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

[Pages S5906-S5918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 20201 AND OTHER EXTENSIONS ACT--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are once again in a conversation 
about freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion and what 
that means. Very simply, I would argue that it means the ability to 
have any faith, to have no faith at all, to change your faith, and to 
be able to live it out.
  The ability to have a faith is a part of who we are. It is our most 
precious possession within us. If it is not that, if it is something 
less than that, if the free exercise of religion has limitations on it, 
then it is simply the freedom to worship or to have a named faith 
around you but not to actually live your faith.
  That is not what we have in this country, thankfully. We have a 
constitutionally protected right to the

[[Page S5907]]

free exercise of religion. We have more than the freedom of worship at 
the place of our choosing; we have the ability to live our faith 
freely, 7 days a week, in all aspects of our lives.
  The question has become, though, are there certain positions in 
public life where you cannot have the free exercise of religion; where, 
literally, if you are elected or appointed into certain offices, you 
lose your constitutional right.
  The U.S. Constitution makes that very, very clear. Article VI of the 
Constitution says that ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a 
Qualification for any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' 
It should be pretty straightforward and clear.
  In our last confirmation hearing, then-Professor Amy Coney Barrett 
said, when asked a question about her faith:

       Senator, I see no conflict between having a sincerely held 
     faith and duties as a judge. In fact, we have many judges, 
     both State and Federal, across the country who have sincerely 
     held religious views and still impartially and honestly 
     discharge their obligations as a judge. And were I confirmed 
     as a judge, I would decide cases according to rule of law, 
     beginning to end, and in the rare circumstances that might 
     ever arise--I can't imagine one sitting here now--where I 
     felt I had some conscientious objection to the law, I would 
     recuse.

  Three years ago, like today, Judge Barrett's faith--not her judicial 
philosophy or her temperament--seemed to be front and center. Three 
years ago, my colleague from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said 
this during Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing:

       Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very 
     uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two 
     different things, and I think whatever religion is, it has 
     its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in 
     your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the 
     conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within 
     you.

  Senator Durbin from Illinois just asked her a very straightforward 
question: ``Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?''
  A question like that about the defining of faith and how much of a 
Catholic are you or how much dogma lives in you is really a question 
of, how much faith do you really practice, do you have a name on you, 
or do you practice a little too much faith for my comfort level?
  See, the free exercise of religion pertains to an individual's 
sincerely held religious beliefs. It is not about the acceptance of 
that belief by others. If it were, the free exercise of religion would 
be dictated by what others believe rather than what you believe. But in 
America--at least the America that I know--individuals are allowed to 
have a faith, live their faith, have no faith, or change their faith.
  For whatever reason, Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being criticized 
because she is Catholic.
  There is an AP article that came out just this week that did an in-
depth view--it was sent all over the country--about, she is not just 
Catholic; she is one of those Catholics. It went into great detail 
about how she attends Bible studies and is on a board of a school and 
helps educate children and seems to believe that there is a personal 
relationship with Jesus, as they quoted in the article, as if that were 
some sort of criminal thing and needs to have some suspicion.
  It is about her faith that she is being challenged, this 
undercurrent. However, Justice Ginsburg was not shy about the fact that 
she was Jewish--nor should she have been. We have heard a lot about the 
fact that she was the longest serving Jewish Justice and the first 
Jewish person to lie in state in the Capitol. Why is it OK for Justice 
Ginsburg to talk about her faith and not Judge Barrett? Why is Justice 
Ginsburg's faith celebrated and Judge Barrett's faith currently being 
demonized? It is because those on the left believe their faith is OK, 
but for people on the right, it is suspicious.
  Even last night, Vice President Biden introduced himself as an Irish 
Catholic. That is celebrated on the left. But for Judge Barrett to 
identify herself as a Catholic, she is asked questioningly: Yeah, but 
are you one of those orthodox Catholics?
  One of the most remembered things about Justice Ginsburg--of many--
was her storied friendship with Justice Scalia. On paper, they would be 
the unlikeliest of friends. She was a Jewish liberal. He was a Catholic 
conservative. Their differences didn't divide them or offend each 
other.
  Of their friendship, Judge Barrett said:

       Particularly poignant to me was her long--

  The ``her'' being Justice Ginsburg--

     and deep friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, my own 
     mentor. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg disagreed fiercely in 
     print without rancor in person. Their ability to maintain a 
     warm and rich friendship despite their differences even 
     inspired an opera. These two great Americans demonstrated 
     that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need 
     not destroy affection.

  There is no question that Justice Ginsburg did a lot for the 
advancement of women in this country. Doesn't Judge Barrett also 
exemplify that? She is a circuit court judge. She graduated summa cum 
laude from Notre Dame Law School, first in her class. She has been a 
professor for 15 years at Notre Dame, has clerked for a Supreme Court 
Justice, is the mother of seven children, and was three times voted as 
the top law professor at Notre Dame.
  Thirty-four Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Barrett--of all 
parties--wrote this:

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

  All 49 full-time faculty members of Notre Dame Law School--all 49 of 
them--signed a letter stating:

       [Barrett] possesses in abundance all of the other qualities 
     that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, 
     wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental 
     decency and humanity.

  Seventy-three law professors across the country, including former 
Obama administration Solicitor General Neal Katyal, stated this:

       Although we have differing perspectives on the methods and 
     conclusions in her work, we all agree that Professor 
     Barrett's contributions to legal scholarship are rigorous, 
     fair-minded, respectful, and constructive.

  So she is criticized tenaciously because of her faith. She is 
criticized because she is not woman enough, whatever that may mean. She 
has even been criticized this past week and called a ``White 
colonizer.'' Two of her seven children were adopted from Haiti. She has 
been accused of using her children as props. How low can this go?
  This is what Judge Barrett had to say about her family:

       The president has asked me to become the ninth justice, and 
     as it happens I am used to being in a group of nine--my 
     family. Our family includes me; my husband, Jesse; Emma; 
     Vivian; Tess; John Peter; Liam; Juliet; and Benjamin. Vivian 
     and John Peter, as the president said, were born in Haiti, 
     and they came to us five years apart when they were very 
     young. And the most revealing fact about Benjamin, our 
     youngest, is that his brothers and sisters unreservedly 
     identify him as their favorite sibling.
       Our children obviously make our life very full. While I am 
     a judge, I'm better known back home as a [room] parent, 
     carpool driver, and birthday party planner. When schools went 
     remote last spring, I tried on another hat. Jesse--

  That is, her husband--

     and I became co-principals of the Barrett e-learning academy. 
     And yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long one. 
     Our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me 
     of any reasonable amount of sleep.

  Judge Barrett has even been criticized in her faith and been 
criticized in her relationship in her family.
  Judge Barrett said this about her husband and her family:

       I could not manage this very full life without the 
     unwavering support of my husband, Jesse. At the start of our 
     marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as 
     partners. As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his 
     share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner 
     recently that my children consider him to be the better cook.
       For 21 years, Jesse has asked me every single morning what 
     he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say 
     ``Nothing,'' he still finds ways to take things off my plate. 
     And that's not because he has a lot of free time. He has a 
     busy law practice. It is because he is a superb and generous 
     husband, and I am very fortunate.

  Faith, her family--why are we doing personal attacks on a qualified 
candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States? First in her 
class, recognized by the faculty as superior, recognized by judges and 
leaders across the country as qualified--why are we into this 
conversation?

[[Page S5908]]

  On September 29, an article from NPR was entitled ``Amy Coney 
Barrett's Catholicism Is Controversial But May Not Be Confirmation 
Issue.'' The article said:

       Never before has the Court been so dominated by one 
     religious denomination. . . .

  That is, Catholics.

       ``It's legitimate for senators to be concerned about 
     whether the court is reflecting the diversity of faith in the 
     United States.''

  Wow. Now it is maybe we have too many Catholics. Maybe this is one 
too many, and Senators should consider the greater diversity. As odd as 
it sounds, the article didn't identify the fact that Amy Coney Barrett 
would be the only Justice not to have graduated from Harvard or Yale. 
There doesn't seem to be a desire to have a diversity of opinion or 
background in that. It is just about this one area--her faith.
  Imposing a religious test on a Supreme Court Justice is not only 
antithetical to the Constitution; it is a very slippery slope, and it 
is one we have been down before and I thought we had cleared.
  In 1960--1960--then-Candidate John F. Kennedy stood in front of a 
group of ministers in Houston, TX, who were concerned about having a 
Catholic President because we, as a country, had never had a Catholic 
President, and there were all these rumors and innuendoes out there 
that the President would work for the Pope. So in 1960 JFK stood in 
Houston, TX, and spoke to a group of ministers and made this statement. 
He said:

       I believe in an America . . . where no religious body seeks 
     to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general 
     populace or the public acts of its officials; and where 
     religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one 
     church is treated as an act against all.
       For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the 
     finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, 
     and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker or a Unitarian 
     or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist 
     preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's 
     statute of religious freedom.
       Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you--
     until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at 
     a time of great national peril.

  JFK said this:

       Finally, I believe in an America where religious 
     intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches 
     are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to 
     attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is 
     no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of 
     any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both 
     the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes 
     of disdain and division which have so often marred their 
     works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of 
     brotherhood.
       [This] is the kind of America . . . I believe [in]. And it 
     represents the kind of presidency in which I believe--a great 
     office that must neither be humbled by making it the 
     instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by 
     arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any 
     one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious 
     views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon 
     the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition 
     of holding that office.
       I would not look with favor upon a president--

  Or in this case, I would say a judge--

     working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of 
     religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and 
     balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with 
     favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the 
     Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by 
     indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, 
     they should be out openly working to repeal it.

