the senate. given that we were in the majority and these nominations were highly controversial to advance into an up-or-down vote was not was not as you might imagine popular. but we resisted the political pressure. again we respected the senate's tradition against filibustering judicial nominees. but it would matter little. it would matter little to our democratic friends. less than a year later president bush 43 comes to office. before he had submitted a single judicial nominee our democratic colleagues held a retreat in farmington pennsylvania. they are, according to participants they determined to change the ground rules for how they would handle judicial nominees.democrat as "the news york times" reported democrats apparently decided quote there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly end quote. our friend the democratic leaded said what he and his colleagues were trying to do was set the stage, set the stage for yet another escalation in the last judicial war.en

yield before. >> after changing the senate rules to allow the confirmation the senate has moved forward earlier today numbers have the final 30 hours of debate on the gorsuch nomination you have been watching this on c-span2 we will show you more this evening in prime-time banal we would like to get your thoughts when you saw today in the senate with the nomination and the change of rules for the vote threshold to the simple majority to allow the nomination to move forward with a series of votes earlier today on the floor. the numbers are on your screen you can also leave the post on facebook or on twitter. nisan a majority leader in his remarks at the end of the session indicates the time will be shortened for debate on the nomination and the vote will come earlier than originally anticipated tomorrow. respected at 11:30 a.m. eastern on friday the senate confirmation vote for the supreme court associate justice expected friday approximately 11:30 a.m. eastern after allowing additional two hours of debate time tomorrow morning evenly split. "the washington post" writes about the move of

the senate. what is going on with this nomination fight? guest: it is kind of unlike anything in history, because you have this working month absence since justice salida died, and you have -- justice antonin scalia died, and you have this for-four split on the court. anthony kennedy is sort of the one swing vote. theyou have the stakes of fate of the court at play. because democrats are going to ,o ahead and filibuster gorsuch which we found out yesterday that they have at least 41 or 42 and maybe more coming on board -- the republican retaliation is going to be to go to the "nuclear option" as insiders have called it for the past 10 or 12 years. they are going to sort of blowup the last bit of filibustering you are allowed to do at the super majority level of 60 votes. they will bring that number down to 51 for supreme court nominations to get him onto the court. in one fell swoop, republicans will take control of the court, and they will also set a precedent for decades to come that is going t

senate and the rules of the senate. it's my belief -- others, of course, disagree. but it's my belief that if you seek to become an associate justice on the most powerful court in the world, you ought to be able to garner the support of at least 60 members of the united states senate. if your nomination to the court is the subject of such consensus, you are ought to be able to get 60 votes in the united states senate. if your nomination is seen as a -- or both your nomination and your judicial philosophy is seen as such a mainstream nomination, you ought to be able to get 60 votes. despite that, it's a point in time when we're having a debate about how we arrived at this question of a potential change in the rules. i believe that the reason we got here is because of substantial and unyielding obstruction by republicans in the united states senate over a number of years. just consider this: from the founding of our nation through preapplies first term when senate republicans were in the not the motion to cut off debate h

instead of the senate forcing us to change, senators have decided to change the senate. and i worry a great deal about what that means for our future. 20 years ago i think even the most partisan would say that the 60-vote threshold was basically inviable. today it will be gone for all nominations. but at least not for legislation. now, my friend, the majority leader, has said he has no interest in removing the barrier for legislation. i agree with him wholeheartedly and i take him at his word. i hope that we can get together to do more in future months to ensure that the 60-vote threshold for legislation remains. but just as it seemed unthinkable decades ago that we would change the rules for nominees, today's vote is a cautionary tale about how unbridled partisan escalation with overwhelm our basic inclination to work together and frustrate our efforts to pull back, blocking us from steering the ship of the senate away from the rocks. there's a reason it was dubbed the nuclear option. it's the most extreme measure with the most extreme consequences. and while i'm sure w

next we show you all of today's senate session. >> the senate will come to order. doctor gray black will lead the senate in prayer. >> let us pray. lord god of hosts, be with us yet. last we forget that our work on capitol hill matters to your kingdom. lord, with the military response against syria, we are reminded again that internal vigilance is the price for freedom. continue to provide our lawmakers with opportunities to serve your purposes on earth. mayday take seriously the responsibilities entrusted to them in their stewardship. all the legislative branch. remind them that you know the pressures they must confront as they strive to serve you and country. best so upon them the blessing of your presence that will guard their hearts with your piece. lord, give them the confidence that in following you, they can be certain of ultimate triumph. we pray in your holy name amen. >> join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisibl

on the senate and the court. as senator schumer advised so well, republicans and democrats can still come together and do as the country wishes, a bipartisan consensus for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court, the approval should be by more than a razer thin majority, it should be by a bipartisan consensus, the supreme court is different. >> there's only one federal court vacancy where the nominee has to get 60 votes and that is to the united states supreme court. why? because it is the court that gets to set precedent, it is the court that makes decision that yip pacts peoples lives, millions of lives for decades to come. nobody is forcing mcconnell to go this route, the nuclear option route. as our leaders we could come together and come up with a nominee who will get more than the bare minimum of votes. today is equal payday. it takes this long for women in our country to make the same amount that men in our country make on average. why is this important? why is this relevant to what we're talk

for the benefit of the senators who weren't here over the last few years. and as we know that was a close election and it was hardly fought given how close a presidential election was so others blame the jeb bush others blame the supreme court. many say that george bushes was a legitimate president interest groups were egging on the democratic leadership tu. at every turn. and cholesterol sounds very familiar. with the same time to claim president bush was illegitimate could nominate a conservative judge. doesn't that sound familiar? but it deserves discussion and serves as a reminder rica 74 because sometimes the past predicts the future. to according to "new york times" 42 of the senate 50 democrats attended a private retreat for the principal topic was forging a unified party strategy to combat the white house on judicial nominees this that soundil familiar and the speaking at the rate we retreat so that idea how the crusade would proceed if it is important for the senate to change the ground rules no obligation to confirm someone because schol they're s

opportunity i've this to work with the senator from arizona, the senator from montana, the senator from georgia to make sure that we got to the point today. i appreciate my colleagues' unanimous support for the passage of this legislation. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i want to thank the senator from kansas for all the hard work he has done. the senator from montana, on rare occasion when i come to praise him, i would like to give him my deep and heartfelt appreciation for his work in a bipartisan fashion on this issue, and i mean that with alls isty -- sincerity. i also thank senator isakson and i thank senator shulkin with the veterans' administration who has been an active and helpful participant in this measure. madam president, most everything has been said except i would like to remind my colleagues, we now have -- since the enactment in 2014 -- over seven million appointments have been made using the choice program and now over 30,000 appointments are made successfully each week under the choice program. the prog

the senate chaplain. the chaplain: let us pray. god of heaven, who guides through the boundless skies. the certain flight of waterfowl,

the senate. i was listening to the majority leader earlier this morning and i cannot believe he can stand here on the floor of the u.s. senate and with a straight face say that democrats are launching the first partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee. what the majority leader did to merrick garland by denying him a hearing at a vote is even worse than a filibuster. for him to accuse democrats of the first partisan filibuster belies the facts and history and the basic truth. and when mitch mcconnell deprive president obama it was a nuclear option. the rest is fallout. let me repeat that. adam schiff put it better than i could ever. when mcconnell deprived president obama of a vote on garland it was a nuclear option. the rest is fallout. even though my friend the majority leader keeps insisting that there is no principled reason to vote against judge gorsuch, we democrats disagree. first, he instinctively favored corporate interest over average americans. second he has shown a scintilla of i

to the senate. a senate which is with a republican majority and a leader, senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. senator mcconnell and republican senators did something that had never happened in the history of this chamber. not once, they denied president obama's nominee, the opportunity for a hearing and a vote. in fact, senator mcconnell went further and said i will not even meet with the man. it had never happened before. and you say to yourself well, come on, this is in washington. this is major-league politics. this sort of thing must happen all the time. never! in fact, if you go back not that far into history in 1988 in the last year of president ronald reagan's presidency, there was a vacancy in the supreme court. ronald reagan sent the name anthony kennedy to a democratic controlled senate. which had the power to do the same thing that senator mcconnell did. deny hearing and deny a book. what did the democrats do? they gave justice kennedy a hearing, a boat and sent him to fill the vacancy i

you know, the senate, even if it was a majority vote in the senate -- the senate is unique in that the senate -- it takes six years for every senator to run for election after some new sense of the direction of the country occurs, voters basically have to say again, and again, and maybe a third time, no, we really want to change the way the country was run up until now. quick decisions are not necessarily the best decisions in a democracy, and in our democracy this institution, the senate, is the legislative institution that determines that there is a necessary either coming together of the people who are here at the time or voters to say another time, no, you didn't get it the first time. we are sending different people because we really want to make this change. so i think that the vote today in the traditions of the country sends that 113th person in the history of america to serve a lifetime term on the court. i am confident that the president's nominee and the senate's decision to send that nominee to the court sends a good person to the court with a good understanding of what the

