John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2174 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 484, S. 4054.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the Roberts amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know of no further debate on bill, as amended.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 732 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 556, S. 4462.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn and that the Sullivan substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 320, S. 1342.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3312 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 4612 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I 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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Johnson nomination.

Mr. CORNYN. Finally, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Johnson nomination be waived.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the world is celebrating major developments in the global race for a vaccine. All year, since this pandemic hit, our greatest scientific minds have been working around the clock to develop a vaccine that will finally bring the pandemic and the crisis associated with it to an end. Researchers are testing dozens of vaccines in the hope of finding at least one that can stop the spread of the virus, which has claimed more than 1.2 million lives worldwide and nearly 240,000 here in the United States alone. Early data from Pfizer's vaccine trial gives us a lot of reasons to be hopeful when the company announced on Monday that its vaccine was more than 90 percent effective in preventing the disease. For reference, standard flu vaccines for the seasonal flu are typically 40 to 60 percent effective, so 90 percent is a big deal. This breakthrough is a testament to the ingenuity and the near-universal commitment to trying to find a vaccine that will eliminate the threat of this pandemic, and it is a sign of hope for all people around the world. Later this month, once Pfizer has collected the recommended 2 months of safety data, the company plans to request emergency authorization for the vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. By the end of the year, it will have manufactured enough doses to immunize 15 to 20 million people. Congress has made tremendous investments in the development of therapeutics and of vaccines through the CARES Act, and I am incredibly proud of the men and women who have led this fight on the frontlines, including in my State of Texas. During preclinical trials over the summer, scientists at the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio tested the Pfizer vaccine on monkeys, with impressive results. Dr. Deepak Kaushal, who oversaw the study, said they saw a 100-percent protection rate in the monkeys that were given the Pfizer vaccine. Once it was ready for human trials, hundreds of Texans volunteered to be vaccinated. Nearly 200 patients from Austin have participated in the study. The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston has enrolled more than 500 participants at its three sites in Galveston, League City, and Clear Lake City, and hundreds more in the Dallas-Forth Worth area have volunteered to be part of the trial. One of those Texans is a woman named Andrea Lucia, who received her first dose of the vaccine from a clinic in Keller, TX, in late September and returned for the second dose 3 weeks later. Like other volunteers in a double-blind study, where half gets a placebo and the other half gets the vaccine, Andrea doesn't know if she received the vaccine or not, but every week, she is asked if she has any symptoms. Andrea said she will have occasional followup appointments over the next year and a half, and once the vaccine becomes publicly available, she will find out if she received it already through the clinical trials. I thank Andrea and the thousands of men and women like her who have volunteered to test these vaccines in the ongoing clinical trials. They have risked their own health to ensure the world can access a safe and effective vaccine as quickly as possible and, of course, subject to the determination by the Food and Drug Administration that it is safe and effective. Of course, none of this would be possible without the brilliant researchers, scientists, doctors, and nurses who sprinted at full speed in the race for this vaccine for months on end. America is proud of their heroic work, and we will keep cheering them on and supporting their work as the race for a vaccine continues

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I had to look at my watch today to remind myself it has been a week since the November 3 general election. I must say, it seems it has been much longer than that. Just as we have every 4 years throughout our Nation's history, the American people voted for our next Commander in Chief. In the months leading up to election day, we know the atmosphere was tense. The days of counting that followed it have been, as well, but I have full faith that our constitutional Republic is working just exactly the way it should. A record-setting 150 million people and counting cast a ballot this election. In my State, there were 10.9 million voters--almost 11 million. The last time I was on the ballot, there were 4.7 million. So we have seen a huge influx of people and increased participation in the electoral process, and I think both of those are good things. The reason people come to Texas is that we are still a land of opportunity, where people can come and work hard, start out with little, build something for themselves and their families, provide value to others so they can come find a job and provide for their families, which is, to me, the definition of the American dream. We know that election workers and poll workers have worked across our country to ensure that every legal vote--whether it was in person or by mail--will be counted, and that is as it should be. I know major media outlets have projected that former Vice President Biden has secured enough electoral votes to be