the u.s. senate. i want to thank senator lankford who is here with us at the table for agreeing to appear before us today to discuss the merits of his resolution. in 2010 this committee undertook a comprehensive examination of the filibuster in the united states senate. that examination was conducted in response to an ongoing debate about invoking the "nuclear option." while no action was taken immediately following the conclusion of the committee's work, the senate did take steps in early 2013 to modify rules and procedures considering bills, conference reports and certain nominations during that congress. later that same year the senate took a more drastic step and invoked the "nuclear option" for certain nominations. invoking the "nuclear option" affected a permanent change as my colleagues well know, but the other changes which improved the efficiency of the senate's operations were temporary and expired the at end of the 1 13th congress. today we'll resist it one aspect of the temporary changes, limiting the post-cloture debate time for certain nomination, and consider whether to restore it permanently as provided for in senator lankford's resolution. like the change enacted in 2013, this resolution proposes to reduce the current 30-hour window for post-cloture consideration of certain nominations to eight or two hours, depending on the type of nominee. this resolution also preserves the full amount, the raping ford resolution -- lankford resolution full amount on post-cloture detime for highest levels of executive branch, the circuit courts, supreme court, just like its predecessor. in short this resolution is designed to return the senate to a time when it effectively and efficiently fulfilled its constitutional duty to confirm appointments that are necessary to the day-to-day function of our government. the post-cloture debate time provided by this resolution will once again allow the senate to deliberate, to debate, and to vote on nominees in a timely way. and was evidenced in the 113th congress, this change does not inhibit members from debating or deliberating on the qualifications of nominees. it merely shorten what is is currently an unreasonably long process. admittedly i did not support this change in the 113th congress. i was concerned then, once the senate altered the rules there would be no turning back. i worried that the changes proposed at the time would limit each senator's voice and power, tastes i believe we have always tried to protect in that great deliberative institution but i witnessed something different. nominees, whether i supported or opposed them, were debated and voted on in a timely, practical manner. more importantly, the senate no longer wasted countless hours waiting, not to hear from colleagues about the virtues or vices of certain nominees. not to debate their attributes or deficiencies. not to discuss whether they were fit or unfit for the job. just waiting for 30 hours of post-cloture debate time tokes fire. in 2013 senate was able to swiftly carry out it is constitutional duties and which witnessed a timely filling of judicial and executive branch vacancies. reducing the post-cloture debate since, debate time 2013 allowed the senate to stop waiting and start acting. that is exactly what i believe we need today. the american people are frustrated with washington gridlock. they believe that we can not even get the simplest of things done of the we need to fix this. we need to restore the process to what it once was and i believe this is an opportunity to do this. i look forward to testimony today and the debate that follows in support of this resolution. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you to all the members that are here and thank you to senator lankford for appearing before us and i want to thank his heart-felt desire to make the senate work better and two of my colleagues that are here, senator udall, who is member of this committee and has long worked on this issue as well as senator merkley who is a visiting member today and thank him for his work. and the three of us along with a few other people, senator shaheen and others worked on the issue the last time we saw some changes. in fact when i first got to the senate, our first bill that we introduced, our new class back in 2006 was devoted to something related to this which was ethics reform which made some significant changes to lobbying rules as well as gift rules and other things. then we went on to support in 2010 and in to the secret hold. obviously this committee, members of this committee, are now looking at changes to the sexual harrassment policies in place in the senate and just recently with the chairman's help passed a law, a rule change that requires mandatory sexual harrassment training. so there has been work year after year on these issues, and i thank senator lankford for bringing this to our attention. as you will see from my remarks i just feel that this is not the right moment to make these changes to the rule. i will explain. many people referred to the senate as the world's greatest deliberative body because the senate is an institution which is designed for the careful consideration and debate of proposed laws and nominations. how we deliberate, as i mentioned is governed by senate rules, and only once in the history of the cloture process has the senate voted permanently to reduce the time we have to debate an issue. that happened back, looking at senator alexander, who is an expert on this, that happened back in 1986 when we went from 100 hours of post-cloture debate time to the current rule of 30 hours. the resolution we are considering today asks us to make a second permanent change. as senator lankford notes in his written testimony following years of failing to get nominees confirmed, the senate voted 78-16 to temporarily change the rules on post-cloture debate time in 2013. it is important to note back in 2013 the circumstances are very different than they are today. nominations required a a 60 vote threshold back then. the blue slip process for judicial nominees was respected and thorough process to select qualified judicial nominees was in place. despite all of this important federal positions remained unfilled even though qualified nominees were waiting to be confirmed. to address it issue back then a bipartisan supermajority of the senate support ad temporary change to the rule. so where are we today? well, first the reality is that nominees are getting confirmed. on thursday, just this last thursday, leader mcconnell highlighted the fact that, i quote, senate republicans are closing in on the record for the most circuit court appointments in in a president's first year in office. mr. chairman, without objection i ask that the press release provided by senator mcconnell's office on december 14th of 2017 be entered into the hearing record. >> without objection. >> the title reads, thank you. the title, reads judicial appointments are the sleeper story that matters. circuit court, a dozen trump appointees in his first year in the white house. president trump has in fact successfully appointed 12 circuit court judges, more than any other president in the first year of office, since the federal appellate courts were established 126 years ago. in pad digs to who i serve on this committee, i also serve on the judiciary committee where i've seen first-hand the process and pace which these nominees are being processed. president trump will have 19 judges confirmed in the first year of his presidency compared to just 13 for president obama in the same time period. in the judiciary committee, we have reported 44 judicial nominees to the senate floor already this year. in president obama's first year in office we reported only 23 nominees out of committee. the committee also reported just 32 nominees in the first year of president bush's term and 28 in the first year of president clinton's compared to the 44 we've seen this year. it's also instructive to look at the end of president obama's term, when just 22 judicial nominees were confirmed in his last two years in office. that's the fewest in a congress since harry truman was president. when you look at the facts it is clear that as my republican colleagues have acknowledged the current congress is on track for a record-breaking year of advancing judicial nominees. it is unnecessary at this moment to change the rules of the senate. as i have told senator lankford this is something we could consider perhaps before a new president comes into office but now, when nominees are moving through the process with many in a purely partisan manner, this change would only add to the partisan atmosphere. the danger involved in redoings the debate time to expedite the confirmation of nominees that we are considering was also highlighted by louisiana republican senator kennedy last week during a judiciary committee hearing. i was at that hearing. many people have seen the video of senator kennedy asking matthew petersen, a nominee to be a district court judge basic legal questions. peterson was unable to answer any of them. yesterday, mr. peterson withdrew his nomination. last week the administration also withdrew the nominations of jeff mat tear and bret cali at chairman grassley's urging. they are three of 18 nominees this year. those nominees were withdrawn after the committee process. these nominees and others demonstrate the importance of careful consideration of nominees for executive branch positions and lifetime appointments to the bench. i also note the american bar association rated four of the 56 judicial nominees put forward by the trump administration as not qualified, including two who received that rating unanimously. that is fairly unprecedented, given the fact that before this year the aba had only issued that rating twice since 1989. we have seen two more of these ratings this year already. the american people deserved qualified judges who will interpret the law fairly and the best way to get judges who are fair and impartial to have a solid evaluation and confirmation process and where the executive branch is collaborating with the senate. we have ample time to review and debate these nominees. at a time we've seen unprecedented challenges to the judiciary and to the rule of law, we need appropriate checks to insure the selection of qualified nominees to both the executive and judicial branch now more than ever. before we turn to senator lankford i would like to note that i'm glad we are having a hearing in this committee. i hope we will have more, mr. chairman, next year, and i also appreciate senator lankford's work on, with me on the state election infrastructure issue, something that is exciting developments there and will be a great topic for a hearing. just thought i would put in that plug. with that thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> senator lankford, your written testimony will be made part of the hearing record as you know. you proceed as you wish. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member. friends and colleagues, i anticipate this to be a dialogue. i don't think a single one of us thinks that things are going swimmingly. we're not engaging on the issues. we do consume a tremendous amount of time not in 30 hours of debate but in 30 hours of silence on the senate floor, with occasionally someone to step up and speak on something unrelated to the 30 hours of debate on the floor for that nominee. this is not so much a debate about if only we had 30 hours of debate, we would get so many facts out on some individual because we're really not debating individual. the work is done in the committees. the work is done in the back and forth with the administration. that is where it really occurs. the challenge is, we have learned as a body that we are now either going to do nominees or we're going to do legislation but we can't do both. because if the calendar is full for a week on three nominations, you will never get to any legislation and we continue to have our constituents come to us and say, when is the senate going to vote on things? we can respond, we are, on nominations but we don't have time for nominations and legislation this continues to accelerate. the issue that we're going to continue to face is the gridlock on capitol hill is spreading across the rest of washington. more that you have nominees that are not confirmed in every agency all of us in our constituent services folks and all of our legislative staff will tell us they're calling over to agencies and agencies are saying, we can't give you an answer. there is not a senate-confirmed person there. as that spreads it affects all constituent services. it affects every permit we request. it affects every bit of process that happens. that gridlock here is moving over there. that doesn't help us long term. i tried to give some basic examples of this and history of it as we deal with the post-cloture debate just on nominations. starting in 1949, from 1949 to 1992 there were 12 cloture votes for nominations during that entire time period. starting in 1993 the senate averaged around six cloture votes for nominations through 2004. in 109th session the average jumped to nine cloture votes for nominations for a year. from 2009 to 2012, it jumped again to 13 in a year. in 2013 the beginning of president obama's second term, the senate determined something had to be done about nominations. so in january 2013 the senate passed s. res. 15 by vote of 78-16, standing order just for that one session to reduce post-cloture debate time for most executive branch nominees from 30 hours to eight hours. reduced that two hours for district court nominees. under the standing order the post-cloture debate for the supreme court justice cabinet level nominations all stayed at 30 hours. standing order in 2013 was attempt to avoid the "nuclear option." as we know from history, that did not occur. the "nuclear option" was still invoked november of that same year. that original, that standing order though remained, and it functioned through the rest of 2014. we saw the operation of it. now in 2013 the senate considered it intolerable that the senate would have 13 to 15 cloture votes in a year on nominations this year, we've had 63 cloture votes on nominations. that is not comparable to where we were. it is an acceleration. i would say to this body, we all know the direction of this body. we have 63 cloture votes on nominations now for this president, when the presidential party changes there will be a future democratic president, republicans will say they did 63 to us, we'll do 120 to them. then the next time it will be do 240 to them. as we watched this over the last 20 years, slowly go up year by year, i don't know how that turns around until this body determines that's going to turn around. enough is enough. the rules of the senate are not something that we can just complain about and do nothing about. the senators control the rules of the senate. and at some point we have to determine this is getting out of hand. we have to be able to solve it. now i was not here in 2013 with the "nuclear option" was invoked but i have heard the stories of the frustration that was rising. my democratic colleagues believed that republicans were pushing it too far. so they determined something has to be done to get this set. i would just say, i have the sense that we're in a very similar position. that this can be pushed too far and at some point republicans respond, something has to be done. for the sake of the future, not just this administration, but for the sake of the future we have to determine how we're going to do this and be able to put this in place in a way that actual works. senator merkley is my next door neighbor. i was probably in the senate, three weeks and he reached out to me, said, can we sit and talk about rules any heard you mention some things about rules. i sat in his office. we shared a commonality on a lot of these issues, in the sense that we have to be able to find a way actually to resolve these issues, not just talk about him, but figure out how it will work long term. senator merkley had a proposal to take all nominations to two hours period, except for supreme court nominations, to be able to advance to 30. not a lot of debate happens on the floor anymore. most of it happens in committee. with 51 votes for all nominees the outcome is most often certain. so it is really determined before we ever get there. the issue is, are we going to do legislation and nominations. are we only going to do nominations? as i mentioned in my written testimony, the roosevelt term of the first 100 days, that can never be a marker again because from here on out, every president in the first 100 days won't even get their cabinet in place. they won't be able to move legislation because they won't be able to get personnel, because it will be tit-for-tat from here on out. losing that time period is a great loss to the american people and it is unexplainable to those of us in the senate. my approval is simple. take the rule done during that time period in 2013 with wide bipartisan support. make it permanent. say this is how we will continue to function from here on out. would i appreciate the conversation on it. if there is better idea to do it i'm willing to take it on and say what can we be able to do to fix this, the best idea i had take one already done and already agreed on and make it permanent and from here on out. mr. chairman i would be glad to entertain questions. . . how do these figures compare with what the senate has done in past administrations? you alluded to that already. >> it's the same you would consider. it took about 50 days during the obama administration. it took 30 or 40 days during the bush administration entering the clinton administration. we are watching slowly inch up as well. >> you've also alluded to the impact on the executive branch whether it's a democrat or republican. do you know which departments have been hit the hardest by the current confirmation slowdown, and what are some of the real-world implications of these vacancies and how would your proposal alleviate some of the -- >> state department and dod recs data probably has 20, 22 or so that are currently pending and waiting. they have a large group of us have to go through the process. dod has about 15 i believe that they're waiting on. the real world implications i think all of assessing of our constituent services. when they get a call, one example, we we had wildfires moving through oklahoma in southern kansas. a wildfire larger than the state of rhode island that was burning. we needed a confirmed individual to biblical some answers back on that. we didn't have confirmed individual so our farmers and ranchers had to wait for weeks until the was the confirmed individual to be able to answer the question to be able to start the process. so those farmers and ranchers were literally living off of a those been donated from other places because i couldn't get disastrously a period. >> senator, , you alluded to wasting time on a lot -- no debate or anything. cloture has become i understand and vendor like all of you routine part of the confirmation process. even for nominees that enjoy broad bipartisan support, the confirmation of david nye, some of you might recall to be a district court judge is a glaring example of this. his nomination are to the cloture process and extended post cloture debate, even though he was also confirmed by vote of 100 to zero. what would be the reason to force debate on a nominee that enjoys this type of support? in other words, it looks like it would be common sense to move these people. >> the joy of the senate is minority can always express their displeasure on a multitude of different ways. even for individual that it demands 30 three hours of post cloture debate and everyone, would be a complete anomaly to 25 years ago senate. that was never done. in fact, there were no cloture votes request and a been given what to do that since 1949. that were not and shall make and 68 and that's one republicans and democrats agreed altogether to do to stop what lb jason supreme court nomination changes as he wanted to move some a different into leadership. there was an agreement to try to shut that down. this was unheard of. nominations made by unanimous consent. that's how the mood. if there was a major problem then you had a big issue or find a way to be able to resolve it. this has become standard practice. that's why the rule has been there. the practice has changed. now i will do to catch up to a practice or nothing will ever change on this. >> your resolution to restore one of the post cloture process changes in the senate on the 113th congress, i i believe tht change struck the appropriate balance of preserving time or debate without needlessly delaying the inevitable confirmation of nominees. in your view is any reason the senate should not restore this process, we call it the read roll? >> note. i think we should do it. if not just for this congress there will be debates for the next one and for the next one and for the next one. if we don't establish the principle to build a get out there i can assure you after the next election when a democratic president is elected, democrats will, republicans and say now we need to do that rule you're talking about. now was a time to vote for it. republicans will say no, not now. now it's the next election we would do it. at some point we have to determine for the future this has to be resolved otherwise it never gets done. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate that last thought and i hope that could happen but are issues right now we're in this reality and the realities of the majority leader has just put out a press release talking about their gotten a record number of judges through. we've had a number of judges withdraw because they were clearly unqualified and without a republican senator cross-examine a judge was clearly unqualified. as you noted at this partisan time, it were to move forward on this with this proposal, which would meet the 60 vote threshold i believe, because of the fact it's viewed as partisan as opposed to a bipartisan effort that maybe could've been worked out in a different way. and so the other thing i think we haven't talked about and i didn't mention in my opening is that we have invoked cloture for 64 nominees, and for 54 then we used eight or fewer hours of post cloture debate. i think that we should realize that some of the issue with these positions not being filled, which i hope you will acknowledge, senator lankford, his people were not being nominated on the executive branch side particularly and places the state department and that when you look at the real facts here, for 54 of the 64 it was eight or fewer hours and i wonder if you respond -- >> i would be glad to. even the keyboard would be, that's a larger number of requests even for a cloture vote than the last four congresses combined. not years, past four congresses combined. so to even request a cloture vote, so why sort of the process and admit additional hours for post cloture? so even that shows the radical change that is really occurred in the shift in time. as far the nominees, the three nominees, service administration has brought up with the committee process and set aside, that happened even before they got to the floor and that will continue to happen and i assume that will happen regardless who the president is. they will put some people up that will not perform well. both parties should step back and see our advice and consent is no, and to do that in the committee process. i don't know if many who are addressed once they got to the floor. once they get to the floor there may be 30 hours of the or eight hours or two hours but most of the time as i can recall, once the got to the floor it was done here catching didn't happen in the committee process. >> back to some of the efforts that a been made earlier especially the one senator collins was involved in trying to come not remember the democrat, but to try to limit the number of people who were confirmable by the senate. and made some changes so it would take effect in the next administration regardless of who the president was. to me those efforts were bipartisan. i know you've been talking to our colleagues -- >> i would have no issue with that. >> you compare your resolution, last question, to one cast in 2013 and as we discussed, that was temporary and it was at a a time when we had a 60-vote threshold. as i see senator leahy, from a judiciary committee step what most significantly that was at a time when the process still applied for circuit court nominees. that has now been changed for circuit court but not for district or u.s. attorney. to me it seems like there are other protections in place at that time, and while i would agree with you the time is not our favorite protection i think that's why work with senator merkley and senator udall, you see this protections with that in the past going away, it makes you not want to make the changes right now and that's what i would like you to discuss that, acknowledge why we want to move on this now if you you are on r side of the aisle. >> the only portion of the 2013 proposal is the sunset. that has experienced a change in this at all. i took the exact same language as 2013, removed the sunset and said these are permanent. my request is make a standing order which would make it a permanent standing order without any sunset date on it. that's the request and that's why said it's exactly which. i understand it's change of 60 votes to 50 votes. that was done in a nontraditional way. i understand the will change the world radically change in november 2013 regardless of what we're doing with this. that protection, the issue about 60 votes or 50 votes, i i wasnt here at the time in the senate but that was what of the long-term consequences regardless of what's done. you do some of this protections in the process. so the time is there. the blueshift issue is quite frankly a great conversation piece. that is something senator leahy has handled as chairman of the judiciary very different than most of his colleagues for the last 100 years. as you look at the last 100 years in the judiciary committee, most of them did not treat the blue slip this family senator leahy did. senator kennedy didn't. senator biden didn't. senator grassley does not. they've handled it in different ways but that is a senate tradition to be able to establish whether this is consent that happens or it isn't locked in requirement. such had to be able to get that blue slip back and forth. i look forward to -- >> yucatán senator leahy wants to jump in at this moment. >> id could rather conversation. i would say he handled that in a way that is consistent both republican and a democrat president, to his credit on that exactly the same way on how the blue slip process would be handled. that was different than other predecessors on exactly the way it actually applied, as a tradition. >> senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. the elimination obviously of the 60-vote protection was done under, except for the supreme court, was done by a congress controlled by democrats. the blue slip, i think even senator hatch, the blue slip has not been at all consistent. but what if been most inconsistent was using the debate time as i clear delay tactic. nobody is opposed to 30 hours of debate time if there were 30 hours of debate. senator, as already been mentioned, the 100 to zero vote after 30 hours hours of no discussion at all. i know there was earlier, 98 to two vote and it was 20 minutes of debate about the nominee and it was 20 minutes for the nominee. certainly we could eventually get these people confirm if we don't do anything else, but it's clear that this was being used to slow down the other work of the senate and for no other purpose. you said, senator lankford, there have been -- let me see if i have this right. i think you said there been 63 cloture motions this year. i looked at this in october and if i recall the mid-tober number right there within 47 this year. at the same time for president obama there had been three. for president bush there had been one. for president clinton there had been one. for president bush 43, there had been zero. so the previous for president, there have been five cloture motions by the time in october. 47 this time, is the debate more strenuous on these nominees this time, senator lankford, have you looked at the debate clock and how much is actual debate and how much is just time spent on other things? >> with some rare exceptions, with some heated cabinet officials that this rule but i'm proposing wouldn't change it is a bit. they would still be 30 30 hourr those individuals. the other individuals the debate clock was rarely used. sometimes as you mentioned as short as 20 minutes and usually those with the two senators from that state that were coming to speak well of the individual from the state, and then otherwise the c-span cameras rolled with riveting silence during that time. that is an issue for us. a practical example of that is judge scott polk from my state. he was one of those are required extended cloture time here he had been nominated by president obama as a district court judge, was renominated by president trump is a district court judge still required a cloture vote to biblical to the process and extend debate, and recall only senator inhofe and i spoke about him on the four when the actual extent of a time was required. when he arrived at his desk he was handed 125 backlog cases that he is desk the same time that he got there. this is has real-world consequences. >> as one of those consequences that we can't get to of the work during this 47 or 63 times 30 hours that speedy winger post cloture you can't bring up other things. as i mentioned we can either denominations or legislation, but the senate cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. we can only do one thing at a time. and so it with extended debate and record post cloture if it's going to be the vehicle, that will probably block any legislation from being done because we have to do personal as well as legislation. >> and the large percentage of this presidents for sure appointments, while we are not done with this yet, if you wanted to do this in a way that only dramatically affected the next president, the first year of this presidency is gone. the next first year of a a presidency is for whoever is the next president. we could spent a lot of time i guess getting upset with each other about this year, but we were about to get to the point where this will no longer have eaten up the first year of a presidency by most standards, the most productive time in a presidency for that one is gone. it's gone with 63 times 30 hours of time spent on nominations that with a handful of exceptions there was no debate. so we ought to be talking about the version of the next presidency, whoever that the ex-president nomad who that is what the next presidency nomad who that is. this is as good as any time to do that. the first year is gone. denominations that come up in the last three years are not nearly as consequential or pressing. such want to talk about what we want for the next president what we decide to but now we have much been impact on the next president than this president who's already lost a year of legislative time because of the delay that's been used for these nominations. i'd like to see us do this for the next president about who the next president is. >> senator king. >> treating this as a dialogue, it's an important question i have a couple of questions just to understand the fact that my understanding is that this year when without all of these cloture motions, very rarely have used all the time. most nominees have been ten hours or less, isn't that the case? attorney general sessions and maybe mr. pruitt went over 20 hours. >> correct. most of and around the time but it usually a full legislative day. while that it may not even 30 legislative hours it was a full calendar day and so that was a full day. so for instance, a a typical wk on a lot of these you do three nominations in the week, maybe four or five in a week. but then you don't get any legislation because while your post cloture you can bring anything else up. >> but doesn't come if your post cloture but the 30 hours are not necessarily all used. is there another option here of saying we could have 30 hours but if there's no actual debate or discussion after a certain grace. nobody comes to the fore then you could reduce the time based upon no debate? >> sure. you could force the issue. for any majority leader they could come to the floor as soon as their silent and call for the boat. >> that can be done under the criminal. >> that dials up the volume even more. i would assume it's one of the things the majority leader and minority leader can negotiate at any point. i'm not going to do that, or we will force people to be on the floor to be able to do but that is something the leaders could do. that forcing mechanism could be done under the expression of that. and by the way, it is time equally divided. let's say it's 30 hours, it's really 15 hours for the minority party, the king for the majority. if the majority party chooses not to exercise that, a 30 hour debate is really 15 hours but that still obviously a full calendar day. >> i i take it you would not be receptive, perhaps you would, to returning, you are basically putting back into place what chairman chairman referred to as the read rule, at the time the rule was accepted in january of 2013 there was a 60-vote requirement. would you accept returning to that 60-vote requirement. >> i would not only in the sense that seems to be a genie out of the poly -- the bottle. i don't know how you undo even if you undid for this congress there would be every incentive for future cars to flip it so that would turn on and off. >> what other parliamentary question as you mentioned this, that part of your motivation is to open up more time for the senate to do a variety of things. what about allowing other matters to come before the senate during the post cloture time if there is no debate upon the nominee, a dual track? >> it's been done by the senate by unanimous consent before. if you have -- you would naturally be the because you would already dual track based on the counter you would have post cloture. a district court judge in the morning, two hours, or you could do one that is in the afternoon, do one that is eight hours and you only four hours. [talking over each other] >> within the 30 hours for a cabinet nominee if the 30 hours for the cabinet nominee are not being used. >> i would think it would be appropriate only in the sense if it's not being used co-head and get resolved. cabinet, about 22 individuals considered cabinet level individuals. supreme court or circuit court i would think those individuals you would use the majority of the 30 hours time. that's a bigger issue. more people are going to be engaged. i have no issue with trying to make sure those can get maximum amount of typing for the rest now that it is 51 for votes most, most of the actual floor is perfunctory or not used at all. >> as you noted earlier in your testimony, the senate traditionally has operated in a way that respects the rights of the minority and that it has that in its nature. if we have gone from 60 to 51 and if we're shortening the time, and if we are drifting away from the blue slip requirement, it seems to me where moving very rapidly toward a majority only. one possibility is to take a recommendation and say it will be in the rules on january 1 of 2021. in other words, none of us know who the president is going to become who the majority is going to be, then we will be able to consider it more in the abstract that in the present-day political situation. >> there were several budget proposals that i made a year ago to try to come this was one of them to say we should do this now before this election. i didn't have a lot of my democratic colleagues the water to engage at that point as well even when it was unknown to the next person would be. i think there's no easy moment to do it. if you set it in place at any moment, it would be a challenge because someone on the basis going to scream you are giving away your ability to force levitz. what am try to do is get the senate back regardless of who is president, regardless of who is in the majority of my noted to be able to operate. the nominations process, starting with the nuclear option that happen in 2013, that that november and then again exercise on the supreme court, the nominations process is dramatically change in the rules have not caught up to that operation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator alexander. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to continue the tone of the dialogue between senator lankford and send it again but make the statement. as of 1980 elections, democratic senator robert c byrd some of the game the minority leader and republican howard baker became the majority leader. and baker went to him and said bob i'll never know the work the rules as well as you do. i would make a agreement with you. i will not surprise you if you don't surprise me. robert byrd some of you think about the next day he said yes, they manage the senate for four years together. i third sent a delay say it was one of the best if not the best functioning of the senate that he has seen. that's what we're talking about today, functioning as an institution, making the senate work. we claim the senate is unique but the