leahy: i will let senator reid and senator grassley speak for themselves. i remember when i was chairman of the judiciary committee, i made a decision of one names -- when names would come up, and wouldn't, and come up for a vote and i make sure they did. that's is not happening now. i cannot imagine if i was chairman, with a republican president, whether it was an election year or not, saying if you nominate someone for the supreme court, we are even going to have a hearing on it. if i did, certainly in vermont, people would say i was being totally irresponsible. i realize that senator mcconnell, who, after all, said his primary goal is that president obama fails, has said no. that is not what the constitution says. mr. bresnahan: you mentioned senator mcconnell. in the meeting with yourself, president obama, vice president biden, and senator reid, he said to you democrats that you are hypocrites on this, basically, that in this meeting, the only four that had filibustered a supreme court nomination were you four democrats. what is your response? sen. leah

senator grassley: thank you, they will be. senator vitter: thank you for holding this important discussion. instructives really and somewhat ironic, given it is the justice scalia vacancy, to hear all of these arguments from the left, that the constitution requires, demands a hearing and a vote in a certain timeframe. most outside of groups on the left are clearly making that argument. think it is sort of ironic, given we are debating a vacancy 'seated by justice scalia death, because justice scalia --ght us for and foremost first and foremost, read the words, don't just make it up as you go along. do not use these big tools like legislative history to get to whatever and you want to get to. i think it is instructive because the left wants a new supreme court justice who will not read the words, who will make it up as they go along and get to a preordained stopping point. however, they can get theire. again, words matter, and the constitution, and the other relevant words, in this case, the senate rules, are clear. they do not

committee, gaveled in by chuck grassley. it is about an hour and 45 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> i know we are going to have the floor ines on the committee on this subject. i did not know we had a vote scheduled. i would like to finish about 11:40, so we all get a chance to vote. we have several bills on the agenda for the first time, as well as for nominees, three of those are right for a vote. i would hope to move those three out of committee.

that was chuck grassley back then. we are going to get in a couple more phone calls if we can, but i need to squeeze in some campaign 2016 news. the front page of the washington times, the rnc moves to scrap the convention rulebook. try to forceill more transparency at the convention in july, aiming to scrap their rulebook in favor of .impler procedures the changes would not guarantee mr. trump the nod but would make it easier for all sides to see what sorts of changes anti-trump factions are attempting. some members of the rnc want to ditch that massive roll book which is based on the parliamentary handbook of the u.s. house, and instead use robert's rules of order to govern for action at the convention. call for these to presidential primaries in missouri. you can see there that hillary andton has 310,602 votes bernie sanders has 300-9000 and 71 votes. votes, about three percentage points apart. says thengton post race is in limbo pending a recount decision by bernie sanders. the paper saying that democratic front ru

leahy: i will let senator reid and senator grassley speak for themselves. i remember when i was chairman of the judiciary committee, i made a decision of one names -- when names would come up, and wouldn't, and come up for a vote and i make sure they did. that's is not happening now. i cannot imagine if i was chairman, with a republican president, whether it was an election year or not, saying if you nominate someone for the supreme court, we are even going to have a hearing on it. if i did, certainly in vermont, people would say i was being totally irresponsible. i realize that senator mcconnell, who, after all, said his primary goal is that president obama fails, has said no. that is not what the constitution says. mr. bresnahan: you mentioned mcconnell. in the meeting with yourself, president obama, vice president biden, and senator reid, he said to you democrats that you are hypocrites on this, basically, that in this meeting, the only four that had filibustered a supreme court nomination were you four democrats. what is your response? sen. leahy: easy

senator grassley, i need about 30 seconds. senator grassley: senator hatch will make a short statement. senator hatch: really just a closing statement. that is i have one last request for you to take back to the department. it's been nearly two years since the department began working on revisions to the ascap and b.m.i. consent decrees and i'd like to ask you to consider this. will you please confirm what your subject matter experts and circle back with an update on when the revisions are expected and will be completed, i'd appreciate that if you will do that. ms. lynch: i will. senator grassley: senator feinstein. senator feinstein: welcome, madam attorney general. it's good to see you again. i want to thank you by thanking you and hopefully you will thank the head of the f.b.i. for the f.b.i.'s strong position on the issue of encryption and a probable cause court order. it is my deep belief that no american company is above the law and that that particular industry should comply. i wanted to ask you a couple of questions. g

