obama administration in 2009. you want to call and ask questions concerning the effort on the coronavirus in response, 202-748-8000 in the central time zones, 202-784-8001 in mountain and pacific time zones. metal professionals 202-740-7000 for input. let's go to your time at the cdc. the administration had to deal with h1n1. compare and contrast that process and the good things and bad things you learned particularly talk about how that applies to coronavirus relief today. >> i worked at cdc during democratic and republican administrations and i was inside of emergency response for four years during the end of the bush administration and island the agency at -- as acting director at the start of the obama administration but i was a civil servant, not a political appointee. >> washington journal live everyday at 7 am eastern, you can watch the segment at all today's program, c-span.org.

we will now fulfill our 40 plus your commitment to congressional coverage taking you to the senate floor next where lawmakers today take the first votes on a republican coronavirus relief bill. watching live coverage on c-span2. , dr. black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, whose love is from everlasting to everlasting, we pray for our nation during this season of critical decision making. guide our citizens with your wisdom, and fill them with your peace. lord, in every generation

you continue to provide people who are equal to our challenges and who strive to please you. provide us with such leaders that your name will be glorified as they strive to do your will. today, replace fear with faith, falsehood with truth, hate with love, so that your peace may abide with us all. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from i ie -- from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask for one minute for morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: iowa, my state has a rich legacy in leading the nation and the world in agriculture production and innovation. iowa is first in corn production, first in eggs, ethanol, pork, and second in soybeans. family farmers are the main

institution for producing all this so those family farms are how many iowans leave their mark on our world by passing their legacy to their children. in the united states senate, senator ernst and i have the great privilege of representing these family farmers. senator ernst and i have worked with the trump administration to make biofuels a priority. we've secured 15 billion gallons of ethanol are blended annually as the law requires. new ethanol infrastructure through the usda and secured an extension of the biodiesel tax credit. we've secured and expanded trade agreements with our largest trading partners which add value to iowa's commodities. we also helped put an end to the ridiculous obama-era waters of the u.s. rule that would have regulated 97% of iowa's farm

land as a navigable waterway. but just as the harvest comes to an end, usually in november, our work will not stop in november. senator ernst and i will continue to focus on iowa farm families and ensuring their success for years to come. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today the senate will have an opportunity to advance another covid-19 relief package for american families. for more than seven months now, the american people have been facing what one writer described as a health crisis with an economic crisis strapped to its back. the senate has stepped up repeatedly on a bipartisan basis to help our nation through this challenge. today we have an opportunity to do it once again.

the legislation before us is neither republican nor democrat, neither an idea of a perfect bill. i think we're all clear on that but it would move us past speaker pelosi's all or nothing obstruction and deliver huge support right now for the most pressing needs of our country. republicans want to conquer this disease through testing, treatments, and vaccines. democrats say they agree with us. republicans want to pour money into safe schools and make sure an entire generation of kids don't fall any further behind and democrats say they agree with that. republicans want to reopen the paycheck protection program so that main streets across america don't turn into covid ghost towns so that millions of workers can keep their jobs and keep getting paid. democrats say they agree with

that. for workers who have been laid off, republicans want to renew the federal supplement to unemployment insurance. democrats say they agree with that. republicans want to cement health protections for americans with preexisting conditions, including covid-19 itself. democrats claim they're all over that issue. and republicans want to take our nation's college presidents, nonprofit leaders, and employers at their word when they say they need commonsense protections so that legal uncertainty does not block their reopening. the bill on the floor would do every one of those things and much more. the overwhelming bulk of it are programs that democrats claim they support. well, it turns out there's a special perk to being a united states senator. when you actually support something, you get to vote for it. when you actually support

something, you get to vote for it. when you actually want an outcome, you vote for it. strangely enough, that's not what seems to be happening. our democratic colleagues have been happy to talk about further relief as long as it remained a hypothetical concept. but every time the senate has had a chance to actually do something, they said no. in july republicans tried to continue the federal plusup to unemployment insurance before it expired. senator schumer blocked it. in august senator mcsally fought again to restart those benefits for laid off americans. once again democrats stopped it cold. in september republicans wrote a sweeping proposal to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars for safe schools, unemployment benefit, paycheck protection, and the health care fight. every single senate democrat

voted to kill it all except the junior senator for california who didn't vote. this has been the dynamic for months now. republicans tried to pass commonsense policies that democrats say they support and democrats replying that working people can't get a dime, a dime unless speaker pelosi gets everything she wants. we're talking about silly stuff, mr. president. massive tax cuts for rich people in blue states, stimulus checks for people in our country illegally, wheel barrels of cash out of any proportion for covid needs for state and city governments that democrats have mismanaged for decades, decades. removing long-standing bipartisan protections that protect taxpayers from funding abortions. i hear they don't want to renew the p.p.p. unless it sends money

to planned parenthood and criminals who are literally currently in prison. let me say that again. they don't want to renew p.p.p. unless it sends money to planned parenthood and criminals who are lit liz -- literally currently in prison. these are the kinds of far-left demands over which democrats have blocked kitchen-table assistance for american families and health care support to crush the virus. during this historic crisis, the democratic leaders have elected to deny struggling people the help they need unless president trump signs the entire democratic party platform into law. today we're providing another chance to right the ship. in a few minutes senators will vote to either advance or filibuster a broad package that would deliver on all kinds of urgent needs. testing, treatments, vaccines,

safe schools for our kids, a second round of the job-saving p.e.p., more unemployment benefit, the legal protections that universities and charities say they need, protections for preexisting conditions. there's almost nothing in this proposal that democrats even claim to oppose. and just last week the entire country watched our colleagues on the judiciary committee complain over and over about having to fulfill those responsibilities when they supposedly wanted to be working on a coronavirus relief package. well, we'll see who walks the walk. i'm confident the democratic leader will repeat the same tired attacks he's been recycling since the summertime. he'll say that we shouldn't do anything unless we do everything. we'll argue this multihundred billion dollar bill is paltry.

it's $500 billion -- $500 billion is paltry or meager or emaciated? a half a trillion dollars? now, i'm not kidding, mr. president, this is seriously their claim that a half a trillion dollars for working people is chump change. it's not worth their time. hundreds of billions of dollars targeted directly to struggling people doesn't even get democrats out of bed in the morning. well, perhaps to the blue state billionaires who seem to be the democrats' top priority, these historic sums of money do look like chump change. maybe coastal elites who are practically -- who can practically find a million dollars in their couch cushions are indifferent about whether we get an outcome here. well, believe me, working

families like the kentuckians i represent don't see it that way. millions of workers have been able to keep their jobs and support their families because of the paycheck protection program. republicans want to fund a whole second round of that. today we'll either vote to advance it or vote to kill it. students, teachers, and parents need to know their k-12 schools are as safe as possible. republicans want to send a historic sum of money to those schools. today democrats will either vote to advance it or vote to kill it. for the historic numbers of americans who have been laid off, additional federal unemployment benefits have been a lifeline. republicans want to restore them. today democrats will either vote to advance it or vote to kill it.

colleges, universities, charities, and small business need commonsense legal protections, and with cases spiking our whole country needs further investment in testing, tracing, and vaccines. today the democrats will either vote to advance all that or vote to kill it. struggling people don't need more endless arguments. they don't need to keep waking up and listening to reporters speculate on whether the speaker of the house is in a good mood that day because they're -- their very livelihood may depend on it. the country needs an outcome. the country needs an outcome. let's put aside our differences, agree where we can, and move forward. why not get the country in a better place while washington continues to argue over all the rest. if the sun sets today with no

progress, if the senate turns to judge barrett's nomination without having advanced another historic rescue package, it will only be because senate democrats used the filibuster to kill this aid. if this relief does not pass, it will be because senate democrats chose to do speaker pelosi's political dirty work rather than stand up for struggling people. so, mr. president, let's not go there. let's find our common sense, agree where we can, and advance this legislation while we debate the rest. the american people deserve action. now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the motion to concur with amendment 2652 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader of the senate. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, the closer we get to an election, the sillier it gets here in leader mcconnell's senate. all week, the republican majority has scheduled stunt votes on supposed covid relief bills that are all in reality designed to fail. yesterday, the leader moved to table his own bill, so republicans could vote against

tabling it. let me repeat that because that's what's happening here. it's hard to believe that this is supposedly the greatest debate chamber in the country or in the world. leader mcconnell moved to table his own bill so republicans could then vote against tabling it. that's what the republican majority thinks passes for a serious attempt at covid relief bill in this republican senate, when people are suffering so badly. games, games, when people are suffering. the truth is the republican leader needed that vote to fail because if the senate actually proceeded to a real bill, it might mess up the timing of the republican plan to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court. now, think of that for a moment. the republican majority sets up a fake vote on covid relief because, if god forbid the senate actually considered a real bill to do something real about this overwhelming covid

crisis, it might delay their supreme court nominee that they are rushing through in a process that can only be declared as abusive to the senate. that's all the american people need to know about priorities on the other side of the aisle. rush a nominee through whose views are way to the right of the american people and ignore s with getting covid relief which is the number one thing the american people want, not a supreme court nominee who is so far away from their views. while the country is hurting, while millions of americans are sick and dying, while workers lose their jobs, businesses close their doors, republican senators are playing political stunts with vitally needed economic relief. and the games continue today. once again, the republican majority will bring up a bill designed to fail.

their partisan, emaciateed covid relief bill -- so-called covid relief bill. the bill we're voting on today has already failed in the senate, didn't get a democratic vote, and we already know it lacks the votes, and why? because it leaves so many americans behind. renters and homeowners are left behind. there is no relief for them. americans who have lost jobs through no fault of their own are left behind. americans who rely on critical public service by their state and local governments are left behind. small businesses in communities of color and some of the hardest hit industries, our restaurants, our concert venues, theaters, nonprofits, local news receive no, no dedicateed assistance. the republican proposal on covid doesn't even devote enough resources to testing and tracing

despite a spike in cases and the harrowing prospect of a second wave of the virus sweeping across america. it's laden with poison pills that our republican colleagues know democrats would never support. that's not a real attempt to legislate and get something done. what's in there? a giant corporate immunity provision to shield corporations from liability if they put their workers in dangerous covid-related situations. a tax provision to benefit wealthy families who send their kids to private schools while shortchanging middle-class families and public schools. there is no reason for our republican colleagues to insist on a corporate liability shield and a provision to injure public schools in a covid relief bill, no reason. they know it's objectionable. they know it's partisan. they know it's an anchor around the minimal bill they have enough to sink it. there's no reason to include these poison pills in

legislation that they know needs bipartisan support to pass because 20 republicans have said they don't want to vote for any money. so they know they need democrats, but they put things in the bill that they know democrats will oppose and lead to the bill's demise. this minimal bill. so what's the logic here? well, there is a perverse logic if the republican leader wants to make sure that the bill fails, and that's sure what it looks like. it's clear why leader comoom is forced to do these stunts. a good portion of his caucus opposes more relief to the american people. yesterday, the republican whip, the member in charge of counting republican votes, said, quote, i think we're going to have a hard time finding 13 republican votes for anything, 13. out of 52, 53. one republican member proudly vowed, quote, not to vote for

another dime. people are being kicked out of their homes, children are starving, there's no testing and tracing that meets the needs, schools can't open, and not another dime. let america suffer. so our right-wing ideology saying that we shouldn't make well-to-do people pay taxes -- that's what their last tax cut bill did -- can prevail over the needs of america and the american people. so it's not democrats who are blocking a real relief bill. we know that. everyone knows that. speaker pelosi is still trying her best with the white house to get a deal. we've already offered to meet republicans halfway. the biggest obstacle to another relief bill from the very beginning has been senate republicans and leader mcconnell, and as if we needed any more proof, it was pretty obvious before, it was reported

in multiple news outlets confirmed by four senators who were at the meeting that leader mcconnell warned the white house against making another deal on another stimulus bill before the election. let me repeat that. leader mcconnell, while he was coming to the floor and railing against democratic obstruction, was behind the scenes warning the white house against striking a bipartisan deal on covid relief. who does he think he can fool? not the american people. ask them. they know who's to blame. they know democrats up and down the line are for relief and republicans are opposing it. and i'll tell you one thing. the american people are sick and tired of these political stunts. they are sick and tired of politicians who would rather have it appear that they are working than do actual work. this shouldn't be so hard. we all know how to pass bills in

the senate, with bipartisan buy-in and bipartisan support. we did it in the cares bill back in march. but ever since that bill passed, this senate republican majority has gone totally partisan every step of the way, even on an issue as important to the country as relief from this evil pandemic. now, on the supreme court, the republican leader has announced that the senate will vote on judge amy coney barrett to be the supreme court -- to be a supreme court justice next monday. capping what will be the most rushed, most partisan, and least legitimate process in the history of, the entire history f supreme court nominations. leader mcconnell continues to defile the senate more than any other senator has done in a very long time. let us hope that leader mcconnell hasn't ruined the senate for good with this nasty,

180-degree turn, holding up merrick garland, rushing this judge through while people are on line at the polling places. the idea that we must wait for the next election with total hypocrisy, total hypocrisy. the united states senate has never, never considered a supreme court justice this close to a national presidential election. i doubt it ever will again. i don't think we'll ever have the combination of donald trump and leader mcconnell who so don't care about what they said in the past. mcconnell, anyway. who so don't care about trying to pick a justice who will look at the law as opposed to ideological views. i hope it doesn't happen again. i pray it doesn't happen again. just four years ago we all know the republican leader, the

former chairman of the judiciary committee, the current chairman of the judiciary committee and nearly every single republican member argued that prem's -- president obama nominee didn't deserve a vote on the floor of the senate because there was a national election eight months away. hours after the passes of -- passing of judge scalia, -- not if one party or the other controlled the presidency. the american people deserve a voice. that was eight months from an election. leader mcconnell confirmed yesterday that the vote to confirm president trump's nominee to the supreme court will take place eight days before an election. the senate republicans could wait eight months to give the american people a voice in selecting a supreme court justice. now they can't wait eight days.

i am sure that if they had to, the republican majority would confirm a supreme court justice eight minutes before election day. is it no wonder that democrats are so angry? is it no wonder that the american people are tearing their hair out when they have said they want to wait until the next election when that's only fair, that's only democratic, small d? the hypocrisy is towering an enormous and as i said, leader mcconnell could destroy this chamber for a very long time. why is this happening? well, this is part of a decade-long effort to shift the courts to the far right so that the far right, which has this -- so many republicans in their grasp, can accomplish through the judiciary what they could

never accomplish through the congress. senate republicans failed to repeal the affordable care act. we know that what happened -- that happened right here so president trump and republicans' attorneys general are suing to eliminate the law in court. senate republicans don't dare put roe v. wade on the floor of the senate. they know it would fail. they tried to appoint justices who are dedicated to repealing that vital right of a woman to choose and to control her own body. this is just an amazing moment. one of judge barrett's first cases would be to hear arguments against the affordable care act, the very act that this chamber rejected repeal of. republicans, as i said, could never repeal a woman's right to choose in congress. they don't even dare bring it to the floor.

the far right has never had a majority on the court to limit roe or griswald, but if judge barrett becomes justice barrett, it just might. the american women, watch out. i'll remind my colleagues and the american people, when the judge was asked about the final debate, he said if we put two or three justices on the court, the repeal of roe v. wade will happen automatically. is that what this republican majority stands for? if they do, anawns it to the -- announce to the american people. don't hide behind this idea that justices are calling balls and strikes, that they will obey precedent. don't hide behind that because we know what's happening here. the american people should make no mistake. their fundamental rights are on the line, the right to

affordable health care, to make their own medical decisions, to join a union, vote without impediments, marry who they love. that's what this is all about. the leader is ramming a supreme court through the senate while american voters wait in line to cast their ballots is completely normal. who believes him? i don't think a single republican on that side believes him. but they know what's going on. this is not the senate as he says performing its historic function. this is fiction. there is no precedent in history for the senate for what the republicans are doing. abraham lincoln, our great hero, great republican, rejected nominating somebody for the supreme court so close to an election. so republicans at the very least should go on record and admit that -- this is a extraordinary breach of fairness, comity,

honor, of truth, of consistency. so in a short time, i will make a point of order that the senate should not consider a nomination to the supreme court this close to a presidential election. every senator will vote on whether a nomination this close to an election shall be in order. it will confirm to the american people what we all know to be true that the republican majority has absolutely no intention of honoring this supposed principle it so vehemently argued in 2016. that they won't follow history, that they won't follow precedent, that they won't follow norms and traditions of the senate, that they won't even follow their own standards. that is the indelible mark on this senate majority. that here in leader mcconnell's senate it is the rule of because we can, might makes right. because we can, as senator whitehouse put it. all to confirm a far-right

justice on the court who would rip away health care from tens of millions of americans in the middle of a pandemic. we'll see how my republican colleagues vote. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, for months now the democrat leaders have held additional covid relief hostage. instead of working with republicans to arrive at a compromised bill that both parties can support and make it through both houses of congress, democrats insisted it is their way or the highway. either republicans agree to a bloated, multitrillion dollar piece of legislation filled with noncoronavirus-related noishes and far-left liberal wish list items, a bill that would never make it through both houses of congress, or americans get no

leaf. that's basically the choice the democrats have left the american people. mr. president, it goes without saying that this is not the attitude of a party that really wants to give help to americans. this is the attitude of a party that wants to use this crisis for political purposes. democrats figure that they win either way. either they use this crisis to force through a bunch of liberal priorities not related to covid or they blame republicans for a lack of a bill. completely absent from their calculations is any sense of what their intraj jens is costing the american people. if democrats had been willing to compromise with republicans to reach conscientious legislation, we could have had a covid bill months ago. the american people could be enjoying relief now. republicans made it clear since the summer that we were willing to compromise with the

democrats. all we ask is that the democrats come to the table with a reasonable proposal that could actually make it through both houses of congress. but democrats haven't been interested. oh, sure, speaker pelosi has supposedly been working on an agreement with the white house four month -- for months. we constantly hear from the speak that is a deal -- that is a deal is getting closer only to discover the next day that a deal isn't close at all. mr. president, let me tell you something, if you are the speaker of the house and want to arrive at a compromise, it doesn't take you three months. it probably doesn't even take you three weeks. mr. president, democrats have to know very well that there is no way for they'll to get a bill containing everything they want through both houses of congress. but democrats could get some of what they want. and isn't something better than nothing? even if democrats were right about the need for every penny of spending that they are

calling for, wouldn't it be better to get some of that spending passed than to have nothing? to democrats apparently the answer is no. mr. president, just a few -- in just a few minutes, the senate will vote on the republican coronavirus legislation. our bill would provide more money for the hardest-hit small businesses, more health care resources to fight the virus and money to help schools reopen and operate safely. priorities that all of us, democrats and republicans, should be able to agree on. in theory, i'm pretty sure we do agree on them. yet all signs suggest that democrats will filibuster this coronavirus relief legislation for the second time. even though passing this bill would get more money into the hands of small businesses and schools. even though this bill would provide additional funding for covid testing and treatment. nevertheless, once again, democrats will choose nothing --

nothing over something. once again democrats will decide if they can't get everything they want, it's better for americans not to have anything. mr. president, i hope whatever perceived political gains democrats are getting from their refusal to negotiate are worth denying help to the american people. in a few minutes republicans will cast their votes in favor of covid relief, and i invite rank and file democrats to reject their leader's obstruction and join us on that vote. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, late last night the news flash was senator mcconnell, the republican leader of the united states senate, opposes covid-19 relief bill and nervous the -- and nervous the white house.

supposedly it was a statement made by senator republican at the republican lunch and it was later confirmed by four republican senators who attended that that is what occurred. finally it becomes public, one of the things that has been suspected for a long time on this side of the aisle. most of us have been paying close attention to the speeches by senator mcconnell to try to gauge his interest in really coming back to help the american people. we remember on march 26 when 96-0, 96-0, the senate voted for covid relief in what was known as the cares act. it was a bipartisan measure responding to a national pandemic that was just starting to surface in an economy just starting to collapse. many people thought at the time that that would be the end of our journey, that we would do what's necessary and put it behind us. and so the unemployment assistance, for example, ended on july 31 of this year, the paycheck protection program, p.p.p., ended in the middle of

august, we were wrong. the pandemic got dramatically worse and the economy slumped even further. millions more were out of work. thousands were dying. more were infected. and we're still in a terrible battle now against this deadly virus. so the obvious solution was for congress to come back and help again. -- the first measure was good and i think helpful, but it wasn't enough. we needed more. so nancy pelosi, the democratic speaker of the house, five months ago -- five months ago in may passed the covid relief bill. to follow on to the original bill. she sent it over to senator mcconnell five months ago and he did nothing. what he said was, i want to see if i feel a sense of urgency about the need for this bill, a

sense of urgency. well, today 220,000 americans have died. americans are dying at a pace from this coronavirus that is unimaginable. do you understand that the death rate from covid in america is two and a half times the death rate in canada? do we realize the infection rate in the united states is five times what it is than kand or -- canada or germany. do we understand that with 4.5% of the world's population, we lead in covid deaths than anywhere else in the world? the effort to deal with covid-19 have failed and the american people know it. they are tired of this way of living with these masks but they know if they don't they risk their health and the safety of

others. they want this economy to come back to life. they want the kids to go back to school. but we can't move forward unless we have leadership, number one, and that's what an election is all about, a plan, number two, and the resources to implement it. what are the resources that senator mcconnell believes are necessary to deal with this? when it comes to testing, $16 billion for the nation, $16 billion. we are currently testing a million people a day akloss the -- across the until. we should be testing 14 million people a day if we're serious about contact tracing, if we're serious about reopening the economy. and so the senator from kentucky comes to the floor this morning and talks about the obstructio obstructionism of nancy pelosi. obstructionism? five months ago she passed a covid relief bill and sent it to

his desk and he never once brought it to the floor for a debate, not once. he mocks it, criticizes it day after day after day but he's afraid of a vote on the floor of the united states senate. so he comes up with an elaborate procedural scheme which we'll see in just a few minutes here that basically wants to put together his package for covid relief. but his package is missing so many key elements that we know it will not respond to this national crisis. it's the old story of a man 30 feet from shore drowning and someone stands by the shore and tosses him a five-foot rope. it doesn't work. it doesn't reach. it doesn't save him. the chairman of the federal reserve jerome pollace told us if we don't do something, there will be a drastic turn in the economy. if we pass a bill, we have a chance of recovering by 2021.

