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 no choice to, in

her words, invalidate it. this is not a mystery here about how she is going to vote. it is very, very clear. and that would be a disaster for michigan families. a disaster for people all across our country. protections for over 130 million americans with preexisting conditions gone, and that number is going up every day because of covid-19. bans on yearly and lifetime tests on cancer treatments and other critical care, gone. healthy michigan, which has helped more than 880,000 michigan residents get health care, gone. the ability for young adults up to age 26 to be covered by their

family's health insurance, gone. and you can also say goodbye to guaranteed maternity care so you don't have to pay extra if you want to have children and have maternity care. free preventative health screenings, birth control without co-pays. seniors would see their drug prices go up. the a.c.a. closed medicare prescription drug -- what we call the doughnut hole, the gap in coverage, and save the average michigan senior more than $1,300 just in six years between 2010 and 2016, $1,300. seniors would have additional reason to worry. during her confirmation hearing, judge barrett refused to say whether she believes medicare

and social security are even constitutional. and it is often the -- and as is often the case, american women would have the most to lose if the a.c.a. is overturned. remember when simply being a woman was considered a preexisting condition by insurance companies and we had to pay more? i do. yet, the threat of justice barrett goes far beyond insurance rates. the judgment right for women to make basic choices about our own health care, our own health, our own lives would be at risk. since roe v. wade was decided in 1973, women in our country have had the right to make our own decisions about reproductive choices that are best for our own health and our own families.

among the rights that justice ruth bader ginsburg spent her career defending, and it is not a right that judge barrett respects. she has long aligned herself with organizations devoted to eliminateing a woman's right to choose. she signed her name to a letter calling for roe v. wade to be overturned, and during her nomination hearing, she refused to say whether roe v. wade is settled law. at its most basic, roe v. wade is about undue government interference. think about that. undue government interference, which we hear a lot about from our friends on the other side of the aisle. that's something that republicans deeply opposed, at

least when it's corporations that need defending from undue government interference. reproductive rights are only one freedom, as critical as they are, as that is that are on the line right now. over the past decade, we have made major progress in ensuring that our lgbtq-plus friends and neighbors aren't discriminated against simply for being themselves. yet, judge barrett has openly opposed this progress, including speaking out against the decision that made marriage equality the law of the land. she has even given numerous speeches on behalf of the alliance defending freedom, a right-wing organization that

thinks being gay should be a crime. workers, too, could see their rights evaporate under a justice barrett. there would be just one more conservative justice who will issue rulings that hurt the ability of workers to fight workplace mistreatment and discrimination and to organize and collectively bargain for wages, benefits, workplace protections. that's what she did in her decision, wallace v. grubhub holdings in which she ruled against workers who were denied overtime wages. against workers who were denied overtime wages that are protected by the fair labor standards act.

if a justice barrett sides with the powerful against people, i guess we all know what that means for the future of our world. during her confirmation hearing, judge barrett refused to say whether or not she believes that climbing exists. she is not a scientist. you don't need to be a scientist. just ask people in michigan about what is happening in our state. the climate crisis is already affecting michigan, agriculture, our environment, our public health, our great lakes. a number of crucial cases dealing with the environment are likely to end up at the supreme court in the next number of years. and the court decisions will have consequences that outlive any of us.

critically important to all american citizens is what justice barrett would mean for voting rights and the result of the 2020 election. let me remind everyone that election day isn't november 3. it's every day up to november 3. people are voting right now. if you have not voted, i hope you do and that you are -- that you do it safely and do it early. but voting ends on november 3. people are voting as we speak, and whether or not those votes are counted could very well depend on the united states supreme court. judge barrett refused to say whether she believes voter discrimination exists. voter discrimination. given that 23 states have passed

restrictive voting laws since the supreme court shelby county vs. holder decision. pretty clear that vote sprimtion exists. judge barrett has also refused to recuse herself from ruling on cases related to the outcome of the 2020 election, even though president trump is rushing to make sure that she is there. that's a clear conflict of interest, if i ever heard one. there is no right more fundamental than the right to vote. no right more fundamental than the right to vote. perhaps nobody knew that better than our beloved colleague, the late congressman john lewis. he once said this -- my dear friends, your vote is precious,

almost sacred. it is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. a more perfect union. that's what we want, isn't it? that's what we're working toward every day, i hope. that's where americans have been marching for and speaking out for and bleeding for and dying for for as long as we have been a nation. we face a crucial choice. i'm choosing to stand with the vast majority of the american people on the side of justice and equality. i urge a no vote on judge

barrett. the american people deserve much, much better. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. excuse me, mr. president. there was one other thing that i needed to do before yielding the floor. i would yield my remaining postcloture time to the democratic leader. thank you. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i actually listened to the comments that were made by my good friend from michigan, but i have to say this -- that she is talking about what's considered

by me and many others as arguably the most gifted jurist ever nominated to the united states supreme court. and i want to talk about that, but i have got something else to talk about first because i think people know judge barrett by this time. they may not know a couple of people that they should know about. earlier this year, arish zarkasian, or zark because of the complications of his name as he is called by most of his close friends, he was overjoyed. he had just graduated. that was just earlier this year. he had just graduated from the tulsa police academy and was sworn in as a police officer. that was his life's ambition. here is a guy that was so excited that he was taking that step. he was a shining example of everything that you want in a new officer.

he was bright, engaged, committed to public service. he wanted to give back and make his community a better place. that was him. at the end of june, only six weeks on patrol, he pulled over a car for a routine traffic stop. now, as we all know, there is nothing -- there is no such thing as a routine law enforcement process, and he and sergeant craig johnson pulled over a car, and what happened next was horrifying and tragic. they were viciously shot in the head during that stop, despite many attempts to de-escalate the situation. tragically, sergeant johnson succumbed to his injuries. zark remained in critical condition. sergeant johnson left behind his wife christie and sons connor and clinton. that's him here on the left. a dashing young man.

in that moment of sorrow, tulsa's community united in prayer and hoped for the recovery of zark. since the shooting, zark has undergone several surgeries. he spent months recovering in rehab. throughout these months, zark provided us with updates to his recovery and the progress he has been making. he even called in to the class of new tulsa police department recruits. he also went in person to his squad and meeting with them. his progress is truly remarkable, and as tulsa police captain kimberly leigh put it, he is a real example for all of us. that's exactly right. zark is a hero. he persevered through extraordinary pain and strife and is now making a speedy recovery.

last week, on october 15, zark returned home from three months at rehab and he was met by friends and family and supporters who welcomed him with open arms. our mayor vicki bynam, declared october 15 officer arush zar zarkishan day in the city of tulsa. zark embodies everything that makes oklahoma great, and i want to submit that proclamation. i ask unanimous consent that be made part of the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: zark wanted to give back to his community, and he delivered. october 15 will always hold a special place in the hearts of thousands of people that call tulsa home. in august, i spoke on the senate floor regarding the riots and anarchy happening around the

country, but i was specifically referring to portland, oregon, and how these events and hateful rhetoric aimed at law enforcement have endangered countless brave men and women who serve in law enforcement. and certainly depressed him. they talk about things like peaceful protests and yet in that case they were throwing bricks at officers. they sprayed officers, nearly blinding all three of them, and they -- this was actually going on. i highlight the contrast between the violence happening in oregon with how we appreciate our officers in my state of oklahoma. what a contrast. oklahomans have great respect and admiration for our men and women in blue. we know that law enforcement, our neighbors, our friends, our family, they have a dangerous

job and they go beyond that job. i was talking to some of them the other day and different ones gave different messages while on duty defending rights, a lot of them, they teach young kids how to play baseball. they -- they are really great citizens. in the speech that i made in august, i highlighted the attack on zark and sergeant johnson the these attacks are a painful reminder of the sacrifice law enforcement make every day, defunding the police rhetoric may be politically appealing to some on the left, but we must remember that law enforcement are the first line of defense against threats like what we saw in tulsa in june. i had the opportunity to talk to zark this morning. he told me what was going through his mind while they were being rushed to the hospital.

he said he was thinking, i hope our story reaches the nation. well, your story, zark, has reached the nation. it's reached the world right now they know what happened. zark wanted people to understand what police in law enforcement risk every day, a sacrifice too many take for granted. he wanted people to know the stories of good, honorable police officers while his tragedy in tulsa is a reminder of the threats our communities face, it was also a story of hope, tulsa's hope. jared lindsey said it best, there's not a lot of times you get to use the word miracle, zark's recovery definitely fits that bill. and perhaps more telling and most inspiring, zark doesn't lose sight of what was lost on

june 29. on his return to tulsa on a day that was proclaimed to recognize his heroism, he wore a shirt honoring sergeant johnson that said fallen but not forgotten. even this morning he talked about sergeant johnson -- craig johnson and how he had wanted him to be returning to tulsa with him as did he -- as he did last week. now that zark is back in tulsa, he's going to keep up his recovery, but can also enjoy the simple things that he's looking forward to, his own bed, his dogs, his water burger, he's already been there twice, and the love and support of all tulsans while there are many hardships ahead for many, there is a story of optimism.

both zark and sergeant johnson are american heroes and they will and always will be american heroes. so we say thanks to zark. you're great. mr. inhofe: mr. president. i wasn't going -- i've already talked a couple of times about this great nominee that we have named amy coney barrett and i'm really proud to speak in support of president trump's nomination of amy coney barrett to the united states supreme court. and to say that judge barrett is qualified to serve on the supreme court is an understatement. judge barrett is a -- the definition of a leader.

her record of accomplishments is second to none. everybody knows it. after -- after we have had a chance to really evaluate and talk to her and know her and talk to and visit with her. she was born in new orleans and went to undergraduate in rhodes country in memphis and also notre dame law school. graduated at the top of her class. always has been at the top of her class. that's worth pointing out because when confirmed she will be the only justice on the bench who didn't go to harvard or yale. that's a good thing. she clerked for one of america's finest supreme court justices, that was scalia. since 2002, she taught law at notre dame where she was selected distinguished professor of the year three different times. and in 2017, after being attacked by democrats about her

strong faith, she was confirmed to the seventh circuit by this body with -- with democrat votes, i might sad. -- add. let me repeat that. she was confirmed on a bipartisan basis only three years ago. but today liberals are recycling their same stale tactics in their attempts to tarnish another nominee without basis or truth. they are attacking her catholic faith and some optatives have attacked her for adopting children from haiti. i'm not kidding, attacking her for that. it should go without saying that judge barrett should be committed for this loving, not disparaged for it. i know personally that adoption is one of god's greatest gifts. i'm the proud grandfather of zagita marie. i found her during a mission in ethiopia, my daughter an

son-in-law -- and son-in-law adopted her as a baby. she's in college now and one of my greatest blessings. liberals tried to use scare tactics to oppose a president's supreme court nominee. over the years they made outrageous claims saying that nominees will take away america's health care. they did it time and time again. they did it with anthony kennedy, they did it with david souter and with john roberts and recently with brett kavanaugh and now with judge barrett. most can see through the far-left hoax, but it's important to set the record right. judge barrett is not and has never advocated in favor of taking away anyone's health care, period. liberals have gone after judge barrett for her views on abortion, first of all, judge barrett has every right to enjoy

her religious freedom. i think we all understand that. and i am saddened to see the attacks that she's received due to her catholic faith. nevertheless the record shows that she will thoughtfully apply to all cases. she has proven that she impartially and faithfully exercises her duties as an appellate judge. there's no reason to believe that she will not continue to do so as a justice. now, i want to speak about the precedent for acting on today's vacancy. it -- it differs from the vacancy of 2016. democrats and liberal media have called senate republicans hypocrites for opposing confirmation of president trump's supreme court nominee in -- in 2016 but supporting

confirmation of the president's nominee today. what they fail to recognize is that we follow senate precedent. we followed it in 2016 and we're following it again right now. in 2016, we will a divided government. what a divided government means is that we have different parties controlling the white house and the confirming body, the united states senate. and in 2016, we had that divided government. and they were controlled by different parties. now, the state -- the senate republicans followed the biden rule then which is the senate does not -- the senate does not confirm an election-year vacancy in which the house and the senate are controlled by different parties. despite democrats' insistence on confirming president obama's

nominee, senate republicans followed precedent. the reality is that the senate has not confirmed a supreme court nominee in the modern era under divided government. it just hadn't happened. the last time the senate confirmed a nominee under these circumstances was 1888. today we have a united government. we have the same party that has the senate and has the presidency. same party. voters elected president trump in 2016. the senate republicans grew their majority in 2018. in nearly every instance in history where there has been a supreme court vacancy under united government, we have voted to confirm. in fact, only one time in history was the senate did not confirm a nominee under united government and that was in 1968 in which there was a bipartisan

opposition on eth ka grounds -- ethical grounds and they all agreed that nominee should be withdrawn and it was withdrawn. it's a simple -- it's simply false to state that the senate republicans are going against precedent. as a matter of political convenience, the democrats have flip-flopped from what they said in 2016 and are adamantly opposed to a vote during an election year. and it's not surprising that the media has ignored their aboutface. i'm proud of the efforts by leader mcconnell and our republican majority who have confirmed dozens of president trump's exemplary judicial nominations. i think the number right now is somewhere around 212. that may be a record, but that's a lot of nominations. and the senate republicans and president trump have followed through on our promise to make the judiciary a more -- with more judges who interpt the law

as -- interpret the law as written, not legislating from the bench. we all know what we're talking about there. with judge barrett we have the opportunity to confirm the president's third supreme court nominee to the bench. everyone knows judge barrett is hardworking, principled and committed to serving her fellow americans. in a 2017 letter, a bipartisan group of law professors called her work rigorous, fair-minded, and constructive. i couldn't agree more. i know she will serve our highest court with honor and distinction and i look forward to confirming the nomination soon. she is, i really think, the most gifted, talented jurist to be found in america today. you know, my wife and i have been married 60 years. we have 20 kids and grandkids. now they are the ones that will be the beneficiaries of the service of judge barrett. she's going to be confirmed as

justice on the high court in a matter of hours and this is going to be a great thing for america. with that, i yield the floor. zark -- mr. boozman: mr. president, it is such a pleasure to be with my fellow senator from arkansas, senator cotton, as we honor pinebluff detective kevin connors who died as a result of injuries he had. he was passionate about serving the citizens of pinebluff.

he served his community not only as an officer of the law but also as a mentor and leader. it was reported that he wanted to be a police officer since he was 3 years old. in an interview with the pinebluff commercial in 2018, he said, i quote, ever since i was little, i saw law enforcement as a service and something i could be proud of. he worked his entire life to achieve that dream and it came true five years ago when he was hired by the pine bluff police department on june 8, 2015. he was first assigned to the patrol unit and worked his way up to the detective unit. he built relationships with the men and women he worked alongside as well as the citizens that he served. his colleagues appreciated his

enthusiasm, hard work, and dedication, which he demonstrated each and every day both in and out of uniform. detective collins was passionate about making a difference in the lives of others. during the department's two-week youth empowerment kament p, -- camp, he reinforced the importance of making good decisions. in his short time with the pine bluff police department, he had a long list of successes that included taking a large number of guns off the streets and earning the department's officer of the year award for 2017 for his actions in saving a 95-year-old resident while responding to an apartment fire. detective collins lived a faithful life devoted to christ as a member of new life church, pine bluff. pastor matt moser says dentive

collins had -- detective collins had a great heart for service. he took that heart for service and put his faith into action taking the initiative to make his community better. we rely on law enforcement officers like detective collins to keep communities safe, to keep us safe. his death is a tragic reminder of the risk law enforcement officers face each day when they put on their uniform and leave the comforts of their homes and their loved ones to serve and to protect. detective collins was a true hero. our hearts break for his family, his colleague at the pine bluff police department and community members. i pray that they'll find comfort from the outpouring of support for this beloved brother in blue. senator cotton, i yield to you. mr. cotton: thank you, senator boozman. the men and women law enforcement of arkansas could have no greater champion in the united states senate than

senator boozman. it's always an honor to join him on the floor but today it's a sad and solemn honor to commemorate the life of detective collins. he had known since he was the young age of three that he wanted to be a police officer. his stepdad worked for the johnson county -- jefferson county sheriff's department. his mom was a teacher. from an early age the role models in kevin's life inspired him to serve others and serve he did, above and beyond the call of duty. for a time he worked as an emergency services dispatcher. then he worked for the arkansas department of corrections. five years ago he realized his childhood dream of joining his hometown police department to serve the community he knew and loved. detective collins was part of the violent crimes unit which means he worked on some of arkansas' most dangerous cases. mr. cotton: he had a special passion for taking illegal guns off the streets and mentoring young peep in the community.

-- people in the community. his hard work was noticed and rewarded. just two years after joining the force, detective collins was named officer of the year after rushing into a burning apartment building and rescuing a 95-year-old woman trapped inside. when he received that award, detective collins reflected on his lifelong dream of becoming a police officer which he described as a service and something i could be proud of. you could say that kevin collins was destined to a police officer. tragically he was also destined to die as one much too soon. earlier this month detective collins was tracking a suspected murderer who was hold up at a hoe sell. a gun -- hotel. a gun battle broke out. detective collins and his fellow officer lieutenant ralph isaac were hit during this exchange and rushed to the hospital. lieutenant isaac has become to recover but sadly detective collins did not. he went home to be with the lord

at the age of 35 leaving his family, his community, and our state heart broken over the loss. detective collins' death is a tragedy and a stark warning and reminder of the dangers police officers face every day. detective collins joins 231 of his fellow officers who have died in the line of duty in america just this year. but it would be a mistake only to mark detective collins' death. we ought also to learn from his example in life. kevin collins was a guardian of pine bluff whether in his capacity as an officer or an off-duty as a security guard at his local church. when he received the officer of the year award in 2017, detective collins said that being a police officer was about

extending a lifeline to save others. we'll never know how many lives kevin collins saved but we do know that his hometown is now safer and more peaceful because of his years of service. pine bluff was blessed to have a guardian the likes of kevin collins. now his watch on earth is over. he's looking down on us from above. may he rest in peace. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from a.e.c. mr. cotton: i ask -- from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask consent that

my following remarks appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: tomorrow the senate will confirm amy coney barrett to the supreme court filling the seat vacationed by the late justice ginsburg with a very worthy successor. when president trump nominated judge barrett last month, some americans questioned whether the senate should confirm any nominee to the supreme court. but today just weeks later, a clear majority of americans support confirmation, including a majority of independents. what happened? it's very simple. americans met judge barrett. they loved what they saw. and they decided she's the right woman for this job. consider her achievements. she graduated number one in her class from notre dame law school where she also edited the law review and later clerked for two giants of our judiciary, judge

silberman of the d.c. circuit court of appeals, and the late great justice scalia. years later judge barrett returned to her alma mater as a professor where she won the esteem of her students and colleague as a gifted teacher and an absolutely brilliant legal scholar. to quote the dean of notre dame law, then in 2017, the senate confirmed professor barrett to be judge barrett on the seventh circuit court of appeals. in the three years since then, she's established herself as one of america's finest judges, unwaveringly committed to the rule of law and equality before the law. scalia protege, beloved professor, respected jurist, those titles alone warrant amy coney barrett's confirmation to the supreme court. but they're not her only achievements. or even the most important ones.

in addition to those things, she has a big and beautiful family with a devoted husband and seven kids, including two adopted from haiti. they are a family knitted together by love and faith. any parent knows how difficult it must be for judge barrett to juggle the demands of her work with her duties as a parent and a wife. but like millions of working moms, she manages to do both with incredible skill, grace, and poise. i suspect i must confess that if judge barrett had been nominated by a president without an r behind his name, the media would laud her as a pioneer, an inspiration to young women all across the country. today's newspapers would contain front-page stories of gushing profiles studded with words like

iconic and pack breaking. the media would practically carry her from the judiciary committee to this floor so we could vote to confirm her and then they would carry her across the street to her supreme court chambers. but curiously, i've noticed that's not what the media is doing, not in the least. instead the liberal media has published lure rid insinuations and exposes about everything from judge barrett's character to her christian faith to even her adopted children. it's the brett kavanaugh playbook all over again but thankfully the american people see through it, just as they did the last time. for the most part democrats on the judiciary committee avoided these kinds of low personal attacks. perhaps they've seen the polling so they know they're playing a very weak hand. instead they focus on the supposed threat that judge barrett will overturn obamacare and take away your health care.

in fact, they focused on obamacare so much during judge barrett's confirmation hearing, when i turned on the tv, i thought i turned into the health committee, not the judiciary committee. but democrats' attacks on this policy fall just as flat as the media's shameful stories on judge barrett's character, for the simple reason that judge barrett as a judge does not make policy. she's not a senator. she's not standing for elective office. i suspect she wouldn't want to. her role as a judge is to interpret and apply the law fairly and faithfully without regard to her own beliefs and convictions. now that may be a novel concept for our democratic friends who view the judiciary as simply another means to advance their left-wing agenda irrespective of the law and the facts. but it's central to judge barrett's record on the court of

appeals and her judicial philosophy. her opinions bear that out as she has applied the law consistently without fear or favor on the federal bench, and i suspect reached a few outcomes on a personal level that she would have preferred not to, which was always justice scalia's gold standard for an impartial and fair judge. that leaves the democrats with one final argument, nothing more than a process argument. they say that the republicans are moving too quickly, that we're somehow ramming judge barrett through the senate, possibly to prevent an adequate examination of her record. but of course this argument fails, too. it fails badly. judge barrett's nomination has proceeded at a pace in line with other recent nominations. exactly 30 days ago she was nominated and tomorrow she'll be

confirmed. that's 11 more days than the senate deliberated on the nomination of justice john paul stevens who was confirmed after just 19 days. it's only 12 fewer days than the senate deliberated on the nomination of justice ginsburg herself. and i would note that we went through this with judge barrett barely three years ago. it had been five years for then-judge stevens, 13 years for then-judge ginsburg. there's not a lot of material for this senate to have reviewed. less than three years of activities by judge barrett, fewer than a hundred opinions, even a senator could probably get through those in a couple of days. yet the democrats have repeatedly asked for delay after delay though they haven't identified any area in which they lacked adequate time to review her nomination. they haven't identified any bit

of information that they don't already have. in fact, some of my democratic colleague announced their opposition to her nomination or any nominee for that matter before she was even announced as the nominee. so what do they want more time for exactly except to stall? indeed far from being rushed judge barrett's nomination doesn't come close to setting the record for speed. that distinction belongs to justice burns who was nominated to the supreme court in 1941 by president franklin roosevelt and confirmed later that day. i guess we could have taken a page from the democrats' playbook by confirming judge barrett last month on the day that she was confirmed, but instead we took the same careful, consistent deliberative

approach that we took with justice kavanaugh and justice gorsuch. no shortcuts, no corners cut, no steps skipped. so finally here we are on the cusp of judge barrett's confirmation. as a result the democrats are threatening to pack the court but they were already threatening to pack the court. the democrats are threatening should we confirm judge barrett to the supreme court to riot in the streets. democrats have been rioting in the streets for months. but as the sun sets tomorrow, the senate will gather and all of that bluster will once again prove ineffective because judge barrett has earned the trust and confidence of the american people and the united states

senate. for that reason judge barrett will be confirmed tomorrow night. i congratulate judge barrett on this high honor. and i thank her family, her beloved husband jesse, and her seven beautiful children for sharing her with america. for those seven kids especially, i know she will always be mom to you. but i trust you won't object if we know her as justice. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio.

mr. portman: i think we are in a quorum. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: we are in session here on a sunday in washington for a rare sunday session of the united states senate so that we can confirm a terrific woman to be the next justice of the supreme court. there is an open seat right now. it needs to be filled, and judge barrett, who is currently a judge on the circuit court, one level below the supreme court, has really impressed me and the american people with her performance. i had a chance to meet with her this past week, and i was already impressed but even more so having a chance to spend some time with her. i had been impressed with her performance at the hearing because i thought she showed great patience and calm in the face of some really tough questioning. to me, that's judicial temperament. that would serve her well in her new role as justice to the

supreme court. i have also been impressed with her qualifications. i don't think anybody can say she is not highly qualified. in fact, the american bar association, which doesn't always look favorably at republican appointees, was in -- in her last confirmation convinced that she was highly qualified, and again in this one, they gave her their highest qualification. that's impressive. as has been talked about on the floor tonight, she actually has been through this process before, and pretty recently. i think less than three years ago, she was confirmed by this same body, and it was a bipartisan vote. it was an opportunity for people to get to know her, so this is not as though we have brought somebody forward who isn't already known, isn't already deemed to be very well qualified. in fact, i don't know anybody in this chamber who doesn't think that she is well qualified and that she has done a good job as

a judge and a lawyer. she graduated first in her class at notre dame law school. then she went back there and taught. she won the teacher of the year award three times when she was at notre dame, and most importantly to me, she is just widely respected by her colleagues. these are professors. also widely respected by her former students. these professors and students, by the way, are representing the entire political spectrum, you know, from very liberal to very conservative. all of them say the same thing about her, which is that she is a legal scholar, she is highly qualified, and that she is a good person. in our meeting, i got to see some of that. i saw in our meeting that she is a great listener, and people talk about active listening. you know, she was really interested in what the topics were and had very thoughtful responses. she is also a legal scholar who

understands very clearly what the role of the supreme court should be in our separation of branches, in our governmental system here, and i think that's really important. as i said to her in our meeting, i hope she will be an ambassador. i think she will. in fact, i think she will be an extremely effective ambassador as the youngest member of the supreme court but also as a former teacher with regard to young people, to help them understand what it means to have a judicial branch and how it's different than the legislative branch or the executive branch, for that matter. judges are not supposed to be legislators. that's not what they are hired to do. yet i think we have in some cases gotten the sense that judges ought to be deciding issues that are reserved for those who are elected by the people, and that's the legislators. the judges have an important role, and that's to look at the laws and to look at the constitution and to determine whether something is consistent with those, and that's what she

