I give a little bit about the agenda. I know were going to havet then several debates in this committee on the floor of the subject. Todays was through the meeting because i did not know we have been scheduled for 1130 i would like to finish but 1140. That where we all get a chance to vote. But anyway, we have several bills on the agenda for the 1st time as well as for nominees, three of those are right for a vote. Last week but moving those out of committee. We know we had difficulties between the two parties on that issue. I went over that. The we will hold over the thgislation on one nominee vote on the other three. It has been a lot of discussion about the Supreme Court vacancy last couple weeks. The record is clear about how the senate approachesup vacancies that arise. I spoke at length on the floor about these issues. Y i thought i would spend a few minutes reviewing where we are in dispelling some of the myths that i have heard repeated a number of times. The most appropriate place to begin is with chairman bidens famous speech. As we all know about 20,000 word speech the chairman wentch into great detail about the Supreme Court vacancies during a heated president ial the great deta now that we are familiar, i am not going to repeat them. Based on what i have been hearing there appears to be confusion about the matter, so would like to clear a fewew up. Ngs up. There has been some suggestion that somehow chairman biden did not mean some suggestio it has been suggested whenns he explained why the senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during a heated president ial Election Campaign somehow the actual words he used at a secret or completely different meaning. The actual words he used had a secret or completely different meaning. As a side, i would note this thankfully for all of us he spoke at length as he so often did when he was in the senate and was very clear. Chairman biden spoke at length, as he often did when in the senate, and he was very clear. For the benefit of my colleagues who have not heard it here is just in part. This isnt going to be as long as what you heard niasia ellis on the floor of the senate. Darn. Oh darn. Quote should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions occurring days before the Democratic Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already endowed n minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president , nominee, or the senate itself. If that wasnt clear enough chairman biden continued. Mr. President , where the nation should be treated to a consideration of a constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties, from both ends of pennsylvania avenue. As a result, it is my view that if is a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or at the end of the summer president bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecess predecessors and not name a nominee until after the election is complete. Chairman biden went on to say if the president didnt follow the practice of the majority of the predecessors and submitted nominee anyway than the senate shouldnt consider the nominee. Let me offer a couple observations. I said over the last few days some have tried their best to recast what chairman biden said in an attempt to give it a totally different meaning. Even the Vice President suggested what he said in 92 isnt what he meant. Instead he said it was about greater cooperation between the president and the senate. Chairman biden did talk about more cooperation. There is only one problem. He said cooperation should occur quote in the next administration end of quote. It was only after discussing why the president shouldnt send a nominee if a vacancy arose. And only after explaining why the senate shouldnt consider any such nominee regardless of how good a person is nominated that chairman biden turned to how the process should be changed in his view quote unquote in the next administration. Again, here is what he actually said quote let me start with the nominating process and how that process might be changed in the next Administration Whether it is democrat or republican. End of quote. Just so there wouldnt be any confusion, he repeated it two sentences later. Quote with this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration and how i would urge to change it as chairman of the Judiciary Committee were i to be chairman in the next administration. End of quote. Chairman biden was clear. Whatever you do all of the spin in the world isnt changing that fact. We have talked a lot about the biden rules but not as much about why he felt strongly that conducting hearings under these circumstances would be bad for the nominee, process and senate. It was because the process wouldnt be about constitutional interpretat interpretations and the proper rule of the court. Chairman biden said quote where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties from both ends of pennsylvania avenue end of quote. Chairman biden was making the point that all of us know to be true. But only some of us are willing to admit considering a Supreme Court nomination in the middle of a president ial campaign would be all politics and no constitution. If there is any doubt that this was chairman bidens view look at how he described the problem in an interview a week before his famous speech in 92. Quote can you imagine dropping a nominee into that fight . Into that coldren in a president ial year . Quote whomever the nominee was, good, bad or indifferent, would become a victim. End of quote. I raise this in part because we are witnesses how raw politics are affecting process. Regardless of what some are willing to admit, Everybody Knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this president ial campaign isnt getting confirmed. The white house knows it, democrats, republicans, and even the White House Press is saying that. Why all of this outrage for a hearing and demand for a hearing Everybody Knows will not result in a nomination. The other side is looking to score as Many Political points as possible. That is why the minority leader has taken to the floor on a daily bases to attack me. We have seen that thing from him before around here. It is all about using this process to score political points. It is that simple. We are even seeing reports from the white house and the election process is guided by raw calculation and what they think will exert the most political pressure on me. This guided logic appears to be if they nominate someone who i, or other republicans supported, for lower court, it will conclude it is a good idea to drop that nominee and what chairman biden called the coldron of a hearing during a heated president ial campaign. People conveniently forget that judge borke was confirmed to the washington, d. C. Circuit but that was before the other side viciously attacked and smeared him when he waw nominated to the Supreme Court. It is being suggested if the white house lects a judge from iowa i would try to convince my colleagues it a good idea to hold a hearing. We have been upfront and clear but in case there is any confusion over whether this obvious political ploy would work i think we need to be crystal clear. It will not work. We are not going to drop any nominee into an Election Year cauldron and i am not going to let it happen to the good people of iowa. Let me touch on a few more points before turning to the Ranking Member. Some of the arguments we have heard are so absurd they dont deserve rebuttal. But my friends seem to be under the impression if we repeat something enough it will become true. I heard it said the kennedy episode lands support to the notion the senate should consider a nomination during the middle of a president ial campaign. The argument is that Justice Kennedy was nominated in 87 and confirmed in 88 this somehow disproves chairman bidens argument. The only reason that seat was still vacant in early 98 is because judge burke was treated to an unprecedented and shameful Smear Campaign in 87. Those of us who were here remember it very well. That brings me to another related point. It has been suggesting the democrats here in 87 and 91 and chairman biden in particular should be applauded for how they handled the burke and thomas nominations. I will set aside the fact neither of these nominations occurred during a heated president ial campaign. The argument is judge burke and Justice Thomas were treated to a fair process even though they didnt have the support of the majority in the committee they were reported to the floor. I am not going to negate those nominations but where was here for judge burke and Justice Thomas and i saw what happened to both of them. I saw what happened to their records, to their repatiutationd the impact it had on their families. If anyone wants to argue those individuals were treated to a fair process you are free to make that argument but to this senator it would be laughable if not so sad. There wasnt a vacancy when chairman biden took to the floor in 92 but consider this. Chairman biden spoke on the floor that day before the end of the term and that is the day when justice often announce their retirement. It is true there was no vacancy at the time. But the chairman of the senate ju Judiciary Committee went to the floor of the senate and put the public, all nine justice, and the president of the United States on notice. If any justice was considering retirement they should know that the senate was not going to consider any replacement consistent with past practices. Based on what we heard over the last few days you would think those expressing outrage today would have rose to the floor to express their disagreement with chairman biden in 92 but for some reason that didnt happen. Not a single democrat went to the floor that day, or the days and weeks that followed, to stand up and say no, mr. Chairman, you have the history wrong. Not one. Not one democrat went to the floor, stood up and said no, mr. Chairman, there may be the senates history and there may be very good reason for it but i think we should press ahead with an Election Year nomination anyway. Not one. Not a single democrat went before and stood up and said no, mr. Chairman, i disagree. We havent located any newspaper editorials taking him to task either. So much for fairness between then and now. So we should keep in mind when we hear all of this outrage today keep that in mind. Let me make one final point. If this particular argument were not so transparently absurd it would be worthy of more debate. It is the under that because republican senators met to discuss the issue that somehow we were not being upfront and open. We could get into all of the secret meetings that the other side held before they walked into the the chamber on november 21st, 2013 and invoked the Nuclear Option but i dont think that would be a constructive debate. Everyone in this room knows we meet to discuss importance matters and the reason i know everyone knows it is because i met with each one of you on one issue or another and you didnt invite the press or public. I met with every republican when i became chairman and offered to do that with every democrat and i did meet with most of you on the other side of the aisle so i can learn your priorities and what each one of you wanted to see accomplish. I have cosponsored legislation when you even when you led the battle has senator durbin has done on sentencing reform. That is how we can learn where we can agree, where we cant, and where woe might be able to Work Together. That is how we get things done. That is how you lead. The bottom line is this we didnt play games, we didnt hide the ball, we made it clear up front to the president , Senate Democrats and the president what we wanted to do. We know others would make this as political as possible. It doesnt matter because this is the right thing to do. Senator leahy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will not go through all of the things i disagree of the recounting of the facts because we would be here too long and you and i have been friends for too long. I know during Election Year nominees in the last your of president reagans is his mike on . Turn your mike on. It is on. I dont know if is carrying. In the last year of president reagans term, the democrats were in charge and it was president ial Election Year and he was going to be leaving the presidency and we voted on a Supreme Court nominee of president reagan. Talk about partisanship. Every single democrat voted for president reagans nominee in a president ial Election Year. I am sorry that you feel that somehow this attention is directed at you and this is about you. It is not. It is about the constitution which is more important than you, me, or anybody else in the room. The president has a constitutionconstitutio constitutional obligation to nominate when there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court. We have a constitutional is this not working . Is that better . Okay. As i said as i mentioned earlier, when we talk about what happens in president ial Election Years, the democrats were in control of the senate unprecedented reagans last year in office, president ial Election Year, every single democrat voted for his nominee to the Supreme Court. I know my good friend from iowa said mow this effort is directed at him. I would say it is really not about him or any one of us. It is about the constitution which is a lot more important than any one of us. The oath that the president took to uphold the constitution, which requires him to nominate somebody when there is a vacancy, and requires us to exercise our advice and consent in voting yes or no. But we cannot sit here in close door meetings and agree with just part of the committee while we will vote maybe. The American People want us to do our job. We are paid to do our job. Voting maybe is not an option. Senator grassley, we have been friends for a long time. I hope while we disagree we will continue to Work Together in the legislation and oversight matters as well as nominations and he is correct. We have sponsored a lot of leahygrassley and grassleyleahy. 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 Scalias 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 hasnt discussed how we will proceed. But the majority can determine what they want to do it is not unanimous in contrast to what thepub the republicans say. It was not. That is blatantly false. Unanimous requires all of us and we were not invited to that closed door meeting. I want to with you as it has been the case on all Supreme Court nominations. I know you want to conduct the work fairly and i hope you will return to the practice in working together. We may disagree with each other but the tradition has always been that the chair and the Ranking Member, and i have been both chair and Ranking Member, on these kind of major decisions in this Committee Meet together and talk about it first. It is important we try to Work Together because we are not at the end of the year. We will have many matters to grapple with over the next nine months. You and i were elected to serve for six years. Not five and a quarter. We are at the five and quarter mark. We were elected by the people of iowa and vermont to serve for six years. I intend to work every day until the end of my term. Concerns about shutting down the process of the next Supreme Court nominee some senators are pivoting complaining about how lower Court Nominees have been treated in the past. We can go back and forth on this for days. The last two years of president bushs term in office, when we took over, we confirmed 68 of his judges. I think you have allowed 16. But it could be dispute this committee has always treated Supreme Court nominees differently than other nominees. Since i have served in the senate and i have served here for almost 42 years. The Senate Judiciary always head hearing on the pneumy pne nominees. I