but it happened kind of gradually, and we have for some reason acted as if this is somehow normal. there is nothing normal about this. as a lawyer, i spent a good deal of my life in appellate courts. i have argued in the united states supreme court. i have argued in several circuit courts of appeal. i have argued over and over again before our state supreme court. to the extent that i had a specialty, it was appellate law. as the governor's legal counsel in rhode island, i was involved in picking judges for the state courts. on the judiciary committee, i have been involved in picking judges for the federal courts. folks, this is weird, this is not right. nobody behaves this way. nobody farms out the selection of judges to private interest

groups that don't disclose their donors and take up to $250 million into the scheme, according to "the washington post." weird enough that people feel the need to run tv ads for judicial nominees, but when they're taking a check for $17 million, two checks for $17 million if an anonymous donors or maybe two anonymous donors, yeah, if you think that's weird it's because it is. that shoofnts happen -- that shouldn't happen anywhere around a court. and if there's one thing that we are entitled to -- there have been a lot of high-minded speeches about the judiciary and its independence and all of that. the most important standard that

a court must meet is that it is not a pantomime court. a pantomime court in which the rituals of adjudication get acted out. people come to the bench wearing their robes, hear the arguments, render decisions, read the briefs, buff at the end of the-- but at the end of the day, the decision is cooked by big special interest influence that insinuated its way into the court by controlling the selection of judges, by funding the p.r. campaigns for those judges, and by being the

orchestrating force behind the amici curiae. you might think i'm being a little aggressive suggesting that they're orchestrated. well, remember this group, the bradley foundation that i showed you from my supreme court checklist that funded eight out of the 11 groups in that case? here's a memo of a grant they're giving to something called the judicial education project which is a sister organization to that same judicial crisis network. this is a little birth of a pee in a shell game so forgive me. -- pea in a shell game so forgive me. but they are directly related groups. and the staff recommendation says that at this highest of legal levels, it's a request for funding for amici curiae in a

supreme court in several cases. it is very important to orchestrate high-caliber amicus efforts, orchestrate. for pete's sake, the secret funders use the word orchestrate themselves. so something is up. something is not right. something is rotten in denmark. and if the american people are good enough to entrust us with the ability to answer their questions about this mess, we will answer their questions about this mess. i will tell you i cannot get my questions answered, not without

gavels, not in this senate, not in these committees. but i think it matters if an individual wrote 35 million -- $35 million worth of checks to influence the makeup of our united states supreme court to know whether they had business before the court, to know who they were, to be able to even do the capertin analysis of whether some party's due process rights have been infringed by influence. so in some respects this is the end of things. this is the third of three nominees that have all had the same characteristics.

they've been selected through this scheme. they've been campaigned for through this scheme. they've generated bizarre procedural behavior in this senate all three, three for three. it's like the triple trifecta. three judges, three characteristics. selected, campaigned for, bizarre procedural anomalies. and when you see that kind of behavior, that's a lot of branches moving the same way. that doesn't -- if that doesn't mean the wind is blowing, then give me a better explanation. but i think there's a foul wind blowing and we need to find out who's behind it and we need to find out what it means for our treasured supreme court.

i'll close by saying that the results are already coming in. even before judge barrett gets to the court. the results are already coming in from this effort. i did an article some time ago that we had pretty thoroughly fact checked, read to you, reviewed that at the time said there were 72 decisions by the united states supreme court under chief justice roberts that had the following characteristics. one, they were 5-4 decisions. the narrowest, barest majority. ordinarily a supreme court likes to see bigger majorities than that because it's conducive to the integrity and strength and credibility of the court.

72 5-4 decisions. they had an additional characteristic, not just 5-4. a partisan 5-4. no democratic appointee joined the five. so again if you're an institutionalist, you look at that and you think maybe that's not the court putting its best foot forward. that's an awful lot of partisan 5-4 decisions. and then the third characteristic is that you can identify quite readily in those cases a big republican donor's interest, something that they would want by way of an outcome. and what we calculated at the time in that article is that the score in those 72 5-4 partisan decisions with a big republican

party donor interest indicated is that the score was 72-0. some pitching balls and calling balls and strikes. 72-0. that's a route. and we've been tracking it since then. i put the number now at 80-0 because the article was written some time ago. now we're at 80 partisan 5-4 cases in which a big republican donor interest was implicated and in which 80-0 the big interests won. now some of these are pretty fragrant -- flagrant. i think citizens united is going to go down in history as a disgraceful decision of the united states supreme court, sort of the political equivalent of lachner. shelby county in which the court made up facts in order to strip

a section out of the voting rights act that in turn unleashed voter suppression laws across the states that had been held back by the preclearance provisions that the court summarily decided 5-4 that it didn't like any longer. janus, a case that took down a 40-year-old precedent involving labor law in which legal groups had an astonishing role. that case actually went through four cases along the way. it's a long saga. i won't burden this speech with that now. but at the end of the day is that the lawyers for the labor movement walking up to the supreme court for argument that day knew perfectly well how the court was going to rule. that's not how courts should

operate. heller, the gun case, 5-4. a former supreme court justice had described the theory that heller adopted as a fraud on the public. but heller turned a fraud on the public into the law of the land. and guess what? the n.r.a. is very active as a donor in these fights. the n.r.a. was all over the kavanaugh nomination in particular. so you had these fragrant decisions. -- flagrant decisions. i just mentioned those four. but there were 80. that leaves 76 others. and they're usually -- often i should say about power.

they're often about moving power into corporations, expanding corporate power. allowing unlimited money into elections, allowing dark anonymous unlimited money to operate in elections. who benefits from that? entities with unlimited money and a motive to spend it like, say, the fossil fuel industry. intervening in elections, allowing bulk gerrymandering to proceed. multiple courts have figured out how to stop that nefarious practice. it's actually not complicated

when you're dealing with bulk gerrymandering how to stop it. and over and over again these bulk gerrymandering efforts that take an entire delegation and try to cook it so that it doesn't represent the popular vote in that state, over and over again courts have seen through that, figured out how to respond to it until it got to the supreme court and then 5-4, sorry, folks, we're not going to take an interest in that. keep at it. voter suppression. we'll tear down the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act. all of these election -- all this election mischief that leans heavily to supporting the republican side has been supported. deregulation. if you're a big polluter, if you're a big donor, you probably don't like regulatory agencies. you probably would like to have some more freedom from regulatory agencies and over and

over again these decisions try to hurt the independence and strength of regulatory agencies. over and over. and then the last is the civil jury. my god, the civil jury is in the constitution for pete's sake. we fought so hard over the civil jury that people didn't want to adopt the constitution until there was a seventh amendment that protected it in the bill of rights. protect the civil jury was in the declaration of independence. interference with the civil jury by the crown was a cause of war in the revolutionary era. the civil jury is an institution of governance in this country. it is a big deal and yet these supposed originalists on the court keep tearing down,

whittling away at, diminishing and degrading the civil jury. because guess what? if you are a big, powerful, well-funded, lobbyist-greased corps or interest group -- corps or interest group, -- corporation or interest group, can you march around this place like a king. throwing your money around, getting everybody to bow and scrape for you, lobbyists smoothing the path for you. you can wander into the executive branch if you've got the right control and get your stooges appointed to the regulatory agencies. you can be powerful. you can get your way. and then you have to suffer the indignity of showing up in a courtroom where you have to be treated equally before the law, where what you say has to be put to the test of perjury, where

you've got to turn over your real documents and not phonied up position papers. where if you tamper with the jury, it's a crime. no wonder big special interests don't like civil juries. and no wonder this court 5-4 over and over again chops away at the institution of a civil jury. but don't tell me that you are being an institutionalist or an originalist when you're attacking an institution in the constitution, in the seventh amendment, the bill of rights. that's the work that these 85-4 partisan decisions have been

doing. that is to turn this court more and more into the servant of big corporations. and guess what? americans are paying attention. there was a poll a little while ago that asked whether the supreme court favors corporations more than people or people more than corporations. and the polls showed 49-7. seven times as many americans think that the supreme court views corporations more favorably than people. than, say, the court views people more favorably than corporations. so something's out, something's up. a foul wind is blowing.

there is way too much anonymous money in and around this court process. it is, by the way, at the same time the only court that does not have a code of ethics in the federal system. when judge barrett is elevated from her circuit court to the supreme court, she will go from a court that has a judicial code of conduct to a court that does not. she will go from a court that requires transparent disclosure of gifts, travel, and hospitality to a court that requires less disclosure not only in the circuit courts, it requires less disclosure than cabinet officials, requires less disclosure than members of congress. the highest court has the lowest standards for ethics and transparency.

so to all of my colleagues who have given speeches about the integrity and value of the supreme court and our judicial branch, if you will help us as we try to look at what on earth is exactly going on over there. why ameek i curiae -- amici curiae show up in court without disclosing who they are really there for. why $17 million-plus checks are being written by anonymous individuals. what the relationship is between the $250 million that poured into leonard lee owe's effort is and who got chosen. what the expectations were of the people who spent

