John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, tomorrow we celebrate Veterans Day, the day set aside to honor all those who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. This year, we observed the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, and our Nation's World War II veterans, the veterans of the ``greatest generation,'' have been on my mind a lot. Sixteen million Americans served in World War II--16 million. These veterans were a fixture in our lives. So many Americans grew up with a dad or a grandfather or a grandmother who had served in World War II. I was one of them. My favorite veteran, my dad, was a World War II pilot who flew Hellcats off the deck of the USS Intrepid in the Pacific. I came to know the values of the ``greatest generation'' through my dad-- humility, patriotism, quiet service. These warriors who helped save the world didn't brag about their achievements. They deflected praise. If they hailed any exploits, it was those of their comrades. My dad won the Distinguished Flying Cross--or, I should say, received the Distinguished Flying Cross, but that is not what he talked about. He did, however, talk about Cecil Harris, one of South Dakota's aces, whose advice for a deft maneuver saved my dad's life during a dogfight. It was a move straight out of ``Top Gun,'' only decades before the movie. My dad always talked about how South Dakota is the only State with two aces with more than 20 shootdowns during World War II. And he talked about the other pilots in his squadron and praised their character and their service. As I said, these veterans of the ``greatest generation'' have been a fixture in our lives for a long time. But 75 years on from the war, their numbers are dwindling and dwindling quickly. My dad died in August of this year at the age of 100. We lose more and more of these veterans every day, and they will be sorely missed, but their legacy lives on in the generations of veterans that have followed them. In every age and every era, men and women have stepped forward to answer the same call that the ``greatest generation'' answered. And in every era, those men and women, the men and women of the U.S. military, have embodied the values that characterized men like my dad--humility, courage, love of country, self-sacrifice, a love of freedom and for their fellow man. Service in the military was once commonplace. But in an age when only a small percentage of the population serves, we need to ensure that we don't forget the vital role of our Armed Forces and the price our men and women in uniform pay to ensure that all of us can live in freedom. It has been said 10,000 times--but it is no less true the ten thousandth and first time--that we live in freedom every day because of the men and women of the U.S. military. We owe them a debt we cannot hope to repay. But on Veterans Day and every day, we can remember to say thank you. I cannot close without mentioning the men and women I have met who have served and are serving--in particular, the members of the South Dakota National Guard and the airmen at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. Right now, members of the South Dakota National Guard are deployed in support of Combined Joint Task Force--Horn of Africa. The South Dakota Guard also recently served a rotation of deployments to Europe in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve and to the Middle East to support coalition forces. Like many of their counterparts across the country, they have also been a part of the domestic coronavirus response. At Ellsworth, the B-1 bombers of the 28th Bomb Wing continue to demonstrate their flexible, global reach through Bomber Task Force deployments. The Bomber Task Force missions strengthen our continued coordination with NATO allies in Europe and assert America's commitment to security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. From the Baltics to the South China Sea to the Middle East, the airmen at Ellsworth Air Force Base continue to answer our Nation's call and remain ready to respond to threats anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. As I said, we owe our men and women in uniform a debt we cannot hope to repay, but we can resolve to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of their sacrifices. Today and every day, may we remember the gratitude that we owe our military men and women and imitate their love of freedom and their devotion to our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 10, 2020, at 2 p.111., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 10, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 10, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed roundtable.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I begin, I want to acknowledge the tremendous news released yesterday that early results of a COVID vaccine are showing a greater than 90 percent rate of effectiveness. This is great news and a testament to the innovative power of the private sector and the efforts of Congress and the Trump administration to expedite the development of COVID vaccines. The trial for this vaccine will continue, and FDA approval will be required, but these early results are very, very encouraging. It has been a tough year for Americans and people all over the world, but hopefully this is a sign that the light at the end of the tunnel is coming.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, we are now a week on from the election, but there are still a lot of outstanding races to determine. Votes are still being counted or will soon be recounted in many States. The Presidential race has yet to be certified, and it is important to remember that while media outlets can predict a winner, official results do come later, and there are still House and Senate races that have yet to be decided. One thing is clear, though: The blue wave that Democrat pollsters and the media predicted was coming did not arrive. Americans emphatically did not endorse the socialist aims of the far left. Instead, they sent a much more moderate message. And I hope that when all the votes are counted and the outcomes of all the races are determined, Democrats will be able to overcome the virulent partisanship that has characterized their behavior over the past 4 years and work with Republicans to deliver results for the American people

