate to us 
the reality that most Americans believe about Medicare.
  Now, I know there has been some commentary about her law review 
article that--or I should say her writings about the 2012 Supreme Court 
case. We know that the case she was referring to was a 2012 case. So, 
in 2017, Judge Barrett wrote an article about what Chief Justice 
Roberts ruled in the case. She wrote: ``Chief Justice Roberts pushed 
the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the 
statute.''
  In light of her frequent criticism of the act, the Affordable Care 
Act, Senator Leahy of Vermont asked her during her confirmation hearing 
whether she had ever written or spoken in favor of the law. She has 
not. So that is what she was writing in 2017.
  I have to ask: If she felt so strongly about the 2012 decision by the 
Court and the position of Justice Roberts, she didn't seem to write 
much about it for a couple years--until 2017, when you had a new 
President. And what followed a few months later was she was nominated 
in the circuit court of appeals. So that is curious.
  But what we know is that the President who nominated her, President 
Trump, certainly wants to strike down the Affordable Care Act. In fact, 
in May he said he wanted to ``terminate healthcare'' under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  We know the impact of that. That destruction, the act of striking 
down the Affordable Care Act, would harm tens of millions of Americans. 
In Pennsylvania, 5\1/2\ million people with a preexisting condition 
would be affected. Over 840,000 Pennsylvanians who are enrolled in 
Medicaid expansion would be, of course, adversely impacted. So that is 
the reality of what we are talking about with regard to this 
nomination.
  I will make reference to one more family before I conclude my 
remarks. It is the Kovacs family from--also from Western Pennsylvania, 
Plum Borough, PA, in Allegheny County, not too far from Pittsburgh. The 
Kovacs' 11-year-old son Thomas is blind and has multiple disabilities. 
He has epilepsy, microencephaly, and intellectual disabilities.
  His mom, Jessica, says the Affordable Care Act has made all of their 
lives better: ``The ACA has made it possible for Thomas to receive 
therapy services at his school, Center Elementary School in Plum 
Borough.''
  The ACA has given his parents the option to change jobs and advance 
in their careers without fear of not being able to obtain health 
coverage for him because of his preexisting conditions. And they don't 
need to worry about busting through lifetime expense caps and losing 
coverage for Thomas. The ACA has brought peace of mind and comfort to 
their family because they know that he is protected by the essential 
healthcare benefits the law provides.
  Striking down the ACA isn't only about the essential health benefits. 
It is about a lot more than that.
  There is so much more that I could talk about tonight, so many more 
examples, but I will conclude with that and just make one final 
comment. When I think about what could happen and what is likely to 
happen if Judge Barrett is confirmed and becomes a member of the Court, 
participates in the argument on November 10, and then because of that 
participation is allowed to, as a member of the Court, to rule on this 
ACA case, it is highly likely that the Affordable Care Act will be 
wiped out.
  I have to ask about the fate of Abby and Sienna and so many other 
children like them all across our Commonwealth and all across the 
country. I think often in government we must ask, here in the U.S. 
Senate or in the House or in the other branch of government--the 
judicial branch or in any branch of government, the executive, 
legislative, or judicial branches--we should all ask ourselves, Is this 
action

[[Page S6513]]

