MR. PRESIDENT, TODAY I RISE TO DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF UPHOLDING THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ADVICE AND CONSENT ON NOMINATIONS. MANY PEOPLE REFER TO THE SENATE AS THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY BECAUSE THE SENATE IS DESIGNED FOR THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE OF PROPOSED LAWS AND NOMINATIONS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE SITTING UP IN THE GALLERY TODAY. BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE TO HEAR ABOUT DEBATES. HOW WE DLAIB RATE IS GOVERNED, OF COURSE -- DELIBERATE IS GOVERNED, OF COURSE, BY A SET OF SENATE RULES. I'M SURE SOME OF THIS SEEMS ARCHAIC WHEN OUR VISITORS HEAR ABOUT QUORUM CALLS BEING VITIATED. BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE RULES BECAUSE RULES STAY IN PLACE NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE AND NO MATTER WHAT MATTER IS BEFORE US. RULES CREATE DECORUM AND FAIRNESS, NOT ONLY IN THIS CHAMBER BUT FOR OUR COUNTRY. AND ONLY ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE CLOTURE PROCESS IN THE U.S. SENATE HAS THE SENATE VOTED TO PERMANENTLY REDUCE THE TIME WE HAVE TO DEBATE AN ISSUE. THAT HAPPENED IN 1986 WHEN WE WENT FROM 100 HOURS OF SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED POSTCLOTURE DEBATE TIME TO THE CURRENT RULE OF 30 HOURS.

THAT BASICALLY MEANS YOU HAVE 30 HOURS TO DEBATE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, LIKE AN AMBASSADOR, LIKE WHO IS GOING TO BE THE CABINET MEMBER. THAT'S THE WAY THE RULES ARE NOW. WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME TEMPORARY CHANGES TO THE RULE, WE HAVE NOT SEEN A PERMANENT RULES CHANGE SINCE 1986. THE RESOLUTION THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING ASKS US TO MAKE A SECOND PERMANENT CHANGE. WHAT'S THE BACKGROUND? WELL, LAST CONGRESS, THE RULES COMMITTEE CONSIDERED A PROPOSAL FROM SENATOR LANKFORD TO CUT OFF DEBATE ON THE SENATE FLOOR. THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US IS EVEN MORE DAMAGING BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE DEBATE TIME FROM 30 HOURS TO TWO HOURS FOR ABOUT 80% OF THE NOMINEES WHO COME BEFORE THE SENATE, INCLUDING FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES WHO THEY WOULD ONLY GIVE TWO HOURS ON THIS FLOOR FOR DEBATE.

NOW, WE MAY HAVE TIME TO DEBATE THESE JUDGES AT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BUT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE SENATORS ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE. RIGHT? OVER WHAT? 75% OF THE SENATORS AREN'T ON THAT COMMITTEE. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME JUDGES COME TO THIS FLOOR THAT DON'T -- WE DON'T FIND OUT THINGS ABOUT THEM OR SENATORS DON'T REALLY DECIDE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY COME TO THE FLOOR, NOT BACK IN THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE HAD JUDGES THAT WERE THROWN OUT THAT WERE REJECTED, BASICALLY, BEFORE THEY EVEN CAME UP FOR A VOTE BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AMONG SENATORS WHEN THEY WERE ON THE FLOOR. LET'S FACE IT. MOST AMERICANS ARE UNDERSTANDABLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TERM POSTCLOTURE DEBATE. THEY DON'T EXACTLY HAVE THE VOTES ON SENATE -- BOOKS ON SENATE PROCEDURE ON THEIR READING LISTS, BUT THE ISSUE BEFORE US HAS A REAL IMPACT ON THE DAILY LIVES OF EVERY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY, AND WE SHOULD BE SOUNDING THE ALARM BELLS ABOUT IT. HEALTH CARE.

