The next one ranking, i got some letters from 21 state lieutenant governors and from 20 secretaries of state that i want to put in the record at this point. Before i question, i have a few points to make. Yesterday my democratic colleagues spoke about their concern that you, judge, wouldnt uphold certain laws, including the Affordable Care act, and that you would strip americans of their healthcare rights and those protections that come with it. These opponents said that republicans just want to confirm you so that you, quote, will carry their policies forward. Meaning, republican policies forward on the Supreme Court. But this only shows democrats fundamentally misunderstand what judges are supposed to do. A judge is supposed to interpret laws. In an impartial manner, consistent with the constitution. Republicans arent interested in seeing judges quote unquote carry their policies forward. Republicans want judges to interpret the law and the constitution, not make law. We want judges that wont impose their policies and personal preferences in their decisionmaking. Plain and simple. Policy making is not the proper role of the judicial branch. That role is reserved for legislative and executive branchs. As the judge said, the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people because you got a lifetime appointment and if you do law making we cant vote you out of office. Law making is our job. If people dont like what we do, they can vote us out of office. Other points on the Affordable Care act. The democrats continue to misrepresent or claim to know barretts view on Affordable Care and access to health care. In fact, they made it their entire game plan yesterday. And i suppose today well see it again. But we should dispense with the total that the democrats are peddling. According to her technical concerns would teach chief Justice Roberts legal reasoning disqualifies her in the obama decision. Democrats are painting the judge as heartless and on a mission to scrap the health care law. Frankly, thats absurd. Not only is judge barrett a mother of seven. She has children with preexisting medical challenges of her own. No one on this committee or anyone has any right to suggest that she doesnt care abiliout access to health care or protection for the vulnerable. Getting back to the technical concerns about roberts Affordable Care act opinion. First, and i got four points along this line, her comments dealt with roberts statutory interpretation of just one provision of the law. That provision is no longer even in effect. In 2017, congress zeroed out the socalled tax. The tax connected with the individual mandate. The question before the court this fall are entirely separate. She never ruled on the Affordable Care act. Nor commented on how shed vote, meaning the judge, how she would vote. So, its pointless to speculate. But were going to get a lot of speculation during this election season, just two and a half weeks before the election. Now, second point. Lawyers and legal academics often consider a Court Reasoning even when they have no disagreement with the outcome of the case. For instance, the New York Times recently reported ginsburg, before joining the Supreme Court, quote, wasnt really fond of roe v. Wade. She didnt like how it was structured, end quote. I dont blame or dont know why democrats have a different standard for you, judge barrett. Now a third point. Its blatantly inconsistent for the left to use this line of attack. We all know that president obama said that the aca legislative mandate was not a tax. Even liberal Jeffrey Toobin said roberts argument was not a, quote, persuasive one. So judge barretts view on roberts reasoning is well within the main stream. Now fourth point, more inconsistency. The same democrats vilify judge barrett as a threat to those with preexisting conditions. Well, it seems the same people just filibustered the covid relief bill that would have protect protected preexisting conditions. Theyre the ones that blocked the covid relief legislation. Republicans stood ready to move forward with the bill and remain ready. Seems to me its the other side who really playing politics with health care during a pandemic. The truth is, judge barrett already said, quote, the judge must apply the law as written, end, quote. She further commented, quote, to decide cases to the rule of law beginning to end, end quote. Thats what we should look for all judges to do. Now for my first question. When Justice Scalia came to my office before his confirmation, i think i brought this up with every nominee to the Supreme Court by republican or democrat nominees. I dont think i brought it up in my private conversation with you, but i always bring it up, whats your attitude about legislative history . Um no. Let me ask my question first. Sorry, i thought that was it. I think you probably know, judge, how important it is. I want to know how important legislative history is to you, when is it appropriate to look at legislative history to interpret a statute and are there some circumstances more appropriate than other and id like to also give your view on legislative history compared to what i heard from scalia 35 years ago. Sure. Im comfortable talking about the use of legislative history. What governs is the text of the statute. So the legislative history can never supersede the text and should never substitute the text. Justice scalia as was well known railed against the use of legislative history. I think it was because at the time that Justice Scalia went onto the d. C. Circuit, before he was on the Supreme Court, the use of legislative history had gotten out of control and many courts, you know, were saying things, Justice Scalia in his book quotes this line from a brief, you know, the legislative history being unclear, we turn to that other reliable guide and statutory interpretation, the statute. And that has things backward. And so i think Justice Scalia really tried to clean that up and say, listen, the priority is the text. When the text answers the question you dont go to legislative history and theres pragmatic reasons to be careful about doing so. Legislative history can be long. Theres a famous quotation that legislative history is like going to a Cocktail Party and picking out your friends, can be easy to manipulate because there might be something for everyone. So as a general rule i dont look to legislative history when deciding cases. I wouldnt say it would never be relevant. Even Justice Scalia said there wouldnt be instances, for instance, trying to determine whether a term used in a statute, how it was used, if it had a technical meaning, that might be an appropriate time to interpret legislative history. Or Justice Scalia used it when he was trying to determine whether there had been an error in the way the statute was drafted. He looked to legislative history to see whether what was unthinkable was actually unthinkable. Id like to go to a specific case. Id like to go to United States versus urartay, which involved the interpretation of section 403 of the First Step Act, which you know i had a big part along with senator lee and senator durbin in getting that passed in 2018. This is most significant criminal justice legislation in a generation. Our system cant just punish and deter. It must also rehabilitate and promote successful reentry into society. The First Step Act accomplished these goals through prison and sentencing reform. It was known the goal was to make smart and costeffective changes to the criminal code and reduce risk of recidivism. So i want to ask you about your dissent in this case. The issue was whether the sentencing reform provisions of the First Step Act applied to a defendant whose sentence had been vacated. Here the defendant had been convicted, but not resentenced, at the time of the First Step Act becoming law. The majority opinion cited the plain meaning of the First Step Act and congressional intent in finding that section 403 would apply to a defendant with a vacated sentence. Your deceissent, as i understan it, argued that congressional intent shouldnt be heavily relied on since, quote, every statute requires a resolution of competing policy interest, end quote. President trump signed the First Step Act into law only two years ago, so wouldnt referencing congressional intent be accessible and relevant and then another question, why did you find the majority relying on legislative history unpersuasive . So i we did the majority it was a very, very difficult case. It was voted on on bunk by our full court. And the quote from my dissent that youre pointing to was actually we had a dispute about what the plain text of the statute required. So that portion of my dissent that you just read was saying that i thought that the majority had permitted the policy goals of the act to supersede the text. And in dissent i argued that the text drew the line after someone had been sentenced. So if someone had already been sentenced on the date of the First Step Acts passage and the relevant language was, you know, if a sentence had already been imposed, i thought with my dissenting colleagues, this was consistent with the approach the Third Circuit had already taken, that that meant if the person had already been through sentencing, you know, this case involved a resentencing. And resentencing can happen years after and so, it it didnt seem to my dissenting colleagues and i looking at the statute that the plain language of the text supported the majoritys approach to it. Now i think on my next question on the same case, you may have just partially answered it, but let me go ahead with my lead in and then also a question, both the majority in your dissent in the case reviewed 403 of the act, under plain reading of the text, as an author and leader in this laws passage, id like to discuss how a plain reading of the statute could lead to varying outcomes. The section in question contemplates when a sentence has been imposed on a defendant, according to the text of the statute and relevant case law. The defendants sentence if vacated creates a clean slate that means the defendant is in the same position as if he had never been sentenced. But your dissent comes to the opposite conclusion on whether a sentence has been imposed. Note i agree with you that the laws need to be read and interpreted literally. So my question is this, how could we come to different conclusions . Well, that language, you know, that it only that it did not apply to defendants on whom sentences had already been imposed, my dissenting colleagues and i said well, the language is sentences. It didnt say, you know, invalid sentences and one could certainly say if asked if someone had been sentenced, yes, he was sentenced but that sentence was later vacated. Youre right the majority relied heavily on the clean slate principle, but in my review of the law, this clean slate principle wasnt really present because the sentencing reform act, for example, instructs District Courts apply the guidelines at sentencing to apply those in effect on the date of the original sentencing. So i thought the clean slate principle, they were pushing a little too hard on it, and then, you know, theres certainly unfairness, the First Step Act, its policy is clearly to bring justice to sentencing. But whenever you draw a line on who gets the benefit of the law, this is acutely true in the sentencing area, its very difficult and some people on other side of the line will not get the benefit of the line wherever you draw it. For example, in this case, he had a