we've got seven nominations right now that senate majority leader harry reid filed cloture on. we have richard cordray to be director of the consumer of financial protection, richard griffin to be in the nlrb, sharon bloch, mark gaston, nlrb, thomas perxz, secretary and of labor. these nominees for the national labor relations board are very controversial. after the court ruled that obama recess appointments of three members or invalid richard cordray was also part of a recess appointment that was not subject to a lawsuit and the supreme court will decide nlrb

cases. this action would probably take these actions out of the court and that is in the interest of this administration not to have the embarrassment of the supreme court if they came out with a decision contrary. i don't know how this will play after a i would love to hear by other members of the panel how this will happen to understand specifically how the nuclear option would even come into play. what happens on tuesday morning if there is no agreement how does it play out? is the threshold merely lowered from 60 to 50 votes or will all senate debate be declared dilatory? keep in mind two things -- when you look at this year, two of the biggest thing that happened politically were filibusters. you hear the demonization of the

filibuster. they say it slows everything down and blocks legislation. my boss rand paul filibustered on the senate floor for 13 hours. that raised every americans' awareness of the potential use of drones domestically in the united states. the american people heard it and were educated and having a national debate. in texas, the debate over abortion was raised by an individual getting up and filibuster legislation in the texas state legislature. those are issues in the public to maine -- domain because of filibuster. if either party back in 2005, republicans consider doing this for a 2013, democrats are. both parties should not consider doing this because it will ultimately destroy the nature of the senate and hurts our republic when you go down this road of making a very easy for the majority to steamroll the minority and not allow them to participate in the process. it would be really not wise for this to move forward. thank you.

>> do you want to speak from there? >> sure. i came to the u.s. senate in 1966. when the senate was run by two leaders - senator mike mansfield of montana, the majority leader and senator everett dirksen of illinois, the minority leader. it was a very different senate then. the filibuster was attacked then because of the issue of civil rights.

i remember just about nine years later, in 1975, when a republican vice president, nelson rockefeller, together with a bipartisan group led by then senator walter mondale and then senator from kansas, james pierson, republican, led a fight which basically was the nuclear option. they were successful. they changed the cloture rule from 2/3 down to 60. now the proposal, i guess, is to change the cloture rule down to 51. i am the co-author of a book entitled "defending the filibuster."

i wrote it with a gentleman who worked initially for senator paul tsongas of massachusetts and stayed on the hill for 30 years, ending up working for senator carl levin of michigan. the reason we wrote this book is we saw the benefits of the filibuster. when rich aronberg, my co- author, came into the parliamentarian's office in the late 1970's, we knew that in order to pass a bill that senator tsongas was interested

in called the alaska lands bill, that the republican senator, senator ted stevens, would have to sign off on if we were to get cloture. this forced a bipartisan approach to that bill. the result was that that bill was adopted and signed by president carter but has been a successful build over the years. i would contrast that with the bill called the affordable care act which was pushed through by senator harry reid without any bipartisan support.

for one goal that moment, that for one golden moment, that was possible because senator reid had 60 votes in his caucus due to the change of parties by senator arlen specter and suddenly, he had 60 votes. and he was able to successfully push through that bill. i would contrast those two bills in terms of their support in the country. i don't think it is a good thing for bills to have no support from the two parties. basically, what happened in the affordable care act was that the bill only had support from the democratic party. that is one of the reasons why

we wrote the book, "defending the filibuster." it is true that right now senator reid does not have the 60 votes in his caucus. and he is supposedly going to use "the nuclear option" to change all that. this is not the first time this issue has come up. when senator bill frist was the senate majority leader and was being frustrated by votes on judicial nominations, he proposed the nuclear option and the result was that a gang of 14, seven republicans and seven

democrats, worked together and came to the floor and said no. we are not going down that road. --d that was to stop senator that was enough to stop senator frist. i would hope that as a result of the caucus on monday night there might be a similar group that would come to the floor and say, do not go down this road. having seen what happened in 1975 when the senate did go down that road, the repercussions lasted for years.

and the bitterness lasted for years. it's not something i would ever wish for the united states senate. the senate is an institution that i love. i worked there for 35 years. i now teach about how congress works at george washington university. and i honor the senate. i can remember frankly that when this proposed, i went on the cbs evening news and suggested that if a group of senators would come to the floor and say stop the madness, we could stop it. and that's exactly what happened. --d that's what stropped it.

