been filibustered. there have been a few attempts are efforts added to delay votes and that kind of thing. people were held up. but systematic filibusters were not at all part of the tradition of the senate. . .

>> leader frist threaten to this kind of event. at the end, who has prevailed combine the compromise was reached. the agreement was we would not filibuster federal judges unless federal -- extraordinary circumstances existed. that is the way that was settled. with regard to the nominations now, news of extraordinary circumstances.

we should not go quietly when the president makes a recess appointment. we object to these people being confined after the court held it -- it was illegal. they should not have done that. it was never close to being a legitimate recess appointment. i am worried about this. we have come to get the to work this out. with regard to the traditional that center mcconnell talked

about, you do not move a nomination until questions are answer relative to the appointment. nominations just do not go smoothly and get voted the next week. there are a lot of bases with that. the question was, this was raised at the beginning of the year. these issues were discussed hands and an agreement was reached. as part of the agreement, senator reid said he would not use the nuclear option if the republicans agree to certain things others ran on the agreement and an agreement was reached now they say the agreement does not work. it was agreed to. senator reid is now changing

that agreement, changing the commitment he made in the exchange for getting concessions from this side. this was an negotiated agreement of great intensity. senator merkley was involved in the discussion of it. an agreement was reached. the essence of it was concessions were made by the republicans and the democratic leader accepted those concessions and said he would not use the nuclear option. now he is threatening to use the nuclear option. let's get this nomination. this is a man to be director of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms,

a highly important agency i was a united states attorney for 12 years you have to deal with the fbi on a regular basis. there are good relationships and you try not to be critical of one another. this is what the former special agent in charge of the fbi wrote about mr. jones. as a retired fbi senior executive, i am one of the few voices able to publicly express our complete discontent with mr. jones. mr. jones' ineffective leadership without fear of

retaliation and reputation from him. he is no longer in office. he does not have any fear. as telling the truth. he goes on to say that he felt morally compelled to make the committee, that is the u.s. senate judiciary committee aware of mr. jones' atrocious professional reputation in the minnesota twins cities area. this is the guy they want to promote to hand alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. and effective leadership, his lack of concern about matters and issues brought to his attention by each of us. each of us means the other federal agencies like the drug enforcement administration or the irs.

our common dissatisfaction with his poor leadership, bathetic interaction, and insufficient prosecution support was the theme of many discussions to remind -- bathetic interaction and insufficient prosecution support was the theme of many discussions during my tenure. he spoke to was with this respect. he goes on to note that after he became a united states attorney in minnesota they prosecuted significantly less cases of every type. 40% fewer defendants were charged in 2012 than the previous year. he would not prosecute the cases. a federal investigator agency was up in arms about it. this retired s.a.c. tells the truth. president obama is determined to

make him the head of the atf, involving leadership of fire arms and weapons charges all over america. we have already had the fast and furious scandal. shouldn't the senate ask questions about this? should we rubberstamp of this? they are rushing it through committee, trying to do it right now. move him on, get him confirmed. anybody who stands in the way, tough luck. he gets to decide who gets confirmed. he gets to decide what the rules are in the united states senate. in the last part of president bush's term, they blocked the ambassador to the united nations. he was about one full filibuster. by the democratic members of

the senate. with i am saying is, the rules were not changed and then. the rules are not to be changed now. we have a conference coming up. let's see if we cannot work through it. let's see if we cannot work in a way that restores the senate. the senate is supposed to provide a cooling opportunity to slow down rush to judgment. should the senate be compelled to confirm three members to lower official appointments in the federal government who were illegally appointed and continue to serve after they were so found jumble i do not think so. i do not think that dispute is such that would leave the majority leader to print or rules of the senate to override the rules of the senate through

a procedure not proper and dangerous to get his way on this matter there are other things that could go wrong if this goes forward. my impression from talking to my colleagues is the there are deep feelings about it. people have had about enough of this. there are all kinds of abuses here about how we conduct our business. we are not going to keep accepting that. when you except that, the loyal opposition is eroded over a period of time. this ability to exercise a little power that it has -- the senate this weekend. the senator's role as the body that slows down problems, that stands up to atf nominations, that stands up to a little

appointments is eroded and we do not need to do that. i know there is on the feeling here to my colleague senator hatch. he has been through these for a long time and has been seen these disputes. i have seen a few in my 16 years. i have not been here as long as senator hatch. what i would just say it is, this situation does not justify the nuclear option. it is a dangerous game and it can be addictive. every time he is confronted with someone legitimately using the rules of the senate to raise questions about the agenda, they are overruled and the rule is changed so that the majority leader can advance his agenda.

