mr. durbin: mr. president? er ifer if the senator from illinois. -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i am going to put my statements in the record as to the other three bills and make a general u.c. request as to all of them en banc, as they say. in order to proceed to consideration of h.r. 4995, maternal health quality improvement arctic of 20, h.r. 4996 helping moms act of 20, and h.r. 1585 violence against women reauthorization act, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. braun: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i object to proceeding to everything en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. coarse correspondent mr. president -- mr. cornyn: mr. president, on thursday you the senate judiciary committee advanceed the nomination of amy coney barrett unan

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: yes. mr. durbin: yes, i am trying to make a political point. it should be a bipartisan political point. it should be republicans and democrats in the senate, as there was a unanimous voice vote in the house of representatives on the same measure. i'm sorry my colleague from wisconsin has left. the senate version of this bill has been pending for nine months. the house has moved their version of it. it is a timely issue. why waste a day in making america safer? why not tell our law enforcement agencies now, roll up your sleeves, go to work, find the most dangerous things happening in this country and stop them. we know one of them is white supremacists and their right-wing extremism. the president couldn't find an answer two days ago. today we get a republican objection to come in as a bipartisan basis, as they did in the house, to address this issue. it is a sad moment. i do believe the senator from wisconsin and many lowers say that they are against -- and many others will say they are against

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: idiots -- idiots. that's what the president called dr. anthony fauci and the government experts in the federal government. the president said, people are tired of covid. i have the biggest rallies i've ever had and we have covid. people are saying, whatever, just leave us alone. they are tired of it. and then he added, people are tired of hearing fauci and she's idiots. all -- these idiots, all of these idiots. the words of the president of the united states, donald trump, in the midst of the worst pandemic america has seen in over a century. 220,000 dead and counting. what lies ahead with this covid epidemic, which the president is so tired of hearing about, what have his so-called idiots told us about the future of covid-19? here's what they've told us. more than 70,450 new coronavirus cases were reported in the united states on friday. the highest figure since july 24. according to "the new york times" database. more than 900 new deaths were recorded and over the past week there's been an average of

mr. durbin: mr. president? er ifer if the senator from illinois. -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i am going to put my statements in the record as to the other three bills and make a general u.c. request as to all of them en banc, as they say. in order to proceed to consideration of h.r. 4995, maternal health quality improvement arctic of 20, h.r. 4996 helping moms act of 20, and h.r. 1585 violence against women reauthorization act, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. braun: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i object to proceeding to everything en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. coarse correspondent mr. president -- mr. cornyn: mr. president, on thursday you the senate judiciary committee advanceed the nomination of amy coney barrett unan

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, we're faced with three basic questions. the first question couldn't be more basic -- why are we here? if you told the american people that the united states senate was in session five days in a row and meeting through the weekend and asked them what they think the order of business was before senate, they would say, sillily question. it's obvious. it has to be the pandemic facing america. it has to be the fact that 225,158 americans have died from the coronavirus, 8.7 million infected, and most certainly because the united states has recorded more than 85,000 covid-19 cases just this last friday, the highest number of cases recorded within a 24-hour period since the beginning of the pandemic. and saturday was the same. so they would guess the saints was in session to do something about this deadly epidemic that is affecting the united states of america more seriously than any other country in the world. they would wonder what we're doing to try to provide more testing, more

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, late last night the news flash was senator mcconnell, the republican leader of the united states senate, opposes covid-19 relief bill and nervous the -- and nervous the white house. supposedly it was a statement made by senator republican at the republican lunch and it was later confirmed by four republican senators who attended that that is what occurred. finally it becomes public, one of the things that has been suspected for a long time on this side of the aisle. most of us have been paying close attention to the speeches by senator mcconnell to try to gauge his interest in really coming back to help the american people. we remember on march 26 when 96-0, 96-0, the senate voted for covid relief in what was known as the cares act. it was a bipartisan measure responding to a national pandemic that was just starting to surface in an economy just starting to collapse. many people thought at the time that that would be the end of our journey, that we would do what's necessary

