growth in the service sectors so native whites and blacks suffered greater unemployment and there was a new sector and service economy as well is agriculture and agricultural processing that drew a low-wage immigrant labor. the same period saw declining strength in organized labor. and a shift to subcontracting in get away froms to unions, which then hired a low wage immigrants. another feature of this economic restructuring was a reversal in the trend of distribution of wealth. from 1947-1974, we had a steady trajectory of declining gap between the wealthiest and poorest in the united states. since 1974, we have seen a steady increase in wealth inequality.

>> today, an encore presentation of human day, with the chief of washington, d.c.'s metropolitan police. she talked about department growth in the past 23 years she has been a police officer. >> a lot of things have happened. decline fromnitial the 500 down to the 200 range -- the declined over about 10 years. that was the kind of burning out of the crack cocaine epidemic. it was a 20 year run of sheer hell for most cities. the violence associated with crack cocaine markets -- we had 200 open-air markets in the city. there would be drive buys and six or seven people would be shot or killed in a single incident. the 400s downrom

to 50, and stay there for some time. >> why did that wayne? >> if you look at drug patterns, trucks tend to spike in popularity. cycles and 20 year go down. the crack cocaine epidemic is no more. there are still people who use cocaine. there are still people who use crack cocaine. it is nowhere near what it used to be. driving the violence -- that dropped us down into the 200 range. but we got stuck there for a long time. even when i took it over in in 2006, 181,169 persistent with gang violence. accelerated during the crack cocaine years. even when the crack cocaine went

away, and the gangs did not. coming down to that 186, down to where we are now -- about a 54% drop. it has been a constant focus on our gangs. gunhigh-end illegal offenders, and really staying focused on those things, and bringing the community and to work with us. has been absolutely key in dropping in that last 54%. >> that was a portion of an encore presentation of q&a. you can see the entire program today at 7:00 p.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the first ladies series continues tonight, with a look at the life and career of pat nixon. she traveled abroad more than any other first lady before her, then led efforts to acquire more furniture, antiques, and art for the white house. she also allowed more public white house tours, and offered her husband steadfast support

when the watergate scandal broke. the life and times of pat nixon, tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. you can also listen on c-span radio. >> 2013 was the year in which the filibuster rule was finally put to a vote. the so-called nuclear option of changing rules was threatened in july and put to a vote in november. the result -- now all presidential nominations -- only require a simple majority now. on the c-span year in review, we show you some of the debate over the past year. comments from harry reid, mitch mcconnell, and even video by c- span viewers using the c-span video library. >> these are dark days in the history of the senate. i hate that we have come to this point.

we have witnessed the majority leader break his word to the united states senate. and now, our request for a joint meeting, all the senators at a time when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty, in an obvious effort to keep as time when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty, in an obvious effort to keep as many of his members from hearing the concerns and arguments of the other side is possible. it remains our view that for this to be the kind of joint session of the senate that it ought to be, given the tendency of the senate to have sparse attendance on monday night, to have this meeting on tuesday, before it is too late. >> mr. president, i don't want him to feel sorry for the senate and certainly not for me. i will continue to try to speak in a tone that is appropriate.

demagoguery -- the more you say something is false, people start believing it. mr. president, it is quite interesting that he thinks that richard cordray, who nobody says there is a thing wrong with this man, democrats and republicans have both said he is a good guy. this man has been waiting 724 days. assistant secretary of defense, 292 days. monetary fund governor, 169 days. epa, 128 days. nlrb, two of them, 573 days. average time waiting is nine months.

