the region. in places like aircraft, yemen and syria. and the administration has even made clear that it knew that the money that was released as a result of the sanctions relief, that it knew that the tens of billions of dollars of intermediate sanctions relief going to iran would be funneled to terrorist groups across the middle east. so we've got an unverifiable deal and we've got the money going to finance terrorism. what's not to love about that? that's the administration's attitude. in fact, earlier this week, it was reported that the u.s. navy, the u.s. navy for the third time in just two months intercepted an iranian shipment of weapons in the arabian sea. believed to be headed from iran to rebel groups in yemen. one has to wonder how did iran pay for those weapons?

well, one logical explanation would be perhaps with the sanctions relief authorized by the president's misbegotten deal with iran. that's where -- that was a huge cash infusion. it's only logical to believe that iran used that money to pay for the represents that they were then trying to ship to the rebels in yemen. and of course as we've seen recently, the deal certainly didn't keep iran's revolutionary guard from test firing ballistic missiles. the fact of the matter is the iranian nuclear deal is not worth the paper that it's written on. and i hope the next president will rip it to shreds day one in office. and to give it the sort of respect that it's really earned. but unfortunately iran serves as just one of the many examples of how the administration -- that

the administration's rudderless strategy is advancing america's interests in the complex world we're living in. on president obama's watch, the united states has methodically ceded our irreplaceable leadership role throughout the world. this is most evident in the middle east, a caldron of violence and instability. in syria, we don't see the j.v. team that president obama referred to in isis. we see an emboldened terrorist group that exports death and destruction to our allies in cities like paris and brussels, with the intention to do the same thing right here in the united states anywhere and everywhere they can. including places like garland, texas, where thanks to an alert security guard, he was able to thwart two isis-inspired terrorists from killing innocent

civilians. and in iraq, where americans spent their treasure and spilled their blood to bring relative peace and stability just a few short years ago, we find now complete chaos. president obama's precipitous withdrawal of u.s. forces from iraq helped turn the region back into a powder keg. much like the obama administration's promised red line on chemical weapons and syria. the border between syria and iraq has literally been erased. it doesn't exist anymore. and as the obama administration has stood by, today the black flag of isis flies high over places like mosul and fallujah. we all know that isis has carved out a safe haven in the heart of the middle east while syria has

plunged deeper and deeper into civil war and chaos and millions of people have become displaced as refugees, both internally in syria and in surrounding countries, causing further instability in the region, and now of course we're seeing them not only in refugee camps in turkey and jordan and lebanon but escaping to europe and creating huge challenges for the governments in europe. and that's not even to mention the hundreds of thousands of syrians who have lost their lives in this civil war while the world has stood back and by and large watched with negligible strategy or effort to try to change the outcome. what's the result? well, beyond this hard reality, this sends a message to our allies and our adversaries.

to our allies, they are questioning our commitment and our reliability. to our adversaries, they are interpreting our lack of strategy and action as weakness and opportunity. israel, along with several of our gulf partners, has found a white house that repeatedly seems to care more about the interests of our common enemy rather than israel's security interests. in europe, the north atlantic treaty organization countries, nato countries, question our dedication and commitment to transatlantic peace and prosperity as russia prowls at their back door. our adversaries have noticed, mr. president, they have noticed and they have been emboldened by the lack of american leadership and strategy, and they have

taken full advantage. this administration's abdication of leadership has also allowed china to grow more belligerent in the asia pacific. north korea, to test what they claim is a hydrogen bomb and to threaten our allies like south korea and japan, and of course russia to quickly fill the leadership vacuum left by the united states in europe and the middle east. if we had any doubt about it, once again we have learned a hard lesson, and that is weakness is itself a provocation weakness is a provocation. what this world needs, what america needs is leadership and a strategic vision that doesn't just respond to every crisis on an ad hoc basis.

fortunately, the founding fathers gave the congress some tools to be able to help when the commander in chief executive of the country seems to be without any particular direction or without a particular strategy. the senate can play an active role in holding the administration accountable and putting forth a strategy to help keep us safe. for example, yesterday the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing to discuss iran's recent transgressions, and i'm glad the chairman of that committee, chairman corker and the ranking member, senator cardin, are working together on a bipartisan basis on legislation to levy more comprehensive sanctions on the iranian regime to make up for what should have been done in the iran nuclear deal but which was essentially ignored. the administration had

consciously decided to ignore iran's role as a state sponsor of terrorism and decided we're just going to try to deal with the iranian nuclear aspirations and not the terrorism aspirations. well, in doing so, i think they literally failed on both counts, that -- they not only created a plan that can't be -- and a testing regime that can't actually verify when iraq is cheating and yet at the same time they unleashed tens of billions of dollars to help finance terrorist activity. well, the administration has made clear that it simply doesn't have much interest in holding iran accountable. they seem now absolutely nervous about doing anything that iran might use as an excuse to walk away from the nuclear deal, which they could do on a moment's notice. meanwhile, keeping the benefits that they have already gotten from this deal, namely the billions of dollars in sanctions

relief. well, i hope the senate will move forward on this legislation soon. our allies and our friends need to know that if the president won't stand by them and challenge our adversaries, that congress will. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise once again to address the supreme court vacancy created by the untimely death of justice antonin scalia. the constitution gives the nomination power to the president and gives the advice and consent power to the senate but does not tell either how to on exercise their power. our job of advice and consent begins with deciding how best to exercise this power in each situation, and the senate has done so in different ways at different times, under different circumstances. and i don't think there's any question about that. for two reasons, i am convinced that the best way to exercise our power of advice and consent regarding the scalia vacancy is to defer the confirmation process until the current presidential election season, which i find horrific, is over. the first reason is that the circumstances we face today make

this the wrong time for the confirmation process. this vacancy occurred in a presidential election year with the campaigns and voting already underway. different parties control the nomination and confirmation phases of the judicial appointment process. the confirmation process, especially for supreme court nominees, has been racked by discord in the past. and this is one of the bitterest and dirtiest presidential campaigns we've seen in modern times . combining a supreme court confirmation fight and the nasty presidential campaign would create the perfect storm that would do more harm than good for the court, the senate and, of course, our nation. the circumstances i mentioned are identical to those that led vice president biden in 1992 to recommend exactly what we are doing today. in june 1992, when he chaired the judiciary committee, he

identified these very circumstances and concluded -- you can see on this chart -- he concluded, "once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." to be fair, something significant has changed since 1992. the confirmation process have become even more partisan, contentious and deadvicive -- divii sri e. dkslaunched new tactic to prevent republican judicial nominees from being confirmed. over the next several years, they led 20 filibusters of appeals court nominees and prevented several from ever getting pointed. then in 20 -- appointed. then in 2013 they used a parliamentary ma enough to abolish the filibusters they used so aggressively.

the minority leader knows this because he was in the middle of it all. if the condition of the confirmation process was bad enough in 1992 for chairman biden to recommend deferring it to a less politically charged time, democrats' actions since then have only made this conclusion more compelling today. the second reason for deferring the confirmation process for the scalia vacancy is that elections have consequences. the 2012 election obviously had consequences for the president and his power to nominate. but the 2014 election had its own consequences for the senate and its power of advice and consent. the reason that the american people gave senate control to republicans was to be a more effective check on how the president is exceeding his constitutional authority. the 2016 election also will have

consequences for the judiciary. the timing of the scalia vacancy create as unique opportunity for the american people to voice their opinion about the direction of the courts. mr. president, on monday the minority leader reminded us of an important axiam. no matter how many times you say a falsehood, it's still a falsehood. it's still false. i agree. the minority leader claims that the senate has a constitutional duty, a constitutional obligation to hold a prompt hearing and timely floor vote for the president's nominee to the scalia vacancy. the hill yesterday quoted him saying this, quote, the obligation is for them to hold hearings and to have a vote." that's in the constitution."

by my account the minority leader has made this claim here on the senate floor more than 40 times. he said as recently as this morning. no matter how many times he says this falsehood, it is still false. the minority leader's claim is false because the constitution says no such thing. this is what the constitution actually says about appointing judges. quote, "the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint. " unquote. it's clear that the president has the absolute right of nomination and we in the senate have an absolute right on advice and consent. nothing about hearings or votes, nothing about a timetable or schedule. i say that to my democratic

colleagues, do you really want to stand behind a completely fictional patently false claim like that? do you really want to base your position on what "the washington post" fact checker called a politically convenient fairy tale? i understand that you want the senate to conduct the confirmation process now for the president's nominee. we can and should debate that. but will none of you be honest enough to at least say what everyone in this chamber knows, that the constitution does not require us to do things that w way? the minority leader not only contradicts the constitution, he contradicts himself. the minority leader was serving here in the senate in 1992. senator reid took no issue with chairman biden's conclusion that the circumstances at the time, the same circumstances that exist today, counsel deferring

the confirmation process. senator reid did not tell chairman biden that the senate must do its job. senator reid did not assert then what he repeats so often today, that the senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees prompt hearings and timely floor votes. on may 19, 2005, during the debate on the nomination of priscilla owen to the u.s. court of appeals, the minority leader said of the constitution, and i'll just refer to this chart again, quote, "nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential pointees -- appointees a vote, "unquote. in that 2005 speech, the minority leader was particularly adamant about this point claiming that the senate has the duty to promptly consider each nominee and give them an up-or-down vote he said -- quote

-- "would rewrite the constitution and reinvent reality ," unquote. that's what the minority leader said then. today the political shoes are on the minority leader's other foot and he is the one claiming that nominees must have prompt consideration and up-or-down votes. by his own standard, the minority leader is rewriting the constitution and reinventing reality. now that it serves his own political interests and that of his party, the minority leader has reversed course and claimed in a recent "washington post" opinion column that the senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees -- quote -- "a fair and timely hearing ," unquote. then he once again mentioned 1992 when chairman biden denied a hearing to more than 50 -- 50,

50 republican judicial nominees. he allowed no hearing at all. whether fair or unfair, timely or otherwise. in september 1992 "the new york times" reported on page 1 that this was part of an obstruction strategy to keep judicial vacancies open in the hope that bill clinton would be elected. now senator reid served here at that time, but i can find no record of him demanding that every nominee get a timely hearing. instead he wholeheartedly supported his party's strategy of obstruction. in the recent "washington post" column, the minority leader also wrote that the senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees a floor vote. between 2003 and 2007, however, he voted 25 times to deny any floor vote at all to republican

judicial nominees. as far as i can tell, we have the same constitution today as we did in 1992, 2003, 2005, and 2007. we have the same constitution today with a democrat in the white house as we did in the past with a republican president in the white house. the minority leader cannot have it both ways. he cannot today insist that the constitution requires the very hearings and floor votes that he and his fellow democrats blocked in the past. now i suppose they'll say those were lesser court judges. well, they were still judicial nominees. on monday the minority leader again attacked the judiciary committee and its distinguished chairman, senator grassley. now, you've got to go a long way to find anybody who's nicer, more competent, a more dedicated

than senator grassley yet he was being attacked again. i guess they think that somehow makes a difference. the minority leader held up a quote from an editorial in an iowa paper about how the chairman is conducting the confirmation process. i don't know when the minority leader started carrying about what hometown newspaper editorial said about the confirmation process, but this appears to be yet another epiphany. on february 19, 2003, the reno gazette journal accused democrats for their filibuster of miguel estrada to the u.s. court of appeals and everybody including us on our side knew that was a position that this wonderful hispanic person could assume that he was on his way to the supreme court. everybody knew it.

a few weeks later the las vegas review journal editorial called the filibuster campaign promoted by senator reid, quote "nothing more than ideological posturing and partisan bluster ," unquote. as i mentioned earlier, the minority leader went on to vote 25 times for filibusters of republican judicial nominees. also on monday the minority leader claimed that the judiciary committee is not doing its job and that the chairman is -- quote -- "taking his marching orders from the republican leader" -- unquote. later in the day the senate unanimously passed the defend trade act which i authored with senator chris coons, a truly bipartisan bill. we worked hard on and that the senate was blessed by. the minority leader dismissed this legislative accomplishment because it was reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously. he said, -- quote -- "i don't

see today why the judiciary committee should be given a few pats on the back" -- unquote. that's okay with me. we don't need pats on the back. the minority leader knows better. he knows the strong bipartisan bipartisan outcome for this legislation was the result of nearly two years of work behind the scenes primarily at the staff level. it is painfully obvious that the minority leader desperately wants to score political points and to spend everything he can to his advantage. but the disparage and belittle the arduous work of both democrats and republicans by both staff and senators is disgraceful and really insulti insulting. before he denigrated the significant bipartisan achievement, he should have read the obama administration's statement of policy on the bill. the trade secrets act will, the administration says, promote

innovation and have minimized threats to american business, the economy, and national security interests. the obama administration calls this a -- quote -- "an important piece of legislation -- unquote -- that would -- quote -- "provide important protection to the nation's businesses and industries" -- unquot" unquote. well, mr. president, this morning the minority leader once again said that the senate must do its job regarding the scalia vacancy and he asked -- quote -- "what is that job?" -- unquote. the senate's job is to determine how best to exercise its advice and consent power under the particular circumstances we face today. we have made that determination. we have done our job. we are making the same determination that the minority leader apparently supported in 1992. the constitution no mar dictates

our decision than it did in 2009 when the minority leader correctly said that the senate does not -- is not required to vote on nominations. no matter how many times you say a falsehood, it's still false. no matter how many tiles the minority leader falsely claims that the constitution dictates how and when the senate must contain or conduct the confirmation process, it is still falls. no matter how many times he claims that the senate is not doing its job, it is still false. no matter how many times the minority leader questions the integrity and character of the judiciary committee chairman, those questions are still false. no matter how many times the minority leader contradicts himself and tries to avoid his own judicial confirmation record, his claims today are still false. the senate today has the same power of advice and consent as when democrats were the

majority. we have the same responsibility to determine the best way to exercise that power in each situation. in 1992 chairman biden recommended deferring the confirmation process so that -- quote -- "partisan bickering and political post terring -- posturing" -- unquote -- did not overwhelm everything else. the false claims and tactics being used today including the minority leader confirm chairman biden's judgment and its application even more today. well, it's disappointing to me to be honest with you. we have an honest disagreement as to when this nomination should be brought up. we have an honest disagreement as to how it should be brought up. we have an honest disagreement about the times that we're in. we think that this presidential race is a horrific presidential race on both sides.

and i for one as former chairman of the judiciary committee and as somebody who has always worked very hard on the judiciary committee, very, very concerned. if we bring up this nominee in the middle of this awful mess called the presidential election, with all of the politics and screaming and shouting and arguing and blasting of each side -- it d demeans the court. it demeans what we're trying to do around here. and it makes sense in an election year where we've already voted i think approximately more than half of the primary votes. it demeans the court to insist that we get in the middle of this -- in the middle of this. for the reasons i've explained before and will no doubt do so again, the confirmation process for the scalia vacancy should be

deferred until the election season is over. now, i, for one, on this side care a great deal for the minority leader. he's a tough, scrappy but very decent man in many ways. i care for him. i call him a friend. and i'm his friend. i believe that he's better than some of the statements he's been making. and i want him to live up to those better calls as a leader and understand, just like everybody should, that this is a complex body and yet it's very simple. it's complex in the sense that we handle some of the worst problems in the history of the world. it's very simple when it comes down to advice and consent and

what really has to be done. i'm concerned because i think there -- i think that to have any leader of this body attack somebody like as decent and honorable as chuck grassley, the senator from iowa, is something that really demeans this body. many have disagreements with chuck or not -- and you can explain those disagreements without -- without being slanderous or liablous. there are very few people in this body who are as honest and decent as chuck grassley. i think all of my colleagues are honest and decent but very few of them would rise to the level that -- that chuck grassley

does. he's an old farmer that believes in doing right, who does to the best of his ability always do right. i've been around him a long time and i have such utmost respect for chairman grassley. he's not even an attorney and yet he's running the judiciary committee very, very well. he's a good man. he deserves to be treated like a good man and a good leader and a good chairman. we're going to have our differences here in this body. some of them are going to be very upsetting to us. i've certainly had some. but we still need to treat each other with utmost respect, not accuse people of -- of being

things that they're not. i can say one thing, that i've served here 40 years and chuck grassley's been one of the best people i've served with on either side. and i think my friends on the other side understand that i care a great deal for them and that i like working with them. yeah, sometimes i've got to mood phi things -- modify things so that they're pleased. that's part of this process. and sometimes we really very vehemently disagree. that's one of the great things about this body. we can disagree without being disagreeable. we can find fault in the issues. but i think it's time to quit finding unnecessary fault in our colleagues.

this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. i admire it, i love it, i feel good that i've been able to serve as long as i have here. and i feel good towards my colleagues. i've only had two colleagues in my 40 years that i just thought had no redeemable qualities at all. naturally i'm not going to mention their names, but the fact of the matter is that everybody else has redeemable qualities and everyone else, to a more or less degree, has been, as far as i'm concerned, a great person and a great body, with great intentions. mr. president, we have a disagreement on when this should come up and that disagreement i. it isn't just based on politics either way, i don't think. the fact of the matter is it would be a terrible thing to

bring it up in the middle of this particular presidential election. and i think the rule that biden -- that our friend, joe biden, stated back in 1992 is not a bad rule. so let me just end by saying that i love this body, i love my colleagues and i just hope that we can open the door to understanding each side a little bit better than we do. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask that proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the recent bad behavior of iran. some important steps that have been taken by the administration to push back on their support for terrorism, their illegal actions and their support for disorder in the middle east but to also sound the alarm that this series of steady actions continues to raise the specter that iran has an expanding reach in the region and poses a greater and greater threat to our allies and, in particular, our vital ally israel. just over a year ago, leading

world powers came together in support of a framework for blocking iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon. that framework ultimately became the jcpoa, or the joint comprehensive plan of action. and in the months since that agreement took effect, iran has taken steps to significantly restrain its nuclear program. that's true. they filled with concrete the core of their reactor at irak. they shipped out of the cm, 98 -- county 98% of their enriched uranium and they have allowed searchable inspections by the iaea, and those are all good steps. yet the iranian regime continues to engage in dangerous actions outside this jcpoa, outside the nuclear agreement, including ongoing human rights abuses, support for terrorism in the middle east and its repeated illegal ballistic missile tests. and you will aof those are on-- all of those are ongoing reminders to us that american security and the security of our

allies demands constant vigilance and close scrutiny of iran's actions. since last september, i've regularly called upon my congressional colleagues, the obama administration and our european allies to be wary of iran's intentions and to continue to seekays to effectively push back on its bad behaviorment the international community and the united states possess three major nonmilitary tools to lawfully counter iran's continued bad behavior -- financial sanctions, criminal charges and weapons seizures. so let me first today offer a number of examples of how each of these tools have recently been put to work. first, financial sanctions. on march 24, the treasury department imposed new sanctions, new sanction designations on a number of entities and individuals that have supported iran's ballistic missile program and on an iranian airline, mahan air, which provides support services, transportation, to the kuds force, an elite iranian military

corps designated as a terrorist organization by the united states treasury department. on this floor in early march, i called for the united states and our european allies to further punish mahan airlines by limiting access to markets and airports. since then, the treasury department has taken action against two companies, one based in the united king come king -- kingdom and the other in the united emirates, that provide material and financial support to mahan air. i commend the obama administration for effectively deploying another tool in our diplomatic tool kit, criminal charges. on march -- march 21, the justice department unsealed charges against three individuals who allegedly acted on behalf of the iranian government and associated entities to engage in hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions barred by u.s. sanctions. these three iranian individuals stand accused of illegally laundering the proceeds of these transactions and defrauding the banks through which the transactions were processed. then two days later on march 23, a consultant to iranian's

mission to the united nations was also charged with violating u.s. law. the seven charges levied against this individual include conspiracy to evade u.s. sanctions against iran, money laundering and arranging false tax returns. on march 24, the justice department unsealed an indictment of seven iranian experienced hackers who led a coordinated campaign of cyber attacks from 2011-2013 that targeted 46 u.s. banks and a dam in upstate new york. unsurprisingly, the seven individuals charged have been linked to the iranian revolutionary guard corps, the irgc, the hard-line force committed to the preservation of the radical iranian regime. then just yesterday, the justice department announced that the u.s. negotiated the extradition from indiana endangered indonesa singaporean man found to have been sending equipment to iranian. these various criminal charges

demonstrate to iranian and -- iran and the world that responsible members of the international community seek to resolve disputes through conduct, not through ongoing violations of sanctions. in addition the fact that each of these indictments occurred after the implementation of the nuclear deal while iran did fulfill the letter of its commitments under the agreement, these ongoing violations demonstrate that the united states cannot continue to counter iran's bad behavior and regional aggression without undermining -- excuse me. excuse me. these indictments demonstrate that the united states can continue to counter iran's bad behavior and regional aggression without undermining the ongoing implementation and enforcement of the jcpoa. that brings me to the third tool in our arsenal -- weapons seizures. on monday, the u.s. navy announced that the previous week the u.s. ciraco and the u.s.s. gravely intercepted a vessel in

the iranian sea that contained an illicit arms shipment to the hutti rebels in yemen. after boarding the ship, american officials confiscated 1,500 yaix, 200 rocket propelled grenade launchers and 51 50-caliber machine guns, including the various weapons shown here. this marks the third successful interdiction of illicit arms in the arabian sea since late february. on march 20, a french naval destroyer seized nearly 2,000 yaix, sniper rifles, nine antitank missiles and much more. that followed an intertara dicks a month earlier on february 27 in which an australian naval crew intercepted another ship off the coast of oman that contained yaix, 1 -- contained ak-47's, and other weapons. all of these were done with support from the united states. these interdictions aren't just military exercises. they prevent weapons from

falling into the hands of dangerous terrorists or houthi rebels, and just as importantly, these actions send a strong signal to iran that the international community continues to refuse to tolerate iran's destabilizing actions and its support for terrorism. the picture to my right shows an australian vessel, the crew from the h.m.s. darwin, part of a u.s.-led multinational coalition intercepting and boarding a dow that holds a shipment of arms likely intended for the houthi rebels of yemen. the conflict in yemen pits the government backed by a military coalition led by saudi arabia against the houthis, a group allied with the former president of the radical iranian regime. iran's support for the houthis has demonstrated yemen and the people. over a year of fighting has led to 6,000 deaths including thousands of civilians and more than 30,000 injuries, and the human suffering has been dramatic. according to the world health organization, more than 21 million people, more than 80%

of yemen's population today require humanitarian aid yet instead of aid, iran sends weapons. these are not the actions of a responsible member of the international community. these are not the actions of a government the united states can trust. as the united arab emirates ambassador to the united states recently wrote in our "wall street journal," the international community must intensify its actions to heck iran's strategic ambitions, and while i am pleased at recent actions by the united states navy and our key allies from europe and around the world in the region off the arabian sea, i think there is more that we can and should do. that's why in the months to come, instead of talking about giving iranians access to u.s. dollar transactions, i think the united states should lead coordinated international efforts to force existing sanctions and seize the illicit arms shipments through which iran continues to fan violence, terror and instability, not just

in yemen but in syria, iraq, lebanon and the middle east. the imposition of further sanctions, the levying of criminal charges and the successful interdiction of weapons all show that the international community has an array of tools to push back against iraq. but just having the tools is not enough. we must continue to take action, and when multilateral mechanisms fail, congress should work on a bipartisan basis to see what new tools or authorities we can give the administration to further crack down on iran unilaterally. lest we need another reminder that iran needs obligation to meet the requirements of a responsible international community, their supreme leader ayatollah khamenei claimed that ballistic missiles are essential to iran's future despite iran's commitments. the obama administration should continue to designate bad actors for sanctions, pursue criminal charges where appropriate and seek accountability for iran's ballistic missile tests in the

u.n. security council. we must continue to work hand in hand with our international partners to interdict arms shipments to hezbollah, to the houthis in yemen and the murderous assad regime in syria. we must not accommodate iran in any way, given its continued ballistic missile launches, its repeated human rights abuses and its continued support for terrorism. i remain concerned about the message sent by rumors of allowing offshore financial institutions to access u.s. dollars for foreign currency trades in support of so-called legitimate business with iran. we must keep in mind that both our words and our deeds send a strong signal to iran, our european allies and our vital ally israel. mr. president, in the months and years to come, we must make it clear to iran, not just that we will not waiver at enforcing the terms of the jcpoa, but also that our commitment to a successful nuclear agreement will not prevent us from taking action when iran's bad behavior warrants it. with that, thank you, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little about the court and the vacancy on the court. certainly i want to express first of all my shared concern with my good friend from delaware about what's happening in iran, how we're reacting to what's happening in iran and how much we need to be focused on that country still understood to be the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world and designated by the current administration and the current security agencies that it is that, and so i was pleased to see that topic as one of the things we're talking about today. the court has obviously gotten a lot of attention since the unfortunate loss of justice scalia. when i was home a few days ago,

at least one meeting i had somebody when this question came up says well, now, the constitution says that the president is supposed to nominate somebody and the senate is supposed to have hearings. well, mr. president, i'm not a lawyer, but i have been a history teacher and some days that's better than being a lawyer. in fact, i would argue that most days it might be better than being a lawyer. but when that came up, that's not what the constitution says at all. it's easy to talk about what the constitution says, but that's not what the constitution says. the constitution says that the president will nominate someone to serve on the court and the senate will give its advice and consent. this is a 50-50 obligation, a two-part puzzle that has to come together before this happens. now, i understand that the people at the constitutional convention thought about doing

it differently than that. they thought about doing it that the president would nominate and if no one in the senate -- if the senate didn't object, if a majority of the senate didn't object, then the nominee would just serve, and they decided not to do that, and what they decided to do was to have things that both had to happen for someone to serve. early on, i think it's clear that there weren't hearings about who would be on the court. there was seldom -- there wasn't a judiciary committee. there weren't hearings to be held. as a rule, either someone was confirmed or often when they weren't confirmed, the senate just didn't deal with the nomination because their part of the necessary things that had to come together weren't ready to come together. what the senate has to decide when there is a nomination to the supreme court is, is this the right time for this vacancy to be filled, and is this -- and then is this the right person?

in election years, the senate for most of the history of the country has decided it wasn't the right time. the last time a vacancy was filled in an election year was 1988, march of 1988, but that was a vacancy that occurred in the middle of 1987, and then the senate with president reagan went through hearings with judge bork and then they looked at judge ginsburg -- not the judge ginsburg currently on the court but another judge ginsburg. and then eventually nine months or so later, justice kennedy was put on the court, but that wasn't a vacancy that occurred in an election year. it took nine months to fill a vacancy that occurred a year before the election year or in the year before the election year. when the job of the senate has

always been to decide if this was the right time to do it. the last time a vacancy that was created in an election year was filled was 1936. 1936. democrat president, democrat senate, franklin roosevelt up for certain re-election and the vacancy was filled in 1936. the last time a vacancy was filled and was created in an election year when the house and the senate and the presidency were of different parties was 1888. 1968, president johnson tried to put abe fortis -- to move abe fortis from a justice on the supreme court to the chief justice, and democrats in control of the senate would not let the president fill that vacancy in an election year. the idea that there is anything

extraordinary going on here has often been -- the case has been made over and over again by our friends on the other side and even the vice president himself that filling a vacancy in an election year is just something that the senate should be very thoughtful about, and if you follow what vice president biden said or what senator schumer said or what senator reid said, what they were saying was don't fill a vacancy in a presidential election year, and they were right. they were right because we're now seven months from the presidential election, one of the things that people ought to be thinking about is what -- what happens when whoever is elected president puts something on the court -- puts someone on the supreme court for life? this is an appointment that if the person determines that they're going to serve for the entire rest of their life, they can. justice scalia, whose death created this vacancy, was put on

the court by ronald reagan and served more than a quarter of a century after ronald reagan left the presidency. put on the court by ronald reagan and served more than 12 years after ronald reagan died. so this is a long shadow or a long ray of sunlight, it's a long something that goes out way beyond the life of this president. and, you know, you could make the argument, well, we had a presidential election already and why couldn't that election that was held in 19 -- in 2012, why wouldn't that determine, why wouldn't that be good enough. one, it was held in 2012, and two, the election was held in 2014, the american people sent a republican senate. the most recent election of those two parts it takes to fill this vacancy produced a

republican senate that is at least 50% of this determination of who goes on the court, and we can -- we can wait. it is not unusual in the history of the country for the court to have an even number. in fact, the first court had six people. is there anything in the constitution about the size of the court? no. the constitution creates a supreme court and other courts as the congress determines necessary. originally there were six judges on the court, mostly i think, mr. president, because that's how many circuits that the original congress thought were needed and those supreme court justices each served as a circuit judge in the six circuits in the country. so i actually had something we don't see now, where a supreme court justice would sit on an appeals case of a case that that same person had been the

original circuit judge on, the -- the lower appeal below the court. there was no thought that the court was going to be a legislative body, no idea that you'd have to worry about a tiebreaker, because these six people were supposed to figure out what the constitution and the law said and reach the conclusion that six good lawyers would reach. and very often in the next hundred years the court had an even number, it had a changing number that changed with some -- some frequency. but it wasn't seen that the court couldn't function if somehow there were fewer than nine judges. at least there have been at least 15 times, in fact, since world war ii when there were eight judges. the longest court that had eight judges were 13 months when the democrats in the senate in may

of 1969 when justice fortas resigned didn't fill that vacancy until june of 1970. 13 months, eight judges. no one has come forward talking about what great devastation was done to the country while we were waiting to get the right person as a country, at least what the senate at the time thought was the right person for the country to serve for the rest of their working lifetime, which has generally been the standard. when justices are split, they always have the opportunity to just defer to the lower court, say, well, there's an appeals court decision here. we can't decide it better than the appeals court did so that becomes the decision. or they can say, this is complicated enough you might have differing views of two different courts of appeals, we need to rehear this at a later date.

and that also would not be unusual. while only one time in the 20th century have we had a vacancy of over 300 days, there have been had 10 times when the court had vacancies of up to 300 days in the life of the court. of the 36 people that have been nominated to the court that didn't get on the court under the congress they were nominated, 25 of them didn't have a vote. so we're not plowing any new ground here. we're not coming up with any new legal philosophy. we are, in fact, looking at what the senate is supposed to do. i think, by the way, mr. president, the president of the united states has done exactly what he should do. there's a vacancy and the president's job is to nominate somebody to fill that vacancy. but often that nominee has bee been -- has not been put on the court or not been on the -- been put on the court by that

congress at that time. and i -- i can speculate that the only good reason for that, certainly in recent years, has been the argument that people need to have a voice in this decision. this is a decision that in all likelihood will not just out -- will outlast the next presidency. even if the next presidency is a two-term presidency, the person that goes on the court more likely than not will serve beyond the time that this president is elected. john tyler when he was president nominated nine people. he made nine nominations of people who didn't get on the court. and by the time he left the presidency, i think there were multiple vacancies on the court because the senate was not prepared to confirm the people that he nominated. there -- probably their excuse at the time was he was the first vice president to become

president so maybe they wondered, well, maybe -- maybe this is not really someone who gets the deference of a president and presidents in their last year have, mr. president of the senate, 9/11 gotten much -- mr. president of the senate, have never gotten much deference. this is lifetime appointments. just look at the example of a case that are before the court right now. there's an appeal from the texas circuit court, where the president, as many of us said at the time he did, the court says the president's executive amnesty decision was way beyond the power of the president. if the president wants to change immigration laws, he has to come to the congress and change the law. as much as maybe more than this president would like to do it, presidents don't have the authority to change the law by themselves. they can do a lot of things with the law but the one thing they can't do is change the law. and the texas court of appeals

said, can't change the law. the texas circuit court said you can't change the law. and we'll see what the supreme court says about that. if they're tied, the result, unless they decide to rehear it, will be can't change the law. executive amnesty doesn't work and you're not going to be allowed to make it work. the administration is suing a number of religious entities. one is the little sisters of the poor. and the lawsuit is that they're trying to force those entities, the little sisters of the poor as an example, to have -- have health insurance coverage that violates their faith principles. now, as i understand it, the purpose of the little sisters of the poor, the order of the little sisters of the poor, is something like this. we are here to serve people -- we're here to serve elderly people without means no matter what their faith is as if they

were jesus christ. doesn't sound like a bad thing for somebody to be willing to do, a christian organization to serve elderly people without means no matter what their faith is as if they came to the door and they were jesus christ. that's what their order says. now, would -- would the united states of america be irreparably harmed if the governmental loued the little sisters of -- government allowed the little sisters of the poor to have health insurance that met with their faith principles? i don't think so. would the country be harmed in a significant way if we decide that it is the overwhelming purpose of the government to make you do things for no particular reason at all that violate your faith principles? the first freedom in the first amendment is freedom of religion. i don't think that's by accide accident. those are the kinds of cases, mr. president, that the court

decides. and a regulatory case that they just heard a few days ago, the argument appeared to be, with a company in minnesota that grows peat moss, that the e.p.a. is saying, well, we have the authority to regulate navigable waters and so we're going to get involved in your peat moss farm because even though it's 120 miles from any navigable waters, the water from your peat moss farm could run into other water that could run into other water that 120 miles away would run into navigable waters. and look right here in the clean water act, it says we have the ability to regulate navigable waters. no reasonable person would believe that that's what navigable waters means. but that's the kind of thing we ask the supreme court to do. and it's not just what the court will do in the next seven mont months, even if somehow a nominee was -- began the process right now, i think the average

has been about 54 days. and that -- that's the nine months it took to get to judge kennedy. it's the less than that it took to get to somebody else. but by the time you're through the 54 days, you're through most of the arguing period for this court anyway. and you're not supposed to participate in the decision if you didn't hear the argument. this is a lifetime appointment to the court. this is an appointment that has to be nominated by the president and approved by the senate and they both have to agree before it's over that this is the right person, at the right time. i think the history of these nominations and the common sense of americans would lead them to believe that the american people deserve to be heard on a decision that has this much impact and lasts this long. and while not on the judiciary committee, i certainly am

supportive of the determination that the chairman and others on this committee have made that there will be time to deal with this lifetime appointment when the american people have had a chance to weigh in one more time seven months or so from today. i yield back. mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i'm coming to the floor to address the question of the ongoing vacancy on the united states supreme court. and i've listened with great interest to the remarks of my friend and colleague from the state of missouri and we i think have reached different conclusions about how and when the american people should have their say in the question of the filling of this vacancy. in my view, vacancies on the supreme court of the united states have consequences and vacancies that go on for a great length of time have even bigger consequences. i don't believe there's been a vacancy that's lasted a year since roughly the time of the

civil war. and although we don't know this today, we don't know how long this vacancy may last, my concern is that in the absence of a willingness to meet with the president's nominee, to hold hearings and to proceed to a vote, should that position remain firm on the part of my colleagues on the other side, we're likely looking at a yearlong vacancy. i certainly agree with my colleague, my friend from missouri, that the supreme court plays an absolutely central role in our constitutional order and the cases decided, as he recited at length, are of great significance. so i'll bring to my colleagues' attention that in just recent weeks in march 22 and the march 29, the court handed down tie decisions in two central cases. these 4-4 decisions are not just a waste of judicial resources. they fail to provide clarity to the litigants and the american people and leave lower courts without a controlling precedent. in the three weeks since president obama did his job

under the constitution and nominated chief judge mare rick garland to fill the vacancy created by the untimely passing of justice scalia, we've already seen these consequences of the senate's refusal to engage proactively in advice and consent and consider this nomination. now, much has been made of what was said on this floor by my predecessor in this seat, the now-vice president, then-chairman of the senate judiciary committee, former senator joe biden. and i just want to draw my colleagues' attention to the entire remarks made by senator biden. his entire remarks include a section near the end where he said that if the president -- there was not then a vacancy on the supreme court -- if the president would consult with the senate and moderate in his choice and advance a consensus candidate, that that candidate might well be deserving of, might well win then-senator biden's support, as had been the case in several other nominations. i'm simply put to my friend and

my colleagues that president obama has advanced for our consideration a nomination in chief judge garland who is genuinely qualified and who has a long record in his 19 years on the d.c. circuit of rendering decisions that put him really right in the center of the american judiciary. i very much look forward to having the opportunity to meet with him in person tomorrow. i think that it's important that all of us give the deference and respect to the president's constitutional role implicit in our being willing to meet with his nominee. and i, frankly, have profound questions about whether consent, advice and consent by this body, really can be given by refusing to hold hearings and refusing to take a vote. my republican colleagues, friends have asserted that the american people should have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice and i agree. i think the best way for the american people to exercise that voice is for this body to do its job, for the senate judiciary committee to conduct full and fair and open hearings and to

allow judge garland to answer searching questions of the sort that many of us are asking him privately but then we should ask publicly and then have a vote, a vote by the people's representatives in this body. that is the purpose of the senate. there has been an election for president. the president has done his job under the constitution and we have a nominee. this is a fully constituted senate. some of us in our last year of service, some in our sixth, some in our first or second. we can be the appropriate channel of the people's voice, following an open hearing, and we should cast a vote. we should not leave this supreme court with a vacancy that lasts months and months, maybe as long as a year. every term the supreme court receives over 7,000 petitions for yofor certiorari. the supreme court hears a carefully chosen fraction of those cases. weighing constitutional principles and legal issues dividing the circuit courts. and it is i think a sacred, a central duty in our constitutional order for the supreme court to be capable of rendering important and

meaningful decisions. why would we delay the filling of this vacancy on the supreme court a full year? i can't see the value in that position. i understand many of my colleagues have cited precedent, have cited history and have reached different conclusions than i. i simply i hope that the 16 of my republican colleagues that have expressed a willingness to work with judge garland will continue to grow and more of my colleagues will meet with him and consider carefully what the consequences are for our role in advice and consent, not just for this vacancy but for the many more that may follow in the decades to come. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: