[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6437-S6443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to start with a personal thank-
you to the Presiding Officer for indulging me for an additional few 
moments here so I may speak this afternoon on the nomination of Judge 
Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  And while I intend to share with you my intention on how I will vote, 
I would like to start by expressing my disappointment with where we are 
in the Senate as a whole right now. There has been some good discussion 
here this morning as we are considering these unanimous consent 
agreements--statements being made but not action moving forward.

  I had hoped that if we were going to be at this moment in time, just 
over a week out from our national elections, that we would be here on 
the floor debating the merits of a COVID relief bill. In my home State 
of Alaska, as in so many States around the country, we are seeing 
unprecedented numbers now. The news, just yesterday, Friday, was that 
the United States reported the highest single-day recorded positive 
cases--83,757--really staggering.
  In Alaska, we have seen this virus spread to some of our small 
outlying villages, villages that are not accessible by road and 
villages that have limited medical facilities. We are really quite 
concerned about what this means for many of the Native people in these 
areas.
  We are not able to stay on top of the contact tracing like we were 
some months ago because of our increasing numbers. The pressure on 
hospital capacity is also a growing concern. And, economically, Alaska 
has been hit extraordinarily hard. As most know, we have a pretty 
substantial tourist season, but this year, we had little to no season 
for us. Many small businesses have closed permanently, but many, many 
more are going into the winter wondering how they are going to make it 
through the winter and scrambling to find ways to piece it together.
  Unemployment, loss of housing--in every conversation that I have with 
Alaskans, they are asking if and when we are going to see another round 
of COVID relief, and I regret that we have no deal to offer them today. 
Instead, we are here on a weekend, 10 days before the elections, to 
advance a U.S. Supreme Court nominee.
  Now, I was here on the floor yesterday. I had an opportunity to 
listen to the majority leader as he outlined the escalation of 
confirmation battles over the past 30-plus years, and I think it was an 
important lesson in our Senate history. I am not confused about how we 
wound up here, but I certainly am frustrated by it. It is with a heavy 
heart that I just regret that we are in this place.
  I think there was a worthy attempt during the 109th Congress, by the 
Gang of 14, to reduce tensions. There was, I think, a very genuine, 
good-faith effort there to try to dial things back. But, sadly, their 
bipartisan action was not rewarded by the voters, and perhaps that 
served as a warning to other Members of this body rather than an 
aspiration.
  We heard the history lesson, and I am one who has long recognized 
that pointing fingers doesn't ever actually solve a problem. I 
personally believe that every nominee for the Supreme Court should 
receive an up-or-down vote after they have passed out of committee. My 
record has been pretty clear, pretty consistent, and some might even 
suggest boring in its consistency, but I made a very strong commitment 
after I returned to the Senate at the end of 2010 and said: I do not 
believe that filibustering our judges was what we should be doing.
  So I might not have liked the judges that were before us, but I did 
not participate in a filibuster of a judge. I had an opportunity to 
vote up or down, and I thought that was the reasonable way to proceed. 
I believe that it is fair to the individual and it is fair to the 
institution.
  But I also recognize that the timing of this confirmation that we 
have before us will serve to reinforce the public perception about 
political influence on the Court, and I would hope that we all 
recognize that public confidence in our courts must be an imperative. 
We have to believe that justice is going to be equal for all of us.
  Now, I know that my colleagues are not surprised to hear me discuss 
my concern about the politicization of the Court. I made a similar 
point during the impeachment trial, when some

[[Page S6438]]

wanted to literally tear down Chief Justice Roberts and the Court 
because they needed a sound bite for a political ad in the primary 
campaign. I made the same case when I voted against the nomination of 
now-Justice Kavanaugh.
  Also, during that impeachment trial, I implored the Members of this 
Chamber to look inward and to really evaluate: Are we really willing to 
tear down not only the other party but the other institutions of our 
government as well?
  So I have looked inward, considering, in these difficult days, what I 
believe is best for the institutions of our government, and I recognize 
that confirming this nominee is not going to heal and it is not going 
to salve the wounds that these institutions have endured, but neither 
will threats that, should the balance of power in this Chamber change, 
everything is on the table, including the end of the legislative 
filibuster and packing the Court. To do that would only inflict even 
deeper, deeper wounds, fundamentally and dramatically altering how the 
levers of power operate in this country and compromising the one branch 
of government that must remain apolitical.
  We are the legislative branch, the executive branch. Both of these 
branches are inherently political. It is the third branch, our courts, 
that we count on to be apolitical. I think it would be a giant leap 
further down a path that we should not be following in the first place. 
So we have to figure out how we deescalate.
  So let me very simply explain this afternoon how I plan to vote over 
the next two days, starting with procedural motions, which I opposed 
yesterday, and I will oppose again tomorrow.
  In 2016, after the unfortunate death of Justice Scalia, I said that 
the Senate should not take up a nominee to fill that seat due to the 
impending Presidential election. I reiterated that statement in August 
of this year. And then, coincidentally enough, just hours before the 
news of Justice Ginsburg's passing that saddened the country--I didn't 
know that she had passed when I reaffirmed my comments from earlier, 
but that knowledge would not have changed my mind. I remain in the same 
place today. I do not believe that moving forward on a nominee just 
over a week removed from a pitched Presidential election, when partisan 
tensions are running about as high as they could--I don't think that 
this will help our country become a better version of itself.
  But, frankly, I have lost that procedural fight. We saw that with the 
vote yesterday. So what I can do now is be consistent with the 
precedent that I have set for myself and oppose a process that I said 
should not move forward, and I have done that.
  But at the end of the process is the substantive question of whether 
Judge Barrett should be categorically rejected as an Associate Justice 
in order to underscore my procedural objection. I believe that the only 
way to put us back on the path of appropriate consideration of judicial 
nominees is to evaluate Judge Barrett as we would want to be judged--on 
the merits of her qualifications. And we do that when that final 
question comes before us, and when it does, I will be a ``yes.'
  I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge 
Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to 
do the job and to do it well.
  By now, most people are very familiar with her qualifications. They 
have seen her resume and bio. She has been all over the news, but her 
background is significant. She graduated with honors from Rhodes 
College and with honors from Notre Dame Law School, clerked on the DC 
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and was an excellent professor 
for 15 years at Notre Dame Law School prior to being confirmed on the 
bench on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I helped to confirm her 
to that seat on the Seventh Circuit.
  I have followed on from that time when I first came to know of Judge 
Amy Coney Barrett. I have done my due diligence in my role of advice 
and consent. I have worked through the articles that she has written 
and the cases that she has written. I have engaged in a lengthy one-on-
one with her. I watched both full days when she appeared before the 
Judiciary Committee. She presented herself admirably under a difficult 
situation. We all know around here that confirmation processes are not 
pretty.
  I have expressed my concerns previously that good people will decide 
that the confirmation process that we have now is sometimes an awful 
process, that I worry that they are going to think that it is just not 
worth it, not worth what it puts them and their families through, and 
they opt out. They opt to avoid government service.
  And, on this note, I will say that while some of the rhetoric from my 
colleagues has been overblown and unnecessary, this process with Judge 
Barrett is not nearly what it was in 2018 during the confirmation of 
Justice Kavanaugh. So, ultimately, I am glad and I am thankful that 
Judge Barrett did not opt out.
  I have concluded that she is the sort of person that we want on the 
Supreme Court. Her legal writing is excellent and will be an asset to 
her as well as future generations of lawyers as they read through her 
opinions. Her intellectual curiosity, which is demonstrated by the 
depth and breadth of her academic work as a professor, will also serve 
the country well. Her temperament and her very patient nature were on 
full display over the course of the hearing.
  I had a good and, I think, a very substantive discussion with Judge 
Barrett about some Alaska-related matters, focusing on Alaska-specific 
statutes, like ANILCA. I raised some of the public safety challenges 
that we face in my home State that served to undermine the principle of 
equal justice under the law.
  I raised the issue of voting rights and access to the ballot. It was 
important for me to hear and to better understand her views on 
precedent and her evaluation process, specifically the weight that she 
affords reliance on decisions that have been in place for decades, such 
as Roe v. Wade. We discussed the doctrine of severability in regards to 
the Affordable Care Act case. We spoke at length about my concern that 
the Supreme Court is increasingly viewed as political by the public and 
what that then does to erode public confidence in the impartiality of 
our courts. We talked about the criteria and the evaluation that that 
Justice would undergo for purposes of recusal from a matter.
  I do not believe Judge Barrett will take her seat on the Bench with a 
predetermined agenda or with the goal of putting a torch to every 
volume of the ``United States Reports.''
  Justices should come to the Court with an open mind, willing to be 
convinced by the arguments presented in each case, to exchange thoughts 
with their colleagues, to learn new things, and rule as the law 
requires. I am convinced that Judge Barrett will do just that.
  So while I oppose the process that has led us to this point, I do not 
hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet 
with grace, skill, and humility. I will vote no on the procedural votes 
ahead of us but yes to confirm Judge Barrett when the question before 
us is her qualification to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme 
Court.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for 
confirming Louisiana native Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of 
the United States.
  Deciding whether to confirm a Justice to the highest Court in the 
land is among the most important duties and privileges that a Senator 
has. We must consider the qualifications of the nominee the President 
puts forward and determine a nominee's fitness to serve.
  In this case, President Donald Trump made a terrific selection in Amy 
Coney Barrett. The Senate will vote on her confirmation in the coming 
days, and I will proudly cast my vote to confirm. Here is why:
  Judge Barrett is incredibly qualified to serve on the Court. She 
graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, clerked for the 
late-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and spent 15 years in 
academia shaping a new generation of legal minds.
  According to her students, she was not an ideologue but, rather, she 
would listen and take their thoughts and process them and bring them to 
a better knowledge of the law. With that,

[[Page S6439]]

she has been universally praised by her former students and ultimately 
served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
  Her record and experience show that she is ready for the Supreme 
Court.
  There is some home-State pride. Judge Barrett was raised in Metairie, 
LA, and is a graduate of St. Mary's Dominican High School. When I go 
back there, I will see folks with the pen she would have received when 
she graduated, and they are very proud to have attended the same school 
and perhaps to have been in the same class.
  As a fellow Louisianan, I am proud that one of our own will become a 
Supreme Court Justice. She will be only the second person from 
Louisiana to serve on the Court, which, for my State, makes the 
confirmation historic. But it is more than Louisiana rooting for Amy 
Coney Barrett; she will serve our country well.
  I will also say that I think it fitting that a woman fill the seat 
that opened after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing. Although she 
and I had our differences in political and judicial philosophy, she 
should be recognized for her service and lifelong pursuit of ensuring 
that women have a seat at the table. We thank the legacy of Justice 
Ginsburg and her service to the United States.
  One of the many things that are notable for Justice Ginsburg that I 
will emphasize is that she broadened the perspective of SCOTUS--the 
Supreme Court of the United States--as they treated the law. I think 
Judge Barrett does the same. She will be the first mother of school-age 
children to serve on the Court. She and her husband Jesse are raising 
seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti and the youngest of 
whom has Down syndrome. If there is a mom--whether a working mom or 
not--who wonders if her perspective is ever spoken to when cases are 
considered before the Supreme Court, Justice Barrett will bring that 
perspective to the Court.
  Finally, I want to thank Judge Barrett for her willingness to serve. 
To accept a nomination to the Supreme Court is, sadly, to accept 
ruthless attacks from partisans seeking to score political points. Her 
nomination was no different.
  She has been repeatedly attacked for being a practicing Catholic. She 
has every right to live her faith. No one in public service should be 
expected to cast aside deeply held religious convictions to satisfy an 
angry mob fabricating reasons to say no.
  Thank you, Judge Barrett, for defending your--and by extension all of 
our--religious liberty.
  I think the balance and the grace she exhibited during a very 
difficult 2 days of being before the committee but in her life in 
general is testimony to the depth by which she considers the best of 
her faith.
  That said, her political enemies and some in the press intentionally 
mischaracterized many of her statements, twisting them into new ways to 
attack her, again fabricating reasons to say no. Yet Judge Barrett 
handled each attack with grace and dignity.
  During her hearing, she displayed time and again that she has the 
skills, the demeanor, and the experience to serve on the Supreme Court.
  On Monday, I will proudly cast my vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett 
to the Supreme Court. She will serve our country well, and she will 
serve the future generations that will be influenced by her decisions 
on the Supreme Court well. I encourage my colleagues to put politics 
aside and to do the same.
  Thank you
  I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from 
Connecticut.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1112

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today on a unique 
Saturday, a day that is not normal, a day when the coronavirus is 
setting new records across the United States for infection--just 
yesterday, 85,000 new cases, which is the very highest since July--
ravaging the United States, and creating untold hardship and 
heartbreak.
  We are in the midst of a raging pandemic, but we are not considering 
measures to deal with the pain and grief and loss that it has created, 
the threat that it poses to many States across the country, providing 
memories for many of us in Connecticut who went through the worst of 
these ravages and still suffer, in Connecticut, the threat of a new 
wave. Economic crisis grips this country, people are out of jobs, and 
small businesses are failing, but we are considering a nominee who 
would threaten to decimate our healthcare system in the midst of a 
healthcare crisis as we go through this pandemic.
  It is a day that is sad, shocking, surreal, and it is not normal. It 
is not normal to rush through a nominee for the highest Court in the 
land--a lifetime appointment--while Americans are going to the polls in 
record numbers. Their voices should be heard, and the next Senate and 
the President should choose this next Justice. It is not normal because 
we are, in effect, ignoring and disregarding the duty we have to 
consider and pass real measures to address this pandemic and the 
economic crisis we face.
  It is not normal for real people whose lives are impacted so severely 
and potentially even more so in the weeks ahead and whose healthcare, 
reproductive freedom, protection from gun violence, workplace rights, 
civil rights, and civil liberties are all threatened by this nominee.
  We brought into the hearing room those real people from Connecticut 
and all around the country through the posters that we had, watching 
those hearings and the nonresponses that Amy Coney Barrett gave to our 
questions. We brought real lives and the real harm they will suffer 
into that hearing room.
  I brought Connor Curran, whose treatment has kept him alive only 
because his parents were able to use the Affordable Care Act for his 
preexisting condition; Julia Gonzalez, who is alive because she 
received treatment for her cancer as a result of the ACA making it 
affordable, protecting her as a preexisting condition survivor; 
Samantha, a rape survivor, who was able to get an abortion because of 
the protections of Roe v. Wade; Tracey, who was able to use in vitro 
fertilization because of reproductive freedoms that are guaranteed by 
Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny--Amy Coney Barrett has refused 
to say whether she thought Griswold was correctly decided; Ethan Song, 
who lost his life because of an unsafely stored firearm in a friend's 
home--his parents, Michael and Kristin Song, were with me, and so was 
Ethan; Janet Rice, whose son, Shane, then 20 years old, was killed in 
downtown Hartford; and, of course, the Barton family, who lost their 
beautiful son, Daniel, along with 19 other wonderful children, in Sandy 
Hook in that massacre, and sixth grade educators as well.
  Those lives and real people and real harms are what are at stake in 
this debate, and so this Chamber seems so surreal on this day, in the 
midst of hardship and heartbreak that would only be aggravated by the 
Justice who may be confirmed as early as Monday evening.
  She has been selected, screened, and vetted to be an activist judge 
who would strike down the Affordable Care Act and overturn Roe v. Wade. 
We know that she has passed that ``strong test''--the President's 
words, ``strong test''--to legislate from the Bench and accomplish 
through the Court what they have been unable to achieve in this body, 
in this Chamber, and in this Congress through the legislature.
  They have failed to overturn the Affordable Care Act because the 
majority of American people want that protection for preexisting 
conditions. We have stood strong on this side against those 10, 20, 40 
efforts to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
  Madam President, she has been vetted and screened for a position on 
gun violence protection that she herself has admitted in a speech she 
gave at Hillsdale College. It sounds kind of radical. It sounds kind of 
radical, as I said to her during the hearing, because it is radical. It 
is part of a radical, extremist agenda to deny the American people 
State and local laws that protect them against assault weapons and 
large-capacity magazines, people who are dangerous and should be denied 
the purchase of firearms because they should be screened out through 
background checks and through emergency risk protection orders and safe 
storage laws, and repeal of PLCAA. That gives gun manufacturers near 
complete immunity from any responsibility.

[[Page S6440]]

  We are still in the middle of an epidemic of gun violence, and among 
those real people who have spoken out is a young woman, 19 years old, 
named Tabitha Escalante. I was on a phone call with her yesterday with 
other advocates.
  She is the judiciary advisory associate at March for Our Lives, and 
she is advocating, along with other groups, grassroots groups, that 
have created a movement--Giffords, Brady, Everytown, Moms Demand 
Action, Students Demand Action, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Sandy 
Hook Promise, Newtown Action Alliance--along with March for Our Lives. 
They have created a movement that is prevailing, just as we prevailed 
and stopped the legislative branch from overturning the Affordable Care 
Act.
  The strength of this movement has caused the NRA and the extreme 
radical groups that are supporting it to go to the courts, as we 
documented in a report that we released just yesterday. I thank my 
colleague Sheldon Whitehouse for spearheading this effort. I have been 
proud to join in various efforts on captured courts. And the report 
``What's at Stake: Gun Safety'' was the reason that Tabitha and I and 
others joined that call yesterday: ``How a Corrupted Organization Has 
Radically Transformed the Second Amendment.''
  It shows how the NRA has been at the tip of the spear, working for 
special interests, the gun lobby--dark money channeled to put on the 
court judges, at every level, who will stop commonsense measures on 
protecting people against gun violence. Justice nominee Amy Coney 
Barrett is only the most recent of them who have been screened and 
vetted to carry forward that agenda.
  These interlocking groups--the firearms industry, retailers, and 
private organizations like American Encore, American Future Fund, 
American Action Network, Judicial Crisis Network--have spearheaded this 
effort, and the NRA has been their tool and instrument, and judges in 
the Federal courts have been the result.
  The fact of the matter is that they are turning to the legislatures 
because of the strength of this grassroots movement--not its weakness--
and their efforts to repeal the ACA have failed. So have their efforts 
to block those measures in State legislatures and local governments.
  In fact, gun violence prevention was on the ballot in 2018, and gun 
violence prevention won. That is the reason that the House of 
Representatives passed a universal background check measure and other 
steps that are so important and should be done here.
  In the past 10 years, in fact, this scourge and epidemic of gun 
violence has continued with more than 236 mass shootings in this 
country. Those mass shootings have taken 1,300 lives, including those 
innocent children and educators at Sandy Hook.
  In the past 10 years, gun violence has taken more than 350,000 
lives--in rural communities, urban communities, and every community 
across the United States. Gun violence is an insidious public health 
menace, a public health epidemic that affects every community.
  Amid this public health epidemic, Republicans have vetted and 
screened this nominee to take Justice Ginsburg's place on the Supreme 
Court because of her extreme views, as she articulated in her dissent 
in Kanter v. Barr. She showed an alarming willingness to stretch the 
founding-era history to support her extreme and expansive view of the 
Second Amendment. Her views are not only out of the mainstream; they 
are out of the position articulated by Justice Scalia, her mentor.
  But the fact of the matter is that the threat to these gun violence 
prevention measures is real and urgent. Cases are literally one step 
away--remember, one step away--from the Supreme Court. There are three 
cases challenging restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity 
magazines, two of them from California that are about to be petitioned 
for a review of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. Two cases 
challenging limits on open carry and three cases challenging background 
check and licensing requirements are one step away from the Supreme 
Court, possibly this term, when Amy Coney Barrett would take her seat.
  With her nomination, every single commonsense violence prevention 
measure at every level of government is in great peril. The public 
safety and health stakes of her nomination could not be greater. As 
Tabitha said, ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' ``Nothing 
less than everything is at stake''--and not just now when these cases 
are one step away, but for decades to come.
  Tabitha's generation may have children, even grandchildren, who will 
see Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court Bench, if she is confirmed, 
and district court and appellate court judges whom we have confirmed 
through this effort to reshape the courts in the image of the far 
right, of what used to be the Republican Party--one step away from this 
disaster.
  Likewise, on the issue of reproductive freedom, Judge Barrett was 
also vetted and screened. At the hearing, she refused to say--
absolutely refused to say--whether Roe was correctly decided. As you 
know, Roe protects a woman's right to choose after being raped, as 
Samantha was. We presented her story.

  It is constitutional to make in vitro fertilization a crime if Roe is 
overturned. It is constitutional to make it a crime for doctors to 
perform abortions. She refused to answer that question as well. But, in 
a way, she didn't really need to answer those questions because we know 
where she stands. She described Roe's legacy as barbaric in a letter 
and ad that she aligned herself with.
  She has called, in effect, through organizations with which she was 
aligned, for the unborn ``to be protected in law.'' She aligned herself 
with a group on legal positions--I am not talking about moral beliefs--
pushing the most extreme legal views on reproductive care, which 
include criminalizing IVF, criminalizing doctors, ending legalized 
abortion in this country.
  Her extreme views on reproductive freedoms once were disqualifying, 
but it is the reason why Donald Trump chose her in the first place--his 
strong test on that issue.
  Right now, there are 17 abortion-related cases that are one step away 
from the Supreme Court. There are challenges to bans on abortion as 
early as 6 weeks into pregnancy, before many women even know they are 
pregnant. There are bans on abortion later in pregnancy, when women can 
face the most severe health risks and rely on their doctors for 
accurate information and compassionate care.
  They are reason-based bans that merely exist as a pretext--and I say 
``reason-based ban''--for interrogating and intimidating women who seek 
an abortion. They are redtape laws that require abortion providers to 
jump through hoops that serve no medical purpose but merely exist to 
burden them and make necessary abortion services harder and harder to 
obtain--and numerous other abortion laws designed to limit access--
strictly to limit access in the name of healthcare, particularly for 
poor, rural, and immigrant women who simply cannot afford to make trips 
to clinics hundreds of miles away. They are laws that impede racial 
justice, human justice.
  Access to reproductive care is already hanging by a thread across the 
country. Judge Barrett's nomination imperils what access remains. Those 
cases are just one step away--one step away--from decisions by the 
Court that Judge Barrett would join.
  So there is a great deal of our fundamental rights at stake here. As 
Tabitha said, ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' These cases 
that are one step away from decision are only 17 cases involving 
reproductive freedom, 14 cases involving gun violence prevention, and 
there are numerous others involving workplace safety.
  The Affordable Care Act will be argued a week after the election, 
when she would sit on the Court. Her hostility to the Affordable Care 
Act is well documented by now in her criticizing Chief Justice Roberts 
for his vote to uphold the act, saying he had to stretch the meaning of 
it to keep it alive, her saying in King v. Burwell, when she spoke 
about that case, that the dissent had the better of the argument. These 
are real rights for real people that would be lost.
  Instead of imperiling healthcare and other rights that should be 
enjoyed by the American people, we should be enacting measures that are 
before us