>> we are with alex rogers, congressional reporter for "time" magazine. we showed harry reid and mitch mcconnell after july, after the bubble up of the nuclear option discussion. what happened in july? what was the cause of concern that first brought it to everyone's attention? >> the national labor relations board, there were nominees that the republicans did not want to put on. after that, the leaders got together. there was a historic meeting in the old chamber where it seemed like everything had gotten back together. they were going to get nominees that they wanted and a majority of the rules for the filibuster were going to stay the same. minority rights prevailed in the senate. fast forward to november and things have gotten a lot different. you have the government shutdown. you also have four key nominations in three weeks. fillibustered.

you have the agency that oversees fannie mae and freddie mac and three nominees for the d.c. circuit court of appeals. >> in terms of the july meeting and the old senate chamber behind closed doors, what came out of there that was, and? that's the word that came out -- the word that came out of their was positive. a lot of positive feedback. the issue dies down a bit and i believe you wrote about some discussions going on between harry reid and john mccain that were trying to work something out? >> before harry reid decided to press the nuclear button, before -- which is a phrase we should really be worried about, with our deals with iran right now. but before harry reid decided to press the button, he had a conversation with senator john mccain who had replies the role he had already done in 2005 with the gang of 14.

they talked about a similar deal. you will have your nominees for the d.c. circuit court if you keep the filibuster rules in place. senator reid said no and went on with it. >> just for clarity, in terms of the filibuster rules, this applies to just the procedural votes that lead up to a final vote on the nomination. >> the vote before the vote. the changes that have been made, the nominees for all executive branch nominees and judicial branch nominees with the exception of the supreme court. it is a big change and allows the precedent in the future for legislation. >> this came to a head in

november, so we will show viewers some of the debate that happened ahead of the nuclear option vote. >> the american people believe that congress is broken. they believe that the senate is broken. i believe the american people are right. during this congress, the united states has wasted an unprecedented amount of time with procedural hurdles. as a result, work in this country goes undone. congress should be passing legislation that strengthens our economy, protect american families, and we are burning wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters. i could say instead we are days and wasted weeks between filibusters. senate's moste basic duties, confirmation of

presidential nominees, has become completely unworkable. there has been unprecedented obstruction. for the first time in the history of our republic, republicans routinely use the filibuster to prevent president obama from appointing a consecutive team or confirming judges. it is a troubling trend that they are willing to block executive nominations even when they have no objection to the nominee. they are willing to block still, they block nominees to circumvent the legislative process. they block qualified nominations to force wholesale changes to laws. they restructure entire executive branch departments. they block nominees because they they block nominees because they don't want president obama to appoint any judges. the need for change is very obvious. it is clearly visible, it is

manifest that we have to do something to change things. in the history of our country, 230 years and more, there have been 168 filibusters. -- filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. half of them have occurred during the obama administration. over 230 years. 50%. four and half years, 50%. is there anything fair about that? these nominees deserve at least an up or down vote. yes or no. the republican filibuster denies them a fair vote. any vote. it denies the president his team. gridlock has consequences and they are terrible. it is bad for president obama and bad for this body. it is bad for national security and bad for economic security.

that is why it is time to get the senate working again. not for a democratic majority or a future republican majority but for the good of the united states of america. it is time to change the senate before this institution becomes obsolete. at the beginning of this congress, the republican leader pledged that this congress should be more bipartisan than the last congress. we are told in scripture. take the old testament. the book of numbers. promises, pledges, one must not break his word. in january, republicans promised to work with the majority to process nominations and a timely

manner by unanimous consent except in extraordinary circumstances. exactly three weeks later, republicans mounted a first in history filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for secretary of defense. despite being a former republican senator, being a decorated war hero, chuck hagel's nomination was pending in the senate for a record 34 days. more than three times the previous average. remember, our country was at war. republicans have blocked executive nominees like secretary hagel not because they object to qualifications but because they seek to undermine the very government in which they were elected to serve herein. take the nomination of richard cordray to lead the financial protection bureau.

there was no doubt about his ability to do the job. but the consumer financial protection bureau, the brainchild of elizabeth warren went for more than two years without a leader because republicans refused to accept the law of the land. they wanted to bring back a lot of protects consumers from the greed of wall street. you don't have to like the laws of the land, but you do have to respect those laws and acknowledge them and abide by them. similar obstruction continued unabated for seven more months until democrats threatened to you don't have to like the laws of the land, but you do have to respect those laws and acknowledge them and abide by them. similar obstruction continued unabated for seven more months until democrats threatened to change senate rules to allow up or down votes on executive nominations. in july, after you don't have to like the laws of the land, but you do have to respect those laws and acknowledge them and abide by

them. obstructing dozens of executive nominees, republicans promised they would end the unprecedented obstruction. one look at the executive calendar shows that nothing has changed since july. they have continued the record of obstruction like no agreement had ever been reached. they continued obstruction as if no agreement had been reached. there are currently 75 executive branch nominations waiting to be confirmed by the senate and waiting an average of 140 days. one executive nominee to the agency that safeguards the water that my children and my grandchildren drink, the air they breathe, has waited almost 900 days for confirmation. we agreed in july that the senate should be confirming nominees to ensure the proper function of government. consistent and unprecedented obstruction has revised consent

to deny obstruction. >> the american people have been witness to one of the most breathtaking indictments of big government liberalism and memory. i'm not just talking about a website. i am talking about the way it was forced onto the public by an administration and a democratic led congress that we know is willing to do and say anything to pass the law. the president and his democratic allies were so determined to force their vision of health care on the public that they assured them up and down that they wouldn't lose the plan that they have. that they would save money instead of losing it. and that they would be able to use the doctors and hospitals they were already using. of course, we know that that rhetoric just doesn't match. the stories on a daily basis range from heartbreaking to common.

i saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying that his dog had qualified for insurance under obamacare. i would probably be running for the exits if i had supported this law. i would be looking to change the subject. just as senate democrats have been doing with their threat of going nuclear and changing the senate rules on nominations. one of them has not enrolled a single person. i would probably want to talk about something else, too. here is the problem with this latest distraction. it doesn't distract people of obamacare, it reminds them of obamacare.

it reminds them of all the broken promises. it reminds them of the power grab. it reminds them how democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else. one set of rules for them and another for everybody else. actually, this is all basically the same debate. rather than distract people from obamacare, it only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way. willing to do or say just about anything to get its way. that is what they are doing all over again. once again, senate democrats are threatening to break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate.

and over what? over a court that doesn't even have enough work to do? millions of americans are hurting because of a law that democrats forced on them. what do they do about it? they cook up a fake fight over judges. a fake fight over judges that aren't even needed. i get it. as i indicated, i wanted to be talking about something else, too. if i had to be talking about dogs getting insurance when millions of americans lost theirs. but it won't work. the parallels between this latest skirmish are just too obvious to ignore. think about it.

just think about it. the majority leader promised over and over again that he wouldn't break the rules of the senate. this is not an ancient promise. july the 14th on meet the press, he said we are not touching judges. this year. we are not touching judges. then there are the double standards. the democrats were in the minority and argued strenuously for the thing they now say we will have to do without. namely, the right to extended debate on lifetime appointments. they believe one set of rules should apply to them, and another set to everybody else.

he may have just as well said if you like the rules of the senate, you can keep them. huh? if you like the rules of the senate, you can keep them? just the way so many of the democrats now believe that obamacare is good enough for their constituents, but when it comes to their political allies and staff, that is different. let's not forget about the raw power at play here. the similarities between the obamacare debate and the threat to go nuclear are inescapable. they muscle through obamacare on the party line vote and did not care about the views of the minority.

did not care one wit about the views of the minority. and that is just about what they are going to do here. the american people decided not to give the democrats the house or to restore the filibuster- proof majority they had in 2009. democratic colleagues don't like that one bit. the american people are getting in the way. so they are trying to change the rules of the game to get their way anyway. they said so themselves. earliest this year, the senior senator from new york said they wanted to fill up the d.c. circuit one way or the other. fill up the d.c. circuit one way or the other. and the reason is clear. as one liberal activist put it earlier this year, president

obama's agenda runs through the d.c. circuit. he can't get what you want through congress because the american people in november 2010 said they had had enough and issued a national restraining order after watching two years of this administration unrestrained. now the agenda runs through the bureaucracy and the d.c. circuit. unlike the first two years of the obama administration, there is now a legislative check on the president. the administration doesn't much like checks and balances. they want to circumvent the people with an aggressive regulatory agenda. our colleagues want to facilitate that by filling up the court that will rule on this agenda. a court that doesn't even have enough work to do if it means changing the subject from obamacare for a few days. they think they can change the rules of the senate in a way

