welcome back to msnbc's special coverage of confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee amy coney barrett. i'm chuck todd from nbc news. we're minutes away from the continuation of the hearings as senators will return from lunch break. with 22 days from election it has been partisan and fiery hearing. focusing on what it could mean for health care. president trump weighed in on social media hinting republicans should fasttrack the meetings and go to a vote. we're going to hear from a number of senators delivering their opening statement, then we'll hear for the first time the opening statement from judge barrett herself. i've got my panel back with me. i want took start with chuck rosenberg. chuck, i think you're the one person i didn't get to. let me get into specifics here, which is how would you question amy coney barrett to find out

how she might rule on the aca? is it a specific precedent you're looking for? what would you be looking for on that front? >> actually i'm really glad you asked me that, chuck. there's a bunch of things that concern me so far. i wouldn't vote for her or against her based on anything i heard so far today. i'd like to hear what she has to say. i know that might strike some as an incredibly radical proposal. i'd like to know how she thinks about originalism. i'd like to know how she thinks about the roll of precedent and whether there are, in fact, cases that constitute super precedent that may not be well reasoned but we've had them for so long, and they are so engrained in our law and rule of law that we have to keep them. i'd also like to know how she thinks about recusal. a senator or two touched upon that. but i'd love to know what she thinks about it. there's a federal statute that

says a judge or justice shall recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned. how does she think about that? who gets to decide whether or not whether her impartiality can reasonably be questioned, for instance, and would she step aside under certain circumstances if she could. all those questions, recusal, originalism, are things i'd like to hear about from her and not senators on either side. >> i'm curious, chuck, when you were in government, what was the trigger for recusal for you in your position? >> so i would always instruct the u.s. attorneys in my office, when i served as u.s. attorney, that we never wanted to get near that line. we wanted to stay so far away we couldn't see it. so if you had financial in tanglement, that's easy. you were recused.

if there was a family relationship, you were recused. again, if anyone could reasonably question your impartiality. we had other prosecutors who could do the work, so you would step aside. i think here there's a real question about recusal. but what the senators have to say about it is much less important to me than what she has to say about it. it reminds me, chuck, how people would compliment or criticizes mueller report when none of them ever read the damn thing. let's see what she has to say. >> that's the frustrating thing about all supreme court nominations. you hear more from senators than actual nominees. claire mccaskill, i'm curious, how does recusal work -- how did you view recusal as an elected official versus when you were a prosecutor? >> well, the line is much brighter when you're a prosecutor because any appearance of impropriety fundamentally harms the criminal justice system. when you're elected official you

must disclose, unlike this president has done, all your possible financial in tanni-- entangle minutes. you must be out there with whatever impacts your votes. one thing interesting is we've not heard a lot about roe v. wade so far. i anticipate that -- he says he won't confirm anyone that won't explicitly say it should be decided. he says he won't vote for a nominee that doesn't. >> i get the feeling, claire, and i'm curious, i'm surprised roe hasn't been a bigger thing throughout this entire pre -- whatever you want to call it pregame -- i hate using the word game with this -- pregaming this. it has been more about health care than roe. the whisper i've gotten from

democrats is it's pennsylvania and wisconsin. that's why there's a fear of making roe more of the center of this conversation. thoughts about that? >> well, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and suburban women. i think before -- and women period. joe biden will get elected with the votes of women. so i think you're going to see as this hearing goes on roe v. wade come up more. frankly her position on guns is so extreme. she has said that a felon can be denied the right to vote but she doesn't understand how they can be denied, all classes of felons, a gun. that's extreme for women in the suburbs who don't understand why we can't even get thorough background checks. >> that is one, hallie jackson, the president likes to talk about second amendment when he talks about judges and makes it a talking point.

