white house at the time, and continues to be. i do believe we have to learn from this. i think we have to come up with ways to ensure that we are not going to lose even more taxpayer dollars. ..

mike at additional cost. it was no good. they have the dislocation and hopefully they've now found health care but they are now looking at the possibility that these claims might come back on them. do you have any final common before we go to her about him not rather top it? i want to thank you their willingness to come before us. any final thoughts? >> thank you for allowing me to testify. >> thank you. it's been helpful to have you. do you have any additional questions? >> just a thank you are holding the hearing. what a failure the ideological effort was. you had stayed that know how to do these things, know how to regulate, know how to prevent. insurers and too much trouble if they start getting in trouble know how to resolve those things that you got the arrogant to the federal government walking in here, spending 1.5,

$2.5 billion. this is an incredibly important hearing. we are just now getting the press attention to a spectacular failure obama carries, how couples lost health care plans and high-risk was that they could afford. the premiums are skyrocketing out-of-pocket maximums. i hope this hearing gets a lot of attention. i hope we've learned lessons. i'm not convinced we will. thank you, mr. chairman. excellent hearing. >> thank you for the attendant today and again toward witnesses. especially at the end, dr. harrington appeared to mimic their expertise. also my colleague, senator mccaskill appeared to miss having her here today and look forward to her return soon and her good health. i will say that we will talk a lot today about how this money was lent to these dozen co-ops

that failed. others have you had better in big trouble and at a minimum we're talking about $1.2 billion in tax money payer money lost. it's going to be at the end. while this happened there was not corrective action taken. in some cases not at all. other cases took more than a year. what we are looking for today someone to take accountability for it. this was not the fault of these consumers if this is not the fault of the states. this is the fault of hhs to me the program is structured and want to structure the lack of adherence to the basic requirement and agreement. i would hope we will learn from this and that we can avoid further disruption in this case to over 700,000 consumers in addition to them having the possibility of having to pay out a pocket more than their premiums because there are claims and from our analysis could be brought against

consumers which would be adding an additional end told to the taxpayers who do not so much money. we've been open for 15 days for additional comments. subcommittee members. with that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this year student trent diet document competition with their largest yet. it's about the middle high school student took part alone or in teams of up to three. and all they receive nearly 2500 entries from her hundred 39 schools across the country and even schools as far away as taiwan and the united arab emirates. and now it's time to award $100,000 in prize money to our printers are for this year's contest and the students were asked to produce documentaries using our road to the white house name specifically to document one issue they most want the candidates to discuss during the 2016 presidential campaign. through their entries in the student told us the economy, equality, education and immigration were all top issues.

our judges have finalize decisions for one grand prize winner and four first-place winners in 150 prizes in all. and there is one fan favorite elected by you. now we are happy to announce our top prize winners. our grand prize winner is trent ivan, a 10th grader from jenks high school in jenks, oklahoma. oblivious when it's not human mary "up to our necks" addresses the federal debt. >> the united states 18th -- how exactly did america get up to its neck in debt? there don't mean out large sums of money. i think that these are discretionary spending which received $1.1 trillion. the second section is mandatory spending which received $2.45 trillion in 2015.

lastly, there's the interest on the federal debt which received $229 billion. >> is a grand prize winner, and olivia hurd $1500 for a documentary and a c-span bus will travel to her school to present her with a shot of the first price. our second place our sisters mia and ava lazar. mia is in eighth grade and a base eighth-grader in blacksburg, virginia. their winning documentary is titled "what should be done about money in politics?." >> easy fires in your mailbox with advertisers on tv, radio and internet. this is the way politicians try to get it. the politicians by millions of dollars on the campaign. as soon as one election ends, fundraising for the next begins. everyday congress is in session, there are fundraisers out of the country appeared in 2012 the presidential election cost about $2.6 billion. you can't help but wonder where does all this money come from?

>> the first price of our central category are 12th graders griffin olis, michael frazier and zehn wani while attending troy high school in draco michigan. their documentary is entitled "the 1%" talk and a scarcity of fresh water. >> americans are drowning in over debated issues such as immigration, medicare, terrorism, the e-mails to although these are important topics, they will affect the most americans is the issue of 1%. >> 1%. >> 1%. >> 1%. >> no, not that 1%. this 1%. the shiny blue jewel of the united states. >> truly one of the unique resources in the world. freshwater resource. >> our student cam first-place winners are daniela matsuda via an 10th grader sophia who

attend metropolitan arts institute in phoenix. their documentary is titled rethinking reform, prisons in america. >> the prison systems around the united state have changed radically in the last 20 to 30 years. 20 years ago, our prison population was about 20,000 people. now our state prison system is over 40. the composition of the prison population as also to magically change. >> finally come our, our fan favorite was selected for your online voting and we are happy to announce that the winners will receive an additional $500. our first prize winner for high school category. tenth grader ben millionaire, charles grader. from a governor blair high school in silver spring, maryland. the documentary is titled

driving forward and tackles the topic of highly enriched funding. >> americans is moving around. we love fast cars, big checks from a horsepower and 70 miles per hour speed limit. we try further and have more cars than any other country in the world. for all above about which oncoming we tend to take over jay fant for granted. america's 2 million miles of road are aging, congested and often dangerous. >> banks while the students and teachers who competed this year and congratulations to all of our winners. the top 21 winning entries will air on c-span starting in april. and all the winning entries are available for viewing online at cam.org. >> yesterday the senate judiciary committee held the first business meeting for the death of supreme court justice vincent scully appeared senators

discuss whether to hold a hearing of supreme court justice nomination. a nominee will not be taken up until a new president is a lack minutes warning. it is part of the senate's constitutional duty. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i can't officially start this meeting until we get one more member here. since i was going to say something before i gave my opening remarks, i will say them now so we don't waste a lot of time because this is a very important debate we are going to have an eye and saying that's not for my members, but mostly for people watching on c-span that often think everything we do in washington d.c. based political or partisan and this debate coming up will be very

partisan. but i hope people remember that over the last 14 months, this committee has acted in a very bipartisan way from the standpoint of 21 bills getting out of this committee that have gotten out either on a consensus basis on a very broad bipartisan basis. one of those bills is going to pass the senate yet this morning. i think by a very wide margin the opioid heroin addiction bill before the senate. i hope people will realize that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue and they're kind of area much divided along party lines. this particular debate i hope that everybody realizes that these are honest, strongly felt views that are going to be

expressed and we ought to encourage that dialogue within our democracy and that is what you will see this morning. i would like to ask if i could go ahead. i will wait. i always wait for senator leahy and i am going to wait now. i was just asking staff if he thought it was okay if i go ahead. i will stop now and wait for senator leahy. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> before i give my opening statement and then go to senator leahy, i give a little bit about the agenda. i know we will have several debates in this committee on the floor on the side deck. today i didn't know we had a

vote scheduled, but i would like to finish about 11:40. so i get a chance to vote. we have several bills on the agenda for the first time as well as for nominations. three of those are right for a vote. two parties on that issue and i walk over that. i want to open this meeting up for discussion on the supreme court before we return to the agenda. the nominees today will hold over the legislation and one nominee and then we will vote on the other three nominees. there's been a lot of discussion about the supreme court vacancy the last couple weeks.

