Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 181 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)

[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

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.

____________________