and now it's my honor once again to stand with senator chuck grassley when he's made a decision that there will be no hearings, there will be no confirmation on a supreme court nominee until the next administration is here. ladies and gentlemen, i'm here to ask you to stay involved. i remind my constituents and they remind me that this is my voting card and it has my picture on it. but i'm here today to tell you that it doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the 750,000 people that i have the privilege of representing. make sure that your member of congress and your senator understand that if they don't see the light, they need to feel the heat. and i want to close with one of my favorite quotes from teddy roosevelt. i'll read it, far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though they're checkered with failures, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in that gray twilight that knows not victory or defeat. i ask you to stand with me and have a victory in november and take it back. god bless you. [applause] mr.

reporter: does senator grassley have a chance? senator reid: everybody has a chance and wasn't much said. reporter: vice president talk about it? senator reid: he did. he did, as i did on the interior, he read the whole speech. if you look, he said no nomination should be held up. senator leahy: republican president's nominee. mr. salmon: northbound northbound > the debate over the f.b.i. continued on capitol hill today at a hearing, bob goodlatte asked the f.b.i. director about a decision about a federal magistrate judge that sided with apple. we'll show you that exchange and see all of the hearing at -span.org. mr. goodlatte: in its brief dem the california case. mrs. watson coleman: this is about data at rests. they take acts of congress. what does it mean giving changing circumstances. there will be lots of lawyers and paid for work and courts have an understanding. mr. goodlatte: if the f.b.i. is successful in requiring apple to unlock this phone, that won't be a one-time request, correct? mrs. watson coleman: the issue of lo

i would ask senator grassley if he could stay so that i can speak. otherwise -- chuck grassley: you can certainly speak. do i have to stay for corum? >> we would give it unanimous even if he goes. i would like to address a couple of things that you said. you can put them in the record or something, because this idea justicesnelected making lots from the bench, that is what we have seen with the robert court. this is one of the most activist courts we have had, and the center, senator vitter has not been on this committee until this congress. but my goodness, how many times have i spoken to this? , ande have sotomayor here my first year in the senate -- this year in the senate, and this is an activist court. and he was talking about the irony of justice scalia. justice scalia on 100 votes, we had 100 votes in the voting rights act. unanimous vote by the united states senate. and what did justice scalia say? , the senatorswell voting for him because it was named to the voting rights act. remember that? argument a half-hour towards hundreds of hours of

grassley was in play then. he was already in the senate, of course. every time we turn around, there is some new clip being pulled up out of the c-span archives. merrick garland was on capitol hill and had a couple of meetings. "roll call" reporting that he will meet with others. there are 10 or 11 that we know of at this point that would say they are ok having a meeting with chief judge garland. there was a report the other day from a chicago radio station that are publican from illinois, as of right now, is the only senator who is saying that we should go forward with a vote on the garland nomination. there is former unity among senate republicans on not having hearings. it is somewhat unanimous, but the same cannot be said for having meetings. there are at least some senators who are offering them that -- offering him that courtesy. amongare there cracks senate leadership? guest: the real crack is not the leadership, but some in the rankings that are talking fairly openly. --f blake is the most notice is the more notable one of the group. in the ev

that's from senator chuck grassley. here's madeline in dayton, ohio. democrats line. should the senate take up the president's nominee? aller: i think so. we are shutting down a lot. i don't know like that pretty much. in ohio, we have a down economy. it -- ink that host: i appreciate that, mahdi lynn. we understand that mitch mcconnell has come to the senate floor to talk about the nominee. let's listen in. senator mcconnell: it is the senate's constitutional right to act as check on a president and withhold its consent. chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama the senate will continue to observe the biden rule. so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this -- give the people a voice in illing this vacancy. i remind my colleagues of what vice president said when he was chairman of the judiciary commi