will do, and i think she will do it very fairly and with compassion and with a great understanding of the legal issues and precedent. she explained before the committee that she was respectful of precedent. she also told me that in our meeting. i think she has the proper understanding of the role of the government and what her role would be as a justice. so i'm looking forward to the opportunity to finally vote. i guess we'll do that tomorrow night, sometime in the evening, and i hope that it will be a strong vote. i hope it can be even a bipartisan vote, as it was last time she was confirmed by this same body. but while the press -- while the senate continues to work through this important process of the next supreme court nominee, i'm also here on the floor today to remind all of us that we're still in the middle of an unprecedented health care and economic crisis caused by this ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

and i'm here to express my frustration that the sense of urgency and compromise that we had for the first several months of this coronavirus seems to have disappeared as we have approached the election. the democratic leader today raised the seriousness of the pandemic. something said on the other side of the aisle, we shouldn't even be taking up the supreme court nominee because of the seriousness of the pandemic and the need to focus on that. i don't understand why then on wednesday the same democratic leader and his colleagues blocked even taking action on the coronavirus or even having a debate on whether to take action, because once again they blocked a legislative initiative to have a discussion about this issue. and by the way, it's a discussion about an issue that affects every single one of our states, and again, we're not out of the woods, so we should be

not just discussing it but passing legislation on it. the legislation that we have introduced might not be legislation that every democrat can support. in fact, i think there are some things that were in our bill that some democrats might not love, but for the most part, it was bipartisan proposals that everybody can support, and all we asked for is that we be able to get on the bill, that we have a debate. and yet, we had to have 60 votes to be able to do that. that's the supermajority that's required around here, and that 60 votes could not be found, even though last wednesday, $500 billion coronavirus package got a majority of votes. there was a majority of votes again for this package, but not the supermajority needed. it was blocked by the other side. if we had gotten on the legislation and had the debate about what the p.p.p. program might look like, how much money should be used for testing, what should we do with regard to

liability protections, democrats would have had the opportunity to put their own ideas forward, to offer their own amendments, and i would have strongly supported them in that process. also some of us had some additional amendments we would have like to have added or changes we would have liked to have seen. but ultimately if democrats or republicans found that they didn't like the final product that came out of that discussion, that debate, they would have had another chance because there would have been another 60-vote hurdle to get over before passage of the legislation. and i know this is, you know, sounding like a process issue, but it really is not. it's about us doing our jobs as senators, and both republicans and democrats care about this issue, and yet we just can't seem to figure out how to get it unfrozen here and to be able to move forward, and having blocked, again, even having a debate on moving forward was very discouraging to me.

the economy is still struggling. as i said, we're not out of the woods yet, particularly in areas of hospitality, travel, entertainment. we're not out of the woods on the virus yet either with many states seeing a third wave right now. that's what i would describe is happening in ohio, my home state. i watched the numbers every single day this week. not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up. the number of people in i.c.u. went up and fatalities went up. it is critical this congress provide additional relief to able to help the american people get through this health care crisis and economic fallout that we've seen. and we've done it before five times republicans and democrats on this floor and over in the house and working with the white house have passed coronavirus legislation -- five times.

in fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. these laws have helped address both the health care crisis and the economic free fall that was caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. and for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the costs, i would just say, again, government-imposed shutdowns. many of these businesses in my home state that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down and they do need our help. the same government that insisted that they not be in business are being told to stay in business. the legislation that we worked on is called the cares act. a lot of people heard about it.

it's a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. it was passed by a vote in this chamber by 96-0. in may of this year when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy and washington has been paralyzed, unable to come together for the good of all of us. for months the democrats insisted the only way forward was a $3.5 trillion heroes act which passed the house along partisan lines. it included things unrelated to covid-19. you can argue about those things, the salt, the state and local tax deduction is in there. that's nothing to do with covid. it's a tax breaks for wealthier

individuals. most of it would go to people who are wealthy. billion half goes to the people in the top 1%. there are immigration law changes in that legislation that are controversial. should we have that debate separately? of course, but not in a covid-19 bill. there are other policies in terms of election laws and how states would handle their elections that had nothing to do with covid-19. also it was $3.5 trillion. we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but debt as a percentage of our economy which is how most look at our fiscal problems, what is the debt as a percent of the economy? it's as high as it's ever been, with the possible exception of world war ii. a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew and we didn't have the big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural

debt so $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. when it passed the house it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the house of representatives by far. when it did pass, by the way, "politico," and others in the media, accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. there's a good reason for that, $5.5 trillion, and -- $3.5 trillion, and, again, items that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. since this time senate republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this proposal with bills that help us directly address the health care and the economic crises by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. again, the last legislation that was offered here was on wednesday. it was about $500 billion. that used to be a lot of money. and, again, democrats probably

objected to some specific elements of it like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that, have a discussion. but on wednesday democrats blocked it. their position has been very clear, as i see it. they are going to stick with speaker pelosi no matter what. i understand that from a negotiating position. they think she's the one negotiating with the white house, therefore they are not going to get involved. i have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who expressed the same frustration i'm expressing right now. gosh, why can't we get together, between republicans and democrats, and support something that's a compromise? but i think they've been told by their leadership, no discussions, no debate. we're going to stick with whatever the speaker wants. and, again, coming up to the election it's my sense that what the speaker wants is not to have

a result. that's my sense. you've heard the president say very clearly he's willing to spend even more than the speaker wants to spend. i'm not suggesting that's a position every senate republican has because my position is that we spent a lot of money and need to be much more targeted given the fiscal situation. but steven mnuchin has been very interested in getting a result and has in good faith been negotiating. but, again, we've not been able to make any progress because the negotiation is -- the notion is we're going to stick with the speaker's position no matter what. so instead of a compromise we have zero relief. instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion and whatever the number or whatever the republican number is, we have zero relief that's been provided in the last several months.

there's been an all or none attitude. either we do it her way or we get nothing. three separate times on this floor, democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in august. so folks who rely on that money can continue to make ends meet while we negotiate a long-term solution. this week they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, i believe, $300 per week, federal supplement, on stop of the state unemployment. they blocked it saying that wasn't enough, we need to stick with $600. so, again, it's either $600 or nothing. i will say the $600 benefit is pretty generous. the congressional budget office told us that 80% of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward, if we continueds dz 600, 80% would make more on unemployment

insurance than they would be making at work. talk to your businesses back home and what they will tell you is this has been a problem at getting people back to work when they can make more, sometimes significantly more on unemployment insurance. but how about $300? how about a compromise? some people will make more. a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300, but not 80% of the people some will make more, some will make less. last week i finally thought we had a breaking point because the speaker of the house had members of her own caucus calling on her to work with the white house to pass what was at that time a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is that wasn't good enough. let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. and, by the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of senators voted on this past week on

wednesday, again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. first is on the health care response, particularly on testing and in ohio we need it right now. we need more money for testing. republicans and democrats alike know that that's critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, going back to their local businesses to buy things. we need the federal help on testing. we also need help to continue investing in developing treatments and, of course, we need to invest in the vaccine, to get the vaccine as quickly as possible. the targeted bill that came to the house this past week did just that, provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. that's the kind of support we need right now. second, we agree that congress shouldn't continue to have the

situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. so we all want to help small businesses of that was in the target bill also. one way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this p.p.p. program, the paycheck protection program be in effect. and the targeted legislation did just that. it restarted the paycheck protection program which was included in the cares act but expired on august 8. so since august 8, we haven't had it. this was a smart program that provided low-interest loans to small businesses, loans that effectively became grants if you used it for certain purposes like payroll to keep people employed but also your rent, your mortgage, your utilities. at least 140,000 ohio businesses, in my state of ohio, 140,000 businesses, small businesses have benefited from the p.p.p., saving what we think is at least 1.9 million jobs.

wow. we all know we need to extend that program. i think everybody greece on that. i don't know of a senator in this chamber, republican or democrat, who hasn't had the experience of someone saying i couldn't have stayed opened without this. i had that conversation dozens of times. a lot of these businesses were able to use the p.p.p. loan to weather the storm. some have seen their businesses pick back up. they are hiring again. that's great. i had a roundtable with manufacturers all over northeast ohio, the cleveland area, akron area, they were hit hard by the early shutdowns, but thanks to the p.p.p. loans, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. they did something related to helping. some made ventilators, some made masks, some made gowns. so they were able during the slow time to actually help to push back against the

coronavirus. now they are back in business. now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. that's what we want. there are others, however, who desperately need continued p.p.p. just to stay in business. i mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, entertainment business, travel business, they have to have the p.p.p. loans now -- now or they may close. some of them have already closed because the program's been shut down since august 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. that was in the targeted bill. by the way, it makes p.p.p. more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money. we want to focus it on companies that really need it. that's been bipartisan also. let's do it. beyond p.p.p., congress should help invest in businesses to

reopen safely and effectively. small business owners i've spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me they are eager to reopen but they want to reopen in a safe manner. that's the sweet spot here, we don't want to close down the economy but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. there are examples of how we can do that that this congress could pass on an bipartisan basis, one is an expanded tax credit to expand the hiring through a new tax credit and employee tax credit. we have a new tax credit called the healthy workplaces tax credit. very simple. help businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer and face koafertion, it will -- koaferrings, it -- coverings it will help businesses reopen safely and take the critical steps to let the economy recover. i will continue to push this in every coronavirus package and you know what?

it has total bipartisan appeal. because it is what we should be doing. reopening, yes, but doing it safely. let's give businesses the incentives to do that. it's expensive to purchase the the p.p.e. when you have type revenues which a lot 0 of businesses do. they want the help to be able to do it and do it right. third, of course, we agree we have to invest in our schools with colleges and k-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical to make sure that students lose anymore time in the classroom. we need to make sure the schools can stay hope with adequate protective gear and plexiglass and other things to make it safe. the $105 billion that was in this legislation on wednesday that was voted down, $105 billion for ensuring schools are safe is actually more than was in the original

house-passed heroes act. so let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. state and local governmentses need more support. they rely on income taxes more than other cities and that has been lower than any of their protections. the targeted bill would have extended the timeline. i have heard this repeatedly from our governor in ohio, mike dewine, also from local officials in ohio. don't make us spend all the mean by -- money by year end. we can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. none of us should do that. we always complain about the federal rule where you tell the agency you have to spend the money by year end. lose it or -- use it or lose it. let's let them have the

flexibility to spend the money as they need it. we all know now this virus isn't going away in calendar number 2020. it's going to be around in 2021. let's give them that flexibility. with the extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety, police, fire, e.m.s. fourth, we all agree we have got to make sure americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. most of us in this chamber probably utilized telehealth services during the pandemic. and we know they work. it's been a lifeline for millions of americans, particularly those fighting addiction, or those who have behavioral health issue, mental health issues who can't currently receive in-person care to help with their recovery. i've worked with the trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options

for opioid treatment which in some instances has allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. i love hearing that. in this dark cloud one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and help people including mental health providers and drug treatment providers to reach new people who they couldn't reach previously. however, the reforms that we have in place now based on the previous legislation i talked about are only temporary. the bipartisan legislation we've introduced along with my colleague senator sheldon whitehouse is to make these telehealth options available. final willly we -- finally we need to chart a path forward on expanded unemployment insurance. unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring and it's been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. it exceeded all expectations,

everybody's. outside projections, c.b.o.'s. but unemployment is still way too high. we're still at 8.9% in ohio. and it's probably about 8% nationally. think of this. we went from the lowest unemployment we'd seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5%, record lows for blacks, hispanics, disabled, women, and now we've got about 8% unemployment, more than double that. i said earlier congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. when that happened, the trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from fema's disaster relief fund which would receive funding from the cares act to temporarily add a -- at -- add a $300 a week supplement. this program funded six weeks of expanded unemployment insurance. also encouraged states to provide their own match. what happened was that every

state but two took the government up on that. they didn't add their match but they did take the 300 bucks and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this executive action. unfortunately we're now at a point where this program has been tapped out. why? because the $44 billion that was set aside in the disaster relief fund is gone leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters which is what the disaster relief fund is intended to do. they need that money. we shouldn't use anymore of that. we're back to square one. people would had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some business where they can't go back. a lot of those folks now are seeing just the state benefit or no benefit. the republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through december, basically the end of the year. it was in the package just voted down. democrats who say they want $600

voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. well, to somebody who is on unemployment, you're probably wondering why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that i can pay my rent, i can pay my car payment, i can make ends meet even though i can't go back to my job? so if nothing else come out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the disaster relief fund so we can continue to respond at the executive branch level if congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for six weeks. we've proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the disaster relief fund so that this vital unemployment supplement can continue that the administration had in place. if we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? why can't we just pass p.p.p., something for testing, why can't we pass something to ensure

we're helping right now during this crisis? the bottom line is that there's still a lot for congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. between bolstering our health care response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility i talked earlier to governments, ensuring our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we've got a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. i hope things will change soon. maybe it will change on the election. maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. i hope so. i hope that at least in the lame-duck session of congress if we can't get our act together this week, that we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement and

fast. our constituents need it. let's get it done. i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to share with you and our colleagues some of my thoughts concerning the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to serve as an associate justice of the supreme court of these united states. i believe it was winston churchill who once said these words. the further back we look, the further forward we see. so let me begin today by looking back in time, way back in time. more than 230 years ago during the constitutional convention in philadelphia, just up the road from my family's home in wilmington, delaware, our founders debated at great length on how to create a different kind of government, an experiment, if you will, in which a nation's citizens would elect their own leaders.

and a system of checks and balances would ensure that country would never never be led by a tyrant. among the most contenuous issues they -- contentious issues they debated in the city of brokerly love was the creation -- brotherly love was the creation of a federal judiciary. our founders disagreed oftentimes strongly about what our judicial system should look like and how judges should be selected. who would nominate them, who would confirm them, would they serve one term, multiple terms, or would their appointments be lifetime in nature? when they appeared to be hopelessly deadlocked, members of the clerky were brought in to pray that god would provide the leaders with the wisdom to break the impasse. in the end it apparently worked.

our founding fathers ended up adopting a compromise very similar to one they had rejected just a few weeks earlier, namely the president would nominate judges to serve lifetime appointments with the advice and consent of the senate. not surprisingly, almost 240 years later we are still sparring over what those words should mean. having said that, the blueprint that was drafted that year and later ratified by the 13 states would go on to become the most enduring and replicated constitution in the history of the world. among our most important sworn duties here in the united states senate is to act as caretakers of that constitution and the rights it provides for our citizens while protecting this unique system of checks and balances that provide the foundation on which our

democracy is built. mr. president, that brings us to the present. this past week republican members of the senate judiciary committee voted to advance judge barrett's nomination to the floor of a senate but they have done so, i fear, at great cost to this body and quite possibly to our democracy. when our founders carefully designed our system of checks and balances, they did not envision a sham confirmation process for judicial nominees. but as much as i hate to say it, that's what this one has been. pure and simple. this entire process has become an exercise in raw political power, not the nonpartisan process that our founders envisioned. frankly, it's been a process that i could never have imagined 20 years ago when i was first

elected to serve with my colleague here. over those 20 years i've risen on six previous occasions to offer remarks regarding nominees to the supreme court as we consider the nominations of chief justice roberts, justice alead to, justice sotomayor, justice kagan, justice gorsuch, and justice kavanaugh. one name not mentioned under the six i just listed is that of judge merrick garland. after being nominated by president clinton to serve on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, that's a top appellate court in the country, and confirmed by a republican-led senate with a bipartisan margin of more than 3-1, 76-23 in fact, judge garland wa would serve --e has served with distinction on our top appellate court since 1997, including for many years

as its chief judge. president obama later nominated him to serve on the supreme court. 237 days before election day in 2016. 237 days before election day. by submitting the name of judge garland to the united states senate for consideration four years ago, president obama who was twice elected by clear margins in both the popular vote and the electoral college nominated a man who spent his entire 20-year career as a judge working to build consensus and find principled compromises. and yet we never got a chance to consider judge garland's nomination to serve on the supreme court on this senate floor. judge garland wasn't given a vote either in committee or here in the united states senate. judge garland wasn't given a

hearing. most of our republican colleague wouldn't even meet with him, even though many of them had voted earlier to confirm him, to again serve on the top appellate court of our land. judge garland's nomination languished for 293 shameful da days. a great many americans believed that it's the equivalent of stealing a supreme court seat. a good man, a very good man was treated badly. and so, too, was our constitution. still many of our republican colleague assured us that if the tables were turned later on, they would hold themselves to the statement standard -- the same standard and only allow the next president to fill the supreme court seat should a vacancy occur during an election year. and then on september 18, 2020,

justice ruth bader ginsburg passed away, 46 days before a presidential election. and with her death most of our republican colleague changed their tunes almost overnight. today with more than 220,000 american dead and more than eight million americans infected with coronavirus, not to mention 13 million unemployed, we are in the midst of an election, rushing to confirm a controversial nominee from president trump who lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes and was subsequently impeached by the house. judge barrett's nomination was rushed out of committee just 12 days before election day in a process that many believe was a clear violation of the rules of the judiciary committee. think about that. 12 days. instead of keeping their word, a number of our republican colleagues are fasttracking a

nominee and not a consensus nominee from the judicial mainstream like judge merrick garland, as tens of millions of americans are mailing their ballots in, dropping off their ballots and lining up to vote. this confirmation process is shameful, it is unprecedented. if you have ever wondered what hypocrisy looks like, this is it. i know that many americans, including many of our republican colleagues, see in amy coney barrett a well-qualified judge, and in donald trump a duly elected president. and they believe a vote is necessary because after all it's spelled out in the constitution. let me be clear. there was no precedent for the shameful blockade of consideration for judge merrick garland, and there is no precedent for confirming judge barrett just eight days before

an election. as my colleagues know, i am not given to hyperbole, but rushing to confirm judge barrett has the potential of altering, perhaps forever, the way the american people view the supreme court and the united states senate. to our republican friends, let me remind you that just because you can do this and get away with it doesn't make it right. this is wrong, and in your hearts you know it's wrong. your actions stand our system of checks and balances on its head. in the end, only serving to weaken our democracy, not strengthen it. for those americans who want to see an up-or-down vote on judge barrett, i understand that you may not share my views or my fears, which many other people do share. let me stop here for a moment to

share with you something that isn't widely known about most republicans and most democrats here in the united states senate. while you never know it most days by watching the news, most of us who serve in this body generally get along. a lot has changed since senators pat leahy and chuck grassley came here a long time ago, bipartisan friendships still endure, although they don't flourish as they once did. many of us agree at times in hearing rooms and many of us disagree at times in hearing rooms and on the senate floor, but just about every week that we're in session, a number of democrats and republicans still find time together for prayer prayer and reflection, whether at a prayer breakfast in the capitol or one of many bipartisan study groups ched by barry black, our chaplain, who recently served as a chaplain in

the navy and the marine corps. oftentimes at these gatherings, we are reminded of the golden rule, one of the two greatest commandments. to treat other people the way we want to be treated. after serving here for 20 years, i remain convinced that our friendships and our ability to reach consensus on critical issues facing our nation are based in no small part on our faithful adherence to that commitment which could be found in every major religion of the world. and we are at our best here in this body when we follow it. i believe that true adherence to the golden rule calls for fairness in the way we discharge our constitutional responsibilities for judicial nominations, too, including nominations to the supreme court, regardless, regardless of which party occupies the white house or the presiding officer's chair. we can't have one set of rules for democratic presidents and

another set of rules for republican presidents. the golden rule called for a vote for judge garland, and i believe that today the golden rule calls for hitting the pause button on judge barrett's nomination until the president who is elected in nine days is sworn into office. why? because the american people deserve to have their voices heard. but you don't have to take my word for this. consider, if you will, the words of our republican leader, mitch mcconnell, from march 2, 2016, 14 days before president obama had even nominated judge merrick garland to serve on the supreme court following the death of justice scalia and a whole seven months, a whole seven months before an election. leader mcconnell said four years ago, and i quote, the american people deserve to be heard on this matter. that's the fairest, most

reasonable approach today. he went on to say that voters have already begun to choose the next president who in turn will nominate the next supreme court justice. this is something the american people should decide. that's what he said four years ago. let's also listen to what the current chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator graham, told us march 10, 2016. this is what he said, and i quote. i want you to use my words against me. think of that. i want you to use my words against me. if there is a republican president elected in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say lindsey graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. finally, here is the advice of my friend, then-chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator chuck grassley, following the death of justice scalia. he said, and i quote, the president should exercise restraint and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed.

he went on to say president lincoln is a good role model for this practice. the president should let the people decide. let, i'm glad senator grassley mentioned our nation's 16th president because i believe president lincoln's example will serve us well, especially at this moment. and why do i say that? well, after a supreme court vacancy occurred just 27 days before the 1918 -- 1864 presidential election, what did president lincoln do about it? did he fill the vacancy? did he call on the senate to much through a nomination in a month's time largely because he could? no, he did not. in the midst of a civil war that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans, lincoln called for allowing the american people first to decide who would be president, and that person would then nominate a candidate for the vacant seat with the advice and consent of the senate. nearly 150 years later,

lincoln's words give us a clear road map for doing the right thing. let the american people have their voices heard before filling this vacancy, instead of rushing it through just days before an election. as we all know, the supreme court seat we are debating today was left vacant by the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg who served on the supreme court since 1993. we continue to mourn her loss. we continue to pray for her family and loved ones. justice ginsburg may have been small in stature, but in death, our nation has lost a true giant. ruth bader ginsburg made it her life's work to challenge the laws and systems in this country that limited opportunity for women solely op the basis of their gender. she was a pioneer in her own right but perhaps even more importantly, she paved the way for generations of women and girls who would come after her. today women can sign a mortgage on their own in no small part

because of ruth bader ginsburg. today women can open a bank account or apply for a credit card without a male co-signer, in no small part because of ruth bader ginsburg. and today pregnant women cannot be discriminated against at work in no small part because of ruth bader ginsburg. i am confident that her legacy will live on, especially in all the women and young girls she inspired throughout her remarkable life. but unfortunately with her passing, the equality that she spent her life fighting for is now on the line. many americans believe in their hearts that the threats posed by this nominee, the one before us at this moment, are real. that's particularly true when it comes to access to affordable health care. to the rights of women to make their own health care decisions, to voting rights and perhaps most importantly to the future of our planning. mr. president, the affordable

care act hangs in balance with this nomination. think about that for a moment. right now, our country's in the midst of a public health crisis, the likes of which those of us living have never seen. over eight million of our fellow americans have been infected with this coronavirus. over 220,000 lives have been lost in this deadly virus. that's more than the entire population of des moines, iowa. we are consistently seeing 700 americans die from the coronavirus every day. the front page of yesterday's "wall street journal" makes it clear, it is not getting better, it's getting worse. as it turns out, america has less than 5% of the world's population, but our country accounts for more than 20% of the world's deaths from coronavirus. no other nation on earth comes close to that. the numbers don't lie.

mexico, our neighbor to our south, has lost 88,000 people to coronavirus. we have lost 220,000. the united kingdom has lost 44,000. we have lost 220,000. france has lost 34,000. germany just over 10,000. and we have lost over 220,000. canada, our neighbor to the north, has lost just over 9,000. japan, 1,700 deaths. australia, 905 deaths. south korea, just 457 deaths to the coronavirus. and we have lost over 220,000. while this carnage continues here and abroad, our friends in the other party continue to press the supreme court to throw out, to throw out the affordable care act in its entirety. not next year, not next month. meanwhile, nearly 13 million

americans are unemployed, and an unemployment rate at nearly 8% is more than double the rate for the beginning of this year. but rather than prioritize public health and long overdue relief for the millions of americans who are struggling to get by, our republican colleagues have instead decided to fasttrack the supreme court nominee just eight or nine days before a presidential election. so why the rush? well, to figure that out, all you have to do is look at a calendar. just seven days after election day, on november 10, the supreme court will hear oral arguments in a case known as california v. texas. california v. texas, a case that is brought by 18 republican attorneys general and the trump administration, seeks to overturn the affordable care act in its entirety. in its entirety. if confirmed, judge barrett may well end up casting the deciding

vote on whether or not to strike down the affordable care act. and we know from our her -- her own words that judge barrett does not agree with the decision written by chief justice roberts to uphold the constitutionality of the affordable care act a few years ago. she wrote that the chief justicd the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute, close quote. and judge barrett said nothing during her confirmation hearing to distance herself from these words. what exactly could the consequences of overturning the a.c.a. be? well, for starters, those consequences to mean that nearly 135 million americans who have a preexisting condition could be charged for -- more for health care, in many cases making their health care unaffordable. it could mean returning to a sometime when insurers could design plans that excluded coverage for contraception and

family planning as well as conditions like pregnancy, mental health care, and substance abuse treatment. overturning the affordable care act could threaten medicaid expansion that provides health care, coverage to over 15 million low-income americans, many of them living in some of the most rural parts of america. it would mean that young adults under the age of 26 may no longer be able to stay on their parents' health care plan. it would jeopardize the tax credit that over nine million americans receive to help cover their own health care costs. and that's just to name a few things, just a few. but make no mistake, overturning the affordable care act in the middle of the night, in the middle of the worst pandemic in a century will have devastating and far-reaching impacts on our health care system and nearly every american, including the more than eight million americans who will be left with the new preexisting condition, the coronavirus. but sadly, that's what our president and many of our

republican colleagues are intent on doing as we battle covid-19 every day in every state of our country. having failed nearly 100 times to repeal or chip away at the affordable care act in congress, donald trump and many of our republican colleagues are now counting on the supreme court to do their work for them. and they are within one vote -- one vote of achieving their goal. one vote. mr. president, a woman he a right to make her own personal and intimate health care decisions also hangs in the balance with this nomination. judge barrett refused to say much about this women's right issue, including whether roe v. wade was correctly decided in 1973. interestingly, though, she did cite justice ginsburg and the so-called ginsburg rule and asserted that it prevented the foim, this nominee, from -- the nominee, this nominee from

indicating how she would rule on supreme court matters. let's look at what justice ginsburg said about roe v. wade during her own confirmation hearing in 1993, 27 years ago. justice ginsburg said, and i quote, here's what she said. the decision of whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman he life -- woman's life, to her well-being and dignity, it's a decision she must make for herself. when government controls that decision, she is treated as less than a full human not responsible for her own choices. she did not deflect or refuse to answer the central question, should women have the right to make their own health care decisions. justice ginsburg was forthright and the senate confirmed her by a vote of 96-3.

