talks about israel's foreign policy. supreme court nominee merrick garland met with three senators today, including susan collins, one of a few republicans to call for confirmation meetings. after the meeting, senator

collins spoke to capitol hill reporters. >> you are still here. i'm shocked. does this mean you want me here? okay. i have just concluded a more than hour long meeting with judge garland. it was an excellent meeting that allowed us to explore many of the issues that i would raise with any nominee to the supreme court as well as some of the criticisms that have been levied against him. the meeting left me more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. the next step, in my view, should be public hearings. but for the judiciareudiciary c so the issues we explored in my office can be publically aired. and so that senators can have a

better opportunity to flesh out all of the issues that we discussed. i would be glad to take any questions anyone might have. >> are you going to approach leader mcconnell about your request and how much influence will you have with him and chairman grassley to relent on the no hearings, no vote? >> first of all, it's my understanding that senator grassley has agreed to meet with judge garland. so let's see if after that meeting senator grassley still holds to the position that there should not be hearings. i believe that the majority leader and senator grassley are very sincere in their belief that the next president should make this decision. i don't happen to agree with that. and i believe that we should follow the normal order and proceed with public hearings. >> senator collins, what about this meeting made you more

convinced that the process should go forward? is it talking about his qualifications or what? >> i found the judge to be extremely straightforward. he answered all of my questions. it was a lengthy meeting. i brought up issues ranging from second amendment cases to executive overreach to the role of the court to perceptions of the court. and he gave very thorough, impressive responses to all of my questions. >> senator collins -- >> if you had an opportunity to vote for mr. garland, would you consider voting for him or would you vote for him? >> would i in fact -- >> would you vote for him if you had the opportunity ? >> it's premature for me to reach that conclusion. whenever there has been a nominee to the supreme court, i always wait until after the public hearings are held before reaching a decision.

that's only prudent, because after public hearings, you have a far better sense of the nominee. we covered a lot of ground in our hour-long meeting. but obviously, public hearings with many senators posing questions allows for far more in-depth review of the qualifications, decisions, philosophy of the nominee. >> how disappointed are you at the stance of no hearing stance? >> in my time in the senate, i have always found that whether it's legislation, nominations or treaties, that we are best served by following the regular order that produces better bills, it makes sure that nominees are fully vetted and

that, to me, is the way that we should proceed. i am not optimistic that i will be changing minds on this issue. but i think if more of my colleagues sit down with judge garland that they are going to be impressed with him. >> senator collins, can i build on that answer by asking you whether as a result of today's meeting you will try to recruit more republican senator support for these meetings? >> i have already spoken out at the republican caucus and expressed my views. so my views are not a secret to my colleagues. i would encourage all of my colleagues to sit down with judge garland. i believe that that's how the process should work and works best when we have these one on one meetings followed by public hearings. >> senator, beyond the principal of regular order, what about the

strategy -- can you comment on the strategy of mcconnell in terms of how risky it is that hillary clinton could become president and nominate someone much more liberal in talking to him, do you feel like he would be a good choice for republicans if that happens? >> i don't want to comment on the majority leader's strategy. that's really a question that should be directed to him. i will say that from the conversation that i just had, i found that judge garland was -- he has humility about him. he has clearly thought very deeply about the issues confronting the courts. there was not any question that he could not handle. and he has a long record of accomplishment as a jurist on the d.c. circuit for 19 years.

it would be ironic if the next president happens to be a democrat and chooses someone who is far to judge garland's left. but we really don't know what's going to happen in this very strange political year. so i think what we should do is follow the normal process with the nominee that has been sent up by the president. and that, to me, is the best way to proceed. >> last question. >> you said that -- do you think he could change your colleagues' minds in the meetings and cause them to call for a hearing? >> it's always hazardous to predict what one's colleagues are going to do or how they're going to react. all i can do is report on my meeting. and i found judge garland to be

well informed, thoughtful, impressive, extraordinarily bright and with a sensitivity that i look for to the appropriate roles that the constitution assigns to the three branchs. thank you. >> thank you. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, jonathan swann, national political reporter for the hill. he will join us to discuss tuesday's primary results in wisconsin. he will look ahead to this weekend's contest in colorado and wyoming as well as the key race in new york later this month. then kyle pomerlo, economist for tax foundation, a tax research group, he will be on to talk about tax proposals put forth by democrats and republicans running for president.

also carrie arnold will be with us to discuss her article on the controversy over school-based nutrition and bmi screenings for students. she writes about how the measures are meant to improve the health of students but some show the methods are triggering deadly eating disorders in children. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. the treasury department recently took steps to prevent the practice of tax inversions where international corporations move their headquarters overseas to avoid u.s. taxes. president obama spoke today about what the federal government is doing to close the tax inversion loophole. this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm horning in on josh's time for a hot second.