and why we are going to approach it the same way. i've spoken at length on the floor about these issues. somehow i doubt that my colleagues have been spending their free time reading my speeches so i thought i would spend a few minutes reviewing where we are and spelling some of the myths i've heard repeated a number of times. the most appropriate place to begin is with chairman biden's famous speech 92. as we all know in a 20,000 word speech, chairman biden went into great detail about the supreme court they can these during heated presidential debate. but now that we are pretty familiar with the biden rules so i'm not going to repeat them. based on what i have been hearing, there appears to be confusion about the matter. i would like to clear a few things up. first of all, some suggestion that they didn't mean what they

said. it has been suggested with a supreme court nominee during a heated presidential election can't gain and somehow the words he used at a secret are completely different means. this sounds a lot like how some judges tend to read the constitution. thankfully for all of us they spoke at length as they so often did when he was in the senate and he was very clear. for the benefit of my colleagues , here is just an part isn't as fun as what you heard me say on the floor of the senate. quote. should a justice resign this summer and the president moved to naming success and actions day before democratic convention

and the republican convention made a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distressed by all. senate consideration of the nominee under the circumstance is is not fair to the president, to the nominee or to the senate itself. now if that wasn't clear enough, chairman biden continues. mr. president, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of a constitutional philosophy, all that would get in such circumstances is partisan and political posturing from both parties from both pennsylvania avenue. as a result, it is my view that if a supreme court justice resign tomorrow and the next several weeks and at the end of the summer, president boy should consider the predecessors and

not the nominee after the november election is completed. they were not to say. if the president did not follow the pack this and submitted a nominee, then the senate should consider the nominee. let me offer a couple observations. i said over the last few days some have tried their best to recast with chairman biden actually said and give it a totally different meaning. given the price president suggests what he said in 92 is that what he really meant. the argument goes all about cooperation. chairman biden did talk about more cooperation. there's only one problem. he said the cooperations should occur in the next administration. it was only after discussing why

the president shouldn't send a nominee at the vacant year rose and only after explaining why they shouldn't consider any such nominee regardless of how good a person is nominated that chairman biden turned to how the process should be changed in his view quote, unquote the next administration. again, here is what he actually said. let me start with the nominating process and how that process may be changed in the next administration whether democrat or republican. and just so there wouldn't be any confusion, he repeated two sentences later, with this in mind let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration and how they changed as the judiciary committee in the next

administration. chairman biden was clear. all of this in the world isn't going to change this. now we talk a lot about they will be bad for the nominee, bad for the process and not for the senate. it was because under these circumstances, the process would not be about constitutional interpretation and the proper role of the court -- proper role of the court. it would be a hyper political slugfest as chairman by fed quote, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all that will give in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from all parties from

all pennsylvania avenue. chairman biden was making the point that all of us know to be true, but only some of us are willing to admit considering a supreme court nomination in the middle of a presidential campaign would be all politics and no constitution. and if there's any doubt that this was chairman biden's view, just like at how he describes a problem in an interview about a week before his famous speech. can you imagine dropping a nominee into that site, into that room and the middle of a presidential year? end quote. the result of such supercharged environment would be this. whomever the nominee good, bad or indifferent would become of it done, end quote. i raise this in part because we are already witnessing how rock politics is the fact in the

process. regardless of what some are willing to an publicly, everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn't getting confirmed. everybody knows that. the white house knows that, senate democrats know it. republicans know it and even the press is saying though. while this outrage? why demands for the hearing that somebody knows whatever results in confirmation. it is because the other side is committed to using this process as many political points as possible. that said, plain and simple. that is why for instance the floor on a daily basis to attack me in personal terms. we've seen that kind of thing around here from him before. it is all about using this process to score political points. it is that simple.

we are even seeing reports from the white house. it is guided by a raw political calculation of what they think will exert the most little pressure on me. misguided logic appears to be that if they nominate someone who either other republicans supported, then somehow we will suddenly conclude that it's a good idea to drop that nominee into a chairman biden called the hearing during a heated residential campaign. people conveniently forgot that judge bork was confirmed unanimously to the d.c. circuit. that was before the other side viciously attacked when he was nominated to the supreme court. it's even been suggested that if the white house judge from iowa, then i try to convince my colleagues that it's a good idea to hold a hearing. we have been upfront and very

clear. in case there is any confusion over whether this obvious political ploy would work, i think we need to be crystal clear. it won't work. we are not going to drop in a nominee into an election year and i'm certainly not going to let it happen to the good people of iowa. now let me touch on a couple of other points before he turned to the ranking member. some of the arguments we heard are so absurd they barely merit rebuttal. my friends seem to be under the impression that if they repeat something often enough, it magically becomes true. take a couple minutes. i have heard it said that the kennedy episode somehow lends support to the notion that the senate should consider a nomination during the middle of a presidential campaign. the argument is because justice kennedy was nominated and 87 and confirmed in 88 to somehow

disproves chairman biden's arguments. of course the only reason the seat was still in early 98 is because judge burke was treated to an unprecedented and shame of those smear campaign in 87. those of us who were here remember very well and that brings me to another related point. it has been suggested that democrats here and chairman biden in particular should be applauded for how they handled. the obvious fact that either nomination occurred for a presidential campaign. justice thomas i was here for

judge work. i was here for the justice and i saw what happened to both of them. i saw what happened to the records, to their reputation and more importantly to the impact it had on their families. if anyone wants to argue those individuals were treated to a fair process, they are free to make that argument of course. today senator, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. it has also been said that the biden role somehow don't apply because there was a vacancy when chairman biden took to the floor and 92. but consider that for a minute. chairman biden spoke on the floor that day before the end of the court's term and of course that is the day when justice is often announced their retirement. it is true that there was no vacancy at that time. the chairman of the senate judiciary committee went to the floor of the senate and put the

public, all nine justices on the president of the united states on notice if any justices -- if any justice was considering retirement, they should know that the senate was not going to consider any replacement consistent with past practices. you would think that those who were expressing outrage today would have rushed to the floor to discuss their disagreement with chairman biden and 92. for some reason that didn't happen. not a single democrat went to the floor that day or the days and weeks that followed to stand up in may know, mr. chairman, you have the history wrong. not one democrat went to the floor, stood up and said no, mr. chairman. there may be the senate's history and there may be very good reasons were, but we should press ahead with an election-year nomination anyway. not a single democrat stood up

and said no, mr. chairman. i disagree. we haven't located any newspaper editorials taking them to task either. so much for fairness between then and now. so we should keep in mind when we hear all of this outrage today, keep that in mind. let me make one final point. if this argument were so transparent they absurd, it would be worthy of more debate. since the idea that because republicans senators met to discuss the issue that somehow we weren't upfront and open. we could get into all the secret meetings that the other side held before they walk in the chamber november 21st, 2013 and about the nuclear option. i don't think that would be a constructive debate. everyone in this room knows that we meet to discuss matters and

the reason i know everyone in this room knows it is because i met with each one of you on one issue or another if he didn't fight in the press or the public when i first became chairman with every single republican individually and privately and i offered to meet with every single democrat privately and in fact i did meet with most of you on that site. i met with each of you so that i could learn what are your priorities. what i wanted to know, what each one of you wanted to see accomplished. in most cases on every side of the aisle i have cosponsored legislation even when he led the battle as senator durbin has done on sentencing reform as an example. that is how you learn where we can agree, where we likely cannot and we might work together towards an agreement. that is how we get things done. that is how you lead. the bottom line is this. we didn't play games.

we didn't hide the ball. we made clear up front to the president, the senate democrats and the public exactly what we are going to do and why we were going to do it. we did it with eyes wide open. we knew the minority leader and others that make this as political as possible. that is very unfortunate, but ultimately it doesn't matter because it is the right thing to do. senator leahy. thank you, mr. chairman. i won't go into where i'd disagree with your recounting of the facts. you and i have been friends for too long. one thing when we talk about whether it's joe biden or anybody else in election-year nominee and the last year of president reagan's term in the last year -- in the last year of

president reagan's tear, the democrat retired the sentence with a presidential election year going to be leaving the presidency and we voted on the supreme court nomination of president reagan. talk about partisanship. every single democrat voted for president reagan nominee and a presidential election. i am sorry that you feel somehow this attention is directed at you and this is about you. it is not. it is about the constitution, which is a lot more important than you or me or anybody else in this room. this president has that can't additional obligation to nominate with a vacancy in the supreme court. we have a constitutional -- is

this working? >> is that better? >> as i said, as i mentioned earlier, when we talk about what happened in presidential election years, the democrats were in control of the senate, president reagan's last year, the presidential election near every single democrat voted for his nominee for the supreme court. somehow they are direct data in. it is really not about him or anyone of us. it is about the constitution, which is a lot more important than any one of us. the president to the

constitution requires him to nominate somebody when there's a vacancy. it requires us to exercise that i think that in both yes and no. we can't sit here in closed-door meetings and agree with just part of this committee while we are going to vote maybe. the american people want to do our job. we are paid to do her job. every single day we are paid to do our job. voting is not an option. i say to the chairman, senator grassley we been friends for a very long time and as i've told while we disagree we will continue to be friendship. the oversight matters there's been a lot of leahy grassley. we've done this in the past

traditional sentence. the courtesies of the body something that unfortunately and the judiciary committee has unanimously recommended that they will not receive any consideration this year. there was no unanimous recommendation. the first business meeting to consider anything since the untimely passing. the first member of congress or anybody who said anything about -- publicly about justice scalia is leaders who said they would be no replacement. a lot of us would like to have

at least had the memorial and the barrio of the justice before that debate started. it's our first meeting to consider anything. they have not had the opportunity to discuss how we will proceed. i was able the majority is not unanimous in contrary to what republicans have said it was a unanimous decision by this committee. it was not. it was not. it was not. and knowledge is blatantly false. unanimous require all of us. we were not part of the closed-door meeting. i want to work with you as all previous chairs and ranking members of the supreme court nominations. i know that you want to conduct the work of this committee and i hope you return to our practice working together before decisions are made on how to print the period you may disagree with each other, but

the tradition has always been that the chair and the ranking member on this kind of major decisions they need to gather and talk about it first. it is important that we try to work together because we are not going to be here. we will have many matters to grapple with over the next nine months. you and i were both a desire for six years, not five and a quarter. we are both at the five and a quarter mark. we were elected by the people of our state of iowa and vermont to serve for six years. i intend to work every single day right up until the end of my term. we are confronted with concerns on the process of the supreme court nomination and some senators have pivoted by how the lower court nominees have been treated in the past that we can go back and forth about lower court nominees for days. i can usually point out the fact

that president bush is term in office when we took over, we confirmed 68 of his judges. i think you allowed 16 so far. but there could be no dispute this committee is always true to supreme court nominees differently than other nominees. since i served in the senate. the senate judiciary committee has always held hearings on supreme court nominees. i'm glad to see senator hatch here. when i became chairman of the committee in 2001, during the bush administration, i am senator hatch and the ranking member memorialize todd this committee would continue -- continue. i am not saying the chamber would continue to consider supreme court nominees. in a letter to all senators, senator hatch and i wrote to judiciary committees traditional

ways the reports of the supreme court nominees once the committee completes its consideration. this has been true even in cases where supreme court nominees were pressed by a majority of the judiciary committee even with republicans and democrats voting against supreme court nominee considered by the senate. the republican leader at that time then read our letter into the congressional record to ensure it's available for all americans to see and every single set of republican and democrat, nobody disagreed with what senator hatch and i said. it showed the long commitment to an open, fair process for the supreme court nominees. this has been our committee's practice. regardless of who held the gavel and who was in the white house. last week a distinguished group

of scholars wrote the constitution gives the senate every right to deny confirmation to presidential nomination. but tonight should come up to the senate deliberates over the nomination which in contemporary times include hearings in the judiciary committee, opened the hearing and debate on the senate floor. anything less than that is a serious an unprecedented breach of the best essays and much of our nation's history. i ask unanimous consent that the scholar there'd be included in the record. without objections toward her. i love the senate. i love the traditions and i'd love the way the senate does not because i'm a senator but because i believe they should be and can be and at times has been the conscience of the nation. every one of us takes that oath to oppose the constitution so

help me god. the public confirmation has never denied the supreme court nominee hearing. now the comments from vice president reagan. the fact is we've taken action every time there's been a supreme court vacancy. i can read all kinds of things from debates. the action continues to be in the words or actions that speak louder than words and our actions show we have always -- we have always gone to hearings and had both of theirs in a supreme court vacancy. now that is what does senator hatch and i sent in our letter and the importance of the supreme court in our constitutional democracy cannot be overstated or can the responsibility of this committee, everyone of us to

fairly consider the next nominee in the corner. so take a deep breath. take things one step at a time to return to this committee is august the supreme court nominees no matter which president nominated. we have the president will nominate soon a person. he will fulfill his duty so help me god. and now after he does, i would remind everybody the consideration of the supreme court nominee is the constitutional duty of each and every senator. i hope we will all do our job here. the one that we took an oath, so help me god, that we will do. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hatch. thank you, mr. chairman. this is an interesting meeting as far as i'm concerned. the question of the vacancy by supreme court justice antonin

scalia is one, not whether the senate should consider a nominee. democrats say the constitution answers this question with a prompt hearing and floor vote whenever the president chooses a nominee. everything else would not be doing our job. mr. chairman, rarely have so few words been so misleading that the constitution gives the nomination to the president and the advice and consent power. the constitution does not tell either the president. how to exercise that power. advice and consent image situation and has done so in different ways under different circumstances. of course the democrats know this is true in their past positions and actions confirm it. during the 102nd congress,

then chairman joe biden is the distinguished chairman ed denied dozens of judicial nominees and recommended the supreme court vacancy occurred the entire appointment process should be deferred until after the election season is over. between 2003 and 2007, democrats on and off the committee voted dozens of times to deny any confirmation to both republican nominee is. the constitution does not require the senate chances of judicial nominees who were never confirmed. in 2007, senator charles schumer said that the senate should not confirm supreme court nominee if the rest of president bush's second term except under

circumstances. they have filibusters under president clinton, supported them under president bush and abolished in under president obama. democrats had their reasons for the statements and actions than i am sure that each time they believe that their position -- their positions in these matters were legitimate. the statements and actions however are incompatible with the newly minted position that the congress requires prompt hearings and floor votes for all nominees. is what democrats say today is true, vice president biden in 1992 advocated violating the constitution. many of my democratic colleagues voted repeatedly to violate the constitution and the minority leader was flat wrong in 2005 if that is the case. democrats liberal allies are equally confused. we received a letter signed by

