Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the selection of the person to fill the Supreme Court vacancy is a historic moment in Washington. This is the seventh time that we will be in a position to at least meet someone who is aspiring to that position. I have had opportunities with each one of them to ask some questions before the formal hearing. I hope I have the same opportunity with the current nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. What is different about this particular moment is the fact that we know that there is an issue at stake here and one that is likely to be decided almost immediately by the new Supreme Court Justice. It is the only explanation I can find--perhaps one other--the only two explanations I can find as to why there is this hurry to fill this vacancy. You see, it was 4 years ago, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia's death--and that occurred on the February before the election--that Senator McConnell, then the Republican Senate leader, argued there was no need to hurry. Why hurry about it? Leave the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Wait until after the next Presidential election. Let the American people decide who will be filling that vacancy. He made that argument, despite the clear history in this Chamber that did not support him, and he won the support of his position by every Republican Senator. They went so far as to say that if President Obama, in his last year in office, nominated someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, they wouldn't give that person a hearing. Well, President Obama, in his last year of his Presidency, nominated Merrick Garland, a person who was widely respected as the chief judge in the DC Circuit Court--the second highest court in the land by some measure--and Merrick Garland came to Capitol Hill in the hopes that he would get his day in court, so to speak, in the Senate. But Senator McConnell said: No way. Words out, Republican Senators, don't meet with him. A couple of them broke his rule and met with him anyway. But the word was out not to even give him the courtesy of a meeting 4 years ago. So Merrick Garland never had his day before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his nomination departed with the Presidency of Barack Obama. Senator McConnell's new theory prevailed on how the Senate should treat Supreme Court vacancies. Every one of his soldiers on the Republican Senate marched in lock step with his theory. Well, guess what happened 4 years ago later. An incumbent President had a late vacancy on the Supreme Court with the untimely death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just a little over a week-and-a-half ago. And the obvious question to Senator McConnell is: Will you be consistent now and say that that vacancy should not be filled until a new President is elected, and that President should have the option to fill it? And Senator McConnell said: Of course not. It is not to my political advantage--he didn't add those words; I did--not to my political advantage. I am going to change this hard-and-fast rule of 4 years ago, and I am going to ask all of my Republican Senators to march before a camera and a microphone and to look down at their shoes and say the position they took 4 years ago, they are abandoning today. And all but two of them did it. All but two of them walked away from their pledge that they were under the old McConnell rule. That McConnell rule was stated in just a few words. Here is what Senator McConnell said 4 years ago: 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. The McConnell rule was thrown out just a few days ago. Why? Because it was to Senator McConnell's advantage to fill this vacancy and to the President's and not to wait for the outcome of the November 3 election. So what is the issue? What would cause Senator McConnell to change so quickly and to ask all of his loyal Republican Senators to go through the embarrassment of recanting the position they took publicly 4 years ago? What is the big deal, Senator McConnell? Well, it turns out we know what the big deal is. It is the Affordable Care Act. To paraphrase a Senator from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers, the Republicans and President Trump hate the Affordable Care Act like the devil hates holy water. They have tried every imaginable way to eliminate it, to change it, to water it down, and to discourage it. There were 50 different votes in the House of Representatives to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and were it not for the Democrats in the Senate, they might have had some luck in doing that, but it didn't work. So they tried it on the Senate floor under reconciliation. They thought: Here is our chance. We just need a majority. We should be able to pull this one off. And we had this historic moment just 3 years ago when, at 2:30 in the morning, John McCain came through those doors, and, with his ``no'' vote and the vote of two other Republican Senators, saved the Affordable Care Act. Imagine the frustration of Mitch McConnell. Here was his moment to finally drive that dagger deep in the heart of the Affordable Care Act, and John McCain voted no. What was he going to do to get this job done? Well, it turns out he figured he would get it done across the street in the U.S. Supreme Court. So 18 Republican State attorneys general filed a lawsuit to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. And then the Trump administration said: We are on board too. Let's get rid of it completely. Off they went through the long treacherous journey in the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court across the street. Guess when the argument is scheduled to be heard. It is to be heard 7 days after the election. So you wonder why there is such a hurry to put another Supreme Court Justice on the Court who also opposes the Affordable Care Act? And make no mistake, President Trump made that one of the conditions of employment for anyone he would name to the Supreme Court. You have to be ready to march right in there and put an end to it. So if we can vote under Senator McConnell's timetable on or before the election, November 3, the new Supreme Court Justice sworn in, in her black robe, ascends to the bench in the Supreme Court on November 10, listens to the oral argument on the Affordable Care Act, and then a few weeks or months later puts an end to it. That is why we are in such a hurry, because if that Supreme Court vacancy is not filled by November 10, then whomever is chosen, as they do by tradition, could vote on the actual outcome of the case in the spring. That is what this is all about. As someone told me long ago in this business of politics, there is always a good reason, and then there is always the real reason. The real reason for the mad dash of the Senate Judiciary Committee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, the real reason why Republican Senators are asked to march in lockstep and say that what they pledged 4 years ago meant nothing today--the real reason--is to put an end to the Affordable Care Act. Let me tell the story, if I can, about the Affordable Care Act. I voted for it and am proud to have done it. Twenty million Americans have insurance because of it--600,000 in Illinois and, I might add, protections for people all across America. Let me discuss one of the protections of the Affordable Care Act that will go away and be eliminated if President Trump, the Republican Attorney General, and the Republican Senators who are supporting Mitch McConnell have their way. Here is one of the provisions in the law. Here is the story. A couple of years ago, Tom from Palatine, IL, a suburb of Chicago, wrote to me about the Affordable Care Act. I will show a picture here. This is him. At the age of 30, Tom, married with dreams of fatherhood, was diagnosed with cancer, a tumor in his chest. He underwent 20 rounds of chemo and major surgery to remove the tumor. Thankfully, after that, he was cancer free. There is Tom in his better days, racing to Wrigley. And there he is fighting his way through cancer in a hospital bed. How much did it cost him for all of that care? Two million dollars. Two million dollars was the bill. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies imposed arbitrary annual and lifetime limits on how much they would actually reimburse a patient for medical bills. If you pass the limit, you are on the hook personally. That is why for years, medical debt was a leading cause of bankruptcy in America. A fellow like Tom, racing along here, looking as healthy and fit as possible, ends up with a cancer diagnosis and goes through months and months of therapy and a bill of 2 million bucks, and the insurance company says: It is all yours. There is a limit in your policy. That is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act put an end to those limits. Without those protections, Tom wrote to me and said that he ``would most likely have capped [his] coverage and be bankrupt.'' It is pretty clear. Thousands of other Americans could also be right there with him without the Affordable Care Act. Although Tom wants to continue working and contributing to society, he said he is scared to death. He is ``terrified''--in his words--that protections for preexisting conditions would be ended. You see, Tom having defeated surgery and declared this great victory--I am sure his friends and family couldn't be happier--is now branded by the insurance companies as a man with a preexisting condition. In the old days, before the Affordable Care Act: Good luck, Tom. Good luck, because if you had a preexisting condition--and almost anything would count: acne, asthma, being a woman who might get pregnant, and on and on and on--you were subjected to higher premiums, maybe even no insurance at all. Those were the days before the Affordable Care Act. Now, President Trump, the Republican attorneys general, and the Republicans in the Senate are dutybound to send a new Supreme Court Justice in to put an end to that protection, to put an end to the Affordable Care Act. They are so determined to get rid of ObamaCare at any cost that they could care less about Tom and people just like him with these lifetime limits. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, insurers could once again deny coverage to millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. That isn't all. The Affordable Care Act also made it clear that if you are a family with a son or daughter who goes to college, comes out of school looking for a job, maybe had taken that gap year, maybe had taken an internship, but likely not to have health insurance, the Affordable Care Act says don't worry. Until that young man or young woman in your household reaches the age of 26, they can stay on your family's health insurance plan--a provision of the Affordable Care Act and a provision that a lot of families count on. Our family needed something just like that when our daughter graduated college and didn't have health insurance and assured me that she sure didn't need it and she was so healthy. Well, that is scary talk for a parent to hear. But when it came to the Affordable Care Act, we would have been able to keep our young daughter under that policy-- our family policy--for a period of time. The Republicans want that to go away--to go away with the Affordable Care Act. You say to yourself: Well, clearly, Durbin, you are not telling the whole story. You are not telling us what the Republican plan is to replace the Affordable Care Act. It is true--guilty as charged. I am not describing to you the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act because it doesn't exist. It does not exist. That is why John McCain and two other Republican Senators said: You can't eliminate the Affordable Care Act unless you have a replacement that is as good or better. Otherwise, too many American families will lose their insurance and lose their protection. We had a hearing a few weeks ago, and I asked the leaders in the health community under the Trump administration the basic question: What have you heard about the Republican substitute for the Affordable Care Act? President Trump has told us over and over and over and over again that it is just a week or two away. So what have you heard about preparedness? They said: Nothing. We have heard nothing. There is no Republican substitute for the Affordable Care Act. They are just dutybound to eliminate ObamaCare, and, sadly, the consequences would be awful. That is what this is about. So if you think, I don't want to tune in to this whole debate about a new Supreme Court Justice from Indiana; I don't want to hear all these arguments because what difference does it make to me--if you are that person in America--I would say to you, please, take a look at what we are really facing here--an effort to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in a timely way to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. That is what this is all about. Then, the President, just for good measure, tossed in another issue last week. How about this one--the first President in the history of the United States to not publicly declare that he would accept the outcome of an election? How about that? It is nothing short of a constitutional outrage that any President would say that. It is no surprise with this President because, when he was a candidate, he said basically the same thing: If it doesn't turn out that I win, then, I am not sure I want to live by the results. He makes up these contrived arguments against paper ballots and how fraudulent they are. There are five States--five States in America-- that use mail-in ballots exclusively. They include, of course, the State of Oregon, which might have been one of the first, and they include the State of Utah, as well, and Hawaii. Other States do it. How much fraud is there? Almost none. But that doesn't stop the President from claiming that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. How does the President vote, incidentally? By mail-in ballot. What hypocrisy for him to make that kind of statement when he is casting his own vote with a mail-in ballot. So now he said that he wants that Supreme Court vacancy filled: Do it now because I need nine Justices sitting on that Supreme Court if there is any election contest to follow. It is pretty obvious what this is all about. The President needs a sure vote on the Supreme Court. What a shame that we have reached this point, that we have denigrated the U.S. Senate to the point that we change the rules at our convenience, that we have reached the point where we are prepared to eliminate protections for 20 million Americans with nothing to replace it, and that we have reached a point where a President is so brazen as to say he wants to fill that spot on the Supreme Court just in case he runs into an election contest. You would think there would be a chorus--a bipartisan chorus--of outrage for that statement by the President. Not so. There may have been others--and I will scour the records to make sure--but two Republicans stepped up and said that the President's public statement on not abiding by election returns was terrible. Who were those two? Senator Mitt Romney, here, the only Republican Senator I know of. If there were more, I will come back and correct the record. But I heard him clearly say that what the President said was intolerable. Then there was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. I watched that press conference. He wasn't just declarative. He was upset to think that any President of either party would make that kind of statement. That is what we are up against. Two weeks from yesterday, they want to hold a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on this nominee, Judge Barrett, and they want the vote before the election, before the argument on the Affordable Care Act, and before the President faces any possibility of an election contest. What a point we have reached in this country. The silence of Republicans across the Nation is deafening. They ignore the obvious. You cannot have a viable, trustworthy democracy if you don't have viable, trustworthy elections, and in order to have that happen, you need Presidents of both political parties who are committed to fairness, committed to honesty, and committed to our Constitution. Sadly, at this moment in time, we do not have a President who is, and there are too many of his own political party who stand back in the shadows in silence, recanting on pledges they made 4 years ago, doing whatever is necessary to win the favor of this President. I hope another day will come soon with different leadership and a different view of this country. I am genuinely concerned about what we face on November 3 and the days that follow, but I have never given up on America, and I never will. I believe this democracy will prevail, and I hope that after he is gone, some Republicans will step forward and say: It is time to create a party not in his image. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Mark Guethle probably isn't the sort of person you picture when you hear the word ``feminist.'' Mark is a big guy: 6-foot-1, strong and muscular. It is easy to imagine him as the star linebacker he was in high school. He spent decades as a labor leader in the building trades, one of the toughest, most manhood-driven segments of the American labor movement. But Mark Guethle has worked harder to help good women get elected to public office in my State of Illinois than almost any man I know. At a time when many Americans feel understandably dismayed about the state of our politics, Mark Guethle has helped to introduce new candidates, new leaders, new ideas, and a cautious new sense of hope in government and hope in the future in Kane County, IL, one of the ``collar counties'' surrounding Chicago. That is what Mark has achieved in nearly 20 years as chairman of the Kane County Democratic Party. But that is just one part of Mark's story and his busy life. In addition, since 2003, Mark has served as a member of his town's council, the North Aurora Village Board of Trustees. On top of all of that, for nearly a quarter century, Mark Guethle has been a union leader with Painters District Council 30, Local Union 97, which covers most of north-central Illinois outside of Chicago. This past month, Mark retired from his union job: director of government affairs for of Painters District Council 30. He leaves with a proud record of achievement. Interestingly, he didn't start out to be a labor leader or a painter. At Proviso West High School in Hillside, IL, he was a star athlete in three sports: baseball, basketball, and football. It was his performance as a linebacker that drew the most attention. He was recruited by coaching legend Bo Schembechler to play for one of the best college football teams in the Nation, the University of Michigan Wolverines, but a bad accident during the summer after his high school graduation set his life on a different course. During a robbery at a gas station where he was working, Mark's arm was badly injured by a piece of shattered glass. The University of Michigan said it would wait for Mark's arm to heal but Mark's dad, a union carpenter, suggested that Mark try a different path and join his union. Mark agreed, but the carpenters weren't taking new members at that time. Mark's uncle, a union painter, suggested he try the painters union. He was hired as an apprentice at the age of 19. As it turned out, Mark had just the personal qualities that a good painter needs: attention to detail, a tenacious work ethic, and an unusual ability to listen to people and understand what they want. He started as an organizer for District Council 30 in 1997. Five years later, he was hired as the district council's governmental affairs director, the position he held until he retired from the union at the start of this month. As a labor leader, Mark fought for respect and fair treatment not only for members of his union but for all working people in the State of Illinois. The list of State laws that he has helped enact is long and impressive. It includes increasing Illinois' minimum wage, protecting overtime pay, strengthening collective bargaining rights and the prevailing wage in our State, and encouraging better labor- management relations through the use of project-management agreements. Mark has also taken courageous stands on issues including immigrant rights, women's rights, and marriage equality. Mark's commitment to social and economic justice and his nuts-and- bolts understanding of how politics works are qualities he acquired growing up in a politically active union family. He learned how to knock on doors and distribute yard signs for candidates when he was just a kid, and at age 60, he still spends an incredible amount of time and energy on such tasks. When there is work to be done, whether its phone banking or neighborhood canvassing, you can be sure that Mark will be the first to arrive and the last to quit. When Mark was elected Kane County Democratic chair in 2002, there were no Democrats in the county serving at the State or Federal level-- none. Today, Democrats hold every congressional seat serving the county. One of those House members, Lauren Underwood, is the only nurse now serving in Congress. In the Illinois General Assembly, Kane County is represented by two Democratic senators and four house members, all of them women. ``We run women because we want to win,'' is how Mark once described his recruitment strategy. I suspect there is a little more to it. You see, Mark's mother was a brilliant woman who graduated from the University of Chicago when she was 16 years old, but like so many women of her generation, her career choices were limited because of her gender. She died when Mark was 22 years old, but she inspired in Mark and her other four children a profound belief in what women could achieve if given a fair chance. Mark Guethle is the embodiment of grassroots democracy. The people of Kane County and all Illinois' working families owe a lot to Mark and to his mom, Loretta. Mark is also respected by Republicans as a man of principles. One of his close friends, North Aurora mayor Dale Berman, was a lifelong Republican who Mark actually persuaded, by example, to become a Democrat. Stepping down from the union job will leave Mark more time for his work with his town's board of trustees and the Kane County Democratic Party. It will mean more time for Mark and Louise, his wife of 31 years, to perform in their church choir. Mark will have more time to watch his beloved Chicago Cubs--on TV for now, rather than in the bleachers, which he prefers. He will have more time for playing keyboards in his cover band and more time to practice on his guitar and ukulele, and he will have more time to spend with his sons, Marcus and Brian, and his four grand-daughters, whom he adores. Lastly, I am certain that Mark will spend even more time listening to his neighbors in Kane County and finding new ways to make government work for them, regardless of their political party, because that is what he cares most about. I am proud to call Mark my friend, and Loretta and I wish him and Louise all the best as they begin this new chapter of their lives. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when Chicago Bears football great Gale Sayers was on the field, you knew something extraordinary would happen. The press labeled him the ``Kansas Comet.'' His teammates called him ``Magic.'' He did things in the NFL that had not been seen before, and few have come close to matching decades later. Gale famously said that all he needed was 18 inches of daylight before he would change a game's dynamic. He was an unmatched running back, a star receiver, and his kick returning records remain to this day. But with everything with Gale, there was never enough time. His legendary career was cut short by injury. He passed away recently, and today, we pay our respect to an extraordinary life. Gale Eugene Sayers was born in Wichita, KS, in 1943. His father was a mechanic and a car polisher, and his mother was a homemaker. His family moved to Omaha, NE, in the early fifties, and Gale had his chance to play sports for the first time there. At the age of 13, he was playing kids who were 19 and 20 years old. Gale learned early on that he didn't want to be tackled by larger people, so he made sure he wasn't. In high school, he was not only a star running back, but he was also a track star. His record in long jump stood for 44 years. Dozens of colleges offered Gale scholarships, but he chose Kansas University because he liked the coach and that it was relatively close to home. There, he was dubbed the Kansas Comet. He was the first player in NCAA Division 1A history to record a 99-yard run when he broke loose against the University of Nebraska in 1963. His two-time All-American honors led to the Bears picking him as the No. 4 overall pick in the 1965 NFL Draft. Gale Sayers' NFL career began like lightning. He returned a punt 77 yards in his first preseason game, returned a kickoff 93 yards, and threw a touchdown pass