[[Page S6441]]

right now that have been passed by the House of Representatives, by 
bipartisan majorities, that would actually address the needs and 
challenges of the American people during this extraordinary time in our 
history.
  They are before us right now. There is no need to write them anew. 
There is no need to invent the words or the purposes for these acts.
  In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1112, the Enhanced 
Background Checks Act--bipartisan legislation to close the Charleston 
loophole, extending the initial background check review period from 3 
to 10 days, and eliminating that loophole for gun purchases which 
enabled the Charleston shooter to get his weapon and murder people in 
the basement of a church and others around the country to endanger and 
kill innocent Americans, embodying the principle of ``no check, no 
sale,'' that must be the rule--I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Reserving the right to object.
  The Senate is currently considering the qualifications of an 
excellent nominee to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. That 
is why we are here. It is very important work. This request is nothing 
more than another form of procedural harassment by the minority to try 
and stop our process of considering Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme 
Court of the United States. It is certainly unfair to her. It is 
unbecoming of this Chamber.
  If this bill was so important to the Democrats in the Senate, they 
wouldn't have voted four times to adjourn until after the election. So, 
clearly, this is just a stunt.
  By the way, if that wasn't reason enough, the bill that the Senator 
is suggesting we get into would put onerous burdens on law-abiding 
Americans who just want to protect themselves at a time when Democratic 
mayors and Governors are overseeing all kinds of damage to life and 
health and property unchecked. In fact, calling off the law enforcement 
of their communities to protect our citizens, they now want to take 
away the rights of those citizens to be able to purchase arms or at 
least make it much more difficult.
  For these reasons and several others, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, what my colleague calls procedural 
harassment, it is actually democracy. It is legislation. It was passed 
by the House. It is bipartisan. The majority was bipartisan. It will 
save lives. I fail to understand why my Republican colleagues will not 
allow this loophole--it is a fatal and defective loophole in our 
current laws--to be repaired.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7

  Madam President, let me move to another measure. In order to proceed 
to the consideration of H.R. 7, Paycheck Fairness Act--again, 
bipartisan legislation that would empower women to challenge pay 
discrimination in the workplace, passing the House by a bipartisan 
majority and giving women the power to hold employers accountable for 
discriminatory practices, making a tremendous difference in their 
lives--I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session on the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  This is yet one more obstructionist move to prevent us from taking up 
Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, a highly-
qualified nominee who deserves her time in the Chamber. She deserves 
her time in debate and not these other external matters that, by the 
way, if they were important to the Senate minority, they would not have 
voted four times this week to adjourn until after the election.
  For that reason and several others, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, the so-called external matters go to 
the heart of fairness in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, 
discriminatory practices, other kinds of injustices that have existed 
for years--women ought to have the right to challenge them and hold 
their employers accountable. What could be more fundamental and 
important?


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1423

  Madam President, let me move now to H.R. 1423, in order to proceed to 
consideration of the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, also 
known as the FAIR Act, which passed the House on September 20, 2019--
again, a bipartisan measure, which would increase Americans' rights to 
seek justice and accountability through the court system.
  We are in the midst of considering a nominee who has expressed a 
hostility to seeking justice in the workplace and in jobs and in other 
areas. So this measure to eliminate forced arbitration clauses in 
employment and consumer and civil rights cases is especially relevant. 
It would allow consumers and workers to agree to arbitration after a 
dispute occurs, but it would not force them to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  I will not allow the Senate to be diverted from the issue at hand, 
and that is the consideration and of Amy Coney Barrett to be an 
Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. She is a 
highly-qualified nominee and deserves this debate.
  For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4443

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in order to proceed to the 
consideration of the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection 
Act--because millions of women are still at risk as a consequence of 
this loophole in our present laws that enables dangerous, estranged 
spouses or partners to have access to weapons during the most perilous 
time in a domestic dispute right after separation, because that 
loophole endangers innocent women because it provides access to weapons 
to those dangerous people--I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Again, if the minority was serious about passing legislation, they 
would not have voted four times to adjourn until after the election, so 
it is a little hard to take this seriously, but it is especially 
difficult on this one because Federal law already prohibits violent 
felons from owning and purchasing firearms.
  Again, should I remind the Senate and the country that Democratic 
mayors and Governors all over this country have failed to protect their 
citizens. The last thing we would want to do at a time like this when 
citizens are left to defend themselves against violent crime is to 
prohibit law-abiding Americans or make it more difficult for law-
abiding Americans to own firearms. For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, just to remind my colleague, this 
measure doesn't pertain only to dangerous felons. It protects innocent 
women against dangerous people. There is already the provision for 
protective orders to provide that kind of safeguard after a period of 
time. This measure would close a loophole for the first period when, in 
fact, women and others are at greatest risk.
  It is a public safety measure that is particularly relevant because 
of the hostility expressed by this nominee to commonsense steps in the 
name of a very extreme view under the Second Amendment


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 840

  Madam President, I would like to ask that we proceed to consideration 
of H.R. 840, the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act--what could be less 
controversial, a bill that provides childcare assistance to veterans 
receiving covered healthcare services in a VA facility?

