Watch booktv this weekend on cspan2. Senate debate on Amy Coney Barretts nomination begins at noon eastern. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee voted yesterday to move the nomination from the committee to the floor for consideration. Democrats boycotted the vote. The committee voted to authorize subpoenas for the heads of tech and social media companies. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning. I appreciate all of my colleagues being here properly. As you know, our democratic colleagues informed the Committee Last night they will not participate in the hearing. That was their choice. It will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee. Were not going to allow them to take over the committee. They made a choice not to participate after allowing judge barrett four days, two days to the question. I thought she did an exceptionally good job of handling the questions asked. I thought she was aggressively challenged but not inappropriately. What to complement my democratic colleagues for not going down the cabin all road. I want to complement the republican members of this committee for asking questions that matter to you, but showing a tremendous amount of discipline to make sure that on our side the hearing went well. And each of you, when this is over, i hope you feel like a sense of accomplishment. This is why we all run. Its moments like this that make everything you go through matter. Its moments like this where you can count young conservative women theres a place at the table for you. This is this is a groundbreakin, historic moment for american Legal Community and really politically. Senator blackburn and ernst spoke eloquently what its like to be conservative woman in america. You try to be marginalized. I just want to thank both of them for their participation. And a bit about the judge and were going to vote. I have been here a while and ive never seen anyone more capable than judge barrett on the law. Two days without a note. Senator cornyn made that obvious to us. I did know she didnt have any notes until you mentioned it here but a deep and wide understanding of the law. But the most important thing to me, understand what the judge does versus what we do. And to all the people out there wondering about judge barrett, i can tell you this, the law of amy will not be applied to a case in controversy. It would be the law as written in thett constitution or by statute or whatever regulatory body she is going to review. She will take her job on without agenda. But important to me is this okay to be a complete person and be on the O Supreme Court . Its okay to be prolife. She embraces the prolife cause in her personal life but she understands that judging is not a cause. She embraces her faith,e millions of other americans. There have been some things said about her and her family that are disgusting. I want to complement her family for giving her the backing she needed to take on this job. I want to thank the members of this committee for standing up against some file thanks. Again, my democratic colleagues did not go too far, in the opinion. We will end with this. Forget about what think as political people for a moment. All of us are, in the political 2013 when they changed the rules to require a simple majority to pack d. C. Circuit court, you could see days like this coming. It was a decision that senator schumer and read made in collaboration. I remember the night before the rules changed, senator schumer called me and informed me of it and i was very disappointed. I had been in a bunch of groups here trying to keep the traditions arrive alive. I remember telling senator schumer, he will regret this. Today he will regret it. Say is that judge two or was filibustered three times, requiring us to change the rules. They started a they started this, not me. If it were up to me, it would be a 60 vote requirement today read today. Denying judge gorsuch the votes just thethe floor was beginning of the end of a process that had served the country well. How could anybody believe that judge gorsuch was not as qualified as sotomayor and kagan . How could anybody in their right mind, after listening to judge barrett, understand she is not just qualified, she is incredibly qualified . Qualifications apparently dont matter anymore. It is about trying to create a situation favor, politically. I dont know how this ends, i do know this . After listening to Vice President eitans explanation about court packing, i am more confused than ever. One thing i can say is that the real energy of the Democratic Party is to pack the court. Is to expanded from nine to whatever number they need to make it liberal. As to my good friend senator feinstein, what happened to her by showing an act of human kindness tells you all you need to know about what awaits a senator who gets in the way of the agenda they have for our nation. Beginning with the court. Today we start changing them the day we start changing the number after every election to make it how we would like politically, artisanwise, is the end of the independence of the court. At stake, but today i want to celebrate the fact that judge amy barrett will be reported out of this committee unanimously. That, to all of the young women out there like amy barrett, this is a big day for you. To the country as a whole, youre going to have an associate justice on the court that you should be proud of. This is a good day. Me, justnt believe listen to what the ada said. The American Bar Association is not high on senator lees list. And many of you. I