none of us should want to travel. so that's why i keep correcting the record. even though it might seem silly. if republicans have the votes, why not exhort my -- ignore my colleagues misstatements and move on? i've chosen not to do that. it remains our duty to separate right and wrong, fact from fiction for the good of the senate and for our country. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum be dispensed inconsistency between what republicans are doing now with amy coney barrett's nomination and what they did with merrick garland in 2016. who would believe that? the contradiction is glaring. the contradiction will be a stain on the leader's forehead and on the entire republican caucus if it continues. we've heard -- we just heard another warped, distorted, and convoluted history lesson from leader mcconnell. we know how defensive he is about the blatant 180-degree hypocritical turn he has made on supreme court nominations. but a distorted, warped history lesson will not remove the

stain. only one thing will, leader mcconnell. withdraw the nomination of amy coney barrett until after the election. plain and simple. now, we meet here on a rare saturday session because there is nothing, nothing remotely normal about the republican drive to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court only days before a presidential election. four years ago, four years ago, the entire republican senate said it was a principle -- that was their word -- principle that supreme court justices should not be confirmed in presidential election years. leader mcconnell said, quote, the american people deserve a choice in the selection of their next supreme court justice, unquote. that is the principle they insisted the senate must follow,

and they declared that this principle bound the senate not to consider the nomination of judge garland, even though it was eight months before the presidential election of 2016. well, here we are today, just a few days from another presidential election. more than 50, 50 million americans have already voted. that number will only increase between today and monday, the date of judge barrett's confirmation vote. americans are waiting in line now patiently at early voting locations around the country to cast their ballots. in arizona and north carolina, maine and colorado and iowa and kansas and georgia and alaska and kentucky, in 26 states where early voting centers are open, and another 15 states where early votes can be dropped off at election offices. my home state -- and in my home state of new york where today marks the first day of early

voting. it may look a little different this year. the lines are longer. not just because of enthusiasm, but also because they are more socially distant. everyone should be wearing a mask, but as we speak, millions of americans are using their voices to say who they want to select supreme court justices. at the same time, the republican majority in the senate is ramming through the lifetime appointment of a judge, of a justice who will make hugely impactful decisions about their lives and freedom, and leader mcconnell has the temerity to say there is no contradiction between merrick garland and how they treated him and amy coney barrett and how they're treating her? give me a break. our colleagues are saying to the american people you get no say,

you get no choice. four years ago, when a democratic president nominated a justice, republicans professed to care about giving the american people a voice. not so now. not when a republican-nominated justice is on the line. not when their own political power is at stake. what became of that high-minded principle republican senators embraced so fervently in somber tones just four years ago when leader mcconnell and they told the nation the senate must heed the voices of the american people when they vote? where on earth did that principle go? what republicans govern their current mad rush to confirm another trump justice eight days before this presidential election? if this process has revealed anything, it's the supposed republican principle was a farce. no principle at all and never

was. naked opportunism. a transparent, cynical, last-ditch grab for power. and, of course, the continuation of their shameful lockstep subservience to president trump, the most unprincipled president in american history. this will go down as the most partisan, most hypocritical, and least legitimate supreme court confirmation in our nation's history, and once again, leader mcconnell, when you talk about history, a distorted, one-sided view, that's all you give, it doesn't erase what you have done. it stares the american people in the face. they know it. we know it. we all know it, and history will know it. it's a very dark moment for the senate, and i am ashamed that republicans are going along with this. this, again, will be the most partisan, most hypocritical, and

least legitimate supreme court confirmation in our nation's history. and now let's look at the status of our country. it's even less justified in light of that. we had a record number of covid infections yesterday. let me repeat, a record number. are senate republicans doing anything about that? no. this is not a regional crisis like before. these spikes are now widespread across the whole country, putting all of our nation at risk. in fact, in per capita terms, i believe north and south dakota are the highest in the nation. i read this morning that beds are running out. and we're not doing a thing. in the past month, there has been a 35% increase in the number of americans hospitalized with covid. covid is now the third leading cause of death in the united states. in countries like germany and japan and australia, covid isn't close to the top ten.

experts like dr. fauci are predicting, unfortunately, -- are projecting that we could hit 400,000 american deaths this year, and that the darkest and worst days of this pandemic unfortunately are ahead of us, not behind us. the next huge wave in this pandemic is not looming. it's here. we cannot afford to wait, but are republicans doing anything about it? no. there are tens of millions of americans out of work. businesses are failing every day. are senate republicans doing anything about that? no. there are foreign powers, particularly russia, trying to undermine our elections. are republicans doing anything about that? no. they are too focused on implementing their deeply unpopular agenda through the courts because they know they could never get it through the

senate. most of them wouldn't even vote for it. today we're going to give the republican majority in the senate the opportunity to consider critical legislation that has so far languished in leader mcconnell's legislative graveyard. many bills that are just sitting here awaiting action that were passed in the house, many with bipartisan support, are sitting, waiting for senate action. we should be doing that, not rushing through this nomination while people are voting and want their choice listened to, not their choice, not the republican senate choice. so we're going to start with comprehensive legislation that addresses the most serious problems facing america right now, the heroes act, which would deliver urgent and necessary relief to the nation and a people who are suffering. the heroes act would have a comprehensive regime for testing and tracing.