$250 million to influence the makeup of the supreme court. and why the highest court has the lowest standards for ethics and for transparency. we are not in a good place right now with this court. the things that are happening are truly bizarre, unprecedented, bad enough that there should be dark money in elections. dark money in judicial selection? please defend that if you think that's right. please defend that if you think that's right. if you think that big special interests should be able to write big, anonymous checks and thereby gain a voice in the composition of the united states supreme court, please come and

defend that proposition. because i don't think you can. it has never been the case in the supreme court before. it has never been the case in the circuit courts of appeal before. it has never been the case in state supreme court, in my experience. the dark money influence in and around the court is unprecedented and it is wrong, and the american people are entitled to the truth about it. i have gone into my next speaker's time a bit, so i will yield the floor. if i may check a minute and see if the floor needs to be put into a quorum call? you're okay with that? great. then i will note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. we're in a quorum call. ms. baldwin: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: last tuesday, in my home state of wisconsin, in-person early voting started. over the past week, people have shown up to vote in record

numbers. as they have across our entire country because they want to be make sure their voices are heard. why? because they know how high the stakes are for them in this election, an election that will determine our next president and control of the united states senate. an recognizes that is just one week away. my position on president trump's supreme court nomination has been very clear since the tragic passing of justice ruth bader ginsburg. voters across america should be allowed to cast their ballots first and have their votes counted before this senate votes on a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. the people should be heard first, but it's clear that the majority leader and a majority

of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no interest in listening to the people. that's why they are rushing and ramming president trump's supreme court nomination forward just days before the election. this rigged and illegitimate process is wrong, and it follows a pattern of the majority leader and senate republicans abusing their power to break their own standards on supreme court nominations. back in 2016, eight months before the election, president obama nominated merrick garland to a seat on the united states supreme court. after the passing of justice antonin scalia. judge garland is a highly experienced and qualified judge,

and i have no doubt that had he been given the opportunity, he would have earned more than 60 votes in the united states senate. but he was never given that opportunity because the majority leader decided to deny judge garland a hearing and a vote in the senate. with the standards broken on the garland nomination, the majority leader established a new one. no supreme court nominations by the senate during an election year. here we are in an election year. however, majority leader mcconnell has broken his own rule and created yet another new one. instead of applying the same standard that he imposed on president obama with the garland nomination in march of 2016,

eight months before an election, he created a new standard now for president trump with his nomination of judge amy coney barrett made 39 days before an election. the majority leader is rushing president trump's nominee forward with a senate vote as people are voting as we stamped one week, one week before election day. -- as we stand one week, one week before election day. so what's the rush? my home state is a national red zone for covid-19. we are experiencing our worst outbreak of infections since the pandemic began, breaking records for new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. right now, people want action,

support, and relief from washington. the house passed the heroes act over five months ago. was there a rush for the senate majority to take action to confront the public health and economic crisis that has only gotten worse since then? no. this legislation has been sitting on the majority leader's desk since may while businesses have closed, millions have lost their jobs, and hundreds of thousands of americans have died. at the beginning of this month, the house once again passed an updated version of the heroes act to provide local communities and frontline health care workers with the support they need to stop the spread of this deadly virus.

this legislation provides support to workers, families, schools, local governments, and small businesses. was there a rush from the senate majority to take action? no. instead, the majority leader told the white house not to support this legislation because it would divide the other side of the aisle and that they needed to focus on pushing this supreme court nomination forward before the election. so what's the hurtry? -- so what's the hurry? my colleagues on the other side the aisle have been trying to repeal the affordable care act and take away people's health care since i came to the senate back in 2013. i remember that vote to repeal the affordable care act well. it was 2017, right here on the

senate floor. as president trump and senate republicans sought to repeal the affordable care act, senator john mccain did something we are not seeing from the majority now with this illegitimate supreme court nomination process. senator mccain stood by his principles and gave a thumbs down to repealing our nation's health care law. president trump's response has been to try to do what the american people will not let this senate do. in 2015, president trump made clear his intentions with supreme court nominations when he said -- and i quote -- if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obamacare.

in may of this year he said, and i quote, we want to terminate health care under obamacare. the day after he announced his nomination of judge barrett, he tweeted that the supreme court invalidating the affordable care act would be a big win for the u.s.a. and just last week he said he would like to terminate the affordable care act, and we have a very good chance of doing it. he's right, but that's the problem. president trump, with his department of justice, has supported a republican lawsuit to overturn the affordable care act completely. and on november 10, one week after the election, the trump-backed lawsuit will come before the united states supreme court.

judge barrett has a record of criticizing and opposing the previous supreme court decisions that have upheld the affordable care act. it's clear as day that the majority leader and senate republicans are driving a vote on the president's supreme court nomination in order to do what trump wants -- overturn the affordable care act completely. terminate people's health care and take away protections for people with preexisting health conditions. here's what's at stake if judge barrett does what trump and senate republicans have been trying to do for years. over 186,000 wisconsinites have been infected with covid-19, which could now be considered a

preexisting health condition. these people need the guaranteed protections that are d. -- that our affordable care act provides and they cannot aafford to have the supreme court terminate their health care. if the affordable care act is overturned, over 133 million americans with preexisting health conditions could stand to lose their guaranteed protections or be charged more, including more than two million wisconsinites who have preexisting health conditions. this issue is personal to me, as it is to so many others. when i was nine years old, i got sick, really sick. i was in the hospital for three months. i eventually recovered, but when it came to health insurance, it was like i had a scarlet letter. my grandparents, who had raised

me, couldn't find a policy that would cover me -- not from any insurer and not at any price. all because i was a childhood been labeled with those terrifying words -- preexisting health condition. this is also personal for chelsea from seamore, wisconsin, whose daughter dough was born with a heart defect. zoe is guaranteed access to country of origin without being charged more now. chelsea wrote to me, i'm pleading with you as a mother to fight for the kids in wisconsin with preexisting health conditions that are counting on you to protect that right. her fight is my fight today. no parent or grandparent should have to lie awake at night wondering if the health care

they have today for themselves and their children and grandchildren will be there tomorrow. the fact is, more children have become uninsured in every year of the trump administration, and striking down the affordable care act would be the final devastating blow to children's health care. if president trump succeeds with his lawsuit and gets a ruling from the person he is putting on the supreme court, judge barrett, an estimated 800,000 children would lose health care insurance. when congress passed the affordable care act over a decade ago, i led the effort in the house to include a provision that now allows young people to remain on their parents' health insurance until they furn 26. -- turn 26. in wisconsin, that means over 40,000 young adults in their

20's who have been infected with covid-19. many of these young people are likely already on their parents' health insurance plan or are receiving premium tax credits provided by the affordable care act to lower costs and make health care more affordable. recently, i heard the story of amy from nino, wisconsin. her daughter is a nursing student at marquette university in milwaukee. she is on her mother's insurance plan and they're worried that if the senate shoves this nomination forward and judge barrett does what president trump says she'll do, this young nursing student and future frontline health care worker will be kicked off her mother's health insurance and lose access to health care. kiersten from green bay told

immediate her story of being diagnose the with -- diagnosed with a very serious heart defect when she was just 11 days old. by the time she was 13 years old, she had undergone 17 angioplasties. before the affordable care act was passed, she struggled to keep insurance coverage and she doesn't want to go back to the days when insurance companies wrote their own rules and could choose to deny people coverage, charge people more, or set annual or lifetime limits on people's health care. kiersten, who is now 24 years old, said, quote, amy coney barrett has mad it clear that she opposes the affordable care act. with this nomination, the republican party is actively saying that our lives do not matter. if a decision is made on the supreme court nominee before the

election, the american people are taken out of the selection. the message i've heard from wisconsin has been clear. people want to be able to vote before the senate votes. people want their voices to be heard. people want their health care protected, and they certainly don't want it taken away by president trump or his nominee to the supreme court during a deadly pandemic that has taken over 1,700 lives in my home state of wisconsin and over 221,000 american lives. i would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that for the women i have spoken about today, as well as all american women, if the affordable care act is terminated, insurance

companies could once again charge women more than men, and insurance companies could stop covering basic services like maternity care, cancer screenings, and contraception. the threat this nominee poses to women's health cannot be overstated, and the threat isn't limited to the affordable care act. it extends beyond that. president trump took office with a promise to nominate justices and judges who would overturn roe v. wade. he has nominated judge barrett and her judicial record reveals a firm disagreement with the supreme court's five decades of established constitutional protections for women's reproductive rights. let's all be honest with the american people. since day one of this

administration, a woman's constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control, has been under assault. we know that what amy coney barrett's personal views are, and i know that some of you support heart for them -- support heart for them. but let's -- support her for them. but let's be clear. i don't support her because of her personal views. what i do oppose is the phony game being splayed where the people pushing this nomination forward pretend that this nominee is simply a blank slate and will consider mog more than words on a page in her court decisions concerning women's reproductive health. right now in states across the country, roe v. wade is under arizona tack and millions of

women are -- is under attack, and millions of women are at risk of being able to make their own health care decisions. dozens of abortions right cases are headed towards the supreme court as we speak. the stakes could not be higher for women's health than they are right now with this nomination. we all know what judge barrett's judicial record is and her public advocacy is clear. this is a nominee who has been fundamentally hostile towards reproductive health and rights. that is what is relevant here because our supreme court plays an essential role in protecting and upholding civil rights and civil liberties, including the constitutional right for all women to make their own personal health care decisions and to

