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

if you are a united states senator. but the fact is, that it puts us back into a place that we were for 200 years. in this republic. >> from the beginning of this congress, of this senate, 1789. through 1889, through 1989, up to and including 2003, there was no filibuster at all. on supreme court justices. there was no partisan filibuster at all on supreme court justices and no judge had ever been denied his position because of a partisan filibuster. at any level. federal judge circuit level or supreme court. that changed in 2003 and with the mcgill estrada nomination, our democrat friends stopped a qualified judge from going on the federal appeals court. that was the beginning of an unfortunate 14 year experiment in judicial filibusters. >> it's not a filibuster that i think, it's not precedented, it's not an experiment that i think this can be very proud of. it took place over a relatively short period of time, over 14 years and it ended today. as of today, the united states senate is back where it was for over 200 ye

states senate and the united states congress. this is a time that we have to have a jurist that will bring a balanced view for all americans to be represented in the united states supreme court. i'm proud to have the opportunity to support this nominee. i urge my colleagues in the senate to put partisan interests aside, to put the best interests of the country first, and to confirm neil gorsuch as the next justice of the supreme court. mr. president, i take this as a huge, huge privilege to speak out today, and i will speak more next week on the history of this nomination, and i thank you for the opportunity to speak, and i yield my time. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: there's been a long conversation about a supreme court justice. quite frankly, there should be a long conversation. when you talk about a supreme court justice, this is someone who serves on the court for life. i.t. got to be right. -- it's got to be right. the long conversation about neil gorsuch is com

i'll show you the floor of the united states senate. republicans now have the 51 votes to invoke the nuclear option. >> the debate on the nomination of neil gorsuch to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states shall be brought to a close upon reconsideration. the yays and n -- the clerk will call the role. >> mr. alexander. mr. bor ras so. >> they're back now to another vote on the floor of the united states senate. the reason we broke in is the senate has now voted to invoke the so called nuclear option. he can be confirmed with a simple vote. all 52 republicans voting yet to change the rules. the democrats including the independents who caucused with the democrats voting no. more of the partisanship in washington. this is part of the partisan atmosphere in washington. the conversation we were having before we checked in, this has also infected these investigations which the intelligence committees are normally the one place where they meet in secret. they pick members by seniority. they pick members who know to

states senate. is important to reflect what we are here in how we got here. just so let me take a few minutesoweu five food talk about the lower course nominees to provide the context 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 ju

her duties of united states senate are set forth in theha constitution of the united states. nowhere in the document doesn't say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominee a vote. all i can say is that in the 100 years history of the senate from the day going backwards there's been one person put on the court when the president was of one party and the senate was held by the other party and a vacancy occurred in the last year of the presidential term. we've done nothing that would justify judge gorsuch to be treated the way he has beendl treated. and he has been treated pretty badly. drink here's what nancy pelosi said. any if you drink water, eat food, or interact with courts, this is a very bad decision. all i can say is that judge gorsuch does not deserve that. that is a political statement out of sync with the reality of who this man is and the life he led, and it's that kind of attitude that has gotten us here today. i can also say there is blame on my site, too. nobody has clean hands completely on this. i can remember when justice sotomayor was nominated. she m

the united states senate is set forth in the constitution of the united states. nowhere in the document doesn't say that they have a duty to give a presidential nominee." all i can say is that in a 100 year history of the senate going backwards there's been one person put on the court when the president was one part of one pd the senate was held by the other party and it occurred last year for the presidential terms. we've done nothing that would justify judge gorsuch to be treated the way that he's been treated which is pretty badly. here's what nancy pelosi said.ot if you drink water can eat food, take medicine or are any other way interacting with court, this is a very bad decision. all i can say is that he doesn't deserve that. that is a political statement out of sync with the reality of this man is intwho this man is ' that he lives and it's that kind of attitude that's gotten usmy here today. i can also say there is blame on my side also. nobody has clean hands on this. i can't remember when justice was nominated she made a speechv to the effect that a whi

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

as united states senator, one of the most consequential votes that i will cast is a vote toime confirm a u.s. supreme court nominee. it is a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest courts. i recently spoke with some students back in montana, some ffa students, average age 17, 18 years old. and god willing, neil gorsuch may serve on the court for 30 or more years. these ffa students, children and perhaps even grandchildren will be part of judge gorsuch's i'm on the courts, given that he likely will serve for three decades or more. as it stands today the united states senate is on the precipice of confirming judgeoc gorsuch to be our next u.s.s supreme court associate justice. however, as the news is reporting, as our twitter feature overfilling with information, and looks as though my called on the other side of the aisle are caving, they are caving to the pressures of the far left, and there set toli unleash an unprecedented filibuster. i have met with judge gorsuch. i've watched his confirmation hearings. and what i have seen and what most americans agree, judge neil gorsuch has

-- as a united states senator but i'm going to an any. i want senator coons from delaware to pause for just a second. i want to thank every member of the senate, republican and democrat, and the staff of the senate for the many kindnesses they've extended to me in the last four months during my injury and my recovery. i'm on the way back home in large america because of the support of the members of the united states senate. i'm very grateful for that and the staff that have allowed that to take place. i thank you -- i say thank you very much. notwithstanding what your politics are or your partisanship is or anything else, this is a great institution and a great body because it's made up of great people. to that end, my friends and senator coons from delaware made an excellent speech which i'm going to adopt as my speech since i don't have the strength to stand as long as i'd like to to talk about an issue so important. we do need to open all our minds and hearts in the days ahead to make sure we know what direction we're going on as memb

the united states senate. we all know it's a 5-4 supreme court decision. we know it opened up the floodgates for dark money, allowing corporations to have constitutional rights which we thought were only individual. in the case, judge gorsuch announced a strict standard to political contributions. that would make the citizens united case even worse and would gut campaign finance law limits. i think each of us should be concerned about that decision. let me move on to the transamerican trucking case. here judge gorsuch was in dissent. he was in the minority. what he basically said is that a truck driver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job, otherwise he could be fired. and what i mean by that, as i think many of our colleagues know, but let me say for those who may not be totally familiar, a truck driver found himself abandoned because the brakes of his trailer were frozen in subzero temperature. he contacted his dispatcher for help, and after several hours recognized that his life was in dange

-- as a united states senator but i'm going to an any. i want senator coons from delaware to pause for just a second. i want to thank every member of the senate, republican and democrat, and the staff of the senate for the many kindnesses they've extended to me in the last four months during my injury and my recovery. i'm on the way back home in large america because of the support of the members of the united states senate. i'm very grateful for that and the staff that have allowed that to take place. i thank you -- i say thank you very much. notwithstanding what your politics are or your partisanship is or anything else, this is a great institution and a great body because it's made up of great people. to that end, my friends and senator coons from delaware made an excellent speech which i'm going to adopt as my speech since i don't have the strength to stand as long as i'd like to to talk about an issue so important. we do need to open all our minds and hearts in the days ahead to make sure we know what direction we're going on as memb

i want to thank all of you for being here today, especially the members of the united states senate and the congress who are with us. particularly, the chairman of the senate of veterans' affairs committee and congressman phil row on veterans' affairs. it is accurate to say in the congress of the united states support for our veterans is a truly unifying and bipartisan cause and join me in thanking all of these members for their work for our veterans. [ applause ] >> most of all thank you to the veterans here with us today. to their spouses and all those who are here to honor them. now, this is an important moment. in the life of the va and in the life of this nation we owe a debt of gratitude to those who serve that we could never fully repay. today you'll see one more installment in that debt that we will never be able to repay for those who have paid the sacrifice of wearing the uniform and the american people are proud and grateful for it. david mentioned a moment ago my life did not take me on a pathway to wear the uniform of the united states but i'm the son of a soldier and the p

