September 29, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 169 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S5890-S5893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROTECTING THE HEALTHCARE OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF THE 
 UNITED STATES AND PREVENTING EFFORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO 
 ADVOCATE COURTS TO STRIKE DOWN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE 
                      CARE ACT--Motion to Proceed

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 551, S. 
4653, a bill to protect the healthcare of hundreds of millions of 
people of the United States and prevent efforts of the Department of 
Justice to advocate courts to strike down the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 551, S. 4653, a bill to 
     protect the healthcare of hundreds of millions of people of 
     the United States and prevent efforts of the Department of 
     Justice to advocate courts to strike down the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 551, S. 4653, a bill to protect the 
     healthcare of hundreds of millions of people of the United 
     States and prevent efforts of the Department of Justice to 
     advocate courts to strike down the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act.
         Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Patty Murray, Tim 
           Kaine, Martin Heinrich, Jack Reed, Jeff Merkley, 
           Bernard Sanders, Jon Tester, Benjamin L. Cardin, Brian 
           Schatz, Debbie Stabenow, Richard Blumenthal, Angus S. 
           King, Jr., Michael F. Bennet, Edward J. Markey, Chris 
           Van Hollen, Sheldon Whitehouse, Kirsten E. Gillibrand.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Trump Tax Returns

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the New York Times' latest reporting 
tells us everything we need to know about why President Trump has 
worked so hard to conceal his tax returns from the American people. The 
President is a liar, a cheat, and a fraud. For years he marketed 
himself as a self-made, successful businessman, but it is all an 
illusion. Like the Wizard of Oz, behind the curtain is just a small, 
petty fraud.
  He made millions playing a billionaire businessman on TV, but in real 
life, Donald Trump was racking up huge losses in debts that he then 
used to get out of paying his fair share of Federal taxes. Call it tax 
avoidance. Call it tax evasion. Call it whatever you want. The bottom 
line is that Trump is no business genius. He is a con artist who thinks 
that the rules don't apply to him.
  The President managed to avoid paying any Federal income tax for 11 
of 18 years, from 2000 to 2017, and then only paid $750 in 2016 and 
2017. When I first read that in the New York Times, I thought there 
must have been a typo. Surely there were zeros missing. I was wrong. 
The page read right. Our self-proclaimed billionaire President paid 
just $750 in Federal income taxes--$750. That is a heck of a lot less 
than what essential workers supporting America throughout this pandemic 
pay in taxes, like the grocery clerk in Newark, NJ, who makes $11 an 
hour but owes about $1,060 in Federal taxes--$300 more than Donald 
Trump. How about the nurse in Hackensack, NJ, working nights to save 
patients with COVID-19, making $60,000 a year. She owes about $6,200 in 
Federal income taxes--more than eight times what the President paid.
  Most people would agree that is a problem with our economy. Americans 
are working harder than ever for less. They are drowning in 
skyrocketing healthcare, housing, childcare, and tuition bills. At the 
end of the day, many middle-class New Jersey families still find 
themselves owing money to Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, for rich people like 
Donald Trump, the tax rate is the lowest it has been in decades, and 
you can write off fancy haircuts and consulting fees paid to your own 
daughter and all the losses you racked up running your business into 
the ground.
  I have to say, this is no surprise to most New Jerseyans. We watched 
in horror as Donald Trump ran his Atlantic City casinos into the 
ground, scamming hard-working contractors out of their pay and costing 
the local economy thousands of jobs. Donald Trump was like a reverse 
King Midas--everything he touched went bankrupt. Then after his string 
of bankruptcies and broken promises to workers, Trump turned around and 
got a $72.9 million bailout from the IRS--you heard me right, a $72.9 
million bailout from the IRS. Most people I know think it is a good 
year when they get $400 or $500 back from the Federal Government; this 
scam artist got off with $72.9 million.
  Yet Donald Trump isn't swimming in cash; he is drowning in debt. The 
President is on the hook for approximately $421 million in loans, more 
than $300 million of that coming due in the next 4 years. To get out of 
the debt, the President is doing everything he can to profit off the 
Presidency. Over the last 4 years, he has continued to make money off 
foreign investments, rake in cash from special interests and foreign 
officials at his Washington hotel, and charge the Federal Government 
millions for the use of his properties. He could go anywhere. He could 
go to Camp David. No. He goes to his properties, where millions--Secret 
Service and other entities protect the President and help the President 
whenever he leaves Washington. But he is always at his properties.
  In spite of all this revenue, Trump is still badly in debt. It is no 
surprise that intelligence experts are concerned about who is holding 
it. They worry about the President's personal exposure to foreign 
creditors and what that might mean for national security. Anyone else 
in that much debt to foreign entities would have their security 
clearances immediately revoked. Is this why Trump refuses to punish 
Putin for putting bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers? Is this why 
he applauds dictators like Erdogan and sells out American allies like 
the Kurds? Is this why he applauds dictators like Philippines President 
Rodrigo Duterte for doing ``an unbelievable job''?
  The bottom line is this: Who does Donald Trump owe those hundreds of 
millions of dollars to, and how much do

[[Page S5891]]

they know about him and how deep are they into him?
  For years, the President has fought to keep Americans in the dark. 
Well, now we know why. He is a liar, a fraud, and a failed businessman 
so deep in the red, he is a potential national security liability.
  Let me close by quoting President Donald Trump in his own book, ``The 
Art of the Deal.'' He said:

       You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create 
     excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds 
     of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you 
     don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

  I only hope the American people are catching on.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     552, H.R. 8337, a bill making continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Richard C. Shelby, Lindsey Graham, Cindy 
           Hyde-Smith, Tom Cotton, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, Roy 
           Blunt, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr, Cory Gardner, 
           John Barrasso, Joni Ernst, Mike Crapo, Rob Portman, 
           James E. Risch, John Hoeven.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
8337, a bill making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Cruz
     Hawley
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Paul
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Alexander
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Coons
     Harris
     Moran
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Tester
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 6.
  Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the selection of the person to fill the 
Supreme Court vacancy is a historic moment in Washington. This is the 
seventh time that we will be in a position to at least meet someone who 
is aspiring to that position. I have had opportunities with each one of 
them to ask some questions before the formal hearing. I hope I have the 
same opportunity with the current nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
  What is different about this particular moment is the fact that we 
know that there is an issue at stake here and one that is likely to be 
decided almost immediately by the new Supreme Court Justice. It is the 
only explanation I can find--perhaps one other--the only two 
explanations I can find as to why there is this hurry to fill this 
vacancy.
  You see, it was 4 years ago, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme 
Court with Antonin Scalia's death--and that occurred on the February 
before the election--that Senator McConnell, then the Republican Senate 
leader, argued there was no need to hurry. Why hurry about it? Leave 
the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Wait until after the next 
Presidential election. Let the American people decide who will be 
filling that vacancy.
  He made that argument, despite the clear history in this Chamber that 
did not support him, and he won the support of his position by every 
Republican Senator. They went so far as to say that if President Obama, 
in his last year in office, nominated someone to fill the Supreme Court 
vacancy, they wouldn't give that person a hearing.
  Well, President Obama, in his last year of his Presidency, nominated 
Merrick Garland, a person who was widely respected as the chief judge 
in the DC Circuit Court--the second highest court in the land by some 
measure--and Merrick Garland came to Capitol Hill in the hopes that he 
would get his day in court, so to speak, in the Senate. But Senator 
McConnell said: No way. Words out, Republican Senators, don't meet with 
him. A couple of them broke his rule and met with him anyway. But the 
word was out not to even give him the courtesy of a meeting 4 years 
ago. So Merrick Garland never had his day before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, and his nomination departed with the Presidency of Barack 
Obama.
  Senator McConnell's new theory prevailed on how the Senate should 
treat Supreme Court vacancies. Every one of his soldiers on the 
Republican Senate marched in lock step with his theory. Well, guess 
what happened 4 years ago later. An incumbent President had a late 
vacancy on the Supreme Court with the untimely death of Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg, just a little over a week-and-a-half ago. And the obvious 
question to Senator McConnell is: Will you be consistent now and say 
that that vacancy should not be filled until a new President is 
elected, and that President should have the option to fill it? And 
Senator McConnell said: Of course not. It is not to my political 
advantage--he didn't add those words; I did--not to my political 
advantage. I am going to change this hard-and-fast rule of 4 years ago, 
and I am going to ask all of my Republican Senators to march before a 
camera and a microphone and to look down at their shoes and say the 
position they took 4 years ago, they are abandoning today. And all but 
two of them did it. All but two of them walked away from their pledge 
that they were under the old McConnell rule.
  That McConnell rule was stated in just a few words. Here is what 
Senator McConnell said 4 years ago:

       The American people should have a voice in the selection of 
     their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy 
     should not be filled until we have a new President.

  The McConnell rule was thrown out just a few days ago. Why? Because 
it was to Senator McConnell's advantage to fill this vacancy and to the 
President's and not to wait for the outcome of the November 3 election. 
So what is the issue? What would cause Senator McConnell to change so 
quickly and

[[Page S5892]]

to ask all of his loyal Republican Senators to go through the 
embarrassment of recanting the position they took publicly 4 years ago? 
What is the big deal, Senator McConnell? Well, it turns out we know 
what the big deal is. It is the Affordable Care Act. To paraphrase a 
Senator from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers, the Republicans and President 
Trump hate the Affordable Care Act like the devil hates holy water. 
They have tried every imaginable way to eliminate it, to change it, to 
water it down, and to discourage it. There were 50 different votes in 
the House of Representatives to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and 
were it not for the Democrats in the Senate, they might have had some 
luck in doing that, but it didn't work. So they tried it on the Senate 
floor under reconciliation. They thought: Here is our chance. We just 
need a majority. We should be able to pull this one off.
  And we had this historic moment just 3 years ago when, at 2:30 in the 
morning, John McCain came through those doors, and, with his ``no'' 
vote and the vote of two other Republican Senators, saved the 
Affordable Care Act. Imagine the frustration of Mitch McConnell. Here 
was his moment to finally drive that dagger deep in the heart of the 
Affordable Care Act, and John McCain voted no. What was he going to do 
to get this job done?
  Well, it turns out he figured he would get it done across the street 
in the U.S. Supreme Court. So 18 Republican State attorneys general 
filed a lawsuit to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. And then the 
Trump administration said: We are on board too. Let's get rid of it 
completely.
  Off they went through the long treacherous journey in the courts all 
the way up to the Supreme Court across the street. Guess when the 
argument is scheduled to be heard. It is to be heard 7 days after the 
election. So you wonder why there is such a hurry to put another 
Supreme Court Justice on the Court who also opposes the Affordable Care 
Act? And make no mistake, President Trump made that one of the 
conditions of employment for anyone he would name to the Supreme Court. 
You have to be ready to march right in there and put an end to it.
  So if we can vote under Senator McConnell's timetable on or before 
the election, November 3, the new Supreme Court Justice sworn in, in 
her black robe, ascends to the bench in the Supreme Court on November 
10, listens to the oral argument on the Affordable Care Act, and then a 
few weeks or months later puts an end to it. That is why we are in such 
a hurry, because if that Supreme Court vacancy is not filled by 
November 10, then whomever is chosen, as they do by tradition, could 
vote on the actual outcome of the case in the spring. That is what this 
is all about.

  As someone told me long ago in this business of politics, there is 
always a good reason, and then there is always the real reason. The 
real reason for the mad dash of the Senate Judiciary Committee to fill 
the Supreme Court vacancy, the real reason why Republican Senators are 
asked to march in lockstep and say that what they pledged 4 years ago 
meant nothing today--the real reason--is to put an end to the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Let me tell the story, if I can, about the Affordable Care Act. I 
voted for it and am proud to have done it. Twenty million Americans 
have insurance because of it--600,000 in Illinois and, I might add, 
protections for people all across America. Let me discuss one of the 
protections of the Affordable Care Act that will go away and be 
eliminated if President Trump, the Republican Attorney General, and the 
Republican Senators who are supporting Mitch McConnell have their way. 
Here is one of the provisions in the law.
  Here is the story.
  A couple of years ago, Tom from Palatine, IL, a suburb of Chicago, 
wrote to me about the Affordable Care Act. I will show a picture here. 
This is him. At the age of 30, Tom, married with dreams of fatherhood, 
was diagnosed with cancer, a tumor in his chest. He underwent 20 rounds 
of chemo and major surgery to remove the tumor. Thankfully, after that, 
he was cancer free.
  There is Tom in his better days, racing to Wrigley. And there he is 
fighting his way through cancer in a hospital bed.
  How much did it cost him for all of that care? Two million dollars. 
Two million dollars was the bill.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies imposed arbitrary 
annual and lifetime limits on how much they would actually reimburse a 
patient for medical bills. If you pass the limit, you are on the hook 
personally. That is why for years, medical debt was a leading cause of 
bankruptcy in America.
  A fellow like Tom, racing along here, looking as healthy and fit as 
possible, ends up with a cancer diagnosis and goes through months and 
months of therapy and a bill of 2 million bucks, and the insurance 
company says: It is all yours. There is a limit in your policy.
  That is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. The 
Affordable Care Act put an end to those limits. Without those 
protections, Tom wrote to me and said that he ``would most likely have 
capped [his] coverage and be bankrupt.'' It is pretty clear.
  Thousands of other Americans could also be right there with him 
without the Affordable Care Act. Although Tom wants to continue working 
and contributing to society, he said he is scared to death. He is 
``terrified''--in his words--that protections for preexisting 
conditions would be ended. You see, Tom having defeated surgery and 
declared this great victory--I am sure his friends and family couldn't 
be happier--is now branded by the insurance companies as a man with a 
preexisting condition.
  In the old days, before the Affordable Care Act: Good luck, Tom. Good 
luck, because if you had a preexisting condition--and almost anything 
would count: acne, asthma, being a woman who might get pregnant, and on 
and on and on--you were subjected to higher premiums, maybe even no 
insurance at all. Those were the days before the Affordable Care Act.
  Now, President Trump, the Republican attorneys general, and the 
Republicans in the Senate are dutybound to send a new Supreme Court 
Justice in to put an end to that protection, to put an end to the 
Affordable Care Act. They are so determined to get rid of ObamaCare at 
any cost that they could care less about Tom and people just like him 
with these lifetime limits.
  If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, insurers could once again 
deny coverage to millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. 
That isn't all.
  The Affordable Care Act also made it clear that if you are a family 
with a son or daughter who goes to college, comes out of school looking 
for a job, maybe had taken that gap year, maybe had taken an 
internship, but likely not to have health insurance, the Affordable 
Care Act says don't worry. Until that young man or young woman in your 
household reaches the age of 26, they can stay on your family's health 
insurance plan--a provision of the Affordable Care Act and a provision 
that a lot of families count on.
  Our family needed something just like that when our daughter 
graduated college and didn't have health insurance and assured me that 
she sure didn't need it and she was so healthy. Well, that is scary 
talk for a parent to hear. But when it came to the Affordable Care Act, 
we would have been able to keep our young daughter under that policy--
our family policy--for a period of time. The Republicans want that to 
go away--to go away with the Affordable Care Act.
  You say to yourself: Well, clearly, Durbin, you are not telling the 
whole story. You are not telling us what the Republican plan is to 
replace the Affordable Care Act.
  It is true--guilty as charged. I am not describing to you the 
Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act because it doesn't 
exist. It does not exist. That is why John McCain and two other 
Republican Senators said: You can't eliminate the Affordable Care Act 
unless you have a replacement that is as good or better. Otherwise, too 
many American families will lose their insurance and lose their 
protection.
  We had a hearing a few weeks ago, and I asked the leaders in the 
health community under the Trump administration the basic question: 
What have you heard about the Republican substitute for the Affordable 
Care Act? President Trump has told us over and over and over and over 
again that it is

[[Page S5893]]

just a week or two away. So what have you heard about preparedness?

  They said: Nothing. We have heard nothing.
  There is no Republican substitute for the Affordable Care Act. They 
are just dutybound to eliminate ObamaCare, and, sadly, the consequences 
would be awful.
  That is what this is about. So if you think, I don't want to tune in 
to this whole debate about a new Supreme Court Justice from Indiana; I 
don't want to hear all these arguments because what difference does it 
make to me--if you are that person in America--I would say to you, 
please, take a look at what we are really facing here--an effort to 
fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in a timely way to eliminate the 
Affordable Care Act. That is what this is all about.
  Then, the President, just for good measure, tossed in another issue 
last week. How about this one--the first President in the history of 
the United States to not publicly declare that he would accept the 
outcome of an election? How about that? It is nothing short of a 
constitutional outrage that any President would say that. It is no 
surprise with this President because, when he was a candidate, he said 
basically the same thing: If it doesn't turn out that I win, then, I am 
not sure I want to live by the results.
  He makes up these contrived arguments against paper ballots and how 
fraudulent they are. There are five States--five States in America--
that use mail-in ballots exclusively. They include, of course, the 
State of Oregon, which might have been one of the first, and they 
include the State of Utah, as well, and Hawaii. Other States do it. How 
much fraud is there? Almost none. But that doesn't stop the President 
from claiming that mail-in ballots are fraudulent.
  How does the President vote, incidentally? By mail-in ballot. What 
hypocrisy for him to make that kind of statement when he is casting his 
own vote with a mail-in ballot.
  So now he said that he wants that Supreme Court vacancy filled: Do it 
now because I need nine Justices sitting on that Supreme Court if there 
is any election contest to follow.
  It is pretty obvious what this is all about. The President needs a 
sure vote on the Supreme Court.
  What a shame that we have reached this point, that we have denigrated 
the U.S. Senate to the point that we change the rules at our 
convenience, that we have reached the point where we are prepared to 
eliminate protections for 20 million Americans with nothing to replace 
it, and that we have reached a point where a President is so brazen as 
to say he wants to fill that spot on the Supreme Court just in case he 
runs into an election contest.
  You would think there would be a chorus--a bipartisan chorus--of 
outrage for that statement by the President. Not so. There may have 
been others--and I will scour the records to make sure--but two 
Republicans stepped up and said that the President's public statement 
on not abiding by election returns was terrible.
  Who were those two? Senator Mitt Romney, here, the only Republican 
Senator I know of. If there were more, I will come back and correct the 
record. But I heard him clearly say that what the President said was 
intolerable. Then there was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. I 
watched that press conference. He wasn't just declarative. He was upset 
to think that any President of either party would make that kind of 
statement. That is what we are up against.
  Two weeks from yesterday, they want to hold a hearing in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on this nominee, Judge Barrett, and they want the 
vote before the election, before the argument on the Affordable Care 
Act, and before the President faces any possibility of an election 
contest.
  What a point we have reached in this country. The silence of 
Republicans across the Nation is deafening. They ignore the obvious.
  You cannot have a viable, trustworthy democracy if you don't have 
viable, trustworthy elections, and in order to have that happen, you 
need Presidents of both political parties who are committed to 
fairness, committed to honesty, and committed to our Constitution.
  Sadly, at this moment in time, we do not have a President who is, and 
there are too many of his own political party who stand back in the 
shadows in silence, recanting on pledges they made 4 years ago, doing 
whatever is necessary to win the favor of this President.
  I hope another day will come soon with different leadership and a 
different view of this country. I am genuinely concerned about what we 
face on November 3 and the days that follow, but I have never given up 
on America, and I never will. I believe this democracy will prevail, 
and I hope that after he is gone, some Republicans will step forward 
and say: It is time to create a party not in his image.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Orders for Wednesday, September 30, 2020

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it recess until 12 noon, 
Wednesday, September 30; further, that following the prayer and pledge, 
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the 
day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume 
consideration of H.R. 8337; finally, that all time during recess of the 
Senate and leader remarks count postcloture on H.R. 8337.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

                          ____________________