mr. durbin. [indiscernible]. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mrs. fisher. mr. gardner. says jell-o brand mr.ham. mr. grassley. ms. harris. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. romo. [indiscernible]. mrs. hyde smith. mr. [indiscernible]. mr. johnson. mr. jones. mr. kane. mr. kennedy. mr. king. mrs. glove klobuchar. mr. leahy. mr. lee. [indistinct] mr. manchin. mr. mcconnell. mrs. mcnally. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. paul. mr. purdue. mr. peters. mr. portman. mr. reid. mr. roberts, mr. romney. mr. rosen. mr. rubio, mr. sanders mr. sas mr. sasse. mr. schatz. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. shelby. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan, mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. toomey, mr. udall. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. ms. warren. mr. whitehouse. mr. ricker. mr. wyden. mr. young. >> martha: very dramatic thumbs down votes. this has gone through. 52 votes for amy coney barrett to the supreme court. shannon bream, your thoughts on some of the political showmanship here with some vote and walk out essent

mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended from ever without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, if you went across america and just picked a random person and said did you know the senate is in session this weekend, they of course wouldn't know. and you would say to them, well, why do you think the senate is in this rare five-day session? they would say i'm sure. well, of course they are in a rare five-day session. we're in the midst of a deadly pandemic. and you would guess that would be the answer of most americans. why would they say that? well, i know why they would say it in illinois. because coronavirus in illinois has spiked to a newly confirmed daily covid-19 state record, as of yesterday. and 63 more deaths have been reported. our positivity rate is over 6% now. and the governor and mayor are taking steps they didn't want to take but have no choice. they are closing restaurants and bars. they are imposing a curfew on the city of chicago. you can imagine how they feel as more and more infections come rolling in and more and more people are dying. we have almos

mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. senator lee. >> thank you mr. chairman. judge griffith, i would like to start with you if i could. in addition to being a judge on the u.s. court of appeals d.c. circuit, you also have been a professor and you've taught a course for a number of years at stanford law school regarding the unique distinct rule of the article three judge. if i understand correctly, you've also started teaching that same course at harvard and you'll be teaching that at harvard and the university of virginia this year. what do you tell your students are some of the most important lessons you learned? >> thank you very much, if i give you the full answer and students are out there do better on the exams by hearing what i think, just take note. i came upon this course because i wanted a better understanding of what my role was as a judge, what am i supposed to do with the constitution, what roles am i supposed to play? both from being a judge and from the courses and hearing interaction with students, it happened the day after i was confirmed by th

durbin: mr. chahairman, you cannot cononduct bususiness wiwt anotother minonority memember p.'m going to make a motion to adjourn this meeting until we have cocompleted the hehearing on amy cononey barret. we still have a panelelefore us. thisis is unprecedenented. we have never done this before as a committee. if we are going to honor the rules and show mutual respect, the fact is we cannot move forward. sen. graham: we've hadad this proboblem in thehe past. we are dealing with it the way we are today. if we crave t this problem in te future, you're going t to do o t i'm going to do, which is move forward on the business of the committee, on the motion the clerk will call the role. amy: senate minority leader chuck schumer said the move solidified "the illegitimacy of this sham process." if the senate judiciary committee approves judge barrett's nomination on october -- confirmation on october 22, the full senate could vote on whether or not to confirm her as early as october 26, just over a week before election day. this has never happened before. senate majority leader repu

durbin. >>> thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, family, welcome. we're at a critical moment in our nation's history. in the throes of a devastating pandemic. with over 216,000 americans dead. and over 7.7 million infected with this virus. each day we're reminded of how this invisible virus has changed our lives and changed america. and there's no end in sight. we face an economy in crisis with millions of jobs lost, crushing challenges facing workers, businesses, families all across america, and we're in the middle of an election season, millions of americans have already cast their votes. and this may be one of the most consequential elections in our nation's history, because for the first time in the history of the united states, an incumbent president refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election, this president in his vanity, and constitutional recklessness refuses to accept the will of the american electorate, and of course we're still in the process of mourning the loss of an justice ruth bader ginsburg. she spe

mr. chairman? sen. graham: after senator cruz will go to senator durbin. heard atd like to be some point. sen. graham: i promise you everybody will be able to talk. uz: it's important for the record to reflect moving forward on this nomination is consistent with two centuries of precedent and tradition in the senate. numerous democratic members of this committee have given speeches. they have charts prepared to give more speeches. all attacking the legitimacy of these proceedings. factsn adams observed, are seven things. -- stubborn things. the scenario of a supreme court vacancy occurring during a presidential election year is not a new thing. it has occurred 29 times in our history. nominationsave made all 29 times. the president is unequivocal and uniform when a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, the president makes a nomination. that includes republicans and democrats. a total of 44 people have served as president of the united states. 22 made a supreme court nomination doing a presidential election year. what has the senate done? the precedent is clear. of those 29, 19 of tho

