foster families that can provide a foster home for the children who are in need of foster care, so, the city has this, you know, city of philadelphia faces a lot of challenges and so there are a number of children in the city that are in need of foster care placement. and so, what these organizations do is, they provide a, you know, they go through whatever screening, they go through and do home visits and they come up with essentially, you know, lists of availability foster care families. and there are dozens of groups that participate in this and you know, some of them are religious, some are nonreligious. one of the religious groups that has participated-- ments we're going to have to live this live supreme court forum here. you can continue watching this on our website c-span.org. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in, part of c-span's

commitment to bring you live gavel to gavel coverage of congress. working on executive nominations with votes this morning at 11:30 eastern. live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. dr. bll open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we continue to trust the powe of your prevailing providence. in times of trouble, you keep us safe from harm. you strengthen us when all seems lost, enabling us to reach your desired destination without stumbling or slipping.

lord, your plans are fulfilled, in spite of our enemies. surround our senators with the shield of your divine favor. inspire them to rejoice in your might because of your victorious guidance. keep them from the paths of disgrace. look with favor, o lord, upon us all. and may our service ever be acceptable to you. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: one minute for morning business, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: those on the other side of the aisle who openly say they will end the filibuster if they get the majority should have to explain why they

continue to vote to filibuster important issues like police reform and covid relief. do they somehow believe the filibuster is wrong in principle or do they admit that they think there should be two sets of rules depending on which political party has the majority of the united states senate? if you think at a minimum that the filibuster should be used sparingly and judiciously, how do you justify voting to block, even moving, even discussing let's say for instance to senator scott's police reform bill when you've been promised amendments by the majority leader and when you can always filibuster final passage if you still aren't satisfied after the bill's been discussed for a long

period of time and a lot of amendments have been adopted. it's clear their position on filibuster is pure partisanship at its worst. if there's any way you're going to promote bipartisanship that the people are demanding, it's only this institution of the united states senate when it requires 60 votes to get to finality on a bill where you have pressure to do things in a bipartisan way or nothing gets done. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i explained yesterday how moving ahead with a vote on the forthcoming supreme court nomination will be consistent with both history and precedent. when an election-year nomination to fill an election-year vacancy occurs in divided government with the senate and a president

of different parties, the historical norm is that such nominations are not confirmed. but the times this has happened after the american people have elected a senate majority to work alongside a same-party president, every such nominee has been confirmed save one bizarre exception of a nominee who had corrupt financial dealings. so let me say that again. except for justice abe fortas and his ethical scandals, every single nomination in american history made under our present circumstances has ended in a confirmation seven out of eight. now that's the thing about facts and history, madam president. angry rhetoric does not change them. partisan finger pointing does

not alter them. facts simply exist. they're there for everyone to see. history and precedent were on this senate majority side in 2016 and they are overwhelmingly on our side now. if we go on to confirm this nomination after a careful process, then both in 2016 and in 2020 this senate will simply have provided the typical, normal outcome in each scenario. think about that fact and then weigh it against the outcry and hysteria that has already erupted on the far left. yesterday the democratic leader announced on the floor that if the senate holds a vote on the forthcoming nomination, it would, quote, spell the end of this supposedly great

deliberative body. spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body? that's what he said. it would be the death of the senate if a duly elected majority of the united states senate exercises its advice and consent power as it sees fit? that's what th senators do. it's our job description. presidents make nominations as they see fit and senate majorities either provide or withhold advice and consent as we see fit. but now our democratic colleagues tell us that the senate doing normal senatorial things would spell the end of this institution, whatever that may mean. now, the democratic leader is not alone in these

pronouncements. chairman jerry nadler of the house judicial committee has already announced that if the senate majority dares act like a senate majority, future democrats should immediately move to expand the supreme court. from another colleague, if they hold a vote in 2020, we'll pack the court in 2021. it's that simple. speaker pelosi intimidated on television last weekend she may consider launching a new frivolous impeachment simply to tie up the senate's time. she said, we have our options. the junior senator from massachusetts said democrats must abolish the filibuster and expand the supreme court. the junior senator for hawaii says all of these matters will be on the agenda. the senior senator for connecticut says nothing is off the table. and just yesterday former vice

