[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 181 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6388-S6397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       VOTE ON MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
proceed to legislative session.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. 
Sinema) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Ex.]

                                YEAS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Harris
     Jones
     Rubio
     Sinema
  The motion was rejected


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Michael Jay Newman, of Ohio, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Southern District of Ohio.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, John Boozman, Lindsey 
           Graham, Mike Crapo, Marsha Blackburn, Tim Scott, Roy 
           Blunt, Mike Rounds, Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, John 
           Thune, Todd Young, Lamar Alexander, John Hoeven, Thom 
           Tillis, Cindy Hyde-Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Michael Jay Newman, of Ohio, to be United States District 
Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S6389]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. 
Sinema) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Ex.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--31

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harris
     Jones
     Sinem
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are 
31.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Democratic leader.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this morning, the Judiciary Committee 
voted Amy Coney Barrett out in violation of its rules. The rules of the 
Judiciary Committee say, before you can vote a nominee to the floor, 
there must be two members of the minority. That has been obeyed by 
Democrats and Republicans for a very long time. I remember it in 
existence for all of the years I was on the Judiciary. Yet, typical of 
this Republican majority, when there were not two Democrats there, they 
just steamrolled the nominee through in violation of the rules. That 
has been typical. This whole thing has been a steamroller operation of 
one of the most important appointments we can all make--weeks before a 
Presidential election--of a nominee whose views, in the judgment of 
most Americans, are far away on healthcare, on reproductive rights, on 
labor unions, and on guns from where the average American is.
  It is a steamroller, and this was in violation of the rules, which is 
not surprising given this rush to judgment--given this maniacal desire 
to get this nominee through before Americans vote. It is in violation 
of the rules.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Barrett nomination 
should not be placed on the Executive Calendar because it was reported 
in violation of the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nomination was reported in accordance with 
the Standing Rules of the Senate. The point of order is not sustained.


                       Appeal Ruling of the Chair

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The question is on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wants to be clear about the question 
before the body.
  The question is, On the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
  The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the 
roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. 
Sinema) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 212 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harris
     Jones
     Sinema
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, and the nays 
are 44.
  The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I spent some one-on-one time yesterday 
with Amy Coney Barrett. I had the opportunity to be able to ask her 
questions about agency deference, about religious liberty, and about 
the responsibility of the three branches of government and the 
separation of those. We spent time talking about antitrust laws, Tribal 
laws, and all sorts of things to walk through some things that were not 
covered in the hearing time.
  I walked away even more impressed with her as a leader, her 
knowledge, her judicial temperament, her sense of responsibility, the 
awe that she is taking on this responsibility that the Nation would ask 
her to do.
  It stands in stark contrast to some of the conversations I have had 
with some of my colleagues on the other side and from the hearings over 
the last week where, most of the time, my colleagues spent their time 
saying that people should be afraid of this mother of seven, that she 
is a terrifying individual who will take away your healthcare, who will 
take away your right to be able to destroy your unborn child if you 
choose to, that she is racist and that she is anti-woman, which I 
thought were the ultimate challenges to her as a woman herself, 
obviously, and when she was challenged over and over again about being 
a racist and a segregationist. She is the mother of a multiracial 
family.
  It is a bizarre side-by-side to actually meet the actual person and 
to go through the law versus hearing the descriptions.
  Amy Coney Barrett is a native of New Orleans, LA. She is the daughter 
of a lawyer and a teacher, the oldest of seven children. She has been 
married to her husband Jesse for 21 years. She herself is the mother of 
seven children, as I mentioned before--Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, 
Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin. We got to watch them sitting behind her, 
quietly watching, proudly, their mom.
  She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School. After 
graduating from law school, she clerked for DC Circuit Judge Laurence 
Silberman and for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She was 
challenged over and over again, with people saying: You are just like 
Scalia. She kept responding very calmly to people: ``I have my own 
mind.'' She practiced both trial and appellate litigation.
  Judge Barrett also worked for more than 15 years in academia. She was 
a distinguished legal scholar at the Notre Dame Law School, the 
University of Virginia School of Law, and George Washington University 
Law School. She published articles in the

[[Page S6390]]

Columbia, Virginia, Texas, and Cornell law reviews. Three graduating 
classes at Notre Dame Law have selected Judge Barrett as the 
Distinguished Professor of the Year.
  In 2017, she was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Seventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals and was confirmed by this Senate with a 
bipartisan vote. Judge Barrett's colleagues at Notre Dame signed a 
letter supporting her 2017 nomination, calling her ``a model of the 
fair, impartial and sympathetic judge.'' Since joining the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, Judge Barrett has 
participated in over 600 cases.
  The ABA Standing Committee issued Judge Barrett a ``well qualified'' 
rating based on ``the qualities of integrity, professional competence, 
and judicial temperament.''
  When confirmed, Justice Barrett will be the fifth woman to serve on 
the Supreme Court in its history. She will be the first mother of 
school-age children to serve on the Court. She will be the only sitting 
member of the Court to have graduated from a law school other than 
Harvard or Yale. She will also be the second sitting member of the 
Court to have been born in the South and only the second member in the 
Court's history to have been born in Louisiana. She will be the only 
sitting member of the Court to have served on the Seventh Circuit, 
which hears cases arising out of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
  During the Judiciary Committee hearings, we heard testimony from 
Laura Wolk, a former student of Judge Barrett's. It was remarkable 
testimony.
  She said, in part:

       [S]hould you confirm Amy Barrett, the country will receive 
     something far greater than simply an unparalleled legal mind. 
     The Supreme Court--and therefore all Americans--will gain the 
     service of one of the kindest individuals I have ever known. 
     Her brilliance is matched only by her compassion, and her 
     honesty is beyond reproach.
       I do not speak in mere abstractions. Rather, I have 
     experienced these characteristics firsthand, with life-
     changing results. . . . Judge Barrett described a mentor who 
     gave her a treasured book of literature to commemorate their 
     relationship. Judge Barrett has now passed that torch onto 
     me, giving me a gift of immeasurable value: the ability to 
     pursue an abundant life with the potential to break down 
     barriers so that I can leave this world a better place than I 
     found it.