  We are a nation that celebrates faith and recognizes faith as a 
unifying factor, even in diversity of faith. I have had the privilege--
many of us have--to be able to pray with each other. We are Senators of 
different faiths, different backgrounds, different places. We work to 
treat each other with respect.
  Faith is not something that Americans should demand--nor the Senate 
should demand--that people have to take off to be able to serve the 
American people. We don't take our faith off. It is not a jersey that 
we wear on the outside; it is the core of who we are on the inside. 
That is not something that I just take off to put on public service. 
You put on public service, but your core faith should not be challenged 
to be removed from your soul to be a viable person to be able to serve 
the Court.
  Let's work on our concept of religious liberty. Whether you are a 
Christian, whether you are a Muslim, whether you are a Buddhist or a 
Hindu, you can be a great American and you can serve this great country 
in any location that you choose because we are a nation that honors and 
protects the right of free exercise of religion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4117

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, 6 months ago, our Nation's small 
businesses faced an existential crisis and unprecedented threat. Like 
the rest of us, they didn't truly know what this virus was, how hard it 
would hit us, how long it would last, or what the future would hold. 
But they did know that their businesses were preparing to close, that 
employees were being told to stay home, and they needed help, which is 
why I and every other colleague in this Chamber passed the CARES Act 
and created the Paycheck Protection Program.
  We gave money to the administration, which, in turn, gave that money 
to lenders, and those lenders, in turn, loaned that money to small 
businesses to use for employee retention. If they followed the rules, 
they were told they wouldn't have to return the money. That was the 
commitment we made to them while we strongly encouraged them--I 
emphasize ``strongly encouraged them''--to use the program, and it 
worked.
  We had nearly 5 million PPP loans worth $571 billion out the door and 
into the hands of our businesses that put it into the hands of their 
employees, which kept tens of millions of people, by some counts, on 
the payrolls instead of on the unemployment rolls.
  History will be the judge of the long-term success of the program, 
for sure, but it is unquestionable that in the short term, this program 
succeeded. It is time for us now to uphold our commitment.
  America's lenders and borrowers are ready to take that next step, 
proving that they have complied with the rules so they can receive 
forgiveness for these loans.
  Sadly for them, but not surprising to me, the forgiveness process 
designed by the agency is burdensome, complex, and already in need of 
reform. That is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of the 
Government Accountability Office. They said: ``Applying for loan 
forgiveness is more time consuming than applying for the PPP loan 
itself and requires more lender review.''
  You see the trap that we have laid for borrowers and lenders. We, the 
Federal Government, spent weeks--months--telling our hurting, fragile 
small businesses: Take this money. Take this money. Just use it 
correctly, and it will be forgiven.
  Well, here we are. Our businesses are still struggling, still facing 
uncertainty, and the agency-prescribed solution appears to be creating 
a system more intense than any they have experienced during this 
pandemic just so they can prove to the right people that they didn't 
use their money incorrectly. That is a problem.
  We have known it was going to be a problem for a long time. That is 
why we have been working for months on bipartisan solutions to the 
problems in this bipartisan program. Over the summer, Senator Menendez 
and I brought together a bipartisan coalition and introduced the 
Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Act. Here is what it 
does. Of those 5 million PPP recipients, 4.2 million had loans of 
$150,000 or less. Remember, they could borrow up to $10 million. They 
account for around $132 billion of the PPP funds that we have spent. 
Think about that: 4.2 million of the 5 million--so 86 percent of the 
borrowers--account for $132 billion of the $571 billion that we have 
spent. That is only 27 percent. So what we did was separate the 86 
percent of the loans, which account for 27 percent of the money, and 
said that if borrowers--small businesses--complete a simple, one-page 
forgiveness document to the lender--our banks, our credit unions--the 
loan will be forgiven. It is that simple.
  It eliminates the anxiety being felt by our businesses. It puts 
accountability on the borrowers and frees up enforcement efforts to 
focus on the 14 percent of the PPP recipients who took 73 percent of 
the funds. If this seems to be obvious common sense, it is because it 
is.
  Congress isn't known for working well together; I know that. But, 
here, a

[[Page S5909]]

Republican from North Dakota has teamed up with a Democrat from New 
Jersey to find a plan that works for Members from Arizona to Alabama, 
from North Carolina to Nebraska. Nearly one-third of the Senate--with 
Members from both parties--has signed onto our bill.
  What has happened since? The Presiding Officer knows as well as 
anybody that our friends blocked us from considering a new relief 
package just a couple of weeks ago. Many of the provisions of our 
bipartisan bill were in that package. Many bipartisan plans from all 
Senators were in it, but politics prevailed, and we came up short. That 
happens around here.
  Just because our total package was blocked doesn't mean our small 
businesses and lenders who gave them PPP funds don't still need relief. 
That is what we have heard from our communities and hundreds of 
association leaders from all across the country. On their behalf--on 
behalf of the small businesses that need help and the lenders we 
encouraged to help them--I am going to ask for unanimous consent to 
pass S. 4117.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small 
Business be discharged from further consideration of S. 4117 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the 
Johnson amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Reserving the right to object, I want to thank my friend 
Senator Cramer for bringing attention to this issue. I think he knows 
that the PPP program was included in the CARES Act. I take great pride 
in working with Senator Rubio--Republican and Democrat--and other 
members of our committee.
  We were the architects of the PPP program. It was bipartisan. It was 
included in the CARES Act, and it was enacted in March. It is very 
interesting that if we would have gone with the original bill that came 
out of the Republicans, it would not have been a bipartisan bill, and 
much of the help for small businesses would not have been there in the 
CARES Act. It is only through bipartisan legislation that we were able 
to advance the types of tools that are necessary to help America's 
small businesses.
  I must tell you, the No. 1 priority today for small businesses is to 
safely be able to resume full operations. They need it to be safe for 
parents and their children to be able to get back to school. They need 
us to get this virus under control, so businesses that depend on large 
gatherings--such as food service, hospitality, events, travel, and 
tourism--can literally survive.
  The House took its action to help accomplish these goals last May 
when they passed the Heroes Act. To this date, the Republican leader, 
Senator McConnell, has not allowed us to take up the comprehensive 
legislation that will help our country, help deal with the virus, help 
our economy, and help small businesses.
  Just today, Speaker Pelosi has updated the Heroes Act because it has 
been over 4 months since it was passed so that we now have a Heroes Act 
that is within the range between what the Republican Senators 
originally suggested and the Democrats originally suggested. That is 
moving toward a bipartisan bill. That is what we need.
  In the Heroes Act, there are so many provisions that are desperately 
needed for small business that are not in this unanimous consent 
request. Let me point out a few.
  We need a second round of PPP. Businesses have suffered significant 
revenue losses. The hardest hit, the smaller of the small businesses 
need more help. The PPP program is designed for an 8-week pandemic. 
This pandemic has gone long beyond 8 weeks.
  The House legislation includes resources for mission lenders, such as 
CDFIs and depository institutions. I mention that because we have found 
that when you rely on the 7(a) commercial loans in order to get 
forgivable loans, those who are traditionally underserved are not able 
to get the same type of attention--minority businesses, women-owned 
businesses, businesses in rural areas. We need to pay special attention 
to providing additional resources and allocations to mission lenders. 
That is not included in the unanimous consent request.
  We need to expand PPP eligibility. We have heard from our nonprofits 
that were left out of the first round. They need to be included. Local 
newspapers were not included. Previously incarcerated individuals were 
denied certain help. The House legislation--the Heroes Act--makes those 
changes so that all eligible small businesses would be able to qualify 
for these loans.
  The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, EIDL, is desperately in 
need of congressional attention. We have bipartisan support for 
significantly increasing the resources going into the EIDL Program--
Senator Cornyn, Senator Rosen--so that we could replenish the grants 
and provide the grants that are desperately needed for small 
businesses.
  We can eliminate that $150,000 arbitrary cap that was put on by the 
Small Business Administration, which is contrary to law. We need to 
make it clear that the loans could be made up to $2 million under the 
EIDL Program.
  We need to help State and local governments. That is in the Heroes 
Act. It is not in the unanimous consent that is being suggested. We 
have to help State and local governments because their services are 
critically important for small businesses to be able to operate 
effectively. The House bill provides a separate amount of funds so that 
the local governments can directly help small businesses. That is not 
included in the unanimous consent request.
  We can approve the 7(a) Loan Program, 504 Loan Program, and Microloan 
Program. They are in the House bill, not in the unanimous consent 
request.
  We have all heard from our live venue operators. They need help. They 
are going to close if we don't do something to help them. It is our 
responsibility to do that. It is in the Heroes Act. It is not in the 
unanimous consent request.
  We need to expand the employee retention tax credit, which allows 
workers to be retained by small businesses. This was expanded in the 
Heroes Act, but it is not in the unanimous consent request.
  I could go on and on about all of the provisions that we need to take 
up now that are necessary to help small businesses. If we wait until 
after the elections, more small businesses will be shuttered forever. 
That is the No. 1 priority of small businesses.
  We also find that we need to help in regard to streamlining the 
process of loan forgiveness. I agree with my colleague. I agree that we 
need to simplify that process. I have had my arguments with the Small 
Business Administration and so have those who have oversight in the 
executive branch. We know what they did to the EIDL Program. They 
didn't administer it the way we said--3 days to process grants. They 
didn't do that. They didn't give us the data we needed so we could 
understand the program. So why do we have confidence that, under the 
Senator's unanimous consent request, he will do the right form? You 
give them the authority to issue the form, and I am not exactly sure 
that will work.
  Here is the good news. We want to do something in this area because 
the Senator is right in that we need to streamline the process. The SBA 
is not doing it the way we intended it to be done. The House took 
action, but the House's action is a little bit different. The House has 
said: Look, for those loans under $50,000, why don't we do it without 
any paper. Let them retain the records, but let's eliminate any 
possibility of the SBA's delaying the loan forgiveness. I think that is 
one we should look at, but we can't do that if we are to let this 
unanimous consent go forward.
  Lastly, this consent also deals with safe harbor for the PPP lenders. 
It would provide safe harbor from claims under the Small Business Act, 
the False Claims Act, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
Enforcement Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and the Bank 
Secrecy Act, or any other Federal, State or criminal or civil law 
regulations. I think we should look at that before we just, all of a 
sudden, agree that we

