you, thank you to harvard bookstore. >> okay, so for anyone who has lingering questions, feel free to visit the book, i put up the chat a couple of links to buy it from the website. i just want to take a moment to thank wonderful speakers and all of us joining us this. make sure to check out the hispanic republicans at the link in the chat or visit website, thanks again for your time and support and for spending part of your afternoon with us, have a great day, everyone, and stay well >> and we are going to leave fulfillment. the u.s. senate gaveling in on a sunday to vote on limiting debate on president trump's supreme court nominee amy coney barrett the vote is scheduled

for 1:00 o'clock eastern time. it would take a simple majority to give senators just 30 hours more to debate the nomination, setting up the confirmation vote to take place before monday night at 8:00 eastern or so. senators expected to work into the night or possibly overnight as the 30 hours ticks away, we will take you live in the senate floor in just a minute. likely to be the last senate before they recess on electionr day use them for your glory providing them with wisdom to live with the integrity that brings stability to nations. through their work,

enable us to live peaceful, quiet, godly, and dignified lives growing in grace and in a knowledge of you. lord, inspire our lawmakers in every situation to seek to glorify you, doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly on the path you have chosen. keep us all in the circle of your unfolding providence, enabling us to find delight in doing your will. we pray in your holy 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. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> and if you're joining us, as you can see the senate on a rare sunday, they about to load a bit later on limiting debate on president trump's supreme court nominee amy coney barrett. the vote is scheduled for 1:00 o'clock eastern. it would not be surprising if that slipped given some procedural maneuvering that's likely to take place, when it does take place, the limit debate, it would require a simple majority to start 30-hour clock to then set up the financial confirmation vote which we expected to -- expect to take place somewhere monday evening

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: a quorum is present.

the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of amy coney barrett of indiana to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: pursuant to rule 22, the chair now directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: a quorum is present. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of amy coney barrett of indiana to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51. the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to. mcconnell madam president. the presiding officer: -- mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mr. mcconnell: can we have order? the presiding officer: there will be order in the senate. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, let me begin thb afternoon with the following -- with the following quote. few men in society will have

sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for stations of judges and the number must be still smaller for those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. that was alexander hamilton in federalist 78. they knew that this would be a crucial part of this new experiment in self-government. if the separation of powers was to endure and the people's rights were to be safe, we would need individuals of the highest quality on the courts. so how fortunate for our country that the senate just advanced one of the most qualified nominees for judicial service that we've seen in our lifetimes. judge amy coney barrett, of the u.s. court of appeals of the seventh circuit, is a stellar

nominee in every single respect. her intellectual brilliance is unquestioned. her command of the law is remarkable. her integrity is above reproach. first, as an award winning academic and then as a circuit judge, she's worked her way up to the pinnacle of the law. but just as importantly, judge barrett has displayed zero willingness to impose personal views or calendar -- or craft ny with her gavel. she demonstrated the commitment to our written constitution that are essential for this office. by now, madam president, as tends to happen by the end of these process, the senate knows judge barrett very well.

the senate judiciary committee put the nomination through paces of days of exhaustive questioning. we've been able to study nearly 100 opinions she issued we had another opportunity to view 15 years of scholarly writing that we reviewed three years ago when judge barrett won bipartisan confirmation to her current job. we've been i did -- deluged by comments to confirm what a remarkable person this nominee is. one of judge barrett's former colleagues at notre dame is a leading expert in comparative constitutional law. that means he studies the courts and constitutions of countries all around the world. he meets judges from across the planet.

here's what this expert says about his colleague. i have had very many occasions to meet, observe, and work with high-court judges from all over the world from argentina to austria, from south africa to south korea, and i can say with great certainty that judge barrett stands out on par with her abilities with the most distinguished of them all. he goes on to say our legal work is aero di te as it is clear and honest and fair minded as anyone could aspire to with not a hint, not a hint of personal bias. now, most of us would be thrilled to receive such praise once or twice in an entire career, in an entire career. but judge barrett seems to provoke this reaction in

absolutely everyone. the highest professional compliments seemed to be the default reaction of anybody who crosses her path, anybody who comes in contact with her. 81 of her law school classmates from diverse backgrounds, political affiliations, and philosophies say the nominee embodies the highest caliber, the highest caliber of intellect, fair mindedness, empathy, integrity, humility, good humor, and commitment to justice. they also said its fellow students we learned more from amy than the professor. learned more from amy than the professor. three years ago more than 70 fellow scholars called her scholarship careful, rigorous, and fair minded. they said her personal integrity earns wide respect.

and listen to this. every one of the supreme court alumni who clerked alongside judge barrett wrote us to share their unanimous view that she is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. that means, colleagues, that was the clerks to ginsburg and the clerks to briar, all of them without exception. how did that clerkship come about? by the way, after one of her professors who's now a university president wrote justice scalia with one sentence. amy coney barrett is the best student i ever had. but before she clerked for the supreme court, she clerked for lawrenclawrence silberman on th. sir caught who by his own

admission is an ivy league snob. he got a call one day from a professor at notre dame and he said, i know you only take clerks from mostly harvard and yale. but this is the best student i ever had. at notre dame. and so this ivy league snob decided to take a chance on somebody who didn't go to harvard or yale. that was amy coney barrett. then he called his good friend scalia and said goodness gracious, you don't want to miss this opportunity to have this clerk. so we've got here a uniquely qualified person and the best evidence of is you don't hear anything over there about her qualifications, not a peep about

her talent, her intellect. we've got colleagues -- we've got, colleagues, the perfect nominee to the supreme court. norman feldman who leans left wrote judge barrett is a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith. he said she meets and exceeds the basic criteria for being a good justice. so as i was saying no matter all the acrimony swirled around the process, nobody has attempted to dispute judge barrett's qualifications. to the contrary, no one can help being impressed. at one point during judge barrett's hearing, she was asked about an arcane legal drok train. her -- doctrine. her answer was so clear and accessible that one of our

democratic colleagues -- i won't name him. i don't want to get him in trouble -- had to remark, quote, that's quite a definition. i'm really impressed. well, so are the american people. some opportunities -- some opponents of this nomination come right out and say, quote, it's not about qualifications. they deserve some credit for being honest about it. they say they aren't interested in whether judge barrett will smartly and faithfully apply our laws and our constitution. they aren't interested in that. instead they want to make a apocalyptic predictions about policy. there are few problems with that. one is that the political side has been shopping the same horror stories for 50 years. they've been saying the same thing for half a century about every supreme court nominee by a republican president. without exception.

and many of those judges not to the delight of some people on this side of the aisle went on to not disappoint the other side which shows how hazard it is to predict what someone will be for a lifetime. many have been surprised, some unpleasantly. it's almost as if jurists are not politicians with policy platforms. it's almost as though that's the wrong way to look at it. that is a deeper misunderstanding of what's at play here. let me quote an expert. a judge must apply the law as written, not as she wishes it were. scalia used to put it this way. he said if you want to make policy, why don't you run for office. that's not what we do here. that's not our job.

takes a good deal of discipline to squeeze your personal opinions out of your decision making. that's the kind of judges we've been confirming here for the last four years. people who are sworn to uphold the law and take it seriously. president obama once said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. think about it for a minute. if you're the litigant for whom the judge has empathy, you're probably in pretty good shape. but what if you aren't? that's not what we've been doing here for the last four years with the judiciary. and the reason that frightens these guys on the other side so much because that's exactly what they want. another branch of legislators seeking outcomes that may or may not be reflected in the law or the constitution that's before them. it's exactly what they want.

courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law which is critical to a free society, but the policy decisions and value judgments of the government must be made by the political branches elected by and accounted -- accountable to the people. the public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try, shouldn't try. now, who said that? that ways amy -- that was amy barrett who said that. she understands the separation of powers far more keenly than her critics. she understands the job of a judge. our democratic colleagues should not have tried to filibuster this exceptional nominee. they should have listened and actually learned. i loved during the hearing when senator cornyn said what do you

have on your note pad? she held it up. nothing. nothing. no notes at all. and we got two former supreme court clerks on that committee, senator cruz, senator hawley. and i've heard them say over and over -- oh, three. mike, sorry. three. so they've been around the best at the highest level nobody has seen anything better than this. this is something to really be proud of and feel good about. we made an important contribution to the future of this country. a lot of what we've done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. it won't be able -- they won't be able to do much about this for a long time to come.

fortunately for judge barrett and for our nation, history will remember what is already clear. the deficiency is with their judgment, not hers. their judgment, not hers. the senate is doing the right thing. we're moving this nomination forward and, colleagues, by tomorrow night we'll have a new member of the united states supreme court.