chuck grassley says democrats could force the vote on the nominee. said monday he expects democrats to force at least a procedural vote on president obama's nominee challenging the gop's insistence that the appointment be left for the next president. senate judiciary chairman charles grassley said democrats will likely try a maneuver known as a motion to discharge the move the nominee -- the nomination out of the committee and onto the floor. it does not mean they will succeed in appointing nominee -- in appointing the nominee. it could set off a procedural path that could require 60 votes to move forward. that vote count would be difficult for the 46-member democratic caucus, but it could act as a test vote on the nomination. hillary clinton is putting pressure on republicans to also take up mr. garland's nomination . she said in "the washington "mrs. clinton would not second-guess the decision to fill the seat left by judge -- mrs. clinton said justice sotomayor your's hispanic heritage brought needed perspective to the high court. that on the supr

and now it's my honor once again to stand with senator chuck grassley when he's made a decision that there will be no hearings, there will be no confirmation on a supreme court nominee until the next administration is here. ladies and gentlemen, i'm here to ask you to stay involved. i remind my constituents and they remind me that this is my voting card and it has my picture on it. but i'm here today to tell you that it doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the 750,000 people that i have the privilege of representing. make sure that your member of congress and your senator understand that if they don't see the light, they need to feel the heat. and i want to close with one of my favorite quotes from teddy roosevelt. i'll read it, far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though they're checkered with failures, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in that gray twilight that knows not victory or defeat. i ask you to stand with me and have a victory in november and take it back. god bless you. [applause] mr.

likewise, senator charles grassley led a leader to majority leader signed by all republican committee members confirming their resolve to not have hear organization a vote on a nominee. this is ludicrous. republicans cannot and should not use the supreme court to push their radical political agenda. the constitution is clear, mr. speaker. article 2, section 2, he shall have the power by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, councils and judges of the supreme court. nowhere in the constitution does it say except in an election year or except when the president is a democrat, or when republicans have spent the last seven years actively working to subvert every policy the president elected by nearly 70 million americans. constitution doesn't say that. this is simply unacceptable. the american people deserve better. for more than a century, every single supreme court nominee has received a vote on the floor of the united states senate. just like all the presidents before him, president obama should nominate a supreme court justice

as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the judiciary committee here in the senate. here'here's what he said. "it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way -- and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee," he said, "and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me me, "chairman biden went on, "we will be in deep trouble as an institution." others may fret he said that this approach could leave the court with only eight members for some time. but a

charles grassley is the chair of the judiciary committee of the senate. the top democrat is patrick leahy and he is our guest this weekend on newsmakers. here is a little bit of what he had to say. is there anything in the constitution that guarantees a nominee hearings and a vote? >> the constitution says we shall advise and consent. that is usually interpreted to be, you can vote no, but there has never been a time, never been a time -- >> but if the advice is wait until the election? hearings.t have the there has never been a time, never been a time that the supreme court nominee was denied a chance to have a hearing at a vote. we have even had supreme court nominees that were defeated when members of the president's own party has voted against them in committee so they did not have a majority vote. let them go forward and let them have a vote of the whole senate, because we are not elected to vote maybe. we are elected to vote yes or no. this is a very critical position. i do not think the american people are going to take very kindly to the united st

but chairman grassley has weighed in on this in the past. back in january of 2016. -- 2006. he said something that attracted my interest today. he said, a supreme court nomination is not a forum to fight an election. it is the time to perform one of our most important constitutional duties. and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the nation's highest court. he's right about that. reporter: any chance the president mentioned that in the meeting with grassley yesterday? mr. earnest: i don't believe that the president mentioned that in his meeting with chairman grassley yesterday. but i did notice that he delivered these remarks on the floor of the united states senate. so presumably there's an opportunity for all of you to see the words coming out of his mouth. last one. [inaudible] -- this is the first time that many think it will be happening in washington, d.c. [inaudible] two, on nuclear and north korea and other threats that are going on, whoever has the nuclear weapons, maybe isil -- -- what message will be different than the last one this time? mr. earnest