think they do give some republican nominee is a good time, but i have continued to manyhem because i keep as traditions in place as i can. But the folks who are watching this hearing, their job is to evaluate the nominee in three categories. Professional competency, character, judicial disposition. Hours,end hundreds of talk to hundreds of people, from all walks of life, about this judge. Judge barrett. Here is what they found. The American Bar AssociationStanding Committee on the federal judiciary has completed the evaluation of the professional qualifications of judge amy barrett. As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, affectional competence, and judicial temperament. A substantial majority of the committee determined that judge. His wellqualified. A minority is of the opinion that she is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Themajority represents Standing Committees official rating, which is the highest you can get. Two presenters a question. What both of you feel comfortable going before judge barrett . They replied, absolutely. Another piece of information was ms. Ohara. She was the dean of Notre Dame Law School while judge barrett was a professor. Remember what she had to say. I have only communicated with this august committee on two occasions. The first was 10 years ago and i wrote a strong letter in support of nowjustice elana kagan. Whose term as dean of Harvard Law School overlapped with my own. The second is today introducing ,nd endorsing Amy Coney Barrett an in equally strong terms. Some might find these inommendations juxtaposition. I find them entirely consistent. I voted for both. The committee will hold over s4632. That,unanimous consent notwithstanding the motion of october 15, setting the vote on the barrett nomination at 1 00 p. M. , the committee proceed immediately to vote on the barrett nomination. Any objections . Without objection. On the motion to report the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to being associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the clerk will call the roll. Favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. [voting] mr. Chairman, the boats are s. Yea senator cornyn. Sen. Cornyn mr. Chairman, i will take a couple of minutes. I find this to be a surreal environment we are in, where our democratic colleagues announced they are going to boycott one of the most important votes this committee will have, probably during our entire senatorial tenure. That is a vote to confirm, to provide advice and consent to a nominee of the Supreme Court of the United States. I just want to comment on the pictures that are in their chairs, like this is some sort of sporting event during covid19 and rather than show up and do their job, they choose to continue the theater that was part of the hearing. Of course, this is all pretextual. Their argument, as i understand it, is somehow Amy Coney Barrett will violate her oath of office, contrary to everything she has done and who she is, and somehow that the Affordable Care act is in jeopardy. She explained, i think with great skill, the issue before the Supreme Court. It is one of severability, which is a very technical doctrine. It doesnt have anything to do with the merits of the Affordable Care act. It has to do with whether you can sever the unconstitutional portion from the rest of the aca , and that it will survive. The fact is, democrats have already moved on from the aca. And my state, the premiums for an individual under the aca have gone up, i believe, 57 . The average deductible is about 3000. For a family of four, the deductible is 12,000. It means in essence, he did have insurance. You do not have insurance. All of the promises that were made to the American People leading up to the passage of the aca, they have been broken. I remember president obama saying, if you like your policy, you could keep your policy. None of that is true. They said we would have essentially universal Health Insurance coverage. That is obviously not true. Aca has failed our democratic colleagues recognize that. Have, from they president ial candidates running in the primary, all the way down to people running in this election on november 3, have advocated a singlepayer system. Sometimes called medicare for all. It is all a slippery slope toward a singlepayer system. I think it is important to point what they are advocating. It is extraordinarily radical. The 180 million americans who get their Health Insurance on the job, they would eliminate that. They would take that away from them in order to put them on a singlepayer government program. Know, has itse own financial problems, and is something we need to shore up. It is a commitment we have made to our seniors, that if you pay in, you are going to have Health Coverage when you become eligible. But dumping 330 Million People into the Medicare Program will bankrupt it. And we know that providers depend on a payment mix between medicaid, medicare, and private insurance in order to pay the bills. Without the private Insurance Health or payments our care providers, our hospitals, including those in rural parts of our states, would be bankrupt. I think it is important to just lay out the facts here. This is all for show. They have given up on the aca notuse they realize it did fulfill the promises that were made when it passed. Now it is unaffordable to most ordinary texans and americans. So they have thrown that out the window in favor of a singlepayer system. Said,y, senator schumer every thing is on the table. I think you have observed, mr. Chairman, that if the shoe were on the other foot, we have no doubt what they would do. But beyond that, senator schumer has said that the legislative filibuster is in jeopardy. That they will turn this into simply a partisan body, where you dont need to do the hard work to get bipartisan support. They would consider turning d. C. Into a state, and the state would get two senators. And get two estate senators. They want to permanently transform this country. This is not about incremental change. This is about revolutionary changes in our country. Finally, as we have all observed, they are advocating packing the Supreme Court with additional partisan judges. Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, there goes the crown jewels of the american public, which is our independent judiciary. It becomes nothing but another political body. A second legislative branch. I wanted to take a minute and thank you for your patience to lay out my thoughts and observations with regard to these theatrics with which our democratic colleagues are presenting us today. This is all for show. This is to try to capture a narrative which is simply false and to cover up what they are really about. So, thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham thank you, senator cornyn. I agree with what you said. Why dont we do the business of the committee . We have a few more judges and the subpoena request. Lets get to that and if anybody wants to speak, we will do so. On the motion to report the ,omination of benjamin j deaton the clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the cracks the boats are 12 yeas, and to not present. Sen. Graham on the motion to report the nomination of Kristi Johnson to the United States district judge for the Southern District of mississippi, favorably to the floor the clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the mr. Chairman, the voats are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham denomination will be sent to the floor. Favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. E roll]g th mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham reported favorably to the floor. Next, catherine mosel. Favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Of. Graham nomination thompson needs to the United States district judge for excuse me, to the United States district judge with United States court of federal claims. Favorably to the court, the clerk will call the roll. The roll] mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham the nomination will be reported favorably to the floor. Now we have a subpoena request. I have been asked by my democratic colleagues to hold it over. I think there is a lot of interest on the others of getting some of the social media folks here to answer questions about their platforms. Im going to move forward with the request today for the subpoena. Hopefully will give us some leverage to secure their testimony. Chairmansut on the october 22, 2020 motion to authorize subpoenas to Mark Zuckerberg and jack dorsey, relating to online content modernization. The clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham motion is passed. Thank you. All right. Thank you all. I will be glad to listen to any comments you would like to make. But we did it. We did it. Judge barrett is going to the floor. I hope you look back on this time on the committee and say, i was there when it mattered. And you were. Senator lee . Sen. Lee thank you, mr. Chairman. Be heredeed an honor to on this historic occasion, when we have confirmed judge barrett and forwarded to the floor our recommendation. As i have said ever since she was nominated to this position, judge Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most impressive legal minds in the United States. Andis a thoughtful fairminded lawyer. A loving daughter, wife, and mother. And a devout believer in her faith and in the constitution. She was arguably the most impressive judicial nominee i have ever seen in any of these hearings. I have been watching them intently since i was a kid. Make barrett is going to an absolutely outstanding Supreme Court justice. The American People will be lucky to have her on the bench. It is a shame that our leagues on the others, other side, having failed to lay a glove on judge barrett, have walked out on this process. And so doing, walk out on the American People. This is sad, but in context it is not surprising. Grateful we should be that i walk out as all the democrats will do to judge barrett today. Not all nominees have been so lucky. Important point for those watching these proceedings who might be tempted to believe the pious proclutching and Performance Art of the media and the Minority Party about this particular nomination. I would like to take a few moments to set the record straight about this process and why America Needs and deserves to have judge barrett on the Supreme Court. Of the first 200 years history of our republic, Supreme Court nominations of both Political Parties were almost always polite and even boring. Relatively nonpartisan, nonpolitical affairs. Judicial nominees were examined further qualifications and rejected by the senate only in relatively rare instances. Generally common Mutual Respect and in 1987. When a Democraticcontrolled Senate shamefully and slanderously defeated the nomination of one of the countries most respected lawyers and constitutional scholars. That is judge robert bork. The cynical attacks against judge bork, his only offense was that he was a conservative, or dirty were dirty and downright dishonest. Wolf,ke the