and that is what stopped senator frist. i sincerely hope that is what happens after that caucus on monday night and a group comes to the floor and says stop the madness. >> good afternoon. thank you to heritage for hosting us and thank you for letting me appear with these distinguished panelists. since i'm going last here i thought i would take a step back and try to put it in context and provide a framework we can think about what has been said. i think hopefully this will help us understand how we arrived at where we are today. it will help us understand why i think it's basically impossible to limit the use of the nuclear option in this instance to executive nominees which is what the majority has claimed they would like to do. and then lastly, and i think most importantly for the long term health of the institution but also the republic why i

think why it is ultimately impossible to transform this senate into a purely majoritarian body like the house of representatives. because of that i think it should give them pause in their efforts. if they go through with this it may result in more dysfunction at the end without arriving at the end point in which they would like to. i think first here, imagine a continuum, think back to college and high school. think of that as a rules based continuum. the house is obviously more rules based and the senate is better relations based. the senate informal rules govern things. precedence, norms, traditions, acceptable behavior. this tells us something important about the legislative

process. in the house it's rules based. the important decisions are made before they get to the floor. the floor is just to ratify those decisions. in the senate is legislative process is critical. because of that you often see large bipartisan majority support legislation once it goes through that process in the committee and on the floor. this is really important for the current discussion and the current issue the nuclear option and what is going to happen next week. the legislative process in the senate reveals important information about the level of resolve of both sides. and because of the process by which legislation is considered, the minority learns a lot of important stuff about how hard

majorities are willing to push to get what they want. and the majority learns important information about how hard the minority is willing to push and react if the majority tries to restrict their rights in some manner. today the process is almost completely broken down. it's almost nonexistent. and because of that senate majorities have largely acted to produce this by trying to achieve policy out comes without the input of senate minorities and even over their objections. if you look at what happens in the senate the number of amendments proposed, amendments that a senate goes down to the floor and offers to a bill has declined 2,164 to 974. the number of minority amendments proposed on the floor has declined from 1,043 to 400.

and i think more importantly the number of recorded votes on amendments has declined from 428 to 228 in the last congress. and so when this happens, when there is virtually no floor process, the legislative process no longer tells us much about what side thinks is important and how hard they are willing to fight for their goals. when that happens the current way of business creates dysfunction because in a relational body when you don't have a lot of rules to tell you what you can and can't do, you have a lot of leeway to do things. now both sides have incentive to use that to persuade the other side what they want to do is important and they will push as hard as they can to get it.

what does this have to do with where we are today? number one the current situation is unsustainable and the way we have bills on the fl nothing about what each side thinks is important. i think how the situation is resolved next week will encourage senate to employ nuclear options. this reinforces the dynamic we've seen. this is no surprise we are where we are today. in january 2011. the senate to diffuse a similar situation passed a compromise rules proposal. we eliminated the requirement that amendments be read and we eliminated the practice of secret holds. the senate reformed the executive process where some were removed from the process entirely and others were given a new special expedited process. in exchange the minority was given a gentleman's agreement where if they refrained from filibuster the majority would allow them to offer amendments. that fell apart.

fast forward to october 2011. a precedent was created where -- non-grmaine ermaneamendments could be offered on a bill because they had been shut out during regular course of business. majority leader reid didn't like that so he employed the nuclear option to get rid of that. fast forward to january 2012 the president disregarded the constitution and made appointments even though they were in session. the supreme court has decided to take up that case. in january 2013 there was yet another bipartisan rules agreement designed to diffuse tension and to discourage the majority from going nuclear. but i would argue that none of these instances especially the negotiated compromises actually worked.

they may have made the situation even worse. this is why we can't restrict what is happening next week if it does in fact happen to just executive nominees because the minority will be in a worse position despite having cooperated in these other instances in the past. because the majority learns a lesson each time. the majority is rational and it says this works. if we threaten and bluster and beat our chest, the minority will give us what we want. right now i think we are seeing that understanding unravel. but they can still take that lesson from this situation. and if they do, you could see this threat employed again on d.c. circuit court nominees on a supreme court nominee. on controversial legislation. there is no rational reason why they would limit themselves to just executive nominees. and this brings me to my concluding point on why i don't believe the senate can become the house. this has to do with the priding -- recitingofficer.

despite the wishes of the current majority the senate cannot become a body like the house. this is critical because the nuclear option whereby they would effect that change is dependant upon a complacent presiding officer. yet the constitution stipulates the president is our presiding officer. this is problematic because in a majoritarianrules based body like the house you have to have a strong officer, you have to have the speaker to enforce order. throughout history all senators in all parties have been hesitant to enforce order. this is because the vice president is not a member of the senate. he may not be a member of the same party as the majority party. and even if he is, it's not clear he'll have the same priorities as the majority party. so what does all this mean? if in fact the nuclear option is employed next week, it will -- they the comedy on the

comedmity relational aspect of gnat decision making is based and it will shift toward this rules based model the house follows. however the stipulation that the vice president is our presiding officer will prohibit us from getting all the way there. the result will be even more of a dysfunctional body and can't operate at all because we don't have a strong presiding officer like the speaker. yet the comedy that bob referred -- the comity that bob referredto is gone. so we're in this weird no man's land where it's very difficult to do anything. that would be bad for the republic and terrible for the senate. >> we will be happy to answer questions. the only thing i ask you wait for the microphone so our viewers around the country can hear your question.

if i would identify who you are when you ask the question. i would ask one thing and that is to ask a question please and not make a statement. >> i want to ask these guys what do you think is going to happen? i think bob would have a great perspective on what is actually going to happen on tuesday morning? how does this play out? this presumes that there is no gang that comes out of the monday night discussion. >> unfortunately what i think is going to happen is that senator reid is going to play out this game. and the result i think will be disastrous. >> i agree. >> any questions from the audience? >> the heritage foundation. this is primarily a question for james although the other two

might want to comment on it too. you talked about the merits of the filibuster whether there is a option to employ the nuclear option. we know within the context of the senate rules today, there is a majority approach with regard to the budget. to what extent oh do you think that the legislative dysfunction is resulting from that particular element of senate rules as it applies to the budget and therefore to the broad array of legislation in terms of the relationship based decision making process that you eluded to. >> i think the budget is a great example of why rules aren't a panacea. the budget is a majoritarian document in the senate. a majority can pass it.

we didn't pass one for several years and finally passed one. we are far apart on agreement for a budget with the house. it goes to show you significant conflict can exist even in a majority body and dysfunction can still exist. >> could i just chime in because i helped write the budget act. i was part of a group that senator byrd called in to his office to go through the budget act and make sure that "it worked." my contribution was writing in to the budget act what was then the standard unanimous consent agreement providing that amendments had to be germane. that there was a limitation on time of amendments, providing that the motion to proceed would not be debatable.

i will tell you that in the 1970's when that act was written, there were many attempts to overcome the idea of senate filibusters. and that was just one of them. the war powers act was another. the whole idea of the legislative veto was very popular in the 1970's. and many things were written into law that avoided a filibuster. this was seen as a way of getting around the problems of dealing with senate bills on the floor. unfortunately, i can tell you that our intentions were good. but by creating something called

the reconciliation bill, we created a monster. again, a bill that can pass with only majority support and has been repeatedly used by various presidents. the whole idea of the budget process was to cut the president out of the budget. but presidents have learned they can use this budget process whether it was president ronald reagan who got through his budget program or president bill clinton who got through his budget program or president george w. bush who got through his tax cuts. bills that would never have passed had they been subject to a senate filibuster.

and in that sense, there is blood on these hands because i helped create it. sorry. >> that wasn't my intention. >> this question is for mr. dubs. it's unclear to me there is anything that would limit the applicable ability of theprecedent we're talking about to certain types of nominations on the executive calendar. is that you're view? >> that is exactly my view. my reaction is you go down this road and you have turned the --nate into a manualty majoritarianinstitution and you have made it much like the house of representatives. and my reaction is the senate was never intended to be like the house of representatives. >> what types of things would

parliamentarians office consider? >> unfortunately if you look at what the ability of the parliamentarian's office to control what the chair has said, i came to the senate when the vice president of the united states humphrey cared not a whip for the advice of the senate parliamentarian and made rulings consistently that were against the advice of the parliamentarian. my reaction is that a determined vice president can return to that model.

