This might be a decisive week for the U.S. Senate
that will determine if it can carry on the routine business of the body to
approve or not approve Presidential nominations to head agencies and to serve
on the courts.
According to a story in The
Hill this morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will meet with members
of the Senate Democratic Caucus today or Thursday to gauge support for reducing
the number of votes needed to change the rules of the Senate from 67 to a simple
majority of 51.
Without this rule change important appointments to head
major agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board will continue to be
stalled by filibusters that prevent even an up or down vote on the
nominations.This is no way to run a
railroad let alone the most powerful country in the world.
Earlier efforts this year were made to convince
Senator Reid that all the filibuster rules of the Senate needed to be changed,
possibly requiring a “talking filibuster” as I argued for in an opinion editorial
in The
HiIl.While that effort failed, ending
filibusters for nominees to head agencies or serve on the courts is a big step.
Call Senator Reid’s office today and leave him a
message to change the filibuster rules.Call him at 202-224-3542.You can
either ask to talk to a staff person or simply leave a voice message.
Momentum is building in the U.S. Senate for change
in the filibuster rules.
If you remember at the start of the current session
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on significantly
changing the filibuster rules.The
Senate has become dysfunctional with nothing really getting done due to the
abuse of the present rules that allow the minority to control the Senate.It is so easy to block any movement on bills
and even nominations that the country’s important issues are not being
addressed effectively.
This frustration boiled over recently at a Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works that met to consider the nomination of Gina McCarthy for EPA Administrator.All the Republican members of the Committee
boycotted the meeting so that no action could be taken.
Watch the
fireworks for yourself at the link below.Advance to the 27 minute and 40 second mark when the meeting
begins.It is well worth watching and
when you are done call Senator Reid’s office at 1-866-736-7343
and demand the Senate reform its filibuster rules.
The latest (see below) on the effort to reform the
U.S. Senate’s filibuster rules that have led to paralysis in that body are
paying off.Thanks for all the calls you
have made.
The next 24 to 36 hours are critical for you to
contact Senator Harry Reid’s office and ask him to support the “talking
filibuster”.Read
more about this issue by clicking here.
Call
202-224-3541 and ask Senator Reid to support the “talking filibuster” today.
The
Hill
Filibuster
reform is a headache for Reid
By Alexander Bolton - 01/22/13 08:25 PM ET
Filibuster reform has become a headache
for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Reid is stuck in the middle, between
liberal senators pushing hard for drastic reform and senior Democrats balking
at changing the culture of the upper chamber.
Powerful liberal groups and left-leaning
lawmakers see filibuster reform as necessary to advancing President Obama’s
second-term agenda, which includes immigration reform and gun-control
legislation.
“The president can’t act on
legislation if the Senate can’t act on legislation, and therefore it’s so
important that we end the secret silent filibuster that has plagued this body,”
said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a leading proponent of reform.
A coalition of
liberal groups met at the headquarters of the National Education Association
(NEA) shortly after Obama won reelection to set strategy for advancing his
second-term agenda. One of the primary goals emerging from the meeting was
enacting filibuster reform.
Senate Democrats
debated how to proceed during a lunch meeting that stretched for more than an
hour Tuesday — and left the room with little resolved.
Reid has begun to
show signs of impatience with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.),
with whom he has been negotiating for weeks. He said Tuesday that he and
McConnell have made progress, but added, “[W]e’ve got a long way to go.”
The Nevada
Democrat said he would give Republicans another 24 to 36 hours to agree to
filibuster reform and then trigger the so-called nuclear option. This
controversial tactic would allow him to change the Senate rules with a simple
majority vote.
“I hope within the
next 24 to 36 hours we can get something we agree on. If not, we’re going to
move forward on what I think needs to be done. The caucus will support me on
that,” Reid told reporters.
Although its use
has been threatened in the past to spur the minority party to agree to reforms,
the nuclear option has never been used to change the standing rules, say
parliamentary experts.
Reid has come
under heavy pressure from liberal advocacy groups to drastically limit the
minority party’s power to filibuster and delay legislation.
The Progressive
Change Campaign Committee on Tuesday launched a 36-hour pressure campaign
targeting Democratic senators to back using the nuclear option to implement an
ambitious reform package.
Liberal activists
have mobilized to press senior and centrist Democrats to endorse the package
crafted by Sens. Merkley, Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). At the
bill’s heart is the talking-filibuster reform, which would require lawmakers
who want to block legislation to actively hold the floor and debate for hours.
If there is no further debate, the Senate would proceed to a simple majority
vote.
Their measure
would also prohibit filibusters on motions to proceed to new business, expedite
the process for sending Senate legislation to conference negotiations with the
House and reduce the amount of floor time needed to move nominees once the
Senate has voted to end debate on them.
Reid, however, has
received pushback from senior and centrist Democrats such as Sens. Carl Levin
(Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and
Mark Pryor (Ark.), who are not fond of the nuclear option.
“I have not
favored that approach. I have a lot of troubles with the nuclear option for the
same reasons as then-Sen. Kennedy and then-Sen. Biden and a lot of senators
have had with amending the rules by majority vote when the rules call for
two-thirds vote,” Levin said in reference to former Sen. Edward Kennedy
(D-Mass.) and Vice President Biden, who served 36 years in the Senate.
“I have expressed
very major concerns with using the constitutional option,” Levin added, using a
term favored by Merkley and Udall, who argue the Constitution empowers the
majority leader to set the Senate’s rules on the first day of a new Congress.
Feinstein has also
weighed in, hampering Reid’s leverage in talks with McConnell.
“I would hope that
we wouldn’t have to use the nuclear option. I would hope that the two parties
can agree, and there’s some indication that that might happen,” she said.
In a statement
released Tuesday evening, Merkley said, “Leader Reid has left open two paths to
rules changes. … We face big challenges, and we can’t tackle those challenges
if we miss this rare opportunity to end the paralysis of the Senate.”
The White House
supports filibuster reform, but has not endorsed a specific bill.
Reid has extended
the first legislative day of the 113th Congress indefinitely to prolong the
threat of the nuclear or constitutional option and give himself more leverage
with McConnell. Extending the first legislative day still allows senators to debate
and vote on legislation.
Faced with
resistance from senior Democrats, Reid has attempted to negotiate with
McConnell a package of more modest reforms that could be implemented with 60
votes as a standing order of the Senate.
The package would
not include the talking filibuster, and a Democratic aide expressed doubt
McConnell would agree to a reform proposed by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to
require the minority party to muster 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. Under
current rules, the majority party must gather 60 votes to end dilatory debate.
Levin said he
believes Reid and
McConnell will
negotiate an agreement based on a bipartisan proposal co-sponsored by Levin and
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That plan would eliminate the filibuster on the
motion to proceed in exchange for guaranteeing the minority leader and the
minority bill manager the right to offer one amendment each to pending
legislation.
Proponents of
far-reaching filibuster reform have criticized the Levin-McCain proposal.
Possibly as early as today U.S. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid will make a decision that will determine if the Senate will
remain a dysfunctional body that can’t address any of the nation’s problems for
the next two years.
Senator Reid is putting together his filibuster
rules reform package today to be presented to the Senate immediately.If that package doesn’t contain at a minimum
the requirement that all filibusters must be a “talking filibuster”, then the
Senate will continue to be paralyzed from taking any meaningful actions.More background on this issue is below.
Call
Senator Reid’s office NOW.202-224-3542
and press 1 to leave this message:
“Please
include a “talking filibuster” requirement in Senator Reid’s rules reform
package.”
This could be the most important call you will make
for moving the nation forward.
Background
Current U.S. Senate rules require 60
votes out of 100 to end a filibuster and allow the Senate to proceed on an
issue.Filibusters in the Senate are at
an all-time high: during the six years that Senator Harry Reid has been the
Majority Leader, he has had to file cloture motions (to break a filibuster) 386
times. During the six years prior to his time as Majority Leader, cloture
motions had to be filed 201 times. During the six years that Lyndon Johnson was
Majority Leader, he had to file a cloture motion only once.
Filibustering is also occurring at
steps of the legislative process that used to be noncontroversial. There has
been a major increase in filibustering motions to proceed, which is
filibustering against the beginning of debate. In the last six
years there have been 130 filibusters used to block the beginning of debate --
more than a third of all such filibusters in the 20th century.
The
following rule changes are under consideration:
The Talking Filibuster
The most significant reform
currently under consideration is known as the "talking filibuster."
It simply proposes that if a Senator or group of Senators want to block the
majority from getting to a decision on a bill (or nomination or other business
before the Senate) by insisting on their right to unlimited debate, then they
need to be on the floor and debating. Under current rules, a Senator can
literally phone in an objection. Simply notifying a party leader that the
Senator would object to the Senate acting on a given bill is a
filibuster, and that's enough stop further progress. To overcome that
objection, the Senate has to invoke "cloture," the official process
for ending a filibuster, which not only requires a supermajority of 60 Senators
to agree to end debate, but also four days of procedural time.
The "talking filibuster"
would say that if a majority of Senators want to end debate, but not 60, then
the filibustering Senators would be required to hold the floor and debate
continuously. If at any point no one is debating the bill that the minority is
insisting requires more debate, then a majority of Senators (51 if all Senators
are voting) can end debate and move toward final passage.
There are two goals here: One is to
put the burden of obstructing the Senate on those who would obstruct. Requiring
more time and energy in order to block the majority from passing legislation
should move the Senate back toward the earlier more balanced situation where
filibusters were a rarely-used procedural tool. In addition, this would bring
transparency, debate, and deliberation to the process. If Senators want to
object to bills coming to a vote, they should not be able to do it quietly,
with the public unable to know who is objecting or why. They should stand on
the floor, make their case, and let the public and other Senators judge their
arguments.
No More Filibustering Simple
Procedural Steps
Motions to Proceed
The current minority has brought
filibustering to a whole new level, not just in terms of the number of bills
and nominations filibustered, but also in filibustering procedural votes where
the minority's right to make sure their voice is heard has little relevance.
For example, a "motion to proceed" is the way the Senate decides to
start debate on a new bill -- by deciding to "proceed to" the
consideration of the bill. There have been an escalating number of filibusters
against motions to proceed. If the filibuster is a tool for the minority to
insist on further debate, it makes little sense that the question of whether to
even start debate should be filibustered. This behavior does not encourage
debate, it blocks it. So one proposal is to eliminate filibusters against
motions to proceed.
Motions to get to Conference
Committee
Another example is sending a bill to
conference committee. After the Senate has passed a bill, if the same bill is
passed in a different form by the House of Representatives, a conference
committee is appointed to reconcile the differences. In the Senate, three
separate motions have to be adopted in order to set up a conference committee,
each of which can be filibustered. This too makes no sense: a majority of the
Senate has already agreed to pass the bill (which in recent years almost
universally means 60 Senators have already voted to end a filibuster against
the bill), so there's no justification for filibustering against the next
routine step in the legislative process. So the second proposal in this
category is to eliminate filibusters on motions to proceed.
Other Ideas
Expediting Confirmation of
Nominations
The last four years have seen an
unprecedented level of obstruction against nominees submitted by the President
for Senate confirmation. Until recently, non-controversial nominees were
relatively filibustered and were often confirmed by unanimous consent (without
even a vote) after committees vetted them. Nominees are now routinely held up
only to slow the progress in getting the President's choices confirmed -- in
the past year there have been multiple judges who had 90 or more Senators vote
for their confirmation after the cloture process was used. Since there were far
more than 60 votes for the nominee, the filibuster is being used in these cases
simply to slow down the process. The most likely proposal to address this
problem (beyond the Talking Filibuster, which should make this kind of
filibuster much more rare) is to eliminate the 30 hours of debate that are
allowed after 60 Senators have voted to end a filibuster against a
nominee. Since nominations aren't subject to amendment, there is no rationale
for further debate. Furthermore, this would allow the Senate to vote on
nominations back-to-back so that even if they need to use the cloture process
on the first nomination, they could move on to rapidly confirm multiple
nominees in a row.
Shifting the Burden
Under the current rules, the burden
of ending the filibuster falls on the majority -- 60 senators must show up and
vote for cloture in order to bring debate to a close. This is one reason
filibustering is easier on Senators trying to obstruct than it is on Senators
who are working to pass legislation. If the burden were changed so that 41
Senators had to show up and vote against cloture in order to keep a filibuster
going, the burden would shift to those who seek obstruction.
+(124x76).jpg)
