[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6443-S6445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, 2 years ago, I was a candidate running for 
this job, running against a Democratic incumbent. The top issues of the 
race throughout the summer were things like the sanctity of human life, 
and most important in the minds of the voters--at least based on our 
polls--were law and order. The idea that a sanctuary city, much less 
several of them, could exist to protect violent criminals as long as 
they were here illegally was an absurd notion to Dakotans. They were 
good issues for me as a candidate.
  That all changed just a little over 2 years ago, when Senate 
Democrats waged an attack on President Trump's nominee to fill the 
vacancy that occurred by the retirement of Supreme Court Justice 
Kennedy. By ``attack,'' I don't mean engage in a vigorous debate about 
Brett Kavanaugh's political and judicial philosophy or his background. 
Rather, they waged an attack on Brett Kavanaugh himself, on his 
character, his reputation, and his family--and not with facts but with 
fabrications.
  My opponent, North Dakota's junior Senator, joined the smear campaign 
and changed the priorities of our campaign quickly from sanctuary 
cities to, suddenly, the Supreme Court of the United States. That 
happened just 2 years and a couple of weeks ago. As much as anything--
as much as any reason, as much as any issue--the Supreme Court is why I 
am here today. I do not mean just today. I mean it is why I am a U.S. 
Senator.
  So, when President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill 
the vacancy created by the death of Justice Bader Ginsburg, I knew 
there could be no amount of political harassment that would cause me to 
shrink from this obligation. The suggestion that I or my colleagues 
would squander this--the right and the responsibility under the 
Constitution--and consider waiting until after an election that may 
create an opportunity for someone with whom my constituents don't agree 
to be nominated to the Court would be a dereliction of my duty and 
would rightly enrage the people who sent me here for exactly this 
moment. I refuse to shrink.
  So let's talk about the nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. By all 
accounts, she is a brilliant jurist. I don't think anybody has really 
questioned

[[Page S6444]]