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now i want to start today by talking about some breaking news that may at first glance not seem relevant to today's proceedings but in fact is a perfectly illustration of how broken this process is. we find ourselves in the middle of a pandemic that the republican party has never taken seriously enough -- can we have order, madam president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the chamber. mr. schumer: as i said, the republican party has never taken this pandemic seriously enough and it's a pandemic that's worsening by the day.

according to dr. fauci, the nomination ceremony for judge barrett was a super-spreader event. today the white house chief of staff conceded the white house is, quote, not going to control the pandemic and yet last night we learned that several aides close to vice president pence have tested recently positive for covid. now, we wish them and their families well. we wish the vice president and his family continued health but a normal response after being close to several people with covid-19 would be to follow c.d.c. guidelines and quarantine for everyone's safety. but this is not the case. in the same breadth with which they announced that vice president pence was exposed, the white house said that it would -- he would keep on campaigning, comparing campaigning work to the work that doctors and nurses and firefighters and police

officers do. it's a puzzling claim, especially since the vice president failed at the most important official duty in his portfolio, the white house coronavirus task force. not only has the white house coronavirus task force failed to keep the american people safe, it has even failed to keep the white house safe. even worse, even worse, the vice president reportedly intends to come to this chamber tomorrow to preside over judge barrett's confirmation vote. the vice president who's been exposed to five people with covid-19 will ignore c.d.c. guidelines to be here tomorrow putting the health of everyone who works in this building at risk. it sets a terrible, terrible example for the american people and nothing could be more a metaphor for what's going on here. the republican party is willing

to ignore the pandemic, to rush the supreme court nomination forward, and the vice president after being potentially exposed to covid will preside. senate republicans are willing to ignore the need for economic relief. they are willing to ignore the nation's testing needs. they are willing to ignore election interference. all so they can put someone on the highest court who would take health care away from millions of americans in the middle of a pandemic. god save us. now, only a few hours after justice ruth bader ginsburg passed away, leader mcconnell announced republican majority would move quickly to confirm her replacement. at the time, we didn't know exactly when, but now we do. republicans are rushing to hold the confirmation vote tomorrow night. eight days, eight days before

the election and after more than 50 million americans have voted for president, quite possibly a different president, to pick justices on their behalf. after more than 50 million americans have voted for senators, quite possibly different senators, than some who are here today to advise and consent. confirming a lifetime appointment this late into a presidential election season is outrageous. it is even more galling, of course, because nearly every republican in this chamber led by the majority leader four years ago refused to even consider the supreme court nomination of a democratic president -- of a democratic president on the grounds the principle, the principle that we should wait until after the presidential election because the american people deserved a

voice in the selection of their next justice. my colleagues, there is no escaping this glaring hypocrisy. as i said before, no tit for tat, convoluted, distorted version of history will wipe away the stain that will exist forever with this republican majority and with this republican leader. no escaping the hypocrisy, but oh, my, how the republican leader has almost desperately tried. over the past few days and weeks, the majority leader has subjected the senate to a long and tortured defense of this cynical power grab. madam president, can we please have some order? thank you. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the chamber. mr. schumer: the long and tortured defense of this cynical power grab. the republican leader claims the majority's position all along has been that it's acceptable to deny justices in presidential election years when there is

divided government, but here's what leader mcconnell said after justice scalia died. the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. he didn't say the american people should have a voice but only when there is divided government. he didn't say the american people deserve a voice but only when it serves the political interests of one party, otherwise we don't mean it. no. republicans all swore this was a principle. their word, not mere incident of who controls the senate and the presidency, and the transparency of this new excuse does not cover up the hypocrisy, does not change it one bit, and everyone knows it, everyone. and, by the way, if this were about divided government, the senior senator from florida

would not have said he would, quote, say the same thing if a republican president were in office. the junior senator from iowa would not have said precedent set, precedent set. i'm sure come 2020, you will remind me of that. chairman graham would not have said hold the tape. use my words against me. you can say lindsey graham said the next president, whoever it might be, whoever it might be -- not whatever party it was in -- should make the nomination. so the flimsiness, the transparency, the dishonesty of the excuse that they have come up with ex post facto doesn't work, doesn't work. so no, this has never been about the orientation of the senate and the presidency. republicans promised they would follow their own standard if the situation was reversed.

guess not. now, the republican leader claims that the majority's actions today are rooted in some convoluted precedent. the truth is the precedent is clear and simple. the senate has never, never confirmed a supreme court justice so close to a presidential election. the senate has never even confirmed a justice between july and election day in a presidential year. i asked the presiding officer to confirm these two facts and both were confirmed by the records of the senate. there is no precedent, none, for what is going on here. the republican leader has claimed that the majority's actions are justified by all sorts of bad things democrats did in the past and may hypothetically do in the future. he said that every escalation of significance in judicial debates was made by democrats. convenient, i guess. i guess significance is in the eyes of the beholder because the republican leader's history

conveniently and man -- mandatorily to make his case, his false case left out a lot of chapters, ignored. he conveniently admitted that republicans bottled up more than 60 judicial nominees from president clinton, refusing to give them a hearing. in the 1990's. he made no reference to the decision by republican senators to hold open 14 appellate court seats under president clinton so a republican president could fill them instead. a tactic republicans would revisit under president obama when republicans used partisan filibusters to block his nominees to the d.c. circuit. at the time, the republican leader and senators from iowa and utah said that president obama was -- get this -- trying to pack the court. amazing. pack the court. they held up the nomination so

that president obama couldn't have his rightful appointees to the second highest court in the land, and they september a number of seats -- i believe it was four -- vacant for such a long time. well, we've heard all this before. it seems whenever the republicans need to scare up some votes, they accuse democrats of trying to pack the courts, even when it's a democratic president invoking his constitutional authority to appoint judges and the republicans blocking it. now, republicans tried to nullify president obama's authority to nominate judges to the circuit court, and then as soon as republicans had a majority, they succeeded in nullifying his prerogative to have a supreme court nomination considered by the senate. and what did leader mcconnell say about it? this remark will go down in infamy. he called it one of his proudest moments. apparently, the blame game with leader mcconnell wants -- that leader mcconnell wants us to

play goes all the way back to 1987. that's the reason we're so hypocritical. what happened back in 1987, says the republican leader. it all began with robert bork, he says, after senator kennedy gave a three-minute speech that republicans considered intemperate. seriously. that is, according to our republican friends, the original sin, according to the leader. a three-minute speech. while we're on the subject of robert bork, i'd remind my colleagues that robert bork received a hearing and a vote in the democratic senate. his nomination was defeated by a bipartisan majority of republicans and democrats. republicans helped defeat bork. left out conveniently by the leader's recantation of history. his nomination was defeated, and reagan's eventual -- president

reagan's eventual replacement, anthony kennedy, was confirmed unanimously. for those keeping score, merrick garland never even got a hearing, but because one democrat gave a speech republicans didn't like, the fight was on, according to the republican leader. according to the republican leader, because of that three-minute speech in 1987, republicans can steamroll the minority to confirm a supreme court justice in the middle of an election. imagine trying to explain to someone sorry, i have to burn down your house because of something one of your friends said about one of my friends 33 years ago. yup, burn down the house because of a comment 33 years ago. that's what they're doing. mr. president, the leader's speech, the republican leader's speech was school yard stuff. here in the united states

senate, in order to justify an outrageous power grab that some -- even some members of his party don't agree with, the leader's argument boils down to but you started it. any parent with young children would recognize that argument. it's when you know you have done something wrong but you don't want the blame. that's exactly what the leader's speech sounded like to so many americans. let's get serious here. this isn't about the long history of judicial escalation or a 33-year-old speech. this is about raw political power. this is about a senate majority deciding to break faith with the american people and make a mockery, a mockery of its own principle to secure a seat on the supreme court. and let me dispense with one more fiction. the leader keeps claiming that supreme court seats have nothing to do with power or ideology. judges and justices only apply

the law, they claim. they only apply, call balls and strikes. my republican friends have told us over and over again that if someone is qualified, has good top-notch qualifications, they should be confirmed because judges merely apply the law. well, if that were true, if leader mcconnell truly believed the only thing that matters about a judicial candidate is his qualifications, then merrick garland would be sitting on the court right now. his qualifications were every bit as good as amy coney barrett. every bit as good. so all of a sudden, we should only judge by qualifications. i get it. i get it. so if it were true, once again, i will repeat it. if any of my republican friends believe that the only thing that matters is the qualifications of

a judicial candidate, merrick garland would be justice grl garland now. no one. i mean, no one said judge garland wasn't qualified, but republicans subjected his nomination to an unprecedented partisan blockade. if qualifications are the only thing that matters, why did president trump vow to pick only justices who would terminate our health care law? why did he say that his judicial appointments would, quote, do the right thing on health care, unlike justice roberts? why did president trump say if he gets to a point -- to appoint two or three justices to the supreme court, roe v. wade would be overturned automatically. that's not qualifications. president trump doesn't have a problem talking about how judicial appointments might rule when he's trying to win an election, but apparently, democrats are, quote, in the words of the leader, hysterical for even questioning how judge barrett looks to usually consequential issues.

i want the american people to know the far right is lining up right now to get the supreme court to review your judgment rights because they think judge barrett might provide a certain outcome. president trump and republican attorneys general are suing to eliminate the affordable care act in a case, in a case that will be heard one week after the election. three days ago, the president of the united states said on tape, quote, i hope that they will end it. it will be so good if they did. republicans in pennsylvania have just appealed a split decision by the current supreme court that prevented an early cutoff to counting ballots. just one vote on the court could change that outcome. the attorney general of mississippi this week filed a brief asking the supreme court to review a mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks, an invitation for a new configuration on the court to

revisit roe v. wade. so don't tell me the issues don't matter, only qualifications. we're talking about the lives and freedoms of the american people. the right to affordable health care, to make their own private medical decisions, to join a union, vote without impediments, marry who they love. and judge amy coney barrett will play a part in deciding whether those rights will be sustained or curtailed for the next generation of americans. so i want to be very clear with the american people about what's going on here. the republican senate majority, america, is breaking faith with you, doing the exact opposite of what it promised just four years ago to cement a majority on the supreme court that threatens your fundamental rights. don't forget it, america. don't forget what's happening here, because it's a travesty, a travesty, a travesty for the senate, a travesty for the

country, and it will be an inerasable stain on this republican majority forever more. i yield the floor. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: madam president, the democratic leader seems to think that this had something to do with a three-minute speech 30 years ago. i don't know where that comes from. i can tell you that he has been involved in a systematic reversal of the long-standing precedent when it comes to the consideration of judges to the federal bench by the united states senate. and i'm a beneficiary, i suppose you could say, in some strange

way of that. that was a major issue in my campaign in 2004. 2003 made it -- we made it about the blockade that the democrats in the senate at the time, led by the current democratic leader, had started against a whole long list of nominees put forward by then-president george w. bush. i'll remind you of a few names, janice roger brown, priscella owen, miguel estrada, judge pickering. there was a long list of judges blocked at the time by the current democratic leader. as leader mcconnell pointed out, it wasn't even a sort of random thing. it was a planned strategy to

start playing politics with the federal judiciary incident debated by the architect, the current democratic leader who at the time was holding work shops and seminars about figuring out new ways to block consideration of judges put forward to the federal bench by then president george w. bush. that was a main issue that campaign system and i would argue one of the principal reasons i am here in the united states senate. and when the chickens came home to roost and the same tactics were used by the other side in a previous administration, as was pointed out yesterday by leader mcconnell, the democrats decided to break the rules to change the rules in 2013 to go to a simple majority to -- to