$75 billion. the money that's needed that this administration never gave. in fact, there is $9 billion sitting there from what we approved months ago in the cares act that they haven't even given out yet, so incompetent are they. i saw donald trump in a debate. he says oh, it will go away. he has been saying that since january. that's why people know he's an incompetent president during the most difficult of times. and yet, he still says it. we need that money. we need to open up our schools safely and soundly. that takes extra money. the school districts can't afford it. ventilation, more buses, p.p.e., oftentimes more teachers, hot spots so people can get the wi-fi when they don't have it in their own homes, and so many more. that's in the bill. money to prevent people from being evicted from their houses.

they lost their jobs through no fault of their own. they're getting kicked out, either as a renter or as a mortgagor. the heroes act deals with that. money to help our small businesses, and not just a few, but the restaurants and the stages and venues. the broadcasters and newspapers and nonprofits and rural hospitals, all left out in the republican proposal are in the heroes bill. money for employment. the $600 pandemic unemployment kept 10 million people out of poverty. it pumps money into the economy as well as giving people who are not wealthy at all an ability to get by. that's in the heroes bill. and there is so much more. money to make sure our elections are guarded and safe. provisions that allow the census to be counted in a fair way. all of that is in the heroes

bill. the american people so much want us to pass it, but leader mcconnell will not even put it on the floor for a debate. if leader mcconnell and his republican majority have an ounce of concern for average american families, they would halt this sham supreme court process and join us in taking up the critical pieces of legislation which my colleagues and i will be putting on the floor all afternoon. in each case, we're not asking the congress to pass it -- the senate to pass it. we're simply asking them to debate it. we're asking them to overrule leader mcconnell and put these bills on the floor and let there be a debate and let there be amendments that's all we ask during the most desperate, desperate of times. all we ask is the ability to debate something that really matters to the american people. instead of rushing through a judge, a supreme court nominee,

when the american people want the decision made by them, not by republican -- not republican senators. not when her views only represent an extreme minority of american -- of the american people, her views on the key issues. so, mr. president, in order to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 25, the heroes 2 bill, i ask unanimous consent -- no. sorry. what did i say? , oh, pardon me. let me repeat that. in order to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 925, heroes 2, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? shutdown. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: 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's a serious question about the sincerity of the minority leader's request here, mr. president. and, frankly, to his point, the united states 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 that are unemployed. help small businesses. we have 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's 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've taken up legislation exactly along the lines of what the democrat leader is asking for, and they have consistently blocked it. so -- and then to say -- and then to say, well, let's adjourn. we've had multiple votes on

adjourning. this isn't serious, and i 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 democrat leader in the past has said is the gold standard -- the gold standard -- when it comes to processing and considering judicial nominations. so, mr. president, let's see this for what it is, call it further what it is. and the bill that he's calling up by the way from the house of representatives, if you look at all the stuff it had in there -- and this is the all-or-nothing approach that they're advocating right now. tax cuts for manhattan

millionaires. blue-state bailouts -- for his state of new york. think about that. the is that real i had what the american people -- is that really what the american people think we ought to be voting on now, when they're unemployed and small businesses need help? the bill he is trying to call up right now has no assistance for the p.p.p. program, the very program that everybody around the country has said has provided enormous assistance to small businesses, kept them in business. there are other businesses that need that help. he talked about wanting to help businesses. they're going out of business. well, that bill that he's trying to call up right now doesn't include assistance for small businesses. so, anyway, mr. president, 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 united states 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. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: just a few wick points. in my judgment one, we are not talking about -- and the american people are not about qualifications. we are talking about views on issues. do the american people want their health care taken away from them? amy coney barrett has said that she disagrees with the decision to keep it. do the american people -- do american women want the right to choose taken away from them? amy coney barrett in the past has said she would do that. do the american people want to

make it even harder to form a union, so they might get some good pay? amy coney barrett -- how about gun issue? she is to the right of scalia. her views on the issues are so far and so extreme that she does not represent even the views of the people in this body on the senate side. and, number two, if they feel that the american people want it -- want her, let them vote and decide. the very same thing my friend from south dakota and everyone else said with merrick garland. we know hypocrisy when we see it. we know contradictions when we see them. and on the bill, yeah, let's debate it. but their bill is inadequate on testing, inadequate on small business, inadequate on schools.

we went to school administrators. no money for state and local governments. and i dare say to my friend from south dakota, a police officer, a firefighter, someone who picks up the garbage or drives the buses needs help in south dakota. if it's a red state or in new york if it's a blue state. it's despicable to say it's just for blue states. that's the kind of divisiveness that donald trump has created in this country. that's why so many people don't like him and what our republican colleagues, unfortunately, since he's become president have followed through on. our bill is far more comprehensive. it deals with the needs. very little money for testing. very little money for state and local governments. no money to help restaurants or stages or nonprofits or rural hospitals. no money for hospitals in general. so the bottom line is very

simple -- ours is a broad, comprehensive bill. theirs is a narrow, skinny bill done to appease 20 republican senators whoens with ad no money -- no -- who wanted no money, no money. and they won't even debate that either. so i say to my good friend from south dakota -- and he is my friend -- we have one view. the american people are for a $2 trillion bill, a recent poll showed, 60%, 70%. they have a much narrower view. bring this bill to the floor and let's debate it. it's the only thing that has the chance of getting done. if you want to bring amendments, we welcome that debate. but don't just block something that has a real chance of becoming law, as opposed to the farce icle exercise they engaged in on tuesday in a totally partisan bill that got not a

single democratic vote. let's have a debate. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. 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 a $2.-- which is now a $2.4 trillion bill, boy, i tell you, i haven't seen that anywhere. and maybe there's some polling out there that indicates that. but i think if you asked the question, would you want to spend $2.4 trillion if you knew you were borrowing it from your children and grandchildren, you might get a different answer. the truth. matter is, we've done $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 democrats blocked it. why? because it doesn't spend enough and they didn't think it spent enough on the things they thought it ought to spend money on. if that's the debate, let's get 0en our bill. let's start at the $650 billion base level and they can offer amendments to increase funding -- and 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's what they want to do, let's start there, and then they can have an opportunity to debate it and offer amendments. but they blocked even getting on the bill. so when he says we ought to have a debate, all they had to do was let us get on the bill and then we could be offering up and discussing these various amendments 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 target bill. it was a fiscally responsible bill. and the, yes, it got 52 out of 53 republicans to vote or 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 left-wing agenda of items included in the legislation. many of which -- which -- wellcome of which have no -- many of which have no relationship to coronavirus. so the leader's point -- the 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'm not -- i don't understand exactly that argument because my understanding of what a judge is supposed to do is to take the facts of a case, apply the law, apply the constitution, in an

impartial way and apply those as writern, not to try -- written not to try to get some perceived outcome or result. that's 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 auction sillry legislature where you can't get the result you want from the other two branches of government. the judiciary is supposed to be independent, a fair arbiter, that calls balls and strikes and doesn't try to step on the scales or write the rules of the game. that's 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's 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're going to cut health care. they're going to destroy health care. 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 health care. he was going to destroy health care for millions of americans. he cast the deciding vote to uphold the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare. so if they don't know what a judge is going to do, but i know what she's going to do, because she's proven it, as a judge on the appellate circuit, the seth circuit,s -- the seventh circuit, as an academic in her writings that she believes the role of the judge is to take the facts of the case, apply the

law, apply the constitution, as written, impartially and to render a decision. that to me is what i believe every american believes we ought to the have in a supreme court justice. yeah, this may be their -- it's fair game for them to come down here and offer up all these motions that we're going to hear repettively today the, none of which have anything to do with the issues that they say they're going 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's ever worked with her including the dean of the notre dame law school who hired here, the a.b.a., the american bar association, which passes a judgment on all of these nominees, her colleagues on the seventh circuit, staff, everybody this person has ever interacted with. stellar recommendations. this is an incredibly

well-qualified individual and somebody who can be relatable to the american people because she deals with the same issues that americans do. seven kids. trying to organize your schedule around seven kids, continue to be a professional, do exceptional work, highly qualified, towering intellect she's been described by her colleagues. so, mr. president, that's what this is about. it's about trying block a well-qualified judge 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 reared 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 this is about -- 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've already moved to adjourn multiple times this week. meaning they want to get out of town. they don't want to have anything to do with the supreme court. so these are all -- they are going to get up and i republicans -- and say republicans are blocking this or that the. and as i pointed out, the first one offered was a bill to deal with coronavirus and provide relief for people across the country which, by the way, we just voted for two days ago in the united states senate. they blocked even getting on the bill. not considering the substance of it. which by the way i said including a lot of democratic objectives and priorities. they blocked even considering it. that's what it is about and i expect that's what we're going to hear about today, tomorrow, and the