  I could not agree more with her or with her colleagues and peers 
about her superb qualifications and preparedness to serve in this role. 
As an originalist and a textualist, her commitment to both the role of 
the Court and the rule of law are clear. To read her opinions from the 
perspective of the losing party demonstrates her fairness, her empathy, 
and her temperament as a judge.
  Beyond her resume and accolades, her character, her commitment to 
faith and family, and her service to her students and the community 
should not go overlooked. Judge Barrett has my unqualified, full 
support, and I look forward to voting for her nomination in the next 
few days.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Maryland.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1060

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, every day we see more Americans dying 
from COVID-19 and more Americans contracting this virus. As of today, 
we have hit the awful mark of over 220,000 Americans dead from COVID-
19, the highest death level in the entire world, and, with that, we are 
also experiencing the economic fallout and pain that has come with it.
  It did not have to be this way. President Trump knew about this 
deadly virus early on, and he could have and should have acted. But 
even at this moment, there are things that this U.S. Senate can be 
doing to both stop the spread of the virus and ease the economic pain. 
We could be taking up and voting on the legislation that passed the 
House of Representatives called the Heroes Act, which is a 
comprehensive emergency relief package for the American people--both 
addressing testing and contact tracing and other issues to stop the 
spread of the virus and providing essential economic relief to American 
families, workers, and businesses that are struggling from the fallout.
  But we haven't even had a chance to vote on that bill here in the 
U.S. Senate. The Heroes Act was passed by the House more than 5 months 
ago, and then, recently, the House passed a revised version called 
Heroes 2.0. We tried to get a vote on that just this past Tuesday here 
in the U.S. Senate. It was blocked by the Republican leader, Senator 
McConnell, and here we have 12 days to go until the election. Instead 
of focusing on that relief, we are trying to rush through and use an 
illegitimate process to put another Justice on the Court.
  But there is something else that we should also be doing now instead 
of rushing a Justice on the Court, in addition to the Heroes Act, and 
that is defending the integrity of our democratic process and the 
integrity of our elections.
  That is what brings me to the floor today because we have, of course, 
a few days to go--12 days, to be exact--to get to the election. Yet it 
has been years--not just 1 year, not just 2 years, not just 3 years--
years when some of us have been pushing to enact legislation here to 
defend against foreign interference in our elections--Russian 
interference, which we have known about since 2016, and interference 
from other adversaries.
  So, yesterday, we heard from the Director of National Intelligence 
that there are foreign actors interfering in our elections and 
attempting to disrupt our process--Russia and Iran. Well, the question 
for the U.S. Senate is not the issue of whether we were going to have 
foreign interference. The question for the U.S. Senate is, Why did we 
sit back and do nothing about it for 3 years--for 3 years?
  Senator Rubio and I introduced a bipartisan bill. It is called the 
DETER Act, which is very straightforward. It says that if we catch 
Russia and Putin interfering in our elections again, there will be 
automatic, swift sanctions, so if you are Vladimir Putin and you are 
thinking about interfering in our elections, you will know there will 
be a certain price to pay. Right now, it is cost-free to the Russians 
and cost-free to other adversaries.
  Our bill called for the executive branch to put together a plan to 
respond and establish upfront penalties not just for Russian 
interference but for interference from any adversary. That is the way 
you deter interference in the first place. You can't stop interference 
if there is no cost to be borne by the adversary seeking to disrupt 
your process. That is pretty simple.
  We have used the idea and concept of deterrence in many other cases 
to try to keep the peace. Yet, here we are, talking about safeguarding 
our democracy by putting in place a very simple mechanism to say to 
anyone who wants to undermine faith in the democratic process or 
support a particular candidate--as Russia did in 2016 and as they have 
worked to do over the last couple of years in favor of President 
Trump--to put in place a process where they know if they get caught, 
they will be punished, and I don't mean punishing a few oligarchs. I am 
not talking about punishing a few bureaucrats who may be responsible 
for actually doing the disruption, but creating penalties on the 
Russian economy--the banking sector, the energy sector--because we all 
know that you don't have Russian bureaucrats and intelligence officials 
interfere in our elections without the green light from the very top, 
and that is true of other adversaries who seek to interfere in our 
elections.
  So the real question is, Why do we continue to see stonewalling on 
this simple legislation? Why does the Trump administration continue to 
oppose it? And why doesn't the Senate do its job as an independent 
body, supposedly, to protect the integrity of our elections?
  Here is what President Trump said just a few years ago in Helsinki 
when he was side by side with President Putin. President Trump said:

       My people came to me--Dan Coats came to me and some 
     others--they said they think it's Russia. I have President 
     Putin; he just said it's not Russia.
       I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. . 
     . . I have confidence in both parties.

  Then he went on to say:

       I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I 
     will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and 
     powerful in his denial today.

  This was years ago, yet we hear from our intelligence officials that 
Russia is still interfering. We heard that just yesterday and that 
other adversaries are interfering.

[[Page S6391]]

  But the Trump administration didn't want to do a damn thing about it, 
and, unfortunately, this body has been complicit in doing nothing--
doing nothing--to seriously protect the integrity of our elections. We 
have to keep asking ourselves the question why we would leave ourselves 
defenseless. The only thing you can keep going back to are these 
continuing statements by President Trump talking about how he respects 
his friendship with Vladimir Putin and President Trump's actions time 
and again favoring the Russian position.