[[Page S5910]]

should give that type of blanket safe harbor.
  Small businesses need help now. My colleague is correct. They need 
help now, but they need help far broader--far broader--than this 
unanimous consent takes us. There is also a need for negotiations in 
regard to the provisions that the Senator has brought to the floor. I 
can assure him that I will continue to work with Senator Rubio in a 
bipartisan manner once we get the numbers from the powers that be--they 
being the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
administration, and our leaders.
  As we did under the CARES Act, we will put together a comprehensive 
program to help all small businesses, not just those that are 
struggling right now with this form but those that can't even get the 
loan because they were not eligible but should have been eligible or 
those that need additional help or those that need the EIDL Program to 
work well or a microloan. We want to provide that comprehensive help 
now--this week--for small businesses, but this unanimous consent just 
does not get us there.
  The commitment to my colleague is that we are going to work with him 
and our other colleagues, as we always do, and that we are going to 
include the provision to make it easier for small businesses to get 
loan forgiveness because we agree that the SBA has not interpreted our 
law the way we wanted it to.
  For all of those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Cardin's commitment 
to work together. We are all committed to that as well.
  I do struggle a little bit when the reasons to oppose something are 
all of the things that aren't in it. Sure, there is not support for 
State or local governments. There is not a new EIDL Program or a 
reformed PPP program or a microloan program or tax credits. Of course, 
tax credits are under a whole different jurisdiction. There is not 
nuclear modernization, and there is not unemployment insurance. There 
are lots of things that aren't in it. Yet politics is the art of the 
possible, and around here, big packages become very difficult, and 
politics gets in the way.
  I was hoping we could find an increment to help small businesses in a 
significant way that, frankly, wouldn't cost the government anything 
but, in fact, might save it some money in its just not hiring another 
large bureaucracy.
  I look forward to working with the Senator. I appreciate his work on 
the CARES Act and the PPP and his work with Chairman Rubio and Susan 
Collins in creating this program. I am just disappointed that we 
couldn't get it across the finish line today, but I hope we can soon.
  I yield the floor as I know that a couple of my colleagues want to 
speak on the same topic
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cramer and my colleague 
Senator Rounds from North Dakota.
  North Carolina's businesses are struggling. I heard Senator Cardin 
and am sympathetic to most of what he said. Yet, as I have traveled 
across the State--and I have had 65 telephone townhalls since COVID 
started and have talked with citizens in North Carolina for an hour, 
spending 55 minutes hearing from them and answering their questions--I 
know we have a very difficult problem in North Carolina and across the 
country. I just talked with a hotel and lodging association and a 
restaurant association a few weeks ago. They said we have 18,000 
restaurants in North Carolina, and 9,000 of them are at risk of closing 
permanently.
  When we passed the CARES Act, we knew we had to do something big, 
bold, and fast, and I think everyone at the Small Business 
Administration and in the banking industry mobilized to do something 
that was unprecedented. They got that money out and into the hands of 
businesses.
  The program is called the Paycheck Protection Program for a reason. 
We were doing everything we could to make sure that those businesses 
that were willing could make payroll--could keep people on their 
benefits, could keep people on their healthcare--and could weather the 
storm while closures were going on all across this country. They were 
closing down businesses or, certainly, dramatically reducing their 
business.
  Thank goodness for the brave businesses that stepped up and applied 
for Paycheck Protection Program loans, and thank goodness for the banks 
that were willing to underwrite them while we were still, really, 
working the rules out--literally building the cars as they were rolling 
down the road. They should be commended for what they have done.
  This measure is a simple measure. We know that more than 85 percent 
of all of the loans that were underwritten under the Paycheck 
Protection Program were under $150,000, and we know that they were 
small businesses. Yet we have a lot of paperwork that these businesses 
are going to have to do, and small businesses interacting with the 
Federal Government on four or five occasions before the loan is 
forgiven is a daunting task when you are still trying to figure out how 
you can make payroll and how you can keep your business going.
  Then you have the banking industry that we rely on for moving all of 
this capital out there and making sure that payrolls can be met and 
want to be prepared for the next tranche of CARES Act Paycheck 
Protection Program loans. Yet we are going to tie them up over 
paperwork with these small business loans that we can forgive? It is 
not like we are turning a blind eye to compliance. We will look at that 
loan portfolio with the same sort of sampling that the IRS does to make 
sure there is not any fraud or abuse and to make sure people are held 
accountable.
  If Senator Cardin really wants to get to the work of the next 
Paycheck Protection Program, let's lay the groundwork and clear the 
plumbing so we may call on the Small Business Administration, which is 
in the process of hiring 1,200 people just to deal with loan 
forgiveness. The banks that want to provide more loans need to clear 
their backlogs so they will have the capacity to do it as fast as 
possible.
  Senator Cardin is right in that we have a lot more to do. This is a 
step in a long journey. Yet, in doing this forgiveness program--the 
measure that Senator Cardin objected to--we would have the opportunity 
to take a straw off the camel's back. We have to do something. We 
continue following up on the CARES Act, but I am very disappointed that 
we have gotten where we are in this Chamber when everybody knows this 
is good legislation.
  We should do it, but they are turning their backs on businesses. 
Unfortunately, I think it is going to result in more people being on 
unemployment and more businesses closing. I will work as hard as I can 
with Senator Cramer and Senator Rounds and other Members to get this 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague 
from North Dakota for making this presentation to begin with and my 
colleague from North Carolina for supporting him in this action. We 
appreciate the comments the Senator from Maryland has made, but we, 
most certainly, disagree with the approach he is suggesting.
  Senator Cramer has suggested that we have a very serious problem here 
that has to be addressed. This is something that does not affect just 
Republican businesses. It affects all businesses. You are talking about 
4.2 million small businesses across the United States that are being 
impacted by this that have borrowed money in good faith and that have 
kept their businesses open. Now, surprisingly, when it comes time for 
the forgiveness portion of this to occur, we have a very challenging 
process put in place--a burdensome process--that could only have been 
done with the common sense found in Washington, DC, not in the rest of 
the country. To make the application more difficult for one to get 
forgiveness than the actual application to participate in the program 
in the first place is simply absurd.
  Let me share with you a message from one of our bank executives in 
South Dakota. He is a rather prominent CEO in South Dakota. I share 
with you that I have cleaned this up a little bit and will paraphrase 
his quote to us after we asked him for information concerning how the 
banks will try to handle this.

[[Page S5911]]

  Remember, the banks didn't have to participate in this, but they did 
so, in a way, to literally get money out in a very short period of time 
to the businesses that desperately needed the money in order to 
survive.
  First of all, they had open lines of communication with the SBA 
literally 24/7 for more than a week in their trying to get approval for 
individual applications. They helped small businesses actually fill out 
the applications in the first place. Second of all, these banks will 
become responsible for these loans, and unless they are forgiven, they 
will stay with the banks.
  If we are successful in coming to an agreement on additional loans 
being made in the future, how in the world can we expect these banks to 
get back in if we can't even follow up on our agreement that we would 
make this a simple process to get the loans forgiven in the first 
tranche that we have completed?
  Let me share with you what this CEO writes. This has to do with his 
version of what is going on. We have literally received dozens of these 
types of comments from bank loan officers in the Upper Midwest, 
particularly in South Dakota. I will paraphrase because, as I say, we 
had to clean this up a little bit.

       The forgiveness piece of the PPP is a disaster. I have 750 
     loans out of 1,381 that are under $20,000 and 50 that are 
     under $2,000. They have, basically, the same forgiveness 
     process as the loans of my largest borrower, which is for 
     over $4 million. So we are asking them to fill out the same 
     paperwork as we do a large loan recipient.

  He goes on to write:

       The simplified version of the PPP loan forgiveness 
     application program is not that simple. The Government 
     Accountability Office has studied it and has said that it 
     takes a borrower 15 hours to complete and the lender 75 hours 
     to process.

  Let me say that again. It takes 15 hours for the loan borrower to 
actually do the paperwork and 75 hours to process it.

       Our borrowers are not happy nor are we as bankers. This is 
     not what we signed up for in order to get disaster payments 
     to our customers. We are trying to hold off the small 
     businesses that borrowed under $150,000, but they are getting 
     anxious. We as lenders busted our tails to get this money 
     out, and we are getting absolutely hosed by this process.

  I might add that this is not the word he used.

       Lenders feel as though they have really been let down. 
     There is more than a little fatigue with the entire PPP loan 
     forgiveness process.

