Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate U.S. Senate 20240712

Ms. Cortez masto madam president. The presiding officer the senator from nevada. Ms. Cortez masto i rise today to join my colleagues in opposing the confirmation of judge Amy Coney Barrett as justice of the Supreme Court. This is the wrong time to be choosing a Supreme Court justice. And judge barrett is the wrong candidate for a seat on that court. The timing for todays confirmation vote is shocking. The majority of americans want to be able to weigh in on who should sit in Justice Ruth Bader ginsburgs seat on the highest court in the land. They want to vote to choose a president to fill that vacancy. We are eight days away from americans casting the final votes in the 20 election. Over 58 million americans have already voted, including more than 649,000 nevadans. The American People are making their voices heard in response to this administrations disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic which has led to the loss of 225,000 american lives including 1,48 nevadans and sickened over 95,000 nevadans. In the middle of this crisis, congress should be doing everything it can to address the needs of the American People. Instead the Senate Majority leader is ramming through a nominee at breakneck pace. He and the president are rushing this nominees confirmation for a reason because they believe based on judge barretts own public statements, that she will be the decisive vote to overturn the Affordable Care act in a case that will be heard just a week after the election. On november 10, the Supreme Court will listen to arguments from lawyers in a court case about whether the Affordable Care act is constitutional. Majority leader mcconnell and the president want a justice who shares their views on the Affordable Care act seepted on the court seated on the court by that date. Amy Coney Barretts record on the a. C. A. , her record on the a. C. A. Poses tremendous risk to nevadans at a time when they need every help we can extend to them during this health pandemic. Thats why i opposed her nomination to the seventh Circuit Court of appeals back in 2017, and thats why i oppose her confirmation to the Supreme Court today. Instead of rushing her through in a partisan fashion to a lifetime, a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, we should be working together to get the additional Coronavirus Relief that nevadans and americans so badly need right now. Most of us here in the senate understand that the American People need help to cope with the pandemic, to save lives and to stop the spread of the virus. People have to wear masks. They wash their hands and they socially distance. Thats meant that businesses havent been able to operate as usual. Some companies have been able to rethink their business momedzs and thrive models and thrive but others just cant substitute Online Interactions for inperson contact. That includes nevadas word class travel, tourism, and hospitality industry. During april nevada had the highest Unemployment Rate ever recorded anywhere in the country at 30 . Were recovering from that peak more slowly than other states, and we still have one of the highest Unemployment Rates in the country. In august, second only to hawaiis, it was 12. 6 . Nevadans are hurting. Nevadans are hurting, americans are hurting, my constituents tell me about it all the time. And the data is clear what i see in. One in seven nevadans say they arent getting enough to eat. And one in five nevadans say the children in their household are underfed. Theres been a 14 increase in those receiving snap benefits in the silver state since february. 14 of nevadans say they are behind on rent or mortgage and 38 are having difficulty with household expenses. 110,000 households in my home state could be at risk of eviction by january. Thats why i have spent weeks calling on leader mcconnell to extend and expand upon the support that we put in place in the relief legislation that we passed in the first half of this year. Unfortunately instead of negotiating another covid relief package, leader mcconnell would rather play politics. Nevadans need to understand the partisan political games that are being played right now. Over the last seven months, senator mcconnell has refused to come to the table to even negotiate with the administration, with Speaker Pelosi, and leader schumer. Speaker pelosi and minority leader schumer originally asked for 3. 4 trillion in a new stimulus package. Theyve since come down to a request for 2. 2 trillion in relief. Thats a decrease of 1. 2 trillion from their original position. And in return as theyve been negotiating with the administration, President Trump and secretary mnuchin have offered 1. 8 trillion in Coronavirus Relief. Clearly Speaker Pelosi and secretary mnuchin have been working to get closer to an agreement over the amount and structure of the next needed comprehensive covid relief stimulus package. Meanwhile while that negotiation is going on, senator mcconnell is not even at the table. He refuses to even negotiate with the democrats. Just this week, last week he has forced two votes on the floor of the senate on relief packages that were crafted behind closed doors with no bipartisan negotiation. And the second package was half the price of the one before. Thats not a negotiation. Thats politics. Senator mcconnell doesnt want to deal. He hasnt participated in the talks and hes proposing less than a third of what even the secretary of the treasury thinks we need. Instead the majority leader has been laser focused on one thing and one thing only. Rushing through the Supreme Court nomination for judge Amy Coney Barrett. Theres a reason he is pushing sow hard so hard. He and others in the g. O. P. Have been obsessed with getting rid of the Affordable Care act since it passed and in Amy Coney Barrett, they see their chance to finally do just that. Now, i want nevadans to understand exactly whats at stake and how we got here. Let me lay out the timeline of just some of the dozens of republican attacks on the Affordable Care act and how judge barrett fits into their larger plan to overturn health care protections. In 2010 the Obama Administration passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act, the a. C. A. , to bring down Health Care Costs and make sure that americans had access to Quality Health care. Now, republicans have been trying to repeal it ever since, voting at least 70 times, 70 times to undo the law in congress. And when they failed in congress, they attempted in the courts. Republicans have repeatedly used the courts to challenge Congress Power to enact the a. C. A. Their first attempt ended in failure in 2012 when the United States Supreme Court upheld the important provisions of the a. C. A. In an opinion written by chief Justice Roberts in the landmark case nfib v. Sebelius. But that has not stopped the Republican Leadership. Even though a majority of the American People have made it clear over and over that they want the a. C. A. And its extensive protections for health care. This administration and Mitch Mcconnell have been stacking the court with federal judges they believe would overturn the a. C. A. And professor barrett fits their profile. In 2017 professor Amy Coney Barrett wrote a book review article for Notre Dame Law School making it clear at the time in that book review that she thought Justice Roberts incorrectly decided nfib v. Sebelius. She said chief Justice John Roberts and i quote pushed the Affordable Care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. And conservatives who agreed with her, well, they took notice because in may of that same year in 2017, they nominated her to serve as a judge on the seventh Circuit Court of appeals. Go from professor to a judge of the seventh Circuit Court of appeals. Now, while her nomination was pending in 2017, in july the Republican Leaders in the senate again tried to force a vote to repeal the Affordable Care act and during that vote, the late senator john mccain gave his famous thumbs down to show that he would not be responsible for repealing the a. C. A. And ripping Health Care Away from millions of americans. Well, a couple of months later, october 2017, Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the seventh Circuit Court of appeals. I opposed her then for the same reasons that i oppose her nomination today. One month later in november she is then placed on President Trumps list of potential nominees to the United States Supreme Court. She just got to the Circuit Court. A month later shes now on President Trumps list. And why is she on that list . Because she made it very clear in her writings that she was opposed to the Affordable Care act. And then three months later in december of 2017, the republicans in Congress Passed a bill that would continue their attempts to sabotage the a. C. A. What they couldnt get done because senator john mccain and several others stopped him, they continued to sabotage it. So they passioned a law. Passed a law. And based on this new law, several republican attorneys general then went to court asking the court to rule the a. C. A. Unconstitutional. That case, that case is california v. Texas. And it will be argued this year, november 10, just two weeks from now. So their pathway has been consistent. I give them credit for that. The republicans have been consistent in wanting to do away with the Affordable Care act. Theyve either tried it here in congress or theyre continuing to work the courts. And if they cant win in courts, then lets put judges on the federal benches that we know will support our position. And thats what you have happening. Thats why this is being rushed through now because they need, they need Amy Coney Barrett on the bench when that case is heard november 10 to determine the constitutionty constitutionality of the Affordable Care act. Let me tell you, the u. S. Department of justice has done everything it can to assist their efforts to strike down the a. C. A. They filed a brief. The u. S. Department of justice on behalf of the department of administration, President Trumps administration, have filed a brief arguing that the entire law is invalid in support of those republican attorneys general who want to do away with the Affordable Care act. Theyve done this because the president wants them to. And in an interview with 60 minutes that aired just this evening, the president said that with regard to the Supreme Courts decision on the Affordable Care act, quote, i hope that they end it. And thats not the only time. Its not a secret. President trump wants to do away with Health Care Coverage and Patient Protections in the middle of a pandemic that has killed 225,000 americans. And hes been very clear about it. I mean, look back. June 26, 2015, if i win the presidency, when he was a candidate, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike bushs appointee john roberts on obamacare. February 8, 2016, im disappointed. This is President Trump. I am disappointed in chief Justice Roberts because he gave us obamacare. He had two chances to end obamacare and he should have ended it by every single measurement and he didnt do it. So that was a dispointing one. Disappointing one. May 7, 2020, President Trump reiterated his position. We want to terminate health care under obamacare and obamacare is a disaster. September 27, 2020, shortly after barretts nomination to the Supreme Court, trump tweeted, President Trump tweeted obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the Supreme Court. It would be a big win for the u. S. A. So four years at least while ive been here, republicans have been trying to repeal it and this administration has been promising a replacement for health care in this country if the Affordable Care act is repealed, but we see no replacement. And we know that theyve been putting judges on the federal courts that will do their bidding or at least think they would do their bidding. Let let me give judge barrett credit. As an attorney, i respect judges. Im always looking for a mainstream judge who will weigh the evidence and the facts, look at the precedent, and make a decision that is on behalf of this country and the American People. So it is fair, though, without knowing her background to judge which way she is going to rule if she has an inherent bias based on her writings. Thats what we do all the time. What are her writings, whether in her private life as a professor or as an attorney or as a judge. Thats fair game. That will give us insight because we cant see into somebodys mind and their thinking, that will give us insight on their legal analysis. And we know what she said at the hearing. Theres two hearings, one is at the seventh circuit and one the United States Supreme Court. And i will say in her confirmation hearings, judge barrett said i am not hostile to the a. C. A. At all. But this statement contradicts the things she said about the a. C. A. Before her nomination to the court. I believe now what i believed in 2017, judge barretts writing show her to be clearly opposed to the a. C. A. And my view is that no one no one, not even a judge, should weaken those protections for health care in this country during a once in a lifetime pandemic. The Affordable Care act, its a crucial part of the nations response to coronavirus. Without it, Insurance Companies would be able to charge more or even deny insurance to people with preexisting conditions. That includes the more than 95,000 nevadans who have had covid19 to date because contracting that coronavirus is a preexisting condition. It includes another 1. 2 million nevadans with other preexisting conditions from asthma to Cystic Fibrosis to depression. Without the a. C. A. , Insurance Companies would also be able to consider pregnancy a preexisting condition, as they used to. The 1. 5 million women in nevada could be charged more for their care than men and lifetime and annual benefit caps could be reinstated. If the Affordable Care act is repealed or found unconstitutional, Insurance Companies will be able to kick children off their parents insurance before the age of 26. Across the country, without the a. C. A. , more than 20 Million People would lose their Health Coverage and over 135 million americans would lose protections for their preexisting conditions. And if the Supreme Court eliminates the a. C. A. , millions of newly uninsured people will be unable to afford coronavirus treatment. If you dont have insurance and you contract covid19, you are looking at tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills. And let me tell you this is especially alarming because covid19 has hit communities of color the hardest, including in my state. In nevada in nevada a third of our population are latino with another 10 African American, 9 , Asian American pacific islander, 2 native american. Among covid19 cases, however, these numbers are practically turned upside down. 45 of nevadas covid19 cases are among latinos who make up 29 of the population. And 29 of the cases are among White Nevadans who are 45 of the population. Nevadans of color are also over represented in the number of those who have lost their lives during this pandemic. In nevada, 12 of those who have died of covid19 are African American and another 12 are Asian American pacific islander. We also know from National Data that covid19 has particularly devastating effect of children of color. Of those under 21 who have been killed by the coronavirus, more than 75 have been hispanic, black or native american. In addition the coronavirus has had a disproportionate effect on pregnant women. Nationwide latino mothers make up nearly half of the coronavirus cases among pregnant women according to the c. D. C. Data through august. Young people and communities of color are also seeing the greatest Economic Impacts as a result of this pandemic. They are losing jobs and lc at higher rates. A recent study suggested that job losses would mean that five million black, latino and Asian Americans would Lose Health Care during the pandemic. They dont always have the reserves to keep a roof over their head without access to health care. Repealing the a. C. A. Would further jeopardize these americans, including millions in my home state and across this country. And without the a. C. A. Protections, women in nevada would also see adverse impacts on their health. Thats because the a. C. A. Requires insurance plans to offer women essential benefits like annual wellness exams, preventively mammograms and other screenings, Maternity Care and access to prebirth control. If the law is struck down, these benefits would go too. In fact, judge barrett publicly signed a statement of protest against the a. C. A. Contraceptive coverage requirements. She said that those