than had is ultimately found its way on to the floor of the united states senate. now, rules are rules and ultimately the republic will survive the change we have seen here today. i think the more troubling aspect are the things that have brought us to this point. a couple of days ago at a lunch with my colleagues i said one of the things we have to accept are quite frankly the men and women who served in this chamber 20 and 30 years ago were better than us. they had deeply held beliefs. i don't know anyone in this chamber more progressive or liberal than hubert humphrey or ted kennedy or others, and yet somehow, despite their deeply held principles, these individuals were able to prevent what happened here today. the fact of the matter is for both sides is that not possible. today our politics requires us to use every measure possible even if it's for symbolic purposes. that's jerusalem the way it is. and -- that is just the way it is. that is more a reflection of the political process than it is of the senate. i have seen the articles written, it's the end of the

he'd been approved by the united states senate. he certainly had a strong resume, but how did he get on the finalist list? well, most of the time you never know. presidents don't always disclose how they come up with names, but in this case it was very open. because during the course of his campaign, donald trump, the candidate, listed 21 names of people that he would appoint to the u.s. supreme court. on that list of names, neil gorsuch of colorado. how did that name make the list? well, we know. because president trump told us. he was the choice of the federalist society and the heritage foundation. if you know these two organizations, you'd know that they are republican advocacy groups, very conservative groups, and they were going to pick the nominees that were approved by them and submit them to donald trump which he then publicized. we know that because at the end of the day, donald trump thanked the federalist society for nominating judge gorsuch. that's how his name came to us. now, i sat through the hearings as a member of

to the duties of united statesia senator set forth in the constitution of the united states, nowhere in that document it is safe they have to give the presidential nominee about. all i can say, is that in the 100 year history of the senate w from the day going backwardsar there is but one person put on pa the court when the president was of one party in the senate was held by the other party and a vacancy occurred in the last year of the presidential term. we have done nothing to justify judge gorsuch to be treated the way he has been treated. his been treated badly. here's what nancy pelosi said. if you drink water, eat food or interact with courses is a very bad decision. all i can say is, judge gorsuch does not deserve that. that is a political statement ge out of sync with reality of whoa the man is in the life he has led. it is that attitude that has gotten us here today. i can also say there's blame on my side too. nobody has clean hands completely on this. w i can remember when justice soto meyer was nominated. she made a speech that the white man would have a hard time unders

states senate. i think it will come. it will have to come, but there will have to be some reaching a from democrats. and republicans will have to -- i am not saying vast numbers, but to get progress going, it is going to require the united states senate, and 60 those will be the key. bill says we have to have progress, so it will happen. but we might not have progress here do you agree? you are saying it is a week away, right? >> i think we will have to have 60 votes next friday. certain issues, there are things that have to get done. optimistict quite so -- or maybe i am optimistic, because as a libertarian, the less that gets done, i do not necessarily have a problem with that. but i think we have seen already static, for lack of a better word, and some of this seems to be attributable to the shifting of kind of who is on top in the white house. there has been this discussion of some more ideological staff tobers being marginalized one extent or another and the rise of what has been termed the new

. >>> breaking news this hour, the united states senate now barreling toward an epic showdown that could change the rules for confirming high court

the floor of the united states senate. we know the 5-numfour supreme court decision, the floodgates for dark money allowing corporations to have constitutional rights. in the little case, judge gorsuch announced strict scrutiny standard to political contribution limits. that, quite frankly, would make the citizens united case even worse and would got campaign finance law limits. let me move to the trans-american trucking case. here judge gorsuch was in dissent, in the minority, what he basically said, the truck driver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job, otherwise he could be fired. what i mean by that, those who might not be totally familiar, truck driver found himself abandoned because the brakes of his trailer were frozen in subzero temperature, and he did not have adequate heat in his cab. he had one of the three choices. he could try to maneuver the cab and the trailer with frozen breaks costing himself his life or other people on the road. he could remain as instructed by the dispatcher and perhaps

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 has proceed on 14 times. vice president times in the total history of the united states senate, the minority forced the majority to file cloture. of all the presidents before president obama combined, cloture only needed tock filed on 68 of these nomi

again, this has been the 200-plus-year tradition of the united states senate. i don't see that as the end of the senate. i don't see this as somehow damaging our country. restoration of the status quo before 2000 when our democratic colleagues decided to weaponize the filibuster and use it to block judges based on this trumped up idea that 60 votes would be required rather than 51. so, mr. president, i look forward to confirming judge gorsuch later this week. he is a fine man and a very good judge and has exactly the sort of record we would want to serve on the court. no, he's not a liberal activist. clearly, president hillary clinton if she had been elected would nominate somebody different, but that's one reason why we choose who we choose for our president, because of the kinds of nominations they will make, and i must say president trump has chosen well in neil gorsuch. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i rise today to oppose the nomination of judge neil g

the united states senate. did the white house recruited him, probably. he had lunch the previous week at the white house with his good friend doug white house, chief of staff and former new hampshire governor sherman adams. in the speech he asked about joe mccarthy to what authority does he belong. one must conclude that the senator said that his is a one-man party and his name is mccarthyism. he concluded his speech with a riff on mccarthy's persecution of curbing pariahs. he said he dons his warpaint and he goes into the dance and admit and goes forth to battle and probably returns with the scalp of a pink army dentist. he already signed copy of the remarks to eisenhower who publicly commended him. that evening march 9, edward r. murrow condemned mccarthy on this he is now a television program. he had quotations from the flanders speech and he quoted him as a one-man committee that had demoralized the president state department and leveled charges of conspiracy against the army including declaring the genera

states senate. i couldn't agree more. i think it's important to reflect on why we're here and how we got here. before i turn to the supreme court and the current debate, let me take it just -- let me take just a few minutes to talk about lower-court nominees and provide a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some of the senators who weren't here over the last few years. i'm going to start way back in the spring of 2001. president george w. bush had just been elected president. as we know -- we all know in fact -- it was a close election and it was heartedly fought. the senate was closely divided with the republicans in control. given how close the presidential election was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to accept the results of that election, some blamed ralph nader, others blamed governor jeb bush, and still others blamed the supreme court. many on the hard left claimed that president george w. bush wasn't, quote, unquote, a legitimate president. liber

states senate. i couldn't agree more. i think it's important to reflect on why we're here and how we got here. before i turn to the supreme court and the current debate, let me take it just -- let me take just a few minutes to talk about lower-court nominees and provide a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some of the senators who weren't here over the last few years. i'm going to start way back in the spring of 2001. president george w. bush had just been elected president. as we know -- we all know in fact -- it was a close election and it was heartedly fought. the senate was closely divided with the republicans in control. given how close the presidential election was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to accept the results of that election, some blamed ralph nader, others blamed governor jeb bush, and still others blamed the supreme court. many on the hard left claimed that president george w. bush wasn't, quote, unquote, a legitimate president. liber

he had been approved by the united states senate. he certainly had a strong resu resume, but how did he get on the finalist list? most the time you never know. presidents don't always disclose how they come up with names, but in this case was very open. during the course of the campaign, donald trump the candidate, listed 21 names of people he would consider appointing. on that list was neil gorsuch of colorado.ic how did that name make the list? we know because president trump told us. know he was the choice of the federalisfederalist society ande heritage foundation. they are conservative groups and they were going to pick nominees approved by them and submit them to donald trump, which he then publicized. we know that because at the end of the day donald trump thanked the federalist society for nominating judge gorsuch. now, i said through the hearin hearings, and i will tell you most supreme court nominees don't go out of their ways to volunteer information. they try to be respectful but they don't try to say much of anything. th

it is not only that -- not only that for president obama, bad for the united states senate, it is bad for our , it's time to change, it's time to change before this institution becomes obsolete. at the beginning of this congress, a republican leader pledged that this congress should be more bipartisan than the last congress. mr. president we are told in scripture, let's take for example old testament, the book of numbers. promises, pledges, a val, one must not break his word. to promise to work with the majority to process nominations in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances. latery three weeks republicans mounted a first in history filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for secretary of defense. despite being a former republican senator, a decorated war hero having saved his brother's life in vietnam, defense secretary chuck hagel's nomination was pending in the senate for a record 34 days, more than three times the previous average for secretary of defense. remember mr. president, our country was at war. republicans have blocked executive nomi

perspective is going to force work across the aisle in the united states senate and that is where it will have to come that there will have to be some reaching out and i'm not to getthat numbers, but progress going, it is going to require the united states senate and 60 votes will be the key there. bill says we have to have progress, therefore it will happen that we might not have progress. you are -- it's a week away. >> they will have to have 60 votes next friday. are things that have to get done, but i'm not quite so optimistic. maybe i am optimistic. i'm not necessarily -- i don't necessarily have a problem with that. but what we have seen is the kind of static for lack of a better word and some of it seems to be a treatable to the shifting of who is on top at the white house. there's been this discussion of andlogical staff members the rise of what has been termed as the new york democrats. there seems to be a more temperate tone. david: when you say new york democrats coming you mean gary cohen? jerrod fisher, if on the trump. were talking about this a little bit -- i think the

last month for the united states senate program. next we hear from some of the participants on q&a. after that, "washington journal" is live with your phone calls and a look at today's headlines. announcer: a discussion with high school students attending the annual weeklong united states senate youth program. students talked about their interest in government and politics and shares my highlights from their visit to washington, d.c. brian: give us your name and where you are from. >> i am aaron sullivan from abingdon, virginia. brian: what brought you to washington during this last week? >> i came here to learn about public service and meet all sorts of people like the chief justice of the supreme court, some senators, the president vice president of the united states. >> i am for president -- i am from fredericksburg, virginia. i'm interested in pursuing public service through government or the private sector. i thought, what better program to learn about public service? we get the chance to come and interact with not only incredible speakers, but also each other. everyone here is

merrick garland, the only presidential nominee to the supreme court in the history of the united states senate to be denied a hearing and a vote. merrick garland, who senator mcconnell said i will not only refuse to give him a hearing at a vote, i refuse to even see him. merrick garland, found unanimously well-qualified by the american bar association, merrick garland, a person who received bipartisan support for appointment to the dc circuit court of appeals, the second highest court in the land. when the majority leader comes to the floor to talk about how cooperative he has been with previous presidents for supreme court nominees he conveniently omits the most obvious reason our problems this week, the unilateral decision barring the majority leader to preclude any vote on merrick garland to fill the vacancy of justice scalia. i know judge garland, i met with him several times. he is a balanced, moderate, experienced journalist who should be on the supreme court. we shouldn't be entertaining neil gorsuch, we should be celebrating the first anniversary of merrick garland's service on

you'd rather not do that if you're a united states senator. but the fact is that it puts us back into a place that we were for 200 years in this republic. from the beginning of this congress -- of this senate, 1789, through 1889, through 1999, up to and including three, there was no filibuster -- including 2003, there was no filibuster at all on supreme court justices. there was no partisan filibuster at all on supreme court justices. and no judge had ever been denied his position because of a partisan filibuster. at any level. federal judge, circuit level or supreme court. that changed in 2003, and with the miguel estrada nomination, our democrat friends stopped a qualified judge from going on the federal appeals court. that was the beginning of an unfortunate 14-year experiment in judicial be filibusters. it's not a filibuster that i think this -- it's not a precedent, it's not an experiment that i think this senate can be very proud of. but it took place over a relatively short period of time over 14 years, and it ended today. as of today,

