October 1, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 171 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S6011-S6015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PROTECT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 
554, S. 4675.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to proceed.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 4675, a bill to amend the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5602

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak to 
one of the most significant issues facing the security of our Nation. 
It is a question of domestic terrorism, specifically the threat of 
violent White supremacists.
  In Tuesday's Presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked 
President Trump to condemn White supremacists and rightwing militia. 
President Trump refused. Instead, he replied--and I quote--``Proud 
Boys, stand back and stand by.''
  The Proud Boys, a far-right group that promotes and engages in 
violence, viewed President Trump's words as a call to action. The 
group's leader Joe Biggs said he took the President's words as a 
directive to ``[F] . . . them up.''
  I was appalled, but not surprised, by the President's words. He has a 
long history of inflammatory, racist remarks. Now, President Trump 
claims that violence is a ``left-wing problem, not a right-wing 
problem''--his words.
  Let me be clear. I join Vice President Biden in condemning all 
violence, but we know that White supremacists pose a great threat. An 
unclassified May 2017 FBI-DHS joint intelligence bulletin found that 
``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent threat of lethal 
violence.'' This was a finding by the lead law enforcement agencies of 
the Trump administration. They went on to say that White supremacists 
were responsible for more homicides from 2000 to 2016 than any other 
domestic extremist movement. The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, 
in response to a question I posed in the Senate Judiciary Committee 
last year, said that the majority of domestic terrorism arrests 
involved White supremacists.
  Now, for years, I have urged the Trump administration to respond to 
the ongoing threat of violent White supremacists and other far-
rightwing extremists. Instead, they have repeatedly downplayed this 
very lethal and real threat.
  Attorney General Barr has never responded to the multiple letters I 
have sent, asking what the Department of Justice was doing to combat 
White supremacist violence.
  Unfortunately, as we have learned from former Trump administration 
officials themselves, the Trump administration has downplayed the 
threat of violent White supremacists. POLITICO recently reported that a 
draft homeland threat assessment report from DHS was edited to weaken 
language on the threat posed by violent White supremacists. And a DHS 
whistleblower alleged that DHS officials, including Ken Cuccinelli, 
requested the modification of the report to make the threat of White 
supremacists ``appear less severe'' and add information on violent 
leftwing groups.
  It is not enough to just stand here and condemn the President's 
remarks at the infamous debate. The American people sent us to Congress 
to act. There is something we can do now. There is something that we 
can do that will show we are prepared to respond to this threat to law 
and order, to this threat of violent White supremacists.
  I am the lead sponsor of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, 
bipartisan legislation that would address the threat of violent White 
supremacists and other domestic terrorists.
  Our bill would establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the 
Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland 
Security. It would require these offices to regularly assess the 
domestic terrorism threat and focus their limited resources on the most 
significant threats. Critically, they would provide training resources 
to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement in addressing the 
domestic terrorism threat. The House companion to my bill was 
introduced by my colleague and friend Congressman Brad Schneider of 
Illinois.
  Just last week, the House of Representatives passed our bill on a 
unanimous voice vote. The Senate should pass it today.
  In a few moments, staff will provide me with the language to ask for 
a unanimous consent. I am waiting so there is an opportunity for both 
sides to discuss the procedure moving forward. In the meantime, several 
of my colleagues have asked to come to the floor and address the issue. 
I would yield to them for comment or question, through the Chair, with 
the hopes that when the procedural language arrives, I might be able to 
make the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today on probably one of 
the most serious national security issues that we will confront. I say 
that as a member of the Armed Services Committee, having received a 
variety of classified briefings on threats to this country. Some of 
them regarding ongoing foreign interference in our election are truly 
chilling. But the threat to our national security from White 
supremacists, now operating so openly that the Director of the FBI has 
said they are one of the paramount threats and an ongoing security 
threat to our Nation, demands that there should be action now.
  The bill that my colleague Senator Durbin is offering passed 
unanimously by the House of Representatives within recent days. Let me 
repeat. It passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. It 
reflects the real and urgent danger of this threat.
  The President has refused to denounce White supremacists. The 
President has told one of the most prominent of those groups to stand 
by. That failure--an abject failure on the part of the Commander in 
Chief--to respond to an ongoing security threat demands this action 
now. We must stand up for the integrity of our elections, the security 
of our Nation, and the fundamental freedoms that we prize as American 
people.

