Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Kentucky in his statement on the floor this morning. It was a lengthy defense of the procedure that is being followed in terms of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. It is not the first time he has made this historic defense, and clearly he is going to continue. He obviously feels that he is on the defense when it comes to explaining. I think he is. I think everyone remembers Merrick Garland and the pronouncement by Senator McConnell and all of the Republican Senators that Barack Obama did not have the authority in the last year in office to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

We sent the name ``Merrick Garland'' to the Hill. Senator McConnell let the word go out that he would not even meet with the man in his office. He would not show him the respect of meeting with him. Two or three Republican Senators broke with that command from Senator McConnell. Most went right along. It was a very low moment. It is one we haven't forgotten and I don't believe the American people have forgotten, because we have rewritten the rules. Now when it comes to a Republican President, Senator McConnell says, why, of course he can fill the vacancy. He can even fill it while votes are being cast in his reelection campaign. It is an enormous departure from 4 years ago, and Senator McConnell comes to the floor regularly to try to explain it away, and it just doesn't work. He will keep trying. He has no alternative.

But if most Americans tuned in to this session this morning and afternoon, I am not sure they would dwell on the rules of the Senate or the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They would probably be asking themselves and members of their family a very basic question: What is wrong with the Senate? Doesn't the U.S. Senate know what is going on across America?

This morning's New York Times front page: ``New Peak for US Cases: Over 82,000 in a Single Day. 13 States Endure Their Worst Week Yet-- Warnings of a Cold-Weather Surge.''

The article--of course referring to COVID-19--says:

The United States is in the midst of one of the most severe surges of the coronavirus to date, with more new cases reported across the country on Friday than on any other single day since the pandemic began.''

We sit here arguing about the rules of the committee and the rules of the Senate and who came first and who shot whom. The American people would like us to focus on something that has real relevance to their lives.

Listen to some of the things that were reported this morning in this newspaper about what is going on across America when it comes to this coronavirus:

On Thursday, the same day that President Trump said the coronavirus was ``going away'' and Joseph Biden warned of a ``dark winter ahead,'' the United States recorded one of its highest daily totals of new cases--75,064. By Friday evening, a new peak in the pandemic had been reached when more than 82,000 cases in a single day were reported nationwide, breaking the daily record set on July 16 by more than 3,000 cases. Thirteen States have had more new infections in the past week than in any other 7-day stretch. Hotspots are emerging across the country. Officials in Kentucky--Kentucky--announced more than 1,470 cases on Thursday, the biggest 1-day jump in that State. More than 1,300 cases reported in Colorado--another single day record. In the State of Washington, Governor Jay Inslee tweeted that the State had passed the 100,000-case mark, adding that ``we all need to commit to having fewer, shorter, safer interactions, especially as the weather keeps us inside more often.

Mr. President, that is what is happening in America. It is not what is happening on the floor of the Senate. We are embroiled in a political controversy over a Supreme Court nominee instead of focusing on the deadly situation that is going on across our Nation.

I have spoken to Governor Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, regularly about his battle to try to find equipment and treatment for the people in our State. It is a lonely, unpopular battle that he fights. This Governor in Illinois and Governors across the Nation have to stand up--if they are responsible--have to stand up and say to the people, the residents of their States, some things they don't want to hear.

I don't like wearing these masks--most people don't--but it is a simple, effective way to dramatically decrease the spread of this virus. I don't like the notion of social distancing, and I certainly don't like the idea of being away from my grandkids and the rest of my family, but if it means keeping them alive, I will do it, as painful as it may be. These are the simple, basic things that we are now debating from one end of America to the other.

This coronavirus situation has reached such a terrible state that yesterday, when the director of public health for the State of Illinois gave her daily briefing--Dr. Ezike is her name. She is a wonderful African-American doctor who has just been steadfast through this whole battle against the pandemic. In the middle of her presentation about what was facing our State, she broke down crying. I would have too. She turned her back for a moment and tried to compose herself. She could barely finish her press conference. She begged the people of my State of Illinois: Please, if for no other reason, for the sake of the healthcare professionals who risk their lives to treat these people, please help us put an end to this virus.