that is what the issue is about. i asked my democratic colleagues, let's slow down. maybe this conference monday will help us reach an accord and avoid a dangerous history of the united states senate. >> will my colleague yield for a question? >> i will yield. >> thank you very much. i have in front of me the list of times the application of the rule was changed from the president -- precedent. it was done 10 times since 1985. i pointed out earlier -- as when not sure if he were on the floor the with-several of these times this was done on the republican leadership. seven times republicans came to the floor and said, we will

change the occasion of a rule under redirection of the precedent, overruling the precedent. from the way you were speaking, it sounded like this conversation was a procedure that had never been done, but had been done several times since 1985 by my republican colleagues. >> i said it is a dangerous trend and it can be addictive. it can undermine the nature of the united states senate. i did not say it had never happened. to my knowledge, i would like the senator to list for me the number of times since 1985 the majority leader has done before the parliamentarian and the presiding officer and actually altered the rules by his eighth vote of the senate over ruling

the chair -- by a vote of the senate over the chair. >> multiple revisions have been ruled to violate the conference committee authority. the changing of the precedent was reversed. this happens again in september. >> was there an vote on that? i am just curious. i know it had been done before. i recall the one over the federal judges and at the end, cooler heads prevailed in a compromise was reached and a significant rule of the senate was not altered. some of these could be technical rulings of the chair that are not that significant. i am interested in seeing what others you might mention. if there was an actual vote of

the body of the senate. >> i can assure my colleague that each and every one of these involved an actual vote and everyone of these 10 occasions did reverse its huge precedent. >> will the senator offer that for the wreckage -- for the record? >> without objection, that will be added to the record. >> i appreciate the senator sharing that. we will study those. it is absolutely a practice that can occur, but it is a dangerous practice. the senate is a place of a certain amount of collegiality and in certain amount of judgment and understanding and

respect for the body. sometimes you can carry out a procedure that may be dubious, but well within the realm of acceptable procedures. sometimes you can feel and understand that that is a dangerous alteration of the precedents of the senate. >> we will hear more of the filibuster rules from the heritage foundation this morning. the parliamentarian and senator rand paul will talk about the use of a simple majority in the senate at 12:30 p.m. eastern and c-span. next week, harry reid will talk more about possible changes to a senate filibuster rule. whites live coverage on monday at 10:30 a.m. eastern at the center -- watch live coverage on monday at 2:30 a.m. eastern.

senator reid said the actions -- step the senate will hold a recess appointments on a number of president obama's nominees next week. we will hear from senator reid on a possible filibuster changes. they spoke to reporters for 20 minutes. >> ok. we had a good caucus. a couple of people do not like changing the rules. we have the votes to move forward on this. our position is very clear. we want to break gridlock and make washington work for merrick, especially the middle class.

we want to get things done and respond to the challenges faced by america, and the middle class. the first step is to stop blocking the president's nominees. all you had to do was be on the floor today and see the case for us. those nominees took months, and months through tactics before we had a vote on somebody they agreed with. three of the people that are my favorites on cloture on this, they do not like that law. they are not going to let him have his job. they say they will work out a

compromise. what we will do is rely just lay that issue. but we will do is set up so we can be a funding agency. these people are tainted. there is not a single word in any record of any place that opposes any of the three nominees. not a single word. my friend senator mcconnell says this is all big labor? six percent of the private sector is represented by organized labor. you think that organized labor should care a little bit about having a secretary of labor, having someone who works at the casa politan -- causal politan hotel in las vegas, you think those janitors should have someone to represent them when they fire them, or there is a labor dispute?

we are not interested in cutting a deal. the president deserves to have his team in place. there are no more objections to any of these nominees. all we need is six in the vote cloture. let them vote against these people. why should they hold them up procedurally? this is about having a presence. having a team in place. in 3.5 years, it may be president clinton, president biden, resident bush. should they be will to have the team they want? that is all this is about.

this is about making washington work even without the -- you can search, but walked on that tall. mitch mcconnell think the status quo is terrific. it concentrates and in this chamber has gone on long enough. the question has been asked, let's get together for a joint caucus. fine. i have no problem with that. we tried that. i'm happy to do that. we are having a joint caucus with senator mccain talked about his experiences in vietnam. i am happy to do the joint caucus. the republicans in the senate have refused to acknowledge the obvious. twice, the american people have elected barack obama president.

