vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are -- are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote? or change their vote. on this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 49. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative. the motion is not agreed to.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, as the world now knows, this morning president obama nominated his choice to fill the vacant seat created by the death of justice antonin scalia. in doing so, the president exercised his unquestioned authority under the constitution to nominate somebody to this vacancy. but that same constitution reserves to the united states senate and the united states senate alone the right to either grant or withhold consent to

that nominee. it's the same constitution. you can't argue that the president somehow has an unquestioned right to see his nominee rubber stamped by the senate and still show fiddlety and honor at the same constitution that gives him that authority to make that nomination. so at this time i want to reaffirm my commitment to share with other members of our conference that the president, this president will not fill this vacancy. the senate will not confirm this nominee to this vacancy. and in doing so, we'll follow the same rule book that democrats have advocated for in the past. it can't be that one set of rules apply to a democratic president and a second set of rules apply when there's a republican president. this isn't just about speculating what democrats might do were the shoe on the other foot and we had a republican president, because they have told us what they would do.

they've done this since 1992, and in many ways they've kept their promise. there's a lot at stake. justice scalia served for 30 years on the united states supreme court. so the next justice could well change the ideological makeup and the balance of the supreme court for a generation to come, and fundamentally reshape america as we know it. so at this critical juncture in our nation's history, and particularly with regard to the judiciary and the highest court in the land, the american people deserve a chance to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the supreme court, and the only way to empower the american people and ensure they have that voice is for the next president to fill the nomination created by this vacancy. now, i have heard some people

say, well, we had that election in 2012 when president obama was elected, but i would say you're half right. we also had another election in 2014 where the american people gave republicans a majority of the united states senate because they saw what happened when this president didn't have any checks and balances. we saw this during the beginning of his term of office when obamacare was passed by a purely partisan vote. we saw it when dodd-frank was passed, again, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. so the american people have said to president obama in 2014, we want a, an effective check on presidential power, and that's what the american people got. so you can't just look at the one side of the equation, the president's authority under the constitution and the fact that the president was reelected in

2012. you have to look at what happened in 2014 and the constitutional prerogative of the united states senate either to grant or to withhold the nomination. confirmation. separately, madam president, later today the judiciary committee will be holding a hearing addressing america's impending fiscal crisis, including some potential solutions to help reverse the unsustainable course we're on. i know you don't hear very much about it here in washington. this seems to be people walking by the graveyard, so to speak, with regard to the fact that our national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever. this means our debt climbed more than $1 trillion in a little over a year. in fact, this is a shocking

statistic that you won't read about in most of the mainstream media. the national debt has roughly doubled, roughly doubled since president obama took office a little over seven years ago. the congressional budget office projects that the fiscal year 2016, spending will reach $3.9 trillion, an increase of $232 billion from the previous year. i know when we're talking about trillions and billions of dollars, it really boggles the imagination. most of us can't even conceive of numbers that large. but the fact of the matter is when you borrow money, you've got to pay it back at some point. and frankly, what i worry most about is that my generation is not going to be the one to repay the money that we borrowed. it's going to be the next generation.

and i know a lot of parents, a lot of grandparents worry about whether the american dream will still be alive and available to the next generation and beyond. this is a huge moral lapse on the part of the current generation to not pay our own debts and to not come up with a system or a framework by which to begin that process. but rather than addressing this problem head on, government spending is set to remain high over the coming decade, even with the discretionary spending caps and sequester put in place by the budget control act. here inside the beltway, people talk a lot about sequester, the budget control act, but that's only 30% of federal spending. 70% of federal spending is on auto pilot growing in some cases by a rate of 7% or more a year.