  If we used any kind of common sense like they have in the Upper 
Midwest, we would have fixed this thing already. Unfortunately, it is 
in the middle of a political process in Washington, DC, and 4.2 million 
small businesses hang in the balance. Their ability to take care of a 
loan--that we had committed would be forgiven if they were to follow 
through--is now in jeopardy. Time is running out.
  I appreciate the opportunity, once again, to support the legislation 
that Senator Cramer from North Dakota has proposed. I hope that our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come back and start using 
some of that common sense that seems to prevail in the rest of the 
United States even though it is not always evident here in Washington, 
DC.
  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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
President's historic choice for the U.S. Supreme Court. The President 
has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. She would fill the vacancy left by the passing of Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg.
  This is a powerful and positive appointment by President Trump. Judge 
Barrett is a brilliant jurist. She has a stellar record, and she has a 
solid character. She will serve as a role model for an entire 
generation in the legal profession.
  She has already been vetted by the Senate. She was vetted and 
received bipartisan support when she was confirmed 3 years ago to her 
current court position. Well, that is the definition of ``highly 
qualified.''
  She embodies the qualities the American people want in a Justice. 
Now, the American people want fair Justices. They want Justices who 
know that their job is to apply the law, not legislate from the bench.
  That is what people in my home State of Wyoming talked about this 
past weekend, when I was visiting at home with the people of Wyoming. 
They want Judge Barrett, and she is committed, through her time in the 
legal profession and on the bench, to these very values.
  So here in the Senate, in this body, we have a job to do, and it is 
to offer advice and consent.
  We will hold fair hearings, and we will hold a timely floor vote on 
Judge Barrett's nomination.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to feel the 
same way about this process. In fact, they have already announced their 
opposition to the nominee--regardless of how qualified this nominee is 
who is before us, regardless of the vacancy that exists on the Court, 
regardless of the spectacle that the American people saw 2 years ago 
with the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.
  The Senate minority leader has made his position clear. He appears to 
be so disturbed by the prospect of a constitutional jurist on the bench 
that he is willing to upend the core institutions of our Nation.
  The Democratic Senators are calling on their colleagues to pack the 
Court--to add two more liberal, activist Justices to the Supreme Court.
  One Senator tweeted about it this weekend. That is, of course, what 
they plan to do if they win the White House, the House, and the Senate 
in the November elections. Now, this would deliver partisan decisions 
that make law but don't apply the law.
  Now, for Vice President Biden in the Presidential debate last night, 
he refused to answer a specific, direct question about this very topic. 
He refused to reject a position that Democrats are holding that is 
highly unpopular and highly divisive.
  And now adding members to the Supreme Court--you know who said that 
was a bad idea? Well, it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She said nine members 
is the right number; that it works. People shouldn't try to add to 
that. It would be seen as partisan, political. And, of course, that 
number has been in place since 1869.
  Last year, in an interview, she said that nine was the right number. 
So this isn't something she said a long time ago. It was just last year 
in an interview with National Public Radio.
  Democrats aren't going to listen to her. Senior Democrats appear 
determined to remake the Senate and destroy the Supreme Court in the 
process.
  The radical left sees Judge Barrett simply as collateral damage. She 
is an obstacle to be overcome, no matter the cost. That is why she is 
being attacked for her faith--for being an active member of her church, 
for participating fully.
  She is being attacked as a mother, being attacked for her religious 
beliefs. The far left, in their haste to attack the judge, never 
mention that she has seven children. Now, two of those seven children 
were adopted from Haiti. One of her children has special needs. Judge 
Barrett is a full-time caregiver, as well as a public servant. She 
understands the importance of healthcare. She understands how precious 
life is. She is an outstanding nominee.
  Two years ago, we considered another nominee for the Supreme Court. 
Democrats dragged him through the mud. We witnessed a gangland 
character assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if we see the same 
thing happen again, and the far left is already demanding it.
  They are demanding that mud continue to be thrown at this nominee 
until it sticks--something, anything to undermine her character and to 
undermine her credibility.
  Now, I might remind my friends what the outcome of that seek-and-
destroy mission was the last time. Justice Kavanaugh's family was put 
through the meat grinder, and Republicans stood by him. He was 
confirmed by the Senate and sits on the Supreme Court.
  The Senate and the American people will not stand for more political 
gains.

[[Page S5912]]

We will not accept the dirty tricks that the far left is going to 
continue to try to pull.
  Chairman Lindsey Graham has promised a fair process in the Judiciary 
Committee. The majority leader has indicated full and fair 
consideration on the Senate floor. We will not yield an inch to the 
mob.
  Let me be even clearer. If Democrats continue to smear this 
outstanding nominee, this mother of seven, this woman of faith, it is 
going to backfire on them again. They continue such stunts at their own 
peril.
  After the Kavanaugh confirmation devolved into a circus, Democrats 
lost seats in the Senate, and they lost credibility with the public.
  The American people expect fairness. They demand it for the highest 
Court in the land, and Senate Republicans will ensure it. We will 
ensure Judge Barrett is fairly treated. She deserves dignity and 
respect, and we will ensure that she is heard
  Amy Coney Barrett appears to have all the qualities I look for in a 
Supreme Court Justice. She is a model of integrity, intelligence, and 
of judicial independence. She is highly qualified for the role to which 
she is nominated, and she will receive a fair vote in the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Minnesota.


                               Healthcare

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to make clear what is 
at stake if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act in the 
middle of this global pandemic.
  This is something the Trump administration has been trying for, for 
years. It came out of a case in Texas, and they brought it all the way 
now to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  It has been over 9 months since the United States had its first 
confirmed case of the coronavirus. Now we have over 7 million cases 
and, tragically, over 200,000 people have died.
  It has been 9 months but still we do not have a national testing 
strategy in place--something that would not only save lives but also 
would be a great help in having the ability to open our economy again.
  We don't have sufficient contact tracing or clear guidance to schools 
and businesses of how to keep their students, employees, and customers 
safe.
  Nearly 30 million people are out of work, and today many are still 
struggling to pay their rent and put food on the table for their 
families.
  Millions of kids are sometimes going to school in hybrid models--in 
for a few days, out of a few days. They are learning to use Zoom. First 
graders--one of my staff members in Minnesota, her first grade daughter 
is learning the mute and unmute button.
  But instead of being honest with the American people about how 
serious this was, we have had a President who hid the truth about how 
deadly the virus is and how it spreads.
  This is personal to me. When the President was telling the American 
people that this was all going to go away; that it was going to go away 
by Easter, at the same time that he knew, we now know, that it was 
deadly; that he knew that it was airborne, when my family was just 
trying to wash off all of the counters and wash your hands, which is 
still a good idea, but we thought that would be the way to keep 
ourselves safe, this President didn't share that information.
  And my husband, early on, got very, very sick from the virus. He 
ended up in the hospital with severe pneumonia and on oxygen. So, for 
me, it is personal. But guess what. It is personal to nearly everyone 
in America because they know someone--a friend, a family member who has 
died or who has gotten sick.
  Now, in my husband's case, thanks to the brave frontline workers and 
the nurses and the hospital and the doctors, and thanks to the fluke--
it is just serendipity if people are able to survive this or not, 
depending on how hard-hit they are. Our story isn't unique, and many 
other people who went to the hospital didn't come home, and we now know 
this has inordinately hit frontline workers and inordinately hit people 
of color.
  So here we are, so many months later and well over 100 days after the 
House first passed the Heroes Act--legislation to provide true funding 
for testing, help State and local governments go through this time, to 
make sure our elections are safe during this pandemic--and still we 
wait.
  And while I am encouraged that Speaker Pelosi is, once again, 
negotiating after she and Senator Schumer had met with the White House, 
met with the majority leader of this Senate, offered to go halfway, 
that was rejected, and still people kept dying. I think something like 
800 businesses closed a day. Hundreds of people are dying a day.
  So now they are at it again. Speaker Pelosi is coming up with a new 
plan that is significantly less funding but one that we hope has a 
glimmer of hope. But this has not been a priority in this place.
  Instead, the plan is to spend the next few weeks jamming through a 
nominee to the Supreme Court. What is the rush? Why not focus on 
working together to help the American people get through this pandemic? 
Why not focus on getting a bunch of the bills done that have been 
sitting on the majority leader's desk, like the Violence Against Women 
Act? That is sitting there. Why not take some action on climate change? 
That is sitting there as the fires are blazing on the west coast. Why 
not do something about pharmaceutical prices--something the President 
has claimed to be trying to do something about in the last month of his 
administration.
  Well, another challenge to the Affordable Care Act is going to be 
back up before the Supreme Court just 1 week after the election on 
November 10. Do you think that has anything to do with this rush to a 
Justice? Is that what it is? Because it is right after the election.
  Otherwise, why wouldn't you wait? See who wins the election. That is 
what Abraham Lincoln did--the only time in history a Justice died this 
close to an election. He waited to see who won.
  But, no, we are told this has to happen now, despite the fact that 
only a few years ago a completely different precedent was set by the 
majority of people who are serving in this Senate right now on the 
Republican side of the aisle.
  But what is coming up November 10? The case. The Affordable Care Act 
or, as they like to call it, ObamaCare. I always love that President 
Obama was more than happy to adopt the name for the bill, given that 
the bill has become more and more popular, given that it has helped 
hundreds of thousands of people to get insurance, given that it has 
helped, more than that, millions of people to not be kicked off their 
insurance.
  You don't have to be in one of those exchanges to be protected by the 
Affordable Care Act, which basically says that if you have a 
preexisting condition, whether it is diabetes, Alzheimer's, or cancer, 
that you cannot be kicked off of your health insurance. That applies to 
everyone in America, with that bill.
  There are people in the Senate, right here, who have been trying to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act--trying to do it for years. They had a 
big debate over it. That didn't work. That didn't work because John 
McCain walked in. I can still picture him right now walking in that 
door and saying no. All he would say was that he wasn't going to deny 
healthcare coverage to people because he had it himself.
  So then they tried again--went down to Texas and found a court down 
there maybe that they thought would be helpful. And guess what. Then it 
gets struck down there--not just a part of it. They said no, no, no. 
They made it the whole thing. That is what is coming up to the Supreme 
Court on November 10. So if you can't get your way one way, the 
administration decided they were going to try it in court. It is their 
lawyers--their lawyers--who argued this, Donald Trump's lawyers.
  They have been trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and the 
protections it provides for people with preexisting conditions for 
years, but have we seen an alternative plan from this President? No, we 
have not.
  That last time, when we saw that effort by my colleagues to repeal 
the healthcare law, it would have kicked 11 million people off of 
Medicaid, it would have let insurance companies charge