96-3. given judge barrett's lack of clarity on this critical matter, i'm left to consider her statements. i hope that she will maintain this constitutional right for women. however, my fear is that judge barrett was nominated because she meets donald trump's stated litmus test to overturn this constitutional right that an overwhelming majority of americans support. well, mr. president, this, mr. president, our presiding officer, voting rights and the integrity of our elections also hangs in the balance with this nomination. earlier this week, the supreme court upheld a pennsylvania lower court decision that allows mail-in ballots to be counted in the upcoming election. the vote was tied 4-4, which means the issue was not settled permanently. it means that judge barrett may

very well be the deciding vote on many disputes related to the upcoming election. how would judge barrett have ruled in the pennsylvania case? well, during her confirmation hearing, judge barrett refused to answer questions about the legality of poll taxes, voter intimidation, voter discrimination and whether or not the president can unilaterally move election day. it strains credit duty to -- credulity to know that voter intimidation is unconstitutional, that voter discrimination is unconstitutional and the president cannot move election day. why can't he? because you guessed it. because it would be unconstitutional, even if he tried. more than ever we need justices on the supreme court, along with judges on other federal courts, who can be counted on by the

american people to uphold the integrity of the upcoming election and on future elections. based on her testimony before the senate judiciary committee earlier this month, i'm not sure that judge barrett can be counted on by the rest of us to ensure that win or lose president trump stays within the boundaries of the law and abides by the will of the american voters on november 3. well, as it turns out, there a lot more than an election that may hang in the balance with this nomination, and that includes the very future of our planet and its inhabitants. over the course of her confirmation hearing on three separate occasions, three separate occasions, judge barrett refused to acknowledge the plain and indisputable facts that climate change is real, that human activity is the primary cause of our current climate crisis, which we see

evidence of almost every single day. hurricane-forced winds pierced through america's heartland this summer, flattening one-third -- one-third of iowa's crops in a matter of hours. our east coast and gulf coast are experiencing one of the most active hurricane seasons ever recorded with more tropical storms and rainfall and more rapid inten physical indication. -- intensification. one person from louisiana said that his state is losing one football field to the see every 100 minutes. that's right, not every week, not every month, not every day, every 100 minutes. the equivalent of one football field lost to the sea. last summer fueled by record heat, long droughts and as many as 12,000 lightning strikes -- think of that, 12,lightning

strikes in 36 hours, wildfires destroyed parts of california the size of my state. colorado state witnessed wierls almost as -- wildfires almost as bed. record-breaking heat waves from anartica to the arctic circle where temperatures reached 100-degrees fahrenheit for the first time ever. that's right, 100-degrees fahrenheit along the arctic circle. temperatures in alaska reached over 90-degrees fahrenheit for the first time in that state's history. temperatures in death valley reached over 140-degrees fahrenheit, the hottest temperature ever recorded, september was the hottest september recorded on the heels of the hottest decade on earth, this year is on track to be one of the hottest years ever

recorded, this year, and it's not getting better. it's getting first. when she was first asked simply it climate change was real, judge barrett responded that she is, and i quote, not a scientist. close quote. well, mr. president, i'm not a scientist either. i am, however, the senior democrat on the senate environmental works committee. i realize that you don't have to be a scientist to trust scientists. you know it is gravity which is keeping our feet firmly on the ground. when judge barrett was later asked by one of our colleagues whether coronavirus is infectious, judge barrett said, and i quote, it's an obvious fact, yes. she was then asked if smoking causes cancer and jaifort said, quote, yes, every package of cigarettes warns smoking causes cancer. when asked whether or not the

nominee believed that climate change is happening that is threatening the air we breathe, the water we drink, judge barrett refused to acknowledge the simple fact that climate change and global warming are real. instead judge barrett asserted that climate change is, quote, a contentious matter of debate. a contentious matter of debate. close quote. well, mr. president, climate change is not a contentious matter of debate. there's overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that our planet is warming and that warming is caused by carbon pollution largely. climate change is real. we see it every day in this country and every day on this planet. it's threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink. the american people and the people on our planet see the effects of climate change and global warming every single day. and these, mr. president, are

indisputable and undeniable facts, not a matter of debate. so judge barrett's views on climate change stand in stark contrast to the science and the views of the vast majority of the american people too. they also stand in stark contrast to the beliefs of the late justice ruth bader ginsburg. judge barrett's views are out of touch with reality and it poses a threat to public health, the environment and the future of this planet. i echo the words of president macron of france a couple of years ago stood before a joint session of congress an called for our country, the u.s. to once again lead the world on climate change. he reminded us. he said we have only one planet. there's no planet b. no planet b. in fact, mr. president, i fear

there's never been a more dangerous time to confirm a climate denier to a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. scientists warn we are on the brink of plan -- planet terry destruction. over the next few decades the supreme court will decide critical environmental issues, issues that will drastic liqueur tail the future of presidential administrations to enact environmental policies that are essential to our survival as a plan planet. -- planet. justice ginsburg was a critical tiebreaking vote in the supreme court's history called massachusetts v. e.p.a. recall with me, if you will, that massachusetts v. e.p.a. affirmed the environmental protection agency's authority and duty to regulate tailpipe

emissions as a pollutant under the clean air act. it provided the legal underpining for numerous other regulations that the trump administration has been hell bent to destroy. just as the supreme court was designed by our founders to remain the political fray, our supreme court justices should not fall prey to blatant misinformation at the heart of climate denial. sadly, during her confirmation hearing, judge barrett demonstrated that on an issue so critical for the survival of our planet as we know it, she does in the appear to be guided by science. and is unlikely to be guided by the facts when it comes to global warming, and that, my friends, should scare the -- the heck out of us. mr. president, these issues that justice ginsburg fought so hard to protect over the course of her life, health care, the

rights of women to make their own health care decisions, voting rights, and the future of our planet hang in the balance with this nomination. and for these reasons i will not be supporting the nomination of judge barrett. mr. president, let me conclude if i may by noting that justice ginsburg did some of her most memorable work in dissent. during her memorial service in the u.s. capitol, justice ginsburg's rabbi said, justice ginsburg's dissent were not cries of defeat. they were blueprints for the future. close quote. justice ginsburg knew that just because you don't have the votes doesn't mean you're any less right. justice ginsburg knew that a great dissent will speak to the future and just might eventually become the majority view. today we may not have the votes to stop this process or vote down this nominee but that

doesn't make our efforts to fight for fairness any less right. i could be mistaken but i believe in my heart that the american people will make their voices heard loud and clear. and what i believe is a sham of a confirmation process and they'll do it on election day. like justice ginsburg, the american people are dissenting against this process and against this nominee and i believe they will be voting in record number numbers. in fact, they already are. judge barrett may be confirmed, but let history though sha i've tried -- show that i've tried hard both to follow the golden rule and the example of justice ginsburg and that i refuse to join the majority opinion. with that, mr. president, i dissent.

postcloture time to the democratic leader. i yield my remaining postcloture time to the democratic leader. the gentle woman from washington state. my friend and colleague. ms. cantwell mr. president, i come to the floor to defend a woman's right to choose. i am beyond frustrated that this debate is even happening tonight. according to statistics from the rape, abuse and increst national -- insist national network, there are over 433,000 victims of rape and sexual assault on average each year in the united states of america. they have found that every 73 seconds an american is sexually assaulted.

and so when someone wants to chip away at the rights of american women to have access to health care, my state is going to take it personally. my state has codified roe v. wade into law. they have fought for these rights and a vote by the people of our state in the 1990. and so a process today that is unfolding here in the senate where someone wants to roll those rights back and propose a different way of life in the united states of america, we women are going to fight back. now, the truth of the matter is the majority of americans support a woman's right to choose. the majority of states support a woman's right to choose in what their public believes. it is a minority and a minority

on this floor who does not support that. and would love to have a judicial process that shortcuts active debate about the issues of what are in the mainstream views of americans. these statistics and these issues are 50, almost 50 years of law about a health care delivery system that allows a woman to make this choice. and as from those statistics i just read you, there are darn good reasons they want to make those choices. so the fact that people have been out here characterizing this debate and going back in history and talking about all of these things that have happened to previous judicial nominees, yes, yes, there's been a lot of back and forth. but the main point is the other

side of the aisle wants to nominate people who are out of the mainstream view of america. so any of my colleague who came here and tried to argue that judge barrett and her views are in the mainstream, i guarantee you the judiciary process that we had with the senate judiciary committee definitely did not prove that. and in fact the president's words and the actions of this body in nominating people whose views are out of the mainstream because this is 50 years of settled law. and you are trying to override it by putting someone on the supreme court who will say otherwise. but adding insult to injury to this whole process is the fact that we're not really doing our day job. we're not dealing with the

economic crisis that's facing america. and, yeah, i'm a little tired -- i'm a little tired of that, too. i'm a little tired of every time we have a debate about our economy, whether it was the fiscal cliff or the big budget deal or last year's budget deal or any budget deal, we never can deal with our economy because the other side of the aisle wants an amendment to take away a woman's right to choose and limit it. i couldn't even get language in the last covid package to get boeing workers more training program because the republicans were so concerned that the definition of a new health care proposal had to have a hyde amendment attached to it because otherwise they couldn't support it because it's so richter scale on our side of the aisle. now, i will give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle there are about ten states that basically have a population that only 40% or maybe even less

support a woman's right to choose. so, i get it. that's a hard state to come and represent here if the courts have already determined that this is settled law. it might be hard for you. but the majority of americans and the majority of the states and the courts have already decided this. but, yes, you're going to continue to pursue judicial nominees that are out of the mainstream of the american people. and you're doing so instead of your day job focusing on the economy of the united states during a covid pandemic. so it wasn't surprising that this summer as we were on recess, the seattle times said what's happening? wall street is flourishing but

main street is struggling. and basically raised a question while everyone was at home, what are we going to come do about the economic situation. so we know we've had tremendous loss. 40% of restaurants are at risk of remaining closed and remaining closed permanently. we know that one in five small businesses could be closed by 2021, a devastating impact to our economy. and we know that 25% of those businesses need additional resources to survive. so all of those things were known, and they were known all summer long and nobody wanted to discuss them because the other side didn't want to get serious about a robust package. and the package they put on the

floor so they could go home and say a week before the election here's what we tried to vote on did not take care of small businesses that got left out. certainly didn't talk about the minority businesses that needed access to capital. the last bill did a decent job of helping businesses who had a connection to a banker, but if you didn't have a connection to a banker, you didn't get as much help. and so we should have sat down and fixed this. we should have sat down and made sure that we were fixing what needed to be fixed to help our economy in the midst of a covid pandemic. but no, true to form to the other side of the aisle it's way more important to go after a woman's right to choose. that's way more important than these economic issues. well, madam president, i am

going to tell you that we are not going to lower our voices on the importance of our economy or how important it is to help women. we're not going to sit silently and talk about a minimal economic package to help american businesses. we're going to talk about what american businesses need. and we're going to talk about how we can help protect a woman's right to choose. now, the nominee before us -- i have listened to many speeches today. she has tremendous intellect. she does have tremendous intellect. apparently that's a strong suit of the president of the united

states. he has strong intellect and yet i have seen the most major assault on the rule of law by anybody in an administration in my time in the united states senate. throwing out fact-based decisions, not guaranteeing due process, not making sure that we have a freedom of the press, corrupt government officials that they won't even get rid of, not supporting civil rights that should be enforced at the federal level. it is not an issue to be left to the states. the attorney general of the united states and the members of this body should enforce the civil liberties of americans. it is not an issue to ignore and you certainly don't call out the military when they want to express their opinion and

concern about this issue. so the president of the united states has a long record. he's got great intellect but he has run over the rule of law. and he has set a precedent for other people in his administration also not to follow the rule of law. so what i find so challenging about judge barrett's record and the issues before us is that women's issues and these issues that we base that -- that we face that are so important for us to getting done are about a woman's access to health care. i can't even imagine going back to connecticut v. griswold, a time when we had to fight just to have contraception. that's what the privacy rights were all about. it was about a court that

decided and found in our constitution that in multiple places, there are a number of rights that give a privacy right to a woman to control her own body. and those privacy rights are about my constitutional rights. there are about what is guaranteed to me in the constitution and it's about us finding out whether a nominee is going to hold them up and particularly at a time when we've had almost 50 years of laws that have protected those rights. but people want to have a rushed 30-day session beginning to end, speed court nomineing in the mansfield realm instead of hearing from groups and organizations about their concerns on this nominee. and that is just not good for our overall system.