[[Page S6442]]

  The bill highlights the troubling fact that lack of childcare can 
dissuade parents from receiving essential healthcare services. It would 
make permanent a VA childcare pilot program--make it permanent.
  It was first introduced in 2011, and it expands access to childcare 
assistance nationwide, allowing veterans to receive medical treatment 
with confidence that their children are receiving high-quality care--
our veterans.
  Whatever motions have been made in the past, this measure certainly 
needs to be considered. It was passed by a majority in the House on 
February 8 of 2019, more than a year ago, a bipartisan majority in the 
House--no action here.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Can we just be a little more honest? This is not about childcare. 
What is going on here is not about childcare, for veterans, or for 
anybody else. This is another attempt to prevent us from talking about 
the outstanding qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be on the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  I will stand here all day and object if that is what it takes for my 
other colleagues to get to the floor and talk about the merits of this 
outstanding judge. With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2722

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as more important as that health for 
veterans is, equally so is assistance for our election system. We are 
going through an election right now. Even as we consider this nominee, 
tens of millions of Americans are voting. The threat to our election 
security is well-known. We face not only foreign interference but also 
domestic threats, as has been documented.
  I have been through those absolutely chilling briefings in a 
classified setting; we are sworn to secrecy. But the malign foreign 
interference makes 2016, in my impression, look like child's play from 
Russia, Iran, the Chinese.
  In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2722, Securing 
American Federal Elections Act, a bill that would, in fact, make 
critical investments to upgrade our voting systems to protect against 
foreign interference in our elections and democracy by requiring all 
voting systems to produce a verifiable paper ballot and by authorizing 
funding for States to bolster election security--what could be more 
urgent and important at this moment in our history?
  It was passed by the House of Representatives on June 27, 2019--
again, more than a year ago. No action here.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The only interference going on here is by Senate Democrats trying to 
interfere in our discussion about an outstanding nominee to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. For that reason, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4894

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in order to proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 4894, Congressional Budget Justification 
Transparency Act of 2020, a bill that requires Federal agencies to make 
budget justification materials available to the public--it is a 
transparency measure. It requires disclosure, and it requires the 
Office of Management and Budget to make certain details regarding the 
materials available to the public, including a list of agencies that 
submit budget justification.
  It also forces disclosure of the dates that materials are submitted 
to Congress and posted online and links to the materials--a basic 
disclosure measure. It was passed, again, overwhelmingly by the House 
of Representatives on September 14 of this year, without any action so 
far in this body.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  It is really time to move on and hear from other colleagues about the 
incredible, outstanding qualifications of President Trump's nominee to 
the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. These 
distractions cannot prevent us from doing that.
  On this bill in particular, I think people should know that most of 
the documents that they are talking about are--in fact, almost all of 
them are online today.
  For that reason and others, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That measure was a basic disclosure step proposed to 
address secrecy in government. Nothing is more fundamental than 
transparency in a democracy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
  The people of the United States deserve that information, and so, 
too, they deserve all of the information about Amy Coney Barrett. Even 
on the morning of her approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee, new 
documents were disclosed, new statements and speeches by her, adding to 
the ones that hadn't been disclosed properly previously.
  This process is a sham. It is rushed. It is not normal. As I said 
during our hearings, my great fear is not only the damage and the harm 
that this nominee can do, but the damage and harm to the Court itself.
  The President said the quiet part out loud. He wants this nominee 
rushed to the bench so she can decide the election, not the voters--so 
she can sit on the Supreme Court when the election goes to the courts.
  Well, my Republican colleagues have the majority. They may have the 
votes, but they don't have the American people, and they don't have 
history on their side. Might does not make right. They can do it 
because they have the votes. They are doing it because they can.
  Amy Coney Barrett could stonewall our questions because she could and 
establish a new standard--call it the ``Barrett rule''--of not 
answering. But the damage to the Court will be great.
  The Court has power because of its legitimacy. The trust and 
confidence of the American people are in its independence. Our 
Republican colleagues are whittling away and eventually devastating not 
only the authority of the Supreme Court, but all of our Federal courts, 
by politicizing and polarizing it.
  She would not even commit that she would recuse herself in the event 
an election case went to the Supreme Court. I have tremendous respect--
even reverence--for the Court, having served there as a law clerk with 
Justice Harry Blackmun, having argued four cases before the Court, 
including three with Justice Ginsburg.
  This imperils the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, is a grave, 
lasting, potentially devastating disservice to the American people. It 
is a dagger at the heart of the Court and of our democracy. Therefore, 
I will continue to oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Florida