it is been their decision to let him lead america. he has asked for the team to lead this country breather and denial of his victory and his mandate. time and again, they tell him on the most critically important agencies they point to stop him from leading this nation by stopping him from having the people he needs on his team in place. richard cordray has been waiting for two years. for public us to get them this opportunity. while the not do it? is there an allegation of incompetence, or corruption? not at all. they do not like the agency. the consumer financial reduction agency.

they refused to give them a chance to serve. that is their policy. they would rather see it disappear. the president was forced to reassess an appointment. have a race and the questions about competency or corruption within? not a wine. there are no questions about her competency. they are trying to stop the president from leading the nation. the gridlock asked to to an end. -- the gridlock has to come to an end. the norm says filibusters, 30 votes on the floor, people looking very closely at their television screens on c-span to see if there's any evidence of life life on the floor the united states senate.

that is the norm in this institution. it is unacceptable. the american people expect us to step up and solve problems. they expect us to do without gridlock. this is the only we can move this forward. the numbers speak for themselves. since 1949-2008, there were 20 filibusters of executive appointments. 59 years, 20 filibusters. under president obama, in the last five years, there've been 16. it has become the norm. filibustering. as senator reed has said, the end of the day, they end up giving them overwhelming votes. delay it, wait, stop. the american people do not want to stall. he won us to act. one is to solve the problems of

the country on a bipartisan basis. we have got to break this jam. >> i want to thank my colleagues. the majority leader has just announced he's moving forward with a group of nominees to give the president bikini deserves to five for the middle class. just about everyone in america believe that once you elect a president, he deserves his choices to run the executive branch. a new tactic has been introduced to try to paralyze the executive branch with a paralyzed the legislative branches is pretty denial of the government to function. they have chosen to agencies they particularly dislike. those are the the nub of the problem.

the nominees are more than qualified. actually, there was bipartisan agreement on that point. you would have to be hard- pressed to find a republican to call these nominees unqualified. why not let them through? they are blocking these nominees because our colleagues want to paralyze these agencies. they just do not want them to function no matter who runs them. they hate these agencies more than they hate others. they do not like the agencies. they do not like with the agencies do. they block the nominees who will lead them. they say these people were illegally appointed reply to the president have to do recess appointments? if they went out loud a vote,

we would not have recess appointment. as soon as the president submitted nominees in 2011, republicans responded they block every single nominee to that board no matter who it was. the board didn't have a quorum. he could not function. it is sort of like, alice in wonderland. they say they're going to block the nominees. and they say they were illegally appointed. we cannot let these nominees go for. the president was forced to reset the points of sharon block because they so strongly object to the republicans existence. we know the story on the cftb. they refer to it, they wouldn't have the agency at all. they have refused to allow a

vote on richard cordray, and let us know that they would not have allowed a vote on elizabeth lauren -- warren. because they want the consumer financial protection board to disappear. they're willing to allow a vote now only after they've taken all the teeth out of his agency. that is like saying to a baseball player we will let you step up to the plate, but you cannot have a bat. don't hit the ball. republicans do not have a single ax to grind with these nominees. it is similar with the atf agencies. their tactic is simply to not allow the agency to have a leader. a because they do not like the leader. because they do not want the agency to exist. it exists in law, and this is the tactic they have used.

they do not have a single ax to grind with our nominees. they will not let them through because they object to the existence of the agencies and the board they lead, even though they have been created by law. when it comes to criticizing the personal traits and qualifications of individuals the president has put forward, all you hear is crickets. it is galling. these positions are going unfilled because simply they do not like the agency, and do not want it function. that is not right. that is not fair. we have obligation to stop it or it will only get worse. >> i think it is amazing that republicans who love to go on and on about streamlining government and about red tape are behind this unprecedented failure in making congress were for the people that elect them.

it is a complete failure. just listen to the numbers that senator durbin just talked about. with a nominees waiting on average for over two years -- 250 days. we have hundred 84 nominees that are pending have questionnaires. talk about government inefficiency. absolutely no business would tolerate this. republicans ought to know that. neither should we. the president deserves to have a qualified team. he needs his whole team, not half of it. that is not how this works. elections have consequences. presidents, republican or democrat, deserve to put in place a full team to work for the american people.

we need to in this gridlock and become more responsive to the major problems that we face. at the end of the day, this isn't about and inside baseball argument that only affects the people in this town. this is about serving the american people. we are not doing that when we allow the republicans free range to block people whose job it is to protect our shrinking middle class and hazardous workplace conditions or unfair wages, or disappearing benefits, or his job it is to protect americans that are struggling financially from falling victim to unfair mortgage schemes, or deceptive lending practices, or to ask the person who is charged with protecting our air and our water and our environment to sit on the sidelines even the she has the qualifications and experience to begin serving today. this is out of hand.

our patience has run thin. we're going to fight to ensure the american people have a government. >> what would happen if republicans agreed to approve these nominees? >> hallelujah. >> what is the next up? wax i'm going to go to the floor and tuesday and do what i need to do so this is not happen anymore. [inaudible] the issue is this. if you go back and look at the

statements made by my republican colleagues, he was in favor. we were able to get over that. we worked our way through that. there were people who are reasonable who for. we do not have that same reasonable ideology among republicans. you would think they could come up with people to invoke cloture on this. they do not exist anymore. this is -- as we have learned, the republican leader was hosting out there about getting things done that we used to automatically. for two successive congresses, i have told that to my caucus. the vast majority of my democratic caucus wanted to move forward and change the rules. he said it would call it the norms of the senate. the places that weren't.

when it is too bad, and the american people know this dysfunction we have here, all we are asking is to what the president have his team prepare not talking about changing the filibuster rules that relates to nominees. we are saying we shouldn't be held up. we have 15 nominees who've been held up for an average of nine months. as is placed it be changed? yes. [inaudible] >> you mentioned judges. why won't we be back in just a couple of weeks? >> this is focused concisely. judges will do our best to get those done.

we need the d c circuit very much. this is not about judges. it is about presidential executive nominations. >> [inaudible] they have artie told us they're going to block the next three judges on the circuit. >> [inaudible] >> no, i do not think it would be appropriate. we have the past 36 years, we have changed the rules 18 times. >> you are invoking the nuclear option question mark >> no.

we have to see what the weekend brings. the reality is that they are not willing to be reasonable. thank you everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> now get reaction from senate republicans on possible changes to the senator's to filibuster rules. this briefing is 20 minutes.

>> as you can see, this is a real mess. it is not a good mess. the back of the matter is, the senate has been the most deliberative body in the world because we protect the rights of the minority. it was just a few years ago the majority leader was argued for those rights himself, saying the senate would be destroyed if we went to a nuclear option, which nobody did. it has never been done before. frankly, it should be done now. the fact the matter is, they are playing parliamentary tricks with regard to this. they are doing to the detriment of the united states senate, to the detriment of the minority. i have been in the majority and

the minority and number of times. i have to tell you, i will fight for the rights of the minority. that is one way that united states senate is the most important legislative body in the world. right now, if we go the route that the majority leader and the democrats are going, it is going to be a very destructive thing. they will say they are eliminating -- once used on -- want to start on that road, it is a pandora's box buried there is no end to what one side or the other can do. the have to be very careful because a lot of the things they hold dear could go by the wayside if the majority was to change. the protection of the rights of the minority, that is one of the ways that has the senate has become the greatest ~ body in the world. the big of a bill and file

cloture immediately, even though they know that nobody is filibustering. they accuse is a filibustering breed all of them go through it without any filibuster or real problems. in the process, they count what are filibuster's filibusters. they only count if you fail to vote for cloture. effect of the matter is, this is a very perilous time for the united states senate and for our country. the make the senate like the house representatives, when any majority can just do whatever they want to, with a double aeration -- without the double aeration -- without the deliberation, all can say is it will be to the determination to

this country. not just republicans, democrats. this is driven by the trade unions in this country who want to be will to get whatever they want whenever they wanted. i do not know about you, but many of the things of a wanted over the years have not been right. it would've destroyed the country. some things they have wanted, they have gotten because they have been right. many of the things they want are not right, and frankly, i do not know what is the matter with my colleagues on the other side. they seem to be in the pockets of the unions on these matters. they want to get to people on the labor board will been improperly appointed.