have access to safe and legal reproductive care. the least this nominee's senate supporters could do is be honest with the american people. we all know that if given the opportunity, a justice barrett would overturn roe v. wade. don't pretend you don't know how she will come down on this issue. you should at least have the courage of your convictions and say to the people who are voting right now in this election that you support amy coney barrett's nomination because you support overturning roe v. wade, too. and you know she will help do it. just as i don't trust this nominee to protect people's health care or women's reproductive rights, i have no faith in judge barrett's -- in

judge barrett to respect the progress that the lgbtq community has worked so hard to achieve. now, unlike president trump's nominee, justice ruth bader ginsburg had a strong belief in equality for all, which was reflected in her life's work and in her judicial record on lgbtq rights issues. in june, we again saw real progress in the supreme court with a landmark victory for justice and equality when the supreme court ruled 6-3 that workplace discrimination against lgbtq people is wrong and our nation's civil rights laws forbid it. we have a lot more work to do. lgbtq people in many states can still be evicted from their

homes or denied services simply because of who they are or who they love. the house passed the bipartisan equality act to end this kind of discrimination well over a year ago, but that, too, has been in the majority leader's legislative graveyard and has not even received a vote in the senate. he's afraid it just might pass. but here we are today moving forward on a supreme court nominee who i believe is a real threat to lgbtq rights. again, not because of her personal preference to oppose marriage equality. rather, because she has openly and publicly defended the dissenters in the supreme court's landmark obergefell case by questioning the court's role in even deciding that case.

earlier this month, two of the dissenters in that case that judge barrett defended previously, justices thomas and alito, came out and attacked the court's 2015 decision which declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the 14th amendment guarantee to equal protection under the law. we just celebrated the five-year anniversary of marriage equality becoming the law of the land, and i have no faith in judge barrett to protect this constitutional right. president trump wants to overturn the affordable care act completely and take away people's health care and protections for preexisting health conditions in the middle of a deadly pandemic. this president wants to overturn

roe v. wade and have the government take away reproductive freedoms for women. he has done nothing to move equality and fairness forward for the lgbtq community and has worked to turn back the clock on hard-won progress. judge barrett has been nominated and will likely be confirmed by the senate to do what president trump wants. this nominee's complete and total unwillingness to show any independence from the president makes that clear to me. i believe it's wrong for senate republicans to rush this confirmation vote before the american people have voted and our next president and the next senate have taken office. i oppose this illegitimate

process, and i oppose judge barrett's confirmation for a lifetime appointment to our highest court. i do not have faith in her being a fair and independent supreme court justice for the american people. with that, i yield. a senator: mr. speaker. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. speaker, for the recognition today, and thank you very much for being here. today the senate is gathered in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. more than 220,000 americans have died, millions more have been infected. millions more are out of work because of the resulting economic crisis. these are some of the hardest

times to fall upon this nation in decades. people are hurting, they are scared, they are exhausted, and they are looking for help. millions of americans are also looking around asking how they can help in their communities. they are stepping up, whether it's as members of the essential work force, as health care workers, or by donating their time or resources to a charity or local food bank. we are seeing the best of this country. here in the senate, we, too, have the power to do something to help. on a much larger scale, we have the power and the duty. we could do something big to help beat this virus, to help people and businesses get back on their feet, get the kids back in school, to help make life

easier for the millions who are struggling. and yes, the senate has gathered in the middle of a pandemic. but we aren't gathered here by the majority leader to do anything to help the american people. we aren't gathered here to do the hard work to negotiate, to compromise, and to pass an urgently needed covid-19 relief package that americans are clamoring for. no, instead we are gathered here today to fasttrack the confirmation of a far-right judge onto the united states supreme court. in the middle of a pandemic eight days before the conclusion of a presidential election, with tens of millions of ballots already cast, it is shameful this body has truly lost its

way. the american people are looking on in anger and disbelief as the senate majority focuses on this nomination just four years after the majority in no uncertain terms said that the senate should not consider a supreme court nominee eight full months before the election. yes, that's what senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said, the senate should not consider president obama's supreme court nominee a full eight months before the election. but now he says we should install president trump's nominee eight days before the election. how did we get here? why would republicans so flagrantly violate their own rules and violate the legitimacy of the court and the senate for this nominee? to solve that mystery, we have

actually got a clue. it's on the supreme court schedule. on november 10, the supreme court will hear oral arguments in a suit brought by republican attorneys general and supported by the trump administration to destroy the affordable care act. three years after the senate republicans tried and failed to repeal the affordable care act in congress, they are now trying to terminate the law in the courts. their relentless pursuit to destroy the nation's health care law knows no end, and they need to get their supreme court nominee onto the bench in time to hear their case. you've heard it many times over the last few weeks, but it bears repeating what's happening right now because it's stunning. senate republicans are rushing another far-right judge onto the

bench days before the election and all in the effort to cement a conservative majority on the supreme court to destroy the affordable care act in the middle of a pandemic. this all taking place under the direction of a president who has stated the coronavirus pandemic affects virtually nobody. that's the president's direct quote. affects virtually nobody. that's what he's saying about the pandemic. republicans want to rip away health care from the millions of people in the middle of a public health crisis that has killed more than 220,000 americans. they want to take away protections from millions of people living with preexisting conditions in the middle of a pandemic. a pandemic that has caused

millions more americans who have contracted covid-19 to now have a new preexisting condition. the president openly admits he wants the supreme court to do what republicans in congress couldn't do, and that is to demolish the a.c.a. it will be so good if they end it. that's the president's quote. he said that on "60 minutes." it will be so good if they end it, speaking about what the supreme court he wants them to do and what his justice department is arguing. and the president and republicans in congress don't have any plan to replace what they want to destroy. after all these years of trying to end the affordable care act, including a two-year period when the republican party held control in the house, senate, and white house, they still don't have a replacement for the

affordable care act. if republicans succeed, if this supreme court nominee joins an increasingly conservative court in striking down the a.c.a., the results would be catastrophic for my home state of new mexico. the estimated 834,700 new mexicans with a preexisting condition would face higher costs, fewer benefits, and could have trouble finding coverage. overturning the a.c.a. would immediately end coverage for millions of americans who became eligible for medicaid through the medicaid expansion. in fact, in my state of new mexico, 250,000 people got coverage under that expansion. seniors getting prescription drugs could no longer afford

their medications. people like jeannie, an albuquerque-based senior who told me recently, and i quote now, now, like many seniors, i take a medication that is so expensive that i would reach the doughnut hole every year. i can't afford to pay for that medication out of pocket, end quote. rural hospitals, which are absolutely critical during this pandemic, could close their doors. as dr. val langler, the chief medical officer of rehoboth medical care services told me, and i quote here, the affordable care act is critical to the health of patients in new mexico's rural communities. threatening the health care coverage of our communities in the midst of the greatest public health crisis of our times is unconscionable, end quote.

for indiana country and native communities, a.c.a. repeal would be absolutely devastating. i have heard firsthand accounts from tribal leaders, native families, and health care providers about how the a.c.a. has improved the health care landscape across indian country, literally saving lives. the a.c.a. has opened the doors for so many native americans to access the care they need. whether it's an unplanned medical emergency or routine wellness checkups and screenings. access to quality health care is critical for native communities which face disproportionate impacts from the covid-19 pandemic. the federal government has a trust and treaty obligation to consult with tribes and to provide native americans health

care. with this rushed hypocritical process, senate republicans are violating our most sacred duties to indian country. we know that the supreme court will rule on the fate of the affordable care act. that much is certain. but what other cases might this court rule on in the near future? or what other cases might judge barrett cast the deciding vote? well, as you have heard me mention a few times now, we're in the middle of a presidential election. the most important election of our lifetimes. facing an uncertain outcome at the polls, president donald trump has repeatedly sought to undermine the legitimacy of this election. he's lied about the safety of mail-in voting, despite the fact that he's a mail-in voter himself.

