tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 11, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EST
eastern on c-span3. today on washington journal, the executive director of the foundation of center of democracies. what it means for the iran nuclear agreement. a look at the role wall street reform is playing in campaign 2016. our guest is marcus stanley. later tom defrank of the national journal joins us to talk about the legacy of nancy reagan. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with your call and comments on facebook and twitter. coming up today, a panel on efforts to combat the effort -- the outbreak of the zika virus did the coalition and the
harvard global health institute will host the discussion starting at 11 am eastern on c-span. cooks i think what is so unusual is if i can be sappy for second, to be able to have professional and personal partnership for over 15 years. it is an unusual thing. >> susan's temperament and rate vision in terms of editing is andthing i do not have and never really spent time on. i stuck very closely to the grunt side of the equation here to >> political editor susan glasser and new york times chief correspondent peter baker who were married join us to talk about their careers and their plan to move to israel. >> it can be a great adventure. we have done the overseas thing together. we have never spent any time in
jerusalem that we never spent time in israel. i think we are looking for to learning a lot. it is going to be a real adventure. a part of the world that estimates history. it is a vital part of today's issues that we spent a lot of time writing about in washington but never lived there. >> we will basically be changing roles and continuing at politico -- we arearound continuing to expand internationally. we are looking at creating and launching news. i came to politico to start clinical magazine about 2.5 years ago. we started that. it is been an exciting, new path to take us into ambitious longform reporting. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a.
♪ >> during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house here it we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio and is c-span.org. ♪ >> senator ted cruz received his first endorsement from likely. this
is 10 minutes. >> it is time to expect more. it is time to expect freedom. it is time to elect ted cruz as the next president of the united states. at this, when we look presidential election cycle one of the things that comes to mind is the fact that with the recent death of the late justice antonin scalia, a lot of people
wondering who is going to feel .hat desk fill the vacancy who is going to name the person to fill that role? that is one of the great things about ted cruz. is that americans can know with confidence that ted cruz will take an outstanding person to fill antonin scalia's
position on the supreme court of the united states. they can also stand with confidence in knowing that this is a man who knows his family. i have seen ted stand with them and for them. i have seen him stand with and for his father and four in with -- and for in with his mother. -- and for and with his mother. and you know, he will stand for you. he will stand for every mother, father, son, and daughter in america.
he will do what he said. he will speak the truth, just as he has in the united states senate. today, i call on all within the sound of my voice to join me in this cause, to look forward to the first 100 days of a ted cruz presidency, 100 days that will be marked i reform, a reform that will restore the greatness of our economic mobility society. we have seen in recent years that economic mobility has been in dangers. -- been in danger. we have seen the poor and middle class being held back. we see economic opportunity as -- as backroom deals and enrich and empower incumbents who are already enriched and empowered. ted cruz will work to undo that into restore the greatness of the american people, to put the
power back where it belongs which is with the people. it is time, my fellow americans, and in particular today, my fellow republicans, to unite behind one candidate. that candidate is ted cruz. >> what kind of signal are you sending with this endorsement when you called marco rubio your friend? mr. lee: i am sending a signal that it's time to unite. the time is at hand when we as republicans need to unite behind one leader. >> should senator rubio dropout? lee: everyone will have to make that choice. if senator rubio were asking me that, i would encourage him, and i do encourage him, to get behind ted cruz. senator rubio and i speak on a very regular basis. >> did you talk to him about this decision? mr. lee: yes. that was a private conversation between the two of us. [inaudible]
mr. lee first of all, my focus : here is to support ted cruz. i am not here to trash talk other candidates, including the one you mentioned. i will say that is a candidate about whom i have many questions. i'm still waiting to hear a lot of things i don't know about what motivates donald trump about what informs his policy positions, about what his policy positions actually are down a whole host of issues, and i don't have answers to most of those questions. >> marco rubio has the lions share of endorsements out of the senate. mr. lee: the overwhelming majority of republican senators have not endorsed anyone. i expect that will change and i expect i will be the first of many republican senators who will endorse ted cruz.
i am confident more are on the way. i welcome others to join me. >> what took you so long -- walk us through the evolution, and senator cruz has said donald trump is unfit to be the nominee and unfit to be president? do you agree with that and why? mr. lee: again, i was looking for the right moment, when it was time to unite. things have aligned. senator cruz has spoken to the american people, and the american people in state after state have chosen. in some of those states, he has come in first. in others, he hasn't, but he has a building groundswell of support that is unmistakable. there are a lot of people who initially said that it was impossible for him to do what he set out to do.
then they said it was unlikely. now they are starting to see it is unstoppable. he truly is unstoppable. that's why i think it's time for us to unite behind him. >> do you think donald trump is fit to be your nominee or the country's president? mr. lee: i am here to talk about my support for ted cruz. i am still waiting to hear from donald trump about where he stands on a whole host of issues, how he interprets power and various provisions of the constitution, his views on federalism, on separation of powers. i would like to hear more substance from him. i don't think i can make a determination based on the information he has given us so far. >> [question in spanish]
mr. lee: [answering in spanish] >> what role if any will you play in getting more of your colleagues in congress to endorse senator cruz? mr. lee: the same way i try to influence my colleagues on anything else, on legislation. a speech that somebody out to get -- ought to give. person to person, talking to them about what their plans are. this is an ongoing process. i don't want to say a parlor game, but a frequent topic of conversation among republican senators. we talk about where the presidential election is going. he is the only candidate who can defeat donald trump and hillary clinton, and i believe he will.
