Senate filibuster, Boehner and pics

Here are some reflections on two significant events in Washington last week concerning Senate productivity and Obamacare.

The Senate voted to return some degree of democracy to that chamber.   Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed a simple majority of the Senate to approve allowing Presidential nominations (other than for the Supreme Court) to be approved by a simple majority of Senators.  The response to this feared “nuclear option” was, well, just more of the same passive filibustering by the minority opposition refusing to allow the Defense authorization bill to advance.   Requiring a “talking filibuster” to hold up any legislation in the Senate should be the next rule change.

Last week also saw a major step forward for Obamacare.  House Speaker John Boehner enrolled in a health insurance plan through an online healthcare marketplace.  The world didn’t end.  No one lost their job.  And the government did not get between Speaker Boehner and his doctor.  Take notice Obamacare-haters.  Your leader willingly and successfully enrolled in Obamacare. 

Below are some pics from my meeting last week with Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy Daniel Poneman in Charleston.  The bottom pic includes Sandy Bridges, owner of Palmetto Hammock (49 S Market St, Charleston) and big supporter of our sea level rise education project (SCBARS.org) for small businesses.

 

 

Dysfunctional Senate a little less dysfunctional

After hundreds of thousands of calls and a million signatures on petitions, the U.S. Senate failed yesterday to agree on significant changes to its filibuster rules.  A super majority of 60 votes will still be needed to pass legislation and the minority will still control much of the Senate’s process.

There will be no “talking filibuster” that would force Senators who want to thwart a majority from voting on a bill to actually hold the floor and debate.  Those who want to delay votes don’t have to produce 40 Senators to do so but the majority still has to come up with 60 votes to end a debate. 

But the Senate did agree to some procedural changes that should help. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren said, “It’s some change in a Senate committed to no change. So that’s important.”

As reported in The Hill:

"The agreement that's been struck is a combination of rules and behavioral changes, and not as strong what many of us have been advocating,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) a leading proponent of the talking filibuster. “However, it alters the way we deal with nominations, conference committees and motions to proceed -- all things I've been working toward.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Udall’s partner in calling for bold reform, said: “I’m
disappointed that we didn’t take a bolder step to fix the Senate, but what is most
important today is the deep determination of Senators to return the Senate to a more functional institution.

“If the modest steps taken today do not end the paralysis the Senate currently suffers, many Senators are determined to revisit this debate and explore stronger remedies,” he added.

In 2015 the Senate can again revisit its rules.  We’ll find out very soon if it will be two more years of dysfunctionality.

Filibuster reform effort paying off

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.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/278591-reid-to-goip-36-hours-for-filibuster-deal-or-nuclear-option

What Does it Take to Filibuster?

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on reforming its filibuster rules on January 22. 

Here are 5 Senators that need to hear that you are tired of a dysfunctional body that doesn’t get anything done on the problems facing our country including promoting economic development.

Senator Harry Reid
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Jack Reed

Pick up the phone and call one telephone number:  202-224-3121

This is the number of the Senate switch board that can transfer you to any Senate office.  Call each of these Senators with this simple message:

“I would like the Senator to vote in favor of the Udall-Merkley Resolution Number 4 that requires a Talking Filibuster.  And I want the Senator to support the Constitutional option for this vote.”

Read more about this issue by clicking here. 

You can make the difference between 2 more years of dysfunctional government and a Congress that gets things done.

Thank you for your support.

Action Alert! Filibusters should be for talking, not hiding

If you believe that the U.S. Senate is dysfunctional, nobody gets along, there is no cooperation, important legislation never gets approved….you’re not alone.

But there is hope.  Read my op.ed below that ran in The Hill today.  It describes the Senate filibuster rules problem and what is being proposed to fix it.

Then pick up the phone and call one telephone number:  202-224-3121

This is the number of the Senate switch board that can transfer you to any Senate office.  If you want the Senate to function and really get to work on addressing big issues like strengthening the economy, then call this number 11 times.  Each time ask for a different key Senator listed here. 

Your message is simple.  “I would like the Senator to vote in favor of the Udall-Merkley Resolution Number 4 that requires a Talking Filibuster.  And I want the Senator to support the Constitutional option for this vote.”