requirements were, quote, an assault on religious liberty when applied to religious employers and institutions. But thats just the first part of the danger that judge barrett puts to Womens Health. She puts Reproductive Health rights at risk. She said an end to the barbaric legacy of roe v. Wade. As a judge, shes repeatedly voted to rehear cases that struck down unconstitutional abortion restrictions. During her confirmation hearing, she refused to describe roe v. Wade as a super precedent that could no longer be challenged. These views suggest in her written views and comments suggest that she as she predicted in a 2016 speech, a Trump Nominee to the Supreme Court would mean that the restrictions on abortion would change and that the court would likely increase how much freedom states have in regulating abortion. And if those states have more freedom to regulate abortion, it will lead to a patchwork of different laws in different states. A recent Study Suggests that if roe v. Wade were overturned, the closest Abortion Clinic would close for 41 of women across the country. And the distance to the nearest clinic would increase from an average of 36 miles to an average of 280 miles. In 2020, american women shouldnt have to choose what state to live in based on what kind of health care they think they can get. These are fundamental rights that shouldnt be up for grabs. More than 80 of nevadans believe that women should control their own reproductive choices, and i stand with them. Im also concerned about the impact that judge barrett would have been Lgbtq Nevadans if she is confirmed to the court. The a. C. A. Contains specific protections against discrimination based on gender identity. The Trump Administration has already weakened these protections significantly. If the a. C. A. Is struck down all together, people who dont conform to gender stereo types, including transgender americans, could face increased discrimination in health care. A study of transgender patients before the a. C. A. Went into effect found that one in five had experience discrimination from doctors and that 28 had postponed medical care in the past in order to try to avoid that discrimination. Judge barrett could also pose a considerable threat to the lgbtq individuals in other ways. During her confirmation hearings, she refused to say whether she agreed with a decision in oh, berger oberfeld v. Hodges. She later said that marriage is found on the indissolvable commitment of a man and woman. She argued that will title 9 of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to transgender americans, noting that it seems to strain the text of the statute to say that title 9 demands that the government guarantee transgender bathroom access. So, again, i am very concerned that if she is confirmed to the court, judge barrett will be an additional vote to strike down things like samesex marriage and imperil the health of Lgbtq Nevadans. The truth is that judge barretts views on a whole host of issues are far from being extreme. In her short time on the seventh Circuit Court of appeals, judge barrett has sided with corporations over workers and consumers in a majority of businessrelated cases, resulting in the erosion of workers rights and Consumer Protection rights. She has suggested that Voting Rights should be more easily restricted than the right to possess firearms. And she has ruled that the age discrimination in employment act does not protect job applicants from hiring practices that harm older americans. Now i have received over 18,000 letters from nevadans opposing her confirmation. That is compared to 3,900 supporting it. So clearly nevada nevadians are nevadans doesnt share their views and they are right to be concerned. The Supreme Court makes decisions about so many issues that affect our communities and it will be lifelong. People in this country care deeply about issues and in so many cases judge barretts views are out of step with what large majority of americans want. 77 of americans think we should stop unlimited dark money from influencing our politics, but a 63 conservative court would slam the door on Campaign Finance reform, allowing corporations and other groups to throw their wealth behind their pet policies. Americans believe voting should be easy, safe, and secure and that you shouldnt have to risk your health during a pandemic to cast your ballot, but, again, a 63 conservative court with Amy Coney Barrett on the bench would make it harder for people to vote, especially people in lowincome communities and communities of color. And, again, bear in mind that were in the middle of an election. If shes confirmed tonight, Justice Barrett will also be in a position to rule on any legal disputes about that election. And thats one of many, many topics that she simply refused to answer questions about during her confirmation hearings. Now its understandable for a judge to avoid questions about a case that may come before her. So that she doesnt prejudge the outcome. But judge barrett refused to answer the most basic of questions. Questions that any high school civic student knows the answer to. She wouldnt say whether the constitution allows congress to protect the right to vote. Answer, it does, in at least five separate provisions. She wouldnt say whether the president of the United States can delay the election. Answer, he cant. Thats not within his authority. She wouldnt say whether the president should peacefully transfer power to the winner of a president ial election. The most important american principle is that we the people get to decide who governs us. But judge barrett refused to even affirm that. And she wouldnt say whether voter intimidation or voting twice in an election is illegal. Well, it is. Those laws are clearly on the books. It doesnt take a constitutional scholar to interpret them. People in nevada and across the nation need to realize that many of the rights and protections they enjoy are one vote away from being ended by the Supreme Court. There are at least 120 landmark Supreme Court cases from the past several decades that were 54 decisions with Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg the deciding vote in the majority and Justice Scalia, whose judicial philosophy inspires judge barrett in the minority. Theres every reason to think judge barrett would take positions like Justice Scalia in those areas and more. With Amy Coney Barrett on the court, americans civil rights, workers rights, reproductive rights, and, yes, their Voting Rights are at risk. For all of these reasons judge barrett is not only the wrong nominee but she comes at the wrong time. Now is not the time to rush a nominee on to the court. Now as millions fill out their ballots is not the time to deprive the American People of a voice in choosing the next president who will choose the Supreme Court justice. Now is not the time for us to focus on the immediate crisis at hand. We need to act to save lives and to protect families in nevada and across the country. We need that focus now on what our families are dealing with because of this pandemic. And thats why our focus should be on passing another comprehensive covid19 stimulus package. We need pandemic Unemployment Insurance for those who have been laid off or furloughed through no fault of their own and subsidized Health Coverage for those workers. We need additional funds to address the Health Aspects of this pandemic, everything from p. P. E. To covid19 testing and tracing, to funding to develop vaccines. We need rental and home owner assistance to keep people in their homes as winter approaches. They need extended p. P. E. So they can retain staff and many of our Large Industries need support as well. State, local and tribal governments must have assistance so they can afford to fund e. M. T. s, police, firefighter, and Health Care Providers not to mention teachers who are reinventing education on the fly. All of these essential services are keeping our communities safe and functioning during this crisis. Listen, i can keep going on and on with this list or i could just simply point my colleague to the heroes act which the house passed months ago. If senator mcconnell really wanted to get meaningful relief passed, he would do it. We know he can move quickly because we can see that with this Supreme Court nominee. If he would just come to the table with senators from both parties who are eager to find a compromise to help out their constituents and he could make that deal happen, thats what should happen. Instead he and the majority of this chamber have decided to fast track this nominee. They have decided the most important thing they can do for the nation during a onceinalifetime Health Crisis is to confirm a justice to the United States Supreme Court. The cruelty and blindness to the real needs of americans is astounding to me. Instead of working together for our constituents, Republican Leadership is focused on a lastminute photograph that threatens americans health. I cant support that. There is no reason to rush this nominee. There is every reason to act on a comprehensive covid19 relief package. Its what we should have been doing months ago. My priority is and will continue to be getting nevadans the comprehensive and meaningful support that they need right now. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Casey thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i rise to speak about the nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. That has been the subject of, i know, a number of floor remarks tonight and this morning. We know that in terms of the history of the nomination at this time before an election, no person has ever been confirmed this close just days away from a president ial election and no election, of course, has had so many votes cast this early. 59 million is the last number i saw a couple of hours ago. This is all happening, this rushed confirmation process while people are voting, all while republicans here in the senate are ramming a nomination through and not voting on a covid19 relief bill which should be the subject of our work at this time in my judgment because of the nature of the pandemic, the threat that it still poses, and the relief that is needed all across the country. But as much as we focus in this debate, the Supreme Court nomination debate as much as we focus on this judge from the seventh Circuit Court of appeals, ultimately its really in the end not about her nomination. In the end its about real peoples lives, especially as to how the Supreme Court will impact those lives, those families when it comes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. That will be the focus of my remarks this morning. This is a debate about people. And ill talk about a few people from pennsylvania in my time here on the floor. People like garon gabriel who is from beavertown, pennsylvania on the ohio border in the western part of our state. Its about aaron and her 11yearold daughter abbey as well as shannon striner. Shannon is from pittsburgh, just a little south of where aaron is from. And ill be talking about shannon and her 4yearold daughter see enthat siena. But ill start with aarons daughter abbey. Ill use this photograph to tell everyone who abbey is. Abby is this child in the middle. In this picture with her brother and sister. Heres what erin said about her daughter. She just celebrated her 11th birthday last saturday, just in the month of october, this month. That was something that was never promised to us. Abby is growing up in her community with her family and friends. Normally she enjoys shopping, going to the movies, disney on ice. She travels. She swims at a local lake. And she snuggles with her dog at home and she rides all the rides at idlewild, which is a local amusement park. Abby is autistic, deaf, blind, nonverbal, and has a rare progressive neurological syndrome affecting multiple organ systems. With a long list of life threatening symptoms that were all still trying to learn more about. Medically abby has to go through a lot. She sees multiple specialists in pittsburgh, cleveland, and boston. She has ongoing blood work to monitor her anemia and to watch for signs of leukemia. She has regular e. E. G. s and m. R. I. s to monitor the progress of her seizures. She uses hearing aids and glasses, a wheelchair, and a speech generating device. She relies on protections for people with preexisting conditions. And she relies on the ban on lifetime caps to access this care. Without the Affordable Care act, amy would be uninsurable. Unquote. Then erin goes on to talk about the benefit of living in pennsylvania because of some extra protections that abby has. And then she continues and im quoting, because she receives this care, abby is right now healthy, happy, and thriving. As you might expect, abby is considered very high risk should she contract covid19. Abby has not been inside any building that is not our home or a hospital since may 10 of this march 10 of this year. Summer vacation, play dates, outing, travel plans to visit grandparents, theyve all been canceled. This fall we pulled abby out of her school, the place that had become community to her over the last eight years to home school her. She like many children with disabilities simply cannot access a Virtual Education and its not safe to send her back into a School Building while this virus is spreading. But abby misses her school and her friends. Normally ongoing speech, occupational, and physical therapy help abby to keep the progress she has made learning to walk, to eat, swallow, and to communicate. But with covid19 theyve all come to a halt. Its just not safe and its also provided us a window into what her world looks like without access to these therapies. So thats just part of abbys story as told to us by her mom. As i mentioned in the as i made reference to in the statement of her mom, erin wrote that abby would be, quote, uninsurable, unquote, without the a. C. A. Ive got to ask, are we really going to say again that children like abby are uninsurable . Are we going to allow that to happen in america . Is that the intent of this whole exercise . The exercise that has played out over years now, years of repeal efforts, all of them so far have failed. So the second strategy was to run cases up through the judicial system to get to the Supreme Court. And then ultimately to stack the court with rightwing justices who could then strike down the Affordable Care act. Thats what were heading towards right now. Is that america . Is that the america we want where we advance health care to make sure that families like erins and that her daughter abby have all the protection, all the coverage that she needs . After all the progress thats been made . Instead of coming together and saying were going to make improvements to our Health Care System but were going to grow the number of people that are covered and were going to insure ensure that any child like abby has the protections that she needs, that her family should have a right to expect in the United States of america, the most powerful, the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Erin went on to say, quote, because she receives this care, the care shes getting now, largely because of the Affordable Care act, not to mention medicaid, largely because she receives this care, abby is healthy, happy, and thriving. So ive got to ask, what does justice demand here . St. Augustin said hundreds of years ago, without justice what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers. So any government, certainly our government, that makes it possible for a child to have those protections, those programs, those services, the therapies and i could go on. And then takes an action that could result and if this law is struck down by the Supreme Court, will result in those benefits and protections either to be to have been taken away or to be threatened or undermined or compromised or limited. Any government who does that is robbing that family of justice. I mentioned earlier that shannons daughter siena is another example of what were talking about here. Heres what shannon says about sesei siena. She is a remarkable little girl that loves life. Shes a smiley ray of sunshine. Her favorite activity is spending time with her big sister whom she adores. If we let her, she would watch sesame street all day. Elmo is a way of life in our house. She loves music, book, therapy, and playing outside. Shes mischievous, funny, and beautiful. She has the ability to bring smiles to our family and the in the worst of days. We wouldnt change one thing about her. She has an extra copy of her 21st chromosome also known as try soap my trisomy21 or down syndrome. Her diagnosis came as a surprise to us after enduring four miscarriages. She was our miracle baby. Our