>> [inaudible] mr. lee: no one person, no one effort is enough to bring about the result we want, but there are a lot of efforts on the part of a lot of people in a lot of states from a lot of different backgrounds that i think will bring us to that end. what is that? i think it's too early to predict that. i would not say we are to that point. i think a clear leader could still emerge in the field and
-- >> at washington times.com, the headline, marco rubio on the march? joining us on the phone is david stravinsky -- sherfinski. a lot of polling showing the donald trump has the lead, another poll showing that marco rubio is slicing into that, what can you tell us? david: that is correct. the thing i can say about the poll today is that it was conducted monday through wednesday. it is recent. some of the other polling that has been done, showing donald trump with a larger lead in double digits has been older. either way, it seems like marco rubio is going to have an uphill climb as he plans to win order -- florida. at this point i think his camp is probably more of the mind that it is sort of an 7, 8, 9 point race which is doable but not great. poll,according to this donald trump, 36% and marco rubio with 27%. the marco rubio super pac has a new tactic -- showing voters if you vote for ted cruz or governor kasich, you're essentially voting for donald trump. explain.
david: that is the message going out. in the winner take all states of ohio and florida, he will not have these proportional distribution of delegates that we have seen so far in the campaign. march 15 is the first date where state can move to winner take all format. if there are still four candidates and donald trump is at 30% and the other three are all at 20%, it is likely that donald trump would win all of florida's 99 delegates. what senator rubio and his allies are saying is if there is a vote that is not for me, it is effectively going toward donald trump and helping him. host: let me asking you -- let me ask about the debate. you know that senator rubio will be asked the first question, if he is going to stay in this race? david: he and his team have had
to beat back reports of unnamed advisers, things he might be thinking about dropping out before tuesday. before florida votes. i think he has to sort of come out and be as aggressive as he can without sounding desperate, if you will. that has been a storyline this week. every single day it has been rubio camp beats back rumors of dropping out. that could work for him. it pivots to something else. it could work for him. he has a home-court advantage tonight with the debate being at the university of miami. it could be a friendly crowd.
host: with regard to that cnn debate, what do you think the tone will be tonight? any difference from what we saw last week in the foxnews debate? david: that is a good question as well because you have seen donald trump in these press conferences on election nights start to adopt -- not necessarily a more conciliatory tone, but you can see him try to give it -- try to pivot to a general election type of town. -- tone. he said he hopes it can be a softer, nicer debate. as we saw in houston last month when marco rubio really started getting aggressive in his attacks on donald trump. i am not sure that donald trump wants to see that happen again.
he just wants to sort of play out the strings, his front runner, the status quo benefits them -- him. if he is forced to send questions about trump university or his past support for abortion rights, things like that come it is better for him, i think that marco rubio knows this is sort of last stand. he might be in a more aggressive mode that he has been on the campaign trail recently. ted cruz will probably mix it up a little bit with donald trump, marco rubio, and john kasich. really it has kind of been -- he has been in his own debate in a certain sense the past few times. staying out of the mud, and talking up his own record. it should be interesting. host: let me ask you about today's developments in florida.
the endorsement of mike lee endorsing ted cruz, his colleague from texas. this follows the carly fiorina endorsement from yesterday. how significant is this? david: that is a big get for the ted cruz campaign. especially during the announcement in florida ahead of the debate tonight on marco rubio's turf. possibly assuring it would come up in the debate because donald trump has frequently said, hey, here is ted cruz, a guy who has not won a signal the single endorsement from any of his colleagues, how could he get along with anybody? that talking point is kind of over now. as much as it will sway votes ahead of tuesday, i am not sure how much of an impact it will have, but certainly, mike lee is close to ted cruz and marco rubio. certainly it sends the signal
that he thinks cruz is the guy to take on donald trump one-on-one. marco rubio's campaign might be coming to an end soon. host: the political reporter for the washington times. his work is available online at washington times.com. thank you for being with us. david: thank you. >> coming up, a panel on efforts to combat the outbreak of the zika virus. the u.s. mobile leadership coalition and the harvard global health institute will host a discussion. starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. education week host a discussion with acting u.s. education secretary john king today in washington, dc and mr. king will talk about the obama .dministration k-12 education live at 2:00 eastern on c-span two. >> american history treat --
history tv. this weekend on saturday at 6:00 p.m., historian looks at the end of the civil war and the dawn of the reconstruction era. >> i think we see the first convergence that will become the reconstruction in the summer of 1864. especially august 1864. that is a strangely specific date, i realize. let's see if i can make the case. at the beginning of the summer of 1864, no president of the united states had won a second term since andrew jackson. isn't that amazing? 7:00, the congressional gold medal ceremony to recognize archbishops of foot soldiers and the civil rights movement. -- aselma preacher
president of the dallas county voters meeting invited reverend martin luther king, reverend awakensernathy, was a and members of the southern christian leadership conference to help lead some was boating rights protest -- selma's voting right protests. the metal upon the brave courageous foot soldiers. , fromday morning at 10:00 the 1988 presidential campaign from jack camp as he answered questions on the board of the usa today. >> while i have conservative values, i am progressive with regards to my belief and the republican party being the lincoln party, blue-collar, white collar and all people. i call on progressive
conservatives to differentiate myself from the idea. >> on railamerica, the 50th anniversary of the gemini eight manned space mission. the film we will show gemini eight. >> they know it is a three-day mission that is primary purpose -- with a target vehicle. the first docking in space and a two hour spacewalk by david scott. americanhe complete history tv weekend, go to c-span.org. >> the senate judiciary committee held a meeting thursday to discuss whether it should consider a super court nominee offered by president -- a supreme court nominee offered by president obama. this is 15 minutes.
they will uphold the concentration. it is going to be good nominee. , the americannee what the democrats did to ronald reagan and the election year. put through a nominee to the spring court. he can be divided it where unable to answer questions. we have to move forward. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership did we think the white house for the meeting did we did not discuss specific names or dates. we talked about the type of nominee that we all prefer.