her scholarship, her intellect. Certainly, you couldn't argue as to her 
demeanor. She has, on national display, demonstrated a demeanor that we 
should probably all aspire to but, certainly, for somebody who aspires 
to be on the highest Court in the land. Oh, by the way, I love the fact 
that she was educated in middle America. With all due respect to my 
conservative jurist friends and acquaintances and even those I don't 
know from someplace other than middle America, it is awfully nice to 
see one get to the top.
  My conversations with Judge Barrett were like, I think, everybody's. 
They were pleasant, and they were serious. In some cases, they were, 
maybe, even a little bit intense, but my conversation didn't focus on 
hardly any of the things I have been hearing about with relation to her 
nomination--in fact, none of them have I heard about in this Chamber 
today, and we have heard about lots of them. Mine didn't even really 
focus on the hot-button issues of the day. My discussions focused on my 
inquiry of her--about her sense and her philosophy and her thoughts on 
federalism. What is the appropriate role of States in this cooperative 
federalism--this wonderful experiment that is the United States of 
America? This is a system designed by the States. The Federal 
Government was created by the States. The Federal Government didn't 
create the States. No, the States created the Federal Government. It is 
foundational.
  I, of course, like the Presiding Officer, was a State-elected 
official. I was never the Governor, but I was probably, in many 
respects, qualified in a way, today, that never occurred to me at the 
time, which was that I was a regulator. I was a State regulator who had 
been elected by the people of my State to regulate things like rates of 
gas and electrical utilities, to cite things like pipelines and 
transmission lines and powerplants and wind farms, and to oversee the 
Federal Communications Act and its application in North Dakota. From 
that perch as a State regulator for nearly 10 years, by far, the 
greatest problems and the greatest obstacles to doing my job were the 
mandates coming from Washington, DC, and its trying to impose its 
mediocrity on North Dakota's excellence.
  So, when I came to Washington, I set out to change some of that. I 
wanted to try to change our bureaucracy a little bit and find somebody 
in this place who understood and respected the role of the States in 
this cooperative federalism, because what I saw and what I continue to 
see is a big bureaucracy that is trying to run right over--roll right 
over--the States of this country. I think that the overriding issue of 
the role of States and of federalism gets to the heart of lots of these 
other smaller issues, of lots of these more granular issues.
  Now, whether it is the waters of the United States and what is a 
navigable water--that is one of the big ones, right? The Clean Power 
Plan and its imposition on local and State regulation is another, and 
how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission deals with grid 
reliability. Maybe it is something even more granular like cross-State 
emissions. Who knows? There are lots of them--lots and lots of them--in 
areas where it has really been the courts themselves. Whether it is the 
Supreme Court or the appellate court or the district court, it has 
really been the courts--the judiciary--that have been the only thing 
standing between an overbearing Federal Government and the rights of 
States.
  So my discussions with Judge Barrett centered around her views on 
federalism. I gave her some examples, some North Dakota examples. I 
even laid the blame on Congress, and we deserve a lot of it, for sure. 
We have passed broad authorizations for the bureaucracy and then let 
them fill in the blanks. We have to stop doing that. We need to be more 
proscriptive. In the meantime, I want to be sure that we have a Supreme 
Court that understands the sovereignty of States.
  I mean, right now, North Dakota is engaged in several pieces of 
litigation with our own Federal Government, and this is under Trump's 
Department of Justice. I just wish the lawyers at the Department of 
Justice would take on the bad actors in the political class with the 
same zeal with which they take on my State. By the way, there are much 
bigger things they could be taking on when they take on the political 
class, if they would just do it, than the little things, where they 
should be negotiating settlements with the State of North Dakota. I 
just wish they had the same zeal for that. That would be much more 
worthy of the title of ``justice.''
  Yes, I am very pleased with Judge Amy Coney Barrett's philosophy and 
demeanor, but I was really grateful for her answers on the issue of the 
role of States in a cooperative Federalist system like ours. Yet, at 
the end of the day, judicial philosophy, intellect, and where one went 
to college is all just shored up by the fact that she is a person of 
incredible virtue--yes, a virtue that is grounded in faith. That is, 
after all, where most virtue comes from. In fact, I suspect that some 
of those virtues that used to be more universal in our country are part 
of why the left despises her so much.
  As for me, I am just glad that she is willing to do it. I am glad 
that her family is willing to stand with her and do it. I am glad that 
she has the virtues of faith that underpin the intellect and the 
experience and the demeanor. In fact, perhaps, it is why she has all of 
those other things. For those reasons and several others, it is going 
to be a pleasure--it is even going to be an honor--to stay the night 
tomorrow night, if that is what we have to do, to cast the vote for 
Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become the next Associate Justice on the 
Supreme Court of the United States. I urge my colleagues to do the same
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I am here to talk about my support for 
confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.
  Judge Barrett's qualifications and her character are indisputable. I 
had the honor of meeting with Judge Barrett earlier this month when she 
said her guiding principles as a judge were in the mold of a great 
Justice--the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In fact, during our meeting 
and over the course of her hearing before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Barrett demonstrated her understanding of the purpose 
of the U.S. Supreme Court and the proper role of a judge.
  Judge Barrett believes that judges shouldn't legislate from the 
bench. Keep in mind that she is currently a sitting judge on the 
Seventh Circuit Court. She won't misuse her power as a judge to impose 
her policy preferences, and she won't twist the original and the true 
meaning of the Constitution to advance a political agenda of any kind. 
Judge Barrett will uphold our cherished constitutional rights, 
including the Second Amendment.
  I have an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association and the 
Montana Shooting Sports Association. I firmly believe that a correct 
understanding--a profound understanding--of the Second Amendment is 
essential. In the discussions I had with Judge Barrett, she confirmed 
she has that understanding. Judge Barrett's strong support of the 
Second Amendment can give every law-abiding Montanan who owns a firearm 
the full confidence that she will never allow the government to take 
away our guns. She understands what ``shall not infringe'' truly means.
  I believe Judge Barrett will stop Congress in its tracks when it 
exceeds its limited constitutional powers. For decades, Congress has 
imposed policies that this body has had no authority in creating in the 
first place. Judge Barrett will ensure that Congress stays within its 
limited constitutional powers while returning powers to the States and 
back to the people. She will defend the Constitution. She will protect 
our Montana way of life, including our Montana jobs. Judge Barrett will 
not bend to the radical fringe groups that are looking to kill Montana 
timber and coal jobs. She will be a fairminded Justice whom Montanans 
will be proud of.
  Yet some on the far left not only oppose Amy Coney Barrett's 
confirmation but have also said they are open to packing the Supreme 
Court with liberal judges. Let me just define what ``packing'' means. 
That means increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court from 
9, which has been the case for 151 years, to 11 or 13 or more, perhaps. 
That will be an attack on our

[[Page S6445]]

Montana way of life. I stand with Montanans in strongly opposing this 
dangerous power-grab proposal. With Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court, 
the age of activist Justices rewriting the laws to accomplish their own 
policy agendas will be gone.
  She is a mother of seven children--five biologically and two adopted 
Haitian children. We will have a Supreme Court Justice whom we can also 
call a minivan mom. Judge Barrett is an inspiration to professional 
women, to working moms, and to school-aged girls across Montana who can 
feel certain there is no American dream that women cannot achieve.
  Just last week, I met with several northwest Montana businesswomen 
leaders in Kalispell to talk about their support for Judge Barrett's 
confirmation. These Montana businesswomen shared their views of Judge 
Barrett as a mentor, a role model, a wife, a mother, a brilliant 
jurist, and a great leader.
  I would also like to take a moment to congratulate and thank 
President Trump for nominating such outstanding and well-qualified 
individuals to the U.S. Supreme Court. With Judge Barrett's 
confirmation, we will take another major step toward restoring the 
Founding Fathers' vision for the Supreme Court and the separation of 
powers they brilliantly created.
  As a U.S. Senator from Montana, supporting Judge Barrett's 
confirmation to the Supreme Court is an easy call. She is someone whom 
Montanans can be proud of and whom Montanans can look up to on the 
Court.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.