consent: i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday at 2:15 the senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the following nominations. number 104, that's pearce to be a member of the nlrp. number 102, johnson to be a member of the nlrb, and number 103, mr. borrow to be a member of the nlrb. i might just say if those nominees were confirmed coupled with the two nominees illegally appointed, whose illegal appointments turn -- continue til the end of the year, the nlrb would have a full complement of five members and able to conduct its business. i further ask consent that following those votes the senate proceed as a cloture motion

filed on perez to be secretary of labor and further, if cloture is invoked, the senate immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. i would add parenthetically that would eliminate the post 30 hours assuming cloture were invoked on the very controversial nominee, perez, to be secretary of labor. further, the senate vote on the cloture motion filed on calendar number 98, mccarthy, to be epa director. and if cloture's invoked, the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination. also eliminating the 30 hours postcloture if cloture is invoked on mccarthy. and i might add that the ranking member, the environment committee supports cloture on the mccarthy nomination, thereby it's reasonable to assume that cloture would be unvocked. invoked on what is for a lot of

our members, including myself, a very controversial nomination. i further ask that the consent that the senate then vote on the cloture motion filed on number 178, this is someone named hockberg, to be president of the export-import bank and, again, if cloture's invoked, the senate proceed to an immediate vote on the confirmation of that nomination. again, eliminating the 30 hours postcloture. assuming cloture's invoked, and i assume that it will be. finally, i ask consent that the following votes listed above the senate proceed to cloture votes on the remaining three filed cloture motions. now, before the chair rules, what this allows as i indicated is for the senate to work efficiently through a series of nominations in a quicker fashion. then the majority leader has -- than the majority leader has proposed. they would get their votes, and this would not be a delay.

this would only leave discussion and votes on the three remaining illegally -- according to the federal courts -- the three remaining illegally-appointed nominations. now, mr. pesident, that's my consent. >> [inaudible] >> reserving the right to object. >> [inaudible] >> mr. president, no matter how often my friend rudely talks about me breaking my word, i'm not going to respond talking about how many times he's broken his word. that doesn't add anything to the debate we're having here, so he can keep saying that as much as he wants. all we have to do is look back to the record. as for the caucus monday night, my members will be here. i don't understand unless this is part of the overall pattern that we've come to expect today to not do anything today we can do tomorrow. mr. president, we're going to have a vote at 5:30.

members are usually pretty good at getting here for votes at 5:30. and i also, mr. president, am stunned by mostly about the ranking member on the -- [inaudible] committee suddenly seeing the light, and he's going to allow gina mccarthy to get a vote. now, isn't that wonderful? now, isn't that something to cheer about? he's held this woman up, he is the one that's responsible for 1100 questions to her. that's what's wrong here, mr. president. now, this is so transparent, what my friend has asked. he has said he wants to approve two republican members to the nlrb. let's have those votes first and only one democratic nominee. what does this mean? it means within a couple months the republicans have a majority of the nlrb.

i don't blame him for wanting that. they don't like the organization anyway, just like they didn't like -- [inaudible] organization. so i can understand that the republicans would like to get consent to create a republican majority in the nlrb. but it's so obvious, i object. >> objection is heard. >> so, mr. president, we are going to have a caucus monday at 6:00 in the old senate chamber. we're going to have a vote at 5:30. and i would hope for something this important we'll have attendance. i know my caucus will be there. and if nothing is resolved there which the way things have been going today likely it won't be, so we'll have a vote sometime early tuesday morning on these nominees. >> mr. president, the majority leader always reminds me he can get, he can have the last word, and i'm sure he can have the last word again.

speaking for senator vitter, he did ask for a lot of information from the new prospective director of the epa. so did senate boxer. she asked for 70,000 pages herself. but he was satisfied with the responses he got. this is how the process ought to work. this is how it's worked for decades. we're trying to get answers to questions, you're trying to engage in some kind of prediction as to how somebody might operate in the future. what the majority leader's really been saying here all along is he wants the confirmation process to be speedy and for the minor to sit down and shut up. he believes that advise and consent means sit down and shut up. confirm these nominees. when i tell you to. now, the reason he's having,

taking a lot of heat over this is because he's broken his word to the united states senate. last january we had resolved the rules issue for this congress. and i know for a fact even though he may get his 51 votes, there are a lot of democrats that are not happy with where you are. when they tell me that, the republican i suspect they'd be least likely to want to tell that to, i know what's going on here. they've been hammered into line. this has been personalized by the majority leader. you've got to do this for me. and what's astonishing here is he's saying you've got to do this for me, because you've got to help me break my word, go back on everything i said in my own biography just a few years ago. you've got to help me look bad.

you have got to help me break my word, violate what i said in my own biography, create unnecessary controversy in the united states senate -- which has done major bills on a bipartisan basis all year long and had begun to get back to normal. this is really hard to understand. and this is why my members are astonished. at where we are. they're scratching their heads. saying who manufactured this crisis? >> -- we know who manufactured it. the guy right over here to my left. so this is really a sad, sad day for the united states senate, and if we don't pull back from the brink here, my friend, the majority leader's, going to be remembered as the worst leader of the senate ever. the leader of the senate who fundamentally changed the body. it makes me sad.

all my members are angry. i'm more sad about it. but it's a shame that we've come to this. i sure hope all the democratic senators are there monday night. i'm certainly going to encourage my members to be there. it's high time we sat down and tried to understand each other, because many members on the other side are hearing a different version from the facts that are largely unrelated to reality. so, mr. president, i know my friend, the majority leader, will have the last word. he reminds me that frequently, the difference between being the majority leader and the minority leader is he gets the last word. so i'll yield the floor and listen to the last word. >> mr. president? >> the majority leader. >> no matter how many times he says it, he tends to not focus on what he has done to the senate. as i indicated earlier, there's lots of time for name calling.

we know it's replete in the record as delivered this morning how he said there would be no fill hi busters -- filibusters, we'd follow norms of the senate, only extraordinary circumstances. extraordinary circumstances have come because we're in session, i guess. the only person that i know that things things -- that thinks things are going just fine here is my friend. the american people know this institution is being hammered hard, and he doesn't have to worry about me, heat i've taken. i haven't taken any heat. i had a very nice caucus today. my caucus was very thoughtful. we heard from out of my 54 senators, we probably heard from 25 or 26 of them. attendance was nearly perfect. so, mr. president, i don't want him to feel sorry for the senate, certain he not --

certainly not for me. and i'm going to continue to try to speak in a tone it is a appropriate. his name calling, i guess he follows -- i hope not -- the demagogue theory that the more you say something that's false, people start believing it. but, mr. president, it's quite interesting that he thinks that richard cordray who no one, no one says there's a thing wrong with this man, former attorney general of the state, heavily-populated state of ohio. democrats and republicans have said he's a good guy. this man's been waiting for 724 days. assistant secretary in defense, 292 days. monetary fund governor, 169 days. epa, 18 days. nlrb, two of them, 573 days.

average time waiting is nine months. so, mr. president, and, of course, reshuffling the votes as he wants them, i mean, that's a laugher. he wants to have a majority of this nlrb to be republicans? i don't think that's really a good idea. so, mr. president, we're going to have our caucus monday. i think it was a good idea. you know, i've tried to have them before. my friend has objected to them. that's replete in the press. but we're going to have the this one. i'm happy to do that. my friend said the process works. [laughter] the process works? the status quo is good? i don't think so. >> mr. president. >> the republican leader. >> of course, the majority of the nlrb would not be republican, and i've mentioned to the administration on several occasions send us up two nominees who are not illegally appointed, but we can't seem to

get that done. i mean, the taint attached to the two nlrb nominees and to mr. cordray who i agree is a good man and many of our members support, is they were illegally appointed. but, of course, the agencies have not been at a disadvantage. they are there waiting. he may have been waiting to be confirmed, but he's not waiting to do the job. he's in office. the two nlrb members, in office. the question is, do we respect the law? a federal court has said the two nlrb members were illegally appointed. mr. cordray, unfortunately, was appointed on exactly the same day in exactly the same way. is the senate just completely lawless? do we not care what the federal courts say? i, i'm just stunned at --

[laughter] where we are. it's pretty clear to me that all the other nominees are highly likely to be confirmed. so what it really comes down to is that the majority leader is going to break the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate in order to confirm with 51 votes three illegally-appointed positions. that the federal courts have told us are unconstitutionally appointed. that is the rationale for the nuclear option? that's why i say it's a sad day for the senate, a sad day for america. >> mr. president? >> the majority leader. >> illegally appointed. why did president obama recess appoint cordray and the two nlrb

members? because republicans had blocked them. blocked them, blocked them, blocked them. now, we count -- [inaudible] as 574 days. elizabeth warren is the one who set up this program. they said no chance even think of bringing her here. and that's where we came with -- [inaudible] elizabeth -- [inaudible] so these big crocodile tears, you know, you have recess appointments because the president had no choice if he wanted his team to work, and he said, oh, we would be happy to process them quickly. just like richard perez has been processed quickly, just like all these people have been processed quickly. sorry. mr. president, sorry. so there's not a chance that we're going to let the nlrb be dominated by republicans. that one organization above all looks out for working men and

women in this country, should not be with dominated by republicans, and it's not going to be. so i repeat, this issue could be resolved very quickly. i have somebody out here at my statehouse, what happens if you had cloture on everybody? there's no problem. they can all vote against them, every one of them, but they on procedural, on procedural basis they're holding up votes on people who are well qualified and who would be approved by the senate if they got a vote. so this is a little strange deal. crocodile -- [inaudible] if they're so worried about the rules changes around here, it would seem to me they should have put forth three qualified people. no one, no one suggests there's anything wrong with any of them. and why would we recess appoint? because the republicans forced president obama to do that. there'll be no further votes,

next vote will be monday at 5:30. >> mr. president? >> the republican leader. >> no need to delay, i'm trying to avoid bursting into rafter here. the two -- laughter here. the two nlrb nominees were sent up to the senate december 15th, 2011. before their paperwork got here two weeks later. delay? their paperwork with hadn't even arrived, hadn't even arrived. the committee couldn't do anything with them. and a couple of weeks later they were recess appointed. now, that's not my definition of delay. by any objective standards. the issue here no matter how much the majority leader tries to obfuscate and --

[inaudible] unconstitutionally appointed according to the federal circuit court in washington d.c. for that the majority leader proposes to use the nuclear option? it's a sad, sad commentary on today's senate. >> sad -- >> the majority leader. >> sad day in the senate created by the republicans, mr. president. this rule change he keeps talking about the rule change, mr. president, presiding officer knows the constitution is pretty clear, it's clear there's one paragraph that says treaties take two-thirds vote. in that same paragraph, how many votes does it take to confirm a nomination? simple majority. that's in the constitution. since 1977 the rules have been changed in this body 700 times.

not by the rules committee, but right here in the senate. so >> you imagine, mr. president, the american people are looking at this and saying the republican leader thinks the senate's going just fine? status quo is good? look at any poll. gallup poll did one. 86% of the american people don't think things are better because of gridlock, not doing important things. sure, we're getting a few things done, but i have been here a while, and we've done some good things this year, but we should be doing lots of good things, not focus on immigration and a form bill that's passed twice, on a postal bill that we passed once, we haven't passed again. we talk a lot about how glad we got that done, okay?

and i'm not going to depp grate my friend -- den denigrate, my friend, the chairman of that committee, but, mr. president, that bill is a mere shadow of its former self. because of what the republicans have done to make a mockery of what dose on here. -- goes on here. all we want is for the president of the united states, whoever that might be, democrat or republican, to be able to have the team he wanted as contemplated in that dc unit called -- document called the constitution of the united states. that's not asking too much. >> host: the exchange last thursday between the senate leaders, essentially framing the debate as we look at a live view from the u.s. capitol as the democrats and republicans argue their points of view on the senate filibuster rule. as we approach the two hour plus mark in this closed-door meeting, we'll take you near where the senators are meeting, an area known as the ohio clock. the podium is in place if and when senators come to the podium, but joining us live is ed o'keefe of "the washington

post" who has been standing by watching this unfold. at this hour, ed o'keefe, what are you hearing, what are you seeing? >> we are led to believe we might be on the eventual of this meeting wrapping up, but we'll wait and see. the folks you see milling about are primarily reporters waiting for word of what went down during the meeting. as you said, it began -- we say it began around 6:10, i think you guys said slightly differently. either way, senators filed in two by two, a little while -- little after the 6 p.m. hour eastern time and began their proceedings behind closed doors. they're in the old senate chamber which hasn't been used full time since 1869. and, you know, we're led to believe by some that the longer it goes, the better the prospects of avoiding a showdown. the shorter it goes perhaps the less likely that they reach an agreement, and harry reid moves forward tomorrow with his plans to revoke the filibuster when it comes to nominations for executive branch appointments.

>> host: have any of the senators left the meeting, or have they all stayed inside? >> guest: as we understand it, of the 98 -- and we believe 98 of the 100 are there -- have pretty much stayed in the room. there was some reports that one senator may have slipped out briefly for whatever reason but went right back in, and otherwise they're all there. our understanding from some people who are familiar with how things went down is the more senior senators spoke first laying out their reasons for or against doing this many of the senior senators of both parties have been cautioning their younger colleagues that to do something would perhaps, you know, come back to haunt them later if their parties ever switched either from majority to minority or vice versa. but, you know, we'll wait and see. really our only sources for this are going to be the senators who are in the room because as we understand it, only two staffers were allowed to be in there, and they're just the party secretaries. the secretaries who help,

basically, run the senate. and that's what we believe they're doing tonight inside this meeting. >> host: we just spent the last 20 minutes replaying what happened last thursday, ed o'keefe, on the floor of the senate, senator reid and senator mcconnell going back and forth on the filibuster rule, and this morning your colleague had a headline, the once-genteel senate looking more like a fight club. my question to you is the relationship between reid and mcconnell, how would you describe it? >> basically devolved to small talk over the fate of the washington nationals and not much else to it at this point. these gentlemen who stood, you know, just a few lengths apart from each other on the senate floor most mornings in recent months sparring over the potential future of the party, and i see senator rand paul left the meeting, and he declined to talk to reporters. >> host: we saw that as well. >> guest: just hang with me. we see senator bob menendez also

leaving the meeting. checking with him to see if he says anything, steve. you can either hang with me or perhaps we speak later. >> host: we'll stay with you for a moment if you're able to talk to one of the senators. >> guest: okay. hold on. >> host: again, you're looking at live pictures from the ohio clock area. according to ed o'keefe of "the washington post," the meeting -- which ran just over two hours -- appears to be concluding, at least senator rand paul you saw just a moment ago leaving. what else are you seeing, ed o'keefe? >> guest: we chased senator menendez to an elevator, he didn't have much to say. so we're -- this is what we do. we start to chase lawmakers to see if they're going to tell us anything. he was not willing to say much, so we go back in pursuit of others. but at least two have left, that suggests that we're nearing the end of this meeting and at least at a point where they feel they can step out and maybe is are being dotted, ts being

crossed. >> host: ed o'keefe, we'll let you do your other job, but we appreciate your time and perspective. >> guest: steve, thanks. yeah, no problem. >> host: of course, you can read his work online at washingtonpost.com. we'll continue to monitor the situation. if any of the senators come to the podium, we will take you there live n. the meantime, we'll use this opportunity to get your calls and comments. you can also join us on our twitter page. the hashtag, by the way, is c-spanchat, and bonnie has the point. she writes: if you want to filibuster, have the courage to stand up and talk like senator sanders and rand paul and even wendy davis. this is getting ridiculous. c-spanchat is the hashtag. live pictures inside the u.s. senate at the ohio clock area, and as senators come, if they come to that microphone, we're going to cut you off. in the meantime, let's hear from some of you. charles in west virginia, democrats' line. go ahead, please. >> caller: yeah. i'm an individual, well, along with 80 some others out of southern individuals that's been

involved with the labor board case going on nine years now. we're kind of thinking it's about sometime somebody done something. like i say, the last several years the case has been tied up because of the senate's failure to get people in place on the labor board. several things there that disturbs us, me in particular is why don't the senators work under the same work rules as everybody else in the country? in other words, if you show up for work and don't do your job or if you show up for work and stand in the way of everybody else from doing their job, then you get escorted off the property. i'd like to see somebody step up and get the congress to working. >> host: okay, charles, thanks for calling. bill king on our twitter page: up or down vote 30 days after a nomination made with 51 votes

needed to confirm so difficult? question mark. next is bob joins us from mount washington, kentucky. good evening to you, bob. >> caller: yes, sir. i want you to know that i called harry reid, chuck schumer and dick durbin, and i asked them the following question, i asked them if they believed in the rule of law. and the next thing i asked them is if they believed in the constitution of the united states and also the bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution. and the thing that disturbs me more than anything else is the fact that the appellate court in the district of columbia ruled that president obama illegally and unconstitutionally made recess appointments to three members of the national labor relations board, mr. cordray to the financial protection bureau under the, under the dodd-frank act. the thing is, if mr. reid -- who i asked personally, i asked one

of his aides if he believed in the constitution -- if he does believe in the constitution, then the senate's responsibility is add view and consent -- advise and consent on all nominees. the thing is, that involves having to reach the point where they decide that they are going to close down any further discussion about the nominees, and they're going to vote cloture. >> host: okay, bob, thanks for the call from kentucky. again, you're seeing some movement in the area known as the ohio clock. we know from our brief conversation with ed o'keefe at least two senators have departed the peating, menendez and rand paul, republican freshman of kentucky. not sure if others have left as well. but the reporters are standing by. the senate is in recess for the night, so they won't be back until tomorrow morning, but the podium is there if senate leaders decide to speak to reporters to explain exactly what happened in this two-hour-plus meeting in the old senate chamber with. you can share your thoughts on our twitter page, the hashtag is

c-spanchat, and we'll get a call from huntington beach, california. independent line, 'emly is on the line. -- emery is on the line. >> caller: yes. my name is emery hanson, and i just wanted to say that i am a big fan of the united states senate. >> host: uh-huh. >> caller: i watch them weekly and sometimes daily. my goal in life is to become a senator and to break the record strom thurmond held in 1957 of the longest filibuster, 24 hours, 18 minutes. >> host: right. >> caller: and i would be very disappointed if i was unable to meet my goal, and i also think, you know, even if i never became a senator, these people have basically cut off the rights of the minority. it's the tyranny of the majority. and i think i've recently heard

a speech by harry reid on your network, and i heard him compare himself to lyndon johnson. ..