I am taking or is this policy or program advancing the cause of justice 
or not?
  I would submit that striking down the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act by virtue of a Supreme Court decision is not only 
the wrong policy, it is a giant step backwards in the interests of 
justice. Justice demands that these children have these protections; 
that these protections are not undermined, they are not compromised, 
and they are not taken away by judicial fiat.
  This nomination threatens the healthcare of children like Abby and 
Sienna right now--right now in the United States of America, where we 
advanced into the light of protection for those children. When you 
consider what is at stake right now, it is that case. I think it is 
potentially the most important case the Court will decide in the next 
quarter century. That is the impact of it.
  Very few Americans are not directly affected by this case, either 
because they are affected by way of loss of coverage or they are 
affected because of the scope of the protections that were brought 
about by the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the enactment of it.
  A lot is at stake, not to mention so many other issues and so many 
other matters that will come before the Court. For that reason and 
several others, I will be voting against the nomination of Judge 
Barrett to be on the Supreme Court.
  If I have an opportunity between now and the vote, I will outline 
some other reasons why. But for purposes of tonight, this morning, I 
wanted to talk about children like Abby and Sienna and their moms. The 
moms, Erin and Shannon, should have the peace of mind that has come 
with the protections of the Affordable Care Act.
  With that, I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend 
and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, for talking this evening 
about what is at stake for so many of his constituents with this 
Supreme Court nomination and the very real possibility that the 
Affordable Care Act will be struck down and what that means to so many 
of his constituents.
  I do think this is a moment where we need to reflect and take stock 
of where we are as a country on many fronts. We are in the middle of a 
global pandemic. We just saw the highest single day of new reported 
cases on Friday. Millions of Americans are unemployed and worried about 
how they are going to pay their rent and how they are going to pay for 
their medications.
  We are here at a time when a Republican-led lawsuit to strike down 
the Affordable Care Act, supported by President Trump and his 
Department of Justice, is scheduled for a fateful hearing in the 
Supreme Court on November 10--1 week after the upcoming election.
  We are here in the wake of the killings of Black men, like George 
Floyd, and Black women, like Breonna Taylor, which sent throngs of 
protesters into the streets across the country to rightly demand 
greater police accountability and racial justice.
  We gather here as wildfires in the West and hurricanes in the South 
demonstrate with deadly and destructive voracity the accelerating and 
dangerous consequences of climate change. We meet as voters are filling 
out mail-in ballots as early as they can to make sure that the Postal 
Service, which this administration has deliberately slowed down, can 
get their ballots delivered on time so that they can be counted and as 
voters stand in long lines, with their masks, 6 feet apart, to cast 
their ballots in the early vote.
  At this moment, this country is facing all these pressing issues, but 
as I come here this evening or early this morning, we are not 
considering solutions to any of those critical and urgent issues, not a 
single one. Instead, we are blowing up the precedent that the Senate 
Republican leader and other Republican Senators themselves established 
4 years ago and considering a Supreme Court nominee closer in time to 
the Presidential election than ever before in American history, as 
millions of Americans have already have already cast their ballots.
  We are blowing up this Republican Senate established precedent and 
racing toward a nomination that will turn the clock back, take us 
backwards on all of those pressing issues that I just outlined. But 
sadly, I suppose none of us should be surprised that we are focused 
here on another judicial nomination at the expense of focusing on 
legislation to advance and address the interests of the American people 
on so many front-burner pressing issues.
  Indeed, as I reflect on the last months and years, just about the 
only thing this Republican Senate has done is pass nominations. Week 
after week, we ignore our job as legislators in favor of an agenda of 
rubberstamping, blindly supporting whatever nominee this President puts 
forward. In many cases, it hasn't even mattered if a judicial 
nomination is qualified, if they have even tried a case. Our Republican 
Senate colleagues have abandoned any principles they claim to hold with 
respect to our Judiciary Committee
  When President Obama was in office, those Republican Senators who 
were here in this Chamber erected a wall of opposition to scores of his 
nominees, refused to even consider many of them. They outright rejected 
President Obama's efforts to fill seats on the DC Circuit, the court 
just below the Supreme Court.
  Republican Senators at the time claimed that it wasn't necessary to 
fill those vacancies. They rejected qualified nominees up and down the 
bench, denying simple consideration and withholding blue slips. It was 
a deliberate effort to stonewall President Obama's judicial nominees. 
In fact, they rejected a highly-qualified nominee for the very seat 
Judge Amy Coney Barrett currently holds. President Obama nominated Myra 
Selby for the Seventh Circuit in January of 2016. She had served on the 
Indiana Supreme Court and would have been the first African-American 
and first woman from Indiana on that circuit.
  Senate Republicans--what did they do? Didn't even give her a hearing. 
Then, 1 month later, February 2016, Justice Scalia passes away. 
President Obama nominates Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, a good 
and very fair judge who had been confirmed to the DC Circuit by a 
Republican-controlled Senate by a vote of 76 to 23. What did Senate 
Republicans do? They refused to consider the nomination.
  They said, February--February of 2016, February of that election--was 
simply too close to a Presidential election to fill the slot. The 
American people should have a voice, they said. Let the people choose a 
President this year and then that President, whomever that may be, make 
the nomination to the Supreme Court.
  Not only did Senate Republicans oppose Merrick Garland, they refused 
to meet with him. They refused to hold a hearing. This is February 
2016. The American people should have a voice. It is a Presidential 
election year, they said, 8 months--8 months--before that November 2016 
election was just too close.
  And yet, here we are today, 4 years later, 8 days--not 8 months, 8 
days--from the beginning of the last day of this Presidential election, 
November 3. Over 50 million ballots are already cast, and suddenly, 
there is nothing more important than rushing to fill the Supreme Court 
vacancy--not responding to a global pandemic.
  And we just learned from a very reputable Columbia University study 
that had this administration acted and followed the advice of 
healthcare experts, we could have saved at least 130,000 American 
lives--up to 220,000 American lives. But here we are, taking no more 
meaningful action, not giving a lifeline to people who are out of work, 
through no fault of their own; not closing the digital divide so 
children who can't go to school because of COVID can access their 
classes; not reforming our justice and policing system to make sure 
that everyone, no matter the color of their skin, is protected and 
treated equally; not securing our elections against foreign attacks and 
interference.
  Just a few days ago, I was right here on the Senate floor, asking 
this Senate to take up what had been a bipartisan piece of legislation 
called the DETER Act. I introduced it years ago with Senator Rubio, 
after we learned of the Russian interference in 2016. We wanted to make 
sure that we send a clear message in advance of the 2020 election that 
if we catch the Russians or any other adversaries interfering in our 
election, this time, there will be a swift and certain price to pay.