The actual vote on this won’t happen until January 22 but those who want to maintain the minority’s ability to keep the Senate dysfunctional are trying right now to get Senators to support a very week alternative resolution. 

This is truly about Senate traditionalists and nay-sayers who want to keep the old dysfunctional ways versus the public that wants an effective, efficient Senate to address the nation’s problems.
Here are the key Senators to call:
Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Thomas Carper, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed and Harry Reid
You can make the difference between 2 more years of dysfunctional government and a Congress that gets things done.
Thank you for your support.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hill’s Congress Blog
January 4, 2013

Real Senate filibuster reform needed
By Frank Knapp, Jr., vice chairman, American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund - 01/04/13 11:00 AM ET

Dysfunctional!

This is the term that almost everyone has used to describe the 112th Congress even after the New Year’s Day passage of the “fiscal cliff” legislation to responsibly address some pressing taxation issues. However, the public and media understand that this final bi-partisan act was only a temporary pause from Congress’s dysfunctional ways.

Much of this problem lies with the voters rewarding extreme partisanship over cooperative problem solving and Congress making policy decisions that guarantee later stalemates.

However, there is one self-inflicted structural problem in the U.S. Senate that magnifies both these electorate and policy decisions — the filibuster.
Except for rare occasions, the Senate is ruled by the minority. With 60 votes needed to end a filibuster that can essentially be “called-in” by the minority, the American public is being deprived

There is no transparency or accountability under today’s Senate filibuster rules. Consequently we have had an abusive and undemocratic use of filibusters in recent years at every step in the legislative process. The Senate has become frozen in its ability to address the nation’s problems, especially when it comes to promoting a healthy economy. That is why many business organizations like the American Sustainable Business Council, a national coalition of business organizations that together represent over 150,000 small and medium businesses, strongly supports filibuster reform.

With the new 113th Congress there is an effort underway in the Senate to put filibuster reform on the agenda for January 22 in an effort to create a more functional chamber. Two competing proposals are being offered but only one does the job.

Democratic Senators led by Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have proposed a filibuster reform package that does not eliminate the filibuster or even decrease the number of votes needed for cloture. But it would require “talking filibusters”. No more simply phoning in an objection to a bill thus requiring an almost unattainable 60-vote supermajority of Senators to end debate, a debate that actually never takes place.

This “lazy filibuster” would end with a “talking filibuster” rule in which the Senators objecting must hold the floor and actually debate continuously as the definition of a filibuster indicates. If no filibuster supporter is talking, a majority of Senators present can vote to end the debate and move forward on the bill.

Recently Senator Udall indicated that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had 51 votes to make this change using the “Constitutional option”. Requiring only a majority of Senators to change rules at the beginning of a new session has been both upheld by the Supreme Court and used by previous Senates.

However, the “Constitutional option” raises a concern with some Senators who believe that it would make bi-partisanship even worse and that it doesn’t protect the minority’s ability to impact legislation. Thus a counter proposal has been offered by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, who suggest using a temporary “Standing Order” to make slight changes to filibuster rules. Unfortunately, the changes offered do virtually nothing to stop filibusters on bills when the minority leader determines that a dysfunctional Senate better suits the minority’s cause.

Today’s Senate filibuster rules must be changed. Instead of creating a more toxic atmosphere in the Senate, a “talking filibuster” might encourage more bi-partisan cooperation on bills and improve the productivity of the chamber. Such a rules change will create a more functioning and efficient Senate that will return it to its rightful position of influence in the legislative process.

The “talking filibuster” will still protect the minority’s opinion. And legislative dissenters will still be able to voice their opinion to House, president and Supreme Court. And if all this fails the minority, there will be the next election. This is actually how our democratic system was meant to be.

Elections do have consequences. But when those consequential actions are hidden from voters and the public is denied the right to see their elected leaders in action in order to hold them accountable, then we perpetuate the public’s voting decisions that feed dysfunctional elected bodies.


Knapp is vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund.
Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/275475-real-senate-filibuster-reform-needed

Harry, Fix the Senate

Action Alert!

Call NOW to push filibuster reform

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.