he deliberately tried to weaken the postal service, and president trump, along with members of this very body, are telegraphing that they want the supreme court, not voters, to decide this election. they want to sow enough doubt about the legitimacy of the democratic process that it has to go to the courts. and they want their handpicked conservative judge to tip the scales for them. you don't get to choose the judge you decide -- who decides your own case. that's not how we achieve true justice in a democracy. the core of our system is having an impartial judge. it has been shocking to watch as this president, aided and abetted by members of this very senate, has been so overt about his desire to put a judge on the supreme court who will rule in

his favor in any disputed election. that's a tactic authoritarians, not a democracy. but in her confirmation hearing, judge barrett wouldn't even comment on whether a president should commit to the peaceful transfer of power, as this president has refused to do. she called that a political controversy. the peaceful transfer of power is not a political controversy. it is one of the most sacred tenets of our democracy. what else might judge barrett rule on in the coming years? no doubt, cases concerning the most urgent existential crisis we are facing as a nation -- climate change, cases to decide whether we'll let big polluters do whatever they want to our air, water, and planet. there is no denying the science

of climate change. it is a real and present danger to the lives and livelihoods of people all across this nation and the world. my home state of the new mexico is in the bull's-eye with increasingly severe wildfires and droughts. this president is one of the few public figures left in this country who says he doesn't believe the scientists. you'd hope a nominee to the supreme court, the highest court in our land, wouldn't follow his lead, but judge barrett again wouldn't even comment on whether she believes climate change is real. she again said that was a political controversy. the only place climate change is a political controversy is within the white house and within the republican party. and the rest of us are paying the price. while they decide whether or not to believe the overwhelming

consensus of the scientific community whether or not to believe their very eyes. there are so many other issues on which a justice barrett would likely rule, including a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. a leading advocate for women's rights to reproductive health, justice ruth bader ginsburg would be replaced with a public advocate against roe v. wade. the nominee signed her name to statements against roe that ran in full-page newspaper ads, undisclosed to the senate. she signed joint public letters against roe. this was also undisclosed to the senate. she gave multiple speeches to organizations dedicated to overing it up roe, -- to

overturning row, undisclosed to the senate. in a lawsuit review article, she wrote that abortion was, and this is her quote, always immoral. and after promising for years only to nominate judges who will overturn row, senate republicans suddenly are shy about it. they suddenly don't have the courage of their convictions and they won't let the public in on their true long-stated agenda -- overturning roe once and for all. there is so much else at stake in this fight -- on voting rights, on worker rights, and so much more, all with real human consequences for the lives of people all across this country. let's not lose sight of the real people who will be affected by this republican march to overload the court with loyalists. with so much at stake, the american people deserve to have

a say. it's that simple. so i urge my republican colleagues to take a step back, think about what you're doing, think about the long-term damage you are doing to the legitimacy of the courts and to the faith of the american people that their voices are being heard. what's at stake is more than justice ginsburg's seat. it's the american people's seat. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. hassan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague from new mexico's remarks today. i joining to rise him and my other democratic colleagues in

opposing amy coney barrett's nomination to the supreme court. mr. president, i want to begin by acknowledging the nature of the moment we are in right now. we are a mere days from an election day during an election period in which tens of millions of americans have already voted. we are grappling with a global pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 220,000 americans, and millions are out of work. yet rather than focusing on providing the comprehensive relief that lives and livelihoods are dependent on, republicans have instead made pushing this nomination through their top priority. the american people deserve better. mr. president, one of the most

solemn responsibilities of a united states senator is providing advice and consent with regard to a presidential supreme court nomination. this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land, which will impact the lives of every single person in this country. the consequences of this nomination are far-reaching, and right now there is perhaps no more consequential issue than health care. the trump administration and republicans in congress have been relentless in their attempts to sabotage our health care system, repeal the affordable care act, and eliminate the health care protections that millions of people depend on. but for years, republicans have failed legislatively to repeal this law, so now instead they've turned to the courts.

president trump said he wants to, quote, terminate, close quote, the affordable care act. and he has said that he would nominate judges that would do just that. one week after this election just nine days away, the supreme court will hear the lawsuit supported by the trump administration to repeal the entire affordable care act and its protections for people with preexisting conditions. it's no secret that this is why senate republicans have rushed judge barrett's nomination through. for some of my colleagues, this nomination is a means to an end, a way to finally repeal the affordable care act, a law that has helped so many. for the american people, however, this isn't a game. mr. president, over the course of the last several weeks,

people in my home state of new hampshire and across the country have spoken out about what the repeal of this law would mean for them. just as they've spoken out each time that republicans have tried to take coverage away. i recently heard from michelle and joe o'leary. their son was diagnosed with a rare brain condition at the age of four. right now matte is doing well but he requires a lifesaving brain infusion treatment at the hospital for four to six hours every two weeks. his father said that the minute that they miss an infusion, mattie's health would begin to decline rapidly. joe and michelle said that on top of all of the challenges that their family experiences on a day-to-day basis, they still have to wake up each morning

fearing the implications if the supreme court overturns the health care law. fearing what will happen if coverage is taken away and they can't access the treatment that their beloved mattie needs. joe and michelle shared the details of this deeply personal health care story in order to preserve health care for their son and millions of others. they shouldn't have to. no one in america should have to plead with their legislators to not take their health care away -- no one should. but they do. in the wealthiest country on earth. joe and michelle are not alone. if judge barrett is confirmed and becomes the court's deciding vote to overturn the affordable care act, an estimated 20 million americans could lose

their health care coverage. making matters worse, in pushing this nomination through, my colleagues could undermine health care in the midst of a devastating pandemic. and just as we are learning that the long-term effects of this virus will likely mean that treatment for some will be ongoing for a lifetime. the senate republicans are moving to overturn the affordable care act just when it is needed most. it is, mr. president, unconscionable. mr. president, potentially ripping away health care from millions of americans is just one of the many things at stake. women's reproductive freedom is at risk. president trump has said that he will only nominate judges who would overturn roe v. wade, and

judge barrett has repeatedly criticized this landmark ruling that provides women with the freedom to make their own health care decisions and control their own destinies. -- and be full citizens of the united states of america. equality for lgbtq americans is also at risk. just this month, two justices on the supreme court indicated their desire to overturn the decision in obergefell v. hodges which delivered marriage equality to so many. judge barrett has previously defended the dissenting opinion in that case. and voting rights are at risk. judge barrett refused to acknowledge the fact that communities of color face disproportionate obstacles in voting. nor would she acknowledge what every lawyer and really most high school students know -- that voter intimidation is illegal and antithetical to our

basic principles. judge barrett would not even give a straight answer when asked if presidents should commit to a peaceful transition of power, an essential element too our democracy -- to our democracy and one that we have held up as an example to the rest of the world throughout our history. and despite asserting that she is independent and not swayed by politics, judge barrett's refusal to acknowledge that climate change is real, after acknowledging other scientific facts such as the infectious nature of covid-19 and that cigarettes can cause cancer, reveals her alignment with and responsibility to a far-right climate change-denying agenda. mr. president, our founding documents gave us the flexibility and the tools to

grow in our on the one handing of what -- to grow in our understanding of what individuality means. these tools have given us the power to create change and move forward, to unleash the talent and energy of previously marginalized citizens. our country has prospered, thrived, and led pass a result. but judge barrett's views and her judicial philosophy are not rooted in that belief. she instead would constrain individual liberty and empower corporations. and put the progress that so many have fought for at risk. mr. president, republicans have moved this nomination forward in contradiction of the rules that they themselves invented in 23016. our society and our democracy

relies on the idea that all sides of political debates will play by the same rules. that means when any faction loses, it does so knowing that it will have a fair chance in the next round. when that understanding is disrupted, it destabilizes our democracy, and it sows confusion and chaos. my senate republican colleagues' actions make it clear that they believe that the rules do not apply to them and that they do not care about destabilizing our democracy in this way. we should not vote on a supreme court nomination while an election is actually under way. for the first time in american history, voting on a supreme court nominee just days before election day. but my republican colleagues

have shown that they will stop at nothing to get this nominee through. no matter how many rules they break and no matter how many americans' rights are threatened. and they are doing so all while people across the country are pleading with us to come together to provide more support amid a public health and economic crisis. my senate republican colleagues' priorities are clear, and they are an outrage. mr. president, i competent support a lifetime nomination of an individual who puts the health care and basic civil rights of millions of americans at risk. i will oppose amy coney barrett's nomination to the supreme court, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

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

senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, one month ago, judge amy coney barrett was selected by president trump to serve on the united states supreme court. filling the vacancy created by the passing of justice ruth bader ginsburg. since then, judge barrett has more than proven her qualifications for this job. a respected federal judge, educator and public servant, judge barrett has conducted herself throughout this process with poise and integrity. she has certainly demonstrated her intellect, her legal acumen, and her commitment to the constitution of the united states. she is clearly a brilliant jurist who interprets the constitution as written and carefully weighs the facts of a given case. despite senate democrats' repeated attempt to drag her into the political fray, judge barrett has proven that she will

make her decisions based on the law rather than politics. when i met with judge barrett earlier this month, i was assured that she would be guided by the law and precedence and be faithful to the constitution. as judge barrett herself has said more than once, a judge is obligated to apply the law as it is and not as she wishes it would be. she is obliged to follow the law even when her personal preferences cut the other way or when she will experience great public criticism for doing so. the law, not politics. as a fellow hoosier, i have had the privilege of getting to know judge barrett and her family over the last several years since she was nominated to fill a vacancy on the u.s. court of

appeals for the seventh circuit. when i met the then-notre dame law school professor, it was abundantly clear that she was a star. my colleague at the time, former democratic indiana senator joe donnelly, agreed with that assessment. a brilliant legal scholar, judge barrett was and is held in the highest regard by her peers in the legal world. judge barrett's qualifications outshown personal attacks and religious bigotry, an she was confirmed by a bipartisan majority to that circuit court. and as a judge, she has more than proven her legal credentials. she has heard more than 600 cases and authored nearly 100 opinions, and i should note, she is the first william from indiana ever to serve on that

esteemed court. as i said when i introduced judge barrett before the senate judiciary committee earlier this month, i was proud to cast my vote for judge barrett in 2017, and i look forward to doing so, again for associate justice of the supreme court. three years ago, i did not hear a single credible criticism, not a single country of judge barrett based on her legal qualifications. and i haven't heard one at any time throughout this cirmings process. now, democrats have tried to make this process about anything other than judge barrett's qualifications. and alarmingly, they have made threats about what the consequences will be if we move forward.

