instead of a place to pursue public policy, they have become machines. instead of being a place for people to serve the people, it becomes a place for people to be served by the people, who are more interested in keeping the title then making a difference. where it doesn't matter what happens to social security and medicare, it is never the right time to deal with it because it could cost you my next election. we have been failed by the media, and i know it is easy to beat up on the media. they cover politics as entertainment instead of serious discourse. [applause] senator rubio: because i promise you this, i promise you this, if i stand here right now and hurled a personal insult, i will get a ton of coverage from those cameras. if i do not, only a handful of people find out this event ever happened. ok. we have been failed by higher education, by stagnant higher

education that is a monopoly. colleges and universities are the only ones allowed to serve degrees without providing a job in the worst part of it is, they borrowed money to pay for the degree so now they have thousands and thousands of dollars in student loans. and that you only job he can get, they could have gotten without the degree. we have been failed by every big institution. every day, we find out they have cheated someone. they lied about something. they lied to their stockholders, investors, took multimillion dollar bonuses while the company was going into the tank. we have been failed by everyone and people are not confident in our institutions and it leads to anger and frustration. that is why leadership matters. leadership does not come to you and say, let's be angry and angrier.

leadership says, yes, we have real problems and we also have answers and solutions. the solutions do not lie in one person. i always get uncomfortable and people say, we put all of our faith in you. i am a man. you cut me, i believe. i make mistakes. ask my wife. [laughter] senator rubio: we do not put confidence in men. we put our confidence in his system, a republic that says we the people govern ourselves by loving our fellow citizens to serve for a brief amount of time in office and then they're supposed to come home and let someone else to do it. we put ourselves in a system of faith. we get rid of people who do a bad job. we send people who would do a good job. that is what we put her faith

in. we put our real faith in our lives and communities. we know that the biggest impact we will ever have is the job we have as a husband and a wife, mother and father. he put our faith in the fact that the real america is not our government. america is not a government. it is a country made up of people who every single day are making a difference. volunteering today at sunday school, they made a difference. getting up tomorrow morning and open up the door of a small business that employs 10 people, they made a difference. tomorrow afternoon, leaving work an hour early to get the next one a ride to a doctor's visit gazette elderly gentleman orlie -- because that elderly lady or gentleman cannot drive themselves. they made a difference. when they took $10 a month to contribute to their church or charity, not because of a tax break, but their faith teaches them caring for one another is

how we serve the lord. when we visit the crisis pregnancy center ice on south carolina, where the cyrillic women who will never have a book written about them -- where these heroic women, who will never have a book written about them, a movie made about them, are saving lives by convincing young girls not to give up on a life. they are making a difference. [applause] senator rubio: that is what we place our faith in. this is what we have always been and this is what we must remain. this election is as much about that as anything else. every country in the world, you go to latin america, the third world, they are be doubled by leaders who stand up and say, i am going to be a strong leader, i will solve all of your problems. give me your life and i will solve your problems.

it always ends in disaster. our founders knew better and did not want that kind of system. our founders wanted to have a system where government was small and the power was in the government divided because they did not trust people. they did not trust what men and women do when given power, especially absolute power and now we are being asked to abandon that by society at large and politics today, and we should not. we will regret it for a long time if we do. instead, i ask you in this election to embrace us what made us great to begin with. to embrace leaders who understand what the proper role of government is, but do not ask you to give you their vote on fear and hopelessness, but instead to vote for them on the basis of how great our country can be if we do what needs to be done, because i believe with all my heart and i hope you do as well, that if we do what we need to do, we have a chance to lead this country better than it has ever been. the 21st century is made for us. there are literally hundreds of

millions of people on this planet who can afford to buy things from us now. i am talking about people who are starting a decade ago. i am talking about people that two decades ago were literally eating and drinking water out of puddles and now these people drive cars. they own homes and go on vacations and buy things in the stores, because after communism fell, free enterprise broke around the world and it listed people into prosperity and they want to buy things from us and trade with us and they want to be our investors and partners and collaborators and clients and customers. it is tailor made for us. the 21st century is about innovation. there are no more integrated people on the world than us. no one is more integrated than americans. the 21st century is made for us if we do what needs to be done. that is why i am running for president, because i want this generation to do its part. america is a special country and i know this personally because of my parents in 1956, had they stayed to cuba -- stayed in cuba, i may never have been born. you have to be very optimistic about the future to have two kids in your 40's.

[laughter] [applause] senator rubio: more importantly, even if i had been born, if they had gone to any other nation on earth, there is no way i am standing on a stage in front of my fellow citizens, aspiring for the highest office in the land. in a most every society that is ever existed, success depends where you come from. in a most every society on earth, your future is largely determined for you on the day you were born. if your parents are wealthy or powerful, you will probably be wealthy and powerful. if they are not, no matter how hard you work or how good you

are, you are usually stock in that station in life you are born into. america is different. here, because we are founded on the belief that we have a god-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the customer founded on the ability -- believe that everyone has a god-given chance to go as far as her talent takes them, it has been different. it is different not by accident. we are not special by accident. this did not happen on its own. it happened because of her two centuries, each generation before us did what they had to do. anyone who says we had a great and easy and now it is so hard is lying to you. there has never been an easy time in american history. we were founded by declaring independence from the most powerful empire in the world and then we had a civil war that almost ended the country and then we had a first world war which was bloody, on another continent by the way. then we had a great depression that white people out.

as soon as that was over, we had a second world war that we'll must loss. right after the second world war ended, we were plunged into a long and dangerous cold war. world war ii had barely ended and that not long after, vietnam. the 60's were a difficult time. political leaders were assassinated and america was ripped apart with the civil rights. long gas lines, disco music. horrible things. [laughter] senator rubio: some people like it disco music. i do not know. whatever. we survived it. when have we had it easy? when can you look back and say, that was a time when there was still problems? it has never happened. being special is not easy. having what we have is not easy. every generation before us had to do something. every generation before us was called to great sacrifice, hard decisions, tough choices and hard work and they did it. for over two centuries, each generation before us did not fail the next. for over two centuries, each generation left the other better

off. my friends, the time has come for this generation to do its part. the moment has arrived for us to do what needs to be done, and i would submit to you while our challenges are significant, i think they are easier than the challenges faced by people before us. i think balancing our budget is easier than defeating nazi germany. i think fixing our tax code is easier than the cold war. i think repealing and replacing obamacare one not be as hard as making the to the great depression. they are hard, but it is worth doing. i want you to know -- and when i am president of united states we're going to do it. when i am president of the united states, we will confront our challenges, embrace our opportunity and do what each

generation before us has done and that is whatever it takes to make the next better off than ourselves. when our work is done, despite how dark things seem now, how difficult they may be, i want you to know what history will write about us. i want you to know what history will say about you and i and those at this moment. it will recognize we live in a difficult time. that the economy was changing and disrupting people's lives, the world spiraling out of control, institutions failing us, and after eight years of barack obama and one crazy election, we came this close to getting it wrong. we did. we came this close to losing the promise of america. but then in 2016, we remembered who we were and we remembered what america was. like the generations before us, we came to our senses and we confronted our problems and resolve them. we embraced our opportunity. when our work was done, because

we did what needed to be done, our children became the freest and most prosperous americans that ever lived in the american dream to not just survive, it reached more people and change more lives than ever before because we did what needed to be done. the 21st century begin the greatest era in american history. it became a new american century. this is the opportunity for us if we do what needs to be done and i'm running for president because we will get it done. when i am the president, you will have a president that is for all americans. ims conservative as anyone running for president. a conservatism that did not just start two years ago, but one that is evidence by 15 years of public service in which the lights go off at inopportune times. [laughter] senator rubio: and then come

back on. it is a message. [laughter] senator rubio: that is happened that a couple of events. someone leaned on something on the wall or the chinese have hacked us once again. [laughter] senator rubio: ims conservative as anyone running or has ever run for president, and yet i believe you can be a principled and strong conservative and yet be a president for all of america. if you want to be president of the united states, you have to love the american people, all of them, even the ones who do not love you back. you have to serve all the american people, even the ones who do not like you, even the ones that do not vote for you, even the ones that say nasty things about you. if you do not want to do that, become a talk show host. if you do not want to do that, become a blogger. if you want to be president, you must be willing to be america -- president for all of america, not delivered late divide us and that is the president i want to be every day. so i am here asking for your vote. [applause] senator rubio: i will close with this.

i will close with this. five years ago, i came here a couple times, and the underdog running for the u.s. senate. my opponent was the sitting governor in florida, leading in the polls had 10 times as much money, super popular and no one thought we could win. but you believed in me and you gave me a chance. i told you if you did, i would go to washington and stand up for the obama agenda -- standup to the obama agenda. that is what i have done. in five years i have concluded that while a member of congress can help shape the agenda, only a president can set the agenda, and the only way to set a right agenda after a bad president is to have a good one. the only way to make our country stronger after seven years of a

weak president is to have a strong one. that is why i chose not to run for reelection to the senate and aspired to the presidency of the united states and that is why i hope you can vote for me so that together, we can leave your children and grandchildren, what they deserve to inherit, the single greatest nation. thank you so much and god bless you. [applause] ♪

senator rubio: thank you. i am so grateful to you being here. you look good, man. thank you. >> god bless you. >> i am from pennsylvania. senator rubio: you are? [laughter] >> we are going for you. >> i wish i could vote hundred times. senator rubio: so do i. thank you. i need your help.

>> road to the white house continues with john kasich. the live coverage begins at 6:00. withe campaign continues ,he primaries in missouri illinois, ohio, and north carolina. 7:00.overage begins at we will take you on the road to the white house. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> bernie sanders and hillary clinton were the guest speakers at the legacy dinner. ohio will be holding a presidential primary vote.

we begin with the introduction for bernie sanders. >> please welcome to the stage, congresswoman marcy kaptur. congresswoman marcy kaptur: good evening. are privilegede to be here in this ballroom. civil,gratified by the intelligent, and steadfast campaign hillary clinton and bernie sanders are conducting for the nation. inside our party, the greatest progress has been made for the country and we are about the

serious is this of the election of the free world -- serious of thes of the election leader of the free world. this election has serious consequences. to aicate my introduction marine unit that sustained in 2005.nt losses on this awful and consequential decision of our generation, that brought on to the middle east, senator sanders and i both opposed the war in iraq, based lied thate w bush

iraq had weapons of mass destruction. record that george w. bush proved to be the largest weapon of mass destruction. ,n introducing my colleague with whom i have served for over two decades, let me do so are the economics of ohio. wealth distributors, not wealth creators, walmart has shelves goods manufactured outside of ohio, often times offshore. the heartland must become a producer and not just a consumer and distributor.

take you from columbus, the capital, to the other of toledoported in the blade. meet richard. he worked for york international for 23 years. he and 900 of his coworkers had their jobs outsourced to mexico. he was out of work for a year and later found work. and republicel slipping because of imported steel. under nafta, we were promised that communities impacted would get help to transition workers the north american

development bank. never materialized and the promises for the workers were false promises. meet norma from sandusky. she worked for the ticonderoga factory that produced school supplies. citys outsourced to mexico in 2002. the workers in the plant had to train replacements in mexico. theire displaced workers, wages were cut by one third to one half. who isxican citizen toledo toned into lea help farmworkers improve their

miserable plight. eaten for trying to root out the corruption in the farm labor contracting. not false to say there has been no justice for farmworkers and nafta has never been adjusted to account for the mexican peasants who are uprooted from small farms and created the exodus to our nation. nafta is a continental sacrilege. pilloriedictims now wethe immigration debate, must renegotiate nafta and other trade deals that treat people like expendable cattle. senator bernie sanders is an

honorable man who comes from the people. he has served. he has served as a mayor of the largest city of vermont, which endured economic hardship and he was a senator for over a decade. judgment,ence, his has been proven right with me passage of time. as the chairman of the veterans tomittee, he led an effort double support for american veterans for health care, disabilities, pension benefits. they aren't these in patriotic service to the nation. sanders has worked to advance the economic might of the nation. ,t has been a grueling task

whether it was a fight to stop bad trade deals that outsourced good jobs or the herculean efforts he took to stop the wall street rage on american equity fight to rein in the campaign spending in politics to stop thent fight teamsters from getting major benefits cut in pensions. bernie understands the dimensions of the challenge that america faces. bernie supports the restoration of glass-steagall to separate the risky speculation from prudent banking to prevent financial catastrophe in the future and to bring back community banking again.

facesallenges that ohio is real. it is from steubenville to the penny-wage sweatshops. i know that bernie sanders is in this race for the presidency for noble reasons and i know his unwavering commitment to the democratic ideals and to the american people. every person counts. i know his conscience about aspiring to a better way of life and america could have no stronger leader in this country for all, not just the privileged few.

he has been fighting outsourcing for decades. tpp., calf has moved their money in in ways that is frightening. bernie sanders fights our fight. it is a fight for american values and for a better future for this generation and our posterity. the average income in the free enterprise region of ohio is an when the th century began and bernie sanders has not wavered in trying to stop the unjust leveling out of the american way of i know his perseverance.