[[Page S6012]]

  We will not allow this cancer to metastasize in this country and 
thwart the will of Americans who are going to the polls, in effect, 
right now. The ballots are being cast. The threat to our electoral will 
is ongoing.
  I am proud to join my colleagues who are here on the floor who 
represent an ideological spectrum, as did the House of Representatives 
in unanimously approving this bill. The paramount threat to our Nation 
and the integrity of our elections is White supremacy, violent 
extremism, and nationalism that potentially jeopardize the very pillars 
of our democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to support the efforts of my 
colleagues to bring the unanimous House bill establishing legal 
procedures for dealing with White supremacy to the floor of the Senate. 
I do so in honor of four Virginians.
  In August of 2017, a group called Unite the Right held a White 
supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA. They started on a Friday 
evening, when Jewish residents of Charlottesville were gathering in 
synagogues and when students were coming to the University of Virginia 
to start their academic careers. They rampaged through the campus and 
community chanting slogans from Nazi rallies like ``Jews will not 
replace us'' or ``Blood and soil.''
  As if that were not terrorizing enough, on the next day, they 
escalated physical attacks against many. Heather Heyer was a 
Charlottesville resident and paralegal with an amazing background and 
story who was peacefully protesting that day, and a White supremacist 
from another State revved his car up, hit her and killed her.
  DeAndre Harris was a special education instructional aide in 
Charlottesville, and he was set upon by a number of White supremacists 
and beaten severely with objects.
  There were two Virginia State Troopers, Jay Cullen and Berke Bates, 
both of whom I knew. Jay Cullen often flew me in a helicopter when I 
was Governor, and I met Berke Bates, the trooper, because he was part 
of Governor McCullough's security detail. They were called out on that 
day, which would have been a day off. They were called out on that day 
because they needed to provide extra security as this White supremacist 
rally ran amuck in Charlottesville. On that day, both of them lost 
their lives as their helicopter malfunctioned.
  I stand on the floor of the Senate thinking of these four 
Virginians--two of whom I knew, three of whom lost their lives, and one 
who was injured severely in this Unite the Right rally--to say that it 
is time we have laws in this country that would enable us to 
appropriately deal with the chief source of domestic terrorism. For 
that, I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Durbin for this bill. Thank you for the 
colleagues who are on here.
  I was struck when Senator Kaine rose in honor of those who died in 
Virginia. The list goes on and on. You can go to Emmett Till. You can 
go to the four girls, Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Denise 
McNair, and Cynthia Wesley. You can go to those who lost their lives in 
a church in Charleston, SC. The thing that connects them all is not 
just that they died because of the color of their skin, not just 
because of the White supremacists who were trying to change the 
political dynamic in this country. It is an unbroken stream that goes 
back decades and generations. It goes back to the time of the great 
original sin of slavery, when White supremacy tried to dominate this 
country, and it goes back to a string of unbroken deaths that are 
occurring even as we speak.
  Hate crimes across this country have proliferated, whether it is not 
just White on Black or it is the Tree of Life synagogue. It is so many 
things that we have to stop.
  The interesting thing to me of what happened this week is that the 
day after the Presidential debates when the President of the United 
States refused to condemn White supremacy, the Governor of the State of 
Alabama, my friend Kay Ivey--Republican Governor of the State of 
Alabama--apologized to the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church 
bombing that occurred 57 years ago. It was an implicit acknowledgement 
that words matter, that statements of public officials have an effect 
on people. They give a green light to violence, often even unintended.
  This bill Senator Durbin has proposed that passed, as Senator 
Blumenthal and others said, unanimously is a statement that we cannot 
allow this to continue. It is a statement that we will--as law 
enforcement, as citizens, as people in a free country--we will put an 
end to this kind of rhetoric and this kind of hate.
  Folks, we cannot let this moment pass in this body. The House passed 
this bill unanimously and so should the U.S. Senate. We should make a 
stand with our colleagues in the House--Republican and Democrat--that 
this is an important statement right now because what is unsaid so much 
right now is that we see this playing out in this country. We see it 
playing out in the streets. And we can talk about it from the right or 
the left, and we can talk about it from Republicans or Democrats, but 
the fact is, we need to be talking about it in terms of people and 
victims--innocent victims. That is what this bill is about--protecting 
the lives of all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin, 
regardless of their religion, regardless of their political persuasion. 
This bill will do that.
  Give the FBI the tools necessary. Give the statement from the U.S. 
Senate that we will not stand for this. Support this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. I am really grateful, Madam President.
  It has been said, and it is quite true, that the only thing necessary 
for evil to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing.
  Here we are at a time where we know our history. Since 9/11, the 
greatest terrorism we have seen in our country, actions from a church 
in South Carolina to a synagogue in Pittsburgh, to a Walmart in El 
Paso, time and time again, the violence that we have seen and the 
greatest terrorist activities since 9/11 have been domestic terrorism--
rightwing extremists, the majority of them White supremacists.
  The warnings we are now getting from our intelligence officials, 
according to one Judiciary hearing from the Department of Homeland 
Security, are that the most significant threat right now to the 
security of our country is White supremacy and violent White supremacy.
  The FBI has given a number of warnings. We now are heading toward an 
election where we are seeing signs of increased activity, increased 
hate, increased focus. This body--this good body, friends on both sides 
of the aisle--this is not a time where we can do nothing. We must act. 
We must take measures and steps to end this kind of violent scourge in 
our country.
  Obviously, this will not accomplish everything. But in a time like 
this, we must do something. I join my colleagues in support of this 
legislation. I want to, again, affirm the fact, quite encouraging, that 
it passed in a bipartisan manner in the U.S. House of Representatives. 
That is so encouraging. We should do the same here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                          Additional Cosponsor