it's not good for the issues that we face moving forward, and it is certainly not good for women in the united states of america. so i do not appreciate the rush to confirm judge barrett. now, given my state, yes, my state codifying roe v. wade into statute in 1990 makes me a pretty active person who wants to see a judiciary that upholds that. and i want to see and understand where this nominee is. but anyone who comes to the floor and says that she is in the mainstream views of americans when we know what her views have been in opposition to roe v. wade and as i said, having county v. griswold --

having connecticut v. griswold be a correctly-decided decision, even justices thomas, alito, and roberts have said it was correctly decided. judge barrett is out of the mainstream by not saying that. and she's been critical of the affordable care act and its issues that we want so much to cover preexisting conditions. she refused to say whether medicare and social security were constitutional. and this issue of same-sex marriage where two in three americans support this and refusing to say whether she thinks the lawrence v. texas decision which struck down a law criminalizing consensual gay sex was correctly decided, these are

issues about whether we're going to move forward as a nation with laws that people have come to expect, that they planned their lives around, their health care -- there are health care institutions all across the united states, even in states that don't fully support the woman's right to choose that are delivering health care to women. and we're going to start down a process of taking those away? and then some people who represent the other side of the aisle, states that are at 50%, 60% support of a woman's right to choose, they're going to rationalize in their head that oh, somehow i don't know exactly where judge barrett is going to be on this issues or i didn't get a confirms that she -- confirmation that she truly believes that they are settled law and i believe in the punumbra rights of the constitution. you say you believe my constitutional rights to privacy. you say that you believe i have the right to make my own health

care decisions. so with a few days before the election and a supreme court case in california v. texas where the a.c.a. and other health care decisions are going to be on the table, it is not good enough to not understand the judicial philosophy of this nominee and whether that is in the mainstream views of people in the united states of america. too much is at risk. too much that we deserve to know the answers to. i'm glad my colleague from delaware brought up justice ginsburg's quote because that says it all. everybody keeps say, well, she didn't have to say anything. she didn't take note. she's all good. she didn't have to say anything. that's not what it's all about. that's not what judge ginsburg

said. judge ginsburg told me exactly what she believed. she told people that she believed in a woman's right to choose. she told people, as my colleague from delaware said, that these issues are too important to a woman. so i don't understand why when justice ginsburg basically would clarify what she believed why judge barrett won't clarify what her judicial philosophy is. it's worth reading again. justice ginsburg said, quote, the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being, to her dignity. it is a decision she must make for herself, and when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full human responsible

for her own choices. these women and all women, these women who have been the subject of the most heinous acts and all women deserve to make their own health care choices, and we in this body should not be making this decision at this moment. we should be taking care of our covid problem and moving forward with solutions that will help the american people and let them respond to this issue. this issue will continue. and i just ask my colleagues to think about what has already happened with the affordable care act. those states who didn't want to support the affordable care act, didn't support the affordable care act, later after it passed came and then implemented it. came and made the switch and

covered more people under medicaid. just a few states just recently. so what you're really doing is holding your states back from access to health care. eventually, as i said, the majority of states do support a woman's right to choose from the general public. eventually this will be settled with every state supporting this. the question is how long are you going to hold up the health care choices of people in the united states? i ask my colleagues to turn down this nomination. i ask my colleagues to stop nominating people who are out of the mainstream of american views on health care that are so important to their daily lives. i thank the president, and i yield the floor.

ms. cantwell: mr. president, i yield my remaining postcloture time to the democratic leader.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i really appreciate the

opportunity to come to the floor today and to have time to talk about this nomination. i will tell you, as a member of the senate judiciary committee, i want to express my appreciation to chairman lindsey graham for the great work that he has done and to leader mcconnell for the -- the way he has given us the opportunity to work through this process of completing this confirmation. as i have talked to tennesseans from one end of our state to another, i have heard from them time and again how important they think it is to have a -- a judge and a justice, a supreme court justice who is not an activist, and as we went through the hearings last week, i will tell you why i thought it was so interesting. one of our colleagues said oh,

we fear that you will usher in an era of conservative activism. they feared that. but you know what? conservatives do not want activist judges of any stripe. they want constitutionalists. they want judges to abide by the rule of law. they want supreme court justices who will call balls and strikes. that's what those of us on this side of the aisle, republicans, conservatives, independents that are there in the center, that's what they want. and you know, that is what they see in judge barrett. i have found it so interesting

as we have worked through this process how people, whether they are democrat, independent, or republican, have said i was so impressed with her, the way she retained knowledge and information, the way she represented her views, the way she talked about the law and precedent, the way she talked about the constitution, the way she talked about her relationship with justice scalia and they also liked the way her students and her professors and her colleagues spoke of amy coney barrett. they liked that. because these are people that she works with. her children are in school with them. they are in church together. so they have come to know her

through the many different and varied facets of her life, and they appreciate who she is and the life that the barrett family leads, and how that represents their thoughts and their beliefs. here are a couple of things i would like to -- to discuss that i think points of clarity that deserve to be made in this debate. as we were in committee, our friends across the aisle choose to take much of their time not to get to know judge barrett and to question her about opinions that have been written. she has written right at 100 opinions or writings that have been published. they chose to take their time to discuss the affordable care act.

and to talk about individuals and the concern for losing health care. now, madam president, i think that -- that it is right that the american people know we would all like for every american to have access to affordable health care. i think we can say that is a goal of ours, how we get there, what the system looks like. it's going to be something that is really quite different. now, they are very wedded to the affordable care act and would really like to push this all the way to government-run health care. now, that's their goal. so as many people watched the hearings, they would say why did they keep talking about the affordable care act? well, of course, the case that

is coming before the supreme court is a case on severability. it is not about the constitutionality of the a.c.a. so it was curious to them, and i would offer that probably the reason they continued to talk about it is because our friends across the aisle, the democratic party, is very emboldened right now. they feel as if they are going to do a clean sweep, and they are going to take the house, keep the house, take the senate, take the white house, and when they do, they have a very aggressive 100-day agenda. and we heard quite a bit of conversation about this 100-day agenda. statehood for d.c. and puerto rico. they want to abolish the

electoral college. they want to begin implementing the green new deal. they are going to repeal the trump tax cuts and implement a new corporate tax. and the list goes on and on, and the list includes what they want to do with health care. which is a government-run, government-controlled system. now, see, madam president, they don't want anybody to tell them they can't do this. they don't want constitutionalists on the supreme court that are going to stop them from doing this. because when you look at the numbers and what the numbers tell us, you have got right at 8.5 million people right now that are enrolled in the affordable care act or obamacare program. 8.5 million. but here is the outlier in that.

in order to reach their goal of government-run health care, which is basically a medicaid program for all, what you would have to do is to strip away the health insurance from 153 million americans who have employer-provided or they purchased health care on the open market. that's 153 million americans, plus, madam president, you would also have to take away the medicare benefits from 57 million americans that have paid into medicare with every paycheck they have earned all of

their working life. now, we've got 66 million americans that are currently in medicaid. so think of what is going to happen if you, on top of the 66 million that are in the medicaid delivery system, then you take everybody from medicare, 57 million. they become part of that group. then you have taken health insurance away from 153 million americans. madam president, that is where they are headed. that is their goal. quite simply, when they were going through the process with the affordable care act, and you had president obama and vice

president biden, what we would hear many times from some of the democratic leaders was well, obamacare is a stop along the road to government-controlled health care. that is their goal. and how dare we have a supreme court that would get in their way? that's also why they continue to talk about court packing. and while they are trying to redefine the meaning of the word court packing, oh, let's not have it be offensive, oh, no. they are wanting to expand the court so they can get their way. so, madam president, as my friends across the aisle come down and talk about this nomination, i think it is

important that we look at the reason behind some of their work. and their words, and where they think they are going, because they have not made this nomination about judge barrett. they've not made it about the supreme court. they have made it about themselves. they've made it about themselves. their wish list, their desire for activists -- activist judgesle they fear con -- judges. they fear conservative activism. what are they going for? liberal activism. that's the kind of judge they are looking for. not a constitutionalist, not somebody that calls balls and strikes. they are looking for somebody who is going to do their work

for them so they don't have to pass something through congress. they don't have to deal with we, the people. they want to just say, well, according to the supreme court this is the law of the land. so that is why they chose not to get to know judge barrett, and i will tell you i found her to be one of the most impressive women that i have ever had the opportunity to get to know. and she made it very clear, yes, she is qualified to sit on the court. her record really speaks for itself. but, as we saw, the judge didn't rest on her laurels, she was patient, thorough, respectful, and she was a credit to her

profession. i wish i could say the same for my democratic colleagues about being thorough and respectful because i found it to be very disrespectful of the process, of the institution, and of judge barrett that they chose not to show up. -- show up for our hearing. they were not there, awol, gone, didn't come. and you see, madam president, why did they do that? judge barrett, a highly qualified, highly skilled female, she's just not the right kind of woman. she does not submit to the leftist agenda. so, therefore, they don't see

her as the right kind of woman. and, as we know from many of their anti-ices, -- antics, some from the mainstream media, they feel a woman who is pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business, that kind of woman, in their eyes, does not deserve a seat at the table. i fund it so -- i find it so interesting. my colleagues across the aisle who speak often of how they value diversity -- and i agree, diverse city a strength -- diversity is a strength and we should seek to hear all voices. that should be a goal to hear from everyone.

but when it comes to diversity of viewpoint and hearing from a conservative woman, an independent woman, a right-of-center woman, this side of the political spectrum, when it comes to diversity of viewpoint, what do they do? they repeatedly choose intellectual isolation. intellectual isolation. their mind is made up. they are in total submission -- total submission to the agenda of the left. so do not confuse them. don't confuse them with facts. don't confuse them with a counterpoint. don't look at them and say, how about being open-minded?

you know what you're saying might be true, but what if this is true? would that change the outcome? i find it so very sad that what they've done is to choose intellectual isolation. i find it very sad that that is what they are roll modeling for young adults, college students, high school students. don't hear out somebody who is different from you. don't show respect or a listening ear to someone who is different from you. don't take the time to provide a

common courtesy of listening to what someone may have to say. to my friends across the aisle, i know many of you, and some of you i served with when i was in the house, and may i just offer a thought that you are better than that. this chamber is better than that. and individuals who are nominated for judgeships, for justices on the supreme court, they deserve to be heard. so i -- i just -- i would encourage my colleagues to think this through. judge barrett is moving through this process.

we are going to confirm judge amy coney barrett to the u.s. supreme court. and as we do this, we know that she is going to take that seat as a capable, competent, skilled jurist and we know that she is going to be someone that is going to sit on that court and, yes, she is going to call balls and strikes. our friends need not worry about an era of conservative activism. let me assure them conservatives don't want that any more than they want an era of liberal

activism. what they want is a constitutionalist court that is going to be fair to everyone and is focused on equality and justice for all. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. blackburn: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: nsent the quorum bed

with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, i yield one hour of my remaining postcloture time to senator murphy. the presiding officer: the leader has that right. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, every woman in this country owes a debt of gratitude to my friend, congresswoman patsy mink. americans probably know patsy best for her fiery advocacy to pass title 9 into law. this landmark piece of gender equity legislation which now bears her name has benefited millions of women and girls across our country, but i'd wager very few people know about how patsy changed the course of history for women's equality and helped to enshrine the right of women to control our own body in the supreme court. let me tell you a story.

in 1970, the same year that hawaii became the first state in the country to decriminalize abortion, patsy did something no one has done before. she made women's rights a key issue in a supreme court nomination when she testified against the nomination of judge v. harold carswell. in her testimony, she brought up george carswell's decision in the case of ida phillips, a woman denied a factory job because she had preschool-aged children. of course, no such rule applied to fathers. judge carswell along with ten of his colleagues on the fifth circuit court of appeals had refused to hear ms. phillips' case. patsy told the senate judiciary committee, quote, judge carswell demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the concept of equality.

his vote represented a vote against the right of women to be treated equally and fairly under the law, end quote. when a republican senator tried to defend judge carswell by pointing out that ten other judges had also voted to refuse to hear the case, patsy responded, quote, but the other nine are not up for appointment to the supreme court. patsy understood the critical role the supreme court plays in the lives of every american. she pointed out to the committee that, quote, the supreme court is a final guardian of our human rights. we must rely totally upon its membership to sustain the basic values of our society, end quote. patsy's testimony marked a turning point in judge carswell's nomination, which the senate ultimately rejected. her courageous action paved the

way for president richard nixon to appoint justice harry blackmun to the court. three years later, justice blackmun wrote the landmark decision in roe v. wade recognizing a woman's constitutional right to control her own body. justice blackmun unlike justice carswell understood the right of women to be treated equally. upon his retirement, he observed roe was, quote, a step that had to be taken toward the full emancipation of women. end quote. this story about patsy is not very well known, but it underscores how one person can make a difference and how one vote on the supreme court can make a difference. during his years on the court, justice blackmun became a reliable vote for racial and gender equality and his

decisions reflected an understanding of how the court's decisions impact the lives of millions of americans. if judge carswell had been confirmed to the supreme court instead of justice blackmun, roe v. wade would not exist as we know it, nor would a host of civil rights protections for students and racial minorities. our nation finds itself at a similar judicial crossroads today as we debate whether judge amy coney barrett should replace justice ruth bader ginsburg on the supreme court. the choice we face as senators is clear. it's the same choice patsy mink presented to the senate 50 years ago. we can choose to protect equality for women, health care for millions, and other basic values of our society as patsy

put it, or we can choose a justice selected to do precisely the opposite, strike down the affordable care act, overturn roe v. wade, and continue to defy cases like her conservative mentor justice antonin scalia. this is neither an abstract nor hypothetical choice. president trump promised to have a nominee that would eliminate the a.c.a. and it took three days after judge ginsburg's death to pick this nominee. judge barrett signaled she opposed the affordable care act and reproductive rights. judge barrett is on record criticizing chief justice roberts for, as she put it, pushing the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.

in a case upholding the a.c.a. in 2012. justice scalia wrote the dissent in that case. she also signed a newspaper ad committing to, quote, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization. end quote. the same ad called for an end to the barbaric legacy of roe v. wade. end quote. with judge barrett, president trump and senate republicans know exactly the kind of vote they are getting on the supreme court. that's why they are rushing judge barrett on to the court through this hypocritical, illegitimate process. in a little over two weeks the supreme court will hear oral arguments in california v. texas, a law enforcement where the trump administration and 18 republican state attorneys general are asking the court to invalidate the affordable care act like justice scalia voted to

do in two earlier cases. my republican colleagues know they can count on her to provide the decisive fifth vote on the supreme court to strike down the a.c.a. to help them win through the courts an outcome they tried and failed to achieve 70 times -- 70 times in congress. the consequences of judge barrett's vote to strike down the a.c.a. would be catastrophic. it would be catastrophic for the 20-plus million americans who obtained health coverage under the a.c.a. and the 100 million-plus americans who would loose protections for people living with preexisting conditions. these are the types of real-world consequences justice ginsburg placed at the core of her judicial philosophy and approach to the law which her conservative colleagues often ignored. we saw this time and again in

justice ginsburg's classic defense like ledbetter v. goodyear tire and epic systems v. louis. she sees things much differently. when my democratic colleagues and i pressed her about how she would take the real-world impact of millions of people losing access to health care into account, she said those are, quote, policy consequences for congress to address. she also tried to perry our questions by using terms like severalability and testifying testing for people with preexisting conditions were not at issue in the trump administration's law enforcement she ignored the fact that more than 100 million people with preexisting conditions would be harmed if the lawsuit succeeds. not an issue. give me a break. my republican colleagues hope that the american people will

accept these weak attempts to divert our attention but they can't obscure the real human cost of striking down the a.c.a. it's why my democratic colleagues and i have shared the stories of people judge barrett would harm when she votes to strike down the a.c.a. i want to share their stories again because their lives are what is at stake in this nomination fight. jordan otta, an elementary school teacher, has p.n.h., a rare blood condition. to treat it she receives medication that costs $500,000 a year without insurance. if the affordable care act is struck down, jordan's insurance agency could put a lifetime cap on benefits leaving her without coverage for lifesaving medication. jordan's father dean told me without the medicine she will die. kimberly dickens could not

afford health insurance until the affordable care act became law. kimberly used her new insurance to get a checkup and a mammogram that found her breast cancer many with her health insurance, kimberly was able to get a mastectomy and was cancer free since. she said, the a.c.a. saved my life. it scarce me to think if i didn't have the a.c.a. how far the cancer would have grown. this demonstrates the real-world danger of barrett's -- amy coney barrett's judicial philosophy. this is not the only right at risk. we know this because judge barrett has aligned herself with the conservative wing of the court. at her nomination ceremony judge barrett announced that justice scalia's, quote, judicial philosophy is mine too.

aligning herself so closely with justice scalia has implications for a whole host of rights and protections the court has granted over the years. justice scalia, for example, wrote dissents in the landmark cases recognizing lgbt roll call votes from rover v. -- lgbt rights. he wrote a dissent sharply criticizing the majority for recognizing a right to same-sex marriage that in his originalist view was not in the constitution. because judge barrett calls herself an originalist and shares justice scalia's judicial philosophy, his decisions provide a preview of how she would have ruled in those cases. for example, although the supreme court has aconfirmed marital rights for lgbtq americans, judge barrett's radical views put these rights

at risk. judge barrett has argued that as part of her duty, a justice should enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a president that she thinks is clearly in conflict it. clearly judge barrett's confirmation would put this at risk and her would-be colleagues on the court have taken notice. justices thomas and alito, also originalist and davis v.ermett which the court declined to review. these two justices criticized her for reading a right to same-sex marriage into the 14th amendment even though that right is found nowhere in the text. end quote. in effect, these two justices found a challenge to this case by saying it is a problem only the court can fix. this is a dangerous practice

among the court's conservative wing. these justices are inviting would-be litigants to bring challenges to the court so they can use those challenges to invalidate landmark precedent which is what happened in janice v. ashby. as a member of the seventh circuit, judge barrett has demonstrated a willingness to signal her views on precedent that could have significant implications if she is confirmed to the supreme court. one example came in price v. city of chicago where judge barrett joined a decision that upheld the a so-called abortion clinic buffer zone law. the decision made clear that her circuit court wags forced to uphold this law under the supreme court precedent but it signaled a strong disagreement with that precedent. the decision, which she joined, criticized the president as

incompatible with the first amendment and imposing serious burdens. judge barrett's alignment with justice scalia, her radical views on supreme court precedent and his disregard for real-world impacts on her decision-making as a judge show how many rights and protections are at risk. lgbtq rights, voting rights, women's equality, health care, you name it. these rights didn't just materialize out of thin air. they came after hard-fought battles an tremendous sacrifices are from -- and tremendous sacrifices from trailblazers like patsy mink and ruth bader ginsburg. when patsy called the supreme court a final rights of human rights that sustains the basic values of our society she deeply understood what that meant for human equality and civil rights.

the republicans understand that clear majorities of americans support the a.c.a., a woman he a right to choose and the right for lgbtq couples to marry, yet, because republicans fear they are losing the election, they are racings judge barrett's nomination through a hypocritical and illegitimate process to put her on the court for life before the voters can make their voices fully heard. we've all seen the news coverage of thousands of voters standing in line for hours on end in the cold and rain to make sure their voices are heard and their votes are counted. clearly the voters understand what's at stake. they are doing their part. now it's time for the senate to do ours by rejecting judge barrett's nomination to the supreme court. by doing so, we can stand up for what patsy mink called the basic values of society and against

donald trump and senate republicans fault on health care, a woman he right to -- woman's right to control her own body and lgbtq rights, among so many others. this nomination fight is close to being over, but the broader fight for the future of our nation continues. i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to express my strong opposition to the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to replace ruth bader ginsburg as an associate justice in the united states supreme court. the senate has never confirmed a supreme court nominee while a presidential election was already under way. indeed, this is the situation before us with early voting taking place in multiple states and with over 50 million ballots already cast.

so while those on the far-right fringe might be cheering these lifetime appointments, the vast majority of americans are the wubs who lose out -- ones who lose out and do not get a fair say. make no mistake, today's vote isn't about one individual. it's about taking away health care from 20 million americans in the midst of a pandemic. it is about eliminating protections for people with preexisting conditions that over 100 million americans depend upon. and that is what we fear happening once this vote is cast, the lifetime appointment is given and the case is heard after the election. president trump and his allies purposely set the schedule that way. they didn't want american voters to have any recourse to take out their anger at those responsible for taking away their health care. my republican colleagues should listen to their own words. go back and look at what you said about merrick garland and

apply it consistently. our fidelity is the constitution, not to a caucus, not to the federalist society, not to special interest. everybody deserves equal justice under the law. the supreme court was not designed to become an extension of the republican national committee. the chairman of the judiciary committee pledged in his own words, if an opening coming in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election. the obvious truth, the republicans broke their word. this process itself is broken. they are pattern of obstruction and abusive partisanship over the years threat engs the credibility -- threatens the credit icty to the -- credibility to the supreme court. my decision, however, to oppose this nomination rests not only

on this unprecedented use and abuse of power, but also on understanding that i have applied to nominees of the supreme court on numerous occasions. it is a simple address one drawn from the principles of the constitution. as i have said during previous confirmations, a nominee's intellectual gifts, experience, judgment, maturity and temperament are all important, but these alone are not enough. in addition, a nominee to the supreme court must live up to the spirit of the constitution. a nominee must not only commit to enforcing the laws but to doing justice. a nominee must give life and meaning to the great principles of the constitution, equality before the law, due process, freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the expansion of opportunity. it is these principles that

ensure full and fair and equal participation in the civic and social life for all americans, a nominee to the supreme court must make these constitutional principles resonate in a rapidly changing world. my colleagues on the judiciary committee spent a great deal of time and effort questioning judge barrett and trying to illicit responses about her basic world view and judicial philosophy. unfortunately, her answers were largely nonresponsive and, at times, she demurred on issues in which she herself had already made public statements. despite her lack of responsiveness, judge barrett's judicial record and public statements suggest that she does not meet my test and her placement on the supreme court will further tilt the court away from these constitutional principles. and understanding how judge barrett will not meet my test, i

am cognizant that she will follow the role of lamenter just as antonin scalia, with whom she shares an approach to constitutional interpretation. in her article entitled "congressional originalism" judge barrett talks about the core principles underpinning originalism. the first principle, she writes, is that the meaning in the constitution text is fixed at the time of its ratification. the second is that the historical meaning of the text has legal significance and is authoritative in most circumstances. the trouble is that the founders and framers did not leave us a blueprint to answer every new question of law. nor did the delegates to the constitutional convention demand that all future judges be originalists. the laws and norms when the constitution was ratified would alienate and exclude many

americans today, particularly women and racial and other minority groups. we have seen the devastating effects of the originalist line of thinking in the supreme court's recent history. a focus on this mode of interpretation has played a crucial role in undoing labor rights, curtailing environmental regulations, and allowing unlimited dark money to influence politics. in the end, a strict originalist approach tends to favor the executive over the individual, the employer over the employee, and a corporation over the consumer. also relevant to whether judge barrett passes my test is her criticism of starry desigh sis, a core concept in which a court generally adheres to its prior decisions, absent of special justification more than a belief that the president was wrongly -- a precedent was wrongly

decided. part of the reason that maintaining precedent is so important is that it ensures the rule of law and the legitimacy of the judicial process. as alexander hamilton explained in federalist number 78, there is a long tradition of being found by precedent, in his words, to avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts. a practical reason for following precedent is that once it goes into effect, people then organize their lives based on the law and make decisions with the assumption that that law will stay in place. the public expects judges to understand this need for stability and to approach the law with the appropriate humility and respect for its authority. they do not want judges to elevate their own view of the law or to change the law simply because the composition of the court changes. that is why i've decided to overrule precedent, a court

generally undergoes a of numerous factors including its consist tency of other factor, the reliance interest at and historical elements since the decision in question. therefore, i am troubled that judge bears' writings indicate that she is more likely to see opportunity to revisit precedent than other judges. in an article entitled "precedent and jurisprudential disagreement" judge barrett argues that there is a weaker presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases which could make these cases more vulnerable to review. in another article entitled "stare decisis and due process" judge barrett argues that the current standard of stare decisis has become too rigid in modern times. and favors a more flexible stance on reexamining precedent. in particular, i take seriously that judge barrett indicates that she's more willing to

elevate her originalist interpretation over precedent. overall, when there is a tension between precedent and jurisprudential commitment, judge barrett writes that she, in her words, tends to agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the constitution and that is, thus, more legitimate for her to enforce her best interpretation of the constitution rather than a precedent in conflict with it. she casts doubt on the importance of reliance interest which are the interests of stakeholders that depend on a continuity of an affirmed law or right. stating that when precedent clearly exceeds the bounds of statutorily constitutional text, reliance interests should figure far less prominently in a court's overruling counters. judge barrett's views on originalism, texturallism and stare decisis could bring about

a seismic shift to the supreme court, reshaping modern american life and wreaking rights. give than her approach is shared by several of her future colleagues, she will help move the court's center of gravity to the far right. i'll now walk through issues in judge barrett's judicial record thatness of how she, in conjunction with fellow conservative judges, could and likely will rule on future cases. i am deeply troubled about the implications of this nomination on the affordable care act, the a.c.a. the a.c.a. has given individuals and families control over their own health care and has brought the uninsured rate to historic low. the a.c.a. has been the law of the land since 2010 and is now woven into the fabric of our health care system. despite consistent sabotage of the a.c.a. by the trump

administration, premiums for health insurance plans on individual marketplaces have decreased for the second year in a row. yet president trump and my republican colleagues want to repeal the a.c.a. in its entirety, taking with it protections for people with preexisting conditions, bans on lifetime and annual limits on coverage, billions of dollars in tax credits to make coverage more affordable, and efforts to close the doughnut hole for seniors needing prescription drugs, just to name a few key provisions. the a.c.a. is a relevant, indeed critical, aspect of the nomination because the supreme court will begin hearing oral arguments on the case of california v. texas on november 10, which will decide the fate of the a.c.a. this is not a theoretical debate

over how judge barrett may interpret a case in the future. this is a real case that could eliminate health insurance coverage for millions of americans and increase costs for everyone in the next year. it is no surprise that my republican colleagues are breaking with their own precedent to consider this nominee with a week to go until the election. this is their chance to repeal the a.c.a. once and for all. in fact, president trump has said many times over the last several months that he hopes the a.c.a. is overturned by the supreme court, referring specifically to this case. and don't just take his word for it. the department of justice under his leadership has taken the extraordinary step of deciding, against defending the law of the land, the a.c.a., and instead siding with the plaintiffs in arguing that the a.c.a. and its protections for people with preexisting conditions, among other provisions, is unconstitutional.