basically get and confirm judges on the federal jury -- judiciary. we are where we are today notwithstanding all the bluster you just heard because of a long systematic strategy by the democratic leader to block judges put forward by republican presidents. but, mr. president, despite all of what you just heard, tomorrow we are going to get to vote to confirm one of the most outstanding judicial nominees that i've had the pleasure of considering during my time in the senate. judge amy coney barrett is eminently qualified by the supreme court by now her accomplish can -- by now her accomplishments are well known. first in her class at notre dame haw school, supreme court clerk, beloved notre dame law professor, outstanding scholar, circuit court judge, americans,

of course, got to see judge barrett's qualifications herself during her hearing. she answered tough questions from republicans and democrats displaying a consummate command of the law and a calm and thoughtfulness that shows she has the kind of temperaturerment you want -- temperament you want in a supreme court. tributes have poured in from across the political spectrum. i quote, barrett is highly qualified to serve on the supreme court said harvard law professor noah feldman. patricia o'hare from notre dame law school sent a glowing letter to the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee. the letter goes, i was the dean at notre dame law school at the

time judge barrett first joined our faculty. i was responsible for providing an environment she could flourish and for evaluating whether she had the qualifications for teaching. this proved to be the easiest task of my ten years as a dean. judge barrett is a brilliant and nationally recognized scholar and a generous colleague. i am confident, she went on to say, that if she is confirmed by the united states, she will be an outstanding justice, brilliant, fair, impartial and empathetic and will serve an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law. end quote. mr. president, professor o'hara also noted in her letter that she doesn't write glowing reviews for federal judiciary nominees on a regular basis.

she said the only similar letter she had written was in support of elena kagan's nomination to the supreme court. she went and on i quote, i feel every bit as strongly about judge barrett's qualifications for a position as associate justice as i felt about justice kagan. and while i have not always agreed with the american bar association judicial rankings, they certainly got tt right with -- got it right with judge barrett. i'm struck by the testimony that the head of the a.b.a. committee sent to the judiciary committee. the a.b.a. standing committee on the federal judiciary is the body that provides the a.b.a.'s evaluation of the a.b.a.'s official nominees. in her testimony detailing the well-qualified rating that the a.b.a. gave to judge barrett, the head of the a.b.a. noted,

lawyers and judges praised nominee's integrity. most remarkably with interviews in the legal profession who know judge barrett whether for years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character. the standing committee was not required to consider any negative criticisms of judge barrett. end quote. that's quite a tribute. but, of course, rating of well qualified do not just depend on character. they also depend on professional competence. and here's what the a.b.a.'s representative had to say about that and again i quote. given the breadth, diversity and strength of the positive feedback and from so many parts of the profession, the standing committee would have been hard pressed to come to any conclusion other than judge barrett has demonstrated professional competence, that is -- that is exceptional.

end quote. mr. president, along with her character, competence and command of the law, judge barrett brings a clear understanding of the proper role of a judge. she understands that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make the law. to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game. or as judge barrett said in answer to a senator's question, i apply the law, i follow the law, you make the policy. as judge barrett made clear in her hearing, she will be -- be the kind of justice who leaves her beliefs and personal opinions at the courtroom door. she will look at the facts of each case and judge according to the law and constitution and nothing else. mr. president, when i came to the senate, i hoped to have the opportunity to put judges like amy coney barrett on the bench. i was proud to vote to confirm her to the seventh circuit court of appeals in 2017 and look forward to voting to confirm her to the supreme court

tomorrow. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i rise in opposition to judge amy coney barrett to the supreme court. just over a month ago our country lost justice ruth bader ginsburg. judge ginsburg's nomination was the first that i participated in when i came to the senate 28 years ago. at her hearing i had the opportunity to thank her for all she had done and for all she had yet to do. before she was confirmed to the bench, justice ginsburg played a critical role in breaking down barriers for women. during her confirmation hearing

she staunchly and forthrightly defended her positions as an add advocate for equality, including her own support for a woman's fundamental right to control her own body, the core holding of roe v. wade. once confirmed to the court, justice ginsburg worked tiresly to ensure that the opening words of our constitution, we, the people of the united states, included all people, not just the elite few. so the stakes are extraordinary high in confirming a replacement for justice ginsburg in the best of circumstances. but for republicans to proceed now, just eight days before an election, undermines, i think, the integrity and independence of the vote. senate republicans are breaking their own statements and

promises by proceeding. in february of 2016, republicans refused to consider a replacement for justice scalia because it was an election year. they blocked all consideration of president obama's nominee -- judge merrick garland, claiming that the american people should have the opportunity to weigh in on a supreme court vacancy. leader mcconnell at the time clearly stated the republicans' position. quote, my view, and i can now confidently say, the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president that the people elect in the election that is now under way. end quote. well, that's clearly not going to happen.

chairman graham, in 2018, reiterated this standard, promising that if, quote, an opening comes up in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election. end quote. but when justice ginsburg passed away just 46 days before election day, senate republicans did not hesitate to go back on their word. on the night of justice ginsburg's death, leader mcconnell announced that president obama's nominee for the vacancy -- president trump's nominee for the vacancy would receive a vote on the senate floor and chairman graham immediately set committee hearings for october 12, giving the committee just two weeks to review judge barrett's record. this proved to be insufficient as evidenced by judge barrett's failure to identify and disclose

significant amounts of material. then, before judge barrett's hearing had even concluded, chairman graham held a markup on her nomination and more rules were broken by setting a committee vote on her nomination for 1:00 p.m. the following week. i, along with the democratic side, refused to take part in that committee vet but this -- vote, but this was not a decision we made lightly. we were not willing to participate in any further in a process that was used to rush this nominee forward in the middle of this election. despite our objections to proceeding, democrats demonstrated through the course of judge barrett's nomination hearing what's at stake with her nomination, starting with republican statements to use the

supreme court to dismantle the affordable care act and strip away health care coverage for millions of americans. on november 10, the supreme court will actually hear oral arguments in a case titled california v. texas. that's a case challenging the validity of the affordable care act. president trump promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle this landmark law. in 2015, he stated, quote, if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee, john roberts, on obamacare. end quote. when he nominated judge barrett to fill justice ginsburg's steet, -- seat, president trump stated that eliminating the

a.c.a. would be, quote a big one. -- win. and even more recently in an interview with 60 minutes, president trump said he, quote, hopes the supreme court will strike down the a.c.a. and he believes, quote, it will be so good if they end it. end quote. let us not forget after all that justice ginsburg joined a 5-4 majority when the supreme court upheld the a.c.a. against republican-led challenges in nfib v. is a bail yus -- sebelius. like president trump, judge barrett has criticized the upholding of the affordable care act in ffib v. sebelius. she stated that chief justice

roberts, quote, pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. she also cast doubt on the chief justice's opinion in king v. burwell and said that he departed from, quote, the clear text, end quote, of the statute to end gutting it. she would likewise claim that the dissent had, quote, the better of the legal argument. end quote. at her confirmation hearing, judge barrett did not answer questions about her view on the a.c.a. and did not meaningfully walk back her criticism of these two 5-4 supreme court decisions upholding the law. she also implied that coverage of preexisting conditions is not an issue in california v. texas.

however, the trump administration is directly asking the court to strike down the entire affordable care act, including its protections for patients with preexisting conditions. let me be perfectly clear. i believe if judge barrett is confirmed, americans could well lose the significant benefits that the affordable care act provides. more than 130 million americans, mr. president, have preexisting conditions, like cancer, asthma, or even covid-19, and they could then be denied coverage. at judge barrett's hearing, we heard the stories of real americans who will be harmed and who illustrate what's at stake. this included a constituent of

mine, christina monroe garcia who because of the affordable care act received cataract surgery that saved her eyesight. it included north carolina mom stacy staggs who testified that the affordable care act had ensured her twin girls receive life-saving treatments they needed. and it included dr. faran baki, a family physician working with low-income patients in lansing, michigan, who told the committee that opposition to the a.c.a., quote, endangers a lifeline that his patients count on to stay healthy and in many cases to stay alive. end quote. i deeply believe that senate republicans should not be moving forward on a justice who will likely help strip health care from millions of americans,

particularly in the middle of a global pandemic that is already -- that has already taken more than 225,000 american lives. judge barrett also represents a threat to women's reproductive rights. president trump has told us so when he promised to appoint justices who will, quote, automatically, end quote, overturn roe v. wade. and judge barrett has made clear that she would likely be the court's most extreme member on reproductive rights. at her hearing she refused to state whether she agreed with the landmark case griswold v. connecticut which established the right to use contraceptives. in addition, she would not affirm whether planned

parenthood v. casey which upheld the constitutional right to abortion established in roe was settled law. and she stated outright that roe is not a superprecedent indicating time and again the continued efforts by antiabortion activists would provide the supreme court ample future opportunity to further limit or overturn roe entirely. now, this was a surprising departure from the last four republican nominees who acknowledged at their hearings that griswold is in fact settled law, and that roe and casey are in fact important precedents of the court. beyond these specific examples, judge barrett's view of precedent itself poses a

continued threat to countless rights that americans rely on and cherish. as an academic she wrote that it is, quote, more legitimate, end quote, for a justice to, quote, enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it. end quote. essentially, what that states is that she will feel free to overrule precedent that she believes conflicts with her interpretation of the constitution. judge barrett's record also raises grave concern about how she would rule on cases involving voting rights and core democratic reforms -- excuse me -- norms. in her dissent in the seventh circuit case, cantor v. barr,

judge barrett suggested that voting rights are entitled to less protection under the constitution than the right to own a gun. she distinguished between, quote, the individual right to own a gun and the civic right to vote. she argued that a felony conviction should not necessarily result in the loss of the right to own a gun but emphasized that it may result in the loss of the right to vote. she even refused to say whether discrimination exists even after being informed that the chief justice roberts wrote, and i quote, voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that. end of quote. and despite president trump's statement that he plans to