three of them are still in the united states senate. their agreement allowed some controversial nominees to be confirmed to appellate courts but also allowed the senate to avoid triggering the nuclear option. and it addressed how they would weigh future nominations. they gang of 14 agreed to the following, and i quote, nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist come into court. i think that's a good standard, to only filibuster a nominee under extraordinary circumstances. unfortunately, in my evaluation of judge gorsuch's nomination to the supreme court, i can't think of more extraordinary circumstances. first, this was an president trump's seat to fill. justice scalia died on february 13, 2016. 2016. president obama still had nearly one year at that point to serve in his term. and so president obama fulfilled his constitutional duty. he nominated one of the most qualified nominees in the histor

states senate 60 votes. we have not done away with the legislative filibuster. therefore, i think that is going to force -- because republicans are not going to want to be in a position of shutting down government or defaulting the government. it's never happened, and i think that perspective is going to force work across the aisle in the united states senate, and that's where i think later it will come. it will have to come that there'll have to be some reaching out, and democrats and republicans will have to work -- now i'm not saying vast numbers, but i do think at some point to get progress going it's going to require the united states senate and the 60 votes will be the key there. >> so peter, bill says we have to have progress. therefore it will happen. but we might not have progress. do you agree with him? you're saying it's a week away, right? >> i think they'll have to have 60 votes next friday. >> do you think this is -- >> or -- >> on certain issues there are things that have to get done, but i'm

ben: i'm not sure the president has a majority of united states senate that support funding law. so i think the senate will carry out it will and hopefully provide no taxpayer money to building a wall. chris: if it's a choice between putting money in for the wall and having those domestic spending cuts, would you go for a shutdown? ben: i don't want he see a government shutdown, but we have to look at the trade-offs. i can't answer that a vacuum until i see everything in the bill. chris: senator cornyn, are those issues i just mentioned worth shutting down the government? john: this is a test for snore chuck schumer and the admin -- for senator chuck schumer and the administration. i'm confident we'll come up with something everyone can live with. chris: next up, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss the *'s military strike, the gorsuch vote and drama inside the white house. what would you like to ask the panel about the decision to hit syria? what does it mean for the president's foreign policy? we may use your question on the here's something we bet you didn't know. nearly

states senator. now let me do the comparison straight out of this book. kai is a young woman in this book who has the same kind of dreams, has the same kind of ambition, she wants to work in a computer field. she's sure she can do this. she has in effect been practicing since she was a little kid. she's ready to go. only the difference with kai is that she gets her feet tangled up with a for-profit college and i pick her up in this book at 27 years old, with no diploma and $100,000 of student loan debt that she's trying to manage on a waitresses salary and here's the part that really twists the knife. the united states government is making a profit off kai's loans. now the difference between those two girls who had dreams, young women who set off for college, elizabeth and kai, elizabeth grew up in an america that was opening doors. opening doors for more and more and more of our kids. kai grew up in an america where those opportunities are shrinking every day. that is fundamentally wrong. >> rose: h

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 united states. where the issues and the divide enclosure and simple majority, on the rule change in 2013 what happened in the past

we have worked with the united states senate. the senate moves a little more slowly on a given day, week or year. we have plenty of cushion and well within that time line that we envisioned with the obamacare legislation. reporter: in terms of that -- the speaker: all of those things are on the same time line. the speaker: devin nunes stepped aside from the russia investigation into the ties meddling. do you have faith that he didn't do anything wrong? the speaker: i put a statement. let me tell you what my statement is. devin nunes has earned my trust for his integrity and dedication to the critical work that the intelligence committee. he continues to have that trust and he is eager to demonstrate that he has followed all proper guidelines and laws. it is clear this process would be a dillings tracks to the investigation into russian interference. chairman nunes has offered toll step aside on this particular probe and i support. representative conaway will lead this investigation with respect to house republicans on the intelli

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 plague position on the tenth circuit court of appeals. they claimed he was not mainstream enough. they said this was a seed that should have gone to merrick garland. they have even accused him of plagiarism. all of these have no merit whatsoever and are desperate attempts to try to block this outstanding nominee. their claims are baseless. folks from across the political spectrum and newspapers from across the country urged her democratic colleagues to drop their pointless filibuster and allow an up or down vote.. it also came to light the type of man judge gorsuch is, a man of integrity, of strong independe

he's already been confirmed by the united states senate three different times. he served as a republican member of the national labor relations board. he served as assistant attorney general for the united states justice department's civil rights division. and he served as united states attorney for the southern district of florida. mr. acosta's most recent role was serving as dean of florida international university's law school. the school's president told the "miami herald" recently, quote, alex has a destiny in public service. he's a person of integrity, conscientious, thoughtful. he doesn't overreach, unquote. on march 22, mr. acosta had a hearing in the senate labor committee that lasted two and one half hours. following his hearing, he answered 380 follow-up questions for the record, 604 questions if you count the sub questions. then on march 30, our committee approved mr. acosta's nomination, readying the nomination for consideration by the full senate. you'll submitting for the record -- and i ask consent, mr. president to submit for the record -- a lis

states senate. judge gorsuch will be an independent voice on the supreme court. he proved that very much through the hearing. answer questions for 20 hours. i think he proved that he is a judges judge. and from my standpoint as a member of congress, one that will interpret law and not stretch congress. i am honored to have played the part to get this jurist elevated in the supreme court. a person that we now call justice gorsuch. any questions? >> this confirmation came at a pretty steep political time and what does it say about justice gorsuch that in order to get him confirmed you had to fundamentally change the way this operates? >> you are busy aren't talking about the price i paid a year ago for not having the hearing on garlands. that creates a problem that does not exist. not that it is not a legitimate question but we have heard this for the last two or three days. what we have basically done if the question refers to the rule in november. but i think that answers your question but that's go

. >> you wouldn't even -- >> we had a bipartisan bill out of the united states senate. >> it failed. it's gone. >> no, it didn't fail. the house republicans failed to bring it up. it would have won had they brought it up. it did not become law. >> did not become law. >> so there is a path -- we don't have to pay for us to do the right thing as a country. and overwhelmingly, the american people support a path to citizenship. for the people who are in our country. we have to protect our borders. that is our responsibility as a nation. no offense. >> why not a wall, which was his central campaign promise? >> he never said, did you ever hear him say i'm going to charge the american people tens of billions of dollars. ? no, he wanted mexico to pay for it. >> opportunity costs. the education of our children. of infrastructure throughout our country. investments in biomedical research, which he is cutting right now. so we can have this immoral, ineffective, expensive, unwise wall. no. >> president obama came back out on the public stage. we also saw he accepted $400,000 for a speech at a wa

states senate.. so there has been a direct efforefforts by the republican leadership to filibuster judicial nominees. the there are reasons for some but the done. the republican leader told president obama no more district court circuit judges. this is the first year of the president's term he said no more dc circuit judges. we had three vacancies in the dc circuit. eight of the 11 had been killedn and three of them were vacant and it had nothing to do with the nominees they just said they were not going to consider any of them and used a filibuster te block filling the position. i'm going to quote first from chief judge henry edwards when he talked about the dc circuit. it is a multiparty difficult administrative official and a stablappeal and astable judiciac circuit. this long distinguishes the work from the work of other circuits and also explains why it's impossible to compare the work of the dc circuit with others bc simply referring to the raw data.as chief justice roberts noted about two thi

three of them are still in the united states senate. their agreement allowed some controversial judicial nominees to be confirmed to appellate courts, but it also allowed the senate to avoid triggering the nuclear option. and it addressed how they would weigh future nominations. the gang of 14 agreed to the following and i quote here. nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. end quote. i think that's a good standard. to only filibuster a nominee under extraordinary circumstances. unfortunately, in my evaluation of judge gorsuch's nomination to the supreme court, i can't think of more extraordinary circumstances. first, this wasn't president trump's seat to fill. justice scalia died on february 13, 2016. president obama still had nearly one year at that point to serve in his term. and so president obama fulfilled his constitutional duty. he nominated one of the most qualified nominees in the h