that benefits only them. they want to do it so that the agenda gets enacted but a future republican president could get his or her picks confirmed using the same precedent. they want to have it both ways. >> we didn't have a chance to debate the change in rules, so i will speak now on some things that should have been said before we voted, not that it would change the outcome, but we ought to know what we are doing before we vote rather than afterwards. i will spend a few minutes discussing what the majority leader called the nuclear option. this wasn't a new threat. every time the minority leader has chosen to exercise his

rights under the senate rules, the majority has threatened to change the rules. this is the third time in just the last year that the majority leader has said that if he didn't get his way, he would change the rules. ironically, that is as many judicial nominees as our side has stopped through filibuster. prior to the recent attempt to simultaneously add three judges to the d.c. circuit that aren't needed, republicans stopped a grand total of two judicial nominees. not 10, as they had by president bush's fifth term in office, not 34 as one of my colleagues tried to suggest earlier this week. two have been stopped.

if you include the nominees, we stopped a grand total of five. not 10 as the democrats had done in 2005 or 34 as one of my colleagues tried to argue earlier this week. but five. during the same time, we confirmed 209 more article three judges. a record of 209 judges approved the five that were not approved. this threat isn't based on any crisis. there is no crisis. today's wall street journal editorial entitled d.c. circuit breakers, the white house wants to pack a court whose judges are underworked. it lays out a caseload pretty clearly and i ask this editorial be made part of the record.

>> without objection. >> this is about a naked power grab and nothing more. this is about the other side not getting everything they want when they want it. the other side claims that they were pushed to this point because our side objected to the plan to fill the d.c. circuit with judges. but this side plans to forget history. let's review how we got here. after the president nominated three nominees for the d.c. circuit that aren't needed, a blatant political power grab in its own right, what did the republicans do?

we did something quite simple. we said we want to go by the rules the democrats set in 2006. we would hold those democrats to the same standard they established in 2006 when they blocked a nominee of bushes. -- bush's. let's be clear of why the democrats are outraged. they are outraged because republicans had the temerity to hold the other political party to a standard that they established. but because we did, because we insisted we all play by the same rules, they came right back and said, then we will change the rules. the other side has said, we don't want to be held to the standards we established in 2006.

and if you don't give us what we want, we are willing to forever change the senate. that is what happened today. we hear a lot of ultimatums around here. but this is very different. this threat is designed to hold the united states senate hostage. it is different because it is designed to hold hostage all of the senate's history and traditions. it is different because it relies on the goodwill of senators that don't want to see the senate as we know it destroyed or as the constitution writers intended. i will note that today's majority didn't always feel that way. the very way we have seen

expressed today. not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. in 2006, 1 of my colleagues said, "the nuclear option was the most important issue i have worked on in my public life. its rejection was my proudest moment as the minority leader. i am urged with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of senate rules. as majority leader, i intend to run the senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. " 2005, another of my democrat colleagues had this to say.

today, republicans -- referring to the time republicans were in the majority. i will start the quote again. today, republicans are threatening to take away one of the few remaining checks on the power of the executive branch by their use of what has become known as the nuclear option. it is an assault on checks and balances and on the protection of minority rights. a lemonade in the filibuster by nuclear option would destroy the constitution's design of the senate as an effective check on the executive. you have had two quotes from democrats in 2005 and 2006, very strongly supporting the senate using the filibuster to protect minority rights. but then they went to the majority and the tradition of

the senate doesn't mean much. i have another quote from 2005. i detest this mention of a nuclear option. the constitutional option. there is nothing constitutional about it. but that was way back then. today's majority was in the mine -- in the minority. and there was a republican in the white house. today, the shoe is on the other foot. the other side is willing to forever change the senate because republicans have the audacity to hold the majority party of today to their own standard. why would the other side do this?

