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

senate democrats soon became the majority in the senate due to then-senator jeff ford -- jeffords party switch, the current democratic leader used his position on the judiciary committee to hold a hearing on whether ideology should matter in the confirmation process. now, mr. president, it won't surprise you that the conclusion he and his colleagues reached was that it should so they killed in committee, either through inaction or via committee vote, qualified nominees who did not fit their ideology. i know because i was on the committee then. 18 months later our democratic colleagues lost control of the senate and therefore control of the judiciary committee. our colleague, the current democratic leader, again, took center stage. new york times noted that over the last two years mr. schumer has used almost every maneuver available to the senate judiciary committee to block the appointment. to block the appointment of a bush administration judicial nominees. then in 2003, again according to "the new york times," he recommended using an extreme tactic, the filibuster, to block it. mr. sc

the senate. we don't engage in partisan filibusters of supreme court nominees. yesterday i came to the floor to speak about the path that brought us to this point as i discussed way back in 2001 -- referring to the year 2001, the current minority leader and some of his allies on the far left hatched a plan to, in their words, change the ground rules with regard to lower-court nominees. i noted a "new york times" article describing the democrat senatorial caucus retreat where the new approach to nominees was discussed. in other words where they discussed the strategy for changing the ground rules of how judges are considered 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 a

my preference would be to change the behavior of senators rather than change the rules of the senate. but here we are where a nominee who would have received unanimous or near unanimous support just a few years ago is about to be filibustered. my question is this. if we can't confirm a judge like judge gorsuch under contemporary use of senate rules, who can we confirm? it looks as if we'll move forward later this week and make the rest of the executive calendar subject to the same simple majority threshold. again, a change in senate rules is not my preferred outcome, but this rule change -- this rule change will simply make deviewer what was defacto prior to 2003 when filibusters were virtually never used on the president's executive calendar. now, i want to make clear my steadfast support to preserve the legislative filibuster. we need to distinguish here between the president's executive calendar that has traditionally never been filibustered or subject to filibuster and the legislative filibuster that is used frequently here to ensure that we work across the aisle. the framers of o

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

i have seen the articles written, it's the end of the senate, the death of the senate. it's a little bit of an exaggeration. i think is it reflective of the fact that this is how pom particulars have become -- politics have become that we are got able to have a debate on serious issues like we were once able to do. i think everyone's to blame. today, most articles on the issues before us are not about the issues before us. they are about the politics of the issues before us. today, most of the work that's done in this chamber and in the other chamber has more to do with the messaging behind it than it does with the end result that the world will lead us. that's just the honest fact. and before people start writing or blogging, look at all these other times when the senator from florida, when me, when i did some of these things, i admit it. i don't think there is a single person here with clean hands on any of this. i admit that i have been involved in efforts that looking back on some of these things perhaps if we knew then what we knew now we would have done differentl

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. it's about the seat affecting the outcome of the court because all you need is a simple majority. whether or not a lead to 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, a president of the same party, control of the house, and they would geton frustrated because of the other t side will not let them do everything want to do. and they will be tempted to go down this road of doing away with a 60 vote requirement to pass a bill, not appoint a judge. and that will be the end of the senate. we made that more likely byy doing this. it was more likely in 2013. ii hope i'm wrong but i think we have set in motion the eventual demise of the senate. but the one thing i can say on an optimistic note, that while i bow to change the rules for this judicial nomination, i will let every vote to change the rules for legislation. and the reason i voted to change the rules is i don't know w

in the senate. i think that would be tragic. >> just to be precise, if you get that commitment that the next supreme court nominee if there's another opening on the supreme court will require 60 votes, you're going to step back and stop the filibuster this time. is is that right? >> i would be looking for an agreement from both parties that we won't change the rules. and that in recognition that judge garland should have gotten a vote and should have been cob sulation on who was nominated this time that on the next there would be a binding commitment that we will be consulted and democrats and republicans will work together to make sure there's a confirmable nominee. e we won't break the rules. we won't change the rules. we'll proceed as we should. >> we want the that commitment because this could be a historic moment for the supreme court if the rules are changed now, you have heard the criticism the senate becomes the house of representatives, simple majorities rule and that unique nature of the s