now, first they threatened to pack the supreme court if we confirm this nominee, but we all know they are talking about this long before, long before justice ginsburg's passing. by way of example, my colleague from california, senator harris, said, quote, we are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the supreme court and everything is on the table, unquote. that's a quote from march of this year. and senator harris isn't alone. she just happened to be the most prominent at this point. in fact, according to "the washington post," 11 democratic presidential candidates, five of whom were sit -- sitting united states senators said they were in favor of or open to packing the court.

second, they threatened to eliminate the legislative filibuster if we confirm this nominee. now, folks, they wanted to get rid of the 60-vote threshold long before this vacancy on the supreme court ever occurred. again, i will use senator harris by way of example. quote, i am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a green new deal. that was in september of 2019. 18 democrats who ran for president of the united states supported that move. including six sitting united states senators and two governors now running for senate

third, they have threatened to add states to the union if we confirm this nominee. we know that has been on the far-left wish list for years. these idle threats aren't going to stop us from carrying out the will of the american people, though, and confirming jumping barrett. when we confirm judge barrett this week, she will be the fifth woman and the first mother of school-aged children to serve as a supreme court justice. she will also be the only current justice to have received a law degree from an esteemed law school other than harvard or yale. i'll tell you, hoosiers are extremely proud of judge amy coney barrett and the trail she

has blazed for others. she is a role model for young women everywhere, including, i might say, my own three young daughters. i'm incredibly proud that our next supreme court justice will hail from america's heartland, from the great state of indiana. i urge my colleagues to come together to carry out the will of the american people by swiftly voting to confirm judge amy coney barrett to the supreme court of the united states. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. romney: i request con seine that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. romney: mr. president, i rise today to express my support

for the confirmation of judge amy coney barrett as an associate justice of the supreme court. she is exceptionally intelligent, academically astute, and impeccably credentialed. she has a record of sound opinions and temperament, as a judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals. her life experiences provide her with wisdom. she is a woman of unquestionable character and integrity. the presence of which is essential to our nation as the confidence of the court itself is in the balance. i will be honored to confirm her nomination. mr. president, i also rise to address my concern regarding the division and contempt for others that is growing among many of our citizens. the causes a of this malady are many and varied but one to which i draw attention is the declining trust held by the

citizenry in our many institutions. a democratic republic is highly dependent upon the confidence of its people in the institutions that light its foundation. these include churches, schools, governments at all levels, the press, corporations, markets, and most relevant today, the justice system and the courts. absent public confidence in these institutions, a democratic republic will not thrive or perhaps endure. fortunately, the supreme court deserves a great deal of respect from the american people. unfortunately, the third branch may be one of the few institutions of our democratic republic that is not experiencing a collapse in public trust. our churches have been diminished by scandal and by politistation.

trust and local law enforcement has fallen as we've witnessed some officers who have sworn to uphold our laws endanger the lives of some citizens. the demonstrations by millions of americans are evidence that the distrust is broadly shared. trust in the f.b.i. and the intelligence community, long admired for her integrity and professionalism, has withered with the attacks by politicians from both parties, though admittedly my party has been the more vocal. what a message it sends when the president accepts the word of the russian president rather than the conclusions of our intelligence agencies. even the c.d.c. and the f.d.a. have fallen in credibility, due both to inestable human error and to blistering political attacks. the free press is not only protected by the constitution, it's critical to the

preservation of democracy. here, too, charges of fake news and claims that the press is the enemy of the people, worsened by the media's constant amplification of divisiveness, have so diminished the trust in the media citizens believe bizarre, an none must conspiracy theories on the internet. now more than at any other time during my lifetime, it's essential that the supreme court retain the trust of the nation. it may be one of the very few, if not the only, of the institutions in which the great majority of americans have confidence. that's why judge barrett's integrity, wisdom, and commitment to the rule of law is so important. she will be critical to the preservation of the public's perception of the legitimacy of the court. judge barrett wrote in the texas

law review that, quote, if the court's opinions change with its membership, public confidence in the court as an institution might decline, its members might be seen as partisan rather than impartial, and case law as fueled by power rather thank reason, end of quote. consideration of institutional legitimacy has long been factor in the court's deliberations, but i would argue that this factor should be given even greater weight today. as so many of our other institutions are diminished and under attack. this would be particularly true were the court called upon top decide a matter that would determine the outcome of a presidential election. in my view, it is of paramount importance that such a decision follow the law and the constitution where it leads,

regardless of the outcome, and thereby be beyond reproach, clearly nonpolitical, and preferably unanimous. the senate will soon send judge barrett to the highest court in the land. i'm confident that she is up to the measure of the times in which we now live. may god bless her and her family, as they begin this chapter of service to our nation. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, later today, we will confirm amy coney barrett to the supreme court. by now, i don't need to tell anybody that she is one of the most highly qualified supreme court candidates in living memory. her appearance before the senate judiciary committee was a master class in what a supreme court justice should look like, which is probably why a majority of voters want the senate to confirm this outstanding nominee to the nation's highest court. mr. president, a cnn anchor recently pointed out that, and i quote, in another age, judge

birth barrett would be getting 70 votes or more from the united states senate because of her qualifications, end quote. that's unquestionably true, but unfortunately it's extremely unlikely that judge barrett will be collecting 70 or more votes later today, because for my democrat colleagues, this has never been about judge barrett's qualifications. democrats were never going to support this nomination, no matter how supremely qualified the individual in question. the president could have nominated the wisest, most outstanding jurists in the history of the world and democrats would still be opposing this nominating. in large part simply because it was made by this president. democrats had their talking points ready from the beginning, the same talking points that they trot out for every republican supreme court

nominee. the sky will fall if this nominee makes it onto the court, they cried. minorities will suffer. women will suffer. americans will lose their health care. they used that one a lot this time. democrats would like to convince americans that republicans are trying to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court for the sole purpose of eliminating the affordable care act and protections for preexisting conditions. it's a ludicrous charge. every republican, every republican in the senate supports protections for preexisting conditions, but apparently that doesn't matter to democrats. the truth is, mr. president, republicans have no idea how judge barrett would rule on any particular obamacare case. the facts of each case are unique, with unique legal and constitutional issues. what we do know is that judge

barrett will approach each case without prejudices or preconceived notions. we know that she will examine the facts of the case, the law, and the constitution and make her decision based solely on those criteria. not on her political beliefs, not on her personal opinions, just the law and the constitution. no matter which party drafted any legislation in question. mr. president, that should reassure democrats, but it doesn't, because for many democrats, their primary concern in confirming judges is not whether they will uphold the law but whether they will deliver the policy outcomes that democrats want. that's why some democrats are threatening to resurrect the longest credited idea of court packing should they return to a majority. they're not sure that they can rely on a supreme court with

judge barrett to deliver the policy outcomes that they want, so they want to add justices to the supreme court until they can be sure that they will get the result that they desire. one has to wonder where this will end. let's say democrats add three more justices to the court. then when republicans take the majority back, we had three more justices to counter act the democrats' power grab. then democrats get back in power and add still more justices. it won't be long before the members of the supreme court are more numerous than the members of the united states senate. mr. president, in addition to trying to scare americans by suggesting that republicans are trying to take away americans' health care, democrats have also tried to delegitimize the process. they have tried to suggest that it's wrong for republicans to take up this nomination in an

election year, because republicans didn't confirm merrick garland when president obama nominated him in an election year. mr. president, i'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because the republican leader, myself, and others have spent ample times demonstrating that confirming judge barrett is well within historical precedent. but i will say this -- the constitution of the united states gives the senate the power to advise and consent to nominations made by the president. the senate has full authority to accept or reject the president's nominations at any point in time during a congress or president's term. there is no constitutional carveout for election years. the minority party may not always like it when the majority confirms a nominee, which i completely understand having been in the minority myself, but that doesn't mean that the

majority party is doing anything wrong by proceeding with a nomination. i also have to ask are democrats seriously suggesting that if they were in the same position, if they were a majority in the senate and the president were a democrat, that they would decline to approve a qualified jurist to the supreme court simply because the vacancy had occurred in an election year. i think everyone knows that if democrats were in the same position, they would absolutely confirm a democrat nominee to the court as they repeatedly urged us to do in 2016, and they would be well within their constitutional rights to do so. just as republicans are well within our constitutional rights to confirm judge barrett. mr. president, before i close, i'd like to touch on another claim the democrat leader keeps making, that judge barrett's nomination is somehow

distracting republicans from the covid crisis or that her nomination is preventing us from taking up covid legislation. mr. president, that is flat-out false. the senate is capable of focusing on more than one important issue at a time. in fact, it's pretty much a requirement of our job that we be able to do so. has the democrat leader forgotten that republicans tried to bring up additional covid relief legislation literally just days ago, and that democrats led by the leader filibustered it? and that they did the same thing when we tried to bring up covid relief legislation in september. republicans have been ready to pass additional covid legislation, mr. president, for months. the only reason we haven't passed it already is because democrats have refused to agree to any compromise legislation that would actually make it through the senate and to the president's desk. i'm hoping that sooner rather