i have to tell you, that one -- if you're looking at something that could cut through, where a position she has firmly taken, hey, she's even talked about some felons should are a right to guns, that's something in a 30-second ad that won't play very well. >> that is a key issue given what you and senator mccaskill is talking about that will resonate with people in battle grounds. i have to tell you the president is focused on something else this morning and we know it based on his twitter. just in the last several minutes as we've been having this conversation, he tweeted about health care. he's clearly engaged and seeing what they are doing. not that we will have it but in a second tweet moments ago talking about how republicans need to loudly and clearly state their position on health care and they will provide for pre-existing conditions. the irony of that tweet, chuck, is president trump has yet to state loudly and clearly what his plan is to replace affordable care act which his

administration is trying to pull down. when it plays in the political sphere here, get the word out, we're always going to protect pre-existing conditions. that's something he's been pressed on and something joe biden has been working to make a campaign issue. i have to tell you, i heard the conversation earlier with shannan, our colleague, talking about any day the president is not needing to talk about the coronavirus is a good day for the campaign, the campaign feels, especially considering the focus on creating a conservative judiciary which has been a stated focus of president trump for 4 1/2 years since he started running for president. that goes out of water when he heads to a rally, first campaign travel since getting diagnosed with coronavirus. there was an interesting moment earlier, actually in the commercial break the team was letting us know about. chief of staff mark meadows acting as a sherpa for amy coney

barrett, mark meadows walked up to the cameras and was asked to keep his mask on when he was speaking to reporters and he declined to do that. he tried to move the microphone back, put his mask back on and walked away without taking questions, which does speak to the way the administration and some people inside the white house are feeling about the optics of the coronavirus and the way that is playing particularly at this intersection here with the supreme court here on capitol hill in the middle of this pandemic in which we're seeing some senators -- you talked about senator mike lee appear in person on advice of his physician. >> we have conversations every day with people in masks, seems an odd decision for mark meadows. i want to confirm one quick thing with you and garrett, hallie. has the president ever unveiled and given us a detailed health care plan, what he would replace it with? i'm double-checking. i believe the answer is no. >> no, and i cover him every day. >> garrett haake, when was the

last time united states senate republicans unveiled a health care law obi-- bill. >> last thing was skinny repeal. house republicans passed their health care bill early in the summer of 2017. donald trump held a ceremony for it in the white house rose garden and shortly after called it mean. even when house republicans put together an actual full repeal and replace plan, the president couldn't get behind it. can i add one thing on mark meadows, the capitol hill, leadership of reporters on capitol hill here sent a letter to congressional leadership a little more than a week ago, after the outbreak, after senators started getting sick, requesting lawmakers keep their masks on when they do interviews in the capital. you may notice if you watch our air, speaker pelosi last week did multiple interviews on this network with her mask on. i don't think it's a lot to ask the white house chief of staff follow the same rules set up here. you know who probably else feels

that same way, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell made it clear he won't go to the white house because he doesn't believe they are taking necessary protocols we're taking on capitol hill to try to keep people safe from this virus. >> ari melber, when you see the president's tweets on health care, whatever some might think of democratic strategy, if he's talking about it, it may be working somewhere? >> yeah. i think that's the other big part of these hearings. we know there's the legal part of the vetting of the candidate. obviously anything could change if they say something that is just off base enough or a big enough problem. but of course these hearings, especially in october of election year, messaging events as well. so if the democrats are trying to make it all health care, senator mccaskill reminding us it's not always the case, this much message discipline, others need to respond, show us day one we still await the hearing from the nominee herself is setting a big message as well on the

campaign side of this. >> andrea mitchell, there's one moment in the hearing i've been meaning to bring up, that was sheldon whitehouse and how it became a hit on john cornyn and threw off ted cruz who then felt as if he had to somehow come to john cornyn's defense there. what was interesting, it's a reminder, sheldon whitehouse is to me one of the most interesting people to watch in the judiciary committee because he rarely has somebody get the best of him. let's put it that way. >> he's always so meticulous and so grounded in the substance rather than the politics. interesting also because john cornyn has been one of the republicans lately calling out the president on not being careful enough about covid and stepping back from some of the president's more, let's say,

nonpolitically smart approaches to both covid and health care. mitch mcconnell and others, of course. they haven't voted against the president but they have certainly sent signals they are not happy. john cornyn very concerned clearly about what's happening in texas, where texas with this harris county fight whether the dropboxes are going to be eliminated, according to latest appeals over the weekend are being picked up again. harris county, of course, under governor abbott's ruling can only have one dropbox for mail-in ballots in the entire county bigger than some states. >> right. >> that's, of course, the houston area is the biggest county in the state. the whole election in texas could turn on whether or not there are more dropboxes for people who want to use mail-in ballots. there was a court ruling, federal court judge saying the governor was wrong and appeals court judge moved in again. that's still in play. it's one of the most aggressive