and he blew up the senate. and at that point they went from a 60-vote threshold for all presidential appointments down to 51, but they decided theyey would leave one hanging, one last to default threshold on nominees and that was the supreme court because they said the supreme court was so s important, we're talking with paul kane. if you have questions or comments about what's happening this week in the senate with judge gorsuch nomination, phone numbers -- as folks are calling and explain the difference between a legislative filibustee nomination filibuster andla whether the former is at risk because of what's happening this week. >> guest: the senate has operated, get really into the weeds. the senate has two different calendars. what is called the executiveen calendar as what is called the legislative calendar. the executive calendar is how they handle those nominations then. tho this goes for everything from i just reference the nlrb to the supreme court, to the local a district courts, the appellate court

you know, the senate, even if it was a majority vote in the senate -- the senate is unique in that the senate -- it takes six years for every senator to run for election after some new sense of the direction of the country occurs, voters basically have to say no, we really want to change the way the country has run up until now. and quick decisions are not necessarily the best decisions in a democracy and in our democracy, this institution , the senate is the legislative institution that determines that there is a necessary either coming together of the people who are here at the time or voters to say another time, no, you didn't get it the first time. we are sending different people because we really want to make this change. so i think that the vote today and the traditions of the country sends that 113th person in the history of america to serve a lifetime term on the court . i am confident that the president's nominee and the senate's decision to send se that nominee to the court sends a good person to the court with a good understanding of what the supreme court of the united stat

pass in the senate? have you talked to mid runny about running for senate in utah? >> on the first question, i really don't like to negotiate these deals with you guys. those items are under discussion between the white house and the democratic leader in the senate and the four corners on the committee. how it allecify plays out. i have had some conversations with mitt romney. i am in orrin hatch supporter obviously. he needs to decide what he wants to do if he wants to run again, i am for him. given that the president's inspiration -- >> can you talk about your interaction with the president and the administration on syria? are you satisfied with the interaction between the administration over the attack? >> the vice president called me last night. he explained the rationale and how they were doing it and i thought it made a lot of sense and would be a strike that would be noticed, not some kind of pinprick. it would be directly related to the reason the tomahawks were sent in the first place, the use o

had decided to pursue a strategy of asking the senate -- really demanding the senate, ensuring the senate not fulfill its constitutional advice and consent responsibility. if only at that moment my colleague, the majority leader, had thought this is a big deal, asking the senate not to exercise its advice and consent responsibility, is that a big deal. maybe i should wait a day and any about this, but, no, there was a rush to the floor to lay this out and that became the path that this body has been on ever since. a be month later, in march, the president did his job under the constitution. he nominated merrick garland and in so doing, it was forwarded over here to the senate and the normal thing would be for the senate to start hearings, but the republican majority leadership said, no. no hearings in the judiciary committee. why not? that is our responsibility to provide advice and consent on nomination and there's no nomination more important than a nomination to the supreme court of the united states of america. it isn't someone who just serves for a couple of years in administration o

the senate meet at 9:30 a.m. eastern with a couple hours of debate before the final vote is taken around 11:30. the sad life here on c-span2. here's more of yesterday's senate debate. >> center, >> thank you mister president. >> mister president, the senate has decided on a fairly partisan basis to resolve the impasse over judge gorsuch's nomination by invoking the so-called nuclear option. for the first time in our history, nominees or the supreme court may advance from nomination to confirmation with a simple majority in his body. and i've heard many of my colleagues describe equally to both sides and i've heard analysts and experts say the same. one can question that diagnosis as some respectful scholars in american enterprise suit and the brookings institution have demonstrated that our political organization over the last several years and has our current impasse have been driven predominantly by the ever more conservative ideology of the republican party. . >> your yard. >> the gorsuch nomination lacks the

when the senate votes on cloture, the question before the senate is the debate should be brought to a close and for these supreme court nominee, we have rules and they say that you need 60 senators to end the debate, not 59, 51, 51, 59 senators don't get to decide that 60 of them do and if you can't get 60 votes at the end of the day, you don't have cloture and now after 2013, there is only one appointed position that maintains the threshold for a very clear reason. we decided as a body the supreme court needs to have bipartisan support. if a person cannot get 60 votes that you change the nominee. you do not change the rules. we decided that this institution, the highest court in the land should be beyond our partisan disputes and differences and that is the foundation of the united states senate. it's the way this place works. the reality would be grim. if you are a member of the minority party, the presidents nominees don't have to listen with you, meet with you or thiny about you. without this rule, advice and consent is rendered meaningless for whichever party is out of power and

>> this is the way it has to be. the senate has changed. the senate has changed. look what has happened. if we have a republican president and he shouldn't have to team -- and we think he shouldn't have the team he wants, one thing people need to majority issimple not coined be a piece of cake in every instance. democrats don't like some of the nominees president obama put forward, good. let's work together. fear of this whatsoever, having served in the house where it is majority rule. it is a bicameral legislature. the majority vote is not so bad. republicans -- had republicans made this move itz would be a black chapter. why isn't this a black chapter? then, there was a speech saying we can't do this. it would be a bad day. and we help make it a bad day. i was part of that deal. do you realize with my consent we allowed janice rogers to go into court, kevin to go into that court? things have changed dramatically since 2005. they have done everything they can to deny the fact that obama was elected and then reelected. during the last congress republican leader mc

for the first time in the 230-year history of the senate. so let me remind colleagues of something i said yesterday when president clinton nominated justice ginsberg, i voted to confirm her. when president clinton nominated justice breyer, i voted to confirm him. when president obama nominated justice sonia sotomayor and justice kagan, i led my party to ensure an up-or-down vote. i knew i would disagree with their opinions on the cower, and i -- on the court, and i certainly wasn't wrong about that but it was the right thing to do. i understand my colleagues are under a great deal of pressure from the far left. i think everyone in office can empathize with the situation they are experiencing. listening to these hard-left special interests may seem like the expedient thing for democrats to do for their party today, but i'd ask them to make their decisions based on what they know is right for the country tomorrow. there's still time for them to make the right choice. there's still time for them to support a nominee who even long-time democrats

the united states senate and the supreme court. my hope is that maybe it will be a turning point, maybe we can reconstruct the sense of bipartisanship and comity that existed for so many years. many of my colleagues on the other side have expressed to me their misgiving about what was done today. but the obstruction of merrick garland's nomination, as one of my colleagues put it, filibuster of all filibusters, was another step in a continuing progression culminating in today's action, that very much betrays the spirit and values of bipartisan selection of supreme court nominees because the highest court in the land is different. i had the extraordinary honor to clerk for a justice of the united states supreme court, harry blackmun, who was appointed by a republican president, richard nixon. he grew as a justice, and surprised a lot of people. he no doubt surprised the president who appointed him. and that is what happens to really extraordinary men and women who serve on our courts as well as in the united states senate. they grow

when the senate votes on cloture, the question before the senate is if the defense of the senate, a debate should be brought to a close, is it the sense of a senate debate should be brought to a close for the supreme court nominee, we have, those rules say you need 60 senators to end debate, not 59, not 51, not 57, 59 senators don't decide, 60 do. if you can't get 60 votes to end debate you don't have cloture. now after 2013 there is o one position, one appointed position that retains the 60 vote threshold and that is the united states supreme court. that is for straightforward reason, we have decided as a body that the supreme court needs to have bipartisan support. if a person cannot get 60 votes, you change the nominee, you do not change the rules. we decided this position, this institution, the court itself, the highest court in the land should be beyond our partisan disputes and differences. that is the foundation of the united states senate. it is the way this place works. without, the reality will be grim. without this rule, if you are a member of the minority party, the president's

>> well, i think breaking the rules of the senate, to change the rules of the senate which is what was done in 2013 was terrible for the senate. but when we came to the majority a year and a half later we discussed this. about whether or not to restore the old -- the old system. and we decided not to do it because the custom, even though it was always possible to filibuster judges, the custom down to 2000 was not to do it. the senate restrained itself and and gave the supreme court nominee an up or down vote, down to 2000. so this recent invention of this level of controversy we decided was best left alone by just leaving us where we were -- >> so you now believe harry reid make the right decision? >> no, i don't think he should have broken the rules. but that's the precedent on what we call the executive calendar. and the supreme court is part of the executive calendar. >> are you comfortable in ten years we might not have a filibuster anymore, because someone else may replace you and continue down the slippery slope? >> i don't think the legislative filibuster is in danger. it's a lo