a different political card to play against grassley by the democrats. host: joe, louisville kentucky. caller: good morning. i am a u.s. army retired veteran. i want to talk about that southern border. to me, when you come across the border, if i'm not mistaken illegally, you are a felon. the congress and the senate are as far as i'm concerned harboring felons. they are not protecting the american people against the southern border or any of our borders. you have to put a lock down on the border and i don't understand why the american people can't see that on the democratic side. we can't sustain taking care of all of these people with the money we don't have. i am very concerned as to why aren't we holding congress and the senate in contempt. they are in contempt by not protecting -- even from the president down. it is mind-boggling to me. for me to have served in the service as long as i did and for any veteran. they just want to give the country away. demographics are going away in this country, changing very fast. host: we will get a response. guest:

i am up three bills, grassley, cruz, bills that will change it significantly. i think we will always have a program that allows seasonal workers to always have some kind of program that allows a limited program of high skilled workers. to say i have an $80,000 a year salary and i need to bring in someone else, the market should work. but you can flood the market and it won't work. reporter: some of this sounds like the outcome of a 20 year process of globalization, whether joining the wto, nafta. do you think it is time to extract ourselves from the united nations, any of these global management structures? sen. sessions: no, i never said we should get out of the u.n.. i am not prepared to say we should get out of the wto. but it does the road a power that the united states has, potentially. look, this is my view. our trading partners, probably more than europe, smaller countries for the most part. they are very nationalistic. they create national policies designed to exploit trade agreements and increase their manufacturing and reduce the imports that they hav

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 t

they mention orrin hatch and chuck grassley, who chaired the senate judiciary committee. they would either as possibility for vetting the supreme court nominations by the president. reluctant color now, doug in el dorado, kansas. go ahead. -- sorry aboutis that. a couple of points. number one, the way that established republicans have been acting, i doubt they will have the strength or the guts to go forward with keeping him from getting a vote on the floor. think i was a little disappointed that barack hussein guy. nominated a white i thought he should have named, nominated either a black person or a woman. he must be so racist. obama is a racist. host: all right, let's go to main on the republican line. francis. caller: i would like to not have obama come out or try to appoint , because court justice obama himself, in my opinion and media,have read from the obama is not american citizen. and a supreme court justice have to investigate obama, and they never did. he is not american citizen. he was born in kenya, africa. we will move on from that. not the topic of this seg

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

we'll go back to 1987 and show you what republican senators chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell had to say about the senate handling of the bork nomination. these speeches are from 1987. you can also find them in their entirety senator grassley: i would like to add my welcome to you and your family as you appear before this committee. i am eager to hear your views. it is often said, and i think correctly so, that one of the senate's most important functions is that of reviewing the president's nominations to the supreme court. i believe this important function has been demeaned. your nomination has been turned into a real life-and-death among the direct-mail giants of american lobbying. the intense lobbying has transformed this nomination into the legislative equivalent of a pork barrel water project, all strong-armed politics, no substance. the partisans who act as the generals in this war of mudslinging have had some .uccess in fact, some members of the senate have outflanked each other for the honor of taking the most extreme positions, even before the first day of the hearings. suc

grassley,ree bills -- nelson, cruz -- bills that will change it significantly. you can say you are going to end it and start over or whatever, but i think we all want a program that will allow seasonal workers and will always have some sort of program that allows a limited number of high skilled workers. you can't just say i have an $80,000 a year salary and the need to bring in someone. the market should work. can flood the market with enough labor that it won't work. from who wants to hear "usa today?" some of this sounds like the outcome of the 20 or process of globalization, whether it is the afta, orof the wto, or n various trade deals. do you think it is time to extract ourselves from the wto or the netted nations, any -- anyor the united nations, of these global management structures? sen. sessions: no, i never said we should get out of the u.n.. i am not prepared to say we should get out of the wto. e a poweres therrod that the united states has. look, this is my view. our trading partners, probably specific probably more than europe, smaller countries f

let me say at the outset, senator grassley, my neighbor in iowa, has been in the sense myself traveler for over 30 years. we have spent more time together on airplanes and airports than most other members. we have come to know one another under those circumstances. we have come to work together on a lot of issues. the first time i came to this committee, we worked on bankruptcy reform for years. again, we are working on important issues together. i'm hopeful that we can produce something bipartisan again and cooperation. i also believe what brings us together, though our political philosophies are much different is this feeling that there is a midwestern attitude towards things. even if we disagree, we can be respectful to one another and find common ground. is one of the issues about the filling of the vacancy in the supreme court. i think there is a feeling of fairness where we live, flat and for til is one of the america, a fairness to your neighbors, even if they are not your friends. i do not question, at the end of the day, it is still going to be democratscans and 66 voting on a

this is the remarks of senator grassley on the floor. in fact, according to the office of national drug control policy, the appropriations act passed in december provided more than $400 million in lending specifically to address the opioid epidemic. this is in increase of $100 million over the previous year. that is 25% increase. ok? none of that money, when he said that just a few months ago, has been spent yet. all of that money is available today, is that right push mark or most of it? tell me! most of that money is available today and you would think we were going out of here not providing money. 25% increase. i want this in the record, and put it in the record, too, how much was asked for and how much was appropriated. how much was taken from interdiction and lot enforcement and put into treatment. ok? this is just the facts. we don't want to deal with the facts but we are going to put this in the records of you can see. there is money there. and, i want a report! i want a report, i am telling you, this week, of how much money is sp

senator grassley and i finishing what i think is a blockbuster study looking at hepatitis c. and it raises the question of when we have cures, will people be able to afford them? what i think is important is that to do bipartisan work, we've got to move away from, first, the path, because everybody has acknowledged that the first few months were botched. i don't know how many times you can say it. but you all, and i read your comment after the first few months, you said they had made substantial improvements. i think i can come back to it and perhaps read it one more time. center for medicare services recovered the health care government website for high consumer use within two months. now, that's the new news. that's just a few weeks old. that's new news. i want people to hear that and i want people to hear that there were no actual real world ases of fraud uncovered. now, one final question, if i , ms. bliss, is, do you disagree with the statement that i made with respect to the accomplishments of the affordable care act? that is not your formal role as inspector general, b

as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a person who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the judiciary committee here in the senate. here's what he said. "it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee," he said, "and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me," chairman biden went on, "we will be in deep trouble as an institution. others may fret," he said, "that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. "but as i see it,

senator grassley hits back at clinton after she pressured him and criticize him for not taking up the supreme court national nomination. here is a quote. teresa and omaha, nebraska, you are on the air. >> good morning. i would like to know why the media is hesitant to mention small supportn's donations. they always mention bernie sanders small donators, but not hillary clinton's. >> ok. >> she has not done as well as senator sanders has among small donors, but one of the interesting things when you look at the numbers is that she has improved her performance among last donors from 2008, the time she sought the presidency, so she is making inroads. she is a top fundraiser of the election cycle. regardless of party, she has worked hard to raise money. were talking about the presidential campaign. it has gone past the $1 billion mark, the money raised between the democrat, republican candidates, and super pac's. let me get in also more news egyptian airliner hijacked. reporting that the hijacker has surrendered at the airport in cyprus. the situation there has been peacefully resolved. h

in fact, senator grassley made this clear by saying, quote, i have nothing against the nominee. mr. garland seems to be well qualified and would probably other good judge on some court. senator jeff sessions, a conservative republican from alabama, agreed with senator grassley about too many judges on the circuit court and said of judge garland, quote, i would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship. i.e., although he didn't say this, but another judgeship would be a justice on the supreme court of the united states. now senator grassley and senator sessions have an opportunity to put judge garland on another court. needing as a vacancy to be filled. our founding fathers set up a court of nine justices. cognizant of the problem that would occur if there were a tie for four. that is the situation that exists today and can be remedied by the united states senate now. let's not play political games. if republicans don't want judge garland on the court, schedule a vote. and cast their votes accordingly. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said just questioned on abc's "

chuck grassley is facing what could be a primary cheage. john mccain is getting hit over this. i think this is going to be a big issue going forward. in the presidential race, it's not playing out in the primary right now because of course both bernie sanders and hillary clinton support the president's constitutional authority to make a nomination. and on the republican side, everyone is sort of united also on this path of most obstruction. so i think it remains to be seen how this plays out in the presidential contest. i think it will be after the nomination that is we really see that become a more heated topic for discussion. host: maine democratic caucus today. michigan and mississippi on tuesday. then next week a cohenle of big primaries including florida and ohio. on the democratic side where do you see this going? senator sanders and secretary of state clinton. guest: the battle shufts to focus on economic issues for places like michigan that's been hit hard. we've already seen clinton honing in on that economic message of encouraging companies to pursue economic patrioti

