who commit crimes as shown in the amendment, the spoken issues of equality. it needs reform. >> when you are given the opportunity and skills to become informed voters and engaged citizens, democracy must be learned. >> from inequity for legal documents to at the most to us pathway to citizenship, children who are born here whose parents legally migrated here -- >> we award 100,$000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of 500,$000, the deadline is january 20th, 2021. competition rules and more information on how to get started go to our website, studentcam.org. >> the u.s. senate getting ready to gavilan to start the day.

lawmakers will be working on a bill to temporarily extend government funding through december 11th. current funding runs out tonight at midnight eastern. we accept the final passage later today. senators also starting to consider donald trump's supreme court nominee, amy barrett. we expect lots of debate on the nomination as well. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. almighty god, we praise you with our whole hearts. we refuse to forget how you have led our nation in the past and trust you to guard our future. lord, encourage our lawmakers to be a part of your solutions and not a part of the problems that confront our land.

give them the courage to carry on, knowing that nothing is too difficult for your sovereign might. may the light of your truth illumine their way, as they find in you a sure guide. help them to commit their lives to goals that will cause justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. we pray in your sacred 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: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask for one minute in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last night,

former vice president biden said that president trump, quote, hasn't lowered drug prices for anybody, end of quote. this is false, and i hope that the news media will call out mr. biden for the lie. among several other actions that president trump launched -- an initiative to lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin for seniors through the part d medicare program. also, president trump recently signed an executive order that will launch several programs to lower drug costs and help seniors afford their medicines. more disingenuous than this claim from mr. biden is that it

was actually the vice president's former democratic colleagues here in the senate who walked away from a negotiating table and killed any hope of passing legislation to lower prescription drug costs before the election. this was an effort by minority leader schumer and his democratic colleagues to hurt president trump and senate republicans, and mr. biden seems content to capitalize on his own party's obstructions. now, i've come to expect election-year partisan politics such as i've just described, but during a pandemic that's left hundreds of thousands dead and millions unemployed, it's particularly egregious that democrats have decided it's more important to hurt republicans

than help americans. i'm sorry to say, this is the truth of the matter. it would be up to democrats to make it right. i'm not holding my breath, but i do hope voters hold accountable a party that failed in its basic duties to put people ahead of politics. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader of the senate. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: this week, the senators who are sitting down with judge amy coney barrett are meeting an incredibly impressive jurist and highly qualified nominee. they are hearing from the professor whom former colleagues call, quote, mind-blowingly

intelligent, one of the most humble people you're going to meet, and the complete package. they are meeting a law school valedictorian, an award-winning academic whom peers praise for her lucid, elegant prose, piercing legal analysis, and absolute dedication to the rule of law. and senators are meeting the distinguished circuit judge whom the liberal law professor noah feldman says is a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who is highly qualified to serve on the supreme court. some of our democratic colleagues have decided they will refuse to meet with judge barrett. several have volunteered that their votes will have nothing to do with her qualifications, as though that were something to be proud of. the democratic leader says, quote, it's not her qualifications. the junior senator from delaware says this isn't about her

qualifications. certainly, every senator may define, advise, and consent how they wish, but i think it's telling to see senate democrats openly affirming that judge barrett's actual and judicial qualifications do not matter to them. our friends on the left really do mistake the court as an unelected superlegislature. they are not interested in judge barrett's legal qualifications because they think judges are there to dictate policy outcomes rather than following the facts and infection wherever they lead. that's why we've gotten the same scare tactics for almost half a century. john paul stevens was going to end women's rights. david souter was going to send vulnerable people into the dark ages. john roberts was going to declare war on health insurance. and now our democrat colleagues want americans to believe that judge barrett is a one-woman

crusade -- is on a one-woman crusade to hurt americans with preexisting conditions. one senator has literally claimed the nominee would, quote, -- listen to this -- create a humanitarian catastrophe. the same old scare tactics. totally predictable, and totally dishonest. these baseless attacks over health care are supposedly founded on a technical argument in a 4-year-old scholarly article. then-professor barrett analyzed the supreme court's ruling on one piece, one piece of obamacare. the unfair, unpopular, individual mandate penalty which we have since zeroed out. the constitutional arguments over whether that terrible idea was a penalty or a tax are now moot. because whatever you want to call it, republicans in congress zeroed it out three years ago.

working americans are no longer penalized by that democrat policy. americans with preexisting conditions are still protected, and that specific legal question is moot. our democratic colleagues are grasping at straws. now they want judge barrett to promise to recuse herself from whole categories of cases. of course that is ridiculous. it's hard to think of anyone in the country over whom a president has less leverage, less leverage than a judge with a lifetime appointment. nobody suggested justice sotomayor or justice kagan needed to categorically sit on the sidelines until president obama had left office. this is just a backdoor attempt to impugn judge barrett's integrity. if senators believe this nominee is committed to impartial justice in every case, if they

believe she will mean her oath when she takes it, they should vote to confirm her. if they don't, they should vote no. but only one of these arguments has any basis in judge barrett's resume, her reputation, and the praise that has been showered on her, but jurisprudence, even by famous liberal lawyers. judge barrett has already stated in writing to the senate that she has given nobody at the white house any hints or any assurances about any kinds of cases, real or hypothetical. it is only senate democrats who are trying to extract promises and pre-commitments. it is only democrats who are trying to undermine judicial independence. last night on national television, former vice president biden refused to rule out, refused to rule out the

radical notion of packing the court, packing the supreme court. he ducked the question. in washington, when you duck the question, you know what the answer is. that's exactly what they are up to. that's exactly what they intend to do. last year, our colleague, senator harris, said explicitly that she was open to it. another way of saying that's what they intend to do. numerous of our colleagues have refused to rule out this radical institution's shattering step, and now senate democrats are trying to make judge barrett precommit, precommit to handle hypothetical issues the way they want. more disrespect for judicial independence. judge barrett understands the judge's only loyalties must be to our laws and our constitution. she understands our system would collapse if judges do not leave politics aside. if the democratic party feels

differently, if democrats have decided that judicial independence is simply an inconvenience to their radical agenda, it just shows how little weight we should afford their criticisms of this outstanding nominee. now, on a related matter, if senate democrats were half as concerned as they say about american families' health care, they would not have filibustered a multihundred billion-dollar proposal for more coronavirus relief just a few weeks ago. a senate minority that was focused on america's help would have led us find more tests, treatments, and vaccine developments like republicans tried to do just a few weeks ago. a senate minority that was prioritizing wellness would have let us spend more than $100 billion to make schools safe for students like republicans tried to do just a few weeks ago. a senate minority that sought to protect citizens with preexisting conditions would

have let us reaffirm legal protections for those americans like republicans had in our bill just a few weeks ago. a senate minority that was serious about economic recovery would have let us fund a second round of paycheck protection program and continue the expanded unemployment checks like republicans tried to do just a few weeks ago. the senate voted on all of this three weeks ago. three weeks ago, every single senator cast a vote on preexisting conditions, money for testing, money for vaccines, money for safe schools, money for small businesses, and money for unemployed workers, just three weeks ago. 52 republicans voted to pass all these policies. and every single democrat who showed up voted to filibuster is dead. the democratic leader and the speaker of the house were determined that american families should not see another

dime before the election. this week, speaker pelosi is finally caving to months of pressure from her fellow democrats who argue that her stonewalling is hurting our country. house democrats are trying to save face by introducing yet another multitrillion-dollar far-left wish list with virtually all the same non-covid-related poison pills as their last unserious bill. speaker pelosi's latest offering still does not include a single cent of new money for the paycheck protection program to help small businesses that are going under. it does nothing to help schools, universities, doctors, nurses, or employers avoid frivolous lawsuits. but the house did find, did find room to provide special treatment to the marijuana industry. their bill mentions the word cannabis more times than the words job or jobs. they still want to send

taxpayer-funded stimulus checks to people in our country illegally. they still want to hand a massively expensive tax cut to millionaires and billionaires in places like new york city and san francisco. a pet priority of the speaker and the democratic leader that would do nothing to help working families through this pandemic. all of these far-left pumpkins pumpkins -- poison pills are still in their recycled bill. they have no intention of making bipartisan law for american families, but there are few changes from the last bill. so get this, mr. president. now that supporting law enforcement has become less than fashionable on the for left -- listen to this -- democrats have actually taken out, taken out hundreds of millions of dollars for hiring and assisting police officers. let me say that again. in this latest version, there

were at least some changes. now that supporting law enforcement has become less than fashionable on the far left, democrats have actually taken out hundreds of millions of dollars for hiring and assisting police officers. their so-called sequel to the heroes act has decided that cops are not heroes after all. partially cops are not heroes after all. house democrats couldn't miss a chance to defund the police. the latest bill from the speaker is no more serious than any of their political stunts going back months. if they continue to refuse to get serious, then american families will continue to hurt. less nan month ago -- less than

a month agency, every single senator voted on providing hundreds of billions of dollars for families and kids and for preexisting conditions. 52 republicans voted to advance all of these things but every single democrat who showed up voted to block them. the american people are still hurting. layoffs are still mounting. families still need more help. and the health care fight needs more resources. one side voted to supply all that help. the other side decided to block it. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: now, mr. president, last night president trump delivered one of the most disgraceful performances at a presidential debate that anyone has ever seen. and i don't mean that from a political perspective. i mean it from a human perspective. one can become inured to the president's tendency meltdown when confronted with his facts. his brazen lack of self-awareness, his stunning lack of regard for others. but it was maddening to watch the president last night angry and small, unable to show a scintilla of respect, unable to follow even the most basic rules of human civility or decorum, unwilling to constrain a stream of obvious falsehoods and right-wing vile. shakespeare summed up in macbeth trump's performance last night -- a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury,

signifying nothing. yes, president trump's debate performance was, in the words of macbeth, a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. in an hour and a half that felt like a lifetime, the president managed to insult vice president biden's deceased son and smear a living one, please a fringe white supremacist group and capped the night off by yet again casting doubt on our own elections, tarnishing our own democracy. those were just his worst moments. the rest of the debate saw the president heap lie upon lie, lies big and small and every size in between. this president and truth don't intersect at all. still, one moment stands out. as to condemn white groups like

the proud boys, called hard-core white sprex sifts by the antidefamation league, president trump demurred and then said proud boys, stand back and stand by. stand back and stand by. president obama once wondered rhetorically how hard is it to say that nazis are bad? apparently for president trump, it's beyond his capacity. in a national debate, he not only refused to condemn a far-right group of violent white supremacists, he told them to stand by. as much of the country was in despair last night at the president's juvenile behavior, one group was celebrating -- the proud boys. that's who was celebrating president trump's debate