than later, my friends on the other side will see the value in working together to deliver real relief to our fellow americans. this disease doesn't recognize party differences, and i'm hopeful that my colleagues will realize that passing covid relief shouldn't be a time for insisting on partisan priorities. mr. president, it's unfortunate that judge barrett's nomination has been overshadowed by so much partisanship from democrats, but ultimately, mr. president, what matters is that we are confirming this outstanding nominee. as i said yesterday, i came to the senate with the hope of putting judges like amy coney barrett on the bench. thoughtful, intelligent men and women with a consummate command of the law, and most of all, most of all with a clear understanding the job of the

judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law. to call balls and strikes, not rewrite the rules of the game. mr. president, i am very proud to cast my vote to confirm judge barrett, and i look forward to calling her justice barrett in the very near future. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. as august and impressive -- mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. as august and impressive as this setting is, what's happening today is not normal. we've said it numerous times. but we should say it again because we need to prevent it

from becoming normal. in fact, what's happening today is sad, surreal, even shocking. eight days away from an election, in an unprecedented rush to confirm a supreme court nominee, we are taking the place of the next president and the next senate in confirming the next justice, even as the american people are denied a voice and a say in that decision. what's happening here is not normal because our republican colleagues have explicitly broken their word. we have submitted to the judiciary committee quotes from 17 of them promising that there would be no confirmation of a next justice during an election year. it's not normal because, in

fact, historically no justice has been confirmed after july in an election year. it's not normal because we are here in the midst of a pandemic confirming a justice who would potentially decimate our health care system, now, in the middle of a health care crisis. it's not normal because the administration has said as recently as sunday through its chief of staff, there's no control over this pandemic, this abject surrender is shameful and disgraceful. and it is not normal because the american people have a right to expect from us in this body that we would address that pandemic and that we would pass another

pandemic relief bill. it's passed the house. all we need to do is vote. and, in fact, on saturday after i do not know i came -- afternoon i came to the floor and offered by unanimous consent measures that have passed the house by a bipartisan majority, but there was objection to moving forward. my republican colleague in objecting said, it's procedural harassment. i beg to differ. it's democracy. it's democracy to address the needs of the american people. that is what is normal. -- that is what is normal in the congress of the united states, or at least it should be. the fact is that our republican colleagues are shattering the

norms and breaking the rules and breaking their word, and there will be consequences. there inevitably are consequences when one person breaks her or his word to another. but there's a larger significance here, which is that amy coney barrett, as a member of the united states supreme court, will shift radically and dramatically the balance politically on that court. it is an unelected body with lifetime terms, which is the antithesis of the elected bodies that serve in the united states

congress or the elected president. and this radical shift will shatter the legal fabric of that court. now, i know that my republican colleagues will refuse to acknowledge it. but in fact it's part of an agenda, a right-wing agenda, that has existed for for some time, to move the court that radical extreme fringe. they have turned the united states senate into a kind of conveyor belt of judicial appointment, not just to the supreme court but to federal supreme courts at every level --

but to federal courts at every level. dark money is the vehicle for turning the united states senate into that conveyor belt. as we've documented as recently as friday through a report that we produced showing how the n.r.a. has been at the tip of this spear, of a movement involving shell entities making contributions and receiving money and channeling it to members of this body who have confirmed those nominees so that that dark money produces appointees to the federal bench. amy coney barrett is part of that conveyor belt. she is only the latest of the appointees who threatens to

shift not just the supreme court but the federal judiciary. radically to the right. and the purpose is to achieve in the courts what are republican friends and the radical right and the fringe elements of the radical party couldn't accomplish in the legislatures. they couldn't achieve in the state legislatures or in the congress what they now seek do in legislating from the bench through activist judges that will tilt our entire political system against the majority will. and the agenda is essentially to constrain and constrict and even

cripple the healing and helping power of our federal government under the guise of the smoke screen of originalism. they want to restrict and constrain the vision of an expanding individual right to essential liberties. they want to constrict, instead of expand, an increasingly inclusive america, and that judicial fill -- philosophy is what underlies this appointment of amy coney barrett. they want to ledges state from the -- legitimate state from the -- ledges state from the

bench as sharon watts, a leader of every count said to me the other day, they are going to the courts not because we are weak in achieving measures against gun violence but because they are growing stronger and stronger. in fact, there is a gas roots movement composed of every town and moms demand action and students agree efforts, gifford brady, newtown action alliance, sandy hook promise all part of a grassroots movement that is moving america toward protecting against gun violence. but amy coney barrett has a view of the second amendment that she has acknowledged in a speech. sounds kind of radical.

that's a quote. sounds kind of radical. it sounds kind of radical because it is kind of radical, and that radical view is losing in elected bodies and state legislatures. and we see the same phenomenon on health care and reproductive freedoms, on voting rights. the majority of americans want to expand the inclusiveness of america and the vision of individual rights and liberties, not roll them back, not turn back the clock to this originalistic textualism that underlies amy coney barrett philosophy and she will bring that philosophy to the bench, as

she has done on the seventh circuit as a member of the court of appeals there. that's the danger and that's the alarm that we are sounding here. now, the affordable care act is about protecting people who have preexisting conditions, but it is also about protecting children who are on their parents' health care policies the age of 26, it's about lowering the cost of prescription drug, it's about making more widely available health care by providing subsidies to folks who need the help, and it is about banning insurers from charging women more just because they are

women. preexisting conditions affect 130 million americans. in connecticut 1.5 million res. debts of our state, 52 -- res. debts of our state, 52% of our population, 52 of our population are diabetes, asthma, heart disease, blood pressure, and now covid-19. yes, covid-19 is a preexisting condition because of the damage that may be done to lungs, heart, livers, other organs. in the midst of a covid-19, this administration is putting on the highest court in the land a judge who would strike down that

protection. now, of course, they have a ruse, it's call severability. they say, don't worry, the court can strike down one provision and keep the whole law, or the rest of it in place, severability. you sever the part that's unconstitutional. it's a doctrine of law. but that's not what the united states district court held in striking down the affordable care act in the case that is now before the united states supreme court. the same case that will be argued on november 10 where amy coney judge barrett will sit, assuming she is confirmed today. the united states district court didn't hold it was severable. on the contrary, it struck down

the whole law. the court of appeals didn't hold that it was severable. the administration is not looking for severability. it says strike down the law. the president of the united states says it couldn't come soon enough. eliminate the affordable care act in total, including the protection for people with preexisting condition. they promised to replace it. the president's press secretary handed to leslie stahl after his 60 minutes interview a supposed plan replacement which was absurdly a collection of past executive orders, other documents, completely irrelevant and inadequate as a supposed replacement. so this idea of severability is

another ruse. and our republican colleagues also say our fierce are apocalyptic. the majority leader used that word yesterday, apocalyptic. not apocalyptic if you have a preexisting condition, not apocalyptic if you care about those people who have preexisting conditions, not apocalyptic if you have lived through the excruciating pain and anguish and anxiety as the current family -- as the kearn family has of having a child with a peeng. let me -- preexisting condition. let me introduce you to connor

kearn, a 10-year-old -- he just celebrated his tenth birthday in ridge field, who has muscular distriif i. -- dytrophy. i have told his story in the past. connor is a hero. there are few in this body who could claim to have his courage and perseverance at that age, maybe at any age. his smile lights the world. his courage is matched by his parents. i introduced connor to amy coney barrett at the hearing because i

wanted her to know the impact on real people and real lives, the real harm that would be done if the affordable care act is struck down. connor hags survived -- has survived this debilitating disease because of treatment that his parents couldn't have afforded without the affordable care act. it's that simple. they wrote to me asking me to make a plea to amy coney barrett. please don't take away connor's health care. they asked me to ask her to make a pledge. doctors make this pledge.

first do no harm. first do no harm. i don't know whether amy coney barrett heard or saw connor. of course his poster was there. i told his story. i don't know whether the impact of that story will move her but my hope is that it will and my hope is, or was, that it would move my colleagues because the real harm to real people is not only about connor kearn, this

brave boy who will lose his ability to walk and his ability to hug and then to hold hands, to play with his brothers, and in spite of all of it, he has demonstrated that perseverance and courage that i hope will move this body, even in this closing hour, to respect the importance of the affordable care act. others like julia lanzano, who has treatment for breast cancer because of the affordable care act and countless others who have that kind of treatment are enabled by the affordable care

act to do so. and it may seem, to my republican colleagues, apocalyptic, but not to connor kearn and his family. tens of times republicans in the senate have sought to repeal the affordable care act. they failed. now they are trying to do it from the courts, legislate from the bench through an activist judge like amy coney barrett. they are rushing this nomination not only to strip away health care from people like connor but they also want to end a woman's right to decide and choose when and whether and how to have a

family. i want to emphasize something to my republican colleagues that i hope they hear when you take away a woman's right to make that decision, when you turn women who seek an abortion into criminals, when you make doctors performing abortion guilty of crimes, you don't end abortion. you make getting an abortion most costly. you make getting an abortion more excruciatingly difficult and most important, you make it more dangerous, literally dangerous. hundreds of women died every year seeking unsafe abortions before roe v. wade protected their right to choose. i remember that era because i

was a law clerk to justice harry blackmun on the united states supreme court shortly after he wrote the majority opinion in roe v. wade. and we thought the issue was resolved. women have the right to make that choice legally. but far from resolution what we see is a continued assault on that right. now republicans have stacked the bench with activist judges ready to chip away at reproductive rights and even reverse roe, chipping away at it through state legislature. restrictions on clpgs, the width of their hallways, the requirement for admitting privileges. we can be sure that victims of

rape and insist will be forced to carry an abuser's child if the restrictions are upheld or roe is reversed. if you doubt it, let me introduce you to samantha. one night in january 20167, samantha went out with a few friends and coworkers. she woke up the next morning in a coworker's home confused, scared, covered in her own blood. sheshe'd been raped. after she was raped, samantha was in her own words a zombie. she just wanted the event to be erased from her memory. that march samantha took a pregnancy test and then another, then another. they kept coming back with the same result, pregnant.

after the horrible violence she faced, she simply couldn't process that she was now pregnant. she chose to have an abortion. when samantha shared her story with me, she wrote, quote, i knew that if i couldn't end this pregnancy, it would end me. reversing roe v. wade will matter for tracy also from connecticut, a woman i met, also courageous and honest. tracy was diagnosed with stage four endo metro sis which caused an ongoing inability to have a

healthy pregnancy. but she was as describes it, quote, one of the lucky ones. she had access to care and was able to receive invitro fertilization treatment to assist in getting and staying pregnant. but tracy was scared when she saw that a group that sponsored an open letter, signed by judge barrett had recently stated that they wanted to criminalize having a child through i.v.f. in a world without roe, there will be nothing to protect against the law making it a crime for a woman to do what tracy did and for a doctor to perform that medical procedure which enables her to achieve a

lifetime dream of having a chi child. and sadly, we don't have to wonder what judge barrett's position on a woman's right to choose will be. she signed a letter calling roe v. wade infamous and called for, quote, the unborn to be protected in law. end quote. that's her legal view. her position on the law, i didn't ask her in the hearing about her personal views or her religious faith. those issues are private. her position on the law, just as she left no doubt about her view of the affordable care act when she wrote that chief justice roberts stretched that measure beyond its true meaning in order

to uphold it. i'm paraphrasing. or said about king v. burwell upholding the affordable care act, that the defendant had the better of the legal argument. and in another letter signed by judge barrett, she called roe v. wade's legacy barbaric. we know what judge barrett will do about the affordable care act and about reproductive freedoms because she has been screened and vetted. there's no mystery. donald trump has said he would impose a strong test, his words, and that strong test was to strike down the affordable care act and overturn roe v. wade. we cannot go back. we cannot roll back these

rights. we cannot turn back the clock to an america that banned abortion in many states, drove it underground, made vital health care services dangerous and even deadly. we can't go back to an america where the rich and privileged can find a way out of unintended pregnancy but the rest of america is denied that access to health care. there is a racial justice element here because the ones who will suffer predominantly and disproportionately are women of color, women of lesser means financially, who live in those states and cannot travel to others like connecticut where roe v. wade is codified in

statute when i was in the state legislature as a state senator. i helped to lead that effort to code identify it in statute. but connecticut's law won't help a woman in texas or louisiana who is denied that right. and make no mistake, this threat is not some abstract hypothetical notion in the future. some apocalyptic vision of what might happen in the united states of america. we are one step away. in fact, there are 17 abortion-related cases that are literally one step away from the united states supreme court. there are cases like sister song women of color, reproductive justice collective v. scant, a

case currently before the 11th circuit involving a challenge to a ban on abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy before many women even know they're pregnant. there are cases like memphis center for reproductive health v. slattery, a case challenging an escalating ban on abortions at six, eight, ten, 12 and so on weeks into pregnancy, depending on where the sixth circuit deems it appropriate for a woman to lose the right to choose for herself when and whether to have a child. there are additional cases involving bans on abortion later in pregnancy when women can face the most severe health risk and rely on their doctors for accurate information and compassionate care. there are, quote, reason-based bans that merely exist as a

pretext for interrogating and intimidating women who seek an abortion. there are cases like planned parenthood gulf coast v. rebecca g which challenge years of inaction by the state of louisiana on a planned parenthood affiliate's application for a license to provide needed abortion care. and there are other challenges to red tape laws that require abortion providers to jump over obstacles, needless, senseless hurdles that serve no medical purpose but exist just to burden them and make necessary abortion services harder to obtain. and numerous other abortion laws designed to limit access, strictly to limit access in this supposed name of health care.

access to reproductive health care is already hanging by a threat in many states across the country. judge barrett's nomination imperils the access that remain. these cases are one step away from the highest court, at least 17 of them. one step away from the court that amy coney barrett will join. reproductive rights are not the only rights at stake in this nomination. voting rights hang in the balance as well. for years republicans have decided that they're willing to suppress the vote if it helps them to win election. this fundamental assault on our democracy has taken many forms, and we've seen them across the

country as recently as this election, ongoing in real time. republican appointed judges have worked with republican elected officials to allow suppression action to take effect and be sustained. these judges proclaim themselves to be originalists, but they betray provisions of the constitution, the 14th and is ath amendments that -- and 15th amendments that our ancestors fought a civil war to secure. equality and the right to vote. the civil rights movement a century later secured the passage of the voting rights act and made those rights real for many americans. people marched, some died, to pass that law. but this conservative supreme

court betrayed the legacy of lincoln, martin luther king, john lewis when it gutted the voting rights act in the shelby county case. and this court continues to attack voting rights, and it will continue under amy coney barrett. howard porter, jr., a black man in his 70's with asthma and parkinson's disease was a plaintiff in one of those cases decided just this month. howard simply wanted to be able to cast his vote safely without contracting covid-19. he wrote to the court that, quote, so many of my ancestors died to vote, and while i don't mind dying to vote, i think we're past that. we're past that time. end quote. on a partisan vote the

conservatives on the supreme court disagreed. amy coney barrett will join them. and rushing this nomination on the eve of the election means that she will join them possibly to vote on the election itself while on the court. is that view apocalyptic? not if you believe donald trump who said the reason why he wants a ninth justice is to decide the election, not the voters, the supreme court. he said the quiet part out loud and so did a number of my colleagues in our judiciary committee meeting. he said this election will end up in the supreme court, and i think it's very important that we have nine justices. and when i asked amy coney barrett if she would recuse herself from a case about this

election as a result of these comments, she refused to answer or commit. i call on her to postpone her taking the oath of office until after the next president is inaugurated. why not remove any doubt about conflict of interest, any question about the legitimacy of whatever decision may be necessary by the supreme court by postponing her investiture. i ask her to make that commitment. and for my colleagues to join in that call and for the president to respect it. so this nomination is not just about health care. it's also about the assault on a

woman's right to choose, on voting rights, and it's about whether governments can enact reasonable, sensible gun violence protection laws to keep america safe. i want to tell you finally about natalie barne. natalie is 18 years old. she was 10 when her little brother daniel was killed at sandy hook elementally school in new -- elementary school in newtown, connecticut, on september 14, 2012. daniel was seven at the time. he was one of 20 innocent, beautiful children and sixth grade educator killed that morning. i was at the firehouse not long

after. i witnessed the unspeakable grief and the faces of parents and families whose children were gunned down, families who realized that some of those children were not coming home. eight years later natalie says that her grief is still real and her crusade for gun violence prevention measures inspires me. so does the work of her parents and other families there in newtown and across the country, survivors i have met, families i have come to know and respect

and admire. what happened at sandy hook, sadly, was not an ice laitd incident -- isolated incident. it's part of a public epidemic and scourge. in the last ten years gun violence has taken more than 355,000 lives in urban communities, rural communities and every community in between. no community is immune. none of my colleagues' comiewbts can claim they are -- colleagues communities can claim they are immune. and judge barrett's view of the second amendment that it would give felons, for example the right to buy or possess firearms, that it would put the burden on the government to prove they are dangerous, a view that she acknowledges sounds kind of radical would

potentially result in striking down the laws that natalie has crusaded to achieve, that janice rice of downtown hartford, who lost her son shane, believes can help save lives. because in fact those gun violence prevention measures can save lives. universal background check, closing the charleston loophole, ethan's law, named after ethan song who perished because of an unsafely stored weapon. these measures can help save lives. a ban on ghost guns, untraceable because they have no serial number, a ban on high-capacity

magazine. these laws can help save lives, but with amy coney barrett's nomination, every single gun violence prevention measure at every level of government is in grave peril because she will join others on that court who believe with her in this radical a -- agenda of striking down those measures. as tabatha escalante said to me, nothing and yet everything is at stake. because there are cases, again, one step away, literally one step away from the highest court, including duncan b.vassa ro where judge kenneth lee, on

the ninth circuit, became the first trump-nominated judge to rule that a ban of a high-capacity weapon -- that flouted the consensus of other judges that upheld large-capacity magazine bans in their state. and there are numerous other cases that involve measures that help save lives. one step away from being struck down. my republican colleagues have the majority. they may have the votes to push this nomination through today, but they don't have the american people and they don't have history on their side. they are doing it because they can, because they have the vote. but americans can do something to. they can vote. they can show they want gun

violence protection measures and reproductive freedoms and workplace safety. they don't want an america that rolls back to an originalistic view, a smoke screen that constricts rights and liberties. there is something larger than just one justice and one vote at stake here. nothing less than everything is at stake. a shift in the balance of the court that will last for decades if we do not act to correct it, and believe me, there are appropriate measures that should be considered.