challenge the results of the election in the courts if he loses and that he wants his justice seated in time to hear those challenges, judge barrett would not commit to recuse from cases relating to the upcoming election. in addition, judge barrett's evasiveness at her hearing was deeply concerning. she refused to answer over a hundred questions, not ten or 20 or 30 or 40, but a hundred questions, including basic legal and factual questions. let me give you an example. judge barrett refused to confirm that the constitution prevents a president from delaying an election. that's a hint. she declined to answer whether

federal law prohibits voter intimidation. she would not affirm that medicare is constitutional. she even hedged on whether presidents should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. and she would not acknowledge the existence of climate change. judge barrett's silence on these major questions really speak volumes. it demonstrates that a justice barrett will not be willing to stand up for core american values and rights and raises additional concerns about her willingness to act independent of president trump. in closing, it is my belief that judge barrett represents a threat to the very rights, including reproductive rights, rights of lgbt individual, and

voting rights that justice ginsburg worked so hard to protect. and for those reasons i oppose her nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

as might be normal during senate vote and procedural motions. vice president pence tested negative, he said he will preside over the senate confirmation vote tomorrow of judge amy coney barrett, leader schumer wrote in a letter to democratic senators "considering the republicans refusal to follow cdc guidelines regarding quarantining and contact tracing, he recommends senators not congregate in the senate chamber today and cast vote quickly from a safe distance. our life coverage continues today of the senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended from ever without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, if you went across america and just picked a random person and said did you know the senate is in session this weekend, they of course wouldn't know. and you would say to them, well, why do you think the senate is in this rare five-day session? they would say i'm sure. well, of course they are in a rare five-day session. we're in the midst of a deadly pandemic. and you would guess that would be the answer of most americans. why would they say that? well, i know why they would say it in illinois. because coronavirus in illinois

has spiked to a newly confirmed daily covid-19 state record, as of yesterday. and 63 more deaths have been reported. our positivity rate is over 6% now. and the governor and mayor are taking steps they didn't want to take but have no choice. they are closing restaurants and bars. they are imposing a curfew on the city of chicago. you can imagine how they feel as more and more infections come rolling in and more and more people are dying. we have almost 9,600 deaths so far in illinois, and as we know, nationwide over 222,000 deaths. but don't believe for a second that this is a big city problem because "the new york times" reports this morning in its edition the names of the 50 counties across america with the

worst per capita outbreaks of covid virus with fewer than 10,000 people in the county. senator thune was here earlier. his state of south dakota has really been devastated when it comes to small counties. these counties, bohnhohl, fald, harding, minor, buffalo, ogalala dakota, sully, campbell, brewell, turner, jackson, todd, small counties, rural areas. small town america that used to say it's a big city problem, but now, sadly, it's a small town problem, too. i'm sure the presiding officer knows that on this list of 50 is izard county in arkansas and lincoln county as well. following me speaking will be a

senator from colorado. unfortunately sedgwick county is included on this list. the point i'm trying to make is this -- this is a pandemic that is the worst we have seen in a century. more people are getting sick and more people are dying than we ever imagined. we face this not just in big cities like chicago but in small towns and small counties in my state of illinois and everywhere. i pointed out the senators who have been recently on the floor, but trust me, this list includes a lot of other states, even with democratic senators. it makes no difference. the virus could care less. with -- facing this at this moment in time, the american people would rightly think that we would be doing everything imaginable, everything within our power to address this pandemic in this rare five-day session leading up to a national election. but they would be wrong. they would be wrong because that

is not our priority in the senate. our priority is the filling of a vacancy on the supreme court. the nominee amy coney barrett comes before us for a vote of confirmation tomorrow after five days. the reason it's controversial, the reason it has to be rushed from the republican point of view, the reason why they are hellbent to get this done before the election is directly related to the pandemic. it seems like an odd coupling. how did that happen? well, it came down to this -- the filling of this vacancy in an extraordinary way, since we have never -- underline the word never in the history of the united states filled a supreme court nomination vacancy this close to an election -- actually, in the midst of an election. it has never been done. the reason why they are breaking all the rules, including the sacred mcconnell rule, which

was announced four years ago that lame-duck presidents, buy his definition, presidents in their last year, should have no authority to fill a supreme court vacancy. the reason why they have decided to ignore that sacred mcconnell rule and to go forward with this is because of one day that is coming up, november 10. you see, on november 10, the supreme court of the united states considers the case of texas versus california. it's a big deal on the republican side. the purpose of that case is for attorneys general in republican states and the attorney general of the united states to strike down the affordable care act. they want to make sure that amy coney barrett has black robes on and sitting in the supreme court when it is argued so she can be there when the critical vote to eliminate the affordable care act occurs just a few weeks from now. and if they don't get this done by november 3, they are afraid of what might happen.

something might get complicated. they couldn't get her on the bench in time. and if you think i'm making this up, we have as a source for that information none other than the president of the united states of america, a president who never suffered an unuttered thought, a president who generates dozens of tweets every day, tells us exactly what's on his mind every waking moment. he made it clear to us that when it came to amy coney barrett, she was a priority. he promised long ago, i won't put a supreme court justice on the court unless they will join me in eliminating the affordable care act, so we knew that as a starter. and then he added as a grace note, and i want to make sure this justice is on the court so if there is any election contest, i will have nine justices there. not subtle, is it? that's why i said in the hearing and since there is an orange cloud over this nomination, an

orange cloud that emanates from the white house, and that's why we come here today just hours before the final vote, understanding what's at stake if the president has his way, if the republicans have their way, if amy coney barrett is on the bench by november 10, then she is in a position to strike down a law which provides health insurance for 23 million americans. there is the linkage i mentioned earlier. in the midst of a pandemic, with eight million americans having been infected, in the midst of a pandemic with over 222,000 american lives lost, in the midst of a pandemic setting new records as this covid-19 virus invades our towns and cities and counties and states again, in the midst of this, the republican leader mitch mcconnell says we have no time to discuss covid-19, no, but we have all the time we need to

make sure we have our supreme court justice on the bench when the future of the affordable care act is decided. there has been a lot of questions as to whether amy coney barrett is qualified. she is impressive in her answers to questions. i'm sure that she has a head full of law. you can tell it when she answers, which is rare. you can tell why she was a law school professor and now a circuit judge. but the purpose of our hearing was not just to figure out if she was smart, properly educated, licensed to practice law, all of that aside, the purpose of the hearing from my point of view was to try to determine not what was in her head but what's in her heart when it comes down to basic questions. because you see at the bottom of this is the affordable care act,

and its fate and the fact that she has published on more than one occasion her opinion of that law, and not surprisingly, it's negative. i want to tell you a moment -- i want to get personal for a moment about this affordable care act before i talk about amy coney barrett and her philosophy. i want to introduce you to a young man from the state of illinois. his name is alex echols. he is from chicago. i met with him recently. a big smile, right? well, when he was 9 years old, two of his mother's best friends were diagnosed with breast cancer and passed away before they reached the age of 50. as alex moved into high school, his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. thankfully, she got treatment and today, 20 years later, still in remission. later in high school, alex lost his young cousin to leukemia. shortly after that, his aunt passed away from lung cancer. alex emphasized that all of these black relatives and

friends had their cancer discovered at a late stage, demonstrating a discrepancy in early screening for communities of color. the affordable care act helped to address this disparity by ensuring free preventative screenings, including private insurance. hear that. ten years ago, when we passed this law, we ensured that people could get private screenings, early private screenings for the detection of a cancer in its earliest stage when it could still be treated. as fate would have it, when alex turned 29, he was diagnosed with non-hodgkin's lymphoma. he was unsure at the time, but thanks to the affordable care act, he was able to get enrolled and access the care he needed. he received treatment at several hospitals in chicago and ultimately chemotherapy and a lifesaving bone marrow transplant at the university of chicago hospital. today he is in complete remission, how about that? he lives in chicago with his wife, is active in leadership training programs and advocacy.

he wrote me a note and he said, senator, if it were not for the affordable care act and being able to gain access to health care at that time, then i am not sure i would be alive right now to share my story. why do i tell you that story? because the future of his health care depends on filling this nomination to the supreme court and whether the person who fills it is going to eliminate this law and protection or protect it. here is another fell i met. his name is alex marcelonis. i remember meeting alex because, like me, he has lithuanian heritage. we talked about it. i met him during an immigration event. due to complications from a knee condition, paul was no longer able to work at the sears store. he lost his employer-based insurance when he was in his early 60's. paul's wife used to worry about relatives who had cancer and she said to him i hope that doesn't

happy to me because we can't get insurance and we have nowhere to go. then paul received a prostate cancer diagnosis when he was 63, unfortunately two years too young for medicare. thanks to the affordable care act, he gotten rolled in the cook county county care medicaid expansion coverage. i'm happy to say that because i joined with tony pricklinkle, the chairman of the cook county board, to ask then-president obama to give us a waiver so we could extend medicare coverage early on under the affordable care act. he gave us the waiver, and we covered 120,000 with medicaid protection, and one of them was paul. he was able to access the care he needed, including 45, 45 radiation treatments. insurance costs $175,000. today paul's cancer free. he still depends on the affordable care act for preventative screenings under medicare. he currently takes seven medications, blood thinners, allergy, blood pressure.

if the a.c.a. were to be eliminated, he would be charged more for these prescription drugs. that's another thing we did, you know, in the affordable care act. we reduced the cost of prescription drugs for people under medicare. when it's eliminated, that reduction disappears. if republicans succeed in terminating the affordable care act in the supreme court, americans like paul will pay the price. so you wonder why we're coming to the floor with these speeches late on a sunday afternoon? because these people asked us to. they asked us to come and stand up for them and say what they can't say on the floor of the senate. that's why we're here in the midst of a pandemic. that's why we're here with the nation that values health care as much as anything else that we have as american citizens, and that's why when we asked amy coney barrett some basic questions, we expected to at least get some indication of an answer. she wouldn't answer basic

questions. senator leahy was there. he was following it. what we saw was a practiced avoidance of even telling us the basics. you know, she styles herself as an originalist, and i will talk about that in a moment. an originalist supposedly values the constitution. in fact, depends on it. finds guidance in it that other people can't see in the words they find in the words. really delves into the constitution, honors it, swears by it. and yet, when we asked about basic constitutional principles, basics, written in the words of the document itself, time and again, she would say i really wish i could answer, but, you know, a case may come before the supreme court someday on that, and i'm just going to have to duck that question. she wouldn't tell us whether the president of the united states could unilaterally, unilaterally delay the presidential election. how about that?

only three separate references in the constitution to that deadline and date for presidential election, and she couldn't answer that question, can the president unilaterally delay an election? she couldn't tell whether there should be a peaceful transfer of power from one election to the next? please, professor, judge, you know that in your heart of heart without a peaceful transfer of power -- there's a call to arms among some of the militia groups and others in this country to harass voters. she wouldn't tell us whether voter intimidation was unlawful. she wouldn't answer a question i asked in writing as to whether president trump was legally accurate where he said i have article 2 where i can do whatever i want as president. whatever i want as president.

three separate branches, balance of power. i thought that was in that constitution. not enough for amy coney barrett to answer the question. she just said it wouldn't be appropriate. a case may come before us some day. you never know. that's troubling. it's not a question as protecting her prerogative as a future justice, it's the question of dodging the question over and over and over again. at one point senator kennedy, who will be speaking here shortly, asked her about climate change. she said i really don't have a view on that. i haven't really thought about climate change. 48 years old, a lawyer, a law school professor, a circuit judge, the mother of seven, never crossed her mind about climate change as to even whether it exists. judge barrett refused to comment on the landmark decision of

griswold v. connecticut. that's the case where the supreme court confirmed that there is a right to marital privacy and criminalizing contraception violated that right. it was a fundamental decision that led to loving in terms of people marrying interracial marriage and ultimately to roe v. wade. she wouldn't even opine as it to whether or not that was properly decided. she wouldn't commit herself to recuse herself from election disputes involving president trump even though his comments at a minimum have created an appearance of partiality that warrants recusal under the judicial recusal statute. i asked her in the 30 minutes we were initially given to explain a 37-page dissent in kanter v. barr. this is a case where ricky kanter defrauded the federal

government of millions of dollars. he was convicted of mail fraud. he ended up advertising that the cushions he had for shoes had been approved by medicare. they had not. and then started selling them in volume across the united states and was caught tt a red -- at it red handed. he ended up with a multimillion dollar civil settlement and a yoor in federal prison. -- a year in federal prison. he said after being in prison, after all i've been through, i can't buy an ak-47. what's wrong with my rights. that was his case, him, ricky kanter, couldn't buy an ak-47. he brought it before amy coney barrett where she was presiding and said i want to assert my

second-amendment rights. i don't think it's fair after what i've been convicted of. amy coney barrett explained why he was right, the other two judges on the case went the other way in a hurry, both republicans, i might add, republican appointees. but she stuck to your guns, so to speak and said as far as ricky kanter was concerned, it was fundamentally unfair. he was convicted of a felony, not a violent felony. really? then she went a step further on the issue of voting rights and she really got down to the basic question. could you be denied a gun to -- to buy a gun if you, quote, just committed a felony, close quote, or could you be denied the right to vote if you just committed a felony, not a violent felony in either case? she reached the conclusion that

the right to bear arms and the right to vote were two different kinds of rights. the right to have a gun was individual. she went on to say that when it came to the right to vote that was a, quote, community right, and that as a consequence of it that if you committed a felony, not even a violent felony, you could lose your right to vote. what an amazing conclusion. that is the originalist mind at work. i had to remind her, she lives in the state of indiana. guns flow across the border into indiana into chicago. we have a domestic violence problem in that city that is serious and deadly every weekend. many of those guns, they trace them, the federal agencies did, 20% of those guns come from her state ofian and why many of them -- of indiana and many come

from gun shows. so you know what happens, they fill up the trunks with guns and head to the streets of chicago. i said to her, she had to know this growing up in southbend, indiana, with her kids growing up there. and if she knew that, how could she make it easier for anybody to buy a gun who has been convicted of a felony? she did. her originalism was at work. mr. president, i would like to ask -- well, before i do, let me say this. i want to say a word about originalism. originalism is not just some foreign language you pick up on babble. it's a mind-set. it's a mission statement. it's the belief that original text in our constitution reveals all the answers to today's challenge. now, all of us here have taken an oath to support and defend

the constitution, and i don't take an oath lightly and i'm sure none of my colleagues do either. but the question is about that document itself, does it have in its entirety what we need to know about our rights today in dealing with the constitutional issues that come before us? let me mention to you what the mayor of chicago said a week ago when she was asked about originalism. lori lightfoot. she said, since the constitution didn't consider me a person in any way, shape, or form because i'm a woman, because i'm black, because i'm gay, i am not an originalist, lightfoot said. i believe in the constitution. i believe that it's a document that founders intended to evolve. and what they did was set the framework of our -- of how our country was going to be different from any other and whatever in the original language, that was it. that language excluded 50% of

the people living in the country today. let's be honest about that constitution. women could not vote in that original constitution. african americans were not even counted as whole people, they were three/fifths of a citizen. the list goes on. i venerate the democracy we enjoy today but i don't believe the founding fathers could intuit where we are in america at this moment. what is at stake with originalism is this battle with judicial activism. what is behind this battle goes become to this moment after world war ii when chief justice earl warren, and chief justice warren berger, a republican appointed by nixon, set out to make all americans equal under the law. 1950's, they tried to end segregation through brown v. board of education, prohibiting racial segregation in public schools.

65, they protected the rights of married couples to use contraception. 1973 roe v. wade, they tried to give women control over their own reproduction by legalizing abortion. the justices based their position on the due process clause of the 14th amendment passed by congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868 in the wake of the civil war. congress develop this after the legislatures passed black codes. congress intended for the 14th amendment to enable the federal government to guarantee that african americans are the same rights as white americans, even in states where legislatures want to keep them in some sorm of quasi -- form of quasi slavery. jubltion used that to protect civil rights. they argued the 14th amendment

apply to state governments as well as the federal government. known as the incorporation doctrine. states cannot abridge the individual rights any more than the federal government. this doctrine dramatically expanded civil rights. but from the beginning there was a backlash against new-deal government principles and as early as 1937 there was those demanding to end the active government -- active government and return to the world of the 1920's where businessmen could do as they wish, family and church manage social welfare. they didn't gain a lot of traction. the americans didn't care for that interpretation. but the expansion of civil rights under warren and berger was a whole new kettle of fish. what i'm sharing with you here is an amazing summary of heather cox. opponents of the new decisions insisted the court was engaging

in, hold on tight, judicial activism in trying to strike down discrimination and bigotry. taking away from voters the right to make the decisions about how society should work. they said justices were, quote, legislating from the bench. heard that before? they insisted the sciewn limited by the views of his framers that the government cannot do nothing not explicitly written. faced with confusion over the exact meerning of the constitution, some revised their position in a few ways, one was to rely on textualism or originalism, the idea that a law says exactly what it says and nothing else. this is the foundation for today's originalist like amy coney barrett. when you hear the debate, i'm just following the constitution. i'm just following the text. i'm going to the original document. i don't want to see judges who are activists.

it had its origin in the 1950's when two justices on the supreme court, appointed by republicans, stepped up and said it's time for us to be serious about civil rights in america. some politicians and those who support them have never gotten over it, but we're still debating it today. let me conclude -- i see my colleagues waiting patiently. i'm sorry it took a long time, but this is as serious as it gets as far as i'm concerned. let me conclude by saying this. there's so many issues of critical importance at risk in what we're about to do. a 6-3 conservative majority in the supreme court will challenge not only the future of the affordable care act but voting rights and the outcome of an election, the right of privacy and choice, civil rights, environmental protections, american equalities, the fate of -- dreamers, gun safety laws and so much more.

we asked amy coney barrett repeatedly, because the president said he put you on the court with a mission and you are denying that took place, will you promise to recuse yourself from cases directly relating to these issues? and she said she might, she might not. it was a process she -- there was a process she might follow. there was something else she could do, mr. president. you see, if this senate goes forward and approves the nomination of amy coney barrett, she has one last decision before she becomes a supreme court justice. she gets to choose the day when she's sworn in. i would like to suggest to her for the integrity of the court and to remove any possible cloud over her nomination created by the president's tweets and promises, i would like to ask her to pledge to the american people that whatever the senate does she will not take the oath of office until a new president

is sworn in. if it's a reelection of president trump so be it, if it's joe biden so be it. if she will wait and absent herself from any election contest or debate on the affordable care act, it will start to move this -- remove this orange cloud of doubt over her nomination. i will stand up for the constituents i talked about today and so many others whose future hangs in the balance and i'll vote no on judge amy coney barrett. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks on the wildfires in colorado. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i look forward to speak about the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to be placed on the united states supreme court but at this point i think it's important to talk about what is happening in colorado as we speak because of the heroic men and women who

continue to fight our nation's fires and certainly the devastating fires that we're seeing now in colorado. this year we've already seen two of the largest fires in colorado history burning over 200,000 acres, wildfires that started out at 25,000 acres and within hours grew 80, 90, 100,000 acres in a day. unheard of growth for wildfires. the picture that i am showing here is estes park, colorado, most people may be familiar with estes park. it's the gateway to rocky mountain national park. you can see lake estes here and the town here. the town has been evacuated. the town of thousands of people has been evacuated because of two fires that are now threatening the area. one fire is the cameron peak fire which became the largest fire in the state history, only to be challenged by another fire