not addressing this is irresponsible and it's dangerous. and it also limits the choices available were our country to become embroiled in another fiscal crisis like we saw in 2008. and if you ask our national security experts, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen said the number-one security threat to the united states was the debt. now that shocked me a little bit when i heard him say that. but what he meant, and i know it to be true, is that more and more of the tax dollars that the federal government receives are going to be paid to the bondholders who own that debt. the chinese, other people around the world. you've got to pay the interest on the debt if you're going to borrow the money. but more and more the spending decisions will be taken out of the hands of the elected

representatives of the american people and be simply left up to the accountants who say, okay, you've accrued this much debt. here's the interest that needs to be paid on that debt to the bondholders, and there's not going to be enough money left over to protect the national security of the united states of america. we've already seen our military on a dangerous trajectory, leading to potentially the smallest army since world war ii. now we tried to deal with some of that just last fall, began to reverse some of those because, frankly, this is no longer a matter of just cutting, super fission cuts. these -- superficial cuts. our friends on the other side if you want to spend more money to

protect this country with national security spending we're going to demand dollar for dollar more spending on non-defense discretionary spending, and that's why we ended up with the deal we ended up with. but i found it very frustrating in my time in the senate, how many of our colleagues who talk about this issue, but i have to be honest, the ones who frustrate me the most are the ones who won't talk about it at all, even acknowledge the fact. but we need to have a conversation here. and more than that, we need to have a commitment and we need to have a goal when it comes to dealing with this national debt and runway spending. our -- run-away spending. our democratic friends share the same philosophy as the current president apparently. create a tax-and-spend agenda without considering the long-term ramifications to job creation, the economy, not to mention our children and grandchildren.

i am glad to say that this side of the aisle has tried to do what i've described earlier which is to take a responsible position on embracing a policy which would help us pay down the debt and to deal with this in a fiscally responsible way and allow us to get back, our books back in good order. so we're going to take this matter up before the senate judiciary committee today. we'll be discussing reining in spending and making progress on the debt, including an amendment to the united states constitution that would require a balanced budget. i can hear it now because i've heard it before. some of our colleagues across the aisle will say, heaven forbid, you can't amend the constitution. well, yeah, we've done it 27 times. now we don't do it willy-nilly. we don't do it for a small thing. but for something like this, it

may well be required. and, frankly, this is one of the most important lessons of economics that we have tried, all of us who have children have tried to teach our children is you don't spend money that you don't have. well, i guess unless you're the federal government, you can print it or you can borrow it. but at some point, the birds come home to roost. of course, our commitment to commonsense spending goes far beyond today's hearing on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. many will recall that folks on this side of the aisle highlighted gimmicks in the discretionary budget process that only hide the real costs and don't actually reduce spending. there is a lot of shell game that goes on here in washington, d.c. and i'm glad our budget amendment last year focused on bringing stunts like that to an end and placed a limit on their use in the appropriations process. and most recently, we used

reconciliation through the budget process to keep our promise to vote to repeal obamacare, a law that had been burdening american families and businesses with higher taxes and mandates while failing to contain premiums and financial losses on the exchanges. but instead of offering solutions to our growing debt, many of our democratic colleagues are content to just sit back and criticize those of us who actually are trying to come up with a solution to address this problem. how to safeguard our nation's fiscal health. they argue that a balanced budget amendment isn't feasible or that certain government programs are so essential that we have to up their funding at the expense of the taxpayer or that actually the debt they act like isn't a problem, or if it is a problem, all we'll do is raise taxes enough to try to balance the budget. well, you can't do that.

you cannot raise taxes high enough on the american people to pay off $19 trillion in debt. so those aren't solutions. those are talking points. and they don't help the american people make ends meet, and they don't help the united states government live within its means. so i'd like to ask what are the democratic solutions to our national debt? we're going to ask that question this afternoon. we're going to have some expert witnesses offer a number of suggestions, and then we're going to ask our friends across the aisle what is your solution? and i hope we hear more than just crickets, or criticism, that what we are proposing just simply won't work. we know our colleagues -- i know our colleagues and i would welcome constructive input and

serious good-faith proposals to stem the burgeoning national debt, but until then, our friends across the aisle need to do more than sit on their hands or just whistle past the graveyard of this impending national disaster. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i appreciate the comments of my distinguished colleague from texas. as usual, he's right on and one of the great leaders on trying to balance the budget through constitutional amendment. i personally really appreciate his efforts and his expertise in doing that. on a different subject, i rise today to speak about the need for the senate to do its job regarding the supreme court vacancy created by the untimely death of justice antonin scalia. the constitution gives to the president the power to nominate supreme court justices, and president obama has exercised

that power by nominating judge merrick garland. the constitution gives to the senate the power of advice and consent, and it is time for the senate to do its job. the sound bite do your job is catchy, quotable and short enough that in very large letters on a chart that democratic senators bring to this floor. rarely, however, have so few words been so misleading for so many. this cliche begs but does not answer the most important question. what is the senate's job regarding the scalia vacancy? when democrats and their liberal allies say do your job, they really mean do as we say now, not as we did then. saying that would be more honest, but then no one else would be persuaded by it. so they say that the constitution provides the senate's job description requiring a prompt judiciary committee hearing and a timely

floor vote. there may be a constitution somewhere that says such a thing but it's certainly not in our constitution, the constitution of the united states that each of us has sworn an oath to support and defend. in a way, i'm not surprised that liberals would use a madeup, fictional constitution to pursue their political goal. after all, they favor judges who do the same thing. from the time he was a senator serving in this body, president obama has said that judges decide cases based on their personal empathy and core concerns and vision of how the world works. my gosh. if that was the case, any philosopher could be a supreme court judge, justice. he has nominated men and women who believe that judges may change the constitution's meaning based on things like cultural understandings and

evolving social norms. give me a break. the kind of judges that liberals favor seeing unwritten things in our -- the kind of judges that liberals favor see unwritten things in our written constitution. they discover things between the lines of our written charter that come not from those who drafted and ratified the constitution, not from the american people, not even from the judges -- but from the judge s' own imaginations. if the constitution we have, the one that we can read, suits them, then activist judges will use it. if not, activist judges will make up a new constitution that's useful to their purposes. the american founders founded a system that would include a

defined role for unelected judges. the supreme court observed in the famous case of marbury versus madison that the constitution is written down so that these limits will be neither mistaken nor forgotten and is continueded to govern courts as much as legislatures. the activist judges that liberals favor reject those limits. they look at written laws such as the constitution and statutes merely as a starting point, as words without any real meaning. their oath to support and defend the constitution is really an oath to support and defend themselves, since in the long run their constitution is one of their own making. so i'm hardly surprised that today democrats and their left-wing allies turn to a fictional constitution when telling the senate to do its job. that constitution, however, simply does not exist. the real constitution, madam president, leads to the president and to -- leaves to

the president and to the senate the decision about how to exercise their respective powers in the appointment process. what is the senate's job regarding the scalia vacancy? the senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its advise and consent power under the circumstances we face today. thankfully, we are not without guidance in deciding the best way to exercise our advice and consent power regarding the scalia vacancy. we can, for example, look at precedent. it hardly takes a law degree to know that a precedent is more legitimate if it is more similar to the situation before us. comparing apples and apples is more helpful than, say, comparing apples and rocks. that's just a matter of common sense. the fictional claims offered in recent days suggest that some of the lawyers among us could

benefit from even more common sense. over the years, the senate has considered nominations in different ways at different times, depending on the circumstances. considering these precedents with great bearing on the current circumstances. the senate has never, never confirmed a nominee to the supreme court -- to a supreme court vacancy that opened up this late in a term limited president's time in office. this is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the american people had already started voting in a presidential election. and in the previous two instances, in 1956 and 1965 -- or excuse me, 1968, the senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year. and the only time, the only time the senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a supreme court

vacancy created after voting began in a presidential election year was in 1916, and that vacancy arose only because justice -- chief justice charles evan hughes resigned his seat on the court to run against incumbent president woodrow wilson. there is also another precedent that has received little attention but is worth considering. president john quincy adams nominated john crittendon to the supreme court in september, after president andrew jackson won the election. the senate rejected a resolution regarding the crittendon nomination that asserted it is the duty of the senate to confirm or reject a president's nominees. in one of its reports on the confirmation process, the congressional research service discussed this vote and concluded -- quote -- "by this

action, the early senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination." unquote. i believe that the precedents such as they are support the principle that the senate must decide for itself how to exercise its power of advice and consent in each situation. we have another source of guidance for how to exercise the advice and consent power in the particular circumstances of the scalia vacancy. in 1992, another presidential election year during divided government, then-judiciary committee chairman joseph biden, now our vice president, addressed this very issue. he recommended that -- senator biden recommended that if a supreme court vacancy occurred that year, the entire appointment process, both

nomination and confirmation, should be deferred until the election season was over. here's what he said in a lengthy interview with the "washington post." you can read it here. quote -- "if someone steps down, i would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up. if the president did send someone up, i would ask the senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee." unquote. chairman biden also explained the reasons for this recommendation. he said, for example, that any election year nominee would be caught up in a -- quote -- power struggle -- unquote -- over control of the supreme court. boy, he was prescient. in that interview, he also said -- and let's refer to this chart right here -- quote -- "can you imagine dropping a nominee after the decisions that are about to be made by the supreme court into that fight, into that called ron, in the middle of a presidential year? the environment within which

such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted." a week later, chairman biden addressed the senate about the confirmation process and further explained his recommendation for deferring the appointment process should a supreme court vacancy occur. he repeated his recommendation regarding how to handle a supreme court nomination occurring that year. now, let me just refer to this chart and read it. quote -- "president bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not -- and not -- name a nominee until after the november election is completed. if the president presses an election-year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." unquote. chairman biden again explained

the reasons for this recommendation. the confirmation process had degraded in the wake of controversial nominations and the presidential campaign that year looked to be particularly bitter. as a result, he said partisan bickering and political posturing would overwhelm serious evaluation -- the serious evaluation required. in addition, the presidential election session was already well under way and different parties controlled the nomination and confirmation phases of the appointment process. madam president, chairman biden could have been talking about 2016 instead of 1992. in fact, each of the factors leading to his recommendation for deferring the appointment process in 1992 exist in the same or greater measure today. not a single democrat objected to chairman biden's recommendation to defer the appointment process.

not one. not one democrat. if what democrats say today is true, that the constitution requires a prompt hearing and a timely floor vote for every nomination, surely someone, anyone would have said so back in 1992. not so. my colleagues will search the 1992 "congressional record" in vain for the slogan "do your job." it appears that a different constitution was in force in 1992 because no democratic senator or leftist organization insisted that the constitution required a prompt hearing and timely floor vote. no one claimed that the senate would be shirking its constitutional duty by following chairman biden's recommendation. the first step in exercising our power of advice and consent regarding the scalia vacancy then is to decide how best to do

so in the circumstances we face today. precedent generally and guidance from past senate leaders specifically counsel strongly in favor of deferring the confirmation process until after the presidential election season is over. that is clearly the best course for the senate, the judiciary, and of course the nation. that conclusion is reinforced bid another important factor, elections have consequences. democrats and their left-wing allies also use that axiom but want people to believe that 2012 was the only election relevant to the scalia vacancy. they want people to believe that because president obama was reelected in 2012 he should be able to appoint whoever, whomever, when ever, however he likes. that idea must appear in another provision of the democrats' fictional constitution because once again the real one says no

such thing. the 2012 election did give the president the power to nominate, and he can exercise that power however he chooses until his final minutes in office next january. i would uphold that right. he has exercised that power by nominating judge srinivasan in the election. the 2014 election, for example, had tremendous significance for the senate's power of advice and consent. the american people gave control of the senate and therefore control of the confirmation process to republicans. here too we may find some guidance from our friends on the left in addressing this circumstance. president ronald reagan nominated judge robert bork to the supreme court in 1987. this was three years after his reelection and a year after the senate majority changed hands. here is how "the new york times"

addressed the argument that elections have consequences. you can see it right on this chart -- quote -- "the president's supporters insist vehemently that having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the course direction. yes, but the democrats won the 1986 election regaining control of the senate, and they have every right to resist." unquote. the same circumstances obviously exist today. by the way, no one should waste time wondering if "the new york times" has applied the same principle today. it of course hasn't. in addition to 2012 and 2014, the 2016 election will have tremendous consequences for the american people and the courts. it will give the american people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the direction of the courts by electing the president, the nominates and the senate that gives advice and consent. republicans and democrats,

conservatives and liberals have very different views about the kind of judge that america needs. justice scalia represented a defined, modest approach to judging. while, as i mentioned earlier, president obama has advocated an expansive and activist approach. i've served on the judiciary committee longer than all but one senator since the committee was created 200 years ago, and one thing is clear to me. the conflict over judicial appointments is a conflict over judicial power. the too models of the judicial power or judicial job descriptions that i have described have radically different consequences and implications for our nation and our liberty. the american people have expressed increasing concern about the supreme court's direction since president obama was elected. most americans, for example, believe that supreme court justices decide cases based on their personal views and object to them doing so.

with justice scalia's untimely passing the american people now have a unique opportunity to have a voice in charting a path forward. mr. president, i cannot conclude today without addressing what is widely understood to be part of the president's strategy in nominating judge garland to the scalia vacancy. the senate confirmed judge garland to the u.s. court of appeals by a vote of 76-23 in 1997. this i take it is supposed to suggest that the senate should do likewise regarding judge garland's nomination to the supreme court. so there is no mistake, let me say this as clearly as i can. the confirmation process regarding the scalia vacancy will be deferred until after the election season is over for the reasons i've explained. that decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of the nominee, and

republicans made our decision known weeks ago, before the president had chosen anyone. but i also want to emphasize that the considerations relevant to an individual's nomination to one position do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion regarding his nomination to another position, especially the supreme court. here too i want my colleagues to be aware of guidance we can draw on from the past. in 1990, then-chairman joseph biden presided over the hearing on the nomination of clarence thomas to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. he said -- and i'll refer you ta chart on that. he said, this is what chairman biden said -- quote -- "there is a fundamental distinction between what is required of and should be sought of a circuit court judge and a be district court judge and a supreme court justice."

unquote. he was right then and is right today. democratic senators made the same point in 2005 when they sought to distinguish the earlier support for john roberts' appeals court nomination from their intention to oppose his supreme court nomination. senator schumer, for example, our distinguished senator from new york, called it a whole new ball game. he said -- quote -- "you've got to start from scratch." unquote. senator leahy agreed, saying that the supreme court is different from the lower courts. i couldn't agree more. add this to the list of standards that my democratic colleagues have reversed now that the partisan shoe is on the other foot. senate republicans have explained repeatedly and in detail why the best way to exercise our advice and consent power in this situation is to defer the confirmation process. that conclusion is completely unrelated to whether the president chooses a nominee, or

if he does so, who that nominee is. president obama could have followed vice president biden's advice to fill the nomination of the scalia vacancy. he chose not to do so. for the reasons i have discussed, precedent, past guidance, and the consequences of elections, the senate should follow that advice and defer the confirmation process for the good of the senate, the judiciary, and the american people. i'm tired of all this screaming and shouting that goes on in this most horrific of all presidential elections, at least in modern times. i'm just tired of it. and i'm really tired of politicizing the court, which is what my colleagues seem to really love to do. so i don't think it's unreasonable to ask our colleagues to put this off until after the next president is

elected. that way, that way whoever that person is, that person will have the power to nominate whoever that person wants to. we'll still have the right to advice and consent. that may be problematic for the next president. but the fact of the matter is that it's important that we recognize that it's not any person that we're against. it's the process and integrity of the court that we're for. and this particular election season is the most toxic in my 40 years in the united states senate, and they're always well argued that this is toxic.

i personal do not want to see the court demeaned during this particular time. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: .

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. a senator: mr. president, i would -- the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: i would ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i would also ask to speak in morning busines busineo ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the

vacancy on the united states supreme court in light of president obama's announcement that he has nominated chief judge merrick garland to replace justice scalia. replacing justice antonin scalia who was one of our court's strongest defenders of our constitution will be difficult. for almost 30 years with his brilliant legal mind and animated character, he fiercely fought against judicial activism and less lating from the bench -- legislating from the bench. he will be greatly missed by not only his family and loved ones but all americans who share his core conservative values and beliefs. under the constitution the president shall nominate a replacement as he did today and the senate has a constitutional role of advice and consent. mr. rounds: this is a constitutional responsibility that i take very seriously. the decisions the supreme court makes often have long lasting ramifications that with one-vote

margins can dramatically alter the course of our country. at a time when the current administration has stretched the limits of the law and attempted to circumvent congress and the federal court system, choosing the right candidate with the aptitude for this lifetime appointment is as important as ever. i have determined that my benchmark for the next supreme court justice will be justice scalia himself. scalia's strict interpretation of the constitution in deference to states' rights set a gold standard by which his replacement should be measured. as you all know, every republican member of the senate judiciary committee sent a letter to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell expressing their firm belief that the people of the united states deserve to have a voice in determining the next supreme court justice. in their letter they wrote, and i quote, "article 2, section 2 of the constitution is clear.

the president may nominate judges of the supreme court but the power to grant or withhold this consent to such nominees rests solely with the united states senate." end quote. as a result, the committee does not plan on holding any hearings related to this issue until after a new president has taken office. this decision will allow the american people to have a voice in the next supreme court justice based upon who they elect as the president this november. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the american people did have a voice when they elected president obama in 2012, but that election was nearly three and a half years ago. since that time a lot has changed in our country signal ag shift in america's views of our president and his philosophy of governing. you don't need to look any further than the 2014 elections

for proof. in the 2014 elections the united states senate switched from democrat control to republican control. in fact, i'm one of those republican senators who replaced a democrat in the last election. many of us who ran were not supporting the president's policies. in fact, we ran because we wanted to change the direction that the president was moving our country. at the state level in 2012, the last time president obama was elected, there were 29 republican governors and 20 democrat governors. in 2014 the number of republican governors rose from 29 to 31 while the number of democrat governors decreased from 20 to 18. we saw similar results in state legislative races across the country. in 2012 republicans held a majority in both chambers of 26 state legislatures. in 2014 that number rose to 30. and if you take into account the

conservative leading but officially nonpartisan legislature of nebraska, that number jumps even higher to 31. in 2012 democrats held the majority of both chambers in 15 states. in 2014 that number was reduced to 11. so in the year since the president's last election, republicans not only held a strong majority in the house of representatives, they took back control of the united states senate and increased their numbers at the state level as well. there's no doubt that there has been a clear shift in the minds of the american people since president obama's last election. i believe just as many of my colleagues that the republican victories of to 14 -- of 20134 should be -- 2014 should be taken into consideration and, therefore, we should wait to confirm the next supreme court justice until after a new president takes office. overwhelmingly south dakotans who have contacted my office agree with this decision. one gentleman from lemon, south

dakota wrote to me saying and i quote, "our country hangs in the balance as to what the future this great country will look like. this decision is too crucial in the next supreme court nominee should be nominated by the next president of the united states." end of quote. another south dakotan from brandon, south dakota noted and i quote, "this is a rare opportunity for the american voter to actually have a voice in how the court will be structured for many years to come. please help preserve that opportunity for us all." end of quote. in another example, a woman wrote saying, "hearing of the passing of justice scalia was heartbreaking news. i ask that you do your part to allow the people to have a say in who the next justice of the supreme court will be." these are just a few examples of the numerous south dakotans who have contacted my office who agree the american people deserve a voice in the direction our country will take in the decades to come. and as much as my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle would like to see the senate confirm a nominee from our current president, the reality is that when the tables are turned, they agree with our position. in fact, it was vice president joe biden that when he served as the chairman of the senate judiciary committee sat on this very floor in 1992 and this is his quote, "it is my view that if the president goes the way of presidents fill more and johnson and presses for an election year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. " end of quote. and it was minority leader harry reid who said in 2005 and once again i quote, "the duties of the united states senate are set forth in the constitution of the united states. nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a

vote." and the senate democrats' next leader, senator schumer who said in 2007, close to two years before president bush's term ended, and that quote, "that we should not confirm any bush nominee to the supreme court except in extraordinary circumstances." end of quote. whoever is confirmed to fill the open seat on the supreme court will be serving a lifetime appointment. keeping in mind the current political makeup of the court, the man or woman who will replace justice scalia has the potential to hold incredible influence over the ideological direction of the court for a generation to come. it is critically important that the next justice is committed to upholding the principles of the constitution. we owe it to justice scalia, our judicial system and the constitution to uphold the highest standards when

determining our next supreme court justice. we also owe it to the american people to make certain their voice is heard in this election. for these reasons i agree with my colleagues on the judiciary committee and in the senate leadership that we should not hold hearings on a supreme court nominee until after our new president takes office. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: