[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 7 (Thursday, January 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S150-S151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Rules of the Senate

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, once more I am coming to the floor to 
talk about the basic rules of the Senate and how we actually get on 
legislation.
  We have spent all of this week on four district court judicial 
nominations--the entire week, no legislation--because we can't get on 
legislation.
  In 2013, we were in a situation similar to this. The minority party, 
at that point being the Republicans, were slowing down the process in 
the Senate on nominations by the Democratic Party, at that point the 
majority. So Republicans and Democrats sat down together and said: This 
is a problem. We cannot get to legislation.
  The Republicans and Democrats together, with 70-plus votes, made a 2-
year rule change in the Senate in the 113th Congress. It was a simple 
rule change: 2 hours of debate for a district court judge, 8 hours of 
debate for just about everyone else, and 30 hours of debate for circuit 
court, Supreme Court, and Cabinet nominations. It was a bipartisan 
agreement that worked very well for that 2-year time period.
  Then, at the end of that 2-year time period, it had a sunset on it, 
and it expired. The hope was that we would relearn how to be able to do 
this. I wasn't in the Senate at that time, but I have spoken to 
multiple people about that process.
  What happened instead was, during the first year of that, there 
continued to be ongoing frustration, so my Democratic colleagues used 
what is affectionately called the nuclear option to be able to change 
the rules of the Senate to say that they could bring individuals with 
only 51 votes--not 60--and

[[Page S151]]

then they used the rule, on top of what they changed, to bring people 
forward at greater speed, which they did. For the rest of the next 
year, they used it that way.
  We now come to this time period. Let me give an example of what I am 
talking about and the frustration it creates. Let me confirm my number 
and make sure I get it right for all of the Senate history. From 1967 
until 2012, there were 46 cloture votes invoked. That means they 
requested a cloture vote, and it went all the way to be a vote--46 of 
those on judges and the executive branch from 1967 to 2012.
  Last year, there were 46 cloture votes in this body, just in 1 year. 
What was from 1967 until 2012 the total number, Democrats did to 
Republicans in 1 year--last year.
  The statement keeps coming up over and over again: Why can't we get 
on legislation? Because each day is full of dead time, debating 
nominations--nominations like what passed today unanimously in the 
Senate. But we had to have cloture time set aside for it.
  This has to be fixed. The rules of the Senate are set by the 
Senators. In 2013, the Senators stood up and said ``This has to stop,'' 
and they fixed it. I am recommending again that the Senate, once again, 
implement the same rule that Democrats led Republicans to do in 2013 
now, in this year, and instead of doing it for one Congress, make it 
the rule. If it was a good idea for Democrats in 2013 and 2014, why is 
it not a good idea for Republicans and Democrats now?
  That simple rule is, when we can't agree on a candidate, we would 
have only 2 hours of debate on a district judge--remembering that for 
the entirety of this week, it took the whole week to do four of them. 
We could do 2 hours of debate for each one if it is a district court 
judge, 8 hours for just about everybody else, or 30 hours of debate for 
Supreme Court, circuit court, and Cabinet-level nominations.
  People would think that would be a slam dunk. So far it has not been. 
For some reason, my Democratic colleagues say: That rule was good for 
us, but it is not good for you, and it is not good for the future of 
the Senate. I believe it is. I believe it was a fair rule then, and it 
is a fair rule now. Enough debating about the rules of the Senate; 
let's get on to the business of the Senate and actually do what the 
American people sent us here to do.
  Interestingly enough, there is also a very obscure rule in the Senate 
called rule XXXI. If, at the end of the year, there are still 
nominations that are pending out there, those nominations have to be 
returned to the White House, and they have to start all over again. The 
Senate can agree by unanimous consent to say that we all understand 
these are all in process and, by unanimous consent, just agree to those 
things to be able to hold them on the calendar.
  Let me give an example. Under President Bill Clinton, at the end of 
his first year, only 13 of his nominations were sent back to the White 
House. After the end of George W. Bush's first term, only two 
nominations were returned back to the White House. After President 
Obama's first term, only eight were sent back to the White House. After 
President Trump's first term, 90 were sent back--Bill Clinton, 13; 
George Bush, 2; President Obama, 8; President Trump, 90.
  I don't think my Democratic colleagues understand that they are 
continuing to amp up the volume of obstruction, saying: Someone has 
obstructed us in the past, so we are going to do it 10 times to you. 
All that leads to is that the next time the Republicans are in the 
minority, we do it 10 times again, and it makes it worse.
  There is a way to fix this. We should come to that mutual agreement. 
We should resolve the rules of the Senate.
  We have to get on to the budget. We have to get on to the Children's 
Health Insurance Program. We have to get on to intelligence issues. We 
have to get on to immigration. We have to get on to infrastructure. We 
have to get on to a lot of other things, but we are stuck debating 
about people, and that should be an easy one for us.
  I am recommending to this body what my folks used to say to me: What 
is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If it was a great 
rule when Democrats were in the majority, it should be a great rule 
when Republicans are in the majority.

  Let's take clean, fair rules and apply them to everyone. Let's move 
on with the nomination process. Let's get back to the business of doing 
legislation so we can get this resolved.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.