judge barrett: no, senator crapo. sen. crapo: all right. i hope that we can once again put that one to rest. and could you also, once again restate is anybody above the law in the united states? judge barrett: no one is above the law in the united states. sen. crapo: thank you very much. i told you yesterday i would ask if you saw -- softballs. judge barrett: how come softballs turn out not to be softballs? sen. crapo: these are some of my hard balls. i'm going to leave those because i only have three minutes left. i just want to talk to you for a minute about what academia. what led you to your decision to move out of practice into academia? judge barrett: well, when i was in law school i thought i might like to teach some day i really like teaching. i considered being a teacher. i mean, being a secondary school teacher was one of the things i thought about in college. as i said in my speech at the announcement of my nomination that my mom was a teacher and my dad was a lawyer. lawi wound up being a professor. so i loved the idea of teachi

judge barrett: no, senator crapo. sen. crapo: all right. i hope that we can once again put that one to rest. and could you also, once again restate is anybody above the law in the united states? judge barrett: no one is above the law in the united states. sen. crapo: thank you very much. i told you yesterday i would ask if you saw -- softballs. judge barrett: how come softballs turn out not to be softballs? sen. crapo: these are some of my hard balls. i'm going to leave those because i only have three minutes left. i just want to talk to you for a minute about what academia. what led you to your decision to move out of practice into academia? judge barrett: well, when i was in law school i thought i might like to teach some day i really like teaching. i considered being a teacher. i mean, being a secondary school teacher was one of the things i thought about in college. as i said in my speech at the announcement of my nomination that my mom was a teacher and my dad was a lawyer. lawi wound up being a professor. so i loved the idea of teachi

sen crapo: i understand.udge barrett: it was made very clear to the audience both at the outset and in the deliberation room and outside that this was not designed to reflect the actual views of any of the participants. this wouldt, because show up, diving deep down, and a lot of times people change their votes in the deliberation room just for the sake of making it interesting. sen crapo: i appreciate you making that distinction. the vote was in the panel, the majority said that the mandate was now a penalty and was unconstitutional, but severable. i think there was also a group and a minority who said there was no standing. to be honest, i can't remember. i could be wrong about this, i feel like there is maybe another minority that said it wasn't unconstitutional. sen crapo: and how did you vote? judge barrett: i voted to say it was unconstitutional but severable. sen crapo: so you voted in favor, the one clue as to your thoughts we might have on the issue even though this was just a nexus size and you do n

judge barrett: no, senator crapo. sen. crapo: all right. i hope that we can once again put that one to rest. and could you also, once again restate is anybody above the law in the united states? judge barrett: no one is above the law in the united states. sen. crapo: thank you very much. i told you yesterday i would ask if you saw -- softballs. judge barrett: how come softballs turn out not to be softballs? sen. crapo: these are some of my hard balls. i'm going to leave those because i only have three minutes left. i just want to talk to you for a minute about what academia. what led you to your decision to move out of practice into academia? judge barrett: well, when i was in law school i thought i might like to teach some day i really like teaching. i considered being a teacher. i mean, being a secondary school teacher was one of the things i thought about in college. as i said in my speech at the announcement of my nomination that my mom was a teacher and my dad was a lawyer. lawi wound up being a professor. so i loved the idea of teachi

sen crapo: i understand. judge barrett: it was made very clear to the audience both at the outset and in the deliberation room and outside that this was not designed to reflect the actual views of any of the participants. this wouldt, because show up, diving deep down, and a lot of times people change their votes in the deliberation room just for the sake of making it interesting. sen crapo: i appreciate you making that distinction. the vote was in the panel, the majority said that the mandate was now a penalty and was unconstitutional, but severable. i think there was also a group and a minority who said there was no standing. to be honest, i can't remember. i could be wrong about this, i feel like there is maybe another minority that said it wasn't unconstitutional. sen crapo: and how did you vote? judge barrett: i voted to say it was unconstitutional but severable. sen crapo: so you voted in favor, the one clue as to your thoughts we might have on the issue even though this was just a nexus size and you do

senator crapo. >> thank you mr. chairman. judge barrett grad to see you again >>> likewise. >> before i begin my comments and questions, i think there was at least an implication from what was just said that you would not be sensitive to the needs for equal justice for all for all people's in america. would you like to respond to that? >>> i am fully committed to equal justice under the law for all persons. i am fully committed to enforcing all laws to prohibit racial discrimination. until my private life i abhor racial discrimination and obviously for both personal and professional reasons, want to ensure that there is equal justice for all. and you know, all of my children i think have mailed an escape but if they have watched this one day, i would want all of them to know and especially vivian and john peter that i condemn racism and want to do everything i can in my personal way and professional way to end it. >> thank you. i appreciate you making that point. i find it justin credible that a mother of children of differen

crapo: i know we have yet another u.c. request coming. i want to allow time for that to be made by my colleagues here in the senate. i, too, appreciate working with the senator from ohio. we worked in a bipartisan fashion when we put the first cares act on the floor, which as you said got a unanimous vote. i'm hopeful we can do that again. i just want to respond to one thing. that is it is constantly being said that senator mcconnell said there is not a sense of urgency. this was months and months and months ago before our first act had even had an opportunity to play out. but the urgency that you have seen from senator mcconnell and others today is reflective of the refusal or the inability, let me say the inability of both sides to come together on a deal and is reaching out multiple times, most recently a few hours ago today, and i'm hopeful that we will reach out again and give all of our senate colleagues the opportunity to simply proceed to get a bill on the floor that we can work on. i totally disagree with the argument that what w

ernst, hide smith, blackburn, blunt, capito, wicker, graham, perdue, grassley, inhofe, cotton, hoeven, crapo, burr, alexander, mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: colleagues, my first experience with supreme court confirmations here in the senate, i was a young staffer for a junior member of the judiciary committee. that was also the same time i met a young guy named lamar alexander who left the senate to go down to the white house to work in congressional affairs. so i've had an opportunity for quite a long time to observe the confirmation process through various ups and downs, periods when nominees were confirmed almost overwhelmingly and periods during which they were heated, to put it mildly, contests over the nomination. what i think i can safely say about the senate over the last 40 or 50 years is that it's in an assertive period. in other words, viewing the whole process as a joint thing that the president has a role to play and the senate has a role to play and at various times in the history of our country, the senate's been prett

senator crapo? senator crapo: thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, welcome and congratulations on the high honor of your nomination. i have some prepared marks, which i will give, but having sat through the speeches and having listened to the attacks that have been made, both on republican members of the committee and on you, i think it is important to set the record straight on a few items before i then talk about why we are here and that is you and your qualifications to serve as a justice. i would say the first attack is we are rushing to fast and that we are violating the rules and norms and precedents of the senate and speeding into these proceedings. what are the facts? foreign and domestic foreign and domestic -- 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 stephens, 10 days, justice reh

they are senators marsha blackburn and mike crapo and senators josh holly and ben sasse sit between themmmends quarantining for 14 days. today is october 3rd, october 12th is nine days away. republican leaders are said to fear losing their majority in the senate in november, but if they hold these hearings in person and on schedule, they risk spreading coronavirus. people's lives could be at risk, but so far they say they're going through with it anyway. there are 12 republicans on the committee, but now half of them have been exposed simply by attending the supreme court nomination ceremony at the white house including two who have already tested positive. and on thursday, the committee held a hearing with nine republicans and democrats including senator ted cruz who sat just feet from a maskless and at times shouting senator mike lee. every member of the committee who attended thursday's hearing will need to be tested twice during the week to confirm they are not infected and with six republicans from the committee at monday's event, most unmasked, the risk of them not being able to at

you had the response from lindsey graham, the chairman, mike crapo who is generally one of the more understated guys really in the entire senate got a little bit upset about the characterization of that, but then beyond that, again, i think we're seeing a very clear lines develop here. democrats are going to turn this hearing into a proxy vote, about healthcare, try to link the appointment of this justice to the repeal of obama care. and the republican side, again, especially after the break, you saw return to what could either be described as a prebuttal or strong man argument of republicans defending judge coney barrett against attacks that weren't coming, the idea she was being attacked because she's a woman or because of her faith, which is not actually anything we heard from democrats. so i think that story line could develop over the next couple of days, and could be interesting to see if republicans sort of keep laying out this trap of saying, come on, go ahead and do this, we're expecting it. and democrats aren't interested. they want to focus on healthcare and roe and other key issues