we have the view of the senate floor. the desks, that's where the senators are now. not their office. their desk in the senate. that's what they do for historic moments, big votes, when they're going to be there for a long time. that kind of settles is the stage of what we're watching playing out. just getting back to regular order. they are going to be -- we will be seeing history happen today. changing 200 years of history. over 200 years of history in the senate when they change this. much more to discuss on this, sunland keeping her eye on the floor. thanks so much. >>> so also for us. president trump is preparing to spend the weekend with the leader of the nation he blasted repeatedly from the campaign trail. everything from trade to how to handle north korea. will pump sing a different tune when he meets face-to-face with the president of china today. >>> also this, president trump says that he's changed his attitude towards syria. after the deadly chemical attack that killed dozens including many, many children. what action will he take. what is the policy now

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

of the senate. they're having this conversation. that's when that conversation came up and we believe it to be apocryphal but still the response, as written down at some later point in time, was washington asked of jefferson, why did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it? jefferson responded, to cool t my throat is not made of brass. even so, said washington, we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it. is there a way that we can avoid what is unfolding now, this tragic miscarriage of the senate's responsibilities? whether that conversation took place, as i mentioned, is not actually known, but the fact of the story is still -- but the fact that the story is still here means that it had some power behind it, whether it took place or not. and that was that for 200 years and counting, the government has counted on the senate to pause, to not give acceleration to the momentum of the day, to pause and be thoughtful in considering the integrity of our institu

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: mr. president, one of the most consequential votes that i will ever cast is a vote to confirm united states supreme court nominee. it's a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. and in fact tomorrow when i cast that vote for judge gorsuch, is will be the first chance i've had as a senator to confirm a supreme court nominee. mr. daines: as it stands today, the united states senate is on the precipice of confirming neil gorsuch to be our next united states supreme court associate justice. just a few short hours ago, my colleagues on the other side caved to the pressures of the far left and unleashed an unprecedented partisan filibuster. first time in 238 years of this institution. i was honored to be at the white house east wing on january 31 with president trump when he made the announcement that judge neil gorsuch would be the nominee to replace antonin scalia. judge gorsuch's academic accomplishments are nothing short of being absolutely stellar. his decision to serve as a ju

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

in limbo in the senate. others are saying for a lifetime appointment, the nominee should have support. >> its decisions must ensure the rule of law is preserved for real people and our constitution continues to protect us from overreach and tyranny. that is why it's so important that the nominee of -- to the supreme court be approved by more than 60 votes. >> there's not a lot of good will these days between the two parties. we expect a show down on the senate floor unless a deal can be struck later this week. shep? >> thanks, mike. let's go to josh gerstein. he covered the nominations and confirmations of sonya sotomayor and elena kagan. this is a rules change but not without precedence. >> right. it would take away the 60-vote threshold any senator historically has been able to impose an option to matters being brought up on the floor. they needed 60 votes to move forward or was considered filibustered at this point. that was the rule for everything in the senate. as mike mentioned a few years ago, the dem

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 look at all the senators gathering there. this should begin at any moment. >> yeah, the big drama this week is what happens if democrats are able to successfully filibuster this nomination? can they get 40 democrats to try to stand in the way? that means that republicans would have to go nuclear. cnn's sunlen serfaty on capitol hill to set the stage. and you know, i do expect we will see some drama here today, sunlen. >> reporter: that's right, john, the drama starts right now, where you have the senate judiciary committee at this moment gathering to meet. this is a committee vote. democrats have the minority in the committee, 9-11. so in all likelihood, neil gorsuch will get out of the committee today just fine, and that sets up the true showdown later in the week once neil gorsuch is considered on the full senate floor. of course, a lot of questions over this filibuster, a lot of questions over this so-called nuclear option, but heading into that dramatic moment near the end of the week for neil gorsuch, check out this rhet

these senators decide now whether it should go to the full senate. gorsuch is kbexpected to get th okay. what happens next? that's where things get happy and that's because senate look like they're going to stall and this means the republicans could pull the plug on the nuclear option. kristen welker ist the white house. we have our full panel here. let's get into it on many monday. chris, first to you. what's happening now? are we seeing senators fill in for the committee vote? walk us in to the mood. >> it's at devcon one. this would be blowing ifrg up that we know about the senate to invoke the nuclear option. let me back up a minute as we watch the conversations that are happening inside the hearing room which is expected to get started any minute now. what you have just here in the senate judiciary committee, nine democratic members, seven of them have decided they're going to vote no on neil divorgorsuch. all of them unhappy that merrick garland never got a hearing. he was president obama's nominee for the supreme court. that leaves two. who to

>> 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

but the senate acted. or let's take a look at william woods, the nominee from president rutherford hayes, also nominated in december of that year, just months before the new president would come in, but nevertheless the senate acted. in these cases, they confirm the nominee in that short amount of time. they vetted, they acted, they fulfilled their responsibility under the constitution. that is one group. there is another group of nominees in an election year where the vacancy occurred before the election, but the nominee was nominated after the election. there are four in that group. we have president john quincy adams. he nominated him was in again, just a28, few months before the new president would take office. and by the senate. the senate chose to postpone the action, but they acted. they took a vote. they decided. jeremiah black, the nominee in february 1861, trfs there was -- there was a motion to proceed. they rejected. we have a nominee in 1864 by aibham lincoln and that nominee was confirmed. an

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

when the senate votes on cloture, the question before the senate is, is it the sense of the senate that debate should be brought to a close in is it the sense of the senate that debate should be brought to a close? and for the supreme court nominee, we have rules. and those rules say that you need 60 senators to end debate. not 59, not 51, not 57. 59 senators don't get to decide whether to end debate -- when to end debate. 60 do. if you can't get 60 votes to end debate, you don't have cloture. and now after 2013, there is only one position, one appointed position that retains that 60-vote threshold. and that is the united states supreme court. and that is for a very straightforward reason. we have decided as a body the supreme court needs to have bipartisan support. that if a person cannot get 60 votes, that you change the nominee, you do not change the rules. we have decided that this position, 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 core of the senate is the legislative filibuster. this business of filibustering judges is a creation of senator schumer when george bush 43.elected. not a long-standing edition of the senate. we are back to where we were as late as 2000 and the best test of that would've been the clarence thomas nomination in 1991. nobody would be a argue that was the most controversial supreme court nomination ever. you all know all it takes to get 60 votes in the senate is one senator out of a hundred to say i want to get 60 votes. nobody did. that's a pretty strongly held custom. that is 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, senator collins, as you know 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 am opposed to changing that. i think that is what fundamentally changes the senate. republicans have al

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

>> 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

senator coons is here coming down the hallway -- senator -- senator coons, you are the person who really made this headline -- so, katy, apparently the senator not wanting to add too much more to his comments here, simply going through that door. but he, of course, will be the person in the headlines today as the person who tipped the balance here and set the stage for this nuclear option. >> eagle-eyed and quick on her toes, kasie hunt. >>> let's play some of the sounds from democrats saying they're going to try to block kne neil gorsuch. i know senator coons didn't answer any of kacie's questions, but listen to this. >> unfortunately, based on gorsuch's record in the department of justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the senate and his written questions for the record, i cannot support this nomination. >> my conscience will not allow me to ratify the majority leaders' actions. not last year, not this year. i will not, i cannot support this nomination. >> senators feinstein and leahy right there. kristin welker, if mitch mcconnell has to go nuclear to get this through

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

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

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

effective work was done in the senate labor committee under senator kennedy's leadership and in the senate finance committee under senator moynihan's leadership. senator wofford, senator daschle, and senator rockefeller among democratic senators led the way, and senator chafee among republican senators led the way. they are among a larger number who wanted to pass meaningful legislation this year, but unfortunately, we were not able to do. i will be pleased to take questions. >> how about next year? what do you think the prospects are for next year or the year after? george mitchell: i believe it is inevitable that comprehensive health care reform will be enacted. you will recall that it took 10 years or more to pass medicare. and there was a great deal of opposition to it. it was not until after the decisive election of 1964 that it finally was enacted. and i believe that the same thing will happen inevitably on health care reform. i do not know and cannot say whether it will be next year or the year after. obviously, many factors will contribute to that, but i believe, given the situatio

what the senate is up to? obviously it's his right as an american to do that, but is it... do you think that's a good idea? >> well, it is the president's right to do it. sometimes i think this is a distraction from what we should be doing, and we're trying our best in the senate intelligence committee to keep our focus like a laser on this bipartisan investigation. >> dickerson: to the question of leaks and what the house intelligence chairman has brought up, this idea of unmasking possible trump associates as part of surveillance that was done, a very serious issue. it seems to be getting a little mixed. should there be a separate enquiry into that which is separate of this question of russian influence in the election and any times to the trump campaign in order to keep the two separate. both serious issues, but not necessarily connected. they kind of keep getting muddled back and forth. >> dickerson: i do think they are connected, and i they both will be the subject of our enquiry on the senate intelligenc

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

looking at is the senate floor. senators have begun debating the nomination. that will end in a democratic filibusters. that's when republicans will deploy, we expect, a nuclear option. what does that do? that changes what is needed. 60 votes to get the nominee confirmed down to a simple majority of 51 votes. it's a big deal. it could change the senate we know it forever. let's get to sunlen serfaty. little bit of a busy day. >> it is and it is a big deal as you noted. we saw a few moments ago. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell take the floor and open up a very busy day and really defending that he will by the end of the day invoke the nuclear option, talking about precedent that the democrats lead in 2013 when they invoked the nuclear option on lower court nominee. certainly defending move in advance of even doing that. he also blasted the democrats for their filibuster of neil gorsuch. called it a radical move. noting that this has less to do with neil gorsuch the man. he said the opposition is more about the man who nominated him, i.e., president trump

senate forever. >> it will change the senate forever if in fact the 60 vote threshold is struck down. but the senate has operated bye-bye partisan consensus because the feeling has been over many years that these nominees should be approved by more than a razor thin majority. they serve for life in the highest court in the land. and i would regret this very destructive step if the republican leadership chooses to invokehinuclear option. >> when people say theyuestion why the democrats are going to the mat on this one, which is in fact net/net replacement for the late justice antonin scalia and not the next one, what do you say to that? >> he has evade all of our key questions on adherence to well established precedent relating to women's health care and privacy. he has left the inescapable conclusion that he would adhere to the donald trump litmus test which is overturning row v wade and striking down sensible legislation to control gun violence and he is out of the mainstream on fundamental core precedence. this seat is not a republican or a democratic seat. it should be a mainstream

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 bill in the senate. is accurate?t we don't stand still. we are working. if we were in control he would ready campaign that helped our party. we would be honest about that. we want to be honest about what the democrats are doing. this is perpetuating democratic control. you don't need a bureaucracy to figure that out. think the answer is in the speech with campaign reform and is never going to happen. there was a republican and democrat party coming you are going to have a bipartisan meeting. then you will have to focus up or down, i would be prepared to work on that basis. >> the senate voted a conversion of this. , the americanorst people are not prepared to do that. debate, you have the individual mandate, you have the subsidy approach. you had to scale it back to >> even out of very expensive. is too costly. when you come back next year, do you think that there will be a subsidy in market reform? >> deeming it down or up? >> you can play games with this. think that there will be an approach to subsidi

barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. will lead the senate in prayer. . >> let us pray. lorded of popes me with us mitt but with the military response but to abuse the price for freedom? and contain it to provide lawmakers with opportunities to serve the both serve you and country. bestow upon them of blessings of one good example is his view can be certain of the old the mitt tramp be back with then less evening the vice president notified via the of chemical weapons against his own people through military action.. the action was taken to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again. i support both the actions and the objective. the planning of this operation was clearly will contend taken against the airfield of which they were used and but to have that emerge commission deviant -- reveal with the institution said of everett be what traditionally with the attention of all senators to have a briefing on this matter later today isn't and he fell when moved to the confirmation because surely he will make and over the last half century.or this the last resort ridley

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

senate to the tenth u.s. circuit. now let me say that one more time because so seldom do we see the senate acting in a unanimous fashion, so this perhaps is a moment of reflection that judge gorsuch in just 2006 received unanimous -- a unanimous vote for the tenth circuit. every single democrat serving in the senate at that time voted in support of neil gorsuch, including 12 members who are still serving in this chamber today. his bipartisan support has not stopped there. senator bennet from colorado says that judge gorsuch represents the best qualities of colorado and that we need to fulfill our responsibility to this nominee. senator donnelly from indiana said i believe he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law and is well respected among the peers -- among his peers. from west virginia, senator manchin acknowledges that while he may not agree with future decisions made by judge gorsuch, he also said without question -- let me quote -- he has not found any reason why this j

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

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 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 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

will the majority leader breakak the rules of the senate in orded to get judge gorsuch on the bench? my friend, the majority leader has said several times that judge gorsuch will be confirmed by the end of this week one way or the other.f what he really means when hewhih says that is, if judge gorsuch does not earn 60 votes in the senate, which is now the likely outcome, the republicans must underline must, exercise the nuclear option to pass judge gore's itch on a simple majority vote.dn't. i think the majority leader reasons that if he says that enough times folks will start believing that that he has no choice. but they shouldn't, it's aet premise no one should swallow. the majority leader setting up c false choice. support judge gorsuch or he will have no choice but to break the rules. maybe to the majority leader the nuclear option is the onlys option, but there are many alternatives. the majority leader makes up his mind independent of what democrats do on issue after choe issue.rganizations this one, he says he has no choice. if he has no choice because the right wing of the r

because the senate democrats take the constitution seriously. we don't turn our backs on the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent, even though that's exactly what our republican colleagues did when it came to merrick garland. last week the senate judiciary committee met for four days to consider the gorsuch nomination leading up to the hearing i made it clear on the senate floor that i thought that judge gorsuch had a burden to bear at that hearing. on february 2 i said here on the floor that judge gorsuch needed to demonstrate that he would be a nominee who would uphold and defend the constitution for the benefit of everyone, not just for the advantage of a privileged few who happened to engineer his nomination. i also said judge gorsuch needed to be forthright with the american people about his record and his views. i made it clear that avoiding answers to critical questions was unacceptable. i said he needed to demonstrate that he would be an independent check on president trump and every president, and that he was prepared to

the senate acted within its power. within the rules to say we were judgeing to confirm we were notand, going to confirm him to the united states supreme court until after the election. at that time in right up until the end, most people thought goingillary clinton was to win and that meant republicans were willing to admit that she could then nominate whoever she wanted to and she might want to nominate -- the pathetic thing about all of this is that all of us like merrick garland is a person. as a judge, yes we think he is a very fine judge but the fact of the matter is that they made this choice and donald trump one. he has appointed somebody else and that is just the way -- that is just the way it should work. that is way the system works. the way the system works. i'm shocked the democrats want gameke this a politicized out of this. >> do think it is possible that republicans and democrats could find an appeal in the next couple days? >> no. ] aughter >> we are just asking them to do what we did for sotomayor and k