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Democratic leader seems to think that this had something to do with a 3-minute speech 30 years ago. I don't know where that comes from. I can tell you that he has been involved in a systematic reversal of the longstanding precedent when it comes to the consideration of judges to the Federal bench by the U.S. Senate. I am a beneficiary, I suppose you could say, in some strange way of that. That was a major issue in my campaign in 2004. We made it about the blockade that the Democrats in the Senate at the time, led by the current Democratic leader, had started against a whole long list of nominees put forward by then- President George W. Bush. I remind you of a few names: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, Judge Charles Pickering. There was a long list of judges who were blocked at the time by the current Democratic leader. In fact, as Leader McConnell has pointed out, it wasn't even sort of a random thing. It was a planned strategy to start playing politics with the Federal Judiciary instigated by the architect, the current Democratic leader, who, at the time, was holding workshops and seminars about how they could politicize the Federal judiciary and figure out new ways to block consideration of judges put forward to the Federal bench by then-President George W. Bush. That was a major issue in that campaign season, and, I would argue, one of the principle reasons that I am here in the U.S. Senate. Then, of course, when the chickens came home to roost and the same tactics were used by the other side in the previous administration, as was pointed out again yesterday by Leader McConnell, the Democrats decided to break the rules to change the rules in 2013 to go to a simple majority to basically get and confirm judges on the Federal Judiciary. We are where we are today, notwithstanding all the bluster that you just heard, because of a long, systematic strategy by the Democratic leader to block judges put forward by Republican Presidents. Despite all of what you just heard, tomorrow we are going to get to vote to confirm one of the most outstanding judicial nominees whom I have had the pleasure of considering during my time in the Senate. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. By now, her accomplishments are well known: first in her class at Notre Dame Law School, Supreme Court clerk, beloved Notre Dame law professor, outstanding scholar, circuit court judge. Americans, of course, got to see Judge Barrett's qualifications for themselves a couple of weeks ago during her Judiciary Committee hearing. For 2 days, she answered tough and probing questions from Democrats and Republicans, displaying a consummate command of the law and a calm and thoughtfulness that shows she has the kind of judicial temperament you want in a Supreme Court Justice. Since Judge Barrett's nomination, the tributes have poured in from across the political spectrum: ``Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,'' said Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, one of the House Democrat's star impeachment witnesses. Patricia O'Hara, former dean of Notre Dame Law School, sent a glowing letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein. The letter says: I was the dean of Notre Dame Law School at the time that Judge Barrett first joined our faculty. In that capacity I was responsible for providing an environment in which she could flourish as a young faculty member, but also for evaluating objectively whether she met the University's high standards for scholarship and teaching required for advancement. This proved to be the easiest task of my ten years as a dean. Judge Barrett was (and remains) a stellar teacher beloved by students, a brilliant and nationally- recognized scholar, and generous colleague She went on to say: I am confident that if she is confirmed by the United States Senate, she will be an outstanding justice--brilliant, fair, impartial, and empathetic--and will serve to strengthen an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law. Professor O'Hara also took care to note in her letter that she doesn't write glowing reviews for Federal judiciary nominees on a regular basis. In fact, she said the only similar letter she has ever written was in support of Democratic nominee Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. She went on: I feel every bit as strongly about Judge Barrett's qualifications for a position as Associate Justice as I felt about Justice Kagan. While I may not always agree with the American Bar Association's judicial rankings, they certainly got it right with Judge Barrett. That is I talking, not the professor. I am still struck by the testimony that the head of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary is the body that provides the ABA's evaluations of Federal judicial nominees. In his testimony detailing the ``well-qualified'' rating that the ABA gave to Judge Barrett, the head of the ABA committee noted: Lawyers and judges uniformly praised the nominee's integrity. Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character. Accordingly, the Standing Committee was not required to consider any negative criticisms of Judge Barrett. That is quite a tribute. But, of course, ratings of ``well-qualified'' do not just depend on character; they also depend on professional competence. Here is what the ABA's representative had to say about that: Given the breadth, diversity, and strength of the positive feedback we received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions and from so many parts of the profession, the Standing Committee would have been hard-pressed to come to any conclusion other than that Judge Barrett has demonstrated professional competence that is exceptional. Along with her character, competence, and command of the law, Judge Barrett brings a clear understanding of the proper role of a judge. She understands that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make the law; to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game; or, as Judge Barrett said in an answer to a Senator's question, ``I apply the law. I follow the law. You make the policy.'' As Judge Barrett made clear in her hearing, she will be the kind of Justice who leaves her personal beliefs and political opinions at the courtroom door. She will look at the facts of each case and judge accordingly to the law and the Constitution and nothing else. When I came to the Senate, I hoped to have the opportunity to put judges like Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. I was proud to vote to confirm her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, and I look forward to voting to confirm her to the Supreme Court tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today we will confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. By now, I don't need to tell anybody that she is one of the most highly qualified Supreme Court candidates in living memory. Her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was a master class in what a Supreme Court Justice should look like, which is probably why a majority of voters want the Senate to confirm this outstanding nominee to the Nation's highest Court. A CNN anchor recently pointed out that, ``in another age . . . Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be getting 70 votes or more in the United States Senate . . . because of her qualifications.'' That is unquestionably true, but, unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that Judge Barrett will be collecting 70 or more votes later today because, for my Democratic colleagues, this has never been about Judge Barrett's qualifications. Democrats were never going to support this nomination, no matter how supremely qualified the individual in question. The President could have nominated the wisest, most outstanding jurist in the history of the world, and Democrats would still be opposing this nomination--in large part simply because it was made by this President. Democrats had their talking points ready from the beginning--the same talking points that they trot out for every Republican Supreme Court nominee. The sky will fall if this nominee makes it on to the Court, they cry. Minorities will suffer. Women will suffer. Americans will lose their healthcare. They have used that one a lot this time. Democrats would like to convince Americans that Republicans are trying to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of eliminating the Affordable Care Act and protections for preexisting conditions. It is a ludicrous charge. Every Republican-- every Republican--in the Senate supports protections for preexisting conditions, but apparently that doesn't matter to Democrats. The truth is, Republicans have no idea how Judge Barrett would rule on any particular ObamaCare case. The facts of each case are unique, with unique legal and constitutional issues. What we do know is that Judge Barrett will approach each case without prejudices or preconceived notions. We know that she will examine the facts of the case, the law, and the Constitution, and make her decision based solely on those criteria--not on her political beliefs, not on her personal opinions, just the law and the Constitution, no matter which party drafted any legislation in question. That should reassure Democrats, but it doesn't because, for many Democrats, their primary concern in confirming judges is not whether they will uphold the law but whether they will deliver the policy outcomes that Democrats want. That is why some Democrats are threatening to resurrect the long- discredited idea of court-packing, should they return to the majority. They are not sure that they can rely on a Supreme Court with Judge Barrett to deliver the policy outcomes that they want. So they want to add Justices to the Supreme Court until they can be sure that they will get the results that they desire. One has to wonder where this will end. Let's say Democrats add three more Justices to the Court. Then, when Republicans take the majority back, we add three more Justices to counteract the Democrats' power grab. Then Democrats get back in power and add still more Justices. It won't be long before the members of the Supreme Court are more numerous than the Members of the U.S. Senate. In addition to trying to scare Americans by suggesting that Republicans are trying to take away Americans' healthcare, Democrats have also tried to delegitimize the process. They have tried to suggest that it is wrong for Republicans to take up this nomination in an election year because Republicans didn't confirm Merrick Garland when President Obama nominated him in an election year. I am not going to spend a lot of time on this because the Republican leader, myself, and others have spent ample time demonstrating that confirming Judge Barrett is well within historical precedent. But I will say this: The Constitution of the United States gives the Senate the power to advise and consent to nominations made by the President. The Senate has full authority to accept or reject the President's nominations at any point in time during a Congress or President's term. There is no constitutional carve-out for election years. The minority party may not always like it when the majority confirms a nominee, which I completely understand, having been in the minority myself. But that doesn't mean that the majority party is doing anything wrong by proceeding with a nomination. I also have to ask: Are Democrats seriously suggesting that if they were in the same position--if they were in the majority in the Senate and the President were a Democrat--they would decline to approve a qualified jurist to the Supreme Court simply because the vacancy had occurred in an election year? I think everyone knows that if Democrats were in the same position, they would absolutely confirm a Democratic nominee to the Court--as they repeatedly urged us to do in 2016--and they would be well within their constitutional rights to do so, just as Republicans are well within our constitutional rights to confirm Judge Barrett. Before I close I would like to touch on another claim the Democratic leader keeps making--that Judge Barrett's nomination is somehow distracting Republicans from the COVID crisis or that her nomination is preventing us from taking up COVID legislation. That is flatout false. The Senate is capable of focusing on more than one important issue at a time. In fact, it is pretty much a requirement of our job that we be able to do so. Has the Democratic leader forgotten that Republicans tried to bring up additional COVID relief legislation literally just days ago and that Democrats, led by the leader, filibustered and that they did the same thing when we brought up COVID relief legislation in September? Republicans have been ready to pass additional COVID legislation for months. The only reason we haven't passed it already is that Democrats have refused to agree to any compromise legislation that could actually make it to through the Senate and to the President's desk. I am hoping that sooner rather than later, my friends on the other side will see the value of working together to provide real relief to our fellow Americans. This disease doesn't recognize party differences, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will realize that passing COVID relief shouldn't be a time for insisting on partisan priorities. It is unfortunate that Judge Barrett's nomination has been overshadowed by so much partisanship from Democrats, but ultimately what matters is that we are confirming this outstanding nominee. As I said yesterday, I came to the Senate with the hope of putting judges like Amy Coney Barrett on the bench: thoughtful, intelligent men and women with a consummate command of the law, and most of all--most of all--with a clear understanding that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law, to call balls and strikes, not rewrite the rules of the game. I am very proud to cast my vote to confirm Judge Barrett, and I look forward to calling her Justice Barrett in the very near future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I could just make one quick observation here, first off, the funding that was provided in the Republican bill wasn't inconsequential. It was $650 billion. And to the Democratic leader's point about the people in this country want what is now a $2.4 trillion bill--boy, I can tell you, I haven't seen that anywhere, and maybe there is some polling out there that indicates that. But I think if you ask the question: Would you want to spend $2.4 trillion dollars if you knew you were borrowing it from your children and grandchildren, you might get a different answer. And the