. >> senator booker, senator crapo. we will finish up. senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman, your honor. >> senator. >> i spoke yesterday and i appreciate the attention you gave me talking about how this is not a normal time. i want to reiterate that one more time as cogently as i can. this is something like we've never seen before in history of the united states. we are not just days away from election day but people are actually voting right now. close to a million people in my state have already voted at about 10 million people voted nationally. the only other time a supreme court nomination hearing have been this close to an election was as you probably know, under president lincoln. he declined to offer a nomination before the election. we are in the midst of an ongoing election right now at a very contentious time in our democracy. it's probably not normal also because people are already speaking in this election and it seems like we are rushing through this process when many of my colleagues on this committee said four years ago that we should not proceed to

crapo: thank you, mr. president. i rise to oppose the o.c.c.'s final rule on the community reinvestment act, or c.r.a. acting comptroller of the currency, brian brooks, has noted the 234u community reinvestment act rule has finalized for one reason -- to promote more lending and investment in underserved areas. including low and moderate income neighborhoods. the key changes the rule makes is it clarifies what counts for c.r.a. credit, updates where activity is evaluated, evaluates c.r.a. performancance more objectively, and makes recordkeeping and reporting timelier and more transparent. the o.c.c.'s efforts to improve the c.r.a. framework began in 2017 with an extensive and deliberate process, encouraging numerous stakeholders along the way. the o.c.c. issued its advanced notice of proposed rule making in 2018, and in december, 2019, the o.c.c. jointly issued a proposed rule with the fdic which received 7,500 comments. the o.c.c. says those comments made it better and significantly different from the proposal. the status quo was failing. the o

this included questions from senators blumenthal, tillis, geraldo, booker, and crapo.

signed by 17 senators as follows -- mcconnell, grassley, bozeman, graham, crapo, blackburn, scott of south carolina, blunt, rounds, roberts, cornyn, thune, young, alexander, hoeven, tillis , hide smith. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: madam president, because of this illicit process, this rush to judgment -- can we've order, please? because of this illicit process, this rush to judgment, the worst nomination proceeding of the supreme court in american history that has so defiled the senate, i move to adjourn and to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted at 12:00 noon on the following dates and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session, fright day october 23, tuesday, october 27, friday, october 30, tuesdays, november 3, and fry die, november 6. further, that if there is any agreement on legislation in relation to the covid pandemic, the senate may convene under the authority of s. res. 296 of the 108th congress. finally, that when the senate adjourns on friday, november 6, t

ernst, hide smith, blackburn, blunt, capito, wicker, graham, perdue, grassley, inhofe, cotton, hoeven, crapo, burr, alexander, mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: colleagues, my first experience with supreme court confirmations here in the senate, i was a young staffer for a junior member of the judiciary committee. that was also the same time i met a young guy named lamar alexander who left the senate to go down to the white house to work in congressional affairs. so i've had an opportunity for quite a long time to observe the confirmation process through various ups and downs, periods when nominees were confirmed almost overwhelmingly and periods during which they were heated, to put it mildly, contests over the nomination. what i think i can safely say about the senate over the last 40 or 50 years is that it's in an assertive period. in other words, viewing the whole process as a joint thing that the president has a role to play and the senate has a role to play and at various times in the history of our country, the senate's been prett

crapo: thank you, mr. president.ell, first of all, the notion that there has been blockage of a deal on this side is news to me. the notion that we did not accept the heroes act from the house is not news. and the notion that trying to put the heroes act on the floor of the senate, without the opportunity for debate or amendment, is also not the right way to try to build bipartisan legislation for a deal. i also find it incredible that this administration's actions, sanctioning russia, are considered to be a pinprick in comparison to whatever greater sledgehammer is supposedly needed. the caatsa legislation which i referenced, which was passed in the first year following the election of president trump, which president trump signed and supported, was a massive increase in american sanction authority against russia and north korea, by the way, and has been utilized more by this president than any sanction authority that any other president has ever had. and the sanction regime that we are putting in place today agains