ironically, of the now-minority in the senate, the democrats. and in particular senator schumer who convinced his colleagues after bush 43 got elected to start routinely filibustering judges. chris: let me ask you some specific questions. will there be a confirmation vote by friday? >> yes. we're going to confirm judge gorsuch this week. chris: secondly, do you have the eight democratic votes as we sit here today to avoid a filibuster? >> well, i don't think we know. there are democrats who have not yet announced their position. i assume, chris, during the course of the week what you asked me will become revealed by announcements of democrats who have not yet set out what they're going to do. chris: you say that he'll be confirmed one way or the other, so does that mean if you can't stop a filibuster, that you will go to the nuclear option and change the senate rules so that you can cut off debate with 51 votes and confirm him? >> look, what i'm telling you is that judge gorsuch is going to be confirmed. the way in which that occurs is in the ha

the senate. unfortunately it has brought us to this point. we need to restore the norms and traditions of the senate and get past this unpartisan filibuster. therefore, i raise a point of order that the -- is a majority vote on all nominations. the presiding officer: the precedent of november 21, 2013 did not apply to nominations to the supreme court. those nominations are considered under the plain language rule 22, the point of order is not sustained. mr. mcconnell: i appeal the ruling of the chair. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the democratic leader will state the parl men terry inquiry. mr. schumer: did the precedent established on november 22, 2013 change the cloture threshold for nominations to the supreme court? the presiding officer: consideration of nominees to the supreme court of the united states was unaffected by the precedent of november 21, 2013, and is, as under rule 22. mr. sc

moment, avoid an outcome that no senator from either side wants to see the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i take this time to explain to the people of maryland and our nation my views on judge neil gorsuch to be an associate judge of the supreme court of the united states. madam president, i might tell you there is no more important responsibility that a member of the senate has than the advice and consent of an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. there are many important responsibilities we have. this is one of the

house or the senate. pat tiberi and richard neal have introduced companion legislation. it's bipartisan. it's the kind of legislation again that should draw bipartisan support and we should get it done. is it the silver bullet? no. we don't have a silver bullet. there is a comprehensive approach here. these bills that i have talked about are new steps that we should take. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to continue to support the cara legislation. let's provide full funding. let's support the cures legislation in the upcoming appropriations process. let's continue to engage the good folks back home for trying at the tip of the sphere to do all they can in terms of providing better treatment opportunities, better longer term recovery to go into our schools and talk about prevention, to do all we can to keep people from going into that funnel of addiction. and let's do past due legislation, join us in keeping better track of pain killer prescriptions so potentially killing drugs don't end up in the

instead of the senate forcing us to change, senators have decided to change the senate. and i worry a great deal about what that means for our future. 20 years ago i think even the most partisan would say that the 60-vote threshold was basically inviable. today it will be gone for all nominations. but at least not for legislation. now, my friend, the majority leader, has said he has no interest in removing the barrier for legislation. i agree with him wholeheartedly and i take him at his word. i hope that we can get together to do more in future months to ensure that the 60-vote threshold for legislation remains. but just as it seemed unthinkable decades ago that we would change the rules for nominees, today's vote is a cautionary tale about how unbridled partisan escalation with overwhelm our basic inclination to work together and frustrate our efforts to pull back, blocking us from steering the ship of the senate away from the rocks. there's a reason it was dubbed the nuclear option. it's the most extreme measure with the most extreme consequences. and while i'm sure w

i want to thank every member of the senate the staff of the senate for the comments have extended to me the last for you monster them injury and recovery. my the way back home because of the support of the united states senate. i'm grateful for that and the staff who have allowed it to take place. now standing what your politics apprenticeship is, this is a great institution and a great body because it's made up of great people. to that end, my friend senator can spread delaware maine excellent speech which i want to adopt is my speech since i don't have the strength to talk as late as i would like to. we need to open our minds ands hearts in the days ahead to make sure we know what direction were going on as members of the united states senate. regardless of our party and notwithstanding our partisanship. you'llse gorsuch from everything i've seen, i've seen more than a because i've been watching it on tv, his record,'s testimony and the way he presented himself and how they allow the hearing to go forth, i know we had a good man is a nominee for the supreme court justice of the uni