one who has outstanding credentials. one who has garnered bipartisan support. we want someone as soon as possible but the vetting process have to be thorough. we came to the conclusion that is court used phrase probably appropriate. today we saw some of our republican colleagues say things that were telling. lindsey graham got up and said that their obstruction started a president. they are starting a new rule. we don't think the image people like that. -- we don't think the american people like that. with those kind of statements that bring the american people completely to our side. we appreciate that. it is going to get a lot harder for our republican colleagues to give up this obstruction when a
nominee is chosen. we believe the nominee is someone american people will feel would be a great addition to the supreme court. when it is a real person, the american people think would be a great addition, it is harder for them still we are optimistic soon enough not only will the president nominate a republican someonee -- nominate the republican colleagues -- [inaudible] that nominee will get bipartisan support. staff with us today at up.test that it is a photo
[inaudible] he is taking a careful approach in choosing a nominee to the spring court who will serve. that is how important it is. names.'t recommend theust told the president people to keep in mind. it is more than just one nominee. the stake here is the constitution. under the constitution, the president has the responsibility to nominate. the constitutional response ability to provide consent to that nominate. in the history of the united states of america, there has never been once a situation sent up apresident nominee who do not have a hearing before the senate
judiciary committee. -- to demonstrate this level of obstruction, dysfunction on the senate judiciary committee. i agree before this is over many of the senators will have to go home and answer very basic questions, are we being fair to this president? to this nominee? to the institution of the supreme court? see -- more republican step up and say let's have a fair hearing and vote. >> thank you very much. thank you everyone. we had a very good meeting today and i think you all now, we did not talk about me. this president takes his responsibility incredibly
seriously and we are only asking our colleagues to do the same, to do their job. president that nominated two very distinguished people before their court and on the court. obviously, we conveyed a sense of urgency but careful urgency that the vetting that needs to happen, happen. we talked about our process and -- wect that i look back talked about the history here and respect for the constitution, respect for history, but there is also respect for the process of the united states senate. as someone who was a little newer than others on the judiciary committee, being a part of those judicial confirmations as something i will never forget. while we did not have every vote of the republicans and the end,
i always was proud of the process, out of the fact that the republicans simply asked their questions. some of them like senator graham ended up voting for the nominees and others did not, but we followed the constitution, we had a process. and to step up and make history in a way that is contradictory to every senate since the civil war, and all the dividing time in this country, the senate has always done its job and the judiciary committee has always done it job. that part of the process in addition to the president's part is very important. said,my colleagues have this would be unprecedented if -- person whoe the president will nominate in a hearing. 1916, everyone put forth by the president has had a
hearing except for one who dropped out, harriet miers. 49 who were approved within 11 days -- nine were approved within 11 days. i think it is very important to understand that the vacancy came open because a death of a justice. the constitution is very clear that the president shall to fill thatone vacancy. it is very important to the country, important to the stability of the country, legitimacy of our laws. it is very important. i really believe that we are
[indiscernible] >> i am confident that president obama will do his job and will nominate an eminently qualified candidate to the supreme court who is richly deserving of bipartisan support. a candidate of the type we have seen from this president before and other presidents before. we had a very constructive meeting to share with advisers about how they ought to conduct the full vetting process and make sure a nominee comes forward directly that is deserving of bipartisan support. juniorof our more members of the committee, i have not had the opportunity to be part of a supreme court confirmation process. just hours after justice scalia passed away republican senators were announcing they would not
hold a hearing and they would not meet with a financial nominee amount of -- a potential nominee, no matter their background. it threatens the long tradition of the senate judiciary committee which has conducted a hearing for every single nominee . only those who withdrew or just directly to the floor for a vote or were given a poll hearing. once the nation sees the quality of the candidates that president obama nominates, the pressure will mount for the senate to do its job, the senate judiciary committee to do its job, and republican candidates to hold a hearing so we can get back to a full, confident, and functioning supreme court. the people of the united states deserve no less. >> i'm the most junior member of this committee and i have never been through a confirmation process,cases before the supremt
-- four cases before the supreme court. impressed by the approach the president is taking because i think we share a respect and a reverence for the supreme court as an institution. is approaching it is notion as -- about the politics, it is about the person. somebody of ultimate and in challenge of all intellect and hallengeable inc intellect and integrity. theire who will uphold respect and reverence that the american people have for the courts and institutions. theally regret
obstructionism of my republican colleagues who have said site unseen, and a presidential nominee is unacceptable. of thetted most because damage it does to the supreme court institution, by dragging it down into the muck and mire of partisan politics and the sawlock the american people in our institution. lawamerican people want the so that the government does its job. the supreme court cannot really do its job with an evenly divided court. that oure is republican colleagues will do give credit to a nominee, will enable us to vote,
and will consider the nominee. the republicans this much credit. they said they are not even going to consider any nominee. they have stripped and a respectable veneer from their obstructionism. they could've gone through the pretense of saying, of course we will have meetings, and a hearing. instead they just said, absolutely no way, sight unseen. if that is the attitude they have for one of the president's nominees, at least they were honest. my hope is that they will consider on the merits a person
nchallengeable intellect. >> did you talk with the president about what he will do and what the white house will do if the republicans hold to their word and decide not to have hearings? is there a contingency plan? >> the president is going to make a nomination and i think for the american people, he is following the constitution. it took an oath to uphold the constitution. it is not going to be something that we can or cannot do. i think the american public, republicans, and democrats alike will say do your job. you are hired for a six-year term, not a five or a four-year term or you can stop for the
first couple months of a six-year term. the your job. i am up for reelection. i will do my job. >> [indiscernible] what i said in 2007 is very simple. if members find a nominee out of the mainstream after a hearing they are entitled to vote now. that is still true today. >> i hope you take a look at a letter referred to. chairman orrin hatch, we joined to letter -- together
saying there must be a hearing in the vote. the republican leader of the senate at the time read it into the record so the whole country would see it, and every single agreed,an and democrat nobody disagreed. >> how do you keep this relevant in the conversation if republican stick to their word? i have not seen -- such fervor among people asking us to do our job. it ist is true that playing in favor of the petition but our hope is that our
republican colleagues will do their job and go through the process. not want a political history, we want a supreme court justice. >> [indiscernible] boss and say, i do not feel like doing my job for eight or 10 months that sending my paycheck anyway. it is not going over well. >> i think once the president makes a nomination, that there will be added focus. >> does anyone think the president should nominate a progressive? shouldhink the president nominate a qualified person.