[[Page S6514]]

  Just earlier this past week, we got not surprising news from the DNI 
that, yes, what we have known all along, the Russians are interfering, 
other adversaries are interfering, and yet we couldn't even take up the 
bipartisan bill to send a clear message to Putin and others because the 
Trump administration continues to oppose it and the Senate Republican 
leader continues to bury it here in U.S. Senate.
  No response to global pandemic of meaningful note at this point, 
nothing to do on justice and policing, nothing to secure our elections. 
No, the top priority has been to jettison the precedent that our 
Republican colleagues themselves established under President Obama 4 
years ago and rush to confirm a Supreme Court Justice.
  Why? Why this 180-degree turnaround? After all, it is not as if our 
Senate Republican colleagues have always been so worried about an 
eight-person Supreme Court. They kept the Supreme Court to eight 
Justices for a year--for a full year--when they refused to consider 
Merrick Garland's nomination. Some of our Senate Republican colleagues 
praised the idea of only having eight Justices on the Supreme Court 
forever if Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency in 2016. So what is 
different this time around?
  Well, as we have been hearing on the floor of the Senate and from the 
President himself, there are a number of irresistible opportunities--at 
least irresistible for our President and the Republican colleagues--
things they have been trying to do for years and have not succeeded yet 
in doing.
  First, they can pack the Court--pack the Court with increasingly 
ideological and rightwing Justices to align the very top Court--the 
Supreme Court--with the increasingly ideological rightwing judiciary 
they have been creating over years, first by stonewalling and blocking 
President Obama's nominees and then fast-tracking them for President 
Trump's nominees.
  Second, they can achieve another goal that they have been striving 
for, for a decade: overturning the Affordable Care Act. Ten years ago--
I was a Member of the House of Representatives at the time--Republicans 
did everything--I mean, everything they could--to block passage of the 
Affordable Care Act to stop ObamaCare. We heard outright lies about it. 
They said it was going to cause massive job loss. They said that the 
government would be picking your doctor. They said a government panel 
would decide whether your grandparents lived or died. They called them 
death panels. None of it was true. None of it has come true.
  The first part of the Affordable Care Act was signed into law on 
March 23, 2010. On that very day, House Republicans filed a bill to 
repeal it outright. Also, on that same day, the first Republican 
lawsuits were filed against it. That two-pronged approach--trying to 
undo it legislatively and trying to undo it through the courts--
continued for the next decade, dozens of votes in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate to attempt to repeal the law and dozens 
of Republican attorneys general and special interests filing lawsuits 
to challenge it in the courts. They failed. They failed in the 
Congress. And so far, they have failed in the courts.
  In the courts, in 2012, the Roberts Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a 5-to-4 decision in 
one of the very first cases that had been filed against the law. It 
wasn't a complete victory for the Affordable Care Act. It did make 
Medicaid expansion optional. And a number of Republican-held States 
refused to implement that unless and until voters demanded it at the 
ballots. But that Supreme Court decision did uphold the central tenets 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  The Supreme Court upheld the ACA again in a 6-to-3 decision in 2015. 
But that hasn't stopped the Republican Party's quest to eliminate it 
entirely. Just look at the 2016 Republican Party platform where they 
continued the attack with three strategies.
  First, President Trump: ``With the unanimous support of Congressional 
Republicans, will sign its repeal.''
  Second, while working to legislatively repeal it, the President would 
use his administrative authority to undermine, weaken, and sabotage it.
  Third, the President would appoint Justices to reverse past 
decisions, including the Affordable Care Act decisions made by the 
Supreme Court.
  That was the three-pronged plan. Well, they ran into problems with 
the first part of the plan because despite President Trump's campaign 
promise to convene a special session of Congress to ``immediately 
repeal and replace ObamaCare very, very quickly''--despite that 
pledge--our Republican colleagues soon realized they had no replacement 
plan. They promised that they could repeal the Affordable Care Act and 
replace it with something much, much better and less expensive, but 
there was no real plan. There was no ``there'' there, and the idea they 
offered to the American people was to trade healthcare for millions of 
Americans for tax breaks for the very rich. Tens of millions of 
Americans would have lost access to affordable healthcare. People with 
preexisting conditions would have lost protections, deductibles, and 
copays would have gotten more expensive. Insurance companies would have 
been able to get tax breaks on the bonuses they gave to their CEOs. 
That is what was in the Republican replacement plan--giving tax breaks 
to companies for the bonuses they pay to their CEOs.
  Not surprisingly, they couldn't sell it to the American people, and I 
think we all recall here, in 2017, it dramatically failed by one vote 
in the U.S. Senate. Every Democratic Senator voting against destroying 
the Affordable Care Act, three Republicans joining us, including, of 
course, Senator McCain giving it a big thumbs down.
  Republicans have been a little more successful trying to sabotage the 
law through the Trump administration's Executive authorities by scaling 
back outreach for enrollment plans.
  What does that mean? That means don't tell the public about what 
opportunities they have to get healthcare coverage in the Affordable 
Care Act. We just won't provide as much public information so people 
won't know about it, and then they won't be able to sign up for it; 
also, by ending cost-sharing in an attempt to destabilize the 
healthcare exchanges and allowing more junk health plans that don't 
offer critical benefits or protections, the kind of plans we used to 
see when people thought that they had coverage, and then, when they 
really needed it, they suddenly discovered, no, in the fine print, it 
just wasn't there.
  But despite these efforts by the administration, the law has 
survived. All their efforts to slash it with 100 cuts, it continues to 
provide affordable coverage to millions of Americans, and, in many 
States, including mine in Maryland, they have taken efforts to try to 
protect the Affordable Care Act from the Trump administration's 
attacks.
  But on November 10, when the Supreme Court hears that Affordable Care 
Act case, all of that could change. They could decide, after upholding 
it on two separate occasions, that now they have got another Supreme 
Court Justice, we are going to strike it down.
  And make no mistake, Donald Trump wants this law overturned. I mean, 
no one should be under any illusions about that. You can take it from 
the word of the brief--the legal brief filed by the Solicitor General 
of the United States on behalf of the Trump administration. It is the 
country's lawyer before the Supreme Court.
  He filed a case and said that the entire law ``must fall.'' The 
entire law must fall. Not one piece of it or another piece, the entire 
law must fall. That is the position of the Trump administration. You 
can listen to President Trump back in May of this year. We are in the 
middle of a pandemic, when he said: ``We want to terminate healthcare 
under ObamaCare.''
  You can listen to him just this week on ``60 Minutes.'' It aired 
tonight, and he tweeted out to make sure everyone could see it just in 
case they missed the show. President Trump said of the Supreme Court's 
ACA case: ``I hope that they end it--it'll be so good if they end it.'' 
That is President Trump. It will be so good if they--the Supreme 
Court--end the Affordable Care Act. That has been his plan from the 
Supreme Court from the start.
  In 2015, when he was running, he said: ``If I win the presidency, my 
judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike Bush's appointee 
John Roberts on ObamaCare.'' Candidate Trump hasn't changed his tune. 
And he has found his nominee in Amy Coney Barrett, who has publicly 
criticized past Supreme Court decisions on the Affordable Care Act. She 
is President