>> the senate will be in order. >> the majority whip. >> matter president, the senate has just restored itself into an almost unbroken tradition of never filibustering judges. we have actually restored the stats data's quote before the administration of president george w. bush, it was during that administration with some of our friends across the aisle, along with some of their liberal law professor allies dreamed up away of blocking president george w bush's judicial nominees. those by suggesting that 60 votes was really the threshold for confirming judges rather than the constitutional requirement of the majority vote. it has been a long journey back to the normal functioning of the united states senate. it is amazing that it has taken a nominee like judge gorsuch to bring us back to where we wereos around 2001. we have been debating and discussing this nominee for a long time now, the opponents off judge gorsuch have tried time and time again to raise objections to this outstanding r nominee. a nomination that no one in the senate opposed ten years ago when he was confirmed to up pl

the senate. the guardrails of democracy. if the legislative bus careens over the left or right, the guardrails bounce the bus back to the middle. it served our republic well for a couple centuries. only a sort of legislative nuclear explosion could change that. for instance, suspend the rules to change the tradition so the senate is more like the house and only needs 51 votes instead of 60 to get big things done. it's always been an option. at least since 1957 after a threat in 1917 and today the senate exercised that nuclear option. as of last hour, we're in a new legislative world. it marks a historic change to senate norms that could affect our democracy and our republic beyond any of our lifetimes. the move lets republicans in this case advance president trump's supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch with a simply majority of 51 votes instead of 60. it set as precedent that analysts say that will allow any party to control the senate to approve supreme court nominees without bipartisan support.

of the senate. one thing i can't say enough optimistic that while our vote could change the rules for this judicial nomination, i will never vote to change the rules for legislation are the reason i am voting to change the rules as i do not know what i go home to change people why soto meyer and kagan got on the court and gorsuch couldn't. why president obama was able to pick two people who are highly h qualified and trump was unable to pick one person highly qualified. you just can't have it where once i get there judges and the so to rectify that wrong will have to change the rules. not a good day. i was hoping it would never come, but it has. and to the extent that i have been part of the problem, i apologize to the teacher. heat f but, i think at least in my own mind i tried to do the right thing is i have saw. i took a lot of heat for voting for their judges at the time there is a lot of hate on our side. i'm glad i did. not that i'm not partisan, easily can be. i just think the history is goin

committee next week and then a vote on the senate floor. but no one should be surprised that judge gorsuch will need to meet the standard threshold of 60 senate votes in order to be confirmed. majority leader mcconnell has made clear time and again that 60 votes is the standard for matters of controversy in this senate. let me cite a few of the leader's more memorial quotes. on december 2, 200, he said, "i think we can stipulate once again for the umpteenth time that matters in a have any level of controversy about it in the senate will require 60 votes. on october 28, 2009, senator mcconnell said, well, it's fairly routine around the senate that controversial matters require 60 votes. then again july 17, 2007, senator mcconnell said, 60 votes in the senate is common as gambling at casablanca. 60 vote s is a threshold that supreme court nominees have met for the past quarter century. if the supreme court nominee cannot garn 60 votes in the senate, then the president should put forward a new nominee. we're at unique moment in history. the pr

pratt in the senate since the senate's beginning has been the president nominates and the senate decided by majority vote whether to approve by nomination. so why are we having these cloture votes? we're getting into more and more of a difficult situation with these votes. it's a bad habit. and both sides, rather, and democrats, have caused -- and both sides, republicans, and democrats, have caused the problem. there were 183 cloture votes on nominations, and i voted to invoke cloture 41 of those times. for ten of those nominees, i voted to end debate so that their nomination could have an up-or-down vote, even though i opposed their confirmation. no one has ever disputed our right in the senate, regardless of who was in charge, to use our constitutional duty of advice and consent to delay ann and examine, sometimes causing nominations tock withdrawn or even defeating nominees by a majority vote. but what i would like to suggest today is that if we continue the trend of requiring cloture votes on presidential nominees, cabinet members, and others, that may work fine, as long as we have a

the core of the senate is the legislative filibuster. this business of filibustering judges is a creation of senator schumer when george bush 43 got elected. it's not a long-standing tradition of the senate. the result of where we are now is we are back as late as 2000 and the best test of that would have been the clarence thomas nomination in 1991. nobody would argue that was most controversial supreme court nomination ever. you all know all it takes to get votes in the senate is one 60 senator out of 100 to say i want you to get 60 votes. nobody did. that's a pretty strongly held custom. that's the way the senate operated until 2000. this notion that this somehow bleeds over into the legislative filibuster is untrue. i'm opposed to it and senator collins is circulating a letter to senator schumer and myself of members who support the legislative filibuster. i would be the beneficiary and my party would be the beneficiary of changing that. i'm opposed to changing it and i think that's what fundamentally changes the senate. republicans h

change the rules of the senate. over what? over a court that doesn't even have enough work to do. millions of americans are hurting because of a law washington democrats forced upon them. they cook up some fake fight over judges. a fake fight over judges. it.t as i indicated i want to be talking about something else to if i had to defend docs getting insurance while millions of americans lost theirs. but it won't work. and the parallels between this latest skirmish and the original obamacare push are just too obvious to ignore. think about it. just think about it. the majority leader promised, he agained over and over that he wouldn't break the rules of the senate. july the 14th on meet the press said we are not touching judges. july 14, meet the press, we are not touching judges. then there are the double standards. when democrats were in the minority they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without. the -- namely the right to extend did they -- extended debate on lifetime appointm

the senate. senators have always enjoyed thi ability to filibuster nominations. that ability has remained available because senators had shown restraint in applying not power that comes along with requiring unlimited debate. the clear tradition of the senate and this is a body of tradition i have learned over the course of the 230 years of history is a confirmation by majority vote. that tradition has been demonstrated in recent supremert court confirmation. president obama nominated soniar sotomayor were and just explain to kagan. neither face to filibuster in the senate. president george w. bushr nominated john roberts as chief justice.. there was no filibuster attempt against that nomination. president bill clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg and david prior to the supreme court. president george h.w. bush nominated justice souter and clarence thomas to the supreme court. either just a face to filibustes even though 48th in the voted against the thomas nomination. they did require a cloture

the remarks of the senator from oregon, senator merkley. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, is there a quorum call in place? the presiding officer: there is not. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise to address the nomination of neil gorsuch and i'll start by noting that just moments ago, the majority leader was on the floor and did something that has never before been done in u.s. history, and that is on the first day, indeed the first hours of debate on a supreme court justice on this floor, the majority leader filed a petition culled a cloture petition to close debate. so here we are in the first day just hours into debate and the majority leader said enough. we don't want to hear any more about this topic. we're going to shut down debate. now, the rules provide some protection for this, and that is it can't be voted on until thursday. so there's

i have followed the hearing in the senate judiciary committee. i carefully studied his record, and based on all of this information i can't support his confirmation. the supreme court changes peoples lives. its decisions stand for generations. it is essential that justices understand not only have these issues impact our democracy, but how they affect peoples lives, and that they consider them free of ideology. our meeting and the senate hearings where judge gorsuch opportunity to convince me that he will be an independent mind on the court. he failed to answer questions that are critical for me. his position on the rights of working mothers, whether women can choose their own health care decisions, lgbtq writes, and dark money in our elections, just to name a few. but what i found most troubling is he failed to convince me that he would be an independent voice on the court. and just the last couple of months the president has taken constitutionally questionable actions affecting muslim immigrants and freedom of speech and religion. the fbi is in

a fascinating times the u.s. senate. thank you, we will continue to monitor the vote and let you know how this vote turns out in the u.s. senate. >> julie: and fox news alert for you. president trump getting set to meet with china's president in florida later today and the stakes cannot be higher. with a looming nuclear crisis on the korean peninsula. trump supporters expecting him to deliver on his promises on trade concession. >> good morning to you. the white house says this is an icebreaker visit kind of a get to know you affair. some thorny issues will be discussed, one of the things of the top of the agenda is the north korea program and that missile test that they had on tuesday. likely, some sort of a provocation ahead. i'm told by people on the national security council in terms of provocation, it wasn't much of a provocation at all, the missile only flew a portion of its range, about 30 miles and had a failure in flight. if kim jong-un was trying to send a signal, he wasn't sending a very strong signal. the pre

pass the senate. no one is making our republican colleagues change the rules. no one is forcing senator mcconnell to change the rules. he's doing it at his own volition, just as he prevented merrick garland from getting a vote at his own volition. senator mcconnell and my republican colleagues are completely free actors and making a choice, a very bad one, in our opinion. now, i know my friends on the other side of the aisle are uncomfortable with this choice, so they are scrambling for arguments to justify breaking the rules. let me go through a few of these justifications and explain why each doesn't hold up. first, many of my republican colleagues will argue that they can break the rules because, quote, democrats started it in 2013 when we lowered the bar for lower court nominees and cabinet appointments. well, let's talk about that. the reason majority leader reid changed the rules was because republicans had ramped up the use of the filibuster, the very filibuster they now decry, to historic prop