there clearly is not a crisis on the circuit. they say if we confirm any more judges, there would not be enough to go around. it's not as if all these nominees are mainstream and census picked. despite what the other side would have you believe. the professor has written this about motherhood. productive rights, and looting the rights to contraceptive and abortion lay a central role in freeing women from conscription in the maternity. is that mainstream? she has also argue this about motherhood. antiabortion laws not only enforce women's incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also

prescribed a vision of a woman's role as mother and caretaker at a way that is at odds with equal protection. is that mainstream? what about our views on religious freedom? she argued that the evangelical lutheran church that challenged ministerial discrimination said it was a substantial threat to the american rule of law. get this. after she says that, the supreme court rejected her view 9-0. the court held that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church's determination of who can act as its ministers. do my colleagues believe that

mainstream america believes that churches should not be allowed to choose their own ministers? i could go on and on. but i hope you get the picture. the point is this. voting to change the senate rules is voting to remove one of the last meaningful checks on the president. any president. and voting to put these views on this important court. i ask again, why would the other side do this? it is nothing short of complete and total power grab. it is the kindest thing we have seen again and again throughout this administration and their allies. you can sum it up this way. do whatever it takes. >> i congratulate senator reid

for leading the senate into the 21st century. thank you very much for your courageous action, making sure that the senate can now work and get our work done. i have waited 18 years for this moment. 1995 when we were in the minority. i proposed changing the rules on filibuster. i have been proposing it ever since. what has really happened is that this war has escalated. i said at the time that it was like an arms race. that if we didn't do something about it, the senate would reach a point where we wouldn't be able to function.

i thought my words were a little apocalyptic but it turns out they weren't at all. so this is a bright day for the united states senate and for our country. to finally be able to move ahead. nominations for any president can put together his executive branch. under our constitution. a president should have the people that he or she wants to form the executive branch. every senator here gets to take his or her own staff. we don't have to have the house vote on it or anybody else. the judiciary, they can hire their clerks and staff without coming to us.

now i think it is appropriate that any president can form their executive branch with only 51 votes needed, not a super majority. it is a huge step in the right direction. and now we can confirm judges, again, with 51 votes and without this super majority. in his been filibustering for so long. i listened to the republican leader during the run-up to these votes. he said that we will somehow break the rules. we did not break the rules.

with the vote we had, the rules provide for a 51 vote, non- debatable motion to overturn the ruling of the chair. we have done it many times in the past. we did not break the rules. we use the rules to make sure that the senate can function. and that we can get our nominees through. i like what the writer gail collins said in her column this morning in the new york times about these rule changes. she has had a lot of good things, but she talked about how we were calling it the nuclear option. she said it is called that because changing the rules here is worse than nuclear war. but it's not.

it is time that we change these rules. and the republican leader said it was the democrats that started this. it reminds me of a schoolyard fight between a couple of adolescents. and the teacher is trying to break it up. he hit me first. who cares? it is time to stop it. even if i accept the fact that democrats started a, maybe we did way back when. it has escalated and it turned from a punch here and there to almost extreme fighting. it got to the point where we can't function. just on nominations alone. we have had 168 nominations since 1949.

that is when this filibuster stuff really started. 82 have been under this resident. -- president. that is what i mean. it is not worth it to talk about who started this. fine. if they want to say we started it, fine. but it has escalated and gone beyond all bounds. it turned into an arms race and it is time to stop it. that is what we did this morning. we took a step in the right direction. a congressional scholar wrote about the broken senate. how we couldn't function. you can go back beyond that in 1985. senator eagleton, he said the senate is now in a state of incipient anarchy.

i think we had something like 20 or 30 filibusters in the congress before that. this has been escalating over a long time and it is time to stop it. that is what we did this morning. this is a big step in the right direction. and now we need to take it another step further and change filibuster on legislation. we need to change it as it pertains to legislation. for example, we just had a spectacle of a bill that i reported out of our committee unanimous. republicans and democrats. passed the floor of the house unanimously. comes to the senate and one senator held it up for 10 days. held everything up 10 days.

it finally passed by unanimous consent. should one senator be able to stop things around here like that? it is time to move ahead. get rid of the legislature at the same time to protect the rights of the minority. offer amendments that are relevant and jermaine, debate them and have a vote on it. not that they should win it, but the minority should be able to offer debate and have a vote on relatives and jermaine -- relative and jermaine -- ger mane amendments. i proposed 18 years ago, a formula that was first proposed by senator dole many years before that. that was, on a cloture vote, the first time had to be 60 votes.

