their healthcare. >> i concur i think we are at a tipping point for a lot of different reasons we talked about today but more importantly the affordability issue, you have the state of montana saying we are going to pay a percentage of medicare, north carolina with 700,000 state employees saying that our state legislature is changing medicare like systems, the health systems are beginning to understand that the game is changing. they are starting to come forward and they realize they need to be at the table now, it's not going to be the way it has been. they are saying we would rather be part of the solution than being done to us and it's that quote we heard earlier, i think we are crossing that right now. we are going to change it as purchasers or it's going to be

done to us.>> thank you all, thank you very much. >> remind us what senate republicans are proposing to change and why did tuesday's vote fall short? >> it is important, this vote is to change the amount of time that can be demanded for debate, once a filibuster has been surmounted on eight presidential nominees confirmation. you might remember several years ago the overall threshold for overcoming a filibuster on nominees was lowered from 62, just a majority vote the democrats in 2013 what we call

the nuclear option, rules change procedure to lower that threshold from the 60 down to just a majority vote but even after that you still had to go through up to 30 hours of debate on each nominee, once a filibuster had been ended. republicans say democrats are unfairly using that repeatedly on president trumps nominees not just for debate purposes and so those rules change, it would lower that time for most nominees it would be two hours. supreme court nominees, circuit court nominees would still remain at up to 30 hours of debate but other nominees say it would be two hours of debate once a filibuster is ended. >> are all hooligans on board with this effort by the

majority leader?>> on the tuesday vote all republicans were on board, we don't yet know whether all republicans would be on board, we know there's at least enough republicans to do another nuclear option change which is what the republicans are now looking at. we don't know whether it's going to be all republicans but mitch mcconnell has told his members they have at least the votes necessary so at least 51 votes to succeed in the nuclear option change so this would be basically a shortcut to change the rules. it does not rewrite the rules, it changes the sentence interpretation of the written rules which for all purposes is basically the same thing but it's a way of doing that with a majority vote rather than the two thirds vote, it takes to do a full rule change or the 60 votes it takes to overcome a filibuster on a standing rules order which failed today. republicans weren't able to get that 60 votes on standing rules

change. after that procedural abode one of the things the majority leaders said to reporters was we will be dealing with that issue tomorrow and through the balance of the weekend working to get to a place where we can fix this problem. if you would think to go to the nuclear option why would he not just do it wednesday or thursday?>> that's entirely possible, the current business for the senate is a few different nominees as they set up filibuster votes for earlier this week. they arranged for those votes and they will come in sequence now for the rest of this week and they can make that rules change on any of those nominees and according to gop aides they basically need to decide whether they do wants to go ahead with this option. it's worth noting that when democrats did it in 2013 and

lower that overall filibuster threshold it was a real problem appear it caused a lot of bad luck, republicans forced democrats to go through procedures you normally don't bother with, lots of procedural steps on every single one of those boats from then on. it's possible you would see that same sort of obstruction and difficult times and lack of cooperation here in the senate so it's not pain-free and republicans need to decide whether they are willing to put up with that pain. it sounds like from what they have said and what you just quoted the rules committee chairman said they will deal with it this week, they will be doing some sort of change, they make the argument that they would be comfortable with this change if there was a democratic president so they are willing to put up with the pain they might go through.>>

let me ask you about senate democrats and the peas posted, the headlines says democrats shoot down rules change by nuclear options, that's similar to a change democrats orchestrated in 2013 for president obama is nominees but with mr. trump in office democrats no longer are eager to give up their chance to correct roadblocks. why do they say they want these roadblocks?>> they say that the president nominees are simply not good nominees, a number of them not only they disagreed with over policy options but they have also found problems with corruption and competence that they think that requires the extra debate time. we point to a couple instances were during that extra 30 hours of debate time after a filibuster has been surmounted

republicans took a second look and said maybe we can support this on the final confirmation vote and there are a couple different examples from the judiciary where that exact situation has happened last year so democrats say that 30 hours is important for keeping bad nominees off of the bench and they have several examples were that 30 hours did exactly that.>> so by the end of the week the rules will be changed.>> that is certainly the sense he gave us today as it was voting to defeat the change today. he said we are going to get this done republicans believe that they would be okay with this change if it happened for democratic presidents so let's go through it with the republican president that's only fair.

>> here's what's ahead on cspan3. first the trump administrations view on foreign policy issues. then a house hearing on a drought contingency plan for the colorado river. later a discussion of property rights, public land and eminent domain procedures. and at&t ceo randall stephenson reviews a range of industry issues including attempts to block the at&t time warner merger and the future of 5d technology. speak>> coming up wednesday morning, washington state democratic congresswoman kim schreier discusses the trump administrations vote to invalidate the informal care act. also arizona republican congresswoman debbie talks about the trump administration order and immigration policy

and the former u.s. ambassador on the 70th anniversary of nato. watch the washington journal wednesday morning, join the discussion. >> on thursday health and human services secretary alex testifies about his departments 2020 budget, he is expected to be asked about the trump administrations efforts to invalidate the importable affordable care act. live on cspan3. a reminder you can follow our coverage online or with the free cspan radio app .>> here's a conversation on the trump adminiti