efforts by republicans to try to suppress or limit voting according to most experts. the way this hearing is going, at least in these opening statements, is as you point out very disciplined on both sides. but the fact is that the democrats are playing that health care card, which is their best card. that, of course, brings up covid and that is a pre-existing condition. you're going to see kamala harris from her office right there in the senate building not coming in because you had mike lee in person. thom tillis sequestering, quarantining himself but not mike lee only a week -- days after he was diagnosed positive. it's pretty extraordinary. what you just recounted, what hallie did with mark meadows is an egregious example. >> the difference between them is on the ballot in three weeks. let me play that sound bite in a second here instead of having

folks conjure up what's in my brain. here it was. >> i don't know who has been tested, who should be tested, who is a danger, what contact tracing has been done on infected and exposed senators and staff. nothing. the whole thing, just like trump, is an irresponsible botch. >> so claire mccaskill, i'm curious, i know you're very in touch with your former colleagues there. how upset are they with how this is handled and how much of this should we chalk up to political gamesmanship. >> let me apologize, i've been on camera looking down and it's because i'm getting texts from the committee. i'm communicating realtime with all of them. they were very upset. i believe all of them have tested within the last few days,

and none of the republicans have tested. this is a theme here. yes, it's about the aca but also about how much the republican party cares about the health of america. this notion that the chief of staff is refusing to talk to press with a mask on. this is after the boss was in the hospital like a week ago taking oxygen, like a week ago. so it is really -- by the way, tillis -- cruz said he was quarantining and doing it remotely because he had been in contact with tillis and lee. who is in the committee room speaking without a mask? lee. it's crazy. >> what i'm trying to understand is what is the political message that mike lee wants to send? like is it weak to be there virtually? >> i guess stow. i guess he believes that somehow showing his disdain for health protocols is okay for his party. i think it's a huge political

misstep on their part. be chassent, be humbled by this pandemic. quit flaunting it you don't care about what the cdc says and guidelines put forth by the docto doctors. >> let me check in with mike memoli traveling with joe biden hole be campaigning in toledo, ohio. the biden campaign, are they pleased so far with the democratic discipline? >> absolutely, chuck. democrats are all on the same page when it comes to what the strategy should be when it comes to the supreme court. it's a relay of the message that works for them, they believe, in the 2018 midterms, focus entirely on the affordable care acts. joe biden was talking about the pre-existing conditions, the fate of the law is very much what they want to be talking about. what they don't want to be talking about is whether or not to expand the supreme court. the biden campaign saying, again, they are not going to

engage in these questions. they view it, one, as putting the cart before the horse. they don't know if they will have a senate majority of democrats to have that conversation. they really want to focus on the idea this is a supreme court seat that should be for voters to decide. they should choose the president before the president then chooses the justice of that's why the biden campaign has been reluctant to talk about. i know garrett was talking about the straw man arguments republicans are making, including about this religious test democrats say they are wanting to impose. biden campaign likes to remind as senator kamala harris did during the vice presidential debate, joe biden, if elected, will be the second catholic president in united states history. they think they can brush that argument away pretty quickly. >> mike memoli on the road there. mike, thanks very much. ari melber, you think about these larger questions about the law quite a bit. there's aert pa of me that's listening to the republicans there creating the straw man on

the religious argument. some of it i feel like is being done out of fear. what are they afraid of? are they afraid of this spotlight, too? this is happening, not happening. there seems to be some -- you create a barrier because you're worried about people walking into that barrier. what are they afraid of here? >> well, i think that the choice issues here can cut in different ways. so i think that what you can traditionally have in the old days of the hearing, call it the pretrump era, was a pursuit of someone that would limit or overrule roe versus wade or otherwise. difference for judges. judges are not supposed to perjure themselves in the supreme court confirmation process. senator mccaskill referring earlier to the question, if you're going to explicitly demand this, are we going to

learn this in the coming days, even why the hearings matter even though they know the math. this is a testing process. can you learn things. i think what they may be afraid of is the right wing demanding something explicit on record, under oath, that doesn't play as well as the old approach, hey, comply you're going to do this without admitting it. >> and she may be more on the record on this issue than other nominees have been from the right in the past there in some way, whether signing on the letters or things like that. perhaps that's what could be the concern politically. i'm going to sneak in one more break before the hearing against. let me do that and we'll see you on the other side. t me do that u on the other side.

insulin injections can make diabetes complicated. omnipod delivers insulin through a discreet waterproof pod... to help simplify life. no more daily injections. it's game-changing. and the wireless controller helps deliver the right amount of insulin. plus take your insulin anywhere with a small tubeless pod. covered by most insurance plans. get started with a benefits check today. go to omnipod.com for risk information and instructions for use. consult your healthcare provider before starting on omnipod. simplify diabetes. simplify life. omnipod. understanding how to talk to your doctor about treatment options is key. today, we are redefining how we do things. we find new ways of speaking, so you're never out of touch.

it's seeing someone's face that comforts us, no matter where. when those around us know us, they can show us just how much they care. the first steps of checking in, the smallest moments can end up being everything. there's resources that can inform us, and that spark can make a difference. when we use it to improve things, then that change can last within us. when we understand what's possible, we won't settle for less. the best thing we can be is striving to be at our best. managing heart failure starts now with understanding. call today or go online to understandhf.com for a free hf handbook.

and the hearing is back under way. to names coming up you'll hear

from joanie ernst and kamala harris. >> made it clear for the past decade that repealing affordable care act is at the top of their hit list. we know this because a mere two weeks after control of the house in 2011 republicans voted to repeal the aca for the first time. over the next six years -- next six years, republicans took at least 70 votes in congress to eliminate provisions of the aca or repeal it all together. these repeal efforts culminated in the early morning hours of july 28, 2017, when our late colleague senator john mccain gave his dramatic thumbs down and saved health care for millions by one vote, his vote. faced with their failures to get

rid of aca in congress, republicans have taken to the courts. right now the trump administration and 18 republicans state attorneys general, including those from texas, south carolina, and missouri are at the supreme court right now trying to strike down the aca. aca all arguments are scheduled a week after election day. this has been turbo charged because of the death of our champion justice ruth bader ginsburg only three weeks ago. her death has changed everything for donald trump and senate republicans. they are confident that victory at the supreme court is now within their grasp if the senate confirms judge barrett through this hypocritical, illegitimate process. the consequences of judge barrett's confirmation would be devastating for millions of

americans who would lose their health care during this pandemic. even in normal times, without the threat of a pandemic, no one in our country should have to confront a major illness worried that it might bankrupt their family, but we all know these are not normal times. health care is the number one concern for so many people in our country, and they are rightly terrified that judge barrett will provide the deciding vote to overturn the aca and take away their health care. i want to share two of their stories today. kimberly dickens is from raleigh, north carolina. before the affordable care act, kimberly couldn'tafter forward health insurance. thankfully the aca enabled her to get health care. she used that coverage to get a checkup and mammogram, which found her breast cancer. with her health insurance, she was able to get a mastectomy and

has been cancer-free since. kimberly credits the aca for saving her life. she said, quote, if it wasn't for the affordable care act, i probably wouldn't have had that mammogram. i was diagnosed early. it scares me to think if i didn't have insurance how far advanced would the cancer have grown. kimberly's story is not unique. in the years of all the battles of eliminating the aca, we've heard from hundreds an thousands of constituents across the country sharing their health care stories. dean and his daughter jordan are from my home state of hawaii. jordan, who is an elementary school teacher at elementary school has pnh, a very rare blood condition. to treat this condition, she gets infusions of a special medicine that costs around $500,000 per year without insurance. dean told me that, quote,

without this medicine she will die. dean and jordan live in fear that republicans will strike down the aca, which would allow her insurance company to put lifetime caps on her benefits and she would be left without coverage for her lifesaving medication. dean wrote to me to share how, quote, extremely terrified he is about his daughter losing access to adequate health care under the aca. he's asked me to fight for her, and that's what i'm doing today. health care is personal to kimberly, dean, jordan, and it's personal to me, too, because i know that having health insurance and access to health care saved my life. on the day when the senate confirmed neil gorsuch to the supreme court, i got a routine chest x-ray before a scheduled eye surgery. a shadow on that x-ray and a

later scan led to my diagnosis of stage 4 kidney cancer and gave me time to receive treatment. my diagnosis came as a total shock, and i'm grateful it came when there was still time. i still have cancer, but i don't need any treatment right now. i receive regular scans so that i will know in time if treatment becomes necessary again. i'm grateful for the care i've received and continue to receive from my doctors. the cost of my treatment, which included surgery to remove a kidney, a second surgery to remove part of a rib replaced with a 7" titanium plate, almost two years of cutting edge immunotherapy and regular scans has been enormous. every family in the country if they didn't have insurance. i'm not special or unique.

serious illness can hit anyone unexpectedly. it did for me. when it does, no one should have to worry about whether they can afford care that might save their life. the affordable care act provided this peace of mind for so many people over the years who found themselves in positions similar to mine. their lives and their health are what's at stake. their lives are what's at stake with this nomination. at moments like this, where the health care of millions is on the line, i think back to the care and concern so many of you showed me when i was diagnosed with cancer 3 1/2 years ago. so many of you, including many of my republican colleagues on this committee wrote heartfelt notes wishing me well and letting me know you were thinking of me. to this day, when the chairman

of this committee and i find ourselves away from the cameras, sharing an elevator, he never hesitates to ask me about my health. he says, how are you doing? mr. chairman, you and i have had our pointed disagreements over the years, particularly during our time together on this committee. but your concern means a lot to me. moments when we recognize our shared humanity are rare in congress these days, but this can and should be one of those moments. this can be a moment, mr. chairman, for you and your republican colleagues to show the american people terrified about losing their health care the same care and compassion you showed me and continue to show me when i was diagnosed with cancer. instead of rushing to jam another idealogically driven

nominee on the supreme court in the middle of an election when over 9 million americans have already voted, mr. chairman, let's end this hypocritical, illegitimate hearing, return to the urgent work we have before us to help those suffering during this pandemic. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hirono. i think it's not just me, i think everybody on this committee and everybody that knows you knows you're passionate about your causes. we have a lot of political differences but all of us are very encouraged to hear that you're doing well and we'll keep praying for you. you're an asset to the senate. >> i appreciate that. thank you. do the right thing. aloha. >> aloha. senator ernst. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and judge barrett, thank you so much for being in front of us today. welcome to you, and, of course, i am so glad you've had your family join you today as well. only 100 years ago women in this country were given the right to vote. today we consider adding another woman to the highest court in the land. i can't help but be so proud of all of the -- every one of our women have accomplished in our nation. this the first time i've been a member of the judiciary committee during a supreme court nomination process. and as you probably know, like most americans, i'm not a lawyer. i bring a slightly different perspective onto this committee. but one thing is very important to me, and it's something that matters to iowans, whether they

are lawyers or not, i firmly believe in the role of our supreme court. it is the defender of our constitution. at the end of the day, that's my test for a supreme court justice. will you defend the constitution. it frustrates me and it frustrates my fellow iowans that the supreme court has become a super legislature for a congress that frankly won't come together and discuss tough issues and do its job. what i hear from my colleagues on the left is about judicial activism and what they want to see in their nominees, which is that super legislature. they are projecting that upon you, judge barrett. that's what they are projecting as they talk about what cases

may or may not come in front of the supreme court. as a matter of fact, i think it was just the other day that vice president joe biden told the american people they don't deserve to know whether he is going to pack the court. they don't deserve to know who his judicial nominees would be. i think we do need to know. again, because it's what the left is projecting on you today is what they want to see in their nominees. but that's not what our founders intended the court to be. i hope that this hearing will be an open, fair conversation about how judge barrett would be as justice barrett. i am concerned, however, that not everyone involved in this hearing shares that goal. we've already seen hints in that

over the past few weeks. immediately attacking your faith and your precious family. instead of entering into this nomination process with an open mind and a desire to understand this woman who has been nominated for the highest court in the land, the focus is on a plan or a strategy, a series of tactics to undermine, coerce and confuse the american people, a plan, judge barrett, so undermine you as a person, undermine your family, and undermine what you hold dear. women all over the world are painfully familiar with this strategy. we are all too often perceived and judged based on who someone else needs or wants us to be. not on who we actually are.

i cannot speak for those that would attempt to undermine your nomination. but as a fellow woman, a fellow mom, a fellow midwesterner, i see you for who you are, and i'm glad the american people have the opportunity to get to know amy coney barrett. this week will be an opportunity to dig into your background further and understand more about your judicial philosophy. but what your political opponents want to paint you as is a tv or cartoon version of a religious radical, a so-called handmaid that feeds into all the ridiculous stereotypes they set out to lambast people of faith in america. that's wrong. it might be less comical if this was the first time the left has trotted out this partisan

playbook. your political opponents have made these types of religious attacks on nearly every supreme court candidate nominated by a republican president in the modern era. and every time, like clock work, they say they really mean it this time. this nominee, this woman in front of us, she is the absolute worst. i'm struck by the irony of how demeaning to women their accusations really are, that you, a working mother of seven, with a strong record of professional and academic accomplishment, couldn't possibly respect the goals and desires of today's women, that you, as a practicing catholic, with a detailed record of service lack compassion.

i know you to be compassionate. your record on the 7th circuit says that you are. more importantly it shows that your demonstrated commitment is to defending the constitution. the great freedom of being an american woman is that we can decide how to build our lives, whom to marry, what kind of person we are, and where we want to go. i served in the army, something not exactly popular at various points in america's history. we don't have to fit the narrow definition of womanhood. we create our own path. justice ginsburg was one such woman, and i would like to pay tribute to her for what she did to pave the way for women of tod today. it's really quite simple what your opponents are doing. they are attacking you as a mom and a woman of faith, because

they cannot attack your qualifications. every year i travel to every single one of iowa's 99 counties and talk to men and westminister from all walks of life. whether they are farmers or nurses or small business owners, they want a government that is accountable to them. when congress makes a law that oversteps the constitution, the ripples can be felt whether on farms in montgomery county from i'm from and the manufacturing facilities of dubuque. it can be felt in the church services of sioux city and community meetings in waterloo. the supreme court's only job is to rule on the cases before it and defend the constitution. to do that well, a justice needs to be thoughtful, restrained, and wise. judge barrett, so far i have seen all of those things in you.

i'm so glad i have you in front of us. i look forward to learning more about you. i want to thank you and your family for being here. certainly, folks, this is what a mom can do. >> senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. behind me, a father of boys and football coach in new jersey. for years merritt put off going to the doctors because he, like many americans, felt like he couldn't afford it. when the affordable care act was passed, he finally felt like he could get the coverage he could afford. four years ago he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, a disease

that affects americans and disproportionately black americans like. they are twice as likely to die from it. today merrick takes insulin and his condition improved. he said, and i quote, obamacare made it so i was not afraid of the costs of going to the doctor. if i didn't have insurance and didn't get diagnosed, who knows where i would be right now. but merrick is worried about what will happen if the affordable care act gets overturned. he said, and i quote, now i have a pre-existing condition. my insurance covers my medications, my equipment to monitor my diabetes. if that's taken away from me, what's going to happen? i can't afford those on my own. michelle from palisades park, new jersey, lost her husband i

don't know when he passed away suddenly at the age of 58. michelle relied on health insurance through the job but when he died the insurance went away. she was given the option to continue his plan but couldn't afford the cost of $800 a month. michelle signed up for coverage on the insurance marketplace where she qualified for a subsidy that made it more affordable. today she's insured and she can manage her diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disease because of her coverage. like merrick, michelle also relies on insulin and other prescription medications. if the aca was overturned, michelle said, quote, i could lose my house if i didn't have affordable health care. i would have to sell my home. i like where i live. i don't want to lose my home. people like merrick and michelle are understandably scared right

now. president trump has told america he would end the aca. he promised explicitly that he would only nominate judges that would do the right thing and eliminate the affordable care act. people like merrick and michelle know what a future without the aca looks like. it looks like 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions from cancer survivors to people with disabilities being charged more or denied coverage completely, looks like 20 million americans losing their access to potentially lifesaving care in the middle of a pandemic that's already killed over 214,000 americans. in new jersey we've lost over 16,000 people to covid-19, 595,000 people would lose their coverage without the aca. for millions of americans, a future without the aca looks