only true if it works. senator lankford proposes modest because it would reinstate a bipartisan standing order that we adopted for two years. his proposal is important because it would reinstate the practice of changing our rules according to the rules. hope the committee will unanimously recommend senator lankford's proposal to the full senate. want to say three things. first, it's the same proposal that was adopted by 78 to 16 in january of 2013. it is true, it took 60 vote spent in debate on the nomination and later that your democrats use the nuclear option so that it only took a majority vote. but that was not really a change in practice. because surface that the senats history presidential nominees were almost always approved by majority vote. even when the rules permitted cloture was never once used to block the nomination of a cabinet member. never once used to block the nomination of a federal district judge. the only time it was used with a supreme court justice was 1968 went just as portis was mentioned and never use for circuit judges into democrats blocked nominees of george w. bush in 2003. the point is the customs always been the presidential nominations are decided by a majority vote. so by customs and by rule, this proposal is the same as the 2013 standing order. second, this is an opportunity to reinstate the practice of changing the rules of the senate according to the rules. that is, 67 67 votes to changea rule, 60 to fasten you standing order. has delisted that we know how to do it the wrong way. the problem with that as senator levin once said is that a sin and which majority can change the rules anytime it wants is a senate without rules. continue to ignore the rules can lead to ending the filibuster on legislation and destroy the uniqueness of the senate senator byrds last speech right to before this committee in 2010 he implored us quote never ever, ever get rid of the filibuster. it is, he said, the guarding of minority rights and consensual engine for consensus. the senate needs a change in behavior more than a change in rules. we change the rules in 2012 and 13 to to make it easier for president obama and his successors. i spent a lot of time on that as did many others. we eliminated the quick holes required 72 hours to reveal legislation. made 373 nominations privileged. eliminated confirmation of 163 major positions. eliminate the need to confirm 3163 noncontroversial positions. we did all that. we got to several major speedup the motion to proceed and short post cloture debate. still the nuclear option has been used twice since then. and i would say that on novembet there were 20 judges and 56 executive nominations pending. only four more than 60 days, twice as many are pending today. 24 more than 60 days. so conditions are worse today and with the democrats said we needed to use the nuclear option. the change in behavior when deep boils down to one word. restraint. senators baker in part for successful because senators did not insist on using every right in prerogative. motions to proceed unanimous consent request were routinely granted. senators did not like other centers amendments. they simply voted no. presidential nominations were almost never block by requiring a cloture vote. last summer a supreme court justice was asked how justices are able to get along. when they have such different philosophies and such controversial issues. i was listening at the time. the justices reply was, quote, each of us tries to remember that the constitution and the institution are more important than her own opinion. senator lankford proposal is an opportunity to demonstrate the united states senators can remember that the institution is more important than her own opinions. i hope we will unanimously recommends his proposal to the full senate. thank you. >> senator cortez masto. >> thank you, mr. chair. senator lankford, thank you for bring this forward. as a new member to the sin i appreciate this discussion, and look forward to further discussion on not sure i am completely behind what you have look forward to further discussion on the concept. and let me just start with that. as innumerable we talked a little bit about justice scott polk and the fact that he had come before the senate before, i was in your event at a think for purposes of new senators, this is all new to us as well. i would like to see a quick process moving through, particularly as an attorney cares about judiciary and what happens. i'm not on the judiciary committee would like the time to properly vet these individuals. so i think for purposes moving far for new senators, what do given that authority as well and just because they're not just about previously, that would be my concern i would be curious speedy you can see the rest of this on a website c-span.org. type senate rules committee in the search box. we take you live to the use senate on c-span2. today the senate waiting for action from the house of representatives on short-term government spending legislation. current government funding expires friday night many the government will shut down without action by congress. live coverage of the u.s. senate.

Related Keywords

Rhode Island , United States , Oklahoma , Kansas , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , Washington , America , American , David Nye , Robert Byrd , Harry Truman , Scott Polk , Cortez Masto , Howard Baker ,