[[Page S5913]]

people more if they got sick, and it included an age tax, where an 
older person could have been charged five times more than a younger 
person.
  That was the plan we saw before. That plan was opposed by every major 
group you trust when it comes to your healthcare, the largest groups of 
doctors, nurses, seniors, hospitals, people with cancer, Alzheimer's, 
lung disease, heart disease, diabetes. They said it was the worst bill 
for the people of this country.
  There was never even a vote on that bill because it was so unpopular. 
That was, of course, just months after that previous effort I just 
described where John McCain walked into the Chamber and gave the repeal 
of the Affordable Care Act, which would have taken healthcare away from 
so many Americans, a big no.
  Senator McCain believed that courage is not just standing by 
yourself, giving a speech to an empty Chamber, like I happen to be 
doing right now, so thank you, the 10 people who are here. It is not 
just that. It is whether you are willing to stand next to someone whom 
you don't always agree with for the betterment of this country.
  But that is not what we are seeing here. Indeed, my colleagues have 
not been able to succeed in repealing the healthcare law using the 
legislative process. The administration has turned to the courts.
  Let's look at the track record. I like looking at evidence, as a 
former prosecutor. Even before he was elected, the President promised 
that his judicial appointment ``will do the right thing'' and overturn 
the Affordable Care Act. He has criticized the sitting Chief Justice, 
Justice Roberts, for upholding the law when it was last before the 
Court. Just days ago he said on Twitter that it would be a ``big win'' 
if the Supreme Court strikes down the health law.
  Now, with Americans already voting, the President is trying to jam 
through a nominee who has already voiced serious opposition to 
upholding the Affordable Care Act. The same year that this nominee 
became a judge--that would be in 2017; she was confirmed in October--
she published an article with the University of Minnesota Law School 
Journal--a pretty good journal--writing that she believed Chief Justice 
Roberts--this was her criticism of the Chief Justice--``pushed the 
Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.''
  If President Trump's nominee is confirmed before oral arguments on 
November 10, yes, she could easily cast the deciding vote to strike 
down the law in its entirety. The American people know what that will 
mean to them. To start, protection for people with preexisting 
conditions like diabetes or asthma would be gone. More than 100 million 
Americans have a preexisting condition, and the Affordable Care Act 
makes sure they cannot be denied insurance coverage or charged 
significantly higher premiums.
  Before the ACA--and I remember this because we debated it in this 
very Chamber--43 States allowed insurers to charge higher premiums to 
people with preexisting conditions. We can't go back to that.
  Without the Affordable Care Act, health insurance exchanges, and the 
support for States to expand Medicaid, it is estimated that 20 million 
Americans would lose their insurance.
  The ability to keep your kid on your insurance plan until they are 26 
years old would be gone. How many parents are using this right now in 
the middle of this pandemic? I don't know the number, but I know it is 
a lot.
  The work we have done to close the Medicare doughnut hole coverage 
gap for prescription drugs would be gone.
  The provisions that would help people buy insurance on the healthcare 
exchanges would be gone in the middle of a global pandemic.
  Over 7 million Americans have been infected by the coronavirus, and 
the cases are rising. That is 7 million people who, without the 
Affordable Care Act, could be found to have another preexisting 
condition, and that is 7 million people who may have recovered from the 
virus, but, as Dr. Fauci has warned, they continue to struggle with a 
range of long-term effects that require comprehensive healthcare 
coverage.
  So why? Why ram this through in 2 weeks? Is it because that case is 
coming up--if you read the President's tweets, it makes you think it 
has a lot to do with it--or is it because of the alternative theory he 
has put out there that he wants to make sure the Supreme Court is in 
place in order to decide the election result? Neither of those theories 
is a reason to jam through a nominee, and my colleagues know it.
  I know that the people of this country see through this raw use of 
political power. They know their healthcare is on the line. They know 
it is on the line. They know our environment is on the line. That is 
why they are voting. They are voting in droves. They are voting as we 
speak. They are casting ballots with each and every second we stand 
here in this Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, Wendy is a constituent of mine from 
Stanford, CT, and she tells a story that is going to sound incredibly 
familiar to folks who have been part of this healthcare debate over the 
last 10 years in this Chamber. She said:

       When my daughter was 15, she was diagnosed with a type of 
     bone cancer and underwent a year of treatment. We were 
     hopeful that she was cured, but exactly 1 year ago--it was 2 
     months after she graduated from college and was about to move 
     across the country to begin her career when she underwent a 
     routine checkup and found out that the cancer had returned. 
     The past year has included more chemo, surgery, and 
     immunotherapy.
       My daughter is now 23 years old, and she is the definition 
     of a preexisting condition. She is still on our health plan, 
     but we are already looking at the time in about 2 years when 
     that will no longer be possible. Although she is at least 
     feeling well enough to begin the job search again, there is 
     no security for any of us without the existence of the 
     Affordable Care Act as an option should she not have 
     employer-based healthcare. She is a young woman who has 
     already gone through so much in these short years. There are 
     enough unknowns. Please continue--

  This is her writing to me--

     to protect the Affordable Care Act so she knows she has 
     healthcare.

  President Trump last night contested the idea that 100 million 
Americans have preexisting conditions. Well, maybe he is right because 
most data suggests that the number is 130 million Americans who have 
some form of preexisting condition that, if insurance companies were 
allowed to, would either result in rate hikes for them because of their 
diagnosis, or insurance would be made unavailable to them entirely.
  Now, it has almost been 10 years since we lived in a world where 
insurance companies could deny you healthcare because of a preexisting 
condition or could raise your rate simply because you are a woman. So 
for many Americans, it is even hard to remember those days in which you 
could be discriminated against just because of a childhood cancer. But 
those days are about to come back. We are literally months away, if 
President Trump is successful in ramming through this Supreme Court 
nominee, from insurance companies once again being able to deny 
coverage to anybody they want based upon their gender, based upon their 
medical history, based upon their prior diagnosis.
  This isn't hyperbole because I have been in the Congress long enough 
to know two things. One, Republicans will stop at nothing in order to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we will talk this afternoon about 
what that means beyond the 130 million Americans who will have their 
rates increased. But I know something else as well, which is that there 
is no replacement. There is nothing coming from the Republican majority 
in the Senate or from this administration to replace the Affordable 
Care Act. Do you know why I know that? Because I have been waiting for 
the replacement for a decade, and it has never shown up because it 
never will.
  Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act here the first 
year of the President's term. A lot of people said it was a foregone 
conclusion--of course, after having pledged to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act for 5 years, Republicans now, with control of the Senate and 
the House and the White House, will of course make good on their 
promise. Of course, we know how that turned out. They couldn't because 
the American people rose up. Phone lines lit up, townhall meetings 
exploded, and Republicans in the end

[[Page S5914]]

could not find the votes, even with majorities in both Houses and 
control of the White House, to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  Well, then, Republicans said, let's find another way. If we can't use 
the most democratic process--legislation--in order to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, then let's go to the courts.
  So Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn 
the entirety of the Affordable Care Act on a legal premise that most 
mainstream scholars thought had no shot, but they weren't counting on 
this President being able to pack the Court with enough extreme, 
rightwing jurists to accept the flawed argument. So the President 
started by putting Neil Gorsuch on the Court. He continued with Brett 
Kavanaugh. Now, one vote away from being able to overturn the 
Affordable Care Act, he now has a chance, with the nomination of Amy 
Coney Barrett, to finally get what he couldn't get done in the elected 
branch of American government--the full repeal and elimination of the 
Affordable Care Act with nothing to replace it.
  It is not hyperbole because there is literally that case that I 
described getting ready for argument before the Supreme Court a week 
after election day. So guess why it is so important that we confirm a 
Justice before election day--because they need the votes to invalidate 
the Affordable Care Act shortly after the election occurs, and it 
becomes a little bit harder if that Justice is not there to hear the 
arguments in mid-November.
  Take Republicans at their word: They want the Affordable Care Act 
gone. Take Republicans at their word: They don't have a replacement.
  It will be a humanitarian catastrophe in this country, in the middle 
of a pandemic--a pandemic that is killing 1,000 people a day; 44,000 
new infections that we know of on a daily basis--if 23 million 
Americans lose access to insurance.
  Remember, this lawsuit doesn't ask for the Affordable Care Act to be 
eliminated in pieces or over time; the remedy it seeks is the 
Affordable Care Act gone, all of it, overnight. There are 23 million 
Americans who rely on that and 260,000 in my State--the equivalent of 
62 different towns in my State alone losing their health insurance.
  Don't think that States are going to be able to pick up the pieces 
here. A lot of these folks are on Medicaid. Theoretically, States could 
decide to pick up the bill themselves, but they can't because the 
President has forced States to foot the lion's share of the bill for 
fighting COVID because of the failure to stand up a national response. 
So States have no money lying around in order to make up for all the 
people who are going to lose Medicaid access. There are 23 million 
people who can lose their insurance, potentially by the end of the year 
or early next year, if this Justice gets confirmed to the Court.