with his nondominant hand. For the season, he led the league in all-purpose yards and set the league record at the time of 22 touchdowns, earning the rookie of the year award. Wrigley Field is famously the home of the Chicago Cubs, but the greatest performance on that field was by Gale Sayers. The Chicago Bears played there from 1921 to 1970. In December 1965, Wrigley Field's playing surface was terrible. Players of both the Chicago Bears and San Francisco 49ers were struggling to keep their footing in the rain, but Gale wasn't one of them. He scored six touchdowns that day. He might have scored seven or eight, but with a lopsided score, Bears Coach George Halas sat him down. The 49ers went on to form a special defense just for Gale Sayers. Sayers had many brilliant games, but one of the revolutionary moments his life was off the field when he was roommates with fullback Brian Piccolo. Sayers and Piccolo were the NFL's first interracial roommate duo. When many lines were drawn between Black and White players, Sayers and Piccolo set a new path for the league. They became best friends. On November 10, 1968, the Bears faced the 49ers again, and Sayers took a toss run play like he had done so many times. The 49ers defensive player put his shoulder into Sayers' knee, and it bent sideways. Sayers needed to be carted off the field. His knee would never be the same. The rehabilitation program was difficult, but with Piccolo's encouragement, Sayers was able to return the following year. Gale returned to playing in 1969, earning the NFL Comeback Player of the Year, but Piccolo became ill. Piccolo was coughing for weeks, and he was diagnosed with embryonic cell carcinoma. He underwent surgery, but the disease had spread to other organs. In May, Gale earned the George S. Halas Award, an award recognizing the league's most courageous player. In his speech for the award, Gale dedicated it to Brian Piccolo. Piccolo died on June 16, 1970, at the age of 26. Gale was a pallbearer at the funeral. The chapter on their friendship in Gale's autobiography, ``I Am Third,'' is the basis of the 1971 movie ``Brian's Song,'' the most-watched TV movie in history at the time. In 1971, Gale suffered another knee injury, and it was never right again. He retired in 1972 at the age of 29. It is a testament to the extraordinary talent of Gale Sayers, only playing 68 games, that in 1977, he was Ge youngest player ever to be voted into the NFL Hall of Fame at the age of 34. His statistics still remain competitive and as records decades later. After his NFL career, Gale returned to the University of Kansas as an assistant athletic director and student. He completed his bachelor's degree in physical education in 1975 and received a master's degree in educational administration in 1977. He was the athletic director at Southern Illinois University until 1981. Gale also supported the Cradle, a Chicago-area adoption agency that launched the Ardythe and Gale Sayers Center for African American Adoption in 1999. In 2007, Gale testified in Congress along with several other players that the NFL needed to improve its disability benefits system for retired players. Sayers is survived by his wife Ardythe Elaine Bullard, his brothers Roger and Ron, his sons Timothy and Scott, his daughter Gale Lynne, and his stepsons Guy, Gaylon, and Gary.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa who just spoke is my friend. We have worked on things together. We, occasionally, don't see eye-to-eye on issues. I certainly don't see eye-to-eye with him on what he just said on the floor of the Senate. It would be credible if, 4 years ago, exactly the opposite result had not been produced by the Republican majority. Remember, 4 years ago, Antonin Scalia's untimely death on a hunting trip, and there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, in February, if I remember correctly? There was 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 to delay filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court until the American people spoke in an election in November of the same year. So when President Obama sent his nominee, Merrick Garland, eminently 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, before the microphones and cameras, and said: That is the way it is going to be. It may be rude. It may be crude to even ignore this man who is eminently qualified to be the nominee of President Barack Obama, but that is the way it is going to be, because we are so committed to the Constitution that we will not fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court until after the election. And then came the epiphany--a vacancy on the Supreme Court with a Republican President, Donald Trump, occurring in the last year of his Presidency in his 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 will not fill the vacancy in the way we did 4 years ago. We will 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 for a lifetime appointment, the highest Court in the land. There was a time, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that 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, and, if they were judges, their judicial opinions. We would carefully study those and be prepared when it came time for 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 is not going to waste his time. He is going to make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee acts before the election on November 3. The hard and fast principle of 4 years ago has disappeared with President Trump. I have watched Republican Senator after Republican Senator, with only two exceptions, march before the camera and look at their shoes and say: I changed my mind. We are 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? 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. Twenty million Americans will lose their health insurance if the Supreme Court abolishes the Affordable Care Act, and nearly every American will lose the protections it gives for people with preexisting conditions. The President said--and he said again last night, in what some characterized as a debate, and what I characterize as a free-for-all--the President said: Well, 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 is why 3 years ago Senator McCain came to the floor and said he would not join the Republicans in killing the Affordable Care Act, because there was no substitute. It would leave too many Americans without the protection of health insurance. Well, that is going to be argued in 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. So there is a mad dash--a mad dash--by 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, California v. Texas. That is what it is all about. It is all about 600,000 people in the State of Illinois--600,000--who rely on the Affordable Care Act to get their health insurance. It is all about a law that eliminated the number of uninsured in my State by 50 percent. It is all about a protection that we all take for granted that says insurance companies cannot discriminate against us because of preexisting conditions. That is what it is 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 U.S. 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 is why he named her. 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 if he will accept the results of this election on November 3. It is the first time it has ever, ever happened in our history, and it is 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, a Republican, joined him, saying it is the wrong thing to say, the wrong thing to do, and both parties should condemn it when either a Presidential candidate or an incoming President says it. But this President is pretty obvious. He wants to fill that Supreme Court vacancy because he says: There may be an election contest after November 3; I want 9 people on the Court. What he didn't say, which is obvious, is that he wants that ninth person to be his nominee. So that is what we face with this situation and what we have ahead of us in the next week and a half. Presidential Debate Mr. President, I watched what was supposedly called a debate last night. It was painful. It was 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 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. That was very obvious last night. There was one moment, though, that I want to highlight. It was a moment when 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 came the turn of the President, who, if you 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 the German rise of Nazism, their anti-Semitic chant. They grabbed their torches and marched. When asked later, President Trump struggled with it and said that there were good folks on both sides, the White nationalist side, as well as those for civil rights. That was an outrage. Last night, Chris Wallace served up an opportunity for the President to clear it up. 