now the problem with that is that suddenly the vice president plays a role which frankly hasn't been played since hubert humphrey. he had no role in the johnson administration. he was totally shut out. and so he found himself a home in the senate. since jimmy carter gave mondale an office in the west wing, vice presidents have really enjoyed in effect becoming part of the executive branch. i don't know whether vice president biden would enjoy reverting to the vice presidential role of hubert humphrey or not but he would have to if he were going to play that role. >> i have just -- i would like your thoughts if you could share a little more information on your boss' filibuster maybe some background. >> sure. again, the filibuster has been demonized so much but most

people look at that as a good use of the filibuster. it's been perceived it was a filibuster of the nomination of john brennan and it was in a sense but it wasn't also. for him to get the floor and do what he did, he was actually blocking the majority leader from filing a motion to proceed to that nomination. and i'll tell you, it's out in the public domain he's written an op ed in the washington post about how it played out. but i can tell you he didn't plan on speaking for 13 hours. he jokes he wasn't wearing his comfortable shoes. he was on his way to the senate floor. he had done some preparation for the filibuster that he wanted to do but it wasn't intended on being on that day, it was

intended on the next day and he didn't intend talking for 13 hours. as it went on i was down watching him. it was amazing to me that he can speak for hours on end off the cuff. he did have notes and that was spurring thoughts. but it was amazing to see him go off the cuff an hour at the time. then i think it kept him going when other senators came down to the floor and asked questions of him. senator ted cruz and mike lee were the first two to come down and ask questions and they had a back and forth with question and answer. he couldn't yield the floor for any point. he could yield for questions. he did yield for questions. and as you saw if you watched it, there were many senators that came down. a democrat from oregon came down to get involved in that.

it was an amazing thing to watch. it is something that raised that issue to the level that it's talked about more so than it was before. that was important. it spurred a response from the obama administration. i think by the end of it he was wear and i don't think he's excited to run down and do that it took a lot soon. out of him. but it was a great opportunity and i think a lesson for a lot of people. and one of the roles of the senate is talking, getting people involved, getting people to think about issue that is they may not have thought about before. >> if i could just comment, to me the glory of the senate are the people like rand paul. i remember when senator william approximate mire left the

senate. he had singlehandedly stopped a project called the sst and he had done it by talking. it is something that the house has no rule that allows people to talk. only the senate has a rule that allows people to talk. and if you get rid of that, to me you have gotten rid of the senate. >> i would just add, it's not just talking, right. we've already seen the restriction in your ability to propose amendments, germane or otherwise on the floor. that's going to continue even more if they get rid of the filibuster for executive nominees and potentially other things. it's the ability to talk. but both of those are crucial planks in what makes the senate great.

>> i'm barbara dean. i hear you talk about if this happens on tuesday what the result will be theoretically. what will republicans do, do you think, if reid goes forward with this and wins? what will be the response? >> it will not be pleasant. you will have poured poison into a well that will be there for years and years and years. >> that was kind of my first question to it matters what happens. it's unclear exactly what happens. are we going to have reid go down to the floor and say extended debate is dilatory i'm

shutting it down. or does he say the 60 vote threshold is unconstitutional and need to be lowered to 50 votes or a simple majority. if that happens, if you still have the procedure intact just the threshold lower you have the opportunity to have debate time on a nomination for eight hours with seven nominees. multiply that out, that could take a while. it's unclear exactly how this is going to play out because we don't know what the precedent is going to be going forward. some people may know. but i have not seen exactly what reid is intending on doing. >> i would just like to say how the minority responds is just as important as whether or not reid goes forward because if the minority chooses not to respond or to respond in a way that does

not cause discomfort with the majority, then the dynamic that i laid out since january of 2011 if not before continues. and we find ourselves at another crisis point in the future. >> i would not count on senator mcconnell not responding. [laughter] >> we do have time for more questions. anyone else? >> i share your concerns and the complaints of the minority party, i don't think we've really discussed the role that the minority party has had in getting us here. there are legitimate complaints or criticism that is the majority is making that it takes nine months for the average ginanee to have a vote. mccarthy has a filled 1100

responses for the epa. so if the panel could respond to some of the criticisms that the majority is making. >> i think both parties are guilty of it. both parties obstruct. look what happened in 2005. askedrats were obstructing. john bolton about obstruction ism. democrats were rewarded if not, maybe just not punished. i think when you get into nominations your average american's eyes glaze over unless you are talking about a cabinet level nominee or supreme court nominee. i don't think they are decisive political issues. but i don't think anybody has been punished for slowing down nominations. maybe at times. i'm sure there are members of the senate that want to block a nomination for the export bank nominee.they do not like that

bank. they want to slow the process down of certain institutions and that is part of the political process. nothing prevents the majority leader from saying i'm going to file a cloture. i'm going to make you come down and talk. there really is nothing preventing that from happening today. we live in a world in the senate where you see cloture filed. there isn't much debate. it's usually an empty chamber. you have this vote pop up in two days and everybody runs away or youy set a 60 vote threshold. never hear about it again. it doesn't say you can't keep the process going and grind down. you just don't see that happening.

neither party has done that. it has happened in the past but in recent memory i don't remember that happening. >> when you said the mansfield foundation. i remember the senator very well. he was absolutely loved by his fellow senators. he was the most fair majority leader i have ever seen. but i remember also on his watch the filibuster of the nomination of lyndon johnson to put abe fortiss as chief justice of the supreme court. i remember how uneasy a lot of people were because they had never seen a filibuster of a supreme court justice. and it was led by robert griffin and it was successful. and then of course we learned

more about abe fortiss and we were probably a little glad that he was not the chief justice. and then i saw the filibusters of carzwell to be on the supreme court and that was successful. and the more we learned about him, we were kind of glad that he wasn't on the supreme court. so i don't see filibusters as a terrible thing. to me, they can be very educational. >> i would like to emphasize that brian mentioned the process and how it's broken down. and we don't have a process anymore. but the numbers have been written about they are out there.

metrics do matter. if you take the number of nominees that have been submitted or proposed to the senate and then take the number that have been confirmed you get a percentage. that percentage for president obama is higher than it ever was for president bush and higher than it ever was for president clinton. if you look at the ones that have been slowed down. if you look at the nominees on the calendar today, the nominees, the pace is controlled by democratic committee chairmen. and then finally if you look at any nominee that we blocked and i'm not sure that there's been many. there have been two i believe. the democrat, the current majority you could say started this. but i don't like to go down that road because what bob said is correct. we don't need to get too far away from the fundamental issue at stake had is how the senate

makes decisions and how it is set up to make decisions. and my argument is going down this road undermines the senate's ability to work. it's a great detriment to the country. >> we have time for one more question. >> i have a question to dr. wallner and his argument there would be a break down and a no man's land if the rules are changed and attempt to make the senate a more rules based institution. the constitution doesn't have very many restrictions on the senate. i mean it does say the vice president is the president of the senate but doesn't define the rules. what stops the senate from adjusting and creating something more like a speaker of the house position even if it would be in a no man's land for a short

period of time, couldn't it adjust to becoming an effective body again? >> the senate adjusts all the time. it changed the way it makes decisions since the beginning in response to different issues. it determines it's rules internally but it does so in response to external factors. it does that. but it does it together. it does it in a bipartisan way. and because of that bipartisanship it is inherently stable. today we're in an unstable situation because of the lack of mutual agreement and mutual buy in on how the senate is going to make decisions. not on what the legislation is going to be but on how we're going to consider the legislation.this is twofold. first, we saw prior to this over the past several years this

majority use its prerogatives to approximate for a majority rule in the house. block motions to proceed to block out extreme efforts to get votes on things. filing cloture on the same day a bill is brought to the floor. you still have to entice and force through public pressure a few republican senators in the minority to join with you. once that breaks down, there is only one other place to go and that is to get rid of the cloture rule. i don't think you will be able to find sustainable order in this mode. >> if i could add, you say the vice president could become like the speaker. i can remember robert byrd when he was majority leader informing

the vice president, senator mondale, who was speaking at the time that he had no right to speak to the senate. and only through unanimous consent could the vice president speak. i can tell you the senate has done everything in its power to minimize the role of the vice president. and they have been quite successful at that. i don't think the vice president ever could play the role of the speaker. i can tell you one former speaker of the house who tried and that was john garner when he was vice president. and he was the reason that the office that i finally held senate parliamentarian was set up because he started making statements that when the chair -- aauthorized to point

point -- appointconferees he would make some independent decision on them. that was not what the senate had in mind. and they set up the senate parliamentarian's office in 1937 to tame that particular vice president. >> efficiency is not inherently good. we don't want an inefficient senate, we want a senate that works slower so the american people can participate. what bothers me many people look at the american people and say you show up and vote and that's the last we want to hear from you. this is a process that is ongoing where people get to talk to their members of congress and say hey, you know that nominee coming up, here are my feelings about that nominee. if you have an efficient senate thinkwill deteriorate. about taking it to its logical conclusion.