president biden himself refused to rule out that he might seek to pack the supreme court. bear in mind none of them assert this majority would be breaking any senate rule by holding this vote. it's just that our democratic friends worry they might not like the outcome. for some reason they cannot bear to see republicans governing within the rules as republicans doing exactly what americans elected us to do. so they threaten to wreck the makeup of the senate if they lose a vote and to wreck the structure of the court if somebody is confirmed whom they oppose. it's been interesting to watch our colleagues try to recast their disturbing threats as somehow tied to this supreme court vacancy. no one should fall for this

trick. democrats have already been threatening these actions for months. this isn't anything new. our colleagues now say that nothing would be off the table if a new justice were to be confirmed. they want badly for people to believe these are new threats that democrats would take off the table -- would take off the table if republicans would just help them sink president trump's nominee. let me say that again. they want badly for people to believe these new threats that democrats would take off the table if republicans would just help them sink president trump's nominee. well let me read another quotation. this is the junior senator for california speaking. our distinguished colleague is now running for vice president. quote, we are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the

supreme court. we have to take this challenge head-on and everything is on the table to do that. end quote. sound familiar? of course it does. madam president, our colleague made that remark in march of 2019, in march of 2019. these threats are not new. they have nothing to do with this new vacancy. democrats have already been playing this game for more than a year and a half. it was more than a year ago that several senate democrats threatened the supreme court in a written brief. they said, quote, the court is now -- the court is not well. the court is not well and perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured.

it was more than a year ago that democrats competing for their party's presidential nomination made court packing a central element in their platforms. it was more than six months ago that the democratic leader appeared outside the court across the street outside the court and threatened specific justices if they did not rule his way. for goodness sakes, the junior senator from maryland came right out and admitted this yesterday. someone asked him whether he would support these acts of institutional vandalism if a nominee is confirmed this year. and he helpfully pointed out, quote, i've always said i'm open even before this seat opened those possibilities were on the table before we got to this point thereby proving my point.

these threats are not new. they have nothing to do with this vacancy. our friend, the junior senator for delaware, said on television this sunday he wants to persuade republicans to forego filling this vacancy. but all the way back in june, long before five days ago, he himself notably refused it rule out breaking the senate's rules to kill the filibuster. there's no degree to which rewarding these threats would buy the nation any relief from this. there's nothing you could give them to stop all the threats. there's no deal that would stop these dangerous tactics. giving in to political blackmail would not do a thing to secure our institutions.

so, madam president, you do not put a stop to irresponsible hostage taking by making hostage taking a winning strategy. i'll tell you what really could threaten our system of government. it's not senate republicans doing legitimate things squarely within the senate rules and within the constitution that democrats happen to dislike. no. no. what could really threaten our system is if one of our two major parties continues to pretend the whole system is automatically illegitimate whenever they lose. if they continue to act like for their side of the aisle a legit pat de-- legitimate defeat is an oxymoron, that, that is the danger to our democracy. every one of these attacks on

our institutions only underscores how important they are. every threat to turn our courts into a political tug of war only reinforces while the senate -- why the senate is charged with protecting our independent judiciary and why this majority's work with president trump on this task is so crucial. the president plans to use the power the voters gave him to make a nomination. senators will use the power the voters gave us to either provide or withhold consent as we see fit. and the only ones responsible for those threats will be the people making them.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: madam president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now, tomorrow, the recently departed supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg will lie in repose at the supreme court. and on friday, ruth bader

ginsburg will lie in state here in the capitol, the first time in our nation's long history that a woman has ever received the honor. i can think of no more fitting tribute for a woman who made a life's work of going where women had never gone before. even with the benefit of a few days, the loss of justice ginsburg is devastating. you need only walk by the supreme court today where flowers, candles, notes and spontaneous demonstrations have clogged the sidewalks for four days straight will note the impact on this country. we will honor her this week, and by all rights, we should honor her dying wish imparted to her granddaughter that she, quote, not be replaced until the next president is installed. all the words and incomia for justice ginsburg from the other side ring hollow if they won't

