PROTECT ACT--Motion to Proceed; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 178
(Senate - October 19, 2020)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S6051-S6052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office []

                     PROTECT ACT--Motion to Proceed

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

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 554, S. 4675, a bill to 
     amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, last week, the Republican majority on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded what can only be described as 
a farcical set of hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. In the midst of 
a pandemic, when several members of the committee majority were exposed 
to or tested positive for the coronavirus or themselves were sick with 
COVID-19 in the days immediately beforehand, hearings and an in-person 
markup were conducted with virtually no regard for the risks.
  No uniform testing protocol was put in place to protect all of the 
people who had to be in that room. Why? Because the Republican majority 
wanted to jam this nomination through before the election.
  The chairman of the committee ignored the committee's quorum rules so 
that he could conduct business without the participation of the 
minority. Why? Because the Republican majority has decided to ignore 
the rules, norms, and standards--even its own rules, even its own 
standards--to get this nominee onto the bench.
  Four short years ago, every member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
said that we shouldn't approve a Supreme Court nominee in a 
Presidential election year. Many refused even to meet with Obama's 
  ``Use my words against me,'' Chairman Graham said, in case a Supreme 
Court vacancy opened up in the final year of his term. Lindsey Graham, 
in talking about himself, said: ``Lindsey Graham says let's let the 
next president [decide].''
  But now the Republican majority's supposed principle that we 
shouldn't approve Supreme Court nominees in election years has been 
exposed as a farce. It is trying to confirm a Supreme Court nominee in 
the middle of a national election. The Republican majority is running 
the most hypocritical, most partisan, and least legitimate process in 
the history of Supreme Court confirmations. Again, the Republican 
majority is running the most hypocritical, most partisan, and least 
legitimate process in the history--the long history--of Supreme Court 
  And what of the nominee? She performed as nearly every Trump-
nominated judge has performed when nominated to the Supreme Court. 
Essentially, she answered nothing--nothing of substance. Throughout the 
week, the Committee on the Judiciary and the American people were 
treated to the same practiced evasions that have become a hallmark of 
these hearings.
  According to Judge Barrett, the judicial standard of ethics that a 
nominee ``shouldn't comment on cases that might come before the Court'' 
is an excuse so large that it applies to any question she might not 
want to answer--even questions of basic legal fact. It produced an 
absurd and stunning set of exchanges.
  Judge Barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is illegal. It 
very much is. Judge Barrett would not say whether Congress is empowered 
to protect the right to vote. We certainly have that power. Judge 
Barrett would not say if the President of the United States can 
unilaterally change the date of an election. He cannot. She wouldn't 
say a President should commit to the peaceful transfer of power, if 
absentee ballots were a proper way to vote, or if Medicare and Social 
Security were constitutional. She wouldn't even say that.
  On the final day of her confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett refused 
to say if climate change were real, because her answer might be 
``politically controversial.'' Seriously? This nominee was unable to 
confirm the existence of climate change? What is next--gravity? Is the 
Earth round? To be fair, the Flat Earth Society might find that opinion 
politically controversial.
  These aren't matters of opinion. These are matters of law and matters 
of fact. She is a sitting judge, and if the Republican majority gets 
its way, she will be a Justice on the highest Court in the country, 
but, apparently, the American people do not deserve to hear anything 
about her views.
  The principal thing we learned about Judge Barrett in her hearings 
was she believes she doesn't have to answer any question that might 
upset President Trump, but, of course, we do know that Judge Barrett 
has a certain interpretation of our laws and the Constitution--one that 
she wants to hide from the American people because it is so adverse to 
what they believe.
  President Trump swore that he would only nominate Justices to the 
Supreme Court who would ``terminate'' the Affordable Care Act. Judge 
Barrett herself harshly criticized Justice Roberts' decision to uphold 
the law. Senator Hawley said, after his meeting with Judge Barrett, he 
was satisfied she believes Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided. At 
one moment in the hearings last week, Judge Barrett admitted she 
considered Brown v. Board a superprecedent--outside the realm of legal 
challenge--but that Roe v. Wade was not.
  So, despite what the American people heard in the hearings last week, 
Judge Barrett does have opinions; she does hold views. She has a track 
record of criticizing the decisions that have upheld our healthcare 
law. She has belonged to organizations and signed her name to 
advertisements that have called for an end--an end--to a woman's right 
to choose. Her judicial opinions express an extreme and rather bizarre 
view of the Second Amendment. She believes that the government lacks 
the power to forbid felons from owning guns--a view far to the right of 
even Justice Scalia.
  If Judge Barrett is confirmed, those views will matter a great deal 
to Americans whose fundamental rights are on the line at the Supreme 
Court--their right to affordable healthcare, to marry whom they love, 
to join a union, to make private medical decisions with their doctors 
and without government interference, to vote without first having to 
jump through 15 hoops and do 20 somersaults.
  The American people should make no mistake: If Judge Barrett becomes 
Justice Barrett, every single one of their fundamental rights would be 
at risk. Her views are so far away from what the average American 
believes and would do so much damage to the fundamental structure and 
comity of this country that I just hope and pray two Republicans will 
see the light and realize that we should not nominate any nominee 
before the election, which is 2 weeks and 1 day away


  Madam President, now, of course, instead of ramming through a Supreme 
Court nominee in the most hypocritical of circumstances, the Republican 
majority should be working with the Democrats on a real comprehensive 
COVID relief bill.
  Over the past few weeks, COVID-19 cases, unfortunately, have swelled 
across the country. The United States reported 69,000 new cases last 
Friday, with 10 States reporting their highest single-day totals ever. 
Poverty is beginning to increase. Unemployment remains alarmingly high. 
More than 6 million Americans missed their rent or mortgage payments in 
  What we need right now is an emergency relief package with enough 
resources to beat back this enormous crisis. Yet, Leader McConnell, 
this week, will, once again, force a vote on a partisan, emaciated 
COVID bill--so deficient and laden with poison pills that it is obvious 
he designed it to fail. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: ``It's 
deja vu all over again.''

[[Page S6052]]

  Leader McConnell tried the same stunt last month. It failed. Instead 
of trying to work with the Democrats or increase the size of the relief 
package to meet the needs--the desperate needs--of the American people, 
Leader McConnell is back with the same sorry excuse for a bill. It 
fails to include robust unemployment insurance, enough funding for 
schools and universities, or funding for rental, housing, or nutrition 
assistance. It does nothing for the census or our elections and 
abandons State, local, and Tribal governments on the brink of 
catastrophe. It doesn't include recent bipartisan legislation that 
helps independent music and theater venues--the Save our Stages Act--or 
bipartisan legislation to help our ailing restaurants. It is totally 
inadequate when it comes to funding for testing and tracing, especially 
given the new spike in cases and especially given the fact that a 
second wave may be upon us. I hope and pray it isn't. It, once again, 
includes the poison pill of all poison pills--a sweeping corporate 
immunity provision that would shield corporations from accountability 
if they put their workers in harm's way.
  Let me be clear: The Republican proposal was unacceptable a month 
ago, and it remains unacceptable now, even more so in that the crisis 
has gotten even worse.
  Remember, Leader McConnell has been clear that as many as 20 
Republican Senators don't want to provide any more relief to the 
American people. According to press reports, one Senator said: ``Not 
another dime.'' Republican Senators gave their counterparts in the 
White House an earful for even considering a bigger package of aid. So 
this is not a serious attempt at pandemic relief. It seems to be 
another attempt at giving the Republicans political cover before the 
  Speaker Pelosi continues to negotiate with Secretary Mnuchin and the 
White House in the hopes of finding a deal that would actually meet the 
needs of the American people. Instead of repeating the same failed 
partisan gambit, Leader McConnell should be working with the Democrats 
and the administration on a proposal that actually has a chance of 
making it through both Houses of Congress. The longer he waits, the 
greater the cost to the American people.
  Now, before I yield the floor, I want to be clear about one thing. 
Because our Republican colleagues have made such a mockery of the 
Supreme Court confirmation process, we are not going to have business 
as usual here in the Senate. Tonight, I will move to bring up a vote 
under the Congressional Review Act and force action on a resolution to 
undo the Trump administration's gutting of the Community Reinvestment 
Act. This is an important fight in its own right. We should be standing 
up for critical civil rights laws, like the Community Reinvestment 
Act--laws that help deliver opportunity and resources to communities of 
  The Trump administration's rewrite of the rule not only undermines 
core elements of the CRA, but it replaces past practices with 
complicated requirements that would lead to less lending in communities 
that need it most. I have fought too hard throughout my career to lift 
up the protections of the CRA to stand idly by as the Trump 
administration tries to tear them down.
  The window to challenge this rule under the Congressional Review Act 
closes today, so I will move to consider the resolution this evening. 
Normally, we would work these votes out with the majority, but its 
abuse of the Supreme Court process means we will not have business as 
usual--not now, not until the Republicans stop their mad dash to 
confirm a Supreme Court Justice mere days before a Presidential