why need debate at all? why not let the leader take up anything he wants and no debate and just vote. vote on whatever legislation and approved amendments that you want? and the answer is we don't want the senate to work like that. it's never worked like that and the american people don't like the house and don't like the senate. it's legitimate to look at congress and be upset about it but the reason why they have such low approval ratings is because all the deliberation is out in public. the executive branch doesn't do that. all their discussion is behind closed doors. you don't see people fighting and arguing. the administration speaks with one voice the president of the united states. the senate speaks with hundreds of voices. it looks like they are yelling and arguing. but that's the way our founders wanted it to have an inefficient senate that doesn't get things

done quickly but gets things done eventually. >> i want to thank everyone for coming including our c-span viewers. and thank our panel with a round of applause. [applause] >> the white house says come out in support of the rules change. carney was asked about the issue at the daily white house briefing. on the other matter, look, we have made clear that the president is frustrated with the obstructionism that we?ve seen from republicans when it comes to the confirmation process. not only has he made it clear, he included sections about it in two state of the union addresses, including in 2012. and so we share the frustration that senator reid has talked about.

we have highly qualified executive branch nominees up on the hill, their nominations up on the hill today who continue to be obstructed, who have been held up for over a hundred days. and that's not how the system should work. so when it comes to next steps, we defer to senator reid. we are very appreciative for all he has done, all he is doing and will do to ensure that the president's qualified nominees are preferred -- confirmed. >> does the president believe that the majority leader should go through with the nuclear option? because when senator obama was over there in the senate, he once said when the roles were reversed and the majority was ,hreatening to use that option he said i fear the partisan atmosphere in washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to

agree on anything. and that is not what the founding fathers had in mind. so given his previous statement on this, he would agree with senator mcconnell on this, right? >> i think he would agree with this statement from senator mcconnell: "i think the president is entitled to an up or down -- that is a simple majority vote on nominations, both to his cabinet and to the executive branch, and also to the judiciary." that's senator mcconnell in the spring of 2005. the fact is, citing then-senator obama's comments, is that the situation has gotten exponentially worse since republicans gained -- since in the last several years, under senator mcconnell's leadership of the republican minority, the obstructionism has doubled. the number of days that nominees have to wait, the kinds of obstacles and gridlock created by this refusal to take up and consider and confirm highly qualified nominees. i look at gina mccarthy -- there is no question about her qualifications. she is, by any measure, enormously qualified for the

position to which she has been nominated. in fact, it's a position very similar to the one she held in the state of massachusetts for then-governor mitt romney. more than a hundred days her nomination has been pending for a floor vote. richard cordray, here is somebody with support from republicans and democrats -- someone who has republican state attorneys general who support him, someone about whom not a single republican senator has had a bad thing to say when it comes to his qualifications for the job to run this very important agency, the consumer financial protection bureau. and he has done an amazing job as he has held that position and waited for actual confirmation by the senate. it's been two years. but why has it been blocked? because republicans in the senate simply don't like the fact that the cfpb's existence

is the law of the land. they lost that battle. the president insisted that the cfpb be created and that it had strong powers to protect consumers when it came to their rights using credit cards, on student loans and mortgages. and there's an enormous number of examples that demonstrate how effective already that bureau has been in protecting consumer rights. republicans don't like that. >> but shouldn't the president be urging senator reid to be cautious here? because exercising that option would potentially fundamentally change the nature of the senate. it would -- people say it would become essentially like the house. this is sort of playing with fire, is it not? >> the president said in 2012, in the state of the union address, "some of what's broken has to do with the way congress does its business these days. a simple majority is no longer enough to get anything -- even routine business -- passed through the senate. neither party has been blameless in these tactics. now both parties should put an

it.for starters, i ask the senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days." unfortunately, that recommendation has not been taken up by republican leadership in the senate. and contained within that, those remarks that the president made in the well of the house at a state of the union address, was an acknowledgement that this is a problem that has existed when and has been exacerbated in some ways by both parties. but there is no question that it has gotten -- the world today is quite different than it was in 2005 when it comes to this issue in the senate, and the way that it has been run and the obstructionism that we have seen from republicanleaders in the senate and republican members in the senate. it is not the same and it is a real problem. when it comes to senator reid, we defer to him on senate procedure, but we appreciate the support he has given and will give to the confirmation of the

