mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask consent that senator cardin be recognized to offer a motion to commit and that the time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided. following at 2:00 p.m. the senate vote on the motion. i further ask disposition of the motion the majority leader or his designee be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. karld card mr. president, i have a motion at -- mr. cardin: mr. president, i have a motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from chairld mr. cardin moves to commit the bill h.r. 1 with instructions to report the same back to the senate in three days not counting any day in which the senate is not in session with changes that are within the jurisdiction of such committee and two this order to fix and enhance our country's infrastructure and use one-time revenue for one-time spending, designate the revenue raised which the

mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, we're in the middle of a have protracted conversation about tax reform. this conversation started in january. i heard people say it was riewshed through, -- rushed through, it started in january. there were hearings in the house and senate, different drafts, shot down and come back again and now we're in the 12th month of going through this process. as we get close to the end, i wanton outline what we're working on to tell the american people what is actually happening here. the focus here from the very start of it was two simple things. how can we reduce the rates for individuals so they can spend more of -- keep more of their own money and then spend their money to stimulate the economy. and the second question, how can we stimulate the economy? those two things are very clear. this dramatically simplifies the tax structure that we have and it reduces rates for people so that people have more of their own money t

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i'm delighted to be here with several other members to talk about the issue of immigration. this has become a very contentious issue that as soon as you say the words immigration, there's a whole group of individuals who scream amnesty, there's another group that screams that thugs are taking grandmothers out of their homes and we lose the policy issues that are in place. there are obvious problems with immigration. we have not taken those obvious issues on in decades. they need to be resolved, and every year that they are not resolved, this issue gets harder and more complicated. we should address the issue of immigration. now, for years the conversation's been out there and for years it remains unresolved. i would challenge this body in the next three months, let's resolve some of the big issues of immigration. almost four years ago now i was in central america with a group of other senators and house members. we were meeting with central american leaders and we were meet

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

mr. lankford: maybe you've heard me discuss in public and in private conversations over the past year i believe the senate is moving gridlock from here on this capitol hill all across the city and across the nation. the reason for that is how we do nominations and the length of time on nominations. here's how it works. as this body knows extremely well, we have over 1,000 nominees that come from the president. the first year of a new presidency, a vast amount of time is spent in getting those 1,000 people through the nomination process. each one of those is selected by the white house. they do their own vetting and then they send them over to the senate. the senate has the constitutional responsibility for advice and consent. when they come to the senate they'll go through background checks and evaluations, conversations with staff on both sides of the aisle, then come to the committee. they'll go through a committee process and a hearing. they're voted on in that time period and then they move to the floor. when they move to the floor for debate, typically for most of the years of the senate,

lankford's proposals opportunity to demonstrate that senators can remember the institution is more important to our own opinions. hope we unanimously recommend his proposal to the full senate. >> thank you mr. chair. many say thank you for bringing this word as a new member of the senate appreciate the discussion. i'm not sure completely behind the language you have, but i look for to further discussion on the concept. as i remember we talked a little about chester scott polk and he had come before the senate before so i was in it quicker. i will send it here then pepper purpose of new senators, i would like to see a quick process moving through, particularly as an attorney who cares about judiciary. i'm [inaudible] the judiciary committee but i would like the time to properly that these individuals. moving forward we want to give them that authority as well. just because they're not here to vote previously that was my concern. . . . . in the past this was able to be done in 25 years ago there were even more nominees on the calendar. that list has been shortened and needs to be shortened some more. one thing i had mentioned earlier that is part of the challenge of we can do it now because