[[Page S6515]]

Trump's torpedo aimed at fulfilling his pledge to destroy the 
Affordable Care Act.
  She criticized the decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, saying that Chief 
Justice Roberts' argument ``pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond it 
plausible meaning to save the statute.'' She applauded the dissent in 
King v. Burwell, saying that they had ``the better of the legal 
argument.''
  So it is no wonder that Republican Senators who tried unsuccessfully 
to defeat the Affordable Care Act legislatively in 2017 are now rushing 
to appoint her before that case is heard 1 week after the election.
  The stakes could not be higher for the American people. I want 
everybody to think back to the days before we had the Affordable Care 
Act. Back then, if you had a preexisting health condition, companies 
could deny you coverage outright. If you didn't have the coverage, you 
might otherwise be offered it at a price that you couldn't possibly 
afford--outrageously expensive. Instead of denying it outright, we will 
offer you that coverage, but you have got a preexisting health 
condition, so we are going to charge you something that you can't 
possibly afford and so you can't buy it.
  If you did have coverage and then developed a health issue, you would 
be locked into your current plan no matter how high the costs arose, 
unable to shop around because of what had become a preexisting 
condition. It is called job lock. You have to stay in a job even if you 
have a better opportunity or you want to pursue your dreams because you 
now have a preexisting health condition and you can't get coverage 
elsewhere.
  One Marylander, Angela, wrote to me about her daughter Rachel, who 
was diagnosed with epilepsy when she was in 8th grade. She had to take 
expensive medications, which she can afford thanks to the Affordable 
Care Act. Here is what Rachel's mother wrote:

       She now has a lifetime preexisting condition. If she were 
     to be kicked off her healthcare, I imagine she would be 
     bankrupted having to pay full costs of the medications that 
     help her be a productive member of society.