  We have a last-minute opportunity here. There are 12 days to go 
before our election. Let us, finally, in light of the information we 
got yesterday and the information we have gotten on a monthly basis, 
let us, as the U.S. Senate, at least say today: If we catch you, 
Russia, if we catch you, Iran, we don't care who you are, if you are an 
adversary interfering in our elections, there will be a price to pay.
  That was a bipartisan idea more than 2 years ago. We still get a lot 
of lipservice in favor of it here on a bipartisan basis. But when it 
comes to actually doing something about it and holding a vote, time and 
again we are denied that opportunity.
  What is interesting is when this issue came up just last year as part 
of the national defense authorization bill, we had a motion on this 
floor to instruct the conferees from the House and the Senate that as 
part of the Defense authorization bill, we thought it was important to 
also protect our democracy from interference. We said that you should 
include a provision like the DETER Act. But as soon as that got behind 
closed doors, there was a furious effort by the Republican Senate 
leader and the Trump administration to prevent that from happening. I 
had numerous conversations with my colleague from the House side, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and it was opposed by the 
administration and opposed by the Republican Senate.
  So here we are. Nobody should be surprised by what we heard 
yesterday. The surprise for the American people has got to be: Why the 
hell didn't we do anything about this for 3 years? We brought everybody 
together after 2016. I remember we lined up all the intelligence 
officials, including recent appointees by President Trump, and they all 
told us what had happened in 2016. Everybody said we are going to work 
really hard to stop it from happening in 2020. Yet one thing that we 
could do to make it clear upfront that there would be a price to pay, 
we have not done. Shame on the U.S. Senate for not moving forward.
  There are 12 days left. The clock is ticking. Let's finally take 
action so at least our adversaries will know that there will be a price 
to pay if they continue in these final 12 days to try to interfere in 
our election process.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 1060, the DETER Act, and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Idaho
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this morning 
the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out Judge Amy Coney Barrett's 
nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. I was proud to vote for her in 
committee.
  Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to 
boycott the executive session. In addition, each day, the Democratic 
leader has attempted to adjourn the Senate.
  They say that the Senate should not be working on the nomination of 
Amy Coney Barrett, and that it is delaying work on COVID relief. Now we 
hear today that we are delaying work and not even engaging in any 
response to the election interference that we knew 4 years ago occurred 
and which, as my colleague said, nobody should be surprised that we 
heard again that there are efforts on election interference by Russia, 
by Iran, and others.
  Yesterday, there were three different live unanimous consent requests 
like this to bypass committees and immediately pass legislation without 
debate or amendments. These motions to adjourn and take-it-or-leave-it 
requests are a fight over the Senate floor schedule rather than 
building the necessary bipartisan support to pass needed legislation.
  We are told that we haven't done anything for 4 years, turning to 
focus specifically on the question of election interference. The 
reality is that we have already signed into law the Countering 
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act--or CAATSA--the BRINK Act; 
the Hong Kong Autonomy Act that substantially expanded sanctions on 
Russia, North Korea, and China; and the White House, in addition, has 
taken steps to use its IEEPA authority to impose additional targeted 
sanctions on those who attempted to interfere in the U.S. election.
  We are told we aren't doing anything to work on the COVID relief 
package. My colleague from Maryland mentioned that they tried to pass 
the Heroes Act here in the Senate through a similar tactic that we are 
seeing today with regard to the DETER Act. What he didn't point out was 
that twice we have tried to bring forward a $500 billion COVID relief 
package on the floor of this Senate only to have the effort to even 
move to the bill rejected by our colleagues on the other side. And we 
tried to bring forward the PPP Act just 2 days ago, only to have that 
act stopped by our colleagues on the other side of the Senate who now 
tell us that we aren't trying to pass legislation to help deal with 
COVID relief.
  The reality is that we won't accept--without debate or amendment--
their take-it-or-leave-it proposals, and we need to get a bill on the 
floor to start dealing with these things.
  Let's go back to election interference because I found it just 
remarkable that the claim is made that when we passed major 
legislation--with over 90 Senators on this floor voting for it--that 
put specific sanction authority and sanctions on Russia for election 
interference, for its aggression in Crimea, and for its other 
aggressive behavior around the globe--particularly its cyber security 
violations--and we have been implementing sanctions for that entire 
period of time. I just want to review a little bit of it.
  On top of it, as I indicated, the President has used his IEEPA 
authority for additional sanctions activity. The President signed an 
Executive order that allows for sanctions on any nation or individual 
who authorizes, directs, or sponsors interference in our elections.
  The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the President last 
year, included numerous provisions designed to strengthen our 
deterrence against foreign interference.
  The President has taken a strong stand against Russia for its malign 
activities, including imposing sanctions on more than 300 separate 
Russian-related targets through 32 distinct actions; imposing sanctions 
against 7 Russian oligarchs, their 12 companies and 17 senior Russian 
government officials; establishing rolling designations to strengthen 
sanctions in response to Russian aggression against Ukraine and Russian 
efforts to evade sanctions on North Korea, Syria, Iran, and others; 
imposing sanctions against 16 entities and individuals, including 
affiliates of the Russian Internet Research Agency for their roles in 
Russian interference in our elections; imposing sanctions against three 
individuals and five entities in Sudan assisting the IRA financier, 
Prigozhin, in evading previously imposed sanctions; designating three 
additional IRA actors for supporting the IRA's crypto currency 
accounts; imposing sanctions on Russian-related oil brokers for their 
role in assisting the circumvention of sanctions against Venezuela; 
expelling 60 Russian intelligence officers from the United States. And 
the list goes on. The argument that this administration and this Senate 
have done nothing is simply false.
  Let's just talk a little more about election interference. The 
administration here, domestically, has taken unprecedented action to 
bolster the security of our elections and to counter foreign malign 
influence. President Trump signed into legislation passed by this 
Senate that spent more than $1.2 billion in the States for election

[[Page S6392]]