miracle baby surprised us on the day of her birth with her diagnosis and a heart condition. We were completely unprepared to raise a child with a disability. After i delivered her, a kind nurse explained to me how lucky we were to have siena here in pennsylvania after passage of the Affordable Care act. And then she went on to talk about how pennsylvania had some benefits in medicaid. And then shannon continues. As i entered this new world of early intervention, therapy and medical need, i began to realize how much of a financial toll this would take on all of us if it werent for the protections of the a. C. A. And medicaid. Custom orthotics, outpatient weekly therapies, overnight hospital stays, adaptive strollers, walkers, safety sleepers, echo cardiograms, communication device, blood work. The list goes on. Sienna received seven weekly therapies. The cost of those alone are 3,400 per week. Without the a. C. A. Her therapies and medical care would have quickly exceeded the lifetime cap and she would have been left without access to lifesaving care. Shannon goes on. Im proud to be sienna mom. The journey is filled with unimaginable love. It changes lifes moments into the extraordinary. With constant attacks on our health care, its also agonizing work, hard decisions and constant advocacy. It gets exhausting fighting for your child, having to prove their value to the world. And then she goes on at the very end. One again, we, as parents, are forced to suit up for battle and prove that oir children our children are worthy of health care. Her last line of this statement is, everyone loses if our children are unable to reach their fullest potential. So thats shannon talking about sienna, her daughter. She used that same word that erin used, different stories, similar burdens, but she used that same word that erin used, uninsurable. Uninsurable if the Affordable Care act is taken away. She talks about life with the Affordable Care act and without it. And thats what a lot of parents do when they write to us. They tell us what their life was like before the Affordable Care act and what their life is like now and what their life would return to, those dark days when an Insurance Company could make a determination about a childs insurance, their coverage, their treatment. Frankly, their life. And then towards the end, she talks about what she and other patients feel under these constant attacks. Quote, having to prove their value. The value of their child. We, as parents, are forced to suit up for battle. Suit up for battle. And prove that our children are worthy of health care. Im going to ask the same question again. In america in america thats what we want to do, have this constant battle. Parties have to come here to the United States senate and to the house. The organization that this mom is a part of is called little lobbyists. This is a group formed because of the battles on health care. Why is this going on in america . Why should we be fighting about progress thats been made . Why arent we talking about improvements . Getting the cost of health care down, getting the cost of Prescription Drugs down. But lets make improvements. Why do these parents have to continually battle to ensure that their children have this kind of protection . Should mothers really have to suit up for battle in the United States of america where the powerful get their way all the time in this place . There are different kind of lobbyists that come in and they are not little lobbyists, not mothers and their sons and serving in they are different kind of lobbyists. Corporations did really well in the tax bill of 2017, a bill that was rammed through between thanksgiving and christmas. What did they get . Well, they go about a 14 point reduction in their Corporate Tax rate, permanent tax relief. Jacked up the debt to do it. Because they had power. I thought that was when you compare that action that the senate took at the time to what they what some in the senate want to do on health care to roll back the protections, to rip away protections for these children and not even talking tonight about the adults that are impacted. But when you compare those two actions, its really perverse and disgusting. That the powerful get to come in here and get permanent tax relief and get a bonanza, the likes of which we havent seen in modern American History. All these parents are asking us to do is preserve what we have. They are not asking for anything more. They are just saying, please make sure my child doesnt lose their coverage. Please make sure that they have the therapies they need when they have these complex medical needs, multiple disabilities. Not one in many cases, but multiple. Thats all they are asking us to do. And thats why its such an important matter in the Supreme Court fight. Because youve got to ask, why the rush to get this nominee through by by election day . This never happened before this close to an election. Well, ill tell you why. This nominee is being fast tracked, first of all, because this nominee has been vetted by the two groups that matter, the Federalist Society and the heritage foundation. Both groups totally committed to undoing striking down the Affordable Care act. So shes already passed that test and she apparently passed with flying colors as she moves very quickly to a likely confirmation. But why the fasttrack to get get there in a matter of days . Whats coming up . Is it election day . No. Theres a date after the election, its november 10. Thats the argument date. They know that if she is not on the Supreme Court, if shes not confirmed as a member of the court by the by the argument, november 10, she cant participate in the decision. Whats the decision . The decision to strike down the Affordable Care act. Thats what it is. The decision that really is the proxy for what did not happen on the floor of the United States senate in july of 2017 when the repeal effort failed and when it failed multiple times in the house over many years, this is the proxy for it. Litigate it, fund it, and run that case right up the up the chain to the Supreme Court. So thats what this is about. They want to make sure that she is on the court and at the argument so she can be the deciding vote on the Affordable Care act. Thats why were rushing. How about another Health Care Issue . How about medicare . Mentioned medicaid. How about medicare, the program that used to have bipartisan support all across the board. Now, when judge barrett was asked a direct question about medicare. She didnt want to give an opinion on medicare. She was asked in the context of the constitutionality of medicare and the member of the Judiciary Committee, senator feinstein asked it, because she referenced a law review article about questioning the constitutionality of medicare. I think thats a loopy theory. I think thats a theory that most americans probably 90 of americans dont agree with, questioning the constitutionality of medicare passed more than 50 years ago and has benefited tens and tens and tens of millions of americans. Still today benefits numbers like that. 45 million roughly, i think it is. I dont know why i understand why the judge doesnt want to say, well, in this case its before the court or this case that is unsettled, i might have a i cant give you a determination. But on medicare, couldnt she have at least said instead of mentioning, as she did in her answer, the law professors name twice who has this loopy theory on medicare constitutionality, couldnt she have said simply, i cant tell you how im going to rule on a medicare case, but i can it will you that just like brown v. Board of education is a super precedent in a judicial sense, i think most people would agree that medicare is a superprecedent in a legislative sense. She wouldnt have violated any any principle of not telling how youre going to come down on a case. She could just tell us or relate to us the reality that most americans believe about medicare. Now, i know theres been some commentary about her law review article that i should say her her writings about the the 2012 Supreme Court case. Now, we know that the the case she was referring to was a 2012 case. So in 2017 judge barrett wrote a wrote an article about what chief Justice Roberts ruled in the case. She wrote, quote, chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute, unquote. In light of her frequent criticism of the act, the Affordable Care act, senator leahy of vermont asked her whether she had ever written or spoken in favor of the law. She has not. So thats what thats what she was writing in 2017. I have to ask if she felt so strongly about the 2012 decision by the court and the position of Justice Roberts, she didnt seem to write much about it for a couple of years until 2017 when we had a new president. And what followed a few months later was she was nominated to the Circuit Court of appeals. So thats curious. But what we know what we know is that the president that nominated her, President Trump, certainly wants to strike down the Affordable Care act. In fact, in may he said he wanted to, quote, terminate health care, unquote, under the Affordable Care act. And we know the impact of that. The dee destruction, the act of striking down the Affordable Care act would harm tens of millions of americans. In pennsylvania 5. 5 Million People with a preexisting condition would be affected. Over 840,000 pennsylvanians who are enrolled in Medicaid Expansion would be, of course, adversely impacted. So thats the reality of what were talking about with regard to this nomination. Ill mention one more make reference to one more family before i conclude my remarks, mr. President. Its the covak family also from western pennsylvania, plumbur roe, pennsylvania. The cavaks 11yearold son has epilepsy, microecfhle, his mom said the a. C. A. Has made all of their lives better. The a. C. A. Has made it possible for thomas to receive therapy at his school. The a. C. A. Has given his patients the option to change jobs and advance in their careers without fear of not being able to obtain Health Coverage for him because of his preexisting conditions. And they dont need to worry about busing through lifetime expense caps and losing coverage for thomas. The a. C. A. Has brought peace of mind and comfort to their family because they know that he is protected by the essential Health Care Benefits the law provides. Striking down the a. C. A. Isnt only about the essential health benefits, its about a lot more than that. Theres so much more that i could talk about tonight. So many more examples, but ill conclude with that, mr. President , and just make one final one final comment. When i think about what could happen and what is likely to happen if judge barrett is confirmed, becomes a member of the court, participates in the argument on november 10, and then because of that participation, is allowed to and a member of the court is allowed to rule on this a. C. A. Case, its highly likely that the Affordable Care act will be wiped out. And i have to ask about the fate of abby and sienna and so many other children like them all across our commonwealth and all across the country. I think often in government we must ask here in the United States senate or in the house or in the other branch of government, the judicial branch, or in any branch of government the executive, legislative, or judicial branches, we should all ask ourselves is this action i am taking or is this policy or program advancing the cause of justice or not. Mr. President , i would submit that striking down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act by virtue of a Supreme Court decision is not only the wrong policy, it is a giant step backwards in the interest of justice. Justice demands that these children have these protections, that these protections are not undermined, theyre not compromised, and theyre not taken away by judicial fiat. And this nomination threatens the health care that children like abby and sienna have right now. Right now in the United States of america where we advanced into the light of protection for those children. And when you consider what is at stake right now, its that case. I think its potentially the most important case the court will decide in the next quarter century. Thats the impact of it. Very few americans are not directly affected by this case. Either because theyre affected by way of loss of compleg or theyre affect coverage or theyre affected because of the scope of protections that were brought about by the passage of the Affordable Care act, the enactment of it. So a lot is at stake not to mention so many other issues and so many other matters that will come before the court. So for that reason and several others, ill be voting against the nomination of judge barrett to be on the Supreme Court. And if i have an opportunity between now and the vote, ill outline some other reasons why. But for purposes of tonight, this morning, i wanted to talk about children like abby and sienna and their moms, the moms erin and shannon should have the peace of mind that has come with the protections of the Affordable Care act. And with that, mr. President , i will yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from maryland. A senator thank you, mr. President. I want to start by thanking my friend and colleague, the senator from pennsylvania, for talking this evening about whats at stake for so many of his constituents with this Supreme Court nomination and the very real possibility that the Affordable Care act will be struck down, and that that means to so many of his constituents. Mr. Van hollen i do think this is a moment where we need to reflect and take stock of where we are as a country on many fronts. We are in the middle of a Global Pandemic. We just saw the highest single day of new reported cases on friday. Millions of americans are unemployed and worried about how theyre going to pay their rent and how theyre going to pay for their medications. Were here at a time when a republicanled lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care act supported by President Trump and his department of justice is scheduled for a fateful hearing in the Supreme Court on november 10. One week after the upcoming election. Were here in the wake of the killings of black men like george floyd and black women like Breonna Taylor which sent throngs of protesters into the streets across the country to rightly demand Greater Police accountability and Racial Justice. We gather here as wildfires in the west and hurricanes in the south demonstrate with deadly and destructive veracity the accelerating and dangerous consequences of Climate Change. And we meet, mr. President , as voters are filling out mailin ballots as early as they can to make sure that the Postal Service which this administration has deliberately slowed down can get their ballots delivered on time so that they can be counted. And as voters stand in long lines with their masks 6 feet apart to cast their ballots in the early vote. Mr. President , this moment this country is facing all these pressing issues, but as i come here this evening or early this morning, were not considering solutions to any of those critical and urgent issues. Not a single one. Instead we are blowing up the precedent that the Senate Republican leader and other republican senators themselves established four years ago and considering are a Supreme Court nominee closer in time to the president ial election than ever before in American History, than ever before in American History. As millions of americans have already cast their ballots. We are blowing up this Republican Senate established precedent and racing toward a nomination that will turn the clock back, take us backwards on all of those pressing issues that i just outlined. But sadly i suppose none of us should be surprised that we are focused here on another judicial nomination at the expense of focusing on legislation to advance and address the interests of the American People on so many front burner pressing issues. Indeed as i reflect on the last months and years, just about the only thing this Republican Senate has done is pass nominations. Week after week we ignore our job as legislators in favor of an agenda of rubber stamping, blindly supporting whatever nominee this president puts forward. In many cases it hasnt even mattered if a judicial nomination is qualified. If theyve even tried a case. Our Republican Senate colleagues have abandoned any principles they claim to hold with respect to our judiciary. When president obama was in office, those republican senators who were here in this chamber erected a wall of opposition to scores of his nominees, refused to even consider many of them. They outright rejected president obamas efforts to fill seats on the d. C. Circuit. The court just below the Supreme Court. Republican senators at the time claimed that it wasnt necessary to fill those vacancies. They rejected qualified nominees up and down the bench denying simple consideration and withholding blue slips. It was a deliberate effort to stonewall president obamas judicial nominees. In fact, they rejected a highly qualified nominee for the very seat judge Amy Coney Barrett currently holds. President obama nominated myra selby for the seventh circuit in january 2016. She had served on the indiana Supreme Court and would have been the first African American and first woman from indiana on that circuit. Senate reaction, what did Senate Republicans, what did they do . Didnt even give her a hearing. Then one month later, february 2016, Justice Scalia passes away. President obama nominates Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, a good and very fair judge who had been confirmed to the d. C. Circuit by a Republicancontrolled Senate by a vote of 7623. What did Senate Republicans do . They refused to consider the nomination. They said february, february of 2016, february of that Election Year was simply too close to a president ial election to fill the slot. The American People should have a voice, they said. Let the People Choose a president this year and then let that president , whoever it may be, make the nomination to the Supreme Court. Scndle r and not only and not only did Senate Republicans oppose Merrick Garland, they refused to meet with him. They refused to hold a hearing. This is february 2016. The American People should have a voice. Its a president ial Election Year, they said. Eight months, eight months before that november 2016 election was just too close. And yet here we are today, four years later, eight days, not eight months, eight days from the beginning of the last day of this president ial election, november 3. Over 50 million ballots already cast and suddenly theres nothing more important than rushing to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Not responding to a Global Pandemic and we just learned from a very representable Columbia University study that had this administration acted and followed the advice of health care experts, we could have saved at least 130,000 american lives, up to 220,000 american lives. But here were taking no more meaningful action, not giving a lifeline to people who are out of work through no fought of their own, not no fault of their own, not closing the Digital Divide so children who cant go to school because of covid can access their classes, not reforming our justice and policing system to make sure that everyone no matter the color of their skin is protected and treated equally. Not securing our elections against foreign attacks and interference. Just a few days ago i was right here on the senate floor asking this senate to take up what had been a bipartisan piece of legislation called the deter act. I introduced it years ago with senator rubio after we learned of the russian interference in 2016. We wanted to make sure that we sent a clear message in advance of the 2020 election that if we catch the russians or any other adversaries interfering in our election, this time there will be a swift and certain price to pay. Just yerlier this just earlier this past week we got not surprising news from the d. N. I. That, yes, what weve known all along, the russians are interfering, other adversaries are interfering and yet we couldnt even take up the bill, a bipartisan bill, to send a clear message to putin and others because the Trump Administration continues to oppose it and the Senate Republican leader continues to bury it here in the United States senate. So no response to Global Pandemic of meaningful no, at this point nothing to do on justice and policing, nothing to secure our elections. No, the top priority, the top priority has been to jettison the precedent that a republican that our republican colleagues themselves established under president obama four years ago and rush to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Why . Why this 180degree turnaround . After all, it is not as if our Senate Republican colleagues have always been so worried about an eightperson Supreme Court. They kept the Supreme Court to eight justices for a year for a full year when they refused to consider Merrick Garlands nomination. Some of our Senate Republican colleagues raised the idea of only having eight justices on the Supreme Court forever, if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency in 2016. So whats different this time around . Well, as weve been hearing on the floor of the senate and from the president himself, there are a number of irresistible opportunities at least irresistible for the president and our republican colleagues things theyve been trying to do for years and have not succeeded yet in doing. First, they can pack the court, pack the court with increasingly ideological and rightwing justices to align the very top court, the Supreme Court, with the increasingly ideological rightwing judiciary theyve been created over years, first by stonewalling and blocking president obamas nominees and then fasttracking them after changing fasttracking them for President Trumps nominees. Second, they can achieve another goal that theyve been striving for for a decade. Overturning the Affordable Care act. Ten years ago i was a member of the house of representatives at the time, republicans did everything and i mean everything they could to block passage of the Affordable Care act to stop obamacare. We heard outright lies about it. They said it was going it to cause massive job loss. They said that the government would be picking your doctor. They said a Government Panel would decide whether your grandparents lived or died. They called them death panels. None of it was true. None of it has come true. The first part of the Affordable Care act was signed into law on march 23, 2010. On that very day, House Republicans filed a bill to repeal it outright. Also on that same day, the first republican lawsuits were filed against it. That twopronged approach trying to undo it legislatively and trying to undo it through the courts continued for the next decade. Dozens of votes in the house of representatives and the senate to attempt to repeal the law and dozens of republican attorneys general and special interests filing lawsuits to challenge it in the courts. They failed. They failed in the congress, and so far so far have failed in the courts. In the courts, in 2012, the Roberts Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care act in a 54 decision, in one of the very first cases that had been filed against the law. It wasnt a complete victory for the Affordable Care act. It did make Medicaid Expansion optional, and a number of republicanheld states have refused to implement that unless and until voters have demanded it at the ballot box. But that Supreme Court decision did uphold the central tenets of the Affordable Care act. The Supreme Court upheld the a. C. A. Again in a 63 decision in 2015. But that hasnt stopped the Republican Partys quest to eliminate it entirely. Just look at the 2016 Republican Party platform, where they continue the attack with three strategies first, President Trump and i quote with the unanimous support of Congressional Republicans will sign its appeal, unquote. Second, while working to legislatively repeal it, the president would use his administrative authorities to undermine, weaken, and scutage it. Third, the president would appoint justices to reverse past decisions, including the Affordable Care act decisions made by the Supreme Court. That was the threepronged plan. Well, they ran into problems with the first part of the plan because despite President Trumps Campaign Promise to convene a special session of congress to, quote, immediately repeal and replace obamacare, quote, very, very quickly, unquote, despite that the pledge, our republican colleagues soon realized they had no replacement plan. They promised that they could repeal the Affordable Care act and replace it with something much, much better and less expensive, but there was no real plan. There was no there there, and the idea they offered to the American People was to trade health care for millions of americans for tax breaks for the very rich. Tens of millions of americans would have lost access to Affordable Health care. People with preexisting conditions would have lost protections, deductibles, and copays would have gotten more expensive. And Insurance Companies would have been able to get tax breaks on the bonuses they gave to their c. E. O. s. Thats what was in the republican replacement plan. Giving tax breaks to companies for the bonuses they paid to their c. E. O. s. No, sir surprisingly, they couldnt not surprisingly, they couldnt sell it to the American People, and i think we all recall here in 2017 it dramatically failed by one vote in the United States senate. Every democratic senator voting against restoring the Affordable Care act destroying the Affordable Care act, three republicans joining us, including of course senator mccain, giving it a big thumbs down. Republicans have been a little more successful trying to sabotage the law through the Trump Administrations executive authorities by scaling back outreach for enrollment plans. What does that a mean . That means dont tell the public about what opportunities they have to get Health Care Coverage in the Affordable Care act. We just wont provide as much public information, so people wont know about it, then they went be able to then they wont be able to sign up for it. Also costsharing to destabilize and ast the the kind of plans we used to see when people thought they had coverage and then when they really needed it, they suddenly discovered, nope, in the fine print, it just wasnt there. But despite these efforts by the administration, the law has survived. All their efforts to slash it with 100 cuts. It continues to provide affordable coverage to millions of americans, and in many states, including mine in maryland, theyve taken efforts to try to protect the Affordable Care act from the Trump Administrations attacks. But on november 10 when the Supreme Court hears that Affordable Care act case, all of that could change. They could decide, after upholding it on two separate occasions, that now theyve got another Supreme Court justice, were going to strike it down. And make no mistake, donald trump wants this law overturned. I mean, no one should be under any illusions about that. You can take it from the word of the brief, the legal brief filed by the solicitor general of the United States on behalf of the Trump Administration. He is the countrys lawyer before the Supreme Court. He filed the case and said that the entire law, quote, must fall the entirety law must the entire law must fall. Not one piece of it or another piece. The entire law must fall. That is the position of the Trump Administration. You can listen to President Trump back in may of this year. Were in the middle of a pandemic, when he said, and i quote, we want to terminate health care under obamacare, end code. End quote. You can listen to him just this week on 60 minutes it aired tonight and he tweeted out to make sure everyone could see it just in case they missed the show. President trump said of the Supreme Courts a. C. A. Case, and i quote, i hope that they end it. Itll be so good if they end it, unquote. Thats President Trump. Itll be so good if they, the Supreme Court, end the Affordable Care act. Thats been his plan from the Supreme Court from the start. In 2015 when he was running, he said, and i quote, if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bushs appointee john roberts, on obamacare, end quote. Candidate trump. Hasnt changed his tune. And he has found his nominee in Amy Coney Barrett, who has publicly criticized past Supreme Court decisions on the Affordable Care act. She is President Trumps torpedo aimed at fulfilling his pledge to destroy the Affordable Care act. She criticized the decision in nfib v. Sebelius, saying that chief Justice Roberts argument pushed the Affordable Care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. She applauded the dissent in king v. Burwell saying that they had, quote, the better of the legal argument, end quote. So its no wonder that republican senators, who tried unsuccessfully to defeat the Affordable Care act legislatively in 2017, are now rushing to appoint her before that case is heard, one week after the election. The stakes could not be higher for the American People. I want everybody to think back to the days before we had the Affordable Care act. Back then, if you had a preexisting condition, companies could deny you coverage outright. If you didnt have the coverage, you might otherwise be offered it at a price that you couldnt possibly ad ford, outrage possibly afford, outrageously expensive. Well offer you that coverage, but youve got a preexisting condition. So were going to charge you something that you cant possibly afford. So you cant buy it. If you did have coverage and then developed a health issue, youd be locked into your current plan, no matter how high the costs arose, unable to shop around because of what had become a preexisting condition. Its called job lock. You have to stay in a job even if you have a better opportunity or you want to pursue your dreams because you now have a preexisting health condition, and you cant get coverage elsewhere. One marylander, angela, wrote to me about her daughter rachel, who was diagnosed with epilepsy when she was in eighth grade. She had to take expensive medications, which she can afford thanks to the Affordable Care act. Heres what rachels mother wrote. Quote, she now has a lifetime preexisting condition. If she were to be kicked off her health care, i imagine she would be bankrupted having to pay full cost for the medications that help her be a productive member of society. Rachel is a teacher and her mother angela says, quote, it is because of obamacare that she is able to be where she is today. Another constituent, megan, wrote to me that she turned 26 on the thursday that the Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee reported out the barrett nomination. She turned 26 just last thursday. She sasse asthma. She pays 60 a month for her medications. And heres what she wrote me. Quote, if i lost my job or my insurance, i would have to make a choice between my medicine or paying the electric bill. Unquote. And she ended her note to me with the following quote, for my 26th birthday, my only wish is that the Affordable Care act not be overturned. There are so many people like me, americans with preexisting conditions, that depend on this crucial legislation that provides necessary protection and guarantees that they will stay covered no matter what. Thats what megan wrote. And before the Affordable Care act, women could be charged more just because they were women. Being a woman was a preexisting condition that allowed Insurance Companies to charge more. Its also true that before the Affordable Care act, if you had a catastrophic accident or a longterm health issue, you would hit a coverage gap and be bankrupted by millions of dollars in hospital bills. There were no annual caps and no lifetime caps. Sometimes that meant that people wouldnt go to the hospital or see a doctor because they didnt want to face unending, uncapped bills. Thats what would have happened to another constituent of mine robin if she did not have the Affordable Care act. She wrote, quote, im 64. So shes not yet 65 so shes not covered by medicare. Im 64, took a tumble at home. My older son urged me to go to the emergency room due to my Family Health history. I was kept in the hospital due to a low thyroid level and almost nonexistent potassium level among other problems. I would not have recovered if i did not have the a. C. A. I would in the have Health Insurance and i know i could not pay a hospital bill. So i would not go to the emergency room. I would have died. The Affordable Care act saved my life. Unquote. Before the Affordable Care act if you were a recent College Graduate but you hadnt found a job with Health Insurance yet, you couldnt stay automatically on your parents Health Insurance policy. You were on your own, out of luck. Young people thinking theyre invincible until theyre not. Insurance companies could deny coverage to them. Now they cant. I heard from one marylander who worries about his sons future if this particular provision is taken away. He wrote to me, quote, if the a. C. A. Is overturned and we lose the coverage for my son on my policy, this would be a disaster for my son and for my family. I would hate to see him have to drop out of school just to find a job to cover Health Insurance. It would destroy his future. And we dont have i continued to write the extra 5,000 or so a year lying around that would be required for him to have a policy under our current provider that would cover his preexisting conditions. My son could be one of the millions to lose Health Insurance if the republicans have their way, unquote. This provision of the Affordable Care act has been lifesaving for pamelas family. She wrote, this year my 23yearold daughter was diagnosed with stage 3 Breast Cancer. Stage 3 Breast Cancer. Thanks to the Affordable Care act she is still on our insurance. Even with our insurance she will be in debt for a very long time. Without it she would be dead. I have not heard a single republican guarantee this will be in any bill they propose. Unquote. Its also a fact that before the Affordable Care act, you had to pay for annual checkups and preventive coverage like Breast Cancer screenings. Its also a fact if you wanted to quit your job to start a small business, you had to figure out how you would pay for an Expensive Health plan which might not provide very good coverage on the individual market. Another marylander who had a lump in her breast that was treated as a preexisting condition even after it disappeared decided she had to limit her employment options to those with decent Health Insurance before the a. C. A. Was enacted. She wrote, quote, this experience steered me to work only for employers large enough to offer stable, Subsidized Health care insurance. The downside has been the golden handcuffs. It is important to have universal decent Health Care Coverage to encourage small businesses, nonprofits, and entrepreneurs. End quote. Kathleen from maryland decided to leave an office job to find something that suited her better, but the job she took in the Restaurant Industry didnt offer any medical coverage. She wrote, quote, i developed adult onset asthma, more than once resorting to the effort r. s or urgent care. I searched everywhere i knew for medical insurance but was refused either because i was just an individual and or because i now had a preexisting condition. Knowing nothing about asthma treatment and unable to cover medical bills entirely on my own, i was chronicically ill and more than once almost died. Unquote. She had to rely on friends and family for help. And after ten years without insurance, she finally found a job with coverage. Kathleen wrote, quote, we all need medical coverage all the time no matter your employment status. The Affordable Care act dramatically expanded medicaid in many states, those that opted to participate. Providing subsidies for lowincome americans to find afforaffordable plans and gave l business tax credits for providing Health Insurance for their employees. It also closed the Prescription Drug donut hole for seniors on medicare. A lot of people forget seniors on medicare benefited from the Affordable Care act and continue to benefit. Thats part of the law that the Trump Administration is trying to overturn in its entirety. These are seniors who faced a big coverage gap from an initial spending threshold and on the other side of the donut hole, catastrophic spending, a big donut hole. In 2016, the most recent years where we have complete data, close to five million seniors on medicare received an afternoon of over 1,000 in part d prescription discounts because the donut hole was closed. And of the 46 million seniors on part d medicare today, if any of them all of a sudden develops a condition that requires high drug costs, any of those 46 million americans could fall into that donut holocausting them as donut hole, costing them as much as 3,000 more per year. Mr. President , the Affordable Care act isnt a perfect law, but it did set a key standard for essential health benefits, cut the rate of uninsured americans, and started improving Health Care Outcomes for americans. And right now while were in the middle of the covid19 pandemic, its more important than ever. The United States has had over 8. 6 million covid cases, a number that we see grow by the day. For patients who require hospitalization, the Kaiser Family Foundation Reports that the average stay can cost more than 20,000 a person and rise to closer to 90,000 if the patient requires a ventilator. So what would happen to those americans if theyre once again subjected to a lifetime out of pock death limit outofpocket limit on their Insurance Coverage where theyre not protected against huge expenditures . Mr. President , were all glad that when President Trump got covid he got world class care. Its a good thing. Were glad he got airlifted to walter reed in maryland. Its a Great National military medical facility. Were glad he had a team of doctors devoted to his case. Were glad he got access to cutting edge drugs. He wont have to pay for that coverage. But, mr. President , thats not the kind of treatment every other american gets. And its offensive for the president to relish his firstclass treatment while denying his fellow americans simple protections as he would by calling for the destruction of the Affordable Care act. Speaking of covid19 and the impact of preexisting conditions, were seeing many covid19 patients who have longterm health effects. They call them the, quote, long haulers, unquote. The c. D. C. Noted last month that covid19 can have an impact on the heart, including heart damage that can lead to longterm symptoms, like shortness of breath, chest pain, and heart pat taitions. Palpitations. In an article this month, covid can damage the brain causing cognitive effects comparable to those who have suffered traumatic brain injury. So, mr. President , while Senate Republicans have refused to take meaningful action to confront the next step of covid19 reli relief, including refusing to pass a strong testing and tracing plan to halt the spread of the virus as proposed in the heroes act both one and two from the house of representatives, youre pushing theyre pushing for a nominee to take the Affordable Care act away from the American People who have gotten sick and now up to 8. 6 million of them have a preexisting condition due to covid19. But they will no longer be protected from that preexisting condition if the Affordable Care act goes away. Mr. President , this isnt crying wolf. I want to remind everybody again the solicitor general of the United States acting on behalf of the president of the United States wrote in his brief in support of the case to overturn the Affordable Care act that the entire law, the entire law, coverage for preexisting conditions, closing the medicare hole, ending lifetime limits for care must fall. All of it must fall. And we know President Trump has no plan to replace it. Hes had plenty of time to present one. Four years. He keeps telling us its going to be a matter of weeks. Four years ago after his inauguration, going to be a matter of weeks. Two years ago, a matter of weeks. Three years ago, its a matter of weeks. He was asked about it in the last debate. He said, dont worry. Hes going to come up with, quote, a brand new, Beautiful Health plan, unquote. Mr. President , Womens Health in particular is in jeopardy with this nomination. Not only do women stand to lose the Affordable Care act protections against discrimination because before that, as i said, just being a woman was a preexisting condition that would and could cost you more. They will no longer have access to the guarantee of free cancer screenings for Breast Cancer or other screenings. But its also a fact that President Trump and republicans have long sought to deny them Reproductive Health freedom. And that brings us to another longterm, longtime priority of President Trump and Senate Republicans. Putting a justice on the Supreme Court who will provide a majority to strike down a womans right to reproductive choice in accordance with the roe v. Wade decision. Mr. President , the roe v. Wade decision was 72 in the Supreme Court. It was founded on the right to privacy that a Womans Health care choice was her own without interference from the state in accordance with the roe v. Wade framework. Before roe v. Wade when abortion was illegal in most states, unsafe abortions caused onesixth of all pregnancyrelated deaths. Many lowincome women jeopardized their lives with selfinduced procedures. Now women have safe options, both to obtain abortions and also thanks to the Affordable Care act, no cost contraception that is used to both plan families and manage a variety of health conditions. Women can make decisions about their own bodies in consultation with their doctors that are best for their health and the wellbeing of their families. And the vast majority of americans support comprehensive health care, including a womans right to reproductive choice under roe v. Wade. But theres been a long fight chipping away at this protection, this care with the ultimate goal of overturning roe v. Wade altogether. And overturning that case has been one of other of President Trumps litmus tests for this Supreme Court nominee and his other picks. And, like the Affordable Care act, its not like hes been subtle about this. In a president ial debate in 2016, he was asked if he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn roe v. Wade. He said, and i quote, well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, thats really whats going to be. That will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because im putting prolife judges on the court, end quote. There it is. This would be President Trumps third Supreme Court nominee. The magic number he talked about for overturning roe v. Wade and a womans protected right to choose under the constitution of the United States. This comes on top of more than 60 judges are antichoice records that he has already nominated and that this senate has confirmed to the lower courts. More states are passing laws to drastically limit or effectively ban abortion in order to set up cases to challenge roe v. Wade in the courts, to set up those cases to take to the Supreme Court. And, again, as with his intention to overturn the Affordable Care act, President Trump has found a perfect nominee to overturn roe v. Wade in judge barrett. We dont have to rely on the president s words alone or on all the antichoice groups who have vigorously lobbied for her appointment and who have said that she believes that roe v. Wade is something that can be reversed. Thats what all the advocacy groups supporting her nomination are saying. And one of our republican colleagues said he absolutely would never vote and has told us that judge barrett, quote, certainly would meet that standard. Unquote. And just as we can see judge barretts opposition to the Affordable Care act in her own record, we can see her opposition to roe v. Wade in her own record. She signed onto an advertisement calling roe v. Wade, quote, an exercise of raw judicial power, unquote, that advocated for ending, and again i quote, the barbaric legacy of roe v. Wade. She signed another advertisement criticizing roe v. Wade when she was a member of notre dames University Faculty for life, an antichoice group. She has said that roe v. Wade is not settled precedent. Indeed, at her hearing in the senate, she questioned the principle that the constitution protects certain fundamental rights from government interference on privacy grounds saying that theres a debate about how far that can go, a debate that is generally waged by those looking to overturn roe v. Wade and obergefell, the case that allows for gay marriage. She would not even concede and this is very telling she would not even conceded in her hearing that the decision in griswold v. Connecticut was settled law. Griswold v. Connecticut is the case that protects access to contraception. It was a connecticut law on the books that prohibited any person from using contraception, and the court invalidated that law in a 72 decision on the rounds that it violated marital privacy. I want our colleagues to think about this. This is a state law that said that adults could not use contraception. And she would not say that that is settled law under the constitution of the United States. She would not even concede that in vitro fertilization, which has helped many women start their families, was constitutional and could not be made illegal. Mr. President , its clear from President Trumps stated intentions from the words of antichoice groups, the promise of our own colleagues and from senate judge barretts own words that her nomination is the culmination of a decadelong effort to overturn a womans right to choose. We also see that with respect to the decision in obergefell v. Hodges. On the day in 2015 the Supreme Court showed us what it could be, a body that would ensure rather than restrict the rights of americans and in a 54 decision they told lgbtq americans that the love they had for each other and their wish to declare that in marriage was their right, as it has been for straight couples for the whole history of our nation. Five years later the American People support this record this decision at recordhigh levels. But that was a 54 decision, and were now facing a fundamental shift in the balance of the court, and we have seen time and again this president attack laws designed to protect people against discrimination based on Sexual Orientation. We also see this not just from the administration but, again, through judge barretts own words and actions. She received an honor rarum to teach a program by the Alliance Defending farmers and ranchers which the southern have the has characterized as a hate group and she called the experience, quote, a wonderful one. She has referred to Sexual Orientation has a sexual preference, which is the buzzwords used by those who want to overturn lgbtq rights on the grounds that this is not a question of immutable characteristic but simply someones chose enpreference. There are a number of cases coming to the Supreme Court that deal with the issue of discrimination against foster families headed by samesex couples. One will arrive at the court on november 4, the day after the election. Another reason you see this nomination being rushed. If you look through the issues i outlined at the start, from Racial Justice and Police Accountability to other questions of the ability to Access Health care, you will find time and again in judge barretts record telltale signs and clear signs, flashing warning signs, that she wants to turn back the clock. We see that with respect to criminal justice reform, where she dissented in a case on whether a defendant who had been convicted but not yet sentenced when the First Step Act was enacted by this congress and signed by the president as to whether the new sentencing requirements of that law would apply. And fortunately, the seventh circuit ruled that it applied to the defendant. Judge barrett was one of the three dissenting votes that adopted a cramped interpretation of the law devoid of any mercy. And there are other cases relating to the rights of those who have been injured, including a pregnant teenager who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a prison guard where judge barrett found that the prison guard could not be held liable under his employment with the prison system. And if you read through that case and the horrifying facts, i think you come away very troubled with the fact that she had such a cramped reading of the law. Mr. President , on a question thats not a legal matter but a matter of fact, Climate Change, we would have thought that the question that was put to her was quite easy. Judge barrett admitted that the coronavirus was infectious. Why . Because thats what the medical experts say. But when she was asked about Climate Change again, not a tricky legal question she refused to say what the overwhelming Scientific Consensus is, that Climate Change is real. We see it, as i said, with the forest fires. We see it with the hurricanes. We see it in my state of maryland. Just in the city of annapolis, we see flooding at our docks that is wreaking havoc on local businesses. So time and again when judge barrett was given an opportunity to answer basic fact questions or pretty straightforward questions in the Judiciary Committee, she ducked them entirely. But we have her record to indicate where she stands. On the issue of Voter Protection and Voting Rights, we also find another troubling pattern in judge barretts record. And this is especially important when you think about the fact that shes filling the seat of Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg who wrote that very powerful dissent in the 54 decision in shelby v. Holder, that took a big bite out of the Voting Rights act. And if you look at the statements by judge barrett, she distinguishes between what she calls individual rights like the Second Amendment