so, when we have a contest for the senate seat, it isn't just about the senate, it's about the seat of affecting the outcome o. the court because all you need is a simple majority. whether or not it means changing the legislative filibuster which would be the end of the senate, i don't know. but i don't think it helps. there will be a majority around here one day be president of the same party, control of the house and they will get frustrated because the other side won't let them do everything they want to do and they will be tempted to go down this road of getting away witgiving awaywith a 60 voo pass a bill and not appoint a of the senate. we made that more likely by doing this. it was more likely in 2013. i hope i'm wrong but i think that we set in motion the eventual demise of the senate. the only thing i can't say optimistically aoptimistically o change the rules for the judicial nomination i will never vote to change the rules for a legislation and the reason i'meo voting to change the rules is i don't know what i would go home and tell people why they got on the court and gorsu

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, the senate has decided on a purely partisan basis by invoke be the so-called nuclear option. for the first time in our history, nominees to the supreme court of the united states may advance from nomination to confirmation with a simple majority vote in this body. and i've heard many of my colleagues ascribe blame equally to both sides, and i'm -- and i've heard analysts and experts say the same. -- scholars like nor man oren seen and thomasman of the brookings institute have demonstrated that our political polarization over the last several years and hence our current impasse has been driven predominantly by the ever more conservative ideology of the republican party. regardless, here we are. the gorsuch nomination lacks the traditional level of support required for a supreme court seat, and the majority leader has chosen a step that democrats clearly and emphatically rejected when we needed to confirm nominees who had brought -- broad support but were blocked because they

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i rise today to offer my support to the nomination of -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. enzi: thank you. i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you. as i was saying, i rise today to offer my support for the nomination of judge neil gorsuch to be the supreme court of the united states of america. several weeks ago shortly after president trump announced this nomination, i came to the floor to say what an admirable choice he had made and had known him for some time. now after meeting with judge gorsuch to discuss his nomination and after reviewing his qualifications and after observing my colleagues on the senate judiciary committee thoroughly vet him, i'm all the more convinced that this man is eminently qualified to serve as america's next associate justice of the supreme court. i was impressed that both of his senators introduced him to the committee for the hearing. i was kind of

the presiding officer: the senate has an order, previous order to stand adjourned when the senator is finished speaking until 9:30 a.m. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that clarification. i'm going to make this comment now in case i might forget lat later, but i want to give special thanks to the team of individuals that make this body work. and that in order to provide for the opportunity of extended debate are sometimes here under extraordinary circumstances. and because i've been here through the night speaking, one of those extraordinary circumstances was this night that has just passed, the stenographers and the parliamentarians and the pages, our door keepers, our caucus staffs, the bill clerks, and others who staff the desks in the offices in the democratic and republican cloakroom, the police. i am excited to see the set of smiles on the pages' faces. i don't know if the same pains were here all night or not. well, hopefully they'll really get a lot out of this opportunity to serve here. but thank you to all the staff members that have labored at the wee ho

by the united states senate. and so, mr. president, i want to put that in the record, may 1, 2001, "new york times" article entitled "washington talks, democrats readying for a judicial fight. ". the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: thank you. after a brief time in the majority, senate democrats were back in the minority in 2003. so approximately two years after they had this strategy. it was at that time the senate democrats began an unprecedented and systemic filibusters of -- systematic filibusters of president george w. bush's circuit court nominees. then the tables turned. president obama was elected and republicans held the senate minority. at that time, even though many of us didn't like the idea of using the filibuster on judicial nominees, we also recognized that we couldn't have two sets of rules, one for republican presidents and one for democrat presidents. our party defeated two nominees for the lower courts by filibuster and denied cloture to two -- to three of president obama's n

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. .the senator from rhode island. a senator: i thank the senator from oregon for yielding. mr. whitehouse: i want to say how nice it is to see the senator from georgia back here with us. it means a lot to all of us to have senator isakson back home in the senate. mr. wyden: mr. president, i don't want to turn this into a bouquet tossing contest, but i think it's very clear that senators on both sides of the aisle are very, very pleased to see our friend from georgia back today. we are wishing him good health and godspeed johnny and look forward to a full and complete recovery. so glad to have you here. impleased that senator -- i'm pleased that senator coons is on the floor. it is fair to say that members on both sides of the isles have seen how -- aisles would say that are senator coons makes all of us very, very proud. it's no secret that he has tried repeatedly to bring both sides together and he and i have talked often about this. i think they are going to be opportunities for finding common ground on some importa

the full senate will then take it up. majority leader mcconnell announces he plans to hold the final confirmation vote friday, april 7.