histhe entire period of service, he has been fighting this uphill struggle for living wage jobs and fair trade for america. [applause] friends, good democrats, it is the political and economic test of our time, as important as america's struggle in past generations to wipe out the enslavement of bonded workers in the 19th century, or to give workers dignity to the passage of the national labor relations .ct in the 20th century the american people have been enduring the outsourcing of good jobs overseas for too long. ohio alone has lost over 300,000 good jobs. meanwhile, america is accumulating trade deficit over the last quarter-century and it wages9.5 trillion of lost

and lost wealth drained from towns and boroughs across our homeland. the erosion has shaken and diminished our middle-class as poverty increases. america has a budget deficit because we have a growing trade deficit. we need more wealth creation here at home. the road ahead -- the road ahead to fix the tattered economy will not be easy, but our beloved country is capable of achieving anything we set our mind to if we work together for a common purpose. i believe bernie sanders, with his vision, experience, heritage, and passionate commitment, and democratic embodyand body -- the right formula to meet this test in triumph for all of

america and freedom lovers everywhere. please still am me to introduce to you my friend and colleague, a man with spirit, has the kind judgment, and intuitiveness to lead us into the new generation. ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the united states, bernie sanders! [cheers and applause] >> bernie! bernie! senator sanders: let me begin. >> bernie! [applause] senator sanders: i have a cnn live forum to get to at 8:00.

i will be very brief. let me begin by thanking all for sending marcy kaptur to the united states congress. nobody in congress has stood up to the american worker, as opposed to disastrous trade policies more vigorously and more effectively than marcy kaptur. thank you, ohio for sending her to the congress. [applause] senator sanders: now, we just came from a great rally we held here in columbus. we had about 7000 people out. ralliessimilar to the we have been holding all over the midwest and all over this country. workingican people, people, young people want in to the political process.

the democratic party has got to open the door, welcome those people in, and create a party that stands for working people in this country. [applause] campaignanders: this is about ending a corrupt finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections. together, we are going to overturn citizens united. [cheers and applause] together we are going to end republican voter suppression. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: together we are going to create a country and a political system in which we have one of the highest rates of the voter turnout, not one of the lowest rates. [cheers and applause]

senator sanders: together we are going to end the rigged economy. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: it is not acceptable to me and to the american people that the top owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. [applause] mabye, justers: so, mabye, the time is right to create an economy that works for all of us, not just wealthy campaign contributors. [cheers and applause] maybe, justers: maybe, it is time to end our disastrous trade policy, pntr,

china until corporate america they had better start investing in this country, not just in china. [cheers and applause] maybe, just maybe, it is time to raise the minimum wage in this country to a living wage $15 an hour. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: and maybe just time for the united states to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: and maybe it is time to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies who are ripping off this country every single day.

medicare for all healthcare system, which will guarantee health care to all people in lower health care costs by thousands of dollars a year for middle-class families. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: and maybe it is time to address the reality that in america today we have a broken criminal justice system. [cheers] senator sanders: that we have institutional racism and we are going to have to reform that broken criminal justice system and end institutional racism. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: what this campaign is about is creating a

political revolution. that noe understanding president, not bernie sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. that we need millions of people to jump in to the political process in the way that we have never seen in recent history. and the bottom line is, when we stand together as black and white and latino and asian americans, as gay and straight, people born in this country, people coming into this country, when we stand together, yes, we will have the power to take on the billionaire class and yes, we will have the power to create a government that works for all of us. not just the 1%. very much!all their h

[cheers and applause] [crowed chanting "bernie"] [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

will come to the stage, former governor and u.s. senate candidate strickland. >> hello, ohio democrats. thank you! thank you so much! thank you! democratoud ohio because we are on the side of working people. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: people who just want a fair shot at success. people who want a chance to build a middle-class life. for themselves and their families. i am talking about people like the steelworkers, the teachers, the small business owners.

these are the kind of people that i grew up with. these are the kind of people that i have spent my entire life fighting for. and these are the people that i will defend as the next senator from ohio. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: but you know what? those of us in this room, we know it is not always easy. when the great recession threatened to destroy the american automobile industry, some people said "just let it die." but we didn't give up. we fought for our futures. we fought for working people. and thanks to senator sherry brown, ohio's congressional democrats and president barack obama, we saved this great industry that is now providing

850,000 jobs for ohio families. [cheers and applause] and you know,: just 21 months after that recovery plan passed, i had the privilege of writing off the assembly line in the very first chevy cruz produced at the plant. [cheers and applause] anted strickland: and the people who worked in that plan, they were really proud of what they had done. people working on the assembly line, that is the side that ohio democrats are on. but you know, there is another side, my friends. in fact, therre is a whole different world. it is the world of the millionaires and the billionaires and the washington insiders and the powerful

special interest groups. it is the world that senator rob portman comes from. and it is the world that he is fighting for in washington. no wonder that senator portman said the auto rescue was "a l ousy deal." a lousy deal for ohio? the death of the american auto industry, now that would have been "lousy." mass layoffs that would have cascaded across our state and across the nation, that would have been "lousy." but the auto industry is just one example of rob portman's failure to stand up for ohio. let's talk about trade. a, most favorite

nation trading status for china. congressman portman, u.s. trade representative kirk men, and "yes,enator portman says, "yes," and "yes." i voted "no" and he voted "yes." fact, rob portman has been a cheerleader for the worst job killing trade deals that have ever been proposed. say, robis why i portman is the best senator that china has ever had. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: so, can we talk about retirement? senator portman thinks we should privatize social security.

just take our safety net, turn it over to wall street, what could possibly go wrong? voucherizing to medicare. let the seniors go out on their own and negotiate with the big, powerful insurance companies. who thinks that is a good idea? raise dhd he also wants to the retirement age. now, let me explain something because clearly, the senator would have no way of knowing this. body, the human body is not meant for seven decades of hard labor. spenty brothers most of their lives finishing concrete. it is really hard work and when you are still finishing concrete into your 60's, your back is

spent, your fingers are gnarled, and your knees are shot. now, imagine telling a 66-year-old concrete finisher, buddy, butn, sorry the millionaire republican soft hanwith baby-butt ds, have decided that you are just too damn young to reture. -- to retire. it is outrageous! and we are not going to let that happen. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: you know, issue after issue, when rob portman has been forced with a choice between the people and the powerful, every time he does the wrong thing. every time. portman stood with george w. bush to rip away overtime wages

for 6 million american workers. he stood with paul ryan and supported the largest cuts in the pell grants in the history of the program. and when rob portman had a chance to overturn citizens ed to protectt the shadow corporate's interests who are trying to use their wealth to buy for control of our country. now, that last decision was probably an easy one for him because millions from his dark money buddies have already spent millions against me. you know, think of this. for what it cost those washington powerbrokers to buy senator portman, well, they could have purchased a picasso.

eow, by the way, do you know th difference between rob portman and a picasso? well, let me tell you. one depicts everything in a skewed, warped, and distorted manner and the other one is a painting. [laughter] [applause] ted strickland: like so many ohioans, i go up in a hard class working families. hard work and struggle were a part of our lives. but when people have a decent job that provides for the family, the system works. people have hope and the american dream lives. that is why my agenda in the senate is to work for working people. people who punch the clock,

people who struggle to pay their bills, people trying to pay for worried thatle retirement is a luxury they can never ever afford. so, that is why i am going to fight for a middle-class tax cut. i will stand up for fair overtime pay, a minimum wage increase. i will work to make sure women receive equal pay for equal work -- [applause] ted strickland: and that women can exercise control over their own bodies. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: and i will fight to expand pell grants and to make higher education affordable. [cheers and applause] and i will fight to reform the criminal justice system and be ever aware that throughout ohio and america,

black lives do matter. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: and that is why i will protect the rights of workers to form a union and bargain for higher wages. [cheers and applause] but let me tell you what i will not do. i will never shirk my constitutional duties and insult the president of the united states by refusing to even consider a new supreme court justice when a vacancy occurs. [cheers and applause] but senatornd: portman, senator portman is putting the interests of the washington powerbrokers and his own political party above his

duty to ohioans and to our country. think heairness, i has an explanation for his position. presidentes that th should not do his job because it is the last year of his last term. logic, perhapst senator portman should just step down now. [cheers and applause] because senator yearan, this is the last of your last term! [cheers and applause] ted strickland: now, those of us

who have gathered here tonight know what is at stake in this election. we care about ohio's heart and ohio's soul. washington'she is fault and soul. that is why i am winning this race, but you know, there is a long road ahead and we can't let up. so, i am asking you tonight to fight harder than you have ever fought before. theut there and fight for neighborhood needs health insurance. fight for the autoworker who has a job and needs to keep it. by for the couple who has the right to marry the person of their choice. [cheers and applause] go strickland: go out there, out there and fight for a clean environment. [cheers and applause] ted strickland: fight to make college affordable. [cheers and applause]

ted strickland: go out there and find for ohio because when we fight for ohio, we are fighting for america and we have all got to be in the fight! thank you! [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back to the stage, the chairman of the ohio democratic party. >> hillary! sorry.not her, i'ms i'm not she. we heard from one great presidential candidate, one great senate candidate and we

have another on our way. before we get to her, i wanted to first of all, i neglected in my first part of the program to thank my beautiful wife, who is here with me tonight. she puts up with a lot as i do this. thank you. but let me also just share, and this will not take very long, but i actually think it is appropriate that we at the ohio democratic party, with of national media finally in ohio, actually set the record straight about one thing. you know, if you are like me you have been watching these republican debates and you have been watching these different fellows debate. and i hope at some point it occur to you what occurred to me. who is that man from ohio and what did he do with our governor? right? we have someone from ohio who was a governor who says, i have been moderate. i have been the adult in the room.

so we are in ohio and the national media is watching. is that what you have all seen for the last five years? "no"] shouts david pepper: i am going to ask you a question. do you think it is moderate that our governor attack workers even more fiercely than scott walker did in wisconsin? is that moderate? but he did that, didn't he? how about voting rights? i talked about john houston. you can literally right a long casebook on the number of voting voting laws that have been passed in the last five years struck down as unconstitutional. john kasich i and everyone of them. is that moderate? "no"} shouts david pepper: schools. what this governor has done to schools in our state is a disaster. [cheers and applause]

2018, we willin elect the next governor may be on the schools issue alone because of what they have done to our schools and ohio. under his leadership, ohio schools were ranked fifth in the country in 2010 under ted strickland. and now, they are ranked 23rd. that is not moderate. that is not effective. that is disqualifying to be the president of the united states. we have given away millions of dollars to four profit charter schools that are destroying our kids' educations, while wasting millions. that is not moderate, is it? noweconomy of our state, this is one i want to focus on with our friends from the national media. are you seeing an ohio miracle? "no"] shouts

i have seen him take credit for the auto deal recovery. he was against the auto deal that saved all those jobs, wasn't he? but john kasich has led the same trickle down economics that never worked in washington and have not worked here. even though we have seen some benefits from the national policies, from our congresspeople and our president, our ohio has not seen america. we are in our 38th consecutive month of trailing the nation's job recovery. john kasich went to michigan last week and said, i am going to do in michigan what i have done in ohio. their recovery is better than ours is. our wages are lower than they were in 1984. it is because of the trickle-down economics, the regressive taxes, the attack some local government to have bottomed out and hurt our communities, while giving tax breaks to the high end.

our governor has defunded planned parenthood. is that moderate? [crowd shouts "no"] david pepper: he has made a slight texas when it comes to the right to choose in ohio. we all saw the video, didn't we? is he famous? because he fought john kasich all the way to the supreme court and won his case. [cheers and applause] is, thisper: the point election is about all of the candidates on the other side, but here in ohio what i don't want anyone -- any democrat, any moderate -- to conclude from the last six months of performance is that our governor has been a moderate. it is just not the case and as we get into 2018 -- and this is why this is so important -- i don't think he is going to be president. but we need to say to every 2018, are you tired

of eight years of trickle-down economics? are you tired of eight years of attacks on public schools? are you tired of eight years of attacks on voting rights? the defunding of planned parenthood? those believe in all of things -- whatever happens to john kasich in the selection, we need to get democrats running for governor that say, eight years have been long enough. it is time for democrats to lead this great state. lead this great state. [applause] david pepper: thank you. now, that is all i wanted to say. onto our next speaker. let's get it done. thank you very much. [applause] ♪

[crowd chanting "hillary"] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome to the stage, u.s. senator sherrod brown. [applause] sherrod brown: thank you, ohio democrats. thank you, joyce and sheila. think you for joining us from the congressional black caucus. many of us came to congress under his tutelage and we will always remember the tone he said and the gentleness that he brought to his job, but always, the commitment to justice. also like these dinners because they get to sit with my

wife connie and my daughter elizabeth brown. and elizabeth showed me pictures of our five month old granddaughter carolyn. the first time she sat up was yesterday. now, the reason i bring that up is because she doesn't really send pictures very often to the ir daughter's grandfather. maybe she will be doing that more because i am saying it in front of 3000 people. already --ickland and i know something about this because i know what the forces of darkness did in 2012 in my race when they spend $40 million setting a record of any senate race in the country in a negative ads. they have already and this is only march, spent $10 million against ted strickland. yet, he still leads in the polls over rob portman, which tells us everything. [applause] friendsbrown: and to my

and our democratic candidates, hillary and bernie, welcome to the most important state in the union this tuesday. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: and the most important state in the union in the first tuesday after the first monday in november. some years ago when i was running a guy from connecticut said to me, we are sick and tired. every four years there is a race for the president of ohio. there is and again, ohio will win for democrats in november. [cheers and applause] thank you to bernie and hillary for running a race that makes democrats proud. a race about issues, a race about principles. of course, watch the republican grade school fight and then watch the two adults talk issues and about the future of the country. also, look at the difference. while republicans are busy

trying to disown their front runner -- actually, they are trying to disown their two front runners. democrats are proud of both of ours. [applause] you to brown: than kyok david have her. i saw his mother francie here who i know is so proud of her son. fork you to david pepper putting in front of us those volunteers and employees of odp. i know how hard they work. i see them all over the state. i know what they did in 2012 and 2014. it is amazing the energy these young, and sometimes not so young, volunteers bring to the table. and a special thanks to the wait staff. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: ken lorch, as you

hourlye always honor whenearners, especially they are paid so much less than they should be. [applause] sherrod brown: now, if you visit my office in washington at 713 hart building, you will see a sign under my name. you will see a sign that says "this senate office was occupied by barack h. obama from 2005 to 2008." came by.ese people i would like to think they came by to take a picture of my son, but they probably did not. it is a privilege to serve in the office of the senator from illinois in those years. it is also such an honor to serve with the first african-american president of the united states. [cheers and applause] now, you have watched these republican debates. you kind of -- it is a little

bit like watching a car accident. i-70ind of rubber neck on four i-71. you have to watch these debates, but can't believe you are doing it. most importantly, look back at january 2009. big about where we work january, 2009. our economy was in a freefall, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. the day barack obama put his a hundred09, we must thousand jobs that month. in the next month, joyce was not much better, as we know. the auto industry was on the verge of collapse. the zip code my wife connie and 05,ive in in cleveland, 441 the zip code in 2007 had more foreclosures than any other zip code in the united states of ohioca in slavic village,

-- in cleveland, ohio. after the auto rescue after the recovery act and as we did the affordable care act, we have had 72 -- that is six years -- 72 straight months of private-sector job growth. working million private sector jobs -- 14 million private sector jobs. historics are at an low. more than 600,000 ohioans have health insurance now. many of them for the first time in their lives. [cheers and applause] and, as we saw in , no marriagem over t equality is the law of the land -- marriage equality is the law of the land. god bless america. and don't forget the auto industry. republicans told us to let the auto industry go bankrupt. republicans called it on

american. -- un-american. a current republican presidential candidate, you know the one that is 0-22 in states and happens to be from ohio, he said this is throwing good money after bad. we rescued the auto industry this past year. 17 million new70 million ne cars sold in the united states. connie and i drove down the i-71 today in our jeep cherokee, made in toledo, and our other car in the driveway in cleveland is a chevy cruise made in youngstown. so, i speak from personal experience when i tell you -- and cedric and sheila this is for you -- you can drive a better car than anywhere in the world than ones made right here

in ohio. [applause] sherrod brown: of course, we have a long way to go. i am not going to do a litany of the problems we still have. hard-working americans still struggle, despite working harder and harder. retirement security. i met with a group of teamsters today. i met with a group of auto workers that were scared to death that their pensions will suffer major cuts if congress does not do the right thing. so important. and yet, washington republicans -- we still can't convince them to simply do their jobs. they shut down the government in 2013. when they shut down congress and the federal government and the administration. they are trying to shutdown the supreme court in 2016. think about that. they think barack obama was elected to a three-year term, ted strickland said. they about this. obama is only the second

president -- second democratic president since the civil war, only the second democratic president since the civil war -- to have won a majority of votes in this country twice. only franklin roosevelt and barack obama. so, there is no question that he had a resounding mandate for a three, not t- not hree and a half -- but for a four year term now, watching the other side in these debates reminds me of stories i have told to a number of you before. i just want to repeat one because i think it is so poignant in describing -- thinking about donald trump or ted cruz or marco rubio for the cast of walker and bobby jindal.

all of these people who have disappeared into the trash heap of history. the president after being sworn in goes to the national cathedral for a prayer breakfast. there has been a national prayer breakfast after every new president was inaugurated after george washington. -- the firsts woman ever to deliver a sermon -- shared a piece of wisdom attributed to the cherokee nation. here is what she said. one evening a grandfather was teaching his young grandson about the internal battle that each of us as human beings face. there are two faces -- excuse me, there are two wolves struggling inside each of us, the old man said. iis vengeful mess and anger and self-pity and fear. the other wolf is compassion and faithfulness and hope and a truth and reason. man stopped and the

grandson said, grandfather which wolf wins? the grandfather said, the one that wins is the one you feed. now, we know which wolf -- we know which wolf republicans have been feeding in these debates, in these rallies in chicago and kansas city and in st. louis and in cleveland and in th dayton. this is the reason for donald trump. we know republicans have dog about 50about race for years. now they are shocked when donald trump starts barking. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: now tonight, i am proud to stand with a person who says we should not be building walls. we should be knocking down barriers. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: yesterday, i was

in akron. i was on stage with william defferson clinton and i looke at him at one point. he was in akron probably because of the ohio primary on tuesday. i said, no offense, mr. president, but hillary clinton is the most qualified person to run for president in my lifetime. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: and she is. and he smiled and laughed and clapped and i think he meant it. [laughter] sherrod brown: here is what it is about hillary. i trust hillary clinton to fight for children and families because she has done that all her life. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: from her early days with the children's defense fund to her time in the senate, helping the children's health insurance plan.

i trust hillary clinton to fight for human rights and voting rights and women's rights. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: from her time in alabama as a civil rights worker when she was 25, to the work she did as our secretary of state on behalf of women all over the world and women's rights. [cheers and applause] trustd brown: and i hillary clinton on trade and manufacturing. i am leading in the senate, as you know. i am leading the opposition to the transpacific partnership and i think we are going to defeat it. [cheers and applause] sherrod brown: yes, a decade or so ago i wrote a book on trade called "myths of free trade." this issue lightly, but i trust hillary clinton with manufacturing and trade. she is the best manufacturing policy of any candidate bar none in this race.

i know what hillary clinton is proposing on trade, a special trade prosecutor unprecedented in our country, tripling trade enforcement by putting on more trade investigators, unprecedented in our country. by coming down hard on currency that china has debased. and china has manipulated for years. and what she is doing to work on rules of origin and what that means for the american auto industry. i trust her on this because i know what she will do will fight for american jobs with a different trade policy, a different tax policy, and a different manufacturing policy. [cheers and applause] so, it is my: honor to introduce on monday afternoon, i usually go off to washington. because of that, this week, tomorrow, i am going to cast my vote for the next president,

female's first commander-in-chief, hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: wow. thank you! hello, ohio! ohio democrats! you! [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: thank you!

much!you so it is great to be here with so and leaders like governor ted strickland, the next senator from ohio if all goes well in his election. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: my friend and former colleague, senator sherrod brown. there is no greater fighter for ohio, for jobs, for fairness. congresswoman joyce beatty, thank you for having us here in your district. fudge, myman marcia friends from cleveland, marcy kaptur, a great fighter for ohio. congressman tim ryan, the honorable betty sutton, david pepper, thank you for chairing the ohio democratic party.

thank you! and executive mayor john cranley of cincinnati. and mayor hicks of toledo. it is wonderful standing up here looking at this great array of democrats. earlier, joyce beatty and i visited two other great ohio democrats, john and annie glenn, who send you their warmest greetings. [cheers and applause] and to all the: state and local leaders who are pouring your hearts and to building the democratic party across this state, i thainnk you. we need to elect democrats up and down the ticket in november. [applause] hillary clinton: if i am fortunate enough to be the democratic nominee, and to be elected president, i will be your partner. we will work hard every day to

keep the ohio democratic party strong and to brin gback state parties across america. because together we need to build a future where every to live has the chance up to his or her god-given potential. no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: now, i have to say the stakes in the selection keep getting higher. the rhetoric keeps sinking lower. in a democracy like ours of course, we are going to have differences. but what we are hearing from donald trump is something else entirely. let's just tell the truth about what is going on here.

donald trump is running a cynical campaign of hate and fear for one reason, to get votes. he is encouraging violence and chaos to get votes. he is pitting americans against each other to get votes. donald trump says he wants to round up millions of latino immigrants and kic k them out of the united states, a nation built by immigrants. he wants to ban all muslims from the united states, a country founded on religious freedom. he supports torture, advocates killing the wives and children of our enemies, and had to be crimes,t these are war in violation of international laws, our most

deeply held principles, and our constitution. and after soaking every fire he can think of. trump encourages his supporters to beat up anybody who disagrees with him. literally punch them in the face. theiren, offers to pay legal bills. now, at our best, americans have rejected demagogues and fear mongers. you don't make america great by thatng rid of everything made america great in the first place. [cheers and applause] [crowd shouts " [crowd shouts "hillary"]

you and i know: donald trump is not who we are. none of that matters if we don't show up at the polls. [applause] hillary clinton: if you want to shut him down, then let's vote h im down. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: and then, let's raise up a better future for ourselves and our children. my campaign isn't about building walls. breaking down all the barriers holding people back and building ladders of opportunity and empowerment. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: it is about helping people find good jobs that pay enough for families to live on and to rebuild the middle class. a good job is the difference between keeping the lights on or not, replacing outgrown clothes and for not shoes, or not,

keeping your home or not but it is also about dignity and pride, knowing that you are doing your part and getting rewarded for your hard work. most of all, a good job is about taking care of the people you love. we all want our kids to have better lives than we did. job, givinga good your kids good choices and opportunities gets a lot harder. so, if you are doing the same jobs are parents did, but for less money and fewer benefits, if you are going to every job fair, sending out resumes, getting retrained, but still can't find a job that pays enough to raise a family, if you saw your parents make that good living, working hard, working so hard every day and now, you can only dream of such a life for yourself, it is no wonder many

americans are concerned, frustrated, even angry. that is why the test of this election has to be whether we can actually create good paying jobs here in america. theuse the good jobs of future are either going to end up in asia, or europe, or here. i will tell you, we not only want them, we will make sure they end up right here. in ohio and in the rest of our country. [cheers and applause] now, anyoneton: running for president owes it to you to come up with real ideas that, a credible strategy designed for the world we live in now. and i am just very grateful that havers like sherrod brown

looked at my plans and have said, this is the kind of manufacturing plan that we need. that is what i am going to be working for. and over the past week or so, we have had some great arguments and debates in our campaign and i appreciate what has been said. the difference between senator sanders and i debating and disagreeing about issues is that we are both presenting ideas. the other side is presenting insults that take us nowhere. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: this campaign has to be about the future, not the past. and look, i want to be very clear. i know there has been al ot of discussion in the last week or so about trade and i would like to take the opportunity tonight to set the record straight.

to every worker in ohio and every worker across america, let me say this. bei am fortunate enough to our president, i will stand with you and they will have your back its i will stop dead in tracks, any trade deal that hurts america and american workers. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: now, i oppose the only multilateral trade deal that came up when i was in the senate, calf thfta. i thought it was bad for american jobs. i fought for american manufacturers against china's cheating. and when it comes to the transpacific partnership, i did wait to see what was actually in it. and then, i opposed it because i concluded i couldn't look american workers in the eye and

say "this deal will raise your wages." so, that is why i said, we have to oppose the tpp. now, i respect those who oppose all trade agreements, every single one. i respect that. ist is an opinion and it certainly one that people have every reason to hold. but i have to tell you. trade, when it is done right, can help thousands of ohio companies that are right now exporting billions of dollars worth of product and creating good paying american jobs in the process. after all, we are not even 5% of the world's population. if we want the american economy to grow, we have to figure out how to sell to the other 95%. so, while we can't shut our

borders to trade, we can, and i will demand, that we have fair trade and as level a playing field as we can create. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: you see, i think we need a president who is not just opposed to trade. we need a president who knows how to compete against the rest of the world and win, win for america and win for american workers. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton: right now, the most urgent trade issues we have are with china. the biggest rule breaker out there. and let me tell you something, my friends, i know a thing or withbout going toe to toe the chinese. i did it as a senator. i did it as secretary of state and i will do it as president. we need to stop china -- [cheers and applause]

hillary clinton: we need to stop china from dumping cheap steel. opinion fora new me. when i was a senator i went before the international trade commission on behalf of steel companies and steelworkers in could seeecause i both of the companies and the steelworkers were paying a big price. we need to strengthen trade rules to prevent blatantly unfair practices, like weak ru les of origin that put our carmakers at an unfair disadvantage. i have also proposed a tray prosecutor and as sherrod said, enough investigators so we will be on these issues immediately. it should not be up to companies and unions and workers to bring complaints. the united states government should be leading the way to protect against unfair treatment. [cheers and applause]

>> we also have to take stronger action against companies shutting down american jobs and sending them out of the country. we need to get results. here'what i will dos. if companies shift jobs overseas, we'll make them give back the tax breaks they have received in america, that they have taken from city, state, and federal taxpayers. and if companies try to move their headquarters to a foreign country and skip out on their tax bills, we will slap a new exit tax on them, make them think twice before they pretend to move their headquarters to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. we will take that money and put it to work in the communities that are being hurt. we'll stand up for american workers and make sure no one can take advantage of us. not china, not wall street, not

overpaid corporate executives. but we can't stop there. i've laid out a national strategy to create good paying manufacturing jobs, and i think that is the most important way to judge what someone will do for manufacturing. i am the only candidate with a plan to help create millions of good paying jobs. jobs in infrastructure, jobs in manufacturing, jobs in clean energy, jobs in small business. when i think about what we can do, i know that we can have a renaissance in manufacturing, and i know we have more work than we can possibly imagine repairing infrastructure. i'm going to do everything i can to save and create jobs, and by sharon, you heard -- mentioned the auto industry. k, there has been some

debate on that. there is no doubt that when president obama came into office, we burn the worst financial crisis since the great depression. teete on industry p the brink of bankruptcyred, an the republicands all said letting go. they didn't want to lift a finger, even to help plants and workers in their own state. what we read to do? i. was still in the senate. -- in december, we voted to save the industry, but it failed. we couldn't get republicans to support it. a month later, we face one of those hard choices that force you to govern in reality, and it was this -- there was a bill that mixed money for the auto

rescue and money for other bailouts. that was not an easy vote. and i respect those who voted against it, but i will tony this -- i voted for it. the president-elect asked us to vote for it. i decided it was more important to save the auto industry and save our economy, and i am so glad we did. they just has the best year they have had in decades. factories, ohio, are doing so well. so, my friends, america is a big, complicated country, facing big, complicated challenges. we cannot afford a single issue strategy or a single issue president. knocking down barriers, knocking down barriers means we can't just talk about economic

inequality, we have to take on racial inequality. we have to face up to the reality of systemic racism. you know it's real. families facean discrimination. they have just a fraction of the assets and wealth of by families. african-american families suffered is for portion only. young, blackany people dying after encounters with police, like to be a race, just 12 years old, shot and killed while playing in the park. we have to put an end to the fears of immigrant families, who are laying awake at night, listening for a knock on the door, even after they have lived and worked here for years. and we have to stand up for unions and labor rights. [cheers and applause]

sec. clinton: and i would have to thank you, ohio democrats, because when the chips were down, you did not let governor kasich drown out the voices of ohio's public servants by weakening their unions. [cheers and applause] now let's stand up for all unions, nationwide. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: because when unions are strong, families are strong. the middle class is strong. america is strong. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: and don't forget -- supreme court appointments will help determine what happens

to so many issues. and we cannot let america have a republican congress, a republican president, and a republican supreme court. knocking down barriers means making sure all our kids get the education they need to succeed in the 21st century economy. [applause] believe our: i schools deserve more mlc -- tlc. teaching, learning, and community. and i have laid out a plan so all kids can benefit from a good teacher in a good school in another what zip code they half happen to live in. [applause] knocking down barriers means finally guaranteeing paid family leave and equal pay for women.

[cheers and applause] sec. clinton: it was a sad day for ohio when john kasich defunded planned parenthood here. ad make no mistake, if republican wins the white house, we will see that happen nationwide. i've spent my career fighting to even the odds for people who have had those odds stacked against them. i am not offering promises i can't keep or plans that don't add up; we all need to do our part, all of us, to do the kind of future we are fighting for to give, every american the chance to pursue their dreams. because then and only then can america live up to its potential, too. if do need a little inspiration, let me share something that

inspired me. i want you to hear about a young woman from worthington, ohio and sarah. a c weeks ago, sarah wrote to tell me how excited all four generations of the women in her family are about the primary on tuesday. is 94.randmother she dedicated her life to the u.s. army as the life of an officer. she believes our country needs a commander-in-chief who can lead. able to getwas health insurance because of the affordable care act. she believes -- [applause] clinton: she believes we need to build on the progress we have made under president obama, and not let it get ripped away. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: sarah, herself,

has two little kids, and she believes we need to end the epidemic of gun violence and keep our families safe. [cheers and applause] sec. clinton: and then there is little merrit, who just started preschool. she is the ultimate reason to vote. sarah says "our hope for the future is a nation that can reward love and kindness instead ate, that can reach out to help others overseer, that our kids can grow up understanding that not only are all things possible, but it is our job and our sponsor ability to take these possibilities and make them a reality." i can't think of a better way of explaining what we stand for in the democratic party. they are here with us tonight --. i have a chance to meet them

they are who we are fighting for. their family and millions of families who never stop working, who always are looking to make life better for themselves and for their kids. make that the reality. i know that if we are determined and committed, if we are confident and optimistic, we can deliver on those possibilities. i want to be a president who gets up every single day and thinks about what i can do to help the struggling and striving american, what i can do to help our children and our grandchildren, what i can do to make it absolutely clear we're going to produce more good jobs with rising incomes, and we're going to be who we should be -- consistent with our values. we're going to reject hatred and

fear. we are going to decide that we can do better together. that is my hope for our country. i hope you will join me in that. i hope you will be there with me. i hope i can earn your vote in the primary on tuesday. i hope i can be your democratic nominee. i hope we will fight against whatever the republicans put out in our wa, and i hope we will win to continue the progress and move into the future. with hope, optimism, and confidence. america's best days are still ahead of us. thank you, and god bless you. [cheers and applause]

[chanting "hillary"] >> today, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues with a rally for republican presidential candidate governor john kasich in his home state of ohio. live coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> campaign 2016 continues on tuesday, with primaries taking place in missouri, illinois, ohio, north carolina, and florida. last coverage of the election results, in fewer reaction, begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> now, a preview of the florida presidential primary vote, one

of five being held this tuesday. this is from "washington journal." >> tonight, 8 p.m. eastern on "q&a." >> "washington journal continues. host: joining us right now, professor susan macnanus. guest: thank you for being with us. greetings from the sunshine state. host: let's talk about marco rubio. the piece this morning in "bloomberg politics" is that the problem he is facing is that he tended to the base and that he .s coming home to roost is that a fair assessment? some peoples what are saying, but he's had some really good rallies for the last bad publicity.he the polls are narrowing. of course he won the washington, d.c. caucus yesterday.

the polls are all over the map. perhaps he didn't work the state have, but should everyone knows his name. florida, like everywhere else, is really very opinionated on this primary. host: folks are voting for john kasich when in ohio. conversely, are the john kasich supporters telling supporters to vote for senator rubio in florida? not really, but a lot of ads are doing that and the strategy here is clearly one for the rubio campaign of blocking the trump train. i know it hasn't gotten a big presence here, but it's all about a blocking strategy in keeping trump from getting more delegates. it's in the tv ads. headlinen you see this

-- "vitriol following donald ,"ump on the campaign trail how damaging, if at all, are those images moving into the primary in your state? it's a great question, considering the voters are a bit older. whether they will be worried about this continuing on and what their opinions are about the violence and hate going on around this whole campaign. or if they are trump voters who are very offended by the fact that the protesters don't reflect and respect a basic of , which isonstitution freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. wait ande will have to see. i'm sure it is affecting people. it might help rubio a bit.

the other hand, the idea of freedom of speech for all is a strong idea for the republicans. host: even asking our viewers and listeners about that cover magazine."ime "with the death of a dignified first lady, an influential cultural figure in her own right, devoted keeper of her husband's flame, ron reagan and nancy reagan have passed into history. it seems the same cannot be said of the party they took such care in shaping." would you agree or disagree with that sentiment? guest: it's what i have heard the last few days. it certainly one that many of the younger generation and even those looking at the growing demographic diversity in the country, best reflected here in

florida, that things have changed and they will find -- fall behind. these people are choosing no party affiliation. it's also true that we have seen among them, among the party switchers of late, more people have switched over to vote in this upcoming republican presidential primary than the democrats. clearly, the younger part of the times arerstands that different. everyone will respect and love the reagans, but you have to move on. as you well know, senator sanders has been the target of the blame within the trump campaign. here's how he responded. "what caused the violence is a campaign whose actions have encouraged violence on the part of trump support -- trump

supporters -- host: that, from senator bernie sanders. susan macnanus, your reaction? very clear that people are being disturbed by the language being used on the stump. who areprovoke people at a white-hot level of anger right now into physical violence

. their emotions are out of control. that's the danger. the electorate this season, more and more people are voting. on the other hand, the emotional level that can turn into anger is also escalating. it is a problem, because we are not anywhere near the conventions yet. also, i think particularly among children -- people with children , it's a little bit scary the you are hearing this kind of language on the campaign trail from a presidential candidate at the very same time that we are teaching about anti-bullying behavior in teaching this younger generation to be more civilized. what are they seeing? these children are following the presidential campaign. it, they talkut about it in school. hearing this kind of dialogue at the same kind that their parents and teachers are saying -- we don't bully. it's a very said time in terms

of the educational aspect of our young children. host: our guest is susan macnanus, joining us from florida. i want to share with you from the u.s. census bureau, the demographics of florida -- it is home to just over 50 million residents. almost 16 million. the breakdown of the voting age of the population, a huge senior citizen population across the rate. it is about 50% white, 15% black, 3% asian. as you look at the political geography of the state, certainly very different from southern florida, central and northern florida, give us the breakdown. absolutely. the panhandle is certainly very conservative.

the area is largely democratic. state,dle part of the the interstate for corn or, the split part for the registered voters who live in the tampa media market, the state's largest. the orlando market, together, 44%. what is so unique about this swing state geography is that it is the most equally divided in terms of republicans and democrats with a large bunch of s.dependent it's very diverse from a racial and ethnic perspective, as well as being heavily competitive. swinging down to the southwest part of florida, fort myers, naples and so forth, the republican part of the state. republicans do very well there. switching over to the southeast part, that's the strongest part for democrats. it's a very tough place to

campaign in. it's expensive because television is expensive. yet it's a microcosm of the country in racial and ethnic compositions. .ural, urban, suburban in terms of parties and age, and i want to say something about age -- the facts of the matter are very different in terms of registered voters in what people think of about florida's age makeup. right now the two youngest generations are the millennials and the gen x errs. boomers, 30 4%. you see that we have a much more age diverse population than is the common perception outside the state. we are talking very competitive. to me you can see one of the biggest stories of this campaign

, this election season, the emergence of generational politics. millennials are starting to flex their muscle and in our state, both arteries have got to appeal to them because they have to register and vote differently. florida, the best microcosm in the country, which is why all the eyes of the country will be on that state on the 15th. host: that famous line, the more north you are, the more south you are in terms of northern florida being more conservative and southern florida being more -- just youse of this perspective on the map, the area in orange on the panhandle, just outside tallahassee -- these are the areas that newt gingrich won in 2012. , from tampa toas orlando, up to jacksonville and countiesh, the blue

are the ones that mitt romney won in 2012. these are the areas we will keep a close eye on in terms of where senator rubio can do well in needs to do well. where is the stronghold for donald trump on tuesday? guest: definitely the panhandle. the stronghold for ted cruz will probably get more out of those as well. the northern part of the state is the most conservative, where he will generate the most votes. any place you have pockets of people who are not doing as well in terms of their economics. in florida we still see many people who do not feel that they have recovered from the great recession. flat wages, part-time work. even though florida itself is doing better. you certainly see that in the more rural parts of the state and in the north. it's definitely trump territory. that where you

have these income disparities, he's going to do well there. harold is joining us from outside jacksonville. good morning. good morning. one small correction. 15 were saying we have million people in florida. we have about 20 million. you are a little bit kind. -- behind. look. for oneoing for trump reason. we have had a president who has not exactly been following the law. we have open borders. we have industry after industry in the south being taken over by illegal immigrants. everybody wants change. it's not just at the bottom. of society invels florida. we have watched a lot of changes and we support trump because we want change. he's reflecting it but it's not easy.

we are against the socialist candidate bernie sanders who went to the soviet union on his honeymoon. imagine that. and he went to nicaragua to support the sandinistas. against him we have hillary clinton who can't quite the ethical, can't quite tell the truth. and you are looking at trump and saying, why is he getting mad? why is he saying things like, beat up these agitators? the republicans are the party that follow the rules, support families, care for morals, fight in the armed forces. we are a little bit fed up with people who do not follow the rules and believe in hitting people or falling on the ground pretending they've been hit. it's all parts of society now. we are in revolt. we want law and order. host: ok. thank you harold. we will get a response.

susan macmanus. guest: security is a big issue. and so our economics. those are the driving issues across the country. there is concern that on the security front -- twofold concern. one is that we have had all inse terrorist cells emerge the united states. it's one thing when it is overseas. it's another thing when it's on american soil. people are also very fearful of their safety. that is both sides of the aisle. it used to be you felt safe in a church or school or on the sidewalk or in a mall or at a restaurant. now the randomness of violence is really frightening people. people are angry. some people perceive it is coming more from some -- one side of the aisle than the other.

is veryage person concerned about security. in terms of economics, the same thing. people who are concerned about the economy -- and they look at washington and they see washington has done nothing to help them financially or whatever. i'm talking about the highly sought after middle-class voter, the casual voter who every four years votes and the rest of the time doesn't pay attention. they see washington is taking plenty good care of the wealthy in this country with corporate loopholes and whatever. wealthy people can send their kids to college and not worry about debt and they can hire a good accountant to help them with their finances. these people look at what government has done for the poor and they see that generally, the

government should help more but hasn't. they are very concerned about who the say are the not so genuinely poor that are working off the system. and for a lot of people they put into that category, right or wrong, immigrants who they perceive as taking their jobs away and they get very angry about what looks like government is helping people who are scamming the system a bit more than they are helping this poor middle-class person whose income has been flat and can't send their kids to college. you have a lot of anxiety. fears ofhese competing the economy and personal safety have made people just angry and fearful. what you are seeing are these very strong opinions about what's wrong in this country.

of anger get this kind and feel simultaneously without datag 10 years worth of that shows that almost two thirds of americans have not felt that the direction of country is headed the right way. it's a very unusual time in politics at a pivotal time for the future of this country. study political science at florida state university, dr. susan macmanus, professor of medical science at the university of south florida. she is the former chair of the florida elections commission and serves as a political analyst on wflat. ron is joining us from columbus, ohio. democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning.

just tired, i'm frustrated. the so-called leaders of this dividedseem to be so and sending that message across the country. trump is talking about beating up protesters in the name of free speech. i'm a veteran. i am a vietnam veteran. thisld just like to see country try to look at the golden rule. treat one another the way we would like to betray to pa trea. race?we just be a human and try to come together? thank you for taking my call. host: are you going to vote on tuesday? have you already cast your ballot in ohio?

who is your candidate? caller: i'm still not sure. i voted for clinton or for sanders. i'm probably going to vote for bernie sanders. host: why? caller: because he sounds genuine. he sounds like he's truly poor livingout the in america. i think he wants truly to see america become one it was always meant to be. thanks for the call. susan macmanus, what did you hear from that color in a while -- caller in ohio? caller: i hear what i hear a lot. can't these people just get together?

absolutely. i teach young millennials every day. every day, the comment about the human race. can't we just focus on the human race. i hear it a lot. i'm actually the political analyst for the abc affiliate in tampa, wfts. we have the wrong information in the rundown. i apologize. caller: that's ok. he is a veteran, the caller. people respect veterans so much. when they are it set and they feel the country is just not understanding what they themselves have fought for, it's very upsetting for people to hear veterans say what they just said but they are very sympathetic with his viewpoint l sorry that this country is aware -- unaware of the basic constitutional rights we have. host: this is a story from the

miami herald. it was the collapse of the celebrated trump international hotel and tower in fort lauderdale florida four years ago that cost buyers millions in lost deposits sparking more than a dozen lawsuits and has now emerged as a campaign issue that threatens to follow the gop front-runner through the race on tuesday. are you familiar with this issue? i am. we have a similar issue in the tampa area. it has gotten some attention in the local media. i don't think it really resonates that well with people. people willsome say, that's just business. others will say, that's business and i don't like it. it's not a pressing issue is pushing people in one direction or another. if he were to secure the thenation and step into national stage, it would probably get more attention.

it is not moving a lot of voters in florida right now. host: matthew from new jersey, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you. i hope you will read some more fair-minded papers other than the new york times. my point is i believe that trump and to a lesser extent sanders are popular because they are not phony politicians that are beholden to special interest , whos like madame hillary does not tell the truth, and who pushed us into the unnecessary and a moral war in iraq. and this is another thing that bernie and donald trump share. they are both and they were both against the war. i love the way trump basically destroyed the legacy of george bush by pointing out that the iraq war was based on lies and

many people died and were injured unnecessarily. which by the way, hillary andton was a big warmonger pressure of that disaster -- pusher of that disaster. speaking of the golden rule, you know. thank you very much. host: professor, did you want to respond to that sentiment? also a very common one. people look back to iraq and afghanistan and think about the money that was spent and how we are not resolving the problem and get very upset about it. for some people, war and violence is a big reason why they look at politicians and decide who to vote for. it's also true that you are expressing the opinion of many supporters of both trumpet and

sanders -- trump and sanders. probably a bigger issue on the democratic side. that the bushns name is still not really healed among many voters. i think that is one of the things that hurt jeb bush in florida. formero you think the florida governor will endorse before tuesday and would it make any difference? guest: many people thought he would have done it before now. it's probably going to do much at the last minute. there are debates all over the place about whether it would help or hurt the candidate he endorses. that a number of florida republicans really still adore and admire jeb bush and are very sorry that his campaign didn't go anywhere. but for the people who are new

how much'm not sure his endorsement would mean at this point. he met with several of the candidates privately. the content of their conversations has never been released. he met with john kasich, marco rubio, and ted cruz prior to the debates. he may have told them to cut the personality stuff. we don't know what >> on the next washington journal, the speechwriter talks about the battle within the republican party for a nominee. the chances of a pro-kurd

convention and who he will support for the nomination. and documentary filmmaker ken burns talks about his latest documentary, "jackie robinson." about the man who became a leader in the civil rights movement. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. on c-span. journal" tonight, on the communicators, jim helper, a privacy and cyber security lawyer and john simpson, a privacy project director, discussed how and whether the fcc should develop privacy regulations for the internet. they are joint by howard busker. deal --ec can no longer provider aspect of the business

of internet access providers. there is now a rulemaking coming up for the fcc to decide what to put in place in lieu of or perhaps replicating the ftc's rules under the new fcc of 30. existt of the rules that existed in the world of telephones. now that they have extended by reclassification the situation to come isps, they have up with rules that are appropriate to the world of the internet, not just to telephones. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. on thursday, the senate judiciary committee held their first is this meeting since the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia a. the senators discussed whether to hold a hearing on the supreme

court justice nomination. of iowa said in nominee will not be taken up by the senate until in new president is sworn in. democratic members say that is part of the constitutional duty. this is an hour and 45 minutes. senator grassley is the chair and senator leahy is the leadcrack on -- lead democrat on the committee. [inaudible conversations]

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

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

felt views that are going to be expressed. we ought to encourage that sort of dialogue within our democracy. that is what you will see this morning. i would like to ask if you think i could go ahead -- no, i will wait. i also wait for senator leahy and i will wait now. where was asking staff if he thought it was okay if i go ahead. i will stop now and wait for senator leahy. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> before i give my opening statement and then go to senator leahy i would give a little bit about the agenda. i know we are going to have several debates in this committee on the floor on this subject.

todays was new to me because i didn't know we had a vote skelgs scheduled at 11:30 but i would like to finish at 11:30 so we all get a chance to vote. we have several bills on the agenda for the first time as well as four nominees and three of them are ripe for a vote. i would hope to move those three out of committee last week but we know we had difficulties between the two parties on that issue but i will not go over that. as i said yesterday, i want to open this meeting up for discussion on the supreme court vacancy before we turn to the agenda. so assuming we get to the legislation and nominees today we will hold over the legislation and one nominee and then we will vote on the other three nominees. there has been a lot of discussion about the supreme court vacancy the last couple weeks. the record is clear about how

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

first of all, there has been some suggestions that somehow chairman biden didn't mean what he said. it has been suggested that when he explained why the senate shouldn't consider a supreme court nominee during a heated presidential campaign somehow the actual words he used had a secret or completely different meaning. as a side, i would note this sounds like how some judges tend to read the constitution. thankfully for all of us, chairman biden spoke at length, as he often did when in the senate, and he was very clear. for the benefit of my colleagues who have not heard it here is just in part. this isn't going to be as long as what you heard niasia ellis on the floor of the senate. >> darn. >> oh darn. quote should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor,

actions occurring days before the democratic convention and weeks before the republican convention meets, a process that is already endowed n minds of many will become distrusted by all. senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, nominee, or the senate itself. if that wasn't clear enough chairman biden continued. mr. president, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of a constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties, from both ends of pennsylvania avenue. as a result, it is my view that if is a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or at the end of the summer president bush

should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecess predecessors and not name a nominee until after the election is complete. chairman biden went on to say if the president didn't follow the practice of the majority of the predecessors and submitted nominee anyway than the senate shouldn't consider the nominee. let me offer a couple observations. i said over the last few days some have tried their best to recast what chairman biden said in an attempt to give it a totally different meaning. even the vice president suggested what he said in '92 isn't what he meant. instead he said it was about greater cooperation between the president and the senate. chairman biden did talk about more cooperation. there is only one problem. he said cooperation should occur quote in the next administration

end of quote. it was only after discussing why the president shouldn't send a nominee if a vacancy arose. and only after explaining why the senate shouldn't consider any such nominee regardless of how good a person is nominated that chairman biden turned to how the process should be changed in his view quote unquote in the next administration. again, here is what he actually said quote let me start with the nominating process and how that process might be changed in the next administration whether it is democrat or republican. end of quote. just so there wouldn't be any confusion, he repeated it two sentences later. quote with this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration and how i would urge to change it as chairman of

the judiciary committee were i to be chairman in the next administration. end of quote. chairman biden was clear. whatever you do all of the spin in the world isn't changing that fact. we have talked a lot about the biden rules but not as much about why he felt strongly that conducting hearings under these circumstances would be bad for the nominee, process and senate. it was because the process wouldn't be about constitutional interpretat interpretations and the proper rule of the court. chairman biden said quote where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy all it will get in such circumstances

is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties from both ends of pennsylvania avenue end of quote. chairman biden was making the point that all of us know to be true. but only some of us are willing to admit considering a supreme court nomination in the middle of a presidential campaign would be all politics and no constitution. if there is any doubt that this was chairman biden's view look at how he described the problem in an interview a week before his famous speech in '92. quote can you imagine dropping a nominee into that fight? into that coldren in a presidential year? quote whomever the nominee was, good, bad or indifferent, would become a victim. end of quote.

i raise this in part because we are witnesses how raw politics are affecting process. regardless of what some are willing to admit, everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn't getting confirmed. the white house knows it, democrats, republicans, and even the white house press is saying that. why all of this outrage for a hearing and demand for a hearing everybody knows will not result in a nomination. the other side is looking to score as many political points as possible. that is why the minority leader has taken to the floor on a daily bases to attack me. we have seen that thing from him before around here. it is all about using this

process to score political points. it is that simple. we are even seeing reports from the white house and the election process is guided by raw calculation and what they think will exert the most political pressure on me. this guided logic appears to be if they nominate someone who i, or other republicans supported, for lower court, it will conclude it is a good idea to drop that nominee and what chairman biden called the coldron of a hearing during a heated presidential campaign. people conveniently forget that judge borke was confirmed to the washington, d.c. circuit but that was before the other side viciously attacked and smeared him when he waw nominated to the supreme court. it is being suggested if the white house lects a judge from

iowa i would try to convince my colleagues it a good idea to hold a hearing. we have been upfront and clear but in case there is any confusion over whether this obvious political ploy would work i think we need to be crystal clear. it will not work. we are not going to drop any nominee into an election year cauldron and i am not going to let it happen to the good people of iowa. let me touch on a few more points before turning to the ranking member. some of the arguments we have heard are so absurd they don't deserve rebuttal. but my friends seem to be under the impression if we repeat something enough it will become true. i heard it said the kennedy episode lands support to the notion the senate should consider a nomination during the middle of a presidential campaign. the argument is that justice

kennedy was nominated in '87 and confirmed in '88 this somehow disproves chairman biden's argument. the only reason that seat was still vacant in early '98 is because judge burke was treated to an unprecedented and shameful smear campaign in '87. those of us who were here remember it very well. that brings me to another related point. it has been suggesting the democrats here in '87 and '91 and chairman biden in particular should be applauded for how they handled the burke and thomas nominations. i will set aside the fact neither of these nominations occurred during a heated presidential campaign. the argument is judge burke and justice thomas were treated to a fair process even though they didn't have the support of the majority in the committee they were reported to the floor.

i am not going to negate those nominations but where was here for judge burke and justice thomas and i saw what happened to both of them. i saw what happened to their records, to their repatiutationd the impact it had on their families. if anyone wants to argue those individuals were treated to a fair process you are free to make that argument but to this senator it would be laughable if not so sad. there wasn't a vacancy when chairman biden took to the floor in '92 but consider this. chairman biden spoke on the floor that day before the end of the term and that is the day when justice often announce their retirement. it is true there was no vacancy at the time. but the chairman of the senate

ju judiciary committee went to the floor of the senate and put the public, all nine justice, and the president of the united states on notice. if any justice was considering retirement they should know that the senate was not going to consider any replacement consistent with past practices. based on what we heard over the last few days you would think those expressing outrage today would have rose to the floor to express their disagreement with chairman biden in '92 but for some reason that didn't happen. not a single democrat went to the floor that day, or the days and weeks that followed, to stand up and say no, mr. chairman, you have the history wrong. not one. not one democrat went to the floor, stood up and said no, mr. chairman, there may be the senate's history and there may be very good reason for it but i

think we should press ahead with an election year nomination anyway. not one. not a single democrat went before and stood up and said no, mr. chairman, i disagree. we haven't located any newspaper editorials taking him to task either. so much for fairness between then and now. so we should keep in mind when we hear all of this outrage today keep that in mind. let me make one final point. if this particular argument were not so transparently absurd it would be worthy of more debate. it is the under that because republican senators met to discuss the issue that somehow we were not being upfront and open. we could get into all of the secret meetings that the other side held before they walked into the the chamber on november 21st, 2013 and invoked the nuclear option but i don't think that would be a constructive debate.

everyone in this room knows we meet to discuss importance matters and the reason i know everyone knows it is because i met with each one of you on one issue or another and you didn't invite the press or public. i met with every republican when i became chairman and offered to do that with every democrat and i did meet with most of you on the other side of the aisle so i can learn your priorities and what each one of you wanted to see accomplish. i have co-sponsored legislation when you even when you led the battle has senator durbin has done on sentencing reform. that is how we can learn where we can agree, where we can't, and where woe might be able to work together. that is how we get things done. that is how you lead. the bottom line is this: we

didn't play games, we didn't hide the ball, we made it clear up front to the president, senate democrats and the president what we wanted to do. we know others would make this as political as possible. it doesn't matter because this is the right thing to do. senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will not go through all of the things i disagree of the recounting of the facts because we would be here too long and you and i have been friends for too long. i know during election year nominees in the last your of president reagan's -- >> is his mike on?

>> turn your mike on. >> it is on. i don't know if is carrying. in the last year of president reagan's term, the democrats were in charge and it was presidential election year and he was going to be leaving the presidency and we voted on a supreme court nominee of president reagan. talk about partisanship. every single democrat voted for president reagan's nominee in a presidential election year. i am sorry that you feel that somehow this attention is directed at you and this is about you. it is not. it is about the constitution which is more important than you, me, or anybody else in the room. the president has a constitutionconstitutio constitutional obligation to nominate when there is a vacancy

in the supreme court. we have a constitutional -- is this not working? >> is that better? okay. as i said -- as i mentioned earlier, when we talk about what happens in presidential election years, the democrats were in control of the senate unprecedented reagan's last year in office, presidential election year, every single democrat voted for his nominee to the supreme court. i know my good friend from iowa said mow this effort is directed at him. i would say it is really not about him or any one of us. it is about the constitution which is a lot more important

than any one of us. the oath that the president took to uphold the constitution, which requires him to nominate somebody when there is a vacancy, and requires us to exercise our advice and consent in voting yes or no. but we cannot sit here in close door meetings and agree with just part of the committee while we will vote maybe. the american people want us to do our job. we are paid to do our job. voting maybe is not an option. senator grassley, we have been friends for a long time. i hope while we disagree we will continue to work together in the legislation and oversight matters as well as nominations and he is correct. we have sponsored a lot of

leahy-grassley and grassley-leahy. we try to do that in the best tradition of the senate. he is a man who embodies those traditions and the courtesy of this body and something that is unfortunately sometimes lacking. but those of us who have been here for a while appreciate this. i was upset when it was recommended the next supreme court nominee will not receive any consideration this year. there was no unanimous recommendation. this is our first business meeting to consider anything since the untimely passing of justice scalia. the first member of congress or anybody who said anything publically about justice scalia's passing was the republican leader who said there will be no replacement.

a lot of us would have like to at least had the memorial and the burial of the justice before that talk started. the committee hasn't discussed how we will proceed. but the majority can determine what they want to do it is not unanimous in contrast to what thepub -- the republicans say. it was not. that is blatantly false. unanimous requires all of us and we were not invited to that closed door meeting. i want to with you as it has been the case on all supreme court nominations. i know you want to conduct the work fairly and i hope you will

return to the practice in working together. we may disagree with each other but the tradition has always been that the chair and the ranking member, and i have been both chair and ranking member, on these kind of major decisions in this committee meet together and talk about it first. it is important we try to work together because we are not at the end of the year. we will have many matters to grapple with over the next nine months. you and i were elected to serve for six years. not five and a quarter. we are at the five and quarter mark. we were elected by the people of iowa and vermont to serve for six years. i intend to work every day until the end of my term. concerns about shutting down the process of the next supreme court nominee some senators are pivoting complaining about how lower court nominees have been

treated in the past. we can go back and forth on this for days. the last two years of president bush's term in office, when we took over, we confirmed 68 of his judges. i think you have allowed 16. but it could be dispute this committee has always treated supreme court nominees differently than other nominees. since i have served in the senate and i have served here for almost 42 years. the senate judiciary always head hearing on the pneumy pne nominees. i am glad to see senator hatch here. when i became chairman of his committee, i and senator hatch the ranking mem, talked about how this would continue -- member -- i am not saying would change but continued to consider supreme court nominees.

in a letter to all senators, senator hatch and i wrote the practice had been to report supreme court nominees to the senate once the committee completed its consideration. this has been true even in cases where the supreme court nominee was opposed by the majority of the senate judiciary. even in a case where republicans and democrats voted against the nominee it was said it should be considered by the full senator. the republican leader at the time, senator lot, read our letter in the congressional record to ensure it was available for all americans and every single republican and democrat didn't disagree showing the long understanding of the committee to an open fair process to supreme court nominee. this has been the committee's practice regardless of who held

the gavel and who is in the white house. last week a distinguished group of scholars wrote the constitution gives the senate every right to deny conformation to a presidential nomination. denial should come after the senate deliberates over the nomination which includes hearings the senate judiciary and anything less is a breach of the senate's best practices and tradition for much of our nation's history. i ask unanimous consent this scholar letter be included in the record. >> without objection, so order. >> i love the senate. i love the traditions and i love the way senate, not buzz i am a senator, but because i believe the senate could be, should be and at times has been the

conscious of the nation. every one of us takes an oath to uphold the constitution so help me god. so the public conformation hearing the senate has never denied a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. you cited comments from vice president biden but the fact is we have taken action every time there has been a supreme court vacancy. i can read all kinds of things from debates but i would say this: the actions continue to speak louder than any words. our actions speak louder than any words and our actions show we have always, we have always gotten here hearings and had votes when there is a supreme court vacancy. that is what senator hatch and i said in our letter. j -- the importance of the

supreme court can't be understated. take a deep breath, return taking things one step at a time, and return to how this committee has long treated supreme court nominees no matter which president nominated them. we have the president will nominate soon a person. he will fulfill his duty that he swore to do, so help me god, and now after he does, i would remind everybody the consideration of his supreme court nominee as a constitutional duty of each senator. i hope they are all going to do our job here. the one we took the oath of so help me god that we will do. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an interesting hearing.

the question regarding the vacancy of the death of justice antonin scalia is when not whether a nominee should be considers. the democrats say the constitution shows a prompt vote whenever the president choses a nominee. anything else they say would not be doing our job. rarely have words been so misleading. the nomination power is given to the president and the advice is given to the senate. the constitution doesn't tell the senate how to exercise its power. the senate must decide in each situation and has done so in different ways, at different times, under different circumstances.

the democrats know this is true. during the 102nd congress, then chairman joe biden, denied a hearing to dozens of nominees and recommended if a supreme court vacancy occurred the entire appointment process should be deferred until after the election season was over. between 2003-2007 democrats on and off this committee voted dozens of time to deny any conformation vote to republican judicial nominees. in 2005 harry reid said the constitution does not require the senate to vote on a president's nominee. when he chaired the committee under a republican president, senator leahy denied a hearing to dozens of nominees who were never confirmed. senator charles shumer stopped

this. democrats proposed filibusters under president clinton, supported them under president bush and abolished them under president obama. democrats had their reasons for these statements and actions and i am sure each time they believed their positions in these matters was legitimate. those statements and actions are not compatible with the position that the congress requires prompt hearings and floor votes for all nominees. if what democrats say today is true, vice president biden in 1992 advocated violating the constitution. the minority leader was flat wrong if that is the case.

democrats liberal allies equally confused. we received a letter claiming the constitution requires quote timely hearings and votes unquote. some of these same groups publically and forcefully advocated denying floor votes to republicans. we received letters it is the quote senate's constitutional duty to hold a hearing and timely vote on the scalia vacancy. i am well familiar with law professors in this country and they make a lot of different claims. i am not aware any of those know the constitution doesn't require the senate to vote on a president's nominee. did any of these professors complain with so many other senators voted over and over to

prevent any converimation votes firearmly or otherwise for republican judicial nominees? of course they didn't. this is a political stunt that is misleading the public. the constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with it. mr. chairman, neither of the constitution, nor the other parties political priorities, dictate how the president or the senate exercise their respective powers in the judicial appointment process. i believe there are other reasons for deferring the process for the scalia vacancy. i would require those saying a prompt hearing is required that this committee wasn't even made until 29 years after the

constitution was drafted. enough absurd claims about what the constitution plainly does not require. if my democratic colleagues really want to argue that republicans today should not have the same ability to structure the conformation process as democrats did in the majority they should make that case. they know the american people will not except such a position. mr. chairman, i am concerned about this because it just seems to me this is a presidential election mess. i have never seen it worse. i have never seen the country more at odds or on edge over a presidential nomination process. we all know that whoever picks the next nominee for the supreme court that it is going to be a big battle no matter what happens. that is the way it looks to me

and that is based only on 40 years in the senate. so all i can say is that we have every right to determine that this is not the time to bring up a nominee for the supreme court of the united states of america and we have every good reason to not do it under these circumstances. i hope we can work together in the future and this resolves itself as it should. >> senator fienstein? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my words are said this morning with considerable disappoi disappointment. i have great respect for you, mr. chairman, and most of my colleagues on the other side so let me begin with some history. [laughter]

>> some of those on the other side would say the same thing about their side. [laughing] >> let me begin with some history. no supreme court seat has been kept vacant by senate in action for over a year since the civil war. i think it is important to realize what that means in terms of history and a four to four court. first some history. 155 years ago last week, march 4, 1861, president lincoln delivered his first inaugural address here at the capitol building. lincoln had won the election in november. as we all know, the nation was about to enter years of brutal civil war. lincoln closed his inaugural by appealing to avoid the bitter conflict that was to come.

he said and i quote we are not enemies but friends. we must not be enemies. though passion may have been strained, it must not break our bond of affection. then he appealed to the better angels of the nation. the first battle of bull run happened about 32 miles from here and there was concern washington itself was at risk. a during all of this there was a vacancy on the supreme court. peter daniel died in 1860 and president bucannon spent up a nomination in 1861 three months after lincoln's election and only a month before lincoln's inauguration. multiple states had already voted to secede by that point. the nominee, jeremiah black was

put up. president lincoln nominated samuel miller, an iowa resident to fulfill the seat and he was proved. that was the last time the supreme court had a vacancy of more than a year. it took our nation tearing apart and at war with itself for a senate to keep the supreme court seat vacant for more than a year. that was the last time it happened. no supreme court seat has been kept vacant by a senate in action for over a year during that time. what is happening today is contrary to our committee's practices even in divided government and election years.

also, no nominee for supreme court vacancy has been denied a hearing since 1916 when the committee first started holding hearings on nominations. that is 100 years of a precedent. we have confirmed nominees during presidential election years. most recently a democratic senate confirmed justice kennedy, a republican, in the final year of reagan's term. 14 supreme court nominees in fact have been confirmed during presidential election years. clerance thomas did not receive a majority vote of support in this committee but still was confirmed by a democratic senate in october of 1991 after the presidential election campaign had gun begun. i remember it because it was during my first campaign for this body. in 2001, as senator leahy has

said, senator hatch and senator leahy recognized our long-standing practice to give nominees fair consideration; a vote in the committee and a vote on the floor. this was done in the joint letter that senator leahy referred to and it was entered in the congressional record for all-time. that was an agreement made in a democratic senate when a republican, george w bush, was in the white house. it is this body and committee's job to look carefully at the nominee and give that person a fair hearing and a vote. the effect of this obstruction is like to leave the court with only eight members over two terms of that court if you actually think about the timing. now what does that mean? out of 8,000 petition the court

gets for review a year the court takes about 80. it choses those primarily where there is a disagreement among lower courts about important federal issues. over two years we are talking about 160 cases and 16,000 requests for review that are potentially impacted. not to mention emergency requests that do not have the luxury of time. now, of course the court isn't going to deadlock in every case. but the potential for deadlock is greatly increased when the court has only eight members and the court previously because divided 5-4 frequently. tie votes in the supreme court do not settle the dispute heard by the court and they don't create precedent for other cases.

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

that should be sobering. scalia quoted the court's recuseal policy signed by six republican appointees stating that quote even one unnecessary recuseal impairs the functioning of the court. we have gone through a lot of tie votes. we have those. when you go through them you see the impact of a 4-4 divided court. let me give you just one example. i picked it because it involves the ninth circuit. in 2008, the ninth circuit decided a case called the united states versus florisand the question was whether a person born abroad at an an unwed u.s. citizen was a citizen of the united states. the law differed depending on

whether the citizen parent was the mother or the father. here is how the ninth described the issue quote if a united states citizen father had a child out of wedlock abroad with a non-united states citizen mother the father must have resided in the united states for five years after his 14th birthday to confer citizenship on its child. but a united states citizen mother had to reside in the united states for a continuous period of only one year prior to the child's birth to pass on citizenship. it is this difference that florez claims makes anacl classification on the base of gender and age end quote. the ninth concluded this

treatment was permissable under it constitution. the supreme court accepted the review in the case but in 2010 it deadlocked 4-4 because justice kagen was recused. that left the ninth's decision in place in california, arizona, and other states in the ninth but did not set a nationwide precedent. five years later in 2015, the second circuit came out the opposite way. here is what the second circuit found it is argued this statutory theme violates the fifth amendme fifth amendment guarantee of equal protection and onewed

fathers should receive the benefits unwed mothers receive. we agree and believe our client derived citizenship at birth through his father. a tie vote can have a real significance. here is the bottom line. in the situation presented by this case today, children in one circu circuit may not be citizens but in another circuit they would be. that is not the fault of the child but how the law treats the parents of different genders and it makes no sense when the issue could have been resolved in 2010. let me conclude by saying the path republicans have put us on goes against more than a century of history.

it is going to impair the functioning of the supreme court. and no doubt members are going to point that out. i believe that it is going to have more importantly real impact on people and real businesses in real cases both this year. we all know the other side of aisle has been trying for years to deny this president the right of appointment whether it be for ambassadors, his cabinet, or other top level staff appointments. but this is really something different. so i am appealing to the better angelz of your nature. when there is nominee, do as we have done in the past. give the nominee careful consideration. meet the with nominee. ask the nominee questions. hold a hearing. and then hold a vote. both here and on the floor. vote no if you want but let's

have the fair process that is our tradition. that is our job and we should do it. >> thank you, senator fienstein. just to fill in on history in 1969-1970 the court had 452 days of vacancy and in 1945 justice jackson took a one-year leave of absence to serve as chief prosecutor at the war crimes trial. the sky didn't fall and justice aleto said quote unquote the court would be able to deal with only eight members. senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and your leadership. i would say to colleagues even the new republican colleagues.

there is a history here and the democrats don't have the principle history. all of us have dirty hands and no one is perfect in how we handled judicial conformations. i remember when clinton was president a nominee came up in california, trent lock filled a cloture on the nomination to move it forward, and i voted for cloture. and that is the way -- because we didn't believe in filibuster. it was only after president bush won and the republicans have a slim majority in the senate that the democrats held those nominees system . he nominated 11 and two were renominations president clinton put up that were democrats and confirmed those two quickly and then everybody else was blocked. it went what?

two or three years? when why got the majority back it was filibustered and he went on and on and on until finally the american people got frustrated with it. they wanted judges who would follow the law. good judges they could trust and believe these were. senator graham and others and the gang of 14 wasn't it? they cut this deal and said well, okay, we will not filibuster anymore except in extraordinary circumstances. we can vote no but not filibuster except in extreme cases. i said i will adopt that. i didn't previously believe in filibuster but i said i will only use it in a restrained way where i feel it is important. i tried to adhere to that and i think republicans have. we get back in the majority and

they are unhappy the republican majority was not willing to fill judges for the washington, d.c. circuit that had no need whatsoever. they had the lowest case load by far in any court in america and we said we will not affirm them. senator instagram -- graham blocked one from president bush. we had it sent to the ninth circumstance because they had a shortage. now they say you cannot filibuster. all of us are less than perfe perfectly consistent. first and foremost the republicans have been principle and responsible in handling nominees than the democrats colleagues. they have not hesitated to change any rule or principle to advance the immediate agenda they have.

now, somebody i just saw a poll in the "wall street journal" and 62% of people say the democrats would do the same thing we are doing in this circumstance. late in the campaign year, no nominee having been put forward to this date, and they say the democrats wouldn't move the nominees either. well of course that is correct. if you took a poll of all senators and they would tell you the truth it would be hundred percent in the senate. ...

who will replace justice school gentleman? it will be decided in the next election. and we can -- the court is not going to cease to function because it's 8-8 as the jutting said. i'm fully aware that my colleagues want to make a political point and try to push this issue, but it's what the senate would do. this is not an unreasonable position. i think we have to go back to 1888 before somebody insists under these same circumstances was confirmed late in the session. mr. chairman, you know these

rules. you know the history of this. snoff hatch know the rules. he chaired this committee many, many years. i'm totally convinced, colleagues, friends, people out in radio land, that this is what the democrats would do if they were in this situation. this is what you would expect a senate to do. let the american people have a voice in who will replace justice scalia next year. thank you very much. >> senator shumer? awe thank you, mr. chairman. 'd like to thank you for having these remarks. i want to thank the ranking fleb vermont for his able remarks and associate myself with his and with senator feinstein's outstanding presentation as well. i appreciate also the chairman moving forward with nominees today, as well as two bills before us. adam walsh are laws that i care deeply about, and it's a pleasure to work with you on these important pieces of legislation. i appreciate the partnership

that you mentioned earlier on those efforts. i have to say the work of this congress will be shamefully incomplete if this committee refuses to do that most important job of weighing the supreme court nomination. we were given a job to do by the constitution of the united states. a job the american people want us to do. the next year the judiciary committee will not do its job. my republican colleagues claim this isn't about politics and the fact they don't like this president. they say, "the american people ought to have a say in deciding who will appoint the next justice." they say let the people decide. well, the people have decided. if you ask the american people, they'll tell you, they want a hearing in this committee. the data is overwhelming. the cnn poll found 58% of

americans want to see the president nominate someone to the court this year and have the person have a hearing. just yesterday, "wall street journal," hardly a liberal journal, found that 55% of registered voters disapprove of the republican decision to block a court nominee sight unseen. "washington post"/abc poll, 3% say the senate should hold hearings. and these numbers hold stead any red states, blue states, and purple states. week held majorities all favor the filling of the vacancy. i say to my colleagues, yes, the people have decided and they are saying to the republican majority do your job. the american people are speaking loud and clear, and they're saying to the republicans just that.

we have a constitutional responsibility. it's up to this committee to do its job. the chairman has made a decision unilaterally that this committee will have no voice and no ability to examine a nominee's record in qualifications and no ability to perform the duties of advise and consent spelled out in the constitution. it's a shame. even the chairman, a man of integrity and good midwestern values, i respect him, he's a friend. but the chairman admitted this wasn't the consensus at first. he's an honest guy. last week the chairman indicated that there are members of this committee majority who might like to see a hearing. i suspect that's still the case. he said, and i quote, as any chairman ought to do, i went to the members of my committee. they all agreed with me for different reasons, not just because i'm chairman. i am reluctant, but all signs declaring there would be no hearing. so bottom line, some had reluck tabs. now, i have a great deal of

respect for my friend from iowa, his ability to lead the committee's majority. but i also believe the right of each member of this committee to hold his or her views, and i suspect there are some in this room who want the debate. now referring to our discussion on the floor last week said he likes a good scrap. well, let's have one. let's have a debate. let's, after the president makes a nomination, let's have the kind of serious, long, detailed, thorough debate, call it a scrap if you will, that we have had in the past. let's not forget the last four justices who were nominated, two by republican presidents, got bipartisan support to get on this court. voted in despite the divisions we have when it comes to something as important as the supreme court, we are able to have serious, serious hearings and come a conclusion, often in

a bipartisan way. ngs often with bipartisan way. i want to have one more thing. we just noticed for hearing this committee the debate on the constitutional amendment requiring a budget i am happy to have it. i can ignore that this proposed hearing is a convenient political cover for republicans backtracking out the promise to do aa budget. i'm happy to have a debate, but i must say comeau before we start trying to edit the constitution don't you think we ought to follow it? this committee comeau one of the original 11 standing committees and the senate holds a profound and story place in the history of the senate. it has resisted the territorial claims, the wants and winds of centimeters, even presence

of the same party. the waves of politics and pressure or broken against the wall. the senate judiciary committee time and time again always an ignoble fashion but nonetheless this committee and the senators in this room have a special obligation to consider how nice it. i once since this committee began holding hearings on supreme court nominees century ago has the committee refused to report nominates of the floor for consideration of all 100 senators. this knocks it back and forth. they are on both sides. let me repeat, not once since this committee began holding hearings on supreme court nominees century ago has the committee refused to report a nominee to the

floor for consideration of all 100 sentence. i know theanother distinguished chairman from iowa holds the same reverence that i do for the reputation of this against committee. and so i ask is you walk in lockstep with the majority leader and republican presidential candidates to the detriment of this committee constitutional duty that we as senators offer. >> there was a reference. manipulated depending on who is asking the question. they're supposed to make decisions based on what is right. i think that the people on the other side of the aisle right now while paula

61 percent of americans want to consider immigration lawyer out to be debated. the other side is not letting that affect immigration politics. >> i can tell you one person hillary clinton. she was 2121 points ahead of bernie in michigan lost. the moral high ground is a shaky place to be. i won't go there. i will say if you live long enough it is fascinating. people who i think. i like you all very much.

we are headed to changing the rules in a permanent fashion. filibustered and mass. one of the gang of 1414 the said let's not go down that road. only three of us are left and we found a way to confirm most. halfthey had the crap beat out of me at home. when i told people i thought consequences can win elections and we don't want to change the 60 vote rule knownobody wanted to here that until we lost. and the very same people and beating the crap out of me know. i would work with the other side. here is what is going to

happen. just in case we lose hillary clinton will present. unless bernie keeps doing well something else happens i don't know about. i'm telling everyone she will pick someone more liberal. goinggoing to vote for that person if i think they are qualified. the president deserves the right to pick judges. why not feel comfortable doing this? the current vice president in 1992 argued for we are doing, the sitting president filibustered to republican

supreme court justices. i said is this the same guy the filibuster? the last year of the lame-duck president. 's desk is not to confirm or take up a selection of president obama. if the vacancy occurs guess what we use their words. there is a republican president and a vacancy occurs in the last year the 1st term he can say lindsey graham said that the next president, whoever it

might be, make that nomination and you can use my words against me. in the last year at least of the lame-duck a year term pilot say will be a four-year term you will not see the vacancy of the supreme court based on what we are doing here today. when you change the rules about appellate judges and district court judges to get your way i thought it was an abuse of battle. you have made the caucuses and republican and democratic caucuses no not have to reach across the aisle to get input from us so we could input from you. you're going to take the most hard as people we can find in barrel somebody in the conference to vote against that person. most liberal members of the caucus because you don't

need to have to reach across the. over time the judiciary is going to be more ideologically driven is the process the senate now is not require you. i will fight for think they are truly in the job. so, this is where we find ourselves. i'm son but the fact of the senate is going down the road we have gone. if we lose this election much is the same. if it's hillary clinton or bernie sanders send over a qualified nominee. i think that's what the

constitution envisioned. the samesenate is always done what it thought was best. but the time we are and what is best seems to be by politics with judges that you started a new game. there will come a day we have a republican or democratic president and they will change the rules for the spirit court and will get frustrated. it is just a matter of time before the senate becomes the house when it comes to judges command i really hate that. >> let me ask all the members my said we probably ought to stop at 1140 to vote. and if there is a desire to do what is on the agenda why keep that in mind.