later, tom defrank of the national journal joins us to talk about the legacy of washington journal. it is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join us with your comments on facebook and twitter. coming up today, a panel on efforts to combat the outbreak of the zika virus, the bipartisan policy center, the u.s. leadership coalition, will discuss with public health officials at 11:00 on easton -- on speed -- on c-span. >> join c-span today at 1:30 p.m. eastern for the funeral first lady former nancy reagan. buried nextwill be
to her husband at the library. live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. unusual isat is so that if i could be sappy for a second, to be able to have professional and personal partnership over more than 15 years as a really unusual thing. temperament and great vision in terms of editing is something i do not have and i have stuck very closely to the grunt side of the equation. >> sunday night, politico editor susan glasser and chief white house correspondent peter baker, us to talkried, join about their careers and their upcoming plans to move to israel. >> we were bureau chiefs together in moscow for the washington post so we have done the overseas thing together but
we have never spent any time in jerusalem, spent any time in israel, and we are looking forward to a lot. it has so much history and it is such a vital part of today's issues. we are looking forward to that. >> i will also basically be changing roles and continuing at political in a role around helping to lead our editorial innovation, we are continuing to expand in the united states and internationally. we are looking at creating and launching new things. i came to politico to start politico magazine about two and a half years ago. i think it has been a really exciting, new platform to take us into those ambitious long form reporting and the war of ideas. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span q&a.
american history tv on c-span3 this weekend, on saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, looking at the end of the civil war and the don of the reconstruction era. >> i think we could see the first convergence of the roads that will become reconstruction in the summer of 1864, especially august 1864. that is a strangely specific date, i realize, so let me see if i can make the case where you . at the beginning of the summer of 1864, no president of the united states had won a second term since andrew jackson. isn't that amazing? >> and at 7:00, the congressional gold medal ceremony to recognize the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement. reverend0 years ago, frederick douglas greece as the
president of the dallas county voters league invited reverend martin luther king, reverend mark after nasty -- mark abernathy, and the leaders of christian -- bestow the congressional gold medal upon the courageous foot soldiers who dared to march in the 1965 voting rights movement. >> sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the re-house -- road to the white house rewind. he answereds questions from the editorial board of usa today. >> while i have conservative values and on conservative on domestic policy, i'm progressive in my belief with the republican party eating a party of all people. -- being a party of all people.
myselfr to differentiate from the idea that i am standing and defending the status quo. eastern, them. 50th anniversary of the gemini eight. we will show a flight. >> they know it is a three-day mission that's primary purposes include rendezvous in space with docking vehicle, first in space, and a two hour spacewalk. >> for the complete american history tv schedule for the c-span.org. >> the senate judiciary committee held its first is this meeting since the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia a. sayshair, chuck grassley, the senate will not take up a supreme court nominee until a new president is elected and sworn in.
>> i cannot 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 that now so we do not waste a lot of time because this is a very important debate we are going to have. i'm saying this not for my members, but mostly for people watching on c-span, that often innk that everything we do washington, d.c.'s political or partisan. will beate coming up very partisan, but i hope people remember that over the last 14 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 basis or on a very broad bipartisan basis. one of those bills has gone past the senate yet this morning, i think by a very wide margin, the opioid heroin addiction bill that is before the senate. i hope that people will realize that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and they are very much delighted -- divided along party lines, this particular debate. i hope everybody realizes that these are honest, strongly felt views that are going to be expressed, and we ought to encourage that sort of dialogue within our democracy.
>> before i give my opening statement and go to senator leahy, i give a little bit about the agenda. i know we are going to have several debates in this committee on the floor on the subject. was new to me because i did not know we had a vote scheduled for 11:30, that i would like to finish by 11:40 so
we all get a chance to vote. but anyway, we have several bills on the agenda for the first time as well as four nominees. three of those nominees are ripe for a vote and i would hope to move those three out of committee. we had difficulties between the two parties on that issue and i went 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 of nominees today, we will hold over the legislation of one nominee and vote on the other three nominees. there has been a lot of -- why we 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 are and dispelling 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 1992. as we all know, chairman biden went into great detail about the supreme court vacancies during a heated presidential debate. but now that we are pretty familiar with the biden roles -- es,. based upon what i have been hearing there is confusion about the matter so i want to clear things up. there has been some suggestion that chairman biden really did mean what he said. it has been suggested that while
he said the senate should not consider a supreme court nominee during a heated presidential --paign, the words he had the words he used had a completely different meaning. this sounds a lot like how some judges tend to read the constitution. thankfully for all of us, chairman biden spoke at length as he did often when he was in the senate, and was very clear. for the benefit of my colleagues, this is it in part. this is not going to be as long as what you hear me -- heard from a on the senate. resign and thece president move to name a successor weeks before the , aublican convention meets process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become
distrusted by all. senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the senate itself. mr. president, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of a constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances as partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties, from both ann's of pennsylvania avenue. as a result it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november election is there, chairman
biden went on to say that if the president did not follow the practice of the majority of his predecessors and submitted a nominee anyway, then the senate should not consider the nominee. now let me offer a couple of observations. i said over the last few days, some have tried their best to recast with chairman biden actually said in an attempt to give it a totally different mating. even the vice president suggested that what he said in 1992 is not what he really meant. was allment goes, it 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 "in the next administration." it was only after discussing why the president should not send a nominee if a vacancy arose and only after explaining why the
senate should not consider any such nominee, regardless of how good a person is nominated, the ,hairman biden turned the house the process should be changed in his view "in the next administration." here is what he the, "let a start with nominating process and how that process might be changed in the next administration whether it is democrat or republican." just so there would not be any confusion, he repeated it does go sentences later, "with this mind -- repeated it does go sentences later -- two sentences later. so chairman biden was very clear.