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Manchin's name be added as a cosponsor to S. 3190.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are asking for unanimous consent to 
pass a bill that has passed the House of Representatives unanimously by 
a voice vote--unanimously--to empower and direct the law enforcement 
agencies of the United States to use their talents and resources to 
stop domestic terrorism, to stop the killing. We are identifying, in 
the course of it, the White supremacy and far-right extremism as one of 
the sources.
  Listen to what a Trump administration Department of Justice official 
wrote last year in the New York Times:

       White supremacy and far-right extremism are among the 
     greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. 
     Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement at the 
     Federal and State levels have been slow to respond.


[[Page S6013]]


  Killings committed by individuals in groups associated with far-right 
extremist groups have risen significantly. We are not manufacturing a 
crisis. The Trump administration Department of Justice official concurs 
with our actions that they are needed.
  How did I get involved in this? It goes back to 2012. As chairman of 
a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, I held a hearing on the threat of 
violent rightwing extremism after a White supremacist murdered six 
worshippers at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, WI. Officials from the 
Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and FBI--even at that time--
testified about the threat posed by violent domestic extremists.
  When President Trump was asked and challenged to condemn this 
violence, he refused.
  The question is whether the U.S. Senate, now given the same 
opportunity, will stand as the House of Representatives has on a 
unanimous, bipartisan basis to say ``enough'' when it comes to domestic 
terrorism inspired by White supremacy and rightwing extremism.
  Let me add that there is nothing in this bill to stop the efforts of 
those same agencies to police and stop leftwing extremism--all 
extremism. I have no problem in condemning all of it, but we are 
focusing on the one that is the most significant in the words of the 
Department of Justice.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5602 and that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just 
found out about this bill a couple of hours ago. I have been busy. I 
haven't really been able to really research it, and that is part of the 
problem with what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do here in 
just quickly rushing it through the U.S. Senate. Maybe this has had a 
full vetting in the House of Representatives, but here, in the U.S. 
Senate, it hasn't gone through any committee process whatsoever.
  Unfortunately, I also have to make the point--because I am sure they 
are trying to make a political point as opposed to trying to make law 
today--that I am opposed to all forms of domestic terrorism, including 
White supremacists. I think I speak for all of my Republican 
colleagues, and I think I speak for every U.S. Senator: We all abhor 
domestic violence and terror, including White supremacists.
  Again, I don't have much knowledge about this even though I am 
chairman of the committee of jurisdiction of one of the Departments 
that would be subject to this piece of legislation. I know that the 
Department was not consulted on this piece of legislation. I have been 
given notice here that the Department of Justice does not support this 
piece of legislation because it says it would seriously impede its 
ability to work in the domestic terrorism space. Again, I am not 
exactly sure why the Department of Justice does not like this piece of 
legislation. Suffice it to say that it doesn't. The Department of 
Homeland Security was not even consulted on this. As chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee, I don't know anything about this bill.
  This is not the way to pass a serious piece of legislation that deals 
with a serious issue. If it is a good piece of legislation, the 
sponsors should have no problem running it through the normal committee 
of jurisdiction process. In this case, apparently, it is with the 
Judiciary Committee, but I would think my committee would also have 
