Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today on a unique Saturday, a day that is not normal, a day when the coronavirus is setting new records across the United States for infection--just yesterday, 85,000 new cases, which is the very highest since July-- ravaging the United States, and creating untold hardship and heartbreak.

We are in the midst of a raging pandemic, but we are not considering measures to deal with the pain and grief and loss that it has created, the threat that it poses to many States across the country, providing memories for many of us in Connecticut who went through the worst of these ravages and still suffer, in Connecticut, the threat of a new wave. Economic crisis grips this country, people are out of jobs, and small businesses are failing, but we are considering a nominee who would threaten to decimate our healthcare system in the midst of a healthcare crisis as we go through this pandemic.

It is a day that is sad, shocking, surreal, and it is not normal. It is not normal to rush through a nominee for the highest Court in the land--a lifetime appointment--while Americans are going to the polls in record numbers. Their voices should be heard, and the next Senate and the President should choose this next Justice. It is not normal because we are, in effect, ignoring and disregarding the duty we have to consider and pass real measures to address this pandemic and the economic crisis we face.

It is not normal for real people whose lives are impacted so severely and potentially even more so in the weeks ahead and whose healthcare, reproductive freedom, protection from gun violence, workplace rights, civil rights, and civil liberties are all threatened by this nominee.

We brought into the hearing room those real people from Connecticut and all around the country through the posters that we had, watching those hearings and the nonresponses that Amy Coney Barrett gave to our questions. We brought real lives and the real harm they will suffer into that hearing room.

I brought Connor Curran, whose treatment has kept him alive only because his parents were able to use the Affordable Care Act for his preexisting condition; Julia Gonzalez, who is alive because she received treatment for her cancer as a result of the ACA making it affordable, protecting her as a preexisting condition survivor; Samantha, a rape survivor, who was able to get an abortion because of the protections of Roe v. Wade; Tracey, who was able to use in vitro fertilization because of reproductive freedoms that are guaranteed by Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny--Amy Coney Barrett has refused to say whether she thought Griswold was correctly decided; Ethan Song, who lost his life because of an unsafely stored firearm in a friend's home--his parents, Michael and Kristin Song, were with me, and so was Ethan; Janet Rice, whose son, Shane, then 20 years old, was killed in downtown Hartford; and, of course, the Barton family, who lost their beautiful son, Daniel, along with 19 other wonderful children, in Sandy Hook in that massacre, and sixth grade educators as well.

Those lives and real people and real harms are what are at stake in this debate, and so this Chamber seems so surreal on this day, in the midst of hardship and heartbreak that would only be aggravated by the Justice who may be confirmed as early as Monday evening.

She has been selected, screened, and vetted to be an activist judge who would strike down the Affordable Care Act and overturn Roe v. Wade. We know that she has passed that ``strong test''--the President's words, ``strong test''--to legislate from the Bench and accomplish through the Court what they have been unable to achieve in this body, in this Chamber, and in this Congress through the legislature.

They have failed to overturn the Affordable Care Act because the majority of American people want that protection for preexisting conditions. We have stood strong on this side against those 10, 20, 40 efforts to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Madam President, she has been vetted and screened for a position on gun violence protection that she herself has admitted in a speech she gave at Hillsdale College. It sounds kind of radical. It sounds kind of radical, as I said to her during the hearing, because it is radical. It is part of a radical, extremist agenda to deny the American people State and local laws that protect them against assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, people who are dangerous and should be denied the purchase of firearms because they should be screened out through background checks and through emergency risk protection orders and safe storage laws, and repeal of PLCAA. That gives gun manufacturers near complete immunity from any responsibility.

We are still in the middle of an epidemic of gun violence, and among those real people who have spoken out is a young woman, 19 years old, named Tabitha Escalante. I was on a phone call with her yesterday with other advocates.

She is the judiciary advisory associate at March for Our Lives, and she is advocating, along with other groups, grassroots groups, that have created a movement--Giffords, Brady, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Newtown Action Alliance--along with March for Our Lives. They have created a movement that is prevailing, just as we prevailed and stopped the legislative branch from overturning the Affordable Care Act.

The strength of this movement has caused the NRA and the extreme radical groups that are supporting it to go to the courts, as we documented in a report that we released just yesterday. I thank my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse for spearheading this effort. I have been proud to join in various efforts on captured courts. And the report ``What's at Stake: Gun Safety'' was the reason that Tabitha and I and others joined that call yesterday: ``How a Corrupted Organization Has Radically Transformed the Second Amendment.''

It shows how the NRA has been at the tip of the spear, working for special interests, the gun lobby--dark money channeled to put on the court judges, at every level, who will stop commonsense measures on protecting people against gun violence. Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett is only the most recent of them who have been screened and vetted to carry forward that agenda.

These interlocking groups--the firearms industry, retailers, and private organizations like American Encore, American Future Fund, American Action Network, Judicial Crisis Network--have spearheaded this effort, and the NRA has been their tool and instrument, and judges in the Federal courts have been the result.

The fact of the matter is that they are turning to the legislatures because of the strength of this grassroots movement--not its weakness-- and their efforts to repeal the ACA have failed. So have their efforts to block those measures in State legislatures and local governments.

In fact, gun violence prevention was on the ballot in 2018, and gun violence prevention won. That is the reason that the House of Representatives passed a universal background check measure and other steps that are so important and should be done here.

In the past 10 years, in fact, this scourge and epidemic of gun violence has continued with more than 236 mass shootings in this country. Those mass shootings have taken 1,300 lives, including those innocent children and educators at Sandy Hook.

In the past 10 years, gun violence has taken more than 350,000 lives--in rural communities, urban communities, and every community across the United States. Gun violence is an insidious public health menace, a public health epidemic that affects every community.

Amid this public health epidemic, Republicans have vetted and screened this nominee to take Justice Ginsburg's place on the Supreme Court because of her extreme views, as she articulated in her dissent in Kanter v. Barr. She showed an alarming willingness to stretch the founding-era history to support her extreme and expansive view of the Second Amendment. Her views are not only out of the mainstream; they are out of the position articulated by Justice Scalia, her mentor.

But the fact of the matter is that the threat to these gun violence prevention measures is real and urgent. Cases are literally one step away--remember, one step away--from the Supreme Court. There are three cases challenging restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, two of them from California that are about to be petitioned for a review of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. Two cases challenging limits on open carry and three cases challenging background check and licensing requirements are one step away from the Supreme Court, possibly this term, when Amy Coney Barrett would take her seat.

With her nomination, every single commonsense violence prevention measure at every level of government is in great peril. The public safety and health stakes of her nomination could not be greater. As Tabitha said, ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' ``Nothing less than everything is at stake''--and not just now when these cases are one step away, but for decades to come.

Tabitha's generation may have children, even grandchildren, who will see Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court Bench, if she is confirmed, and district court and appellate court judges whom we have confirmed through this effort to reshape the courts in the image of the far right, of what used to be the Republican Party--one step away from this disaster.

Likewise, on the issue of reproductive freedom, Judge Barrett was also vetted and screened. At the hearing, she refused to say-- absolutely refused to say--whether Roe was correctly decided. As you know, Roe protects a woman's right to choose after being raped, as Samantha was. We presented her story.

It is constitutional to make in vitro fertilization a crime if Roe is overturned. It is constitutional to make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions. She refused to answer that question as well. But, in a way, she didn't really need to answer those questions because we know where she stands. She described Roe's legacy as barbaric in a letter and ad that she aligned herself with.

She has called, in effect, through organizations with which she was aligned, for the unborn ``to be protected in law.'' She aligned herself with a group on legal positions--I am not talking about moral beliefs-- pushing the most extreme legal views on reproductive care, which include criminalizing IVF, criminalizing doctors, ending legalized abortion in this country.

Her extreme views on reproductive freedoms once were disqualifying, but it is the reason why Donald Trump chose her in the first place--his strong test on that issue.

Right now, there are 17 abortion-related cases that are one step away from the Supreme Court. There are challenges to bans on abortion as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are bans on abortion later in pregnancy, when women can face the most severe health risks and rely on their doctors for accurate information and compassionate care.

They are reason-based bans that merely exist as a pretext--and I say ``reason-based ban''--for interrogating and intimidating women who seek an abortion. They are redtape laws that require abortion providers to jump through hoops that serve no medical purpose but merely exist to burden them and make necessary abortion services harder and harder to obtain--and numerous other abortion laws designed to limit access-- strictly to limit access in the name of healthcare, particularly for poor, rural, and immigrant women who simply cannot afford to make trips to clinics hundreds of miles away. They are laws that impede racial justice, human justice.

Access to reproductive care is already hanging by a thread across the country. Judge Barrett's nomination imperils what access remains. Those cases are just one step away--one step away--from decisions by the Court that Judge Barrett would join.

So there is a great deal of our fundamental rights at stake here. As Tabitha said, ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' These cases that are one step away from decision are only 17 cases involving reproductive freedom, 14 cases involving gun violence prevention, and there are numerous others involving workplace safety.

The Affordable Care Act will be argued a week after the election, when she would sit on the Court. Her hostility to the Affordable Care Act is well documented by now in her criticizing Chief Justice Roberts for his vote to uphold the act, saying he had to stretch the meaning of it to keep it alive, her saying in King v. Burwell, when she spoke about that case, that the dissent had the better of the argument. These are real rights for real people that would be lost.

Instead of imperiling healthcare and other rights that should be enjoyed by the American people, we should be enacting measures that are before us right now that have been passed by the House of Representatives, by bipartisan majorities, that would actually address the needs and challenges of the American people during this extraordinary time in our history.

They are before us right now. There is no need to write them anew. There is no need to invent the words or the purposes for these acts.

In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, what my colleague calls procedural harassment, it is actually democracy. It is legislation. It was passed by the House. It is bipartisan. The majority was bipartisan. It will save lives. I fail to understand why my Republican colleagues will not allow this loophole--it is a fatal and defective loophole in our current laws--to be repaired. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7

Madam President, let me move to another measure. In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, the so-called external matters go to the heart of fairness in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, discriminatory practices, other kinds of injustices that have existed for years--women ought to have the right to challenge them and hold their employers accountable. What could be more fundamental and important? Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1423

Madam President, let me move now to H.R. 1423, in order to proceed to consideration of the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, also known as the FAIR Act, which passed the House on September 20, 2019-- again, a bipartisan measure, which would increase Americans' rights to seek justice and accountability through the court system.

We are in the midst of considering a nominee who has expressed a hostility to seeking justice in the workplace and in jobs and in other areas. So this measure to eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment and consumer and civil rights cases is especially relevant. It would allow consumers and workers to agree to arbitration after a dispute occurs, but it would not force them to do so.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, just to remind my colleague, this measure doesn't pertain only to dangerous felons. It protects innocent women against dangerous people. There is already the provision for protective orders to provide that kind of safeguard after a period of time. This measure would close a loophole for the first period when, in fact, women and others are at greatest risk.

It is a public safety measure that is particularly relevant because of the hostility expressed by this nominee to commonsense steps in the name of a very extreme view under the Second Amendment Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 840

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

The bill highlights the troubling fact that lack of childcare can dissuade parents from receiving essential healthcare services. It would make permanent a VA childcare pilot program--make it permanent.

It was first introduced in 2011, and it expands access to childcare assistance nationwide, allowing veterans to receive medical treatment with confidence that their children are receiving high-quality care-- our veterans.