coming through rocky mountain national park called the east troublesome fire. both are impacted rocky mountain national park. the city of estes park, city of grand lakes, city of granby. overnight they did receive a winter storm. it's snowing now and is reducing the fire activity. it will not put the fire out but my prayers, thoughts continue with the men and women who are fighting this fire so valiantly and the people in these communities who are in harm's way. we know the homes have been lost. we don't know how many but we know that homes have been lost and we certainly acknowledge the loss of life that has already occurred. a couple in grand lake who stayed in their home when the fire came through. they were together but we pray for them and their families and we mourn their loss. these troublesome -- the troublesome fire is in the national forest and thunder basin national grassland. it's got a type one management

team already assigned, the number one -- it's the number one priority of the u.s. forest service in the country right now because of the aggressive fire behavior with the spotting that has threatened places like estes park. evacuations, road closures, trail closures has over 500 people right now assigned to this fire. the cameron peak fire has about 1,100 personnel working on the fire right now. we know about 470 structures have been lost. it's over 208,000 acres. the cowwood fire in boulder county, a type two management team is fighting the fire right now. there are evacuations in effect, nearly 400 people fighting this fire, 28 structures lost. the ice fire, an ironic name, in the san juan national forest near silverton, colorado. we know it's about 600 acres right now. the williams fork fire which has been burning for months in colorado in grand county,

arapahoe and roosevelt national forest. we know there have been several communities and infrastructure -- energy infrastructure threatened by all of these fires. if you think about this entire town being evacuated, the colorado big thompson project which provides a great deal of water to the front range of colorado and through the south platte river valley. diversions were stopped, energy production impacted. major utility transmission lines have been lost and of course the lost to some of the most magnificent areas of rocky mountain national parng. perhaps -- park. perhaps an untold story that we will learn about in the coming days. this congress and the past congress has not been idle in the work that we have done to protect our resources. in fact, this last congress we put an end to a practice that was known as fire borrowing which involved rating -- raiding accounts that were not meant to go to suppression of wildfires

to pay for increasingly expensive firefighting seasons. the fix for fire borrowing was included in the 200018 spending package. we will not longer be cannibalizing fuel reduction formitigation that would have prevented a fire like this. instead we'll be fully funding the firefighter effort and allowing those dollars to continue to prevent this kind of fire from occurring. we've also passed legislation for water resilience projects, categorical exclusions to help with forest management. we've passed healthy forest restoration act language that includes fire and fuel breaks. we've worked on 20-year stewardship contracts. we proceed with reforms to fire hazard mapping initiatives and to fuels management for protection of electric transmission lines and good neighbor authority to help make sure that we can continue to give tools to our land managers. the 200018 farm bill built with

many of the reforms that we passed in 2014 farm bill changes. we've worked to expand the collaborative force landscape restoration program, doubled its funding and expand good neighbor authorities to tribes and to counties. all of these tools will help us deal with the wildfires but certainly they're not going to put this fire out today. so i come to the floor just to thank the men and women who are fighting these fires, to the leaders in these communities, the county commissioners, the sheriffs, law enforcement personnel, first responders who have done a magnificent job in protecting structure, protecting their communities, protecting their people. i commend you and know that you have the support of everybody here in our efforts to give you the tools you need to do your jobs, to be safe, and to protect our greatest resources and communities. and so, mr. president, again i look forward to coming to the

floor to speak about judge barrett and her nomination but for now i think it's important that we take this time to recognize the challenge that colorado faces and the need for continued work in this chamber to address forest management, healthy forest initiatives, and to make sure we can prevent these fires. these are some of the original beetle kill areas that came in 30, 40 areas, dead and down trees that we knew at some point could be a major challenge if there was a fire. that's exactly what we are seeing. so, mr. president, i hope that all of my colleagues will join me in prayers for our state and states across the country that have been affected by wildfires and know that we've got more work to do to prevent the loss of some of our greatest natural resources. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. kennedy: i would like to spend a few minutes, mr.

president, talking about the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to be associate justice of the united states supreme court. it's hardly news worthy to say that judge barrett's confirmation vote will not be unanimous. it should be. it won't be. if you judged judge barrett solely on her intellect, her academic achievements, certainly her nomination should be unanimous. any fair minded person would have to be impressed. she's an honors graduate of st. mary's dominica high school

in new orleans, one of the finest schools in this country. she's an honors graduate of rhodes college in memphis. and an extrod -- extraordinary liberal arts school. she's an honors graduate of notre dame law school. she finished first in her class. she clerked for two of the most distinguished jurists in this country, the late judge justice scalia, judge silberman. she was a chaired professor at notre dame law school. she's now a member of the seventh circuit court of appeals. any fire-minded person -- fair-minded person who reads her legal writings or opinions will

come away impressed. if you judged judge barrett solely on her integrity, her confirmation vote should be unanimous. we all watched her almost 30 hours of testimony. we all know now about her beautiful family. she has seven beautiful children, two of whom are adopted. two of whom happen to be children of color. she's a devout christian. if you talk to her former students, to her colleagues, to her critics who know her well, they will all tell you she's a person of integrity. and if you don't want to believe any of those people, then just -- i wish you could -- i know you can, mr. president, but i wish the american people could

see her f.b.i. background check. you and i know, mr. president, that when the f.b.i. checks your background, it's kind of a combination between an endoscopy and colonoscopy. they're pretty thorough. not a hint of scandal. in judge barrett we're being judged on the basis of her temperament, she would be a unanimous choice as well. we saw that in her 30 hours of testimony. she listens well. she answers truthfully. she suffers fools gladly. i was just so impressed watching her. the reason that judge barrett will not be a unanimous choice, at least within this body, has

to do with a little bit of history, mr. president. and this is one person's point of view. but i think history will prove that i am correct. for the last 60 years in america, we have been moving from representative government more to what i'll call declarative government. we, as you know, mr. president, are a democracy. we're not a peer democracy, unlike athens, for example. when we have to make a decision on social or economic policy, each of us doesn't put on a fresh to toga and go down to the forum or the public square to vote. we elect representatives to make those decisions for us at the

federal level. they're called members of congress. and they're accountable. the people have given their power to our representatives. and if those representatives don't exercise that power in making social and economic policy, those representatives can be unelected. but in the last 60 years, in some cases voluntarily, in some cases involuntarily, this body, the united states congress, which under our constitution is supposed to make social and economic policy as representatives of the people have, as i said in some cases voluntarily, in some cases involuntarily ceded our power, ceded it to the administrative state and to the judiciary. let me talk for a moment about

the administrative state. some would call it the bureaucracy. the bureaucracy now at the federal level is a giant rogue beast. it enjoys power once only known by kings and queens. the administrative state makes its own laws called rules, interprets its own laws, and forces its own laws before judges that the bureaucracy itself appoints. and we in the united states congress have allowed that. the judiciary has helped the administrative state gather that

power as well. as you know, mr. president, there's a rule called the chevron doctrine. i won't bore you with the details, but it basically says that if the administrative state, the bureaucracy interprets a rule or regulation or even a statute in a, quote, reasonable way, whatever that is, the judiciary is going to defer to them. the united states congress has also ceded much of its power to the judiciary. and we have had many federal judges that greedily accepted it. and the reason that we will not have a unanimous vote for this eminently qualified nominated jurist is because of that. some people in america and some of my colleagues like the fact

that the united states supreme court for the last 60 years has not demonstrated judicial restraint. now, i'm not growing to stand here and tell you that the united states supreme court doesn't make law. of course it makes law. it makes law in a particular case, one side wins, one side loses. sometimes the united states supreme court makes law at the direction of congress and at the direction of our founders. our constitution only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. we look to federal judges to toe united states -- and the united states supreme court to tell us what reasonable and unreasonable means. but in all cases, our federal judges and the united states supreme court is supposed to demonstrate judicial restraint.

when it's a close question, when it's a matter of social -- major social or economic policy, then the federal judiciary is supposed to show deference to the united states congress, but more and more, it's not. and some americans like that. some of my colleagues in this chamber like that. they think that the united states supreme court ought to be a mini congress. they think that the united states supreme court should be a political body. they like the fact that if they can't pass a law changing social and economic policy through the united states congress, they get a second bite at the apple and can go to the united states supreme court. i don't believe that is

constitutional. nor does judge barrett, i concluded, after 30 hours of testimony, and that's why her confirming will not be unanimous in this body. let me tell you what i believe, and i will preface this by saying after listening to judge barrett for 30 hours, this is what i believe she believes. i believe that madison and his colleagues got it right. i believe that we should have three equal branches of government. i believe we should have checks and balances. i believe that just because those branches of government are equal, that doesn't mean they are the same. i think their founders intended each of those branches to have their own special role, scope,

and mission. i also believe that our founders felt they were laying the foundation for representative democracy, that congress would make the important economic and social policy in this country, that when we talk about how societies meet our human needs, how americans meet their human needs in terms of security and education and work and health and well-being, that those decisions would be made by the people, not by -- not by the judiciary or the bureaucracy. they would maybe be made by people through their elected representatives. i believe that our founders intended federal judges' role to be to tell us what the law is as enacted by congress, not what the law ought to be.

i believe our founders intended for federal judges to call the balls and the strikes, sometimes in doing so making law on a particular case, but to call the balls and the strikes, as justice roberts put it, and in doing so, i don't believe our founders intended for federal judges to be able to draw their own strike zone. i do not believe our founders intended for federal judges to be politicians in robes. i do not believe that our founders intended federal judges and certainly not members of the united states supreme court to be able to rewrite the united states constitution to satisfy some political or social or political agenda every other thursday that the american people will not accept through

their elected members of this body and the house of representatives. it's called judicial restraint. judge barrett shares it. it is controversial. it shouldn't be. but that's why, in my judgment, her nomination vote -- her confirmation vote will not be unanimous. i will be voting for judge barrett. i will be doing so enthusiastically. she is one of the finest legal minds i have ever seen, and she understands the role of the united states supreme court under our constitution. mr. president, i yield the floor to the senior senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: i thank my friend. mr. president, we have heard a lot about history on this floor. let me just speak for a moment of very, very recent history. just four weeks ago, members of the senate gathered down the hallway in statuary hall. we gathered there to honor justice ruth bader ginsburg. in fact, the first woman to lie in state at the u.s. capitol. justice ginsburg was a trailblazer, a woman who may have stood just over five-feet tall, but she was a giant of the law. the nation rooted for her not simply because she was a brilliant lawyer and justice but because she was a fighter. she fought for those who needed fighting for most, americans for whom the promise of america was still just a promise. now, i have spoken at length about what justice ginsburg meant to the struggle for

equality for millions of americans. i'm not going to repeat those words today except that -- to say that justice ginsburg's life's work left our nation a more perfect union. all of us are going to be forever in her debt. but a day after we gathered in statuary hall with the nation in mourning, the flags at half-staff, days before justice ginsburg was laid to rest beside her husband in arlington cemetery, days before that, the president held a celebratory ceremony to nominate her replacement. she hadn't even been buried yet. and the masks were off at that rose garden ceremony. in fact, if you look at the pictures, the masks were off in more ways than one. republicans made it clear they

would stop at nothing to confirm justice ginsburg's replacement before a presidential election just a few weeks away. yes, the masks were off. from that moment, the confirmation process for judge amy coney barrett has been a caricature of illegitimacy. i will not dispute that it's the responsibility of this body to consider justice ginsburg's replaism to the supreme court. i voted on more members of the supreme court than anybody in this body. but this is not how we should do it. not during such a polarizing time for our country. just one week from a presidential election, and after more than 57 million americans have already voted, not at the scenes of every precedent and principle of this institution.