some pretty strong equities in this space, not to mention the fact that 
I have been working with my ranking member on precisely these types of 
issues.
  Instead of just trying to make a political point, what I have always 
tried to do is get a result and make law, but that has to go through a 
thoughtful process that uses the full committee process, which is not 
the case here.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yes, I am trying to make a political 
point, and it should be a bipartisan political point. It should be 
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, as there was a unanimous voice 
vote in the House of Representatives on that same measure, and I am 
sorry my colleague from Wisconsin has left.
  The Senate's version of this bill has been pending for 9 months--for 
9 months. The House has moved its version of it. It is a timely issue. 
Why waste a day in making America safer? Why not tell our law 
enforcement agencies: Now, roll up your sleeves. Go to work. Find the 
most dangerous things happening in this country, and stop them.
  We know one of them is White supremacists and their rightwing 
extremism. The President fumbled and couldn't come up with an answer 2 
days ago. Today, sadly, from the Republican side, we get an objection 
to coming together on a bipartisan basis, as they did in the House, to 
address this very real issue. I am troubled by this. It is a sad 
moment.
  I do believe the Senator from Wisconsin and many others will say they 
are against extremism. They had a chance to prove it by passing a 
measure here and refused.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Madam President, I am compelled to talk about this process 
that I just heard about.
  There is no process, folks. Let's just be candid. This Senate is not 
the deliberative process body that the Senator from Wisconsin talked 
about. We don't have that. This bill has been pending for 9 months. But 
we don't have that. This is not the Senate in which I worked in 1979, 
where there was a deliberative attempt. There were debates on the 
floor, and there were debates in committee. This is not a process. 
Whether it is on the floor of this Senate or whether it is in the media 
or wherever else, when someone says that this should go through the 
normal process, those processes were killed a long time ago. I have 
been in this body for almost 3 years, and we have had only a relatively 
handful of amendments on any bill that has come here. We have had 
virtually no markups and debates in committees. Those don't exist. This 
bill has been pending for 9 months, which is more than adequate time 
for the Homeland Security Committee to have taken a look at it, more 
than enough time for the Committee on the Judiciary to have taken a 
look at it, and more than enough time to have had a hearing on it.
  Apparently, our colleagues in the House felt it was OK, but this body 
has gotten to be so dysfunctional that, to send a statement, we will 
not allow a unanimously passed bill that has been pending in the Senate 
of the United States for 9 months to be passed.
  There is one thing with which I might disagree a little bit with 
Senator Durbin. For me, this is not a political statement. This is a 
statement about law enforcement and increasing the ability of law 
enforcement. It is a statement to protect victims of crime. That is 
what this bill is about for me. I have seen it all too often in my 
State and throughout the South. Again, that unbroken string--that is 
what I see this bill as.
  So I don't need lectures about process when I see a Senate that does 
not function but that leapfrogs substantive legislation simply to ram a 
Supreme Court nominee through--one that hasn't been pending for very 
long, either. This is the kind of thing the Senate needs to be doing 
and passing, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for not doing it. 
Hopefully, that will change.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I get into the subject of this 
pending vote, I do want to thank my colleagues from Illinois and 
Connecticut for bringing this important topic before the Senate.
  President Trump's refusal to condemn violent White supremacist groups 
in the Presidential debate has been around for several days. We have 
hardly heard anything out of most of our colleagues, and no one--no 
one, no one--is going to buy the argument that it came too suddenly. 
White supremacy