al all the spin in the world is not going to change that. why these would be bad for the nominee, the processes and bad for the senate. it was because under these circumstances the -- would not be about -- proper rule of the court or proper role of the court, it would be a hyper -political slugfest as chairman biden said "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." chairman biden was making the point that all of us know to be
true but only some of us are willing to admit considering the supreme court nomination in the middle of a presidential campaign would be all politics and no constitution. and if there's any doubt that this was chairman biden's view, just look at how he described the problem before his famous speech in 1992 "can you manuel dropping a nominee into that fight? into that coldiron? in the middle of a presidential year?" . he said whomever the nominee was, better or indifferent would become a victim, end quote. i say this because we're already witnessing how raw politics are infecting the process.
despite what some are willing to admit publicly, everybody knows that. the white house knows that, the senate democrats know it, so why the sure raid? why all this outrage about the hearing? why all the demands about the hearing that some know will not result in -- it's because this is being used to score as many political points as possible, that's it plain and simple. that's because the minority -- to attack me in personal terms. we have seen this kind of thing around here from him before. it's all about using this process to score political points. it's that simple. we're even seeing reports from the white house. selection process is guided by raw political calculation of
what they think will exert the most political pressure on me. the misdecided logic appears to be if they nominate someone who i or other republicans support for lower -- we will conclude that it's a good idea to drop at nominee and to what chairman biden -- people conveniently forget that judge work was confirmed unanimously to the d.c. circuit but that was before the other side viciously attacked and smeared him before he was nominated to the supreme court. it has even been suggested if a judge -- i'd try to convince my colleagues that it's a good idea to hold a hearing. we have been up front and clear but in case there was any
confusion over whether this ploy would work, i thirty it will be crystal clear. it won't work. we need to not drop any nominee -- and i certainly won't let it happen to the good people of iowa. some of the arguments we have leader so absurd that they barely merit rebutal but my friends seem to be under -- it magically becomes true. so, take a couple minutes. i've heard it said that the board somehow lends support to the notion that the senate should consider the nomination. the argument is that because justice kennedy was -- this somehow disproves chairman biden's arguments. of course the only reason that seat was still vacant in early
1998 is because judge burke was treated to an unprecedented and shameful smear campaign in 1987. those of us here remember it well. and that brings us to another related point. that suggests that -- and chairman biden in particular should be applauded for how they handle the nominations. i'll set aside for the moment that neither of those nominations -- the argument appears to be that judge port and justice tomas were treated to a fair process because even though they didn't have the support of a majority in this committee, they were reported to the floor. i'm not going to re-live and -- those nominations. ly say this. i was here for the justices and i saw what happened to both of them and what happened to their
record and reputation and more importantly to the same impact it has on their families. if anyone wants to argue that either one of those individuals were treated to a fair process, but to this senator it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. it's also been said that the biden rules somehow don't apply when chairman biden took to the floor in 1992, but consider that for a minute. chairman biden spoke on that -- and of course that's the day that justices often announce their retirement. it's true there was no vacancy at that time. public, -- and put the all nine justices and the president of the united states on notice.
if any justices -- if any justice was considering retirement, they should know that the senate should not consider any replacement based on past practices. now, based on what we heard over the past few days we would think that to express their disagreement with chairman bide engine 1992, but for some reason that did not happen. not a single democrat went to the floor that day or in the weeks -- days and weeks that follow to say you had that history wrong. not one, not one democrat had that -- land the may be very good reason for it, but i think we should press ahead with a -- not a single democrat went to the floor and said no, mr.
chairman, i disagree. and we have not -- so much then for fairness between then and now. so we should keep in mind when we hear all of this outreach today, keep in mind. let me make one final point, and if this particular argument wasn't so transapparently heard, because republican senators met to discuss the issue that somehow we were not being up front and open. we could get into all the secret meetings that the other side held before they walked into the chamber and invoked a nuclear option. but i don't think that would be a constructive debate. everyone in this room knows we meet to discuss important matters, and the reason i know everyone in this room knows it is because i've met with every
one of you and when i first became chairman i met with every single republican and privately and offered to meet privately democrat and did meet with almost each and every one of you and see what each and every one of you wanted to see accomplished and i cosponsored bills with you even when you led the battle. that's how you learn where we can agree, where we likely cannot, and where we might be able to work together toward an agreement that's how we get things done. that's how you lead. the bottom line is this. we didn't play games. we didn't hide the ball.
and why we were going to do it. and we did it with eyes wide-open. we knew the minority leader and others were going to make this as politically as possible. that's very unimportant to but ultimately it doesn't matter because it's the right thing to do. senator leahy? >> thank you mr. chairman, and i won't go through every one of the things where i disagree with your recounting of the facts, because you've been here too long and you and i have been present for too long. ether it's chairman biden or anybody else, the nominees. in the last years of president -- in the last year of -- it is on. in the last year of president regan's term, the democrats
retired from the senate. it was presidential election year. he was going to be leaving presidency, and we voted on a supreme court nomination of president regan. every single democrat voted for esident regan's nominee in a presidential election year and i'm sorey 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 a lot more important to you or me or anybody else in this group. this president has a constitutional obligation to nominate and debate in the supreme court. we have a constitutional -- is this not working?