i will lethy: senator reid and senator grassley speak for themselves. i remember when i was chairman of the judiciary committee. i made a decision. when names would come up and when they come up for a vote, i made sure they did. this is not what is happening now. >> "washington journal" continues. host: shobhana chandra joins us now to dig into yesterday's jobs number. an economics reporter with bloomberg news spirit your headline yesterday was "payrolls search while wages drop in a mixed jobs report." so, explain the two waves you can read the next report -- the two ways you can read the jobs report. shobhana: the mix is where we get a strong headline number on the payrolls. inhad 242,000 jobs created february. expectations and are bloomberg survey of economists. it looks like the economy in the last couple months has been doing jobs at 200,000 plus. this was even better. so, of course, there was a lot of focus on that and a lot of excitement. then you look at wages, a little setback there. aey actually fell a tenth of percentage point mandal vermont a

friend, mitch mcconnell and the chairman of the committee, he is my friend, senator from iowa, senator grassley, they're now trying another tact. they ask, what's the difference? what difference does it make if a court has eight or nine members? [laughter] no, i'm serious. remember, they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> the vice president spoke today to students at georgetown law school. you can see his comments on the u.s. supreme court vacancy tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. and tomorrow night at 8:00, we'll display the supreme court oral argument this week in the case challenging the health care law's contraception coverage mandate. an order of nuns is challenging he law on religious grounds. israeli prime minister b

the remarks of senator grassley on the floor. in fact, according to the office olicy,ional drug control the appropriations act passed in december provided more than $400 million in lending specifically to address the opioid epidemic. of $100in increase million over the previous year. that is 25% increase. ok? none of that money, when he said that just a few months ago, has been spent yet. all of that money is available today, is that right push mark or most of it? tell me! most of that money is available today and you would think we were going out of here not providing money. increase. i want this in the record, and lotus put it in the record, too, how much was asked for and how much was appropriated. how much was taken from interdiction and lot enforcement and put into treatment. ok? this is just the facts. we don't want to deal with the facts but we are going to put this in the records of you can see. there is money there. and, i want a report! i want a report, i am telling you, this week, of how much money is spent. and i want

mitch mcconnell, and the chairman of the committee, he's my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they are now trying another tact. they ask, what's the difference? what difference does it make if the court has eight or nine members? i'm serious. remember, they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. let me make clear for folks who may be listening at home. what happens, and you students all know this, but what happens at the supreme court makes a significant difference in the everyday life of the american people. article 1 gives the power to congress to fix the number of justices. from 1789 to 1866, the number waxed and waned between five and 10. but in 1869 the congress passed a law setting the court size at nine. and that law has not been changed since. as recently as 1992, i said on the floor of the senate, as pointed out to me, for me, that it was no big deal for the court to go through a period of 4-4 split

bills, grassley, cruz, bills that will change it significantly. i think we will always have a program that allows seasonal workers to always have some kind that allows a limited program of high skilled workers. say i have an $80,000 a year salary and i need to bring in someone else, the market should work. but you can flood the market and it won't work. reporter: some of this sounds like the outcome of a 20 year process of globalization, whether joining the wto, nafta. do you think it is time to extract ourselves from the united nations, any of these global management structures? no, i never said we should get out of the u.n.. say wet prepared to should get out of the wto. power does the road a that the united states has, potentially. look, this is my view. , probablyg partners more than europe, smaller countries for the most part. they are very nationalistic. policieste national designed to exploit trade agreements and increase their manufacturing and reduce the imports that they have. they just do. it is the world we're living in. you see china,

as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a person who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the judiciary committee here in the senate. here's what he said. "it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee," he said, "and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me," chairman biden went on, "we will be in deep trouble as an institution. others may fret," he said, "that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. but as i see it,"