honor her last dying wish. and yesterday, the republican side, so often, president trump seems to make it worse. president trump mocked justice ginsburg's dying wish by insinuating that his granddaughter was a liar. once again, confirming every terrible thing we know about our president. he said that justice ginsburg's statement was something that sounds like, quote, a schumer deal or maybe a pelosi or shifty schiff. that's the president of the united states of america baselessly suggesting that democrats fabricated the dying wish of the late justice ginsburg. it was a coarse, shameful, lying insult to the late justice ginsburg and to her family. if the president had a shred of human decency, even a little, he'd apologize, but we all know he won't. everyone here in the senate ought to be disgusted by the

president's comments. how low can this president go? he knows no depth. you would never know that. you would think that after the republican majority led a historic blockade just four years ago to keep open a vacancy on the supreme court because it was an election year, they would have the honor and decency to apply their own rule when the same scenario came around again. you'd expect this senate majority to follow their own rule. what's fair is fair. this is what leader mcconnell said in 2016. the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. this is the mcconnell rule, the mcconnell rule. this is the principle that leader mcconnell and

then-chairman grassley used to justify their refusal to even meet with president obama's supreme court nominee. here it is, the mcconnell rule. when it's a presidential season, you can't vote on a supreme court nominee because the american people should have a voice. now, leader mcconnell repeated that refrain for almost a year. so did almost every other republican in the chamber. quote, the american people shouldn't be denied a voice, unquote. quote, give the people a voice, unquote. quote, the senate should not confirm a new supreme court justice until we have a new president, unquote. quote, i don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of a president's term. i would say that if it was a republican president, unquote. quote, if an opening came in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process had started, the primary process had started, we'll wait until the next election, unquote. i don't even have to tell you who those quotes came from.

it was nearly every single republican in this chamber. that's how they justified the unprecedented blockade of president obama's supreme court nominee. no vote during a presidential year because we have to let the people decide. they promised to stay consistent if a republican president won in november. turns out a republican president did win that fall. and a supreme court vacancy did arise in the final year of his term. not just during the primary process but long after it was over with little more than a month, a month before the election, and now whoops, didn't mean it. it's different now. we're supposed to believe this specious, flimsy, and dishonest argument that it's about the orientation of the senate and the presidency or how angry republicans are at democrats and all the big, scary things we

might do in the future. maybe that will justify it. anything, anything not to admit the plain fact that they all made one argument for a year, an argument they insisted was a principle when it was good for them politically, and now they are doing the opposite thing. the mcconnell rule, the american people should have a voice in their selection of the next supreme court justice. turns out the mcconnell rule was nothing more than a mcconnell ruse. leader mcconnell sadly, sadly is headed down the path of breaking his word to the senate and the american people. he has exposed once and for all that a supposed principle of giving the people a voice in selecting the next justice was a farce. sadly again, sadly, leader

mcconnell has defiled the senate like no one in this generation. and leader mcconnell may very well destroy it. if leader mcconnell presses forward, the republican majority will have stolen two supreme court seats four years apart, using completely contradictory rash analysis. how can we expect to trust the other side again? for those of you on the other side who are still thinking about this and maybe some who might change their minds, just think of what this does to this body and people's word on one of our most solemn and sacred obligations, to choose a shuttlesworth justice fairly and honestly. it's obvious why the -- a sport justice fairly and honestly. it's obvious why the majority leader sounds so defensive in his remarks. i will note for the record the

leader did not once mention his principle in 2016, the american people should have a voice in selecting the next supreme court justice in any of his speeches because he can't mention it. just to give you a sense of how far down the rabbit hole my friend from kentucky has gone, yesterday -- listen to this. this is what he said -- leader mcconnell said that president obama asked the united states senate an unusual favor by fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate a supreme court justice with almost a year left in the term. an unusual favor. only, only the republican leader could look at our system of government so cynically. apparently, the senate's constitutional duty to advice and consent is an unusual favor when a democratic president is in office, but a categorical imperative when a republican is in office. that is actually his argument. i listened to the republican

leader yesterday. i listened to him this morning. gone are all the invocations of giving the american people a voice. it's nothing so supposedly high-minded this time. no. this time the republican leader isn't even hiding that his decision is nothing -- nothing but raw partisan politics. according to the republican leader, when the president and the senate majority are of the same party, you can break all the rules to get your justice. change the rules of the senate to pass supreme court justices on a majority vote, rush it through before an election. doesn't matter if you said the exact opposite thing four years ago, two years ago or even for some senators a few months ago. this is how our traditions of compromise on life support before now end. this is how, by one side in this

case the republican majority under leader mcconnell sighing that the -- deciding that the rules don't apply to them, even their own rules, that, when push comes to shove is brute political force all the way down. if my friends on the republican side what that kind of senate, they can follow leader mcconnell down the very dangerous path he has laid down. one final matter. according to the official tally at johns hopkins university, the united states will today will reach a milestone, 200,000 americans lost to covid-19 -- 200,000 americans. more than any other country on earth, far more than we should have, far more than we would have had there been a proper, coordinated and energetic response to the virus by the trump administration. in the face of this tragic

milestone, what does president trump do? does he mourn the astounding loss of lives? no he goes off on the campaign trail where yesterday he said the virus, quote, affects virtually nobody. affects virtually nobody. tell that to the family and friends of the 200,000 who are in mourning. seriously, the day before the united states hits 200,000 deaths from covid-19, the president said the virus affects virtually nobody. he also said if you take the blue states out, we're at a very low level. he also said it is what it is. this is our president? my goodness. you can't to know why we have the worst pandemic response of any developed nation on earth? you want to know why one out of nearly five covid deaths comes from america? it's because president trump lied to the american people from

day one about the gravity of this disease and he is still doing it now in a desperate an vial effort to boost his political fortunes. here in the senate republicans will do anything -- anything to back him, no matter what he says or does, as long as he nominates their judges. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on nomination, the judiciary, edward hulvey meyers, of maryland, to be judge of the united states court of federal claims.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: we learned that ruth bader ginsburg died on saturday from pancreatic cancer. she had to fight for opportunities that were available to men as a matter of course. her work as a lawyer eventually came to focus around women's rights or as ruth bader ginsburg put it, and i quote, the constitutional principle of the equal citizenship stature of men and women. she argued six gender discrimination cases before the supreme court and as a justice she continued to advance this cause. she served a distinction on the supreme court for more than 25 years and engaged in some of the court's most memorable exchanges over that period. she was known for her work ethic and tenacity as well as kindness and good hiewrm and for -- humor

and her love of opera and her love of her husband marty. she disagreed often with her good friend just scalia but never allowed that to affect their enduring respect. her work to secure equal treatment for women has earned a place in american history and her courage and perseverance in overcoming significant obstacles will continue to inspire many. my thoughts and prayers are with justice ginsburg's family. madam president, in the wake of a supreme court justice's death, the senate has to turn its thoughts to considering the next supreme court nominee. the president has indicated that he expects to nominate justice ginsburg's successor as soon as this week. he's also made it clear that he intends to nominate a women. -- a woman.

whoever he nominates, i'm sure she will be a nominee with a profound respect for the law and the constitution. someone who understands that the job of the supreme court justice or any judge is to enterpt the law -- interpret the law, not make the law. to call balls and strikes, not rewrite the rules of the game. now, madam president, predictably democrats are in an uproar over the fact that president trump will nominate a third supreme court justice. they want republicans to refuse to consider the president's nomination before the president is even -- has even named anyone. they claim that the fact that a republican-led senate did not consider the nomination of merrick garland during president obama ale's final year. madam president, it's perfectly true that the senate did not vote on president obama's final

supreme court nominee. that's something that the senate can choose to do. any senate led by either party can decline to take up a nominee. that's the senate's constitutional prerogative. at the time we felt that since voters had recently chosen a republican-led senate while a democratic president was on his way out of office, the next senate should choose the supreme court nominee. we knew at the time that could very well be hillary clinton. but that was holy in line with the -- wholly in line with the history of the senate and with the rule promulgated by senator biden and endorsed by the current democratic leader in 2007. as a wall wall street op-ed expd this was made by senator biden.

he urged president bush to refrain from making any supreme court nominations in that year. what made 1992 different was that a divided government reflected an absence of a nationwide consensus on constitutional philosophy. action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over, the future vice president insisted. no vacancy arose until 1993 when bill clinton was in the white house. but the biden rule fit 2016 to a tee. end quote. for the past 130-plus years, no senate has approved a supreme court nominee in the final year of a president's term if the senate majority and the

president were of different parties. on the other hand, a number of supreme court nominees have been confirmed during a president's final year in office when the senate was led by the same party as the president. there have been 15 situations in u.s. history where a supreme court vacancy arose in a presidential election year and the president nominated someone that same year. in eight of those cases the president and the senate majority were of the same party. and in all but one of those eight cases, the president's nominee was confirmed. democrats are free to disagree with republicans' application of the biden-schumer rule in 2016, but no one can dispute that voting on or rejecting a nominee is the constitutional prerogative of the united states senate. madam president, there should be nothing disturbing about the senate fulfilling its

constitutional rule of advising and consenting on a supreme court nomination. what is disturbing are democrats' threats as to what they will do if republicans in the senate don't yield to their demands. those threats include but are not limited to eliminating the legislative filibuster, which, madam president, is the rule that we all know here in the senate that helps ensure that bills come before the senate require bipartisan cooperation. they threaten to pack the supreme court with additional justices so that they can ensure a rubber-stamp p for their -- rubber-stamp p for their agenda. some are even suggesting impeaching the president again. what they would impeach him for is not exactly clear, fulfilling his constitutional responsibility to name someone to the supreme court. some democrats have gone so far as to say nothing is off the

table when it comes to retribution for considering the president's nominee. a particularly insidious and irresponsible threat at the time when political violence is at a high in this country. madam president, one thing i can say is republicans won't be deterred from performing -- be deterred from performing our constitutional role by democrats threats. for many of us confirming principled judges who will uphold the constitution and the rule of law has been a core tenant of our public service and a share goal of those who elected us. we will work to fill the supreme court vacancy and i look forward to receiving and reviewing the president's nomination in the near future. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the

democratic whip. mr. durbin: madam president, i listened to the statements made by the republican leadership this morning on the floor of the united states senate. if one has a sense of history and a memory, their statements are preposterous. the last speaker came before us and said the democrats are even threatening to end the filibuster in retribution. well, let's stop and think for a moment. was there a filibuster affecting supreme court nominees? was there a requirement of 60-vote margins if there's controversy associated with filling a vacancy on the supreme court? there was until one senator from kentucky, senator mitch mcconnell, eliminated the filibuster when it came to the supreme court. so this so-called democratic institution of the filibuster was eliminated when it came to supreme court nominees by that

same senator mcconnell who comes to the floor and says the democrats have reached an outrageous decision to eliminate the filibuster. he eliminated when there were changes made on other court appointments, senator reid was careful not to include the supreme court, but senator mcconnell did. senator mcconnell has brought us to this moment. think how different it would be -- how different it would be today if the nominee of this president was subject to a filibuster, if it took 60 votes, it means the person nominated would have to be moderate in their approach. we don't expect that from this president in filling the vacancy of ruth bader ginsburg. i also read and reread one simple fact when it comes to ruth bader ginsburg in 1993. she cleared the senate chamber

at a time when the filibuster rule did apply with a vote of 96-3. 96-3. understand that ruth bader ginsburg was a well-known person when she came before this body for approval to the supreme court. she had been an outspoken advocate for women's rights and equality as an attorney and advocate for groups like the american civil liberties union. she had served on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. as well known as she was for her political beliefs, she cleared this senate chamber with only three dissenting votes, senator jesse helms, senator bob nichols, and senator bob smith, three republicans. what a different time it was that even though her stripes were clear, she was so well respected as a jurist and a person of integrity that she was approved by the senate chamber.

how far we have fallen. we are now in a position now at it this moment when senator mcconnell, four years ago, established a standard, the vacancy of scalia's see on the supreme court led president obama to nominate merrick garland, a well respected judge from the d.c. circuit. i remember seeing him in a meeting with him after he had been proposed by president obama. and it was a sad duty to watch him as he walked the halls of the senate because, you see, senator mcconnell announced that he didn't want any republican senators to physically meet with merrick garland, not to give him the recognition of even a meeting in their office let alone a hearing. the argument that senator mcconnell made and senator schumer said this morning was that it wasn't president obama's

place to fill that vacancy. it was the place of the next president of the united states. senator mcconnell basically declared president obama was a lame duck when it came to supreme court vacancies in his last year in office. and that the next president, whoever that might be, would make the choice. well, one after another the republican senators marched in line behind that mcconnell position announcing that they, too, agreed that president obama was a lame duck when it came to filling supreme court vacancies in his last year in office. they didn't cite the constitution because there's no provision in the constitution that even comes close to that suggestion. there certainly wasn't any law and there wasn't any precedent. i hear the republicans come to the floor mentioning joe biden's name, chuck schumer's name and who knows who will be next on their list, but the fact is

senate makes the decisions based on the majority. at that point senator mcconnell had the majority and he lined up his membership behind him. unfortunately, they're lining up again. but this time senator mcconnell's position is the exact opposite. this time he's arguing because there's a republican president he should fill this vacancy instantly, get it done. let's go. and his republican senators who took the opposite position four years ago are finding some rationalization to follow him again. what's at stake in this, of course, is not just the senate, the comity of the senate, the respect we have for one another, the respect we have for traditions one way or the other that they be followed regardless of the president's party. what's at stake, unfortunately, is also the supreme court. this institution, this third branch of government, is part of

a strategy that senator mcconnell has been pushing forward for years now. it is the intent of the republicans in the senate through senator mcconnell to take control of the third branch of government, the judicial branch. they are desperate to do it. time is not on their side. the demographics of america cannot be held back simply by voter suppression. they have to count on jurists from every level of the federal judiciary to adhere to their minority point of view on so many important issues. and ironically one of those issues is the role of women, the equality of women in america. ruth bader ginsburg argued for that her whole life. she was smart enough to know that she was taking her arguments to a lot of male judges so she argued for equality for men as well as women during the course of her career on and off the bench.

she was principled, determined, and successful. as an attorney she argued and won multiple cases in the supreme court in the 1970's eventually persuading the all-male court to apply the 14th amendment's equal protection clause to sex-based discrimination. sadly, we can predict with almost a hundred percent cer thf donald trump and mitch mcconnell choose her successor, that may be under fire. in fact, it may not survive. for all the kind speeches about this principled woman and would she gave to america and they are well deserved by ruth bader ginsburg, watch the nominee that comes from the trump white house and you'll find, i'm afraid, they're not even close to the standard that she argued for and

succeeded. we are six weeks today from election day. seven weeks from the supreme court taking up another case, one which i think is relevant and important to every single american. the question the court will decide is whether the affordable care act, obamacare, will survive. president trump and majority leader mcconnell want to rush this supreme court nominee through the senate before these two dates arrive. do you recall not that many years ago when the republicans controlled the house of representatives and voted, i believe, 50 different times to eliminate the affordable care act? were it not for a democratic senate, they might have achieved their goal. and each and every time they were asked what would you replace it with, what would you say to the 20 million americans who depend on the affordable care act for their source of health insurance, and what would you say to the rest of america that depends on the affordable care act for fundamental protections and health

insurance, protections such as no discrimination based on preexisting conditions? the americans understand that. virtually every family has a story to tell, of someone in their own family with an illness that could be considered a preexisting condition. the insurance industry even went so far at one point as to say being a woman was a preexisting condition. and based on that, the health insurance industry would either charge higher premiums or refuse coverage. we got rid of those days. we ended that with the affordable care act. we ended it before obamacare. and now the republicans again want the insurance industry to have that power over your life. six million americans as of this this morning have been reported as diagnosed with covid-19. trust me, the insurance industry would make that a preexisting condition for them and for any others in the future who should turn up positive on these covid-19 tests.

and so what the republicans are seeking to do in the supreme court is what they failed to do on the floor of the senate. they tried on the senate floor many times and the last time is well remembered to end the affordable care act. and those of us who were here that night watched as a handful, perhaps three republican senators said no. and we all remember that moment after he'd been on the phone with president trump when john mccain, the late senator from arizona, came through those doors at 2:30 in the morning and cast his no vote in the well of the senate chamber. i was there just a few feet away and watched every second of it. it was gripping. it was exciting. for many people it was giving them another chance to protect themselves with health insurance, something which the other republicans were determined to eliminate. john mccain said then and we

say now, if you have a better idea on the republican side, president trump, if you have a better idea than the affordable care act, let's see it. how many times has this president made an empty promise that we have a substitute. i'll give it to you in a week, two week, three weeks. they don't have one. recently in a hearing before the appropriations subcommittee, i asked three leading health experts and doctors in the trump administration if any of them had worked on the so-called republican substitute. not a one. it doesn't exist. it is just an empty answer and an imperfect answer at best from this administration. i remember on february 13, 2016, when justice scalia had just passed away in a presidential election year, when senator mcconnell said to the surprise of many of us the following.

the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. therefore, this vacancy, the scalia vacancy, should not be filled until we have a new president. he stated the mcconnell rule, feck of 2016, an election year. here it is. the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. pretty clear, isn't it? well, the republican senators all lined up behind him in this new statement of principle and denied merrick garland not only a hearing but even the courtesy of an office appointment for most of them. the mcconnell rule is clear and unambiguous. in 2016 republicans dutifully fell in line behind it. they said the american people should have the last word. in an election year, a supreme

court vacancy should be filled in the next presidential term. senator mcconnell claims that his rule really had an asterisk at the end. i don't see one. he said it depends really on which party control the senate. well, that is certainly a distinction without a difference. why should the composition of the senate dictate whether or not the american people, quote, should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice? either the american people have a voice regarding the future of the court when there's a vacancy in an election year or they don't. four years ago senator mcconnell said they do. now he says they don't. it's a flip-flop. and oh the painful contos i see -- contortions i see among most republican senators trying to rationalize, posing for holy pictures four years ago saying the american people should have

the last word. then four years later completely reversing themselves. but they do. this is not just some washington debate. the stakes in this debate are important for every american. it isn't about who gets the last word on msnbc or fox. it's about who gets the last word when you learn that someone in your family has a devastating illness and you're praying to god you have a health insurance plan that will cover it. president trump has made clear he wants to strike down the entire affordable care act, even without a substitute. that's the position that the trump administration took before the supreme court in a case that will be argued just days after this november 3 election. president trump has also made it clear that when he picks a new supreme court justice, he wants him to agree with him when it comes to eliminating the affordable care act. so i would say to people across america, be prepared. if mitch mcconnell gets his

way, if donald trump gets his way, if they install a new supreme court justice who's taken this oath, this political oath to follow the trump plan, all of america will be at risk because the protections of the affordable care act will be eliminated by that supreme court. in 2015 donald trump tweeted, as he often does, and i quote, if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obamacare. we certainly know what that means. because at least on one occasion john roberts has kept obamacare alive. let's be clear. the affordable care act is hanging in the balance in just a few days. the health care coverage and protections for preexisting conditions that millions of american families rely on are at risk.

republicans were never able to repeal the affordable care act in the house or on the floor of the senate. thank you, john mccain. so they want to do it in the court. they're trying to accomplish on the supreme court what they cannot accomplish in congress. if president trump and senator mcconnell go through with their plan to jam through a supreme court nominee this year, the affordable care act is doomed. and did you hear last night when the chairman of the senate judiciary committee announced -- and i saw it this morning on television -- he announced every single republican senator on the senate judiciary committee is going to vote for the trump nominee for the supreme court. we don't have a nominee yet, do we? the president said he won't announce one until saturday of this week. and here is this announcement by the republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee. he's counted the votes. it's a done deal. what does it tell you?