  But then, all those people with preexisting conditions--and, 
remember, we now have a new preexisting condition. That is COVID. What 
we are learning about COVID-19 is very, very worrying. Researchers have 
observed changes to the heart, the vascular system, the lungs, the 
brain, the kidneys in those who have gotten sick, and even in many 
people who are asymptomatic. In fact, there is a study out there right 
now that Dr. Fauci noted before the HELP Committee recently that shows 
70 to 80 percent of people who have had COVID have some lasting damage 
to their heart. COVID is a preexisting condition.
  Now, you may think, I haven't had COVID, so I am not at risk of that 
preexisting condition causing my rates to go up if Amy Coney Barrett 
gets confirmed to the Court. Well, you don't know if you have had COVID 
or not, and let me tell you that insurance companies are not going to 
play dumb. If they are allowed to discriminate against you because you 
have COVID, then they are going to require you to prove that you 
haven't had it before you get a policy. Millions and millions of 
Americans are going to have their rates increased or be denied 
healthcare at all because they had COVID, whether they were 
asymptomatic or symptomatic. That, in and of itself, is a healthcare 
crisis in this country.
  So the stakes of this debate over the nomination of this new Supreme 
Court Justice couldn't be higher. Senator Klobuchar talked about the 
fact that this Supreme Court may decide the outcome of this election, 
and that is a subject that we should explore at a different time. But 1 
week after the election, the Court will hear a case asking for the 
invalidation of the entire Affordable Care Act. Republicans in the 
Senate and the White House have no plan to replace it, and if that case 
is successful, 23 million people are at risk of losing their health 
insurance: 11 million who are on the exchanges; 12 million who are 
covered by Medicaid; 133 million Americans, roughly half of America's 
population under the age of 65, could have their rates increase because 
of preexisting conditions; 2 million young people under the age of 26 
could be kicked off their parents' health insurance; and 9 million 
people who receive Federal subsidies, tax credits, to buy private 
insurance would lose that coverage.
  In the midst of a global pandemic, a COVID diagnosis would possibly 
render you ineligible for insurance. That is a nightmare--a nightmare 
on top of the pandemic nightmare that we are living through currently.
  So we are on the floor today to make sure that our Senate Republican 
colleagues don't distract the American public, don't try to create 
controversies around this nomination that don't exist, and don't try to 
put words in Democrats' mouths. Listen to what we are saying. What we 
are saying is that this nomination is about the future of the American 
healthcare system, and every single Senator who votes to confirm Amy 
Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, I believe, is voting to take 
insurance away from over 20 million Americans, voting to render COVID a 
preexisting condition that requires you to pay more for healthcare for 
the rest of your life, and going back to the days in which any 
preexisting condition could cause you to lose your health insurance and 
then lose everything that you have saved up over decades and decades.
  Betty Burger is one of those people, and I will finish with her 
story. Betty Burger had good insurance through her husband her entire 
life. He changed jobs, and he had about a week's period of time in 
which he didn't have a job in between those two jobs and did not have 
healthcare. During that week, one of their kids was diagnosed with 
cancer, and it became a preexisting condition, such that the husband's 
employer's healthcare plan wouldn't cover it, and the Burgers lost 
everything--everything. They went bankrupt. They went through their 
savings. They went through the college fund. They lost their house. 
They lost everything.
  It has been a decade since any American has had to face that kind of 
financial ruin because of a diagnosis for them or their child. It is 
hard for us to remember those days, but they are coming back. They are 
coming back--I tell you this now--if this Supreme Court Justice is 
rammed through over the course of the next month.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague in coming to the 
floor to talk about what is at stake as the Senate considers who will 
fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.
  Justice Ginsburg was not only an extraordinary legal mind, but she 
was an unwavering advocate for equality under the law. I believe she 
epitomized what we should seek in any Supreme Court Justice: a respect 
for the rule of law coupled with an understanding that our Constitution 
was designed to protect the rights of the many, not just the few.
  Unfortunately, President Trump and my colleagues across the aisle are 
doing a disservice to Justice Ginsburg's legacy by attempting to rush 
through a nominee when the election is already underway. And that is 
not being dramatic. The fact is, we have 31 States, including my home 
State of New Hampshire, that have already begun distributing their 
absentee ballots. In fact, I was at a UPS distribution center in the 
city of Dover yesterday--actually it was on Monday--and I talked to 
several people there who showed me their absentee ballots because they 
had filled them out, and they were getting ready to mail them.
  So voting is already underway, and this is no ordinary election. It 
comes

[[Page S5915]]

during a global pandemic, when cities and towns are struggling to stay 
afloat and Americans are trying to figure out how they are going to 
continue to pay the rent and put food on the table. With more than 
200,000 Americans, including 439 Granite Staters who have died from 
COVID-19, we are still experiencing as many as 40,000 new cases each 
day in this country.
  Our economy is struggling to get back on its feet. There are still 
11.5 million fewer workers employed since the pandemic began, and many 
are unable to go back to work because the majority of our childcare 
centers remain closed out of safety concerns. We still have so many 
schools, at least in New Hampshire, where the students are working from 
home. If they are lucky, they are going to school part time and working 
from home part time, but most of them are not back in school full time.
  Treatment and recovery centers are reporting that the overdose crisis 
has worsened because of the pandemic. In New Hampshire, where we saw in 
2019 for the first time in a number of years the overdose death rate 
began to fall, we are now seeing an increase again. We are also facing 
a looming eviction crisis and housing shortage that has been 
exacerbated by COVID-19.
  Yet, given this reality, what we are seeing in the Senate is not an 
effort to pass a bipartisan COVID-19 relief package that is actually 
going to help the millions who have been impacted by this pandemic. 
Instead, what we are seeing from the Republican leadership here is a 
focus on quickly ramming through a nominee to serve on the Supreme 
Court in just a few short weeks.
  While that is going on, we have seen Republican leadership in the 
Senate blocking bipartisan negotiations on a COVID-19 relief bill. That 
has been going on since May, when we received the House bill called the 
Heroes Act. During those last 4 months, businesses have been shuttered 
in New Hampshire and across this country; families have been evicted; 
hospitals have laid off staff. All of this is going on while the 
pandemic continues--more than 40,000 new cases a day.
  Yesterday, I was in Nashua, the second largest city in New Hampshire, 
and I met with leadership from St. Joseph Hospital there. It is one of 
two hospitals in Nashua, and it is one of the four hospitals that has 
treated the most COVID cases of any of the hospitals in New Hampshire. 
Nashua is one of the communities in New Hampshire that has been hardest 
hit by the coronavirus.
  What I heard at the hospital was that COVID-19 has had a huge impact 
on their facility. Despite the very much needed injection of funds from 
the CARES Act and assistance from the Medicare advance payments loan 
program, they are still forecasting significant losses. They have had 
to furlough employees, many of whom rely on their jobs at St. Joseph 
not just for their healthcare but also for their childcare benefits.
  They shared that they have concerns with the lack of availability of 
testing capability. They have had orders that never arrived at their 
facility, despite commitments from the companies who are selling the 
tests.
  But the leadership and the staff at St. Joseph remain committed to 
serving their community, as do all of the hospitals across New 
Hampshire, so many of whom are facing similar financial difficulties 
and need additional help from the Federal Government.
  I am hearing from people across my State who urgently need Federal 
help. I have had letters from people all across New Hampshire, 
representing different industries in the State and different segments 
of our communities. I want to read an excerpt from a letter that I 
received from Pamela Keilig, who works with the New Hampshire Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence. She says:

       The pandemic has had grave consequences on the health and 
     safety of survivors as they encounter ongoing barriers to 
     accessing the support they need. . . . Overall, the statewide 
     hotlines have seen a 7 percent increase in call volume 
     compared to this time last year.

  Pamela's letter goes on to highlight what is at stake if Congress 
refuses to act. She says:

       [P]rolonged inaction in providing additional funding places 
     survivors and their families in increased jeopardy. . . . 
     [T]he time to intervene is now.

  They need help now.
  I also want to read a letter from Chris Coates, who is the county 
administrator for Cheshire County in New Hampshire over in the western 
part of our State that borders Vermont. Chris's letter describes the 
important role local governments are playing in mitigating the spread 
of COVID-19. He says:

       We are providing essential support and guidance to small 
     businesses, record numbers of unemployed individuals, and 
     those suffering from mental illness and substance abuse 
     disorders.

  State and local leaders like Chris are facing severe budgetary 
shortfalls. They desperately need help from Congress. The State of New 
Hampshire alone expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 
million if Congress doesn't provide additional support.
  In his letter Chris Coates goes on to say:

       Cheshire County is not looking for a special handout. My 
     request reflects the simple reality that county governments, 
     along with our state and local partners, are dealing with 
     immense challenges at the community level.

  Then I also heard from the Seacoast Chamber Alliance, which 
represents chambers of commerce in the communities of Hampton, Exeter, 
Portsmouth, Dover, Somersworth, and Rochester. The Chamber Alliance 
says:

       The Seacoast Chamber Alliance respectfully requests you and 
     your colleagues in the Senate work together in a bipartisan 
     effort to approve a comprehensive funding relief package to 
     support our businesses.

  They go on to say:

       Although we--and our members--are grateful for the support 
     already allocated through previous CARES Act funding relief 
     packages, we know this economic crisis caused by COVID-19 is 
     far from over. And for many, the worst is yet to come.

  They finally conclude by saying:

       It is clear that without another round of assistance, many 
     businesses will not survive into 2021.

  I ask unanimous consent that these letters, including the ones I just 
quoted from, be printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   New Hampshire Coalition Against


                                   Domestic & Sexual Violence,

                                               September 18, 2020.
     Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Shaheen: On behalf of the New Hampshire 
     Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and our 13 
     member programs, we are writing with the urgent request for 
     additional COVID-19 relief funding to meet the continued and 
     escalated needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence 
     in our state. Such funding is imperative to further the life-
     saving work of our crisis centers, keep the lights on in our 
     shelters, and help prevent violence in our communities.
       Over the last 6 months we have witnessed the full impact 
     and extent of the pandemic unfold before us, and it is has 
     become increasingly evident that we have transitioned into a 
     sustained crisis in New Hampshire, where every intersection 
     of our work has been interrupted. Annually, our member 
     programs serve more than 15,000 survivors through prevention 
     education, court and hospital accompaniment, crisis 
     counseling, and housing support. Crisis centers have worked 
     tirelessly to adapt service delivery and transform their 
     advocacy efforts under incredible circumstances. Despite the 
     resilience and innovation of crisis centers, long-term 
     support is needed to maintain the work and respond 
     effectively to the needs of survivors and their families.
       The pandemic has had grave consequences on the health and 
     safety of survivors as they encounter ongoing barriers to 
     accessing the support they need, while simultaneously 
     experiencing more severe and lethal cases of violence and 
     abuse. Crisis centers remain inundated with service demands 
     as abusers continue to utilize new ways to leverage power and 
     control, noting an increase in calls from Child Advocacy 
     Centers, male survivors of domestic violence, and individuals 
     experiencing mental health crises. Overall, the statewide 
     hotlines have seen a 7 percent increase in call volume 
     compared to last year. Moreover, victims of domestic violence 
     and sexual assault have a higher vulnerability to 
     homelessness, substance abuse, and poverty compared to the 
     general population, requiring a greater number of 
     interventions.
       New Hampshire's housing crisis has made it increasingly 
     difficult to place survivors in transitional or permanent 
     housing, and this has been exacerbated since March. In 2019, 
     well before a global pandemic was on our radar, crisis 
     centers provided shelter for over 400 survivors, accounting 
     for more than 40,000 bed nights, and even then, had to turn 
     away more than 3,000 adult and child survivors due to the 
     lack of available services.
       Advocates have reported an increased need for housing 
     support, as survivors experience