-- that this institution once stood for. not when doing so requires that half of the united states senators go back on their word, contradicting every argument they once made about supreme court vacancies during an election year, not when this sprint to confirm judge barrett gave the judiciary committee just two weeks to prepare for the hearings when the committee has afforded itself three times as long, three times as long to vet other modern nominees to our nation's highest court, and not when records of judge barrett's undisclosed speeches and materials have continued to pour in, even after hearings revealing what a slipshod process this has been from start to finish. and, and not when the united

states senate of america is doing nothing, nothing, nothing to pass a desperately needed covid relief bill, something we could have done and should have done from july on, and every senator knows in their heart this is wrong. senator mcconnell ramming this nomination through to matter the cost or worrying about the politics and providing relief to millions of americans suffering during a continuing, still-worsening pandemic. 225,000 americans dead already. it is everything one needs to know about the priorities of today's republican party. yeah, to mask -- the masks really are off. it's far from a secret why president trump and senate republicans are hellbent on confirming judge barrett before election day. all you have to do is look at

the calendar. on november 10, the supreme court will hear arguments in california versus texas. that is a republican-led lawsuit to strike down the affordable care act. and republicans and certainly the president see a justice barrett as an insurance policy to assure there will be a five-vote majority to finally strike down the law that covers all people in this country, including those with preexisting conditions. the judiciary committee republicans spent last week crying foul, claiming that it's fearmongering the claims they see this vacancy as an opportunity to overturn the a.c.a. fearmongering and crocodile tears implies we are not talking about the facts.

so let's just take a look at some basic facts. it is the republican attorneys general who are asking the court to throw out the entire a.c.a., the entire affordable care act, not just part of it, but every single bit of it. as the trump justice department has sided with a republican-led lawsuit to throw out the affordable care act, every single benefit. as this republican-led senate in a vote just weeks ago that gave the green light to the trump justice department to take this position. keep in mind what this position means. it means that if it's successful, it would terminate health insurance for more than 20 million americans, americans in every one of our states. it would terminate the medicaid

expansion for 15 million more. and it would terminate protections for 130 million americans with preexisting conditions. now, while disappointing, the senate vote was not surprising. republicans in congress have now voted to repeal or got the affordable care act -- or adopt the affordable care act at least 70 times. just days ago, president trump was asked on national television about the fate of the a.c.a. before the supreme court. i hope they end it. it will be good if they end it. it's like captain ahab of herman melville's "moby dick." the republicans have been obsessed with killing the a.c.a., the white whale, since the a.c.a. was enacted. they failed in over 70 attempts.

they see judge barrett as a final harpoon to once and for all end the wall. so when republicans bleed innocent, claim they have no intention of taking away people's health care protection, americans remember that their actions speak a lot louder than their words. and republicans have yet another horse in this race. that's the actual race for the white house in congress. i always wanted to say the quiet part out loud. president trump has repeatedly stated his expectation that his nominee will side with him in any election-related dispute. claiming the democrats have rigged the election, falsely labeling mail-in ballots as a scam. president trump has said he will challenge any election loss in the court. that's why he says it's important we have these nine justices. he has made it very clear. he wants her there in case he loses the election, and the republican on the judiciary committee echoed the president,

claiming that this was a member of the judiciary committee, claiming that the entire reason they need judge barrett confirmed now is to ensure that no election-related dispute is deadlocked in a 4-4 decision. now i don't recall republicans making this argument when they blocked judge merrick garland from receiving a vote for eight months prior to the last presidential election. in the last week we see why republicans are so anxious to have a ninth justice seated before election day. they are waging an all-out war in the courts with the goal of disenfranchising as many poor, young, elderly voters. knowing that they -- republicans are unapologetically fighting attempts to make absentee voting easier.

it's clear that republicans believes judge barrett will have to block the vote. the supreme court left in place a pennsylvania supreme court order requiring officials to count absentee ballots received within three days of the election and postmarked by the election. and yesterday, anticipating judge barrett's confirmation may tip the scale, she'll be there to help the president in an election dispute, the pennsylvania election party asked the supreme court to review the case less than a week after they lost it. unfortunately judge barrett said nothing during her hearings to assuage the american there should be anything but a green light for the deeply harmful -- she repeatedly declined to distance herself from a litany

of her writings she declined to confirm if there was precedent on the affordable care act. she once wrote, however, a cagey a justice may be, her quote of the constitution becomes evident in what she's write. if that's true in what she's written, she's opposed to the affordable care act. my concern grew when she recused from any election-related dispute. president obama has put her an anunenviable position. he is making it impossible for americans not to question her impartiality should she vote in his favor in an election dispute. she vote to throw the election for president trump, i fear for the court and democracy itself

would suffer a blow to its legitimacy. my concern grew into alarm when judge barrett refused to affirm even the most basic tenets of our democracy. she would not affirm that the president must comply with a court order and the supreme court has a final word. something every one of us learned in law school. she would not state whether the president can unilaterally postpone a presidential election even though the law clearly states you cannot. she would not confirm to me whether our constitution contemplates a peaceful transition of power notwithstanding the 20th amendment. well, she refuses to say much of anything about everything. she refused to answer over 100 questions, during the hearings, 150 questions afterwards. she invoked what she called the

ginsburg rule. well, i was there for justice ginsburg's hearing. justice ginsburg gave detailed answers on a number of constitutional issues. she took clear positions on dozens of dozens of cases during her hearing. in stark contrast, judge barrett would not state or comment on or discuss settled law. i've never seen such top-to-bottom recusal. i'm worried what we've seen here, what it does to the senate judiciary committee's confirmation process. i worry what politicizing the supreme court this way does for the faith americans have in all of our federal courts. republican arguments comes down to one thing we have the votes so anything goes. they haven't the power -- having the power to do something does not make it right. might does not necessarily make right.

when the word of a senator -- when the word of the senate leader is rendered meaningless, when the word of advice and consent is rendered meaningless, then this institution will be rendered meaningless. justice ginsburg left us with a more equal, a more perfect union. she stood up for the rights of minorities, the rights of all those marginalized. i believe that a justice barrett will set the clock back decades and all the rights that americans fought to achieve and protect. i have said that justice ginsburg would have dissented from this process. the least i can do is join her in that dissent. i will vote no. i ask consent that my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it's a privilege to serve with the senator from vermont on the senate judiciary committee. he and i have been called maybe the odd couple on a number of issues like freedom of information act reform and other matters. we -- so we find ourselves aligned on that important issue and the importance of the public's right to know. but it won't surprise anybody to know, it certainly doesn't surprise him to know he and i have a different point of view on this nominee and on a few other topics as well. one of the ones i wanted to talk about briefly at the very beginning was the -- the so-called ginsburg rule. senator leahy was -- was there,

joe biden was the chairman of the judiciary committee back in 1993 when justice ginsburg then a lawyer was nominated for the supreme court. her record as a litigator for the american civil liberties union placed her far outside the mainstream. she argued for legalized prostitution, and speculated there should be a constitutional right to polygamy. certainly outside the mainstream of american legal opinion. but when she was pressed time and time again by republicans to talk about those views, she said she would not answer those questions. she cited, appropriately, cannon five of the model code of

judicial conduct, which among other things, forbids federal judges or judicial candidates from how they would likely vote on issues that may come before the court or making any statement that would make any appearance that they were not impartial. this rule is absolutely critical to an independent judiciary because judges must remain open-minded and be able to decide an actual case without prejudging that matter before it comes before them. can you imagine what it would be like if you were a party to a lawsuit and came before a judge that had made a statement committing to a particular outcome during their judicial confirmation hearing? well, the unfairness of that is obvious. and so i think judge barrett did what justice ginsburg did when she was before the judiciary committee, what we expect all nominees to do, and that is to

not prejudge cases and not to give any hint or prediction of outcomes or run on a platform or an agenda. my view is that if you had a judge that did or a nominee that did come before the judiciary committee and make those sort of commitments, that would be disqualifying in and of itself. that person ought to run for congress. they ought to run for city council. they ought to run for the school board. they should not be a federal judge. that is not what federal judges are supposed to do. so i think -- i think judge barrett did exactly what a judge should do when they are confirmed. we still got to ask her a lot of questions, as senator kennedy pointed out, over the 30-plus hours of questioning. she was extraordinary. it was obvious she not only had

complete command over the subject matter. there was a special moment where i noticed she was not writing any notes or referring to anything and it struck me what a contrast it was that each of us as a member of the committee had a small army of staff around us. they had prepared every case and big three-ring notebooks for us to question the judge but the judge had nothing in front of her. and i asked her to hold up what was sitting in front of her and it was an empty note pad that bore the same the united states senate on the ink pad, but nothing she had written down. it kind of spoke volumes about her command of the -- of the subject matter and her fitness for this particular job. we've all talked about the

support she has from notre dame professors where she caught for a number of years highlighting her impressive intellect, her elegant legal analysis and manifest judicial temperament. former law school classmates from diverse political and other backgrounds shared their collective view she embodies the ideal qualities of a supreme court justice. we heard from noah feldman, a harvard university law professor who tends to be more liberal, and he points out that judge barrett is a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurist prudential principles which she is committed. judge barrett has the qualities we should all look for in a judge. i think it's telling that our democratic colleagues when it

came time last thursday to vote on this nomination decided to boycott the markup. none of them appeared, none of them voted. so the vote literally was unanimous. all of the -- all of the senators there present voted to vote the nominee out of the judiciary committee and recommended that that nomination be sent to the floor. i suppose if they thought it would make any difference or they really had something to say or a reason to vote no, they would have shown up, but they did not. but judge barrett exemplifies the fact that judges aren't players on a red team or blue team. they are, as chief justice roberts said during his confirmation hearing, umpires, calling balls and strikes. we all understand the difference between an umpire and a -- and a player and simply said,

jurnlings aren't -- judges aren't players. they call balls and strikes and make sure the rules of the game is enforced. judges should have no biases, no favorites, no preferred outcomes. but somehow in their anger about this nominee and about the fact that she will fill the vacancy left by the death of ruth bader ginsburg, somehow our friends across the aisle seem to have forgotten what the basic role of judges is in america. again, they pressed her to say, you know, how do you feel about climate change, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about every other hot button issue they could think of. and she appropriately invoked the ginsburg rule and would not comment exactly what she should be doing. the other thing that i think is

remarkable about this nominee is she is obviously somebody who soared to the voa heights of the legal -- very heights of the legal profession, teaching, being a judge on the seventh circuit, both of which qualify her for this job, but she is also a person of great integrity and character. it takes self-restraint. it takes self-discipline not to use the power that federal judges have to impose your own view or to choose a result. that takes a lot of self-restraint and self-discipline and she's demonstrated her commitment to that judicial philosophy and that fai approach. -- and that approach. during the final days of justice -- soon-to-be justice

barrett's confirmation hearing, we heard from a number of witnesses about her, their experience working with her and i believe one of the most moving testimonials came from one of her former students, a young lawyer named laura woke. since graduating from notre dame law school, laura has earned highly coveted clerkships, including for the united states supreme court like her former professor. there's one fact about laura that made her climb to these incredible heights as a young lawyer all the more impressive. and that is she's blind. throughout her life, laura has overcome barriers that exist for individuals who are blind or advice callly impaired and -- visually impaired and becomes the first blind person to clerk at the united states supreme court. but laura spoke about her arrival at notre dame and the

technology failures that were causing her to fall farther and farther behind her peers. obviously she needed that technology that would help her compete. settling into law school is tough for any student, and i can't imagine the fear and frustration that laura felt as she struggled to keep pace. at no fault of her own because she lacked the assistive technologies she needed to compete on a level playing field. so laura did what any student would do, i presume, and that is went to her professor and shared the weight she was carrying, a weight judge barrett eagerly picked up saying to her, this is no longer your problem. this is my problem. laura described the relief and gratitude she felt for her professor's kindness and generosity not only during this interaction but in the years of

support and encouragement that had followed. i found laura's testimony incredibly powerful and a shining example of the character that judge barrett will bring to the supreme court. so, mr. president, we have all come to appreciate amy coney barrett, the person, the woman of great integrity, humility, and compassion, would will bring tremendous value to the highest court in the land. i'm confident that if our colleagues across the aisle had any good argument addressing her qualifications or her character and integrity, we would hear about it. the only thing that i've heard them say, which i cannot believe that they believe, is that somehow this is part of some

great conspiracy to defeat the affordable care act. our cool -- what our colleagues across the aisle failed to mention, the merits of the affordable care act is not even before the supreme court of the united states. it's a technical issue with regard to severability. it's a doctrine that says if judges find part of a statute unconstitutional, here, for example, the individual mandate which thanks to the tax cuts and jobs act, that penalty has been reduced to zero, whether if in fact that portion of the affordable care act is unconstitutional, whether the whole act fails or not. but judges are told to presume the constitutionality, to presume so the burden is on those who would prove the unconstitutionality to prove it. the burden is on them. but if they can save a portion

of the law by severing it, that's the doctrine of severability, they must do it. and i'm pretty optimistic that the supreme court no matter how constituted will two exactly that, -- will do exactly that. will show the traditional can candnons and what we heard from my friend from vermont just a moment ago that this is part of a conspiracy to appoint a judge to the court so she will then hear a case and result in a particular outcome is speec spe. it's also an insult to the judge's integrity and charter because she could not in good conscience take the oath of a judge if she was part of a sprir to rule -- part of a conspiracy to rule in a particular case,

any case in the future. and she said unequivocally that is not the role of a judge. but that's the argument and maybe that's the best thing they've got going. so they're sticking with it. but it just doesn't make any sense. it's totally out of character with everything we know about amy barrett as a person, as a lawyer, and as a judge. so, mr. president, instead of talking about the supreme court, we seem to hear another common theme and that is to say well, we could be working on a covid-19 relief bill. well, we did pretty well through the end of march working together on covid-19 relief. we passed four pieces of legislation totaling $3.8 trillion, but it's been a while since march, and we need to pass another covid-19 relief bill for the individuals who are still

suffering through no fault of their own, who don't have a paycheck, enhanced unemployment insurance benefits. the paycheck protection program that was so important to keeping small businesses' ability to maintain their payroll, we need more money for testing. we need to make sure that the therapeutics that have now come online are available to people who are infected with the virus. and we need to make sure that the vaccine wants it's approved by the f.d.a. is available for distribution. that's why senator mcconnell has repeatedly brought legislation to the floor to bolster our fight against the virus at this critical time. in particular, the first bill he offered them was to supply another half a trillion dollars to help small businesses keep their doors open and their employees on the payroll. to help schools keep their students and teachers safe, to

strength testing and invest, as i said, in the continued success of operation wharp speed. but what did our democratic colleagues do? well, they voted no. they wouldn't even get on the bill and then offer amendments to make it more to their liking. so they just blocked it. i think this is consistent with what we've heard from speaker pelosi when she said nothing is better than something. that always strikes me as very odd because i've always believed that something is better than nothing. but apparently not in this strange environment leading up to this november 3 election, which unfortunately i think is what's preventing us from passing a bill. many of our colleagues believe that leaving people anxious and worried and fearful not only

about their health but also about their economic circumstance, that that advantages them leading into the election. because that's what they do. they want to stoke fear and uncertainty on the part of the american people. and when we offer concrete pieces of legislation that would help relieve that anxiety, fear, and the sense that they're not receiving any income, how are you going to pay the bills or provide for your family. repeatedly they have voted it down. i just find that absolutely shameful. so here we are in october with 8.5 million confirmed cases of the virus. that's actually -- when we talk about cases, that's kind of interesting. they're positive tests because we know the vast majority of individuals will have little if any symptoms. but we do know there are vulnerable populations that need

to be protected, particularly people in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, folks elderly and with underlying chronic illness. so this virus can be deadly. and that's why we need to take it seriously. wear our masks, socially distance, and do all the things that the center for disease control and other experts advise. but our democrat colleagues have not done anything to lift a finger to help people who are still hurting, people who are still anxious, people who are still worried about their health, about their children going safely back to school, about whether a vaccine will be available. time after time they've blocked legislation we've introduced here in the senate since we passed the cares act in march. and they've simply refused to provide care that's desperately needed, relief desperately needed by the american people. my constituents in texas like the rest of america have waited months for additional relief.

and i'm ashimmed of the fact that -- ashamed of the fact that we could not find a way to come together and produce a result. and i'm ashamed of the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle have forced them to wait even longer. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i rise as our country faces a monumental choice. it's a choice about who we want to be as americans and the future we want to build as americans. all across our country this year we've seen americans standing up and speaking out for greater

equality and greater justice. so our choice is this. does the highest court in the land stand with the people of america as we strive to build a more perfect union? or does the court side with the most powerful interests and most extreme views that will take our country backward in our quest for justice and equality. judge amy coney barrett does not stand on the side of the american people. she does not represent mainstream values. certainly mainstream values that we cherish in michigan. right now we're in the middle of a pandemic, but we're 225,000 americans have already died, and we're nowhere getting it under control. nowhere. instead of providing help to

families and communities and businesses that are suffering, republicans are rushing through -- here we are on a sunday not talking about how we help people, help our small businesses, help our communiti communities, do what needs to be done to get this pandemic under control. no. we're seeing a rush to get a supreme court nominee on the court that will have disastrous consequences for our nation, both for today and for decades to come. on behalf of the majority of the people of michigan, i am strongly opposing this nomination, and i urge my cool leagues to do -- my colleagues to do the same. perhaps nothing is more at risk right now than health care, the health care that americans depend on. exactly one week after election day, the supreme court as we

know will hear arguments in the case that could very well overturn the affordable care act in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of a deadly pandemic. republicans in congress have tried to repeal the health care law for ten years now, ten years. and each time people across our country, people across michigan have spoken out. they've demanded that republicans protect their health care. health care is not political in the eyes of americans. it's personal and they want us to strength it and improve health care, not rip it away from them. but unfortunately republicans have voted more than a hundred times in those ten years, more than a hundred different times to repeal the affordable care

act. and more than a hundred times they have failed. so now president trump has turned the job over to the courts. he expects judge barrett to, in his words, terminate the health care law. that's the words of the person who nominated judge barrett. he wouldn't have nominated her to the supreme court if he didn't trust that she would do just that. judge barrett has already called the court's previous decision to uphold the a.c.a., quote, illegitimate. and she publicly criticized chief justice roberts for upholding the law. she said that if the supreme court reads the statute like she does, they have