THINK OF WHAT WE JUST LEARNED THIS LAST WEEK WHEN SUDDENLY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO ALL OUT TO REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL, FOR EVERY AMERICAN, NOT JUST AMERICANS THAT ARE ON THE EXCHANGES THAT ARE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, FOR EVERY AMERICAN IT WOULD MEAN THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR PROTECTIONS FOR PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. IT WOULD MEAN IF SOMEONE HAS DIABETES, IF SOMEONE HAS A CHILD WITH DOWNS SYNDROME, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THEIR FAMILY HAD A PREEXISTING CONDITION AND THEIR HEALTH CARE WOULD BE AT THE WHIMS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THIS RULE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? WELL, NOW IN THAT CASE, BY THE WAY, WHICH STARTED OUT IN TEXAS, THAT WAS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE THAT MADE THAT DECISION ON THAT CASE. THE PEOPLE THAT ANNOUNCED IT OUT OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AT THE HIGHER LEVELS, THEY WERE ACTUALLY -- THEY ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH CONFIRMATION ON THIS SENATE FLOOR SO PEOPLE CAN DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. THE PEOPLE IMPLEMENTING IT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AT THE MANAGEMENT LEVELS, THEY ALSO GO THROUGH THIS SENATE FOR CONFIRMATION. WELL, GUESS WHAT, AMERICA.

NOW, NOT ONLY IS THIS ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO RAM THROUGH THE REPEAL OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR INSURANCE IF YOU HAD A PREEXISTING CONDITION, BUT NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO RAM THROUGH THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS, THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD DO THE WORK INSTEAD OF HAVING 30 HOURS DEBATE ON A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, JUST LIKE THAT ONE THAT MADE THAT DECISION IN TEXAS, OR INSTEAD OF HAVING 30 HOURS TO DEBATE EMPLOYEES AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MANAGERS THAT WOULD MAKE DECISIONS, HIGHEST SUPERVISORS THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS, WE GET TWO HOURS. SO TO ME, WHAT IS THIS ABOUT?

IT'S ABOUT RAMMING THINGS THROUGH JUST LIKE THEY TRIED TO RAM THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT REPEAL THROUGH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THAT -- IN THAT ANNOUNCEMENT LAST WEEK. EVERY CONGRESS, 1,200 TO 1,400 POSITIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, REQUIRE THE SENATE'S ADVICE AND CONSENT. UNDER THIS RESOLUTION, 277 OF THOSE WOULD GET THE FULL 30 HOURS OF DEBATE, AND THAT WOULD BE, OF COURSE, THE SUPREME COURT, CIRCUIT COURT, AND THOSE CABINET LEVEL POSITIONS AS WELL AS SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT SERVE ON THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND SOME OF THE COMMISSIONS WE HAVE. OKAY. THAT'S 277. BUT THAT LEAVES A BUNCH MORE, OVER A THOUSAND THAT COULD ONLY GET TWO HOURS. TWO HOURS FOR WHAT ARE LIFE-TIME APPOINTMENTS. HUNDREDS OF POSITIONS, HUNDREDS OF THESE POSITIONS ARE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.

I BELIEVE IN THIS PLACE THEY ONCE CALLED THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY, IT IS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO FULLY VET THE MOST SENIOR PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT, TO HELP ENSURE OUR AIR AND WATER ARE CLEAN, THE PEOPLE WHO LEAD OUR MILITARY, THE PEOPLE WHO OVERSEE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. IT IS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO FULLY VET OUR FEDERAL JUDGES, THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO RECEIVE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW IN AMERICA. ON BEHALF OF EVERY AMERICAN, IT IS OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOMINATED TO THE MOST SENIOR POSITIONS IN OUR GOVERNMENT ARE COMPETENT AND QUALIFIED. THESE ROLES ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT THE RULES OF THE SENATE ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT SENATORS COME TO A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS. THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO THAT, BUT GUESS WHAT SOMETIMES WE DO. THE PURPOSE OF THESE RULES IS TO REJECT PARTISANSHIP SO THAT WE CAN GET NOMINEES WHO WILL PUT THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE POLITICS.

IF WE ELIMINATE THIS CRUCIAL CHECK ON OUR DEMOCRACY, ALLOWING THE MAJORITY PARTY TO RAM THROUGH THESE APPOINTMENTS, WE WILL UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR GOVERNMENT. NOW, SOME OF OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO ARE TRYING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH POINT TO THE FACT THAT IN 2013, THE SENATE VOTED 78-16 TO TEMPORARILY CHANGE THE RULES ON POSTCLOTURE DEBATE TIME, BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN 2013, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE TODAY. NOMINATIONS REQUIRED A 60-VOTE THRESHOLD. THE BLUE SLIP PROCESS FOR ALL JUDICIAL NOMINEES WAS RESPECTED. UNLIKE NOW WHERE IT IS NO LONGER RESPECTED FOR THE HIGHEST COURTS IN THE LAND. THAT WOULD BE THE CIRCUIT COURTS. AND A THOROUGH PROCESS -- AND THIS IS IMPORTANT -- TO SELECT QUALIFIED JUDICIAL NOMINEES WAS IN PLACE. NO LONGER. I HAVE SEEN THE STATISTICS, BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE UNQUALIFIED NOMINEES THAN PAST PRESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THIS BODY. DESPITE ALL OF THIS, IMPORTANT FEDERAL POSITIONS REMAIN UNFAILED EVEN THOUGH QUALIFIED NOMINEES -- UNFILLED EVEN THOUGH QUALIFIED NOMINEES WERE WAITING TO BE FILLED. TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, A BIPARTISAN SUPERMAJORITY OF THE SENATE SUPPORTED A CHANGE IN THE RULES, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY.

THE IDEA THAT WE ARE FACING SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CONGRESS IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AS WELL AS STATEMENTS MADE BY SOME OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. THE TRUTH IS, AS WE HAVE SPERD THE LEADER OF THIS BODY, THE MAJORITY LEADER, NOMINEES ARE GETTING CONFIRMED, SOME AT A PACE FASTER THAN WE HAVE SEEN IN U.S. HISTORY. IN 2017, LEADER McCONNELLHIMSELF HIGHLIGHTED THIS FACT. HE SAID SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE CLOSING IN ON THE RECORD FOR THE MOST CIRCUIT COURT APPOINTMENTS IN A PRESIDENT'S FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE. LAST YEAR, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID WE HAVE THE BEST JUDGES. WE PUT ON A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GREAT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES. WE ARE SETTING RECORDS.

HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT SETTING RECORDS. IN HIS FIRST TWO YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY, PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT 85 JUDGES CONFIRMED. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY FOCUSED ON THOSE THAT GOT THEM THROUGH COMPARED TO JUST 62 FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HAD 30 CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEES CONFIRMED DURING HIS FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE. THIS IS MORE CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEES CONFIRMED THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. THERE YOU GO. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT GETTING THESE NOMINEES THROUGH LIKE ON A CONVEYOR BELT. SO THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHY CHANGE THE RULES?

WHY CHANGE THE RULES? WHY CHANGE THE RULES FOR LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS AND GIVE ONLY TWO HOURS OF DEBATE? THIS CHANGE IS NOT JUST UNNECESSARY, IT WOULD ALLOW FUNDAMENTALLY UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES FROM JUDGES TO ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND AMBASSADORS TO BE CONFIRMED. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS RATED SIX OF THE JUDICIAL NOMINEES PUT FORWARD BY THE ADMINISTRATION AS NOT QUALIFIED, INCLUDING THREE WHO RECEIVED THAT RATING UNANIMOUSLY, TWO OF WHOM WERE CONFIRMED. IN TWO YEARS, MORE THAN 30 EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOMINEES AND FIVE FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AFTER INITIAL VETTING, AND BECAUSE NOMINEES ARE BEING RUSHED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS, POSTCLOTURE TIME IS CRITICAL TO OUR JOB OF EVALUATING NOMINEES AND FULFILLING OUR DUTY TO ADVISE AND CONSENT. FOR THE 78 SENATORS WHO DO NOT SERVE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THIS IS A CRITICAL TIME TO TALK TO COLLEAGUES AND STAFF ABOUT A JUDICIAL NOMINEE'S RECORD. AND MAYBE WE DON'T USE THE WHOLE TIME DEBATING THEM, BUT GUESS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE NOT MARCHING THROUGH TWO HOUR, TWO HOUR, TWO HOUR, TWO HOUR. YOU HAVE MORE TIME TO TALK ABOUT NOMINEES TO EACH OTHER AND EVALUATE THEIR RECORDS. LAST YEAR, TWO NOMINEES WERE WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION AFTER THEIR CLOTURE VOTES HAD BEEN TAKEN. THOMAS FARR, EASTERN DISTRICT, NORTH CAROLINA, AND RYAN BOUNDS, NINTH CIRCUIT, OREGON. AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF THESE NOMINEES HAPPENED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS. SENATOR SCOTT -- SENATORS SCOTT, FLAKE, AND RUBIO VOICED THEIR DISAPPROVAL. BOUNDS' NOMINATION FAILED AND WAS WITHDRAWN PARTLY BECAUSE SENATOR RUBIO CHANGED HIS MIND DURING THAT POSTCLOTURE DEBATE TIME.