security, infrastructure strengthening, and technological enhancements.
  The President funded the formation of the Election Infrastructure 
Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a center which helps share 
security information with elected officials across all 50 States and 
more than 2,400 local and territorial electoral offices.
  The administration has conducted hundreds of cyber security 
assessments at no cost to election officials and provides vulnerability 
reports on a weekly basis.
  The administration has traveled the country to hold exercises in 
training with State and local election officials and their private 
sector partners to improve and test their ability to prepare for and 
respond to cyber incidents
  The administration has held multiple national-level tabletop-to-vote 
exercises with thousands of State and local election officials and 
private sector partners nationwide.
  The administration has provided tailored security guidance to nearly 
6,000 local election jurisdictions.
  Under President Trump, the administration has pushed to increase the 
security of elections through auditable paper ballots, and now more 
than 92 percent of the voters in the general election will cast their 
ballots with an auditable paper record.
  I could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is, yes, we do 
need to work and continue to be alert--and my colleague from Maryland 
knows that I am willing to work on these issues--but we can't just 
continue to have these take-it-or-leave-it, no-amendment, no-
opportunity-for-change unanimous consent requests in the context of the 
obstruction effort being undertaken right now to try to delay and 
interfere with a vote on Amy Coney Barrett.
  We can work on all of these issues. I invite my colleagues on the 
other side to vote yes the next time we try to bring a COVID relief 
bill to the floor.
  Because of these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the comments, 
but to suggest that this is a fight over the schedule and not an effort 
to protect our elections from what we know is an ongoing and continuing 
imminent threat, I believe, misses the point entirely.
  He mentioned that this is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I would 
suggest that the Senate has already taken this because we voted 
unanimously last year, as part of the Defense authorization bill, to 
adopt this provision as part of our national defense to defend our 
democracy. Every single Senator voted--or no one came forward to object 
at that time. Yet here we are 12 days out from election, no action 
taken. We get this report yesterday about foreign interference, and 
nobody should say: Oh, we are shocked there is foreign interference in 
our election going on. The shocking thing is we haven't done enough.
  I appreciate him listing some of the actions the administration took 
about particular Russian individuals, oligarchs, but as you know, and 
as we know, the DETER Act is not aimed at just punishing particular 
bureaucrats and apparatchiks who are obeying the orders of President 
Putin. The whole idea is to deter President Putin by making him 
understand that he and his country will pay a price if they interfere 
by sanctions on the banking sector and on the all-important energy 
sector in Russia.
  In order to stop interference, we need to do two things: We need to 
harden our systems at home. My colleague mentioned some of the actions 
that have been taken to do that. I will remind my colleagues that 
Democrats put forward the proposal for more resources for State and 
local governments to harden those defenses, and it was only after a big 
fight and lots of opposition from the Republican leader here in the 
Senate that we were able to get those funds. Additional funds have been 
sitting in the Heroes Act which passed the House 5 months ago and yet 
nothing.
  In the proposal put forward the other day by the Republican leader, 
there was no more money to harden our defenses. But hardening our 
defenses is not enough. What you want to do is prevent the attacks in 
the first place, prevent the interference in the first place. And so 
long as that is cost-free to Vladimir Putin or any other adversary, 
they are going to go for it. They have got nothing to lose. They have 
got everything to gain by sowing more unrest and lack of confidence 
here.
  So the way to deal with that is the DETER Act. And the Senate agreed, 
at least with that unanimous vote a little while ago, and then nothing 
happened. Yet, we got report after report from our intelligence 
community that--no surprise--we have this ongoing interference.
  The Senator mentioned all these actions the Trump administration has 
taken. Obviously, Vladimir Putin didn't get the message. He didn't get 
the message. Taking pinprick actions after the fact isn't going to 
scare off Vladimir Putin or any of our adversaries. The only way to get 
them to focus and stop interfering is to say now, up front, that if you 
cross this wire, if you trip this threshold and interfere in our 
elections in certain substantial ways, it is going to hurt--not just 
somebody in the bowels of your bureaucracy or one intelligence officer 
or five or ten, but it is going to hurt, and you are going to feel the 
pain in your country.
  So I must say I remain incredibly disappointed that, even at this 
late hour, we are unwilling, as a body, to take this very important 
action, just as we have been unwilling to act on the Heroes Act, both 
the first version and the second version.
  I think, as my colleagues know, the Democratic leader has proposed 
that we adjourn subject to being called back for the purpose of acting 
on a bipartisan agreement, which we would all like to see, on a COVID-
19 response bill but something which the Republican Senate leader has 
said he is unwilling to pursue, even the contours of an agreement that 
have been discussed between Speaker Pelosi and the administration. The 
majority leader continues to block that, and we continue to see today 
blocking a measure to protect our democracy with 12 days to go before 
November 3.
  So, again, I think we are going to rue the day that we weren't clear, 
up front, that the United States is going to stand up and protect its 
democratic process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, just to briefly respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, first of all, the notion that there has 
been blockage of a deal on this side is news to me. The notion that we 
did not accept the Heroes Act from the House is not news. Trying to put 
the Heroes Act on the floor of the Senate without the opportunity for 
debate or amendment is also not the right way to try to build 
bipartisan legislation for a deal.
  I also find it incredible that this administration's actions 
sanctioning Russia are considered to be a pinprick in comparison to 
whatever greater sledgehammer is supposedly needed.
  The CAATSA legislation that I referenced, which was passed in the 
first year following the election of President Trump, which President 
Trump signed and supported, was a massive increase in American sanction 
authority against Russia--and North Korea, by the way--and has been 
utilized more by this President than any sanction authority that any 
other President has ever had. The sanction regime that we are putting 
in place today against Russia is designed to go aggressively at 
election interference. The argument that nobody is doing anything is 
simply wrong.
  Now, I stand ready to work to build even stronger sanction regimes 
that can work without destroying our own economy or work without 
destroying our own industry in different sectors, which is part of the 
problem with the bill that is being proposed without amendment here 
today. But we need to recognize that the accusations that this 
administration and this Senate do not take election interference 
seriously when we passed the most significant, sweeping legislation 
that has ever been passed in this country to deal with it--and that 
there is no effort to try to work on the COVID relief package--is just 
part of, frankly, the political attack of the day.
  I am sorry. This is simply wrong. If we want to work together on 
either of these two issues or other issues, we can

[[Page S6393]]