rights versus what she calls a civic right the right of vote, putting the right to vote in a lesser protected category than what she defines as individual rights. In fact, she wrote has a right that was examinersed for the benefit of the community, like voting and jury service, rather than for the benefit of the individual, it belongs only to virtuous citizens. Only to virtuous citizens. Thats what judge barrett wrote about the right to vote. Mr. President , the right to vote, as we all know, is fundamental to our democracy. Our dear colleague, john lewis, recently passed away and was nearly beaten to death for fighting for that right to vote, said many times, the vote is precious. Its almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy, unquote. And, mr. President , it should not be relegated, that right to vote should not be relegated to some kind of secondary status, as judge barretts writings indicate she would do. So, if you look at all the challenges that we face as a country, dealing with the pandemic, dealing with issues of Police Accountability and Racial Justice, dealing with Climate Change, dealing with protecting Voting Rights, all these pressing issues that we should be focused on here in the United States senate, were not. And instead, were rushing through this illegitimate process to put a justice on the Supreme Court that in each of these areas each of these areas where we should be focusing our attention is actually going to take us backwards. And so, mr. President , i urge the senate i can see the march thats going day after day toward the vote tomorrow but i urge this senate to reconsider the path that its in. This has been a very shameful episode, watching the complete flipflop from 2016, rushing to put on a justice who the president wants and who Senate Republicans i think believe will act to the overturn the Affordable Care act, take away a womans right to choose, and be part of an ideological majority that will strip away important rights from the American People. I will end by just pointing out, mr. President , that public surveys right now show the American People are not fooled by this process. They dont like what they see. They want us to be focused on dealing with covid19. They want us to pass a robust, comprehensive Emergency Response package. Thats what the American People are calling for. Instead, this senate is embarked on this charade of a process. There will be a verdict on all of this by the American People in a matter of eight days. Mr. President , i will i believe there will be a reckoning on the actions the senate is taking and the actions the senate has refused to take in addressing the urgent issues that are really facing the country. And i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from hawaii. The shah schatz thank you the, mr. President. Mr. Schatz thank you, mr. President. I wanted to encourage the staffers, especially the stenographers, to feel comfortable to keep their distance from the United States senators who are delivering remarks. Theres no reason if we have microphones on to be anywhere near us, so id just encourage them to keep their distance, especially since most members are delivering remarks without masks on. So if theres something that the staff could do to just encourage them to keep their distance, we do want them to be safe. I yield the floor, and ill be giving remarks in a few minutes. Mr. Schatz thank you, mr. President. Before i talk about the Supreme Court, i want to express my condolences to the families and the loved ones who have experienced the human toll of the coronavirus pandemic. Over 220,000 americans have died, and millions of others have been forever changed. Im going to read some of the names of those relost, the families of these individuals have given permission for their those we lost. The families of these individuals have given permission for their names to be read on the senate floor adding their names and stories to the congressional record. Mike hauk. Steven r. Chapman. Milan frisak. Santos gomez. Jack larvin. Jean lansin. Wendy darling minore. Rose pitrillo. Molly stech. Larry grause cummings. Sarah ann shulan. Elizabeth wullet. Lorraine malek. Bob matusevich. Half engineer acensio. Joel cruz. Michelle horne. Laura brown. Fay ann barr. Yogisagi hero. Patricia manning. Barbara johnson hopper. Harry conover. Stanley gray. Mary j. Wilson. Richard gordon thorpe. Joe hinton. Angela chattalson mccarthy. Gerpal sing. Paul j. Foley jr. Tim mckahey. Kelvin luray. Robert waring. Fred westbrook. Mr. President , the senate used to be a body that valued bipartisanship and compromise, a body that valued the demands for debate with the demands for action. But that was in the past. The senate no longer is the body that examines, considers, and protects our democracy. The senate i see now is ruled by partisanship and uncompromising ideology, and in the rush to jam through a divisive nomination days before the election and before the American People get a chance to have their say, the majority leader in and the Republican Party are inflicting procedural violence on the senate itself and the American People to achieve their ideological objective. In fact, many republicans bragged that they had the votes to confirm the president s nominee before the nominee was chosen. The worlds greatest deliberative body was a constitutional responsibility for advice and consent, and a special responsibility to advise and consent on the highest court in the land, decided that they were aokay with whatever donald trump decided, that their roles in advice and consent was to basically agree in advance, and to abdicate their roles. Now, we are not a parliament system. We are a separate, coequal branch of the government. And we are supposed to have our own view. The Federalist Society is not a branch of government. Donald trump should not run the United States senate. Nobody outside of this chamber should be in charge of us and to announce that you are for a nominee sight unseen is an be abdication of your role. Why would you even run for this job . Why would you even run for this job . This could be the executive Vice President of the Federalist Society. If you dont believe in the importance of the legislative branch, dont be a legislator. We are less than two weeks away from the most consequential decision election of our lifetimes. Almost 60 million americans have already voted, and there are legitimate concerns around election around an election dispute, and thats because of the president. The president has proposed postponing the election. He has threatened to challenge the results if he doesnt win. He has called it rigged in advance. He has refused repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. And he has openly admitted that one of the reasons that he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee, one of the reasons he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee is in case there is an election dispute. To referee which votes get counted. And whats funny about this not funny like hilarious funny but kind of weird funny is that thats the kind of thing that if i said that, you know, youre just putting this person in to referee an election dispute, i would have expected the people on the other side to say how dare you make that accusation. But to the contrary, the junior senator from texas actually said thats the reason they have to hurry. We better get her in so she can rule against counting votes in wherever the democrats are counting their votes. Thats what he said. This isnt a partisan accusation. Its literally what ted cruz said. The president of the United States expects his nominee, judge barrett, to be Justice Barrett tomorrow night, to assist him with ensuring reelection, if necessary. These statements by the president should alarm every member of this body, democrat and republican, but actually they didnt alarm certain members. They found that to be a justification for hurrying. Disturbingly, an exchange in an exchange with the senator from new jersey, judge barrett would not say that President Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. When the senator from california asked the constitution to give the president the power to delay an election, judge barrett said that she didnt want to give off the cuff answers, even though the constitution does not in fact give her that power. And this is part of a pattern. I will take you through some of this stuff. Any time there is a live controversy and by live controversy, its basically any time donald trump says something, she is unwilling to cross him. She is unwilling to cross him. Our judges are supposed to be independent and unbiased interpreters of the law. That means judge barrett should know what the law says and how to apply it, especially when the president threatens to break it in order to hold onto political power. But she dodged these important questions and refused to defend democracy. I have real doubts about her ability to serve our nation impartially, especially in the case of an election dispute. There was a 44 decision which allowed a lower Court Decision to be upheld regarding an election dispute in pennsylvania. I i wont get into detail t the litigants are going right back to the Supreme Court figuring that Amy Coney Barrett will rule for them. In the middle of this election. This isnt some theyre rett cattle, like wildeyed, like internetdriven paranoia. This is happening. They went back to the Supreme Court to say, how about now . And i would be a little surprised if they dont rule 54 on behalf of republicans who want to restrict the vote. In moving forward with the confirmation, the Senate Republicans and the majority leader are going against the precedent they set four years ago. And, look, i understand im reasonably good at politics. I know that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that hypocrisy abounds. And i understand that if we take our case to the American Voter and say, theyre hypocrites, the American Voters are going to shrug their shoulders and say, ahhh, youre all hypocrites. I get that. But im a little oldschool in the following way. I come from a legislature. I believe that your words should be your bond. Otherwise, this kind of place wont work. And when Lindsey Graham said, use my words against me, i actually believed him. Ive worked with lindsey before. Ive had dinner with listenedcy. I sort of personally like him. That probably gets me in tons of trouble politically. But i just guess i thought that if im coming from the Hawaii Legislature where your word is your bond, thats the most foundational rule of politics, i remember when i was first elected in 1998. The National Conference of state legislatures, this training body for legislators, used to issue cassette tapes about how to be an effective legislator. And i remember this. The first tankers stick it in my the first tape, stick it in my nissan truck your word is your bond. And here we are and i get that you know, look. Most of the people in this body are pretty smart so theyre going to use their ample brains to justify their new position. But, lets be clear. This is the most rank hypocrisy ive ever seen in anything politically, and its one of the most important thing that ive ever seen. And so its not a trivial thing that you held up Merrick Garland now, do i go around saying that on the cable shows or whatever . No, because i know outside of this body, nobody cares. Inside of this body, were supposed to care about stuff like that. Inside of this body, your word is supposed to count for something. Its not supposed to be about the maximal use of power and tricking each other and tricking the public. Heres what Mitch Mcconnell said about Merrick Garland. The American People should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled. The senator from South Carolina said, i want you to use my words against me. If there is a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, Lindsey Graham said, lets let the next president , who ever it might be, make that nomination, and you can use my words against me, and youd be absolutely right. The senator from texas said, the American People deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. And its not just my republican colleagues who have reversed their position. Its judge barrett herself who actually warned against making changes on the court in an Election Year. She said, were talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative in the court. Were talking about someone robertsstabenow placed by someone who would dramatic flip the power. It is not a Lateral Movement you know what else isnt a lateral move . Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett. Our Democratic Institutions depend on the trust of the American People and we cannot find that bond of trust if we dont have it amongst ourselves. Its worth mentioning here that Senate Republicans are also choosing to confirm judge barrett instead of addressing the pandemic. And, you know, thats another thing that sort of sounds apocryphal. But, no, thats actually true. Mitch mcconnell is very clear. He didnt want a covid bill on the floor because hes worried that it would push this thing past the election. And so its really clear, right . He said i think it was in may he didnt feel a sense of urgency. Hes basically sat back and let mnuchin and pelosi negotiate, even way that they come to agreement with will blow up here. But lets be very clear. His priority is judges. His priority is always judges. Its like a joke here. We fly in a the love us fly out on the a lot of us fly out on the weekends. We fly in and we arrive and we say, whats on deck for this week and everyone says, nominations. We got a circuit judge, a district judge, another district judge. How many is it . Oh, its five judges this week. No legislating going on. But thats sort of the thats become the way this place operates. Not the worlds greatest deliberative body. Were like a little factory a approves federal judges. And thats how Mitch Mcconnell wants it. But its especially egregious when so many people need so much help. This is a World Historic event. You got 220,000 people dead, about 1,000 people dying a day. You got businesses closing forever. You got economic extinction all over the country, red states, blue states, rural areas, urban areas, suburban areas. And the highest priority for Mitch Mcconnell is stacking the courts. Thats really the game for them. But it is important to know who judge barrett is. And i want to be really clear. She seems superpleasant. Shes obviously incredibly accomplished academically, and so none of this is personal for me. Okay . But she was groomed by this Organization Called the Federalist Society. And we need to understand who they are and what they do. They basically saw that they had an opportunity to start to identify and groom and place young ideologues now, those are the two key words, right . You got to be young and you got to be pretty ideological and thorn a. In the federalist and then you are in the Federalist Society. Maybe youll be a district prosecutor first or be a District Court judge or run for office. But the whole deal is, this is their farm teen. And the Federalist Society has very specific views, superconservative, antilgbtq, superantichoice. Importantly want to absolutely gut the regulatory state because where their money comes from is not primarily people who care about those social issues. The money comes from polluters. Thats whats going on here. And so she comes from the Federalist Society, and, you know, before trump, nobody would have ever thought to provide a list to the public of the potential Supreme Court justices that you would nominate. That just like was unheard of. Youre supposed to kind of keep your powder dry and be down the middle, if you can. Obviously, a democratic president leans left and a republican president leans right. But thats why youve got kind of a mix of i ideologies, even though some of these people who after 20 years on the bench, you cant remember whether they were antes pod by a democrat or a republican. But what has happened in the last ten years or is you can definitely tell who wassate pointed by a democrat and you can definitely tell whos been pint by a republican. All of these votes are turning into partyline votes in the districts and circuits and now on the Supreme Court. Nobody is is really making up their own minds. And she came from the Federalist Society. And, look, the Federalist Society doesnt appear to be doing anything illegal. Theyre just working the system. But it is worth asking whether this is the way we want to have our Supreme Court justices selected, so that you got a whole Political Party who preapproves anybody on the list, without even knowing whos in it but also without even knowing without