mr. chairman, in a discussion with senator durbin, possibly senator holly that you believe every single person in this country, should have a right to vote. and that they should be able to do that without intimidation, without any undue burdens and i appreciate you doing that and i want to make sure i heard you right. you do feel very strongly that every american should have safe, access to the vote, and i for one hope that every registered voter in this country vote on november 11th. that may be a stretch goal but do you agree with that >>> of course. yes >> thank you judge barrett. and thank you for your family for enduring all the challenges that you have, i thank you for your courage and thank you for your integrity t i look forward to supporting your knowledge nomination. >> today we're going through this hearing on is though it's a normal hearing not a rush job in the midst of a pandemic, 200 thousand americans dead. no pandemic relief bill in sight for the american people. the fate of the aca at risk. but the democrats on this committee have asked and will continues to ask you, question

durbin. >> thank you mr. chairman. 's personal debt in a important consideration when an individual is seeking security clearance? >> yes. >> why? >> because a person's financial situation can make them for the world to coercion by an adversary to foreign government officials we find indebted to recruit them to our side. it is a serious issuedd . >> someone with substantial personal debt could be substantial to influence by a foreign adversary. >> a government official. >> it's been public reporting president trump has a debt of over $421 million, personal debt most of which has to be repaid in the next few years resource new york times, septe times, september 27th. are they are serious risks when someone has hundreds of millions of personal that " and has access to all the classified information? >> it is a serious concern if anyone has the financialal o ability i don't know the president's case but in general, yes. >> if he disclosed his income tax returns maybe we would know more. mrs. and important committee histor

durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. comey. mr. comey, is personal debt an important consideration when an individual is seeking a security clearance? >> yes. >> why? >> because a person's financial situation could make them vulnerable to coercion by an adversary and allow an adversary to do what we try to do to foreign government officials who are indebted, that is recruit them to our side. >> go ahead, i'm sorry. >> so it's a serious issue in any background review. >> so someone with substantial debt could be vulnerable to influence from a foreign adversary. >> yes, a government official, yes. >> director comey, it's been publicly reported that president trump has a debt of over $421 million, personal debt, most of which has to be repaid in the next few years. my source, "new york times," september 27th. so as a general matter, are there serious risks when someone with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, personal debt, has access as the president does, to all of the country's classified and sensitive information? >> it's a s

durbin:: mr. chairman, you cannot conduct that business without another minority member present. and so at this point, i'm going to make a motion to adjourn this meeting until we have completed the hearing on amy coney barrett. we sell have a panel before us. this is unprecedented. we have never done this before as a committee and if we are going to honor the rules and show mutual respect, the fact is we cannot move forward without another member of the minority present. with all sen. graham: due respect, we've had this problem in the past and we are dealing with it today. if we create this problem in the future, you're going to do what i'm going to do which is move forward on the business of the committee and on the motion, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> no by proxy. no. no by proxy. no by proxy. no by proxy. no by proxy. no by proxy. no by proxy. no by proxy. mr. chairman, i failed to answer no by proxy for senator feinstein. .en. graham: i voteaye the motion is passed and we will be voting on amy coney barrett to be associate justice for the supreme court at 1:00

mr. chairman, i'll reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, senator cornyn. for planning purposes if it's okay with the committee, we'll have senator durbin, senator lee, break for about a half hour for lunch and come back. are you okay with that? do you need a break? >> that's fine. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you judge barrett and your family for being with us here today for this marathon of questioning. >> thank you, senator durbin. >> i would like to respond to two of my colleagues quickly before i ask a few questions of you. who came up with this notion, this insulting notion that you might violate your oath? could vitt come from the white house? could it have come from the president's tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? that's where it comes from. that's where it originated. you have said very clearly today without equivocation you are not going to be influenced by president trump's importuning or the importuning of this committee or anyone else which is what we expect you to say. this notion that this whole idea of your being used for political purposes is a democratic creation, read the tweets and you

durbin: i will tell you, the conclusion of this is hard to swallow. the notion that mr. ntor, after all that he did, should not even slow down when n he isn his way to buy a firearm. amy: that is dick durbin, the democratic senator from i illins questitioning judgdge barrett. dahlia lithwhwick, the significance of this? in the bucket of cases where i describe judge barrett going way beyond what settled law is. that is a good exaxample. disrupts,ler case she justice scalia f found for the first time an individual right to bear armrms under the second amendment. that is not a thing that has been understood to be the case for centuries as she had suggested. that is something that was kind of invented on the fly in the heller case. so she locates that as this fundamenental divisional right. as you say, she then downgrades the right to vote as something that is lesser, civic right. the other thing that is really important is that justice scalia had no problem with takingng awy guns from felons in heller itself. many, many states have those laws. so she went beyond even what he

mr. chairman? sen. graham: after senator cruz will go to senator durbin. heard atd like to be some point. sen. graham: i promise you everybody will be able to talk. uz: it's important for the record to reflect moving forward on this nomination is consistent with two centuries of precedent and tradition in the senate. numerous democratic members of this committee have given speeches. they have charts prepared to give more speeches. all attacking the legitimacy of these proceedings. factsn adams observed, are seven things. -- stubborn things. the scenario of a supreme court vacancy occurring during a presidential election year is not a new thing. it has occurred 29 times in our history. nominationsave made all 29 times. the president is unequivocal and uniform when a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, the president makes a nomination. that includes republicans and democrats. a total of 44 people have served as president of the united states. 22 made a supreme court nomination doing a presidential election year. what has the senate done? the precedent is clear. of those 29, 19 of tho

durbin. senator lee, welcome back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, judge barrett. >> you're watching abc news life. the judiciary committee holding hearings for judge amy coney barrett continues there. an extraordinary time toens w ws this. not only because of the proximity to the election, but you see the judge sitting there with a face mask on. a reminder to all of us this is playing out in the middle of a pandemic. you heard lindsey graham at the top as the chair of this committee saying this is an election year. not saying considering. confirming was the word he used. what will happen is my democratic colleagues will say this has never been done, and they're right in this regard. i don't think anybody has ever been confirmed in an election year, he said, but when justice ginsburg was asked about this, he says a president serves four years, not three. that's what senator graham said, but he did not offer the words given by justice ginsburg's family giving her final message communicated through her granddaughter saying, my most fervent wis

mr. chairman, i want to thank you for reaffirming i think in a discussion with senator durbin that you believe every single person in this country should have a right to vote and that they should be able to do that without intimidation, without any undue burdens, and i appreciate you reaffirming that and i just want to make sure i heard you right and your responses to other questions. you do feel very strongly that every american should have safe access to the vote and i for one hope every registered voter in this country vote on november 11th. that may be a stretch goal. do you agree with that? >> of course, yes. >> thank you, judge barrett. and thank you for your family for enduring all of the challenges that you have. thank you for your courage and thank you for your integrity. i look forward to supporting your nomination. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today we are going through this hearing as though it's a normal hearing not a rush job in the midst of a pandemic, 200,000 americans dead, no pandemic relief bill in sight for the american people. the fate of the aca at r

mr. chairman? sen. graham: after senator cruz will go to senator durbin. heard atd like to be some point. sen. graham: i promise you everybody will be able to talk. uz: it's important for the record to reflect moving forward on this nomination is consistent with two centuries of precedent and tradition in the senate. numerous democratic members of this committee have given speeches. they have charts prepared to give more speeches. all attacking the legitimacy of these proceedings. factsn adams observed, are seven things. -- stubborn things. the scenario of a supreme court vacancy occurring during a presidential election year is not a new thing. it has occurred 29 times in our history. nominationsave made all 29 times. the president is unequivocal and uniform when a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, the president makes a nomination. that includes republicans and democrats. a total of 44 people have served as president of the united states. 22 made a supreme court nomination doing a presidential election year. what has the senate done? the precedent is clear. of those 29, 19 of tho

mr. chairman i'm going to reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you. for planning purposes we'll have senator durbin, senator lee, break for about a half hour for lunch and come back to senator whitehouse. is that okay? are you okay with that, do you need a break? >> that's fine. >> thank you judge barrett and your family for being with us today for this marathon of questioning. >> thank you, senator durbin. >> i would like to respond to two of my colleagues quickly before i ask questions of you. who came up with this insulting notion that you might violate your oath? where could this idea have come from? could it have come from the white house or the president's tweets of what he expects the supreme court nominee to do politically for him? that's where it comes from, where it okriginated. you have said today that you would not be influenced by president trump or this committee or anyone else. which is what we expect you to say. but this notion of this idea that you're being used for democratic purposes is a democratic propaganda, read the tweets. the second thing i would like to say is, i'm not goi

durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, family, welcome.we're at a critical moment in our nation's history. in the throes of a devastating pandemic with over 216,000 americans dead and over 7.7 million infected with this virus. each day we are reminded of how this invisible virus has changed our lives and changed america. and there is no end in sight. we face an economy in crisis with millions of jobs lost, crushing challenges facing workers, businesses, families all across america. and we're in the middle of an election season. millions of americans have already cast their votes. and this may be one of the most consequential elections in our nation's history because for the first time in the history of the united states, an incumbent president refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election. this president, in his vanity and constitutional recklessness refuses to commit to accept the will of the american electorate. and of course we're still in the process of mourning the loss of an historic champion of justice

mr. chairman? sen. graham: after senator cruz will go to senator durbin. heard atd like to be some point. sen. graham: i promise you everybody will be able to talk. uz: it's important for the record to reflect moving forward on this nomination is consistent with two centuries of precedent and tradition in the senate. numerous democratic members of this committee have given speeches. they have charts prepared to give more speeches. all attacking the legitimacy of these proceedings. factsn adams observed, are seven things. -- stubborn things. the scenario of a supreme court vacancy occurring during a presidential election year is not a new thing. it has occurred 29 times in our history. nominationsave made all 29 times. the president is unequivocal and uniform when a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, the president makes a nomination. that includes republicans and democrats. a total of 44 people have served as president of the united states. 22 made a supreme court nomination doing a presidential election year. what has the senate done? the precedent is clear. of those 29, 19 of tho

durbin: i will tell you the conclusion is hard to swallow. cantorion that mr. should not be slowed down on his way to buy a firearm. then to turn around on the other hand and say when it comes to taking away persons right to vote, that is the civic duty. that goes back to the original george floyd question. that was thinking in the 19 century that resulted in voter suppression and taking away the right to vote from millions of african-americans across the country and still continues to this day. it, do you? the supreme court has said it is a fundamental right. you might be taking my statement out of context. i said in that opinion, distinguishing between -- it was a descriptive statement comparing it to stripping felons of second amendment rights. about what theew constitutional limits of that might be or whether the law should change. that is a contested issue in some states that are considering it right now. that was not the subject of cantor. durbin: it was part of your dissent, discussing the right to vote. i'm afraid it is inescapable. you have to be prepa

mr. chairman? sen. graham: i will defer to senator durbin if he would like to go first. sen. graham: i would just like to finish my thought. you have acquitted yourself well but the journey that you have to take will be challenging, it will be rewarding, and may god bless you in this endeavor. >> mr. chairman, on behalf of the democratic side, thank you for your fairness in this hearing. objection nor will i about the way you have conducted this, giving everyone a chance to express themselves, flexible on the time, and i thank you for that. it is a hallmark of what you brought to this committee and i hope that it continues through the remainder of this negotiation and deliberation. to judge merrick, thank you for being here. this is an ordeal. i want to thank your husband and your family for joining you in this effort. you will take away to saymories -- i want one thing that was mentioned yesterday. it always strikes me. the impact of this experience on your children. i heard you or someone say that there were painful moments for some of the kids. cause,we were not the but i

mr. chairman? sen. graham: i will defer to senator durbin if he would like to go first. sen. graham: i would just like to finish my thought. you have acquitted yourself well but the journey that you have to take will be challenging, it will be rewarding, and may god bless you in this endeavor. >> mr. chairman, on behalf of the democratic side, thank you for your fairness in this hearing. objection nor will i about the way you have conducted this, giving everyone a chance to express themselves, flexible on the time, and i thank you for that. it is a hallmark of what you brought to this committee and i hope that it continues through the remainder of this negotiation and deliberation. to judge merrick, thank you for being here. this is an ordeal. i want to thank your husband and your family for joining you in this effort. you will take away to saymories -- i want one thing that was mentioned yesterday. it always strikes me. the impact of this experience on your children. i heard you or someone say that there were painful moments for some of the kids. cause,we were not the but i

mr. ray has articulated? >> he was assigned to the counterterrorism division. >> do you think that more resources can be devoted to this threat? >> you can never the way that these groups do. >> with senator durbin, hirono, warner, kane, joe legrand and others, and there is a measure that would seek to address the growing imminent threat of white supremacists impact and violence. i commend you and the current director for focusing on it. i want to turn to the statements that earlier you made in response to senator durbin about the $420 million in debt that has been disclosed as owing by the president. you've done a number of national security background checks. and in those background checks, my understanding is a question relates to debt owed by the individuals. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> the reason for that question is to indicate and disclose whether or not that individual has concealed, correct? >> correct. one aspect of exploring the financial situation is that. >> why is it that those facts are important? >> because deciding whether someone is trustworthy with national security information involves understanding of they are vulnerable to exploitation by an adversary or cri

durbin: i will tell you the conclusion is hard to swallow. the notion that mr.tor , after all he did, should not even be slowed down when he is on his way to buy a firearm. my goodness, it's just a felony, not a violent felony he committed. and then, took turnaround on the other hand and when it comes to say, well when it comes to, taking away a person's right to vote, that is a civic duty and that is something we can countenance. that goes back to the original george floyd question. that was the thinking in the 19th century that resulted in voter suppression and taking away the right to vote from millions of african-americans across this country. and it still continues to this day. i just don't see it. i think the right to vote should be given at least as much respect as any second amendment right. do you? judge barrett: the supreme court has repeatedly said that voting is a fundamental right. i fear that you might be taking my statement in canto i express no view about what the constitutional limits of that might be or whether the law should change. that is a

mr. chairman, thank you. you know, there has been so much talk about precedent. i think the day will come when history books are going to use senator durbin's comments about precedent. i certainly think that he stated it as well as i've ever heard it stated. we also have another precedent. we have another precedent. and that is senators have always kept their word. the democrat and republican leader when i came to the senate, i think about what the republican leader and mr. chairman even though we've been friends for a long time i think about what you said as your reasons for delaying any vote on merrick garland. i wish you had kept to what you said then. you haven't. the committee through the confirmation hearing with judge barrett and we're now officially through the looking glass. and ramming through a confirmation hearings two weeks after judge barrett's nomination and less than three weeks before an election. amid a pandemic affecting committee members wasn't enough of a sham. we're now proceeding to advance a nomination before the hearings are even concluded. before we even have a chance to ask the nominee all of our questions. many s

mr. chairman, i'll reserve the rest of my time. >> for planning purposes if it's okay with the committee we'll have senator durbin and senator lee and break a half hour for lunch and come back. is that okay? are you okay with that? do you need a break? >> no, that's fine. >> thank you, judge barrett and your family for being here with us today for this marathon of questioning. >> thank you, senator durbin. >> i would like to respond to two of my colleagues quickly before i ask a few questions of you. who came up with this notion, this insulting notion that you might violate your oath? where could this idea have come from? could it have come from the white house? could it have come from the president's tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? that's where it comes from and that's where it originated. and you have said very clearly today without equivocation you were not going to be influenced by mr. trump, this committee or anyone else. the notion that this whole idea of you being used for political purpose is of democratic creation, read the tweets and you have plenty to work with. read the tw

mr. durbin: i second the motion. the presiding officer: the motion having been made and seconded, is the senate going to close session? the chair, pursuant to rule 21, now directs the sergeant at arms to clear all galleries and exclude from the chamber and its immediate corridors and all -- all employees and officials of the senate who under the rule are not eligible to attend the closed session and who are not sworn to secrecy. the question is not debatable. pursuant to rule 29, i authorize the secretary's desk staff and her deputies and the assistant secretaries for the majority and minority to remain in the chamber during the closed session. is there an objection? there cannot be an objection. the doors will be closed. generally, the senate does not operate in secret session and reporters indicating that this is not expected to be a long session. where they are in the process is they have gone into legislative session. they just agreed to get into that and we expect a full weekend of debate on the nomination of ju

mr. durbin: madam president, the constitution of the united states makes three references to religion.n the first amendment to the bill of rights it says that we have the right to believe or not believe. it is a matter of personal conscience. and, secondly, there will be no established government religion in the united states. the only other provision is in article 6, where it expressly says there will be no religious test for public office. three simple assertions which for over 200 years have guided this nation in dealing with religion. the statement just made by the senator from south dakota really tells me that he didn't tune into the hearings that were held just a week or two ago when he it came -- when it came to amy coney barrett. i did. i was there for four days. so i know what was said and who said it and i know what the democrats said and i didn't believe there was one instance, not one, where any democrat raised the issue of this nominee's religion. we took seriously what article 6 says in the constitution, there is no religious test for office. i will tell you that on the o