truth of the matter is, we have gone $3.5 trillion--all borrowed money, all added to the debt--already to address coronavirus relief. That being said, we did bring a bill up that was another $650 billion, and the Democrats blocked it. Why? Because it didn't spend enough, and they didn't think it spent enough on the things that they thought it ought to spend money on. Well, if that is the debate, let's get on our bill. Let's start at the $650 billion base level, and they can offer amendments to increase funding. By the way, we did have funding in there for testing and vaccines-- significant amounts of money negotiated by Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. But if that is what they want to do, then let's start there, and then they can have an opportunity to debate it and offer amendments, but they have blocked even getting on the bill--not the bill itself, even debating it. So when he says: We want to have a debate, we could have had a debate. All they had to do was let us get on the bill, and then we could be offering up and debating and discussing these various amendments that they want to offer But I would argue that all the things that our bill includes are things that are important to the American people. It was a targeted bill. It was a fiscally responsible bill. And, yes, it got 52 out of 53 Republicans to vote for it--not a single Democrat. Why? Because the Democrats have an all-or-nothing approach, and they want to hold this process hostage to get a leftwing agenda of items included in the legislation, many of which--many of which have no relationship whatsoever to the coronavirus. So the leader's point--and, by the way, with respect to the judge, yes, Judge Barrett is, I think, everything that the American people want to see in a Supreme Court Justice. And for him to get up here and say that she doesn't have views that are supported by the American people, I don't understand exactly that argument because my understanding of what a judge is supposed to do is to take the facts of the case, apply the law, apply the Constitution in an impartial way, and apply those as written--not to try and get some perceived outcome or result or policy preference. That is not what judges do. What you heard him say is exactly why we have a difference of opinion about the judiciary in this country because they view the judiciary as an auxiliary legislature where you go to get outcomes and results that you can't get through the two political branches of our Government. Well, that is not what the judiciary is. The judiciary is supposed to be independent. It is supposed to be a fair arbiter--it calls balls and strikes and doesn't try and step on the scales or write the rules of the game. That is what a judge is supposed to be. So they don't like this Justice or this judge, I should say-- hopefully, soon to be Justice--because they think she is going to rule a certain way on particular cases, and they have no idea about that. I mean, think about it. The same argument has been made against Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, literally, for the last 30 or 40 years. Every single time a Republican President nominates an individual to the Supreme Court, the Democrats and the left get up and say: They are going to cut healthcare. They are going to destroy healthcare. They were saying that about Justices on the Supreme Court that vote with their wing more than anybody else. They said that about Chief Justice Roberts. He was going to kill healthcare. He was going to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans. He cast the deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. So they don't know what a judge is going to do. But I know what she is going to do because she has proven it as a judge on the appellate circuit, the Seventh Circuit, as an academic, in her writings, that she believes the role of a judge is to take the facts of a case, apply the law, apply the Constitution, as written, impartially, and to render a decision. That, to me, is what I think every American believes we ought to have in a Supreme Court Justice. So, yes, this may be fair game for them to come down here and offer up all these motions that we are going to hear repetitively today, none of which has anything to do with the issues that they are going to say they want to talk about but everything to do with the fact that we are considering an incredibly well-qualified--not by my opinion but by everybody who has ever worked with her, including the dean of the Notre Dame Law School who hired her, the ABA--the American Bar Association--which passes judgment on all these nominees, her colleagues on the Seventh Circuit, staff, everybody this person has ever interacted with, stellar recommendations. This is an incredibly qualified individual and somebody, by the way, who I think can be relatable to the American people because she deals with the same issues that all Americans do, trying to raise seven kids. Imagine that. Imagine trying to organize her schedule around seven kids, continue to be a professional, and do exceptional work. She is highly qualified, a ``towering intellect,'' she has been described by her colleagues. So that is what this is about. It is about trying to block a well- qualified Justice to the Supreme Court simply because they don't like the process. And I understand that, but this is a constitutional process. This is a vacancy. The Constitution doesn't follow the political calendar when it comes to filling vacancies, and, as you heard Leader McConnell point out earlier today, precedent on this issue, on confirming a nominee by a President to a vacancy created in an election year, the precedent falls all one way, if you go back throughout history. So just so people know, every time they get up and offer a unanimous consent request to call up a piece of legislation, it has nothing to do with the legislation, because they have already moved to adjourn multiple times this week, meaning they want to get out of town. They don't want anything to do with this Supreme Court. So they are going to get up and say Republicans are blocking this or that. As I pointed out, the first one that was offered was a bill to deal with the coronavirus and provide relief to people across this country, which, by the way, we just voted on 2 days ago--3 days ago here in the U.S. Senate. They blocked even getting on the bill--not considering the substance of it, which, by the way, as I said, includes a lot of bipartisan objectives and priorities; they blocked even considering. So that is what this is about, and I expect that is what we are going to hear today, tomorrow, and the next day, but it is not going to deter us from the important work we have at hand. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the minority leader is requesting to move to legislation after having repeatedly, this week, requested and asked for votes to adjourn multiple times-- leave town. Now, all of a sudden, he wants to legislate. I think there is a serious question about the sincerity of the minority leader's request here. And, frankly, to his point, the U.S. Senate has now twice--and most recently this week, on Tuesday--Tuesday this week--voted on legislation that would do all the things that he says that he wants to do: Help people who are unemployed; we voted on a bill that had unemployment insurance for people who are unemployed. Help small businesses; we had a bipartisan agreement on the Paycheck Protection Program to provide assistance to small businesses, and that was blocked by the Democrats earlier this week. It had money in there, resources on a bipartisan, agreed-upon objective, and that is more money, more resources, for schools and universities to open safely-- $100 billion in there for schools to open safely. They blocked it. They objected. It had money in there for farmers, something that is important to the Presiding Officer and to me as well. They blocked it. It had money in there for the Postal Service, something that his side has been saying repeatedly we need to address. They blocked it. We had that vote this week. We have taken up legislation exactly along the lines of what the Democratic leader is asking for, and they have consistently blocked it. And then to say: Well, let's adjourn; we have had multiple votes on adjourning. This isn't serious, and he knows it. This is all about politics. This is a bogus issue to detract the Senate from the work at hand, which is to confirm a well-qualified judge to the Supreme Court, who had a ``well qualified'' recommendation from the American Bar Association, which the Democratic leader in the past has said is the gold standard--the gold standard when it comes to processing and considering judicial nominations. So let's see this for what it is, call it out for what it is. And the bill he is calling up, by the way, from the House of Representatives, if you look at all the stuff it has in it--and this is the all-or-nothing approach that they are advocating right now--tax cuts for Manhattan millionaires? They are always complaining about tax cuts for the rich. This is tax cuts for millionaires in New York and California. Blue State bailouts for his State of New York. Think about that. Is that really what the American people think we ought to be voting on right now when they are unemployed, small businesses need help? And that is the other thing. The bill he is calling up--trying to call up right now has no assistance in there for the PPP program, the very program that everybody around the country has said has provided enormous assistance to small businesses, kept them in business, and there are other businesses who need that help. He talked about wanting to help businesses that are going out of business. Well, that bill that he is trying to call up right now doesn't include assistance for small businesses. So, anyway, this is clearly an attempt to detract the Senate from the work at hand, which is to consider a very well-qualified nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court--one of the Senate's most important constitutional duties and responsibilities, and we intend to stay focused on that. And if the leader is genuinely interested, he could let us get on the bill that we tried to call up earlier this week that deals with all the coronavirus relief issues that he mentioned earlier, all of which are bipartisan issues--every single one of them on that list. But that isn't what this is about. This is about politics. So, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, Amy Coney Barrett's first Judiciary Committee hearing back in 2017 has become infamous for the grilling she underwent for her religion. Then, as now, she was an outstanding choice who received a rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association and praise from peers on both sides of the political spectrum. But despite her superb qualifications, it soon became clear that more than one Democrat thought she couldn't be objective and thus shouldn't be confirmed to the court simply because she was a practicing Catholic who took her faith seriously. ``The dogma lives loudly within you,'' the Democratic ranking member on the Judiciary Committee said, ``and that is of concern.'' ``Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?'' the Democratic whip asked, while the junior Senator from Hawaii suggested that Judge Barrett would use her Catholic faith rather than the law to decide questions. And while Democrats toned down the anti-religious questioning in Judge Barrett's Supreme Court hearing last week, apparently realizing that openly displaying their suspicion of her religion might offend the tens of millions of American voters who take their faith seriously, their suspicion of her faith has still been on display. Meanwhile, Democrats' media allies haven't hesitated to trot out articles on Judge Barrett's beliefs, usually with the faint--or in some cases not so faint--suggestion that her adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church cast doubt on her fitness for the Supreme Court. Yesterday's AP article on the fact that Judge Barrett served as a trustee at her children's Christian school--not exactly breaking news, as it was something that Judge Barrett had already disclosed--was just one more example of the media's implicit suggestion that the nominee's religion makes her unfit for public office. As a side note, I am still waiting for bipartisan condemnation of media coverage of Judge Barrett's adopted children. Somehow the New York Times felt that Judge Barrett's brief mentions of her adopted children at her introduction and hearing warranted an article full of unsavory insinuations. I am wondering if Democrats would have found this appropriate coverage of a Democratic nominee's children. From the attitude displayed by Democrats and the media, you would think that Judge Barrett was a member of some remote and bizarre religious cult instead of one of the largest faith groups in the world. And Judge Barrett has not been the only judicial nominee subjected to scrutiny for her faith. The Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate grilled one judicial nominee on his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic charitable organization known for dangerous activities like selling Christmas trees and providing coats for kids in need and partnering with other dangerous charities like Habitat for Humanity and Special Olympics. Nor is this kind of suspicion of practicing Catholics and other Christians limited to the judicial realm. Democrats' suspicion of religious court nominees is just one feature of the left's growing hostility to religion generally. More and more, Democrats and liberals are telling religious Americans that they should close their mouths and restrict their religion to the privacy of their homes. In September, the former Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, suggested that Christianity has become ``judgmental'' and ``alienating.'' One of the current Democratic Presidential candidate's staffers recently said that she doesn't think orthodox Catholics, Muslims, or Jews should sit on the Supreme Court. The current Vice Presidential candidate introduced legislation in this Congress to weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a key law intended to protect Americans' right to live out their religion. And forget religious liberty under a Democratic administration. The Democratic Presidential candidate has publicly announced that if he becomes President, he intends to go after the Little Sisters of the Poor--an order of nuns who spend their lives caring for the elderly poor--to force them--to force them--to offer a health insurance provision that violates their religious faith. That is right. The Democrats' Presidential candidate has proudly announced that his administration will do the heroic work of pursuing a group of nuns who serve the poor to ensure that they are not allowed to fully live out their religious beliefs. Where to start? Perhaps I should start by noting what should be obvious--that hostility to religion is fundamentally un-American. America was founded on religious liberty. Long before the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution was signed, people came to these shores seeking the right to practice their religion in freedom, and that concern for religious liberty continued through the founding. Religious freedom was regarded as so fundamental that it is the very first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' the Bill of Rights begins, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Now, some have interpreted references to religion in the Constitution to somehow mean that the Founders were looking to preference secularism over religion and exclude religion from the public square. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from wanting to diminish the place of religion or exclude it from public life, the Founders saw religion as something to be fostered. In fact, religion was widely regarded as an essential ingredient in producing good citizens--the kinds of citizens who could maintain the republican government the Constitution had created. To quote George Washington: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Democrats would like to reduce freedom of religion to a grudging toleration and religious people to second-class citizens. That is not what religious freedom has meant in America. In America, religious freedom has always been a robust freedom--permission to live out your faith not just in the confines of your home but in the public square. I find it the height of irony that critiques of religious people like Amy Coney Barrett focus on the supposed dogmatism or intolerance of religious individuals because there are few people as dogmatic and intolerant as members of the left wing in America. Remember when the Women's March was founded at the start of the current administration? More than one pro-life group wanted to join the march and stand for women's rights, but they were quickly kicked off the march's list of partners because the grand pooh-bahs of the pro- abortion left have decided that you can't stand for the dignity of both mother and child and still be a feminist. It is pretty much the same in the Democratic Party. While a few pro- life Democrats are tolerated in spots where Democrats might not otherwise win, the pro-life Democrat is on the way to extinction at the party level. Last year, for example, the Democratic Attorneys General Association announced that it would not endorse or finance candidates who do not support abortion. So I find it the height of irony when Democrats complain about the supposed dogmatism of religious individuals. Do Democrats evince the same concerns about dogmatism when avidly pro-abortion or avidly secular individuals are nominated to the Federal bench, or do they assume that these individuals can set aside their beliefs and rule fairly in cases involving abortion or religion? I am pretty sure they assume these individuals will be able to rule fairly according to the law. Yet they deny this respect to religious individuals. Instead, Democrats offer the demeaning and insulting suggestion that religious people alone are incapable of setting aside their personal beliefs. I would like to see the attacks on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's faith stop, but more than that, I would like to see the Democratic Party return to a deeper respect for religion and the central place of a robust religious freedom in American life. I would like to be confident that future nominees will not face the suggestion that their faith should prohibit them from participation in the public sphere. President Obama once spoke of working-class Americans as bitter individuals who cling to their religion. Needless to say, he didn't mean it in a positive way, but he should have. Many great Americans have clung to their religion and been inspired by it to do great things, from serving the needy to fighting for the oppressed. America has been made better by individuals who cling to their faith. I look forward to seeing the great things that are to come from religious Americans serving in the public square, and we can start by confirming the eminently qualified Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I would simply point out that the bill that we voted on and the Democrats all voted against earlier today did include a formula not unlike what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting, and that is a flat payment on top of the standard unemployment benefit. It was a $300 payment as opposed to a $600 payment. That would not be complicated to implement. The amendment that was offered when the CARES Act passed was a full wage replacement. There were concerns about whether that could be implemented by the Department of Labor, to be fair. But honestly, if you think about it, I am not sure what would be terribly complicated about having somebody come in and asking ``What do you make? Show me what you make'' and then saying ``OK. That is what you are going to get for a benefit--100 percent wage replacement.'' To me, that makes sense. Again, I would come back to the idea that if you pay somebody more not to work than to work--people naturally--I think we all do--respond to incentives. It seems pretty crazy to suggest that you could offer people 150 percent--or more in my State of South Dakota--of what they were making while working, in the form of a benefit, and not have them say ``Gee, I can make 150-some percent more not working than working'' and decide to take that benefit. I think that is what we run into. That is the economic disruption created by what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting. To his point about jobs coming back, that is exactly the point I made earlier. The unemployment rate in April was 14.7 percent. In September, it was 7.9 percent. Jobs are coming back. In my State of South Dakota, it is 4.1 percent. The economy is trending in the right direction as it starts to open up again. There is demand out there for labor. When the demand for labor goes up, the price for labor goes up. That is what I think you will continue to see. I believe, along with the Senator from Oregon, that we need to help people who are unemployed. The bill that was just voted down by the Democrats would have done that at a $300 benefit above and beyond what the State unemployment insurance program pays. In most States, that is about 90 percent of wage replacement. To suggest that the Republicans are being heartless just isn't true. Obviously, the amendment that we offered back in March when the CARES Act was being considered had 100 percent wage replacement. It seems like a very intuitive, practical thing to do to say we are going to replace what you were making when you were working. Obviously, the proposal voted down by the Democrats today had the State unemployment insurance benefits plus a $300 plus-up, which, again, is about 90 percent wage replacement. So I think what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting here is, No. 1, we do this piecemeal after his side has been saying we have to have a comprehensive approach. Secondly, he is calling up an amendment that, frankly, we have kind of moved beyond now. We are in a different place in the economy. We still need to help people who are unemployed, but we don't need to encourage people not to work because it would pay them more--the government would pay them more than they would make if they were working. To me, that sounds counterintuitive. I think the American people get that.

Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, I just want to say, because my colleague from Oregon--as he pointed out, he and I work closely together on a number of issues--trade issues, tax issues, particularly in the digital space. I know he is a person who tries to find common ground, tries to find bipartisan solutions. I appreciate that, and I hope there are a lot more issues in the future that we can work on together as members of the Finance Committee. He is the ranking Democrat on the committee. I hope we can work together and find some things we can do that are good for our economy. What he is proposing right now is to extend unemployment insurance benefits at $600 a week. Democrats have said they don't want to do a piecemeal approach. Yet that is exactly what is being offered right now. I guess the question is, What has changed? Less than 2 hours ago, my Democratic colleagues blocked not just extending additional Federal unemployment benefits but also providing more paycheck help for small businesses through the PPP program, funding for schools and universities to reopen, more money for testing and vaccine development, help for the U.S. Postal Service, and relief for farmers. I would argue they are all bipartisan priorities. This should be a no-brainer. What is ironic about it is that our position on this all along has been that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. The Democratic position seems to be that just because we can't do everything, we would rather do nothing. We think the American people are paying the price for that. So instead of supporting our comprehensive package, which deals with all the issues that I mentioned--all of which, I might add, are bipartisan priorities--we have a proposal here that I think, frankly, is stuck in the past. For example, this bill would restart extra unemployment payments that gave most people more money not to work than to work. Just to correct the record about one point my colleague from Oregon made, the amendment offered by Republicans when the CARES package was being considered wasn't to gut the unemployment program. The Senator from Oregon fought very hard to get that provision in the CARES package. There was an amendment offered on the floor that would have calibrated that Federal unemployment benefit to what an individual is making--in other words, 100 percent wage replacement. That is what was in that proposal, and it was voted down on a party-line vote. If you look at what the CBO estimates, 80 percent of people would be paid more for not working if the $600-per-week benefit were continued. It is not just a few dollars more. There was a recent study under the $600 plus-up that median unemployed workers would receive a benefit of 145 percent of their prior wage. In South Dakota, I will tell you that the median wage replacement rate was 155 percent. Think about that. If you are making $30,000, making minimum wage--$15 an hour, $30,000 a year--in my State of South Dakota, under the Senator from Oregon's proposal, that individual would make $45,000 a year. That is 150 percent of wages or north of that. One hundred and fifty-five percent is the median wage replacement in my State of South Dakota. Consider what the incentives are for that person making $30,000 working or $45,000 not working. My dad just passed away in August. He was 100 years old. He used to say: Some things, John, are just kind of old-fashioned horse sense. I think in this case, this is someplace where you can apply old-fashioned horse sense. If you offer somebody a benefit that dramatically exceeds--not by just a little but by a lot--what they would be making if they were working, obviously you can see what would happen there. I would point out that when I went back for my father's funeral in August, in the middle of the travel season in South Dakota--normally an incredibly busy time--there were little eating places in my hometown that weren't open. Why? They couldn't find workers. I have talked to them about that and talked to a lot of small businesses in my State. I think the $600 payment has acted as a tremendous disincentive for people to come back into the workforce when there might be jobs available. The $600 ended about 3 months ago. Yet the same idea is being offered up even though the unemployment rate has fallen. In April, it was 14.7 percent. In September, it was 7.9 percent. In my State of South Dakota, it is 4.1 percent. The idea that with the economy recovering we would now come back to pay people more for not working than working seems to be counterintuitive. Again, our plan, which was opposed by the Democrats 2 hours ago, would have provided an additional $300-per-week payment through the end of the year. That is real help that could be made available right now. Even without this additional $300 payment, some expanded unemployment benefits are still available through December. If you look at--the Senator from Oregon mentioned self-employed, independent contractors, gig workers who are not normally eligible for unemployment. They are going to get that help through December. Given the problems with this bill and because it doesn't address the broader issues that I enumerated earlier, I object.