even having a hearing. So we do know how shes going to rule, unfortunately. And the reason the Federalist Society pushed so hard for judge barrett is that shes an originalist, and this means that she pledges to interpret the constitution as she determines the framers and the public intended at the time that the constitution was written, nearly two and a half centuries ago. To do this, she looks at the world it is a existed in 1787 and the values from that time. We are talking about a time when full citizenship was limited to white men, when most black people were enslaved and considered property, when women had no rights protections, being gay with punishable by the death penalty. That is what she looks to when deciding how our country should be governed today. And the simple fact is, you cannot be a true originalist and believe in full equality. You cannot look only at the framers intent and believe in protect respecting the rights of women, people of color, native americans, the lgbtq community. The two world views the two legal views are incompatible because striving for our nations promise of full equality for all or equal justice under the law requires leaving our outdated prejudices behind. The beauty of our country is that we have the capacity to improve, to change each generation since our founding has made this place better. Originalism ignores all of that. Precedent is the reason schools are integrated. Its why anybody can marry the person that they love. Its why 20 million more people have health care. Its why women have the right to access reproductive freedom. Its why we have cleaner air and cleaner water. Those principles are not written into the constitution. But the progress weve made in statutory law and in jurisprudence is protected over time. And originalists are willing to throw those things out. And thats why originalism is so dangerous in a courtroom, especially the Supreme Court, in 2020. We should be very wary of those who wish to take us back to a place where only some were free. As we struggle to perfect our union, her nomination cements a conservative majority and puts a lot of our hardfought progress in jeopardy. The court will hear cases that test our values and test our commitment to equality. Subscribing to original 86 is just another subscribing to originalism is just another way to say that judge barrett will prioritize a handful of elite and wealthy americans and just like other jurists handpicked by the Federalist Society, it will all but guaranteed that she will decide in favor of Corporate Power and the wealthy most of the time. What we need is a justice who is committed to protecting and upholding the rights of every american regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, or Sexual Orientation. While judge barrett has been evasive in the hearings, her record is not. Is not unclear. Id like to walk through her record on civil rights, lgbtq rights, reproductive rights, and climate. Lets start with civil and Voting Rights. Being named a Supreme Court justice is an honor. A justice should be a defender of human rights and civil rights and a justice must have n a unbreakable commitment to fight for whats right and to lead the pursuit in making america more free. Judge barrett has written that the entire 14th amendment is, quote, possibly illegitimate. Yes, you heard that correctly. Judge barrett questions the legitimacy of the very amendment that is the cornerstone of civil rights and equal protections in this country. The 14th amendment was proposed during reconstruction following the civil war when the union was deciding how to readmit Confederate States and restore their representation to congress. And one of the conditions for allowing them to reenter was passing and ratifying the 14th amendment. So the theory that she uses to challenge its validity is that the south, the south was strongarmed into supporting it, so the amendment never truly earned the support of the American People. Thats crazy. There is nothing in the law to justify this position, and there never has been. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls this a white supremacist myth perpetrated by confederate sympathizers, the k. K. K. , and other extreme rightwing groups. It is unfathomable to think that anybody in the year 2020 would be opposed to the simple concept that every american should be treated equally under the law. And it really should disqualify judge barrett from a Supreme Court seat. At the same time, she has repeatedly overlooked discrimination in the workplace, concluding that separate could be equal. I mean this is basic civics, right. I have two teenagers. This is the stuff we learn. As bedrock foundational American History and civics. And she is saying separate can be equal, and she and i read this opinion. She said that using a racial slur in the workplace does not necessarily create a hostile work environment. For the object of that slur. Try to fathom a situation where someone is calling someone a racial epithet, but thats not hostility in the workplace. Her brain is big, i dont doubt it, but it is a pretty extraordinary stretch of a pretty extraordinary brain to try to assert that saying something racist to someone in the workplace is not a hostile act. Its definitely a hostile act. And maybe i just lack the Educational Attainment to understand how you get so smart that you lose all your common sense and all your decency and all your humanity and you forget what you learned in sixth grade and ninth grade and 12th grade. During the hearing this week, judge barrett declined to agree that intimidating voters is illegal, despite the fact that this isnt a matter of interpreting constitution law. This is federal statute. She also refused to say whether she believes voter discrimination still exists. She refused to say whether voter discrimination still exists. This is its like worse than i thought, right . Look, im a democrat. I didnt want anybody who didnt share Ruth Bader Ginsburgs views to replace her. But im alarmed, and because of her extraordinary skills and because she comported herself well in the hearing, i dont think people really know how dangerous this is about to be. And i think people are in for a rude awakening in terms of what this court is about to do to roll back the clock on some stuff that we pretty much think we already agree on. Gay rights, 70 of the public. We moved on. Reproductive choice, 70 of the public, we have moved on. The Affordable Care act after 15 years or whatever it is, 12 years of fighting about it, we find of moved on. Now you have got republicans making ads saying im going to protect your preexisting condition. The American Public has a consensus on a number of things, and i think all of these people are prepared to undo that consensus. And here is what is so alarming. I think it was maybe it was this morning or maybe it was yesterday, the majority leader, leader mcconnell, after giving to me what was a weird speech not substantively. I knew the speech he was going to give, essentially blaming harry reid for everything. Fine. I dont i mean, i disagree with it, but i dont begrudge him a partisan speech in this context, but the way he did it, he turned his i mean, you are supposed to address the chair, rye, and some of us move around, but this was weird. He turned his back on the democratic side of the aisle and just stared at his caucus and gave them a pep talk and said and im going to paraphrase right now, but it was basically the stuff we have gone over the last four years is going to be undone in legislative terms as a result of the coming election. So what were doing on the court will last a lifetime. And i get the point that hes making because he is just measuring his power. But everybody should listen to what hes saying. He is promising that it doesnt matter what we do over here because theyre going to undo it over there. And this man who presents himself as an institutionalist is deciding that the United States senates role is to just stack the judiciary and stop legislating, and thats alarming. And so i want to make one sort of final point. I really worry about the senate itself. I was so thrilled to be here. The circumstances of my entering the senate were tragic, actually, because of the death of my predecessor, but im not going to lie. I was being sent to the worlds greatest deliberative body. Like a promising High School Basketball player, like being the 12th man on the l. A. Lakers, like thats how i felt. I walked in and i thought this is the big show. This is the place where we solve americas problems. And i have seen the inexorable destruction of this institution because of a lack of restraint on the republican side. I actually would love it if it were if the blame were equally shared. It would be easier for me because i dont want to sound like that. I dont get anything out of that. I imagine these groups of people, and it wasnt always the moderates right in the middle. Nowadays, the only people cutting deals in the middle are the moderates. But back in the day, it was Teddy Kennedy and orrin hatch. It was dan inouye and ted stevens. And now theres not even a desire to do big things here. There is a total lack of ambition to solve americas problems here. And there is a total lack of restraint when it comes to the exercise of power. And so the old senate is gone. The old senate is gone, and this body has reinvented itself over and over and over again, and its going to have to do it again. But that old senate where you could pour scotch after yelling at each other on the floor, its gone. I cant tell you the number of times i have invited my republican colleagues to come down to the floor and have a debate. We dont even argue anymore. They go on fox news. We go on msnbc. We line up, we smash helmets. They win 5248. And so what is happening in this time period, which is to say in the next 24 hours, is sort of the culmination of leader mcconnells philosophy about what this place should do. Which is we do judges. We dont do big things. We dont even try to do big things, and we never fail to maximally use our power. And thats a different model for our legislature. Frankly, its how a lot of legislatures work. Its just not the way this place used to work. But if thats the model, then democrats are going to have to wrap their mind around what has happened, because we cant be the only ones showing any restraint. Right, because thats just a recipe for getting rolled and rolled and rolled. And thats a recipe for entrenching minority rule. And i understand the structure of the senate is what it is. Its enshrined in the constitution. Far be it from me to argue that small states shouldnt get two senators. Small states should get two senators, whether you have 1. 5 Million People or 50 million in your state, you should get two senators. Im for that. But the way this is starting to work is that elected representatives who collectively have gathered 10 million, maybe 12 million, maybe by the year 2030, 30 million fewer votes than the Minority Party are going to stack the judiciary and entrench minority rule. And so something has to give. And yes, i know there are elections that can resolve this and sometimes things feel stuck, maybe they are not as stuck as they feel, but i the shoe is going to be on the other foot. And as my good friend claire mccaskill, the former senator from missouri says, you know, the door swings both ways in washington. And so i just think its important for every member of this body to understand that the door swings both ways in washington. And if we are going to rebuild this institution and rebuild the trust that the public has in their elected representative and the judiciary and public leaders, then were going to have to be trustworthy with each other. And i feel betrayed. Like i the most pleasurable aspect of working in this place when i first got here, coming from an almost entirely democratic state, was my ability to work with republicans. It was a unique professional challenge for me. Im looking at the presiding officer. We did some pretty good work together. It was a pleasure. And that was fun. And that was the way this place should work. But i worry about how frayed those relationships are, and i worry about the fact that there is this kind of principle that alls fair in love and war. These guys are about to do something even worse, so you might as well punch them in the mouth preemptively, and the kind of rahrah speeches that i believe go on in the republican conference characterizing us as promising to do unusually aggressive things and therefore they might as well get it over with in advance, and, by the way, harry reid did x. , y. , and z. , and what about robert bork. They get told a story about how awful we are and that justifies them breaking their bond with us. And i understand that a lot of what happens here is a result of polarization across the country. I would argue asymmetric polarization. But people matter, relationships matter, trust matters. And i have never felt so clear that we, as members, have been betrayed. That the arguments that were made in favor of holding up Merrick Garland were b. S. And weve got a long way to go to rebuild this institution. I yield the floor. Mr. Murphy first, let me thank the presiding officer and staff on the floor, staff in both caucus rooms for putting up with a very, very late night. I take the floor just past 3 30 in the morning. I thank my friend, senator schatz, for picking up about an hour and a half from 2 00 until 3 30. I know senator kaine will be joining the floor shortly. This is an exceptional night because we are living in exceptional times. We are likely to see tomorrow a Record Number of covid cases diagnosed in this country. I know that it now feels like the new normal. Seven, eight months into this pandemic, but this is unthinkable that our country has been ravaged by a virus that less than a year ago no one had ever heard of. Sometime in november or december of last year, covid19 started popping onto the International Public health radar screen in china. A few months later, it was here in the United States. Most countries were able to come up with a plan to control, contain, or essentially eliminate the threat of covid19 in a matter of months. The United States was not. Because of an abysmal failure by this administration. We are now living with a third wave of covid as we speak on the floor tonight. We are looking down the barrel of 300,000 americans dead by the end of this year, and no ones safe. Millions of kids who cant go back to school, businesses that have gone under 10 of our workforce, out of work. This is an exceptional night because were living in an exceptional moment. And i will talk over the course of my remarks about the president s failure to meet the moment and to be able to rescue this country from this pandemic, and in fact his daily actions now to actively spread the disease. There is no one who is doing more to spread covid19 across the country today than the president of the United States who is Holding Daily superspreader events, which is shaming individuals who wear masks, who is deliberately trying to reduce the number of tests that are done in this country. But i also want to acknowledge that the vote that we have pending, ready for action tomorrow, is directly connected to the question as to whether or not this country is going to be able to turn the corner on covid. Because the first case Amy Coney Barrett will likely hear after she is confirmed by this body, as it looks like will happen tomorrow, will be a case on the Affordable Care act, a case that asks the Supreme Court to invalidate the entirety of the a. C. A. It draws issue with one specific provision in the a. C. A. , but the remedy it seeks, the remedy the president of the United States is asking for is the complete invalidation of the Affordable Care act. Thats 23 Million People losing health care. Thats 130,000 excuse me, 130 Million People all across this country who have preexisting conditions potentially losing protections that under the a. C. A. Prohibits Insurance Companies from charging them more. And i have heard my republican colleagues come down to this floor and go on television and give press conferences in which they suggest that those of us who say the Affordable Care act is about to be struck down due to the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett are engaging in hyperbole, that were exaggerating. Well, i have been in the congress for the last ten years, the house and the senate. My eyes havent been closed. I have watched an unrelenting campaign from republicans to try to repeal the Affordable Care act. When i was in the house of representatives, the call from republicans was repeal and replace. The presiding officer will remember this because i think we served together during that period of time. The idea was, of course, that republicans didnt like the Affordable Care act, but they acknowledged that they couldnt get rid of it with nothing else to replace it. Now, that in and of itself was an acknowledgment of the merits of the Affordable Care act. Republicans may not have liked the details, but given the fact that they were not supporting repealing it but supporting repealing it and replacing it with something else, they knew the American Public would not allow for the Affordable Care act to disappear and nothing else to stand in its place. And we waited month after month, year after year for a replacement plan to be offered by republicans. We waited month after month and year after year. That replacement plan never arrived. The closest we came to seeing a replacement plan was in the summer of 2017 as we were debating repeal here in the senate shortly after the election of donald trump, speaker ryan, then still in charge of the house of representatives presented a replacement. The problem is the replacement was worse than simple repeal. The Affordable Care act covers around 23 million individuals and the Congressional Budget Office said that speaker ryans replacement plan would have resulted in 24 Million People losing health care, going backwards from the status quo. 70 different times, republicans either in the house or the senate tried to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care act. You may say that sounds unfair. Its not fair to create an equivalency between efforts to repeal all of the Affordable Care act and efforts to repeal just some of the Affordable Care act. Okay. On 31 different occasions, republicans tried to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care act. 31 times. Thats a lot. With no replacement that would have covered everyone that receives coverage under the Affordable Care act with no meaningful effort to protect those who have preexisting conditions. My eyes were opened to that. My constituents were watching all of that. We saw how republicans 31 times tried to repeal the Affordable Care act. I have listened to republicans out on the campaign trail. I have watched what republicans have said to the press and to their constituents. Were not blind. We know that republicans for ten years have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care act. We know that for ten years, republicans have not had a replacement that would ensure anywhere close to the number of people insured by the Affordable Care act or provide protections to people with preexisting conditions. And so dont tell us that were overhyping this desire by republicans to take steps in this body that would lead to the repeal of the Affordable Care act because that is the lions share of what republicans have been doing for the last ten years. In the summer of 2017, republicans mounted their last stand to get rid of the Affordable Care act. They had control of the house, the senate, the presidency. This was the moment to do it. In fact, most of us expected that it was a foregone conclusion, having told the membership public in the runup to 2016 that if you elect us, we will repeal the Affordable Care act, and having won the house and the senate and the presidency, despite, by the way, getting less votes than Democratic Candidates for the senate and the house and their president having gotten less votes than the democratic candidate for president by virtue of the way in which we select representatives through gerrymandered districts, through the way in which states with smaller populations have greater representation in the senate, and through the mechanism of the electoral college, despite getting less votes than democrats all across the country in 2016, republicans did take control of the house and the senate and the presidency. And those are the rules. Those are the rules. Republicans played by the rules, running for office in 2016. Im not begrudging the fact they did in fact win control of all three lawmaking chambers of u. S. Democracy, the presidency, the house, and the senate. It was to be expected that republicans would repeal the Affordable Care act in 2017. But curiously, they could not. And the reason they could not is pretty simple. Democracy took hold. The people of this country didnt allow this congress to repeal the Affordable Care act. They rose up in Record Numbers. Thousands of people turned out to town halls all across the country. The phone lines were lit up. There were protests that spring and summer outside this building on a near daily basis. It was 100 clear that if republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care act and replaced it with nothing, or made our Health Care System worse, as speaker ryans plan would have done, that there was going to be hell to pay from the american electorate. Now, it turned out there was anyway because americans watched the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care act and were just slightly less infuriated than they would have been if repeal had actually gone forward, but repeal failed. On this floor late one night in the summer of 2017, the bill went down. And republicans at that point had figured it out. Having tried 31 times, 70 times, whatever your number is to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care act, republicans figured out that they werent going to be able to get it done through congress, the American People werent going to let them. And so they decided to try another way. Later that year, the republican tax bill passed the United States senate, the house of representatives, and was signed into law by the president of the United States. Inside that tax bill was a curious provision, a provision that eliminated the tax penalty for individuals who dont have insurance. That was a really important part of the Affordable Care act. Not a superpopular part of the Affordable Care act. Nobody likes putting a penalty on individuals who dont have insurance. But it was really critical to protecting people with preexisting conditions. I wont go into the details of it but i actually sat in the presiding officers chair during senator cruzs filibuster overnight on a late night like this one. I was probably presiding as a freshman member of the senate at about this hour, and in that filibuster i wouldnt recommend going back and looking at it on tape, but you could. You would listen to senator cruz explain that in fact the individual mandate and the tax penalty are critical to protecting people with preexisting conditions. Because if you dont require people to get insurance but you also require Insurance Companies to rate folks who are really sick the same as they rate healthy patients, the whole insurance system falls apart because if you arent required to get insurance but youre not penalized if you wait to get insurance until youre really sick, then thats exactly what youll do. You wont get insurance until you are really sick. You wont have to pay anymore once you have that expensive cancer diagnosis, fringes. For instance. And then without any Healthy People selling into the system, buying into the system, and with only sick people part of our insurance pools, the insurance system collapses. So republicans went into this 2017 tax build and they removed the tax bill and they removed the provision that would provide a financial penalty but it wasnt actually that curious. It wasnt that difficult to figure out why they were doing that. Republicans were doing that because a few years before the Supreme Court had ruled that the Affordable Care act was constitutional because of the existence of that tax penalty. It was an interesting decision, one that i disagree with, but Justice Roberts ruled for five of nine members that the Affordable Care act could stand as constitutional because of the existence of that tax provision. And so you didnt have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure out why republicans had inserted this provision into the tax bill, because they believed that they had a new route, a new pathway to invalidate the entirety of the Affordable Care act. Now, having failed to be able to get the elective branch of government to undo the Affordable Care act, they could essentially plant a constitutional land mine in the Affordable Care act and attempt to get it invalidated through the courts. Now again, met me tell you, i dont agree with the Supreme Court decision. I think it was in 2012, that suggested the Affordable Care act would be invalid if you removed this tax penalty. But that decision stands. The nfib decision. And republicans figured out that they could sabotage the Affordable Care act and run a case through the court system that would end up getting done what they have been trying to do for ten years. Take insurance from 23 Million People and the preexisting condition protection. And thats exactly what they did. Thats exactly what republicans did. 20 republican attorneys general joined by a whole host of conservative political organizations launched a court case claiming that because of the change made in the 2017 tax bill, the Affordable Care act was now all of a sudden unconstitutional, had to be struck down. The case went before the District Court and a republicanappointed judge ruled in favor of the republican attorneys general. The case then went to the Circuit Court, and in a 21 decision with a trumpappointed judge, they ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. And now that case sits before the Supreme Court. And it is to be heard by the Supreme Court in two weeks. In two weeks. And so now you might be starting to figure out why were here. Why are we rushing through Amy Coney Barretts nomination in record time . Youve never had a Supreme Court justice confirmed this close to the election. In my political lifetime, ive never seen a Supreme Court justice rushed through in this amount of time. We were weve been here all weekend. Its 3 30 in the morning. We took a vote on saturday. Its now becoming apparent why were rushing this through. Its probably partially because republicans are worried theyre going to lose their Senate Majority in this election and that the president is going to lose, and it will be much harder to push through a nominee in a lameduck session. It is probably because there are potentially cases to come before the Supreme Court regarding this election, and this president wants to make sure he has as many of his nominees stocked on the bench as possible if there are any questions regarding the legitimacy of the election. But i think the reason we are here you shall rushing through Amy Coney Barretts nomination in the dead of night, in record time, one week before an election, is because the Affordable Care act case is up before the Supreme Court in two weeks, and it is likely in fact, almost certain that without Amy Coney Barrett on the court, that case brought by donald trump and republicans across the country will not succeed. And that only by rushing through Amy Coney Barretts nomination two weeks before this case is to be heard by the Supreme Court can republicans finally get done what they have been trying to get done for ten years repeal the Affordable Care act and end insurance for 23 million americans. And strip away protections for everybody whos got a preexisting condition. Now, i know my republican friends get really angry when they hear us suggest that their goal is to end insurance for 23 million americans or to strip protections away for people with preexisting conditions. And they will stand up here and say, no, of course thats not what we want to do. Were going to protect people with preexisting conditions. Well find a way to ensure all insure all those people. And i truly do believe that my republican colleagues do in a Perfect World want people with preexisting conditions to be covered. The problem is, they have worked themselves into a trap that they cant get out of and that they know they cant get out of. They say they want to cover people with preexisting conditions, but they have never been able to put on the table a plan that would do that, and they have made this promise that they will repeal the Affordable Care act, and theyve put themselves on this path that they cant get off of to repeal the Affordable Care act through legislation or through the court system you, such that even though they say they want to protect people with preexisting conditions, they are acting in a way that does the opposite. And so you have to forgive us when we say that you want to strip protections for people with preexisting conditions because despite the fact that you say you dont want to do it, everything youre doing ends up in that result. And so at some point, we have to watch what you do, not what you say. Your president had the chance to go to court well, first of all, your president didnt have to go to court at all on behalf of the plaintiffs. In fact, 99 of the time a president will defend the statute that is being attacked, even if that president doesnt agree with the statute. That is generally seen as the responsibility of the executive branch, to defend the statutes of the United States, whether or not you agree with them. That doesnt happen with every case, but thats generally how it works. In this case, not surprisingly, the president went to court and said, i am going to join with the plaintiffs. Im going to ask for the court to invalidate the Affordable Care act. But President Trump could have asked for only part of the act to be invalidated. He could have asked for the part of the act that protects people with preexisting conditions to remain, but he didnt. And frankly, republicans in this chamber didnt pressure him to do so. Republicans here could have begged the president privately or publicly to go to the court and ask for the portions of the act that protect people with preexisting conditions to remain. But the president didnt do that. He sent his lawyers to court. His lawyers will be in court in two weeks arguing that the entire Affordable Care act be struck down, the whole thing. And so let me say it again. Dont blame us for watching what you do rather than what you say. Republicans say they want to protect people with preexisting conditions. But then everything they do and everything this president does seeks to destroy those protections. Thats why were here. Were here because republicans have got themselves on this train that they cannot stop. This effort thats been under way for a decade to strip away the Affordable Care acts protections. Two weeks from now the republicans will get a little bit closer to what theyve been asking for for ten years when this case comes before the Supreme Court. And Amy Coney Barrett sits on it as the deciding fifth vote to invalidate the Affordable Care act. And why this matters more now and why i led my remarks referencing the covid epidemic is because its unthinkable in ordinary times for 23 Million People to lose Health Insurance or for folks that have a history of Heart Disease to all of a sudden not be able to buy insurance. In my state, thats about 260,000 people who get their insurance through the Affordable Care act who would lose it. Were a small state, about 3. 5 million. A quarter Million People losing Health Insurance in our state. Thats a humanitarian catastrophe at any time. But in the middle of a pandemic, that is a nightmarish, cataclysmic, dystopian future to wish for. In the middle of a pandemic to take health Health Insurance awm 23 Million People . To go back to the days in which Insurance Companies could discriminate against you because you had a preexisting condition . Covid is going to be a preexisting condition, let me just level with you. What is it . Theres 8 Million People in this country who know theyve had covid but eventually if people start taking antibody tests there will be five times that many who have a medical history that includes covid. All those people will have a preexisting condition, and Insurance Companies, if the Affordable Care act disappears, can either decide not to insure those individuals or can jack up their rates. Thats on top of the other people who have preexisting conditions. And so think about both of those things happening. Think about in the middle of a pandemic when there are over 1,000 people dying every day in this country, where were seeing reports of hospitals literally being filled to total capacity in parts of our country for over 20 million americans to all of a sudden not have the ability to pay for health care. Were in the middle of a pandemic, but were also in the middle of a giant depression, right . I mean, 10 of america is out of work. Guess how those individuals get Health Insurance when theyre out of work . Through the Affordable Care act. People that lose their job, many of them get insurance through the affordab