on this floor, but we can't do it by these kinds of motions to adjourn 
and unanimous consent requests to bring bills to the floor and pass 
them without amendment. It is just not the way. And my colleague knows 
this is the kind of thing that Republicans and Democrats do. They want 
to bring attention to their legislation. But that is not the way you 
build a bipartisan agreement that can actually become law.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief in response.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It has bipartisan cosponsorship. We have 
been working for 3 years. We have made changes. And the proof that 
everything we are doing right now is not working is the fact that we 
just had the DNI say we continue to have Russian interference and other 
interference in our election. That is why we have to do something.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the colloquy here between 
our colleagues on election interference. I am privileged to serve on 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that has undertaken a 3\1/
2\-year-long investigation of the election interference that occurred 
in 2016, and I think the five-volume report of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence--bipartisan report--is indicative of the seriousness with 
which we all treat this subject.
  But I appreciate the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, for his comments, for refreshing all of our memories about 
the huge amounts of money that we have spent in assistance to State and 
local election authorities, as well as the good work being done by the 
Department of Homeland Security to help them secure their networks 
against cyber attacks, as well as other elements of the U.S. 
Government, including our intelligence community, the National Security 
Agency, and others.
  This is important work, but I agree with him--this is not how we 
actually build bipartisan consensus here, by coming and asking for 
unanimous consent without going through the appropriate procedures and, 
frankly, the hard work that it takes to build consensus.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. President, on another matter, today the Senate Judiciary 
Committee advanced the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve 
on the Supreme Court.
  Throughout her hearing last week, Judge Barrett wowed America and 
certainly my constituents in Texas with her impressive knowledge of the 
law and her clear understanding about the limited but important role 
that judges play in our Republic.
  She followed the precedent set down by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the so-
called Ginsburg rule, and refrained from answering questions on how she 
would rule in future cases or commenting on contentious political 
issues. I think she was correct to do so. We shouldn't embroil judges 
in the political controversies that we debate here. Judges are not 
policymakers, primarily. They are certainly not accountable to the 
voters. They have lifetime tenure. That is why their responsibilities 
are limited but important at the same time. Nor by asking her questions 
back in 2017 about her religious beliefs, whether she is an orthodox 
Catholic, having to listen to statements like ``Well, the dogma lives 
loudly within you'' because she is a woman of faith, suggesting that 
somehow she would violate her oath as a judge and impose her own views 
instead of the law from the role--from the bench.
  Well, I think Judge Barrett took all of us to school a little bit and 
reminded us very clearly that it is a judge's job to impartially apply 
the law as written, whether it is the Constitution itself or the laws 
that Congress passes. She not only stated her commitment to this most 
basic principle, but she also has a record to back it up. During her 
time on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Barrett has sided 
with her colleagues 95 percent of the time in more than 600 cases.
  It is no surprise that the American Bar Association, which the 
minority leader has called the gold standard, gave Judge Barrett its 
highest rating, saying she is well qualified to serve on the Supreme 
Court. But we all knew that.
  As I looked around the room during the first day of questioning, I 
noticed all the binders that people like me and my other colleagues 
had--notebooks, piles of paper, books, reference books on both the 
desks of Republican and Democratic members of the committee. If my 
colleagues' materials preparing for this historic hearing were anything 
like mine, they included previous decisions by Judge Barrett, academic 
writings, letters of support, and detailed background information about 
her career.
  But I noted that, as Judge Barrett was answering our questions, she 
seemed to be doing so without even glancing down at any notes. So I 
asked Judge Barrett--I violated the No. 1 rule that you learn as a 
lawyer not to ask a question you don't know the answer to. I did it 
anyway because I had a hunch. I asked her to hold up the notepad 
sitting in front of her to show us what materials she had been using 
during the hearing. It was a memorable moment. She held it up and 
smiled, and it was blank. I think that spoke volumes about her 
competency, her preparation, her intelligence--all things that would 
commend her confirmation.
  Well, with each question she answered, Judge Barrett demonstrated her 
vast knowledge of the law. She made clear she understood, as I said, 
the limited role of judges, and she showed compassion and heart as she 
poured herself into her work each and every day.
  Numerous Senators have noted that, under ordinary circumstances, a 
nominee like this would get overwhelming support, but unfortunately 
these aren't normal circumstances. Our colleagues on the other side 
made clear from the get-go that, for them, this confirmation process 
wasn't even about the nominee or her qualifications. They attempted to 
hijack the hearing and use it for--well, it is a harsh word, but it is 
true--fearmongering.
  Last week's hearing was like split-screen TV. On one half, Republican 
Senators asked the judge about her judicial philosophy, prior rulings, 
and a range of constitutional doctrines. On the other half, our 
Democratic colleagues delivered monologues about ObamaCare--about a 
future case that she may be called upon to participate in. They 
attempted to convince the American people that if she was confirmed, 
she would somehow take away their healthcare. Well, that is, at bottom, 
an insult to the judge. It somehow presumes that she is essentially 
auditioning for the job based on her ruling in a future case. That 
would violate every aspect of a judge's oath.
  As Judge Barrett noted, judges don't make policy pronouncements; they 
decide cases. And she very carefully described the case that is pending 
in front of the Supreme Court. It is not about ObamaCare writ large; it 
is about a technical doctrine called severability: If one part of a 
statute is deemed unconstitutional--and this one, I believe, is, the 
individual mandate, because we zeroed out the penalty under the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act--the question is, Does the rest of the legislation--
does the rest of ObamaCare stand, or does it all have to be struck 
down?
  Well, she noted that there had been a number of cases decided 
recently by the current Supreme Court that seemed to treat severability 
with particular care. Indeed, as a scholastic, as an academic, I think 
she and others noted that it is not exactly appropriate for judges to 
go out and strike down statutes except to the extent that they are 
unconstitutional.
  They said: If she is not coming for your healthcare, she will serve 
corporate interests, destroy the environment, somehow chip away at our 
liberties.
  These are nothing but baseless scare tactics and stunts from our 
Democratic colleagues. The latest one came this morning, when they 
actually boycotted the Judiciary Committee vote on Judge Barrett. They 
couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote against the nominee they 
claim is a threat to our democracy. So do you know what? Judge Barrett 
was confirmed unanimously by the Senators present today.
  Instead, in their chairs, they had large photographs, much like we 
have seen at sports arenas and ballparks in the wake of the pandemic, 
since we have had to socially distance. You can't have a large crowd at 
the ballpark. So people have these cutouts.

[[Page S6394]]