[[Page S6014]]

hasn't come too suddenly. The President's remarks have been out there 
for several days. It is the flimsiest of excuses to avoid criticizing 
the President even when every American of decency--the overwhelming 
majority of all Americans--would know he should be condemned.
  They don't care if you are a Democrat or a Republican or are liberal 
or conservative. You never know how low President Trump can go, but his 
refusal to condemn White supremacy is among the lowest things he has 
done, and--boy, oh, boy--there are lots of them lined up. I am ashamed 
of my Republican colleagues and ashamed--for America, for decency--that 
they have chosen to block this


                                S. 4653

  Madam President, now, on another issue of great importance to 
America, the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court 
has thrust the issue of healthcare back into the spotlight. Her 
confirmation to the highest Court in the land could put healthcare for 
hundreds of millions of Americans at risk.
  As you would imagine, taking away healthcare is deeply unpopular with 
the American people. So it seems the strategy from the Republican 
majority is to invent some new distraction--a fresh outrage--to talk 
about. My colleagues on the other side would rather talk about anything 
besides the fact that their President, their party, and their Supreme 
Court nominee pose a dire threat to Americans' healthcare.
  The outrage from the Republican leader was directed today, once 
again, at the idea that the Democrats would attack a nominee's 
religious beliefs, but of course, in their zeal to manufacture this 
issue, the Republican Senators began telegraphing this line of attack 
even before the nominee had been named. One Republican Senator wrote me 
a letter to warn against anti-Catholic attacks that hadn't happened yet 
against a nominee who had not been named. That is how transparent this 
Republican diversion--ruse--is.
  It appears the Republican majority will crank up the outrage machine 
to any level of absurdity to avoid talking about America's healthcare--
the healthcare that so many Americans desperately want and need. In 
fact, all week, the Republican leader has mocked the idea that a far-
right Supreme Court majority might strike down the Affordable Care Act 
and that Judge Barrett might play a decisive role. Of course, President 
Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who would terminate 
the Affordable Care Act, and he picked Judge Barrett. Those are the 
President's words. He is only going to pick Justices who would 
terminate the Affordable Care Act, and it is no mystery why he picked 
Judge Barrett.
  In both major cases brought against the ACA, Judge Barrett twice 
sided against the law. She publicly criticized Justice Roberts for 
upholding the law and said that, if the Supreme Court were to read the 
statute the way she does, they would have to ``invalidate it.'' 
President Trump: ``terminate it.'' Judge Barrett: ``invalidate it.'' 
Guess what. President Trump and Republican attorneys general are in 
court right now, suing to do just that--invalidate our healthcare law 
in a case that will be heard 1 week after the election.
  The threat to Americans' healthcare is very, very real, and Senate 
Republicans are tying themselves in knots in trying to explain how it 
is not. Leader McConnell, from the floor of the Senate, called it a 
joke--a joke--that Judge Barrett and the far-right majority of the 
Court might vote to take away healthcare or to turn back the clock on 
women's rights.
  Maybe he didn't get that message around to his conference, because 
the Republican Senator from Utah, only a few days earlier, claimed that 
the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional and that striking it down 
shouldn't tarnish Judge Barrett if that is what she chooses to do.
  Another Republican Senator said he wanted to see evidence that the 
nominee understood that Roe was wrongly decided, that Roe was an act of 
judicial imperialism, and I do believe Amy Coney Barrett's record bears 
that out. That was his quote.