like being forced to sell your house if you can't afford your health care. looks like not having access to a doctor when you're sick. it looks like having to choose between paying for groceries and paying for medicine. people are scared right now for another reason because they know what a future without protections of roe v. wade looks like because president trump has explicitly stated he would only put up supreme court nominees that would overturn roe v. wade clearly. he said it and we should believe him. without roe v. wade, it looks like people of the country being denied the decision about their own bodies. not just being pregnant but stripping the right to control their futures. women of color and in rural areas can't pack up and leave if abortion is restricted or criminalized where they live,

looks like them being left with no options. it looks like state laws proliferating throughout our country that seek to control and criminalize women. it looks like the government interfering with women making the most personal medical decisions. it looks like a country in which states may write laws that could subject women who have miscarriages to investigations to ensure she didn't have abortions. in america today, people are scared. you've heard from my colleagues. we're getting calls to our office where people are afraid. more than 214,000 americans died, many of them isolated and alone away from friends and families. tens of millions of jobs have been lost. one in three american families with children aren't getting enough food to eat. more than 100,000 small businesses have closed

permanent permanently. food banks in the wealthiest nation on the planet have stretched for miles. we could be as the senate, should be as the senate working in a bipartisan way to get this virus under control, to get relief to people who are hurting, so are struggling, who are afraid to help people who are unemployed, to let doctors and nurses and hospital staffs putting their lives on the line right now in state after state where covid is rising know that we have their backs in a pandemic. but instead of doing anything to help people who are struggling right now, we are here. we're here. i'm so glad -- i'm really glad that my colleagues who contracted covid-19 at the rose garden super spreader event for judge barrett had access to the care that you and your families

needed. that is right. this is a blessing. the problem is the people who will come through here today to wipe down the desks and empty the garbage, that will vacuum the floor like people all over our country who are working today in factories teaching children in schools, they don't have direct line to the nation's top health experts. they can't show up to work sick, and they might not have space to distance themselves at home to protect their families. we literally stopped the senate from functioning with the exception of this hearing. that's why we're here. we're not just 22 days from an election, we're in the middle of an ongoing election. when millions of people have already started voting because donald trump, and most of my senate republican colleagues know the truth.

they won't be able to get away with this after the american people have spoken in this election. donald trump and my senate republican colleagues in this room today know that the american people don't want the aca overturned. donald trump and my senate republican colleagues know that the majority of americans don't want roe v. wade overturned. that the majority of americans don't want to see abortion critic criminalized in our states, but that is exactly why we are here today because donald trump and senate republicans know that the american people don't want this so they have to act now. they don't trust the american people, which is so painful, because that's what they said, they said we should trust the american people and what the american people say under president obama 269 days from an election. and then, after that election, they tried time and time again to overturn the affordable care

act but a handful of republicans stopped them. they tried in the senate, they tried in the house. over 70 attempts to rip down the affordable care act but now donald trump has said he's going to do it through the courts by making the nomination we see here today. that's why we are here. the american people should know that that is what this is all about. rushing this nomination through to sit a supreme court justice in time to hear a case before the supreme court that will end the affordable care act. we're here because in the middle of a deadly pandemic, in the middle of an ongoing election, senate republicans have found a nominee in judge barrett, who they know will do what they couldn't do, subvert the will of the american people and overturn the aca and overturn roe v. wade. that's what this is about. that's why we're here. it's very simple. senate republicans know the american people don't want this but they don't care, because they have only one small window

of opportunity to work the system, betray what the american people want. so they're desperately rushing to complete this process before america starts voting. but they don't have to do this. if one of my colleagues will stand up on this committee, we can hold this over until after an election. if two of my colleagues on the senate floor agree with their other two colleagues, republicans, we can stop this. otherwise, this is a charade when they say this is a normal judiciary committee hearing for a supreme court nomination. there's nothing about this that's normal. it's not normal that senate republicans are rushing through a confirmation hearing, violating their own words, their own statements, betraying the trust of the american people and their colleagues and failing to take, in this hearing, even the most basic safety protections to protect people around them all to ensure that tens of millions of people will lose their health

care. when we're seven months into one of the worst public health crises in the history of our country. that's not normal. this is not normal that millions of americans like michelle and merritt aren't just scared of a deadly virus, they're scared of their fellow americans who are sitting in this room right now. they're scared that their government and their institutions will be manipulated by people who could not work through the democratic process to take away their health care and are trying an end run to achieve that. nothing about this today is normal. this is not normal. what is going on in america today, in the midst of a deadly pandemic and an ongoing election, having a rushed supreme court nomination hearing is not normal. and we cannot normalize it. people are voting right now. the american people should decide, the american people should decide, the american

people should decide. i will not be voting to confirm judge barrett's nomination. >> thank you. >> i would like to submit a letter for the record if i may. we should not be rushing, as i said, this process, my colleagues agree with me we should be working to protect the health and safety of americans across the country. and taking the precautions -- greater precautions in the work place, i'd like to enter into the record a record from senators leahey, harris and myself that we sent to the chairman last week asking the hearings not proceed without proper testing measures, without all of us being tested and a covid safety protocol being put into place. >> thank you. without objection. senat senator. >> thank you. congratulations on the high honor of your nomination, justice barrett. i have prepared remarks that i will give but having sat through

the speeches i heard already and listened to the attacks that have been made both on republican members of the committee and on you, i think it's important to set the record straight on a few items before i talk about why we're here, and that's you and the qualifications to sit as a justice. what were the attacks? the first is we're rushing too fast and violating the rules and norms and precedents of the senate and speeding into the proceedings. what are the facts? well, i had my staff check while we were sitting here. this hearing is 16 days after judge barrett's announced nomination. more than half of all supreme court hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee. this case is no different. a couple of examples, justice stevens, ten days, justice rehnquist, 13 days, justice

powell, 13 days. justice blackman, 15 days. justice berger, 13 days. these proceedings are following right along in the same kind of process that has historically been the process of the senate. so then the argument is made that well, this is an election year and the republicans said back in 2016 that in an election year they wouldn't move forward with then president obama's nomination. what are the facts? a vacancy has arisen in a presidential election year 29 times. every single one, and this is important to note, every single one of those 29 times, whoever was the sitting president made a nomination to replace the vacant seat, to fill the vacancy. every one of those 29 times.

19 of those 29 times, the parties of the president and the senate majority were the same. and 17 of those 19 nominees were confirmed. by contrast, of the ten times in which the senate was controlled by the party opposite to the president, only one time did the senate that was not of the party of the president proceed to fill that vacancy. in fact, vacancies under a divided government, meaning a senate and a presidency from different parties have not been filled for over 130 years, going back to 1888. so much like when the senate exercised its constitutional right fully consistent with precedent in 2016 not to fulfill -- to fill the vacancy when there was divided government, the senate is today

exercising its duty to move forward with processing this nomination just like the vast majority of senates in the past have done every time this has happened. and it's important to note that. any claim that this process is unusual or that it violates the clear precedent of the senate is simply false. so then, back to the attacks on the members of this committee, on the republican side, and frankly against the president, it says that we are trying to engage in court packing. that's a novel one, because it's the senate following standard procedure with regard to a vacancy that is now being accused of being court packing when my colleagues on the other side are actually proposing court packing. that is to statutorily and with the signature of a president change the law so they can add

more members to the court. fdr tried this and his effort was rejected. that effort should be rejected now. but let's be clear about it, this is not court packing. that, threatening to pass a law and change the court, is court packing. so then what were the arguments that were actually levelled against judge barrett? well, the standard arguments. she is going to overturn all protections for women, she is going to change all of the laws in the country that protect people's health care, and every one in this country who has a preexisting condition or has any kind of worry about getting support needs to worry that she's going to be an activist justice and go in there and change the law. she's not. and we all know that.

this is simply the tired, worn out argument that is constantly made every time a republican president nominates a candidate for the bench for the supreme court of the united states. and it's never been true, and it will not be true with judge barrett. so then the attack is, well, the republicans don't care about people's health. they won't even try to get covid relief out. we're here in a hearing on the judiciary committee when we ought to be passing covid relief legislation. i've heard several of my colleagues say the republicans are refusing to work on helping to address the covid crisis. this coming from colleagues who just a month or so ago voted unanimously to filibuster a 5 to $600 billion covid relief package in the senate. a covid relief package, i