the american people have the power in this election to speak out and stand up to protect their own health, the public health and the health of our democracy. i fear for the supreme court's legitimacy. i revere the supreme court, having argued before it, having clerked on it. its legitimacy depends on faith and trust. we must act to restore the credibility and legitimacy of the court which has been so gravely imperiled. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. justice ginsburg was the first supreme court justice i ever voted for and a north star for me and so many others whose

futures were irrefutably made possible by her life and her work. i pledged i would do everything in my power to honor her last wish that the next president fill her vacancy, not just because justice ginsburg was a legal giant who could never be replaced but because i understand, like she did, that making such a momentous decision so close to an election could exacerbate our republic's challenge and spin our democracy into chaos. that is why i have been fighting so hard to push my colleagues to stop this charade and to just wait a few weeks. we should not be voting on this lifetime appointment while the american people themselves are in the middle of voting, of telling us how they want this country's future to look. and this is all made even worse by the fact that we are in the middle of a pandemic.

and instead of working with democrats to pass serious relief, our communities are calling out for, republicans are refusing to do anything but jam this anti-health care judge on to the supreme court. over the last three years i've seen republicans rubber-stamp hard-right judicial nominees like it's all they came here to do. but watching them ignore the clear wishes of the american people, explicitly reject attempts to help families and communities get through this pandemic and press on with this grotesque power grab is a new low for this body. it's a new low for the people we serve. as i made clear, i will be voting against judge barrett's confirmation, as i voted against her for the seventh circuit

and other judges of president trump who are part of a republican strategy to roll back our hard-won progress. judge barrett clearly fits the same mold as the more than 200 partisan judges senate republicans have fast-tracked on to the federal bench who are anti-health care and anti-abortion but pro-big business and pro-special wealthy interest. this was all reinforced during the sham nomination process as republicans and judge barrett tried to downplay their own litmus test. judge barrett was asked to speak on the health care that protects hundreds of millions of americans. she refused. she was asked to address roe v. wade as a super precedent. given her record has a statement that includes roe v. barbaric,

she refused. she opened up a new chapter for lgbtq-plus couples. she refused. she was asked that climate change was causing air and water pollution. even on this scientific fact, judge barrett refused to answer this question. that is apparently what senate republicans hoped she would do. the lack of transportation from judge barrett and senate republicans is concerning, not because we don't know where they stand, we do. but because they are so comfortable obfuscating cold facts about judge barrett's record and judicial philosophy as if her own previous statements as if they are not really. in 2016 they were adamant when a supreme court loses a justice in an election year, the people's voices should be heard. for eight months they refusedded to hold a hearing on merrick

garland. but now, even as the american people are in the process of voting, republicans are trying to ignore their voices. well, mr. president, not on my watch. i recently asked people in washington state to share their personal stories about what is at stake for their families. the response has been overwhelming and the stories have been alarming. i've heard from people whose stories show how different life was before and after roe v. wade and how much would be lost if reproductive rights are rolled back. i heard from people who fear their right to marry or adopt a child or start a family could be lost. i've heard from people who are worried they will die if republicans get their way at supreme court and take away the health care and protections they rely on. republicans may want to pretend the stakes are not this high but they don't have to take my word

for it, they can listen to their own constituents and look at their own records. for republican senators to stand here and tell families not to worry is kind of like the captain of the titanic passing out umbrellas an telling passengers it's all they need, with one key difference. republicans have made clear from the start that hitting the iceberg is not an accident, it is the plan. despite the fact that climate change is an extensional threat, something that the vast majority of the public understands, republicans continue to cower to a president an special interests who say it is a hoax. despite the hard-fought progress for lgbtq rights, they stood by this president who undermines them at every turn. despite the fundamental importance of the right to vote, they blocked our efforts to restore and secure those rights and protect our democracy.

and despite what they would have you believe, republicans have tried time and time and time again to end protections for people with preexisting conditions and upend health care in our country. with the failed trump care vote from a few years ago is too painful or too distant a memory for republicans to revisit, they are. at this very moment championing a lawsuit that would do all the harm to that bill and then some. who will hear the lawsuit? the deciding vote could be a justice picked by a president who vowed -- vowed he would only choose nominees who will rule against protections for preexisting conditions, who thinks that would be a, quote, big win, who said, just last week, he hopes that happens. it's no mystery where president trump nominated and republicans are rushing to confirm a judge

with a record of hostility to the affordable care act. it is no secret that a victory for them would be a disaster for families across our country and if you don't believe me, ask mayes who lives with diabetes, sleep apnea and hypohigh reidism. if republicans succeed in this lawsuit, she would lose her medicaid expansion coverage and access to care meaning her conditions could deteriorate increasing her risk of diabetes, coma, or dying in her sleep. and if you don't believe me, this person has type one diabetes and could get kicked off her parents' insurance. right now the a.c.a. is the only hope i have of living past 26, she wrote. if you don't believe rihanna,

ask madeleine which has a condition which makes pregnancy fatal. for madeleine, affordable health care coverage, coverage that includes access to birth control is absolutely essential as is the right to an abortion. if republicans get their way, insurance companies would no longer have to cover birth control, even though a pregnancy for madeleine would be life threatening. and things get even worse for her if republicans overturn roe v. wade. last year when madeleine learned that despite being diligent about her birth control she was pregnant, she knew what she had to do. she had to get an abortion. it was safe. it was legal. it was totally her decision and it was lifesaving. but if judge barrett were justice barrett, if the right to abortion were a thing of the past, pad lynn's preg -- madeleine's pregnancy could have been a death sentence. as she put it and i wrote, this

isn't a right vary sus left issue for a lot of us. it is life-or-death and knowing that is at stake is terrifying. madeleine isn't the only one who is terrified. if the republicans win their lawsuit, over a 130 -- over 130 million people with preexisting conditions like madeleine could be charged more for their health insurance, have benefits excluded or be ben nyeed coverage -- be denied coverage entirely. over 20 million people could lose coverage for medicaid expansion, the exchanges, or their parents' plans. insurance companies could exclude essential health benefits, countless other patients rely on like prescription drugs or maternity care or therapy or wheelchairs or much more. half the country could be charged more for health insurance just because they're a woman. seniors could face thousands more in health care costs with a return of the age tax and the medicare go nut hole -- medicare

donut hole. people with disabilities lives could be dependent if they lose access to services that help them live independent lives or if insurance providers can discriminate on the basis of disability by denying coverage or charging more. and people with expensive health care needs, cancer diagnosis, a medically complicated pregnancy, a fight with covid-19 could be left with an enormous bill since insurance companies won't have to cap patients out-of-pocket costs but will be able to place annual and lifetime limits on their benefits. and we cannot forget the communities of color who already face worse scwhrowt comes -- worse outcomes do to systemic racism in our health care system who would be hit hardest as a result of the damage of the republicans' lawsuit. health care isn't all that is at stake. fundamental rights and

protections and opportunities for workers are on the line. the fate of immigrants and refugees and asylum seekers, dreamers who came to our nation in seven of a better life and brighter future are on the line. and hard-fought victories for the lgbtq-plus community are on the line. matthew in my home state of washington and his husband were able to marry, to adopt, and fortunate to be able to form a loving family. but that might not be possible for lgbtq-plus couples like them in the future if the highest court in the land turns back the clock and refuses to see them as equal under the law. mr. president, the bottom line is that this supreme court fight is not about politics. it is about the lives of hundreds of millions of people. and if republicans don't believe my constituents, i invite them to ask their own. i encourage them to listen because i guarantee people

across the country know what republicans have been saying, know exactly what republicans are voting for, and they are speaking up about it. i'm here sharing their stories on the senate floor and democrats brought their stories to the committee room so that republicans have no choice but to hear them. and when we vote, republicans will have no excuse to pretend they do not know exactly what's at stake. instead every one of them will have a simple choice. will you listen to the families who are speaking up, the people who are saying to you in no uncertain terms that if you put this judge on the court, if you win this partisan lawsuit, it could kill me or will you ignore them? if republicans truly want to reassure their constituents and want to show their listing, the choice is simple. vote no on this nomination. and to those who choose to put this president and the profoundly lost republican party above anything else, to those

republicans who are capping these brutal last four years off with such a staggering show of fealty and partisanship and callousness, no. the consequences of this vote will be felt long after this president is gone from offices regardless of the outcome of this election. people of this country will not forget and neither will your democratic colleague. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

objection.