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4797

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, General Secretary Xi is a 
dictator and human rights violator. He is yet another Communist leader 
trying to be the dominant world power.
  The Chinese Communist Party is stripping the people of Hong Kong of 
their freedoms, cracking down on dissidents, militarizing the South 
China Sea, supporting Maduro's genocide in Venezuela, surveilling its 
citizens, and imprisoning more than 1 million Uighurs in internment 
camps simply because of their religion.
  Communist China is committing genocide against the Uighurs. It 
doesn't end there. Recent reports indicate that the Communist Party of 
China is attempting the same thing in Tibet, forcing hundreds of 
thousands of people in Tibet into mass labor camps. We know the Chinese 
Communist Party and their puppets continue to silence and intimidate 
those standing up

[[Page S6443]]

for democracy and human rights. They detain and harass journalists to 
try and prevent the truth from getting out. Foreigners and journalists 
working and traveling in Communist China do so at their own risk.
  Just last week, Communist China began threatening to take Americans 
as hostages. The national security threat of Communist China cannot be 
taken lightly. The censorship of these human rights abuses cannot be 
ignored.
  General Secretary Xi doesn't want us to know about the oppression 
occurring under his regime. For years, the Communist Government in 
China has tried to push its propaganda in America through state-owned 
media outlets while refusing to treat American journalists in China 
fairly. We saw this firsthand earlier this year. Chinese-backed 
propaganda outlets peddled China's lies about the coronavirus and 
endangered the lives of Americans.
  In March, the Chinese Communist Party expelled more than a dozen U.S. 
journalists and required other outlets to submit written reports of 
their staff, finances, operations, and real estate in China. We cannot 
allow this mistreatment to continue, and we have to take action.
  I am proud to sponsor the Chinese-Backed Media Accountability Act to 
create accountability for Communist China's censorship of free speech 
and failure to treat American journalists fairly. My bill prevents new 
visas to Chinese-backed journalists until we know exactly how many 
Chinese propaganda journalists are operating in the United States, and 
it creates reciprocity by making sure the number of Chinese-backed 
journalists in the United States is equal to the amount of independent 
American journalists allowed in China.
  We have to stand up and say that this behavior by Communist China is 
unacceptable, and I look forward to all of my colleagues' supporting 
this proposal.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 4797 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator 
Scott has sought unanimous consent for a bill that would restrict the 
issuance of nonimmigrant visas to Chinese journalists and a number of 
other steps that, frankly, are already within the President's power to 
do.
  The bill, in many ways, is an attempt to codify authorities that the 
State Department already has. In that sense, there is no reason to take 
legislative action. If the President wants to use this power, he can.
  But I want to emphasize the point that we share the goals that are 
behind this measure. No. 1, the goal of increasing transparency around 
the pandemic has to be done so that the Chinese and other authorities 
around the world--states that suffer from the pandemic--make the facts 
known to this country and the world health authority.
  We share the goal of condemning China's absolutely despicable human 
rights abuses, its deplorable record of subjugating human liberty, 
including the Uighurs, at least 1 million of whom are being held in 
Chinese Government-run detention centers that the President of the 
United States has completely ignored.
  But this legislation would really do nothing to address these 
incredibly oppressing issues. It uses the pandemic and China's human 
rights abuses as a pretense for deflecting blame for the President's 
shameful mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis. The President's ineptitude 
and incompetence are widely known to the American people.
  We share the goals of stopping Chinese human rights abuses, of making 
them more honest and accurate in what they disclose, and other goals, 
but to this measure, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I am disappointed my Democratic 
colleague doesn't want to focus on the global impact of General 
Secretary Xi's censorship. I clearly don't understand why my Democratic 
colleagues refuse to stand up to Communist China. They have stopped 
every attempt to protect Americans from this threat.
  Again and again, the Democrats block efforts to hold Communist China 
accountable and never try to work with us to come up with solutions.
  They blocked my resolution to move the 2022 Olympics out of Communist 
China. They blocked my bill to prevent Communist China from stealing or 
sabotaging American COVID-19 vaccine research, even as American lives 
depend on the rapid development of this vaccine.
  Now they are turning a blind eye to the censorship of American 
journalists in China. Chinese state-backed journalists in America push 
the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party. It is time to wake up 
and understand that the oppression at the hand of General Secretary Xi 
and the Chinese Government Party will not stop.
  This is about the safety of Americans and about freedom around the 
world. This is about standing up for human rights.
  We must act, and passing the Chinese-Backed Media Accountability Act 
takes real steps to hold Communist China accountable for their failure 
to treat American journalists fairly.
  I am not going to stop working to make sure there is reciprocity 
between our nations and that we understand how many Chinese propaganda 
journalists are operating in the United States. We must, together, do 
everything in our power to fight for freedom and hold Communist China 
and General Secretary Xi accountable, and I hope, at some point, my 
Democratic colleagues will join me in this fight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida).
  The Senator from North Dakota.