left-wing groups, for example, claiming the constitution requires timely hearings and votes, unquote. some of these same groups publicly and forcefully advocated judicial nominees. we received a letter signed by law professors similarly claiming that it is the senate's constitutional duty, unquote to other prompt hearing and timely floor vote on a nominee for the schooling of vacancy. i am well familiar with law professions in our country and then make a lot of different claims. i am not aware that any of these professors objected to the minority leader's assertion that the constitution does not require the senate to vote on a president's nominee. did any of these professors complain that saddam leahy, schumer, feinstein, turbine voted over and over to prevent any confirmation votes for

republican judicial nominees. of course they didn't. this is all a political stunt that is seriously misleading the public and law students, i might add for that matter. the constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with it. mr. chairman, neither the constitution or the other party's political priorities tate how the president or the senate exercise their respective powers. i believe there are compelling reasons for regarding the vacancy until after the next president takes office. finally, mr. chairman, i would remind those who say the constitution requires a prompt hearing at this committee was not created until 29 years after the petition was drafted. we have no more business to conduct that the democrats when the partisan roles were

reversed. enough of these absurd claims about when the constitution -- about what the constitution plainly does not require. if my democratic colleagues really want to argue than republicans today should not have the same ability to structure the confirmation process is democrats did in the majority, then they should make that case. they know the american people would not accept such a disingenuous position. mr. chairman, i'm really concerned about this because it seems to me that this is a presidential election mass. i've never seen a worse. i've never seen the country more at odds or more on edge over a presidential nomination process and we all know that whoever picks the next nominee for the supreme court that it's going to be a big battle the matter what happens. at least that is the way it looks to me and that is based on only 40 years here in the senate.

so all i can say is we have every right to determine that this is not the time to bring up a nominee for the supreme court of the united states of america and that we have every good reason to not do it under these circumstances. i just hope that we can all work together in the future and hopefully this will all resolve itself as it should. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my words are said this morning with considerable disappointment. i have great respect for you, mr. chairman and for most of my colleagues on the other side. so let me begin with some history. [laughter] some of those on the other side would say the same thing about

their side. [laughter] >> let me begin with some history. the supreme court seat has been kept vacant by sending an action for over a year since the civil war. i think it is important to realize what that means in terms of history in a 44 quarter. first in history. 155 years ago last week, march 4th, 1861, president lincoln delivered his first inaugural address here at the capitol building. lincoln had won the election in november. as we all know, the nation was about to enter years of brutal civil war. they didn't close his momentous inaugural by appealing to avoid the bitter conflict that was to come. he said, and i quote, we are not

enemies, but friends. we must not be enemies, though passion may have been strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. he then appealed to the better angels of our nature. despite lincoln's appeal, the war came. the first battle or run happened in july 1861 in manassas and virginia about 32 miles from here. there is real concern that washington itself is at risk. amidst all of the happy about, there is a vacancy on the supreme court. supreme court justice peter daniel died in 1860. president buchanan set up the nomination in 18613 months after lincoln's election and only a month before lincoln's inauguration. multiple states that are devoted to succeed by that point. the nominee, jeremiah black received the vote on the senate floor.

his nomination was rejected by a single vote. president lincoln ultimately nominated samuel miller, in ireland, mr. chairman to fill that seat. miller was confirmed in 1862. mr. chairman, that was the last time the senate cap the supreme court seat vacant for more than a year. so it took our nation tearing apart in that war with itself for the senate to keep a supreme court seat vacant for more than a year and that was the last time it happened. the supreme court seat has been kept vacant by sending an action for over a year since that time. so what is happening today is contrary to her committee's practices, even in divided government for election years. also, no nominee for the supreme court vacancy has been denied

hearing since 1916 when the committee first started holding hearings on such nomination. that 100 years of precedent. we have confirmed nominees in presidential election years. most recently a democratic senate confirmed justice kennedy a republican in the final year of reagan's term. 14 supreme court nominees in fact have had confirmed and election years. clarence thomas did not receive a majority vote of support in this committee. still, he was confirmed by a democratic senate in october of 1991. after the presidential election campaign had begun. i remember clearly because it was during my first campaign for this body. in 2001, as senator leahy has said, senator hatch and senator

leahy recognized her lungs and in practice to give nominees fair consideration. a vote in the committee and a vote on the floor and this was done in a joint letter that senator leahy referred to and it was entered into the congressional record for all-time. that was an agreement made in a democratic senate when the republican george w. bush was in the white house. it is this body's job, this committee's job to look carefully at the nominee and give that person a fair hearing and a vote. the effect of this obstruction is likely to leave the court with only eight members over two terms of that court if you think about the timing. what does that mean? added 8000 petitions for review, the court gets a year, this is

according to the supreme court's website. the court takes about 80. it chooses those primarily where there's a disagreement among lower courts about important federal issues. over two years, we are talking about 160 cases and 16,000 requests for review that are potentially impact did, not to mention emergency request that do not have the luxury of time. now, of course the court isn't going to deadlock in every case. but the potential for deadlock is greatly increased. when the court has only eight members and the court previously was divided 5-for frequently. typos in the supreme court do not settle the dispute heard by the court and they don't create precedent for other cases. this means uncertainty in the law continues and the law varies

around the country when it could have been settled. this is why as president reagan's dead before justice kennedy was confirmed, and i quote, every day that passes with the supreme court below full strength in pairs to's business in that crucially important body, end quote. supreme court justices themselves including scalia and rehnquist not a dangers of an evenly divided court. justice scalia decided not to recuse himself in 2004, stating that if he did, quote, the court proceeds with eight justices, raising the possibility that by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case, end quote. ..

case. scalia quoted the recusal policy by six republican appointees. stating, quote, even one unnecessary recuse 0 impairs the functioning of the court. we have gone through a lot of tie votes and when you go through them, you see the impact of but 4-4 divided court. let me give you one example, involved a the ninth circuit. in 2008 the ninth circuit decided a case called united states versus florida, the question was whether a person born abroad to and unwed u.s. citizen parents was a citizen of the united states. a lot differs.

depending on whether the citizen parent was the mother or the father. here is how the ninth described the issue, quote, if a united states citizen had a child out-of-wedlock abroad with a non united states it is and mother, the father must have resided in the united states for at least five years after his fourteenth birthday to confer citizenship on his child. but a united states citizen mother had to reside in the united states for a continuous period of only one year prior to the child's birth to pass on citizenship. is this difference that makes an impermissible classification on the basis of gender and age.

this disparate treatment was permissible under the constitution and so ruled against the individual claiming u.s. citizenship. the supreme court accepted the review in the case but in 2010 it deadlocked 4-4 because elena kagan was recused. that left the ninth decision in place in california, arizona comment and other states in the ninth but did not set a nationwide precedent. five years later in 2015, the second circuit came out the opposite way. here is what the second circuit found. santana argues the statutory scheme violates the fifth amendment guarantee of equal protection and proper remedy is

to extend to unwed fathers the benefits unwed mothers receive under the statutes. we agree and holds more alice santana deprives citizenship at birth, derive citizenship at birth through his father. so you see a tie vote can have real significance. here is the bottom line. even today, in this situation presented by this case, children in one judicial circuit may not be citizens but in another circuit they would be. that is not the fault of the child. it is all because of how the law treats parents of different genders and it makes no sense when the issue could have been resolved six years ago in 2010. let me just conclude by saying that the path republicans have

put us on goes against more than a century of history. it is going to impair the functioning of the supreme court and no doubt members are going to point that out. i believe it is going to have most importantly real impact on people and real businesses in real cases. we all know the other side of the aisle has been trying for years to deny this president right of appointment whether it before ambassadors, his cabinet or other top-level staff appointments. but this is release something different. i am appealing to the better angels of your nature. when there is a nominee, do as we have done in the past, give the nominee careful consideration, meet nominee. ask the nominee questions, hold a hearing and hold a vote those here and on the floor.

vote no if you want, but let's have a fair process that is our tradition. that is our job. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. in 1969-1970, the court had 452 days of vacancy when justice porcheus retired and justice jackson took a 1-year leave of absence to serve as chief prosecutor at the war crimes trial in nuremberg and justice of the go -- of lido --alito said there are only eight members and we will do our work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. even our new republican colleagues, there's a history

here, democratic colleagues do not have a consistent principle to history. all of us have dirty hands. none of us handle judicial confirmations -- i remember when clinton was president in the late years of data nominee came up in california that trent lott fired closed 0 on the nomination to move forward and i voted for cloture. we didn't believe in filibuster. only after president bush won and republicans had a slim majority in the senate that the democrats held those nominees systematically and quickly got a majority. he nominated 11 judges for the court of appeals and i am talking about the court of appeals. renominated even. two were three nominations, president clinton had put up for democrats and they confirmed those two quickly and everybody

else was blocked. two or three years, then when we got the majority back it was filibustered. it went on and on until the american people got frustrated with it. they wanted judges who would follow the law, good judges they could trust and they believed these were, senator gramm and the gang of 14, they cut this deal and said we won't filibuster anymore except in extraordinary circumstances. we can vote no but won't filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. >> we debated it. i opposed filibustering. i didn't previously believe in filibusters but i will use the filibuster but only in a restrained way when i feel it is important and i try to let here to that. i think republicans have. then what happened? we get back in the majority and

they are unhappy, republican majority was not willing to fill judges for the d.c. circuit that had no need whatsoever, lowest caseload by far of any court in america. we said we won't affirm those. senator gramm blocked president bush from one of them. we worked together and blocked it and had it sent to another court like the ninth circuit because they had a shortage. they exchanged the rules again and said you can't filibuster. this is -- less than perfectly consistent i will acknowledge but first and foremost, republicans have been more principled and responsible in handling judicial nominees and our democratic colleagues. they have not hesitated to change any rule, any principle to advance the immediate agenda that they have.

somebody, in the wall street journal today, 62% of the people's say the democrats would do the same thing we are doing in this circumstance. late in a campaign year, known nominee having been put forward to this date, they say the democrats would do that. of course that is correct. if you took a poll of all senators, they would tell you the truth, there would be 100% in the senate. under these circumstances it is not likely that any majority in the senate would confirm another nominee at this late date. president obama has two nominees confirmed in the courts and we had hearings on those, full debate and people cast their votes and that is the way it went.

i wanted to say that. a majority of the united states senate would not want to move forward with this nomination. a majority of the senate would not want to my new it -- is not a majority filibuster, it is a majority of the senate decided not to move forward to let the next president who will be taking their case to the american people and certainly will be discussing what kind of judges they would like to see on the supreme court to replace the fabulous, great justice scalia. who will replace justice scalia? will be decided in the next election. the court is not going to cease to function because it is 8-8 as the justice said. colleagues, i am fully aware that my colleagues want to make a political that and try to push this issue but it is what the senate would do. this is not an unreasonable position. we have to go back to 1888,

under these circumstances was confirmed late in session. mr. chairman, you know these rules. you know the history of this. senator hatch chaired this committee many years. i am totally convinced, colleagues and friends, people in radioland, this is what democrats would do in that situation, this is what you would expect senate to do. let the american people have a voice in who would replace justice scalia next year. >> >> senator schumer. >> i want to thank the ranking member from vermont for his people remarks and associate myself with his and senator feinstein's presentation. i appreciate also the chairman moving forward with nominees

today and two bills before us. adam walsh, was that i care deeply about, it is my pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman, on these important pieces of legislation. i appreciate the partner should be mentioned earlier on those efforts. i have to say the work of this committee and this congress will be shamefully incomplete if this committee refuses to do that most important job of weighing supreme court nomination. given a job by the constitution of the united states, up a job the american people want us to do. the chairman of this committee is saying for the next year the judiciary committee will not do its job. my republican colleagues claim this is not about, quote, politics or the fact they don't like this president. they say, quote, the american people ought to say who appoints the next justice. they say let the people decide. the people have decided. if you ask the american people

they will tell you they want a hearing in this committee. the data is overwhelming. a cnn poll found 50% of americans want to see the president nominate someone to the court this year. let the person have that hearing. yesterday the wall street journal, hardly a liberal journal found 55% of registered voters disapprove of the republican decision to block a court nominee site and scene. washington post nbc poll, 63% say the senate to hold hearings. these numbers hold steady in red states, blue state and purple states. up poll last week found clear majorities in iowa, arizona, missouri, north carolina, all favor the killing of the vacancies so i say to my colleagues yes, the people have decided and they are saying to the republican majority, do your

job. the american people are speaking loud and clear, saying to the republicans just that, that we have a constitutional responsibility. it is up to this committee to do its job. now the chairman has made the decision unilaterally that this committee will have no voice and no ability to examine a nominee's record and qualifications and no ability to perform the duty of advise and consent spelled out in the constitution. it is a shame because even the chairman, a man of integrity and good missed western values and i respect him as a friend. the chairman admitted this is not a consensus view at first. he is an honest guy. last week the chairman indicated there were members of the committee majority who might like to see us hold hearings. i suspect that is still the case. said, quote, has been the chairman not to do, i go to members of my committee, they all agree with me for different reasons not just because i am

chairman, some have reluctance but all declared their will be no hearings. bottom line, some had reluctance but all signs. i have a great deal of respect for my friend from iowa. his ability to be the majority but i also believe the right of each member of the committee to hold views and i suspect some in this room would want the debate. according to the discussion on the floor last week, he likes a good scrap. let's have a debate. after the president makes a nomination, let's have the kind of serious, long, detailed, thorough debate, call it as scrap, the we have had in the past. let's not forget the last four justices who were nominated, two by republican president, two by republican president had bipartisan support. so it isn't despite the

divisions we have when it comes to something as important as the supreme court, we are able to have serious, serious hearings and come to a conclusion, often in a bipartisan way. i want to add one more thing. we just noticed a hearing in this committee next week the debate on a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. i am happy to have it. we have been through that before. i can ignore that this is a convenient political cover for republicans backtracking off of their promise to do a budget. i am happy to have debate. but i must say before we start trying to edits the constitution, don't you think we ought to follow it? this committee, one of the original standing committees in the senate holds a profound and storage place in the history of

the senate. even presidents are the same party. and they broke against the wall of the senate judiciary committee time and time again. not always in noble fashion but nonetheless, this committee, the senators in this room have a special obligation to consider that legacy, not once, since this committee began holding hearings on supreme court nominees this century ago. a nominee to the floor for the consideration of all 100 senators. he said, she said, in previous years, everyone said a bunch of things. not once, not once since this committee began holding hearings on supreme court nominees a century ago, had the committee

refused to report a nominee to the floor for consideration of all 100 senators. i know the distinguished senator from iowa holds the same reference i do that the ranking member does, the reputation of this august committee. so i ask him to think on that legacy as he walks in lockstep with the majority leader and republican presidential candidates to the detriment of this committee and the constitutional duty that we as senators have. i thank the chairman for his courtesy. >> there was reference to polls and we all quote polls but you obviously know they can be manipulated depending on who is asking the questions and what the question is. i believe we are supposed to make decisions based on what is right, not based on polls, and i think the people on the other side of the aisle right now,

there happens to deal holds 61% of americans believe we ought to continue immigration into the country ought to be debated and i think the other side, that immigration policy. >> one person who doesn't believe in polls is hillary clinton. she was once ahead of birdie in michigan. according to the real politics. so the moral high ground is a shaky place to be in the senate when it comes to judges ally won't go there. i will say if you live long enough it is fascinating, longer life allows you to the lectured to regarding fairness about judges from people who have been exceedingly unfair. i like you all very much and i will work with you when i can but the senate is evolving in a bad way.

we don't have to go back to the civil war to find out where we are headed. we change the rules in a permanent fashion, when president bush nominees filibuster in math there was a temptation to do the deeper option. i was one of the gain of 14 who said let's not go down the road. and most of president bush's nomination, he lost a handful. i got the crap beat out of me at home. this is -- we don't want to change the 60 vote rule because you may one day yourself. the very same people beat the crap out of me because sometimes i work with the other side.

here is what is going to happen. in the unlikely event we lose the white house which i think is hard to believe given the dynamic of the republican party but just in case we lose and that seems almost impossible to imagine, hillary clinton is going to be president. unless birdie keeps doing well and something happens i don't know about. let's assume she is president. i am telling everyone on my side she's going to pick somebody probably more liberal than president obama will send over. i am going to vote for that person if they are qualified. i voted for sotomayor because the president of the united states deserves the right to pick judges of their philosophy and that goes with winning the white house. why not feel comfortable doing this? the history of the senate is pretty clear. the current vice president in 1992 argued for what we are doing. a sitting president of the

united states filibustered two republican supreme court justices so when he called me, i said is this the same guy that filibustered alito and robert? you are asking me to do something you couldn't do yourself. i never thought you were fair to our judges. it is not about me paying it back but to help the process stand the test of time. this will stand the test of time. this is the last year of a lame-duck president. if ted cruz or donald trump gets to be president they have all asked us not to confirm or take up a selection by president obama. if a vacancy occurs in their last year of their first term, guess what? you will use their words against them. i want you to use my words against me. if there is republican president in 2016 and vacancy curse in the last year of the first term lindsay graham said let's let

the next president, whoever it might be, make the nomination and you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right. we are setting a precedent today, republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame-duck eight year term, i say it will be a four year term, you won't fill the vacancy of the supreme court based on what we are doing here today. that is going to be the new rule. when you change the rules about up, judges and district court judges to get your way i thought was a really abusive power. what you have done here is you made the caucuses, the republican and democratic caucuses are not going to have to reach across the aisle when it comes to appellate judges in district court judges to get input from us when we get input from you so what does that mean? we will pick the most hard asked people we could find. and somebody in the conference to vote against fat person, you will have the most liberal members of your caucus, the most

liberal judges because you don't need to reach across the aisle to get our input and we will do the same. over time, the judiciary is going to be more ideologically driven, a process in the senate, does not require you to get outside your own party so i will be setting talk-radio when somebody on my side puts up a net job and they will. i will fight if there truly a nut job. it will happen on your side too. this is where we find ourselves. i am saddened by the fact the senate has gone down the road we have gone. i support what you are doing, mr. chairman. i don't think you are doing anything wrong. i want members to know if we lose this election, my view of what the president to come will be able to do is the same. if it is hillary clinton or bernie sanders and they send a qualified nominees, i am going to vote for them. in this committee and on the floor.

that is what the committee -- the constitution advises. there's no road map in the constitution of when to do it. the senate has always done what it thought was best. the time we are in, what is best seems to be to play politics with judges pretty much on both sides but you started a new game when you changed the rules. there will come a day you have a republican or democratic president inert republican or democratic senate and they will change the rules of the supreme court and we will get frustrated. just a matter of time before the senate becomes the house when it comes to judges and i really hate that. >> before senator durbin speaks, i ask all members, we probably ought to stop at 11:40 to vote. if there is a desire to do what is on the agenda, keep that in

mind because i would like to move the agenda along, if people want to speak instead of doing that, that is okay with me. senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i served on this committee for 18 years. i consider the senate judicial committee to be one of the major committees of the senate. it plays, has played, will continue to play an important role in the history of the country. we are faced with a historic decision and i hope we get it right. i will say to my friend, and he is my friend, acknowledging senator feinstein's observation, a person i respect, i to say if we make a mistake today we will make it again in the future, doesn't give any comfort at all. if there is one thing our pollsters have a lot of money

for on both sides of the political equation will tell us it is the disappointment and enter people feel about us, about congress. maybe we do two points better as democrats than republicans but i don't take any comfort in that, nor should we. the question is what we will do to either confirm those suspicions and hatreds or change some. we have a chance right here and now. let me say at the outset, my neighbor, senator grassley, has been incensed by fellow traveler for 30 years, we spend more time on airports than most other members. and we come to work with one another on a lot of pieces. we worked on bankruptcy reform and we are working on important

issues and i am hopeful we can produce something bipartisan again in cooperation. i also think what brings us together though political philosophies are much different is kind of this feeling that there is a midwestern attitude toward things. even if we disagree, we can be respectful to one another and try to find common ground. i think that is one of the issues in this debate, filling a vacancy in the supreme court. there is just the basic feeling of fairness, and a fertile part of america where you can see a long way in every direction, fairness to your neighbors, fairness even to those who aren't your friends. i think that is what should dictate what we try to which each year. i don't question at the end of the day it is going to be 54

republicans and 46 democrats voting on any nominee sent by the president. if that nominee is suspect or if that nominee is controversial, there may not be any republican votes for that nominee. i understand that reality particularly in an election year but what i don't understand is this notion that for the first time in the history of our country, this senate judiciary committee will not offer a hearing on a nominee. they have gone so far as to say, some members have said publicly i will not even meet with this nominee, whoever it may be. statement made by one of my friends on the committee, warning people who are being asked to consider being a nominee, be prepared, you're going to be treated like a pinata. we all know what that is, at

birthday parties, where little kids are blindfolded, given a batch and told beat this papier-mache animal to a pulp until all the candy falls out. i hate to think that this process in the senate judiciary committee is being likened to a pinata contests where we are blindly going to swing at whoever the nominee happens to be. i don't think we should warn people of the possibility of serving this nation on the highest court of the land for fear of what we're going to do to them. i heard it from the chairman. he is trying to protect this potential nominee from the hot boiling cauldron of this committee. who is turning up the heat? we have the responsibility to be fair. to go through the hearings, we

have the responsibility to be fair and this will be the first time in the history of the united states, the first time that this committee and the senate will deny a hearing, a hearing, to a nominee sent to us by a president. it has been said over and over again, denied a vote. that is hard to explain these it is so hard to explain, the american people have rejected. we can argue about polls, but i can tell you the polls show even among republicans, it is 46 in favor of a hearing and 49 against. they get it. they get the basic fairness of the question before us. let me also say that there exists for this committee the creation of a chairman and his staff, a website. this web site has a page from the supreme court of the united states and i would like to read

from our web site of our committee, the web site has been created by the chairman of this committee and it reads, quote, when a vacancy occurs in the supreme court the president of the united states is given the authority under article 2 of the u.s. constitution to nominate a person to fill the vacancy. the nomination is referred to the united states senate where the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel, traditionally the committee refers the nomination to the full senate for consideration. this is our website. we just announced on this website that this is the practice of this committee. and yet the announcement made and the letter signed by the republican senators on this committee is in direct contradiction of what we have announced to be our policy. mr. chairman, i know this is unusual but i would like to make

a motion, first as unanimous consent to make a motion, very briefly and very directly, that says the sense of the senate judiciary committee that, read directly from our web site, when a vacancy occurs on the supreme court the president of the united states is given the authority under article ii of the constitution to nominate a person to fill the vacancy, the nomination is referred to the united states senate where the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel. traditionally the committee refers the nomination to the full senate for consideration. i would ask unanimous consent to offer a sense of the senate judiciary committee that this is our stated policy. >> i would like the objection noted for the record.

which member objected? >> senator vitter. >> if you didn't yield the floor. >> i will conclude very quickly. it is time to change your web site. i yield the floor. >> senator cornyn. >> i can't help but think while listening to our colleagues across the aisle that if flip-flopss were an olympic sport there might be some gold medals at work. it is breathtaking. i do believe the debate we are having today is an important one and we should welcome it. it is important for us to have this debate in public, visible to the american people, because the question is simple. should the senate, the majority of whose members were elected as a check on a president with little regard for congress or the restraints placed upon his

office by the constitution, confirm a supreme court nominee of that president indeed weaning the months of his office when that nominee would likely change the ideological balance of the supreme court of the united states for decades? justice scalia served for 30 years. please be stakes are high and that is why we decided the american people should have their voices heard in the selection of this next lifetime appointment. the senate has clear constitutional authority to demand this. my republican colleagues and i do intend to do the job we were elected to do on the people's behalf. it is fair to say our friends across the aisle don't like this idea. but of course they are feigning a lot of outrage. we know they would do exactly the same if the shoe were on the other foot.

we know that because they have told us. you, mr. chairman, talked about what now vice president biden said as chairman of the judiciary committee years ago but you don't have to go back that far to fight for example the comments from the senior senator of new york, senator schumer who said 18 months before president george w. bush left office that i will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm supreme court justice except in extraordinary circumstances, he said you should reverse the presumption and have a presumption against confirmation and there is senator reid, former majority leader, now the minority leader during the bush administration's stated this. the duties of the senate are set forth in the constitution. nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. and while i find myself disagreeing often with the democratic leader, he is

absolutely correct. in that statement. there is no duty. the president can make a nomination and the senate can grant or withhold consent to that nominee. it was noted by senator graham the president himself filibustered then justice samuel alito. the facts are democratic colleagues rewrote the rule book and simple justice requires that they abide by it. our friends claim the humble proposition, the people should shoes to make that selection is unprecedented but that is simply not the case. no president has filled the vacancy rising in an election year with a divided government as we have today in well over a century. that is the tradition. more to the point, that is a rich criticism coming from our friends across the aisle.

where was the president for turning supreme court nominations into scorched earth political battles as they did with eminently qualified nominees like judge bork or now justice thomas? what was the president for that? there was none. where was the president for the serial filibusters of appellate judges in the bush administration that had already been commented upon? there was no precedent for that is our democratic colleagues reproach the rule book. where was the president last congress when democrats changed the senate rules by breaking the rules, something we call the nuclear option around here for shorthand to deprive the republicans of the same judicial filibuster the democrats devised and employees with abandon, in order to do what? to pack the district of columbia court of appeals, what some call the most -- second most

important court in the nation, from which many supreme court justices are nominated. there was no precedent for what the democrats did when they rewrote the rule book. our friends on the other side of the aisle have clearly established new rules for republican presidents. they have time and time again achieved new schemes when they were in control. every action has a reaction. that is physics. in this case it is simple justice. they made their bed so let's dispense with the outrage. the american people are well into the process of deciding who the next president of the united states will be. they can choose to extend eight years of anemic economic growth, national weakness and disdain for the constitution and other institutions that made our country great or they can choose a different direction, for the better.

i hope they do. but the choice is theirs. the supreme court will have a central role in determining the path we take, and the people should have a voice in that decision too. thank you, mr. chairman. senator klobuchar. >> thank you, everyone. i want to step back on this. i have fought many times what i would do if we were in charge of the senate, and we had a republican president and i think as a lawyer i talked-about wall professors from university of chicago about this and others, i would feel we had an obligation and that is what i would do and what i will do in the future. when we look at that language in the constitution, as we all know it says the president shall nominate someone, the senate shall advise and consent, i put together a forum of law professors a week or so ago and one of them, jamal green from

university of columbia law school, the framers did not contemplate, looking at the original intent, the framers did not contemplating use of the advice and consent power solely to run out the clock on a presidential appointment. as alexander hamilton speculated in federalist 76, rejection of a nominee could only be made to make plays for another nomination by the president. i understand people might not vote for whoever the president nominates. it has been my view he has put very qualified people up but the constitution and its language did not anticipate we would just sit there and wait a year. in fact when you look at the history as well as we know in the last 135 years no president has been refused a vote on a nominee for an open seat on the course, the senate has confirmed a dozen supreme court justices in presidential election years including five in the last 100.

you have to go back to the civil war to find a time when the senate didn't do its job and the senate didn't move on a nominee. for over a year and that is through the deep freshen and world war i, through the vietnam war, times of great civil war, civil rights protestss, you have to go back a long time. that is why i concluded after looking at this, if i were in your shoes, my friends on the other side of the aisle, i would have allowed this hearing to go through. the other piece of it that goes beyond the things i would most point to is the wording of the constitution which is always very important, the fact that we have history as an argument here that i think is strong in allowing the hearing to go forward. we also have how we function as

the senate and i have been proud of the way the judiciary committee has handled nominees, people go back and forth about how many have gotten done, but the nominees i put forward on federal district court have had a fair hearing. i think back to the two supreme court nominations, senator leahy was chaired than but we had republican senator who took part in that, not many voted for them but i remember lindsey graham's line, i am john mccain's best friend, this is not the nominee i would have been put up but this person is qualified and i remember those hearings, people had strong views on either side, the process worked. we have a process, we had a hearing, the nominee went to the floor. not at all with unanimous votes from friends on the other side but a process we could be proud of that i felt was fair and moved along in the fair manner.

the longest that many of them went from the beginning of being nominated to the end of the confirmation, 99 days, that is clarence thomas. you have a history of those that are on the course now, the history of the country, the fact that the senate's role is to be funding the court, not to dictate the decisions but to fund the court and advise and consent on the president's nominees. that is our job and we have to do our job so it was a shock when justice scalia died. many of my friends were friends of his, even though they didn't necessarily have the same views but it happened. the question for the united states senate is how do we respond when that happens? we say do our job and follow the law and follow the constitution and the history that backs it up. thank you.

>> senator vitter. >> with a vote coming up, i have a prior responsibility. i would like to have my remarks entered into the record. >> they will be put into the record. senator vitter. >> thanks for holding this important discussion. i think it is really instructive and somewhat ironic given the justice scalia vacancy, to hear all of these arguments from the left that the constitution requires, demands a hearing and a vote in a certain time frame. most folks on the left, most outside groups, many senators on the left are clearly making that argument and i think it is sort of ironic given that we are debating a vacancy created by justice scalia's death because justice scalia toss us first and foremost, read the words.

words have meaning, read the words, don't just make up as you go along. to get to what end you want to get to. it is instructive. the left wants a new supreme court justice who will not read the words, who is going to make it up as they go along and get to of preordained stock and point, however they can get there. words matter. the constitution and other relevant words were clear, require hearing or action on any particular time frame. mr. chairman, as you know, the constitution's is simply an article ii section 2, klaus 2, the president shall nominate, and by and with the consent of

the senate, shall appoint other ministers, judges to the supreme court and all other offices of the united states whose appointments are not otherwise provided for which will be established by law. that is what it says, pure and simple. it doesn't talk about any time frame. doesn't talk about any required action. the other text which governs our the senate rules. the constitution makes very clear, the established rules to follow within the bounds of the constitution and the senate rules, the only thing they have to say about the timing of action is when a vote won't occur, it shall not be put on the same day in which the nomination is received or the day on which was reported by committee or lost by unanimous consent. senate rules 30 one.1 and 31.6

are very relevant, neither confirmed nor rejected during session at which it shall not be acted upon in any succeeding session, made to the senate. that makes explicit that no hearing or action is required during that session. i don't know why folks taking a conferee view in the minority didn't change the rule or vote no to that rule, or aren't proposing a change to that rule now. everybody voted for that, and again these arguments somehow that the constitution requires us to act in a certain way or a

certain time frame just isn't true. in honor of justice scalia we need to read the words first and foremost, that is what the debate is all about. and read the words and apply them as written. or have a justice who helps make it up as he or she goes along who legislates from the bench or gets to western end point using whenever vague arguments are at his or her disposal. as has been said clearly, so many leading members on the other side have confirmed this in the past if you are inert different position. senator reid, senator schumer went a lot further back than we

are now. he said 18 months the for the end of the bush presidency, no supreme court justice should be confirmed except under extraordinary circumstances, happy to live by the schumer rule. this is not an extraordinary circumstance with an election coming up, i would defer to the people. the question is what is the right thing to do moving forward? i am very comfortable with deferring to the people, and powering citizens, putting them in charge. that is what my constituents once in louisiana. they are crying out in frustration, not being in charge of washington, regularly ignoring their wishes, this trend of force legislating from the bench and making it up as

they go along, continuing, they want a voice in this and a voice to be able to stop the that. i defer to the people, we have a unique opportunity to do that with this very important presidential election before us. i often think in virtually every presidential election that the most important issue in the election, which gets little or no attention, is supreme court appointments. that has impact for decades to come. we have an opportunity this year where that won't be the case. we're hopefully it will be front and center. we have an important debate about the proper role in the supreme court, about the proper way for judges to make the decisions, mainly to read and

apply the law as written and certainly my constituents in louisiana, they want to have the leading voice, they want to be in charge, a great majority of the limbs strongly object to the trends, and making huge decisions for society who are not mandated for the constitution. i appreciate your leadership, strongly support the path moving forward we have adopted and i vote for putting people and citizens in charge through the presidential election. it is an important and somewhat unique opportunity. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i ask senator vitter if he could stay so that i could speak. >> you can certainly speak. do i have to stay for a quorum? >> we will give you unanimous consent to speak even if he goes. >> i would like to address a couple things, you can hear them in the record or something like that. this idea of nine non elected justices making law from the bench is what we have seen with the roberts court. this is one of the most activist courts we have had. we had -- the senator has not -- senator vitter has not been on this committee until this congress. my goodness. how many times have i spoken to this? when we had the sotomayor hearing it was my fifth day in

the senate. this is an activist court. he was talking about the irony, justice scalia, justice scalia,

we had 100 votes on the voting rights act, unanimous vote by the united states senate, and what did justice scalia say? he said the senators voted for it because it was named the voting rights act. remember that? >> he had half an hour of argument and ignored the hundreds of hours hearings and debates we had. >> insulting. to hear that. it is just insulting. let me say a couple things about some of the stuff i have been hearing. chairman joe biden, when he spoke, does anyone here know,

anybody -- do you know when he spoke? i don't mean -- i am sorry. i apologize. >> had to be in june of 1992. >> in late june as the session was ending. what he was talking about is somebody resigning to game this system. that is what he was talking about. we are talking here about confirming someone to replace a justice who has died. think about how different that is, everybody. when chuck schumer says an extraordinary situation, he is talking about someone dying. scientists tell us there are 10-1/2 months left in this president's four year term. justice scalia, god bless him, i didn't agree with him, i thought he was a very witty, funny guy, that is a high compliment coming from me. because i value that very highly -- >> why is that? >> no one dies to game the system. what biden was talking about was a justice -- as soon as session ends, then resigning to game the

system. as far as senator obama when he was senator voting to filibuster alito, that is the 60 vote threshold on supreme court justices that you hold so dear. that is what a filibuster is. okay. the chair is hearing from some one. >> can i say something? we are going to hold this record open. i haven't missed a vote since 1993 and i will vote, they just told me. >> let me wrap it up and you can listen. i think i can get it done. it is -- justice thomas was confirmed 52-48. by a democratic senate. i just want to say some of the things i have been hearing today have made me a little bit

irritated. i thank the chair for his indulgence and all my colleagues. >> i seem to be the last person sitting or standing and i asked permission to include my remarks in the record but i want to be associated with the number of my colleagues including senator feinstein and senator schumer. >> recess. >> get you out of here.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this weekend on booktv, live all-day coverage of the tucson festival of books from the university of arizona. it begins saturday at noon eastern, and sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern. featured authors on saturday include historian douglas brinkley on fdr, and author and attorney, linda hershman on the supreme court. sunday's featured authors including margaret reagan on immigration, linda and filipe on race in america, and a politics panel on voting rights, and independent voters. throughout our live coverage of the few sewn -- on sunday night,

it's "offered words" with michael eric dyson, barack obama and the politics of race in america. mr. dyson's interview. >> the practical considerations were, on you get elected you want to get reelect. it's one to be elected the first black president but to get re-elected may be even more remarkable and even more difficult, and he had to overcome certain barriers. when he ran the first time he had no record. he was a senator for a little while but was a tabular -- a clean slate on which people could inscribe their hopes, dreams, ambitions and project on to his thousand body their ideals. but now, when you got a first term, you done done stuff. people like or don't like. theygen you or for you. they're supporting you or critical of you.