who should be on that board. i was suggest that all they have to do is appoint to others who have the same loss of the, and they would get to the senate. because the rules were broken, the procedure rules were broken, rubble and seven a choice but to stand up and say that is not right. there are ways you can do this. if you look at the record, over the last number of years of this administration, he is been treated much better than his predecessors. they're backed up on judges because they knew the judges have been treated fairly. so have most of the others. we have yet ever to filibuster and stop an executive nominee. we didn't have any until the democrats filibustered 45 judicial nominees. this is a serious issue. i hope my colleagues wake up on the other side. this is not going to be fun for them in the future. >> in regard to the filibuster, what is the big deal wetjen mark we've improved 199 judges in just a few --

we have approved 199 judges and disapproved to. what is the big deal on a filibuster? we have 82 vacancies in the course. 53 nominees are not up here from the white house. the big deal is obviously something wrong with the white house. i may quote your that have heard so many times. it is very good. the nuclear option was the most

important issue i had ever worked on in my entire career because that if it had gone forward, it would've destroyed the senate as we know it. majority leader reid, march 2009. that is a pretty big deal. it involves the checks and balances of government. basically, what you are doing is just trying the constitution if we go ahead with this. >> like to say two things about what is really at stake here. this isn't about a change of rules. it is not changing the senate. changing its character. most of the founders of our country did not want a king. they created a congress to check in imperial presidency.

the best-known power of the united states senate is probably the power of advice and consent in article two. it means that the president, who is 19, has to be checked. -- who was not a king, has to be checked. it means ask a lot of questions. democrats have so many questions when president reagan nominated. they asked questions of me when i was nominated for department of education. that was the right of the senate. what is at stake here is not just a change in the rules. it is the way the rule is change.

what it means is that with 51 votes, any majority can do anything it wants on any day in the united states senate. it can change abortion rights. it can change civil rights. in change environmental laws. it can change labor laws. today, the house can do that. when it comes to the senate, we stop and think and consider it. after this, whoever has the majority can do whatever he wants on any day. that is a dangerous trend. it is a washington and jefferson and adams feared. it is one of the two greatest dangerous to our democracy, the tyranny of the majority predicted in the character of the senate is encouraging the tyranny of the majority. if anyone has a deep understanding of history. this claim that somehow that republicans are delaying -- the number of cabinet positions that have been filibustered is zero. the number of subcabinet members is zero.

the number of judges is 2. as far as delay the washington post, president bush's nominees are being considered -- i mean president obama's are being considered more rapidly than president bush's of president clinton's. this is the executive calendar. there are 24 names on them. they all, democratic committees. that is the only way they can get here. he can bring them all and tomorrow. the one that has been on there the longest came in 2013. is four months ago. i challenge the news media to

look into these questions about delays. if there are zero seats lost by filibusters, if the president's nominees are moving through fast, what is behind the attempt to change the character of the senate wetjen mark -- the senate? >> the facts put out there made it clear this is nothing more than a power grab. nothing more, nothing less. that is precisely what it is. the democrats here want to run over the mine or did. we have seen that the president doesn't like you with a minority in washington. whether it is the irs, the epa, or the cfp be -- he has a lot of agencies that are trying to usurp the powers. trying to legislate by executive order. we have seen it over and over again. but the majority of democrats are talking about doing here is essentially running over the

rights of the minority. if you look at the -- there is no foundation in which to change the rules. when you look at the executive branch nominees, and he said there have not been any denied confirmation in the second term, the votes of been big. the department of energy was 97-0. the low one, jack lew only got 71 votes. they are getting overwhelming votes in the senate. as has been stated, there have been 199 lower court confirmations. two were defeated. if you look at this year, the number that have been confirmed as 28 judges. at the same time, in president bush's second, the number was 10.

in processing time, it has been a lot faster. they are getting 100 days faster in terms of the rate of which judges are getting to the process here. there is no foundation, no bases upon which the democrats should do what they are talking about doing. as somebody who came here back in 2005, and came into office on this argument, because the democrats were holding up president bush's judicial nominees, and there was a debate about whether or not to exercise a nuclear option, many of us refresh rate is with the pace of the senate. we were some pathetic to that argument. fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. there were lots of things he wanted to do legislatively. we would love to have gotten malpractice reform passed read or expiration on the north coast of alaska for energy. big majorities. sure the necessary super majority that it takes to get

things done in the senate. that is the beauty of the united states senate. it allows representation for minority rights. what they're talking about is undermining and wrecking that. senator reid said it would destroy the senate. make no mistake about it, their document executive nominations today. if you do this, it blows the door wide open. they will establish a precedent and it will not -- it will only be a matter of time before it is used for legislation as well. there is going to, time where there are no longer any majority. it is going to be difficult to turn back the hands of time if him -- if they move forward with a are talking about doing. i hope cooler heads will prevail. >> you mentioned the panel nominees are being contested. the issue of her republicans say is they are

unconstitutional. if you confirm them now, they would be constitutional. they did understand the argument there. when addressed your concerns? >> they disobey the rules and went around the rules. it seems to meet up with the people that have gone around the rules into powerful positions. there are are people who will not abide by the rules. like i suggested, if they want to pick to others the same philosophy philosophy, they would probably get through. we do not count that kind of thinking. i do not know anybody who would.

>> if i could, that is an excellent question. here is what happened. the president sent these two names to the senate in mid- december of 2011 in the regular order prayed before their names got to the appropriate committee, he used his recess appointment power to appoint them at a time when the senate was in session. the court said that is unconstitutional. that is a gross affront to the checks and balances that are in the constitution to restrain the president greatly up to date about what we appropriately do about it. it he can do is to appeal the court, and the court agreed with us. the second thing we can do is to say that those individuals who continue to make decisions after the court said they were unconstitutionally there, that we are not going to confirm them. they should've stepped down,

which is will be called on them to do. they participated in deciding decisions which are subject to be vacated. this is our appropriate response within a long, within the rules, and the precedents of the senate. to an unconstitutional act by the president of the united states appointed two people to the united -- national labor's board. >> recording senator reid from 2009 saying that it would ruin the senate. he and his colleagues were saying that the senate is already ruined because there is all getting done. does he the point of that? to the again that cooler heads prevail, could that happen again? could you show him the goodwill?

>> the main reason is and is not doing as well as it should is because of the way the majority is running it, which is an argument we will take across the country. we know how to make it work. i think it is dysfunctional leadership of the senate grade not a dysfunctional senate. the second thing is, we could be working on student loans this weekend. that is what i have been working on. before that was a water resources bill. we are getting done when the majority leader will be the senate in a way that lets us do it. this place could function very well and very easily and has been accomplishing something's. their mission is they have failed. they cannot run the senate. we need any majority. as we is what we are going to be arguing for. >> that is an example of things that are being done here.

if you look at the farm bill, the internet fairness act, there's a whole bunch of legislation that has moved. they are working on an agreement on the student loan bill right now. that will ultimately get moved with bipartisan support. i do not know how you, here with a straight face make an argument that things are not working on executive nominations. there's not been a single cabinet level nominee in the second term that hasn't been confirmed. as i pointed out, confirm by overwhelming majorities. the same thing is true for judicial nominees. you can have an argument and opinions about whether or not they like the rules of the senate, whether or not the rule should be changed, but you cannot argue the facts. the facts are indisputable. they are all right here.

the same thing is true with regards to legislative activity in this session of congress. there have been things that have been done with bipartisan support. whether cooler heads can prevail, i hope they do. we are not the ones who were rushing to the floor to try and change the rules. we are trying to say to put the brakes on here. if there are things that we can do together on with regard to these nominees, republican's are willing to do that. at this point, clearly the democrats are moving in a direction that is detrimental to the country and jeopardizes the institution of the senate. >> immigrants say it is improper to hold of a nominee. >> he has two problems. he was appointed in a recess appointment by the president and the senate was not a recess.

he has that problem. just like the labor relations board. think about this. senator reid himself invented something called the pro-farm three-day session. he did that. president george w. bush time. president bush and like it at all. he respected the separation of power. president obama made recess appointments when the president -- when the senate was not in research -- when the senate was not in. as the unconstitutional imperial action of the president that demands a response from the senate if checks and balances mean anything. >> what are the immediate consequences? we support him legislation altogether? >> if he changes the character

of the senate, then the senate ceases to function. it will take our case to the people. we will argue for any new majority. republicans will be in the position to do whatever republicans with 51 votes want. we can take a medical malpractice, we can take up obamacare. the more attractive it becomes. that is what we will happen. instead of a on student loans and immigration, all the things mentioned, it will turn this into a national debate about who controls the new majority institution in our country. voters want to do whatever we can think of.

>> thank you. >> "washington journal" begins in a moment. this morning, a discussion on recent security concerns in africa. live coverage. and potential changes to the senate filibuster rules at 1230 eastern. -- 12:30 p.m. eastern. in 45 minutes, we will talk about the obama administration's one-year delay of the employer mandate portion of the health care law. and a discussion on immigration

legislation and other items on the congressional agenda. later, a conversation about the national center for education statistics and the education of young children. of nuclear options. we'd like your opinion on this story. here are the numbers to call.