performance. white supremacists within minutes of the president's comments the proud boys were online rejoicing at the tacit endoorsment of their violent tactics by the president himself. they made logos out of the president's remarks -- stand back and stand by. i just want to ask my republican colleagues how are you not embarrassed that president trump represents your party? how can you possibly, possibly support anyone who behaves this way? are you watching the same person that we are? are you listening? are you not embarrassed that millions of americans watch president trump and think, now that's what the republican party stands for now? can't express sympathy for the families of 200,000 americans that died from coved, can't go 30 seconds without interrupting someone when he's not speaking,

can't refrain from attacking someone's family and pretending not to know a person's deceased son. can't honor the military, defend democracy, respect elections or tell the truth. can't even make it through the debate without emboldening white supremacists. how are you, my senate colleagues, not deeply, utterly, personally embarrassed that donald trump is a republican? how are we not all embarrassed that someone who behaves the way president trump did last night is our president? i know i am. how about you? again, this president is just amazing, and his speech last night, a tale told by an idiot

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. now on scotus. it is for this president that senate republicans are now rushing through a supreme court nominee merely days before a national election. a republican majority that once argued that the american people should be given a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice is planning to confirm a nominee in the middle of an election that is already underway. you could not design a scenario that would more fully expose the republicans' double standard than this one. of greater concern to the american people is how the rush by senate republicans to confirm this nominee will put their health care at risk. now yesterday the republican leader actually mocked the idea that a far-right supreme court majority might strike down the a.c.a. and that judge barrett's judicial philosophy might play a part in that.

quote, what a joke. what a joke, senator mcconnell said, that justice barrett might pose any risk to americans' health care. i guess judge barrett must have been joking when she publicly criticized justice roberts for upholding the affordable care act. it must have been with a sarcastic flick of the pen when she wrote that the supreme court, quote, would have to invalidate, unquote, the law if it read the statute the way she does. i'll tell you what, this is not a joke to the american people. this is not a joke to the 20 million americans who could lose their health insurance if the a.c.a. is struck down. not a joke to the parent of a child who has cancer, who would have to watch helpless as their child suffers if protections for

preexisting conditions are struck down. not a joke to millions of americans on medicare whose drug prices would soar. not a joke to women across the country who could once again be charged more for insurance than men, denied maternity care and free access to birth control. the only joke here is the republican leader's desperate attempt to pretend that his president, his party, and their supreme court nominee pose no threat to our nation's health care law. the same senate leader who did everything he could on the floor of the senate to repeal the a.c.a. now president trump said he will pick supreme court nominees who will, quote, terminate the affordable care act. his administration is in court right now suing to eliminate. senate republicans tried to repeal the law and replace it

with nothing. the republican lawsuit against the affordable care act will be heard by the supreme court the week after the election. there's a reason that republicans are scrambling to fill this seat so quickly, and judge barrett, when the a.c.a. was challenged in major litigation twice before, twice sided against the law. so if the republican leader believes that democrats are raising unfounded fears about health care, will he urge the plaintiffs to drop their lawsuit against the a.c.a.? will leader mcconnell urge the justice department not to spend taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate the taxpayers' health care? normally these questions would be rhetorical, but yesterday i filed a procedural motion that will set up a vote on a bill that will protect the health care of hundreds of millions of americans and prevent efforts by the department of justice,

donald trump's department of justice, to advocate that courts strike down the affordable care act. leader mcconnell and all of my republicans will have to vote on this shortly. let me repeat, leader mcconnell and all of my republican colleagues will have to vote very soon on whether the senate should consider a bill to protect americans with preexisting conditions. and with that vote, we'll see just how much of a joke it is that senate republicans and their supreme court nominees want to eliminate americans' health care. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. -- under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration

of h.r. 8337, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 552, h.r. 8337, an act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021 and foreother purposes. -- and for other purposes. mr. thune: mr. president if. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: on saturday, thens no announced his nominee to fill the supreme court seat left vacant by justice ginsburg. as the nation mourns the again of this justice, the it is fitting that the president chose an outstanding nominee to replace her. i had the pleasure of sitting down with judge amy coney barrett yesterday. she is everything that you would

want in a supreme court justice. she is supremely qualified. like justice ginsburg, judge barrett was first in her class in law school, in this case at notre dame. she was a clerk for judge silverman and then for supreme court justice antonin scalia. she worked at a prestigious law firm and worked at george washington university before accepting a position at notre dame law school. she built a distinguished record. she was published repeatedly in prominent law journals and was chosen by chief justice john roberts to fill on a committee for the federal rules of appellate procedure. she was elected distinguished professor of the year by the law school's graduating class three times. she also served as a visiting associate professor at another prominent law school, the university of virginia school of

law. in 2017 she moved to the u.s. court of appeals winning senate confirmation in a bipartisan vote. support for judge barrett poured fourth from her students, colleagues, and peers from both sides of the aisle. every one of the supreme court clerks who had served with her during her clerkship with justice scalia wrote a letter to then-chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee expressing their support for her confirmation. this included justice ginsburg's clerk and other clerks on the liberal wing of the court. here is what they had to say. "we are democrats and republicans and independents and have diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, and much else. yet we all write to support the nomination of professor barrett to be a circuit judge on the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. she is a woman of remarkable intellect and remark.