>> let me switch this. sorry. >> is that better? >> ok. as i mentioned earlier. when we talk about what happens in a presidential year, the democrats were in control of the senate. president regan's last year in office and presidential year, every single democrat voted for his nominee to the supreme court. and i know my good friend from iowa has said somehow this effort is directed at him. i'd say it's really not about him or any one of us. it's about the constitution, which is a lot more important than any one of us. the president took hold of the constitution which requires him
to -- it requires us toed a provides our -- and consent. but we can't sit here in closed door meetings and agree which is part of this committee that we are going to vote maybe. the american people want us to do our job. every single day we are paid to do our job. voting is not an option. i say to the chairman, senator grassley, we have been friends for a very long time. and i hope while we agree on this we will continue. on oversight matters, it's absolutely correct. a lot of leahy grassroots legislation has gone through here and we try to do that in the best tradition of the senate. he is a man who embodies those
traditions and something that unfortunately is sometimes lacking. but those of us who have been here for a while appreciate it. so i was disappointed two weeks ago when the majority leader was not on this committee and the judiciary committee has unanimously recommended that the next supreme court nominee will not receive any consideration this year. there was no unanimous recommendation. it's our first business meeting to consider anything since the untimely passing of justice scalia. in fact, the first member of congress or anybody who said anything about really anything publicly about justice scalia's passing was the leader who said there will be no replacement. a lot of us would like to at least have had the memorial and the burial of the justice
before that debate started. but this is our first meeting to consider anything on this. our committee has not had the opportunity to discuss how we proceed. while the majority of the americans can -- in contrary to what the republicans said was a unanimous decision by this committee, it was not. it was not, it was not. and that was just blatantly false. unanimous to require all of us. and we were not part of that closed door meeting. now, i want to work with you as part of -- i know that you want to conduct the work of this committee fairly, and i hope you return to our practice of working together before decisions are made on how to proceed. we may disagree with each other, but the tradition has always been that the chair and the ranking member on these
kinds of decisions of this committee, they meet together and talk about it first. it's important that we try to work together, because we are going to have many matters to grapple over, over the next nine months and you and i were both elected to serve for six years not five and a quarter. we were elected by the people of our state of iowa and vermont to serve for six years, and i intend to work every single day right up until the end of my term. if we are concerned with shutting down the process, some complain about how lower court nominees have been treated in the past. we can go back and forth about lowering -- for days. we can go back to president bush's office when he took over
office. i think you allowed 16. but there can be no dispute has the committee has always treated supreme court nominees differently than other nominees. since i have served in the senate. i've served here for almost 42 years, the senate judiciary committee has always -- and always considered -- and i'm glad to see senator hatch here, because when i became senator of this committee in 2001 during the bush administration, i and senator hatch and the rank and member -- i'm not saying would change but would continue to consider supreme court nominees in a letter to all senators, senator hatch and i wrote the judiciary committee's, to the senate once
-- this has opinion true even in cases where supreme court nominees were opposed by the -- even a case for both republicans where they had voted against the supreme court nominee, we said we should be considered by -- the republican leader at that time senator watt then read our letter into here's a to ensure t bill for all to see and -- nobody disagrees with senator hatch and i, what we have said to show the long understanding of this committee's commitment to an open and fair process of the supreme court nominees. this has been our committee's practice regardless of who held the gavel and who was in the white house. last week a distinguished group of scholars wrote, the constitution gives the senate every right to deny
confirmation to presidential nomination. t -- which in contemporary times include open hearings and for voting and debate on the open floor. this is a serious and indeed a breech of best practices in noblist tradition of our nation's history. i ask unanimous that this letter be put in the record without objection to order and i would note i love the senate, i love the positions and i love the way the senate does not, because i'm a senator but buzz ba i believe the senate should be and can be and at times had been the conscience of the nation and we are elected far six year term and every one of us takes the oath to uphold that position, so help me god.
this hearing has never -- supreme court hearing and vote you say -- biden but the fact is we have taken action every time there's been a supreme court vacancy. i can read all kinds of things from debate, 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 lways had votes when there's been a supreme court vacancy. now, that's what both senator hatch and i said in our letter and the importance of the supreme court and our democracy cannot be overstated nor can ther one of us, so i hope we take a deep breath, return
taking things one step at a has and this committee long -- no matter which president nominated them. the president will nominate soon a person. he will fulfill his duty that he is stworn do, so help me god. and now after he does, i remind everybody the consideration of the supreme court nominee -- i hope they are all going to do our job here, the one we took an oath so help me ghood we would do. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is an interesting meeting as far as i'm concerned. the question regarding the vacancy created by the death of supreme court justice anthony sclia is when not whether the senate should consider a nominee.
democrats say this answers the question for us requiring a prompt hearing and cuervo when the president chooses a nominee, anything else they say would have us not doing our scombrob. gives the that -- it nomination power to the president and advice and consent power to the senate. it doesn't tell either how to exercise their power. the senate must decide how to exercise this power and advice and consent in each situation and has done so in different ways at different times under different circumstances. of course they know this is true and their past positions and actions confirm it. as the the distinguished chairman said, dozens, dozens
of judicial nominees if a supreme court vacancy occurred, the entire process shall be deferred until after the election season was over. democrats on and that you have committee voted dozens of times -- in 2005 minority leader harry reid said that the constitution does not require the senate to vote on a president's nominees. when he chaired this committee under a republican president flart lay hee -- in 2007 senator charles schumer said the senate should not confirm supreme court nominees -- except under what he called exceptional circumstances. democrats -- support of them support of them under president
bush and abolish them under president obama. democrats have their reasons for these statements and ablingses and they believe their statements and actions at these times were legitimate but that the congress requires requires prompt floor votes and hearings for nominees. if what democrats say today is true, vice president pied engine 1992 advocated violating the constitution. many of my democratic colleagues voted to violate the constitution and the minority leader was flat wrong in 1975, if that's the case. democratic allies are equally confused. we received a letter claiming the constitution requires "timely hearings and votes."
some of these groups publicly and forcefully advocated denying floor votes to nominees. we received a letter signed by law professors claiming it's the senate's constitutional duty to hold a timely floor vote and hearing on the sclia vacancy. i'm well familiar with the law professors in this country and they make a lot of claims. i'm not -- that the constitution does not require the senate to vote on a president's nominee. did any of these professors complain when senators lay hee, ad clinton biden and obama conclude over and over time-wise or otherwise for jirnl nominees? of course they didn't. this is all a political stunt
that is mysteriously misleading the public. the constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with it. mr. chairman neither the constitution nor the other party's political pirates -- exercise their respective powers in this political process. i believe there are reasons for defering the process regarding the sclia vacancy until after the next president takes office. finally, mr. chairman, i would remind those that say the constitution requires a prompt hearing that this committee was not created until 29 years after the constitution was drafted. we have no more -- in a certain way than democrats had when the partisan roles were reversed. and when these -- about what the constitution plainly does
not require. if my democratic colleagues really want to argue that the republicans today should have the -- as democrats did in the majority then they should make case. they know that the american people would not accept such a disengeneralous position. mr. chairman, i'm really concerned about this, because it just seems to me if this is a presidential -- that this is a mess. i've never seen it worse and the country more at odds and on edge over a presidential nomination process. and we all know that whoever picks the next nominee for the supreme court, that it's going to be a big battle no matter what happens. at least that's the way it looks to me, and that is based only 40 years here 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 that we have every good reason to not do it under these circumstances. and i just hope that we can all work together in the future and hopefully this will all resolve itself, as it should. >> thanks very much mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my words are said this morning with considerable disappointment. i have great respect for you, mr. chairman and for 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. we have some names. [laughter]
>> all right. 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's 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. to avoid the ed conflict that was to come. he said "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. " he then appealed to the better angels of our nation. despite that appeal, the war came. the first battle of president buchanan sent up a nomination in 1861, 3 months after lincoln's election, and only a month before lincoln's inauguration. multiple states had already voted to secede by that point. a voteh black received on the senate floor. his nomination was rejected by single vote. president lincoln ultimately
nominated samuel miller, and an iowan, to fill that seed. that was the last time the senate kept a supreme court seat vacant for more than a year. warring withation itself to keep the supreme court seat vacant for more than a year, and that was the last time it happened. no supreme court seat has cap -- by senate inant action for over a year since that time. what is happening today is contrary to our committee's practice, even in a divided government, and an election year . also, no nominee has been denied a hearing since 1960.
gave nominees a fair consideration. this was done in a joint letter to. senator leahy referred that was an agreement made and a senate when george w. bush was in the white house. it is this committee's job to nominee,fully at the and give a fair hearing and a vote. the effect of this destruction is likely to leave the court with only eight members. what does that mean?
of course the court is not going to deadlock in every case. the potential for deadlock is greatly increased. eighthe court has only members, and the court 5-4iously was divided by conveniently. tie votes do not settle the dispute incurred by the court, and they don't create precedents is for other cases. this means that uncertainty for the law continues. the law varies around the c
country, when it could have been settled. saidis why justice kennedy -- president reagan said before accepted,nnedy was with every day that passes, it impairs the justices body. not to scalia decided recuse himself in 2004, saying that if he did, the court proceeds with four justices, raising the possibility that vote, -- scalia voted the recusal policy saying
if the 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 at least five years after his 14th day to confer citizenship on his child. motherd states citizen had to reside in the united states more than one year prior to the child's birth to pass on citizenship. claim that makes an impermissible classification on the basis of gender and age. the ninth concluded that this despaired treatment was permissible under the constitution. the they so rolled against individual claiming u.s. citizenship.
the supreme court expected the review in the case. in 2010, a deadlocked because justice kagan was recused. that left the ninth decision in , but did not set a nationwide precedent. later, the second circuit came out the opposite way. here is what the second circuit found. they argue principally that the theme filings the fifth amendment guarantee of protection. that it and hold deprived -- derived citizenship
at earth because of his father. you see, a tie vote can have real significance. here is the bottom line. even today, in the situation presented by this case, children in one judicial circuit may not in another, but circuit, they would be. that is not the father of the child, it is all how the law citizens of different genders. let me just conclude by saying th republicans have put us on goes against more than a century of history. no doubt, members are going to
point that out. i believe it will have real impacts on people and businesses in real cases. we all know the other side of the aisle has been trying for president thethis right of appointment, whether it cabinet,vestors, his or other top level staff members. this is really different. i'm appealing to the better angels of your nature. when there is an nominee, do as we have done in the past. give the nominee cap consideration. meet with the nominee, holding hearing, and hold a vote, both here and on the floor. vote no if you want, but let's our a fair process that is tradition. that is our job, and we should do it. thank you very much, chairman.
>> a nominee came up in california that i held. closure.or we did not believe in filibuster. only after president bush once, and the republicans had a majority in the senate that the democrats held the nominees systematically. nobody moved. none of them. that's not true. .e nominated 11 of them for re-nominations that president clinton put up, confirmed those
too quickly. everybody else was locked. when we got the majority back it was filibuster. he went on and on until the american people got frustrated with it. good judges that they could trust, and they believed these were. they cut this deal and said ok .e won't filibuster anymore we debated confirmed those too quickly. everybody else was locked. when we got the majority back it was filibuster. it. i opposed filibustering. i did not previously believed filibustering, but i would use it, but only in a restrained way, when i think it is really important. to stick with that. then what happens? we get to the majority, and the republican majority is not willing to fill the d.c. circuit
whatsoever. we said, we are not going to affirm those. senator graham party blocked president bush from filling one of them. night it sent to the circuit because they had -- the ninth circuit because they had a shortage. i was less than perfectly consistent, i will knowledge, but first and foremost, republicans have been more responsible in handling nominees than our democratic colleagues. they have not hesitated to change any rule or principle to advance the agenda that they have. the wallw a poll in street journal today. 62% of the people say that democrats would do the same thing that we are doing in the circuit bench.
nominee having been put forward to this date. wouldn'tthe domina democrats move the nominees either. that is correct. 100% in the senate. it is not likely that any majority in the senate would confirm the nominee on this late day. . i wanted to say that a majority of the senate does not want to move forward with this.
the majority will be taking this to the american people to replace the fabulous justice scalia. who will replace justice scalia? it will be decided in the next session. the court will not cease to function because it is 8-8. i am fully aware that my colleagues want to make a political point, and tried to not this issue, but it is what should be done. 1888 undergo before these circumstances when a .ustice was approved
this is what you would expect the senate to do. let the american people have a voice who would replace justice scalia next year. >> senator schumer? >> thank you. i would like to thank you for allowing these remarks. i want to thank the ranking member from fairmont for his able remarks, and associate myself with his, and senator feinstein's outstanding presentation as well. movingciate the chairman forward with nominees today, as well as who goes before us. it is a pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman, on these important pieces of legislation. i appreciate the partnership on
those efforts. i have to say, the work of this committee, and this congress will be shamefully incomplete if the committee refuses to do that most important job of weighing a supreme court nomination. we are given a job to do by the constitution of the united states, a job that the american people want us to do. my republican colleagues claim this is not about politics or the fact that they do not like president. they say the american people ought to have a say in deciding .ho will be the next justice they say, but the people decide. the people have decided. if you asked them, they will tell you, they want a hearing. the data is overwhelming. that poll found last week
50% of americans want the president to nominate the person this year. just yesterday, "the wall street journal" found that 55% of registered voters disapprove of the decision to block a court nominee, sight unseen. poll foundn post that 63% should hold hearings. rede numbers hold strong in states, blue states, purple states. i would say to my colleagues, yes, the people have decided. they are saying to the republican majority, do your job . the american people as "an clear. they are saying to the republicans just that. we have a constitutional
responsibility. it is a shame. even the chairman, a man of integrity, with good midwestern values, a friend, but the chairman admitted this is not the consensus he would vote for first. he is an honest guy. week, he said there are members who might like to see this hearing. i say,", as any chairman ought to do, i went to the members of my committee, and they all agreed with a for different reasons. a letter saying there would be no hearings. bottom line, some had reluctance, but all signed. i have the greatest deal of
, by also believe in each right.s let's have a debate. ther the president makes nomination, let's have the kind of serious, detailed, thorough in thethat we have had past. let's not forget, the last four justices who were nominated, too by republican presidents and to two by republican presidents and two by democratic presidents, we are able to have
serious discussions and come to a decision in a serious way. next week, aced -- budget.on a bipartisan i can understand that this is a cover. i'm happy to have a debate, by tryingy, before we start to edit the constitution, don't you think we ought to follow it? the 11mmittee, one of original founding of the senate evenesisted presidents of the same party. she ways of politics -- wave
pressureics and brake against the walls. nonetheless, this committee and the senators in this room have a special obligation to consider that legacy. not one. since this committee started holding hearings has the committee refused to report a nominee to the floor for consideration by all senators. everyone has set a bunch of things. let me repeat. , since this committee started holding hearings on supreme court nominees a century ago, has the committee refused to report a nominee to the floor for consideration of all 100 senators.
i know the distinguished chairman from iowa holds the the reverence that i do for is committee. i ask him to think on that please. to the constitutional duty that we, as senators, have. >> there was reference to polls. we all quote polls. you know obviously they can be manipulated depending on who is asking the question, and what the question is. i believe we are supposed to make decisions based on what is right, and not based on polls. i think people on the other side believe -- i think
the other side is not letting that affect the immigration policy. >> one person does not believe is hillarynd that wa clinton. [laughter] the moral high ground is a shaky place to be in the senate when it comes to judges. i will not go there. i will say, if you live long enough, a long life that allows you to be lectured to regarding fairness. the senate is evolving in a very bad way. we don't have to go back to the wereo remember where we headed.
when president bush nominees opposed in mass, i was one of the few who opposed that. atot the crop be out of me home. i thoughtd people consequences come with elections, and we don't want to change the role, no one wanted to hear that until we were lost. the very same people are beating rap out of me now. i would sometimes work with other side. here's what is going to happen. in the unlikely event that we lose the white house, which i know is hard to believe, but just in case we lose, and i know that is almost impossible
to imagine, hillary clinton is going to be president, unless bernie keeps doing well. let's assume for a moment that she is president. she will pick somebody probably more liberal than president obama will send over in a few days. kagand for sotomayor and because i thought the president of the united states deserves take nominees of their party, and that goes along with being president. when he called me, i said, is this the same guy who roberts?red alito and
fair tothought you were our judges. process.ut having some this will stand the test of time. this is the last year of a if tedck president, and cruz or donald trump gets to be president, they have all asked us not to confirm or take up a collection by president obama. if a vacancy occurs in her last year of the first term, guess what? words againstheir them. i want you to use my words against me. if there is a republican presidentagainst me. if there is a republican president in 2016, you can say lindsey graham said, let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. you can use my words against me. we are setting a precedent
today, republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame-duck, you are not going to fill a vacancy of the supreme court based on what we are doing here today. rol is going to be the new ule. to get your way, i thought it .as a really abusive power what does that mean? we are going to pick the most hard ass people we can find. you are going to have the most liberal members of your caucus pushing the most liberal members , and we will do the same. over time, the judiciary is going to be more ideologically
driven because the senate is not required to get out of your own party. -- ll be on top right talk radio, and fight it. this is where we find yourselves. i'm saddened by the fact that the senate has gone down the road we have gone. i don't think you have done anything wrong. mywe lose this election, view of the president to come is the same. there is no roadmap in the constitution