those were the words of senator dole urging the united states senate to ratify that convention. he went on to point out that united states leadership on advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly with the americans with disabilities act. and he pointed out that current u.s. law, laws in place in 2012, were already enough to make sure the united states satisfied its obligations to the international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. joining the treaty, senator dole said, would -- quote -- "confirm the common goals of equality, access and inclusion for americans with disacts -- disabilities. senator dole believes so powerfully in the power of this treaty that as i indicated earlier, he came to the floor of this senate many, many years after he served here and hoped that his presence on the floor of the senate would convince his republican colleagues and all his colleagues to support that convention. unfortunately, mr. president, when the vote came down, it failed in getting their higher level of votes necessary for ratification by only five

mcconnell: the senator s. has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from alabama, as warned by the chair. senator warren -- quote -- "said nor sessions has used the awesome paver his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens." i call the senator to order under the provisions of rule 19. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i am surprised that the words of coretta scott king are not suitable for debate in the united states senate. i ask leave of the senate to continue my remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: i object. rein reason i appeal the rule -- ms. warren: i appeal the ruling. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator will take her seat. ms. warren: mr. president, i appeal the ruling of the chair and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: is quorum call is not present. the cler

i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you very much for the recognition, madam president. i also rise today to oppose the nomination of scott pruitt to be administrator of the environmental protection agency. i believe the president should be able to assemble his or her own team, and i understand that elections have consequences and that a president should be able to put forth his or her policy agenda. i voted on this floor many times in support of nominees with whom i have policy differences. but they have been qualified, experienced in their field, who believe in the fundamental mission of the agency they are tasked to lead. that is not the case with attorney general pruitt. mr. pruitt has extreme environmental policy views and he has zero experience running an environmental protection agency. in fact, he does not believe in the fundamental mission of the e.p.a. attorney general pruitt made his name opposing e.p.a. rules that protect human health and the environment. fighting against clean air and clean

the republican caucus. however, senator sessions opposed the entire bill due to concerns about one provision in the legislation related to domestic violence against indians on tribal lands. we in the senate have all had on occasion been faced with legislation that contains one or more provisions we have concerns about or would not have included in the legislation. yet, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can attest that we very often strike compromise to get important legislation over the finish line. oftentimes a sign of a good bill is often whatnot one of us gets -- not one of us gets 100% of what we may have wanted. opposing a much broader commonsense and bipartisan bill meant to reduce violence and domestic -- to reduce violence and protect domestic violence victims calls into question senator sessions' commitment to administering these programs at the department of justice. the fourth area is sentencing reform. there is broad bipartisan recognition in the senate that our broken criminal justice system is badly in

the question before the senate -- the question before the senate is whether the decision of the chair to hold the senator from massachusetts in violation of rule 19 shall stand as the judgment of the senate. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 43. the decision of the chair stands. as the judgment of the senate. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i yield one minute to the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president? the presiding officer: parttory inquiry. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. king: would one senator callincalling another senator ar during debate on the senate be a violation of rule 19? the presiding officer: in the opinion of the chair, it wouldment. mr. king: thank you, mr. president. i yield back. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: senator warren was giving a lengthy speech. she had appeared to violate the rule. she was warned. she was given an

back to the transcript. senator cruz: senator sessions based his attack on an op-ed. there is an irony in relying on mr. hebert. as you well know, in 1986, mr. hebert testified then and attack you then, making false charges against you. indeed, i would note, in the 1986 hearing, two days later, mr. hebert was forced to recant his testimony. to say that he had given false testimony to this committee and indeed to say, "i apologize for any inconvenience caused to mr. sessions by my prior testimony." so, individual who has testified falsely once before this committee, his op-ed is now the basis for senator franken's attack on you. let's unpack this. mr. hebert was not "forced to recant his testimony." he voluntarily corrected an error. the committee did not catch him in a lie. he did not try to pull one over on the senate. that is not what happened. ed, mr. hebert originally testified that he had "a fuzzy recollection about the incident in question." he immediately and voluntarily corrected the record. if you did not k

a senator: [inaudible] the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the senator california. mrs. feinstein: i yield one hour of my time under my control to senator booker. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mrs. feinstein: and i yield 30 minutes of my time to senator leahy. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mrs. feinstein: and ten minutes of my time to senator klobuchar. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mrs. feinstein: thank the chair. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i yield one hour of the time under my control to senator merkley. the presiding officer: the senator that is had a right. -- the senator has that right. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues in making some remarks on senator sessions' nomination to serve as attorney general. i'll be coming back later this evening and i'll focus on voting rights and some of the other issues at hand, freedom

but back to the transcript, senator cruz. and indeed the basis of senator franken's attack is he claims you were uninvolved in several civil rights cases that were listed on your questionnaire. in 1986, mr. hebert testified, this is a quote from him, i have needed mr. sessions' help in those cases and he has provided that help every step of the way. is that correct, that that is what mr. hebert testified? senator sessions, yes, that is correct. now, once again, senator cruz elides the truth. the four civil rights cases that i questioned senator sessions about during his hearing, the four he claimed to have personally handled, this is senator sessions, the guy we're talking about confirming or not confirming, they were not what mr. hebert was talking about in that quote from 1986. mr. hebert worked on a number of cases in the southern district of alabama. and he was speaking about how he had interacted with senator sessions generally. now, to be clear, mr. hebert had explained to this committee that two of the four civil rights

i call the senator to order under the provisions of rule xix. >> mr. president? >> senator from massachusetts. >> mr. president, i am surprised that the words of coretta scott king are not suitable for debate in the united states senate. i ask leave of the senate to continue my remarks. >> is there objection? >> object. >> i appeal the ruling -- >> objection is heard. the senator will take her seat. >> according to majority leader mcconnell's staff warren is now banned from speaking on the senate floor for the remainder of the debate on sessions nomination. she's not staying quiet, though, seizing this moment, she took to the internet to read mrs. king's letter after she was cut off from the senate chamber and then told cnn's don lemon a new level of hostility in politics won't silence her. >> there's been some hard words on the united states senate through the years but all of a sudden, when i'm reading something, a truthful statement from coretta scott king, the answer -- nope, can't say that. well, i'm going to tell you this. they can shut me up, but they can't

senator cruz is the very thing that senator cornyn is accusing me of doing. y absence, he misrepresented me, he misrepresented mr. hebert. you didn't object then, did you? >> i'm not sure i was here. it would be the decent and honorable thing to do to do it in the senator's presence. >> well, get him here. he'll have a tape of it. okay. allow me to read from the hearing transcript. this is senator cruz talking to senator sessions. and what i'm doing here is i'm clarifying senator sessions' record. >> proceed. >> senator cruz, now, earlier in this hearing, senator franken engaged you in a discussion that i think was intended to try to undermine your character and integrity and in particular senator franken suggested that you had somehow misrepresented your record. it is unfortunate to see member of this body impugn the integrity of a fellow senator with whom we have served for years. it is particularly unfortunate when that attack is not backed up by the facts. now, let's talk about who is trying to impugn the integrity of another senator. i would suggest that

republicans in the senate. i'll say it again. i do believe the president's nominee has the right to a hearing and a vote. that nominee also has the responsibility to show us that he's not only qualified to serve on an important appellate court but to serve with a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. on tuesday night, president trump announced he would nominate tenth circuit judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court. it's important to put that nomination in context. this is not a run of the mill nomination. it's an extraordinary time in america's history. president trump's announcement was actually supposed to happen today. why was it sped up? why did they hurry it up? well, because of the avalanche of criticism being heaped on the trump administration for their executive orders on refugees and immigrations. they had to change the subject. after dozens of legal immigrants were detained at airports all over the weekend solely because of their country of origin, including children, seniors, interpre

back to the transcript. senator cruz. the four cases senator franken referred to, you reported all four of them in your supplement to your committee. his back right? mr. frank and did not mention not. senator sessions submitted a supplement to the questionnaire. does the content supplemented somehow vindicate senator sessions. they don't, so let's talk about the supplement. senator cruz is correct. senator sessions did submit a supplement and in the supplement the nominee clarified that his role was to provide support for doj attorneys. let me say that again. provide support for. he provided assistance and guidance, unquote and cooperated with doj lawyers. not quite personally handled if you ask me. i suspect that's why he felt the need to file the supplement. notice how senator cruz explained the supplement during the hearing. let me play now coming here is how you describe your involvement in a written submission to this committee. senator cruz quotes from a supplement. for the cases described in two, four, eight and ni

of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of ben carson to be secretary of housing and urban development. signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move the senate proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 9, james richard perry to be secretary of energy. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination: department of energy, james richard perry of texas to be secretary. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: we, th

floor of the senate. incredible. and the optics of calling coretta scott king an epithet, saying her words are an epithet that can't be spoken in the united states senate. yeah. we'll have more on that ahead. >>> also, when's the last time the audio live stream of a three-judge panel reviewing a temporary restraining order was not only live streamed on the internet machine but also broadcast live on television on national news. if you are a civics dork between rule 19 and this, this is like a high holy day right now. if there is a kid in your life who dreams about ever becoming a lawmaker or a lawyer or judge, the fact they got to listen in tonight to this incredibly tense dense, no nonsense cuts like a knife argument involving these three federal judges and the lawyers for the federal government and the lawyers for the state suing the federal government over the muslim ban, don't call it a muslim ban. i mean -- you know, you can see arguments like that. you can hear arguments like that as a citizen if you

to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint th honorable ron johnson to perform the duties of the chair. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, just very briefly because i know we have to vote. the nominee for the secretary of education is one of the worst nominees that has ever been brought before this body for a cabinet position. on the grounds of competence and ideology and conflict of interest, she scores very, very low. that is why my good friend who has great integrity, the senator from tennessee, had to rush her through, five minutes of questions, they were afraid to hear what they might or might not know. i ask my colleagues to look into their conscience. sometimes loyalty to a new president demands a bit too much. with this nominee, it does. please think about it over the weekend. this person, ms. devos does not deserve be the secretary of education. the presiding officer: under the previous time, the senate will resume consideration of s.j. res. 41,

shulkin to the full senate, and the full senate just confirmed him unanimously, too. haven't seen much of that lately. i'm confident that secretary shulkin will work with congress to build on the progress we've already made in improving accountability at the v.a. i took the procedural steps necessary last night to allow us to confirm the rest of the nominees on the calendar, like representative mick mulvaney, who can help get our nation back on track fiscally. scott pruitt, nominator for administrator of the environmental protection agency, who can bring much-needed change after eight years of heavy-handed, job-killing regulations. wilbur ross, nominee for commerce secretary, who can help promote job creation and economic growth. representative ryan zinke, nominee for interior secretary, who can help improve our nation's land use. dr. ben carson, nominee for housing and urban development, who can help reform h.u.d. to better-serve the american people. and governor rick perry, nominee for energy secretary, who can help guide us toward smarter energy policies that grow o

but back to the transcript. senator cruz. indeed the basis of senator franken's attack is he claims you were uninvolved in several civil rights cases that were listed on your questionnaire. in 1986, mr. hebert testified, this is a quote from him, i have needed mr. sessions' help in those cases and he has provided that help every step of the way. is that correct? that that is what mr. hebert testified? senator sessions, yes, that is correct. and once again, senator cruz allies the truth. the four civil rights cases that i questioned senator sessions about during his hearing, before he claimed that to have personally have handled. this is senator sessions. the guy we're talking about confirming or not. they were not what mr. hebert was talking about in that quote from 1986. mr. hebert worked on a number of cases in the southern district of alabama and he was speaking about how he had interacted with senator sessions generally. now to be clear, mr. hebert had explained to this committee that two of the four civil rights cases tha

of the senate. nobody's words were taken down. no rule 19 invoked at that time. it's a political circumstance. you can tell when you cross the line way too far. but in that gray area, it depends on the politics of the moment. >> some democrats haveccused republicans of sexism in silencing senator warren. doou see that at play? >> she has many qualities and many virtues and many talents and the fact she's so darn smart and drives wall street crazy and gets under their skin so quickly may reflect on her feminine talents but certainly reflects on who she is. a very persuasive sar ivive sen. >> so not sexism? >> i don't know how they perceive it. the fact that camalla harris followed up and asked her to speak on the floor are an indication the women of the senate are not going to be denied. >> we're talking about the confirmation of senator sessions which looks like it will go through at 7:00 tonight. given how it played out with betsy devos, her confirmation, senator sessions sticking around to cast wha

want a ghost of the senate floor, it will be up to -- goes to the senate floor, it will be up to mitch mcconnell. >> sure you are the chair. dianne feinstein is the ranking member. it's 11 republicans to nine democrats. the questioning for judge gorsuch, will it be limited? how many rounds? >> i don't want to be arguing, taking half a day to argue what we are going to do. i think we are going to let people ask the questions they want to ask your kid if it's one round, two rounds, three rounds. the longer it goes on, they have to realize we have to get this done and we stain session until we get it done. >> there is a time component. key things are pending in the courts, big cases that is been really held back to final arguments in april, waiting for potentially a ninth justice. do you feel confident that you can move judge gorsuch through the process in that time? >> just so people understand, there is nothing arbitrary about this. we know what it has taken to get other people through the supreme court justice process for the hearing and everything else. they generally follow a pattern

it passed the committee and the floor of the senate by a voice vote and the same thing in the senate on the floor and it was signed in an almost private ceremony with senator sessions and i attended. i then turned to senator sessions and said abou that what about those that are now serving time who cannot under our law as written have the right to appeal their sentence will you join me in a letter to the sentencing commission encouraging them to give these individual prisoners a chance and he said no. i didn't ask him to join me with senator grassley in the criminal justice reform bill which for the almost 5,000 of remaining prisoners they would give the individual consideration and he said no. so there was the shining moment we worked together to bring it to 18-1 but little or no follow-through when it came to what i considered to be the most consistent approach in dealing with justice and criminal sentencing. when senator sessions came by my office we talked about a lot of things that i talked especially about one prisoner that i invited her to his hearing. he's from the city of chi

collins and senator murkowski have been the most consistent senators, absent circumstances, i am going to allow a vote to come to the floor so the full senate can make their decision. i thank them for that. as to ms. devos, i ask consent to put in the record following my remarks an article by -- why the senate should promptly confirm betsy devos as the united states education secretary, which i believe it will do soon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. ms. devos will be an excellent education secretary. she has a commitment to public education. she's said that. but there's no better example of that than her work on the most important reform of public schools in the last 30 years, which is charter schools. charter public schools are the fastest-growing reform of public education to give teachers more freedom and parents more choices, and she's been at the forefront of that public school activity. second, she's spent her time, true, helping to give low-income parents more choices and better schools for their chin. but is that a

eastern on the floor of the senate. now that republicans like marco rubio said they would not block him at the committee level. tillerson has the votes on the republican side. maybe a few democrats as well to finally get through. that's important with the refugee issue out there and so many other global hot spots. the key here, though, you can take a step back. tillerson will be only the fifth member of the trump cabinet confirmed after elaine choi was confirmed late yesterday and sworn in by mike pence as the new transportation secretary. only five confirmed after about two weeks. significant because remember barack obama had seven, two more on day one. not after two weeks, but on day one. republicans on the hill getting frustrated. senate democrats now basically shutting down committee action. you can see empty seats there before the finance committee. republicans like orrin hatch getting frustrated that democrats are blocking others. >> i'm very disappointed in this type of crap. my gosh, there is no excuse for it. >>

back to the transcript, senator cruz "in the four cases senator franken referred to, you referred all of them to the judiciary. mr. franken did not mention that. here, senator cruz chastise me for not mentioning that senator cruz submitted a supplement to his questionnaire. the contents of that supplement would somehow vindicate senator sessions. they do not. let's talk about the supplement. senator cruz is correct, senator cruz did submit a supplement. the nominee clarified that his role was to provide support for doj attorneys. let me say that again, provide support for. he provided assistance and guidance. and he "cooperated" with doj lawyers. he did not personally handle. i suspect that is why he felt the need to file the supplement. notice how senator cruz explained supplement during the hearing. senator cruz, "here is how you described your involvement in your written submission to this committee. here senator cruz quotes from the supplement. "on the cases described, my role like most u.s. attorneys in a nation with noncriminal civil rights cases was to provide support for the d

floor of the senate. amiliar with this part of senate rules. obviously everybody in that room know what is a rule 19 violation is. >> yes. >> we saw them tell you to sit down. you said you're not allowed to speak. how long are you not allowed to speak for? >> i'm not allowed to speak so long as the topic is senat jeff sessions. i'm been red carded. i'm out of the game on the senate floor. i don't get to speak at all. >> the fact that this has happened over the word of coretta scott king puts almost a surreal cast on this. it seems hard to believe that the republicans would want to make a national issue, create a political national crisis around this nomination, specifically around the widow of dr. martin luther king. did you know that you would be treading into this territory where they might be gaveling you and sitting you down when you chose to read this letter? did you think it would be this controversial? >> no, i did not. but i will say this. i hope that everyone reads coretta scott king's letter beca

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask that of the postcloture debate time under my control, that 50 minutes be yielded to senator merkley. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. i think it's important to understand what happened today that makes this debate on scott pruitt to lead the e.p.a. so critically important. you know, we call ourselves the world's greatest deliberative body, and that is actually a well-earned especial taition. -- well-earned reputation. sometimes we move fast. sometimes we move so slowly that it's maddening to the american public but there's a reason the united states senate moves slowly and that's because in a lot of instances it has the weightiest decisions any public official could make. in this instance we're deciding on the person to comply with the clean air and the clean water acts, the endangered species act, to discharge their duties as the

the senator will take her seat. >> now after the senate voted, 49-43, along party lines that senator warren violated the arcane rule that no senator can impugn another senator during debate, senator warren went live on facebook and read coretta scott king's letter. she then talks with msnbc's rachel maddow. >> i'm not allowed to speak so long as the topic is senator jeff sessions. >> wow. >> i've been red carded on senator sessions. >> wow. >> i'm out of the game on the senate floor. >> kasie hunt joins us live now. kasie, quite a scene there in the senate last night. explain what's been happening since and how the vote on senator sessions nomination as attorney general is shaping up. >> ali, good morning. we are outside senator warren's office here in the capitol complex. and this really is dominating all the conversations here on capitol hill today. and what's going on on the senate floor now, more reaction to this. they are continuing debate on senator sessions but what democrats have decid to do, and we've seen this now from a number of democrats is going down to the senate floor

i call the senator to order understand the provisions of rule 19. >> mr. president? from massachusetts. >> mr. president, i am surprised that the words of coretta scott king are not suitable for debate in the united states senate. i ask leave of the senate to continue my remarks. >> is there objection? >> object. >> i appeal the ruling -- >> objection is heard. >> the senator will take her seat. >> now, according to majority leader mcconnell's staff, senator elizabeth warren is now banned from speaking on the senate floor for the remainder of the debate on sessions nomination. she's not staying quiet. she took to the internet to read mrs. king's letter. and she told cnn domestic lemon a new hostility of politics will not silence her. >> there's been some harsh words on the united states senate over the years, but all of a sudden when i'm reading something, a truthful statement of coretta scott kin, no, you can't say that. i'm going to tell you, they can shut me up, but they can't change the truth. >> the nomination is expected to wrap up at 7:00 tonight. >>> we could

murray: the senator is correct. the essence of what she has promoted, used her vast wealth for and has worked for throughout her experience is to take money away from public education and put it into private schools. mrs. mccaskill: so i'm confused. we just had an election, and in my state the reddest part of my state are parts of my state where there are no private schools. rural missouri, i'm a daughter of rural missouri. my father went to public school in houston, missouri. my mother went to public school in lebanon, missouri. i attended public school in lebanon, missouri and columbia columbia, missouri. in fact, i am a product of public education from beginning to end. both of my parents went to the university of missouri, and so did i. in rural areas of this country, there are not private schools for parents and kids to choose. they would have to drive miles. and, by the way, in my state, the newly elected governor just cut transportation funds for public schools. just cut them. so they now have less money for t

the presiding officer: the senator idaho. mr. crapo: i rise to discuss the regulatory burden imposed by the s.c.c.'s extractive resource rule making and offer my support not the resolution to designation approve it. i'll take a few moments to talk about the complicated history of this ruled and then the concerns with the way it was form lated. the sacrament s.c.c. was challen court by the chamber of commerce and by the american petroleum institute. in 20 13-rbg the u.s. district court threw out the regulation contending among other things that the s.c.c. misread the requirements of the statute. the s.y.c. did not appeal the decision, being a nounalling that it immediated to rewrite the rule. the s.y. c.r.s. proposed timetable for a new rule was delayed several times and in 2014 oxfam america sued to compel the s.c.c. to move forward on a new rule making. the court order the s.c.c. to file an expedited schedule and as a result, a new rule was proposed in 2015 and finalized last year. as one can see, this rule and its various i thin

come on, it is a procedural rule of the senate. t in the constitution, and it is not something -- that is not what makes the senate special. >> bret: you look at those cases, 126 of them decided 5-4 committee decisions, just the last four work 4-4. so the fifth seat is going to be a huge seat. >> really, really important, this will restore the status qu status quo, and then everybody gets ready for the next battle which really will be the big change battle for the next opening. i think, when you heard republican senators to date reacting with relief and joy about this, this reminds everyone, every republican and conservative who held their nose and voted for donald trump, this is why they were doing this. and after the rocky weekend we had with republicans tearing their hair out about the immigration order for a variety of reasons -- >> bret: some of them. >> some of them. some of them just because it was a mess in the process was a mess. this unifies republicans and reminds them why elections matter. >> bret: but today was a good d

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: last evening, i had the pleasure of being at the white house when president trump introduced his nominee to be associate justice of the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch. who happens to be serving on the tenth circuit court of appeals, and it shouldn't surprise anybody that president trump delivered on a promise made during the campaign when he listed 21 people that he would choose from. everybody knew ahead of time what sort of a judge he would put on for this vacancy or any future vacancy. judge gorsuch's decade of service on the tenth circuit has earned him a reputation as a brilliant, principled and mainstream judge, just exactly the sort of mainstream that senator schumer just must have been thinking about when he said he wants a mainstream judge. it's already been widely reported that he was unanimously confirmed by a voice vote to the tenth circuit in 2006. there are still 31 senators in this body who voted for the judge at that particular time. 11 of them are democrat

the two senators followed the n tradition by saying they would allow the senate to consider thd nomination and i'm confident that she will be confirmed.

the clerk: we the undersigned senators with the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring o a close the debate on the nomination of tom price to be secretary of health and human services. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of tom price of georgia to be secretary of health and human services shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51, the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank my colleagues in the senate serving in this body for 20 years has been one of the great honors of my life. i remember coming up when i was running for the senate and going to the republican luncheon and they said, well, you've got a few minutes, you can say something,

in my time in the senate. i won't go on and on, but senator schumer, senator schumer and i have been friends for a long time. i believe he's one of the great senators here. and i hope that we will be able to work together on a lot of things in the future. and i hope we can get out of this rut we're in right now, so that we can work together, so that we can feel good about being here and so that we can help this country. i want to thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for their kind remarks. i didn't expect those. and i was a little shocked that they would say these things this morning, but i'm very grateful to both of them, and i want to thank both of them for being my friends. i yield back to the minority leader. mr. schumer: i thank my friend from utah for his kind words and much more importantly his distinguished service to this country. now on to other subjects, mr. president. cy rise on a few topics. first, our president has shown a deeply troubling lack of regard or respect for an indepen

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: during the presidential campaign, president donald trump promised the american people he would authorize unwavering support of the united states constitution to the supreme court. he has now kept that promise, mr. president. i personally applaud the president for nominating judge neil gorsuch to serve on the united states supreme court. he's an outstanding choice. throughout his career, judge gorsuch has been a stalwart, standing strong in support of the united states constitution. he's repeatedly shown his commitment to our country's founding principles of economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual liberty. these principles have served to make our nation exceptional throughout our history. each branch of government has the shared charge of preserving and protecting those rights for all americans. judge gorsuch has led a remarkable career in both the public and private sectors and has demonstrated a keen understanding and appreciation of the

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i listened carefully to my colleagues on the other side, and i want to make sure people really understand what this debate is all about. this debate is about background checks. it's about mental health. it is not about taking away constitutional rights. and i'm struck, mr. president, and i hope the distinguished president of the senate has taken part in a lot of these debates as well, is whenever there is a discussion about guns in the united states senate, senators get up and says we shouldn't be debating guns. we ought to be debating mental health. that's what we're talking about here today. mental health and colleagues were talking about background checks. the fact of the matter is you can go into town hall meetings in any part of america and you will hear extraordinary support for the whole idea of background checks. background checks as i indicated is right at the heart of this morning's debate. supporting background checks is not some extreme, far out position to hold.

there nomination now goes to the senate for. for it. meanwhile choice for secretary of state rex tillerson also moves closer to confirmation after some democrats crossed party lines to approve him this week. there probably will not be the scene kind of bipartisan support for mr. president three trump's supreme court nominee, he will tell senate majority leader mitch mcconnell to "go nuclear," that is a reference to changing the rules on any filibuster attempt. we have fox team coverage on all of the action for capitol hill, we begin with kristin fisher life at the white house. >> about an hour ago, our john roberts asked president trump if senate majority leader mitch mcconnell cannot get the 60 votes needed to defeat a democratic filibuster of his supreme court nominee, would he encourage them to invoke the nuclear option, the controversial procedural tactic that would require only 51 votes. today, president trump said without hesitation that if he needs to go nuclear, do it. >> if we end up with that gridlock, i would say if you can, y

i call the senator order under the provision to rule 19. >> mr. president? >> senator from massachusetts? >> mr. president, i am surprised that the words of coretta scott king are not suitable for debate in the united states senate. i ask leave of the senate to continue my remarks. >> is there objection? >> object. >> i appeal the ruling -- >> objection is heard. the senator will take her seat. >> wow! >> i got to tell you, i'm with elizabeth. >> that is what you had. like that scene in "big" tom hanks is looking at that thing and he says, "i don't get it." ." how is she reading letters from two great people impugning? >> you got the wrong movie. clint eastwood, senator warren saying, "go ahead, make my day." >> out dumb to actually -- that's so stupid. >> look at this. >> on so many levels. >> the senate voted 49-43 along party lines that warren had violated the rule, that no senator in debate can impugn another senator. really? this was impugning? she is now barred from speaking on the floor until the senate wraps up debate over sessions' nomination. really

the time. i yelled back. >> u.s. senate today confirmed former wrestling executive with the mcmahon as part of the small-business demonstration. tomorrow. tomorrow, the senate will vote on a resolution to repeal an obama administration rolling on that background checks. the rule requires social security administration to notify the federal gun background system of people receiving disability benefits because they're mentally ill. tomorrow the senate begins consideration of the president's nominee to to serve as head of the white house budget office. the nominee is south carolina congressman nick mulvaney. when the senate is in session*morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern, life a.m. eastern, life coverage on c-span2. right now senate leaders briefed reporters earlier today area first will hear from republicans, then the democrats. >> good afternoon everyone. we are making our way through these cabinet appointments. our democratic friends are burning all the time they possibly can to keep the president from getting his outstanding c

i thank the senator from kansas. mr. president, i'm going to ask consent that my entire statement be placed in the record. and i'd like to summarize my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i see the senator from south dakota is waiting. so i'll summarize my remarks very quickly. during the president's break, i took a trip to three capitals, which i consider to be timely and important visits: war saw, poland, lithuania, and kiev, ukraine. i have a particular attachment to them. my mother was born in lithuania so returning there as i have for over 35 years, i have seen the sweep of history as this small baltic state has moved from a republic of the soviet union to a free and independent nation today. i'm so proud of the courage of the lithuanians that have them to this moment. going to warsaw, poland is a natural for a citizen of chicago. we have more polish americans in that city in our state. we're very proud of that polish heritage. they're wonderful people, hardworking, good polish amicans, aay

is if we all try to find ways to respect the traditions of the senate. one of the most important traditions is the filibuster. and by threatening budget and urging majority leader mcconnell to do away with the filibuster the senate rules will be taken care of by the senate not the president of the united states. we are separate branch of government and we need to behave like one. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

the senate needs to function. we need to have comity in this body if we are to work for the american people. this should not be about republicans and democrats. it's not about us. it's about the american people. and if we remember that point as we move forward, our nation will be able to heal where we hurt. we'll be able to disagree without being disagreeable. this should be the norm, not a unique experience in public discourse. before i decided to give this speech, i had the privilege last night around midnight of having to sit in that chair, mr. president, and preside. and my good friend, cory booker, was making an eloquent presentation about where we are on issues of race in this nation. he was talking about the south. he was talking about the pain and the suffering, the misery. and today as i want to share my thoughts on jeff sessions and how i've come to my conclusion, i thought it was important for me to not try to persuade people, but to simply inform, because this issue is not the issue simply about our nex

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: president pro tempore. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise to speak about two of president trump's nominees. i will first address the nominee gorsuch to the supreme court. then i will discuss the nomination of tom price to be secretary of health and human services, which is currently pending before the senate. last week president trump nominated u.s. circuit judge neil gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia. i want to address both the process and the substance of what lies ahead for the senate. the constitution gives to the president the power to nominate and subject to the senate's advice and consent the power to appoint judges, the first step in the senate exercising its power of advice and consent is to decide the best way to handle a nomination made by the president. the constitution does not mandate a one-size-fits-all process. in fact, the senate has handled the supreme court nominations in at least a dozen differ

the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: what is the status of the floor? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. heinrich: i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: mr. president, in 1986, coretta scott king wrote a letter to congress to block the nomination of jeff sessions for federal judge. the senate judiciary committee would ultimately reject that nomination. here we are three decades later, and senator sessions, who cannot erase his troubling record on civil rights, is again undergoing confirmation hearings as president trump's nominee for attorney general. i'd like to read an excerpt from mrs. king's letter and ask unanimous consent that the letter in its entirety be printed in the record following my remarks. mrs. wring wrote, and i quote -- "i write to express my sincere opposition to the confirmation of jefferson b. sessions as a federal district court judge for the southern district of alabama. my professional and personal roots in

that's how the senate works. we all know the role of senator and the role of attorney general are very, very different. a legislator debates policy and votes on legislation. the attorney general enforces the laws as enacted. all of us here in the senate understand that difference. senator sessions understands the difference better than most. in addition to serving as a senator for 20 years, he served in the department of justice for 15 years, a department dedicated to law enforcement and to the rule of law and following what congress directs law to be. i'm disappointed in my colleagues who have suggested senator sessions won't be able to put aside his policy differences that he established here in the united states and enforced the law even if he voted against that law. this is especially troubling after he specifically committed to us during this confirmation hearing that if he is confirmed, he will follow the law regardless of whether he supported that statute as a policy matter. the criteria for this nomination

back to the transcript, senator cruz, and the four cases senator franken referred to, he reported all four of them in your supplement to the judiciary committee, is th senator sessions, that is correct. senator cruz, mr. franken did not mention that. here is senator cruz chastising me for not mentioning that he simulated a supplement to this questionnaire. the supplement would somehow vindicate senator sessions, they don't. let's talk about the supplement. senator cruz is correct, senator sessions did submit a supplement and in that supplement, the nominee clarified that his role was to "provide support for" ." he said he cooperated with doj lawyers, not personally handled, if you ask me. i suspect that's why he felt the need to file the supplement. notice how senator cruz explained the supplement during the hearing. here's how you described your involvement to the committee. here's sender cruises quote from the supplement these of the four cases that senator sessions claimed to have personally handled, my role, like most u.s. attorneys in the nation and with noncriminal civil rights