  Rachel is a teacher, and her mother Angela says: ``It is because of 
ObamaCare that she is able to be where she is today.''
  Another constituent, Megan, wrote to me that she turned 26 on the 
Thursday that the Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee 
reported out the Barrett nomination. She turned 26 just last Thursday. 
She has asthma. She pays $60 a month for her medications. And here is 
what she wrote to me:

       If I lost my job or my insurance. . . . I would have to 
     make a choice between my medicine or paying the electric bill 
     on time.

  And she ended her note to me with the following:

       For my 26th birthday, my only wish is that the Affordable 
     Care Act not be overturned. There are so many people like me, 
     Americans with preexisting conditions, that depend on this 
     crucial legislation that provides necessary protection and 
     guarantees that they will stay covered no matter what.

  That is what Megan wrote.
  And before the Affordable Care Act, women could be charged more just 
because they were women. Being a woman was a preexisting condition that 
allowed insurance companies to charge more. It is also true that before 
the Affordable Care Act, if you had a catastrophic accident or a long-
term health issue, you would hit a coverage gap and be bankrupted by 
millions of dollars in hospital bills. There were no annual caps and no 
lifetime caps.
  Sometimes that meant that people wouldn't go to the hospital or see a 
doctor because they didn't want to face unending, uncapped bills. That 
is what would have happened to another constituent of mine, Robin, if 
she did not have the Affordable Care Act.
  She wrote:

       I am 64.

  So she is not yet 65, so she is not covered by Medicare.

       I am 64, took a tumble at home. My older son urged me to go 
     to the emergency room due to my family health history. I was 
     kept in the hospital due to a low thyroid level and almost 
     non-existent potassium level among other problems. I would 
     not have recovered if I did not have [the] ACA. I would not 
     have health insurance and I know I could not pay a hospital 
     bill, so I would not go to the emergency room. I would have 
     died. [The Affordable Care Act] saved my life.

  Before the Affordable Care Act, if you were a recent college graduate 
but you hadn't found a job with health insurance yet, you couldn't stay 
automatically on your parents' health insurance policy. You were on 
your own, out of luck, young people thinking they are invincible until 
they are not. Insurance companies could deny coverage to them, and now 
they can't.
  I heard from one Marylander who worries about his son's future if 
this particular provision is taken away. He wrote to me:

       If the ACA is overturned and we lose the coverage for my 
     son on my policy, this would be a disaster for my son and for 
     my family. . . . I would hate to see him have to drop out of 
     school just to find a job to cover health insurance--this 
     would destroy his future. And we don't have--

  He continued to write--

     the extra $5,000 or so a year lying around that would be 
     required for him to have a policy under our current provider 
     that would cover his preexisting conditions. My son could be 
     one of the millions to lose health insurance if the 
     Republicans have their way.

  This provision of the Affordable Care Act has been lifesaving for 
Pamela's family. She wrote:

       This year, my 23-year-old daughter was diagnosed with stage 
     3 breast cancer.

  Stage 3 breast cancer.

       Thanks to the [Affordable Care Act] she is still on our 
     insurance. Even with our insurance, she will be in debt for a 
     very long time. Without it she would be dead. I have not 
     heard a single Republican guarantee this will be in any bill 
     they propose.

  It is also a fact that before the Affordable Care Act, you had to pay 
for annual checkups and preventive coverage like breast cancer 
screenings. It is also a fact that if you want to quit your job to 
start a small business, you had to figure out how you would pay for an 
expensive health plan, which might not provide very good coverage on 
the individual market.
  Another Marylander, who had a lump in her breast that was treated as 
a preexisting condition even after it disappeared, decided she had to 
limit her employment options to those with decent health insurance 
before the ACA was enacted. She wrote:

       This experience steered me to work only for employers large 
     enough to offer stable, subsidized healthcare insurance. . . 
     . The downside has been the golden handcuffs. It is important 
     to have universal decent healthcare coverage to encourage 
     small businesses, nonprofits, and entrepreneurs.

  Kathleen from Maryland decided to leave an office job to find 
something that suited her better, but the job she took in the 
restaurant industry didn't offer any medical coverage. She wrote:

       I developed adult-onset asthma, more than once resorting to 
     the ERs or Urgent Care. I searched everywhere I knew for 
     medical insurance but was refused, either because I was just 
     an individual and/or because I now had a ``pre-existing 
     condition.'' Knowing nothing about asthma treatment, and 
     unable to cover medical bills entirely on my own, I was 
     chronically ill, and more than once almost died.

  She had to rely on friends and family for help, and after 10 years 
without insurance, she finally found a job with coverage. Kathleen 
wrote:

       We ALL need medical coverage, ALL the time, no matter your 
     employment status.