That is what it looked like in the Judiciary Committee today.
  As I said, because of their antics, because of this stunt, Senator 
Graham asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the markup, and, of 
course, there was no objection because any potential objector had 
voluntarily absented themself.
  The truth of the matter is, Judge Barrett's qualifications speak 
louder than the unsubstantiated claims made by her opposition. She 
graduated at the top of her class from Notre Dame Law School. She held 
two prestigious clerkships, including on the Supreme Court. She has 
litigated in the trenches before transitioning into academia, where she 
wrote and taught constitutional law, about our Federal courts and 
statutory interpretation. And, as I said, for the last 3 years, she has 
put all of that great experience and training to work on the Seventh 
Circuit.
  This is an exceptional judge with a clear record of faithfully and 
impartially applying the law, and she will bring additional value to 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  One of the things I thought was so remarkable is that Judge Barrett 
is also an incredible role model. I think her elevation to the highest 
Court in the land should be an encouragement to young women who aspire 
to professional success and as a great role model on how to balance 
what we all try to figure out how to balance, which is your 
professional and your personal life. She and her husband do a marvelous 
job with their seven children, both being full-time professionals.
  If confirmed, she would be the first mother of school-aged children 
to serve as a Justice and only the fifth woman to serve on the high 
Court. She would also be the first Justice on the current Court with a 
degree from a law school other than Yale and Harvard and bring much 
needed educational diversity to the bench.
  Judge Amy Coney Barrett will serve our country well on the high 
Court, and I have full faith in her ability to faithfully and 
impartially apply the law as written.
  I want to thank Chairman Graham for leading a fair and respectful 
hearing. The ranking member, Senator Feinstein, made that observation, 
and I thought that was very generous and civil of her. I would note 
that many of the more radical folks on the left have attacked Senator 
Feinstein for her civility, and they are just wrong. I think she 
remains a good role model for all of us. We can have our disagreements 
without being rude or uncivil or disagreeable. I think Senator 
Feinstein is a model for that.
  I am proud to support Judge Barrett's nomination in the Judiciary 
Committee, and I look forward to voting for her next week on the Senate 
floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, there are a lot of inscriptions--famous 
words, inspirational sayings--that are detailed into and painted onto 
the walls of the Capitol. One of my favorites, which I think also 
happens to be one of the shortest, adorns a wall, I believe, on the way 
into the House Chamber. The saying is attributed to Alexander Hamilton, 
and it reads, simply: Here, Sir, People Govern.
  Here, Sir, People Govern. It is purposeful that that quote finds its 
way onto the walls of the Capitol Building because this is the branch 
of government that is given primacy by our Founders. It is no 
coincidence that we are the article I branch. Governing--the process of 
setting the rules by which the country lives--is supposed to happen 
here, in the article I branch, the elected wing of American democracy.
  But as all of my colleagues know, there has been very little 
governing here happening of late. This Congress--this Senate--has been 
effectively dead. Here in the Senate, half the normal bills have been 
passed during this Congress, compared to normal years, and nearly one-
third of that legislation that we have finished has just been renaming 
postal buildings or authorizing commemorative coins. In fact, over the 
last 2 years, the Senate has spent floor time on a grand total of 20--
20--pieces of legislation that weren't routine or emergency spending 
measures. That is less than one bill a month. We are getting paid 
$170,000 a year to work on one substantive piece of legislation every 
30 days.
  Now, perhaps you could intellectually reconcile this legislative 
desert if there were no problems to solve in America, if not a single 
major change in law was necessary. That, of course, is not the case. A 
pandemic disease has killed over 200,000 Americans. An opioid crisis 
that rages largely unchecked took another 70,000 lives last year, just 
in drug overdoses alone. One out of 10 Americans are out of work today. 
Wildfires and hurricanes and droughts, caused by a man-made warming of 
the planet, ravage our landscape. No, there are really big problems 
that need to be solved--deadly problems, existential problems.
  I keep searching for the reason that no legislation is happening 
here, especially since the Senate does actually seem to be doing 
something. I mean, I am here voting most weekdays. So we must not be 
totally out of business. No, in fact, the Senate has been doing 
something, and that something is confirming judges to a record number 
of vacancies in the Federal court system.
  Those record vacancies were created by Senator McConnell, who 
refused--refused--to confirm any judicial nominees, including to the 
Supreme Court, during President Obama's final 2 years in office. And 
the primary reason that Senator McConnell has stopped passing 
legislation and has turned this institution into a judge-confirming 
simple machine is because the modern Republican Party currently owns a 
policy agenda that is about as popular as a pair of wet socks.
  More people without health insurance and higher rates? Nobody wants 
that. Easier access for dark money to influence Congress? Not very 
popular. Less regulation of financial companies and polluters? No, few 
people out there are clamoring for that. The criminalization of 
abortion? Not a big groundswell in America. The elimination of the 
firearms background check system? Yes, pretty much everybody hates that 
idea too.
  You see, no parts of that agenda can actually pass Congress. 
Certainly not now, with Democrats in charge of the House. But they 
couldn't even get it done when they had control of the Senate, the 
House, and the White House. They spent months trying to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, for instance, but because Republicans figured out 
that they would all lose their seats if they repealed the law, they 
gave up and walked away.
  Frankly, they gave up on it all, not just because they feared the 
electoral backlash--no, also because they found another way to get 
their agenda done. You see, Republicans found another place for that 
Alexander Hamilton quote. It turns out that they can't--or they don't 
want to--govern here. But they found a way to get another branch of 
government, insulated almost completely from popular opinion, to 
implement their world view. They want that inscription--Here, Sir, 
People Govern--to move to a building a block away, on the other side of 
First Street--the U.S. Supreme Court.
  With the elevation of Amy Coney Barrett to that Court, Republicans 
will have completed their methodical, careful surgical procedure--the 
transplant of American rule setting from the abdominal cavity of this 
building to that of the building across the street.
  I want to explain what I mean by this, but, first, let's just lay 
down an obvious predicate about the process that brought us to this 
moment. It is important. Senate Republicans were not telling the truth, 
as it turned out, when they said in 2016 that they believed the Senate 
shouldn't confirm a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of a 
President's term. Shocker--they didn't actually mean what they said. 
They said it, in 2016, to try to put some lazy, razor-thin veneer of 
intellectual legitimacy on their refusal to let President Obama fill a 
vacancy on the Supreme Court, as was his duty and right under the 
Constitution. But we know now that their obstruction of Merrick Garland 
was, of course, just a simple, naked, anti-democratic, anti-
constitutional power grab.

  They should have just admitted it then because at least it would have 
avoided the mind-blowing hypocrisy of this sudden, stunning reversal of 
position. Now, suddenly, all of a sudden it is OK to confirm a Justice 
in the last year of a President's term--in the last few months of an 
election, while people

[[Page S6395]]

are actually voting, as it turns out. Of course, it is, because all 
that matters here now is power. We get that. We will remember. The 
rules have changed. The Republicans changed them. You went back on your 
word. And it makes this whole process lack legitimacy.
  It is important to stipulate that, but it is an insufficient 
explanation, admittedly, of my opposition to Amy Coney Barrett, because 
the consequences of this nomination go far beyond the downward spiral 
upon which Republicans have placed this institution. No, the real 
travesty here is that transplant of lawmaking from here to the Supreme 
Court and what it is going to mean for regular people out there when 5 
of 300 million Americans--5 people who are unelected and totally 
unaccountable to popular opinion--start changing the rules under which 
we all live because the rule changes they support and their political 
movements support are so wildly unpopular that they couldn't be passed 
in Congress. So they had to be enacted over in the Supreme Court.
  Seventy times since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 
Republicans have tried to gut all or part of the law. Thirty-one times 
the Republicans tried to repeal it in its entirety. They shut down the 
entire Federal Government for 2 weeks, trying to strong-arm Democrats 
to acquiesce to their demands to end health insurance for 20 million 
Americans. But all 31 times, they failed--most spectacularly, of 
course, in the summer of 2017.
  So, having failed here at this political imperative, Republicans 
turned to the courts. Senator Cornyn kind of explained what they did 
for you in his remarks just before mine. He said, Republicans put into 
the 2017 tax bill a relatively small change to the Affordable Care Act 
that opened it up to judicial assault. Then, not coincidentally, 
Republican attorneys general, joined by President Trump, sued to 
invalidate the entire law because of that one small change. Senator 
Cornyn talked about severability. That is not what the plaintiffs in 
the case, including President Trump, are asking for. They are asking 
for that change in law to bring down the entirety of the ACA, and 
President Trump confirmed that, once again, today in an interview on 
``60 Minutes.''
  A Republican-appointed judge ruled for Trump at the district court, 
and then a Trump-appointed, McConnell-confirmed judge provided the 
decisive vote at the appeals court in favor of striking down the law. 
Now that entire law is up for legal challenge at the Supreme Court, 
and--surprise--the hearing to invalidate the entirety of the Affordable 
Care Act is in 3 weeks.
  You wonder why we are rushing through this nomination in record time. 
Amy Coney Barrett, who has already stated on the record that she thinks 
the law, even before the changes in the tax bill were made, is 
unconstitutional, has been selected specifically in order to be the 
fifth vote to invalidate the Affordable Care Act.
  That is not conspiratorial thinking. That is the President's word. He 
has said he is not going to put people on the Supreme Court unless they 
do the opposite of what John Roberts did.
  The same goes for Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. They have all 
been picked for the Court because of their willingness to bend the law 
and the Constitution, through this riotously flexible doctrine called 
originalism, to comply with Republican requests of the Court. This new 
crowd of jurists that are trained, midwifed, and championed by 
Republican political associations like the Federalist Society are 
brought up through the farm system and up to the majors to do one 
thing, to win games for the franchise--the pro-corporate, anti-worker, 
modern Republican Party.
  Really, Coney Barrett's confirmation is just the final act of this 
plan to make the Supreme Court do what the Republican Congress 
couldn't--in this case, end the Affordable Care Act and the insurance 
it provides for 23 million Americans and the protections that it gives 
to 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions.
  I love this argument that Republicans use that all of a sudden we 
shouldn't worry about what is about to happen on the Supreme Court, 
that it is all a construction of our imagination that there is some 
effort under way to invalidate the Affordable Care Act.
  I didn't just wake up yesterday. I have been in Congress since the 
passage of the Affordable Care Act. I have watched the methodical, 
daily, unending campaign of Republicans to strike down the entirety of 
the Affordable Care Act. I watched them make the change to the tax law 
when they couldn't repeal it through Congress. I then watched 
mainstream Republican attorneys general all together, en masse, bring a 
case to invalidate the entire law. I watched the Trump administration 
break with precedent and join that suit, arguing against his own 
government's position.
  Now I have watched this Senate elevate three people to the Supreme 
Court who have been brought up through that same political movement and 
will vote to end those protections in the Affordable Care Act. My eyes 
have been opened these last 10 years. I know what is going on, and so 
do the American people.
  Joe is a constituent of mine from East Haven. He says:

       After working for decades, I was one of millions laid-off 
     due to the covid-19 economic disaster. Not only was my 
     livelihood destroyed, but my health insurance disappeared 
     along with it. I am not old enough for Medicare nor young 
     enough to feel secure without health insurance. Private 
     insurance and COBRA are simply too expensive for the average 
     middle class individual who now has no income. The ACA is my 
     only option for healthcare coverage.

  Margaret from Enfield, CT, says:

       My husband had a near fatal heart attack 2 years ago. He 
     has recovered but requires on-going monitoring. He now has a 
     ``preexisting condition.'' He was laid off from his job . . . 
     six weeks ago [a job he had for 28 years]. We have no income, 
     and [we have] to pay . . . to have his health care continued. 
     Without the ACA, we would not only have no income, but also 
     no health insurance. We would be destitute trying to pay his 
     health care bills.

  Imagine 23 million people losing health insurance in the middle of a 
pandemic. But that is why we are rushing through Amy Coney Barrett's 
nomination--because there is this chance, finally, to grab the brass 
ring, to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. If you don't get Amy Coney 
Barrett on the Court by the time that hearing happens in 3 weeks, it 
makes that effort a lot harder.
  Healthcare isn't the only area of our daily lives that will be 
changed if Amy Coney Barrett turns the Supreme Court into a new 
legislative body. Let me take you down another rabbit hole: the use of 
the Supreme Court to rewrite the Nation's firearm laws.
  The National Rifle Association's vice grip over Congress is nearly 
over. Evidence of that comes from the 2017-2018 legislative session, 
when the NRA controlled both Houses of Congress, had their man sitting 
in the Oval Office, and they had priorities, but they couldn't get any 
of them called up for a vote. Then, in 2018, 30-plus NRA A-rated House 
Members were removed from office by their voters and replaced by 
supporters of measures like universal background checks and bans on AR-
15s. NRA-sponsored measures can't even get a vote in a Republican 
Congress anymore because they are so unpopular.
  But just like ACA repeal, the window, though it is closed here to 
weaken our Nation's gun laws, remains open on the Supreme Court. Once 
again, it is time to abandon legislative action and for Republicans to 
turn to the Court.
  Amy Coney Barrett represents the vanguard of the new, radical, out-
of-the-box pro-gun industry thinking on the definition of the Second 
Amendment. It is the kind of radical, new thinking that is necessary if 
one wants the courts, rather than the legislature, to invalidate 
background checks laws, something an elected body could never, ever, 
ever do, what with 90 percent of the Americans supporting universal 
background checks.
  Amy Coney Barrett's opinion in Kanter v. Barr is a sight to behold, 
really. In it, she argues it is unconstitutional for a legislature to 
prohibit felons from owning a gun. She says the Second Amendment 
guarantees certain felons the right to own firearms, even though 90 
percent of Americans think otherwise.
  What she writes to back up her view is even more radical, even more 
dangerous. She says that courts, not the legislature, should be the 
finder of fact on whether a person is too dangerous to own a gun. And 
she says that the courts can overturn any gun restriction if they find 
evidence that refutes the efficacy of the law.

[[Page S6396]]

  Basically, she is saying the courts are now going to micromanage our 
gun laws. She believes the Second Amendment puts the courts, not the 
legislature, in charge of choosing who can own a weapon and who can't. 
That is, of course, a curiously convenient view for a Republican Party 
that would love to weaken our gun laws but can't do it 
through Congress. Now--surprise again--the Supreme Court rides to the 
rescue.