our next President, but there are still votes to be counted. As my friend the majority leader noted yesterday, the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media companies. Between recounts and legal challenges, it is tough to say exactly when the election will be certified. But if there are irregularities, if there are questionable practices or wrongdoing, President Trump and his campaign--like every other candidate and their campaign--are entitled to seek legal remedies in court. Of course, if they do, they will be obligated to present evidence, which I understand is in the process of being marshaled, and to do so, obviously, with dispatch. But while this process may seem drawn out to us living in the moment, legal challenges are not unprecedented. For example, back in 2000, we remember--some of us remember, most of us remember--the example of Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for President who didn't concede the election until December 13. During the weeks following the election, the American people waited patiently as the courts weighed in, and once they did, we all accepted the result. Acceptance of the result is key. I had faith in the process that led to that result just as I have faith in the process and institutions that are working now. When the Electoral College meets on January 6, 2021, every American should have confidence in the free and fair elections that led to that result. Let me say that again. When the Electoral College meets on January 6, 2021, every American--win or lose--every American, every candidate should have confidence in the free and fair elections that led to the result. I think this is perhaps the single most important reason to let the process that is currently underway run its course. If one side or the other or, more importantly, the voters who, ultimately, voted for the candidate who loses feel the process is unfair or has been jammed through unreasonably, are they likely to accept the result of the election or will they feel cheated? Well, acceptance of that result is perhaps the single most important goal we ought to strive to achieve. The peaceful transition of power is perhaps the single greatest feature of our constitutional system. Every 4 or 8 years, the most powerful person in the world steps aside to allow their successor, chosen by the people, to take charge. Of course, many wars have been fought, blood has been shed, and lives have been lost to secure this right to us as Americans and to ensure that peaceful transition of power after all the votes are counted. Yet in America, dating back to 1797, when Washington willingly passed the torch to Adams, the peaceful transition of power has defined the office of President. It is a legacy that our forefathers established and one that generations of Americans have fought hard to protect. So in 2 months' time, we will see this American constitutional process play out once again. I have complete confidence in that conclusion. While the Presidential race has dominated headlines over the last week, it was only one of the many races on the ballot, as the Presiding Officer knows from personal experience. From city halls to courthouses, to State houses, to Congress, Americans cast their votes for leaders at every level of government. I was honored--as I am sure my colleague from Louisiana, the Presiding Officer, was--to be reelected by the people of our State for another term in the U.S. Senate. During the campaign, I had a chance to present my record of service, and I was happy to do that to demonstrate that I have consistently fought to protect the rights of Texans and create more opportunities for every family to achieve their American dream. Collectively, here in Washington, we have brought down taxes for American families. We have empowered job creators. We have strengthened our criminal background check system for gun purchases, and we have reformed our criminal justice system, just to name a few things. But we have also worked hard to make healthcare more affordable by presenting more choices for consumers. We have supported quality education, and we have tried to make sure that safe communities are a reality for folks across the country and across the economic spectrum. In Texas, we have provided funding to rebuild following hurricanes and tornados and other natural disasters, like many other States. And throughout the COVID-19 crisis, we have provided unprecedented funding to help our frontline healthcare heroes, our small businesses, and our families stay afloat amid so much uncertainty. I am grateful for the opportunity to continue to fight for a bright future for every family in Texas and to work with my colleagues to make sure that same promise is a reality for all Americans, and that is true regardless of who they voted for. That is exactly what I plan to do. I don't just represent the people who voted for me in this election; I represent all 29 million--and growing--Texans. I am honored to do it. We have added a few new faces to the Texas delegation in the House, and I am eager to work with these men and women and my friend Senator Cruz as Team Texas as we continue our record of delivering for our State. This is perhaps one of the most important lessons of Senator Hutchinson, whom I served with here in the Senate and who is now our Ambassador to NATO. She would always make this point to Republicans and Democrats in the Texas delegation. She said: We may be Members of the House or Members of the Senate. We may be Republicans or Democrats. But we are Team Texas. I have been proud to continue that spirit and that effort. I am proud of the fact that in this election we increased the number of women elected to Congress. At least 134 women will serve in the next Congress, with a record number of Republican women in the House of Representatives. For young women like my own daughters and younger girls, in particular, this representation is long overdue--just like Amy Coney Barrett, who was recently confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. What a wonderful example and role model for young women and maybe not so young women--for all women--and for all of us. It is something we should celebrate. While we are still waiting to know which party will hold the majority here in the Senate--that will be determined on January 5 of 2021--it is clear that there was no blue wave that swept the country. My Republican colleagues and I in the Senate will continue to fight against ideological policies from the left, or so-called progressives, that were resoundingly rejected in this election. We are not going to allow the Federal Government to tax Texas energy workers out of a job by imposing a carbon tax. We are not going to let them hamstring our police with unrealistic funding cuts or one-size-fits-all policies. And we are not going to allow them to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with political Justices intent on delivering results that couldn't be achieved through the legislative process. And we are not going to let them reverse the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, increase taxes, which will only make it harder for working families to put food on their tables. Now, the Presiding Officer and I both participated in an organization called No Labels, and I am proud of the work I have done, regardless of the fact I am a Republican and he is a Republican. We both know--we all know--that you can't get things done here in Congress by just working with people in your own political party. You have to work together. Indeed, I think that is the genius of our system. It forces us to work together if we want to get things done. I am proud of being consistently ranked as one of the most bipartisan Members of the Senate because I literally am willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who wants to make progress on the challenges that confront our Nation. This came up in a recent conversation we had during a hearing just a few minutes ago, talking about the lessons we have learned from the coronavirus in terms of the vulnerability of our supply chains, whether it is personal protective equipment that was overwhelmingly made in China, which was threatened by the delay in reporting from China and the hoarding and, literally, the global rush to hoard PPE for their own countries and their own people. But another example of that that we have worked on in a bipartisan way--most recently, in the National Defense Authorization bill--was to build more high-end semiconductors here in the United States. In 2019, only 1 foundry was being built in the United States and 16 of them in China, and you can imagine, if we are dependent for our economy, for our national defense on a sophisticated semiconductor manufactured in Taiwan, for example, that supply chain could be easily disrupted. So I am proud of the fact that we did pass, in the Defense Authorization bill, an amendment 96 to 4 to begin the effort to reduce the vulnerability in our supply chain. That is an example of the kind of thing that I think we need to do more of and which I am proud to be a part of. Well, I know Republicans have a long list of priorities, just as our Democratic colleagues do, but we still have a couple of months before the end of this Congress, and we need to find a way to work together in the best interest of the American people. The lights don't go out on the 116th Congress until January 3, which means we still have some time. I believe that over the last 2 years--notwithstanding what you hear in the media, which tends to focus on those narrow areas where we disagree the most and does not focus on the areas where we worked cooperatively together because they, by definition, don't make news--we have actually accomplished a lot for the country, and I will have more to say about that in the coming days. For now, I want to talk about the biggest remaining item on our to-do list and, that is an additional coronavirus relief package. Texas has just hit the unenviable milestone of 1 million confirmed COVID-19 tests. More than 19,000 Texans have lost their lives due to this virus, and our healthcare providers in some parts of the State are still struggling to keep up with the cases that end up going into the hospital. As we head into the winter months, experts are telling us that things will get worse before they get better. It is part of the seasonal impact of a virus like this. While we will continue to do our duty as individuals--wash our hands, mask when we can't socially distance, and the things we have learned to do, such as to stay home if you are sick--it is clear we are not through with this virus yet, even though we were delighted to hear some of the prospects for a vaccine in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, we still need to make sure that the assistance that we started in the first four bipartisan bills we passed, that we continue that assistance both on the healthcare front and on the economic front until we fully recover. The researchers and scientists who have been developing a vaccine over the last months have been making tremendous progress, and we need to invest in their continued success. Once the vaccine is actually approved as safe and effective by the FDA, the logistics of getting it distributed across the country, prioritizing, I hope, the most vulnerable Americans--those in nursing homes and assisted living facilities and those with underlying chronic illnesses--that is an enormous logistical challenge, and it is going to cost money. At the same time, we need to make sure that our economic recovery continues and that means we need to continue to safely reopen our economy, just as our school children and our college students have transitioned from a virtual educational experience back into the classroom slowly but surely. The unemployment rate in October dipped at 6.9 percent. Now, that is still a far cry from the 3.5 percent unemployment we had before the virus hit, but it is the lowest we have seen since the pandemic began, and we need to make sure we don't backslide into the double digits. Well, we know with the pendency of the election, after we passed the CARES Act in late March, we tried, I think it was, four times to pass a more targeted bill. We spent roughly $3.8 trillion in the first four pieces of legislation, and many of us--me included--felt like we needed to do more but on a targeted basis. The Speaker said, well, $3 trillion was her pricetag. We offered a half a trillion dollars in additional targeted relief, to which she replied, ``Nothing is better than something,'' which made me do a double take. I always thought that something was better than nothing, not ``nothing was better than something.'' Regardless of that, now that the election, by and large--at least, certainly, for Congress--is behind us, we need to address those people who still need help. I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us and not force the country to wait 2 more months. There is too much on the line. So I want to conclude by thanking the people of my State for the opportunity to continue to fight for them here in the U.S. Senate, and now I am happy to get back to work with all of my colleagues to deal with this unfinished business. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that was quite a speech from our friend from Delaware. If I had to categorize it, I would say this is really the Chicken Little argument: The sky is falling. Amy Coney Barrett-- this is the end of civilization. This is the end of the world as we know it. The irony to me and, frankly, the hypocrisy of the argument is that if the shoe were on the other foot, Senator Schumer, who has said everything is on the table ``if we win the majority''--Court packing, making DC, making Puerto Rico States--they would somehow show this superhuman self-restraint and not fill this seat. This is entirely consistent with the practice, given the fact that President Trump's first term doesn't run out until January 20 of next year. All of the Senators elected are serving through the end of this year, at least. So it is somewhat entertaining but beside the point to suggest that this good judge, this really extraordinarily decent human being is part of some vast conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and overrule all these precedents that the Senator from Delaware considers sacrosanct. Well, I am happy with the fact that tonight the Senate is set to confirm an exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is as impressive as they come. America saw it. Initially they didn't know her, but when they came to know her through her testimony on the Judiciary Committee, she became very popular. In my State, 59 percent of the people in a recent poll said they wanted us to confirm Judge Barrett now before the election--59 percent. It is no wonder why. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School. She clerked for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and on the Supreme Court and practiced law before transitioning to academia, where she has written and taught constitutional law, Federal courts, and statutory interpretation for nearly two decades. And, of course, for the last 3 years, she has served with distinction on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Her time in both the classroom and the courtroom have given her understanding of the law that few can rival. Over her confirmation hearing, she skillfully answered questions about legal doctrine, constitutional issues, and a myriad of precedents without so much as having a page of notes in front of her. As impressive as Judge Barrett's deep knowledge of the law is, it is only part of what I believe makes her an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court. Now, more than ever, the judiciary, along with our other elected officials, tends to function not by what the law says but through a lens of personal and political bias. It is polarizing. We know that people are highly agitated, including my friend from Delaware, and trying to stoke the turnout of their partisans in the runup to the election. It should go without saying--but I will say it anyway--that judges don't do that. They can't do that and still be judges. In order for the High Court to serve the proper role under our Constitution, it has to be made up of men and women of great integrity, restraint, and self-discipline, who will discharge their duties on the Bench free from bias, which means you don't announce the decision in a case before you have even heard it. You don't offer predictions or promises of how you will decide these contentious matters, which I know frustrates our friend from Delaware and others, but Judge Barrett has not only committed to doing this, not clouding her decisions by personal or political motivation or favor for any party; she has a record to back it up. During her time on the Seventh Circuit, she has joined with her colleagues in 95 percent of the 600 cases she has decided--95 percent consensus on a three-judge panel. That is no record of an outlaw or a radical or somebody who is going to disregard their judicial oath. She has consistently shown in each of these decisions a fidelity to the law and an impartiality, which are essential qualities for a Supreme Court Justice. But despite the judge's unassailable qualifications, our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly tried and failed to make this nominee out to be a radical, suggesting that she would violate her oath--the same oath to uphold and defend the Constitution that we take as Senators. But there is nothing in her background or her character which would suggest she would do something so brazen and so wrong. Some folks on the left have attacked her because of her Catholic faith. They have also tried to convince the American people she is on some sort of crusade to take healthcare away from American families-- How ridiculous is that?