a number of my colleagues have already spoken on this, on senator grassley in a floor speech and last night and also senator sasse here in this forum this morning, asked a question and raised a case of the tragic death of iowan sarah route who was killed by a drunk driver who was reportedly in the country illegally and has since posted bail and absconded. if it is the case that they failed to detain because of his murder vehicle homicide did not meet enforcement priorities, would you agree with me that you need to look at your enforcement policies? >> we do that every day. we train and we respond to evolving situation on the basis and ings we've experienced seen so that prosecutorial discretion is just that, it's a person's judgment in looking at all the information in front of them as to whether or not they have a detainer or not. we do it on a case by case basis. this is a terrible instance where we -- we will look at it and learn from, that situation. but prosecutorial discretion could have been exercised a different way, that's us looking back. i want to -- i want to look forward

this is the remarks of senator grassley on the floor. in fact, according to the office of national drug control policy, passed inpriations act december provided more than $400 million in funding specifically to address the opioid epidemic. $100is an increase of million over the previous year. that is 25% increase, ok? none of that money, when he said that a few months ago, has been spent yet. all of that money is available today. is that right? most of it? tell me. most of that money is available today. you wouldn't think we are going out of here not providing money. 25% increase. i want this in the record. let's put in the record of how much was asked for and how much was appropriated. how much was taken from interdiction and law enforcement and put in treatment? these are the facts. we do not want to deal with the facts, but we will put this in the records so you will see there is money there. and i want a report. telling report, i am you, this week of how much money is spent. i want that in the record, ok, mr. botticelli? i want somet

mitch mcconnell, and the chairman of the committee, he's my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they are now trying another tact. they ask, what's the difference? what difference does it make if the court has eight or nine members? [laughter] i'm serious. remember, they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. so, let me make clear for folks who may be listening at home. what happens, and you students all know this, but what happens at the supreme court makes a significant difference in the everyday life of the american people. article 1 gives the power to congress to fix the number of justices. from 1789 to 1866, the number waxed and waned between five and 10. but in 1869 the congress passed a law setting the court size at nine. and that law has not been changed since. as recently as 1992, i said on the floor of the senate, as pointed out to me, for me, that it was no big deal for the court to go through a peri

mitch mcconnell, and the chairman of the committee, he's my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they are now trying another tact. they ask, what's the difference? what difference does it make if the court has eight or nine members? [laughter] i'm serious. remember, they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. let me make clear for folks who may be listening at home. what happens, and you students all know this, but what happens at the supreme court makes a significant difference in the everyday life of the american people. article 1 gives the power to congress to fix the number of justices. from 1789 to 1866, the number waxed and waned between five and 10. but in 1869 the congress passed a law setting the court size at nine. and that law has not been changed since. as recently as 1992, i said on the floor of the senate, as pointed out to me, for me, that to go through a period of 4-4 splits partly because the p

on senator grassley in a floor speech and last night and also sasse and raised the question about iowan sarah root who was killed by a drunk driver who was reportedly in the country illegally and has since posted bail and absconded. if it's the case that i.c.e. didn't retain a felony on mejia because it did not meet i.c.e. enforcement priorities, end quote, would you agree with me that i.c.e. needs to take another look at its so-called enforcement policies? ms. saldana: well, we do that every day. we train and we respond to evolving situations on the basis of things we've experienced and seen so that prosecutorial discretion, as i said a little bit earlier, it's just that. it's a person's judgment in looking at all the information in front of them as to whether or not they get a detainer or not. we do it on a case-by-case basis. as i said earlier, senator, this is a terrible instance where we will look at it and learn from that situation, but prosecutorial discretion could have been exercised a different way here. that's us looking back. i want to -- i want to look forward so we don't h

mitch mcconnell and the chairman of the committee, and he is my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they're now trying another tack. they ask what's the difference? what difference does it make? if the court has eight or nine members. i'm serious. remember they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitution created court, the supreme court is. >> the vice president spoke today to students at georgetown law school. you can see his comments on the u.s. supreme court vacancy tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. and tomorrow night at 8:00 we'll play the supreme court oral argument this week in the case challenging the health care law's contraception coverage mandate. an order of nuns is challenging he law on religious grounds. >> if for yore's student cam contest, student pross deuced documentaries telling thus issue they wanted the candidates to discuss in the 2016 presidential campaign. they told us the economy, equality, education and immigration were all top

, to be talking about issues that they're working on, including senator james lankford of oklahoma, grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee, coming to talk. tom tillis, senator from north carolina. kevin brady, the chairman of the appropriations committee, chairman of the ways and means committee, coming in to talk as well. so a number of members expected next. that's next on the agenda. we will have it live for you here on c-span. we'll tell you too, the coverage tomorrow as we mentioned, republican candidates tomorrow afternoon, they'll hear from john kasich and ted cruz, also later in the day, from ben carson. who yesterday suspended his presidential campaign and is likely to talk more about that tomorrow. then on the weekend, on saturday, donald trump in the morning, that will be a tape speech, we're airing that at 10:00 a.m. saturday morning. and marco rubio speaks to the group saturday at 11:35 eastern. all of that, except for the donald trump speech, all of that live. >> the day number one of the conservative political action conference. they'll hear number from a number of

as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the judiciary committee here in the senate. here'here's what he said. "it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way -- and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee," he said, "and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me me, "chairman biden went on, "we will be in deep trouble as an institution." others may fret he said that this approach could leave the court with only eight members for some time. but a

mitch mcconnell and the chairman of the committee, he is my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they're now trying another tact. they ask, what's the difference , what difference does it make, if a court has eight or nine members? [laughter] i'm serious. remember they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. >> the vice president spoke today to students at georgetown law school. you can see his comments on the u.s. supreme court vacancy tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. and tomorrow night at 8:00, we'll play the supreme court oral argument this week in the case challenging the health care laws contraception coverage mandate. an order of nuns is challenging the law on religious grounds. a joint hearing of two house oversight subcommittees examined threats to national security occurring at the nation's borders. witnesses including the acting chief of the u.s. border patrol, a director with a group, human rig

memo about the subsequent crimes released, illegalses to the judiciary chairman chuck grassley, i said the jailens were charged with 135 homicide-related crimes, subsequent dr for my liberal friends, it means after released from i.c.e. custody. a total of 39 convictions have resulted from homicide-related charges. , two prior to i.c.e.eleased by i.c.e., released them knowing that they had homicide-related convictions and they were released to kill again upon the american public, though they violated our laws to get here, they violated our laws to stay here. this administration has seen their release upon the american public, further. i.c.e., there are 156 criminal jailens that were released at twice by i.c.e. since 2013. between them, these criminals had 1,776 convictions. that kind of sounds patriotic. since 2013. i.c.e. has released 1,776 riminals, with 1,776 convictions before their release in 2013, including burglary, larceny and all those things that hurt america. another article, also says, only a tiny percentage of the released criminals have been removed and reseffed the due pr

host: senator grassley, in the center of this debate along with mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader. fordia's on the line republicans in waynesville north carolina. caller: i just wanted to say i think that people are concerned that the appointment to the supreme court upholds the law of in a way that america has been defined. i'm not saying to leave any groups out by any means. i believe we are watering down the constitution. america is defined in a certain way. and we should stand for certain values. pick,k no matter who they i think it is someone -- who they pick, i hope it is some of who stands for the core values of america. we are not socialists. to redefine our country, i think folks that want should for mr. sanders understand what socialism is and how it has worked in other countries. to have an we need america that is inclusive to everybody. but it the intent of the constitution. host: the washington

speaker, i would also submit that we have seen the email, senator grassley requested more information about it and to my knowledge we have not seen additional explanation or information about the email in ,hich a person's terrorist ties indication that he was a radical islamist, and the email response was, oh, this guy's on the secretary of homeland security's hands off list. we have read stories about the white house allowing at least one or more individuals with terrorist ties to come to the white house. there are consequences for ignoring the law, ignoring the lawbreakers, and not protecting our homeland. but the article says these new documents were produced in response to a judicial watch february 2015 freedom of information act lawsuit filed back february 13 of 2015. it should be noted, i mean, that's over a year ago but it -- freedom of information act should have been answered promptly but this administration is too caught up in trying to cover up their own tracks. that's why we haven't even gotten the attorney general to provide members of congress the documents showing suppo