THESE CASES SHOW HOW CRITICAL POSTCLOTURE DEBATE TIME IS FOR CONSIDERING NOMINATIONS. HE FOUND OUT NEW INFORMATION THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE. NOMINEES LIKE THESE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE IMPORTANCE OF CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY CONSIDERING NOMINEES FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH POSITIONS AND LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS TO THE BENCH. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE QUALIFIED NOMINEES, AND IT IS OUR JOB TO ENSURE WE TAKE THE TIME AND CARE NECESSARY TO CONFIRM PEOPLE WHO WILL SERVE THEIR COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION. I APPRECIATE SENATOR LANKFORD. WE WORKED TOGETHER ON MANY ISSUES, AND MOST NOTABLY ON ELECTION SECURITY, BUT THIS LEGISLATION WILL REMOVE IMPORTANT CHECKS AND BALANCES ON A PERMANENT BASIS, NOT JUST A TEMPORARY BASIS, AND IT HAPPENS AT A TIME WHEN WE HAVE SEEN UNPRECEDENTED NUMBERS OF JUDGES CONFIRMED ON THE CIRCUIT BASIS AND TOTAL NUMBER OF JUDGES MUCH HIGHER THAN WE SAW DURING THE TIME TWO-YEAR PERIOD THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE ARE GETTING A SLEW OF UNQUALIFIED NOMINEES, AND FINALLY WE KNOW THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION JUST KEEPS TRYING TO PUSH THINGS THROUGH THAT I CONSIDER AND MANY -- AND COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT GOING AROUND CONGRESS AND THE APPROPRIATED MONEY, THE $1.3 BILLION THAT WAS GIVEN FOR SECURITY AND SAYING -- YOU KNOW WHAT -- I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE MONEY AWAY THAT THIS CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED FOR OTHER THINGS AND USE IT TO BUILD AN $8 BILLION WALL. NOT ONLY DOES THAT HAVE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF EMINENT DOMAIN AT THE BORDER, BUT IT ALSO HAS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE ROLE OF THIS CONGRESS.

WE ARE AT A TIME WHERE THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DECIDED TO WREAK HAVOC ON PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE BY PUSHING FOR THE REPEAL OF THE ENTIRE -- NOT JUST PART -- THE ENTIRE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WHICH I NOTED INCLUDES THOSE PROVISIONS THAT PROTECT PEOPLE FROM BEING KICKED OFF THEIR INSURANCE FOR PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THESE DECISIONS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AT THOSE SUB CABINET, RIGHT UNDER THE CABINET LEVEL, RIGHT, THE JUDGES THAT ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS ON THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL, THE WORKERS THAT ARE AT THE HIGHER SUB CABINET LEVEL AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES THAT WOULD MAKE DECISIONS DIRECTLY ABOUT PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE ARE THE ONES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS RESOLUTION. THESE ARE REAL ISSUES FOR REAL PEOPLE, SO WHILE THIS MAY ALL SOUND ESOTERIC, THIS IS NOT A TIME IN HISTORY TO BE PERMANENTLY CHANGING THE RULES AND RAMMING THROUGH A BUNCH OF NOMINEES. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT.