a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida rube is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. when there is an ongoing debite about the value of american

leadership around the world in the 21st century. there's a view that seems to be gaining traction and favor that our international engagement is one sided, that our allies are free riders that we contribute too much and get too little in return so why should we bother being involved in the world. these voices exist in both parties and i would like to answer them here da. i want to start by looking back at the last century when the world emerged from the death and destruction of the second world war. the united states could have after that war decided to wall ourselves off, that after the loss of so many of our best and brightest, we had already paid enough for peace. instead our country became the driving force behind international order. we forged a series of strong alliances led with moral clarity and positioned our military strengths strategically around the world. and in doing so, the american people benefited immensely as we helped stave off the threat of another global conflict, oversaw decades of economic growth and the spread of democracy and freedom around the world.

then like now our people benefited tremendously from our status in the world, even though our engagement was disproportionate to that of other nations. in fact, we benefited precisely because our engagement was disproportional to that of other nations. international engagement has never been a business deal. international engagement is not a transaction in which we give something tangible and receive something tangible in return. america has more to give than the nations we're helping and that's one of the reasons why we have a responsible to lead. as it is written in the bible, from everyone who has been given much, much will be required. but our leadership ends up paying dividends for the entire world but especially for the american people. first of all, american workers and families benefit economically. international affairs have a bigger impact on the financial well-being of our people today than ever before. in our global economy, someone

on the other side of the planet can now buy a product from an american with the tap of a finger. but when nations or entire regions are torn apart by war and oppression, they became closed off and economic growth in our own country is restricted as a result. if america were to fail to protect the openness of international water, global shipping would be threatened and prices would rise for consumers on virtually everything. similarly, if space and cyber space became threatened, or restricted, then global communications and commerce will suffer as well. americans also see real benefits in terms of our safety at home and around the world. without american leadership, regional order tends to break down and then instability spreads. this opens up vacuums that are filled by radicals and those radicals always irrespective of what we are doing or what we are not doing, these radicals always

target america and they do so either to bolster their own prestige or for ideological reasons or often both. as president obama has found, leaving the middle east doesn't mean terrorists stop trying to kill americans. our families, our homeland, our men and our women in uniform are less safe when america disengages from the world. we also benefit geo politically when we help other nations. think what europe would look like had it not been for america's moral and strategic leadership during the cold war. europe still faces many challenges today, mainly because of our neglect of the crisis in syria, but for centuries prior, europe was driven by conflict. european peace was thought to be impossible. yet that is what nato and other institutions have helped achieve with american support wha. would asia look like right now had the united states not helped it to rebuild after the second world war? look at the way that american leadership helped allow south

korea to go from a poor country, a dictatorship to a vibrant deck mom crazy and one of the largest economies in the world. south korea is now a net donor to foreign aid and a crucial ally for us and a region that includes an aggressive china and a belligerent north korea. japan has gone from a country devastated by war and not trusted by its neighbors to one of the most peaceful societies in the world. it has also become a net contributor to global security to humanitarian assistance programs. then there's the middle east. whether or not we should continue to play a role there is a question that weighs particularly heavy on the many minds of americans. i understand the doubts and the frustrations. we've been involved in the region for decades. nothing seems to be getting better. and despite our attempts to help, we watch on television as some celebrate our tragedies and burn our flag in the arab street. it's true that we cannot solve all of the region's problems,

but we have an interest in what happens there nonetheless. that interest is served by our involvement, not by our withdrawal. isis arose in the first place because of the political instability that exists in both syria and iraq and that instability was created in part because president obama withdrew or withheld american leadership at crucial moments. failing to lead costs us more in the long term than it saved us in the short term. and we will continue to pay a steep price each time we fail to lead in the future. there are complex considerations to make regarding our engagement in every region, but i believe a world without sustained american engagement is not a world any of us want to live in. and this idea shared by prominent voices in both parties, that america is such a weak nation that we cannot afford to be engaged in the world, that idea is one of the biggest lies ever told to the american people. just because our government leaders are weak does not mean america is weak.

no american wants to live in the world where vladimir putin sets the agenda or isis holds us hostage to their demands yet this is the world we are heading towards as political leaders continue to embrace america's decline. defense spending is currently at roughly 3.3% of our budget compared to 14% at the height of the korean war. our army is on track to be at preworld war ii levels. our navy is already at prewoarld war i levels and our air force has the smallest and oldest combat force in its history. these are the results of specific policy choices made by politicians right here. it is no accident that the result has been more conflict around the world and less american influence. i saw firsthand on a recent trip to iraq how our men and women in uniform around the world are doing their best to keep us safe with limited resources. we've put them in an untenable position. they are asked to maintain our global commitments, fight isis

and other terrorist groups and deter countries such as russia, iran, north korea, and china. they and our country deserve better. spend less abroad so we can spend more at home has become a common refrain among leaders in both parties. it is used to excuse cuts to the military and our presentation around the world -- presence around the world. the truth is the defense budget is not the primary driver of the debt. that's our entitlements programs and every time we try to cut a dollar from our military, it seems to cost us several more just to make up for it. in addition to investing in our strength, we must apply that strength in a way that respects our value, and supports our economic interests. americans deserve a foreign policy we can be proud of but for the last eight years, we have had a commander in chief who praises and appeases dictators to promote the illusion of peace. some in my own party have now adopted a similar approach. they may claim to represent different ideas but both emanate from the same notion that americans are too tired, that

america is too weak and we are too much like the rest of the world to stand up to tyrants so we should just cut deals with them instead. this is not only morally wrong, it is contrary to our interests. whenever our foreign policy comes unhinged from its moral purpose, it weakens global stability and it forms cracks in our national resolve but whenever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our nation are born. we must restore america's willingness to stay boldly what we stand for and why. just as reagan never flinched in his criticisms of the soviet union, we must not shy away from demanding that china allow true freedom for its 1.3 billion people or boldly stating that vladimir putin is a corrupt thug, nor should we hesitate in calling the source of atrocities in the middle east by its real name, radical islam. we should always stand with israel and not abandon the cause of freedom in our own homes fear and allow cruel and immoral dictators in crew bah and

venezuela to be absolved of their crimes. the world needs america's military strength as our people and economy do. no other nation can deter global conflict by its presence alone. in other nation can offer the security and benevolence that america can. no other nation can be trusted to defend peace and advance liberty. america cannot avoid its role as a global leader. but we also know america cannot be tasked with protecting the world on its own. it will take an international order of free nations with free economies to do so. we must work with like-minded allies whenever possible and encourage them to do their part, but no other nation has the ability to organize or lead such a coalition if we fail to do so. that is why i will continue to make the case for an engaged america, no matter who our next president -- who becomes our next president and no matter how the political winds may blow. our safety and prosperity dependen -- depend on it.

the ideal of america depends on it. that was true last century, and it is even more so today. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

sulaymaniyah madam president? the presidinofficer. mr. sullivan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m. monday, may 23, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 422, s. 2613, understand that there be one hour -- and that there be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. i disport the grassley amendment -- i further ask the grassley amendment be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on s. 2613, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

sol i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 46 -- 476, s. res. 469. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 476, senate resolution 469, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the 1916 easter rising, a seminal moment in the journey of ireland to independence. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? no objection. mr. sullivan: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. somr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, may 23. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders

to be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leaders' remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> the senate today passed a combined 2017 transportation housing and military va spending bill which included $1.1 billion in zika virus research funding. the house passed a $622 million zika bill yesterday and they will look to go to conference with the senate on their version of the bill. the sin is not in session

tomorrow. live coverage when members return next week here on c-span2. elsewhere on the hill this week senate democrats held a forum on judge merrick garland nomination to the supreme court your top legal and government officials spoke on judge garland record and character. republicans called the forum a desperate act. president obama nominated merrick garland to fill just as silly as a seat on the supreme court over two months ago in march. senate republicans continue to refuse to hold a hearing on his nomination. >> incidentally before we start with a couple more members coming over. we have a number of civic teachers in the ibm's. would they raise their hands, please? quite a few civics teachers. i was talking to some of them. i'm delighted to see schools teaching civics and history.

and when you get done come a mighty good for you to come and do a little seminar for the senators. [laughter] i'm sorry. was that my out loud voice? [laughter] this morning my fellow members are this morning, chairman grassley convened a senate judiciary committee confirmation hearing. i wish we had confirmed some of the people have been voted out a glaring omission in their chief judge merrick garland. it has been more than two months since he was nominated to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. in fact totally unprecedented. he would've are we had a public hearing, would be poised to report them out of the committee. what bothers me is because he does not have a hearing and i'm

not allowed to have a hearing, his record is being smeared by outside groups, some of these packs and others. while some republicans deny this distinguished jurist a public hearing and a fair opportunity. i can't convene a confirmation hearing in. we are in the minority. but just because republicans refused to do their job on judge garland's nomination doesn't mean that we democrats will stop doing ours. we take our constitutional duty seriously. and if there's any doubt about the need to have a fully functioning supreme court, decisions handed down this week are the latest evidence of the harm stemming from it. the supreme court has repeatedly failed to a decision. they have left the courts of appeals below them in limbo because they don't have a full-court and can't make a decision.

now, i know that the decision not to give them a hearing was done in a closed-door hearing. this is an open one, and we afford people here i know them personally. we have donatella, a former prosecutor. should work with merrick garland the justice department from 1993-1997. she's part of the team that investigated and prosecuted the oklahoma city bombing, one of the most complex investigations prosecutions without in this country. justin driver, a professor of law at university of chicago law school prep equipped for the chief judge garland 40 court on the supreme court for justice sandra day o'connor and justice stephen breyer. i do know, the professor is now retired justice o'connor said we should be having a full

nomination hearing and a vote of merrick garland. and secretary rodney slater is the former secretary of transportation under president bill clinton. he previously served as the first african-american meditative federal highway administration as an old friend. and judge timothy lewis is a former judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. so he knows very well how circuit court to work. he was appointed by president george h. w. bush in 1992. i had the privilege of voting to confirm him. he also served as a federal district judge in the western district of pennsylvania. so what i suggest we do, probably has each of the

witnesses say why they are here. we will put their full statement in the record, but if we could then ask questions of the witnesses. and i wonder, and not just because of the vermont connection or the fact we are both former prosecutors, but let me -- [inaudible] >> you could say she's because she's a woman. [laughter] >> we also have a italian ancestry. spewing well, and she's a woman and should go first. [laughter] >> i will be the last person to argue with senator feinstein who is one of the most valuable members of this committee. please, go ahead. [inaudible] >> thank you. it's my honor and privilege to be here today to talk to you a little bit about someone who i know very, very well, we worked very closely together at the

department of justice, judge merrick garland. we have known one another. we are at doj in 1993-1997. but i think probably the time we really bonded with the days of oklahoma city bombing. he and i were out of there. we were probably the first people out there from the department of justice, excluding the team from the western district of oklahoma, the oklahoma city prosecutors. i got an opportunity at that time to see merrick firsthand deal with utmost chaos and tragedy, and the entire time just focusing on what needed to be done that the prosecution had to occur, that the investigation need to be done in the right way. and to make sure that the rule of law is going to be followed, and that emotions would not take any part of what we were doing. and it was an interesting time.

it was chaos. everybody wanted to stop what they were doing because it was the most horrific crime on american soil at the time. but we had to go forward. we had to bring the perpetrators to justice. we had to find out what was going on, what had actually happened. we also had, like i'd never seen before in my entire professional life as a prosecutor, more tools, more agents, more cops, more first responders all in one spot, and all anybody wanted to do was help. and we need somebody to be the conductor and orchestrate all that energy, all that smartness, all that brain, all that power to go ahead and investigate the case. and i can answer 20 questions with you but merrick and i literally, when you got there, we walked the building. we walked through the murrah building, round of the murrah building. at the time we walked past the day care center.

neither of us said anything. we just kept walking, and never cars that literally were still smoldering in between the murrah building and in between the daily register. they were cadaver dogs, first rescue dogs and cadaver dogs, trying to find the remains of the people that perished in that building that day. and walking through there, it was more not being talked about. actually we didn't talk about it until the 20 year reunion when we were both in oklahoma city. we finally just talked about it, and both of us had tears in her eyes the whole time. to spend our eyes did not happen when we were in oklahoma city. too much adrenaline and too much try to make sure that we were doing our jobs for the american people. but there were a lot of people that are strong personalities. and watching merrick literally navigate his way to make sure that everybody had a role, everybody had their voices

heard, was just something remarkable. merrick is calm under pressure. you never really know what's going on in his head. aunties always 25 steps ahead of everybody else. and there were some decisions that were made early on in that investigation that but for merrick we could have made a mistake. we could've made lots of mistakes because at the time everybody just wanted to do so the evidence at us without making that our papers were documented, and that we then exactly what was needed to be done in following the rule of law. but i'm going to allow the rest of my colleagues here to speak about merrick, and i will be more than happy to answer any questions about judge garland and about his qualifications. >> thank you. and judge lewis, we've heard we can move forward because it's an election year year you were nominated to the third circuit

september 1992, which was an election year. it's also a presidential election year. you were nominated by a republican president. there was a senate democrats were in the majority, and we got you through confirmation in october of the election year. am i correct on those dates? [inaudible] >> yes, you are correct. >> would it be safe to say that if the democrats had given the republican president nominated you, if we had said there is an election year exception, you would not have been confirmed? >> i think it is fair to say that. and i think it's also fair to say that especially when it comes to nominations for the united states supreme court, i have never been aware of an election-year exception until

this happened your yes. i was nominated by president george h. w. bush for vacancy on the third circuit court of appeals on i believe september 18, 1992. this, of course, was on the eve of the presidential election. it was a hotly contested one, of course, as they all are. and i was unanimously confirmed on october 8. the election was november 3. i am living proof that that can happen. and i am also living proof that the republic still survives and goes on, and does fairly well, i hope. you know, it's also true that not only did the party who then

was the majority party in the senate and, obviously, on the committee, proceed with my nomination and confirmation as well as others, on the eve of the election, but that party also took the white house. so there was, as i wrote in my statement, really no harm, no foul. and i think that at that time, this was now 24 years ago, there was a culture of bipartisanship that is severely lacking today. and that's most unfortunate. you know, i come from a wonderful commonwealth that has produced the likes of q. scott, david schweikert, arlen specter, my current senator casey.

this is so unfortunate to those of us who witnessed over the years my home state senators crossed the aisle, reach out, work to get things done in so many ways. john heinz. and today we are mired in a very unfortunate and dysfunctional place that is resulting in what is going on now with respect to a wonderful judge, highly qualified nominee, and incidentally, a terrific human being, merrick garland. so you ask why i am here. i am here because i refuse to accept that. and i think of the country should refuse to accept it, too. i believe that it is the

responsibility of the united states senate, just as it is the responsibility of citizens of this country, to rise above these petty self interests and to act with honor and with decency. and i think that that is compelled by their oath that members of this body have taken. i think that we respect values and traditions that are time-honored, such as the confirmation process. just a hearing, whether or not they confirmation even happens remains to be seen. but a hearing, the decency to provide a hearing held that the american public if you judge garland under questioning, vetted fully, at a minimum is a decent thing to do. whether it is compelled by law or not, it is certainly compelled by tradition and

decency. i am also here because i believe that the united states supreme court should never be viewed as a political arm, an ideological arm of any political party. i detest as a former federal judge and as an american citizen seeing that occur today. i believe that the supreme court must remain above the fray, because it is a symbol of our greatest aspirations as a society. and i believe that we have to do whatever we can come and that's what i did today, to help ensure that continues. thank you. >> thank you very much. i had the privilege of serving with both senator hugh scott and senator john heinz, and i agree with what you said. and, of course, with former secretary rodney slater who i mentioned before. we've talked about this, and

the, this nomination. so i'll turn it to you, secretary slater. please go ahead. >> thank you. thank you, senator, thank you senators. i would actually like to begin with reference to the comments just made by judge lewis. because it's interesting that i was making my way to washington, hopefully, because we were in the midst of a very rigorous campaign during that period, october 1992. and i was working for a young governor from a small state, arkansas. and for me just the anticipation of what that journey could be about. it never became clear and tell now the interesting thread that

actually ties us all together as we move across the political process through our system that can take us from one administration to the next, that allows our country to continue to move forward as a beacon of light and hope for democracies around the world. it's clear from judge lewis' comments that we gather, not for any partisan purpose, but as believers in the constitution. a constitution that does cost us all to take a solid oath to defend and to support the constitution. and has given some of us the opportunity to be nominated by the president and then confirmed by the senate. that is a very sacred and special process. and it is something to be

treasured and guarded. it is also something to be defended. and so in that spirit of just seeing how one administration can move to the next and a process can go forward to bring one appropriately to a seat on the bench and another into an administration, frankly, that would have the opportunity to say to ms. bucella, thank you, and thank you, judge garland, for the work that you did in responding to the oklahoma city bombing. i was the federal highway administrator during my first step in the federal government. -- first stint. we lost 11 individuals, members of our team can work part of the

168 killed that day. and it was in that breach of a hollowed out federal building of shattered lives and of great uncertainty that ms. bucella and judge garland stepped forward to protect and defend. and so i am here to say things for that effort. i'm also here to say to judge garland and to say to all of you that he and i actually have this special relationship with an individual that i would also like to lift up at this moment. his name is mr. william t. coleman. he was the first african-american secretary of transportation. he was appointed, nominated and confirmed during the ford administration. and so he, too, came to the fore

a special time, and he gave me council when i was going through the process. but he's also a very dear friend to judge garland. interestingly, they both are honored and distinguished graduate of the harvard school of law. they both clerked at the supreme court, and they both have a font and committed respect for the law and for the rule of law. and so i lift up his connection as well. and then finally i would just like to say this. when my wife and i came to washington, we didn't know a lot of people. we had a young daughter. her name was bridget, and we met the garlands who had two daughters, merrick in lynn. and their daughters, rebecca and jesse, gave us a sense of the

place and helped us become comfortable in the place. and so over the years we've gone to a host of parent teacher meetings. we've gone to parents of nights. we going to sporting events. we've talked about the folks -- hopes and dreams and aspirations for our daughters. and so i come also to say that this is a good man. he's a devoted husband your he's a doting father, and he is an engaged and committed parent. and so i'm just very, very pleased to be here in disconnected group of individuals to lift my voice in support of judge garland's nomination to the united states supreme court. >> thank you very, very much. professor driver, as i said, is a professor of law of university of chicago law school. ps insights on this, he clerked for chief judge garland come

also clerked for two supreme court judges, justices, juan sandra day o'connor who was nominated by ronald reagan, and the other justice stephen breyer who was nominated by president bill clinton. so please go ahead. >> menace of the senate, i am honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today in order to comment on the nomination of chief judge garland to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. as the sitter just mentioned, i had a post of serving as a law clerk to judge garland on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit from 2005-2006. quicken for judge garland was an invaluable experience. it was without question the most formative single year of my entire career. as has been well documented by now, judge garland possesses an

unbelievably sharp analytical mind. he worked very long hours in order to make sure that these cases, out in the right way. he is, many people have said, a judge is a judge. he's a judicial craftsman of the highest order. and in order to do that, it takes long hours immersing himself in the cases and the breeze, talking about the cases with the clerks in order to make sure that he's reaching the right conclusion. in his approach to the law, he deliberately avoids offering some sort of grand and sweeping pronouncements and instead keeps the opinions narrow so as to dispose of the cases that are before him, and to honor the existing precedents. he also make sure that he never loses sight of the fact that these legal opinions that he and his colleagues produced influence the lives of ordinary

citizens. very aware of that. so to say he is meticulous in his approach, and nothing better and sympathize that i give him before he which circulated the opinions to his colleagues on the d.c. circuit, he would have two law clerks, one standing on either side of him, and he would read each word of the draft opinion allowed in order to make sure that everything was exactly right and be open to last minute modifications. that's diplomatic of his attitude towards the law. he's also as they say measured in his approach to the law. he had an uncommon ability to attend by common ground among his fellow judges. he brought people, you know, from different backgrounds and different viewpoints together as a way of fostering consensus. he dissented very, very few times during his years on the

d.c. circuit. and he is absolutely first rate demeanor. one of the first questions that he would ask when he would return to our chambers after oral argument would be how was my demeanor on the bench? he wanted to make sure that he was asking the tough questions but that he was also being fair to the attorneys before him, and demonstrating respect for these people who are working with him in order to shape our legal enterprise. it's that attitude and that willingness to see people and try to see things from their perspective that has won him a host of admirers on, who are republicans, but who are also lawyers, epidemic a judge garland as being someone who is open-minded and fair minded and demonstrate all of the qualities of being a first rate justice. before i close justice. before a close-up which is a couple of things about some of judge garland personal

characteristics that inspires such a deep loyalty among the law clerks. you know, you clerked for judge garland for one year and then he stands by you or the rest of your life. you know, there are two instances of relatively recent vintage in my own life that demonstrate that he stands by his law clerks two times difficult and joyous alike. when my mother died a little more than two years ago, judge garland wrote an incredibly warm note offering the condolences for my loss. when i received an endowed chair at the university of chicago a few months ago, judge garland was among the very first people to reach out and congratulate me on that honor. so difficult and joyous, he is there by your side. so the other thing is that one of the really vivid and indelible images from my time during the clerkship is right around 6 p.m., judge garland

would be, i would see him sort of furiously and feverishly packing cases and binders into his briefcase, and rushing out of the office with a quick goodnight to make sure that he made it home to dinner with his wife and his two daughters. there was nothing there was more important than that. he wanted to the material later in evening in order to review, but nothing was more important than that. the other thing is i remember a very early conversation that i had with him. judge garland had an incisive views about adam levine's vocal stylings, and maroon five. he's incredibly sort of insightful commentary about the relative merits of their move from. i was confused. seemingly staid guy. he was in his early '50s but nonetheless he knows his pop bands. the reason of course is because he would drive his daughters to

school and at least periodically would allow them to commandeer the car's audio system. and so the lesson to at least this father was that you need to engage your children at least sometimes on their own terms, and when you do so, they do it with a bigger. so by his intellect expended, character, i'm confident chief judge garland would make an excellent associate justice on the supreme court. conversely, the failure to confirm chief judge garland's nomination to the supreme court would represent not only a great injustice for this particular nominee, but may also i fear work in catastrophic consequences for our constitutional order. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator feinstein has spoken strongly on this, and i'm going

to yield, of course certain feinstein, going by senator casey of pennsylvania. i don't know if you heard the nice comments judge lewis made earlier about you and some of your predecessors. senator feinstein. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and to those with testified today i just want to say thank you, and specifically rod slater. i say i knew you before you had gray hair into a. i hope it wasn't the federal government that put it there, but it probably was. will come back. it's good to see you. >> thank senator. >> i would like to ask this question because it's one of the things that has really bothered me, and that has to do with leaving for a substantial period of time. the united states supreme court in a tight position, i 4-4

position when we know the court is divided. and what impact that's going to have. i think there are many who estimate that the time is likely to be a year and a half by the time you get through the vetting process and all of this, that you can process another nominee. so i wanted to ask the question as to what happens when the court accepts, when the lower, what happens when the court is tied and the lower courts are split and is unable to resolve a case? we have seen that already in for a tie vote, and public secretary of labor case from my home state, a death penalty case, a state sovereignty case, and the gender discrimination case. and this week the court essentially deferred on an important issue involving whether religiously affiliated nonprofits can with old contraceptive coverage from

their employees. that's an issue that is vitally important to women nationwide. so i would like to have your views on what happens when you have a 4-4 split your could we begin with you, professor driver? >> sure. so the technical answer is that when the court is 4-4, that it's affirmed by an equally divided court without setting any residential value. exactly as the senator suggests. the result is that a conflict that exists in the federal court remains a conflict. and it's an issue that the court has identified as needing uniform federal law. that's a major reason the supreme court exists. and that function cannot happen when the justices are equally

divided. >> could you explain what does happen when the appellate court has made a decision, and then the court is tied? >> yeah. so the result is a lack of uniformity where the court of appeals have reached differing answers, and it creates oftentimes uncertainty into the law and it's difficult for all sorts of citizens. i should also say that given the potentially lengthy timeline in absence, that it could shape the cases that the court instead appearing. and so they cases that are currently not being decided in effect were already in the pipeline before justice scalia's death. but during the search state when the court is looking to agree,

one could imagine a scenario whereby they would say there's a chance that we could be deadlocked. and in order to avoid a deadlock there still and lack of uniformity with respect to the federal law year and the justices have gone to great lengths in order to avoid reaching a deadlock, but sometimes that will introduce more uncertainty into the law for the reasons you identified earlier, where one attempts to send something back down without deciding, as we saw in the import of reproduction rights decision. the court views itself as articulating generally applicable principles, not merely resolving a dispute between a few parties. and so it seems like a very undesirable consequence. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator schumer, are you -- please go ahead. >> thank you. at a want to thank the witnesses. i mean, what you were doing is

allowing the public to see what we senators who have had a chance to meet merrick garland, and seeing just what a fine jurist he is. we find judge he is, and what a fine individual years. and the fact that now the public ensure some of the i think is extremely important. each other testimonies really was powerful. in regard to that. it's a shame my republican colleagues, especially those who did not sit down with judge garland are not here to hear that. there's only one benefit. i can go immediately after senator feinstein. we don't have to alternate with the other side, but i would say that the weight in a minute for hearing, for them of being here and having a real hearing. one of the things i'd like to focus on is what i've learned about judge garland. his ability to bring different

sites together and unify an opinion. he has the reputation at least you all would do better than me, of being a great listener. he's a really brilliant man buddy list and. he doesn't make up his own mind and then try to push people in that direction. this is particularly important this week to think of being a unified because we are celebrating the anniversary of the historic brown v. board decision. obviously, a very contentious case, but due to the efforts of one of our greatest chief justice's, chives, justice earl warren was headed and unanimously and that help move the nation forward and heal the nation. so the importance of personality on the court is really important. the importance of a personality to find consensus. so first let me ask you, judge lewis. and by the way, you were, to show you the breadth of this, as i understand it, judge lewis,

you testified on behalf of judge alito was one of your colleagues on the third circuit we had his hearing, even though i believe he was nominated by george bush. there was no attempt to block it or hold of the. but you would do for a witness for is downright? >> that's right. >> what i want you to talk about, give us a sense of how judge garland brings people together. and again, then to professor driver, the same as his clerk, how he is sort of, his story, unique ability to do that. if you could elaborate on that so we could hear it. >> thank you very much, senator schumer. i especially thank you for reminding us that this is a period of time when we celebrate the supreme court's decision in brown v. board of education,

which was handed down the year of my birth, 1954, and has thus played a very significant role throughout my entire life in many different ways. and i say that for more than just the fact that we are observing it this week your i first met judge garland at the home of one of the key advisers to the legal team, justice thurgood marshall, and others in that case. i was at bill coleman's home, and bill coleman was hosting a dinner to honor the integration of the federal judiciary. we were there, he and i were co-chairing an event that was held here in washington. it was a biannual gathering of all of the federal judges of

color called just the beginning can and we are hosting a dinner. he was hosting a dinner with some people, and merrick garland was my dinner made. he sat right next to me. we had a wonderful conversation, got to know him then. and, of course, in later years i obviously followed his work on the court come into at your question directly, was especially impressed with the number of unanimous decisions that the author to which as you pointed out is an indication of a consensus builder. and consensusbuilding was at the very core of the meeting, the importance of brown v. board of education, a unanimous decision. chief justice demanded that it be unanimous and did everything possible to ensure that that would happen because he knew the import of that case and what would mean for the country. why is that also very significant to why we are here