Whatever motions have been made in the past, this measure certainly needs to be considered. It was passed by a majority in the House on February 8 of 2019, more than a year ago, a bipartisan majority in the House--no action here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as more important as that health for veterans is, equally so is assistance for our election system. We are going through an election right now. Even as we consider this nominee, tens of millions of Americans are voting. The threat to our election security is well-known. We face not only foreign interference but also domestic threats, as has been documented.

I have been through those absolutely chilling briefings in a classified setting; we are sworn to secrecy. But the malign foreign interference makes 2016, in my impression, look like child's play from Russia, Iran, the Chinese.

In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2722, Securing American Federal Elections Act, a bill that would, in fact, make critical investments to upgrade our voting systems to protect against foreign interference in our elections and democracy by requiring all voting systems to produce a verifiable paper ballot and by authorizing funding for States to bolster election security--what could be more urgent and important at this moment in our history?

It was passed by the House of Representatives on June 27, 2019-- again, more than a year ago. No action here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4894, Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act of 2020, a bill that requires Federal agencies to make budget justification materials available to the public--it is a transparency measure. It requires disclosure, and it requires the Office of Management and Budget to make certain details regarding the materials available to the public, including a list of agencies that submit budget justification.

It also forces disclosure of the dates that materials are submitted to Congress and posted online and links to the materials--a basic disclosure measure. It was passed, again, overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives on September 14 of this year, without any action so far in this body.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That measure was a basic disclosure step proposed to address secrecy in government. Nothing is more fundamental than transparency in a democracy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The people of the United States deserve that information, and so, too, they deserve all of the information about Amy Coney Barrett. Even on the morning of her approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee, new documents were disclosed, new statements and speeches by her, adding to the ones that hadn't been disclosed properly previously.

This process is a sham. It is rushed. It is not normal. As I said during our hearings, my great fear is not only the damage and the harm that this nominee can do, but the damage and harm to the Court itself.

The President said the quiet part out loud. He wants this nominee rushed to the bench so she can decide the election, not the voters--so she can sit on the Supreme Court when the election goes to the courts.

Well, my Republican colleagues have the majority. They may have the votes, but they don't have the American people, and they don't have history on their side. Might does not make right. They can do it because they have the votes. They are doing it because they can.

Amy Coney Barrett could stonewall our questions because she could and establish a new standard--call it the ``Barrett rule''--of not answering. But the damage to the Court will be great.

The Court has power because of its legitimacy. The trust and confidence of the American people are in its independence. Our Republican colleagues are whittling away and eventually devastating not only the authority of the Supreme Court, but all of our Federal courts, by politicizing and polarizing it.

She would not even commit that she would recuse herself in the event an election case went to the Supreme Court. I have tremendous respect-- even reverence--for the Court, having served there as a law clerk with Justice Harry Blackmun, having argued four cases before the Court, including three with Justice Ginsburg.

This imperils the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, is a grave, lasting, potentially devastating disservice to the American people. It is a dagger at the heart of the Court and of our democracy. Therefore, I will continue to oppose this nomination.

The bill, in many ways, is an attempt to codify authorities that the State Department already has. In that sense, there is no reason to take legislative action. If the President wants to use this power, he can.

But I want to emphasize the point that we share the goals that are behind this measure. No. 1, the goal of increasing transparency around the pandemic has to be done so that the Chinese and other authorities around the world--states that suffer from the pandemic--make the facts known to this country and the world health authority.

We share the goal of condemning China's absolutely despicable human rights abuses, its deplorable record of subjugating human liberty, including the Uighurs, at least 1 million of whom are being held in Chinese Government-run detention centers that the President of the United States has completely ignored.

But this legislation would really do nothing to address these incredibly oppressing issues. It uses the pandemic and China's human rights abuses as a pretense for deflecting blame for the President's shameful mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis. The President's ineptitude and incompetence are widely known to the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source