codefendant named sparkman whose case came up together. They had been tried together and initially sentenced today. But urartays appeal took longer or resentencing took longer because of a lot of delays so there was unfairness there too in the majoritys approach. Because despite the fact that he was more culpable than sparkman wound up with a sentence that was like 15 years less. Thats the end of my questioning on that. But let me make a comment before i go to my next question. My position has always been that legislative history can be instructive with respect to the intent of the statute, so judges should not completely disregard it. Certainly the legislative branch should be more careful drafting the law, but judges should be more intent on legislative history when theres a dispute on the statute. Justice ginsburg at her hearing you discussed this but i think it deserves emphasis because youre going to two through this business of legitimately not being able to comment on a prospective case. She said, quote, a judge sworn to decide can offer no forecast, no hintsing for what would show not only disregards for the specifics of this particular case it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Obviously we all know end quote. We all know thats the ginsburg standard. The underlying reason for this rule is that making promises or giving hints on how a judge would rule in a case undermines our system but youll be asked about your personal views as you have been on various topics and how you might correctly decide. Of course, you know the judicial nominees should never promise their future votes in on the bench in exchange for the president s nomination or a senators support. Youd be showing the opposite of independence. So my question. So i ask you, do you agree with the ginsburg standard that it goes to the question of judicial branchs independence for legislative history . All you have to do is say yes. Yes, i agree with the ginsburg rule reinforces Judicial Independence. Heres something a lot of peoples suspicion so i want to ask you, have you made any promises or guarantees to anyone about how you might rule on a case or issue that might come before you if youre confirmed to the Supreme Court . I want to be very, very clear about this senator grassley. The answer is no. I submitted a questionnaire to this committee in which i said, no, no one ever talked about any case with me. No one on the executive branch side of it. Thats one reason you ask that question i think as a committee is you want to know that no no, maam nominee has made any precommitments. Just as i was not asked to make precommitments on the executive branch side, i cant make any precommitments to this body either. Mr. Chairman, im going to reserve the rest of my time after this last question. The democrats say youre being put on the Supreme Court so you can vote to repeal the Affordable Care act. Is that your goal . Have you committed to the president or anyone else that you would vote to repeal the Affordable Care act if confirmed to the court . Absolutely not. I have never asked. If i had been that would have been a short confers. I think your record shows youll be a judge that approaches each case in an unbiassed way. We can reserve our time . Absolutely. Thank you. Letters for the record . Ill introduce the letters by senator feinstein will be introduced without objection. Senator leahey, are you with us . If. I think i am. Do you hear me there . Yes, sir. Lets see if we can get you on the screen. There you go. Floor is yours. Thank you very much. Judge, i was watching as you introduced your family. Thank you for doing that. Your family is very important to you, as they should be. My wife and i have been married for 58 years and our children and grandchildren are the most important things in our life. And i was pleased to see you introduce the family. Now as a senator, of course, another important part of my life is referring to and representing the people of vermont. Let me talk to you about some of the things ive been hearing from vermonters. You have to understand, in vermont, vermonters just walk up to the grocery store, coming out of church, whatever, and perfectly happy to express their views. Theyre concerned about what the republicans Affordable Care act lawsuit would mean on november 10th to them. Do not. Its more than 20 million. And do you know how many children under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parents insurance because of the Affordable Care act . I do not. Its 2. 3 million. And do you know how Many Americans are covered under the Affordable Care acts Medicaid Expansion . I do not. Its a little more than 15 million. I look at that, because i look at the people who called me from vermont. I think of alex johnson, a single mother, shes a Childhood Cancer survivor. She works as a nanny in vermont. She relies on medicaid for her doctors visits, blood drawings, other testing. All that to make sure her leukemia stays in remission. She tells me she stays awake at night worrying about losing medica medicaid. Now, if the republicans are successful in what theyre trying to do on november 10th, then alex and actually 60,600 other vermonters enrolled in Medicaid Expansion are going to be left behind. And you contract covid19, thats seen as a preexisting condition. Do you know approximately how many million americans have tested positive for the coronavirus and survived . I do not. Its more than 7,700,000. Those are people now considered to have a preexisting condition. And one of the most common preexisting conditions is diabetes. The cdc estimated about 1 in 10 americans has diabetes. The acas Medicaid Expansion is the single most important factor for expanding access to affordable insulin. Leslie, a vermonter diagnosed with dia