she is eminently qualified for the job, end quote. judge barrett's colleagues from notre dame sent a similar letter. she said, and you quote, amy coney barrett will be an exceptional federal judge. as a scholarly community, we have a wide range of political views, as well as commitments to different approaches to judicial methodology and judicial craft. we are united, however, in our judgment about amy. she is a brilliant teacher and scholar and a warm and generous colleague. she possesses an abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists -- discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all fundamental decency and humanity, end quote. that letter, mr. president, was signed by every full-time member of the notre dame law school faculty. every full-time member. 470 notre dame law graduates, former students of judge

barrett, sent a letter as well. here's what they said, and i quote, our backgrounds and life experiences are varied and diverse. our legal practices are as varied as the profession itself. our political views span a wide spectrum. despite the differences among us, we are uinto thed in our conviction that professor barrett would make an exceptional federal judge. they went on, we are convinced that professor barrett will bring to the federal bench the same intelligence, fairness, decency, generosity, and hard work that she has demonstrated at notre dame law school. she will treat each litigant with respect and care, conscious of the reality that judicial decisions greatly affect the lives of those before the court. and she will apply the law faithfully and impartially, end quote. mr. president, i could go on for a while here. there are a lot of tributes to amy coney barrett out there, like the one in support of her

circuit court nomination that was joined by former obama solicitor general neal katyal, which praised her, and i quote, first-rate qualifications and stated that she was exceptionally well-qualified. end quote. a recent tribute from harvard law professor noah feldman, one of the house democrats' star impeachment witnesses who statedders and i quote, barrett is highly qualified to serve on the supreme court, end quote. but, mr. president, i'll stop here. because i this is it is abundantly obvious to everyone -- my colleagues across the aisle included -- that judge barrett is supremely qualified to be a supreme court justice. which is why democrats have resorted to scare tactics to try to sink her nomination. democrats realize that it's pretty hard to oppose judge barrett on the merits. and they seem at least somewhat wary of attacking her religion,

as they did during her confirmation to the seventh circuit when multiple democrats suggested that judge barrett was unequal feud because she happened to be a practiced catholic. i think democrats may be realizing that their bias against religious people doesn't play well with the millions of americans who take their faith seriously. they may also be remembering the constitution explicitly forbids -- forbids -- religious tests for public office. although i will note that that didn't stop one of the democrat presidential candidates advisors from saying just this week that she doesn't think that orthodox catholics, muslim or jews should sit on the supreme court. that's right, mr. president. in this biden advisors world, taking your religious faith seriously should disqualify you from sitting on the supreme court. apparently democrats still don't think that people of faith are capable of upholding the constitution or discharging the

duties of their office. but again, mr. president, it seems that democrats realize that defending millions of religious americans may not be their best strategy. so they've turned to health care scare tactics. judge barrett, democrats say, will take away americans' health care if she is confirmed to the supreme court. it's actually a very old democrat line, something that they always use in their playbook. it was deployed, if you can believe this against justice kennedy when he was a supreme court nominee back in 1986. it was deployed against justice souter, a republican nominee, who became known for siding with the liberal wing of the court. there were lots of posters at the time that said things like, stop souter or women will die. he will jeopardize the health and lives of americans, it was said. -- by the left at the time.

it was deployed against justice roberts, the very same man who cast the deciding vote upholding -- upholding -- the affordable care act when he was up for chief justice on the supreme court. or i should say, when he was chief justice on the supreme court. they said at the time that there would literally be millions of american consumers and families at risk of losing their coverage. that statement was made, mr. president, by a member of the current leadership here in the united states senate. about chief justice roberts. and now it is being deployed against judge barrett in an attempt to derail her nomination while promulgating one of the liberals' favorite myths -- that republicans are eagerly waiting to rip away americans' health care. democrats are particularly focused on suggesting that republicans would like to take away protections for preexisting conditions, despite the fact, i might add, that every single senate republican supports

protecting people with preexisting conditions. every single senate republican. in fact, just a few weeks ago, republicans included language affirming protections for those with preexisting conditions in our covid relief bill, a bill, mr. president, that democrats filibustered. it is both ridiculous and offensive to suggest that judge barrett, the mom of seven children, more than one of whom has faced medical challenges, is out to eliminate americans' health care. mr. president, the truth is, we have no idea how judge barrett would vote on any particular health care case, just as we had -- have no idea how any supreme court justice will vote on any particular health care case. how could we? how could we? each case is unique with unique legal and constitutional issues. what we can say with certainty

about judge barrett is that she will carefully consider each case. she will consider the facts of the case, the law, and the constitution, and she will rule based on those things regardless of her personal feelings or beliefs. as judge barrett noted in her speech accepting the president's nomination, and i quote, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views that they might hold, end quote. that's the kind of justice that judge barrett would be. and that's the kind of justice that all of us -- democrat or republican -- should want. someone who will protect the principles of justice and equality under the law by judging according to the law and the constitution and nothing else. someone who will leave her personal beliefs at the courtroom door. someone who will, as judge

barrett said last week quoting the judicial oath, administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the united states constitution, end quote. mr. president, one of the reasons i ran for the senate was to help put judges like amy coney barrett on the bench. i commend the president for his outstanding choice and i look forward to supporting her nomination as the senate moves forward. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: one minute for morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last night

former vice president biden refused to rule out packing the court if the president and the senate proceed to fulfilling their constitutional duties in filling the high court vacancy. i understand there are differences of opinion on the direction of the court, but threatening to expand the court and pack it with favorable justices just because the other side won fair and square and simply followed the constitution does not meet commonsense test. this is dangerous territory and lead to an erosion of public faith in the judiciary. where would such a path lead us? 13 justices? maybe 21 justices? at what point does it stop? i thought we'd settled this under f.d.r. way back 1937-3.

