Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate U.S. Senate 20240712

The presiding officer pursuant to rule 4, paragraph 2, the senate having been in continuous session, the senate will suspend for a prayer from the senate chaplain. The chaplain let us pray. Holy god, as our lawmakers strive on this decisive day in history to accomplish your purposes, show them how to discern your will. May they renew their minds through the in yourishment of your an hourishment of your holly word. Lord, prepare them to be sober minded and filled with your spirit, accomplishing the tasks that receive your approval. Lord, keep them from conforming to worldly impulses, as they strive to ensure that their conduct will rightly represent you. May they conduct themselves with holiness, godliness, and civility, waiting for the day when you will return to establish your kingdom on earth. Lord, prepare us all to stand before you in peace without spot or blemish. We pray in your powerful name. Amen. Mr. Lee mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from utah. Mr. Lee mr. President , its hundredor and a privilege to speak on behalf of the confirmation of judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States today. One of judge barretts familiar themes, one that she has invoked in speeches when speaking about the constitution and the roll of a federal judiciary involves a line from od e cius, involves a reference to the odyssey. She says, the constitution is like how odicius ties himself to the mast. He tells his crew, dont untie me no matter how much i plead. Thats what weve done as the American People with the constitution. Weve said as the people sober appealing to the people drunk, when youre tempted to get untied, when youre tempted to get carried away by your passions and trample on the First Amendment rights or minority rights, this document will hold you back, close quote. Judge barrett points out a very critical matter here, an absolutely essential matter, which is, first of all, that the whole point of having a constitution involves restraining and restricting government as it relates to the judiciary, it involves acknowledging the necessarily limited, finite and confined role of the judiciary. Sometimes when people refer to the three barches of the federal branches of the federal government, theyll bet get it backwards, sometimes they will refer to the Judicial Branch as if it were the most powerful. This gets it exactly backwards. It was designed to be and it is the least Dangerous Branch of the three branches. Thats not to say that its not dangerous at all. Government generally is something, that while necessary, is dangerous, just like water or fire or wind or oxygen or any of the things that we depend upon for our daytoday existence, government, including the power of the judiciary, itself, has to be managed carefully and it has to be challenged and if its not, it will become dangerous. And so thats why we have a constitution is to restrain government because government is force. Government is nothing more or nothing less than the collective coercive use of force. We use it to protect life, liberty, and property. We use it to make sure that people dont harm each other and to make sure that we are protected from our adversaries within and without our borders, our boundaries. But if we lose sight of what government does and what it doesnt do, what it can and cannot do, what it may and may not do, or what any branch of the government may do, we find ourselves in troubled, troubled waters. The reason i say that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous of the three is that it doesnt possess the power to say what should be only what is. The power of the legislative branch where we serve is the most dangerous of the three because we have the power to prohibit conduct, we have the power to prescribe policy. We make the law. The secondmost dangerous power is probably that which is held in the executive branch. They have voluntarily relinquished the role that is by constitutional mandate ours to mostly unelected bureaucrats who are in some cases the president of the United States or those who serve under his employ. But the Judicial Branch possesses neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword. We spend the money, prescribe the policy. The executive branch has the ability to implement and execute the law, hence the power of the sword. The Judicial Branch possesses only the power to decide what the law says. In that respect its operating as if through a rearview mirror. Its not saying what should come or what should be but what already is, what the law as it already exists means. In order to do that, the Judicial Branch has to come to a conclusion that our laws consist of words and those words have meaning and that in order to tie themselves to the constitutional mast, in order to make are sure that they themselves are able to resist the siren call of power and to keep each of the three branches of government in check insofar as its their prerogative to do so, they have to check continually and have to check constantly with the words of the u. S. Constitution and the words of the law itself. Yes, it matters. Yes, these things are easily ignored them these powers are easily abused and often have been abused. There are a number of reasons for this. They have to do mostly with human nature itself. Human beings are flawed, they crave power, they tend to act toward those things that make them more powerful if they are already in positions of government authority. Thats why its easy to understand from time to time the courts stray. I want to be very clear at the outset. The federal court system, notwithstanding its flaws, is the best of its kind in the world. There is no judicial system anywhere else in the world that im aware of that is as respected or consistently dedicated to the rule of law to interpreting the law consistently and faithfully as is our federal court system. The Supreme Court of the United States has made some very bad decisions along the way. For the most part it gets things right. It may come as a surprise to Many Americans, that of all of the decisions the Supreme Court decides in a typical year, in modern times its most common that the Supreme Court decides those questions either unanimously or with near unanimity. Most cases at the Supreme Court are decided at 90, 81 or 72, the overwhelming majority. These, keep in mind, are cases with few exceptions are proven difficult for the lower courts. Theyve caused some of the greatest legal minds in our country to address the same finite legal question and to come up with different results and yet the Supreme Court of the United States, for the most part, decides these cases with unanimity or nearly unanimity. Why . Well, because most of the time they tie themselves to the mast. They remember what is their charge. They remember that they are there not to decide matters of policy but to decide questions of law and they cant just reach out and say, i dont like this type of law, lets go after this type of law and attack it or undermine it or lets pursue this line of law that should be in place and isnt. They dont have that authority. They have to have a case or controversy, meaning one or more parties that can properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court and they have to have an actual live, ripe dispute between people who are actively affected by the law and then and only then may the court act. From time to time, however, the cower has been however, the court has been tempted to give into the siren call, to make law. It isnt always with the same political objectives in mind and those objectives can change over time. To cite one of many examples we could point to today, i will point to decision made by the Supreme Court in a case called locknerv. The state of new york. The state had governed laws for bakery employees in the state of new york. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that those laws were bad. They didnt like them. And on that basis it said, in essence, these laws are bad and they are so bad that they must be unconstitutional. They are so bad and they lack any legitimate purpose that we can see, were therefore going to deem this part of the due process protections, the due process protections that are covered by the 14th amendment to the constitution and allow us to impose our Judicial Authority on state law and invalidate that state law. Their reasoning essentially amounted to that. We dont see any good reason for this law, we therefore deem it incompatible, inconsistent, irreconcilable with due process and strike it down as unconstitutional. This, in my view, was wrong. It was a problem. It was a political dispute that was becoming increasingly common as the progressive era was gaining momentum. Conservatives in the country were losing many of these battles in many lawmaking bodies, including apparently the new york state legislature. They didnt like it. And so these particular jurists on this particular day chose to exercise their authority as jurists to strike down that law even though it was really a political argument they were making. Even though it wasnt within their jurisdiction. So they stretched the meaning of the law, the concept of due process so they could declare this a constitutional violation. They took debatable matters beyond debate, not only beyond debate but they took them outside the proper realm of state law jurisdiction, and outside the context of legislation and debate surrounding such legislation within political branches of governments generally, whether state or federal. Thesaid this is now federal they said this is now federal. Were going to make it federal such you cant legislate in this area because we dont like it. Because we dont like it, were going to say its part of the constitution, part of your due process protections. Notwithstanding the fact that due process as the name implies is about process. Its about making sure you have your day in court, making sure you have access to tools connected to fundamental fairness on procedural questions, not an outcome. So when lochner v. New york, the Supreme Court justices untied themselves, as it were, from the mast of the constitution. They did so in a way that was harmful and unsustainable. They do so notwithstanding the fact that there was no logical end point to this. It was very difficult to conceive of any question of Public Policy that could not and ultimately would not come before the Supreme Court of the United States if you used fair standard of analysis. This law really doesnt do anything good. It doesnt its not something thats got a legitimate purpose so were going to strike it down. Fortunately the Supreme Court of the United States took many years to do it, they eventually saw the error of its ways and eventually overturned lochner v. New york. In many instances we ought to look back at that moment and say we dont really want the Supreme Court taking debatable matters beyond debate. Thats how political accountability works in this country. If you have something that you dont like as a matter of policy, you ought to try to change it before the legislative body in which its properly considered. Now if its unconstitutional, yes, it should be unconstitutional. Im not one who focuses obsessively on judicial activism for fear that by focusing obsessively on judicial activism, we will perpetuate the idea that really what we want is judicial passivity. We dont want either. It is just as bad to invalidate as unconstitutional a law that is in fact not unconstitutional as it is to leave intact an unconstitutional law that is constitutionally defective. Both are equally repugnant to the constitution, both represent an effort by jurists to untether themselves from the mass of the constitution and the finite judicial role. Justice scalia was someone who was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1986. He was confirmed overwhelmingly by a vote of 980 if i recall. Justice scalia was someone who while a law professor and later while serving as a judge on the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit had acknowledged the need for judges to keep themselves tethered to the mast. Had acknowledged the need for them to if he cuss focus on deciding cases based on the law rather than on the basis of favorable policy outcomes. This was at once a somewhat revolutionary idea at the time and yet it wasnt overwhelmingly controversial at the time given the fact that he was confirmed by a vote of 980 to the Supreme Court of the United States. But over the next three decades or so while he served on the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Scalia revived, he restored this concept, this constitutional understanding of the proper role of government and of the proper role of each branch of the federal government, including and especially the Judicial Branch of the federal government during his service on the Supreme Court of the United States, he was able to mentor a number of law clerks, including judge Amy Coney Barrett. Judge barrett has explained that she believes in the same line of reasoning. She believes that judges and justices need to tether themselves to the mast of the constitution. They need to confine their role to that that involves judging, and they need to not covet and ultimately try to overtake the role of the elected lawmaker or the role of the executive. One has the power of policy and the purse. The other the power of the sword. But as Alexander Hamilton explained in federal list 78, there isnt federalist 78, there is a profound difference. The legislative branch he explained has the power of will. It exercises will when it decides what should and should not be within the law. The power of the judiciary by contrast involves only the power of judgment to decide what the law says. Thats the kind of jurist that we need today. Now make no mistake, this is not a conflict that involves a desire to put on the Supreme Court of the United States people who will wage Political Warfare within the Judicial Branch from the conservative side. Its not that. Its not anything close to that. In fact, its the opposite of that. We dont want judge barrett on the Supreme Court to be our advocate. We want judge barrett on the Supreme Court to decide law, to decide cases based on what the law says, to keep herself tethered to that mast because its through that mast that our rights are protected, that we are able to elect people who will exercise sound judgment in deciding what the law should be, and, yes, we want them to strike down laws when theyre unconstitutional. But, no, we dont want them striking them down simply because of a policy disagreement. In fact, all of our political, our economic, and our civil rights end up being tied to this very feature within our government. Theyre all protected by the willingness of our jurists to keep themselves tethered to the constitutional mast. Just as owe business yus in odysseus no matter how he might plead hearing the call of the siren, he knew it was important for him to stay on task, to stay focused on his job. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally well qualified and talented legal mind and jurist. Shes bright. Shes articulate. Shes, as weve seen, unflappable, and shes willing to set her mind on that course. To uphold and protect and defend that document that will i believe was written by wise men, raised up by almighty god to that very purpose. That document in so far as weve followed it has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. I hope that it ever will be that way because its a strong and sure Foundation Upon which weve built, but we need people who believe in that foundation and are willing to tie themselves to it. Thank you, mr. President. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from alabama. A senator mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be made part of the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Shelby mr. President , during my time in the u. S. Senate, ive had right here the privilege of being part of the confirmation process for each justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Yes, each one. As such over the years ive had the opportunity to meet with many of the nations most tale talented jurists. At this time i consider judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee that ive encountered in my 34 years in the United States senate. Let me explain. Education. Its important. Judge barrett was born and raised in the new orleans area. Shes the eldest of seven children, has been spoken as has been spoken of here. And if you take a look, mr. President , at her scholastic credentials, you know she was an exceptional student. She graduated magna cup lawtdee from rhodes laudee from Rhodes College and inducted into phi beta kappa. She also graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School where she was the executive editor of the notre dame law review and finished, mr. President , first in her class. Look at some of her professional experience. This is important. Judge barrett is no stranger to the courtroom. She has decades of exemplary professional legal experience that i believe deem her well qualified to sit as a Supreme Court justice. Following law school, judge barrett clerked for Justice Laurence silberman of the u. S. Court of appeals for the District Of Columbia circuit. Hes a great jurist in his own right, judge silberman. One year later she clerked for the at the u. S. Supreme court for Justice Scalia, one of the renowned judges gaining fundamental legal experience that would upshape her future legal career. From there, mr. President , she practiced law and taught as a visiting professor at George Washington University Law school here in washington. Judge barrett went on to serve as a law professor for 15 years at her alma mater notre dame University Law school. In that period of time, she was awarded Notre Dame Law Schools distinguished professor of the year award three separate times. Most recently in 2017 judge barrett was confirmed right here in the senate as a judge for the United States court of appeals for the seventh circuit. And during this time on the seventh Circuit Court of appeals, she authored 79, mr. President , 79 majority opinions as a Circuit Court judge. Lets review for a minute the judicial philosophy and temperament of judge barrett. I think its highly important. And while her education and professional experience are certainly noteworthy, it is her judicial philosophy and temperament that really set her nomination apart, i believe, from a lot of others. Im a Firm Believer that any nominee to the Supreme Court must and should demonstrate that he or she consistently and honorably applies the law as it is written impartially and equally to all individuals. Judge barrett has time and again shown through her opinions and her statements that she will base her decisions on the law and the constitution, not on personal policy preferences, as it should be. She has also, mr. President , demonstrated a deep commitment to the constitution and its protections established by our Founding Fathers. When considering potential nominees to the Supreme Court, mr. President , i find ones judicial temperament to be vitally important. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the federal judiciary which consist, mr. President , of 19 lawyers who conduct nine partisan peer reviews of federal judicial nominees, it relies on confidential assessment of junes, lawyers, law pro judges, lawyers, law professors, deans, Community Leaders and others with knowledge of the nominee. I want to share what some of them have said about her. For judge barrett the committee invited 944 people to provide input into whether she was qualified or not for the Supreme Court. Id like to share here in the senate this afternoon just a few of the comments that the American Bar Association committee provided. They said about her. Whip smart, highly productive, punctual, and well prepared. A Brilliant Writer and thinker. And intellectual giant with people skills and engaging warmth. The myth is real. Shes a staggering academic mind. Judge barrett has demonstrated im quoting them again stellar judicial temperament in all settings. She is often described as a good listener who makes time for people, whether theyre law students, law clerks, colleagues, or friends. Another note here, a comment from randal now, the chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee. He said judge barrett is incredibly honest and forthright. Judge barrett is an exemplar of living an integrated life in which her intellect, integrity, and compassion weave the different threads of her life together seamlessly. Think about all this. He also says all of the experience dedicated and knowledgeable sitting judges, legal scholars and lawyers who have worked with or against judge barrett had high praise for her intellect and her ability to communicate clearly and effectively. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association found barretts professional competence to have exceeded, mr. President , their high standards for Supreme Court nominees. As a country, we should seek, i believe, to have judges who are thoughtful, fairminded and respectful. Judge barrett exemplifies all of these traits. Mr. President , in conclusion, i believe that the role of the constitution of advice and consent that we talk about here to the Supreme Court nominees to be one of my most important responsibilities here in the senate. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is as qualified for the United States Supreme Court as any nominee, mr. President , that ive encountered in 34 years here, and i have the utmost confidence that she will serve the court and this country with honesty and integrity. I look forward later today to voting to confirm her nomination and to encourage also my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Cassidy mr. Chairman . The presiding officer the senator from louisiana. Mr. Cassidy i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Cassidy mr. President , i have the privilege to speak on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett a couple days ago for her both qualifications and the uniqueness which shell bring to the court, which will serve our country well. Today, however, i would like to speak on a different topic. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month or, and i rise to pay respect to those who have lost their lives, to those who currently have disease, and those who work so hard to save these patients. Little personal, my wife is a retired Breast Cancer surgeon. So it is an issue which also always been very near and dear to our house. This year it is estimated there will be almost 180,000 new cases of invasive Breast Cancer cases among women, and men are affected as well and about 9,000 women are estimates to contract dcis. And about 43,000 americans a year will die from Breast Cancer. Breast cancer is hardest on the patient but the diagnosis has a Ripple Effect through the family. I mentioned my wife laura is a retired Breast Cancer surgeon. She would tell me when she would deliver the diagnosis to a patient, she would look at the woman and say, you have Breast Cancer. The patient would be stoic and her husband would cry. And it points to the fact that while cancer is a terrible diagnosis for anyone, when that anyone happens to be the center of a family, it radiates out from her diagnosis to touch everybody in her immediate family, in the generation above, and perhaps a generation below. Weve inspired to make our gains against cancer in general but against Breast Cancer in particular for the centrality that women play in our society. And of course the deadliness of Breast Cancer. And so it takes courage to address the disease if you have the diagnosis and resiliency and determination just seem to develop in those who are so diagnosed. The support of family and friends means a lot more to the patient than the family will ever know, so i encourage those who know somebody with Breast Cancer in particular we speak of but any form of cancer to reach out. It can make a tremendous difference in the fight to survive. Now, let me say, there is always hope. In addition it early detection, there are steps people can take to reduce their risk of contracting Breast Cancer. Age is the primary no, the primary risk factor, mr. President my wife used to say when speaking to a crowd, the primary risk factor for Breast Cancer is being a woman. To emphasize that all women have a risk for Breast Cancer. So dont just say because im not this or that, im not at risk. No, recognize that all women have a risk. Age would be the next risk factor, being that the older you are, the more likely that you can develop it. Women who have children after age 35 may be at higher risk. The more children a woman gives children to may lower risk. But again the primary risk of Breast Cancer is being a woman. So every woman should take the disease seriously and take steps to reduce the rick for developing Breast Cancer, increasing the chance for a successful treatment if it does development. There are steps you can take to reduce the risk. Regular exercise can reduce the risk by as much as 20 . Breast feeding lowers the risk of Breast Cancer. Eating fruits and vegetables, especially carotenoids, moderation in drinking alcohol, all can reduce risk, all should be practiced. Now, though, a cancer diagnosis can be shocking. Again, you can do things to detect it at an earlier stage and improve the chance of a successful outcome. The American Cancer Society advises women 40 to 44 to consult with their doctor for regular clinical exams and on guidance as to when it is breast to have a mammogram. Women who are 45 to 54 should have an annual mammogram and those older should have a mammogram every two years. But again check with your doctor. All these need to be customized. Patients should do selfexams for warning signs. This would be the change in the playbook or feel of a breast look or feel of a breast or possible discharge from the nipple. The presence of a lump, swelling, discoloration, changes in size and shape are common signs. If these are present, she should consult with her health care provider. If someone doesnt know do a breast selfexam, look on the internet. There are all kinds of resources to help somebody know. Lastly, the treatments for Breast Cancer continue to improve. The surgical Radiation Therapy and medical therapy is improving every year. A diagnosis of Breast Cancer is not a death sentence. It is the beginning of a treatment regimen which can cure. By the way, let me diverge just a second from october being Breast Cancer Awareness Month. My democratic colleagues on the the floor have been imagining how a justice Amy Coney Barrett would rule on various topics frankly saying things that are designed to cause fear and theyre doing it for political gain. But i think everybody 0en this side of the aisle, all republicans, have a commitment to make sure that all americans have health care and that they have coverage for a preexisting condition. Again, i am a doctor who works in the Public Hospital system for many years. But some stories particularly stand out. This is a patient of my wifes, and she was probably about 45, three children. Her husband had died or they divorced i forget which they lived in a very nice neighborhood of my hometown of baton rouge. She drove a nice car. But when her husband left, however he left, she had decisions to make and she made the decision to go without Health Insurance so she could afford other things for her family. At some point along the way, she felt a lump in her breast. But without Health Insurance, she didnt know what to do. And my wife is a Breast Cancer, in private practice but eventually someone connected this patient with my wife. When she came to see my wife, she had waited so long for evaluation that the cancer was growing out of her skin. Its called fungating, like a mushroom grows out. Except it wasnt a mushroom. It was cancer eating through the skin. Now, and she had everything otherwise great house, good car, wonderful kids, in parochial school. Now, its that sort of example that touches us all, that lets all realize that there is a personal reason why we all care about everyone having access to health care, why we all care about folks having coverage for preexisting conditions. I give congratulations to my colleague sitting in the chair, the senator from North Carolina, who has had a bill up that would address preexisting conditions but on several occasions my democratic colleagues have objected to your bill being passed that would protect those with preexisting conditions. So i will end this paragraph where i began it. As i just digress a little bit from october Breast Cancer Awareness Month, i will point out that my democratic fellow senators raising the issue of preexisting conditions in the setting of Amy Coney Barrett seem to be doing it more for political gain, because the bill that my colleague from North Carolina offered would have addressed the issue, but they opposed it uniformly, as if they wanted an issue to campaign on but not a solution to the problem. So let me conclude. As october comes to a close, let us reflect on Breast Cancer victims not only in the final days of Breast Cancer Awareness Month but throughout the years throughout the year. Know the risk factors, the warning signs, and screening regularly to catch early. Doing so saves lives. It is important for the person who may have Breast Cancer. It is important for us all. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from colorado. Mr. Gardner thank you, mr. President. Yesterday i came to the floor and spoke about the forest fires in colorado. Luckily weve had a great deal of snow on some of the most problematic conflagrations and it has slowed the fires down tremendously and has given us a chance to fight back and make some containment progress. And so the news on the fire front is generally a goodnews story today with more challenges to come down the road. So this morning i come to the floor to talk about the nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett to be placed on the United States Supreme Court. That will be the third Supreme Court justice that i have had the honor and privilege of voting on this congress and the previous congress, including neil gorsuch, colorados own neil gorsuch. Weve heard a lot of discussion about the federalist papers and our Founding Fathers and the intent on the one hand the role of the senate, the language of the constitution that points out that the President Shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate place justices throughout our judiciary. Weve heard of federalist 69 by Alexander Hamilton. The president is to nominate with the advice and consent of the senate to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court. In federalist 69 hamilton goes on to compare the power of appointment that the president has, the chief executive has, to that of the king of great britain, even comparing the power of appointment to the governor of new york, Alexander Hamilton in federalist 69 did, and he stated that both the king adds the governor of new york at that time had a greater power of appointment than the president , due to the requirement of advice and consent and the ability of the governor of new york to actually cast a vote on the matter himself. To quote Alexander Hamilton, in the national government, if the senate should be divided, no appointment could be made. He pointed out that the president has a concurrent authority in appointing offices and the president is not the sole author of these appointment 0s. Its clear in Alexander Hamiltons writings that this power was intended to be diluted, that it was to be balanced among the chambers, that the Judicial Branch was viewed as the weakest of the three branches of government, not because it wasnt equal in power but because it didnt have some of the mechanisms that the other two branches do to protect t and while the president makes that appointment, makes that appointment, it is this chamber, the sole duty of this chamber in the constitution to agree or disagree with that nomination. We saw that disagreement occur in 2016 where this chamber did not give its consent to a nomination. Later neil later neil gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court. And just a matter of a little more than a month ago, we lost a trailblazing leader in Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, leaving open another seat on the Supreme Court that we are now asked to fill. Federalist 78, also written by Alexander Hamilton has been referenced many times on the floor this past year, and particularly during this debate, wrote about the constitution being fundamental law that its the will of the people and that the courts are the only true guardians the only true guardians of the constitution, that the constitution is the highest manmade law that any legislative act to the contrary must be held void by the courts since, and i quote, the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. That it was the guardian of the constitution. That when madison was talking about this in the first congress, he introduced, of course, the amendments that became what we call the bill of rights today. He said the courts would consider themselves in a peculiar manner, the guardian of those rights. They would be an inpen et trabl bulwark, they will be led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights and that idea of this guardians of the constitution that the court plays is a hallmark of our democracy today and whether or not a justice has the support of a member of this chamber, i dont believe anyone would deny that role that our courts must play and that is that role as guardian of the constitution. But its clear in the confirmation hearing for judge barrett that some people believe the guardian of the constitution takes on a different hue, that there is more to that role than simply looking at the law and making a decision based on the law. As some called it, i believe it was Justice Scalia and perhaps paraphrased by Justice Gorsuch that a justice ale role is to call balls an strikes, i would add it is not their role to call the pitch. What we saw during the Judiciary Committee hearings was a viewpoint of some that a judge should be more than calling balls and strikes. A judge should be in effect a super legislature, that a judge should accomplish things that this chamber, this congress has failed to do that if there is a shortcoming in a policy that a judge or justice would look the other way and fill in that policy or write that policy or proactively create that policy. Again, going back to what we have known throughout this country as the guardians of the constitution, guardians of the constitution dont make up policy. They dont fill voidz of new voids of new policy that the legislatures didnt do or couldnt do because they couldnt get it through their chamber so they decided they would count on a judge to do it somewhere else. Thats not the role of the courts. Its certainly not the role of a guardian of the constitution. A guardian of the constitution is somebody who looks at the law and makes decisions of the law, upholds and protects that will of the people, the fundamental law of the people. And, of course, an activist judge, activist justice would be reaching into the law to fit their own personal opinion or beliefs to craft something that they believe is perhaps more in line with what they thought somebody wanted, more in line with their own opinions instead of looking at that letter of the law. I think its important that we keep in mind thats not the role of the courts. In this chamber cant pass a policy or a law, if it cant have its own victory and carrying the day in an argument, its not up to a judge or a justice to fill in the blank. They have to rule and carry out the law. And so thats the real key distinction that we saw during the Judicial Committee Judiciary Committee debates, that role of policymaker that some wish judge barrett to be versus that role of protecter, that guardian of the constitution, calling balls and strikes. I look at any nominee for the courts, whether its a District Court or Appellate Court or Supreme Court through a lens, are they going to protect that constitution . Are they going to uphold the constitution . Are they going to fight to defend it, that guardian of the constitution, are they going to protect and do the same with the law outside the constitution, the laws, the statutes that this body enacts and passes, signed into law by the president , will that judge or justice uphold and defend that law, not make that law, not change that law, but uphold the law . And, of course, that guardian of the constitution role that they will play. Theres no doubt that judge barretts qualifications are immense. Her call indications as a qualifications as a member of our Great American community, somebody with a beautiful family. Its mindboggling, jamie and i have a challenge with our three kids, making sure they get to school on time, making sure they are getting their homework done. I cant imagine seven children while also carrying the schedule that their family does. But its a testament to the incredible power and leadership of their family, their dedication to being upstanding citizens of this nation and giving back to this nation this new pursuit. We know the keen intellect has been shared with this country over the past seven years in the seventh Circuit Court of appeals. We know her time as a law professor and had the opportunity to look over a decadeplus worth of work and we know that she is a person of faith in our comiewbts and has come communities and has come under incredible attacks because of that faith. We know in this chamber that our constitution actually forbids the kinds of attacks that we have seen on her faith. Our constitution makes it clear there is no religious test. Our constitution actually makes it very clear that you cannot vote or deny public lfs appointment Public Service appointment to someone because of religious belief. Weve seen it done, weve seen it tried, especially over the last congress. We saw it done at the Budget Committee with the nomination of russ b oit. When a colleague of ours basically said because of his deeply held christian beliefs that he was not qualified to be a Public Servant in this country and i hope the American People are hearing what is happening in some of these debates, that Amy Coney Barrett is attacked because of her faith but its not just limited or isolated to her. There are others who are more and more accustomed or who field more and more empowered, emboldened to use a persons faith to deny them their vote to a position in our government. That is an unconstitutional test that some in this chamber are starting to rely on and i hope the American People will use this opportunity to see through it, to reject it, and to get back to the values of our constitution and the intent of that language. I had a conversation with judge barrett, the chance to visit with her and i talked about those three qualifications, to uphold the constitution. Will you fight to protect the constitution . Will you protect the law . And will you avoid being that activist legislator . Will you avoid legislating from the bench . And received her commitment. But that is exactly the kind of judge she will be. Somebody to be the guardian of the constitution, proctor of the law, to call protector of the law, to call balls and strikes. The vote that i cast for her is not something that matters not just next year and next year, but the time she is on the court that same view will remain. And she assured me that it will, and for the same reason i want it to for the future of my kids and their kids and she knows it means everything to her children as well to protect our nations laws and constitution and to avoid that attempt, that desire, that pull at the heart to legislate even if you want to come out with an opinion that is different than our own interpretation of the law, you have to follow the law. And thats what she has assured me she has done. She has assured me that there are moments and rulings that she has issued, that she would have preferred a different outcome personally, but thats not what the law required and thats why she ruled the way that she did. In talking to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, they talked about her understanding of the law and watching the hearings you could sense the deep commitment and devotion to the law. There was a time several decades ago when president Ronald Reagan went to introduce Justice Sandra day oconnor to a group of federal judges at the white house. And Ronald Reagan, in his speech, talked about what it means to be a judge. He talked about the exacting standards of integrity, fairness, and intellect thats required for a federal judgeship, that it provides reashiewshes to all of us reassurance to all of us that our ideals of liberty and justice are alive and well. He talked about the importance quality to have in a judge and that is wisdom. That wisdom is the quality we look for most and i think you can sense the wisdom in Amy Coney Barrett. He went on to say we demand of our judges a wisdom that knows no time, has no prejudice, and wants no other reward. We entrust judges with our ideals and freedom and our future depends on the way that judge defines it. It requires the lonely courage of a patriot and he went on to say a judge is a guardian of freedom for generations yet unborn. And so i hope that my colleagues will support the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. If you could take the politics out of the place, she would probably have a unanimous vote. Unfortunately, the politicalization of this nomination is going to prevent that, but i just urge my colleagues to look past the politics, to look past the partisanship and to vote for a truly qualified justice who is committed to the law, to the constitution, who is committed against activism on the bench and who will make sure that our country for generations to come have a proctor, that protector, guardian of the constitution, with the wisdom to get the job done. I ask my colleagues to support judge Amy Coney Barrett and i am honored to know in a few hours that i that i will cast a vote for soontobe justice Amy Coney Barrett. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from North Carolina. Mr. Tillis thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be added to the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Tillis thank you, mr. President. I want to thank my staff, elliott who is here on the floor, brad, srillo and brad for all the work theyve done as weve gone through the nomination process. I was reviewing and i was reflecting on a very important moment in the Judiciary Committee where senator cornyn asked. He said if you can see among all of us, we have threewing binders, we have staff behind us. We have taken weeks to prepare and youre about to go through questions. Would you mind sharing your note. She looked at a blank pad that was given to her by the chairman. It had nothing on it. She came to that committee fully prepared to answer any question from the 22 members o of the Judiciary Committee purely from whats up there and she does an extraordinary job. The reason she did an extraordinary job is because shes had an extraordinary career, both as a student, beginning as a student then going to Rhodes College where she was magna cup laud. Then magna cup laud and then going to notre dame law where she graduated first in her class. She went on to be a professor at notre dame and was multiple times voted the distinguished professor by a Broad Spectrum of liberal and conservative students. Shes also proven as a judge with some 600 cases going through the seventh circuit that she has an encliek peedic enpsyche peedic knowledge of the law. There were so many times members on the other side of the aisle tried to trip her up. She had no notes to refer to. She got the specifics of the case right and what she demonstrated throughout the entire hearing process which i attended was that she interprets she does her job by doing two things. Looking at the plain letter of the constitution, understanding the limits that the laws can have within the bound of the constitution, and rule accordingly. Now, my colleague on the other side of the aisle of the Judiciary Committee were constantly it was clear to me after weeks of attacking Amy Coney Barrett not directly but through surrogates that they were trying to demonize this person before they ever came before the Committee Like they did with justice kavanaugh. But each and every time they asked her a question, she brought them back to the boundaries of the constitution and the question of law before in her case the Circuit Court. And there was just no way to trip her up. So then what happened . Then they started talking about how youre going to go to the Supreme Court and youre going to overturn the Affordable Care act. They asked her questions that they knew she couldnt answer and Justice Ginsburg pursuant to ginsburg rule, they had no intention, no responsible judge would go before the Judiciary Committee and tell you how theyre going to rule on a future case. Its actually a violation of their code of conduct. So she told them in so many instances and what was interesting was some of the members on the other side of the aisle was on the one hand they would say you cannot overturn this president or that president. And in the same breadth, we want to make sure you overturn this president or that president. And every time Amy Coney Barrett was calm and composed and demonstrated to everybody in that committee that shes going to be objective, she is going to be fair, and she is going to stay within the lines of the constitution and the matter of law thats before her. Now, i think that its very important to have a judge like that on the Supreme Court. Our religious freedoms are at stake. Our Second Amendment rights are at stake. We do have people that want activist judges. I dont want an activist judge, period, not for a conservative cause or a liberal cause. I want a judge that i know if i some day go before the Supreme Court or any american, i want to know that i have a judge there whos going to be fair, whos going to be thoughtful, whos going to be impartial and will always have a concern for both sides of the argument but at the end of the day know that they have a responsibility to judge objectively. Now, mr. President , i have had a couple of opportunities to meet with Amy Coney Barrett. And the last meeting that i had with her in the capitol just a few steps away from where we are right now, i brought two pocket constitutions with me. And i said i have two granddaughters. One will be 3 next week. The other is a little over 2 months old. I said would you mind signing these constitutions for sawyer and willow, my granddaughters. She said certainly. She opened it up and she signed their name and just said dream big. Whether they get a little bit older, not old enough yet, im going to get them to understand the significance of that quick note from an incredible jurist, somebody who dreamed big and realized her American Dream, a mother of seven schoolage children, two adopted from haiti, one with special needs. Shes going to be the first Supreme Court justice female on the Supreme Court with sciel aij children schoolage children. She has seven of them. Shes able to manage the stresses and the challenges of being a working mom while she served with distinction on the seventh circuit while her husband works as well. Shesersed her American Dream shes realized her American Dream. I believe shes going to make sure that everybody else has the freedoms to do the same thing. I think judge Amy Coney Barrett is going to go down in history as one of the great justices on the u. S. Supreme court. It is ashame, as you just said in your comments a moment ago, that this is even a divided decision. And the in a less political time than we find ourselves today, i suspect that shed have the unanimous support of this body much the same way that Justice Ginsburg did when she came before the senate. But today im looking forward to voting for judge Amy Coney Barrett. Im looking forward to watching her build on whats already a very strong legacy. Im looking forward to making sure that we continue to have a court thats independent, impartial, focuses on protecting all of our Constitutional Rights and freedoms, and i know without a doubt Amy Coney Barrett is going to be one of those stewards in the u. S. Supreme court. Thank you, mr. President. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from maryland. Mr. Cardin mr. President , i rise in opposition to the pending confirmation vote of Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. To fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg who we lost in september of this year. Justice ginsburg was a champion of womens rights and civil rights and she is going to be sorely missed on that court. Article 2, section 2 of the constitution provides that the President Shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court. One of the senators most solemn responsibilities is to evaluate the nominees qualifications as well as the process the senate uses to provide their advice and consent for a lifetime appointment to our highest court. I believe on both substance and process this nomination should be rejected. First on process, lets talk about fairness. Lets talk about the integrity of the senate. Lets talk about living up to your own words. Lets talk about using the same rules for republicans that you used for democrats. Let me remind my colleagues what happened in 2016 in the senate during president obamas final year of a term in office and a president ial Election Year. Justice scalia died in february of 2016. Within just a few hours after the death of Justice Scalia, leader mcconnell unilaterally announced that the senate would not consider a replacement for Justice Scalia until after november 2016 president ial elections, which established a yearlong vacant Supreme Court seat. The Republican Leaders action backed by his caucus set a very clear precedent. Under no circumstances do Senate Republicans consider a Supreme Court nominee in a president ial Election Year. It did not matter that in march 2016 president obama appointed Merrick Garland, a respected d. C. Circuit judge with bipartisan support. They would not meet with judge garland, hold a hearing, or allow a vote on him for 293 days. In 2016 the president ial election was nearly nine months away. Four years ago our republican colleagues said nine months was not time enough. Leave it up to the voters. We will do this whether its a democrat or a republican in the white house. The republican leader Mitch Mcconnell said, and i quote, mr. President , the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country. So of course, of course the American People should have a say in the courts direction. The American People may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way our view is this. Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy. The American People are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue so lets give them a voice. Lets let the American People decide. The American People should have a voice in selection of the next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. That was the republican leader. Several Judiciary Committee members made similar statements after the death of Justice Scalia. Senators grassley, graham, cornyn, lee, and cruz signed a letter to leader mcconnell which read in part, we are in the midst of a Great National debate over the course of our country will take in the coming years. The president ial election is well under way and americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Scalia and celebrate his lifes work, the American People are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide in a very real and concrete way the direction the court will take over the next generation. The letter from my republican colleagues concluded, we believe the people should have this opportunity because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born on the necessity to protect the will of the American People. This committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next president is sworn in on january 20, 2017. Current Judiciary Committee chairman graham explicitly addressed this point in 2016. In march 2016 senator graham then a member of the Judiciary Committee said, i want you to use my words against me. If theres a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of that first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let the next president , whoever it might be, make that nomination and you can use my words against me. And youd be absolutely right. We are setting precedent here today. Republicans are. That in the last year of a president ial term, that youre not going to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court based on what were doing here today. Thats going to be the new rule. And ive repeatedly stated the election cycle is well under way and the president of the senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage in the process. By the way, senator graham reaffirmed that in 2018. In the case of Justice Ginsburgs death, a vacancy in 2020 we are about 40 days away from a general election. Not nine months. And mailin voting in record numbers have already begun in several states. Of course early voting has started in many states also. We are proceeding to a final vote on this nominee for a lifetime appointment just days before election day. And of americans and millions of americans have already cast their ballots. Once again within an within hours of Justice Ginsburgs death, leader mcconnell unilaterally decreed that the senate will fill the vacancy before the election. Leader mcconnell said that President Trumps nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the senate. So i implore my republican colleagues to stop this blatant hypocrisy now. Lets follow the mcconnell rule and let the American People pick the next president and senate so they can weigh in on this Decision Just as senator mcconnell argued in 2016 when president obama nominated Merrick Garland for Justice Scalias seat. Let the senate honor Justice Ginsburgs legacy by continuing to fight for the rights she fought for her entire career as a litigator, circuit judge, and finally as a Supreme Court justice. Let us honor Justice Ginsburgs dying wish. My most fervent wish is that i will not be replaced until a new president is installed. President trumps agenda is quite clear when it comes to a strategy for the Supreme Court. President trump has repeatedly said he would appoint justices in the mold of Justice Scalia. As President Trump said on the campaign trail, when asked what kind of justice he would nominate, were going to have a very strong test. We want a strong conservative people that are extremely smart. Scalia is a terrific judge. Clarence thomas, you look at him. Hes been a stalwart. Hes been terrific and we have others. President trump also talked about the type of justices he did not like when on the campaign trail. He said, im disappointed in roberts because he gave us obamacare. He had two chances to end obamacare. He should have ended it by every single measurement and he didnt do it. So that was a disappointing one. Everybody thought he was good. He was a bush appointee. He was somebody that should have, frankly, earnedded obamacare and he didnt. When President Trump announced judge Amy Coney Barretts nomination to the Supreme Court, barrett herself highlighted the ideological parallels between her and her mentor Justice Scalia. She said about Justice Scalia, his judicial philosophy is mine too. Judge barrett was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Scalia. Justice scalia was one of of the most staunchly conservative members of the Supreme Court. He frequently called for overturning roe v. Wade, he voted to gut the protections in the Voting Rights in the shelby case, he voted to gut our Campaign Laws in Citizens United case, he made it harder for workers discriminated against by their employers to seek justice in court and stacked the deck with corporations over workingclass individuals. By nominating judge barrett, President Trump is attempting to bring Justice Scalias judicial philosophy back to the mainstream and our nations highest court. Placing judge barrett on the Supreme Court puts at risk so many of the rights and protections americans have fought for and gained. So lets look how the law could change if judge barrett is confirmed. Thats the second reason to oppose this nomination, her judicial philosophy in addition to the flawedprocess. You cannot always predict how a Supreme Court justice will act after her confirmation, but judge barrett has given us clear views on her philosophy. So many of the american rights are on the line, but let me start with talking about the Affordable Care act. Judge barrett has made her views quite clear about the Affordable Care act. In 2017 in a 70 law review article she declared the a. C. A. Is unconstitutional. She wrote that judge roberts pushed the Affordable Care act beyond its meaning to save the statute. She argued that chief Justice Roberts approach to nfibv. Sebelius expressed a commitment to judicial constraint by creating clear statutory language and that its approach is at odds with the statutory textualism to which most originalist subscribe. In another Supreme Court case, king v. Burwell, the Supreme Court in a 63 decision joined by Justice Ginsburg affirmed Health Insurance tax credits for millions of families. Nearly nine million americans depend on these tax credits for coverage. Barrett criticized the decision stating i think the dissent have the better of the legal arguments. Elsewhere she wrote, Justice Scalias criticizing the construction of the Affordable Care act and nfibv. Sebelius said that the statute known as obamacare should be renamed scotus care. By this measure it is illegitimate for the court to distort either the constitution or a stach ought to to achieve what it statute to achieve what it deems as a preferable result. It is clear to me and it should be clear to everybody that judge barrett has a clear bias against the Affordable Care act. President trump stated that he would appoint judges that would overstate the a. C. A. And has consistently done so with appellate and trial court nominations. Judge barrett appears to meet President Trumps litmus test. I mentioned these cases to underscore the importance of the Supreme Court justice and the lives of all americans. So much is at stake in the filling of Justice Ginsburgs vacancy. Your health care is literally on the line. The Affordable Care act that President Trump has trield to re tried to repeal and the republicans have tried to repeal but are failing will now take it to the Supreme Court. A hearing is scheduled in november 10 in the case of california v. Texas, one week after the general election. Is this a real risk for tens of millions of americans who depend on the law and other health care benefits. 20 million americans could lose their health care and people with preexisting conditions could lose those protections. Thats 133 million americans during the coronavirus pandemic. Thats what is at stake. We are talking about pregnancy, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, Behavioral Health decision order, asthma, chronic lung disease, Heart Disease and other diseases held to be preexisting conditions before the Affordable Care act and you can add covid to those preexisting conditions for those eight million americans and counting. That is in Affordable Act that is on the line before the Supreme Court act in november. It could bring down lifetime limits, adult coverage by medicare expansion would lose vital health services, young people would be kick off their parents insurance and insurers may not cover Prescription Drugs, emergency room visits, mental health, Substance Abuse and maternity care. The Affordable Care act increased access to care for millions previously uninsured or underinsured. Through Medicaid Expansion, 13 million lowincome americans now have dependable, comprehensive Health Coverage. In maryland alone 1. 3 million individuals depend on medicaid including 512,000 lowincome children, 102,000 individuals with disabilities. That is just in american. We must protect the Medicaid Expansion population and other uninsured population from the President Trumps effort to eliminate their access to Affordable Care. It is at risk. I have similar concerns about Womens Health care issues. Judge barrett has already gone on record in opposition to reproductive rights and freedom so its clear to me that she would try to roll back the clock on those rights as a Supreme Court justice. In a 2013 speech she entitled roe at 40, judge barrett explained that republicans are heavily vertd in invested in getting judges that will overturn roe. She wrote the framework of roe basically has abortion on demand and a 2003 article, judge barrett suggested that roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision. Recall that President Trump has already said he would only nominate justices who would automatically overturn roe v. Wade. Judge barrett appears to have met this litmus test as well. Indeed, judge barrett may hold an even more extreme record when it comes to reproductive rights than than ive already stated. She refuses to say at her confirmation hearing whether griswold v. Connecticut was rightly decided in which the court held the constitution guarantees a right to marital privacy and a law criminalizing the use of contraceptive violated that right. Now, note that justices roberts, alito, cato and kavanaugh all discussed that case, but jaifort said that the griswold correctness is something i cannot opine on. Judge barretts views on immigration also raises concerns. Our most vulnerable individuals are at risk as well as with the naming of a new justice to the Supreme Court. Let me talk about one specific group. On june 18 of this year in a 54 decision written by chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the department of Homeland Security violated law when it rescinded childhood arrival daca programs. There are approximately 360,000 Daca Recipients in the United States and approximately 29,000 are health care workers, essential workers who are serving us during covid19 pandemic who have saved lives and eased suffering. But for the 54 decision, those individuals lives could have been disrupted and they could have been ordered to leave our country. These are individuals who know no other home but the United States of america. They are our neighbors and friends. The next justice could very well determine the fate of the dreamers. Unfortunately, judge barrett already has demonstrated a traditional track record which is hostile to immigration. In cook county v. Wolf, there was an opinion of the Trump Administration cruel public charge rule. It basically penalized immigrants for exercising their legal rights to use benefits that congress has made available. And in the case of ufiev. Pompeo held that the u. S. Consulate officials have Unchecked Authority to deny visa applications to those seeking entrance to the United States. It was pointed out in the minority opinion that the majority has created a constant, dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility that would leave immigration officials to deny visas on the basis of impermissible bias. So let me turn to the rights of the Lgbtq Community. In observering obergfeld case, the Supreme Court ruled that samesection couples can marry. Judge barrett has demonstrated hostility to the Lgbtq Community. In speeches she seems to be critical of the Supreme Courts decisions in observer fell, when it comes to the legislature deciding who can marry and start a family. The fundamental rights under our constitution should not be up for debate. Every american should have the same rights and benefits with marriage. Notably judge barrett referred to Sexual Orientation and sexual preference in her testimony implying that Sexual Orientation is a choice than rather than a characteristic. Justice kennedy said that no union is more profound than marriage. Forming a Marital Union two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure past death. It would be misunderstood to say they disrespect marriage. They do respect it. Respect it so deeply they seek to fulfill its obligations themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to a life of loneliness excluded from one of the institutions oldest institution. I hope we agree with Justice Ginsburg, but im afraid that is a view not shared by judge bennet. Judge bennet was critical of the civil rights laws to prevent transgender people saying at an event it does seem to strain the text. The Supreme Court held otherwise in Clayton County where Justice Gorsuch held for the court in a 63 decision that discrimination on the basis of sex should read to include gender identity. Judge barrett has issued several disturbing findings that indicate a cramped and narrow view on civil rights laws designated to protect American Workers from discrimination based on race and age. Judge barrett voted against a Panel Decision that ruled against an African American employee whose companies involuntarily transferred him to another store based on race. The e. O. C. Charged that autozone had an unlawful practice by segregating employees by race when it assigned African Americans to stores in African American neighborhoods. The dissent argued that the court upheld a separate but secret arrangement contrary to the Supreme Court decision in brown v. Board of education. When the board found that separate facilities cant be equal. Dissent wrote, the case presents a straightforward question under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does a business policy of segregating employees tend to deprive an individual on the basis of race. The panel answered the question, no. Not necessarily. I cannot agree with that conclusion. Once again, judge barrett was on the side of denying protection against racial discrimination. In kleber judge barrett sided with the majority that age discrimination only protects current employees from discrimination and not outside job applicants, a very narrow view. And then theres judge barretts views on gun safety that i find deeply concerning. Judge barretts record strongly suggests that she would strike down commonsense gun safety laws even as congress and the states continue to combat gun violence which kills nearly 40,000 americans every year. According to the center for American Progress from 2008 to 2017, over 6,200 people were killed with guns in maryland and from 2014 through 2018 there were 42 Mass Shootings in maryland killing 145 people and injuring 156. The next Supreme Court could hole the next vote if gun violence laws to require background checks and banning highcapacity magazine clips. In kanter v. Barr, the circuit held that possessing a firearm did not violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court previously held in the District Court v. Heller that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to bear arms separate from the right of the pa alicia to do so militia to do so. Even Justice Scalia, judge barretts mentor wrote in his majority opinion for the court in heller that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons. Yet judge barretts dissent in kanter and concluded that the bar on gun possession should only apply to violent felons. She argued that the majority was treating the Second Amendment like a secondclass right. She went on to note that the government could deny nonviolent felons the right to vote but not the right to bear arms because history does show that felons can be disqualified from exercising certain rights like the right to vote and serve on juries because these rights belong only to virtuous citizens. So ultimately judge barretts bizarrely seems to treat Voting Rights as a secondclass right compared to gun ownership. Thats pretty extreme. Ive always expected in america we could move forward in protecting individual rights under our constitution. That each congress and each session the Supreme Court would advance those rights for individual protection under the constitution of the United States. The filling of this Supreme Court vacancy could very well reverse a trend of protecting rights and denying many in our community their rights. The Leadership Conference on civil and human rights has sent a letter to the senate signed by a Diverse Group of 150 organizations in opposition to the confirmation of judge barrett. The letter urges the senate to oppose the confirmation of judge barrett and allow the president dually chosen in 2020 general election to fill the existing Supreme Court vacancies. Groups opposing the nomination include the alliance for justice, human rights campaign, naacp, prochoice maryland, National Council of jewish women, national law project, naturalization for women, people for american way, sciu, united we dream, policy center and the list goes on and on and on. On october 15, 2020, the Leadership Conference reiterated its opposition to the barrett nomination with a letter from over 400 state and local officials asking the senate not to confirm a new justice until after inauguration day. The Leadership Conference ends their letter by saying, it is shameful that instead the United States senate is rushing through a nominee who is likely to eviscerate the Affordable Care act and deprive millions of people of access to health care, destroy reproductive freedom by gutting roe v. Wade, and suppress our right to vote making it harder for americans to have their voices heard in our democracy. I am grairvegly concerned that the gravely concerned that the rush and sham process the senate is using ear will undermine the publics faith in the independence and legit peace of the Supreme Court as a fair and impartial body. As a group of former federal judges recently wrote the senate, our citizenry is sharply polarized. A foreboding sign for the health of any democracy. The judicial confirmation process has increasingly become dangerously politicized. Injecting a Supreme Court confirmation flight into this knox yus knoxious mix will ultimately change this vital institution. Pucial opinion polls indeed show that a supermajority of americans want the winner of the upcoming election to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. I again reference Leadership Conference letter opposing judge barretts nomination which states judge barretts extreme record in United States court of appeals for the seventh circuit along with her ideology driven writings and speeches demonstrate that she is incapable of rendering equal justice under the law. After reviewing judge barretts full record, statements and committee testimony, i am not convinced that judge barrett would administer impartial justice and guarantee equal protection of the law and equal justice under law. So, therefore, i must vote against her nomination. She is certainly not a mainstream jurist. Lets follow the mcconnell role that the American People pick the next pick the next president and senate so they can weigh in on the decision. Just as senator mcconnell argued in 2016 with president obamas nominee of Merrick Garland for Justice Scalias seat. Let the senate honor Justice Ginsburgs legacy by continuing to fight for the rights she fought her entire career as a litigator, circuit judge, and finally as a Supreme Court justice. Let us honor Justice Ginsburgs dying words, my most fervent wish is that i will not be replaced until a new president is installed. With that, mr. President , i will yield the floor. Mr. Wyden mr. President . The presiding officer the senator for oregon. Mr. Wyden mr. President , everything that has happened since the untimely passing of the legendary Justice Ginsburg is a clearer reminder that much of what goes on in washington, d. C. Is simply not on the level. Right now our country is hurti hurting. Mass death, mass unemployment, mass hunger and suffering among children. The two sides in congress ought to be addressing those challenges together. Now more than ever while so many are so fearful about tomorrow, the rules that the senate goes by and the agreements the senate makes need to stand for something. Thats how i felt when i negotiated for the 600 per week Unemployment Insurance boost in march. The treasury secretary for the republicans agreed to it. But then at the last minute republican senators pretended otherwise and tried to vote it out of the bill. Think about that. There was an agreement, an agreement between both sides and the one thing that Senate Republicans wanted to do was to break the agreement and keep workers from getting that extra money to pay the rent and the food bill at a time when they had been laid off through no fault of their own. Another example is unfolding right before our eyes. Until a few weeks ago, leader mcconnell and chairman graham would have told you it was essentially the 11th commandment carved in stone. No electionyear Supreme Court appointments. Again republicans went back on their word. If the cure to covid19 was partisanship and rule breaking, then Senate Republicans might be on to something with their low stunt on the high court. But its not. Now, the American People have a much more sensitive radar for unfairness than Senate Republicans. When i was home during the twoweek period here recently, i went to counties that donald trump won decisively and counties that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Folks i talked to in both communities, in both areas said the person who wins the 2020 election should be the one that chooses the court nominee. And in this case the American People know what is at stake for them because they see the consequences of rule breaking. If judge barrett is confirmed and does what donald trump has repeatedly said he requires of a nominee, help him throw out the Affordable Care act, heres what happens. Tens of millions of americans will suddenly lose their health care during a pandemic. Covid19 becomes a preexisting condition used by Insurance Companies to once again discriminate against consumers. Take america back to the days when health care was for the healthy and wealthy. Even the nominee herself chose this process in judicial nominees is so dysfunctional and so broken it doesnt come close to being on the level. Amy Coney Barrett may have established herself as the babe ruth of saying pretty much nothing. Now, everybody understands that nominees typically clam up during these hearings. I dont expect judge barrett to disavow Trump Health Care policy. I wouldnt expect to agree with all of the trump nominees positions. But unfortunately for our country, this hearing was a new low. For example, one of my colleagues asked whether judge barrett was aware that the president had committed to nominating judges who would throw out the Affordable Care act, a statement that was part of news accounts all across the country again and again and again and again. Back in 2015, donald trump said, and i quote, if i win the press defensey presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike bushs appointee john roberts on obamacare. Unquote. The day after judge barretts nomination, donald trump tweeted, and i quote, obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the Supreme Court. But judge barrett answered when my colleague asked about whether she had heard about anything resembling Donald Trumps views on this, she said, and i quote, i dont recall hearing about or seeing such statements. That wasnt something that i heard or saw directly by reading it myself. Unquote. She also said she couldnt recall whether senators brought it up during their conversations with her. So i say to the senate today, does anybody think that was an authentic answer . Everybody who occasionally looks at the news knows that donald trump wants to tear down the Affordable Care act. He famously promised the far right that his judges would take all the farright positions. He routinely attacks republican appointed justices for opinions that he dislikes. The never heard it, never saw it argument advanced by judge barrett that she doesnt follow the news apparently at all, didnt talk with anybody about the Health Care Debate that has been front and center in american politics for a long, long time is hard to mesh and i understate this with reality. You dont reach the heights of the academic and Legal Profession by ignoring the news of the day for years and years and years on end. So if you watch judge barretts hearing, its clear what this never heard it, never saw it argument is all about. Its about denying that there is any real threat to the Affordable Care act, to protections for preexisting conditions, to cheaper medicines for seniors. Judge barrett certainly put on a hall of fame performance in ducking and dodging and weaving her way out of even the simple routine questions about existing law, the stuff thats guaranteed to come up in every nomination hearing. For example, in and this jun just stunned me when stunned me when i heard it, she wouldnt say whether griswold and connecticut was decided correctly. That was the landmark 1906s case 1906s case that allowed married women to have access to contraception. That is one of the key Supreme Court decisions that gets directly to the rights of privacy and the rights of women to make the decisions about their own bodies and lives. The decision in roe v. Wade follows directly on that decision. Even roberts, alito and kavanaugh, not exactly the left wing of american judicial considerations said griswold was decided correctly. Judge barrett refused and that matters because there is a farright Campaign Working to undo both of those decisions which would be devastating to a womans fundamental freemedz in our country. She dodged serious questions on the legality of in vitro fertilization which helped millions of parents achieve their one dream of having a family. She refused to say if the landmark disins on Marriage Equality was decision on Marriage Equality was decided correctly. She dodged a question on whether u. S. President s should even commit to a peaceful transfer of power. She went on to say voter intimidation on the issue of voter intimidation she wouldnt answer whether it was illegal. That isnt an open question, its a case of black letter law. She was given what i thought was a slam dunk opportunity that a president cannot unilaterally change the date of the election. That one is not open to interpretation. The law is clear that he cannot. Judge barrett wouldnt say so. The president mr. President , its not like this nominee has been shy about sharing her views. For example, she bashed the opinion by chief Justice Roberts that upheld the Affordable Care act. She said it pushed the Affordable Care act beyond the plausible meaning to save the statute. That decision is the reason why 130 million americans with preexisting conditions are protected today. Why Insurance Companies cant impose caps on people who need costly health care, why seniors no longer get stuck in the Prescription Drug doughnut hole, bankrupting their savings. Judge barrett put her name on a letter that talked about overturning roe v. Wade because it was about a barbaric legacy. She lectured on the subject. She failed to disclose the letter in some of her lectures in the Judiciary Committee. Again, i understand that nominees are always careful in these hearings, but nomination hearings are providing less and less substance, thats been the case for a long time and over the last few weeks judge barrett set a new low. Years ago chief Justice Roberts talked about the job of the Supreme Court justice and said it was about calling balls and strikes. My question is how can you be trusted to call balls and strikes if you spend your nomination hearing playing hidetheball . This rush job doesnt qualify as advise and consent. In my view you look at donald trump and republicans rushing this confirmation, you look at all of the ducking and dodging of basic questions and its not hard to see the politics behind it. At a moment when there are millions of americans across the country wondering how they are going to pay the rent, how they are going to afford medicine, whether they are going to be able to safely hug their elderly patients again, Senate Republicans are laser focused on locking in political power in the courts. Thats what this is all about. Senate republicans somehow think this is a houdini act, suddenly making the threat of the Affordable Care act disappear. Its not working. And my view is the American People understand that the rush to fill to fill ginsburg seat is more than health care. Republican nominees come before the senate and talk about how its the text of the law as written, respecting precedent, respecting the original meaning of the constitution. What happens when they join the bench . They throw out longstanding precedents, restrict individual rights, push forward with an agenda that favors special interests and the powerful. For example, judge barrett gutted a Consumer Protection law from the bench by essentially ignoring the text the text of the law itself, making it easier for debt collectors to prey on the vulnerable. Judge barrett throughout precedent to deny 332 in damages to a woman who was injured in a medical procedure. The woman was actually unable to afford a lawyer and she mistakenly used the wrong word to describe the money she was owed. Judge barrett used that mistake against her. She ignored another existing precedent to take away a jury award from a teenager who was repeatedly raped by a prison guard. She sided with the company that segregated employees by race. In another case she came up with a twisted interpretation of the age discrimination and employment act to allow discrimination against older job applicants. None of that had anything to do with calling balls and strikes or respecting the laws as written. Those rulings favor the powerful and corporations over people who dont have clout and dont have vast sums of money to protect themselves. President and Senate Republicans have packed the courts from the top on down with farright judges who excuse these kinds of ideological rulings. They block democratic judicial nominees for years. They had a plan to remove seats from the d. C. Court rather than considering the sitting democratic president s nominees. Now, the president has pushed through an immense number of nominees, given how many seats republicans left open through obstruction. Some of these judges have been deemed not competent for the job by nonpartisan legal groups. Its done incredible damage to the legitimacy and independence of the judiciary. And virtually all of the all of them tell the same story about originalism and sticking to the text in the tradition of Justice Scalia. Justice scalia is considered to be the ultimate example of what is considered originalism. Judge barrett recently said his judicial philosophy is mine too. Judge scalia, in fact, packed his opinions with ideology. He wrote that the decision granting samesex couples the right to marry was a threat to american democracy. He wanted to throw out the Affordable Care act. Helped gut the Voting Rights act in a ruling thats led to massive voter disenfranchisement. Whats behind all of this talk about originalism and sticking to the text of the laws as written is a political agenda, plain and simple. Taking away peoples lc, disen health care, disenfranchising, legalizing discrimination against the Lgbtq Community and against black, hispanic, asian and other groups of americans. Its about cementing government control over womens bodies. Republicans could never enact these deeply unpopular policies through legislation so they want the Supreme Court to enact their agenda for them. And i want to close by way of saying all of this is contrary to what Justice Ginsburg spent her career fighting for. Its exactly what the big rush to fill the ginsburg seat is all about and how this process torpedoes any opportunity for the senate to come together on other big issues. My democratic colleagues and i have been pleading with the majority essentially going and saying, look, lets Work Together on a major covid package. Virtually pleading that we work in a bipartisan way to help people on what i have heard again and again at home is their number one concern. Mitch mcconnell said, however, that it was, quote, too complicated to get done. Last week i brought forward a bill on enhanced Unemployment Insurance, a lifeline for jobless workers. It was blocked. Two days ago democrats brought forth a series of bills, including proposals addressing domestic violence, Election Security and child care, all blocked. This nomination to Senate Republicans comes first and absolutely Everything Else is on hold, got to wait, and we see really no genuine interest to do the hard work of putting it together. So this nomination and this process are not on the level. Republicans are again breaking their word to hand the Supreme Court to the far right and i know that because ive heard from so many oregonians about it. Oregonians who are worried about losing their health care, their vote and so many of their fundamental freedoms. They are worried about what this means for the future of the country. This debate is about the ginsburg seat. Justice ginsburg was not just an iconic fighter for the rights of the powerless and the vulnerable. She always said what she meant and she meant what she said. We did not get that from judge barrett. I oppose this nomination. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from New Hampshire. Mrs. Shaheen mr. President , i come to the floor today in opposition to the nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Im truly disappointed that my republican colleagues have chosen to ram through this partisan nominee in the middle of a pandemic when an election is under way and tens of millions of americans have already cast their ballots. The senate should be focused on a bipartisan covid19 relief package to help granite staters and americans across this country who are struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table during this pandemic. Instead leader mcconnells only priority has been to push through a nominee who will fundamentally alter the balance of the court and affect the lives of generations of americans, all just days before ballots will be counted to decide the next president of the United States and the makeup of this very body. And the stakes in this nomination could not be higher. I want to read an excerpt from an email i received from a constituent. This is from dave in ports smith New Hampshire. He writes, what is at stake with this Supreme Court nomination. Among the topics that have stricken the deepest sadness, pain and fear in the eyes minds and hearts are to dismantle the Affordable Care act, a woman hes right and he says in quotes, and only her right to make decisions about her body and her rights and the rights of the Lgbtq Community. Mr. President , i ask unanimous consent to include the full text of this email in the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Shaheen thank you. The president and his allies here on capitol are trying to tear to tear down the Health Care Law that has helped provide millions of measures with coverage in the middle of the greatest Public Health crisis in a century. And they pressed forward with this reckless attempt even though they dont have a plan for what to do when as many as 23 million americans in New Hampshire more than 100,000 granite staters would lose their health Care Coverage. So i want to reap that. This administration and Congressional Republicans have no plan for what to do if millions of americans were to lose their health Care Coverage if the Affordable Care act is overturned. And weve seen for the last six years Congressional Republicans have tried to repeal the a. C. A. Numerous times, and they have failed every time because the American People raised their voices and made it clear that they want to keep the Affordable Care act and strengthen it, not repeal it. Well now were seeing the administration and Congressional Republicans try to do in the courts they were not able to get down in congress, to overturn the Affordable Care act. And weve seen judge barrett, shes made her feelings very clear about the a. C. A. She disagreed with decisions for uphold the a. C. A. The last two times it came before the Supreme Court, and she wouldnt answer questions about the Health Care Law during her confirmation hearing. Striking down the a. C. A. Would deal a crushing blow to our most vulnerable populations during this pandemic. If the Court Strikes down the Affordable Care act in its entirety, granite staters and americans across the country will lose access to Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion is a critical source of coverage for millions of americans and in New Hampshire for thousands of granite staters who have lost their jobs during this pandemic and in fact what weve seen is that enrollment in Medicaid Expansion in New Hampshire has increased by more than 11,000 enrolees since the start of this pandemic as weve seen job losses mount. For these individuals and all of the more than 60,000 granite staters who are covered through Medicaid Expansion, the loss of the a. C. A. In the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court overturning the a. C. A. Would eliminate a critical lifeline for coverage during this Public Health crisis. And in New Hampshire if we lose Medicaid Expansion, we also lose our most important tool for combating the opioid epidemic. Without the a. C. A. Well go back to a time when Insurance Companies have sweeping power to undercut coverage. Theyll be allowed to charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage. The Health Insurers would be able to remove essential Health Benefits like Prescription Drugs or maternity care. They would be allowed to jack up premiums or deny coverage altogether for individuals with preexisting conditions. More than eight million americans, including nearly 10,000 granite staters could be denied coverage because theyve previously contracted covid19 which could now count as a preexisting condition. And without the a. C. A. , seniors could once again find themselves stuck in medicares donut hole for Prescription Drug coverage at a time when were seeing drug prices soar. In her confirmation hearing, judge barrett even refused to say whether the Medicare Program is constitutional. With judge barrett on the Supreme Court, the Health Coverage that the a. C. A. , medicare, and other federal programs provide will be under a constant threat. And sadly, womens reproductive rights are also on the line with judge barretts nomination. When he ran for president in 2016, donald trump said that he would appoint judge, who would overturn roe v. Wade. Well, were seeing that very clearly with judge barretts record. It shows that President Trump is trying to do just that, overturn roe v. Wade. And Amy Coney Barretts dissent be opinions dissenting opinions while serving on the seventh circuit has shown shes comfortable with laws that make it difficult or nearly impossible for a woman to exercise her right to make her own Reproductive Health decisions. Judge barrett has even publicly supported an organization thats opposed to invitro fertilization, a procedure that has helped millions of american couples start a family. Almost 50 years of precedent upholding a womans right to control her own body are in jeopardy because republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court and packing the court with extreme justices. There are nearly 20 abortionrelated cases that are currently one step away from reaching the Supreme Court. A partisan court would likely disregard longstanding precedent in these cases and put Womens Health and wellbeing at risk. And lets be very clear. Repealing roe v. Wade is not going to reduce the number of abortions if history is any indication. What it does is increase the number of abortions in the country. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care act and womens reproductive rights are just two of the many areas of American Life that a partisan Supreme Court could dramatically alter. Equality for lgbtq americans is another major concern. Millions of gay and lesbian americans have been married since the Supreme Court legalized samesex marriage. But in a recent dissent penned by justices thomas and alito, these justices challenged the constitutionality of that decision and called for it to be revisited. And when asked in her confirmation hearing about the precedent of the Supreme Court decision to legalize samesex marriage, judge barrett was evasive. So you can understand the anxiety and fear that samesex families are experiencing as they watch the Republicanled Senate rush this nomination. The stakes are also incredibly high for Voting Rights, for worker protections, for commonsense gun laws, for so many other issues that are in jeopardy with the appointment of judge barrett. Now, i know the dye has been cast. We saw that yesterday with the 5148 cloture vote. But i believe this effort to politicize the Supreme Court is a decision that those who care about our Democratic Institutions will come to regret for many decades to come. And if todays vote is the same as yesterdays, 5148, this will be the closest vote for a Supreme Court justice in our nations entire history. We should not be doing this today. We should be focusing on what the American Public is most concerned about, help with the coronavirus. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from nevada. A senator i rise today because the health care of millions of nevadans and tens of millions of americans is in danger. Ms. Rosen their health care is in danger because in just a few weeks the Supreme Court will consider a case that could overturn the Affordable Care act completely. This means that the next Supreme Court justice will decide whether individuals with preexisting conditions could once again be denied health Care Coverage. The fact is this administration has tried for years to overturn the Affordable Care act. First, they attempted to repeal the a. C. A. Through legislation. They failed repeatedly because congress and the American People do not support their schemes to take away our health care. Then they changed their strategy and are trying to use the courts to dismantle our Nations Health care system. Now, with an election just one week away, Senate Republicans are scrambling to confirm a new Supreme Court justice in order to tip the balance of the court in favor of their lawsuit aiming to destroy the Affordable Care act. Rather than waiting for the outcome of the election which is already under way and follow the precedent that they themselves established in 2016, the mcconnell rule, my republican colleagues are rushing to put judge Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. Not only does judge barrett support the president s position on dismantling our nations Health Care Law but if confirmed, she could very well be the deciding vote to undo the Affordable Care act and take Health Care Away from millions of americans. Judge barretts hostility towards the Affordable Care act is on the record, and weve seen a long and extensive paper trail outlining her opposition to the a. C. A. Her past comments, they paint a bleak picture of what the Affordable Care acts future would look like with a Justice Barrett on the bench. To put it simply, this administrations attempt to use the court to take away Americans Health insurance and raise the cost of care, especially at this moment during a Global Pandemic is not only cruel and reckless, it is deadly. Ive met many nevada families. Ive heard stories from men, women, and children whose lives would be just devastated without the Affordable Care act. Cancer survivors, people with diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, and countless other preexisting conditions that affect families. These are real nevadans whose health care would be jeopardized if the a. C. A. Were no longer the law of the land. I always tell my constituents that i carry their stories with me to washington. They inform the actions and the decisions that i take. So i want to take some time to share some of the of course that of the stories ive heard, stories from nevadans whose lives have been saved and enjoy quality of life because of the Affordable Care act. Stories from nevadans who are outraged about whats happening who have reached out to my office to make their voices heard. And countless stories of how allowing the a. C. A. To be dismantled would impact their lives. First, i want to share a letter from jan who lives in henderson, nevada. Her husband is one of the 1. 2 million nevadans estimated to be living with a preexisting condition. Like many people, jan is worried about the health of her husband and the future of her family if the Affordable Care act is eliminated. Heres what jen wrote. Dear senator rosen, im watching the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett and im listening to the conversation around the a. C. A. Im scared to death that it will be overturned and what it means for me and my husband. In february 2019 at only 38, he had a devastating stroke and he had to stay in the hospital for four months. If he hadnt had insurance, we would never have been able to afford his care. Im scared of losing that protection for preexisting conditions. Hell need specialists for the rest of his life as well as physical, occupational, and speech therapy. We cannot afford his care otherwise. Im so scared. Please help. Unfortunately, jens situation and concerns are far too common. Many nevadans and americans across our country are worried about a future where they could lose their lifesaving coverage. Theres another letter from a nevadan would lives in spring creek whos worried about their own continued Health Care Without the protections the a. C. A. Provides. Ive had ive had mass my whole life and its severe. I finally have good insurance and i need it desperately. This will affect millions of us. Ive lived through not having insurance and it almost killed me. The Insurance Companies that time were asking higher premiums than what i made. End quote. Nevadans across the state are absolutely terrified about the possibility of losing care because of this nomination. I received a letter from a brave nevadan who lives in men don, a small town in the western part of our state. She wanted to share with me her health struggles, her fears for the future. She said this. Ive been fighting a rare, aggressive form of Breast Cancer for the past four years. I still have numerous surgeries to undergo and part of my ongoing battle against this devastating disease. I worry about how the loss of preexisting conditions, protections would adversely affect my treatment plan. My everyday Financial Security and my ability to get Health Insurance in the future should i lose what i currently have. The Affordable Care act has opened the door to health care for nevadans all over my state, communities big and small. These are real people with real struggles, real families who desperately want the best possible care for their loved ones. Thats all. Thats all. They want the best care for their loved ones. Dont we all want that . Whats at stake here is lifeordeath for far too many nevadans and too Many Americans across this country. Assuring the health of our loved ones should be an essential, basic human right. Its thanks to the Affordable Care act that more than 200,000 nevadans get coverage through the a. C. A. s expanded medicaid program. Its thanks to the Affordable Care act that over 77,000 nevadans have coverage through the Nevada Health link insurance exchange. And its thanks to the Affordable Care act that over 19,000 nevadans under the age of 26 get to remain, covered through their parents Health Insurance plans. All of these people, thats one in ten nevadans could lose their Health Insurance if the Supreme Court overturns the a. C. A. All of them could face overwhelming costs and denials of the care that they both need and deserve. Not to mention thanks to the a. C. A. That there are an untold number of people who can still get coverage because Insurance Companies can no longer put lifetime caps on their health Care Coverage. Before the a. C. A. An insurance company, well, they could limit how much you would pay they would pay for your medical bills over your lifetime. One constituent from las vegas voiced her concerns that without a. C. A. Protections, we would see a return of lifetime caps on coverage. She said this im concerned about the potential elimination of the Affordable Care act. In addition to the potential elimination of preexisting conditions, no one seems to address the issue of lifetime limits, which were would be were eliminated under the a. C. A. For those with longterm illnesses, they stand to risk loss of medical insurance while battling catastrophic illnesses. My husband, while hes been battling colon cancer for several years, if the lifetime limit were to be reinstated, we would no longer be covered for any of his chemo or any other cancerrelated treatments. Many a. Sure that the Insurance Companies would jump at the chance to stop coverage for those with extraordinarily high medical expenses, end quote. The American People. They want us to protect their care. They want us to protect them. They do not want to see the Affordable Care act eliminated. The fact is, our health Care Coverage is better now than it was before the a. C. A. Was enacted. Insurance plans now have to cover those ten essential Health Benefits and we have fought hard against junk plans that claimed to have coverage but around there when you need them the most. In addition to that, many middleincome nevadans can access Affordable Care because of the muchneeded tax credits that the a. C. A. Provides. Ive spoken with and heard from countless nevadans, and i can say with certainty that no issue matters more to people of my state than they are health and safety and the health of their loved ones. The Affordable Care act has not only given families the peace of mind that comes with Quality Health country of origin but has literally saved lives. Without the critical protections the a. C. A. Provides, we risk going back to the days when big Insurance Companies could deny Insurance Coverage based on preexisting conditions. Repealing the Affordable Care act could have dire consequences for hardworking nevada families and families across our country. Health care shouldnt be a partisan issue. We have an obligation to protect the health of our constituents. We need access to health care more now than ever, and taking critical protections away from nevadans would be a disaster for our state, and it would be a disaster for our country. I heard from another constituent, carol, who lives in parump, who highlighted the risk of this nomination during the current challenges our nation faces due to the pandemic. Carol wrote to me saying this our country is in a Public Health crisis right now, one thattest goes worse by the day. One that gets worse by the day. In this moment, we need our legislators to protect our families, to provide relief and support, and to do the job we elected them to do. We do not need to rush through the nomination of a Supreme Court justice who is on the record as hostile to the law that provides our health care protections. Well, carol is right to point out that were in the middle of a catastrophic pandemic that has left more than 225,000 americans dead. Not only that, but this pandemic could put millions of americans at risk of being denied coverage because of new preexisting condition covid19. Just imagine being someone who suffered through even a mild case of covid19 only to have their coverage taken away because of this new preexisting condition. And just this week, were seeing the highest positivity rates across the country weve seen thus far. Instead of developing a clear National Strategy for combating the coronavirus or crafting comprehensive legislation to assist americans in need of a lifeline during this difficult time, this administration and senator mcconnell seem to be preoccupied with rushing through a Supreme Court nominee who is outwardly hostile to the Affordable Care act. Since coming to congress, ive made it my mission not only to preserve the Affordable Care act but to expand care for all americans. Ive worked to increase access, lower costs, and improve quality of care. In fact, one of my first actions as a senator was to join my colleague, senator joe manchin, in introducing legislation to demand that the senate intervene to defend the Affordable Care act in court. Instead of joining me and my colleagues in working to protect Americans Health, this administration is too busy playing politics with peoples lives and is singularly focused on taking away your care, my care, our care. Our health care is at stake. Our lives are at stake. Before the Senate Confirms a lifetime appointment to our nations high of the court, the American Peoples vote should be counted and their voices should be heard. This is how the American People feel. A constituent who lives in reno wrote to me saying that President Trump has promised to appoint justices who will overturn roe v. Wade and undermine access to health care, certainly not what i want and not what the majority of your constituents want. He continues the election is already under way and we should be given the power to determine which senate is focused on this seat. The senate should not be fasttracking a Supreme Court nominee. End quote. We are only nine days away from an election, but lets be clear, the election has already started, and millions of americans all across our country have already cast their ballot. Theyve mailed in their ballots and early voting is happening in many places as we speak, including my home state of nevada. We should allow the American People to have their say at the ballot box before the Senate Considers a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, one that will determine the future of access to quality, Affordable Health care. In the United States for everyone. Im sure that the other senators, well, theyre hearing the same stories from their constituents, like the ones i shared today, and i truly hope that my colleagues really listen to them that they really hear the pain, the anguish, and the anxiety that so Many Americans are feeling just right here in this moment. Their lives, their health care, theyre going to be directly impacted by our decisions. I will not support the nomination of a Supreme Court justice who does not support the Affordable Care act. I will vote against judge barretts nomination. I yield my time. Mr. Lankford mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Lankford for the past several years, ive heard some pretty remarkable stories from the other side of the aisle and from the national media. We heard from an atlantic article that the president called Service Members killed in action losers, spread all over the place until it was refuted flatly by 14 different officials that were on the trip. We heard claims that the Trump Administration had deployed federal troops to portland, and they were taking over the streets of portland until leadership of i. C. E. And of d. H. S. Came to congress and reported on what actually happened, starting with there were no federal troops that went. Because it is a Federal Building that was under arizona that was under attack, they did arrest the pooh emthat through mall lots coof cocktails at the building. I heard that the post office cannot handle the increased volume of mail and the Trump Administration is intentionally trying to slow the post office down so mail cant come in, saying with frantic, breathless voices, it could be 100 million ballots coming in the mail. Can the post office handle it . Until you find out that two weeks before christmas last year, the post office handled 2. 5 billion pieces of firstclass mail just that one week. Certainly they can handle 100 million ballots coming in over a month. I heard last summer the president had taken away toothbrushes from children at the border, until a group of us were actually at the border the next week and went into that facility saying there are no toothbrushes available for the children and saw a storeroom full of toiletries, including toothbrushes r i read the story and followed up with the i. C. E. Leadership about muslims in our i. C. E. Detention facilities being forced to eat pork, tormenting them with feeding them pork against their faith. Until we actually followed up on the facts of it and found that story was completely false. It seems every day, sometimes multiple times a day, there is anaudia could youization that comes accusation that comes out to attack the Trump Administration. Then for the presiding officer, you know this full well because i sat in that same chair for two hours last night during our 30 hours of continuous debate following senate rules to conclude a confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. And i was quite amazed at some of the things i heard while i sat in the chair. I heard things like, well, Amy Coney Barrett should have never even come out of the judiciary because democrats boycotted coming actually to the hearing, and if they dont come to the hearing, the nominee cannot come out. The republicans have broken the rules. In fact, some of my colleagues went dangerously close to say, because they broke that rule, were going to break the next rule impact the court. Except they leave out one little thing. If thats happened multiple times before, then it did follow the rules. There wasnt a breaking of the rule in the committee. In fact, one of the members speaking last night even said so far as they broke the rules, except the parliamentarian ruled them in order, and so the parliamentarian was wrong as well. At least seven times since 2006, most recently in 2014 when democratic chairman leahy sent a Circuit Court judge and two district judges to the floor out of committee, when only one member of the minority was present, not fulfilling quote, unquote the rule. Republicans did not break the rule, as they came out of committee with Amy Coney Barrett. I heard over and over again that theres never been a time like this that ever anyone has brought a Supreme Court nominee during an Election Year like this except when you actually go back and look through the history, which ive recounted on the floor before and most of my colleagues have recounted the actual history. But last night i heard once again, even Abraham Lincoln, the month before the election, could have put in a nominee for the Supreme Court and he chose not to to wait for the election. All i could do is sit with my maskcovered face in the presiding chair and smile and think about the Washington Post article that came out just a few weeks ago when the senator harris gave the same lesson about Abraham Lincoln and the Supreme Court, and the Washington Post the day article wrote an article kamala mashries History Lesson about Abraham Lincoln controversy wasnt exactly true. Abraham didnt hold back and say, ill wait until after the election. The senate was not even in session during that time period. And arizona Braham Lincoln was trying to keep his fractured coalition together and not trap it by naming one. He ended up naming one of his opponents in the Republican Party as the nominee that would come after he was reequity willed. Its interesting to me after he was reequity willed. Its interesting to me how things seem to get twisted around in some of this debate. I heard last night during the debate time that Amy Coney Barrett refused to be able to answer the questions, the most basic questions about what she believes about things. The shocking thing about it is Amy Coney Barrett did the exact same thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg did during her nomination and every other nominee. They have said im a judge. I cant tell you who how im going to rule on it because it has to be based on the facts of the case. Its nothing i can just make up on the spot. In fact, this is what was quoted from Justice Ginsburg when she was judge ginsburg at the time and going through the nomination process. She said this, this from judge ginsburg. I come to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate, because i am and hope continue as a judge. It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how i would cast my votes on questions of the Supreme Court questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were i to rehearse it here, what i would say, how i would act on such questions i would act injudiciously. Judges in our case are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract. Each decision should turn on the facts and the governing law stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge is sworn to decide impartially, can offer no forecast, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. For some reason, Justice Ginsburg was celebrated by the left for not saying how she would rule, but Amy Coney Barrett has been shown disdain. Say she is not telling exactly how she will rule on every single issue. The most painful thing that i heard last night when i was in the chair and that i have heard over and over again in the dialogue has been a sad personal destruction and deception pushing Amy Coney Barrett over and over again as a closet racist and segregationist. I am disappointed that even this candidate is being challenged as a racist, quiet segregationist. It is the firebomb thrown into the middle of a dialogue. Over and over again, she was challenged by saying what would she do with brown vs. Board of education, as if quietly she is a segregationist. Over and over again, her concepts on originalism was pushed. And here is how it was framed in the debate on this floor. She is an originalist. That means she is backward looking. That means she is supportive of those white men who supported slavery and would not allow women to be able to vote, because in their perspective, thats what an originalist is. They want to go back to slavery and segregation and removing the rights of women to vote. Even last night saying originalists go back to the time of child labor. It is a smear, it is a personal attack, and it is an act of desperation. It is an attempt to be able to terrify the American People that this mother of seven is to be feared because she will take away your health care, she will take away your rights, she will remove every option that protects the rights of individuals and society, and as was stated last night, she is afraid of we the people. We have a responsibility in this body to be able to set the tone for debate. We disagree on things strongly, and so do the American People, but this should not be a place of smears and personal attacks and disdain for each other and for labeling people something that if we were to sit down face to face and i were to ask the members on the other side in this chamber, do you really think that judge barrett is a racist segregationist, i have every confidence that the members on the other side would say no, but it plays well to the base. What have we become . Justice future Justice Barrett, now judge barrett was labeled over and over again as a person who doesnt have her own mind, who is running bigdollar donors in the Federalist Society and is just a puppet of the right. Someone actually that was labeled to be groomed by the right for this position, as if that judge has not studied, worked, and prepared her entire life to serve. She has her own mind. She is well prepared. She is eminently qualified. She is not a secret racist segigationist coming to segregationist coming to take away health care from americans. She is a judge thats heard 600 cases, that graduated first in her law school class, that taught law for 15 years at notre dame university, and is well prepared, and, yes, does have this originalist view of the constitution, meaning you cant just look at it and make it say what you want to. People on this floor can try to put words into her mouth, which she has not said, as i heard over and over again, like her desire is to suppress voters. It cannot change how well prepared she is for this task and this moment. Im grateful that america continues to produce great leaders and great individuals that work hard in their personal lives, that study to prepare themselves to be ready to do whatever god calls them to do, and that are intentionally focused that are intensely focused on serving their fellow americans in the best way they possibly can. We ask of justices one thing at least i do follow the law. It seems my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are terrified that someone may just come follow the law, and that policy arguments may have to be debated back in congress again. Well, i hope thats true because there are policy arguments we need to resolve as a country, but lets resolve them in this chamber and not in the one across the street. The one across the street, lets keep it nonpolitical. Focus on just helping americans follow the law. I look forward to voting for Amy Coney Barrett later on tonight, and i look forward to the day when false accusations are seen for what they really are. Do the right thing, and lets do it the right way. With that, i yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from virginia. Mr. Warner mr. President , are we in the midst of a quorum . The presiding officer we are not. Mr. Warner i rise today out of grave concern with the direction of the senate as an institution and with the choices being made on behalf of the American People. By almost every account, our economy remains severely wounded by the effects of the covid19 pandemic. Cases are still rising, as a matter of fact a record was set . Just the last couple days was set . Just the last couple days. Small businesses are unfortunately closing at an accelerating rate. Paw foreclosures and evisions are on the rise. Jobless benefits are running out and our state and local governments are running dangerously low on resources to assist teachers, first responders, firefighters, and so many others. But rather than focusing on the immediate needs of the American People and acting to remove the uncertainty being felt by families across this country and in the commonwealth of virginia, the senate is preparing to pursue a partisan exercise to fundamentally alter the composition of our Supreme Court. This comes as we are just a week away from november 3, when americans will go to the polls to cast their ballots in a president ial election. In my state, in the commonwealth of virginia, literally almost two million virginians have already voted. President trump and the majority leader are jamming through at this moment a divisive nominee to fill the to fill Justice Ginsburgs seat on the Supreme Court. Judge Amy Coney Barrett. The senate has never confirmed a Supreme Court nominee this close to election day. The election is in a week. Nearly 60 Million People have already voted. And while they eviscerate Senate Precedent and rush towards a Supreme Court nomination, they delay passing the kind of critical legislation in terms of additional covid relief that would help millions of americans make it through the economic crisis. Think about that. Every day we wait to pass a comprehensive covid stimulus bill, more people than necessary will get sick, some will die, businesses will be lost, families will lose their homes, and millions of unemployed workers will continue to wonder how theyre going to make ends meet. So why has the president rushed judge barretts nomination through the senate . The president is jamming through this nomination because there is so much on the line with this Supreme Court vacancy. On november 10, just one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could invalidate the Affordable Care act and rip health Care Coverage away from more than 20 million americans 20 million americans in the middle of a pandemic. The president and my republican colleagues here in congress have already tried and tried again and tried again and failed to repeal the Affordable Care act through congress. Now theyve turned to our nations Supreme Court in a purely political effort that could devastate our Nations Health care system. Theyve offered no replacement plan that will adequately protect individuals with preexisting conditions, and millions of americans will then be set to lose their health Care Coverage should the a. C. A. Be overturned. Ive come to this floor many times and acknowledged the a. C. A. Is not perfect. There are places where it could be improved. But in the years since its passage, i have heard from countless virginians that have benefited from the law, individuals that have gained access to health Care Coverage for the first time, Cancer Patients that can no longer be kicked off their plans or denied coverage, eight million americans whove now got covid, who have got now a preexisting condition. Ive talked to Small Business owners and entrepreneurs that are now able to get coverage on the individual exchange and consequently start that business that otherwise they couldnt take the risk to start. And so many of virginias seniors whove seen their drug costs go down, thanks to important reforms in the a. C. A. Now, that in and of itself being considered by the Supreme Court a week after the election would be more than enough reason to wait and delay and let the American People first have their say. But thats not all thats at stake in future cases before the Supreme Court. This court, a court that will disproportionately be moved out of the mainstream, looking at everything from reproductive rights to Voting Rights, rights for lgbtq people, all this hangs in the balance. Given those stakes, the American People have a right to have their voices heard before the confirmation of a new justice. Now, in 2016, majority leader Mitch Mcconnell set a standard when he refused to consider president obamas Supreme Court nominee ten months prior to the election. Now, i strongly objected to the majority leaders actions in 2016, but hes the majority leader. He had the votes. And now thats the precedent by which we should govern the Supreme Court nomination, because the truth is, we cant have one set of rules for democratic president s and a different set of rules for republican president s. Our system of checks and balances is held strong and lasting for more than 200 years, and it was simply not meant to bear the brunt of such cynicism and hypocrisy. The senate should get to the real needs of the American People, a deal that i know secretary mnuchin and nancy pelosi are working on. We should not consider a Supreme Court nomination before inauguration day. Yet the majority leader is continuing forward with votes on judge barretts nomination. Judge barretts record is clear, and so is my vote. Im voting no. Theres too much at stake. Thank you, mr. President. With that, i note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Markey mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from massachusetts. Mr. Markey thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i ask for there to be an evitiation of the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Markey thank you. Thank you, mr. President. I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. This is no ordinary nomination, and it comes at no ordinary time in the life of our nation. We are in the midst of a Global Pandemic that has already claimed more than 225,000 american lives. We are 00 mere eight days away we are a mere eight days a away from a president ial election. Donald trump announced his nomination of judge barrett even before we could fully mourn the death of the great Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. And Senate Republicans then rushed this nomination to the senate floor. In doing so, they violated the rule that their leader, Mitch Mcconnell, imposed in 2016 which kept Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court after president obama nominated him in february of that year to fill the vacancy that arose with the death of justice antonin scalia. That rule was clear. That rule was concise. That rule was definitive. The senate would not consider a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court during a president ial Election Year. Many of my republican colleagues echoed leader mcconnells pledge. In fact, my colleague, senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, admonished us to use his own words against him if he went back on his promise. Quote, if there is a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of that term, you can say that Lindsey Graham said, lets let the next president , whoever that might be, make that nomination. But the majority has ignored the mcconnell rule and broken their promises to follow it as they engage in the outright theft of yet another seat on the United States Supreme Court. You cant spell shameful without sham, and thats what Senate Republicans have turned this Supreme Court nomination process into a sham. What else is unprecedented about the circumstances surrounding the barrett nomination . Well, in donald trump, who made the barrett nomination, we have a president who has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, should he lose the upcoming election. And in donald trump, we have a president who has openly stated that he needs judge barrett on the Supreme Court to cast a crucial vote, if cases arising out of a disputed election reach the court, like bush v. Gore did after the 2000 president ial election. In donald trump, we have a president who has vowed to appoint to the Supreme Court a justice who would vote to overturn roe v. Wade and take away a womans reproductive rights and freedom, even before he was elected in 2016, he pledged, quote, i will appoint judges that will be prolife, yes. In donald trump, we have a president who has expressly promised that he would only nominate a justice who would vote to get rid of the Affordable Care act, obamacare, and coverage for preexisting conditions. President trump made that another brightline litmus test for this nomination. In donald trump, we have a president who has told us that he needs judge barrett on the bench to rule in the Affordable Care act case, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on november 10, one week after the election, a case that will decide the fate of that law and the availability of Health Insurance for millions of americans suffering during a pandemic and well afterwards. If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and votes the way republicans expect, nearly three Million People in massachusetts with preexisting conditions could face higher costs, fewer benefits, could have trouble finding Insurance Coverage, massachusetts was the model for the Affordable Care act. But if donald trump and his Supreme Court nominee have their way, more than 335,000 bay staters enrolled through the Medicaid Expansion could lose their coverage. And as we experience the highest number of oneday coronavirus deaths since the spring, we have a Republicanled Senate that has been unwilling and unable to work with their partys own president to craft desperately needed legislation that would provide relief to the hundreds of millions of americans who are suffering during this pandemic. Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. Americans whose Small Businesses, the engine of our economy, are struggling or going under. Americans who cant get the medicine, the testing, the protective equipment of medical care they need. Americans who need who right now are lacking the access to Online Learning and the promise of an education. For weeks and weeks, Senate Republicans would not lift a finger to help our workers and our families during this crisis. They would rather our states and our cities go bankrupt, our students go without wifi, poor students, black, brown, poor children in our country without the internet at home and without the funding to provide it to those kids. Right now at the height of the pandemic, there are going to be millions of children who do not have access to the tools they need to be in the third grade, to be in the fifth grade. And even today, our nurses go without the masks which they need. Yet, when it comes to filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court and confirming a farright justice, these same republicans made the senate move with a speed that would make hussein bolt jealous. Jamming through this nomination in this fashion is unprecedented. It representedders this process and this nomination illegitimate, period. If judge barrett is confirmed, it will only serve to further erode the stature and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the American People. Now, everything to which i have just pointed, the pandemic, the election, the corruption are just the place settings. Its the table on to which donald trump has served up the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Judge barrett is a proud originalist and texturallist in the mold of her mentor, the late justice antonin scalia. One of the staunchest and most arch conservatives ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court. And as judge barrett put it at her own confirmation hearing, Justice Scalias judicial philosophy is mine, too. As judge barrett described socalled originalism, it means she is supposed to interpret the constitutions text and understand it to have the meaning it had when the constitution was ratified. But interpreting the constitution in that manner has been used over and over to deny rights to women, to communities of color, and to the lgbtq individuals, members of our society who had no rights when the constitution was ratified. Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. For originalists like judge barrett, lgbtq stands for lets go back in time, a time when you couldnt marry who you love, when you couldnt serve in the military if you were trans, a time when rights were not extended to gay, lesbian, by sexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersection individuals. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination. It has become a hazy smoke screen for judicial activism by socalled conservatives to achieve from the bench what they cannot accomplish through the ballot box, and an elected congress and as a result they roll back individual rights through judicial decisions. The activists, originalists, judges on the Supreme Court and lawyers in its Legal Community are poised to repeal the Affordable Care act, deny reproductive freedom, and repeal samesex marriage. They will welcome a judge that they will welcome a Justice Barrett and a 63 conservative majority with open arms. So we know a lot about judge barretts judicial philosophy of originalism. What about her application of it and her views . Well, in early 2017, four months before donald trump nominated her to serve on the u. S. Court of appeals for the seventh circuit, she wrote a law review article in which she criticizeed chief Justice John Roberts majority opinion in nfib versus sebelius which upheld the Affordable Care act. She made clear she didnt think much of Justice Roberts opinion, arguing that he, quote, pushed the Affordable Care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. We know from another law review article that judge barrett, like many originalists, does not give precedence the respect that it deserves. In 2013, she wrote that because a justices duty is for the is to the constitution, there is, quote, more legitimacy in enforcing her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly is in conflict with it. Er in other words, she believes that her own interpretation of the constitution is more important and more legitimate than precedent such as roe v. Wade. We know from her dissenting opinion in kanter versus barr that she believes a felony conviction shouldnt necessarily result in losing the right to own a gun, but she is okay with felony convictions taking away the right to vote. It should make it easier for a felon to own a gun than to vote. Thats the kind of result that judge barretts originalism gets us into. So on many of these issues, Amy Coney Barrett has shown us that she couldnt be further in spirit from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late great justice whose seat on the nations highest court that she will fill. While Justice Ginsburg always had us looking forward, Amy Coney Barrett and her originalism will always have us looking backwards, and backwards is precisely the direction in which this nation should not be going. So what we know from Amy Coney Barretts own words is very troubling. Yet, then at her confirming hearing, we learn that there are many basic fundamental legal issues on which she would not say a word, and she would keep her views hidden. At her confirmation hearing, Justice Barrett declined to answer questions about such important propositions as whether its unlawful to engage in voter intimidation. Spoiler alert it is. On questions whether the president can delay a president ial election. News flash he cant. Questions about whether president s should commit to a peaceful transition of power. Listen up they should. Questions about whether obergefell versus hodges, the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing the right to gay marriage and making marriage equal the law of the land was correctly decided, no doubt about it, it was. Questions about whether the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care act protect lgbtq people from discriminatory treatment in health care. Of course they do. Questions about whether roe v. Wade was correctly decided and is a superprecedent. It was and it is. Questions about whether medicare is constitutional. Of course it is. Questions about whether climbing is real and whether human beings cause it. It is, and we do. On these and so many important issues and questions, judge barrett refused to give the obvious and indisputably correct answers, but based on her earlier philosophy, her writings, and her record, i have little doubt where she really stands, and that is the same counter with rightwing reactionary jurists who are far outside the mainstream of jurisprudence. Finally, there was another question that judge barrett would not answer whether, if confirmed, she would recuse herself from the Affordable Care act case and any election cases that reach the Supreme Court. There is a federal statute that governs the recusal decision. It requires recusal in situations where a judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. President trump himself put judge barretts impartiality at issue when he confessed that he needed judge barrett on the Supreme Court to decide any election disputes. He did it when he said it only he would only appoint a justice that would vote to overturn the Health Care Law. And after reviewing judge barretts record and listening to her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, its becoming clear that we have a binary choice. We can have the Affordable Care act or we can have Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. We can have the a. C. A. Or we can have the a. C. B. , but we cant have both. Judge barrett needs to do the right thing and recuse herself. I will conclude by noting the irony that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mitch Mcconnell were both on the same page as to this nomination. In 2016, senator mcconnell gave us his promise that the senate would not fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in a president ial Election Year. And after she passed, we learned that it was Justice Ginsburgs dying wish that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. So let us hold Mitch Mcconnell and Lindsey Graham to their words and honor Justice Ginsburgs perfect wish. No confirmation before inauguration. But if republicans succeed here today in their effort to confirm yet another conservative Supreme Court justice just days before the president ial election, as soon as the democrats take back control of the senate in january, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. We cannot allow such corrupt partisanship to take precedence over justice and liberty in our country. I will vote against the confirmation of judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court and urge my colleagues, all of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President , i yield back. The presiding officer the senator from michigan. Mr. Peters thank you, mr. President. I would like to start by giving a quick History Lesson, and i will begin with just two numbers. These two numbers speak to how extraordinary it is that we are here today debating and voting on a nominee for the United States Supreme Court. The first number is four. Four. Thats how many Supreme Court vacancies have arisen after july in a president ial Election Year. Only four times in the history of this country has a Supreme Court vacancy arisen within four months of a president ial election. The next number i think is very important to remember. That number is zero, zero. Thats how many times these vacancies were filled. In fact, similar to this vacancy, president lincoln had a Senate Majority when a vacancy arose just weeks before election day in 1864. And what did he do . He chose to wait. President lincoln thought nominating a justice so close to an election would delegitimize our institutions and harm the republic that he was fighting so hard to preserve. Thats the precedent that President Trump and Senate Republicans have disregarded as they quickly plotted to fill this seat just hours, if not minutes, after Justice Ginsburgs passing. In addition to breaking with this historical precedent, republicans are also jamming through their nomination in the middle of a pandemic that is gripping our country. Instead of prioritizing Michigan First responders, Small Businesses, workers, teachers, and families and Health Care Professionals that are still suffering through the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, Senate Republicans and the president are instead laser focused on instead jamming through a Supreme Court nominee for a lifetime appointment. This is more than political gamesmanship. This nominee will significantly impact the lives of michiganders and folks all across our country. We know that the Supreme Court is set to shortly consider a case that has farreaching ramifications for Peoples Health care. The Trump Administration is arguing in court that the Affordable Care act should be overturned in a case that will come before the Supreme Court in november just seven days after election day. If the Trump Administration gets its way in this lawsuit, we can go back to the days when Insurance Companies once again call the shots on Peoples Health care. Over four million michiganders with preexisting health care conditions could be denied coverage. Seniors could be charged more for Prescription Drugs. Lifetime and annual limits on coverage could make costs unaffordable, and as a result force families into bankruptcy. Before the passage of the Affordable Care act, medical debt was the number one reason for personal bankruptcy. People faced financial devastation simply because they got sick. Women could again be charged more for being a woman because a potential pregnancy is a preexisting condition. Is we have come way too far to be turning the clock backwards. For the Trump Administration to be pushing this lawsuit is reckless and dangerous especially during the worst Public Health and economic crisis in generations. But thats not all thats at stake. A womans right to make her own Health Care Decisions and reproductive freedom is at stake. Workers rights against corporate special interests are at stake, Environmental Justice is at stake. Access to the ballot box is at stake, attempts to enthe corrosive effect of end the corrosive effect of money in elections is at stake and lgbtq are at stake. Those are just some of the many issues that a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment will be ruling on for decades to come. Judge Amy Coney Barretts nomination has extremely farreaching consequences. We are just a few days from election day. Already over two million michigan anders are michigan ganders have voted. With all thats at stake, michiganganders deserve a say in who nominates and confirms the next justice to our nations highest court and the fact that michiganganders are being denied this is unacceptable. I cannot confirm this nomination process. It should wait until a new senate and president takes Office Following an election to take place in a few days. So for this reason and many others i will not be voting for judge barretts nomination and will cast a no vote. So, mr. President , you know, here we are, instead of bringing folks together to find Common Ground on Coronavirus Relief, our country is being forced to go through a divisive Supreme Court nomination process. It simply did not have to be this way. I continue to stand ready to roll up my sleeves and put together a comprehensive, bipartisan, and meaningful covid relief package. Ask any michiganand der what they are worried about . They are worried about putting a roof over their head, worried about supporting their families, they are worried about catching a virus that has killed over 7,000 of their family and over 250,000 people across the nation, they are worried if they survive a covid infection, it will compromise their health for the rest of their lives. They will have a preexisting condition. So i ask, why isnt this pandemic the senates top priority right now . When we passed the cares act, we came together. We put politics aside and passed a real comprehensive package that kept millions of people stay afloat. We need to summon that spirit again. Michigan and americans across the country are counting on us. Mr. President , i implore my colleagues to drop what we are doing and lets come together and pass a meaningful, bipartisan covid relief package and lets get that done now. Mr. President , i yield. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from new mexico. Mr. Heinrich i rise today as more than 220,000 americans are dead from the coronavirus. There are more than four million fewer jobs than when donald trump took office. We are still squarely in the middle of this pandemic and an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the great depression. In recent weeks cases of the coronavirus have risen dramatically in my home state of new mexico and frankly across the entire country. Everyone is rightly worried about whether our schools and our Child Care Centers and our Small Businesses can acquire the resources and the equipment they need to reopen safely. We still dont have enough resources or even a National Plan for testing and contact tracing, much less for treatments and the eventual nationwide vaccine that would allow us to get a handle on this virus many and if we dont pass real Economic Relief in the coming weeks, many families in new mexico will face desperate choices between paying their bills, keeping a roof over their heads or putting food on the table. And, yet, here we are using valuable time on a Supreme Court confirmation process that should have never been taken up before the election. Senate republicans say they arent going to negotiate another Coronavirus Relief package. They say its more important to ram a Supreme Court nominee through a broken and nakedly political process than it is to help the people that we were all elected to serve. Clearly nothing, not even the lives and livelihoods of the American People, will get in the way of their power grab designed to reward their biggest donors and the most extreme interests. Well, let me say this clearly. I disagree. There is still so much we need to do to stop the spread of the coronavirus and support families, workers, businesses who are struggling and real build our communities and rebuild our communities. Lets move to that urgent action. But with Senate Republicans refusing to do that, lets discuss in real terms what they are doing instead. Considering and confirming Supreme Court nominees is one of a senators most solemn duties under the constitution. We are supposed to take it seriously, deliberately, but Senate Republicans have thrown out the rule book. It started when with nearly a full year remaining in president obamas final term, Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on Merrick Garland. Then they dismantled the rules to ensure that both parties would have a Supreme Court nominations and they rushed Justice Kavanaughs nomination to the court in spite of allegations of sexual misconduct. It should come as no surprise that majority leader mcconnell waited an hour after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to say he was going to push the envelope even further. So here we are. Leader mcconnell and republicans are now forcing the senate to rush through another partisan Supreme Court confirmation battle, mere weeks, now mere days before election day. They are shamelessly disguarding their disregarding their own rules and abandoning their own words and they are trampling on the legacy of Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Before her death, she told her granddaughter that her fervent wish was that her seat wouldnt be filled until after the next president was inaugurated. Justice ginsburg served on our nations highest court for nearly three decades and worked for decades before that to move our countrys laws towards greater equality. She understood that the American People must trust that the Supreme Court justices are acting above the partisan politics of the moment. The next president ial election is now less than two weeks away. Millions of americans have already voted for their next president and their next senators. I believe that these americans deserve a voice in this process. In the words of majority leader mcconnell himself, as reported in the Washington Post on february 18, 2016, quote, given that we are in the midst of a president ial election process, the American People should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The senate should follow that precedent and should allow voters to decide who should fill this Supreme Court seat. So what has changed for majority leader mcconnell . In the last decade, the court has made razor thin 54 rulings on womens rights, lgbtq rights, immigration, civil rights, Climate Change, and much else. Now, my republican colleagues will say that these decisions were made by activist judges and that all they want are judges who will call balls and strikes. But what they really want are judges who will make those calls consistently biased towards wealth and power rather than towards people. For all the talk of activist judges, it is my republican colleagues who are right now attempting to add one whopper of an activist to the Supreme Court. Next month the Supreme Court will take up President Trumps case to eliminate the Affordable Care act in its entirety. Thats right. In the middle of this pandemic that has now killed more than 220,000 americans and infected millions more, the Supreme Court is taking up a case that could eliminate health Care Coverage for millions of americans. Now, judge barrett refused to answer questions about the Affordable Care act during her confirmation hearings last week, but her views on the Health Care Law are clear and they are exposed in the public record. Judge barrett has repeatedly and publicly criticized the Affordable Care act. She has said that the Supreme Court should have already invalidated it. If Senate Republicans have their way, she will have the opportunity to do just that. And what would it mean if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care act . It means bringing back discrimination, higher costs, even outright denial of coverage for more than 800,000 new mexicans living with preexisting conditions like Heart Disease, diabetes, cancer, and now covid19. I am particularly worried about what this would mean for the people in Indian Country who have been disproportionately impacted by this pandemic. In new mexico tribal nations have experienced heartbreaking losses and Health Care Resources in the tribal communities have been incredibly strained. I have lost friends and mentors in Indian Country and i know others who are still struggling to recover from this virus. I cannot even imagine how much worse this situation could become if the Health Coverage provided by the Affordable Care act were ripped away. When we passed the Affordable Care act, i fought hard to include a permanent reauthorization of the entire Indian Health care improvement act which supports the care provided to native americans through the Indian Health service. An estimated 290,000 American Indians and alaska natives also gained Health Coverage through the Affordable Care act Medicaid Expansion. All of that is at risk if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care act. If judge barrett is confirmed, she will also attack other important Supreme Court press precedents Court Precedents from roe v. Wade to the recent Marriage Equality decisions. Now, she dodged questions on these issues during her hearing, but her academic and judicial record make clear judge barretts extreme belief and philosophy. In her hearing last week, judge barrett also refused to take a firm view on Climate Change. Now we have major wildfires burning right now in northern new mexico in october, colorado, california seeing much of the same. We dont have time to debate the undisputed facts and realities of Climate Change especially with a judge that would strip us of the tools needed to address it. Telling, judge barrett refused to recuse herself related to the upcoming president ial election. Given that President Trump considers judge barrett his justice, it creates a dangerous conflict of interest. Its also a very real threat to the foundation of the Supreme Court as an equal and independent branch of government. Meanwhile, instead of attempting to tear down our democracy, the house of representatives has passed multiple Coronavirus Relief bills over the last six months that would help workers and families, and they are already willing and able to negotiate with the president , to negotiate with leader mcconnell, to come to some sort of bipartisan agreement. But majority leader mcconnell and Senate Republicans have walked away from the negotiating table, leaving us with nothing but false promises, sham bills to provide themselves a little political cover before an election. We all know the real story here. Behind closed doors, majority leader mcconnell is actively discouraging negotiations on a bipartisan relief bill. Let me say this to majority leader mcconnell and all of my republican colleagues. If voters reelect your republican majority and President Trump, there will be plenty of time to move forward with a real and legitimate Supreme Court confirmation process. Right now, we should be focusing all of our energy on delivering the aid that americans so desperately need. Protecting the health and the economic wellbeing of americans, that is what our country expects of us. That is our duty. Lets get to it. Mr. President , i yield the floor