  This, of course, would be devastating for the safety of Americans if 
criminals could once again buy guns. Last week, I was spending time 
with Janet Rice, whose son Shane was killed just a few blocks from my 
house in Hartford. An argument over a girl turned deadly when one angry 
young man went to the front seat of his car and grabbed an illegal 
weapon, likely bought through a loophole in the background checks 
system, and used it to shoot Shane in the back.
  Weaker background checks systems mean more illegal weapons, more 
suicides, more domestic violence murders, but they probably mean higher 
profits for the NRA's members.
  Let's move on to one last priority of Republicans that is stuck, that 
can't move, in the legislative branch: more power and influence for 
dark money political groups.
  No Member of the Senate who wants to run for reelection in this body 
would ever introduce a piece of legislation allowing anonymous 
billionaire donors to gain more influence over the political process. 
That would be career suicide. No one in America supports that. But 
these dark money groups are a boon for Republicans because most of the 
billion-dollar interests that want to influence elections--like the oil 
and gas industry, for instance--support Republican candidates.
  Once again, the Supreme Court becomes that back door to get rules put 
in place that advance a Republican political interest that could never 
get enacted by Congress. Amy Coney Barrett will join five other 
Justices who will all likely rule that most regulations of campaign 
finance laws, like our Federal and State laws restricting the size of 
donations to campaigns, are constitutionally invalid.
  The Court has already ruled that the Constitution protects a 
corporation's right to spend limitless amounts of political money. That 
is just the beginning. Billionaires want all of our campaign finance 
laws eviscerated, and that new radical, out-of-the-box thinking on the 
First Amendment suggests that day is coming if Amy Coney Barrett does 
what is expected of her and joins other ultraconservatives on the Court 
to strike down our remaining campaign finance laws.
  Here, Sir, People Govern. That is what the inscription says on the 
walls of the U.S. Capitol. It used to be true. Now the inscription 
should probably read ``Here, Sir, People Confirm'' because now, with an 
activist, rule-setting, norm-busting Supreme Court, there is really no 
need for Republicans to pass laws anymore. The Coney Barrett Court will 
do all the lawmaking Republican interests require. And, frankly, if 
Democrats win this November, that same Coney Barrett Court will just 
invalidate any attempts that Congress tries to make to expand the 
Affordable Care Act or pass universal background checks or protect 
voters' access to the polls.
  I get it. I know it feels weird to hear somebody like me describing 
Amy Coney Barrett as extreme because she doesn't look extreme; she 
doesn't talk in extreme tones. But, really, look at what she stands 
for: the elimination of the Affordable Care Act, the right of felons to 
own guns, the interpretation of a Constitution to allow for the flood 
of billionaire money into politics. Those are extreme views. Do you 
know why I know that? Because none of that--the repeal of the ACA, the 
invalidation of our background checks system, the erosion of campaign 
finance laws--none of that could pass Congress even when the most 
partisan Republicans were in charge of all of the relevant lawmaking 
institutions here. That agenda was so unpopular, so marginal, that even 
a Republican Congress and a Republican President wouldn't touch it in 
the end.
  But over there at the Supreme Court, that is now the place where 
people will govern after Amy Coney Barrett is rammed through in the 
quickest confirmation process in modern history, an abomination of a 
process that makes a mockery of the Senate and the Constitution. Over 
there, that will become the new power in American democracy, and we are 
all worse off for it.
  I will oppose Amy Coney Barrett's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                    Nomination of Michael Jay Newman

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, at 4:20 p.m. today, which is in about 5 
minutes, we are going to vote on a Federal judge. We are going to vote 
on whether to confirm Judge Michael Newman to be the next Federal judge 
for the Southern District of Ohio.
  I have known Mike Newman for over three decades, and he is an 
excellent choice for this role. He is an active member of the legal 
community in Ohio and is particularly active in his community of 
Dayton. He is also involved nationally. He was the first magistrate 
judge ever to be appointed national president of the Federal Bar 
Association, through which he created an impressive national civics 
program to allow young people, including a lot of young people in the 
Southern District of Ohio, to meet with Federal judges. He started and 
presides over the Southern District of Ohio's Federal Veterans 
Treatment Court, which has helped more than 70 veterans with PTSD and 
opioid addiction. I have seen the court in action.
  Mike is doing a great job. In fact, this year, he was selected to 
receive the Ohio State Bar Foundation's Ritter Award, which is a 
lifetime service award given to one lawyer or judge in Ohio every year 
to recognize a long-term commitment to ethics, professionalism, and 
integrity. That is Mike.
  Judge Newman is the right choice for this important seat in his 
having served the community of Dayton with honor and distinction, and I 
am confident he will do the same in this new role. I urge my colleagues 
to, in a moment, strongly support his confirmation.


                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. President, of course, this week, we are also continuing to 
consider an important nomination of another Federal judge--Seventh 
Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett--to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
  Yesterday, I had the chance to sit down one-on-one with Judge Barrett 
to ask her questions and follow up on what I thought was an impressive 
performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even before our 
meeting, what I knew about Judge Barrett suggested she would be a good 
candidate for this important role. Based on what I heard in our 
meeting, it is clear to me she is not only well qualified to serve on 
the Court but that she is also a great listener and has the right 
understanding of what the Court's role is. She will be a terrific 
Supreme Court Justice. I believe she also understands the need to 
address the lack of faith in our institutions in this city, including 
the Court, and is willing to play an important role in helping to 
rebuild trust.
  Importantly, she reiterated to me what she said in the committee, 
which is that she has a commitment to interpret the text of the 
Constitution and the laws as they are written rather than through the 
lens of her own policy and personal preferences. I appreciate that 
modest approach. It leaves the legislating to the representatives, who 
have been elected by the people, rather than to the unelected judges. 
Of course, we are also all inspired by her personal story and her 
commitment to her faith, to her family, and to her profession.
  Let's be honest. During normal, less partisan times, this woman would 
be confirmed overwhelmingly. I believe she is an excellent choice. I 
commend the President for nominating her, and I strongly support her 
confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, while we have another minute, let me just 
say on another topic, which is the coronavirus pandemic, I am deeply 
disappointed that yesterday we had another vote here on the floor of 
the Senate wherein we offered legislation which passed by a majority of 
the Senators but not the supermajority needed that simply focused on 
the coronavirus

[[Page S6397]]

pandemic and the economic consequences of it. Unbelievably, it was 
blocked. In other words, we were not able to move forward because the 
Democrats were not willing to at least get on the issue and begin to 
discuss and debate the issue. This is sad to me.
  We are not out of the woods yet either in terms of the economy or in 
terms of the pandemic. In fact, we are in the third phase now of the 
pandemic in many of our States, including in mine, Ohio. We need help. 
This legislation had that help--as an example, $30 billion-plus for a 
vaccine. We need that funding to be able to get a vaccine as quickly as 
possible. We need money for therapies, money for our schools, and money 
for small businesses to be able to keep their doors open.
  I am concerned that we are not using the same bipartisan approach we 
used four other times in this Chamber to help deal with the coronavirus 
pandemic.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Newman Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired on the Newman 
nomination.
  The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the Newman 
nomination?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. 
Sinema) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Ex.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--30

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harris
     Jones
     Sinema
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                            Motion To Recess

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to recess and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. 
Kaine), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
wishing to vote or to change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Harris
     Jones
     Kaine
     Sinema
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________