-- 1937-38. it's telling that the democrats aren't even trying to justify their discussion of court packing by saying there is some practical reason why it's needed. in fact, the supreme court is hearing fewer days -- fewer cases than ever. any democrat court-packing plan would be nothing more than a naked power grab,en effort by democrats to sub-better the will of the people when they couldn't get the results that they wanted at the ballot box that would have led their party -- let their party pick and confirm judges. let's try to remain focused on the political independence of the judiciary and leave politicking to this branch of government, the legislative branch. i yield. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate minority leader. mr. durbin: the senator from iowa who just spoke is my friend. we have worked on many things together. we occasionally do not see eye to eye on issues.

i certainly don't see eye to eye with him with what he just said on the floor of the senate. it would be credible if four years ago, exactly the opposite result had not been produced by the republican majority. remember four years ago? antonin scalia's untimely death on a hunting trip, vacancy on the supreme court in february, if i remember correctly. the question as to whether the incumbent president duly elected of the united states of america barack obama would be able to fill the supreme court vacancy. but no, the republicans insisted that was unacceptable. unacceptable for this lame-duck president with only a year left in his term to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. no, they had a more constitutional idea. their constitutional idea was delay filling the vacancy on the supreme court until the american people spoke in an election, november the same year. and so when president obama sent

his nominee merrick garland, imminently qualified, to be considered by the senate, senator mcconnell instructed his membership we are not only going to refuse him a hearing, i am going to refuse him even a meeting in my office. i will not dignify, will not dignify the nomination of merrick garland to fill the supreme court vacancy, because, senator mcconnell told us, in his golden rule, the american people have to speak in the election about the next president, who will then fill the vacancy. that was the hard-and-fast rule that every republican senator swore allegiance to on the floor of the senate and before the microphones and cameras and said that's the way it's going to be. it may be rude, it may be crude to even ignore this man who is imminently qualified to be the nominee of president barack obama, but that's the way it's going to be because we are so committed to the constitution, we will not fill the vacancy on the supreme court until after

the presidential election. and then, and then the epiphany. a vacancy on the supreme court with a republican president, donald trump, occurring in the last year of his presidency in the first term, maybe his only term, and the decision then by senator mcconnell, in the name of the constitution, to completely reverse himself and to say we won't fill the vacancy in the way that we did four years ago. we'll fill it the way we want to fill it now, and the way we want to fill it now is immediately. on a quicker timetable than virtually any person who has been appointed to the supreme court. lifetime appointment. highest court in the land. there was a time as a member of the senate judiciary committee, after hearing the nominee's name, you waited for the reports. many of them would come to you, talking about the biography of the nominee, the background of

the nominee, the writings, the speeches, the articles. if they were judges, their judicial opinions, carefully study those, be prepared. here comes a hearing. not in this situation, no way. senator mcconnell wants this done and done now. he clearly has doubts in his own mind as to whether this president can be reelected, and he's not going to waste his time. he's going to make sure the senate judiciary committee acts before the election on november 3. the hard-and-fast principle of four years ago has disappeared with president trump, and i have watched republican senator after republican senator with only two exceptions march before the camera, look at their shoes, and say i have changed my mind. we're going to fill this vacancy now. because of the constitution? no. because politically it helps us. why the hurry? why before november 3? why wouldn't they at least wait until the end of november so we could gather all the -- no, the

hurry is obvious. because on november 10, the u.s. supreme court will have oral arguments on whether or not the affordable care act will be eliminated. you see, republican attorneys general, as well as this administration, have decided they want to do away with it. they want it to go away. when they are asked very simple questions how will people be affected, they shrug their shoulders. well, i will tell you how. 20 million americans will lose their health insurance if the supreme court abolishes the affordable care act, and every american will lose the protections it gives for people with preexisting conditions. the president said, he said again last night, what some characterize as a debate, i characterize as a free-for-all. the president said last night we have a substitute plan. really, mr. president? where would that be? i haven't seen it, not on the floor of the senate. not in the newspapers.

not in the press releases. there is no substitute plan. that's why three years ago, senator mccain came to the floor and said he would not join the republicans in killing the affordable care act because there is no substitute. it would leave too many americans without the protection of health insurance. well, that's going to be argued before the supreme court on november 10. and by tradition, a supreme court justice cannot vote come next spring on the fate of this lawsuit if they didn't sit in on the oral argument. and so there is a mad dash, mad dash to the senate judiciary committee to bring up the nomination of amy coney barrett from notre dame university law school. they want it done before november 3 so she can sit in on the decision, or at least on the oral argument and then the decision, in this case of california versus texas. that's what it's all about. it's all about 600,000 people in the state of illinois, 600,000 who rely on the affordable care

act for their health insurance. it's all about a law that eliminated the number of uninsured in my state by 50%. it's all about a protection we all take for granted that says insurance companies cannot discriminate against us because of preexisting conditions. that's what it's all about. over 50 votes on the floor of the house of representatives by the republican majority to end this affordable care act couldn't get the job done. a last-minute scramble on the floor of the united states senate in 2017 couldn't get the job done. senator mcconnell is going to get it done. he is going to get it done by pushing through a nominee before november 10 who can vote to eliminate this affordable care act. how do i know that this supreme court nominee is going to eliminate the affordable care act? because she wrote it down. she wrote down her opinion as to whether or not this was constitutional. she has already let us know. and she obviously let president trump know, and that's why he

named her. oh, and there is one other reason. you see, this president for the first time in the history of the united states of america will not pledge that he will accept the results of this election on november 3. it's the first time it's ever, ever happened in our history. and it's a constitutional outrage. i commend the presiding officer, the only republican senator on the floor who has spoken out against it that i know of. others should have joined him. the governor of massachusetts, the governor of massachusetts joined him, saying it's the wrong thing to say, the wrong thing to do, and both parties should condemn it when either presidential candidate or incoming president says it. but this president is pretty obvious. he wants to fill that supreme court vacancy because he said there may be an election contest after november 3. i want nine people on the court. what he didn't say, what's obvious, is he wants that ninth person to be his nominee. so that's what we face with this situation and what we have ahead

of us in the next week and a half. i watched what was supposedly called a debate last night. it was painful. painful as this president showed so little respect when it came to the rules of the debate. chris wallace, the fox television newsman who moderated it, was beside himself. he didn't know how to get the president to stop interrupting, to follow the rules of the debate. this president doesn't follow anybody's rules but his own, and that was very obvious last night. there was one moment, though, that i want to highlight, and it was a moment where chris wallace basically said will both of you, the democrat biden and the republican president trump, both of you condemn violence, white nationalism, and white supremacists? well, biden did. biden said there is no place for violence in the name of political protests, none, unequivocal. then it came the turn of the

president who, if you will remember, had difficulty parsing out the good guys and bad guys in charlottesville. those who went down to charlottesville to march for civil rights and those who went down to march, frankly chanting what was used during the time of german, the rise of nazism as their chant, their anti-semitic chant. they grabbed their torches and marched and said it again. when asked later, president trump struggled with it and said there were good folks on both sides, both sides, the white nationalist side as well as those for civil rights. that was an outrage. and last night, chris wallace served up an opportunity for the president to clear it up, to get well. i came to the floor today to speak about the president's response, to speak also about the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing our nation today, the threat of violent white supremacists.

like most americans, i was stunned by the president's refusal last night to condemn white supremacists during the course of last night's presidential debate. moderator chris wallace gave president donald trump an uninterrupted opportunity to condemn the nation's biggest domestic terrorist group, white supremacists. instead, trump said, and i quote, they should stand back and stand by. stand back and stand by. trump's comments were quickly embraced by the proud boys, an alt-right, self-described western chauvinist group who clearly viewed it as a call to action. the group immediately turned the president's words in the debate into a logo that's been widely circulated on social media. on the right-wing social media site, which i'm not going to name because i don't want to give any publicity to it, but i will put it in the record, proud

boys leader joe biggs says he took trump's words as a directive to f them up. for years now, in letters, briefings, and hearings, i have repeatedly urged the department of justice, the federal bureau of investigation, and the department of homeland security to take a strong stand against the ongoing threat of violent white supremacy and other far-right-wing extremists. unfortunately, instead of following up with a comprehensive, coordinated effort to no surprise, the trump administration has repeatedly chosen to down play this deadly threat. a law-and-order president who looks the other way, winks, nods, and says stand by to the militia groups and white supremacists. last year, several of us wrote to attorney general barr and f.b.i. director to inquire about the trump administration's

inexplicable, irresponsible decision to stop tracking white supremacist incidents as a separate category of domestic terrorism. the trump administration has yet to respond to our many letters asking what the department of justice and the f.b.i. are doing to combat the ongoing threat of white supremacist violence targeting religious minorities and communities of color. since then, our concern has obviously grown. instead of focusing on the significant threat of domestic terrorism motivated by white supremacy and far right-wing extremism, terrorists who have killed more than 100 americans since 9/11, president trump claims, as he did last night, that violence is a left-wing problem, not a right-wing problem. let me tell you. we should condemn violence on both wings and everything in between. i join vice president biden in condemning all violence, including the alleged murder of federal protective service officer in oakland, california,

by a right-wing bugaloo extremist, and the alleged murder of two black lives matter protesters in kenosha, wisconsin, by an illinois teenager who reportedly considered himself to be a member of a militia. 17 years old. unfortunately, as we've learned from the former trump administration officials, the trump administration has down played the threat of violent white supremacy and other far-right-wing domestic terrorists. "politico" recently reported that a draft homeland threat assessment by d.h.s. was edited and changed by the trump administration to weaken language discussing the particular threat posed by violent white supremacists. the trump boys don't want to talk about it. shortly thereafter, a d.h.s. whistle-blower alleged that d.h.s. officials, including ken cuccinelli, requested the modification of the homeland threat assessment report to make the threat of white

supremacists, quote, appear less severe, close quote, and add information on violent, quote, left-wing groups, close quote. the efforts of officials within the trump administration to obscure this threat posedly violent white supremacists and other extremists are misguided and dangerous. an unclassified may 17, unclassified d.h.s. joint intelligence bulletin found that, quote, white supremacist threats pose a consistent threat of violence and white supremacists are responsible for more homicides from 2016 than any other domestic extremist group. f.b.i. director wray admitted when questioned before my senate judiciary committee at a hearing last year that the majority of domestic terrorism threats in america involve white

supremacists. thankfully there's something in the senate we can do to respond. a bill that would good news. last week, the house of representatives passed the house companion in my bill. unanimous voice vote. democrats and republicans all agreed. senator mcconnell has a chance to take it up. are we going to stand together as the house did on a bipartisan basis, condemning white supremacists who resort to violence and terrorism, or are we going to say to them stand back and stand by?

it's time for us to step up together on a bipartisan basis. condemn violent conduct on both political spectrums. on the right, on the left, and everything in between. you can use our constitution responsibly. you don't have to resort to violence. you don't have to resort to vandalism or looting. the use of guns and threats, or the killing of innocent people. never, ever acceptable, right or left. the dominant group when it comes to this activity is white supremacists. our opportunity now to keep track of them and their activities is before us. all it takes is for senator mcconnell to agree to take up this unanimously passed bill from the house of representatives and to say to president trump once and for all, join us in condemning all violence across the political spectrum. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: it's typical during an election season to hear democrats try to scare people into believing that republicans want to destroy programs that americans rely on for their health and security. we've recently heard this on medicare and social security. now there's a new subject added. health insurance. the programs are different, but the scenarios are the same. the democrats concoct a story,

attribute it to the president and to republican members of congress, and then turn to their allies to amplify this false narrative. what really stands out this election season is how those all too familiar scare tactics directly contradict the message coming from the presidential nominee of the democrat party. vice president biden says he's for hope, not fear. his actions and those of his party show just the opposite. so let's start with democrats' efforts to pin medicare's financial struggles on republicans. the facts tell a much different story. republicans have fought for decades, often in the face of democrat resistance, to keep

medicare strong not only for current enrollees, but for their children and grandchildren for instance, in 1995 president clinton vetoed republican efforts to keep medicare on sound financial footing. faced with the prospect that the medicare hospital insurance trust fund was going broke in just a few years back then, republicans still pressed on. it was the work of a republican house of representatives and a republican senate that ultimately convinced president clinton to sign the balanced budget act of 1997. that act of 1997 extended the life of the health insurance trust fund, but it was not a silver bullet to solve the

medicare program's long-term financial challenge. for many years spanning both democrat and republican administrations the medicare trustees have cautioned that the program's financial shortfalls require further legislative action. the trustees repeatedly advised congress to enact such legislation sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, health care providers, and taxpayers. republicans know how important medicare is to the over 60 million americans who rely on the program for their health care. but we also realize that medicare is on an unsustainable course. i have always said that we need to work in a bipartisan way to protect medicare, particularly here in the united states senate where it takes 60 votes to get

anything done. that work requires an honest assessment and a very serious discussion. sadly, it seems that democrats are only willing to take their heads out of the sand long enough to point fingers. so let's set the record straight. earlier this year the trustees of medicare projected that that program would be bankrupt in 2026. then of course we have this unprecedented public health emergency dealt with, the pandemic that we always call it, dealt a crippling blow to our nation. the sacrifices and efforts made to stop the spread of the corona virus effectively shut down the united states economy and altered life as we all know it.

congress stepped in to provide federal relief. the covid response bills were passed on an overwhelming bipartisan majority. specifically, the cares act, better known as the corona have have -- coronavirus act passed the house 419-6, and the united states senate, 96-0. cares gives extra medicare funding to hospitals and other health care providers to keep them in business in the face of an unexpected drop in demand for medical services. additionally, because of medicare part-a is financed by payroll taxes that are split between employers and employees, unemployment caused

by the pandemic has resulted in less money coming into the trust fund. so it then is not surprising that the congressional budget office estimated earlier this month that the medicare trust fund could run out of money in 2024, two years earlier be than the medicare trustees had projected without taking into account the impact of covid because they didn't know about it and couldn't take that into consideration. it's important to note that during the trump presidency and prior to the pandemic, the projected insolvency date of the medicare health insurance trust fund remained pretty steady. no one could have anticipated this current crisis. instead of taking it as a reminder of the need to shore up medicare for the long haul, democrats have opted to create a false narrative that the current

administration is the problem. every recent president, republican and democrat, has offered medicare reform ideas in budget requests submitted to the congress. many of those budgets contained identical policy ideas, whether from a republican president or a democrat president. putting aside that congress and not the president makes laws, the notion that proposals aimed at making medicare more efficient is equivalent to sabotaging the program is absurd. yet, whenever a republican occupies the white house, we repeatedly hear from democrats that proposals for program integrity represent cuts or efforts to weaken or destroy medicare, even when some of those same proposals were put

forward by democratic administrations. because medicare is on a path to bankruptcy, the greatest threat then is what often happens around here -- inaction. over the past decade, democrats not only stood firmly in the way of meaningful medicare reform, they actually made the problem worse. rather than confront the looming crisis in 2009, president obama, vice president biden, and washington democrats raided more than $700 billion from the medicare program. they didn't do it to save medicare. they cut money from a financially strapped medicare program and then spent that money on a brand-new entitlement program called obamacare. it was the democrats who pushed obamacare through congress

without a single republican vote. and what do democrats want to do if they find their way back into power? they want to -- something called medicare for all, moving more than 180 million americans with private employer-based insurance to medicare rolls would cause federal spending to balloon to unthinkable levels. an analysis conducted by the merka center in 2018 found medicare for all would increase public spending by $32 trillion over the next ten-year period. this democrat plan would also give the federal government more control over health care, impose massive tax increases on the middle class, and disrupt access to services.

that's why democrats would rather mischaracterize the unavoidable impact of covid and demonize medicare budget proposals that are often bipartisan in nature. democrats use the very same dirty tricks related to social security, as i just talked about with medicare. some across the aisle recently concocted a hypothetical proposal that eliminates the funding source for social security and asks the program's chief actuary to assess its impact. this was an obvious attempt to alarm seniors and disabled americans with the ultimate intent of smearing republicans and feeding false talking points to a democratic candidate for president. even when their schemes and false talking points earned four

pinocchios from even "the washington post," democrats still proceed full speed ahead with their misinformation campaign. and even though ways and means committee ranking member brady and i got the social security actuary to affirm that the democrats' recent scheme was just a bunch of malarkey, the democrats and candidate biden continue with this misinformation. again, democrats use scare tactics in the run up to an election, while they accuse republicans of wanting to destroy social security, senate democrats do little or nothing to work in a bipartisan way to help this program. remember in 2015 when the disability insurance trust fund was going to run dry?

senate democrats demanded that the only thing that you could possibly do to take the -- was to take from the retirement trust fund and then to simply kick the can down the road. senate democrats had no interest in working with us to at least try the disability insurance program to make it better for the beneficiaries. instead, senate republicans worked with the house and obama administration to prevent disability insurance trust fund exhaustion and even to improve the program. there was no privatization of anything, and the only thing that could be construed as a benefit cut came directly from president obama. now, you won't hear anything about that from these senate democrats. instead, they just bring out

their stale talking points and, of course, scare tactics about republicans trying to destroy the program. now they're applying the same worn-out, baseless scare tactics to this supreme court confirmation process. democrats want to make the president's nomination to fill the vacancy all about obamacare and the case the court will consider this fall. now, going to the minority leader's own words when it comes to judge barrett's confirmation hearing, quote, we must focus like a laser on health care, end quote. the left is misrepresenting an article by then-professor barrett in hopes of finding

something -- almost anything -- to gum up this confirmation process, and it seems to me they're just frustrated this nominee had the audacity to suggest that judges interpret law as written. now, there's an old saying in the legal profession -- if the law isn't on your side, pound the facts. if the facts aren't on your side, pound the law. if neither fact or law is on your side, just pound the table. that's what we see yet again from our democratic colleagues. it's ludicrous to pick unpending case and -- to pick one pending case and predict how every member of the court, including one just starting the confirmation process, would vote on that case, especially when entirely different legal issues

are at stake. frankly, it's a disservice to the american people. the democrats know this. but what won't stop them -- but that won't stop them. it won't stop them from trying to mislead hardworking americans into believing that their health care coverage could disappear tomorrow. it's also just the latest example of how many democrats in congress view the supreme court just how another policy end that they can't accomplish through this branch of government, where we are now. that's not the role of the court, and i'm sure that judge barrett will reiterate that point during the judiciary committee. the supreme court will hear oral arguments in the case mid-november and there are countless scenarios montana a

potential outcome. so it's useless then to speculate, but that won't stop the democrats from speculating during this process of judge barrett's nomination. the bottom line is, no matter the decision, no one will lose health care coverage on the day that the supreme court issues its ruling. in the meantime, republicans will continue to protect individuals with preexisting conditions and fight to give americans more affordable health care options. the president reaffirmed that very thing in his commitment in an executive order that he signed last week. that executive order states that it has been and will continue to be the policy of the united states to assure that americans with preexisting conditions can obtain insurance of their choice at an affordable price.

the democrats don't want to stop at obamacare. what they really want to do is impose their government-run medicare for all program and take away people's private insurance plans that people like, because 160 million people have it. as i mentioned earlier, this one-size-fits-all approach would take away people's private insurance, result in worse care, and bankrupt the country. republicans want to strengthen medicare, preserve social security, and ensure affordable private coverage options now as well as in the future. democrats want to mislead now in hopes of future political gains. americans deserve better. we can do better. vice president biden and his party should stop their shameful

election-year scare tactics. they should end the mall -- they should end the malarkey. it's time to have the courage to engage in a discussion about bipartisan ideas to improve these health and security programs for millions of people who depend on them. i yield the floor. i don't -- i won't yield the floor yet. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senate stands in recess the senate stands in recess

lindsey graham nelson supreme court nomination will begin october 12 and then on tuesday the nominee begins taking questions from committee members, chairman graham says he expects the hearing will take three or four days, you can watch live coverage every day of amy coney barrett supreme court confirmation hearing on c-span were c-span.org or listen live on our free radio app. >> weeknights this month were featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span free, on friday night a look at the supreme court historical society founded in 1974 to collect and preserve the history of the highest court, we begin an evening of the program

with the yale law professor justin on the 1956 southern manifesto a document written by congressional members who opposed the 1954 brown versus education decision which segregated schools were unconstitutional, watch friday beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern, enjoy making history tv this week and every weekend on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 your unfiltered view of government, created by america's television company as a public service brought to you by your television provider. >> the prime minister question with boris johnson, he fields questions on the government's response to the coronavirus pandemic among other domestic and foreign policy issues, this is 45 minutes.

>> welcome the prime minister, number one mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker i want you to enjoy me in expressing the deepest sympathies to the family and friends to the sgt who was tragically killed on friday, it is a reminder of the huge debt that we owe put their own lives at risk to keep us safe every day. tomorrow is the start of black history month, for debt unto generations they are shaping our nation story making a huge difference to our national and cultural light in a better place to be. this is a fantastic moment tott celebrate their contributions to our country. mr. speaker, i have meetings with others and i shall have such meetings later