if we don't, the chairman of the federal reserve warns us and other economists as well that we're going to slump into an even worse recession, even more unemployment, even more businesses failing. that appears to be what senator mcconnell is prepared to accept, but we're not. those of us who were sent here to deal with the real problems and challenges for americans realize we need more than just an effort that throws that five-foot rope to a man drowning 30 feet from shore. that is the mcconnell approach. as we take a look at the elements that are missing there the mcconnell approach, they are lengthy. virtually every state and local government in the nation has seen a downturn in revenue because the economy contracting. we want to help these state and local governments survive, to be able to ignore or i should say overcome the need to lay off

health care workers and teachers and firefighters and police. that's what we believe in and that's what we include in our bill. not in the mcconnell bill. housing, no funding for housing or rental assistance in the mcconnell bill that will be brought before us. economic stimulus. remember the $1,200 checks? there are no direct stimulus checks in the mcconnell proposal. he says that we are holding out to help the coastal elites. news flash, senator mcconnell, the coastal elites don't qualify for these checks nor should they. ordinary people do and your bill doesn't help them. on unemployment, senator mcconnell's bill cuts the benefits in half, the federal benefits for unemployment. and then he puts in this provision, an incredible provision that gives large companies immunity from liability if they do not take the necessary steps to protect their employees and customers. that's a high priority.

the big shots do pretty well in senator mcconnell's bill. when it comes to testing, senator mcconnell is prepared to spend $16 billion as i mentioned earlier. the bill that we support has over $57 billion for hospitals and health care clinics and $75 billion for testing. nutrition, senator mcconnell says we're just trying to help the blue state billionaires. well, i've got news for him. they don't qualify for snap benefits, and there's no snap benefit increase in the mcconnell bill. we believe there should be. people are standing in line at food banks. america can do better. men money to help the schools, we put more money into that than senator mcconnell does. help for the postal service which has been hard-pressed by the current state of the economy. we also have paycheck protection program which we all agree needs to be there for the small businesses. i will just conclude by saying this. we have our chance now to work together on a bipartisan basis

to help people who are counting on us. senator mcconnell's approach has to be rejected. it is just an effort to find some cover politically so people can go home and say well, i voted for something. let's do something that makes a difference in the lives of people and helps them. let's deal with this coronavirus directly and let's help those who are suffering with job loss and struggling to make ends meet get through this crisis themselves. that is the responsibility that we face and it's one that i think we should face honestly. i listened to my friend and colleague senator thune came and said we are holding america hostage with our possession on the democratic side. we're not holding them hostage. it was senator m.c.i. who refuse -- senator mcconnell who refused to participate in the negotiations and still does. we have a bipartisan effort between the house house and speaker pelosi to solve this problem and to come together again as we did in march. it is time for us to do it. the president may say he's tired of covid, but america can't be

tired of covid. we have to face it every single day and fight it every day. the senate and congress should help. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i concur with everything our distinguished assistant leader has said. mr. president, we're in the middle of the most devastating public health crises in modern history. the american people are paying a terrible price. nearly 220,000 americans have died in just ten months. put that in perspective, that's significantly more than the number of americans who died in the korean, the vietnam, the iraq, and the afghanistan wars combined, all of them. remember when president trump called himself a war president? president trump said he is a war president. well, has he acted like one? no. he called the virus a hoax. he's been awol ever since.

millions have lost their jobs. they're struggling to make ends meet. people are being evicted from their homes. they're living in their cars, in shelters, or on the streets. they're relying on the generosity of others. and the virus is still not remotely under control. the need for another comprehensive emergency funding bill to address the covid crisis is obvious. it's urgent. has been for five months. and what is the senate doing? staging show votes on covid relief bills. if the majority leader -- that the majority leader himself said would go nowhere and then they go back on their word, both the majority leader and the chairman of the committee said a year ago as they tried to rush through the nomination of a supreme court justice less than two weeks before the election after millions of americans have already voted. so what are their priorities? i know where mine are. they are the families of the 220,000 americans who lost their

lives to this virus. they're with the thousands of vermonters, the millions more across our nation that have lost their jobs during this pandemic. they're with the small business owners trying to stay afloat during this crisis. they are the fathers and mothers who are wondering whether they'll be able to pay next month's rent or put food on the table. they're with the children struggling to do zoom calls and online classes. so it's a national disaster and it requires real solutions. we need a comprehensive bill to address this problem. we can't do it with fig leafs or piecemeal as senator mcconnell wants to do. we can't pass an inadequate bill today and have the chance maybe we'll come back later and do what we should have done to begin with. that's not how it works. everyone knows it. we have one chance to get it right. we owe it to the american people, everybody. i don't care whether

republicans, democrat, independents, everybody we owe it to try. he staged a show yesterday. he didn't bring up a proposal for covid relief. he voted for a prose says, the paycheck protection program. i support that program. we all do. it's been critical to keeping thousands of vermonters and small businesses afloat. it ignores critical improvements of a program that would be made by considering the heroes act, expanding access to all nonprofits, making critical access, hospitals eligible for p.p.p., addressing arbitrary caps and various loan programs, help small businesses. more importantly, provide more funding for this program, nothing else would even remotely solve the problems facing our country. the economy won't come back until the american people have confidence the virus has been vanquished.

we need more funding for the p.p.p. program. we all agree on that but we need to fix that program and do so much more. we have to invest more in testing. it needs to be based on national testing and contact tracing strategy so we can quickly identify cases, isolate those who have been exposed. how many times do we have to say this? we need to develop a vaccine dis distribution program now so we can be up and running as soon as the vaccine is available. we have to provide personal protective equipment to those on the frontlines. we have to ensure our hospitals have their resources that need to take care of -- we need to keep our nursing homes safe and virus free. if you do just a target bill aimed at one sector, that's a way to avoid doing what's really needed. and it picks winners and losers at a time when everyone is struggling. no matter how much aid we give to small business or to the airlines or to our struggling

restaurant industry, our economy doesn't come back until the virus is under control. so we need a comprehensive bill, not the so-called mcconnell skinny bill we're voting on today. provides only $500 billion for covid relief. less than half of even what the trump administration proposed just a month ago. look at the lines at food banks. they've skyrocketed during this crisis but there's nothing in this bill for knew -- for nutrition assistance. look at the millions of americans struggling to pay next month's rent or keep up with their mortgage payment. notwithstanding the wishful thinking of the president, this is a massive problem and either the president doesn't know it or he doesn't care. maybe it's both. 25 million americans on unemployment compared to just two million at the end of january. and the unemployment assistance in this bill is totally inadequate. nothing in the bill for state and local governments who are on

the front line fighting this virus. inadequate money for testing and education, child care. no funding for community health centers. no funding to fight this on a global level. so we're not going to defeat this pandemic if we ignore what's happening outside of the united states. americans can't safely resume international travel. commerce. i mean, i can go on. there's so much that is missing. what do they put in? oh, they turn something over to the well paid lobbyists of corporations by providing sweeping liability shields for corporate wrongdoers who have failed to do their part to keep employers and consumers and patients safe. that tells you everything you need to know about what's in it. a special earmark for big corporations so they can come ahead of struggling american families. we know it's not going to pass.

it shouldn't pass. let's start working and getting something that can be passed. as senator durbin said, the house passed the heroes bill over five months ago and they passed it again three weeks ago. why don't we take it up, vote it up or vote it down. let's have some votes. let's make people stand up and say what are they really, really for. and if we don't, then democracy has failed th, the american peoe have failed. i see my colleague is on the floor. i didn't realize he was there before. i will put the rest of my statement in the record and yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to finish my comments before the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. i rise today again to speak on behalf of the brave and hardworking men and women of law enforcement across this nation.

last month i talked about the dangerous consequences of inaction by the senate if we didn't come to protect them. and unfortunately, since my last speech, four more law enforcement officers, men and women, have died, been murdered in the line of duty. that's a 20% increase over the same number this time last year. and that doesn't count the hundreds of police officers who have been injured in the line of duty, many of them still recovering from their wounds. the groundswell of violence against law enforcement is shocking. and it's our responsibility as senators to act. enough is enough. rather than support radical ideas like defunding and abolishing the police, the senate should take the lead and pass meaningful legislation to protect law enforcement officers. increasing funding, improving training, and raising standards. that's why again i call on my colleagues to support and pass the protect and serve act, a bill that i've sponsored and a

bill that i hope we can get passed. the protect and serve act would funnish dangerous criminals who murder our law enforcement in the line of duty. if they murder a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, they will be sentenced to life. if they injure a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, they'll be sentenced to ten years in prison. the premise of the legislation is simple. there is no escape from justice for potential criminals who assault or kill a law enforcement officer. the senate passes legislation almost every day in this chamber by unanimous consent, but i'm sad to report that if i tried to get unanimous consent for this bill, woo that we would have objection on the floor. -- that we would have objection on the floor. the heated rhetoric and the violent attacks on officers are having real-world impacts, and the safety of law enforcement has never been at the low that it is today. across the country, recruitments are down.

fewer people are applying to go into service -- or into law enforcement academies, and retirements are up. we're seeing our law enforcement ranks dwindle. it's sad but it's not surprising. law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. every morning, they wake up, they kiss their spouse goodbye, and they don't know if they are going to come back safely. but when they spend all day being disrespected, doing this very difficult and very dangerous job, and politicians harass them or allow them to be harassed, i should say, by violent mobs, protesters, there's no wonder that morale is as -- at an all-time low. fewer police means more criminal activity. it means hardworking american citizens who are going to work every day just to make their lives better are living in communities that are less safe. we cannot sit idly by and allow for the streets to be filled

with dangerous, violent criminals who face no consequences. instead, we must speak up and show our men and women in blue that we respect them and that we back them. they put their lives on the line to protect us, and we should do the work in congress to protect them. in fact, in the last congress, speaker pelosi allowed this bill to be voted on. she supported making it a law. but now, her conference is run by radical leftists who want to abolish the police or defund the police, and she is not even allowing this bill to be brought to the floor. she won't speak in support of law enforcement officers despite the rising tide of violence against them. that's why the responsibility lies here in the senate. for us to show our support and let law enforcement communities across the country know that we have their backs. let's protect police, deputies, and let's pass the protect and serve act. i urge the american people to

call your senators and tell them that you want this bill passed. you want law enforcement to be safer, and you want our communities to be safer. don't be silent. help me fight for the men and women in blue. they are counting on all of us. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 178, an act to condemn gross human rights violations, and so forth, with the further amendment numbered 2652, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment with amendment numbered 2652 to s. 178, an act to condemn gross human rights violations of ethnic turkic muslims in xinjiang and calling for an end to arbitrary torture and harassment of these communities inside and outside china shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk shall call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: could we have order please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations outside the chamber. in the far right corner, take your conversation outside the chamber, please. thank you. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, leader mcconnell has argued that what the republican majority is doing by ramming the supreme court justice through the senate mere days before a national presidential election is completely normal. that's perfectly -- that it's perfectly consistent with precedent. this is not true.

there is no precedent in history of the senate for confirming a supreme court justice this close to an election. there's never been, never been a supreme court justice confirmed after july of an election year. president lincoln, a great republican president, one of our foremost national heroes, rejected the opportunity to nominate someone for the supreme court close to an election. and i dare say every single republican senator already knows this because they all argu argud that exact position four years ago. republicans all argued that the senate shouldn't confirm justices in presidential election years because of the supposed principle that, quote, the american people deserve a voice, unquote. senate republicans made that

argument eight months before the election. now they're rushing to confirm a supreme court justice eight days before the election. while americans wait in line to cast their ballots. they're waiting in line, they're voting. millions of americans, tens of millions have already voted. i have no doubt republicans would confirm a justice eight minutes before election day if it meant they got their justice. you could not design a set of circumstances more hypocritical than this. the truth is that the republican majority is perpetrating the most rushed, most partisan, least legitimate process in the long history of supreme court nominations. and republicans at the very least ought to go on the record and admit that this is an extraordinary breach of fairness, of comity, of honor,

of truth, consistency, and of course precedent. a black and indelible mark on this senate majority which will last forever. so, mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. has the senate ever considered a nominee to the supreme court of the united states this close to a presidential election? the presiding officer: according to the parliamentarian, the secretary of the senate's office confirms that it has not. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, i make a point of order that it should not be in order to consider a nomination to the supreme court of the united states this close to a presidential election. the presiding officer: the point of order sf not -- is not ripe for decision and is not sustained. mr. schumer: i appeal the ruling of the chair. i move to table the appeal and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the question is on the motion to table the appeal the ruling of the chair. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote or to vote? if not, the yeas are 51. the fays are 44. and -- nays are 44. the motion to table is agreed to. in the ruling of the -- and the roo-- the ruling of the chair stands. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: in about two weeks, the american people will go to the polls to determine the direction of our nation.

there are many important issues voters will consider as they decide which way they'll cast their vote. their decisions will ultimately determine who's president and the makeup of congress. one issue that's always front and center in any election is the economy and the economic policies of the respective candidates. this election is no different. there are many differences in the economic policies that would be pursued by a republican-led administrator -- administration versus the path my democratic colleagues would take if they are in charge. one particular stark difference is tax policy that both sides can be expected to pursue. over the past four years, president trump and republicans

in congress have enacted historic tax cuts particularly for middle class americans. and that's been part of a long overdue revamp of our tax code. this included reducing tax rates across the board, significantly increasing the standard deduction, and doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. as a result of these changes, a typical family of four earning $70,000 saw their tax bill reduced by $2,000. while my democratic colleagues have done their best to distort this reality about middle-income tax cuts, i.r.s. tax return data in 2018 confirms that

middle-income americans saw significant tax reductions. in fact, taxpayers in the middle of the income distribution saw their tax bill reduced by an average of more than 13%. my democratic colleagues and former vice president biden have made no bones about their plans for tax reform. and their tax reform would be tax increases. if they prevail in the upcoming elections, they'll seek to reduce and undo the 2017 tax law and impose trillions of dollars in tax hikes on individuals and businesses. the former vice president has sought to deflect accusations that he would raise taxes on low and middle-income taxpayers by

promising only plans to increase taxes on businesses and individuals with annual incomes over $400,000. there are many reasons to be skeptical of this vice president's promise. so i want to discuss the skepticism. first, a similar assurance was made by the obama-biden administration in their first term. many will recall the obama-biden administration promised not to raise taxes on married couples earning less than $250,000 or $200,000 for single filers. that promise was tossed out the

window when a host of new taxes that fell directly or indirectly on middle-income americans were enacted to pay for obamacare. that included individual mandate penalty tax, 80% of which was paid by taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year. this is exactly why republicans repealed that individual mandate as part of the 2017 tax law because it was very regressive. a second reason low and middle middle-income americans should take little comfort in former vice president's promises only to tax the rich and businesses is that such tax too often get passed along. there's well documented principle in any tax policy that

simply because laws impose a tax directly on an individual or business doesn't mean the ultimate burden of that tax won't fall on others indirectly. every analysis of mr. biden's tax plan by independent third parties from the very liberal tax policy center to penn wharton to the american enterprise institute so liberal, moderate, and conservative shows taxpayers earning less than $400,000 will shoulder at least a portion of mr. biden's proposed tax increase. so this comes from the fact that the tax increases largely reflect the economic consensus

that a significant portion of the corporate income tax falls on workers in the form of reduced wages and benefits. in other words, workers pay even if you increase the corporate tax rate. our nonpartisan joint committee on taxation has estimated that hurting the workers with a 25% increase in corporate tax increase is in fact borne by workers. mr. biden, of course, has promised to increase the corporate income tax from 21% to 28%. now, according to penn wharton budget model, this business tax will mean that over 90% of the households with income between $45,600 and $121,000 will see an

increase in their total tax burden. with the bulk of mr. biden's tax agenda targeted at hiking taxes on capital, the consequences then will be felt throughout the economy in the form of lower wages, fewer jobs, and slower imhik growth. according to a study out of the hoover institution this week, the biden plan holds the promise of reducing per capita gross domestic product by more than 8% when compared to the current law with the 2017 trump tax law being made permanent. and that raises an additional important issue. taxpayers should take mr. biden's promise not to raise

their taxes with a whole grain of salt because the vast majority of americans will see a tax increase beginning in 2026 unless the 2017 tax cuts are made permanent. a top priority for president trump and the congressional republicans has been to make permanent the middle-class tax cuts that were enacted in 2017 which otherwise would sunset 2025. president trump has called for making the tax cuts permanent as part of each of his budget submissions in congress. now we have democrats refusing to work with republicans to make the tax cuts, the middle-income

tax cuts of 2017 permanent law. so taxes don't go up automatically in 2026. and keep in mind that the middle-class tax cuts enacted in tax reform are not just about lower tax rates for middle-income workers and families. they're also about small business owners and family farmers. for the millions of small family-owned businesses and family farmers, tax reform of 2017 provided a 20% deduction for qualified business income under section 199a. the whole purpose of that was to be for individual filers to reduce the inequity between a lower corporate tax rate and what individuals would pay if

they're in business to compensate for the capital that they have to have invested for their small business. according to the recently released 2018 i.r.s. data, in iowa alone, my state alone, nearly 215,000 small businesses and farms across our state benefited from this 20% deduction in section 199a. now republicans are committed to making that provision permanent as a very important tool for those small businesses and farms to grow, invest, and provide critically needed jobs in our communities. however, mr. biden's tax plan doesn't include any proposal to make permanent or even extend the middle klaa-class tax cuts

enacted under president trump. every review of his tax proposal assumes his indent is to -- intent is to allow the tax increases to come into effect and with good reason. because on the campaign trail, mr. biden has stated, quote, on day one, i will move to eliminate the trump tax cuts. end of quote. it can't be both that he will only raise taxes on those with incomes over $400,000 and repeal the trump tax cuts in their entirety. so who can blame taxpayers for being skeptical when mr. biden says that he won't raise their taxes. every indication is that he will raise taxes on people below

$400,000 a year income. under a biden administration, middle-income individuals can expect a biden plan that rolls back the trump tax cuts. this means he will increase their tax rates, increase the amount of their income subject to tax, and reduce tax benefits for families. similarly, small business owners and family farmers can also expect him to tax a larger share of their business income. while mr. biden has tried to position himself as a centrist on this tax issue, his tax and economic agendas is all that different -- is not all that different from his far-left opponents in the democratic primaries.

his sale pitch may be different, but his agenda will have the same detrimental effect. as "the wall street journal" editorial board summed this up, the problem with the biden policies is, quote, they will have a long-term, corrosive impact by raising the cost of capital, by reducing the incentive to work and invest, and, lastly, reducing productivity across the economy. americans will pay the price in a lower standard of living than they would otherwise have and that they deserve, end of quote. i yield the floor. mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, thank you. i rise at that to talk about -- i rise to talk about americans'

health and the health of virginians. we're living through a crisis, the coronavirus crisis, that is unprecedented in american life since 100 years ago with the influenza of the late 1918's. a recent study that was put out suggested that the actual toll now may be closer to 300,000. many states are experiencing dramatic spikes with predictions that we could see the worst levels of coronavirus in coming months, at least until a vaccine is developed and widely distributed, and that probably won't happen until the spring of next year. in virginia we've been hit. 3,515 virginians have died of coronavirus. my wife and i know three of them, two in richmond and one in fairfax county.

this challenge in virginia hit first in a tiny part of the state that i really love, the eastern shore of virginia, that is one of the least accessible parts of virginia. the eastern shore has two sizable poultry processing plants, with thousands of workers, a mixture of white workers, african american workers, latino immigrants, haitian, creole immigrants. in march, at these two plants, one run by tyson, and the second run by purdue food company. many were asymptomatic. many didn't know they had had, but that meant they could spread is to others. the eastern shore was dramatically taxed by this fast-moving and

little-understood crisis at the time. that was our first hot spot in virginia. other states had their hot spots. that was ours. thank goodness, as virginians have grappled with this crisis and as we've grappled with it across the country, there have been some protections. and i want to stand and talk about the protections that have been provided to virginians at this time by the affordable care act. about 400,000 virginians have medicaid because of the affordable care act. virginia embraced the expansion of medicaid years ago. many have been able to get insurance, many for the first times in their lives. that 400,000-plus have been able to access care. virginians have been protected if they had preexisting conditions and now having had coronavirus is a preexisting prg condition. and the many people who suffer from long haul coronavirus symptoms have preexisting conditions. they have been protected.

young people have been able to stay on family policies, which has been particularly helpful in a time of economic challenge, while a lot of young people have lost jobs or have not been able to find them. and other people who have lost jobs in the private sector have been able to go on the exchanges and if their incomes -- would make the premiums more affordable. as bad as this has been, it would have been a lot worse had it not been for the affordable care act providing protections for families and individuals. i don't pretend to understand everything. i have been around for a while, but there are a lot of things i still don't understand. one thing i don't understand is why the repeal of the affordable care act is like the nobodiy dick that the -- is like the moby dick that the g.o.p. and

the trump administration has been searching to kill this worthy bill that's been protecting people during a critical time. i've seen during the trump administration numerous efforts via administrative be a -- sabotage to weaken the law. i can be here as we cast vote after vote after vote to repeal the affordable care act. i saw a shutdown driven by a senate colleague from texas a few years ago all around repealing the affordable care act. it was important enough to shut the entire government of the united states down for more than two weeks. i stood here on the floor at the most dramatic moment ever in my political life. you might think it might have been like election night 2016. now, the most dramatic night ever was the night we stood here on the floor at about 2:00 in the morning and john mccain, having been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, came to vote to make sure millions of americans wouldn't lose their health

insurance. in addition to administrative sabotage, we've seen one court case after the next sponsored by republicans to try to repeal the affordable care act. and now we see sort of moby dick coming into sight with the california v. united states case to be argued at the supreme court on september 10. my colleagues are petrified. let me read you some stories from four constituents of the many that i've received. michelle from new castle, in appalachian southwest virginia. she wrote in about her 9-year-old son, evan. she moved to virginia from texas because texas didn't have expanded medicaid and virginia d i moved to virginia. i recently moved from texas. i am incredibly concerned with the supreme court nominee and the protections given in the affordable care act. my son evan is nine years old. he was born with a rare

abdominal wall defect. after many surgeries and staying in the hospital for the first eight months fighting for his life, he came home. at the time he was covered by his father's employer-sponsored health insurance. he was protected under the a.c.a. his health care which included ventilator support, tube feeding easily came to a million dollars. he has autism, adhd, astigmus. i know the constant battle a person faces while trying to get treated for autism-related therapy. i was denied coverage for my son because i made too much. my income as a single mother was $35,000. i was working sometimes 60 hours a week paying $650 every month for child care. the cost of my employer-sponsored health insurance for myself, my son, and daughter was $800 month.

i couldn't afford it. i had to childhood between having coverage for my children and being able to pay our water and light bills. it took months to receive the decision that we were denied for medicaid. upon my move to virginia, i was able to obtain medicaid coverage, not just for my son who had been denied in texas, but for every household member t took two weeks. the a.c.a. is protecting my son and his ability to be covered by other insurance is so necessary. i have contacted my senators on subjects that affect my family frequently. my family means everything to committee. my son's life isn't something i take for granted. i fought for him every day while i struggled through pulmonary hypertension, and it was four long months before i even heard the words when he goes home rather than if he goes home. dawn from virginia writes about her 20-year-old daughter. she is from vienna.

she worked a part-time job with no benefits. i'm concerned about the upcoming supreme court vote on the a.c.a. what will happen to young people like my daughter if the a.c.a. is gone? a veteran, lieutenant alvia, from hampton roads, i'm 100% permanently disabled veteran. my care is supplemented by medicare and the services of medicaid alert services. the latter two care services are threatened by the abolition of the a.c.a. and challenges to the americans with disabilities act. with the supreme court scheduled to hear arguments to repeal the a.c.a. soon, this puts lives and rights at unacceptable risk. donna from the richmond area where i live writes about her husband diagnosed with glioblastoma, brain cancer. my husband was diagnosed back in june of 2020. the insurance claims have now

exceeded $is -- $1 million and will rise. my husband isn't able to work and my job has no benefits. i fear what it will be like for us if obamacare is overturned by the republicans. we must continue to rely on getting our insurance through the marketplace. now we're rushing a supreme court nominee. in the 2016 i was in this chamber and so many of my republican colleagues made the argument that they would not entertain a nomination by president obama, not that they would vote against the nominee. that would be consistent with advise and consent. but they would not let the individual in their office, not have a judiciary committee hearing, not having a judiciary committee vote, not have a floor debate and vote. and the principle that was newly announced in 2016 was let the people died. let the voters vote for a president and the senate and then we'll see about filling the

supreme court vacancy. and my colleagues looked me in the face and the voters in the face, too, and they said, this precedent is a precedent we will apply equally to a republican president as to a democrat president. but now that promise is being broken. those words to colleagues and the public are being reversed. there are some outside this body who think that's just what politicians do. they say things and do the opposite. they are a not surprised by that. i don't think that's true. my experience here since 2013 is when my colleagues tell ming is, they do it. -- tell ming is, they do t i have -- tell me something, they do it. this is very, very different. changing the tune, we will not fill a vacancy in a presidential year. we'll let the people decide. what is the reason for the change?

and i have concluded that since people normally don't go back on what they said -- and this is a rare instance in my time here in the senate -- the reason is a real important one, and the reason is, finally we see moby dick, we have a chance to gut the affordable care act. we have one last chance to do it in a case that's going to be argued in the supreme court on november 10. that is so important with people dying and sick and suffering that we're willing to break our word, to rush a justice, to repeal the affordable care act. for god's sake, why? for god's sake, why? i'm struck by the fact i've unfairly used a broad brash to cast aspersions at the g.o.p. because i am struck that two g.o.p. senators have said you're right. this is wrong. we shouldn't rush the justice. we should let the people decide.

who are the two senators? senators collins of maine and murkowski of alaska, who together with john mccain in august of 2017 stood on the floor in the middle of the night and cast deciding votes to make sure that people would have health care instead of millions losing their health care. they are sticking by their word because they know what's at stake and they know what this rush means. we shouldn't be rushing a supreme court nominee and people breaking their word to do so. on the court we should hold folks to their promises. let the people decide. they are voting -- 37 million people have voted already in the united states. let's bet the people decide who the next president is and who the next senate is. and obviously if it's a republican senate and republican senate, everyone will understand moving quickly to the nomination of judge barrett. but let's at least let the people decide.

that's what we should do on the court. here's what we should be doing instead of forcing an unprecedented rush to a justice who can be part of destroying the affordable care act. let's work on covid. let's work on the health care crisis. but i'm disappointed after good work together on four bills in march and april, to inject trillions of dollars to help people, and to help businesses, and to help hospitals. we knew we needed to do more. the house put a bill on the table in may. i knew the senate republican majority would not embrace the house proposal but i thought they would do something. july went by, nog, august went by nothing, most of september went by, nothing, eventually a republican proposal was put on the table that couldn't even generate strong support within the republican caucus. it was dramatically insufficient in my view because it provided

no assistance for housing, rent, mortgage, snap benefits, state and local government. it provided none of those things. democrats and some republicans voted against it with the hope that vote would do exactly what it did when we had a bipartisan proposal. the white house gets engaged we do something good for the entire american public. the vote did have that effect sort of. the no-vote on the republican proposal in september did start a more robust discussion with the white house on what should be done to provide covid relief, but not here in the senate. repeatedly as democratic leadership had been talking to secretary mnuchin up at the white house, we read in the paper that senator mcconnell, the leader, has been telling members of the g.o.p., we're not doing a deal. don't do a deal. cold water on the deal. now, we're having some sort of show votes on insufficient

proposals this week but to come to the floor to cast a vote on a motion to table a proposal when everybody knows it's not going anywhere because it's not sufficient at the same time as we're reading headlines in the paper that the majority leader is telling people not to do a deal, do not do a covid deal. the p.p.p. package that we voted on yesterday was insufficient. we refilled the bucket for small businesses in april and we should have and we've got to refill it again, but the package yesterday didn't do anything for restaurants, didn't do anything for many in the small business sector and it included nothing for people hit hard by unemployment or families who need relief or people who need testing. the bill that we just voted on today, the skinny covid bill was insufficient for the same reasons that led it to be voted down by democrats republicans in september. as i conclude, mr. president, i

want to go back to the eastern shore. i know i have another colleague on the floor who wants to talk. i started off talking about the eastern shore where virginia's covid experience began with the hot spot in two poultry processing plants. i've got a good-news story for you, mr. president, because i was on the eastern shore a couple of days ago, but i've got a challenging punchline to my good news story. this is where it started in virginia, hotspots in these poultry plants. these low-income workers, many immigrants, they saw president trump declare this is an essential industry. they stood up and said if the industry is essential, we're not sawdust. we're not inessential. we're not expendable. industry is essential and we're have essential too and they asked the governor to adopt a rule to return safely to plants during the time of covid.

the deputy attorney general heard their request and said, well, maybe, let me see if osha will do something. won't the federal labor agencies come and put a safety rule in place an osha did nothing. in july, at the request of these poultry workers who are now in an essential industry and risking their health, the governor of virginia enacted a temporary state safety rule, not just for pull outy plants, but other places, to be sure that as people come back to work they can be safe. good news, mr. president. after that law was enacted, the cases on the eastern shore declined and declined and declined and of the 134 cities and counties in virginia right now, even with these two big pull outy -- poultry plant, per capita, we -- it is just about the best in virginia. but the bill we just voted down,

the skinny bill that we just voted down that had a liability protection component to it, it wasn't just liability protection. i would be for liability protection. if you want to protect somebody from liability, normally you don't at the federal level. normally you set a standard of care and you say everybody who exceeds the standard is protected from liability. the skinny we voted on had liability protection, but didn't have a standard of care. it excused people from liability. it did something even worse. it did something even worse, and that was one of the reasons i voted against it. the bill that we just voted down would have wiped out the virginia safety rule. it would have wiped out the ability of any state to pass a temporary safety rule to protect workers so that they could come back to work safely in a time of covid. it is one thing to try to kill the affordable care act in the

middle of a pandemic and take health insurance away for millions. it's another thing to rush a supreme court justice in violation of what you said you would do to try to achieve your goal of killing the affordable care act. but trying to wipe out state safety laws that are working in my commonwealth to effectively protect workers who the president has declared essential , i've seen everything. i've seen everything. i yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the

majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mrs. ernst: mr. president, judge amy coney barrett is a wise, experienced, compassionate and strong woman. in this past week iowans and all americans had a chance to see that. no matter the question or the topic, she was calm, cool, and collected. she invoked the rules set by the late justice ginsburg in providing no hibts, previews -- hints, previews or forecasts as to how she would decide any given case. that's how judges should act because as judge barrett points out, judges are aren't legal pundits. their role is to rule on the law. and certainly that seemed to frustrate some folks. it's like they wanted that big

tv moment to score just one more point on the political scoreboard this election cycle. they weren't focused on understanding judge barrett's judicial philosophy and temperament. mr. president, what has become crystal clear to me throughout this process is that judge barrett's academic and professional qualifications are above reproach. as a law professor at notre dame, her alma mater, she authored numerous academic articles on the topic of constitutional law. as a seventh circuit court judge, she has authored 79 majority opinions. of those majority opinions, they have been unanimous 95% of the time. judge barrett has shown a commitment to the law and

constitution and an even hand in applying the sacred tenets of our democracy. like most iowans, i firmly believe in the role of our supreme court. it is the defender of our constitution. at the end of the day, that's my test for ar supreme court justice -- for a supreme court justice. will she defend the constitution? why is this so important? because far too often politicians in washington want the supreme court to be a super legislature to push policy that can't make it through congress. but that's not the job of the supreme court. we must resist with all effort the push to make this happen now and in the future. last week judge barrett demonstrated that she would be a defender of the constitution.

a soon to be justice who will rule based on the constitution. who will leave the policy decisions to congress and decide the cases at hand, not the political winds of the moment. this week the senate will consider adding another woman to the highest court in the land. this is something all women of every political party or persuasion should be applauding, but it seems like the left can't bring themselves to see this nomination as a great story for women. i'm struck by the irony of how demeaning to women some of the left's accusations really are, that judge barrett, a working mother of seven with a strong record of professional and academic accomplishment, couldn't possibly respect the goals and desires of today's

women. the great freedom of being an american woman is that we can decide how to live our lives, whom to marry, what kind of person we are, and where we want to go. i served in the military, something not exactly popular at various points in america's history. we don't have to fit into the narrow definition of womanhood. we create our own path. so, folks, i implore you to recognize this nominee for who she is. judge barrett has shown that she has the utmost qualifications and the character to serve on our nation's highest court. she is a role model for young women in iowa and all around this nation, a wife, a mom of seven, a woman of faith, a

midwesterner. she did not receive her law degree from an ivy league school. some folks may not like that, but i appreciate someone like myself who has lived and learned beyond america's upper crust and coastlines and has seen america through the eyes of a farmer and the soul of a railman, an accomplished jurist and truly a wonderful and decent person. amy coney barrett is demonstrating to the world, that this, becoming a supreme court justice, is what a mom can do. i look forward to supporting her nomination and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president .

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, let me just follow right on with that important topic of the vote we'll have in pa few days to -- we'll have in a few days to send another justice to the united states supreme court. i had the opportunity this morning to meet with judge barrett. the conversation reminded me of exactly why she's the right choice to fill the vacancy on the supreme court now. i was asked the first weekend of this discussion before the president made a decision if i could vote for her and i quickly said yes having watched her circuit judge bipartisan confirmation, having seen how that discussion went. i had her on the short list that i kept myself for a long time as someone that would be an important addition to the court. first in her class at notre

dame, clerked on the district court in washington, d.c., clerked for justice scalia at the supreme court, a law professor at notre dame for 15 years, at least three times in that 15 years, chosen by students as the top faculty member. and bipartisanly confirmed on the seventh circuit and has a history of the last three years of the kind of judge she would be. the dean at the law school at notre dame had this to say about judge amy coney barrett. he said, judge amy coney barrett is an absolutely brilliant legal scholar and jurist. he said, she lives a life of humility and grace devoted to her family and community. somebody else at the notre dame law school said, when presiding officer barrett was in the --

when professor barrett was in the room, the smartest person in the room was also the most humble person in the room. maybe we saw some of that when she was before the judiciary committee. as she answered those questions understanding what her job was, understanding the job of a judge is not to decide what the law should say but what the law does say. not to decide what the constitution should say but what it does say and, even more importantly, in her view, of what a judge should look at, what people thought it said when they wrote it; that textualist, that originalist concept. she i think rightly perceived that if we want to change the constitution, there's a way to do that. if we want to update it to what would be -- what it might mean now, we have the chance to do that. certainly if we want to change the law, we had the chance to do

that. and if you really listened to the questions, particularly from our friends on the other side, the democrats on that committee, they were all very much premised on, well, what do you believe? what do you think about this? what do you think about that? that's not the point p. and she, i thought, very consistently for 24 hours made the point that the point is, it's not about what i believe; it's about what the law says. and, by the way, members of the committee -- she didn't say, but it's obvious that it's your job to decide what the law says. it is the job of the court to decide how the law is applied and if it meets the test of the constitution. a widely respected scholar, a person of faith. by the way, i think in the previous hearing, we've all heard that comment, the dogma

lives loudly in you. there may be a good way to use the word dogma, but i don't think i've ever heard it used in a positive way. but the if you just substituted dogma for faith, what a great thing that would be to say about somebody. the faith lives -- your faith, the faith lives loudly in you. no matter what your faith is, that's a great thing to hear about yourself or to say -- to be able to say about somebody -- somebody else. lots of people say that about amy coney barrett. she's written 79 opinions at the circuit court level, the court level right below the supreme court. everything she said as a circuit judge, as a witness before the committee, as a nominee before

the committee has been exactly what i think a judge should do. the day she was nominated by the president, she said, quote, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. judge scalia famously said that a really good judge will often issue an opinion that they wish was a different opinion. an opinion that doesn't meet their view of what they'd like to see happen but meets their view of what the law requires to happen. the american bar association -- sometimes not all that friendly to republican nominees to the court -- concluded that she was well qualified. they said that they'd asked for

input of more than 900 people familiar with judge barrett, and in the end, not one person uttered a negative word about her. certainly, nobody has been elected to this body that didn't have lots of negative words said about them. just to find 900 people and none of them have a negative thing to say, i think, is a great indication of who she is. one lawyer told the a.b.a. that she's, quote, an intellectual giant with people skills. and engaging warmth. not every intellectual giant is praised for their warmth or their people skills. it's clear that she's well qualified. it's clear that she is shea a brilliant lawyer. it's clear that she cares about her faith. about her family, about her community. as senator ernst mentioned, the

first nominee since sandra day o'connor that didn't graduate from yale or harvard. there's nothing wrong with yale or harvard, but there's nothing wrong with having a different background as you come to the court, particularly if all of your associations as a lawyer have been, she is mind-blowingly intelligent. that was from somebody, one of her colleagues at notre dame. and she's also one of the most humble people you're going to meet. brilliant, humble, pretty good combination. america needs judges that bring humility and brilliance both to the court. the supreme court will benefit from her being there. i certainly look forward to voting for judge amy coney barrett, as she moves from that job to associate justice amy coney barrett and believe we will be able to do that within

the next few days. thank you, mr. president. mrs. blackburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i tell you, it is such an honor to join my colleagues and talk for a few minutes about our supreme court nominee, judge barrett. and in the judiciary committee, where i hold a seat, we were doing one of our most important duties. our constitutional duty, to provide advice and consent regarding the president's nominee for the supreme court. and indeed we do this with all of our federal judges that come before us. and last week we fulfilled that highest level of duty, as we examined judge barrett's record, her character, and to see if she was qualified to sit on the supreme court.

and, as you are hearing from my colleagues today, yes, indeed, she is qualified. now, i will tell you, mr. president, that unfortunately some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent their time fishing for sound bites and feigning confusion over the fact that judge barrett takes her cues from the constitution and not from the latest polling and not from the 24-hour news cycle. honestly, i think that said more about them than it did about her. and this is what happens when leaders who really ought to know better allow politics to take control of their vetting process, of their thought process. that's what most americans took

away from those hearings last week, that in the eyes of those on the democratic side of the dias, there was no way that judge amy coney barrett was ever going to make them happy. because, to them, only answers that tracked with their views, views on the left, their views on abortion, on religion, on socialized medicine would pass muster. this is an absurd standard, i will tell you. and it is no standard at all because those views shift and change depending on what the loudest megaphone on the national mall has to say on any given day. and so, in the interest of

refocusing on our duty to offer advice and consent, i think we could all stand a quick recap of last week's hearing. here's what we know. judge barrett is exceptionally smart. she's focused, and she is a mindful jurist. her colleagues, students, former clerks, and professional associates when all backgrounds and all world views wholeheartedly believe she is competent and prepared to hold a seat on the supreme court. her record is consistent with the originalist lens she puts over the cases and controversies that come across her desk. over the course of two days of intense questioning, she did not

contradict that the record or violate the rules of judicial ethics by offering a preview of future rulings. the american bar association rated her as well qualified to serve on the court, and based on the testimony and evidence offered to the committee, i will tell you, i definitely agree with them. i will vote to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court, and i would encourage all my colleagues who plan on voting no to think long and hard about why that is. and if they have not taken the time to get to know judge barrett, her background, her record, i encourage them to get to know a little bit about her. and also to ask themselves how smart was it to have spent the past month signaling their

willingness to dismantle our constitutional framework to score a few cheap points against the white house during a political season? i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i was in alaska when judge amy coney barrett was before the senate judiciary committee, but since then i was able to catch up on those hearings, and i want to commend my colleagues, particularly senator graham, for conducting those hearings in a way that befitted such an occasion, respect, good questioning, and i think that the american people -- certainly my constituents -- learned a lot and were very, very impressed

with judge barrett. mr. president, as you know, the advice and consent responsibility of the senate is one of the most important responsibilities that we have in the constitution. the process that i will have gone through and go through with every single judge is to evaluate judge barrett's qualifications on her record, the hearings, and of course in discussions i've had with her. and this has been an extensive evaluation. i've read hundreds of pages of the decisions that she's authored. i've listened to and read the views of alaskans, both for and against her nomination, and in my meeting with judge barrett, we discussed in great depth her viewpoint on a variety of national and alaska-focused legal issues. she clearly understands the separation of powers and federalism, holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of federal agencies and is a strong

protector and proponent of the second amendment. all issues that my constituents care deep lay about -- deeply about. why are these issues so important to alaska and central to us realizing our potential? mr. president, let me give you a brief but recent example of an issue that recently made its way through the ninth circuit, which often is the bane of our existence in alaska, to the supreme court -- not once, but twice -- and was unanimously greed -- agreed to by the supreme court. in a case that some will be familiar with, sturgeon v. frost. a moose hunter, a whoever craft, the wild interior of alaska made for some great headlines. but the issue being litigated in that case was one of control, one of freedom -- control of our lands, our waters, our fish and game. the federal government in essence called john constitution

-- told john sturgeon he couldn't use his hovercraft on federal waters to go hunting. yes, i can. then there was litigation. the issue of federal overreach, agency creep. in alaska, we have a front row to this problem. we've seen it happen to us consistently by the courts, particularly as i mentioned the judges on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. when they interpret statutes, statutes involving my state -- and there are many -- federal statutes only relate to alaska in a way that fits with their ideas and policy notions about the way the federal lands in alaska should be managed. in essence, they typically think that less control by the people and more control by the government is what is needed. but, mr. president, that often is not what congress wrote and

what congress intended. it's the absolute opposite of judicial humility. failing to read the statutes as we in this body wrote them. it's failing to exhibit the kind of textualism that judge barrett ascribes to and was so on display during her hearings. so why is this so important? justice elena kagan wrote in her opinion for the majority in sturgeon v. frost when the supreme court overturned the ninth circuit twice in three years that the laws, the federal laws that govern land management in alaska are often, quote, different from the laws governing land management in any other part of the country. these laws are often carefully crafted by this body in the house, and they are essential for alaskans both culturally and economically. and when judges misinterpret these laws as they often do --

and this is what i talked to judge barrett about -- they often directly impact the lives of my constituents, usually in a nepg tif way. -- negative way. just ask john sturgeon and countless other alaskans over the decades have seen their rights to enjoy our lands -- and it is our lands -- that they called home whittled away decision by decision by federal agencies. over the years various federal agencies have acted if federal law -- as if federal law governing alaska doesn't exist. people couldn't partake in their traditional activities, couldn't harvest their traditional foods, schannians -- alaskans couldn't make a living on the land. i don't know how judge barrett will vote on these specific issues, but i trust her temperament on great display during the hearings, her stated skepticism about federal overreach, her strong belief that the second amendment, quote, confers an individual

right intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense. unquote. i trust what others have said about her on both sides of the aisle. brilliant, humble, a woman of unassailable integrity and, quote, a role model for generations to come. all of this was on display during her hearing and in my meeting with her. and i trust that all this will come to play when these kind of cases, the alaska specific cases, make their way up to the high court which they inevitably do. i don't believe that it's an overstate to say that the future of my constituents depends on these kind of issues. so, mr. president, it's for these reasons and others that i will vote to confirm judge barrett to the united states supreme court and i encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same for this exceptional jurist

who is very qualified for this position. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: mr. president, it is an honor to speak in strong support of judge amy coney barrett to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court of the united states. mrs. hyde-smith: after carefully review of her record and her outstanding testimony during her confirmation hearing, it is clear judge barrett is well suited for a lifetime appointment on the court. last week judge barrett firmly held her own during hours and hours of questioning from my colleagues on the judiciary committee. she did not once falter during her hearing. in fact, she excelled.

judge barrett proved to the american people that she is prepared, talented, compassionate, and not to mention brilliant. judge barrett demonstrated that she is an independent individual who can think for herself. she made it clear she is an originalist who will follow the law. without a single note or binder in front of her, judge barrett repeatedly affirmed that she would interpret the constitution, laws passed by congress as they were written, no more, no less. during her hearing, judge barrett testified i apply the law, i follow the law. you make the policy. the judge kept pointing out that we, the senate, are the legislators. she stressed that she has no mission or agenda to change the law as she would want it. judge barrett made it abundantly clear that in her role as a

jurist, she has no issues with setting aside her personal beliefs when applying the letter of the law. this mindset and legal philosophy is exactly the type of jurist we need on our nation's highest court. not only did we hear from judge barrett but we heard from her former professors, colleagues, students. these are the people who know her best. these individuals were a witness not only to her intellect but her character as well. the testimonies on her behalf only proved her absolute readiness for this position. americans should be celebrating the nomination of judge barrett. she is brilliant, hardworking, ambitious, and a proud mother and wife. at a time when we need role models for our youth, judge barrett fills that role. the judge is a family oriented

woman who reveres the constitution. she is a representative for working women across the country and a testament that women can have a career and family and be stunningly successful at both. i also appreciate that she has displayed great strength in withstanding affronts to her faith and her family during the confirmation process. if confirmed, i am confident that she will be amy coney barrett will have the honor to be the fifth woman in history to serve on the supreme court. the first judge as a mother of school aged children, she will be the only sitting judge on the court to not have attended an ivy league law school. we must continue to ensure women like judge barrett are represented in the highest levels of our judiciary system. judge barrett's life experiences

as a judge, lawyer, teacher, wife, and mother will bring a valuable and much needed perspective to the supreme court. i am proud to support judge barrett. now, the senate must do its constitutional duty and confirm judge amy coney barrett as soon as possible. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i'm so proud to be here today to join my colleagues to discuss the current supreme court vacancy and specifically what an excellent choice president trump made in selecting amy coney barrett to fill that vacancy. mrs. capito: i like my colleagues and many americans watched the senate judiciary committee hearings on judge barrett's nomination last week. i also have had a chance to meet personally with the judge myself. during all of these occasions, i have been extremely impressed

with judge amy coney barrett. i was especially impressed with her depth of legal knowledge coupled with her demeanor. she very clearly and eloquently expresses herself. she reiterated many times in the hearing that judges don't make the law and she was level headed, open minded, and firm in all of her responses. judge bare receipt is a model -- judge barrett is a model of professional and personal success. we all heard she's a mother of seven which in and of itself is quite an achievement and if confirmed she would be the first mother of school aged children to serve on the supreme court. she's absolutely dedicated to her faith and to her community. and she has held in very high regard by the many students she has taught and mentored over the years. you could certainly tell in the questioning of the judiciary committee during that hearing that she has been in the arena many times with varying owe with very inquisitive people and

students n. short judge barrett is a stellar nominee who will show a new generation, our daughters and grand caughts that anything is possible -- granddaughters that anything is possible in america. i plan to vote to confirm judge barrett and here's why. it's an important responsibility for this body of senators. that is even true when the nominee is being considered for a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court. so i consider really three main questionings when i'm considering a supreme court nominee. first and foremost is the nominee qualified. second, does the nominee have a track record of independence and fairness that befits a judge who will apply our constitution and laws as written rather than make policy from the bench? and third, do the west virginians that i represent believe the nominee is well suited to decide cases that impact their constitutional rights? based on her impressive resume, judge barrett is clearly

qualified for the supreme court. the nonpartisan american bar association rated her well qualified. that is the a.b.a.'s highest ranking for judicial nominees. judge barrett's judicial philosophy and record on the seventh circuit are those of a mainstream jurist who considers herself bound by the law, not free to decide cases based on her own personal opinions. and she reiterated that time and time again in the judiciary committee. that is so important because some of my democrat senate colleagues have -- were seeking promises from her about how she will rule in certain cases in the future. and they sought to examine her belief on policy matters such as protections for those with preexisting conditions. now i for one strongly support as most of us do legal protections to make sure that individuals with preexisting conditions can purchase and retain health insurance. passing laws like those are what

we should be doing here in this body, not in the supreme court. after some of my colleagues were not given the hint, the hints that they were looking for on how judge barrett would rule on particular cases, they resorted to assuming that they knew what she would do. specifically, they tried to tie judge barrett to those who had mentored her in the past and insinuated that she would judge exactly how they would judge. well, when that happened she responded, and i quote, i assure you i have my own mind. everything that he, meaning scalia, said is not necessarily what i would agree with or what i would do if i were justice barrett. end quote. and it's clear that judge barrett has her own mind and will seek to be a fair and impartial judge. the rule of judges to apply our constitution and leave as written -- to apply our constitution and laws as written

to the cases before them and not implement their own policy agendas. as judge barrett put it in her own words, quote, judges just can't wake up one day and say, i have an agenda. i'm going to walk in like a royal queen and impose my will on the world. end quote. instead she explained that it is, quote, never appropriate for a judge to impose the judge's personal convictions in determining the outcome of a case. she also went on to say, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views that they might hold. judge barrett's success in applying the law is reflected in the fact that over 90% of the majority opinions that she has written were unanimously agreed to by her colleagues on the seventh circuit. no decision she has written has ever been overturned or reversed by the supreme court. this record is only possible

when a judge is deciding cases fairly and in accord with the mainstream views of colleagues appointed by both republican and democrat presidents. west virginians want a supreme court justice with experience and integrity who will protect the constitution and decide cases fairly. west virginians want a supreme court justice who will serve as our role model for our children and our grandchildren. and that is why i'm proud -- i will be proud to vote to confirm judge amy coney barrett to the united states supreme court. i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i rise this afternoon in full, complete awe inspired support for the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to be an associate justice of the supreme court.

her qualifications are not in dispute and have been mentioned repeatedly on the floor and in other public forums. mr. president, i have had a chance as a member of the senate to vote on -- on four associate justices of the supreme court. kagan, sotomayor, gorsuch, and kavanaugh. i was a member of the house of representatives down the hall here during the confirmations of justices alito and roberts. and i was old enough to pay close attention to the confirmations of justices breyer and thomas. i can say to my colleagues today , i have never witnessed a

more impressive display of poise and knowledge and temperament in a candidate for the supreme court than i have witnessed during the confirmation process of -- of this particular candidate. and i think that's why perhaps there was objection to the process. no doubt there was objection to the process and the timing of this nomination and this confirmation among a lot of people around the united states, but as the confirmation wore on and as more and more people came to know amy coney barrett, judge amy coney barrett, the student, the parent, the member of her

community, and as more and more people have seen her and listened to her, public opinion has moved in her favor where now a majority of americans support the elevation and confirmation of amy coney barrett to the supreme court, and i certainly am delighted to see that and not surprised based upon the absolutely phenomenal way that she has conducted herself. i think it's worth noting that she is from middle america. all of our 50 states are great and all of our law schools are undoubtedly -- have things to recommend them, but i kind of like that she grew up in my neighboring state of louisiana. i kind of like that she graduated with stellar marks from a very impressive college in my neighboring state of

tennessee, just an hour and a half up the road, at rhodes college in memphis, tennessee, an hour and a half up the road from where i make my home. i think harvard is a great law school. i think yale is a great law school. i think it's okay that we have now a prospective justice of the supreme court who went someplace else, notre dame. and so to me, she represents middle american values, and there is something to be said for that on the highest court of the land. louisiana values, tennessee values, indiana values. i think she is an inspiration to young women across this country. i have two daughters. they have become successes, professional successes in their own rights. i have five granddaughters. the oldest one is 10. i think justice amy coney

barrett will prove to be an inspiration to these five granddaughters. and to my grown daughters also. you know, there is much talk about predicting how this justice or how any candidate for the circuit court or the district court will rule. i have seen enough examples during my lifetime of surprises that i would not -- i would not venture to guess how justice amy coney barrett is going to rule on a particular issue. i do think she is committed to interpreting the law, to to -- to applying the law as it is written in the institution, as we write it as legislators, and not adjusting the law, manipulating it to suit her ruling, but i have no idea how

she will rule. i do know this, and this is what makes me so comfortable with elevating her to one of these nine special positions as an associate justice of the supreme court. i know that she is devoted to the philosophy of justice antonin scalia. and if justice scalia ever made a profound point about our law and our system of the rule of law and our constitution, it was this -- we are a special republic and a special democracy because we have enshrined in our constitution the separation of powers. the president has his powers to enforce the law. the congress has the power of the purse, and we write the

statutes, and the supreme court rules on the constitutionality and the validity of our actions. scalia made this point over and over, and it was always such a wonderful experience to hear him lecture, but if he ever made a point, it was this -- any dictator around the world can write down on a piece of paper a bill of rights, and around the country in dictatorships and totalitarian systems, there is a lot of bill of rights. the way we ensure that that bill of rights is enforced is that we don't give any one part of our government too much power. we don't give any one man or any one institution or any one agency in this federal government too much power. those are the checks and balances that antonin scalia said made the united states

special. and i think amy coney barrett understands that. and i think she will enforce that concept and be true to those tenets as the next associate justice of the supreme court. so i couldn't be more delighted, i couldn't be more enthusiastic, i could not be any more awe-inspired with a candidate for the supreme court. and i will, with great honor and privilege, vote in favor of her confirmation. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i rise today in support of the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. before i begin, i would be remiss if i didn't acknowledge

the reason for this vacancy. justice ruth bader ginsburg dedicated almost three decades of her life to serving on the highest court, and she will always be remembered as a talented attorney and jurist. we appreciate justice ginsburg and her service to our nation. soon the senate will consider the nomination of judge amy barrett to serve as associate justice of the supreme court. judge barrett was -- has an outstanding record of accomplishment as well as a strong record of upholding the law rather than legislating from the bench. judge barrett graduated suma cum laude, first in her class from notre dame law school. she then clerked for judge silverman on the d.c. circuit and justice scalia on the u.s. supreme court. she currently serves as a circuit court judge for the seventh circuit. during her time on the seventh circuit, she has written 79

majority opinions. she has also published 18 law review articles. i wanted to take a moment to mention this list of accomplishments to highlight how remarkable she is as an attorney and as a jurist. i had the opportunity to sit down with judge barrett to discuss her judicial philosophy. she is an originalist and a textualist. her judicial philosophy ensures her own personal beliefs and her views will not impact her role as a jurist. as a senator, i strive to ensure we confirm judges who will be impartial in their rulings and will take the facts presented and apply the law to those facts. during our conversation, we discussed the principle of precedent and how precedent is important for our judicial structure. judge barrett believes that as a judge, her main duty is to the u.s. constitution and to ensuring that all judicial opinions uphold the rights,

freedoms, and principles established in this essential document. judge barrett's judicial approach ensures she will be fair and impartial towards every plaintiff that comes before her and at the same time that our most vital document, our constitution, is upheld and echoed in every judicial opinion that she makes. judges should never have preconceived notions, and they should not be able to provide a prediction or any sort of hint as to how they will decide a future or hypothetical case. a judge's judicial philosophy ensures they have the proper tools at their disposal for reaching decisions. judges' decisions impact lives, and it is important for our jurists to be fair, level minded, and impartial at all times. that is why having someone like judge barrett on the supreme court is best for our nation. another topic i discussed with judge barrett was the importance of upholding our federal trust

and treaty obligations to our tribes. as chairman of the senate committee on indian affairs, i understand the importance of upholding these responsibilities. judge barrett said that she will objectively look at every case that comes before her, will apply the law to the facts at hand, and will do her part to uphold the federal trust and treaty responsibility. judge barrett has not only established an outstanding record of accomplishment on the bench, but she has also demonstrated her deep understanding of the law as a professor at notre dame law school. throughout her career, judge barrett has shown a deep respect for the constitution, as well as a strong commitment to upholding the law. judge barrett is a great choice to join the bench of the supreme court. her qualifications, judicial approach, and commitment to upholding the constitution will benefit my home state of north dakota as well as our entire nation. judge barrett will be a strong, fair, and impartial justice, and i look forward to supporting her

nomination. the supreme court is foundational to the checks and balance structure of our government, something that the good senator from mississippi just talked about very eloquently. having an independent judicial body is crucial to the protection of our democracy. justices of the supreme court hold the essential role of being the final decision-maker of disputes in the united states. such power comes with much responsibility, which is why selecting the best person for this job is critical for our country. we must have justices on the supreme court that uphold the law and interpret the constitution in the way it was written. again, i appreciate president trump's nomination of judge barrett, and i look forward to supporting her confirmation to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, i am one of few senators who has appointed people to the bench, and i take this very seriously. i believe in selecting judges who respect the separation of powers and the proper role of the judiciary in our democratic system. their job isn't to make policy. it is to uphold the rule of law. we can't have judicial activism, something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to accept. the democrats have made it clear they care more about the election than performing their constitutional duty to confirm judges. because the democrats only want judicial activists, they can't understand a judge that has no plan to change the law and the constitution to align with their personal beliefs about how americans should be governed. the democrats won't engage in this process, even though they know judge barrett is highly qualified. when i was appointing judges as governor, i would ask each

candidate one question -- do you understand your role and the distinct branches of government? do you want to make policy or do you want to uphold the law as written? and that is exactly what i asked judge amy coney barrett when we met. she could have not been more clear in our meeting and throughout the judiciary committee hearings last week. judge barrett is a nominee of indisputable credentials and qualifications and will fulfill the proper role of a judge envisioned by the framers when they designed a three-branch system of government in our constitution. the democrats' attempts to attack judge barrett for her faith fell flat. quite the opposite. her faith and her commitment to family have earned her the utmost respect. the democrats were left grasping at straws during last week's hearing because they clearly can't question her qualifications.

her record is irrefutable. judge barrett's academic, professional, and judicial record clearly demonstrate her devotion to following the rule of law. she strictly adheres to the original meaning of the constitution's provisions, setting forth the fundamental rights, liberties, and protections on which this great country was founded. shoos a professor -- as a professor stated, the a.b.a.'s rating of judge barrett as well qualified is an understatement. i am proud to support judge barrett's nomination and i look forward to confirm her to serve as an associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. wyden -- mr. wyden: i will introduce legislation to extend enhanced unemployment insurance for folks in america who are out of work. now, i'm going to begin with a quick check-in on the economic reality in our country. here's where we are in a sentence. only half of the jobs lost earlier this year have actually come back. the other half may never come back. there is substantial evidence that many of these jobs will be lost forever. the permanent layoffs are stacking up. right now 25 million americans

are receiving unemployment insurance. their insurance payments were slashed when republicans let enhanced unemployment insurance expire at the end of july. here's a particularly important fact. the number of americans filing new claims for unemployment insurance is still higher than any single week during the great recession. upwards of eight million americans have fallen into poverty over just the last few months. in the month of september alone, just september, nearly a million women dropped out of the workforce. and to make matters worse, the

pandemic that is causing all of this economic carnage is just getting worse as the fall coronavirus wave begins to rise across the country. the restaurant and the bar industry have been hurt, the travel industry, the live entertainment industry. we're talking about millions and millions of workers who are out of a job right now plus millions more who are worried that they are going to get laid off this winter as covid-19 infections rise. so the fact is, despite what donald trump says, our economy isn't anywhere near fully recovered, not even close.

this jobs crisis won't be over until the public health crisis is over. that's why in the meantime the only reasonable and logical thing to do is to bring back enhanced unemployment insurance and keep those benefits for the duration of the emergency. that is what i'm calling for this afternoon. that's what i believe members of congress should be for. the proposal that i offer extends the crucial programs from the cares act, the extra $60,000 per week, what we developed -- $600 per week, what we developed in the finance committee. i see the distinguished republican leader, senator thune, who serves on our committee, worked together

often. we developed it there, the extra $600 per week pandemic unemployment assistance for the self-employed and additional benefits for them. my god, mr. president. the unemployment system was actually brought into this century. the old system was close to 100 years old. nobody ever heard back then of a gig worker, but we got them covered. and so we want to extend those programs until january 31, 2021. in addition to the enhanced unemployment benefits, what this does is it avoids throwing millions and millions of americans over a financial cliff essentially at the end of the year. now it's my judgment, this is

just basic economic fairness. this is about making sure that tens of millions of americans who walk an economic tightrope during this pandemic will be able to pay the rent, put food on the table, buy medicine. and tens of millions of americans from sea to shinning sea, from portland to oregon and portland, maine, desperately need this lifeline. continuing to block extension of enhanced employment insurance, in my view, is the economic equivalent of going for heard community of covid-19, telling the most vulnerable people out there that they are, in effect, on their own, that their government has no interest in standing up for them. now, from the beginning of this pandemic, my colleagues on the

other side have opposed the enhanced unemployment insurance concept that i'm talking about. back in march, senate democrats said replacing people's lost wages was going to be right up at the top of our priorities list for the cares act. i can it, mr. president, one of the most important efforts. i've been part of during my time in public service. and we were all able to get it in the bill. it turned out it was the only provision that the republican majority attempted to remove. just process that for a moment. we had a debate on the floor of the senate, there was only one thing senate republicans wanted to remove. they wanted to remove the provision i'm describing that would give millions of americans who are hurting the opportunity

to make rent and buy groceries and get their kids sneakers and pay for medicine. i'm still incredulous by this, but actually one member of the minority came up to me before we voted and said, ron, what you're talking about is going to cause nurses to leave their jobs now during the pandemic and go into retirement and get unemployment. and i said he's got to be kidding. and i handed the senator the article from the local papers that described how nurses were actually coming out of retirement to work during the pandemic because they cared so deeply about their community. fortunately that republican effort, that night to gut the

unemployment -- the expanded unemployment benefits failed, and now i think we have people from across the political spectrum saying that that program has turned out to be one of the most successful safety-net programs in decades and decades. now, for months republicans have been repeating the same story about why they oppose the expanded unemployment insurance. they say it's because what we did is holding back the economy, that it is a disincentive to work and lazy workers are choosing to sit at home selecting insurance. wrong, wrong, wrong. it was wrong from the beginning and it now should be obvious.

enhanced unemployment insurance expired at the end of july -- july 31. if those insurance payments were really shackling our economy and being a disincentive to work, then why wasn't there a mega boom of hiring in august? the fact is the job growth shroud down immediately after enhanced unemployment insurance expired and it plummeted in september. so the reasons to bring back enhanced unemployment insurance ought to be clear. it's the right thing to do in terms of economic fairness for workers and the main argument against enhanced unemployment insurance has been proven wrong. and, finally, renewing enhanced

unemployment insurance is absolutely key to protecting our public health. the pandemic is raging now. cases are going up. there are hotspots all over the map. we're in what so many of the experts say is the tip of the third wave of the virus, cold weather coming up, folks being indoors, in some parts of the country mayors and governors may face the possibility that certain areas could go back into lockdown. business owners might begin to wonder if staying open is too dangerous a prospect, particularly if you're talking about places like restaurants and cafes.

taking the steps needed to crush the virus is going to be a lot easier if workers have the backstop of enhanced unemployment insurance so they've got the money in south dakota, in oregon, in every part of the country to make rent and pay for groceries. this legislation creates a disincentive to crush the virus with strong action. it will lead to more people spending more time in more hotspots perpetuating both the tragedy of the pandemic as well as the tragedy of an anemic economic recovery. mr. president, i'll close with this. it does not have to be this way. there's a lot more work to be done. state and local governments need more funding for testing, we need support for schools, with we need support for basic

municipal services. there ought to be more opportunities to talk about those issues in the days ahead. right now passage of the enhanced unemployment insurance is long overdue. i see my friend from south dakota, who i've worked with often in the finance committee. we have been on this floor again and again over the last few months talking about this. i offered a proposal with the distinguished democratic leader, senator schumer. we thought that was something that would be appealing to both sides, but the bottom line is for this chamber, as we're looking at the coronavirus spike again, to say we're not going to stand up for people who are just trying to make rent and pay for groceries. somebody asked me at home, i was just at home. i got into virtually every nook and cranny in my state over the last couple of weeks in a socially distant way. people said, what do i see

people spend money on -- the unemployment money on. they said they always seem to be in the grocery store. i said they are paying for rent and groceries and essentials. they sure aren't using unemployment money to buy scarves orphansy things from jefer shall -- or fancy things from overseas. so my view is the senate has no choice but to extend the enhanced unemployment insurance. and, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill to provide continued assistance to unemployed workers which is at the desk. i further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: reserving the right to