  The Affordable Care Act dramatically expanded Medicaid in many 
States--those that opted to participate--providing subsidies for low-
income Americans to find affordable plans and gave small business tax 
credits for providing health insurance for their employees. It also 
closed the prescription drug doughnut hole for seniors on Medicare.
  A lot of people forget, seniors on Medicare benefited from the 
Affordable Care Act and continue to benefit. That is part of the law 
that the Trump administration is trying to overturn in its entirety. 
These are seniors who have faced a big coverage gap from the initial 
spending threshold, and on the other side of the doughnut hole, 
catastrophic spending--a big doughnut hole.
  In 2016, the most recent years where we have complete data, close to 
5 million seniors on Medicare received an average of over $1,000 in 
Part D prescription discounts because the doughnut hole was closed. 
Another 46 million seniors are on Part D Medicare today. If any of them 
all of a sudden develop a condition that requires high drug costs, any 
of those 46 million Americans could fall into that doughnut hole, 
costing them as much as $3,000 more per year.
  Now, the Affordable Care Act isn't a perfect law, but it did set a 
key standard for essential health benefits, cut

[[Page S6516]]

the rate of uninsured Americans, and started improving healthcare 
outcomes for Americans. And, right now, while we are in the middle of 
the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever.
  The United States has had over 8.6 million COVID-19 cases, a number 
that we see grow by the day. For patients who require hospitalization, 
the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the average stay can cost 
more than $20,000 a person and rise to closer to $90,000 if the patient 
requires a ventilator.
  So what would happen to those Americans if they are once again 
subjected to a lifetime out-of-pocket limit on their insurance coverage 
where they are not protected against huge expenditures?
  We are all glad that when President Trump got COVID, he got world-
class care. It is a good thing. We are glad he got airlifted to Walter 
Reed in Maryland. It is a great national military medical facility. We 
are glad he had a team of doctors devoted to his case. We are glad he 
got access to cutting-edge drugs. He won't have to pay for that 
coverage.
  But that is not the kind of treatment every other American gets, and 
it is offensive for the President to relish his first-class treatment 
while denying his fellow Americans simple protections, as he would, by 
calling for the destruction of the Affordable Care Act.
  Speaking of COVID-19 and the impact of preexisting conditions, we are 
seeing many COVID-19 patients who have long-term health effects. They 
call them the ``long-haulers.'' The CDC noted last month that COVID-19 
can have an impact on the heart, including heart damage that can lead 
to long-term symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pain, and heart 
palpitations.
  An article this month in the Harvard Medical School Health Blog notes 
that COVID can damage the brain, causing cognitive effects comparable 
to those who have suffered traumatic brain injury.
  So while Senate Republicans have refused to take meaningful action to 
confront the next step of COVID-19 relief, including refusing to pass a 
strong testing and tracing plan to halt the spread of the virus as 
proposed in the Heroes Act--both 1 and 2--from the House of 
Representatives, they are pushing for a nominee to take the Affordable 
Care Act away from the American people who have gotten sick, and now up 
to 8.6 million of them have a preexisting condition due to COVID-19. 
But they will no longer be protected from that preexisting condition if 
the Affordable Care Act goes away.
  This isn't crying wolf. I want to remind everybody again, the 
Solicitor General of the United States, acting on behalf of the 
President of the United States, wrote in his brief supporting the case 
for the Affordable Care Act that the entire law--the entire law, 
coverage for preexisting conditions, closing the Medicare doughnut 
hole, and ending lifetime limits for care--``must fall.'' All of it 
``must fall.''
  We know President Trump has no plan to replace it. He has had plenty 
of time to present one. For years, he kept telling us: It is going to 
be a matter of weeks. Four years after his inauguration: It is going to 
be a matter of weeks. Two years ago: It is a matter of weeks. Three 
years ago: It is a matter of weeks.
  He was asked about it in the last debate. He said don't worry. He is 
going to come up with ``a brand new, beautiful health [plan].''
  Women's health, in particular, is in jeopardy with this nomination. 
Not only do women stand to lose the Affordable Care Act protections 
against discrimination--because before that, as I said, just being a 
woman was a preexisting condition that would and could cost you more--
they will no longer have access to the guarantee of precancer 
screenings for breast cancer and other screenings. But it is also a 
fact that President Trump and Republicans have long sought to deny them 
reproductive health freedom.
  That brings us to another longtime priority of President Trump and 
Senate Republicans--putting a Justice on the Supreme Court who will 
provide a majority to strike down a woman's right to reproductive 
choice in accordance with the Roe v. Wade decision.
  The Roe v. Wade decision was 7 to 2 in the Supreme Court. It was 
founded on the right to privacy, that a woman's healthcare choice was 
her own, without interference from the State, in accordance with the 
Roe v. Wade framework.
  Before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal in most States, unsafe 
abortions caused one-sixth of all pregnancy-related deaths. Many low-
income women jeopardized their lives with self-induced procedures.
  Now, women have safe options, both to obtain abortions and also, 
thanks to the Affordable Care Act, no-cost contraception that is used 
both to plan families and manage a variety of health conditions. Women 
can make decisions about their own bodies, in consultation with their 
doctors, that are best for their health and the well-being of their 
families.
  The vast majority of Americans support comprehensive healthcare, 
including a woman's right to reproductive choice under Roe v. Wade, but 
there has been a long fight chipping away at this protection, this 
care, with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade altogether.
  Overturning that case has been one of President Trump's litmus tests 
for this Supreme Court nominee and his other picks. Like the Affordable 
Care Act, it is not like he has been subtle about this.
  In a Presidential debate in 2016, he was asked if he wanted the 
Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He said:

       Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, 
     that's really what's going to be--that will happen. And that 
     will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am 
     putting pro-life judges on the court.

  There it is. This would be President Trump's third Supreme Court 
nominee--the magic number he talked about for overturning Roe v. Wade 
and a woman's protected right to choose under the Constitution of the 
United States. This comes on top of the more than 60 judges with anti-
choice records whom he has already nominated and the Senate has 
confirmed to the lower courts.
  More States are passing laws to drastically limit or effectively ban 
abortion in order to set up cases to challenge Roe v. Wade in the 
courts, to set up those cases to take to the Supreme Court.
  Again, as with his intention to overturn the Affordable Care Act, 
President Trump has found the perfect nominee to overturn Roe v. Wade 
in Judge Barrett.
  We don't have to rely on the President's words alone or on all the 
anti-choice groups who have vigorously lobbied for her appointment and 
who have said that she ``believes that Roe v. Wade is something that 
can be reversed.'' That is what all the advocacy groups supporting her 
nomination are saying. One of our Republican Senate colleagues said he 
absolutely will never vote for a Justice who has not shown that they 
believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and has told us that Judge 
Barrett ``certainly would meet that standard.''
  Just as we can see Judge Barrett's opposition to the Affordable Care 
Act in her own record, we can see her opposition to Roe v. Wade in her 
own record. She signed on to an advertisement calling Roe v. Wade ``an 
exercise of raw judicial power'' that advocated for ending ``the 
barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.'' That is what she said.
  She signed another advertisement criticizing Roe v. Wade when she was 
a member of Notre Dame's University Faculty for Life, an anti-choice 
group. She has said that Roe v. Wade is not settled precedent.
  Indeed, at her hearing in the Senate, she questioned the principle 
that the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights from 
government interference on privacy grounds, saying that there is a 
debate about how far that can go--a debate that is generally waged by 
those looking to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergefell, the case that 
allows for gay marriage.
  She would not even concede--and this is very telling--she would not 
even concede in her hearing that the decision in Griswold v. 
Connecticut was settled law. Griswold v. Connecticut is the case that 
protects access to contraceptives. There was a Connecticut law on the 
books that prohibited any person from using contraception, and the 
Court invalidated that law in a 7-to-2 decision on the grounds that it 
violated marital privacy.
  I want our colleagues to think about this. This is a State law that 
said that

[[Page S6517]]

adults could not use contraception, and she would not say that is 
settled law under the Constitution of the United States. She would not 
even concede that in vitro fertilization, which has helped many women 
start their families, was constitutional and could not be made illegal.

  It is clear from President Trump's stated intentions from the words 
of anti-choice groups, the promise of our own colleagues, and from 
Judge Barrett's own words that her nomination is the culmination of a 
decades-long effort to overturn a woman's right to choose.
  We also see that with respect to the decision in Obergefell v. 
Hodges. On that day in 2015, the Supreme Court showed us what it could 
be--a body that would ensure, rather than restrict, the rights of 
Americans. In a 5-to-4 decision, it told LGBTQ Americans that the love 
they had for each other and their wish to declare that love in marriage 
was their right, as it has been for straight couples for the whole 
history of our Nation. Five years later, the American people support 
this decision at record-high levels. But that was a 5-to-4 decision, 
and we are now facing a fundamental shift in the balance of the Court, 
and we have seen time and again this President attack laws designed to 
protect people against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  We also see this not just from the administration but, again, through 
Judge Barrett's own words and actions. She received an honorarium to 
teach at a program run by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which the 
Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized as a hate group for its 
efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage and recriminalize homosexuality, 
and she called the experience ``a wonderful one.'' She has referred to 
sexual orientation as a ``sexual preference,'' which are the buzz words 
used by those who want to overturn LGBTQ rights on the grounds that 
this is not a question of ``immutable characteristic'' but simply 
someone's chosen preference.
  There are a number of cases coming to the Supreme Court that deal 
with the issue of discrimination against foster families headed by 
same-sex couples. One will arrive at the Court on November 4, the day 
after the election--another reason you see this nomination being 
rushed.
  If you look through the issues I outlined at the start--from racial 
justice and police accountability, to other questions on the ability to 
access healthcare--you will find time and again in Judge Barrett's 
record telltale signs and clear signs--flashing warning signs--that she 
wants to turn back the clock.
  We see that with respect to criminal justice reform, where she 
dissented in a case on whether a defendant who had been convicted but 
not yet sentenced when the First Step Act was enacted by this Congress 
and signed by the President--as to whether the new sentencing 
requirements of that law would apply. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit 
ruled 9 to 3 that the First Step Act applied to the defendant. Judge 
Barrett was one of the three dissenting votes who adopted a cramped 
interpretation of the law devoid of any mercy.
  There are other cases relating to the rights of those who have been 
injured, including a pregnant teenager who was repeatedly sexually 
assaulted by a prison guard, where Judge Barrett found that the prison 
guard could not be held liable under his employment with the prison 
system. If you read through that case and the horrifying facts, I think 
you come away very troubled with the fact that she had such a cramped 
reading of the law.
  On a question that is not a legal matter but a matter of fact--
climate change--we would have thought that the question that was put to 
her was quite easy. Judge Barrett admitted that the coronavirus was 
infectious. Why? Because that is what the medical experts say. But when 
she was asked about climate change--again, not a tricky, legal 
question--she refused to say what the overwhelming scientific consensus 
is--that climate change is real. We see it, as I said, with the forest 
fires. We see it with the hurricanes. We see it in my State of 
Maryland, just in the city of Annapolis, the home of the Naval Academy. 
We see flooding at our docks that is wreaking havoc on local 
businesses.
  Time and again, when Judge Barrett was given an opportunity to answer 
basic fact questions or pretty straightforward legal questions in the 
Judiciary Committee, she ducked them entirely, but we have her record 
to indicate where she stands.
  On the issue of voter protection and voting rights, we also find 
another troubling pattern in Judge Barrett's record. This is especially 
important when you think about the fact that she is filling the seat of 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote that very powerful dissent in 
the 5-to-4 decision in Shelby v. Eric Holder that took a big bite out 
of the Voting Rights Act.
  If you look at the statements by Judge Barrett, she distinguishes 
between what she calls individual rights, like the Second Amendment 
rights, versus what she calls a civic right, the right to vote--putting 
the right to vote in a lesser protected category than what she defines 
as individual rights. In fact, Judge Barrett wrote: ``As a right that 
was exercised for the benefit of the community (like voting and jury 
service), rather than for the benefit of the individual . . . it 
belonged only to virtuous citizens.''
  ``Only to virtuous citizens''--that is what Judge Barrett wrote about 
the right to vote. The right to vote, as we all know, is fundamental to 
our democracy.
  Our dear colleague John Lewis, who recently passed away and was 
nearly beaten to death for fighting for that right to vote, said many 
times:

       The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most 
     powerful, non-violent tool we have in a democracy.

  That right to vote should not be relegated to some kind of secondary 
status, as Judge Barrett's writings indicate she would do.
  So if you look at all the challenges that we face as a country--
dealing with the pandemic, dealing with issues of police accountability 
and racial justice, dealing with climate change, dealing with 
protecting voting rights--all these pressing issues that we should be 
focused on here in the U.S. Senate, we are not. Instead, we are rushing 
through this illegitimate process to put a Justice on the Supreme Court 
who in each of these areas--each of these areas where we should be 
focusing on attention--is actually going to take us backward.
  So I urge the Senate--I can see the march that is going day after day 
toward the vote tomorrow, but I urge this Senate to reconsider the path 
that it is on.
  This has been a very shameful episode--watching the complete flip-
flop from 2016, rushing to put on a Justice whom the President wants 
and who Senate Republicans, I think, believe will act to overturn the 
Affordable Care Act, take away a woman's right to choose, and be part 
of an ideological majority that will strip away important rights from 
the American people.
  I will end by just pointing out that public surveys right now show 
the American people are not fooled by this process. They don't like 
what they see. They want us to be focused on dealing with COVID-19. 
They want us to pass a robust, comprehensive emergency response 
package. That is what the American people are calling for. Instead, 
this Senate has embarked on this charade of a process.
  There will be a verdict on all of this by the American people in a 
matter of 8 days, and I believe there will be a reckoning on the 
actions the Senate is taking and the actions the Senate has refused to 
take in addressing the urgent issues that are really facing the 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am going to give some remarks in 4 or 5 
minutes. I just wanted to encourage the staffers, especially the 
stenographers, to feel comfortable to keep their distance from U.S. 
Senators who are delivering remarks. There is no reason, if we have 
microphones on, to be anywhere near us. So I would just encourage them 
to keep their distance, especially since most Members are delivering 
remarks without masks on.
  So if there is something the staff could do to just encourage them to 
keep their distance, we do want them to be safe.
  I will be giving remarks in a few minutes.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S6518]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.