  The junior Senator from Missouri expressed confidence that Judge 
Barrett believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. On the Supreme Court, 
a Justice Barrett could enforce that view.
  So which is it, Republican leader? Is it absurd to think that Judge 
Barrett might strike down the Affordable Care Act, or is it a good 
thing that shouldn't tarnish her reputation?
  Is it a joke that Judge Barrett could curtail women's fundamental 
rights, or are Republican Senators relieved to think that she thinks 
Roe v. Wade is judicial imperialism?
  Americans are starting to get pretty sick of these double standards 
and mealy-mouthed talking points--pretty sick of politicians who, just 
4 years ago, declared they couldn't possibly confirm a Democratic 
nominee to the Supreme Court in the early months of an election year 
but are now rushing to confirm a Republican nominee in the middle of an 
election that is already underway. Most of all, pretty sick are 
Republicans claiming they support protections for Americans with 
preexisting conditions while, at the same time, they support a lawsuit 
that would eliminate them.
  Well, we are about to put a few of these Senate Republicans on the 
record. Soon, the Senate will vote on a bill that, if passed, would 
protect the healthcare of hundreds of millions of Americans and prevent 
efforts by the Department of Justice to advocate that courts strike 
down the Affordable Care Act. I was able to move this measure to the 
floor despite the fact that Republicans didn't want it, and now we will 
have a vote.
  Will Republican Senators vote to stop President Trump's Justice 
Department from spending taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate the 
taxpayers' healthcare? We will see very shortly.
  If Senators truly want to support protections for Americans with 
preexisting conditions, they would vote to damage President Trump's 
legal effort to eliminate them. It is as simple as that.
  No amount of sophistry or explanation is needed. Yes or no?
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given a chance to 
finish my remarks in the next few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  It is as simple as that. Are they with the people who want protection 
or not, or are they standing with President Trump, who wants to destroy 
it? It is that simple, because if President Trump and the Republican 
lawsuit are successful, every single American stands to lose vital 
healthcare protections or access to care. Millions of Americans would 
see drug costs skyrocket. Tens of millions of families would lose 
healthcare coverage during the worst health crisis in a century. More 
than 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions would lose vital 
protections, including every American who contracted COVID, which would 
be treated as a preexisting condition. Women would see their country 
hurtle backward to a time when they could be charged more than men for 
insurance simply because they are women.
  This vote, which I was fortunate enough to obtain, will show America 
which party stands with protecting Americans' healthcare and 
protections for preexisting conditions and which party opposes it.
  It is plain and simple. Are you with Leader McConnell, who wants to 
rip away people's protections? Are you with President Trump, who wants 
to wound our American healthcare by eliminating ACA? Are you with the 
American people, who desperately need these protections? Are you with 
the mother or father whose son or daughter has cancer and the insurance 
company says ``You are not getting any insurance,'' or are you going to 
require that company to give them the insurance that family so 
desperately needs?
  The eyes of America are on this body and on Republican Senators right 
now. Whose side are you on--President Trump's or the American people 
who want healthcare?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S6015]]

  

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Conclusion Of Morning Business

  Morning business is closed.

                          ____________________