>> thank you very much. i have served on this committee for 18 years. the senate judiciary committee is one of the major committees of the senate and it has played all continue to play an important role in the history of our country. country. they are now faced with an historic decision, and i hope they get it right. i was at my friend acknowledging the observation mile include some graham. say that if we make a mistake today and we make it again in the future does not give me any comfortable. if there is one thing that we pay a lot of money for on both sides of the political equation, is the

disappointment and anger people feel about us that congress. maybe we do two points better as democrats but i don't take any comfort in that. the question is we will to either confirm those suspicions but changed. and we have a chance right here and now. let me say at the outset, my neighbor in iowa has been my fellow traveler for over 30 years. we spent more time on airplanes together and at airports than most other members have come to know one another under those circumstances. difficult to work with one another on a lot of issues. we were working on important issues together.

i am hopeful we can produce something bipartisan again incorporation. i also think that brings us together is really kind of this feeling that there is a minister and to turn things, even if we disagree we can be respectful another and try to find common ground. i think that is one of the issues in this debate about the filling of the vacancy in the supreme court. i think there is just a basic feeling of fairness where we live that flat and fertile part of america where you can see a long way in any direction is just a feeling of fairness to your neighbors, fairness to those who watch her friends. that should dictate what we try to achieve. i'll question of the end of the day it will still be 54 republicans and 46 democrats

voting on a nominee sympathizers and if the nominee is suspect are controversial that may not be in. for the 1st time in the history of our country the senate judiciary committee will not offer hearing. and then statement made by one of my friends of the committee warning people who are being asked to consider being aa nominee, be prepared. you will be treated like a piñata. we know what that is about.

toby this thing to a pulp. i hate to think this process is being likened to a piñata contest. he is trying to protect his potential nominee. of course ask the important questions. the severe 1st time in the

history of the united states and the city -- senate will deny hearing that is hard to explain. we can argue about polls. even among republicans is 46 in favor of a hearing they get the basic fairness of the question. their exists for this committee the creation of the chairman's staff away website i would like to read from the website of our committee when a vacancy

occurs nominate aa person to fill a vacancy. the nomination is referred to the u.s. senate where the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing for the nominee provides testimony in response to questions referring for consideration. this is our website. this is a practice of this committee. and yet the senators on this committee areand direct contradiction of what we have announced to be our policy. mr. chairman, i know this is unusual, but i would like to make a motion.

ask unanimous consent very briefly and directly assess the sense of the senate judiciary committee then redirected from the website comeau what a vacancy occurs the president was given the authority under article two the nomination is referred to the u.s. senate for the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing for the nominee provides testimony in response to questions from members of the panel. traditionally the committee refers the nomination to the full senate for consideration. i ask unanimous consent that this is our stated policy. >> i would like the objection noted for the record. >> mr. chairman.

>> if you did not yield the floor. >> i willi will conclude quickly. >> it is time to change your website. >> i yield the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't help but think, flip-flops for an olympic sport there might be some gold medals awarded. it is really breathtaking. i do believe the debate we're having here today is an important one and we should welcome it. this is important to have this debate in public and visible to the american people because the question is simple should the senate, the majority of his members were elected as a check of a president with little regard for congress or the restraints placed upon his office in from the supreme

court nominee of the president in the waning months of his office when that nominee would like they change the ideological balance of the supreme court of the united states for decades. justice scalia served for 30 years. but clearly the stakes are high and that is why we decided the american people should have their voice heard. the senate has clear constitutional authority to demand this, and my republican colleagues and i do intend to do the job for elected to do on the people's behalf. it is fair to say our friends across the aisle don't like this idea. but they are feigning a lot of outrage. we know they would do exactly the same the shoe on the other foot. we know that because they have told us.

we talked about one now vice president biden said years ago. you don't have to go back that far to find the comments from the senior senator from new york who said 18 months before president george w. bush left office that i will recommend to my colleagues we should not confirm supreme court justice except in extraordinary circumstances. we should reverse the presumption and have a presumption against confirmation and then there is senator reed, the former majority leader how the minority stated this, the duties of the senate are set forth in the constitution. nowhere in that document doesn't say the senate has a duty to give presidential appointees about. ". while i find myself disagreeing often he is absolutely correct.

there is no duty. the pres. can make a nomination and and the senate can grant or withhold consent. and then it was noted that the president himself when he was the united states senator filibustered then justice samuel alito. the facts are, democratic colleagues revocable book and simple justice requires that they abide by. her friends claim people should choose who makes the selection. that is the tradition. but more to the point that is a rich criticism. where was the precedent for

turning supreme court nominations in the scorched-earth political battles as they did with eminently qualified nominees what was the precedent for that? there was none. and where was the precedent for the serial filibusters of appellate judges in the bush administration that have already been commented on? there is no precedent comeau was no precedent for that. we rewrote the rulebook. and where was the president last congress and democrats change the senate rules by breaking the rules, something we call the nuclear option around here to deprive the republicans of the same judicial filibuster the democrats revised and employed with abandon in order to do what, to pack the district of columbia court of appeals. the 2nd most important court in the nation from which many ultimate supreme

court justices are nominated there was no precedent for the democrats did. friends of clearly established new rules for republican presidents and the time and time again devise new schemes when they were in control. well, every action has a reaction. that is physics. and in this case it is simple justice. they have made the bed, so let's dispense with the outrage. they can choose to extend eight years of anemic economic growth national weakness and disdain for the constitution that made our country great. they can choose a different direction for the better. i hope they do, but the

choice is theirs. the supreme court will have a central role in determining path we take and the people should have a voice in a decision. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you very much. i'm just going to step back a little on this. i thought many times about what i would do if we were in charge of the senate and we had a republican president and i think as a lawyer and talked my law professors, i would feel we have an obligation and that is what i would do because when you look at that plain language as we all know the president shall nominate someone, the senate shall advise and consent and put together a form of law professors about a week or so ago and one of them from the university of columbia

law school's and the framers did not contemplate, the framers did not contemplate the use of the senate's advise and consent powers solely around the clock on presidential appointment. as alexander hamilton speculated rejection of a nominee could only be made to make place for another nomination by the president. and i understand people might not vote for whoever the president nominates. it has been my view he has put up qualified people, but the constitution and its language did not anticipate how we would sit there and wait. and in fact when you look at the history as well as we know in the last hundred 35 years the president has been refused to vote for an open seat. the senate has confirmed more than a dozen supreme court justices in presidential election years including five, you have to go back to the civil war to

find a time when the senate did not do its job in the senate did not move on nominee for over a year through the depression, worlddepression, world war i, world war ii, the vietnam war, times are great tumbled , gray civil war, civil rights protest, you have to go back a long time. and so that is why i concluded if i were in your shoes i would have allowed this hearing to go through. the other piece of it that goes beyond the things i would most .2, the wording of the constitution which is always important, the fact that we have history as an argument that i think is drawn in favor of allowing a hearing to go forward, but we also have how we function as a senate command i havei have been proud of the way

our judiciary committee has handled nominees. people go back and forth about how many of gotten done, but the nominees are put forward have gotten a fair hearing. i think back to the two supreme court nominations. we had republican senators who took part in that, not that many of them voted. i remember lindsey graham's line. this is not the nominee i would have put up that way this person is qualified. and i remember the hearings as well people have strong views on either side of the process worked. we have a process, hearing. the nominee went to the floor. the process we could be proud of. you look at the existing justices, longest in any of

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

>> i apologize. i have a prior responsibility. i would like my remarks entered into the record. >> they will be. >> thank you for holding this important discussion. i think it is really instructive and somewhat ironic to here all of these arguments from the left that the constitution requires, demands a hearing and about and a certain timeframe. most folks, many are clearly making that argument. i think it is sort of ironic given that we are debating a vacancy created by justice scalia's death because he thought is 1st and foremost read the words. don't just make it up as you

go along. don't use these big tools to get to whatever and you want. and it is instructive because the left wants a new supreme court justice who is going to not read the words and will make it up as they go along and get to a preordained stop point however they can get there. but again words matter and the constitution and the other relevant words, in this case the senate rules are clear and do not require hearing or action on any particular timeframe. as you know, the constitution says simply an article to section two cause to for the presidential nomination by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint

ambassadors, judges of the supreme court and all other offices whose appointments are not here and otherwise provided for. that is what it says pure and simple. does not talk about any timeframe, does not talk about any required action. and the other text which governs of the senate rules. the constitution makes it clear the senate can establish rules to follow within the bounds of the constitution. in the senate rules, the onlyrules, the only thing they have to say about the timing of action is one of the won't occur, it shall not be put on the same thing was thefamous the nomination is received on the day on which it may be reported by committee and less by unanimous consent. and then there's 31.6 which

is very relevant instructive nominations are confirmed are rejected during the session i wish they are made , shall not be acted upon in any succeeding session. no hearing or action is required during the session. everyone here has voted for those roles. i don't know why folks taking it contrary view in the minority did not change that rule, do not vote no to the role or not proposing a change several now. everyone voted for the role. these arguments somehow the constitution requires us to act in a certain way or a certain timeframe just isn't

true. and honor of justice scalia we need to read the words 1st and foremost and it is instructive because that is really what this debate is all about. they can have a new justice or one who helps make it up as he or she goes along. legislate from the bench and try to get to a certain endpoint using whatever arguments eyes or her disposal. and of course, as has been said clearly so many leading members on the other side have confirmed this in the past when they were in a different position. senator reed, senator schumer went a lot further back than we are now.

18 months before the end of the bush presidency, no supreme court justice should be confirmed except under extraordinary circumstances this is not an extraordinary circumstance with the election coming up. i defer to the people. and so the question is,is, what is the right thing to do moving forward? very comfortable with putting them in charge. that is certainly what my constituents want in louisiana. there crying out in frustration of not being in charge of washington regularly ignoring there wishes of this trend, legislating from the bench and making it up as they go along continuing.

they want to voice in this and what a voice to be able to stop that. so i defer to the people. we have a unique opportunity to do that with this very important presidential election before us. i often think in virtually every presidential election that the most important issue in the election which gives little or no attention is supreme court appointments because that has impact for decades to come. they have an opportunity this year where that will not be the case. where hopefully that will be front and center. have an important debate about the proper role of the supreme court, the proper way for judges to make the decisions, to read and apply the law as written and certainly my constituents in

louisiana want that. they want to have a leading voice, be in charge. the great majority of them strongly object to the trend of nine or really five unelected lawyers making huge decisions for society which are not in and are not mandated by the constitution. so, i appreciate your leadership. i strongly support the path forward and i vote for putting the people and citizens in charge through the presidential election. it is important and somewhat unique. >> senator lee has the statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would ask if he could

stay. >> you can certainly speak. do i have to stay warm? >> we will give you unanimous consent to speak even if he goes. >> i do havei do have to go. >> i would like to address a couple things you said, but you can hear them in the record or something like that. this idea of nine unelected justices making law from the bench is what we have seen with the roberts court. this is one of the most activist courts we have had. my goodness, how many times have i spoken to this, and when we have these sort of mayor hearing, my 5th day in the senate and this is an

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

anyone here know, well, it would be the chairman, do you know when he spoke? somebody designed to gain the system. we are talking here about confirming someone to replace a justice who has died. think about how different that is everybody. when chuck schumer says an extra nurse situation, he is talking about someone dying.

scientists tell us they're to math month left. and justice scalia minded not agree with him. i thought he was a very witty, funny guy. that is a high compliment coming from me. i value that highly. no one dies to gain the system. what biden was talking about is a justice, as soon as the supreme court session ends with an resigning in order to gain the system. as far as senator obama

going to filibuster, that is the 60 vote threshold. >> you can listen to it as i go. it is, justice thomas was confirmed 52 to 42. a little bit irritating.

i think the chair for his indulgence in all my colleagues. >> i seem to be the last person sitting or standing. ask permission to include my remarks in the record. >> without objection so ordered. [inaudible conversations] >> today, emmy award-winning filmmaker ken burns and harvard university professor henry louis gates discuss race in america. in april, mr. burns will premiere his latest work, "jackie robinson" orkt first

african-american to play major league baseball. the national press club event is live, 1:00 p.m. eastern on -span. >> tonight on the "communicators," a privacy and cybersecurity lawyer and a privacy project director for the advocacy group consumer watch dog discuss how and whether the f.c.c. should develop privacy regulations for the internetted. they're joined by communications daily executive senior editor. >> the f.t.c. can no longer regulate that aspect, that one aspect of an internet provider or a telecommunications service provider aspect of the business of internet access providers. so there's now a rule making coming up where the f.c.c. will decide what to put in place in lieu of or perhaps replicating

the rules under the new f.c.c. authority. >> most of the rules that exist existed in the world of telephones. now that they've extended by reclassification, the situation to cover i.s.p.'s, they have to come up with rules that are appropriate to the world of the internet, not just the telephones. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> this week, susan glasser and "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter baker. the guests, who are married, talk about their careers and plans to move to israel.

>> susan glasser, editor of politico, why did you get into this business? susan: what an exciting way to were a living while learning something new every single day. i always wanted to be a journalist. >> where did you start? where did it all -- where was your first journalistic experience? susan: you know, i remember being 10 years old and handing out copies of newspapers amy parents founded, "the legal times," at the convention of lawyers here in washington one summer. and probably ever since -- >> how long did they own it? >> they started it in 1977, and they -- their company owned it until they were a subsidiary of an old publishing confirm,

brian: who is the first person who tie you would journalism is all about? susan: you know, it was funny. there was a famous teacher at the high school i went to. tom lyons was the supervisor of the newspaper at andover. he was also george w. bush's favorite teacher in high school. many years later he was still around, a very, very older statesmen at the school, and not only was he a great leader in journalism but also in the role of a free press. he taught constitutional law as well. my junior year in high school. it was incredible experience. brian: your husband is with us today. peter baker. before i go to peter baker, what were the circumstances where you met him? susan: people used to say i got my job through the washington post. i was lucky enough to get a job at the washington post and to find and meet my husband. we also like to say that monica lewinsky was the thing that brought us together. so there was some good at least they came out of that side of. i was an editor at the washington post and i would oversee in