Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 865.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 862.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 864.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 863.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 866.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on Saturday evening, President Trump announced his nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Barrett earlier today. I left our discussion even more convinced that President Trump has nominated exactly the kind of outstanding person whom the American people deserve to have on their highest Court. Americans deserve brilliant judges with first-rate legal minds. Judge Barrett is that and then some. She attended Notre Dame Law School on full scholarship, graduated No. 1 in her class, and was executive editor of the Law Review. She secured top-flight clerkships on the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court. After a few years in private practice, she returned to academia and built a national reputation as an award-winning professor and legal scholar. Judge Barrett is brilliant. Americans also deserve judges who are committed to fairness and impartiality, to following the facts in every case. They deserve judges who understand that their job is to interpret the text of our laws and Constitution as they are written, not as the judge might personally wish they had been written differently. Again, Judge Barrett passes with flying colors. Her 3 years of rulings on the Seventh Circuit are the record of a judge who sets out to do impartial justice under law--nothing more and nothing less. This nominee could not be more fully qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman is a fierce critic of President Trump. He was one of the House Democrats' star witnesses in their impeachment. He has known Judge Barrett professionally for more than 20 years. Despite some philosophical differences, he went out of his way this past weekend to write that she is ``highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.'' Here is what Professor Feldman wrote: I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them. And if you ``believe in an ideal judicial temperament,'' Professor Feldman went on, ``then rest assured that Barrett has it.'' It is the same story from everyone--everyone--who knows Judge Barrett well. The dean of Notre Dame Law School says she is ``an absolutely brilliant legal scholar and jurist [and] one of the most popular teachers we have ever had here.'' One of her faculty colleagues said: ``She is a principled, careful judge, admired legal scholar, and amazing teacher.'' Six young women who all studied under now-Judge Barrett say she drilled into them ``the necessity of setting personal beliefs aside when evaluating the answer to a legal question.'' These objective qualifications and credentials are what matter most. Judge Barrett deserves to be judged by her record. But a few more things bear notice. As our Nation continues to honor the trailblazing life of the late Justice Ginsburg, it seems fitting that President Trump has nominated another brilliant woman who has climbed to the very top of the legal field. Young women who know Judge Barrett well describe her as not just an excellent teacher but a gracious mentor and an inspiring example of female leadership. As the only congressional leader not from New York or California, I applaud the President's decision to look to the heartland. If confirmed, Judge Barrett would be the only current Supreme Court Justice with a law degree from anywhere besides Harvard or Yale--from anywhere besides Harvard or Yale. I would say this nominee would bring welcomed diversity on multiple fronts. As I predicted last week, the far left is rushing to make this nomination about anything but Judge Barrett's qualifications. The instant she was announced, they started with the same unhinged attacks they have recycled for every Supreme Court nomination by every Republican President since the 1970s. Remember, the far left said Justice Stevens opposed ``women's rights,'' that Justice Kennedy would be ``a disaster for women,'' and that Justice Souter would put the ``health and lives'' of Americans at risk. Well, Saturday went like clockwork. The political left took one more look at Judge Barrett's qualifications, gave up on debating the merits, and headed right at the same old scare tactics. Our colleague, the Democratic leader, informed Americans that this 48-year-old working mother was going to ``turn back the clock on women's rights.'' This 48- year-old working mother was going to ``turn back the clock on women's rights,'' so said the Democratic leader. The junior Senator from California said the nominee would ``harm millions of Americans.'' The junior Senator from Connecticut said ``Amy Coney Barrett would create a humanitarian catastrophe.'' Well, here we go again. Here we go again. One of the preselected scare tactics is that Judge Barrett is out to steal Americans' healthcare coverage. That is the claim. This mother of seven, including multiple children who were born or adopted facing preexisting medical challenges, is just itching to block families like hers from accessing medical care. What a joke. What a joke. When Senate Democrats were trying to attack Chief Justice John Roberts, long before ObamaCare even existed, they claimed he had sought to ``put millions of American consumers and families at risk of losing coverage.'' They have been recycling these same attacks since before they even passed the law they now say they are worried about. On this occasion, their entire argument seems to come down to a technical analysis Judge Barrett put forward in a 4-year-old academic paper about one part of ObamaCare, which Congress has already zeroed out in the meantime. Let me just say that again. The entire argument seems to come down to a technical analysis that Judge Barrett put forward in a 4-year-old academic paper about one part--just one part-- of ObamaCare, which Congress has already zeroed out in the meantime. These hysterical claims collapse under the slightest examination, but, sadly, they are just beginning. Three years ago, Senate Democrats' bizarre attacks on Judge Barrett's religious faith became a national embarrassment for their side of the aisle. The senior Senator from Illinois asked now-Judge Barrett: ``Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?'' This was actually during a U.S. Senate hearing. The senior Senator