president's qualified nominees. oregon senator jeff merkley talked about the filibuster and gridlock in the senate at this year's net roots nation conference. here are a part of his remarks. >> get rid of the filibuster on the motion to proceed to the floor, straight up and down vote, are you for it or not russian mark right now there is no conference committee on the budget even though the senate passed a budget and the house passed the budget because these is filibustering the conference committee. how can anyone object to the house and senate getting together and trying to reconcile the differences between the two bills? but that is how dysfunctional the senate has become as a result of those who wanted to be dysfunctional. this is a keep he's. if you are very powerful and you

have dozens or hundreds of law yours and you had huge amounts to own a does super packs and campaigns, you can way past the supermajority over time. but if you are fighting for progressive conference, for fairness, for the 99% instead of the one percent, then the one percent use the senate to block the opportunity to have a full debate and vote on things that will take america forward. that is why this should measure--matter to all of us. ande is a nomination side there is the legislation side. as described on the legislation side, some of the changes we should insist on 41 vote so that absent people count for closing debate. if those 41 want more debate, we require that there be debate.

folks have to stand up and make their case before their collies, before the american people, and the american people with all of your help can decide if they are heroes or bones. and hopefully we will get a final vote for a simple majority and take legislation forward. on the nomination side, we have a senate crippling the other two branches of government. that was never envisioned in the constitution. i have a lot more to say on that but let me close with this. my heart rate throughout this ofs been tom udall of mexico-- new mexico. they knew capital hill well and he like i was absolutely this-- appalled at the dysfunction. and out thatthis we should start with the discussion every two years about the rules to keep the working as

a legislative body. it used to be called the world's greatest deliberative body. when that be wonderful if we could say that again? he would've loved to have been here today and please make sure you extend your love and appreciation him for the battles he has been leading. thank you. [applause] >> critics have accused senate leaders of shifting their position on the filibuster for partisan reasons. here is senator -- this is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell speaking on this in 2005. attain to at president's nomination nor did any senator on the debate during the 1997 cloture rule discusses popular application denominations. this was not because senators

wanted to preserve the right to filibuster nominees. rather, senators did not discuss ofs because the notion filibustering nominations was alien to them. it never occurred to anybody that that would be done. in 2008, harry reid argued against using what he called the nuclear option. but the nuclear option is in chapter seven of your book. it describes the circumstances with the nuclear option. just so our viewers can better understand, what is the nuclear option, and what likelihood is there that he will have to face the nuclear option questions again? what the republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever. they--de a decision that

if they did i get every judge that they wanted, we would in fact have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would this determine what ever happened. loc is the leader and whatever they wanted, the rules over there allow that. the senate is set up to be different. that was the vision of our founding fathers. this bicameral legislature is unique and has two different places. one to pour the coffee and the other to let it cool off. that is why you have the ability to filibuster and to terminate the low buster. they wanted to get rid of all of that and that is what the nuclear option was all about. we willikelihood that pay circumstances like that again. >> as long as i am later, the answer is no. i think we should just forget it. that is a black chapter in

history of the senate. i hope we never, ever get to that again because i really do believe it will ruin our country country. i said during this debate and in all my years of government that was the most important thing i ever worked on. >> majority leader harry reid will address the issue of filibuster rules on monday when he's fix at the center for american progress in washington. live coverage beginning at 10 -- 10:00 a.m.. >> washington journal is next live with your phone calls. then a pair of congressional hearings on the boston marathon bombings. later a hearing on iraq reconstruction efforts. in 45 minutes, someone from the brooking institution with a look at proposal to in filibusters on executive branch nominations. then foreign affairs magazine editor stuart reid on this

within about the shift the republican party on foreign policy. and we will listen to recordings of phone calls president nexen made in the summer of 1972 and discussed them with historian richard norton smith. ♪ good morning, the debate over changing the senate filibuster, known as the nuclear option will continue this weekend with senator harry reid and senator mitch mcconnell here tomorrow on nbc's "meet the press." on monday night, behind closed doors, the full senate will meet in the old senate chamber to discuss and debate the issue. "the new york times" called the exchange, -- and another new headline this mornin