Last Saturday, a week ago today, one of my dear friends for years and years was feeling sick. She called her daughter and said: I think I need to go to the hospital. Her daughter took her to the major hospital not far from their home for admission because of lung problems. The hospital would not accept her. All the rooms were full. She then went to the second largest hospital in the area, asking if she could be admitted and treated. They would not accept her. All the rooms were full. She finally made it into the third hospital. She survived until Tuesday morning, when she passed away.

In the United States of America, that someone who had health insurance, was prepared to pay, could not even be admitted to major hospitals because of this coronavirus pandemic--and we are sitting here on the floor arguing about who was appointed by which President 100 years ago? Do you wonder why people look at the Senate and say: You are irrelevant. You are not even addressing the issues we care about.

And the procedural play here means nothing. Oh, I offered an amendment, and you voted no. People, at the bottom line, say: Grow up and do something to help America.

We know what it takes to reach an agreement, as we found on March 26 when we passed the CARES Act. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing--a bipartisan, strong vote, not a single dissenting vote-- $3.3 trillion to address this pandemic and our economy. We rose to the occasion. I went home, and people were amazed. You mean you actually did something in the Senate? Yes, we did.

How did we reach that point? It wasn't through the regular order; it was through honest, serious negotiation that took place between the White House and the leaders in Congress. But since then--since then--we have not seen that. There has been one group who has stayed away from all of the negotiations around the table. The White House is there. Secretary Mnuchin is there. Speaker Pelosi is there. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader of the Senate, is there. The Republicans have refused to sit down and negotiate at the table.

That is how it gets done around here. People sit down and work out their differences and put a bill on the floor and pass it 96 to nothing. But Senator McConnell has steadfastly refused to attend these negotiating sessions. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, joins him. So they boycott the sessions and come to the floor with a take-it-or-leave-it, partisan amendment in order to cover some political concerns back home. What a shame. What a waste.

When Senator McConnell announced just a few days ago to the White House, stop negotiating; there will be no bill before the election; there will be no COVID relief before the election, people back in Illinois said to me: What is he thinking? Doesn't he understand the reality of what is going on in States like Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and across the Nation, the infection rate, the death rate, hospitals being pushed to the limit? No. Clearly that is not a priority for Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans. The priority is not the millions who are at risk. The priority is not the hundreds who are dying. The priority is one Supreme Court nominee. So we are bound to spend 5 straight days on that issue and not a minute of that time dealing with COVID-19. How do you explain that to the American people? I don't believe you can.

I could go through the lengthy history--I will put it in the record-- of this Barrett nomination, but I will just state that when it comes right down to it, we cannot explain how we are going to leave here Monday night voting on one nominee but empty-handed when it comes to COVID-19. There is no excuse--no excuse for that. That is where we find ourselves.

I want to tell a story on why the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett directly links up with my concern about this pandemic. Having lost 220,000 American lives, my concern and the concern of everyone is to keep our families safe. The first question we ask one another is, You do have health insurance, don't you? It is the obvious question.

I remember a time in my own life, newly married, law student, my wife and I blessed with a little girl who came pretty quickly, and she was pretty sick, and we had no health insurance--no health insurance. She was treated by local hospitals here in Washington, where I was going to law school, and they called me in one day and said: Well, since you don't have any health insurance, you have three options: You can declare bankruptcy with all these medical bills.

I said: That doesn't sound right to me. I haven't even taken the bankruptcy course in law school. What else?

Well, you could file--we think you qualify for welfare, Medicaid.

That doesn't sound right either. I am training to be a lawyer. I am supposed to end up with a good paying job at some point in my life. Going on welfare in law school? What is the other option?

Well, the only other option is, we will total up all your bills, and you can pay them back to us over a period of years.

It took us 10 years--10 years to pay those bills because I had no health insurance. Did I remember that moment? I remembered it for the rest of my life, to be a father and a husband without health insurance and a sick baby, thinking, my goodness, is this going to keep the good doctors away? Will she get the treatment she needs to survive?

That is what we are up against now, because the Affordable Care Act, which I voted for 10 years ago on this floor, extended health insurance to 23 million Americans--600,000 in the State of Illinois--and it changed health insurance for everybody because now the health insurance companies have lost some of their tricks of the trade. They can no longer put a lifetime limit on how much they pay out. They can no longer discriminate against a person because they happen to be a woman. They can no longer discriminate based on preexisting conditions. They have to provide family health insurance, the option to keep kids on the policy until they reach the age of 26. That affects all policies.

So what has been the approach of the Republicans, particularly this President? He wants to eliminate that. What I have just described, he wants to eliminate. Don't take my word for it; it has been filed in a case across the street, Texas v. California. A group of Republican attorneys general came forward and said: We want to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. And the President said: I am going to join you. Let's get rid of it.

They tried to, on the Senate floor, in 2017. It is one of those moments etched in my memory, sitting down there at that desk. I looked at that door over there, and it opened at 1:30 a.m., and John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona, walked through that door, stood in the well. He could barely lift that right arm, which had been shattered when he was a prisoner of war. He lifted it just enough to say ``no.'' That ``no'' saved the Affordable Care Act from being eliminated by the Senate.

So where do they turn if they can't get it done in Congress? Off to the courts. And why is that important in terms of this nomination of Amy Coney Barrett? Because they are bound and determined to fill that vacancy on the Court before November 10. Why November 10? Because that is the day the Court takes up the oral arguments on the future of the Affordable Care Act. And if she is not in her black robe listening to that argument, by tradition she can't vote on whether to eliminate it or not.

She sent plenty of signals in the past about what she feels about the Affordable Care Act. To my friend from South Dakota who says, ``You don't know how she is going to rule,'' there is some truth to that. She could change her mind. But I will tell you, if you were a betting person, you would say the statements that she made criticizing Chief Justice Roberts for saving the Affordable Care Act and other statements that she has made about the law itself suggest that she will not be a friend when she has the opportunity to vote.

Do we take that seriously on behalf of 600,000 people in Illinois? You bet we do. It directly relates to this pandemic and the opportunity for people across this country to have the coverage they need.

I am going to tell a quick story about one of them. I have a photo of her here that I want to share with people. It is a situation that she faces. I am sorry that I don't have that in front of me, but I am going to tell the story anyway, as I remember it.

Her last name is Danenberger. She is from New Berlin, IL. She is an amazing young woman. She is battling breast cancer.

Here it is. Thank you.

When we cut corners when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Susan Danenberger is one of the victims. She is a fifth-generation farmer and wine maker. She has a great little vineyard and a great little restaurant, and I have been out there with my family. She is also a two-time cancer fighter with stage IV metastatic breast cancer. She has been through the gauntlet of medical procedures, treatments, and complications of recent years--a double mastectomy, radiation, IV, chemo, pulmonary embolisms, lung infections, and more. Her oral chemo medications alone have cost her thousands of dollars every single month, even with insurance.

As a business owner, Susan offers insurance to her employees. She was relieved to learn, when opening her new health policy, that the ACA guarantees that she gets coverage even with that medical history. It also allows her 23-year-old son to stay on the family plan.

Here is what she says to me:

Most of the time I feel driven. Making wine and running a winery is more than just a job. It's my purpose. I am more scared than I pretend to be, and that is how I make it through. I pretend that everything is OK. But this year, it is harder to pretend that everything is going to be OK. I am worried about the future. I am worried about money. I am worried that I won't be able to afford to fight cancer. I am worried about taxes, health insurance changes, and being at the mercy of insurance companies.

For Americans like Susan, with a family, a business, and preexisting conditions, there is so much at stake with this case pending before the Supreme Court and the judges and Justices who will vote on it.

Susan, bless you--she just can't afford for this Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Where will she turn?

Oh, but you must conclude it. Durbin, you are not telling us the whole story. Tell us about the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Tell us about their substitute, the one that is going to save everybody so much money and provide all the same coverage--tell us about that. Well, I sure would like to, but I can't because it has never been written down on paper, ever. There is no Republican alternative. They are bound and determined to kill ObamaCare with no substitute. That is why John McCain voted no. He said: We owe it to the American people to give them an alternative. Sadly, sadly, unfortunately, there is still no alternative.

Senator Schumer, earlier today, noted that there are a lot of other things we should be taking up at this moment in time. I am going to mention a few here this morning. These are measures which passed the House of Representatives sometimes months ago, sometimes over a year ago, and sent to the desk of Senator McConnell. They were never taken up. They have been sitting there while we have done little or nothing on the floor of the Senate except entertain his judicial nominations.

The first one is personal to me--not that it affects me personally or legally, but it is related to a bill that I introduced a long time ago. On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, with a strong bipartisan vote, giving a path to citizenship to Dreamers. I introduced the first DREAM Act 19 years ago. I have been reintroducing on this ever since.

These are young immigrants brought to the United States as toddlers, infants, and children. The Dream and Promise Act has now been sitting on Senator McConnell's desk for more than a year--more than a year. On June 22, I sent a letter signed by all the Democratic Senators calling on Senator McConnell to finally bring it up for a vote, and, 4 months later, Senator McConnell has not even responded.

We sent our letter after the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's effort to end deportation protections for Dreamers. In the opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, here is what he said about the actions of the Trump administration on DACA. Here is what he said: arbitrary and capricious. That was the description.

I joined with Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican, years ago, asking for the President to create DACA. President Obama responded by creating it by Executive order. Sadly, President Trump eliminated it, and, literally, hundreds of thousands of young people have their fate in doubt because of it.

The same thing is true when it comes to temporary protected status for people in the United States.

This administration has been a scourge when it comes to the issue of immigration, particularly inspired by Stephen Miller, a person I could never, ever understand. They have decided to be as mean as possible and cruel when it comes to people who are in this country having left horrible circumstances at home.

Now is the time for us to take up this measure and to start the debate. It isn't as if we have so much else to do. What we should be doing is to make sure that we do this.

So, in order to proceed in consideration of H.R.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Indiana, I recognize that he is new to this body, and what he has seen in the Senate is not the Senate that I was elected to.

There was a time--the Senator may find it hard to believe--when we actually brought bills to the floor. We allowed amendments. Before that, of course, the committee had done its work. We allowed amendments on the floor up or down, and we ended up deliberating and voting on measures. If they passed here, we then had a conference, and, miraculously, at some point, they became law. That has not happened here for a long, long time, and I don't think you have seen it. Maybe the Defense authorization bill is as close as it gets, though we don't have active amendments there.

In this circumstance, on this bill which I brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee 18 years ago--18 years ago--it has passed the House of Representatives and is sitting on Senator McConnell's desk for a year. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I cochair the Immigration Subcommittee with your colleague, who is standing to your right, from Texas. We have met once in the last 2 years--once--and have never taken this up. So for the sake of the people affected by it, asking that it come to the floor is not an unreasonable request. Their lives are tied up in it.

So I would love to see regular order. We haven't seen it in so long. Most people wouldn't recognize it. But I understand your objection.

I have a series, but I am only going to make one more unanimous consent request because I see Members waiting to speak. This one is very relevant and very timely. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4617

Mr. President, we know that foreign election interference continues to be a real threat in America. Just this week we learned of a foreign influence campaign carried out by Iran in which fake, menacing emails were sent to Democratic voters who were told to vote for Trump or ``we will come after you.'' The origin, we are told by intelligence agencies, is Iran.

FBI Director Wray has said that Russia has been ``very active in its efforts to influence the election'' and seeks to ``denigrate Democratic nominee Joe Biden''--two countries up to their elbows in trying to make a mess of our election campaign.

It is well past time to address this threat. We spend a time of lot talking about it. We could do it today by passing the House-passed SHIELD Act.

This is a bill passed in the House of Representatives that would establish a duty to report election interference from foreign entities so the FBI and the Federal Election Commission are aware when foreign powers are offering unlawful--unlawful--election assistance to campaigns and other political committees.

This bill would restrict the exchange of campaign information with foreign entities by making it illegal to offer nonpublic campaign material to foreign governments and those linked with foreign governments.

The bill would improve transparency by applying existing campaign advertising requirements to online advertisements, and it would close critical loopholes in the law to further limit political spending by foreign nationals and foreign governments to try to influence the outcome of a U.S. election.

Finally, the bill would prohibit deceptive practices about voting procedures to stop individuals from providing false information about voting rules and qualifications for voting.

In light of these ongoing threats to both Presidential candidates, President Trump as well as Vice President Biden--this is a bipartisan attack. They are not just going after Democrats or Republicans; they are going after all of us. Isn't it about time we said that we are fed up with it, and it has to stop? That is all this bill does. It is bipartisan.

In order to proceed to the consideration of this bill in time for it to affect the outcome of this election, perhaps, H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act, I ask that we proceed to consideration of it to prevent foreign interference in elections.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, H.R. 4995 is one that passed the House from Representative Engel to help address maternal health gaps and disparities in rural communities. The bill would provide grants at HHS to networks of healthcare providers and academic partners to expand obstetric capacity and improve trainings in underserved rural areas.

The trainings would help to address implicit bias, which--more so than economic status, health status, or education level--can contribute to health negative outcomes for moms and their babies.

Due to lack of specialists and geographic gaps, maternal health outcomes in rural Illinois are worse than in urban areas. So when it comes to responding to and tackling the urgent health challenges of the moment, alongside addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, these bills can help close the disparities and gaps that exist in health care in America.

H.R. 4996, sponsored by Congresswoman Robin Kelly from Illinois, passed the House in September. It closely mirrors a provision in legislation I have introduced in the Senate, the MOMMA Act. This critical legislation addresses our Nation's unconscionable disparities in maternal and infant mortality by ensuring mothers can maintain access to care and prevent pregnancy-related complications.

The U.S. is 1 of only 13 countries in the world where the maternal mortality rate is worse now than it was 25 years ago. Nationwide more than 700 women die every year as a result of their pregnancy, and more than 70,000 others suffer severe, near-fatal complications. Across the country, women of color are four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women. The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified these racial and ethnic health disparities that already existed. These gaps in our health system are unacceptable.

Medicaid covers half of the births in Illinois. This policy would help thousands of mothers in Illinois and nationwide by enabling Medicaid to provide coverage for low-income mothers for up to 1 year, compared to the current limit of 60 days. It is time we turn the page on this unacceptable inequity in our healthcare system and address a real need across America.

H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law 26 years ago, and it must be reauthorized. This law has been a lifeline for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in my State of Illinois and across the country. Over a year ago, the House voted to reauthorize and strengthen VAWA. But the Republican-controlled Senate has refused to bring this bill to the floor for a vote.

For many Americans, home is not always a safe place, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented particular challenges for people facing abusive situations and domestic violence. It is shameful that Leader McConnell has refused to call this critical reauthorization to the Senate floor for a vote.

It is long past time for the Senate to renew and strengthen VAWA.

In order to proceed to the consideration H.R. 4995, the Maternal Health Quality Improvement Act of 2020; H.R. 4996, the Helping MOMS Act of 2020; and H.R.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source