--or that she would slowly chip away at our freedoms and our liberties. The reason we have seen such hysterical attacks that are completely out of touch with reality is that this is all they have. They have nothing else There is no legitimate reason to oppose the nomination of Judge Barrett. Her stellar credentials and deliberate body of work prove that she understands the role of a judge--as important as it is but as limited as it is under our constitutional system--and I think that is part of what terrifies our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. You see, they have become accustomed to a Supreme Court that is more political than judicial, that feels free to make policy judgments to bail out the Congress or those who have either lost the vote or lost an election. That is why our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly pressed her to commit to an outcome in cases before the Court. She won't do it, and she shouldn't do it, and she didn't do it. They asked her everything from healthcare to abortion to climate change. They want to know right now--before she is even on the Court, before she has even heard the case--how she would rule. Well, Judge Barrett rightly declined. She invoked what is known as the Ginsburg rule from the 1993 confirmation hearing--presided over by Joe Biden when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee--of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and had been known for her pioneering work on behalf of women's rights, but she held some personally pretty radical views. So the Senators, out of curiosity if nothing else, wanted to ask her about those, and she declined, as she should have, because she said: It is inappropriate to make predictions or provide hints of how I might decide cases in the future. This is the most basic principle of our judicial system. Judges are not legislators. They shouldn't advocate for policy outcomes or promote a specific agenda. They certainly shouldn't commit to an outcome on a hypothetical case during the confirmation process. How would you feel if the judge you came before had previously said: Well, if I hear a case like that, I am going to decide against this litigant, this party for the lawsuit. That would be outrageous, and she shouldn't and didn't do that. Neither did Justice Ginsburg. Chief Justice Roberts reminded us last year: ``We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.'' And I agree that is the ideal. Men and women in black robes can't stick their thumbs on the scales of justice and supply wins to any cause, any individual, or any party. It is antithetical to our constitutional system. So I hope this process will help begin a way to guide our courts back to their proper function in our Constitution and to remind all of us of what has rightly been called the crown jewels of our Constitution, and that is an independent judiciary--judges whose pay can't be cut during their tenure in office, and they serve for life if they want to. That is the ultimate in political independence. Those are the crown jewels because judges apply the law that Congress writes, interpret the precedents of other courts, and interpret the Constitution. To give an unelected individual the power to make policy and to have an agenda to accomplish their personal or political goals would be the opposite of what our Constitution comprehends. There is no question that Judge Barrett has a brilliant legal mind, a deep respect for the Constitution, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. Her resume and her record are spotless. How do I know that? Well, if it wasn't, you would have heard about it. It is spotless. Her character is beyond reproach, and virtually everyone who has worked with or learned from Judge Barrett has offered their full-throated endorsement of her nomination. All the evidence-- all the evidence--points to one simple fact: Amy Coney Barrett is exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I have faith in Judge Barrett's ability to fairly interpret the law and apply it to cases before her--nothing more and nothing less. I believe Amy Coney Barrett will be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice, and I am proud to support her nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is a privilege to serve with the Senator from Vermont on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He and I have been called, maybe, the odd couple on a number of issues like Freedom of Information Act reform and other matters. So we find ourselves aligned on that important issue, the importance of the public's right to know. But it won't surprise anybody to know--it certainly doesn't surprise him to know--he and I have a different point of view on this nominee and on a few other topics as well. One of the ones I wanted to talk about briefly at the very beginning was the so-called Ginsburg rule. Senator Leahy was there and Joe Biden was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 1993 when Justice Ginsburg--then a lawyer-- was nominated for the Supreme Court. Her record as a litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union placed her far outside of the mainstream of American law. She argued for legalized prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy--certainly outside of the mainstream of American legal opinion. But when she was pressed time and again before Republicans to talk about those views, she said she would not answer those questions. She cited, appropriately, Canon 5 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which, among other things, forbids Federal judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will likely vote on issues that may come before the courts or from making any statement that would create the appearance that they were not impartial. This rule is absolutely critical to an independent judiciary because judges must remain open-minded and be able to decide an actual case without prejudging that matter before it comes before them. Can you imagine what it would be like if you were a party to a lawsuit and came before a judge who had made a statement committing to a particular outcome during their judicial confirmation hearing? Well, the unfairness of that is obvious. So I think Judge Barrett did what Justice Ginsburg did when she was before the Judiciary Committee, what we expect all nominees to do, and that is to not prejudge cases and to not give any hint or prediction of outcomes or run on a platform or an agenda. My view is that, if you had a judge who did or a nominee who did come before the Judiciary Committee and make those sorts of commitments, that would be disqualifying in and of itself. That person ought to run for Congress. They ought to run for city council. They ought to run for the school board. They should not be a Federal judge. That is not what Federal judges are supposed to do. So I think Judge Barrett did exactly what a judge should do when they are confirmed. We still got to ask her a lot of questions, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, over the 30-plus hours of questioning, and she was extraordinary. It is obvious she had great command of the subject matter. There was a special moment where I noticed she wasn't taking any notes or writing anything down or referring to anything, and it struck me how strange it was, what a contrast it was that each of us, as members of the committee, had a small army of staff around us, that they had read every case, they had prepared big three-ring notebooks of information for us to get prepared to question the judge--but the judge had nothing in front of her. And I asked her to hold up what was sitting in front of her, and it was an empty legal pad--an empty notepad, excuse me--that bore the name ``U.S. Senate'' on the ink pad but nothing that she had written down. So it, I think, spoke volumes about her command of the subject matter and her fitness for this particular job. We have all talked about the support she has from professors at Notre Dame, where she has taught for a number of years, highlighting her impressive intellect, her elegant legal analysis, and her manifest judicial temperament. Eighty-one former law school classmates from diverse political and other backgrounds shared their collective view that she embodies the ideal qualities of a Supreme Court Justice. We have heard from Noah Feldman, Harvard University law professor, who tends to be more liberal, and he points out that Judge Barrett is a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she has committed. So, in short, Judge Barrett has the qualities we should all look for in a judge. I think it is telling that our Democratic colleagues, when it came time last Thursday to vote on this nomination, decided to boycott the markup. None of them appeared. None of them voted. So the vote, literally, was unanimous. All of the Senators there present voted to vote the nominee out of the Judiciary Committee and recommended that that nomination be sent to the floor. I suppose, if they thought it would make any difference or they really had something to say or a reason to vote no, they would have shown up, but they did not. Judge Barrett exemplifies the fact that judges aren't players on a red team or a blue team; they are, as Chief Justice Roberts said during his confirmation hearing, umpires calling balls and strikes. We all understand the difference between an umpire and a player, and, simply said, judges aren't players; they just call balls and strikes, and they make sure the rules of the game are enforced. Judges should have no biases, no favorites, no preferred outcomes. But somehow, in their anger about this nominee and about the fact that she will fill the vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, somehow our friends across the aisle seem to have forgotten what the most basic role of judges is in America. Again, they pressed her, asking: How do you feel about climate change? How do you feel about abortion? How do you feel about every other hot-button issue that they could think of, and she appropriately invoked the Ginsburg rule and would not comment. Exactly what she should be doing. The other thing that I think is remarkable about this nominee is she is obviously somebody who has soared to the very heights of the legal profession--teaching, being a judge on the Seventh Circuit, both of which qualify her for this job. But she is also a person of great integrity and character. It takes self-restraint, it takes self-discipline not to use the power that Federal judges have to impose your own view or to choose a result. That takes a lot of self-restraint and self-discipline, and she has demonstrated her commitment to that judicial philosophy and that approach. During the final days of soon-to-be Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing, we heard from a number of witnesses about her, their experience working with her. I believe one of the most moving testimonials came from one of her former students, a young lawyer named Laura Wolk. Since graduating from Notre Dame Law School, Laura has earned some highly coveted clerkships, including for the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, just like her former professor. There is one fact about Laura that made her climb to these incredible heights as a young lawyer all the more impressive, and that is that she is blind. Throughout her life, Laura has overcome barriers that exist for individuals who are blind or visually impaired, becoming the first blind person to clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court. Laura spoke about her arrival at Notre Dame and the technology failures that were causing her to fall farther and farther behind her peers. Obviously, she needed that technology that would help her compete. Settling into law school is tough for any student, and I can't imagine the fear and frustration that Laura felt as she struggled to keep pace, at no fault of her own, because she lacked the assistive technologies she needed to compete on a level playing field. Laura did what any student would do, I presume, and that is she went to her professor and shared the weight she was carrying--a weight Judge Barrett eagerly picked up, saying to her: This is no longer your problem; this is my problem. Laura described the relief and gratitude she felt for her professor's kindness and generosity, not only during this interaction but in the years of support and encouragement that have followed. I found Laura's testimony incredibly powerful and a shining example of the character that Judge Barrett will bring to the Supreme Court. We have all come to appreciate Amy Coney Barrett, the person--a woman of great integrity, humility, and compassion who will bring tremendous value to the highest Court in the land. I am confident that if our colleagues across the aisle had any good argument addressing her qualifications or character or integrity, we would hear about it. The only thing that I have heard them say, which I cannot believe that they believe, is that somehow this is part of some great conspiracy to defeat the Affordable Care Act. You know what our colleagues across the aisle failed to mention? The merits of the Affordable Care Act is not even before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a technical issue with regard to severability. It is a doctrine that says that if judges find part of a statute unconstitutional--here, for example, the individual mandate, which thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that penalty has been reduced to zero--whether if, in fact, that portion of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, whether the whole act fails or not. But judges are told to presume the constitutionality of statutes--to presume them. And so the burden is on those who would prove the unconstitutionality to prove it. The burden is on them. If they can save a portion of the law by severing it--that is the doctrine of severability--they must do it. I am pretty optimistic that the Supreme Court, no matter how constituted, will do exactly that--will follow the traditional canons of construction and guidance that judges apply in cases like this. And really, the suggestion we heard, including from my friend from Vermont just a moment ago, that this is part of a conspiracy to appoint the judge to the Court so she will then hear a case and result in a particular outcome is specious. It is also an insult--an insult to the judge's integrity and character--because she could not in good conscience take the oath of a judge if she were part of a conspiracy to rule in a particular way on a case--any case--in the future. And she said, unequivocally, that is not the role of a judge. But that is the argument, and maybe that is the best thing they have going, and so they are sticking with it. It just doesn't make any sense. It is totally out of character with everything we know about Amy Barrett as a person, as a lawyer, and as a judge. Instead of talking about the Supreme Court, we seem to hear another common theme, and that is to say that we could be working on a COVID-19 relief bill. We did pretty well through the end of March working together on COVID-19 relief. We passed four pieces of legislation, totaling $3.8 trillion. But it has been a while since March, and we need to pass another COVID-19 relief bill for the individuals who are still suffering, through no fault of their own, who don't have a paycheck--the enhanced unemployment insurance benefits, the Paycheck Protection Program that was so important to keeping small businesses' ability to maintain their payroll. We need more money for testing. We need to make sure that the therapeutics that have now come online are available to people who are infected with the virus. We need to make sure that the vaccine, once it is approved by the FDA, is available for distribution. That is why Senator McConnell has repeatedly brought legislation to the floor to bolster our fight against the virus at this critical time. In particular, the first bill he offered them was to supply another half a trillion dollars to help small businesses keep their doors open and their employees on the payroll; to help schools keep their students and teachers safe; to strengthen testing and invest, as I said, in the continued success of Operation Warp Speed. What did our Democratic colleagues do? They voted no. They wouldn't even get on the bill and then offer amendments to make it more to their liking. So they just blocked it. I think this is consistent with what we heard from Speaker Pelosi when she said that ``nothing is better than something.'' It always strikes me as very odd because I have always believed that something is better than nothing, but apparently not in this strange environment leading up to this November 3 election, which, unfortunately, I think is what is preventing us from passing a bill Many of our colleagues believe that leaving people anxious and worried and fearful, not only about their health but also about their economic circumstances, advantages them leading into the election. That is what they do. They want to stoke fear and uncertainty on the part of the American people. When we offer concrete pieces of legislation that would help relieve that anxiety, fear, and the sense that they are not receiving any income--how are you going to pay the bills or provide for your family-- repeatedly, they have voted it down. I just find that absolutely shameful. So here we are in October with 8.5 million confirmed cases of the virus. When we talk about cases, that is kind of interesting. They are positive tests. We know the vast majority of individuals will have little, if any symptoms. But we do know that there are vulnerable populations that need to be protected, particularly people in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, the elderly, and those with underlying chronic illness. This virus can be deadly, and that is why we need to take it seriously, wear our masks, socially distance, and do all the things that the Centers for Disease Control and other experts have advised. Our Democratic colleagues have not done anything to lift a finger to help people who are still hurting; people who are still anxious; people who are still worried about their health, about their children going safely back to school, about whether a vaccine will be available. Time after time, they blocked legislation we have introduced in the Senate, since we passed the CARES Act in March, and they have simply refused to provide care that is desperately needed, relief desperately needed by the American people. My constituents in Texas, like the rest of America, have waited months for additional relief. I am ashamed of the fact that we could not find a way to come together and produce a result. I am ashamed of the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle have forced them to wait even longer. I yield floor.