it tells you it doesn't make any difference who the president nominates. the silence of the lambs in the united states senate. if president trump and senator mcconnell go through with this plan, america will feel it and every family will know it. that is why my republican colleagues refuse to give the american people the last word on november 3. they are so uncertain of the reelection of donald trump they have to do this now, quickly. they're afraid he won't be renominated, that he won't be reelected, and that he won't be in a position to fill this vacancy next year. and so they're breaking their own promise to the american people to respect their judgment in the selection of a supreme court nominee. we know what's at stake as well in terms of this nation. 200,000 americans, that number is likely to be confirmed in

just a matter of hours if not days, 200,000 americans have died of covid-19. you say to yourself it's a global pandemic, people are dying everywhere. it's true. but the rate of death in america sadly leads the world. it is not an indication of american greatness that the infection rate from covid-19 in the united states of america is five times what it is in germany it is not an indication of american greatness. when the infection rate in the united states is twice what it is in canada. it is not a reflection of the greatness of america that with 4.5% of the global population, we have 20% of the people who died from this pandemic. this president and this administration have utterly failed when it comes to this public health crisis, one of the

most challenging in a century. for the six million people who have been infected with this covid virus in america, we pray that they will recover fully, but we know in many cases they will not. we know that without protection in the affordable care act, many insurers will refuse to issue policies to these people in the future if the republicans have their way and eliminate the affordable care act. amy from huntley, illinois, recently wrote me and said please save the a.c.a., affordable care act. without it, caps will come back, and with them, my children's mental health coverage will essentially disappear. she goes on to write i have three children, each with varying mental health disabilities. before the affordable care act, our blue cross/blue shield plan had a maximum family lifetime cap of 100 mental health care visits. lifetime cap, 100 visits.

that's it, she says. when the a.c.a. was passed, it was like a tremendous weight had been taken off of our family. young adults, incidentally, up to the age of 26 are protected by family health insurance under the affordable care act. if the trump administration, mitch mcconnell, and the new supreme court nominee have their way, that will end. insurance plans would no longer have to cover prescription drugs, maternity care, mental health or addiction treatment. facing, still facing the opioid crisis, eliminating the affordable care act would eliminate the guarantee that your son, your daughter, someone in your family who is facing the addiction of this terrible drug would have coverage when it comes to addiction treatment. misty from gurney, illinois, wrote me and said in a time when my husband is unemployed and i have been guaranteed, losing my lwcf now would be absolutely

devastating for my family. she says my husband and i are both on daily prescription meds and we have two daughters who desperately need health care coverage as well. i am asking you to protect the affordable care act. misty, i'm going to protect the affordable care act by opposing the supreme court nominee of president trump because he's promised us that that nominee will eliminate the affordable care act. i could not in good conscience support such a nominee. medicare would face insolvency sooner, at least one year sooner, and seniors would be charged more for prescription drugs when the affordable care act goes away as the republicans are seeking to achieve in court and now on the floor of the senate. hospitals in illinois, especially downstate and inner city hospitals, would see significant revenue losses from the elimination of medicaid expansion. madam president, this is the real world, and the people who are writing my office are doing so of their own volition, to let

me know what they face. this isn't just a matter of big shots in washington fighting with one another to see who can get more camera time. it isn't a question of who is going to appear more on the cable tv shows. it's a question of whether or not we care about the families we represent. most families, my own included, have been through this. i know the sleepless nights when you worry as to whether or not you have the health insurance. i know what it means to be the father of a new baby with serious medical conditions and have no health insurance at all. i faced it, and i will never forget it. i will never forget the families who sent me to washington to remember them as well. this is about more than who gets bragging rights politically at the end of the day. it is about the right of every american family to have peace of mind, of quality, affordable, accessible health insurance coverage. madam president, i yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the meyers nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will ciewl the -- the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote junior vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 66, the nays are 27. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of and rea r. lucas of virginia to be a member of the equal employment opportunity commission, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the nomination of and drug free -- of andrear. lucas of virginia to be a member of the equal employment opportunity commission shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 49, the nays are 44, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, equal employment opportunity commission, andrea r. lucas, of virginia, to be a member. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate follow live senate coverage here on c-span2. >> you are watching c-span2, your