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 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 that clearly heard it as a call to action. The group immediately turned the President's words in the debate into a logo that has been widely circulated on social media. From the rightwing social media site--which I am 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 said 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 and 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 rightwing extremists. Unfortunately, instead of following up with a comprehensive, coordinated effort--to no surprise--the Trump administration has repeatedly chosen to downplay this deadly threat--a law-and-order President who looks the other way, winks, nods, and says ``stand by'' to militia groups and White supremacists. Last year, several of us wrote to Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray 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 FBI 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-rightwing extremism, terrorists 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 a Federal Protective Service officer in Oakland, CA, by a rightwing ``Boogaloo'' extremist, and the alleged murder of two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, WI, by an Illinois teenager who reportedly considered himself to be a member of a militia--17 years old. Unfortunately, as we have learned from former Trump administration officials, the Trump administration has downplayed the threat of violent White supremacy and other far rightwing domestic terrorists. POLITICO recently reported that a draft homeland threat assessment report from DHS 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 DHS whistleblower alleged that DHS officials, including Ken Cuccinelli, requested the modification of the homeland threat assessment report to make the threat of White supremacists ``appear less severe'' and add information on violent ``leftwing groups.'' The efforts of officials within the Trump administration to obscure this threat posed by violent White supremacists and other far-rightwing extremists are misguided and dangerous. We know the significance of this threat. An unclassified May 2017 FBI-DHS joint intelligence bulletin found that ``White supremacist extremism poses a persistent threat of lethal violence'' and that White supremacists were responsible for more homicides from 2000 to 2016 than any other domestic extremist group. FBI Director Wray admitted, when questioned before a Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing last year, that the majority of domestic terrorism threats in America involve White supremacists. Thankfully, there is something in the Senate we can do to respond to this threat. I have introduced the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, a bill that would enhance the Federal Government's efforts to prevent domestic terrorism by requiring Federal law enforcement agencies to regularly assess domestic terrorism threats, focus their limited resources on the most significant domestic terrorism threat, and provide training and resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement. Good news: Last week, the House of Representatives passed the House companion to my bill on a unanimous voice vote. The Democrats and Republicans all agreed. Senator McConnell has a chance 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 is 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. It is 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. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on July 17, America lost two giants of justice: Congressman John Lewis and the Reverend C.T. Vivian. Sixty years ago, John Lewis was the youngest member of Dr. Martin Luther King's inner circle, and C.T. Vivian was Dr. King's field marshal, organizing support for the civil rights movement throughout America. In 1966, when Martin Luther King moved to Chicago to help break the grip of slumlords on mostly poor communities of color, C.T. Vivian came with him. Earlier this month, we lost another civil rights legend, a man who remained in Chicago after Dr. King and Rev. Vivian left and who continued the fight for the next 60 years for racial, social, and economic justice for people and communities of color in Chicago. The Rev. Leon Finney, Jr., was laid to rest this past weekend following his home going service at the church he pastored for the last 20 years, the Metropolitan Apostolic Church in Bronzeville. Among those paying tribute to Rev. Finney at his home going were Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. They are among more than two generations of Chicago leaders whose careers in public service Rev. Finney helped to nurture. Another public servant whose work as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago was was inspired in part by Rev. Finney couldn't attend the service but paid his respects in a letter read by Rev. Finney's granddaughter. ``Doc was always there for us,'' the letter read. It was signed: ``Barack Obama.'' In the 1960s, after Dr. King and Rev. Vivian had left Chicago, Leon Finney stayed. He understood that progress is a long march. Systemic racism and deep, generational poverty can't be eliminated in a year or two. Real change, real progress requires sustained commitment and effort. It requires strategy, not just slogans. Above all, Rev. Finney understood that real progress can't be delivered from outside or imposed from above. It has to come from the people who live in a community. He believed in power of grassroots democracy to transform individual lives and whole communities. Leon Finney was a Chicagoan by choice, not birth. He was born 82 years ago in Louise, MS., the eldest of six children. His father, Leon Sr., moved the family north to Chicago when his children were young, part of the Great Migration. In 1940, his dad opened his first restaurant, Leon's Bar-B-Q, in Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood. In its heyday, Leon's had four locations throughout the South Side. Leon Sr. was Chicago's ``Bar-B-Q King.'' In the early 1960s, Leon Jr. enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served as a military police officer and criminal investigator. After the Marines, he returned to Chicago and founded Christ Apostolic Church in Woodlawn. He served as its pastor for two decades, until that church merged with Metropolitan Apostolic Community Church--``The Met''--where he served as senior pastor. As his longtime friend and fellow activist, Father Michael Pfleger said: Rev. Finney was ``one of the few pastors who still understood that just the DNA of the gospel.'' It wasn't enough to preach about justice on Sunday mornings. Rev. Finney believed that you needed to work for justice every day. In 1964 Rev. Finney joined The Woodlawn Organization, or TWO, a grassroots group founded by the legendary organizer Saul Alinsky. He joined forces with another South Side civil rights legend, Bishop Arthur Brazier, who had marched with Dr. King in Chicago. In 1967, he became TWO's executive director. In 1969, TWO created a nonprofit development organization, WCDC--the Woodlawn Community Development Corporation--and named Rev. Finney as its president. TWO organized Woodlawn residents to stand up to absentee slumlords, who owned much of the housing in Woodlawn and other low-income neighborhoods on the South and West sides. It pushed back against plans by the University of Chicago to expand its campus south, into Woodlawn, plans that would have driven out longtime Woodlawn residents and businesses. The group also fought against ``substandard, segregated housing, high unemployment, poor schools, inadequate public services, community health concerns and other persistent social problems.'' Over the years, WCDC helped attract more than $300 million in commercial and residential development in ``uninvestable'' communities. The organization developed nearly 1,700 apartments and homes for low- and moderate-income families, mostly in Woodlawn but throughout the South Side. It managed 9,000 rental apartments in Chicago and Gary, IN. It employed 400 Black men and women, as many or more than almost any other employer in Chicago except for government. Many of its early victories were achieved before the creation of real estate investment trusts, affordable housing tax credits, enterprise zones, and other government incentive programs to attract capital to low-income and minority neighborhoods. TWO and WCDC became national models for community investment a revitalization. Rev. Finney forged alliances with elected leaders because he wanted to have a seat at the table when the interests of his community were being decided. He was appointed to powerful government boards, including the Chicago Housing Authority, the Chicago Plan Commission, the Monitoring Commission for School Desegregation for Chicago Public Schools, and Chicago State University. In 1993, he joined the faculty of McCormick Theological Seminary on the University of Chicago campus. As a professor of African American Leadership Studies and executive director of the seminary's African American Leadership Partnership, he helped train scores of new ministers in the work of the social gospel. He was not without fault. As he aged and the real estate industry became increasingly complex, WCDC sometimes struggled to pace with the changes and missteps occurred. But despite the controversy, the imprint that Rev. Finney left on the South Side of Chicago and the good he achieved is profound. In recent years, he suffered a series of health setbacks, but he never stopped working for justice. At his funeral, a community developer who Rev. Finney helped train recalled a recent conversation they had about today's new movement for racial reckoning. ``What's the strategy going forward? Is a voter registrar marching with you next time?'' he asked. Like the marine he was, he remained focused and disciplined to the end. He was proud and optimistic that a part of Jackson Park would be home to the new Obama Presidential Library. Not only would the library bring new investment and opportunities to the South Side, it would remind the young people, especially the Black and Brown children, who live there about what is possible for them. In a 2015 column, Rev. Finney wrote: ``The young among us today, many of them, will grow up believing anyone can become president, regardless of race. But some of us can remember when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that separate was not equal; some are old enough to have marched on Washington. Those events signaled the end of legal segregation in this country. But we never dreamed we would see a man of African heritage elected president--not in our lifetimes.'' The South Side, the community that was home to Harold Washington, Richard Wright, Mahalia Jackson, and many other pioneers for racial justice, was the right home, he said, for the President Obama's library. Loretta and I offer our condolences to Rev. Finney's many friends, colleagues, students, and especially to his family: his son Leon III, his daughter Kristian Finney-Cooke, his son-in-law Dr. Gerald Cooke, and his three grandchildren. Several years ago, McCormick Theological Seminary held a gathering to honor Rev. Finney. The occasion was the 20th anniversary of the program he had founded to train African-American ministers. Graduates of the program, including many community leaders, spoke of the profound influence Rev. Finney had had on their lives. When it came time for him to speak, Rev. Finney implored them to always remember to put the mission of the Gospel before their own egos. He recited one of his favorite Bible passages; the Gospel of Luke, chapter 4, verse 18: ``The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.'' Leon Finney remained true to his mission. Martin Luther King and C.T. Vivian helped sketch a vision for a new Chicago, but Leon Finney worked for more than 50 years to make that better, fairer Chicago a reality. The good he achieved will benefit our city, our State, and our Nation for years to come.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me at the outset join in with my Republican colleagues. Coming from a farm State, I am glad that we have a bipartisan continuing resolution until December 11. I am saddened that we don't have the Appropriations Committee working through its normal process, nor the Budget Committee. This is the world we live in now--continuing resolutions. And this continuing resolution does include money for the Commodity Credit Corporation, which is the usual source of payments for agriculture programs agreed to in the farm bill. There was some question as to whether or not there was enough money in the CCC account to take care for the months to come. Now there is no question that it will be adequately funded. That is a positive thing. I also am happy to report that the early press reports that we saw suggesting CCC funds were actually going to be diverted to oil companies--oil companies--was expressly prohibited as part of this negotiation. Understand what is behind this. These oil companies have benefited from a decision by the Trump administration to give small refineries waivers when it came to the blending of ethanol with their product. The net result of that decision by the Trump administration was that a large number of these small refineries were given waivers for blending, and, as a result, the actual production of ethanol declined dramatically. It is one of the major reasons that corn is grown and sold. It is for that use, and it was diminished dramatically. It was one of major reasons why, as the ethanol industry cratered, that farm income in many States was cut in half from what it normally has been. In just the last few days, there has been an attempt to rectify the situation, which should have been changed years ago, and rectifying it to say that, once again, there will be blending of ethanol with gasoline in the United States, which I support. And then someone suggested, well, let's give an additional subsidy to the oil companies from the Commodity Credit Corporation--a terrible idea from the start. I am glad it is not included in this final product. Let me mention one other part of this that is included that I think bears notice, and that is the fact that there is an extension of the school feeding program for the next school year. We have an extraordinary situation with the COVID-19 pandemic where many schools are not bringing kids into the classroom. Many of these kids are being taught online across America. I know it because I know my grandkids are going through this. For those who are in lower income- qualifying categories, we have now extended in this continuing resolution the accessibility of these school feeding programs for the next school year. That is important. Kids, if they are going to learn, have to have nutrition. We don't want them suffering from hunger in the process in any way, shape, or form in this great Nation. I want to salute not just the CCC, which has been lauded over and over again in this last half hour, but this decision that my side of the aisle was pushing for to extend school lunch and school feeding programs into the next school year. I think it will give some peace of mind to administrators who are trying to cope with the current situation.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, for an outstanding statement from the heart. I think about this moment in history. I think about the fact that just a few weeks ago, we were mourning the loss of John Lewis. He was a personal friend, a champion and inspiration, one of the real pillars of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, who lived on to this day and carried the torch for so many years when it came to civil rights and equal rights. I will miss him. Now there is another loss of another giant. Although she was small in stature, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an amazing life story. She was an extraordinarily bright young woman who just asked for a chance to get a job in New York with one of the law firms, but because she was a woman, they turned her away. That lost job must have been a disappointment to her, but as we reflect on it in the history of this Nation, it was the biggest break we ever had when it came to the cause of women in modern times because she went on to become a law clerk, a professor, a judge, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice. In the course of that career, she was such a powerful and effective advocate for the cause of women across America and, I might add, for the cause of men too. She made history. That job rejection may have been a disappointment for a day, but as we reflect on it, thank goodness she was steered to another path and used it so effectively. If you left this Chamber tonight and walked across the street to the Supreme Court, you would find a large group of people, as you have since last Friday, pausing, reflecting, thanking, praying for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's life. Across there tonight, they are lighting candles, dropping flowers and notes, crying, commiserating, really noting the loss America feels. I was struck personally by my own family's reaction. My daughter, my daughter-in-law, and so many others confided in me in ways they rarely do about how much this woman meant to them. It was time for reflection in my family and, I am sure, a lot of those across the United States. She had one last request, one dying wish. She handed it to her granddaughter and she said: Let the next President pick my successor on the Supreme Court. It is understandable that she would do that. I know she probably had a hope in her heart as to who that person might be, but she knew, after the way the vacancy of Antonin Scalia was treated by the Republicans in the Senate, that was the way they were going to handle her situation--at least we thought they would. Then, of course, Senator McConnell announced a 180-degree reversal in principle--180-degree reversal. Instead of waiting for the election and new inauguration of the President to fill her vacancy, he made it clear that Republicans in the Senate are hell-bent to fill this vacancy as fast as possible. What is the hurry? Why have they changed their position after 4 years? Do they doubt that President Trump is going to be reelected? Did that play into this equation? Who knows. But they are determined to do it because they have an agenda which is more important than consistency, more important than honor, more important than principle. Their agenda is to turn back the achievements and progress made by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and to leave the American people more vulnerable in their time of need. A few weeks ago, I took a poll in Illinois to see what the public sentiment might be on issues. I was a little surprised how overwhelming the issue of healthcare still is in my State of Illinois. As I reflected on it, it made sense. We wake up every day, looking for our masks, wondering how many more people have died, hoping that we can protect ourselves and our families. So healthcare is on the forefront of everyone's mind, and, of course, protection for your family is always your first instinct. People know that without the Affordable Care Act they will not have that protection. We remember--many of us do--the debate in creating the Affordable Care Act 10 years ago. I might say, in my House and Senate careers, it is the most important issue I have ever voted on. When again will I be able to help 20 million Americans find health insurance for the first time? When will there be another opportunity to make sure that health insurance sold in America treats people fairly? The Affordable Care Act eliminated lifetime limits on payouts, which is eminently sensible when you consider the skyrocketing cost of medical care and how so many situations in life are so darned expensive. It said to people: You cannot be discriminated against because you have a preexisting condition. I remember the day--most of us do--when applying for health insurance was a long list of questions, and if you happened to just check one of those ``yes,'' be prepared, because it meant you had a preexisting condition, and you were about to be charged a higher premium, if they would allow you to buy health insurance. Families with children who survived cancer knew what that meant--health insurance they couldn't afford or health insurance that wasn't available. The Affordable Care Act changes that and says you cannot discriminate against a person because of a preexisting condition. When we looked at some of the preexisting conditions health insurance companies were boldly announcing, well, of course, gender could be a preexisting condition. Women did have to pay higher premiums, you know. Think of that: gender as a preexisting condition. That was one of the tricks to deny coverage or to raise premium costs. Then, when it came to covering your kids, we remember what it was like--many of us do--when our kids graduated college, thought they were invincible, and took part-time jobs with no benefits. I remember calling my daughter and asking: ``Jennifer, do you have health insurance anymore?'' ``No, Dad. I am just fine.'' Well, we got her health insurance, and it cost a pretty penny. Now, under the Affordable Care Act, I could have kept my daughter under my family plan until she had reached the age of 26, when she would have had a better chance of having a better job with benefits. That is one of the things the Affordable Care Act did, but the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress have been determined to kill the Affordable Care Act from the day it passed. There were over 50 rollcall votes in the U.S. House of Representatives to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. They all might have passed the House, but they were not taken up by the Democratic Senate. They waited for the day, and the day finally came. Senator McConnell had the majority, and he was setting up to eliminate the Affordable Care Act here on the floor of the Senate. I will never forget that night or that early morning. At 2:30 in the morning, those doors opened. John McCain, who was very sick--we knew he didn't have long for this world--had just left a phone conversation with President Trump. He walked to that well, and he barely lifted that right arm that had been crippled during his prisoner of war experience in Vietnam. He lifted it just enough to say ``no,'' and John McCain's ``no'' saved the Affordable Care Act for millions of Americans. Did the Republicans learn their lesson? No. They decided that, if they couldn't win it on the floor of the House and if they couldn't win it on the floor of the Senate, they would win it across the street with the Supreme Court. That is what this is all about. That is why Senator McConnell has reversed his position--a position which he claimed to be principled. He has reversed his position on filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court in a President's last year and has said that he is going to, with determination, fill this seat. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, who is a friend of mine--and I work with him--had to explain to the American people why he reversed his position completely on this issue. Then he announced last night that every Republican Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary was going to vote for President Trump's nominee. You would have thought he would have waited until that nominee had been announced, but, clearly, it doesn't make any difference. They know that whoever that nominee will be will be hell-bent on going across the street and eliminating the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court. That is why this issue is not just a matter of debate between the highest ranking politicians in Washington but is a matter that affects everyone across America who buys health insurance, and that is just about all of us. It is to make sure that health insurance is worth owning and will be there when you need it. I see some colleagues on the floor, and I want to yield to them because I know they have their own thoughts to share with you, but it troubles me greatly what has happened to this Senate. This big Chamber, this big room, has turned into a museum piece in Washington, DC. We don't entertain visitors anymore because of COVID-19, but if they were to come, they could peer down at the desks and say: Well, that is where people used to stand, called Senators, who actually legislated. We don't do that anymore here. It is very seldom. Instead, we take up these partisan causes, like filling the Federal judiciary with ideologues and violating the traditions of the Senate to fill Supreme Court vacancies. This Chamber is just a room, but the Senate is 100 people--100 people bound together by history, tradition, rules, and mutual respect. What we are witnessing now with the Senate's effort by the Republicans to fill this Supreme Court vacancy before a new President is elected is a violation of all four--history, tradition, rules, and the mutual respect that is important in this body. I hope that we can recover from it, not only for the good of the Senate but for the good of the Supreme Court, and that we can come out of this with a determination to try to put this Chamber back on track. This is a sad and dark moment--a loss of a wonderful woman who served this country so well and this effort to replace her in a manner that does not speak to the best instincts and history of the U.S. Senate I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened to the statements made by the Republican leadership this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate. If one has a sense of history and 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 the Supreme Court nominees? Was there a requirement of 60- vote margins if there is controversy associated with filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court? There was until one Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Mitch McConnell, eliminated the filibuster when it came to the Supreme Court. 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 that the Democrats have reached an outrageous position: They are threatening the future of the filibuster. He eliminated it. When there were changes made in the filibuster 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 were 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 came 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 to 3--96 to 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 DC 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 Don Nickles, and Senator Bob Smith--three Republicans. What a different time it was. 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 in a position now, at this moment, when Senator McConnell, 4 years ago, established a standard. The vacancy of Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court led President Obama to nominate Merrick Garland, a well-respected judge from the DC Circuit. I remember seeing him and meeting with him after he had been proposed by President Obama. It was a sad duty to watch him as he walked the Halls of the Senate. You see, Senator McConnell announced that he didn't want any Republican Senators to physically meet with Merrick Garland--not 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 lameduck 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 lameduck when it came to filling Supreme Court vacancies in his last year in office. They didn't cite the Constitution because there is 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 and Chuck Schumer's name. Who knows who will be next on their list? The fact is, the Senate makes the decisions based on majority. At that point, Senator McConnell had the majority, and he lined up his membership behind him. Unfortunately, they are lining up again, but this time Senator McConnell's position is the exact opposite. This time he is arguing that because there is a Republican President, he should fill this vacancy instantly: Get it done. Let's go. His Republican Senators who took the opposite position 4 years ago are finding some rationalization to follow him again. What is 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 and that they be followed regardless of the President's party; what is at stake, unfortunately, is also the Supreme Court. This institution, the 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. 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 she was taking her argument 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 1970s, 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 100 percent certitude that if Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell choose her successor, that principle will be under fire; in fact, it may not even survive. For all the kind speeches about this principled woman and what she gave to America--and they are well deserved about Ruth Bader Ginsburg-- watch the nominee who comes from the Trump White House and you will find, I am afraid, they are not even close to the standard that she argued for and succeeded. Today, we are 6 weeks from election day and 7 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 ACA--ObamaCare--will survive. President Trump and Majority Leader McConnell want to rush the nominee before 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. 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? What would you say to the rest of America who depend on the Affordable Care Act for fundamental protections in health insurance and protections, such as no discrimination based on preexisting conditions? 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 essentially a preexisting condition. 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 with ObamaCare. And now the Republicans, again, want the insurance industry to have that power over your life. As of this morning, 6 million Americans 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. 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. Those of us who were here that night watched as a handful--perhaps three--Republican Senators said no. We all remember that moment after he had 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 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 ACA--let's see it. How many times has this President made an empty promise: We have a substitute; I will give it to you in a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks. They don't have one. Recently, at 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 February 13, 2016, when Justice Scalia just passed away in a Presidential election year and 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 in February 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. It is pretty clear, isn't it? Well, 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, and the 2016 Republicans dutifully fell in line behind it. They said that the American people should have the last word. An election year 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 really depends on which party controls 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 ``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 is 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 is a flip-flop and, oh, the painful contortions I see among most Republican Senators trying to rationalize posing for holy pictures 4 years ago, saying that the American people should have the last word and then 4 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 is about who gets the last word when you learn someone in your family has a devastating illness and you are 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 is the position 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 them to agree with him when it comes to eliminating the Affordable Care Act. 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 has taken this oath--this political oath to following 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: ``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 healthcare 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 are trying to accomplish in 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. Did you hear last night when the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced--I saw it this morning on television. He announced that 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 will not announce one until Saturday of this week. Here is this announcement by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: He's counted the votes. It is a done deal. What does it tell you? It tells you it doesn't make any difference whom the President nominates--the silence of the lambs in the U.S. 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 are afraid he will not be renominated, that he will not be reelected, and that he will not be in a position to fill this vacancy next year. So they are breaking their own promise to the American people to respect their judgment in the selection of the Supreme Court nominee.