then you could wait three days to file a new petition with requisite signatures. then you needed 57. if you didn't, you could wait three days and file a petition and it would require 54 votes. then you would wait three days and you would need 51. at some point, the majority could act. but the minority would have the right to slow things down. as the senator said in 1897, to give sober second thought to legislation in the senate. sober second thought. not to stop it or block it. slow things down, yes. give second thought. maybe things shouldn't be rushed into. i understand that. maybe things ought to be

amended. they should offer amendments ne to theand germain legislation. 51 should decide on how we proceed. what we vote on. and the outcome of the vote. i hope that the vote today leads the senate to adopt an approach in january of 2015 when the new senate comes in. i won't be here for it, but i hope the senate will take that next step of cutting down on the blatant use of the filibuster on legislation. the action just taken here today, here is what i predict. i predict the sky will not fall and oceans will not dry out.

a plague of locusts will not cover the earth and the vast majority of americans will go on with their lives as before. i do predict that our government will work better. a president will be able to form an executive branch. our judiciary will function better. the u.s. senate will be able to move qualified nominees through the senate in a more responsible manner. >> as i mentioned earlier, this country did really well for 140 years. the first vote on speech of filibuster was 1919. dealing with the league of nations. the filibuster was put in place to get things done. but now it has been turned on its head.

now, it is used to stop everything. the four of us have really tried extremely hard. and that is why -- i have been criticized by a lot of people for having gone through two congresses. and i wanted it to get along. rodney king -- let's just get along. we tried that. as i try to explain on the floor today, they have simply not told the truth. look what has happened. the thing about this is they don't deny why they are doing it. that is what is so interesting. we understand all the considerations. but let us be realistic. what could they do to slow down the country? what could they do more to stop legislation?

we have all been in congress for a long time. three of us served in the house. senator murray has been in the senate a long time. we are some of the senior members of the senate. we came here to get things done. there was a time when we used to do that. but not anymore. and all of this talk coming from my republican friends, why don't you vote the way you do? they vote together on everything and it is only to discourage the president of the united states. >> if your majority were to change the filibuster rules, you would do it for everything? >> let him do it. the country did pretty dam well for 140 years. i think we are beyond seeing who can out talk the other.

let's just get some work done. let him do whatever he wants to. >> will this come back to bite you? >> no, this is the way it has to be. the senate has changed. if we have a republican president and we think he shouldn't have the team that he wants, one thing people don't understand and i will try to explain this a little bit -- a simple majority is not going to be a piece of cake and every instance. there is stuff on the calendar where there are a few democrats who do not like some of the nominees of the president. good. that is a coalition. we can work on that. i have no fear of this whatsoever. having served in the house, the different body, the majority vote is not so bad.

up or down votes are not such a bad deal. >> we have had this threat for some time now. at the beginning of each of the last two congresses, we had a discussion about rules changes. senator alexander was right in the middle of those and will give you an update on what happened back in january. just to refresh your memory. but after that the majority , leader said that we set the rules for this congress. obviously, that was a commitment not cap. -- not kept. we thought he said if you like the senate rules, you can keep them. but in fact, we ended up having another discussion with another threat of the so-called nuclear option and you have seen what they have done today. talk about a manufactured crisis. we have confirmed 215 judges and defeated two.

problem with regard to the d c circuit is entirely related to the size of the court and the size of the docket. we took the view that there was no rationale for extending or increasing the membership of the d.c. circuit. exactly the same rationale the letters signed by schumer and kennedy and others saying there was no need for an additional judge. we have judicial emergencies and other parts of the country. this was nothing more than a power grab in order to try to advance the regulatory agenda. they just broke the senate rules in order to exercise the power grab. >> we are back with alex rogers, congressional reporter for "time" magazine. we saw the 52-48 vote to change the filibuster rules for nominees. we heard from mitch mcconnell and harry reid.

if you look back and the rate of approval in terms of nominees comparing to the george w bush administration, what does it look like? >> president obama's nominees have seen a wait time of around 140 days. under george w. bush, those same nominees saw a wait time about a quarter of that amount. for district nominees, they have waited around 100 days. three times the wait time of george w. bush's nominees. you have seen significantly longer wait time from court approval. the difference was the senate democrats had it different strategy mixing the process up. they would try to hurt the nominee's chances before they even got to committee.

when harry reid went on to the floor in the midst of this nuclear debate, they talked about how half of the cloture motions have come under president obama's term. which is a startling statistic. i think from 1917 through 1960, only 4 cloture motions were ever invoked the past 13 years. were ever invoked. the past 13 years, the number is 280. >> these nominees were on the floor and they had to bring this to a vote? >> right. they nominated what they thought would be the best candidate possible. >> those people passed the committee. >> right. they passed the senate judicial committee. they are approved in that process within they have to wait to get to the final confirmation vote between 140 days, and 100 days on average.

>> it is interesting you talk about what time. we do this interview on friday, december 13. the fallout from the nuclear option vote is longer wait time. republicans are insisting on the full number of hours of debate. as you look at it in the couple of ending weeks of december, what is ahead for nominees? >> i think a quarter of the senate is 70 or more and they have been sleeping on couches and watching action movies in between votes. the only thing republicans can do now is delayed for 30 hours for some of these votes. harry reid said we will vote in the middle of the night if we have to. we are going to vote for as many people as we possibly can before the end of the year.

looking in the next year, how that is going to affect the senate, there will be a relationship change. the other senators that call each other friend, it will be interesting to see if that relationship has changed. >> alex rogers, also writes covering the hill. thank you for joining us for the year in review. >> thank you very much. >> before we wrap up our look at the nuclear option, we wanted to show you some video pulled by c- span viewers using the video library. different views from harry reid and mitch mcconnell. reid was majority leader in 2008 and then you will hear from mitch mcconnell. then assistant authority leader in 2005. >> i have my own ideas about working with john mccain for many years. i have my own ideas about him.

the nuclearabout option. you just mentioned it in chapter seven of your book. describe the circumstances with the nuclear option just so our viewers can better understand what the nuclear option was and what likelihood is there we will have to face those questions again? >> the republicans came up with a way to change our country forever. they made a decision if they didn't get every judge they wanted, they would make the senate like the house of representatives. we would have a unicameral legislature, where a simple majority could determine whatever happens. in the house, nancy pelosi is the leader. before that, it it was hastert. whatever they wanted, they get done. the rules allow that. the senate was set up to be different.

that was the genius. that this legislature had two different duties. one was to pour the coffee. -- the coffee into the saucer and let it cool off. that is why you have the ability to filibuster and to terminate filibuster. they wanted to get rid of that. that is what the nuclear option was all about. >> is there any likelihood we will face circumstances like that? >> as long as i am the leader, the answer is no. i think we should just forget that. it is a black chapter in the history of the senate. i hope we never, ever get to that again. i really do believe it will ruin our country. i said during that debate that in all my years of government, it was the most important thing i ever worked on. >> i give you great credit for the way you handled it then with extraordinary repercussions. >> this is not the first time a minority has not upset a tradition or practice. the current majority intends to

do what the majority has often done. use constitutional authority to reform senate procedures by a simple majority vote. despite the incredulous protestation of our colleagues, the senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate. the first senate adopted rules by a majority vote. rules i might add which specifically provided a means to end debate by a simple majority vote. that was way back at the beginning of our country. that was senate rule eight, the ability to move to the previous question and end debate. two decades later, and possibility of a filibuster arose. it was inadvertent. the failure to renew in 1806 on

the grounds that the senate had hardly needed to use it in the first place. in 1917, the senate adopted its first restraint on filibuster. first cloture rule. first clotu. a means for stopping debate after a democrat from montana forced the senate to consider to simply change senate procedure. specifically in response to concerns that germany was to begin unrestricted submarine warfare against american shipping. president wilson sought to arm urchin ships so that they could defend themselves. however, a 11 senators that wanted to avoid american involvement filibuster the bill.