[[Page S5916]]

     job loss and threat of homelessness due to violence at home. 
     Most shelters across the state have remained at capacity 
     since the start of the pandemic, utilizing hotels to house 
     additional victims, often for extended stays lasting several 
     weeks at a time. Crisis centers remain deeply concerned about 
     the consequences of not having enough housing support, 
     especially as we move into winter.
       Despite added efforts to help domestic violence and 
     stalking victims access the legal system, there has been a 
     severe decrease in the number of protective orders filed 
     compared to last year. In a state where over 50 percent of 
     Lethality Assessment screenings represent high risk of 
     fatality, and where domestic violence is a factor in nearly 
     half of all homicides, there is an essential need to ensure 
     that survivors are able to access every resource available to 
     them, and receive the support needed to navigate the legal 
     system during a public health crisis.
       The continued challenges that survivors face in accessing 
     vital services cannot be overstated; prolonged inaction in 
     providing additional funding places survivors and their 
     families in increased jeopardy. At the onset of the pandemic, 
     crisis centers quickly identified the immediate loss of 
     funding due to COVID-19 as annual fundraisers had to be 
     cancelled. It is projected that the total loss of revenue for 
     all 13 member programs will be over one million dollars. This 
     has required member programs to tap into unrestricted funding 
     in order to meet the increased service demands and needs of 
     survivors, leaving crisis centers with limited funding to 
     cover basic operating costs. Crisis center staff have been 
     running an endless marathon over the last six months and are 
     in great need for Congress to rally behind them.
       As we continue to acknowledge the full impact of COVID-19 
     on our field, we would be exceedingly grateful for further 
     federal funding to help us weather this storm. Centering the 
     needs and experiences of survivors in future relief packages 
     would be instrumental to the individuals that crisis centers 
     serve throughout the country. Survivors will feel the impact 
     of this pandemic on their lives for months to come; the time 
     to intervene is now.
       Thank you for your continued dedication to supporting 
     survivors in New Hampshire, and throughout the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pamela Keilig,
     Public Policy Specialist.
                                  ____

                                               September 22, 2020.
     Senator Jeanne Shaheen,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Shaheen: The Seacoast Chamber Alliance 
     respectfully requests that you and your colleagues in the 
     Senate work together in a bipartisan effort to approve a 
     comprehensive funding relief package to support our 
     businesses.
       Although we--and our members--are grateful for the support 
     already allocated through previous CARES Act funding relief 
     packages, we know this economic crisis caused by COVID-19 is 
     far from over. And for many, the worst is yet to come.
       As we head into the winter months, many are seeing 
     continued declines in business over concerns about a surge in 
     coronavirus cases during what is typically the season for flu 
     and other illnesses.
       Our restaurants and hospitality industry in particular are 
     seeing a lack of consumer confidence in dining indoors. 
     Restaurants are often `destination businesses' that attract 
     patrons not just to their own business but serve as an 
     attraction for other businesses located nearby. Downtown 
     business districts rely heavily on restaurants to bring 
     customers to the area and help to support numerous other 
     businesses such as retailers and service-oriented businesses. 
     The loss of restaurants will create a ripple effect that will 
     be catastrophic to downtown business districts resulting in 
     the closing of many other small businesses, loss of jobs and 
     empty buildings.
       Although hospitality businesses are facing an urgent need 
     due to the change of season, many other businesses are still 
     in need of assistance as well. Supply chain delays, slower 
     mail and shipping services and lower customer spending are 
     resulting in businesses seeing lower revenues and higher 
     costs for materials across all sectors. A great many of our 
     businesses are not able to operate at full capacity and are 
     furloughing employees as a result.
       Feedback from some of our members is below. It is clear 
     that without another round of assistance, many businesses 
     will not survive into 2021. Please urge the Senate to vote on 
     a bipartisan bill and send the relief needed to ensure our 
     business community's survival.
       Thank you for your consideration.
     John Nyhan,
       President, Hampton Area Chamber of Commerce.
     Jennifer Wheeler,
       President, Exeter Area Chamber of Commerce.
     Valerie Rochon,
       Chief Collaborator, Chamber Collaborative of Greater 
     Portsmouth.
     Margaret Joyce,
       President, Greater Dover Chamber of Commerce.
     Allison St. Laurent,
       Executive Director, The Falls Chamber of Commerce.
     Laura Ring,
       President, Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce.

                         Feedback From Members

       From a small independent restaurant: Most people are 
     getting to a point that even if congress needs to piecemeal a 
     deal, we need to get some funding. Those parts of the package 
     that everyone agrees upon should be funded, leaving aside 
     that which is contentious. MUST be funded now. To hold up the 
     funding to small business, while the other funding is being 
     debated, isn't helping anyone at all. Could help many small 
     businesses by getting the funding out as quickly as possible. 
     At the end of the day, stop holding out for everything, agree 
     on common ground, get it done, and get the funds out to those 
     who desperately need it.
       From a downtown Retail & Commercial Real Estate: I'm 
     concerned that the level of additional funding that Sen. 
     Shaheen is supporting may be more than necessary for most 
     circumstances and, more importantly, will certainly add even 
     more to the huge debt that we are already leaving on the 
     shoulders of the younger generations. I suggest that they 
     stop holding out to get everything, but get SOMETHING--those 
     things they agree upon now--so our businesses can stay in 
     business. They can argue about the contentious items later, 
     which may or may not happen.
       From a Historic Museum: By our interactions, based here at 
     the historic museum, on common interests in our past and our 
     cultural heritage, we have played a significant part in 
     creating and maintaining a vibrant economy. With our physical 
     distance, though, our places in the economy have evaporated. 
     In the absence of the PPP loan program, it seems doubtful 
     that our organization would have been able to cover our 
     payroll costs this summer, and our prospects are looking 
     increasingly dim if the federal government does not provide 
     additional funding to ensure the sustainability of essential 
     community organizations like ours. Cultural and historic 
     nonprofits are key to the local tourism economy, and to the 
     economy of the region. We urge New Hampshire's legislators to 
     support additional federal support for our community, and our 
     economy.
       From a Catering Company: Our challenges lie in people not 
     being able to gather. Limits on indoor get-togethers and 
     events are our main difficulty. Our corporate catering 
     accounts have all but dried up due to people working remotely 
     and not going into their offices. Our wedding business is 
     about half of what it was last year and that will all end in 
     early November. Previous events that we had scheduled, like 
     being an in house caterer for a private club in Portsmouth, 
     will not be gathering and thus a loss of over $45,000 for the 
     winter season. We have come up with some creative ways to 
     bring in revenue but we will likely fall far short of the 
     $20,000 we need monthly for occupancy and to pay our full-
     time staff. When we discuss our outlook for the next 6 
     months, it's looking for ways to survive that next 6 months. 
     It will be very challenging and will likely cause us to go 
     further into debt to maintain everything. catering service 
     and function hall.
       From a History Museum/Attraction: The museum's fiscal year 
     ends on March 31st--we project a $180,000 operating deficit. 
     Up to this point we have been able to keep year-round staff 
     [27] fully employed and a reasonable amount of programming, 
     mostly focused on serving the schools. To reduce costs we 
     hired far fewer seasonal employees [last year we had about 65 
     part-time seasonal staff, this year a dozen.] Looking to 
     2021--I anticipate that we will continue to run a significant 
     deficit. This may result in some furloughing of some staff 
     and reduction in programs, especially special events that 
     draw such large crowds to the city. No matter if the pandemic 
     is under control with a vaccine or better treatments, tourism 
     will be down and philanthropy will be depleted for the most 
     part because of donor fatigue and significantly reduced 
     funds. I think 2021 will be much harder for tourist--based 
     businesses and cultural organizations. Unless there is a 
     significant change, older and middle age people [a major part 
     of our audience] will not travel in great numbers because of 
     reduced funds or their reluctance to spend because of the 
     fluctuating economy.
       From a 501(c)(6) Membership Art Association: As a non-
     profit organization, we really need all the help we can get 
     to stay in existence. As an art oriented organization, we are 
     finding it extremely challenging to get grants and do other 
     fund raising because much of the money available in grants, 
     (other than the governor's main street funds), and from 
     individuals, seems to be prioritized to more social oriented 
     non-profits--such as food banks, homeless shelters, etc. We 
     certainly realize these are very important at this time, but 
     we also have to have the ability for other nonprofits to get 
     funding assistance. We have had to reinvent the way we do 
     business by moving more of it online, which has meant 
     increased staff costs, and software expenditures so things 
     remain a challenge for us.
       From an Amusement Attraction: Thank you for spearheadng 
     this. I have to tell you, this may be the most important 
     battle we have had to wage collectively. This is the first 
     time I've stopped and put what we are

[[Page S5917]]

     dealing with and what it could very well mean for my family 
     and our business into words. The result? I cried for an hour. 
     Please fight for us.
       From a Cultural/Tourist destination: We were closed for our 
     2020 season (this weekend would have been our closing 
     weekend!). This resulted in the loss of over $3 million in 
     income, and while we were able to reduce our expenses by $1.7 
     million, we still face a massive challenge this year, and 
     uncertainty about the status of our 2021 season. We did 
     receive both a PPP loan (which we anticipate will be fully 
     forgiven) and a NERF grant, which made a big difference for 
     us--but even this amazing support (totaling over $800K!) 
     didn't cover our losses for this fiscal year. However, nobody 
     knows what is going to happen next year. We are in the 
     process of considering benefit reductions, furloughs, and 
     possibly even layoffs for early 2021, depending on what 
     happens. If an effective vaccine is widely available and 
     administered by May or June (which is seeming less and less 
     likely, we will be able to open safely. Having said that, we 
     can't wait till June to make tough decisions--so even if we 
     can open, we need additional support in the winter months. 
     And if we can't open, we need even more support. I can't 
     imagine where we would be without the PPP loan and NERF grant 
     this year. If a vaccine isn't forthcoming, we could be in the 
     exact same position next year, and would be looking for a 
     similar amount of funding. Star is open to the public and 
     welcomes nearly 20,000 people a year. We consider ourselves 
     stewards of this NH treasure, we are grateful with the 
     funding we received in 2020, and we know that without 
     continued support, our ability to continue to welcome guests 
     and protect this important NH resource would be in jeopardy. 
     Senator Shaheen has been an effective advocate for our 
     nonprofit organization (and many others), and I am happy she 
     is continuing this fight.


                                           County of Cheshire,

                                               September 25, 2020.
     Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Shaheen: I write to you today in my position 
     as County Administrator for Cheshire County to first and 
     foremost thank you for your leadership, guidance and advocacy 
     on this seemingly never-ending COVID-19 journey.
       In the early days of COVID-19 your voice of calm 
     reassurance allowed us to know that we had a friend in 
     Washington and you and your staff provided us valuable 
     guidance in the early days of this virus. That guidance 
     helped us deal with this tsunami of a pandemic that came down 
     upon our communities and up-ended our lives.
       Your leadership in Washington has helped Cheshire County 
     receive funding for PPE, stipends for our nursing home, 
     sheriff's deputies and Department of Corrections. We have 
     received funding to cover for lost revenues at our nursing 
     home and unemployment benefits for those in-need living in 
     Cheshire County. This is just a short list of the work you 
     have done on behalf of the citizens of Cheshire County and I 
     thank-you.
       When Cheshire County needed you, you were there, and 
     continue to be today. As the impact of the pandemic endures, 
     the residents of Cheshire County continue to feel the 
     devastating impact on our health and economic structures. The 
     Delivering Immediate Relief to America's Families, Schools 
     and Small Businesses Act which was voted down yesterday, fell 
     short in many areas but especially for counties due to the 
     lack of providing direct flexible relief to counties, cities 
     and towns of all sizes.
       At a time when so many Cheshire County citizens are serving 
     on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as we move 
     closer to 2021 with so many unknown fiscal realities, I was 
     extremely disappointed that the new supplemental aid package 
     being considered in the U.S. Senate left out new fiscal 
     relief or flexibility for county governments.
       As you look to the next stimulus or CARES Act funding, I 
     urge you to work with the White House and leaders of both 
     parties in the House and Senate to resume negotiations on a 
     bipartisan relief package that provides this missing direct, 
     flexible aid to counties, cities and towns. With national 
     numbers showing that last week that 1.7 million Americans 
     filed new jobless and unemployment claims, we now stand with 
     30 million Americans out of work.
       If a new stimulus agreement is not reached prior to the 
     seating of the new congress the fiscal ramification could be 
     devastating. Counties could be looking at tax payments from 
     towns and cities that may be substantial short of normal 
     revenues and services that are dictated by state statute may 
     need to be immediately reduced. A stimulus package that 
     allows municipalities to utilize federal funding to offset 
     lost revenue could advert what may be a pending catastrophe 
     for not just Cheshire County but the country.
       Cheshire County is not looking for a special handout. My 
     request reflects the simple reality that county governments, 
     along with our state and local partners, are dealing with 
     immense challenges at the community level.
       Local governmental bodies are playing a significant role in 
     mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 virus. We are providing 
     essential support and guidance to small businesses, record 
     numbers of unemployed individuals, and those suffering from 
     mental illnesses and substance use disorders. We remain 
     steadfast in our focus to protect our most vulnerable 
     residents such as at-risk children and seniors.
       We understand the need for appropriate public 
     accountability standards, and the oversight guardrails that 
     are in place for the existing and proposed legislation, and 
     we will meet those expectations.
       Our goal is to always ensure that all federal resources are 
     utilized wisely and responsibly at the local level to address 
     the immediate and far-reaching impacts of the current 
     pandemic, and to make our nation more resilient and safer at 
     the individual community level.
       I therefore request, with the utmost respect and gratitude 
     for your tireless and steadfast work during this pandemic, 
     that you continue to fight and advocate to your colleagues on 
     both sides of the aisle.
       The urgency to agree upon a stimulus bill prior to the new 
     year that will address the needs of the counties, cities and 
     towns in the State of New Hampshire cannot be stressed 
     strongly enough. The ability to access flexible funding that 
     allows municipal bodies to address revenue shortfalls will 
     strengthen all of our communities, but especially Cheshire 
     County.
       Again, thank you for your voice in Washington, you make a 
     difference.
                                            Christopher C. Coates,
                                             County Administrator.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. So in the middle of this pandemic, the likes of which 
we haven't seen in more than 100 years, what we see here in the Senate 
is that Majority Leader McConnell has prioritized moving a nominee who 
would enable the Court to strip away critical health protections that 
keep Americans safe.
  Instead of providing more resources for the businesses, the 
hospitals, the healthcare providers, and the people who have lost their 
jobs--instead of providing more resources for them, the majority is 
hoping to confirm a nominee who would strike down healthcare coverage 
for people, including those with preexisting conditions.
  My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, was very eloquent in 
talking about what the impact of striking down the Affordable Care Act 
will be. But the fundamental concern is that, instead of working 
together here to help Americans who are struggling with this pandemic, 
what the majority has chosen to do, what the Republicans in this 
Chamber have chosen to do, is to ram through a nominee who threatens to 
erode these fundamental rights while in the Court.
  Right now, Granite Staters and all Americans need the Senate to work 
for them, not for a partisan agenda to radicalize the Supreme Court.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to set aside this 
effort and to work together for the American people to get people the 
help they so desperately need.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada


                          Presidential Debate

  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn President Trump's 
refusal to denounce White supremacy during last night's Presidential 
debate.
  At a time when this Nation is having a profound discussion about 
race--with anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head here in the United 
States and around the globe and the Nation being torn apart over 
political differences--our leaders, particularly our President, must 
call out hate in all its forms.
  Last night, the President failed to rise to the occasion, and he 
failed the American people in doing so. On the global stage in the year 
2020, the leader of the free world gave an unequivocal wink and nod to 
White supremacists, racists, and neo-Nazis, all while the Nation and 
the world looked on in absolute horror.
  Not only did the President of our United States not condemn the White 
supremacist violence that he has incited during his tenure, he 
implicitly gave them marching orders.
  When asked to condemn the hate group, the Proud Boys, the President 
of the United States said that they should ``stand back and stand by.'' 
Let me repeat. He gave the order for them to ``stand back and stand 
by.''
  There is no justification for his words or for his refusal to give a 
clear, direct, and swift condemnation of White supremacy.
  The President's emboldening of violent extremists comes just as the 
FBI and Department of Homeland Security named White supremacist 
extremists as the most significant terrorism-related threat right here 
in the United States.
  As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I heard the FBI Director testify

[[Page S5918]]

to this very point just last week. The message was clear: White 
supremacists pose a dangerous and violent threat to our homeland.
  Against this backdrop, the President's shocking remarks last night 
were, in fact, a continuation of deeply disturbing patterns of racist 
and anti-Semitic behavior that this President has allowed to take place 
on his watch.
  Three years ago in Charlottesville, violent chaos and hatred were on 
full display for the world to see. As neo-Nazis openly marched in the 
streets, they chanted: ``Jews will not replace us'' and ``blood and 
soil.''
  President Trump not only didn't denounce this anti-Semitic and racist 
rhetoric, he did something much worse. He did something much worse. He 
praised the White nationalists. He praised them as ``very fine 
people.'' These were not very fine people.
  Just last month, a teen vigilante asked his mother to drive him 
across State lines to the protests in Kenosha with a rifle. He went 
there to use it, and, in fact, he did. He took the life of two people 
and shot a third. He has been charged with homicide and rightly so. 
Instead of condemning this act of hatred, President Trump has hailed 
this murderer as a ``hero.''
  But this is the norm for President Trump. The President's use of dog 
whistles and charged language gives a voice to White supremacy and 
empowers vigilantes. It is inexcusable, and it is indefensible.
  This rise in hatred that the President fails to condemn is one of the 
reasons why, last year, I cofounded the Senate Bipartisan Task Force 
for Combating Anti-Semitism. The goal of this bipartisan, nonpartisan 
endeavor is to help stop hate before it starts, to call out bigotry and 
anti-Semitism wherever we see it--left, right, or center. I am proud of 
the work that we have done so far to push back on anti-Semitism right 
here in the United States, in Europe, in the Middle East, and around 
the world.
  But the President's silence and his disturbing call to arms to White 
supremacist groups like the Proud Boys make our work that much harder.
  Some of the President's defenders often write off his most troubling 
statements, claiming the President misspoke or that we just don't 
understand what he is trying to say or that is his speaking style or 
that he is just joking.
  Let me be clear. He didn't misspeak last night. He didn't make a joke 
last night. And regardless of what others say, words matter. His words 
matter. He is the President of the United States.
  Let me say today, as the President should have said last night--and I 
invite all of my colleagues here in this Chamber to join me in 
repeating this statement: I condemn White nationalism; I condemn 
racism; I condemn anti-Semitism; and I condemn and denounce the groups 
that promote these vile ideologies, the Proud Boys among them.
  We must speak out, and we must take action. I urge my colleagues, 
again, on both sides of the aisle, not to be complicit in their 
silence. I want them all to join me. I want you all to join me in 
denouncing White supremacy, as President Trump failed to do, clearly 
and explicitly, in last night's debate.
  This is not a partisan issue. It never will be a partisan issue.
  I hope all my colleagues join me in denouncing hatred in all forms.
  I yield back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________