president trump and congressional republicans are very clear about their intentions. they want to repeal the a.c.a. they've been saying it for a decade. they failed to do it when they had complete control of the white house and congress because of overwhelming public opposition to their efforts and a few brave votes. they are relying on the supreme court to do their dirty work for them and get rid of the a.c.a. they even petitioned to have the case heard by the supreme court after the election, knowing that the american people would not be happy if the court decided in their favor and struck down the a.c.a. it's not hard to follow the logic here. president trump and congressional republicans have been working methodically to lead to us this moment for years. -- to lead us to this moment for years. now i'll return to the nominee for a moment. president trump has made it clear that he intends to have the court dozen his building for

him and is committed to nominating judges who will side with him. in her hearing, judge barrett refused to discuss how she may handle a case on the a.c.a. however, in early 2017, she authored an article criticizing the a.c.a., specifically arguing that the 2012 supreme court case nfip v. sebelius was wrongly decided when a 5-4 majority ruled that the a.c.a. individual mandate was in fact constitutional. judge barrett criticized judge roberts' ruling 0en that case citing that he pushed the a.c.a. act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. instead, judge barrett has praised justice scalia in his criticism of the a.c.a. as displayed in his dissents in both the nfip case as well as the case king v. bur related to

the tax credit. while she has not said how she will rule on the case california v. texas on whether or not the a.c.a. is constitutional, she didn't have to. we already know that she's -- had she been on the court in 2012 when nfib v. sebelius was decided or when king v. burwell was decided, she would have ruled to invalidate key elements or all of the a.c.a. between her public writings and president trump's commitment to appointing judges who are hostile to the a.c.a., i don't think it is a stretch to imagine how a future justice barrett may vote in california v. texas. the stakes for millions of americans are just too high to support this nomination to the supreme court. i'm also concerned by judge bears' extreme views on the second amendment and the constitutionality of limits on gun possession. to understand her position, one

must first understand the tests that in district of columbia v. heller. this case involved a challenge to the district of columbia laws that generally made it unlawful to possession an operable firearm in the home. justice scalia offered the jar majority's opinion and was joined by others. in heller, the supreme court struck those laws down and affirmed the right to keep guns in the home for self-defense. while making clear that rights secured under the second amendment are not unlimited, the court provided a non-exhaustive list of gun restrictions that were presumptively lawful, including prohibitions on firearms possessed by felons and the mental lil. however, in the case kanter v. bar, judge barrett filed a dissuns leading to the rationale of striking down even

commonsense gun restrictions. in this case, the plaintiff was convicted of felony mail fraud and was prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and state law. when he challenged these laws as violating the second amendment, the majority concluded that federal and state governments were entitled to bar firearm possession by people convicted of felonies. judge barrett disagreed and concluded that barring nonviolent felons from possessing firearms is not allowed under the second amendment. she reasoned that, in her words, history does not support the proposition that felons lose her second amendment rights solely because of their status as felons. but it does support the proposition that the state can take the right to bear arms away from a category of neem it deems dangerous. her position live outside the widely accepted view that gun

restrictions for public safety are constitutional under the second amendment, her opinion puts her to the right of justice scalia, who delivered a majority opinion in heller. her vote in kanter makes it more likely that judge barrett would vote to strike down similar restrictions on firearm restriction, even by individuals with serious criminal histories. this outcome alone is concerning. beyond that, her views coupled with the originalist approach to the second amendment endorsed by several sitting justices portend that a conservative majority could create stricter standards of scrutiny for second amendment cases. it is important to know that justice ginsburg joined other justices in declining opportunities to revisit heller's application. that includes the denial of ten certiorari positions that past term that called for the court review and possibly invalidate

challenges to state gun safety laws, including state conceal carry laws, gun permit requirements, and assault weapons bans. given that only four votes are needed to grant certiorari review, judge barrett could play an important role in deciding whether the supreme court adds second amendment cases to its docket. this could put commonsense gun safety laws, even those that have been upheld for years, at an increased risk of being overturned. furthermore, as part of a conservative majority, judge barrett could initiate major rollbacks of privacy rights in one's own home life. during her confirmation hearings, judge barrett declined to say whether the supreme court cases, griswold v. connecticut, lawrence v. texas, and obergefell v. hodges were

correctly decided. the griswold case of 1965 in particular is a foundational case in this arena. griswold holding that marital privacy extends to the right to buy and use contraception led to cases extending privacy and other reproductive decisions. in a refusal, judge barrett took a departure from past nominees who affirmed that griswold is settled law, including chief justice roberts and justice alito, kavanaugh, and kagan. instead of giving a straightforward answer, judge barrett contended that it is unlikely that a related case would come before the court and try to frame this issue as well settled. however, in little sisters of the poor v. pennsylvania, it's notable the supreme court has recently allowed trump administration rules to go into effect, allowing virtually any employer to deny contraceptive coverage based on religious and

moral objections. therefore, it is clear that this issue is not beyond dispute and could come back before the court. obergefell and lawrence were landmark cases that established privacy rights around marriage and intimate relations between consenting adults regardless of their gender. while it may be unthinkable that these and similar rights which are integral to a person's ability to construct their personal family lives could be undermined, there are worrying indication that they may come again before the court. just this month, justices thomas and alito wrote that they say obergefell which granted the right to same-sex marriage as something the court needs to fix and that the decision has had ruinous consequences for religious liberty. given that justice ginsburg was a crucial vote in the obergefell

5-4 opinion is conservable that a 6-3 conservative court could chip away at equality were these rights to be relitigated. a conservative court may also act as a bulwark against further expanding privacy protections and family life. for example, a case is set to come before the court this term, fulton v. philadelphia in which private agencies that receive taxpayer funding to provide government services such as force to care agencies could be determined to have a constitutional right to deny services to persons on the basis of sexual orientation. the next area of concern is how judge barrett's record will impact workers' rights. unfortunately, judge barrett has a record of voting in favor of business interests. judge barrett voted to reject and unburveg review and equal employment opportunity

commission v. auto zone regarding an employer's policy of assigning black and latino employees to stores in neighborhoods with people predominantly of their same race creating a black store and a hispanic store. judge barrett's colleagues who dissented call this a separate but equal arrangement, a type of unlawful discrimination which was well settled by brown v. board of education. during her confirmation hearing she agreed that brown was correctly decided and beyond overruling. however, judge barrett's decision in auto zone indicates she is willing to accept racially segregated actions by an employer even when they would be difficult to reconcile with the core holdings of brown. in another discrimination related case, cleaver v. care fusion, judge barrett joined the unburveg decision allowing an employer to post a job application with maximum years

of experience, essentially barring applicants older in age. the majority took a narrow view that the ambiguous language of the age discrimination and employment act did not apply in this case reasoning that it applied only to current employees and not to job applicants. in both autozone and cleaver, judge barrett has opened the door for employees to run afoul of our country's civil rights laws. this is particularly concerning because the supreme court will likely take up cases deciding who is protected from workplace discrimination. for example, the court could face legal changes in the wake of bostock clayton county which in the civil rights acts prohibits employers from discriminating against lgbtq people. the majority opinion said future cases could determine whether businesses could use religious

freedom to supersede the commands. judge barrett had additional ruled against employees by limiting their ability to hold employers accountable through collective arbitration in the cases harrington v. waterstone mortgage and wallace v. grub hub holdings. given that disputes around the rights of gig economy workers and the prevalence of creation agreements are only increasing, related cases are likely to come before the supreme court. it is notable in coming to her conclusion in grub hub, judge barrett cited epic systems v. louis in which the supreme court held that arbitration agreements in which an employee agrees to arbitrate any claims against an employer on an individual basis rather than a class are enforceable. in that case, justice ginsburg took the risk that -- of reading a particularly strong dissent

from the bench saying that the court's ruling was egregiously wrong and holds enforceable these arm twisting take it or leave it contracts, including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage claims only one by one. in a similar case to come before the supreme court again, it is likely that judge barrett and a conservative majority would take a sharp turn away from justice ginsburg's position and make it harder for workers to get their day in court. i am further concerned that a 6-3 conservative majority court could have a drastic impact in limiting voting rights. voter suppression has a long history in this country with black votes being subjected to violent intimidation in legally sanctioned disenfranchisement. in recognition of this history and after decades of activism on the part of many, president

lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act which in part required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get approval before changing its voting rules. this process known as preclearance was intended to prevent voter discrimination before it occurred. this law had an immediate and positive impact and increased black voter registration and turnout in the decades after it passed. however, in shelby county v. holder, the supreme court's conservative members argued in a 5-4 ruling that the preclearance formula was no longer necessary and outdated exactly because it was successful. in her dissent, justice ginsburg famously pointed out the absurdity of majority's reasoning. she wrote that, quote, throwing out preclearance when it has worked and has continued to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet.

predictably, the ruling in shelby opened the floodgates to states to enact restrictive and cities voting laws, including strict voter identification, excessive voting purging and gerrymandering. in the wake of shelby the often power of the supreme court to restore or further damage voting rights has become apparent. that is why it is troubling that in her dissent in kant err which i already -- kanter which i already referred to, judge barrett argued for states' limit participation. as i explained earlier in the kanter case, she disagreed with the majority's opinion that found that all individuals of a -- with a felony conviction could be legally restricted from possessing a firearm. the majority proned that second amendment -- reasoned that second protection rights belonged to virtuous citizens, meaning persons who committed serious crimes may forfeit those rights.

judge barrett used this opportunity to elevate the importance of second amendment rights in contrast with voting rights. after evaluating the historical record, she concluded that while scholars have not identified 18th and 19th century laws -- and it's interesting to note we're being guided by 18th and 19th century laws under judge barrett's legal theories -- while scholars have not identified 18th or 19th seen tur -- century laws for felons have -- like the rights to vote and serve on juries because these rights belong only to virtuous citizens. she explained that in her view gun rights are individual rights conferred by the second amendment and exclusions on nonvirtuous citizens do not apply to individual rights. judge barrett then distinguished the right to vote to sit on juries as belonging in a

different category called civic rights. she upheld the ability of states to limit this class of rights based on virtuous exclusions. in doing so she cited a history of state laws going back to 1820 that excluded felons from voting. judge barrett, however, failed to include in her analysis the very history of voter discrimination that led to the passage of the voting rights act and which would have given important context to laws that she cited which sought to disenfranchise individuals with criminal records. i'm also concerned because judge barrett refused to answer several questions on voting in elections during her confirmation hearings. even when asked to confirm voter protections already enshrined in federal law, she was not able to give a straightforward answer. these exchanges gave me pause that judge barrett has not displayed an appreciation for the norms that make our democratic and electoral institutions function.

i would next like to focus on judge barrett's potential in limiting the authority of the federal and indeed state governments. if confirmed to the supreme court, judge barrett's judicial philosophy of originalism is poised to diminish the role of congress as effective policymakers. this method of interpretation could disregard the commonsense application and spirit of federal laws. an example of this is the case i discussed earlier, nfib v. is a bell uses -- sebelius where they decided the individual mandate was constitutional. the court, however, created a new limitation on congress' authority to act under the commerce clause. using an originalist approach, the court found that congress can regulate commercial activity but rejected the idea it could compel an individual to engage in it. the majority did uphold congress' power to do so under

its article 1 powers to levy taxes. alarmingly, four dissenting justices, justice scalia, thomas, kennedy, and alito expressed the view that neither the congress taxing power supported the individual mandate. and i will note that had judge barrett been on the court, she likely would have joined the dissenting justices and this case might have gone the other way. the implications of this case are significant. taking together -- taken together, chief justice roberts' opinion and dissent are centered around the idea that the use of the comments clause and the use of congress' power under the a.c.a. was a legislative overreach. it signals that the court increasingly sees these and potentially other congressional authorities as having more limits. so in the future when congress tries to use its power for a novel purpose, it may be susceptible to challenges in the

court. if the court continues to shift in this direction, it will have consequences of the federal legislation beyond the a.c.a. as a result, congress' authority to robustly address climate change, civil rights, new technology, and other national challenges through legislation could be stymied or diminished over time. and with judge barrett's fascination with the exact meaning of the original writers of the constitution, i wonder what their thoughts were about nuclear energy, satellites in space, our u.s. air force which was not specifically authorized in the constitution. i think we'll find ourselves in a very difficult position where when we face the chal longs of climate change -- challenges of climate change, cyber warfare,