September 29, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 169 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S5929-S5931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President 
Trump's nomination of Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  In the coming days, Americans will hear a great deal about Judge 
Barrett--much of it from people who have never met her, who have never 
worked with her. As a fellow Hoosier, I have had the privilege of 
actually getting to know Judge Barrett and her family and to understand 
the breadth of her intellect and the thoughtful reasoning of her work. 
My own opinions have been informed by my personal interactions with her 
and supported by the countless students, clerks, and former colleagues 
who, despite their very political beliefs, are united in their 
admiration for Judge Barrett. They will second what I tell you here.
  Amy Coney Barrett's qualifications to fill this seat are beyond 
question. The character she will demonstrate, once in it, will be 
exceptional.
  Her career is beyond distinguished. She graduated magna cum laude 
from Rhodes College and summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School in 
South Bend, IN. She was highly decorated while doing both, including 
Dean's Recognition Award and best exam in numerous courses.

[[Page S5930]]

  She held prestigious clerkships for Judge Laurence Silberman on the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and for the late Justice 
Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  She is a respected educator, teaching for nearly two decades at Notre 
Dame's Law School, where she was named Distinguished Professor of the 
Year three times.
  In 2017, she was nominated to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. I have to say, I was 
incredibly pleased by her nomination to the Federal bench, and I was 
proud to vote for her confirmation.
  I wasn't alone in my esteem for Judge Barrett. During her 
confirmation process, those students and colleagues--former and 
current--came forward with words of support and praise by the score. 
They described her as fair and decent, brilliant and generous. They 
were struck by her integrity, her impartiality, and her temperament. 
They spoke of her dedication to teaching students not how to think but 
how to think for themselves. They recalled the long lines extending 
outside of her office of those students who sought and were always 
given advice and mentoring.
  Though they came from different backgrounds and held differing views, 
they came together as a chorus to say this: Amy Coney Barrett possesses 
exactly the type of mind and the strength of character America's 
constitutional system relies on. I agreed then, and I still do.
  Just 3 years ago, I didn't hear a single credible criticism of Judge 
Barrett based on her legal qualifications. I don't anticipate hearing 
one now. She will be guided by the law and precedence. She will be 
faithful to the Constitution.
  As compelling as the testimonies of those who admire her are, it is 
through her own words that we can see the type of Supreme Court Justice 
Amy Barrett will be: ``A judge is obligated to apply the law as it is 
and not as she wishes it would be.''
  Judge Barrett has said: ``She is obliged to follow the law even when 
her personal preferences cut the other way or when she will experience 
great public criticism for doing so.''
  It is important for Americans to understand her qualifications for 
the Supreme Court and her fidelity to the Constitution. But they should 
also know a bit about her life away from the bench.
  When I met her, it was quite obvious that Amy Coney Barrett was less 
interested in cataloging her professional accomplishments and more 
inclined to discuss her family and the accomplishments of her children, 
whom she clearly loves so very much.
  Judge Barrett and her husband Jesse have been married for over 20 
years now. Their family is a large one and a loving one. They are 
parents to seven children. Their youngest son has special needs. They 
have twice adopted--both times from Haiti. Judge Barrett has asked:

       What greater thing can you do than raise children? That's 
     where you have your greatest impact on the world.

  It is clear not just from those words but from simply spending a few 
moments with this beautiful family that this is her life's joy and her 
greatest point of pride.
  How absurd then to see her described, as some here and in the media 
have, as anti-healthcare. It is the opposite, actually. As the head of 
a large household, Amy Coney Barrett knows full well and better than 
most of her detractors how important medical coverage is to every 
American's health and to their peace of mind too. This includes 
insurance for those with preexisting conditions--which Republicans 
have, time and time again, committed to protect, while working to make 
healthcare more affordable and more accessible.
  This is actually not why Judge Barrett was nominated or why she 
belongs on the Supreme Court. Let us be truthful. It is also not the 
real reason why those who oppose her do so and do so with such rage. In 
the absence of actual objections to Amy Coney Barrett's resume, they 
rummaged through and purposely warped Judge Barrett's record. They 
warped her legal writings to position her as the mortal enemy of 
ObamaCare. This is a lie. Her scholarship--if properly read, rather 
than quickly mined for propaganda--reveals no such thing.
  For 30 years, Democrats have continually cried wolf, painting every 
Republican Supreme Court nominee as the end of the Republic, hoping 
always to scare the American people to their side. Just as we witnessed 
2 years ago, when their lies run out of believers, the lies grow more 
reckless. This is a dangerous game to play right now--doubly so for the 
party that is blocking healthcare legislation during a pandemic.
  Judge Barrett hasn't been nominated to the Supreme Court to make 
policy. Some seem to have forgotten, but that is our job. President 
Trump selected her not only because of her sharp mind and impressive 
qualifications but because she will not legislate from the bench. That 
is the whole point.
  Of course, there are others who may take a different, even darker 
tack. To them, none of this matters--not the impeccable credentials, 
not the ringing endorsements, not that she is a role model of an 
accomplished professional and a loving mother, not that she has been 
described as ``mind-blowingly intelligent'' and ``one of the most 
humble people you will ever meet''--none of it. We will hear from them 
in coming days--likely in this Chamber. We will hear a lot from them.
  If past is prologue, they may choose to focus instead on Judge 
Barrett's religious beliefs--not out of any deep conviction but out of 
desperation. They may argue that it is impossible to live a life of 
faith and uphold the law. They may create a caricature of Judge Barrett 
that has no relation to reality and one that reflects their own 
intolerance, not hers. It is regrettable that, in 2020, we must still 
repeat this refrain: We do not have a religious test for public service 
in the United States of America, and we never have.

  It is true. Judge Barrett is a faithful Catholic. It is true. So, 
too, are five current Supreme Court Justices. So, too, are millions of 
Americans. To argue that this prohibits her from sitting on the Supreme 
Court is nothing short of religious bigotry.
  In 1793, George Washington penned a letter to the members of the New 
Jerusalem Church of Baltimore, MD. In it, Washington outlined one of 
the principles that makes America so unique. ``A man's religious 
tenets,'' he wrote, ``will not deprive him of the right of attaining 
and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.''
  Happily, 200 years later, we now apply Washington's equation 
regarding the holding of high office to both men and women. It is 
unfortunate, though, that, two centuries later, we must still be 
reminded that all Americans can worship and pray as they please, and no 
doors of opportunity shall be closed because of it.
  And there is this: Since our founding, 114 Americans have sat on the 
Supreme Court. Only four of them have been women.
  Are those who oppose this President and this pick really willing to 
use religious prejudice as an excuse to oppose confirming the fifth? 
Come on. If so, the faith my colleagues should be worried about isn't 
Judge Barrett's but the American people's in this institution.
  In the coming weeks, I hope we don't regress into religious bigotry. 
I hope the Senate can move past the personal attacks of some past 
nominees and, instead, focus on the professional qualifications and 
judicial comportment of Judge Barrett.
  We are constitutionally obligated to provide our advice and consent 
to the President on his judicial nominees. My hope--and, perhaps, it is 
a naive one--is that we will fulfill that responsibility by holding 
hearings that are informative rather than destructive, not unlike those 
that led to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's bipartisan confirmation in 
1993.
  If the Senate does this and we consider Judge Barrett's 
qualifications, she will be confirmed and subsequently serve with great 
honor and distinction, and she will do the American people proud. Both 
the High Court and our country will be better for it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5931]]