from California told her that ``the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern.'' This was not, regretfully, an isolated incident. Over the past few years, multiple Senate Democrats, on multiple different occasions, have openly suggested that certain kinds of religious beliefs might disqualify citizens from public service. In 2017, the junior Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, told an executive branch nominee that he had made an ``indefensible, hateful, Islamophobic'' statement because he had articulated a personal belief that Christianity gets things right which Islam gets wrong. In 2018, the junior Senator from California, who is now asking for Americans' votes to be Vice President, attacked a different nominee for participating in the Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus? This is a massive, noncontroversial Catholic men's association that is known for things like shoveling snow off church sidewalks and hosting pancake breakfasts. ``Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman's right to choose,'' Senator Harris asked, as though it were remotely controversial that a famous Catholic organization would subscribe to Catholic teaching on the right to life. The junior Senator from Hawaii suggested this nominee would need to quit the organization, quit the Knights of Columbus to serve as a judge. You would think the national backlash to all of this would have taught the political left a lesson. Here is what happened in just the past few days. The Associated Press, Reuters, POLITICO, Newsweek, and the Washington Post have already run up major stories on the Barrett family's private faith practices. Each strongly implied there might be something worrisome or disqualifying if a Federal judge were a faithful Christian with strong ties to spiritual groups. POLITICO's contributing editor literally went and peered around the physical grounds of a religious facility in South Bend so he could report what the youth group had written on their whiteboard. Less than 72 hours in, this is where we are. The elite class is already treating Americans of faith like exotic animals on display in a menagerie. Look, I understand the far left had committed to opposing this nominee before she was even named. I understand some politicians have decided to oppose Judge Barrett before they even considered her record. But every time they choose to use the nominee's personal faith as a political weapon, they will only be reminding millions of Americans why it is so essential to have judges just like Judge Barrett on the bench. In this country--our country--citizens have religious liberty. In this country--our country--there is no religious test for public office. In this Country--our country--we have the right to seek the protection of the courts when our free exercise of religion is threatened. That is why we need judges like Judge Barrett who understand our laws and Constitution and will uphold our freedoms accordingly. If the reflexive opponents of Judge Barrett's nomination want to argue otherwise, they will only be proving how much better she understands our Constitution than they do. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week, the Senators who are sitting down with Judge Amy Coney Barrett are meeting an incredibly impressive jurist and highly qualified nominee. They are hearing from the professor whom former colleagues call ``mind-blowingly intelligent,'' ``one of the most humble people you're going to meet,'' and ``the complete package.'' They are meeting a law school valedictorian and award-winning academic whom peers praise for her ``lucid, elegant prose,'' ``piercing'' legal analysis, and ``absolute dedication to the rule of law.'' Senators are meeting the distinguished circuit judge whom the liberal law professor Noah Feldman says is ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer'' who is ``highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.'' Some of our Democratic colleagues have decided they will refuse to meet with Judge Barrett. Several have volunteered their votes will have nothing to do with her qualifications, as though that were something to be proud of. The Democratic leader says: ``It's not her qualifications.'' The junior Senator from Delaware says: ``This isn't about her qualifications.'' Certainly, every Senator may define ``advice and consent'' how they wish, but I think it is telling to see Senate Democrats openly affirming that Judge Barrett's actual judicial qualifications do not matter to them. Our friends on the left really do mistake the Court as an unelected superlegislature. They are not interested in Judge Barrett's legal qualifications because they think judges are there to dictate policy outcomes rather than following the facts and text wherever they lead. That is why we have had the same scare tactics for almost half a century. John Paul Stevens was going to end women's rights. David Souter was going to send vulnerable people into the Dark Ages. John Roberts was going to declare war on health insurance. And now our Democratic colleagues want Americans to believe Judge Barrett is on a one-woman crusade to hurt Americans with preexisting conditions. One Senator has literally claimed the nominee would--listen to this--``create a humanitarian catastrophe.'' They are the same old scare tactics, totally predictable and totally dishonest. These baseless attacks over healthcare are supposedly founded on a technical argument in a 4-year-old scholarly article. Then-Professor Barrett analyzed the Supreme Court's ruling on one piece of ObamaCare-- the unfair, unpopular individual mandate penalty, which we have since zeroed out. The constitutional arguments over whether that terrible idea was a ``penalty'' or a ``tax'' are now moot because, whatever you want to call it, Republicans in Congress zeroed it out 3 years ago. Working Americans are no longer penalized by that Democrat policy. Americans with preexisting conditions are still protected and that specific legal question is moot. Our Democratic colleagues are grasping at straws. Now they want Judge Barrett to promise to recuse herself from whole categories of cases. Of course, that is ridiculous. It is hard to think of anyone in the country over whom a President has less leverage than a judge with a lifetime appointment. Nobody suggested Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan needed to categorically sit on the sidelines until President Obama left office. This is just a backdoor attempt to impugn Judge Barrett's integrity. If Senators believe this nominee is committed to impartial justice in every case, if they believe she will mean her oath when she takes it, they should vote to confirm her. If they don't, they should vote no. But only one of these arguments has any basis in Judge Barrett's resume, her reputation, and the praise that has been showered on her jurisprudence even by famous liberal lawyers. Judge Barrett has already stated in writing to the Senate that she has given nobody in the White House any hints or any assurances about any kind of cases, real or hypothetical. It is only Senate Democrats who are trying to extract promises and precommitments. It is only Democrats who are trying to undermine judicial independence. Last night on national television, former Vice President Biden refused to rule out the radical notion of packing the Supreme Court. He ducked the question. In Washington, when you duck the question, you know what the answer is. That is exactly what they are up to. That is exactly what they intend to do. Last year, our colleague Senator Harris said explicitly that she was open to it. That is another way of saying that is what they intend to do. Numerous of our colleagues have refused to rule out this radical institution-shattering step. Now Senate Democrats are trying to make Judge Barrett precommit to handle hypothetical issues the way they want--more disrespect for judicial independence. Judge Barrett understands a judge's only loyalty must be to our laws and our Constitution. She understands our system would collapse if judges do not leave politics aside. If the Democratic Party feels differently, if Democrats have decided that judicial independence is simply an inconvenience to their radical agenda, it shows how little weight we should afford their criticisms of this outstanding nominee

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. If Senate Democrats were half as concerned as they say about America's family healthcare, they would not have filibustered a multihundred-billion-dollar proposal for more coronavirus relief just a few weeks ago. A Senate minority that was focused on America's health would have let us fund more tests, treatments, and vaccine development, like Republicans tried to do just a few weeks ago. A Senate minority that was prioritizing wellness would have let us spend more than $100 billion to make schools safe for students, like Republicans tried to do just a few weeks ago. A Senate minority that sought to protect citizens with preexisting conditions would have let us reaffirm legal protections for those Americans, like Republicans had in our bill just a few weeks ago. A Senate minority that was serious about economic recovery would have let us fund a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program and continued the expanded unemployment checks, like Republicans tried to do just a few weeks ago. The Senate voted on all of this 3 weeks ago. Three weeks ago, every single Senator cast a vote on preexisting conditions, money for testing, money for vaccines, money for safe schools, money for small businesses, and money for unemployed workers--just 3 weeks ago. Fifty- two Republicans voted to pass all of these policies and every single Democrat who showed up voted to filibuster it dead. The Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House were determined that American families should not see another dime before the election. This week, Speaker Pelosi is finally caving to months of pressure from fellow Democrats who argue that her stonewalling is hurting our country. House Democrats are trying to save face by introducing yet another multitrillion-dollar far-left wish list with virtually all the same non-COVID-related poison pills as their last unserious bill. Speaker Pelosi's latest offering still does not include a single cent of new money toward the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses that are going under. It does nothing to help schools, universities, doctors, nurses, or employers avoid frivolous lawsuits. But the House did find room to provide special treatment to the marijuana industry. Their bill mentions the word ``cannabis'' more times than the words ``job'' or ``jobs.'' They still want to send taxpayer-funded stimulus checks to people in our country illegally. They still want to hand a massively expensive tax cut to millionaires and billionaires in places like New York City and San Francisco, a pet priority of the Speaker and the Democratic leader that would do nothing to help working families through this pandemic. All of these far-left poison pills are still in their recycled bill. They have no intention of making bipartisan law for American families, but there are a few changes from the last bill. So get this. Now that supporting law enforcement has become less than fashionable on the far left, the Democrats have actually taken out hundreds of millions of dollars for hiring and assisting police officers. Let me say that again. In this latest version, there were at least some changes. Now that supporting law enforcement has become less than fashionable on the far left, the Democrats have actually taken out hundreds of millions of dollars for hiring and assisting police officers. Their so-called sequel to the Heroes Act has decided that cops are not heroes after all. Apparently, cops are not heroes after all. The House Democrats couldn't miss a chance to defund the police. This latest bill from the Speaker is no more serious than any of their other political stunts going back months. If they continue to refuse to get serious, then American families will continue to hurt. Less than a month ago, every single Senator voted on providing hundreds of billions of dollars for kids, jobs, healthcare, and reaffirming protections for preexisting conditions. There were 52 Republicans who voted to advance all of these things, but every single Democrat who showed up voted to block them. The American people are still hurting. The layoffs are still mounting. Families still need more help, and the healthcare fight needs more resources. One side voted to supply all of that help. The other side decided to block it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, for the information of my colleagues, the vote on the confirmation of the Young nomination will occur at 11:30 a.m. today.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2663.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second degree amendment at the desk.