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, for months now, Democratic leaders have held additional COVID relief hostage. Instead of working with Republicans to arrive at a compromise bill that both parties can support and that can make it through both Houses of Congress, Democrats have insisted that it is their way or the highway. Either Republicans agree to a bloated, multitrillion-dollar piece of legislation filled with noncoronavirus-related measures and far-left, liberal wish list items, a bill that would never make it through both Houses of Congress, or Americans get no relief. That is basically the choice the Democrats have left the American people. It goes without saying that this is not the attitude of a party that really wants to give help to Americans. This is the attitude of a party that wants to use this crisis for political purposes. Democrats figure that they win either way. Either they use this crisis to force through a bunch of liberal priorities not related to COVID or they blame Republicans for the lack of a bill. Completely absent from their calculations is any sense of what their intransigence is costing the American people. If Democrats had actually been willing to compromise with Republicans to reach consensus legislation, we could have had a new COVID relief bill months ago. Americans could be enjoying additional relief right now. Republicans have made it clear since the summer that we were willing to compromise with Democrats on a new bill. All we asked was that Democrats come to the table with a reasonable proposal that could actually make it through both Houses of Congress. But Democrats haven't been interested. Oh, sure, Speaker Pelosi has supposedly been working on an agreement with the White House for months. We constantly hear from the Speaker that a deal is getting closer, only to discover the next day that a deal isn't really close at all. Let me tell you something. If you are the Speaker of the House and you really want to arrive at a compromise, it doesn't take you 3 months. It probably even doesn't take you 3 weeks. Democrats have to know very well that there is no way for them to get a bill containing everything they want through both Houses of Congress, but Democrats could get some of what they want, and isn't something better than nothing? Even if Democrats were right about the need for every penny of spending that they are calling for, wouldn't it be better to get some of that spending passed than to have nothing? To Democrats, apparently the answer is no. In just a few minutes, the Senate will be voting on Republican coronavirus legislation. Our bill would provide more money for the hardest hit small businesses, more healthcare resources to fight the virus, and money to help schools reopen and operate safely--priorities that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, should be able to agree on. In theory, I am pretty sure we do agree on them. And yet all signs suggest that Democrats will filibuster this coronavirus relief legislation for the second time--even though passing this bill would get more money into the hands of small businesses and schools, even though this bill would provide additional funding for COVID testing and treatment. Nevertheless, once again, Democrats will choose nothing--nothing-- over something. Once again, Democrats will decide that if they can't get everything they want, it is better for Americans not to have anything. I hope whatever perceived political gains Democrats are getting from their refusal to negotiate are worth denying help to the American people. In a few minutes, Republicans will cast their votes in favor of COVID relief, and I invite rank-and-file Democrats to reject their leader's obstruction and join us on that vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week, the Judiciary Committee held its hearing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination, and it was easy to see why Judge Barrett is held in such high regard by her colleagues, students, and peers and why the American Bar Association gave her its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' We knew long before the hearing that Judge Barrett possesses an extraordinary intelligence and a comprehensive command of the law. But over 3 days of testimony, Americans got to see her qualifications for themselves, and they saw why she has been described as ``a jurist of formidable intellect,'' a ``brilliant and conscientious lawyer,'' and ``a staggering academic mind.'' Even the Democratic ranking member on the committee, the senior Senator from California, couldn't hide the fact that she was impressed. Most importantly, however, Americans saw that Judge Barrett understands the proper role of a judge in our system of government. As Judge Barrett made clear, she understands that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law; to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game; or, as Judge Barrett said to the Democrat whip at the hearing last week: ``I apply the law. I follow the law. You make policy.'' Judge Barrett has made it clear that when cases come before her on the Supreme Court, she will consider the facts, the law, and the Constitution, and nothing else--not her personal beliefs, not her political opinions, just the law and the Constitution. That is the kind of Justice that all of us--Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative--should want. I could spend hours highlighting all the extraordinary tributes to Judge Barrett that have poured in since her nomination, from lawyers and scholars of every background and political persuasion, but I don't want to tie up the Senate floor. So I will just mention one piece of testimony that struck me in particular. As I mentioned, the American Bar Association released its rating of Judge Barrett last week, a rating that the Democratic leader, by the way, has called the ``gold standard''--the ``gold standard''--by which judicial candidates are judged. Well, the ABA gave Judge Barrett its highest possible rating--``well qualified.'' And the chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the ABA committee that issues these ratings, testified before the Judiciary Committee during Judge Barrett's hearing. I would like to read from the testimony that he submitted to the committee. Lawyers and judges uniformly praised the nominee's integrity. Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and the community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character. Accordingly, the Standing Committee was not required to consider any negative criticisms of Judge Barrett. His testimony went on: All of the experienced, dedicated, and knowledgeable sitting judges, legal scholars, and lawyers who have worked with or against Judge Barrett had high praise for her intellect and ability to communicate clearly and effectively. . . . Given the breadth, diversity, and strength of the positive feedback we received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions and from so many parts of the profession, the Standing Committee would have been hard- pressed to come to any conclusion other than that Judge Barrett has demonstrated professional competence that is exceptional. We are fortunate to have a nominee like Judge Barrett, and I look forward to confirming her to the Supreme Court in the very near future.